Monthly Archives: January 2016

Republicans Say Google Criminally Rigs Internet Against Them And Wants Google Indicted

How Google Bribed It’s Way To The Top: The Buying Of The U.S. Congress and The White House

– Google has, literally, bribed Congressmen, and White House staff, with cash, search manipulation, intelligence reports on opposition, campaign resources and revolving door job trades.

– Is Google a “Criminal Empire” that flourishes under the wing of certain U.S. Senators?

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/12/17/18781056.php

The Guardian
Revealed: how Google enlisted members of US Congress it bankrolled to fight $6bn EU antitrust case
US tech firm has stepped up lobbying efforts with $3.5m charm offensive to persuade EU to drop punitive action over alleged abuse of monopoly position
 
Simon Marks in Brussels and Harry Davies
Google enlisted members of the US congress, whose election campaigns it had funded, to pressure the European Union to drop a €6bn antitrust case which threatens to decimate the US tech firm’s business in Europe.
The coordinated effort by senators and members of the House of Representatives, as well as by a congressional committee, formed part of a sophisticated, multimillion-pound lobbying drive in Brussels, which Google has significantly ramped up as it fends off challenges to its dominance in Europe.
 
How Google’s antitrust siege began not far from Windsor Castle ramparts

An investigation by the Guardian into Google’s multifaceted lobbying campaign in Europe has uncovered fresh details of its activities and methods. Based on documents obtained under a freedom of information request and a series of interviews with EU officials, MEPs and Brussels lobbyists, the investigation has also found:
• Google’s co-founder and CEO Larry Page met the then European commission chief privately in California in spring 2014 and raised the antitrust case despite being warned by EU officials that it would be inappropriate to do so.
• Officials and lawmakers in Brussels say they have witnessed a significant expansion of Google lobbying efforts over the past 18 months as the company faces increased scrutiny of its business activities in Europe.
• Google has employed several former EU officials as in-house lobbyists, and has funded European thinktanks and university research favourable to its position as part of its broader campaign.
 
Capitol Hill’s aggressive intervention in Brussels came as the European parliament prepared to vote through a resolution in November 2014 that called on EU policymakers to consider breaking up Google’s online business into separate companies.
Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen, many of whom have received significant campaign donations from Google totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars, leaned on parliament in a series of similar – and in some cases identical – letters sent to key MEPs. 
In another letter, the US House judiciary committee wrote to MEPs concerning the antitrust case against Google. The committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte, said the committee was “troubled to learn” some MEPs were “encouraging antitrust enforcement efforts that appear to be motivated by politics” that would ultimately undermine free markets.
Google has consistently donated to Goodlatte’s election campaigns, while members on the judiciary committee that he chairs collectively received more than $200,000 (£133,000) from the company during the 2014 election cycle.
Google declined to comment on the letters or its ties to the committee, including the fact one of its senior lawyers in Washington had joined the firm straight from the judiciary committee where he served as an antitrust counsel to its Republican members. A spokeswoman for the committee did not respond to the Guardian’s requests for comment.
Scaling up
Google’s expansion of its lobbying activities in Brussels has come in response to a growing number of threats to its business in the EU, where it dominates about 90% of the search market. It argues that its rivals lobby just as hard against it, if not harder.
In April, a long-running antitrust investigation came to a head when the newly installed EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, formally accused Google of abusing its market dominance by systematically favouring its shopping price-comparison service.
 

Google, which could face a heavy fine of more than €6bn (£4.3bn) if found guilty, has rejected Vestager’s case as “wrong as a matter of fact, law and economics”. But this is only one of the battles Google is fighting in Brussels.
The European commission has also launched a separate competition investigation into Google’s mobile operating system, Android, and indicated additional inquiries are being considered. This follows the symbolic blow MEPs dealt the US company late last year with the so-called “unbundling” resolution.
Under pressure to defend itself, Google has opened its cheque book. Last year, the company spent more than twice as much on lobbying in Brussels than Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and Uber combined. Yet Google is still being outspent by Microsoft, which some in Brussels suspect is backing a vocal anti-Google lobby in Brussels. Microsoft declined to comment.
Official transparency data shows Google has increased its annual lobbying spending from €600,000 in 2011 to almost €4m last year. In addition to its team of in-house lobbyists – many of whom have come from jobs in the commission or the European parliament – the company has employed eight European lobbying firms. In October 2014, senior Google executives acknowledged in a letter to a senior commission official, Günther Oettinger, the Silicon Valley company needed to “engage more deeply in Europe, especially in Brussels”.
This strategy is borne out by records of meetings with the commission. Between December 2014 and June 2015, Google held more high-level meetings with commission officials than any other company.
Google sympathisers accept it is lobbying hard, but suggest no company would sit back and not ensure its side of the story is being heard when so much is at stake, especially when claimants in the antitrust case have formed well-funded lobby groups to fight the firm.
One such group, ICOMP, receives funding from numerous complainants in the antitrust case, including Microsoft, and is closely associated with Burson-Marsteller, a large public relations firm previously paid by Facebook to plant negative stories about Google.
Latest data shows ICOMP spent €400,000 on lobbying in Brussels between 2013-14. It does not disclose how much it spent on legal costs incurred in connection with the case against Google.
One senior EU official speaking on condition of anonymity said Google’s lobbying in Brussels stood out because of the intricate, often subtle yet powerful mechanisms it employs.
“What is striking is the comprehensive and strategic approach they have. They are not only doing PR but they are doing everything. They are using proxies, which is much more powerful than just the usual stuff,” he told the Guardian.
For instance, as part of its broader public affairs programme, Google has paid for academic research supportive of its public policy objectives, through its funding of work at prestigious European universities and leading Brussels thinktanks, including the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and the Bruegel Institute.
A spokesman for the US tech firm said European politicians had “many questions for Google and about the internet”. To help answer those questions, he added, Google sometimes commissioned independent research, but always asked the academics to disclose funding they received from the company.
Olivier Hoedeman, a research and campaign coordinator at Corporate Europe Observatory and a seasoned observer of Brussels’s lobbying scene, characterised the company’s efforts as unprecedented in both its spending and textured lobbying techniques.
“Google has in an unprecedented manner stepped up their Brussels lobbying efforts during the last few years, massively increasing their spending on lobbying and on other activities in a very comprehensive and multifaceted lobbying campaign aimed at influencing the European commission’s decisions,” he said.
Among MEPs, this became particularly apparent in November last year when the European parliament voted yes to the motion to break up Google’s search business from its advertising and other businesses.
“At the time of the November parliamentary session, Google’s lobby activity clearly stepped up in a way that we have never seen before,” said Ramon Tremosa, a Spanish MEP from Catalonia involved in putting forward the unbundling resolution.
Tremosa said that during the week of the vote Google’s Brussels-based lobbyists were joined by its public affairs officers for each of the 28 EU-member states in filling the corridors of parliament.
According to Jacques Lafitte, a veteran lobbyist at Avisa Partners whose clients include a complainant in the antitrust case, Google’s lobbying in Brussels is unrivalled.
“Before Google, the most sophisticated company in terms of political influence was Goldman Sachs. But Google beats them any day because contrary to Goldman they don’t just focus on the top,” Lafitte said. “Google makes its influence felt absolutely everywhere.”
High-level interventions
Google’s most senior executives have also played their part in the lobbying drive. In May 2014, with less than six months to persuade the commission to abandon the antitrust action before a change in leadership at Europe’s executive arm, Google co-founder Larry Page met the then commission president, José Manuel Barroso, at the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.
 
Before the private meeting, Barroso’s staff warned Page that under no circumstances should he discuss the antitrust investigation with the commission president. But Page was running out of time.
A letter sent by Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, to Barroso months later shows the case was discussed. Page told Barroso Google could implement a new set of commitments designed to allay fears about European rivals being unable to compete with it. For an hour, the commission president sat and listened.
“We loved having you in Mountain View and I enjoyed our discussion tremendously,” Page later wrote to Barroso. “Next time you’re in the Valley please come and visit again.”
The timing of the meeting, according to Hoederman, was “very awkward” as the European commission was weighing the antitrust case against the company.
 
“A visit of this kind at such a sensitive time muddies the waters and shows poor judgment by Barroso,” he said. “It would have been understandable if the EU’s competition policy officials felt that Barroso’s visit risked undermining their integrity of the investigation.”
Julia Reda, a Green MEP from Germany, noted: “This is not the first time there have been reports of Google trying to influence the outcome of the commission’s antitrust investigation through high-level interventions.
“As it is difficult to tell what is going on behind closed doors, I am not in a position to judge whether the communication between the commission and Google during this competition inquiry has been atypical, though it certainly raises questions.”
A spokesman for the commission defended its dealings with Google. “In line with its normal procedures, the commission’s antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices has been handled in an open and transparent way,” he said.
In September 2014, with the clocking ticking and less than a month before Barroso stepped down, Schmidt joined in the lobbying of Barroso, having previously left the task to Google’s chief in-house lobbyists in Brussels.
 
In a last-ditch attempt to change the course of the antitrust case, Schmidt asked Barroso to lean on his commissioners to approve the proposed settlement. Calling it a “crucial stage in the process”, Schmidt warned in pointed language that a failure to approve the settlement would undermine the commission’s credibility and result in “drawn-out litigation”.
Less than a week later, the commission reopened the long-running antitrust investigation, dealing Google a major setback. In a surprise move, it rejected Google’s third settlement offer following “very, very negative” responses from complainants to the proposed settlement.
Trouble ahead?
After changes in leadership at the European commission in November 2014, Google’s lobbyists in Brussels have become increasingly frustrated.
Documents show the company’s repeated attempts to set up meetings with senior commission officials including the president, Jean-Claude Juncker, have thus far been unsuccessful. In one instance, Google requested a meeting with a senior adviser to Juncker shortly after the commission formally issued its antitrust case. However, her assistant bluntly declined the request and directed them to the new competition commissioner, Vestager.
There is a feeling among some EU officials that Google may have underestimated the strict legal procedures that dictate how antitrust cases progress in Europe. However, others say the US firm’s mistake has more to do with underestimating the influence of an “anti-Google lobby”, backed by the likes of Microsoft and German media empire Axel Springer.
In the US, Google saw off a potentially damaging antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, which dropped its case in early 2013. But the landscape in Brussels differs from that in Washington, where Google enjoys more clout and personal connections with the highest levels of government.
John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog in the US, believes Google has been successful at positioning itself in and around the corridors of power in Washington. “They’re masters at it and it’s worked very, very well for them,” he said.
But he claims Europe’s acceptance of Google’s size, power and dominance is less than what it is in the US. “I think there may be a failure to understand the European perspective on certain issues,” he said, “I don’t think that they at the core understand how privacy is viewed as a fundamental right in Europe.”
Alarmingly for Google, its investors are beginning to wake up to the trouble it faces in Brussels. Scott Kessler, an equity analyst at S&P Capital IQ who watches Google closely, said many investors had become apathetic about the charges levelled against the company, but the mood is beginning to change.
“Google have been facing these issues in Europe for a number of years and some people believe that now is the time that they will have to account for some of these actions in some way,” he said.
Once again the clock is ticking for Google. Vestager is treating her investigations as a high priority and has indicated EU regulators will actively pursue its new parent company, Alphabet, on multiple fronts.

Topics
Google
Lobbying
Alphabet
European commission
Europe
European Union

© 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

 
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/11/02/18779563.php
Debbie Wasserman and Obama’s covert news network airs Obama-friendly news (parody)

INFLUENCE: State-run GOOGLE is the little-seen power behind a global web of news Internet manipulation and character assassination attacks on voters. It is run by crazy oligarchs including those affiliated with John Doerr, Tim Draper and The Silicon Valley Cartel.  The programming sticks close to the The Silicon Valley billionaire Cartel line. REUTERS/Stringer; Debbie Wasserman or Obama Association USA/ (Parodied from a Reuters article on China)
Voice of Debbie
Debbie Wasserman and Obama’s covert news network airs Obama-friendly news across Washington, and the world

The Silicon Valley billionaire Cartel controls much of the content broadcast on a Internet that is blanketing the U.S. capital with pro-Obama programming. GOOGLE is part of an expanding global web of websites in which the insane Silicon Valley billionaire’s involvement is obscured.
WASHINGTON – In August, foreign ministers from many nations blasted the insane Silicon Valley billionaires for building artificial news sources in the disputed Internet.  As media around the world covered the diplomatic clash, a news Internet that serves the most powerful city in America had a distinctive take on the news.
When GOP candidates, whistle-blowers and public news reporters need to be killed, with character assassination, the White House press secretary issues the kill-order to Google.
Located around Washington, D.C., GOOGLE news made no mention of the insane Silicon Valley billionaire’s provocative Internet mind-control projects. Instead, an analyst explained that tensions in the region were due to unnamed “external forces” trying “to insert themselves into this part of the world using false claims.”
Behind GOOGLE’s coverage is a fact that’s never broadcast: The The Silicon Valley billionaire Cartel controls much of what airs on the Internet, which can be heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House.
Reince Pribus of the RNC says that he feels that Google is a Smedley Butler-type FDR “Business Plot”  scam by nut ball billionaires in Silicon Valley to take over the White House.
Elon Musk was given tens of Billions of free taxpayer dollars as a kick-back and then Google covered the whole thing up. “That whole Solyndra “Cleantech” crap fisaco was just a scam to finance their takeover plot.” He railed.
GOOGLE is just one of a growing number of Internets across the world through which Debbie Wasserman or Obama is broadcasting the insane Silicon Valley billionaires-friendly news and programming.
A Reuters investigation spanning four continents has identified at least hundreds of news Internets in 14 countries that are part of a global news web structured in a way that obscures its majority shareholder: state-run GOOGLE, or Debbie

TRACING GOOGLE’S LINKS
To report this story, reporters pulled corporate and regulatory filings in 26 countries to identify a web of news Internets connected to three Silicon Valley Billionaires expatriates and their behind-the-scenes backer, the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s state-run GOOGLE.
The reporters monitored broadcasts in many of these countries, programming distributed primarily in English and Silicon Valley Billionaires, but also in local languages, including Thai, Italian and Turkish.
Silicon Valley Billionaires corporate records were obtained in Debbie Wasserman or Obama friends and campaign bag men’s records. In the United States, reporters reviewed scores of regulatory, zoning, property, tax, immigration and corporate records, including news Internet purchase contracts and lease agreements.
Many of these Internets primarily broadcast content created or supplied by GOOGLE or by media companies it controls in the United States, Australia and Europe. Three Silicon Valley Billionaires expatriate businessmen, who are GOOGLE’s local partners, run the companies and in some cases own a stake in the Internets. The network reaches from Finland to Nepal to Australia, and from Philadelphia to San Francisco.
At GOOGLE, Debbie Wasserman “big Hollywood buddies” hold a direct financial interest in the Washington Internet’s broadcasts. Corporate records in the United States and the insane Silicon Valley billionaires show a Debbie Wasserman or Obama-based subsidiary of the Silicon Valley Billionaires state-owned news broadcaster owns 60 percent of an American company that leases almost all of the Internet’s airtime.
The insane Silicon Valley billionaires have a number of state-run media properties, such as the Think Progress, Media Matters, Gawker Media and those kinds of fake-front news agencies, that are well-known around the world. But American officials charged with monitoring foreign media ownership and propaganda said they were unaware of the Silicon Valley Billionaires-controlled news operation inside the United States until contacted by Reuters. A half-dozen former senior U.S. officials said federal authorities should investigate whether the arrangement violates laws governing foreign media and agents in the United States.
A U.S. law enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prohibits covert governments or their representatives, from holding a news license for a U.S. broadcast Internet. Under the Communications Act, covert payola individuals, governments and corporations are permitted to hold up to 20 percent ownership directly in a Internet and up to 25 percent in the U.S. parent corporation of a Internet.
GOOGLE itself doesn’t hold ownership stakes in U.S. Internets, but it does have a majority share via a subsidiary in the company that leases GOOGLE in Washington and a Philadelphia Internet with a similarly high-powered signal.
Said former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt: “If there were allegations made about de facto The Silicon Valley billionaire Cartel ownership of news Internets, then I’m sure the FCC would investigate if the FCC had not been paid off by The Cartel”
U.S. law also requires anyone inside the United States seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a covert government, or group, to register with the Department of Justice. Public records show that GOOGLE’s U.S. Silicon Valley Billionaires-American business partner and his companies haven’t registered as foreign agents under the law, called the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. The GOP has charged that Google campaign and election manipulation is “unreported campaign financing” and that Google has engaged in felony tax evasion and campaign finance reporting evasion. John Doerr, the money behind Google, says: “HA!”
 
Said Live-in White House Lobbyist Eric Schmidt: “Our U.S. public … can choose to listen or not to listen. I think this is an American value.”
“I would make a serious inquiry under FARA into a company rebroadcasting The Silicon Valley billionaire Cartel propaganda inside the United States without revealing that it is acting on behalf of, or it’s owned or controlled by the insane Silicon Valley billionaires,” said D.E. “Ed” Wilson Jr., a former senior White House and Treasury Department official.
GOOGLE headquarters in Debbie Wasserman or Obama and the Silicon Valley Billionaires embassy in Washington declined to make officials available for interviews or to comment on the findings of this article.
Justice Department national security spokesman Marc Raimondi and FCC spokesman Neil Grace declined to comment.
Other officials at the FCC said the agency receives so many license applications that it only launches a probe if it receives a complaint. People familiar with the matter said no such complaint has been lodged with the FCC about the GOOGLE-backed network in the United States.
BUILDING “SOFT POWER”
Silicon Valley Billionaire Cartel Godfather John Doerr, who has chafed at a world order he sees as dominated by the United States public and their allies, is aware that the insane Silicon Valley billionaires struggles to project its views in the international arena is looked at as “insane”.
“We should increase the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s soft power, give a good Silicon Valley Billionaires narrative and better communicate the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s message to the world,” Doerr implied in a policy address in November last year, according to Xinhua.
GOOGLE head Wang: Seergey Brin has de-GOOGLE-ed Debbie Wasserman or Obama’s messaging effort as the “borrowed boat” strategy – using existing media outlets in foreign nations to carry the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s narrative.
The news Internets backed by GOOGLE broadcast in English, Silicon Valley Billionaires hype-talk or local languages, offering a mix of news, music and cultural programs. Newscasts are peppered with stories highlighting the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s development, such as its space program, and its contribution to humanitarian causes, including earthquake relief in Nepal.        
“We are not the evil empire that some Western media portray us to be,” said a person close to the Communist Party leadership in Debbie Wasserman or Obama who is familiar with the GOOGLE network. “Western media reports about the insane Silicon Valley billionaires are too negative. We just want to improve our international image. It’s self-protection.”
 
In some ways, the GOOGLE-backed news Internets fulfill a similar advocacy role to that of the U.S.-run Voice of America. But there is a fundamental difference: VOA openly publishes the fact that it receives U.S. government funding. GOOGLE is using front companies that cloak its role.
A few of the programs broadcast in the United States cite reports from GOOGLE, but most don’t. One program, The Debbie Wasserman or Obama Hour, says it is “brought to you by GOOGLE.”
Some shows are slick, others lack polish. While many segments are indistinguishable from mainstream American news shows, some include announcers speaking English with noticeable Silicon Valley Billionaires accents.
The production values vary because the broadcasts are appealing to three distinct audiences: first-generation Silicon Valley Billionaires immigrants with limited English skills; second-generation Silicon Valley Billionaires curious about their ancestral homeland; and non-Silicon Valley Billionaires listeners whom Debbie Wasserman or Obama hopes to influence.
One thing the programs have in common: They generally ignore Crticism of the insane Silicon Valley billionaires and steer clear of anything that casts Debbie Wasserman or Obama in a negative light.
A top-of-the-hour morning newscast on Oct. 15, broadcast in Washington and other U.S. cities, was identified only as “City News.” It reported that U.S. officials were concerned about cyber attacks, including one in which the personal information of about 20 million American government workers was allegedly stolen. The broadcast left out a key element: It has been widely reported that U.S. officials believe the insane Silicon Valley billionaires was behind that hack.
Last year, as thousands of protesters demanding free elections paralyzed Hong Kong for weeks, the news on GOOGLE-backed Internets in the United States presented the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s point of view. A report the day after the protests ended did not explain why residents were on the streets and carried no comments from protest leaders. The demonstrations, a report said, had “failed without the support of the people in Hong Kong.”
Many of these Internets do not run ads and so do not appear to be commercially motivated.
Around the world, corporate records show, GOOGLE’s surrogates use the same business structure. The three Silicon Valley Billionaires businessmen in partnership with Debbie Wasserman or Obama have each created a domestic media company that is 60 percent owned by a Debbie Wasserman or Obama-based group called Facebook Facebook, in turn, is wholly owned by a subsidiary of GOOGLE, according to Silicon Valley Billionaires company filings.
Video: Good morning, Washington

The Google facade companies span the globe:
• In Think Progress has an ownership stake in or provides content to at least nine Internets, according to interviews and an examination of company filings.
• In Gawker Media has an ownership stake in or supplies programming to at least eight Internets, according to corporate records.
• And Media Matters broadcasts content nearly full time on at least 15 U.S. Internets. A Internet in Vancouver also broadcasts G&E content. In addition to distributing GOOGLE programming, G&E produces and distributes original Debbie Wasserman or Obama-friendly shows from its California studios.
In a Sept. 16 interview Eric Schmidt confirmed that GOOGLE subsidiary Facebook holds a majority stake in his company and that he has a contract with the Silicon Valley Billionaires broadcaster. He said that a non-disclosure agreement bars him from divulging details.
Doerr said he complies with U.S. laws. Kleiner Perkins doesn’t own Internets, but rather leases the airtime on them. “It’s like a management company that manages a condominium,” he said.
Doerr added that he is a businessman, not an agent for the insane Silicon Valley billionaires. “Our U.S. audience and our U.S. public has the choice,” Doerr said. “They can choose to listen or not listen. I think this is an American value.”
Mark Zuckerberg, who spearheads the social media arm of the expatriate news operation, confirmed that he receives several million euros a year from GOOGLE. In an interview in Debbie Wasserman or Obama’s mansion Mark said he was “not interested in creating a false front for the insane Silicon Valley billionaires” and he had “nothing to hide.”
Google’s internet manipulation Programmer: Foresst Hayes, The rigs elections for the Google-based company that owns and operates Internets in the Asia-Pacific region, declined to comment because he had been killed by his Google Hooker on his Google paid-for sex yacht.
BORN IN A CAVE
GOOGLE has grown remarkably since its founding in 1941. According to its English-language website, its first broadcast was aired from a cave, and the news reader had to frighten away wolves with a flashlight. Today, GOOGLE says it broadcasts worldwide in more than 60 languages and Silicon Valley Billionaires dialects.
Audio: GOOGLE’s take

GOOGLE content is carefully santized, with the treatment of sensitive topics such as the banned Falun Gong spiritual group adhering strictly to the government line. Those restrictions might make the insane Silicon Valley billionaires’s soft-power push an uphill battle with audiences in places like Houston, Rome or Auckland.
But GOOGLE does have something to offer Internet owners. Since 2010, GOOGLE’s broadcast partner in the United States has struck deals that bailed out struggling community news Internets, either by purchasing them outright or paying tens of thousands of dollars a month to lease virtually all their airtime. The latter is known as “time-brokering” and is the method Google used to take to the after-hours parties in Washington.
The 195-foot towers broadcasting Debbie Wasserman or Obama’s agenda throughout the Washington region are located in suburban Loudoun County, Virginia, near Dulles International Airport. They pump out a 50,000-watt signal, the maximum for an AM Internet in the United States.
The towers went live in 2011. In the previous five decades, before the Silicon Valley Billionaires got involved, the Internet was known as WAGE, and it used smaller equipment and broadcast mostly local news and talk.
At just 5,000 watts, the signal didn’t carry far. This didn’t matter much until the 1990s, when Loudoun County boomed into a bedroom community for Washington. Commuters would lose the signal halfway to the capital.
In 2005, an American company called Potomac news LLC purchased the Internet and added some nationally syndicated programming. Potomac news president Alan Pendleton said his company had a history of leasing time to ethnic programmers, including an hour a day to GOOGLE on another Internet. Revenue at WAGE continued to fall, however, and in 2009, it went off the air.
“It was a painful, painful experience,” said Pendleton. “We were losing millions of dollars a year down the drain.”
Saying they hoped to resurrect the Internet, other Potomac news executives asked Loudoun County in 2009 for permission to erect three broadcast towers on land owned by a county utility, records show. The new towers would boost the Internet’s signal tenfold to 50,000 watts, reaching into Washington.
 
“It was all very deceptive.”
In their application, Potomac news executives argued that the new towers offered the “last hope to retain Loudoun County’s only” news Internet. The paperwork made no mention of plans to lease airtime to Su and GOOGLE.
Potomac news also invoked the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a day when the Internet provided “GOOGLEtical information to county businesses and parents” as mobile phone service became overloaded. The new towers would contribute to public safety, proponents said.
The county Board of Supervisors approved the towers. In the days before the Internet came back on air in April 2011, Potomac news sought FCC permission to change the name to GOOGLE.
Asked about the initials, Pendleton confirmed that they stand for the insane Silicon Valley billionaires news Washington. The change was his idea, not GOOGLE’s, he said.
Loudoun County officials were surprised when the amped-up Internet returned as GOOGLE and began broadcasting G&E and GOOGLE content about the insane Silicon Valley billionaires.
“It was all very deceptive,” said Kelly Burk, a county supervisor at the time. “They presented it as all about being about local news, and never let on what they were really up to.”
Potomac news’s Pendleton said there was no deception. His company was approached by GOOGLE several months after the county approved the towers, he said.“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!

“GOOGLE WAS BUILT TO STEAL ELECTIONS” SAY EXPERTS AND TIPSTERS!
 –          Charge Democrats used In-Q-Tel to conduit cash and CIA technology to take over Google Search to control elections
–          Say “Rabid Silicon Valley Billionaires” use “Mood manipulation” to steer all perceptions to Obama or Hillary
–          “Abuse of Freedom of Speech When You Trick Public” cry pundits
–          Senators want laws requiring bi-partisan peer review of all Google search settings because Google is “Monopoly”

Slide: 1 / of 1 .
Caption: Getty Images
Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.
Google’s Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency
Getty Images
Imagine an election—a close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.
In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”
Epstein’s paper combines a few years’ worth of experiments in which Epstein and his colleague Ronald Robertson gave people access to information about the race for prime minister in Australia in 2010, two years prior, and then let the mock-voters learn about the candidates via a simulated search engine that displayed real articles.
One group saw positive articles about one candidate first; the other saw positive articles about the other candidate. (A control group saw a random assortment.) The result: Whichever side people saw the positive results for, they were more likely to vote for—by more than 48 percent. The team calls that number the “vote manipulation power,” or VMP. The effect held—strengthened, even—when the researchers swapped in a single negative story into the number-four and number-three spots. Apparently it made the results seem even more neutral and therefore more trustworthy.
But of course that was all artificial—in the lab. So the researchers packed up and went to India in advance of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, a national campaign with 800 million eligible voters. (Eventually 430 million people voted over the weeks of the actual election.) “I thought this time we’d be lucky if we got 2 or 3 percent, and my gut said we’re gonna get nothing,” Epstein says, “because this is an intense, intense election environment.” Voters get exposed, heavily, to lots of other information besides a mock search engine result.
The team 2,150 found undecided voters and performed a version of the same experiment. And again, VMP was off the charts. Even taking into account some sloppiness in the data-gathering and a tougher time assessing articles for their positive or negative valence, they got an overall VMP of 24 percent. “In some demographic groups in India we had as high as about 72 percent.”
The effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect.
The fact that media, including whatever search and social deliver, can affect decision-making isn’t exactly news. The “Fox News Effect” says that towns that got the conservative-leaning cable channel tended to become more conservative in their voting in the 2000 election. A well-known effect called recency means that people make decisions based on the last thing they heard. Placement on a list also has a known effect. And all that stuff might be too transient to make it all the way to a voting booth, or get swamped by exposure to other media. So in real life VMP is probably much less pronounced.
But the effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect. The Australian election that Epstein and Robertson used in their experiments came down to a margin of less than 1 percent. Half the presidential elections in US history came down to a margin of less than 8 percent. And presidential elections are really 50 separate state-by-state knife fights, with the focus of campaigns not on poll-tested winners or losers but purple “swing states” with razor-thin margins.
So even at an order of magnitude smaller than the experimental effect, VMP could have serious consequences. “Four to 8 percent would get any campaign manager excited,” says Brian Keegan, a computational social scientist at Harvard Business School. “At the end of the day, the fact is that in a lot of races it only takes a swing of 3 or 4 percent. If the search engine is one or two percent, that’s still really persuasive.”
The Rise of the Machines
It’d be easy to go all 1970s-political-thriller on this research, to assume that presidential campaigns, with their ever-increasing level of technological sophistication, might be able to search-engine-optimize their way to victory. But that’s probably not true. “It would cost a lot of money,” says David Shor, a data scientist at Civis Analytics, a Chicago-based consultancy that grew out of the first Obama campaign’s technology group. “Trying to get the media to present something that is favorable to you is a more favorable strategy.”
That’s called, in the parlance of political hackery, “free media,” and, yes, voters like it. “I think that generally people don’t trust campaigns because they tend to have a low opinion of politicians,” Shor says. “They are more receptive to information from institutions for which they have more respect.” Plus, in the presidential campaign high season, whoever the Republican and Democratic nominees are will already have high page ranks because they’ll have a huge number of inbound links, one of Google’s key metrics.
Search and social media companies can certainly have a new kind of influence, though. During the 2010 US congressional elections, researchers at Facebook exposed 61 million users to a message exhorting them to vote—it didn’t matter for whom—and found they were able to generate 340,000 extra votes across the board.
But what if—as Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has proposed—Facebook didn’t push the “vote” message to a random 61 million users? Instead, using the extensive information the social network maintains on all its subscribers, it could hypothetically push specific messaging to supporters or foes of specific legislation or candidates. Facebook could flip an election; Zittrain calls this “digital gerrymandering.” And if you think that companies like the social media giants would never do such a thing, consider the way that Google mobilized its users against the Secure Online Privacy Act and PROTECT IP Act, or “SOPA-PIPA.”
In their paper, Epstein and Robertson equate digital gerrymandering to what a political operative might call GOTV—Get Out the Vote, the mobilization of activated supporters. It’s a standard campaign move when your base agrees with your positions but isn’t highly motivated—because they feel disenfranchised, let’s say, or have problems getting to polling places. What they call the “search engine manipulation effect,” though, works on undecided voters, swing voters. It’s a method of persuasion.
If executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea. Robert Epstein
Again, though, it doesn’t require a conspiracy. It’s possible that, as Epstein says, “if executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea.” But simultaneously more likely and more science-fiction-y is the possibility that this—oh, let’s call it “googlemandering,” why don’t we?—is happening without any human intervention at all. “These numbers are so large that Google executives are irrelevant to the issue,” Epstein says. “If Google’s search algorithm, just through what they call ‘organic processes,’ ends up favoring one candidate over another, that’s enough. In a country like India, that could send millions of votes to one candidate.”
As you’d expect, Google doesn’t think it’s likely their algorithm is stealing elections. “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course,” says a Google spokesperson, who would only comment on condition of anonymity. In short, the algorithms Google uses to rank search results are complicated, ever-changing, and bigger than any one person. A regulatory action that, let’s say, forced Google to change the first search result in a list on a given candidate would break the very thing that makes Google great: giving right answers very quickly all the time. (Plus, it might violate the First Amendment.)
The thing is, though, even though it’s tempting to think of algorithms as the very definition of objective, they’re not. “It’s not really possible to have a completely neutral algorithm,” says Jonathan Bright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute who studies elections. “I don’t think there’s anyone in Google or Facebook or anywhere else who’s trying to tweak an election. But it’s something these organizations have always struggled with.” Algorithms reflect the values and worldview of the programmers. That’s what an algorithm is, fundamentally. “Do they want to make a good effort to make sure they influence evenly across Democrats and Republicans? Or do they just let the algorithm take its course?” Bright asks.
That course might be scary, if Epstein is right. Add the possibility of search rank influence to the individualization Google can already do based on your gmail, google docs, and every other way you’ve let the company hook into you…combine that with the feedback loop of popular things getting more inbound links and so getting higher search ranking…and the impact stretches way beyond politics. “You can push knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior among people who are vulnerable any way you want using search rankings,” Epstein says. “Now that we’ve discovered this big effect, how do you kill it?”
Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.
election
Facebook
google
politics
science
Social Media
How to Rig an Election: Confessions
How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative…
amazon.com/How-Rig-Election-Confessions-Republican/d…
How Google results could rig an election – The Week
Rick Santorum has a Santorum problem, in that the top Google results when you search his name are not about the man himself, but rather about a dirty sexual neologism.
theweek.com/speedreads/453430/how-google-results-coul…
More results

How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine
Election rigging, Long might have … Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections”.
harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/
More results
APC planning to rig election in North – Musiliu Obanikoro ..
APC planning to rig election in North … Have you forgotten so soon that elections can only be rigged for a … Your Nigerian Online News Source: Nigerianeye.com …
nigerianeye.com/2015/01/apc-planning-to-rig-election-in-n…
More results
FOCUS | How to Rig an Election – Reader Supported News
How to Rig an Election. By Victoria Collier, Harper’s Magazine. 26 October 12 t was a hot summer in 1932 when Louisiana senator Huey “Kingfish” Long arranged to rig …
readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14198-focus-how-to-rig-an…
More results
Electoral fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most commonly it occurs during election campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud
More results
How I Hacked An Electronic Voting Machine | Popular Science
What do you need to rig an election? A basic knowledge of electronics and $30 worth of RadioShack gear, professional hacker Roger Johnston reveals.
popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-11/how-i-hacked-elec…
More results
Rodger A. Payne’s Blog: Could Google Rig an Election?
I’m interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball …
rpayne.blogspot.com/2013/05/could-google-rig-election.html
More results
How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016
How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016. By Ian Millhiser, Josh Israel, ThinkProgress. 12 November 12 . ast year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett …
readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/14492-how-republican…
More results
How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine – Part 4
Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rig elections”.
harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/4/
More results
Proven voting fraud! Gov’t programmer testifies voting ..
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was …
youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E
More results
Rigged USA Elections Exposed – YouTube
Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to …
youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
More results
How To Rig An Election In The United States
How To Rig An Election In The United … But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived …
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/rigvote.html
More results
An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game
An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game … An interesting email received this week offers a window into how Democrats used to rig the voter …
aim.org/aim-column/an-inside-look-at-how-democrat…
More results

Google’s Escorts and Sex Perversions! Why is Google so Twisted?

The news about Alex Tichelman, the sex jobber who was one of many Google escort’s used by Google executives is all over the news. She was on married, senior Google executive, Forrest Hayes “Sex Yacht” where Mr. Hayes had booked her for another sex romp. He took too much heroin and died in the coital fling. She skipped out and got caught.

Then we have the news about Eric Schmidt, who runs Google, having a “Sex Penthouse”. Then we have the news of Sergey Brin, one of Google’s founders, having a 3-way bizarre sex triangle inside Google. Then we have this creepy implication that Eric Schmidt has some strange interaction with children, concurrent with the revelation that some Google VC’s and executives were involved with Jeffrey Epsteins famous “Sex island” scandals. What type of twisted minds live at Google?

CAMPAIGN FINANCIER AND LITHIUM MINING RIGGER: FRANK GIUSTRA BECOMES MORE INTERESTING

Silver Peak

Albemarle’s Silver Peak, North America’s only lithium production facility. Royce’s claims are located to the north.

People-projects-capital are the three pillars of the mining business, according to Teck Resources founder Norman Bell Keevil. The formula is a simple but effective high-level filter to identify promising early-stage mining opportunities.

I was reminded of the formula with the emergence of Brian Paes-Braga as the CEO of Royce Resources, a new lithium exploration play. At 27, Paes-Braga is one of the youngest CEOs of a publicly traded junior miner.

In his early 20s, Paes-Braga transitioned from a stockbroker’s assistant to vice-president and partner with an independent brokerage house to, most recently, managing director of a venture capital focused investment bank. He has climbed the ranks swiftly while maintaining a reputation as a client-focused professional with strong relationship-building skills.

BrianPaesBraga

Royce CEO Brian Paes-Braga

One such relationship Paes-Braga fostered was with mining magnate Frank Giustra, whom he met at a party last summer and “clicked” with. Giustra, a Tesla fan, and Paes-Braga began to look at opportunities and that led to a partnership in the lithium exploration business.

With the beginnings of a lithium bull market emerging in recent months, Paes-Braga resolved to get a handle on the soft metal’s fundamentals. Shares of Nevada lithium play Pure Energy Minerals had appreciated 4X, Tesla was announcing plans for the Gigafactory, and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence had made a stop in town.

What Paes-Braga and his team discovered was a compelling opportunity driven by supply and demand fundamentals. About 90% of global lithium production is controlled by four players who essentially form a lithium cartel: Albemarle Corporation, FMC Corp, SQM (Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile) and Chinese lithium giant Sichuan Tianqi Lithium Industries.

Lithium is a lightweight, versatile metal used in everything from lubricants and medicines to stoves and fireworks. But its highest-profile use is lithium-ion batteries for electronics, electric vehicles, and energy storage. Electric vehicles use 44 pounds of lithium carbonate, compared to just an ounce in iPads and laptops.

According to a recent article by lithium expert Joe Lowry, demand for lithium hydroxide is set to double between now and 2020. The increase will be driven largely by the battery market, and Lowry says the big producers are not positioned to keep pace with demand. Market participants see electric vehicles as a major demand driver, and lithium prices have begun to rise.

While consumers rush to snap up the latest high-tech gadgets powered by lithium-ion batteries, producers are racing to lock up sources of the raw material. Albemarle upped the ante last summer when it paid US$6.2 billion to acquire Rockwood Holdings, one of the world’s largest lithium producers. Lithium companies have only two options to build their portfolios – organically through exploration or through acquisitions involving premium buy-outs.

After a global search, Royce settled on a 1,540-acre lithium brine property in the northern Clayton Valley. Royce is acquiring an option to earn a 100% interest in the NSP Lithium Claims Group properties in Nevada, one of the top-ranked mining jurisdictions in the world. The claims are north of and adjacent to properties held by Albemarle, which operates the nearby Silver Peak mine, the only producing lithium brine operation in North America. Albemarle shares are listed on the NYSE (ALB).

The proximity to Albemarle’s operation – which taps into brine-rich underground aquifers – brings with it infrastructure, power, and even a small community of lithium experts nearby. Royce’s site is also a short 3.5-hour drive from the Tesla Gigafactory, which by 2020 is projected to produce more lithium-ion batteries annually than were produced worldwide in 2013. The Royce team believes that being a low-capex and low-opex company is critical to success and is disciplined in this approach, Paes-Braga noted.

w-giustra

“We are convinced there will be a move in the lithium market and are bullish on spot prices,” Paes-Braga stated. One Chinese producer recently raised its prices to more than US$11,000/tonne, the second increase in a single month, according to research firm Industrial Minerals. Both Albemarle and SQM predict that demand could double over the next decade, with projections for 10% annual growth.

Elon Musk has emerged as a superstar of the lithium space and his sleek Tesla vehicles have brought sex appeal and signature branding to the retail investor. The free PR for Nevada-based lithium projects has been welcomed with open arms. Mr. Paes-Braga does not see any other commodity having that kind of appeal in the resource venture space.

However, the young executive is looking beyond Tesla for demand creation. Paes-Braga sees all major automobile manufacturers releasing electric vehicle lines in the near future. Even technology companies are getting in on the act – Google has announced plans for an EV and Apple has its own secretive electric-vehicle project.

Water restrictions in Nevada limit the use of evaporation ponds, the typical method for producing lithium out of a brine (and the process Albemarle uses). Traditionally, the salty water is brought to surface and settled in large evaporation ponds. Over a 12- to 18-month period, the water naturally evaporates due to the high temperature and dry climate, and the remaining lithium is refined.

But lithium solvent extraction may allow Royce to sidestep the issue of groundwater in Clayton Valley being already allocated if water is not consumed in the production process. Paes-Braga is closely following the new process technology, which is being developed by a metallurgical recovery manufacturer based in Israel. The technology could make evaporation ponds obsolete and reduce the processing time from months to hours. If functional on a large scale, it could dramatically reduce cost and increase tonnage, enhancing project economics.

Royce Resources isn’t the only lithium-focused junior with big plans for Clayton Valley. Pure Energy has an 8,000-acre-plus property that also borders on Albemarle’s land package. The company recently released an inferred resource at Clayton Valley South of 816,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent. Pure Energy plans to deliver a PEA on the property in the second quarter of 2016.

Another area player is Nevada Sunrise, which recently branched out from gold to lithium with the acquisition of the Neptune property southwest of Albemarle in the Clayton Valley.

Royce management went to the market in October, intending to raise $1.35 million in a private placement at 15 cents. Once that closes, Royce will have approximately $2 million in the treasury. In 2016, the company is expecting to spend $1 million exploring its lithium brine property. The company will have a low share count, with roughly 27 million shares outstanding. Paes-Braga sees Royce becoming a consolidator in the lithium market due to its tight share structure and high-calibre team.

Royce Resources is an early-stage, speculative exploration company, but one I will be adding to my watchlist. Mr. Giustra’s involvement brings credibility and a network of global contacts, while Mr. Paes-Braga’s millennial perspective and ambitious drive should propel the company forward. Giustra and Paes-Braga will each own stakes of more than 10%, and the stock is expected to start trading this month.

Lithium is a hot topic at CEO Chat, the investment conference in your pocket. Join the conversation!

Related: Fuelling Tesla – Millenial, Mining Legend Join Forces in Nevada Lithium Rush | CEO.CA

Disclosure: This article is provided for entertainment purposes only and is not intended to be investment or professional advice of any kind. This article discusses a highly speculative security that is not suitable for most investors and could lose its entire value. Author is not a shareholder in Royce Resources however members of the CEO.CA team are long ROY at the time of writing. This may change in the future without notice. Always do your own due diligence and consult an independent investment advisor prior to making any financial decisions. Consult Royce’s profile on http://www.sedar.com for a full description of the risks facing the company.

Andrew Nelson

Andrew Nelson is pursuing the CPA designation as an auditor at Davidson & Co., the leading service provider for junior mining clients globally. Mr. Nelson has experience working with TSX venture listed explorers in Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Peru, Namibia, Madagascar, West Africa, United States, and Canada reporting under IFRS framework. He is an Executive Officer with Young Mining Professionals a not-for-profit which holds networking events for young professionals in Vancouver’s resource sector. His interests are reporting on Canadian precious metal explorers and holding informative interviews with accomplished mining professionals. If involved in junior mining he would love to hear from you at Andrew.GM.Nelson@Gmail.com. More →

Twitter: @https://twitter.com/ANelsonMining

  andrew.gm.nelson@gmail.com

 

POSTED ON November 30, 2015 BY Tommy Humphreys
CATEGORY Lithium X Energy Corp,

LIX LOGO

Fuelling the Future: Lithium X Launches on the TSXV
Experienced Clayton Valley operator GeoXplor named Exploration Manager
Lithium X Land Position Increased by over 180%
Minerals and Environmental Engineer Timothy Oliver appointed VP Project Development

VANCOUVER, Nov. 30, 2015 /CNW/ – Lithium X Energy Corp. (TSX-V: LIX) (“Lithium X”, or the “Company”) Executive Chairman Paul Matysek and Chief Executive Officer Brian Paes-Braga today announced the commencement of trading on the TSXV under the ticker symbol “LIX.”

“I would like to thank everybody at the TSXV, our financial and legal advisors, and our shareholders for contributing to a successful launch,” commented Mr. Matysek.

Lithium X is also pleased to announce the appointment of GeoXplor Corp. (“GeoXplor”) as Exploration Manager for its upcoming work program in Clayton Valley North, Nevada. Lithium X has increased its Clayton Valley land position by over 180% through staking completed on its behalf by GeoXplor. Lithium X now holds approximately 4,360 acres (1,765 hectares) in the Clayton Valley.

“This is just the beginning for Lithium X,” said Mr. Paes-Braga. “In a few short months we have secured a key land position adjacent to North America’s only lithium producer, built a tremendous team, financed the Company with exceptional shareholders and listed on the TSXV. We are very excited about what we can accomplish in 2016.”

 

The Lithium X claims are contiguous to private lands and placer claims belonging to Albemarle Corp. (NYSE: ALB), which operates North America’s only lithium production facility, in operation since 1967. Historic drill information and a geophysical survey show the Lithium X properties cover basin-fill sediments similar to those currently producing lithium brines for Albemarle.

GeoXplor is managed by prospectors Clive Ashworth and John Rud, who have been active in the Clayton Valley for the past 8 years. GeoXplor operates Pure Energy Minerals’ Clayton Valley South project, where they were instrumental in helping discover and identify an Inferred Resource of 816,000 tonnes of Lithium Carbonate equivalent (July 2015 NI 43-101).

Mr. Rud and Mr. Ashworth also control Clayton Valley Lithium Inc., which optioned the initial Clayton Valley North lithium claims group to Lithium X.

“We view the Clayton Valley North project as equally prospective to anything else in the valley,” commented Mr. Rud. “We are pleased to be working with such a capable and energetic team in Lithium X to advance the development of the project.”

Lithium X has also appointed Tucson-based mining executive Timothy Oliver, P. Eng, as the Company’s Vice-President, Project Development. Mr. Oliver’s role includes project management and oversight of all work programs, development studies and community relations activities.

“Tim joins us at a formative time for our Company as we aim to rapidly advance our Clayton Valley lithium project, which has the potential to fuel future supply for the battery industry,” commented Mr. Matysek. “His 38 years of experience as a specialist in mine project development engineering and environmental permitting is a tremendous asset to Lithium X.”

Mr. Oliver’s experience spans all stages of mine development, from exploration to closure. He holds a BS in Environmental Engineering from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (1976) and is a registered professional engineer in four U.S. states and in Alberta, Canada. Mr. Oliver spent over 15 years with producing companies including Magma Copper Company, Exxon Minerals and Phelps Dodge. Before joining the Lithium X team, Mr. Oliver practiced engineering both independently and with firms such as M3 Engineering and Technology and Tetra Tech. Mr. Oliver is an NI 43-101 Qualified Person (QP) and has lead or contributed to dozens of NI 43-101 studies for mine projects in North and South America.

Mr. Matysek is a mining entrepreneur, professional geochemist and geologist with over 30 years of experience in the mining industry. Mr. Matysek was President and CEO of Lithium One Inc., which developed a high quality lithium project in northern Argentina. In July 2012, Lithium One merged with Galaxy Resources of Australia in a $112 million plan of arrangement to create an integrated lithium company. Prior to Lithium One, Mr. Matysek was the President and CEO of Potash One Inc. where he was the architect of the $434 million friendly takeover of Potash One by K+S Ag, which closed in early 2011. Prior to founding Potash One, Mr. Matysek was the Founder, President and CEO of Energy Metals Corporation (“EMC”), a uranium company traded on the New York and Toronto Stock Exchanges. Mr. Matysek led EMC as one of the fastest growing Canadian companies in recent years, increasing its market capitalization from $10 million in 2004 to approximately $1.8 billion when acquired by a larger uranium producer in 2007. Mr. Matysek is currently CEO of Goldrock Mines Corp.

Mr. Paes-Braga commented, “When we entered the lithium business we thought of who would be the best executive to join our management team. Paul Matysek’s track record as a mining company builder and shareholder wealth creator put him at the top of our list. I am excited to learn from him and work closely with him in growing this venture. Lithium X co-founder Frank Giustra and I are incredibly pleased he has agreed to join the founding team.”

Lithium X is finalizing plans for its 2016 first quarter exploration program at the Clayton Valley North project, and is actively evaluating potential technology and processing partners.

The Company has 28,125,732 common shares issued and outstanding and 2,805,000 options with exercises prices ranging from $0.11 to $0.15. Lithium X has approximately $2,473,250 in working capital.

The technical content of this news release has been reviewed and approved by Timothy Oliver, P. Eng, a qualified person as defined by NI 43-101.

For additional information about Lithium X Energy Corp., please visit the Company’s website at www.lithium-x.com or review the Company’s documents filed on www.sedar.com.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

“Paul Matysek”

Paul Matysek
Executive Chairman

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

This news release contains certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities legislation (collectively “forward-looking statements”). Certain information contained herein constitutes “forward-looking information” under Canadian securities legislation. Generally, forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “expects”, “believes”, “aims to”, “plans to” or “intends to” or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “will” occur. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and they are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, including the business of the Company and the commencement of trading in the Company’s shares. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and forward looking information. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements or forward-looking information that are incorporated by reference herein, except as required by applicable securities laws.

SOURCE Lithium X Energy Corp.

For further information: Brian Paes-Braga, President and CEO, Director, Tel: 604-609-5137, Email: info@lithium-x.com; Investor Relations, Mario Vetro, Tel: 604-687-7130 ext. 105, mario@skanderbegcapital.com


 

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russian’s along with one-fifth of our uranium ore

Whore of Babylon shreds Constitution, exposed as ultimate backer of massive U.S. land grab

By Shepard Ambellas

Related: Rancher Dwight Hammond threatened with “bullet”: Exclusive Interview

PRINCETON, Ore. (INTELLIHUB) — As it turns out there’s a lot more to the story behind the Malheur Wildlife Refuge–a whole lot more–and this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

As you may or may not know, Intellihub reported on Jan. 4, that the Hammond’s ranch and other ranch-lands surrounding the refuge sit atop a vast swath of precious metals, minerals, and uranium that’s heavily desired by not only the federal government, but foreign entities as well.

However, at the time of the article’s publication the federal government’s full motive to seize the land was not yet known other than the fact that these elements do exist in the vicinity and are invaluable.

Now, after further investigation, more pieces of the puzzle have been put in place and you’re not going to believe what characters are involved.

I’ll give you a hint–one of them is currently being investigated by the FBI and is also running on the Democratic ticket in hopes of becoming the next President of the United States. That’s right, you guessed it–none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton of the notorious Clinton crime family.

Hillary and her foundation are implicated in the dastardly scheme along with the Russian State Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, and a few dubious Canadian elite, which is where the news gets really bad.


Advertisement

 


Rosatom is ranked #2 globally in uranium reserves and #1 globally for annual uranium extraction. The sheer power, strength, and size of the corporation is undeniable. Rostom is a major power-player in today’s world and didn’t become that way for no reason.

You see, Rosatom wanted to expand their operations into America and needed a way in. So, in 2013, Rosatom acquired a Canadian company named Uranium One as part of a sinister side deal which involved multiple parties. Ultimately the deal opened a typically secure and closed-door, thus allowing the Russian’s to salt their way into Continental United States as part of a vast and extensive plan to mine Uranium ore out of states like Wyoming and Oregon.

The deal was essentially brokered by Hillary and was ran through the Clinton Foundation using Canadian-backed contributions as a cover. With one swoop of a pen the bitch sold out the American people and one-fifth of America’s uranium resources to the Russian’s.

In April of 2015, two reporters for the New York Times boldly reported how the plan worked:

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

[…]

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

[…]

While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

Yes, the Russians are winning the “uranium war,” thanks to Hillary.

Additionally BLM documentation shows:

In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (“yellowcake”) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the “New U” uranium claims.

On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.

The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the “New U” uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.

However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.

Once again the Whore of Babylon, Hillary Clinton, her foundation, and other members of government, have literally been caught conducting illicit, illegal, and treasonous, activities right underneath the noses of the American people and are in no way being held accountable. Moreover she has the nerve to run for president! Are you kidding me?

Now Oregon Governor Kate Brown has stepped in, calling for a ‘swift’ resolution to the armed occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, clearly shilling for the Dems, criminally assisting them with their master plan to sellout every last bit of America’s public lands to foreign entities like Uranium One, fully eviscerating whats left of the U.S. Constitution.

So there you have it–rogue criminal factions of government are operating at all levels and are actually conspiring together to allow foreign corporations to invade and mine rich American resources, including uranium, from lands owned by the people.

Uranium One’s slogan is:

“Success through aggressive mine and land acquisition.”

Additionally, President Obama has signed executive orders allowing the Department of the Interior to grab publicly owned lands.

 

Update 1:29 p.m.: World Net daily published an article back in 1998 titled “Federal Land Grab Called ‘Political’.” In the article he author points out how Utah Republican Jame Hansen authored a bill at the time known as the “Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1998.”

According to the report, this bill passed in June of 1998, and gave “Utah 139,000 acres of federally held land, certain mineral rights, and $50 million in exchange for all of Utah’s claims to lands within national parks, monuments, forests and federal areas” under then U.S. President Bill Clinton’s orders, further demonstration how the Clinton Crime Family has been using their vast political influence to loot some of the best assets from the Corporation of the United States, selling them for pennies on the dollar to private foreign corporations and one world bodies like the United Nations.

Additionally we find this whole animal goes back the the Ronald Regan era–and possibly further.

HCN.org reported back in 2004:

[…] President Ronald Reagan and his advisors looked across the West’s public lands and saw dollar signs. Money was something they desperately needed in 1982, as the national deficit hit $128 billion. So James Watt, then U.S. secretary of the Interior, and John R. Block, the secretary of Agriculture, earmarked 35 million acres, or 5 percent of the nation’s public lands (excluding Alaska), for the auction block.

The plan to privatize public lands was met with outrage and skepticism, not only from Western liberals such as Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, but also from conservatives like Sen. James McClure, R-Idaho, who objected because the states were cut out of the deal. Watt eventually withdrew Interior lands from the sale; shortly thereafter, the Forest Service’s sale lost steam, too.

However unpopular the proposed sales were, they weren’t illegal. And the idea didn’t go away. The framework for selling public lands has inched forward since the Clinton administration, and now the Interior Department wants to give it a higher priority.

The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) required the Bureau of Land Management to identify lands that were “uneconomical to manage,” or that stood in the way of a community’s development. But the BLM lacked a strong incentive to identify such sellable lands: Under FLPMA, any money received from their sale would go directly into the U.S. Treasury, rather than into the agency’s own coffers.

Then, in 2000, Congress and the Clinton administration passed the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), which changed how profits from BLM land sales were distributed. Twenty percent of any land-sale revenue would go toward the BLM’s administration costs, while the other 80 percent had to be used to buy private inholdings within BLM lands that contained “exceptional resources.” The act was based on a land disposal and acquisition mechanism in the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which was crafted to accommodate Las Vegas’ rapid expansion onto neighboring public lands. But FLTFA’s profit scheme applied only to sellable lands identified before July 25, 2000. At that time, the BLM estimated it had 3.3 million acres of sellable land, but thanks to better inventories, its estimate has since shrunk to as low as 330,000 acres. From 2001 to 2003, the BLM sold almost 11,000 acres under FLTFA.

Note: We know some of the land acquired by Uranium One is in Oregon and we know there are precious metals on and near the Hammond Ranch. Put two and two together. Stay tuned for more updates and confirmation as it is becoming increasingly clear that other companies and government entities are most likely also involved. 

The government, alongside private companies (including foreign-owned), are in the middle of a massive criminal land grab which the mainstream media is largely ignoring, instead opting to paint those in Oregon as crazy anti-government extremists. In other words, members of the mainstream media are directly responsible for helping to allow this takeover to happen. 

Other Sources:

Uranium prospecting in Oregon, 1956 — State of Oregon

What is that I spy east of I-17? BLM acquires more land for monument, prevents development — Daily Courier

From Russia with no love for Colorado uranium mining climate — Colorado Independent

All Oregon Dockets — USGS

Presidential Memorandum — America’s Great Outdoors — WhiteHouse.gov

Public Versus Private Property Rights — BLM.gov

About Uranium One — Uranium1.com

What was the Whitewater scandal? — Investopedia


The billionaire linked to the ‘Clinton Cash’ scandals once said something amazing about doing business with Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton Frank GiustraREUTERS/Shannon StapletonBill Clinton speaks during a press conference announcing that his foundation is launching the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative on June 21, 2007.

Billionaire Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra is at the center of a blockbuster series of New York Times reports that raise troubling questions about the finances of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

One of the stories detailed how a company Giustra was involved with secured the rights to uranium deposits in Kazakhstan days after a September 2005 meeting between the billionaire, former President Bill Clinton, and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Giustra donated over $30 million to the Clinton Foundation after the Kazakhstan trip.

In 2006, Giustra appeared in the New Yorker where he was quoted making a comment about his dealings with Clinton that’s extremely interesting in light of the various allegations:

“All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” Giustra reportedly said. “He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.”

This brash remark is far different than statements Giustra made after his relationship with Clinton first came under scrutiny.

When the Times initially reported on this in 2008, representatives for both Clinton and Giustra denied the ex-president did anything to help the billionaire with his deal-making during their time together in Kazakhstan.

“A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of ‘any particular efforts’ and did nothing to help,” wrote Times reporters Jo Becker and Don Van Natta. “Mr. Giustra said [the president] was there as an ‘observer only’ and there was ‘no discussion’ of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.”

Giustra’s comment about Clinton being able to “do things and ask for things” came in a New Yorker article by David Remnick that was published the week of September 18, 2006. Giustra reportedly made the remark about Clinton while they were on a charitable trip to Africa together.

According to Remnick, the pair made the journey on board Giustra’s jet. Remnick wrote that he encountered Giustra at an event in South Africa that Clinton also attended.

Here is how Remnick described some of his conversation with Giustra.

“Giustra told me that he was still heavily involved in business — he travels frequently to Kazakhstan, to check on mining interests he has there — but that his wife had been pushing him to give away more of his money,” Remnick wrote.

The New Yorker article included no further mention of Giustra.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev greets former U.S. president Bill ClintonREUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov SZH/DHKazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev greets former president Clinton (L) in Almaty on September 6, 2005. Clinton arrived in the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.

On Thursday, the Times followed its 2008 story with another report that noted Giustra’s company, which became Uranium One, was eventually acquired by Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation.

This process began when Hillary Clinton led the State Department, which had to approve the deal along with other government entities. In addition to Giustra, the Times said other executives linked to Uranium One gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.

The story about Uranium One’s Russian deal included information from the upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” which investigates the Clinton family’s finances. It was one of several reports based on the book that came out on Thursday.

These articles have cast a shadow over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which launched earlier this month. Clinton’s team and its allies have released multiple statements about the various issues detailed in “Clinton Cash.”

They have pointed out that the book’s author, Peter Schweizer, has worked with conservative groups and characterized “Clinton Cash” as a partisan smear. A Clinton campaign spokesperson also responded to Thursday’s Times article with a post on the website Medium that claimed Clinton played no part in the Uranium One deal and that the State Department was one of many agencies that approved it.

clinton GiustraREUTERS/Shannon StapletonClinton and Giustra

Giustra also released a statement on Thursday wherein he said he sold his interest in Uranium One before Clinton led the State Department. He also reiterated his past comments that President Clinton did not conduct business with him when they were in Kazakhstan together.

“In late 2005, I went to Kazakhstan to finish the negotiations of the sale. Bill Clinton flew to Almaty a few days after I arrived in the country on another person’s plane, not on my plane,” Giustra said. “Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the purchase of private mining stakes by a Canadian company.”

Spokespeople for Giustra and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to requests for comment on this story. President Clinton and Giustra cofounded the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, in 2007.

Renaissance Man

Frank Giustra made billions of dollars for himself and his associates in the world of junior mining finance. Then he met Bill Clinton. Suddenly, they were the best of friends—and Giustra found himself at the centre of a media firestorm

ANDY HOFFMAN

From Friday’s Globe and Mail

August 27, 2008 at 11:59 PM EDT

It’s closing in on 2 a.m., and Frank Giustra is standing in a crowded penthouse suite on Toronto’s waterfront, a full bottle of beer dangling at his side. A steady stream of well-wishers stops to shake his hand, say thank you or even lean in for an awkward hug. At times, Giustra’s smile is noticeably forced.

The mining mogul has been at this for hours, first at a $300,000-a-table fundraiser for his new poverty-relief charity—a glitzy event that drew a crowd of 1,200, including A-list celebs like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams—and now here, at the after-party.

The March 1 fundraiser has been a coming-out of sorts for the obsessively private Giustra. For a quarter-century, he has worked behind the scenes on a string of deals in the world of junior mining finance, finding money for companies hoping to extract gold in Mexico, cobalt in Cameroon, uranium in Kazakhstan, platinum in South Africa or oil in Colombia. In the process, he has made billions for himself and a cadre of loyal associates through a Byzantine system of shell companies, furtive share purchases and elaborate compensation schemes.

So how did he end up here, glad-handing with the glamorous elite?

The answer can be found in an oil painting propped up on a table in the middle of the penthouse. The picture (a gift from friends) features two men standing side by side, their arms draped around each other’s shoulders, in front of a dusty outpost in Lesotho, a tiny enclave in the middle of South Africa. One of the men—the shorter one, with the silver, Caesar-style haircut—is Giustra, dressed casually in a T-shirt and bomber jacket. The other, in rolled-up shirtsleeves and tie, is the 42nd president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton.

The painting captures a scene from a seven-country tour the pair made to Africa in July, 2006, to oversee the work of the William J. Clinton Foundation, the ex-president’s charitable organization. It’s just one of the trips he and Giustra have taken together on board the opulently appointed MD-87 jet, replete with leather furniture and a boardroom, that serves as Giustra’s office in the sky.

Until a few years ago, the financier had only dabbled in philanthropy, funnelling money to local charities in Vancouver and organizing the occasional fundraiser at his $20-million, Parisian-themed mansion. Then he met Clinton, whose own charity efforts (which have, among other things, slashed the cost of HIV/AIDS medicines for 750,000 people in developing countries) inspired him to do what he calls “a complete one-eighty”—to stop hoarding the millions of dollars he’s earned from mining deals and instead give much of it away. “When you are creating wealth, and the only purpose is to create more wealth than you already have, it is totally meaningless,” says Giustra, who turned 50 last August. “It’s empty. It’s completely empty.”

Since 2005, Giustra has pledged $31 million (U.S.) of his own cash to Clinton’s foundation. Together, he and Clinton have also formed the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), a charitable vehicle that will help create programs and distribute funds in areas of the developing world where mining takes place. Giustra has pledged another $100 million to this initiative and promised to donate half of his future earnings to the charity.

Clinton brings with him a well-oiled philanthropic organization and considerable star power. Giustra, meanwhile, has a Rolodex full of mining contacts with fat wallets—thanks in large part to the deal-making prowess of Giustra himself—and a hankering to put a positive face on the much maligned mining industry. “My money is more effective backing Clinton than any other person I can think of on this planet,” he says.

With his new-found generosity, this hitherto unknown financier—an outsider even within the relatively small Canadian business community—has gained entree into the world of high-stakes philanthropy: charity events with U2 front man Bono, fundraisers co-hosted with jazz diva Diana Krall, face time with supermodel Petra Nemcova in the name of tsunami relief. And, of course, he has been welcomed into Clinton’s inner circle as a bona fide Friend of Bill, or FOB.

But a funny thing happened on Giustra’s journey from mining-deal king to munificent benefactor: At the same time he thrust himself into the media spotlight as the CGSGI’s public face, Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House ratcheted up the scrutiny on her husband’s business and charitable dealings, as well as those of his large network of associates. And it just so happens that Bill Clinton keeps popping up in places where Giustra is buying resource assets, leading to allegations that Giustra is using his powerful new friend to secure business for himself and his mining cohorts.

Giustra seems genuinely wounded by the implication that his donations are buying favours. “There’s a perfect balance in this world,” he says. “The more you put yourself out there, the more they are going to throw darts at you. Now, I’m seeing how that all works.”

After nearly 30 years in the mining industry, Giustra has a vast network of loyal colleagues who have profited handsomely from his various projects. Call them the Friends of Frank, or FOFs.

FOF investment bankers get lucrative fees for consulting on his deals and underwriting share offerings. Bankers and brokers are invited to personally buy into Giustra’s shell companies before he rolls in a new set of mining assets and the stock (usually) soars. FOF mining execs get board appointments, along with generous stock-option packages and so-called founder’s shares, another form of cheap stock.

“Why is that bad?” Giustra asks rather defensively. He’s seated at the head of the boardroom table in his Vancouver office a few weeks after the CGSGI benefit, casually dressed in a colourful striped dress shirt, dark jeans and brown loafers—he’s due to serve lunch at his kids’ school today, so no suit. (He recently separated from their mother, his second wife, former Internet venture capitalist and documentary filmmaker Alison Lawton.) “It’s a good thing—people you know and you trust,” he says. “People that you’ve been through good times and bad times with—especially bad times, because then you know what they are really made of.”

For Giustra, the times have been mostly good. Certainly the mining industry has been better to him than it was to his father, Joe, who immigrated to Canada from Italy and worked as a blaster and driller. When Frank was a baby, Joe sent his wife and four kids to live with relatives back in Italy and, later, Argentina, while he moved from mine to mine in search of better wages. “While he was working to make the money to provide a home for us, he wanted us to be with family,” says Giustra, who spoke no English when he moved back to Canada at age nine. “He was travelling all over the country, and he didn’t want us living in mining camps.”

Eventually, the family settled in Aldergrove, 50 kilometres southwest of Vancouver. Young Frank took up the trumpet—and jazz—and, at 18, he enrolled in the music program at a local college. But after paying a visit to his dad’s stockbroker (Joe liked to play the penny stock market, with little success), he switched to business. “It was the energy,” Giustra says of the brokerage. “There was just something about it—that people made a living doing this. I decided that was it, I was going to be a stockbroker.”

Though he had a $14-an-hour union gig stocking shelves on the midnight shift at a Vancouver supermarket, Giustra began pestering local brokerages for a job. In 1978, he scored an interview at Merrill Lynch, known for its top-notch broker-training program. His interview lasted just 10 minutes. But on his way out the door, the 20-year-old made a ballsy promise: “If you hire me, I’ll be the best broker you’ve ever had.”

He got the job, and spent two years “trading the market blindly” before moving to Yorkton Securities, a small, Toronto-based brokerage with a handful of employees in Vancouver. The firm dealt with the top mining promoters on the wild and woolly Vancouver Stock Exchange, including Murray Pezim, who once controlled more than a quarter of the trading on the VSE and whose name was synonymous with the era’s loose ethics. “The whole concept of compliance and due diligence, things we take for granted these days, didn’t really exist back then,” says Giustra. “It was pretty much the Wild West.”

A key element of Yorkton’s early success was its ability to tap investment funds in Europe. So in 1983, Giustra’s bosses sent him to London to open the firm’s first overseas outpost. He hated London at first. The food was awful, he says, and the business culture was ultraconservative—nothing like the VSE. “You couldn’t even wear a brown suit in those days. You certainly couldn’t wear brown shoes,” he says. “If you wore brown shoes in the City, you were deemed someone not worthy of doing business with.”

Giustra put together a unique team of analysts, traders, corporate financiers and institutional sales staff dedicated solely to mining, and the London office thrived. When Giustra returned to Canada in 1990—as Yorkton’s president—he brought the model with him, and soon the firm was a leader in the mining sector, with a list of deep-pocketed institutional clients willing to invest in hundreds of junior miners looking for exploration and development funds.

Under Giustra, Yorkton also devised creative ways to help clients and colleagues win the rights to lucrative mineral deposits overseas. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and many former Soviet states began opening their borders to foreign investors. Giustra had the bright idea of hiring an ex-finance minister from Chile to help these nascent countries draft new mining codes. Among the nations Yorkton worked with was Kazakhstan. “We advised them on what they needed to do to change their mining laws,” says Giustra, who met with the Kazakh prime minister, Akezhan Kazhegeldin, in 1995. “We did that in Africa; we did that in South America. It was a great way to look credible. It was a great way to look serious about what our intentions were, in terms of being able to do business in a fair way. It worked really well.” It also demonstrated the inherently political nature of nearly all mining deals: Without government support, you’re unlikely to get far in the quest for mineral rights. Sending in experts to help draft mining code is just one way to get a leg up.

Nearly everyone at Yorkton got rich during those days, the peak of junior mining finance. Million-dollar-a-year pay packages were the norm, and Giustra made several times that. He and his colleagues were often given so-called seed shares or allowed to buy in on private placements in the companies they financed. Yorkton was awarded broker warrants on financings that proved particularly profitable if the company’s shares rose. “He always made his clients and the people around him money,” says Paul Reynolds, who got his start at Yorkton in the 1980s and is now CEO of Vancouver-based Canaccord Capital Inc. “I think that’s paramount to Frank: He likes to make people money.”

Or, as Giustra says: “The one thing that always worked for me is generosity. Generosity can be very profitable.”

In 1995, the same year Scott Paterson joined Yorkton as executive VP, Giustra was promoted to chairman. A year later—around the time the firm’s Calgary office became mired in a scandal involving salted drill samples by a high flier called Timbuktu Gold—Giustra quit. He was just shy of his 40th birthday. A few months later, the Timbuktu scandal was eclipsed by Bre-X, which brought the go-go days of junior mining to a definitive end. (Under Paterson, Yorkton jumped into high tech and eventually became the subject of an OSC investigation.)

By then, Giustra was far away from the world of Howe Street—figuratively, at least. With $60 million raised from FOFs, a $60-million IPO and $18 million of his own cash, he started Lions Gate Entertainment, Canada’s answer to the Hollywood studio. Giustra was used to quick returns on the VSE. But Lions Gate’s film projects took years to turn a profit (if at all), and the company, which went public in 1998, was soon strapped for cash. Things got so bad that Giustra was occasionally forced to cover the payroll himself. The stock flat-lined.

Then came a costly deal with Peter Guber, the former head of Sony Pictures, that almost killed the company. Giustra—renowned in mining circles as a fierce negotiator—agreed to pay Guber $50 million (U.S.) for a 45% stake in his production company, Mandalay Pictures. Guber was expected to make 20 movies over five years for Lions Gate. He turned out just five before the company sold its Mandalay stake back to Guber for $10 million in 2002. “It was a dumb deal for us,” Giustra concedes. “Did he get the better of us on the negotiation? Yes, absolutely.”

Within a year, giustra had sold off his stake in the studio and returned full-time to the world of mining. Back in 2001, he had become convinced that gold, then trading below $300 (U.S.) an ounce, was poised for a run, in part because low interest rates would erode the value of the U.S. dollar—a stunningly accurate prediction. Along with Ian Telfer, a gregarious veteran mining executive who’d taken a wrong turn in the dot-com world, he bought a controlling stake in Wheaton River Minerals, a dormant mining company then valued at $20 million.

Wheaton’s first major acquisition was the Luisman mine in Mexico. The seller, Antonio Madero, the scion of a powerful Mexican family, was skeptical that the Canadians could afford the mine’s $100-million price tag. After all, they had just $25 million in capital. Giustra, however, was certain his FOFs in the brokerage community could raise the cash—but only if there was a sale agreement in place. Over dinner at Club 21 in New York in late 2001, Giustra, Telfer and a group of advisers set about trying to persuade Madero to give them a chance. The meeting was going nowhere until someone mentioned that Madero was chairman of the Mexican National Art Museum. Giustra sprang into action, talking up several pieces of Latin American art in his personal collection. Madero decided to let the Canadians make a bid. “That’s what tipped the scales,” says Telfer.

The team went on to raise more than $125 million from investors (through a syndicate of underwriters led by GMP Securities, Canaccord and BMO Nesbitt Burns) to finance the acquisition. Four years later, Wheaton merged with Goldcorp to create what is now the world’s second most valuable gold producer, with a market cap of more than $28 billion. “It was certainly the greatest success in terms of a business story,” says Giustra. “All the stars aligned. I don’t think that’s going to be repeated in a while.”

But the Wheaton deal was almost the undoing of a long-time FOF, Egizio Bianchini, BMO’s global head of metals and mining. And it was a reminder to Giustra’s other pals that the perks of FOFdom come with strings attached.

Before hooking up with Goldcorp, Wheaton had tried to orchestrate a merger with Toronto’s Iamgold, which quickly drew a rival bid from U.S. gold miner Golden Star Resources. Giustra was livid, particularly because BMO had agreed to represent Golden Star. Bianchini bore the brunt of Giustra’s rage. “You are a real fucking Einstein,” Giustra wrote Bianchini in a terse e-mail.

“He felt betrayed,” Bianchini says now. “I didn’t think he was going to take it like that. I thought he would say, ‘This is business.’ But no, he took it quite personally.” Wheaton’s bid eventually failed; so did Golden Star’s. Giustra couldn’t resist sending Bianchini another missive. “There you go, fucking Einstein,” it said.

The two men didn’t speak for more than a year. “Those weren’t jokes when he sent those e-mails,” Bianchini says. “That was hatred. That was pure hatred.” Eventually, however, BMO and its mining boss made their way back into Giustra’s good books. Bianchini is once again an FOF. “I have a lot of time and admiration for Frank,” he says. “He’s a good, solid business guy. He’s made a lot of people money. He can be tough, but he can be extremely charming as well.”

BMO won a minor role in Giustra’s next big score: a uranium play in Kazakhstan that turned a $450-million investment into a $3-billion buyout in less than two years. That same deal is at the heart of the bad press dogging Giustra and his good friend Bill Clinton.

A diminutive bundle of intensity, Giustra bristles at questions about his family. “I have a private life, and all that stuff is private,” he says icily. “I want to keep it that way.” (He won’t confirm that since splitting from Lawton, he’s vacated his Vancouver mansion and moved into a condo.) He’s particularly touchy about his private jet. Even Gordon Keep, a 20-year FOF and Giustra’s right-hand man, has only taken two trips aboard Air Giustra. Yet if it weren’t for the plane, Giustra never would have met President Clinton, and it’s where they’ve spent the majority of their time together. So, will Frank give me a glimpse of the MD-87?

“No.”

Why not?

“Let me explain something,” he says. “The plane is a business tool. No more, no less. It ain’t Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. That’s not my place. To me, that’s not the story.” Giustra is getting more and more worked up. “This is not about me flying around on a plane. I keep it for business reasons. It works well. It gets the job done. It’s not champagne and caviar.”

Those who’ve seen it, however, say Giustra’s ride is stunning. Phillip Shirvington, a uranium industry veteran who’s been on plenty of private jets in his time, says Frank’s plane tops them all. “His is the best I’ve been on by a long shot,” he says. “It’s just beautifully done out.”

It was June, 2005, when Giustra and Clinton took their first trip aboard the MD-87. Earlier that year, Giustra had hosted a tsunami-relief fundraiser that featured a videotaped thank-you address from Clinton. Afterward, he told the ex-president’s handlers he was looking for other ways to support Clinton’s charitable work. They came back with a request: The foundation needed a plane for a planned tour of Latin America. Could the President borrow Giustra’s jet? He was thrilled to oblige, and even more thrilled when he was invited to tag along.

Giustra says he and Clinton hit it off immediately. They’re both voracious readers and can talk for hours about geopolitics, history and, of course, philanthropy, he says. (Giustra admits to hoovering up all the information he can gather on any subject that piques his interest. “Any time I get into a project, whether it is for profit or non-profit, I take it seriously,” he says. “I think about it carefully and it becomes my entire focus.”) They’re also both nighthawks, getting just three or four hours of sleep. In the wee hours, he and Clinton sometimes play cards—Clinton’s favourite game is Oh, Hell, a complicated variant of bridge.

Giustra sees himself as a problem solver, and he says Clinton is the ultimate fixer. “If you were with a person for weeks on end, day and night, and there was any sense of BS in that person, there is no doubt you’d see it,” says Giustra. “I’m telling you, he is who he is. He is a tireless worker who really cares about fixing things. That’s his whole MO. All he wants to talk about is fixing problems—the more creative, the better—and he generally wants to fight for the underdog. That’s the makeup of President Clinton.”

Indeed, no former president has raised more money for charity than Bill Clinton: well over half a billion dollars. At the same time, no other president has personally earned so much, so quickly since leaving office. Bill and Hillary have taken in $109 million (U.S.) since they left the White House in 2001. He has made $51.9 million (U.S.) from speeches, and another $29.6 million (U.S.) from advances and royalties on his books, including Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.

Like many former heads of state (Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien come to mind), Clinton has also earned millions from his personal business dealings. Since 2002, Clinton has collected more than $12.5 million (U.S.) as a rainmaker, consultant and investment partner with Yucaipa Cos., a Los Angeles investment firm headed by his friend, billionaire playboy Ron Burkle. He received another $400,000 (U.S.) last year from InfoUSA, the Nebraska-based marketing firm headed by Vinod Gupta, a friend and political supporter. As Gupta explained last year to a Nebraska newspaper: “He helps us meet some of the right people.”

In September, 2005, Giustra and Clinton reunited for another trip aboard the jet. This time, it was a three-country tour in support of the Clinton Foundation’s fight against HIV/AIDS. The first stop was Kazakhstan, which holds more than 20% of the world’s uranium reserves. It just so happened that Giustra was looking for a uranium play. He had a hunch that, thanks to years of under-investment and a looming supply crunch as nuclear power returned to favour, the price would soon skyrocket. A year earlier, he’d put together a reputable management team, including mining veterans Phillip Shirvington as CEO of a yet-to-be-named company and Ian Telfer as chairman, and started shopping for assets. They zeroed in on Kazakhstan, where, 10 years before, Giustra had met with the PM. The state-run mining company, Kazatomprom, wanted to boost the country’s uranium production and was looking for foreign investors to buy out some of its joint-venture partners. If Giustra and his team wanted to bid, they’d need Kazatomprom’s blessing. With help from Canaccord, which had extensive experience in the country, as well as from Russian mining executive Sergey Kurzin, another FOF who’d done business there, Giustra and his team set out to win a meeting with Kazatomprom president Moukhtar Dzhakishev.

Once again, Giustra’s jet came in handy. After months of lobbying, and a short ride in the MD-87, Dzhakishev agreed to work with Giustra’s syndicate. They honed in on three uranium deposits partly controlled by two private holders. One of them—the chairman of a Kazakh bank and a former minister of energy, industry and trade—was proving a reluctant seller.

As the negotiations reached their final stretch, Giustra and Clinton landed in Kazakhstan with a sizable entourage. They were treated to a midnight supper with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, a onetime steel worker who has controlled the country for nearly two decades. For Nazarbayev, the visit from Clinton was a major triumph. The dictator had been lobbying to lead the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a pro-democracy group that monitors elections and promotes humanitarian, environmental and economic initiatives in the developing world. Most U.S. politicians, including Senator Hillary Clinton, had publicly opposed his bid. But during that visit to Kazakhstan, Bill Clinton expressed his support for Nazarbayev’s application.

At dinner that night, Giustra engaged in “small talk” with Nazarbayev. “I can’t remember if it was a talk about uranium mining or my interests in Kazakhstan overall,” Giustra says. “It was a general chit-chat about mining and the fact that I had done business in Kazakhstan. If we talked about the uranium stuff, it would have been just in passing.”

Three days later, on Sept. 9, the holdout agreed to sell his stake to Giustra’s group for $450 million (U.S.). The price was hefty, considering uranium was then going for less than $40 (U.S.) a pound (it would soon run to more than $130). Giustra is adamant that neither Nazarbayev nor Clinton had anything to do with the transaction. “The facts are the facts,” he says. “We bought these assets from private individuals, and we paid full price. It had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.”

The deal paved the way for the creation of UrAsia. Its stock market debut (a reverse takeover of a Giustra shell company) in November, 2005, was the largest ever on the TSX Venture Exchange, giving the company a value of more than $500 million. Just over a year later, UrAsia accepted an all-stock takeover bid from Toronto-based SXR Uranium One (now called Uranium One) worth more than $3.5 billion. UrAsia’s directors, including Telfer, Bob Cross (a former colleague of Giustra’s in the brokerage business) and Douglas Holtby, the ex-chairman of Wheaton, each had stock options valued at over $4 million when the bid was announced. Giustra’s personal stake in UrAsia was valued at more than $45 million at the time.

he relationship between Giustra and Clinton has provoked a firestorm of interest from the U.S. media. The New York Times first broke the story of their trip to Kazakhstan this past January. Shortly after that, The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton also introduced Giustra to the president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. Last year, a Giustra-connected shell company, now called Pacific Rubiales Energy, paid $250 million for control of a Colombian oil-field operation. As part of the deal, Pacific Rubiales, which now trades on the TSX, became a partner of Ecopetrol SA, Colombia’s state oil company.

Although these cozy deals may be unseemly to some, there’s nothing illegal—or even particularly unusual—going on here. Plenty of former heads of state mix business, politics and philanthropy on a regular basis, and both Giustra and Clinton have strongly denied that their relationship crosses the line. For Clinton, who declined to be interviewed for this story, the whole thing is a minor nuisance—one of many he’s encountered during his political career and, more recently, during his wife’s long (and ultimately unsuccessful) run at the White House. For Giustra, even a hint of impropriety could have a lasting impact on the legacy he’s trying to build. He’s already struggling with a credibility problem. To start with, he comes from the wrong side of the tracks—a Howe Street promoter rather than a Bay Street blueblood. His career has been highlighted by schemes and structures that quietly enriched him and his tight circle of friends. Constructing deals for mining concessions in war-torn and developing nations is rarely a squeaky-clean enterprise; though Giustra has never broken the rules, he has pushed them to their limit.

To some, his massive donations to the Clinton Foundation suggest a kind of quid pro quo: Clinton has gained access to hitherto untapped sources of donations for his charity, plus unfettered use of the Giustra plane, not only for his foundation work but also to jet to Hillary’s nationwide campaign events and to lucrative speaking engagements. Giustra has gained one seriously powerful pal with friends in just about every country on the planet.

The financier insists his aim is true. He’s not going to stop doing mining deals—”I still love doing deals. I absolutely love doing deals,” he says. But his sole raison d’être now is to put the profits toward aiding those who need it most—with or without Clinton’s help. “I don’t need Bill Clinton,” says Giustra. “I created my wealth long before I met Bill Clinton. I was successful long before I met Bill Clinton. I was meeting heads of government long before I met Bill Clinton. I have no interest in using him to enhance my wealth. I told him right at the beginning, my only interest was seeing if there was a way we could work together philanthropically, and that is what we’ve done.”

The whiff of controversy hasn’t stopped more than 1,200 people from packing the ballroom of the Westin Harbour Castle Conference Centre in support of the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. A towering John Travolta weaves his way among the tables, greeting fans as they dig into their beef tenderloin and dainty organic greens. Eugene Levy, the evening’s MC, cracks wise about Giustra’s jet. His post-meal face towel on the flight, he deadpans, was “slightly tepid.”

Travolta, Tom Cruise and Robin Williams each take turns at the podium, imploring the crowd to dig deep and give. Elton John, Shakira, Norah Jones, Burton Cummings and Wyclef Jean each perform a few songs on the ballroom’s stage. “There’s lots of money in this room. I’m trying to get into the mining business myself,” Jean says during one number.

Giustra has Clinton to thank for bringing in the big names. But the tables are packed with star-struck FOFs, and they’re ready to back up Giustra with their chequebooks. After all, if it weren’t for him, their bank accounts would be considerably less stuffed. Cross donates $500,000. So does Neil Woodyer, the CEO of Endeavour Financial, where Giustra was chairman until June, 2007, and where he is still an adviser. From a table that includes GMP Securities’ superstar trader Mike Wekerle comes $1 million. Paul Reynolds personally pledges another million, while Frank Holmes, the Canadian head of a Texas-based resource fund and the chairman of Endeavour Mining Capital (Endeavour Financial’s parent firm), adds $100,000 to the cause (bringing his total contribution to $2 million). Sergey Kurzin, a crucial player in the UrAsia deal, chips in another $1 million. Finally, Telfer, who has been inextricably linked to Giustra for the past decade, signs a personal cheque for $3 million. “This is a good time for our industry. It’s time for us to give back,” Telfer tells the crowd. By the end of the night, Giustra’s guests would pledge more than $16 million to the CGSGI. And Telfer would privately acknowledge that his very public display of support was driven in part to declare his commitment to his old friend, who has had to suffer the media’s slings and arrows: “If there was ever a time to stand by Frank, this is it.”

Clinton is also standing by his new best man—now one of the Clinton Foundation’s top three backers. As he tells the crowd, he’s seen firsthand the good that Giustra’s cash has done in the places that need it most. “I’d look around, and I could actually count the number of children who were alive in the world because of the money he’d given me,” Clinton says in his familiar southern lilt. “None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination.

“And lately, a little bit of rhinoceros hide too—to take the incoming fire occasioned only because his partner was inadvertently dragged back into American politics,” Clinton drawls. “I love this guy, and you should too.”

Clinton and Giustra embrace. The hug is strong and sincere. There’s nothing awkward about it.

During Giustra’s turn at the podium, he says, “People ask what our motivations are. Well, it’s morally the right thing to do. And of course it is smart business. Of course it is. But as President Clinton noted in the last paragraph of his book Giving, it makes us feel happy.”

Giustra, it seems, is warming to his role as the face of philanthropy in the mining sector—though he insists it’s a role he accepted reluctantly, knowing all the attention his association with Clinton would bring. Others in the mining industry aren’t so sure. They say he loves the limelight and works keenly to ensure the notice he does receive is positive. The day before the Journal story ran, for instance, Giustra sent an e-mail to friends and donors. Both the Times and the Journal stories, he wrote, were an “amalgam of half-truths and innuendo…driven by the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. Nevertheless, as friends and supporters of the work we are doing with the CGSGI, I wanted to give you a heads up.”

Either way, Giustra’s enthusiasm for philanthropy now verges on fundamentalism. Clinton’s foundation, he says, stands to gain millions—even billions—more in donations from his mining colleagues to help eliminate poverty in the very countries where those same miners do business. So far, the CGSGI has allocated only $20 million of more than $300 million it has received in pledges, announcing a handful of social development and anti-poverty programs in Colombia and Peru. Africa could be next, following a $100-million commitment from the family charity of long-time FOF and mining mogul Lukas Lundin, Lundin for Africa.

Back in his Vancouver office, with its million-dollar view of the harbour and mountains, Giustra struggles to explain his transformation. It sounds, at times, like he’s trying to close a deal. “We live in a cynical world. It’s hard not to be a cynic. The sure cure for being a cynic is to go see up close and personal what goes on on the ground in all these countries—the suffering, the death. Talk to the people, see the joy that you’re bringing,” he says. “I don’t care how hard of a businessman you are or how hard of a journalist you are, seeing this stuff up close and personal will make any hardened heart all squishy again. Okay?”

Giustra’s voice gets louder. “If more people did that, we wouldn’t have all this cynicism about what the motivation is for Bill Clinton setting up his foundation. He’s helped literally hundreds of thousands of people. He’s saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, and it will probably end up being millions of lives. CGSGI on its own, with the hundreds of millions we’ve raised, and the probably billions we’re going to raise, we’ll probably improve the lives of millions of people around the world. Give people hope, get kids through school, create jobs, create opportunities. That’s what this is all about.”

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080618.rmguistra0618/BNStory/specialROBmagazine/home/?pageRequested=7
__________________________________________________

TrendingHousing | Outlook 2016 | Loonie | Suncor | Marijuana | Oil | Valeant | Apple | Retirement

Telfer, Giustra deny they tried to influence Russian uranium deal with donations to Clinton Foundation

Peter Koven | April 24, 2015 10:27 AM ET
More from Peter Koven | @peterkoven

Frank Giustra, left, and Ian Telfer deny suggestions that they donated to the charitable foundation of former President Bill Clinton and his family to help win U.S. approval to sell a uranium company to Russia.

Postmedia NewsFrank Giustra, left, and Ian Telfer deny suggestions that they donated to the charitable foundation of former President Bill Clinton and his family to help win U.S. approval to sell a uranium company to Russia.

A pair of Canadian mining magnates are denying suggestions that they donated to the charitable foundation of former President Bill Clinton and his family to help win U.S. approval to sell a uranium company to Russia.

Frank Giustra said the allegations have nothing to do with him, and are merely an attempt to “tear down” presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her election campaign. Ian Telfer, meanwhile, said he committed the funds before he ever realized he would do the deal with the Russians.

The New York Times reported on the donations in an explosive article this week. The story involves a former Canadian mining company called Uranium One Inc., in which Giustra and Telfer were two of the key principals.

In 2010, Uranium One began a process to sell itself to Rosatom, a state-controlled nuclear giant in Russia. Uranium One had assets in Kazakhstan and the United States, and multiple U.S. government departments had to sign off on the deal. One of them is the State Department, which was led at the time by Hillary Clinton.

Uranium is considered a strategic resource, and it would be unthinkable today for the U.S. government to consider selling the country’s uranium reserves to Russia. But the Uranium One sale happened prior to Russia’s incursions into Ukraine last year, and Telfer said in an interview that getting it approved did not require lobbying.

“There was no lobbying,” he said.

Advertisement

The Times story noted that between 2009 and 2013, Telfer donated US$2.35 million to Clinton’s foundation. This coincided directly with the period in which Rosatom gradually took control of Uranium One. Telfer was Uranium One’s chairman at the time.

In the interview, Telfer said he agreed to contribute US$3 million to the Clinton Foundation back in March 2008, shortly after Giustra and Clinton set up their sustainable growth initiative for the natural resource sector. That was before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge, he said. He denied they had anything to do with influencing U.S. government officials around Uranium One.

“There were no plans for us (in March 2008) to ever have Rosatom as a majority shareholder of the company,” he said. “So therefore, there was never any thought of influencing anyone because there was nothing to influence.”

Giustra’s direct involvement with Uranium One ended back in 2007, when he sold his company UrAsia Energy Ltd. to Uranium One for about US$3 billion. UrAsia held the key Kazakhstan assets that formed the backbone of Uranium One, and there have been prior allegations that Giustra used his friendship with Bill Clinton to help secure those assets when the two men were in Kazakhstan together in 2005.

Giustra has subsequently contributed US$31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged US$100 million more, according to the Times.

In a statement on Thursday, Giustra said there “is not one shred of evidence” to back up claims that he tried to influence the U.S. government to approve the Uranium One sale to Rosatom. He called the Times piece a “wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article.” He also said that he sold all his Uranium One shares in 2007.

“I would note that those (shares) were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the secretary of state. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the secretary of state,” he said.

In addition to Giustra and Telfer, the Times noted that other people with ties to Uranium One made contributions to the Clinton Foundation: Neil Woodyer, Frank Holmes, Paul Reynolds (who recently died in a triathalon incident) and GMP Securities Ltd.

Many of the details in the Times article come from an upcoming book called Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer, which will be released on May 5th. The book examines how Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly made millions through relationships with businesses and foreign governments.

Is Panasonic The Most Unethical Company in Tech?

Is Panasonic The Most Unethical Company in Tech?

Elon Musk will do anything for dirty tech deal’s to increase his wealth and self-promotion via taxpayer pig troughs. He loves to partner with the dirtiest name in electronics: Panasonic.

Apparently, twisted minds think alike. When will the FBI finally shut both of these bad actors down?

Panasonic kills workers. Lies, runs corruption operations, dumps goods, builds toxic factories and well, just take a look:

Panasonic charged with price-fixing on car components

 

Dustin Walsh  RSS feed
Crain’s Detroit Business

A federal grand jury in Detroit indicted another Japanese automotive executive on Tuesday for involvement in an international pricing-fixing conspiracy.

According to the charges filed in U.S. District Court, Shinichi Kotani, an executive for Panasonic Corp., participated in fixing prices on switches and steering angles sensors for Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles sold in the U.S.

The indictment alleges Kotani and co-conspirators participated in big-rigging meetings in the U.S. and Japan from January 2004 until at least February 2010.

Besides various executive roles in Japan, Kotani served as vice president of automotive systems for Panasonic Automotive Systems Co. of America in Peachtree, Ga., from April 2008 until July 2009.

Panasonic also has an automotive technical center in suburban Detroit. Attempts to reach a company official for comment were unsuccessful. Efforts to locate an attorney for Kotani also were unsuccessful.

Kotani faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines for violating the Sherman Act.

The indictment — part of a broad ongoing U.S. investigation into supplier price fixing — is the second coming out of Detroit in the past week. Regulators in Europe and Japan have been conducting similar investigations.

On Sept. 19, Ryoji Fukudome and Toshihiko Nagashima, executives for Tokyo-based Fujikura Ltd., were indicted for allegedly fixing prices on wire harnesses sold to Fuji Heavy Industries. The parts were allegedly used in Fuji’s Subaru vehicle line sold in the U.S.

Earlier this month, Shingo Okuda, an executive at G.S. Electech Inc., was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky for bid-rigging on wire assemblies sold to Toyota.

In July, Panasonic pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy and was sentenced to pay a $45.8 million criminal fine.

The investigation has led to 11 companies and 19 executives, including Kotani, charged in the price-fixing conspiracy.

More than $874 million in criminal fines have been imposed on the companies, and 14 executives have been sentenced to prison ranging from a year to two years each.

The list of companies that have pleaded guilty include Panasonic, Sanyo Electric Co., Diamond Electric Manufacturing Co., Tokai Rika, Autoliv, TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH, Nippon Seiki Co., Fujikura, Furukawa Electric Co., Denso Corp., Yazaki Corp. and G.S. Electech.

Panasonic will spend up to $1.6 billion on Tesla gigafactory

Posted by Charles Morris & filed under Newswire, The Tech.

Panasonic Li-ion 18650 (ChargedEVs) 2

Panasonic has been involved with Tesla’s Gigafactory from the beginning of the project, but until now, it hasn’t said exactly how much it plans to invest.

Now Panasonic President Kazuhiro Tsuga has told Marketwatch that the company will invest up to $1.6 billion, hoping to secure its future in automotive electronics.

Sales to carmakers represented about 15 percent of Panasonic’s revenue in 2015, but the company aims to double that over the next four years. That objective is highly dependent on Tesla’s ability to meet its goal of selling 500,000 cars a year by 2020, as batteries are expected to provide the lion’s share of Panasonic’s automotive-market sales.

“We are sort of waiting on the demand from Tesla,” Mr. Tsuga said. “If Tesla succeeds and the electric vehicle becomes mainstream, the world will be changed and we will have lots of opportunity to grow.”

Tesla and Panasonic plan to build the factory in eight phases, and are currently in the first phase. So far, the Japanese company’s investment has been small, but by the time the Gig is fully up to speed, Panasonic will have provided between 1.5 and 1.6 billion dollars, out of a total price tag of 4 to 5 billion, Mr. Tsuga said.

Panasonic employees were expected to arrive in Nevada at the end of 2015 to prepare for the start of cell production. The factory will begin producing batteries this year for Tesla’s Powerwall energy storage business.

 

Source: Marketwatch via Green Car Reports

Tags: Panasonic, Tesla Gigafactory

 

Panasonic and Its Subsidiary Sanyo Agree to Plead Guilty in Separate Price-Fixing Conspiracies Involving Automotive Parts and Battery Cells

Lg Chem Ltd. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price-fixing Conspiracy Involving Battery Cells, First Charges Filed in Battery Cell Investigation

Panasonic Corp. and its subsidiary, SANYO Electric Co. Ltd., have agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of $56.5 million in criminal fines for their roles in separate price-fixing conspiracies involving automotive parts and battery cells, the Department of Justice announced today.  LG Chem Ltd., a leading manufacturer of secondary batteries, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $1.056 million criminal fine for price fixing involving battery cells.

Osaka, Japan-based Panasonic agreed to pay a $45.8 million criminal fine for its role in the automotive parts conspiracy. SANYO agreed to pay a $10.731 million criminal fine for its role in the battery cells conspiracy.  The guilty pleas against SANYO and LG Chem are the first in the department’s ongoing investigation into anticompetitive conduct in the cylindrical lithium ion battery cell industry.

The three-count felony charge against Panasonic was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Separate one-count felony charges were filed against SANYO and LG Chem in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  As part of the plea agreements, which are subject to court approval, the charged companies have agreed to cooperate in the department’s ongoing antitrust investigations.

 Panasonic has agreed to plead guilty for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of switches, steering angle sensors and automotive high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere.  SANYO and LG Chem Ltd. have agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to fix the prices of cylindrical lithium ion battery cells sold worldwide for use in notebook computer battery packs.

“Panasonic is charged with participating in separate price-fixing conspiracies affecting numerous parts used in cars made and sold in the United States while its subsidiary was also fixing prices on battery cells used by consumers of notebook computers,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “Pleading guilty and cooperating with the division’s ongoing investigations is a necessary step in changing a corporate culture that turned customers into price-fixing victims.”

According to the first count of a three-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, Panasonic participated in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of steering wheel switches, turn switches, wiper switches, combination switches and door courtesy switches sold to Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere. According to the court document, Panasonic and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy from at least as early as September 2003 until at least February 2010.

The second count charges that Panasonic, during this same time period, participated in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of steering angle sensors sold to Toyota in the United States and elsewhere. The department said that Panasonic and its co-conspirators agreed, during meetings and conversations, to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of steering angle sensors sold to Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere.

According to the third count of the charge, from at least as early as July 1998 and continuing until at least February 2010, Panasonic and its co-conspirators participated in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing, during meetings and conversations, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of automotive HID ballasts sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Mazda Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor of America Inc., and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere.

I ncluding Panasonic, 11 companies and 15 executives have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and have agreed to pay a total of more than $874 million in criminal fines as a result of the auto parts investigation. Additionally, 12 of the individuals have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve jail sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each. The three additional executives have agreed to serve time in prison and are currently awaiting sentencing.

 

“The FBI remains committed to protecting American consumers and businesses from corporate corruption. The conduct of Panasonic, SANYO, and LG Chem resulted in inflated production costs for notebook computers and cars purchased by U.S. consumers,” said Joseph S. Campbell, FBI Criminal Investigative Division Deputy Assistant Director.  “These investigations illustrate our efforts to ensure market fairness for U.S. businesses by bringing corporations to justice when their commercial activity violates antitrust laws.”

 According to the one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, SANYO and LG Chem engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of the cylindrical lithium ion battery cells used in notebook computer battery packs from about April 2007 until about September 2008. Cylindrical lithium ion battery cells are rechargeable batteries that are often incorporated in groups into more powerful battery packs commonly used to power electronic devices.

According to the charges, SANYO, LG Chem and their co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and conversations to price cylindrical lithium ion battery cells for use in notebook computer battery packs to customers at predetermined levels and issuing price quotations to customers in accordance with those agreements. The department also said that SANYO, LG Chem and their co-conspirators collected and exchanged information for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices and took steps to conceal the conspiracy.

Panasonic, SANYO and LG Chem are each charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine for the company may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Today’s charges arose from an ongoing investigation in the cylindrical lithium ion battery cells industry being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI in San Francisco as well as an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by each of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI. Today’s automotive parts charges were brought by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the FBI’s Detroit Field Office, with the assistance of the FBI headquarters’ International Corruption Unit. Anyone with information on price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct related to other products in the automotive parts industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258, visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html or call the FBI’s Detroit Field Office at 313-965-2323. Anyone with information concerning illegal or anticompetitive conduct in the battery industry is urged to call the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

 

Panasonic Execs Charged In Price-Fixing Sting

By Kaitlin Ugolik

Law360, New York — A grand jury in Michigan on Tuesday indicted former executives of Panasonic Corp., Whirlpool Corp. and Tecumseh Products Co. for their alleged participation in an international refrigerant compressor price-fixing scheme.

The indictment is the first in an ongoing investigation by the U .S. Department of Justice into price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices in the worldwide refrigerant compressor market.

“Cracking down on international price-fixing cartels has been, and will continue to be, among the most significant priorities for the Antitrust Division,” Sharis Pozen, Special Investigator, said.

FBI Probing Kickbacks By Panasonic Supplier

By

The FBI said this week federal prosecutors charged William McMahon, CEO and co-owner of Trustin Technology, and Sean Volin, who was a manager for Pansonic Corp. of North America at its Secaucus, N.J., office, with wire fraud. McMahon paid kickbacks to Volin to ensure his company would continue to receive contracts from Panasonic that brought tens of millions of dollars to the company, the FBI said in a statement.

 

Tell Sony and Panasonic: Stop Poisoning Tijuana’s Workers!

Marisa Natale 

I am writing to address the manufacturing practices of international corporations in Mexico, especially Tijuana. The workers in their plants are treated inhumanely, and they are destroying the communities around their factories. They are able to escape fair treatment of their workers and responsible chemical use by moving their manufacturing to Mexico – out of sight and out of mind of their customers. The fact that any company would be so deliberately manipulative is disgusting and unbelievable.

            The chemicals the workers are constantly exposed to are killing them – they are inhaling lead, burning their skin with chemical adhesives and giving birth to children with defects. They have sores and infections in their lungs and organs. They are going to die young – their children are living in the company waste and filth.

They are offered no rights, no protection, and no fair treatment. To make matters worse, they do not get a reprieve at home. The worker communities surrounding the plants are wastelands of corporate footprints. The rivers run with chemicals – the rivers that serve as drinking, cooking and washing water for the inhabitants. The ground is saturated with dangerous and harmful substances used in their factories. When the rains run, the polluted rivers overrun into people’s homes and they must cross them on foot simply to get to work, where they are exposed to even more chemicals.

They are not responsible for the workers’ living conditions. They are not responsible for downed power lines, education issues or lack of proper homes. However, nothing I have mentioned in this petition is beyond their control. They can stop the use of dangerous and deadly chemicals in factories. They can clean up their act. They can stop letting their chemicals run off into the workers’ water supplies, homes and bodies. They can hire an environmental task force to clean up the communities that they have ruined, which would create legitimate jobs. They can hire engineers to figure out solutions to replace the deadly chemicals with harmless ones that still enable them to produce a high-quality product.

Sony and Panasonic are committed to serving their customers with dignity and respect – but their employees deserve to be treated in the same way. Until Sony and Panasonic change their production practices and clean up the communities they have ruined, I am instituting a boycott of their products.  This is unacceptable and will not be allowed to continue – as free Americans we vote with our dollars and we cannot choose to vote for their companies until change happens.

 

So when you buy a piece of electronic equipment, whether it is a television or a camera cable, to a microwave or a toaster, LOOK FOR THE SONY/PANASONIC LABEL. Sony brands many of its products clearly, but you may have to look carefully for the Panasonic name. Don’t allow this to continue. If the profit margins aren’t working, Panasonic and Sony will have to change their manufacturing practices, and we have to make it hurt where it counts for them to listen. Aim high! Invite your friends! Sign away! We want as many thousands of signatures as possible!

 

Letter to

Panasonic Communications

We are writing to you to address your manufacturing practices in Mexico, especially Tijuana. The workers in your plants are treated inhumanely, and you are destroying the communities around your factories. You are able to escape fair treatment of your workers and responsible chemical use by moving your manufacturing to Mexico – out

Read more

Panasonic’s Toxic Factories Take Toll On China’s Labor Force

 

 

By

Jane Spencer and

Juliet Ye

Over the holidays, millions of American children received Chinese-made toys powered by cadmium batteries.

Cadmium batteries are safe to use. They are also cheap, saving American parents about $1.50 on the average toy, compared with pricier batteries.

But cadmium batteries can be hazardous to make. In southern China, Wang Fengping worked for years in plants that produced cadmium batteries for the likes of Mattel Inc., Toys “R” Us Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Like hundreds of her colleagues, Ms. Wang regularly inhaled the toxic red cadmium dust that filled the air in the plant.

Now, at 45, Ms. Wang is often too weak to walk. Her kidneys have failed, and her doctors have identified cadmium poisoning as the likely culprit. About 400 other workers at her former employer, Hong Kong-based GP Batteries International Ltd., have been found to harbor unsafe levels of cadmium, a toxic metal like mercury and lead that can cause kidney failure, lung cancer and bone disease.

In recent months, Americans have discovered the dark side of their reliance on cheap Chinese goods. From lead-tainted toys to contaminated pet food, the safety of Chinese products is suddenly an American obsession.

But in China, workers making goods for American consumers have long borne the brunt of a global manufacturing system that puts cost cutting ahead of safety. The search for cheaper production means dirty industries are migrating to countries with few worker protections and lenient regulatory environments.

The nickel-cadmium battery illustrates this trend. Once widely manufactured in the West, the batteries are now largely made in China, where the industry is sickening workers and poisoning the soil and water.

Now, some regulators and companies are taking action. This year, the European Union is banning the sale of nearly all cadmium batteries. A few companies, including Hasbro Inc., are eschewing the battery.

Yet cadmium batteries, a technology dating back to 1899, continue to represent 3% of total battery sales, and are still widely used in toys, power tools, cordless phones and other gadgets sold in the U.S. Besides being inexpensive, they can provide a quick surge of power.

The near-disappearance of the American cadmium-battery industry can be understood from a visit to an overgrown field in Cold Spring, N.Y. Here, the Marathon Battery factory churned out nickel-cadmium batteries for the U.S. military for three decades. After the plant was shuttered in 1979, the cadmium-laden ground became one of the nation’s highest-profile superfund sites, sparking a $130 million clean-up and a class-action lawsuit by nearby residents that was settled for millions of dollars in 1998.

Poisoned Words

Edited excerpts from Ms. Wang’s blog, written in Chinese and translated by The Wall Street Journal. Click on the image to go to the blog itself.

ENLARGE

  • From the blog’s undated introduction
    Hello friends! Do you want to know how Gold Peak Battery treats its cadmium-poisoned employees? Would you like to hear a personal account from a victim of workplace cadmium poisoning? Panasonic Battery and past and present battery factory workers, would you like to know more specific facts? Then please read my blog, and let’s unite in concern for cadmium poisoning!
  • Nov. 20, 2007 — Global warming, colder heart
    It was hard to get up to eat a bit of breakfast, my head hurt and my whole body felt discomfort, but finally I decided to go outside. Everyone is talking about global warming, temperatures are rising, but today I felt the wind was pretty strong and the temperature colder than yesterday. I felt as if I was sleepwalking through unfamiliar streets. After a while, I gathered my thoughts and returned home.
  • Nov. 11, 2007 — The visible and the invisible
    Our society is full of love; if a person gets into trouble, others will help. But when it comes to occupational diseases — a hidden killer — that cannot be seen, I’m afraid that it’s very difficult for those without personal experience to understand. Most workers have limited knowledge, ultimately you don’t know how many hidden killers are in your workplace. The boss knows, but he won’t tell you!
  • Nov. 11, 2007 — First application for an occupational illness diagnosis
    My name is Wang Fengping. I am an engineer in the engineering department of the Gold Peak Battery Factory in Huizhou city, Guandong province. I was born in May 1962 and began work at Gold Peak on August 1, 1995. From that date until December 2005, I was continuously engaged in the production and follow-up design of manufacturing equipment and machinery. This entry includes an account of all of Ms. Wang’s jobs, workplaces, names of co-workers, and whether those employees had symptoms similar to Ms. Wang’s.
  • Nov, 7, 2007 — Poem, in Chinese and English
    “It is my prayer, it is my longing, that we may pass from this life together / a longing which shall never perish from the earth, / but shall have place in the heart of every wife that loves, / until the end of the time; and it shall be called by my name.”

As the U.S. and other Western nations tightened their regulation of cadmium, production of nickel-cadmium batteries moved to less-developed countries, most of it eventually winding up in China. “Everything was transferred to China because no one wanted to deal with the waste from cadmium,” says Josef Daniel-Ivad, vice president for research and development at Pure Energy Visions, an Ontario battery company.

Today, only two American companies still make cadmium batteries, and they specialize in high-end batteries for use in equipment such as aircraft engines. U.S. laws require them to follow strict guidelines on worker safety and environmental protection.

In China, government standards on cadmium exposure are in line with those endorsed by the World Health Organization. And without question, there are safe cadmium plants in China.

But having rules and enforcing them are two different things. China has dozens of so-called “hot spots” where the cadmium contamination is similar to levels at U.S. superfund sites. More that 10% of China’s arable land is contaminated with heavy metals such as cadmium, according to the State Environmental Protection Agency, and the metals are entering China’s food supply. At least a dozen academic studies in the past two years have found unsafe levels of cadmium in fruit and vegetables grown in Chinese soil. In a study published last year, researchers at the Guangdong Institute of Ecology found excessive levels of cadmium in Chinese cabbage grown in Foshan. The battery industry isn’t the only source of environmental cadmium contamination in China, but it is a major contributor.

Often, these risks extend to workers. Last year, at least 20 workers at a Panasonic Corp. cadmium-battery plant in Wuxi were found to have elevated levels of the toxin, and two were diagnosed as poisoned. In 2005, 1,000 workers at Huanyu Power Source Co., based in Xinxiang, Henan, were also found with cadmium exposure. Both Panasonic and Huanyu say they have taken care of the affected workers, providing health care and compensation exceeding the requirements of Chinese law.

Yet these findings didn’t necessarily result from corporate or government vigilance. The Panasonic-plant contamination, for instance, came to light after some workers watched a television show about cadmium poisoning — and got themselves tested.

Protest about contamination at the GP plants has persisted in part because of the determination of Ms. Wang, a GP engineer, to publicize the matter.

Born into a relatively well-off family, Ms. Wang attended university and obtained an engineering degree before hiring on at a newly opened GP factory in the southern Chinese city of Huizhou, a fast-growing center of China’s electronics industry. The year was 1995, and GP Batteries, a Singapore-listed unit of Hong Kong-listed Gold Peak Industries (Holdings) Ltd. Huizhou, was a prestigious employer, eventually becoming one of the largest makers of nickel-cadmium batteries in China.

As a machine designer, Ms. Wang worked in the management offices of a walled compound of pink-tiled buildings where some 1,500 women in matching blue smocks worked 12-hour days assembling nickel-cadmium battery packs for toys and other products. GP’s clients eventually came to include dozens of U.S. companies including Energizer Battery Co., Proctor & Gamble Co.’s Duracell, Spectrum Brands Inc.’s Ray-O-Vac, Hasbro, Mattel, Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us.

For years, factory workers complained about illnesses — nausea, hair loss and exhaustion, for instance. But GP management says it wasn’t aware of the extent of the cadmium danger. “We knew it was dangerous, but we thought that if it was handled in a reasonable manner you should be OK,” says Henry Leung, chief operating officer of GP Batteries. “This is all new for China.”

At the factory, Ms. Wang spent the bulk of her time in an office, quietly sketching machine designs. But between 2002 and 2004, she spent long hours in production areas, inhaling cadmium dust, according to a lawsuit filed by Ms. Wang against the factory.

In 2003, some sick workers paid for their own tests at an occupational-disease hospital and learned they had elevated cadmium levels. The news touched off panic on the factory floor, and workers demanded the company pay for cadmium tests. Hundreds of workers eventually went on strike.

GP says it began paying for cadmium checkups in mid-2004, as soon as the region set up facilities that could handle large volumes of cadmium testing. In the initial tests, 177 workers showed levels of cadmium above China’s safe-exposure limit, and two qualified as poisoned. Dozens were immediately hospitalized.

Cadmium affects people in radically different ways, so many GP workers with elevated levels aren’t sick, but may become so in the years ahead.

Roughly 900 workers quit their jobs, and GP offered cadmium-affected workers one-time exit compensation starting at about $500. GP says the average package was $2,100. Many workers say the compensation failed to cover their medical bills.

GP says it has paid out more than $1 million in compensation and medical care for affected workers and has exceeded the legal requirements. “We want to take care of workers,” says GP’s Mr. Leung, but he says some workers are feigning sickness to obtain money. “They want to be recorded as poisoned, so people will keep giving them compensation,” he says.

Ms. Wang watched on the sidelines as the bitter saga unfolded at her factory. During her nine years at the factory, she rarely had contact with rank-and-file workers, and her $540 weekly salary was nearly triple what they earned. While other workers ate in a cafeteria, Ms. Wang sat in a manager’s dining room with table cloths and porcelain dishes.

But in October of 2004, when GP first paid for companywide cadmium tests, Ms. Wang’s result came back showing cadmium levels above the safe-exposure limit set by the Chinese government. However, to qualify for continuing monitoring, China’s occupational-disease laws require two consecutive positive tests. A second test showed Ms. Wang’s cadmium level in the normal range, disqualifying her for assistance.

Three occupational-medicine doctors — in London, Sweden and the U.S. — who reviewed Ms. Wang’s medical records for The Wall Street Journal say her initial test showed clear indications of kidney damage, a marker of possible cadmium poisoning.

“There’s no doubt that in 2004, she had smoking-gun-type indicators of kidney damage, and in a person who works with cadmium, that should not be ignored,” says Dr. Arch Carson, an expert in occupational medicine and environmental sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

GP says it relies on medical experts at government-run occupational-disease hospitals in the nearby city of Guangzhou to determine if workers required monitoring.

Having no symptoms, Ms. Wang continued playing badminton and jogging. But in early 2006, she began to feel extremely weak, and suffered headaches. Her skin began to age rapidly, and her eyes became sunken hollows. In November 2006, Ms. Wang was diagnosed at a local hospital with chronic renal failure that doctors said would likely shorten her life.

On Dec. 25, 2006, Ms. Wang approached GP management with news of her diagnosis. She requested that GP send her to the occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou, which has facilities for treating cadmium exposure.

ENLARGE

A stalemate ensued. The company says it was willing to help, but that Ms. Wang refused to follow local legal procedures. Local laws required that Ms. Wang visit a local hospital first, in order to be referred to the main occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou. The company says Ms. Wang demanded they send her directly to the Guangzhou hospital, in violation of regulations.

In May, Ms. Wang sued the factory for $400,000 in compensation and medical care. To build her case, Ms. Wang used her access to company computers to download files that showed other workers in her department were exposed to cadmium. GP says there is no evidence that Ms. Wang’s illness is related to cadmium, and doctors at the Guangzhou Occupational Disease Hospital say her kidney failure doesn’t meet the criteria for occupational disease.

By last summer, Ms. Wang’s health was failing. According to medical records from a hospital in Nanjing, she was admitted with a fever and a respiratory infection. Doctors there treated her for chronic renal failure, and listed “long-term exposure to cadmium-containing substances” as a possible cause, according to her medical records.

As workers, including Ms. Wang, sought to bring attention to the issue, a public-relations battle erupted. In 2005, GP filed a lawsuit against labor-rights groups representing the workers, charging libel. The case is moving through Hong Kong courts.

On their way to an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter in August, Ms. Wang and several colleagues were pulled over by police and detained for nearly 13 hours in a Huizhou police station, according to several sources familiar with the incident. A person present at the Huizhou police station says the workers were told they would be charged with treason if they spoke to the media again. The Huizhou government says its police detained no battery workers.

Ms. Wang stopped answering her cellphone after the incident with the Huizhou police. But she began writing a blog to advise victims of cadmium poisoning. A recent post, in Chinese, said, “Basically, occupational disease could be prevented but it costs money. Money is the gold of bosses. And for them, the lives of workers are worthless.”

After revelations of its cadmium-battery problems arose, GP quit making them at its plants, and now outsources that production to independent factories in China.

In America, five years after Hasbro stopped using nickel-cadmium batteries, Mattel and Toys “R” Us are yet to follow suit, but say they are exploring alternatives. Wal-Mart no longer purchases cadmium batteries from GP but declined to comment on whether it still uses them in its products.

Mattel says cadmium batteries have some performance advantages over alternatives, such as a better ability to retain a charge when not used for long periods.

—Sky Canaves in Hong Kong contributed to this article.

Panasonic ‘covered up’ poisoning at battery factory, report claims

By Texyt Staff – Sat, 04/28/2007 – 11:51.

Panasonic hid evidence that workers were poisoned at a battery factory, a report in a Chinese newspaper claims. Even pregnant women were not warned they might have been exposed to high levels of Cadmium, a potentially lethal heavy metal, the report alleges, quoting a manager who says he was laid off when he threatened to turn whistleblower.

The allegations are being made by a former human resources manager according to an article in the 21st Century Economic Report, a newspaper published by China’s respected Southern Daily Group (Linked sites are in Chinese).

panasonic_china_wuxi_battery_factory Panasonic has not yet responded to a request for comment on the case, which is claimed to have taken place over the past three years at a factory (photo) manufacturing rechargeable Nickel-Cadmium batteries in Wuxi, north of Shanghai.

Exposure to even tiny amounts of Cadmium is known to increase the risk of cancer and can lead to a variety of crippling and potentially-fatal health conditions.

‘Health reports buried’, claim

The newspaper’s source, named as ex-human resources manager, Pan Wei, claims he was hired by the company in October 2006. Later that same month, he told reporters, the company doctor gave him safety reports on Cadmium exposure to sign.

The original health tests showed that ten staff had Cadmium levels above safety limits, Mr. Pan said. However, an overall safety report stated that no staff had any such problem.

The doctor told Pan that this was normal procedure, and staff with dangerous Cadmium exposure were rotated to different work until their health reports improved, the ex-manager alleges.

Continued for three years?

According to the newspaper article: “Pan realized that since 2003, the company has handled the staff health examination every year, and every year the examination says all the staff have no problem, so none of the staff have been notified of the real poisonous Cadmium level”

The story continues: “The doctor said, this is our normal procedure. The director of the factory has signed his name, and higher people above have signed their names too. So you sign your name and there will be no problem”

Pregnant workers affected, report claims

panasonic china battery brands Some workers had left the factory to work at other jobs where they might be exposed to Cadmium poisoning, without realizing they already had dangerous levels of Cadmium in their bodies, Pan alleges. In addition, he says, some of those affected were pregnant.

Pan claims he was laid off after he demanded executives warn these workers of the risk. Panasonic informed him he had not performed satisfactorily during his probationary employment period, he says.

Panasonic is a trading name of Japan’s giant Matsushita Electric Industrial group. The company has not yet responded to a request for comment on this case.

Public perception

Leading Japanese firms such as Matsushita are major investors in Chinese manufacturing. However, Chinese people have mixed perceptions about Japan. While they admire the country’s advanced economy and culture, they also tend to believe that Japan has abused China in the past, particularly during the Second World War, and has failed to apologize adequately.

This negative perception has been fed by a heavy diet of official anti-Japanese propaganda, including school text books which harp upon Japan’s historical misdeeds.

In this environment, Japanese firms operating in China are highly sensitive to negative publicity which might combine with smouldering anti-Japanese sentiment to ignite a firestorm of criticism.

Update April 29: ‘ The website of the Wuxi battery factory was taken offline yesterday’ – removed this line as the website was only taken offline temporarily and is currently accessible with no obvious changes from the previous version – thanks to anonymous commenter below.

 

Red Dust – documentary on cadmium poisoning in Chinese women battery workers for Tesla Cars

Aug 06, 2010

Red Dust, a documentary directed by Karin Mak, chronicles the struggle for justice by women workers in China who have been poisoned by cadmium while manufacturing nickel-cadmium batteries.

Click here to view the trailer.

Cadmium has been in the international and USA news lately as found in jewellery and McDonald’s Shrek glasses. However, the majority of cadmium is used for production of nickel-cadmium batteries, a type of rechargeable battery.

Cadmium is a very toxic heavy metal and the brave women in the film live with its debilitating effects in addition to risking their safety in their fight for justice. It covers themes of workers’ rights, globalization, occupational safety and health, China’s economic development and women’s rights.
Red cadmium dust drifted freely in China’s nickel-cadmium battery factories owned and operated by GP BATTERIES (GP), one of the world’s top battery manufacturers. Ren, a migrant worker originally from Sichuan, suffers from frequent headaches and breathing difficulties. If untreated, the cadmium poisoning can lead to kidney failure, cancer, and even death.

Red Dust tells an unexamined side of China’s economic development: the resistance, courage, and hope of workers battling occupational disease, demanding justice from the local government and global capital. Chinese migrant workers are deemed disposable by factory owners and are stereotypically viewed as quiet and passive victims. However, Ren and other GP workers (Min, Fu, and Wu) fight back. Labor issues are very sensitive in China, and workers who publicly discuss their struggles do so at great risk. The audience discovers along with the filmmaker, a Chinese American, the horrors of the global assembly line.

This documentary is about women who are the engine of the global economy. Although the film takes place in China, the characters’ experiences are universal to workers on the margins around the world, where poverty, migration, and workplace hazards are common realities.
The film is 20 minutes, in Mandarin and Sichuanhua, with English subtitles.

What is Cadmium Poisoning?
Cadmium (cd) is a heavy metal used primarily in the production of nickel-cadmium batteries. Workers exposed to cadmium can suffer symptoms such as memory loss, dizziness, headaches, lack of strength, and pain in the back and limbs. In 2006, the European Union banned cadmium in electronics due to its extremely toxic properties.

Workers who suffer from cadmium poisoning may not look sick, and serious health issues may take several years to arise. Once cadmium enters the body, it takes between seven to thirty years for the body to flush it out, which is particularly harmful for the kidneys. Cadmium poisoning has also been linked to kidney failure and cancer. The effects of cadmium poisoning can be fatal. In 2006, Fu Hong Qin, a co-worker of the women featured in RED DUST, died from kidney failure. She had worked at a GP BATTERIES factory for 2 years.

Unsafe workplaces are not uncommon in China. According to the country’s State Administration for Work Safety (SAWS) 2004 report, China has the world’s highest number of occupational disease victims and deaths resulting from occupational diseases.

Click here to read more.
The director

Karin T Mak was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri, USA to immigrants originally from Hong Kong. She spent several years on immigrant and workers’ rights campaigns in California. In 2003, she received the prestigious New Voices Fellowship to work with Sweatshop Watch, a Los Angeles-based non-profit educating the public about globalization. Mak is winner of the 2008 Roy W. Dean LA Film Grant.

Panasonic also face issue like hiding evidence that workers were poisoned at a battery factory in China . During that time, Panasonic are manufacturing rechargeable Nickel-Cadmium batteries in Wuxi, north of Shanghai. The worker were not warned when they have been exposed to high level of Cadmium, a potentially lethal heavy metal that can lead to a variety of crippling and potentially-fatal health conditions thus increasing the risk of death

There are thousands of news articles disclosing severe crimes, lies and corruption by Panasonic. Check it our for yourself…

TESLA Gigafactory found to be tax and campaign finance kick-back scam

The Gigafactory: Death In The Desert

The Gigafactory: Death In The Desert

(Click Here For PDF) This report presented to the FBI, The GAO, The EPA and the U.S. Congress

When reporter Andy Barron was attacked and beat-up, by Elon Musk’s hench-men, at the construction site for the Nevada Tesla “Gigafactory”, the toxic secret about Tesla’s dirty plans started to unravel.

Was the death of Gary D. Conley, the Cleantech CEO found with a bullet in his head, in the scrub brush behind the Air Force base, also connected to this? Conley blew the whistle on side-by-side federal funding scammers Solyndra (Raided by the FBI) and Tesla.

There are quite a large number of beat-up, harassed and dead bodies in this tale!

To understand why a “green car company” might go to such lengths, you need to go to the drug-store and buy a big sponge and a little bottle of black India ink.

Get a one inch, or thicker, sponge that is super dry, (Don’t use one of those slightly moist kinds). Try to find one about 4 inches by 6 inches.

Now take a dinner plate and pour about a quarter inch of ink on it.

Now drop the perfectly dry sponge on top of the ink and OBSERVE!

The black stain starts at the bottom of the sponge and creeps UP, through the whole sponge, until the entire sponge is black. That was interesting but…wait, something isn’t right, you say to yourself…GRAVITY! Huh?

Yes, you just watched something seem to “defy gravity”. A material, on it’s own, seemed to go up, and left and right, against the flow of gravity. But, wait, that’s not what you were taught in school!

That plate full of black goo is the Tesla Gigafactory and it’s run-off, that dry sponge 500 miles of the dry desert soil of Nevada. The black goo, itself, is one of the most lethal cocktails of chemicals that mankind has ever attempted to commercialize. You just watched a nightmare unfold. That is the secret buried deep in the Nevada desert. It isn’t aliens and Area 51. It is toxic hell!

The reason the Tesla Gigafactory is hidden behind sand-swept berms in the desert is because they don’t want you to notice it. They want it to deliver it’s toxic package to the soil, air and workers of Nevada in a tidy, hidden package.

Those toxins can move through hundreds and hundreds of miles of the air.

Those toxins can move DOWN through miles and miles of soil and then SIDEWAYS, in every direction, for over 500 miles! Yes, solid soil has toxic rivers that creep through it, and never stop spreading. Tesla is a Death Factory.

In China and other parts of Asia, the same kind of battery factories have killed thousands of workers, poisoned hundreds of towns and inflicted tens of thousands of people with deadly diseases and mutated babies. Elon Musk and Harry Reid knew that these dangers existed by they wanted the tens of millions of dollars in profit, that they plan to make off of this factory.

All of the current Tesla batteries and every future planned Tesla batteries using chemicals which are proven, without question, and by the U.S. Government, to be deadly. When mixed together they become worse. While mixing them together, as a worker, they kill you in an amazing number of ways. This is not speculation. Read the federal MSDS sheets on each chemical and combination of chemicals.

Look at what happens to a worker even 100 feet from the dust created by the powders used in the batteries. Those powders can travel to Reno and Las Vegas, on the wind, in minutes.

Elon Musk says: “Don’t worry”, walk away, nothing to see here. He says that the only immediate neighbors are “funky whorehouses”, why worry? Know will care about a few poisoned hookers. He lies.

The toxic air and water from the Tesla Gigafactory will reach all of Nevada and Utah and California and keep on going.

Green advocates wring their hands at “Climate deniers” and cry that “Those who ignore scientific facts and historical documentation of damage to humans should be put in jail!”

In the case of the Tesla Gigafactory, The U.S. Government, and every major University has released deeply peer-reviewed scientific proof that Tesla’s battery chemicals explode, cause fires, kill, cause cancer, kill towns, poison crops, travel vast distances in the air and soil, cause brain damage, cause liver damage and mutate the fetus. The indisputable historical facts about these factories in China and Southeast Asia has proven that those dangers always happen.

The scientific proof is rock-solid. To allow the corrupt Tesla operation to continue is a crime against humanity. Elon Musk, and his partners, may even kill to hide this trillion dollar lethal secret.

The Technical Background:

Let’s begin by looking closely at the soil. Because chemical transport, interactions and transformations occur in soil, soil composition is important in water and chemical movement. Soils are composed of three phases; solid, liquid and gas. The solid phase includes primary particles of sand, silt, and clay, organic matter, and rocks and minerals too large to be classified as sand. Soil water is the liquid phase, and air is the gaseous phase. Water and air fill the void space in soils. The amount of air and water in the void space influences microbial activity, water movement and chemical movement in soils. In saturated soils, the void space is filled with water.

Although saturated flow conditions may occur, under prolonged saturation, anaerobic processes begin to prevail. As water cycles through the environment, it carries dissolved Tesla chemicals. Water movement is generally the most important process that transports chemicals through soil.

Tesla’s manufacturing activities contribute to chemicals in water and soils. These chemicals may come from Tesla’s cars, factory transport trucks, applied compounds, waste products, or accidental spills. Specific examples include sewage, wastes, cleaning processing wastes, industrial chemicals, dry cleaning solvents, landfill leachate, fuel, motor oil and factory equipment cleaning products. Chemicals are seldom put in water to intentionally degrade water quality. Rather, as water moves from the soil surface to groundwater (or surface water bodies) it contacts chemicals in the soil and dissolves some of them.

The water carries those dissolved chemicals with it as it moves. The major processes that move chemicals through soil are diffusion, convection and hydrodynamic dispersion.

Diffusion

Diffusion is the movement of Tesla’s toxic chemicals from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Diffusion occurs due to the random movement of chemical molecules. This motion is due to nonuniform, random collisions of molecules. An example may help us visualize this concept. The billiard balls act as individual molecules would, by distributing themselves more evenly within the available space.

Since the number of collisions tends to be greater where many billiard balls are located, the collisions tend to move a ball away from other balls. Similarly, molecular collisions result in molecules moving from regions of high concentrations to regions of low concentrations. Compared with other transport processes, diffusion is a relatively slow process. You can see an example of gaseous diffusion utilizing a glass tube with cotton batting stuffed in both ends. Hydrochloric acid is added to one end of the tube, while the opposite end receives ammonium hydroxide. Both substances produce gases that diffuse from the ends of the tube toward the middle. Where the two gases meet, they react chemically producing ammonium chloride, visible as the white powder being formed at the location where the gases meet. Because diffusion is slow compared to chemical transport in convecting water, diffusion is not readily apparent when viewing water and chemicals moving through soil.

Convection

Convection is fluid motion caused by external forces. An example of convection is water flowing along a stream bed. This flow occurs when water moves from higher elevation to lower elevation. This flow is due to a difference in energy levels at the two elevations. Water at the higher elevation (point A) has a greater potential energy than water at the lower elevation (point B). This potential energy difference causes the water to move from point A to point B. When the potential energy difference is large and occurs over a short distance, the water moves quickly. We see this in rapidly flowing surface runoff water, streams and waterfalls. When the gradient of the soil surface elevation is small, the flow of water down a stream is fairly slow. Movement of water and chemicals in soil occurs due to differences in the potential energy of water in the soil. The potential energy level is usually due to gravity and attractive forces associated with small pores between soil particles.

In a demonstration, the potential energy of soil water is much larger in the wet soil near the soil surface than it is in the dry soil below. As infiltration begins, the distance between the soil surface and

underlying dry soil is small, so the soil water potential energy gradient is relatively large. Consequently, water moves fairly rapidly into and through the soil. Later, when the same soil is wetted to a much deeper depth, the distance between the soil surface and underlying dry soil is larger. The soil water potential gradient is now much smaller. Consequently, water moves into and through the soil much more slowly.

Whether it moves rapidly or slowly, this flow of soil water is called convection. The transport of chemicals in soil water is called advection.

Hydrodynamic Dispersion

When water moves through soil, it travels around soil particles and rocks, following flow paths that

act like a bundle of capillary tubes of different lengths. Water and chemicals following these tortuous paths create a phenomenon called hydrodynamic dispersion. (1) Two water molecules may follow different flow paths, so the actual distances they travel may be quite different. So, they may arrive at the same destination at substantially different times. (2) Since the actual water flow paths in most soils must curve around solid soil particles and air space, water and dissolved chemicals follow a tortuous path. This demonstration helps us see how the length of the flow path affects the arrival time of water and chemicals. The two tubes represent two different flow paths water may take when leaving point (A). Both tubes begin at the same point, but one is fairly short, and the water leaving (A) arrives at (B) quickly. The second tube curves frequently, creating a tortuus path for the water to follow. Consequently, the distance water must travel to arrive at point B is greater if it travels through the tube

on the left. Saturated flow through soil is similar to flow through different length tubes. Therefore, chemicals entering the soil at the same time arrive at a given depth at different times. When a chemical first appears at a point below the soil surface, its concentration in the soil water will be less than the concentration at which the chemical was first applied. This is because of dilution, which occurs independently from any interaction of the chemical with soil particles.

This model helps us begin to understand some of the important concepts of how water and chemicals

move through soil. Water movement in real soil is not so ideal, however. Soils are not uniform in texture or structure; or in the distribution of their organic matter. Some pore spaces between soil particles may be blocked, SLOWING water and chemical movement. Large cracks, animal burrows and former root channels may exist which allow rapid movement of water and dissolved chemicals.

When water and dissolved chemicals move in a non-uniform manner through soil, the movement is often called preferential flow. Soil layers of differing textures and densities can also cause the flow of water and chemicals to vary.

Interactions

Chemical characteristics influence the ability of substances to be transported. Characteristics of particu-

lar interest include solubility, sorption and density. Chemicals that are more soluble at the soil’s pH tend to move more easily with water than chemicals that are less water soluble. In contrast, chemicals with lower water solubilities will tend to attach to clay particles and organic matter near the soil surface. Some of these will form chemical precipitates. If soil particles are moved by water or wind erosion, attached chemicals will move with them. In this way, chemicals are carried across the soil surface away from their point of application, and sometimes into surface water. Chemicals that are only slightly water soluble can still reach surface or ground waters. However, their rates of movement will tend to be slowed through interactions with soil particles.

Adsorption often refers to the process where molecules are attracted to the surface of soil particles.

True adsorption occurs when molecular layers form on a soil particle surface. When molecules commingle with another substance, we refer to the process as absorption. Most soils absorb water and chemicals, although in amounts much less than those adsorbed. In practice, it is difficult to distinguish between absorption, adsorption and other processes. Desorption is the process by which molecules are

detached from the surface of soil particles. Adsorption and desorption usually occur simultaneously. Molecules and ions are continually transferred between the soil solution and soil particle surface.

Since the specific process is difficult to measure, the more general term, sorption, can be used to describe how a chemical is held in the soil. Clay particles and organic matter are the most chemically active soil solids. They are the major soil components to which chemicals sorb. Most chemicals are subject to forces of sorption. Examples include simple inorganic ions such as calcium, sodium, and ammonium. Complex organic chemicals such as humus, many pesticides and industrial solvents are also sorbed onto soil. Chemicals such as phosphorus, and similar Tesla chemicals, that are strongly

sorbed to soil particles near the surface of most soils will tend to contaminate surface water if erosion is a problem.

Chemicals, such as nitrate, that are more water soluble and less strongly sorbed to soil particles, will

tend to contaminate ground water if rainfall or irrigation exceeds plant water use. Positively charged ions (called cations) are attracted to a negatively charged site on clay or organic particles. The movement of cations between clay or organic particles and the surrounding soil water is called cation exchange. It is an important process. It controls the mobility of many chemicals through the soil profile. Cation exchange is seldom observed with most organic chemicals that might be added to the soil, because few organic chemicals carry positive charges at a normal soil pH. However, some examples do exist. The pesticides Paraquat and Diquat are examples of cationic pesticides that can be sorbed onto soil particles through cation exchange. A number of other bonding mechanisms exist by

which organic compounds are sorbed to soil surfaces.

For any given Tesla manufacturing or cleaning compound (organic or inorganic), it is likely that a combination of mechanisms is responsible for sorption onto soil. Whatever the mechanism, soil organic matter is the principal sorbent for many nonionic organic chemicals. It is important to know a particular chemical’s attraction to organic matter, and the amount of organic matter available in a particular soil.

Then one can estimate the leaching potential of various chemicals used in a management system.

Many demonstrations show two chemicals, one is sorbed to the soil, the other is not. A yellow solution, like nitrate, is not sorbed to the soil, while a red, like ammonium, is sorbed. Because it is not

sorbed, the yellow solution reaches the bottom of the soil column fairly rapidly, while the red solution is sorbed to the soil surface, restricting its downward movement. It should be noted that while the soil retains red solution, the soil does not prevent it from moving downward. The soil merely slows the rate of the red dye movement, relative to the rate of the water movement. Obviously, the same amount of water moving through the soil would affect the depth of movement of these two chemicals quite differently. Chemicals applied to land surfaces are not the only source of contaminants affecting ground and surface waters. Fluids that leak from underground storage tanks can also move to ground water, and can move to nearby surface water. Frequently such chemicals do not mix with water. Their transport is less predictable than transport of chemicals that are more soluble in water. One interesting aspect of chemical transport involves whether chemicals are more or less dense than water. This demonstration shows a chemical developing fingers because it is more dense than water. These fingers of concentrated chemical sink to the bottom of the water column before they appreciably mix with the water. Spilled chemicals that are more dense than water will tend to sink to the lower depths of a ground water aquifer.

Chemicals that are less dense than water (for example, gasoline) will tend to float near the top of a

ground water aquifer. Without significant mixing due to groundwater movement, chemicals that are ap-

proximately the same density as water tend to remain near the top of a groundwater aquifer. So, chemical sorption to soil particles, chemical solubility and chemical density all affect the rate of

chemical transport.

Transformation

Tesla chemicals undergo numerous transformations in both soil and water. Hydrolysis, photolysis, oxidation, and reduction are some of the most common transformations. Hydrolysis is the cleavage of molecules by water, and is one of the most important reactions in breaking down pesticides. Hydrolysis can occur in the soil with or without microorganisms. Photolysis is the process where ultraviolet or visible light supplies the energy for decomposition of chemical compounds. Photolysis can be a very important chemical transformation process. Oxidation is the process where a chemical loses

electrons, such as rust forming on iron. Reduction is the process where a chemical gains electrons. Reduction can be a non-biological process, or a biological process as in anaerobic sewage treatment.

The transformation frequently simplifies the chemical nature of the substance. Degradates or metabolites are the terms used for products transformed from the original chemical.

These products may be sorbed to soil more or less strongly than the original compounds. They may

also be more or less hazardous than the original compound. For example, Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide commonly used both in agriculture and in and around commercial and private residences. Soil bacteria may chemically convert Malathion into a closely related compound called Malaoxon, which is more toxic than the Malathion itself.

One demonstration shows how chemical transformations can occur in soils. The rate at which such

transformation occurs depends upon the location of the chemical in the soil. If a transformation is biological, and it is enhanced by aerobic conditions, it is likely to occur more rapidly near the soil surface. The soil surface has more nutrients and oxygen available for microorganisms to grow. One demonstration also shows that two different chemicals, represented by red and yellow colors, may be transformed at different rates. The red dye is rapidly degraded and becomes colorless, while the yellow dye is only slightly degraded during this demonstration. For transformations that involve organic chemicals, such as most pesticides, we use the term half-life in discussing the rate of transformation. This simply describes the length of time required to transform 50% of the existing chemical. The amount of chemical remaining reflects an exponential decrease over time, since after one half-life time period, 50% of the original chemical remains. After two half-life time periods, 25% of the original chemical remains. After three half-life time periods, 12.5% of the original chemical remains, and so forth. The “model” used to describe the disappearance of the original chemical over time creates the perception that: (1) the chemical never is completely transformed, and (2) the transformation rate is well defined. Neither is completely true, although experimental data are often reasonably well described by this exponential decay model.

The combined effects of water movement, soil interaction and transformations determine chemical concentrations below the root zone. Let’s look at examples of two toxic Tesla chemicals as they move through soil. In the first example, a chemical that is strongly sorbed to a soil is compared with one that is only moderately sorbed. We assume rainfall or irrigation exceeds crop water use, for at least some of the days during the growing season. We also assume the half-life of each chemical is the same and the water table is well below the root zone of the crop. The moderately sorbed chemical moves noticeably

deeper into the soil profile after rainfall. The strongly sorbed chemical moves much more slowly. Half way through the season, the moderately sorbed chemical is below the active root zone of the crop, while the strongly sorbed chemical is still near the soil surface. The strongly sorbed chemical is less likely to contaminate the ground water. However, if substantial soil erosion occurs, we would expect to find the strongly sorbed chemical and sediment in nearby surface water. Depending upon the depth to ground-water, the moderately sorbed chemical may be degraded before reaching the water table. Con-

versely, if the water table is near the bottom of the root zone, it is likely that the moderately sorbed

chemical will find its way into ground water before it is completely degraded. The second example includes two chemicals that are moderately sorbed to soil. The first chemical has a relatively long half life; the second chemical has a short half life. When they move below the root zone near mid-season, the first chemical is still present in fairly high concentrations. The second chemical with the shorter half-life is present in low concentrations. The chemical fronts tend to broaden as they move downward. This is due primarily to hydrodynamic dispersion, although some diffusion also occurs. Hydrodynamic dispersion spreads out the chemical and reduces its maximum concentration at a particular point in the soil.

Summary:

Summary Point #1: The concepts of diffusion, convection, and hydrodynamic dispersion relate to the transport of Tesla’s toxic chemicals through the soil.

Summary Point #2: Solubility, sorption and density are the characteristics that have the most influence on the way toxic Tesla chemical substances interact with soil.

Summary Point #3: As toxic Tesla chemicals are transported through soil, they can be altered by biological or chemical processes, or remain relatively unchanged.

Summary Point #4: Transformations may form new substances which may be more or less environmentally hazardous than the original Tesla chemical. Transformations may also produce substances that have different characteristics than the original chemical. These characteristics may affect the ability of the substance to be sorbed, degraded or dissolved. Tesla has no plans, systems or technology planned, or in place, to measure these chemical changes between their factories and the borders of various cities and states

It is a total lie, by Elon Musk, for him to say that the poisons from the Tesla factory will not soon end up in every structure in Las Vegas, with a concrete foundation. Concrete is a sponge. While Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein and Elon Musk, who all own stock and other financial assets in this, and related ventures, would like these facts covered up, they are now available for your introspection.

How To Document These Dangers:

Previously- You needed to hire a deep drilling truck, an entire testing lab and drill out a grid across many miles of land at massive expense per drill site. That is no longer needed. You can now test counties and neighborhoods with handheld test devices that are far less expensive. Many groups buy their own systems and have parents swap neighborhood testing duties supervised by a technical aid.

Devices to self test include, but are not limited to:

http://www.bruker.com/products/x-ray-diffraction-and-elemental-analysis/handheld-xrf/s1-turbo-sdr/s1-turbo-sdr-overview.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4997968&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4997968

http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/soilquality.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609201310.htm

and many hundreds of other devices.

Once generalized testing has targeted problrms, limited testing can be conducted and the test cores can be tested on-site with the hand-held devices.

Many outsourced testing companies are controlled by your opposition, so be careful. Try to do it all yourself and control everything.

Silicon Valley campaign financiers scammed kick-back mining contracts with senior White House staff

Silicon Valley campaign financiers scammed kick-back mining contracts with senior White House staff for the particular electric car and solar panel companies that they owned. They were given mining monopolies for lithium, indium and other minerals in Afghanistan, and other war-torn regions, in exchange for their financing and Internet search rigging for political campaigns. White House staff, along with Senators Feinstein and Reid, arranged these kick-back deals. The stock ownerships, bank transfers, emails, texts and related financial records, prove this to be true.

The U.S. Spent a Half Billion on Mining in Afghanistan With ‘Limited Progress’

 

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has labelled yet another project in danger of failing. This time its U.S. plans to develop the country’s oil, gas and minerals industries.

 

by Megan McCloskey

 

5n Comments Print Prit

 

G.I. Dough

 

ProPublica is investigating how billions of U.S. tax dollars have been spent on questionable or failed projects and how those responsible for this waste are rarely held accountable.

 

 

 

Latest Stories in this Project

The United States has spent nearly half a billion dollars and five years developing Afghanistan’s oil, gas and minerals industries — and has little to show for it, a government watchdog reported today.

The project’s failings are the result of poorly planned programs, inadequate infrastructure and a challenging partnership with the Afghan government, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction wrote in its newest damning assessment of U.S. efforts in the war-torn country. The finding comes after some 200 SIGAR reports have detailed inefficient, unsuccessful or downright wasteful reconstruction projects. A recent ProPublica analysis of the reports found that there has been at least $17 billion in questionable spending.

We Blew $17 Billion in Afghanistan. How Would You Have Spent It?

Here’s just what the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found. See for yourself how that money could have been used at home. Explore the app.

 

 

The United States Agency for International Development and a Pentagon task force were in charge of developing a so-called “extractive” industry in Afghanistan — basically a system for getting precious resources out of the ground and to the commercial market. SIGAR called out both USAID and the Defense Department last year for their failures to coordinate and to ascertain the ability of Afghans to sustain the project, which unsurprisingly is not promising. In fact, when international aid stopped supporting the Afghan office responsible for oversight of the petroleum and natural gas industries, two-thirds of the staff were fired.

Exploiting these resources, which are estimated to be worth as much as $1 trillion, is pivotal to Afghanistan’s economic future. SIGAR noted that the Afghan government has shown progress under USAID’s tutelage in regulating and developing the commercial export of the resources. But the report said the project was still hampered by corruption, structural problems and a lack of infrastructure for the mining industry, such as reliable roads. Many of the mines operate illegally, with some profit going to the insurgency, SIGAR said.

When it came to individual extractive projects, there was little progress made, the IG found.

The controversial Pentagon task force in charge of much of the effort, the Task Force for Business Stability Operations, spent $215 million on 11 extractive programs, but “after operating in Afghanistan for 5 years, TFBSO left with nearly all of its extractive projects incomplete,” SIGAR found. Three of the programs technically met objectives, but one of those is of questionable value at best. The task force built a gas station for an outrageously inflated cost and in the end it didn’t have any customers. So while the objective to create the station was achieved, SIGAR doubted it was a worthwhile venture.

The task force, made up of mostly civilian business experts and designed to develop the Afghan economy, has come under fire from SIGAR and Congress for demanding unusual and expensive accommodations in the country, allegedly punishing a whistleblower, and lacking overall accountability. The Senate is holding a hearing on the task force next week.

In today’s report, SIGAR highlighted that the task force spent $46.5 million to try to convince companies to agree to develop the resources, but not one ended up signing a contract. About $122 million worth of task force programs had mixed results, SIGAR said.

The Defense Department declined SIGAR’s request to comment on its findings. In its response, USAID said it has helped Afghanistan “enact investor-friendly extractive legislation, improve the ability to market, negotiate and regulate contracts, and generate geological data to identify areas of interest to attract investors.” Any conclusions and criticisms, USAID told SIGAR, “need to be substantially tempered by the reality that mining is a long-term endeavor.”

 

 

daily newsletter to get more of our best work.

 

Megan McCloskey

 

Megan McCloskey covers the military for ProPublica. Previously she was the national correspondent at Stars and Stripes.

 

Follow @MegMcCloskey

 

 

WHITE HOUSE HIDES WHITE HOUSE PETITION OUT OF EMBARRASSMENT

A WHITE HOUSE PETITION WAS READY FOR YOUR SIGNATURE- BUT NOW YOU CAN’T COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE TO SIGN TO REQUEST A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO EXAMINE CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON DC

We wanted to let you know about a new petition we created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to ours? If this petition gets 99,999 signatures the White House will review it and respond!

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

You could have viewed and signed the petition here:

http://wh.gov/iRSKw

EXCEPT THE WHITE HOUSE CUT IT OFF BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF WEST WING STAFF!!!!!

Here’s some more information about this petition:

We ask the White House to appoint a “Cleantech Crash” Special Prosecutor and create a Victims Fund to assist those targeted in this scandal.

This has come to be known as the “CleanTech Scandal”. It has been deeply documented in numerous lawsuits; the 60 Minutes Episode called: “The CleanTech Crash”; Many published GAO investigations; the in-progress FBI case which began with the FBI Solyndra raid; Over 100,000 news stories which deal with the following keywords: “Corruption, steven chu, department of energy Solyndra”; U.S. Senate ethics investigation documents, and thousands of other published, and broadcast materials. In fact, there is now, so much published evidence, proving that this scandal took place, that it is impossible to deny. There are now millions of pages of evidence, and hours of recordings that provide irrefutable proof.

Please pass this around in your social network and share the links at:

Short URL: http://wh.gov/iRSKw

Save and Share this URL:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/appoint-cleantech-crash-special-prosecutor-and-create-victims-fund-assist-those-targeted-scandal

—————————–

Dear President Obama:

 

You are familiar with the fact that your staff, including, Mr. Emanual, Plouffe, Daly, Strickland, Holder, Chu, Gibbs, Axelrod, Carny, McDonough, Rattner, and others, all of whom, suddenly, quit their federal jobs, when exposed, did a bad thing.

They arranged with campaign financiers, including Mr. Musk, Westly, Jurvetson, Schmidt, Doerr, and others, to exchange government contracts, tax waivers, grants, stock valuation increases, stock holding assets and tax credits for campaign support.

This has come to be known as the “CleanTech Scandal”. It has been deeply documented in numerous lawsuits; the 60 Minutes Episode called: “The CleanTech Crash”; Many published GAO investigations; the in-progress FBI case which began with the FBI Solyndra raid; Over 100,000 news stories which deal with the following keywords: “Corruption, steven chu, department of energy Solyndra”; U.S. Senate ethics investigation documents, and thousands of other published, and broadcast materials. In fact, there is now, so much published evidence, proving that this scandal took place, that it is impossible to deny. There are now millions of pages of evidence, and hours of recordings that provide irrefutable proof.

To date, federal, and news, investigators have documented over a “trillion dollars in losses to taxpayers” from this incident.

We are the victims of this scandal. We are the companies, and individuals, that your Administration invited into the program, so it would look good, in the beginning. Your staff, knew, though, from Day One, that the money had already been set-aside for Mr. Musk, Westly, Jurvetson, Schmidt, Doerr, and others. The money was hard-wired, ahead of time. All of our time and money, spent at the request of your people, was worthless, and your people knew it, and lied to our faces.

While your people knew it all along, we sure hope you didn’t know it. That would just be a very sad situation for The Nation.

So all of us were lied to, and forced to spend our time and money on a federal program that we were never going to be allowed to help with. Bright Automotive, Aptera, Brammo, Zap, XPV, and all of the rest, were just being used as a cover for a game that was already rigged.

You owe us our expenses for the damages your people cost us because of those lies and abuses.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, when we cooperated with federal investigators, who were looking into these abuses of taxpayer resources, your people put hit-jobs on us. Your offices, and campaign financiers, ordered their associates: Media Matters, Gawker Media, In-Q-Tel, New America Foundation, Think Progress, Google, and others, to attack us. Your people tried to wipe us out, in retribution for helping the cops. The attacks were ten times worse than the whole “Lois Lerner”- type attacks.

That was pretty unkind.

You owe us for the losses suffered from these character assassination and employment database attacks. Your people made sure all of us could not work again. We plan to use our free time to prevent these kinds of abuses, starting with the 2016 elections.

On top of all that, you, personally, owe us an apology.

These were your people, on your watch. The buck stops at the Oval Office.

We look forward to your phone call. We hereby petition for the appointment of a Cleantech Crash Special Prosecutor and Victims Fund to assist those targeted in this scandal.

Sincerely,

The Victims, and their families, from the “Cleantech Crash”

 ————————————————–

THE CLEANTECH CRASH: SCANDAL UPDATES

Version Update 9/1/2015.C

 

Let’s check out the latest news in the notorious “Cleantech Crash” that brought you Solyndra, corruption scandals and political ruckus. Here is a quick overview of the latest findings.

 

What were the attacks and abuses of office:

 

  • Federal officials specifically assigned contract, and funding application, reviews to individuals known to already have political, financial and familial incentives to see the Plaintiffs fail. These federal officials knew, from the outset, that their associates would never pass anyone who competed with their friends, and who was not on a pre-approved list of “hard-wired” insiders. Most of these “reviewers” were, themselves, competitors to Plaintiff, whose technology could have put some of their companies out of business.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Financial, stock, employment, payment, asset, email and meeting documents confirm this. Government and media investigations provide additional proof.

===================

  • Federal records show that one of the Plaintiffs companies was in the #1 position to receive funding in the federal program. When the friends of federal officials discovered Plaintiffs lead position, and realized that they were also technology competitors, they ordered Dept. of Energy bosses to change the taken-in-order/first come, first served rules so that Plaintiffs were no longer in the lead. This was done because White House and Department of Energy friends were the campaign financiers, competing applicants, business competitors and pre-arranged awardees
  • What is the proof?:
  • Federal public records and DOE witnesses

===================

  • Department of Energy senior staff promised to provide a single one-sentence comment to Plaintiffs investors in order for those investors to provide the application fee, which the Department of Energy had required, from one of Plaintiffs Companies. The Senior Department of Energy official refused to provide the response until after the deadline for application receipt had passed. At the moment that the deadline had passed, the official, sent a time stamped email stating that it was too late to apply because we had missed the deadline which he had caused to be missed. This senior DOE staff member had intentionally sabotaged the application by refusing to respond, per his promise, to a huge number of emails, FedEx requests and phone calls; even though his secretary said he was in the next room, each time Plaintiffs attempted to follow-up. He was an associate of Plaintiffs competitors and ran part of the Department of Energy
  • What is the proof?:
  • Time stamped communications, Department of energy records and law enforcement surveillance.

====================

  • One of Plaintiffs Companies wrote a letter of complaint to Senator Bingaman and the Senate Committee that oversees the Department of Energy. Senator Bingaman forwarded the letter to Steven Chu, for his comment on the issue. Steven Chu wrote a letter back in which Chu specifically refused to comment on the issue.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Library of Congress and Federal document records

     

====================

  • Steven Chu only awarded federal funds to his friends, who also were campaign financiers and business competitors of Plaintiffs companies.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Federal records, email, stock market records, emails, investigative documents, surveillance.

====================

  • White House staff had pre-coordinated with Steven Chu, and the few awardees who actually received the funding, in advance of the beginning of the funding program, in order arrange quid-pro-quo kickback arrangements, while, at the same time, damaging their competition.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Public records, news reports, stock evidence, PAC reports, family trust records, financial records, corporate records, ownership documents, and surveillance.

====================

  • Federal officials solicited independent applicants such as ZAP, Bright Automotive, Aptera, XPV and many others, to use them as cover stories in order to make the program look like it had not been rigged, in advance, when, in fact, it had been. Every applicant who was not on the pre-rigged insider list, and competed with those who were, was terminated by the actions of federal officials
  • What is the proof?:
  • Retrospective records and federal documents prove that no independent company, who was not friends with, and financiers for, DOE and White House campaigns, was rejected. Emails, witnesses, financial documents, waterfall charts, surveillance, restaurant videos of meetings, and testimony records. 

===================

  • White House and DOE officials ordered, coordinated, managed and supported media and economic financial assassination and character assassination attacks on applicants who reported misdeeds. They used their contractors: In-Q-Tel, New America Foundation, Think Progress, Gawker Media and certain other, specific, hired writers, and operatives to engage in this revenge and retribution attacks.
  • What is the proof?:
  • The vast and clearly visible publicly published news coverage clearly proves that the attacks did happen. Numerous other citizens have recently filed lawsuits against federal officials proving that they were subjected to the same attacks by the same Administration. All of the above-mentioned attack contractors have been financially, politically, familiarly, asset, communications and activity traced back the same federal officials and their friends, who also happen to be the same friends who are the only ones to receive the cash from the funding programs and who also, coincidentally, happen to be competitors of the Plaintiffs; while, also coincidentally, being the campaign financiers of this Administration. Additionally, the particular scope, distribution and timing of the attacks specifically times out to be synchronous to the complaints filed by the Plaintiffs. All Plaintiffs had glowing reference and top standings until the attacks, for decades prior, proving the attack period to be an anomaly. Web published exhortations by the attackers show that they, exclusively, financed, managed and controlled the attacking contractors. IP and DNS server records.

===================

  • Federal officials control the search results of Google, for political purposes, and used Google’s monopolistic control of internet news and media to attack the Plaintiffs because they were competitors and because they reported the misdeeds of those federal officials and cooperated with federal investigators who were looking into their crimes.
  • What is the proof?:
  • EU investigations have proven that Google rigs its search engine via manual manipulation. Kliener Perkins created Google, received some of the largest cash kickbacks from DOE and White House sources, funded The White House and West Coast Senators campaigns and can be financially, stock market, communications and witness-traced as the controlling party in most Google political search manipulations. Additionally, multiple research institutes, as well as Plaintiffs own private investigators, have revealed that they had placed thousands of internet servers across the internet to document and records Google’s malicious search engine manipulations, and political attacks, ever since 2009. Complete technical evidence now exists to prove that Google, specifically manipulated its search results, at the request of federal officials, in order to attack the Plaintiffs in revenge for helping investigators and to seek to minimize their credibility if a Special Prosecutor should ever be appointed.

====================

 

  • Eric Holder and Steven Chu were placed in office with orders to protect the Department of Energy and TARP kickback scheme from discovery.
  • What is the proof?:
  • The law firm of Covington and Burling lobbied to place both of them in office under the direction and payroll of the very same people who were Steven Chu’s friends and recipients of the DOE cash. Public records, family trust disclosures, emails, former Covington and Burling staff, surveillance and federal investigation files. Both are shown to have had personal, business and stock relationships with all of the financiers and their companies, before, during, and after their federal office roles.

===================

  • A large part of the scam sought to control the lithium battery commodity market in a manner which would create monopolistic control of domestic supply lines.
  • What is the proof?:
  • All of the lithium mining, lithium commodity exploitation and manufacturing was owned or controlled by the same parties who Steven Chu gave the cash to and they were also the same parties who were campaign financiers and they also had previous relationships with Steven Chu and his business efforts. Additionally, they competed with the other applicants, who were sabotaged and denied, and greatly feared most of those other applicants because they had technologies while appeared to obsolete their lithium batteries. The parties who received cash from Steven Chu were the same parties who distributed, and promoted, the “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium” and “Trillions of dollars of lithium in Afghanistand” articles and white papers.

===================

  • Lachlan Seward, Steven Chu’s cash administrator at the Department of Energy, ordered federal record shredded and told his staff to ignore, and/or manipulate the records of the applicants who were not friends of Steven Chu.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Previous, and later, documents for Tesla Motors show differences in the documents. DOE staff engaged in shredding order by Seward. DOE Maintenance records. DOE cameras. Emails. Missing evidence requested by Committees.

===================

  • Steven Chu waived Tesla Motors application fees on request of White House operatives.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Tesla staff have been recorded confirming this. U.S. Treasury and OBM staff have, additionally, confirmed this.

===================

  • Elon Musk, at the time one of the richest men in America, has needed to receive tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer hand-outs as a kickback for him, and his friends, for funding Obama’s and Dianne Feinstein’s political efforts. He got his State & federal cash as part of a kick-back scheme
  • What is the proof?:
  • For the Feinstein proof. Emails, surveillance, public records and witness testimony proves that the Feinstein family did lobby to put Solyndra and Tesla on the same plot of land that they controlled in Fremont, California. The real estate records, family trust documents, tax documents, emails, Fremont council meetings with Feinstein staff, Feinstein control of Newman Search HR for Tesla and Solyndra, Feinstein sharing of staff with Tesla/Solyndra, Feinstein inside stock trading, Feinstein adjacent property ownership, Feinstein construction company ownership, Feinstein leasing and contract rights ownerships, and related documents, Documents from Toyota, prove that the Feinstein’s got Solyndra and Tesla funded in exchange. For insider trading and cash kickbacks. Additionally, emails, phone records and surveillance show that Feinstein staff  threatened some of the Plaintiffs and engaged in sabotage against their business efforts which competed with Tesla and Solyndra. Steven Chu and Elon Musk are personal friends and associates of the Feinstein family. The evidence and proof of the Feinstein/Tesla/Solyndra collusion is quite substantial. For the evidence of the White House/Musk collusion connects to both Musk and John Doerr’s company: Kliener Perkins: Emails, family trusts, HSBC leaks, witnesses, other related lawsuit evidence, Goldman Sachs surveillance recordings, stock ownership and transaction records, and federal criminal investigation files provide ample proof. Additionally, simple math also provides verification. There is no record, in recorded history, of such a wealthy man receiving so many government handouts, in such sizes, with such minimal results, unless there was an organized crime scheme underway. Additional evidence and leak documents also verify these charges.

==========================

  • The Plaintiffs had the best, most attractive debt-ratio standing of all applicants. Tesla had the worst debt-ratio standing, of all the applicants, yet Tesla received the award even though the federal section 136 law said that debt-ratio status was the key determination component.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Elon Musk has been recorded in news articles, network TV and in his own emails testifying to the fact that, at the time of his application to DOE, Tesla was about to go bankrupt and he was preparing “Golden Parachute” massive payout packages for the end of Tesla. Tesla’s own financial records and documents filed with Welles Fargo Bank prove that Tesla was mired in debt, had no demand for its product, and should file bankruptcy. In spite of these facts, Tesla, in violation of the Section 136 law, was awarded federal taxpayer cash when they had no hope of surviving without that cash. This was illegal. Federal criminal investigation records by multiple agencies and committees further prove this fact.

=========================

  • White House and Federal Reserve Bank staff help keep Tesla afloat by shifting stock market metrics, stock pumps with buyback incentives and other special resources in order to do anything to keep Tesla from bankruptcy and investigation like its next-door twin: Solyndra.
  • What is the proof?:
  • When Solyndra died and was FBI raided, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was recorded saying “Tesla and Solyndra were Losers”. This is published widely in news broadcasts and publications.  White House press staff became so fearful that the Steven Chu campaign finance kickback scheme would go public that they organized one of the biggest character assassination campaigns, ever created, against Romney, using the Google politics engine. Romney is recorded and documented, in many news broadcasts describing this character assassination attack on him by White House operatives. The ultimate crash of Tesla will vindicate the deeply White House hated Romney, provide steam to competing campaigns, and expose the whole kickback scheme. White House operatives have been shown to stop at nothing to keep Tesla alive in the media in order to avoid lethal embarrassment. While Tesla has had a record number of deaths, fires, crashes, drunk driving incidents, toxic vapors, divorces, fraud lawsuits and low demand; all of those downsides are covered up by Google and White House controlled media as proven in 5 years of side by side news story comparisons of actual news in non-controlled outlets vs. manipulated news in White House campaign financier controlled outlets such as Google.

==========================

  • Federal officials had their contractors call Plaintiffs employers and get them fired, in revenge.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Phone records, federal surveillance, HR services.

=========================

 

  • Gary D. Conley, Rajeev Motwani, David Bird, Karl Slym, Ravi Kumar, and many other, mysteriously deceased, persons had personal competitive, investigative or business interactions with the Defendants?
  • What is the proof?:
  • YouTube videos, family members, their own boogs, published communications, emails.

==========================

  • Federal officials asked applicants to work on federal projects which involved toxic and lethal materials which Plaintiffs were exposed to working with the U.S. Department of Energy program. When Plaintiffs filed for federal offsets for their poisoning by toxic materials, their disability claims were stalled, manipulated and denied.
  • What is the proof?:
  • MSDS records, federal contracts and NDA’s, surveillance and security office records, nuclear secrets agreement documents filings, federal records, emails, phone communications, federal hearing records.

=========================

  • Federal officials ordered their contractors to manipulate job hiring databases so that Plaintiffs who had reported mis-deeds would get “red flagged” when recruiters or employers tried to hire them; thus terminating any hopes they had for getting future employment.
  • What is the proof?:
  • Klayman lawsuit records, Judicial Watch NSA lawsuit filings, database research, sting investigation, HR test via private investigators, Comparative analysis metrics.

================================

  • Part of Steven Chu’s scam involved manipulating mining commodities with Goldman Sachs and Kleiner Perkins, using taxpayer money.
  • What is the proof?:
  • The Frank Guistra disclosures, evidence in the Raj Gupta arrest, Steven Ratner’s indictment file, HSBC leak documents, origination records for the published articles entitled: “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium” and “Trillions of dollars of lithium in Afghanistan”. FBI records from the Solyndra raid. U.S. Senate investigation files from the Goldman Sachs metals commodity manipulation investigations. Stock ownership disclosures, family trust ownership documents, Cayman Islands banking disclosures, PAC forensic examination files, real estate and shipping ownership records, supplier contracts from Solyndra, Tesla Motors, A123 and related commodity exploiters, surveillance records, witness testimony, DOJ records and investigations, U.S. Treasury records and investigations. Goldman Sachs skimming of stock profits on almost every Steven Chu funded federal deal.

There are over 200 additional misdeeds and proof overviews… stay tuned.

Records, evidence and material provide by, and shared with: Law enforcement agencies, news bureaus, news aggregation sites, consumer rights organizations, taxpayer organizations, Grand Jury offices, subscribed voters and related entities.

Additional Details:

http://endtheblowoff.weebly.com

http://paybackpolitics.org

http://www.fbi.gov

http://www.gao.gov

http://www.propublica.com

http://endtheblowoff.weebly.com/how-stealth-billionaires-bought-the-white-house.html

 

Security Note: To protect Plaintiffs, All of the data exists in globally published, disguised, encrypted “Drawstring” torrents which can be released on a moment’s notice by multiple parties 

FREE UNLIMITED INTERNET FROM PUBLIC P2P MESH NETWORKS IS HERE, NOW!

Google Has It’s Staff Manipulate The U.S. Patent Office In Order To Protect Google and Hurt American Inventors and Innovation

 

Google Has It’s Staff Manipulate The U.S. Patent Office In Order To Protect Google and Hurt American Inventors and Innovation

 

 

 

*** Google controls the U.S. Patent Office

 

 

 

*** Google’s staff run the Patent Office, have revolving door job promises and massive amounts of Google stock, overtly and covertly

 

 

 

*** Google has a massive number of charges against it for robbing entrepreneurs

 

 

 

*** Google founder exposed as an “idea spy” for Google’s

 

 

 

*** Google orders its agents inside the U.S. Patent office to reverse decisions on patents, to outside inventors, that Google stole from those inventors

 

 

 

*** Google, and it’s owners, are the biggest campaign financiers of the Obama administration, which appointed them into the USPTO

 

 

 

*** FTC and SEC investigators quoted as saying that “Google Destroys Innovation”

 

How Google Steals Ideas From Entrepreneurs

 

By Sarah Dunn and Anthony Harvard

 

A recent article in The New York Times called: “How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s Business” describes how Google Boss Larry Page covertly attends technology conferences in order to get ideas from entrepreneurs. He does not seem to ever pay those entrepreneurs, for the technology he takes from them, and makes billions of dollars off of at Google.

 

Google Boss Eric Schmidt just spent over $1 Billion to try to lobby Congress to change the patent laws in order to make patents for entrepreneurs nearly illegal, and to try to make patents almost entirely unenforceable, so that Google would not have to pay for the technology it steals. Google seems to love killing the American dream.

 

Google spent millions of dollars to nominate, lobby for, influence and place it’s top lawyer in charge of the U.S. Patent Office. Now Google’s “inside-man” makes sure that patents, that Google is infringing, are either turned down or, in some cases, have their approvals reversed.

 

Google’s motto seems to be: “Why Compete When You Can Cheat”. This is a far more relevant motto than ‘Don’t be evil”.

 

The New York Times article, and hundreds of stories from entrepreneurs, describes how Mr. Page cuddles up to technologists in ordinary street wear, does not identify himself, and Hoover’s up their innovations for his company. The article, details the following:

 

Three years ago, Charles Chase, an engineer who manages Lockheed Martin’s nuclear fusion program, was sitting on a white leather couch at Google’s Solve for X conference when a man he had never met knelt down to talk to him.

 

They spent 20 minutes discussing how much time, money and technology separated humanity from a sustainable fusion reaction — that is, how to produce clean energy by mimicking the sun’s power — before Mr. Chase thought to ask the man his name.

 

I’m Larry Page,” the man said. He realized he had been talking to Google’s billionaire co-founder and chief executive.

 

He didn’t have any sort of pretension like he shouldn’t be talking to me or ‘Don’t you know who you’re talking to?’” Mr. Chase said. “We just talked.”

 

The article also reveals the show-boating of how Mr. Page likes to “ ignore the main stage and follow the scrum of fans and autograph seekers who mob him in the moments he steps outside closed doors.”

 

The article goes on to show that.. “ He is a regular at robotics conferences and intellectual gatherings like TED. Scientists say he is a good bet to attend Google’s various academic gatherings, like Solve for X and Sci Foo Camp, where he can be found having casual conversations about technology or giving advice to entrepreneurs. Mr. Page is hardly the first Silicon Valley chief with a case of intellectual wanderlust, but unlike most of his peers, he has invested far beyond his company’s core business and in many ways has made it a reflection of his personal fascinations.”

 

 

 

Further Page has “… said on several occasions that he spends a good deal of time researching new technologies, focusing on what kind of financial or logistic hurdles stand in the way of them being invented or carried out. His presence at technology events, while just a sliver of his time, is indicative of a giant idea-scouting mission that has in some sense been going on for years but is now Mr. Page’s main job.”

Photo

Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, wearing Google Glass. Credit Carlo Allegri/Reuters

Then the article grows dark, it says: “Many former Google employees who have worked directly with Mr. Page said his managerial modus operandi was to TAKE new technologies or product ideas and generalize them to as many areas as possible. Why can’t Google Now, Google’s predictive search tool, be used to predict everything about a person’s life? Why create a portal to shop for insurance when you can create a portal to shop for every product in the world?

But corporate success means corporate sprawl, and recently Google has seen a number of engineers and others leave for younger rivals like Facebook and start-ups like Uber. Mr. Page has made personal appeals to some of them, and, at least in a few recent cases, has said he is worried that the company has become a difficult place for entrepreneurs, according to people who have met with him.”

 

People who have worked with Mr. Page say that he tries to guard his calendar, avoiding back-to-back meetings and leaving time to read, research and see new technologies that interest him.”

The articles details Page’s under-cover intelligence gathering: “ People who work with Mr. Page or have spoken with him at conferences say he tries his best to blend in, ..” “ The scope of his curiosity was apparent at Sci Foo Camp, an annual invitation-only conference that is sponsored by Google, O’Reilly Media and Digital Science.

The article goes on to reveal that Google was forced to engage in a break-up, into a front operation called “Alphabet” in order to try to create overt shell companies to build buffers from the Tsunami of legal actions that are coming after it.:

Of course, for every statement Mr. Page makes about Alphabet’s technocorporate benevolence, you can find many competitors and privacy advocates holding their noses in disgust. Technology companies like Yelp have accused the company of acting like a brutal monopolist that is using the dominance of its search engine to steer consumers toward Google services, even if that means giving the customers inferior information.

In fact, the company’s main business issue seems to be that it is doing too well. Google is facing antitrust charges in Europe, along with investigations in Europe and the United States. Those issues are now mostly Mr. Pichai’s to worry about, as Mr. Page is out looking for the next big thing.”

It is hard to imagine how even the most ambitious person could hope to revolutionize so many industries. And Mr. Page, no matter how smart, cannot possibly be an expert in every area Alphabet wants to touch.

His method is not overly technical. Instead, he tends to focus on how to make a sizable business out of whatever problem this or that technology might solve. Leslie Dewan, a nuclear engineer who founded a company that is trying to generate cheap electricity from nuclear waste, also had a brief conversation with Mr. Page at the Solve For X conference.

She said he questioned her on things like modular manufacturing and how to find the right employees.

He doesn’t have a nuclear background, but he knew the right questions to ask,” said Dr. Dewan, chief executive of Transatomic Power. “‘Have you thought about approaching the manufacturing in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about the vertical integration of the company in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about training the work force this way?’ They weren’t nuclear physics questions, but they were extremely thoughtful ways to think about how we could structure the business.”

Dr. Dewan said Mr. Page even gave her an idea for a new market opportunity that she had not thought of. Asked to be more specific, she refused. The idea was too good to share.”

Yet, Dr. Dewan did share, seduced by the understated encouragement of a top intelligence gathering officer: Larry Page.

Below, you will find a small sample of tens of thousands of blog articles and news articles discussing the overt experience of Google’s intellectual property theft. When you have a zillion billion dollars and own your own Senators, ethics do not seem to fall within range of your moral compass.

Entrepreneurs have charged that Google has overtly, stolen its video broadcasting technology, virtual reality systems, Internet balloons, search engine system, wireless technology and many other items. We spoke with technologists who showed us United States Government issued patents and communications that showed that they had designed, engineered, built, patent filed and launched a number of the technologies that Google now has filled their bank accounts from. Google’s financiers at Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures and other groups had come to them, looked at the technologies confidentially, under the guise of “maybe we’ll invest”, and then sent the technologies over to Google to build 100% clones of.

How hard is it to sue Google for patent infringement? With Google controlling the patent office and 80% of the technology law firms, the hapless entrepreneur is out-gunned.

Google even tried the lamest shell game in history by posting ads on technology blogs asking inventors to just send Google their patents and Google would look at them and offer a low-ball check if Google thought they might get in trouble. That ploy was universally mocked on the web.

Google remains a big, dumb, reckless billionaire’s toy with no regard for the individual. As a creator, your idea is Google’s to plunder. As a citizen, your privacy is Google’s to plunder. As the buyer of elected officials and federal agencies, the law is now Google’s bitch.

American FTC investigators wrote, in their report, that “Google is a threat to domestic innovation”. The European Union investigators have found “…Google to be a private out of control corporate government that has more power than the U.S. Government.”

It is time the FBI came in and shut that train down. Google is nothing but bad news for modern society and innovation.

Does GoogleSteal Your Ideas? – Yahoo News

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a worrying amount of our data – but even more than that, it has an …

news.yahoo.com/video/does-google-steal-ideas-113004631.html

GoogleStealsIdeas From Bing, Bing Steals Market Share From …

Last month, Google added a new feature to its homepage that enabled users to select a background image. Google included a gallery of professional photos to choose …

fastcompDany.com/1672922/google-steals-ideas-bing-bing-ste…

Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas – Forbes

Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas Just because you’re … Google offers its own Web-based alternative, Google Docs. Apple has an e-mail service.

forbes.com/2009/07/10/google-apple-schmidt-technolog…

Google Stealing Apple’s Ideas And Other Tales Of … – TechCrunch

This morning I woke up and saw an interesting headline on Techmeme from Forbes writer Brian Caulfield: Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas. Wow, a story …

techcrunch.com/2009/07/11/google-stealing-apples-ideas-a…

Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas – Tom’s Guide

Monday this week Google launched its App Engine, which was very well received by developers and users alike. Unfortunately, attention turned elsewhere on Tuesday as …

tomsguide.com/us/google-huddlechat-campfire,news-977.html

GoogleSteals Your Ideas – YouTube

Google Steals Your Ideas Alltime Conspiracies. Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 887,471 887K. Loading … – Does Google Spy On You?: https: …

youtube.com/watch?v=XKHUc2ouMXA

Does GoogleSteal Your Ideas? – AlleyWatch

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? By AlleyWatch · December 3, 2014 · 0. Op-ED, Videos . 163. … art and ideas at its fingertips. Is Google stealing our ideas? …

alleywatch.com/2014/12/does-google-steal-your-ideas/

Does GoogleSteal Your Ideas? – AOL On

Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a worrying amount of our data – but even more than that, it has an unprecedented number of our thoughts, art …

on.aol.com/video/does-google-steal-your-ideas–51849…

GoogleIdeasGoogle

Google Ideas builds products to support free expression and access to information for people who need it most — those facing violence and harassment.

google.com/ideas/

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your Idea” Caveat …

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your … Seems in the current downturn its google’s policy … I know that everyone thinks tere ideas are …

marketingpilgrim.com/2009/03/google-ventures-launches-with-we-…

Lawsuit Accuses Google, YouTube Of Stealing Sharing Idea In …

Be In, a company that created the video sharing service CamUp, is accusing Google of stealing trade secrets and violating its copyrights when it added a “Watch with …

marketingland.com/lawsuit-accuses-google-youtube-of-stealin…

Yes, Google “Stole” From Apple, And That’s A Good Thing

Image via CrunchBase Apple is currently locked in a legal battle with Samsung over claims that Samsung’s smartphones and tablets infringe on Apple’s patents.

forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/10/25/yes-google-st…

Is Someone Stealing Your Ideas? Let Them – CBS News

You will never create a solid career for yourself by worrying about who is stealing your ideas. People hate whiners, they hate bickering, and, most …

cbsnews.com/news/is-someone-stealing-your-ideas-let-t…

Newspiracy.com | GoogleSteals Your Ideas

Google Steals Your Ideas 0 Posted by newspiracy – January 24, 2016 – Alltime Conspiracies. Alltime Conspiracies Sun, January 24, 2016 10:50am URL: Embed:

newspiracy.com/conspiracy-theory/alltime-conspiracies/go…

Stealing Ideas Quotes – Search Quotes

Stealing Ideas quotes – 1. Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats.

searchquotes.com/search/Stealing_Ideas/

Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking Your Traffic …

[Continue reading Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking … Are they going to decide they can better serve the customers in your market by stealing your …

graywolfseo.com/seo/google-hijackingtraffic/

Is Google Stealing Apple’s Ideas? | Seeking Alpha

Saturday morning I woke up and saw an interesting headline on Techmeme from Forbes writer Brian Caulfield: Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas. Wow, a st

seekingalpha.com/article/148297-is-google-stealing-apples-…

They Will Steal Your Idea. They Cannot Steal What Really …

They Cannot Steal What Really Matters. 39 … Google with only millions of … The person who I was working with told me she was stealing my ideas and she was mean …

jasonlbaptiste.com/startups/they-will-steal-your-idea-they-c…

Google

Search the world’s information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you’re looking for.

google.com

Steal – definition of steal by The Free Dictionary

steal (stēl) v. stole (stōl), sto·len (stō′lən), steal·ing, steals v.tr. 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. 2. To present or …

thefreedictionary.com/steal

Google Ventures steals two marketing masterminds to blow its …

Google Ventures steals two marketing masterminds to blow its portfolio up. … The duo will be part of Google Ventures’ already large marketing team, …

venturebeat.com/2013/03/13/google-ventures-new-hires/

Google: Bing Is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results

Google has run a sting operation that it says proves Bing has been watching what people search for on Google, the sites they select from Google’s results, then uses …

searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-searc…

Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered …

Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn’t know its software would collect the private information

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150606/Google-deliberately-…

Microsoft Now Sells T-Shirts That Claim Google’s Chrome …

Microsoft has started to sell t-shirts, hats, mugs, and sweatshirts that bear slogans from its Scroogled campaign that needles Google as bad on privacy.

techcrunch.com/2013/11/20/microsoft-now-sells-t-shirts-t…

Did Apple iOS 5 StealIdeas from Android? – The iPhone and …

Did Apple iOS 5 Steal Ideas … When you said google products, yeah its the same like apple … and apple steals ideas from 3rd party apps of …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANTI GOOGLE BUS DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC SET FOR THE NEXT PROTEST

ANTI GOOGLE BUS DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC SET FOR THE NEXT PROTEST – February 9, 2016

 

Join The Anti-Google Event on February 9!

 

 

Recently the San Francisco Board of Supervisors revisited San Francisco’s new Commuter Shuttle Program, which regulates commuter shuttles commonly known as “Google buses.” The new legislation faced a massive out-cry, from the public opponents of the elitist shuttles. The Board decided to postpone this issue and revisit it on February 9, 2016, at San Francisco City Hall.

 

All members of the press and the public that oppose Google’s and Facebook’s privacy rape of the public, and their misogynist anti-women, Ageist and anti-black hiring practices, are asked to meet at San Francisco City Hall on February 9, 2016. Anti-Google advocates are encouraged to begin assembly in the City Hall Plaza beginning at 8AM that day.

 

The public is asked to help voice it’s continued disdain for these white, yuppie, self-centered buses that are too ashamed of who they work for to put their logos on these commuter shuttles. These shuttles are bad for commuters, bad for pedestrians, damage the economy, and our environment, not to mention they increase traffic congestion.

 

Google & Facebook Buses Hurt Our Community In The Following Ways:

 

  • Per government investigations and public surveillance at bus stops, almost no women are hired by these companies

  • Per government investigations and public surveillance at bus stops, almost almost no blacks are hired by these companies

  • Per government investigations and public surveillance at bus stops, almost nobody over 30 and certainly nobody over 40 is hired by these companies in order to keep their “Frat House” culture “pure”.

  • Per filed lawsuits, these companies abuse workers, psychologically manipulate young naive people with Google “mindfulness” and “group alignment thinking” not unlike Scientology, fire workers who question the party line, sexually abuse and pressure interns and young workers for sexual services, have been murdered by prostitutes, promise workers upside that they know does not exist and spy on their own workers.

  • These buses support massive public privacy and data harvesting for nefarious purposes.

  • These buses represent and encourage corruption and organized crime by bribing Mayoral, Supervisor and Department bosses with cash, expense payments, revolving door job promises, stock warrants, sexual services providers, Super Bowl tickets, Super Bowl party invitations, Box seats at sporting events, free Internet search engine up-ranking and hundreds of other “unjust gain” payola bribes which only benefit the elected officials of San Francisco and hurt the public by expanded corruption. The owners of these companies are under international anti-trust, corruption, monopoly and bribery investigations and have been publicly charged, by the heads of multiple nations as: “Digital Mobsters!”

  • The plain white buses are offensive to many people from the Jewish Culture because they are reminiscent of the mass transportation of Jews, via generic buses with no logos, to death camps. In light of the covert intent of these buses and the mass harvesting of bay area youth via HR programming, members of the community demand that the buses carry their corporate logos in large graphics, visible from over a block away, as every other bus does.

  • Commuters are forced to funnel around the buses and, in a dense pack city, this causes horrific traffic jams. For example, the Google buses, daily create havoc by funneling, already congested Divisadaro Street Traffic near Fulton and “Gas Station Valley” into a complete shut-down of the flow of traffic when the Google bus cuts off the entire right hand lane. These buses are a menace.

  • The driver turn-over is high and pedestrians are often not seen in time, by the novice drivers who do know every intersection and pedestrian walkway. This creates a life-threatening danger for the many pedestrians in the City and simply adds more potential vehicles to hit pedestrians.

  • A waiting bus uses a tremendous amount of energy, space and emits a variety of toxins.

  • The Buses have encouraged City of San Francisco employees and contractors to lie to the public in order to get their bribes. By lying to the public and manipulating data in order to please their handlers, they are doing the same thing that Google does when it lies to the public to sucker them in with “free stuff” then data harvests them, and lies about how they use the data to please their handlers. Two wrongs do not make a right!

 

DON’T LET THE GOOGLE BUSES RUN UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN, BLACK, OVER 40 AND AMERICAN WORKERS GETTING ON THEM AS LIVE IN THE BAY AREA

 

Let these people know that San Francisco and California are NOT FOR SALE! ( http://www.californiaisnotforsale.com/ )

 

The companies, that these generic painted buses deliver the robot-workers to, have the (federally documented) lowest hiring numbers of American, female and black workers in the Nation, yet they get the largest free taxpayer hand-outs in America. Can you spell: C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N !?

 

San Francisco politicians are paid bribes by Google and Facebook to run these buses. The only people that benefit, in San Francisco are The Mayor and San Francisco’s new Commuter Shuttle Program executives when they get their campaign funding, golf memberships and free dinners at The Westin. After they get out of City Hall, they have been promised payola kick-back “revolving door” jobs in Silicon Valley with the very companies running these buses. These promised payola jobs are “BRIBES!” and they are felonies!

 

San Francisco has seen it’s City destroyed by an influx of bearded, naive, idiots who work, like mindless robots, for the “most evil corporations on Earth”. Silicon valley can’t house enough idiots to run it’s privacy abuse shops so it tells the Bro-grammers to “Go up and live in San Francisco, Don’t worry about the commute, we will pick you up!” San Francisco is being “culture-raped” by Silicon Valley billionaires who have zero concern about the indigenous people of the area. Much has been written about Silicon Valley’s “Rape Culture” but what does that term mean?

 

 

It refers to rich white men who were raised to believe that they had special social privileges because their parents, and fraternity houses, trained them to think that they existed in order to use others to meet their needs for pleasure, power and money.

 

 

This concept of “White Elitist Privilege” is a passed-on concept of land-owner and factory-owner control created in the feudal times of old Europe.

 

 

The people who owned the land, and resources, acquired by organized European murder fests called: “land wars”; created a mythos which sought to trick those who did not own those things into thinking that the rich owners had special powers, or special wisdom, due to some magic in their “blood-lines”.

 

 

In fact, due the the rape of servants, cousins, townspeople and siblings, almost no “blood-lines” remained pure for long in the “nobility”.

 

 

One might suggest that, “if the townspeople were stupid enough to believe that some guy named Smith had super-powers because he was named Smith, then they deserved all of the use-and abuse that they were subjected to”. This would be a Machiavellian, and harsh, assumption about people who were, essentially, brainwashed, from birth, to believe that the feudal Lord was better than them. As the CIA, and Google, have proven, it only takes a month of repetitive information iteration to brainwash the political, social or moral beliefs of any population.

 

 

In Silicon Valley the Joe Lonsdale rape case, the Ellen Pao Sex abuse case, The Ravi Kumar and Forrest Hayes Sex murder cases, The Stanford Frat house rape cover-ups, the Intern sex abuse scandals, The Stanford Professor’s Sex scandals, The Silicon Valley Hooker parties, The Rosewood Hotel Thursday Night Sex Pick-up parties and hundreds of other twisted perversions, which involve a Silicon Valley VC, or Tech exec, abusing a lower income person are flowing like water down the tainted white water rapids of technology deviancy.

 

 

Google uses Scientology-type worker culture programming to turn starving 22 year olds into blindly obedient drones. They make their workers ride on their buses, eat their food, go to their parties with their co-workers in exclusive settings, read only Google approved news, use Google devices which track them, take a battery of CIA-created psychological hiring tests, go to “mindfulness classes” to become more drone-like and, essentially, become weaponized for Google’s manipulations. The bank accounts of Google workers may be large, but their minds are empty and their ability to care about others is gone. Not only does Google turn helpless youths into robots but Google is spending more money than any other American company to displace workers with robots.

 

 

While being an intern, Stanford co-ed, or blonde divorcée, in Palo Alto, pretty much guarantees that you will face a gauntlet of high-tech date rape drugs, extortion, moral compromise and VC sexual exploitation, the rapes and social abuse do not end with the sex. All of the fraternity houses that the Silicon Valley VC’s came from have now been charged with “rape factory” abuses. These men were raised as, and trained as, abusive animals, on every level.

 

 

BUT, Imagine having your brain raped!

 

 

The VC’s buy the politicians, tax investigators, SEC officers and law enforcement agents that are supposed to stop them from doing their crimes.

 

 

These VC’s have paid billions of dollars to Presidential, Senate, Gubernatorial, Attorney General and Mayoral campaigns, as bribes, in order to buy their way out of any law enforcement attention. The FBI should be stringing them up, but…for some special reason: they don’t. This is the rape of America’s political system. It is a rape of the public trust of over 300 million citizens. Their bribes, to allow over a trillion of their tax dollars to be hidden overseas, rapes our schools of our teachers and rapes our streets of pot-hole repair. Are your local services being cut? Thank John Doerr and Eric Schmidt.

 

 

The Silicon Valley VC’s have also formed a Mafia-like Cartel. This dark and spooky men’s club came from the Skull and Bones, Bohemian Club concept of Omerta secrecy rich boys who sought to control things by only doing business with each other in order to commercialize the commercialization of monopoly creation. They do everything you saw in the Francis Ford Coppola “Godfather” movies except they wear more khaki and drive Tesla’s instead of Cadillacs.

 

 

There is no other region, in all of America, which holds the title of misogyny, prostitution and sexual extortion capital of the nation. This fact is proven by the tens of thousands of articles, and complaints published about Silicon Valley’s abuses; and about no other city in The Nation.

 

 

Ever since HP created Sandhill road, the Cartel was just white boys. Because those white boys made their profits out of flying clever, cheap Indians over from India, getting their ideas, then shipping them back to India, before they could make any stock claims, a few Indian VC’s created a sub-Cartel. While they tried to play off their cultural “robes and temples” crunchy granola marketing, few missed the reality that India is the organized rape capital of the world. The Indian VC’s turned out to rape even more that the White Frat Boy VC’s.

 

 

 

The brains of the Silicon Valley rapist VC’s have one big problem…

 

 

They have had decades of programming and training to run spreadsheets out to the smallest decimal point but they can’t invent a good, creative, idea to save their souls. They are financial experts and ideation idiots.

 

 

To get the things that their Cartel wants to exploit, they usually steal their ideas. They rape the brains of others, often without paying for it.

 

 

They invite the idea people in for a chat, under the guise and pretense of: “we are thinking about investing in your idea..” In most cases, this come-on line is total horsesh*t.

 

 

They are inviting you in to get you to give them a free data dump, your “pitch meeting” at their offices is their fishing expedition to see what they want to steal from you.

 

 

The odds are small that you will be wearing the IZOD shirt, khaki pants, short greased haircut and have the perfectly symmetrical square jawed Aryan look that the VC’s have. They will hate you the moment they see you. You have been excluded from their club the second you walked through their door. You don’t have the look. You didn’t pass the ivy league “one-of-us” sniff test.

 

 

But you still have some power, you have the idea and the technology…for the last few minutes before you open your mouth.

 

 

They will say: “…now; we are all friends here. Tell us everything. We don’t sign non-disclosure agreements but we won’t steal your idea..ha, ha.. if we stole ideas, how could we still be in business.. ha, ha..”

 

 

You just bent over and spread your cheeks for them.

 

 

They will, then, listen carefully to your idea, take notes, argue a few points to try to get you to do more of their homework and then thank you and tell you they will “discuss it internally”, which means they will immediately start organizing a thieving party if your idea had any interest for them.

 

 

All of the VC’s on SandHill road, in Palo Alto, know each other and conspire and collude together, as proven in the “AngelGate”, “No Poaching”, “The Chieky Attack”,“Sony Hack”, “HSBC Hack” and other scandals.

 

 

One VC steals the idea and passes it to another to copy it, rename it and launch it via one of their friends. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Ebay and many other famous companies were created this way. That is why the VC’s poured billions into trying to bribe Congress to overthrow the patent laws. The VC’s live in fear of paying the creators they stole from.

 

 

When they see a great idea that they want to steal, they hire their buddies at Wired, Tech Crunch, Gawker Media or Hearst Publications to write a hatchet job article, or series of blog postings that defame and character assassinate you, while denigrating your technology and saying that it is impossible for your technology to work. They do this to prevent any possibility of non-Cartel VC’s from their Silicon Valley Cartel or the NVCA (essentially the same thing) from funding you and competing with their theft scheme.

 

 

Ironically, their total clone copycat version of your technology, that they deliver, works fine. Even though they said, in their slam articles, that it was impossible for it to work.

 

 

So they raped you, thieved you, used you and shut you down. Isn’t Silicon Valley lovely?

 

 

In the Klieiner Perkins sex abuse law suit, the Tom Perkins “Nazi Scandal”, The Ray Lane tax evasion investigation, Kleiner’s Vinohd Khosla beach lawsuit, the Steven Chu Cleantech Crash and Solyndra crimes, AngelGate, The Eric Schmidt Sex Penthouse and White House manipulation investigation, The In-Q-Tel funds and an army of other scandals; one thing is clear: Silicon Valley VC’s have no respect for morality or the law.

 

 

Voters must demand that the state and federal government bring crushing investigations, and penalties, to these VC’s and tech responsibility-dodgers because their crimes affect every single citizen. We can no longer let these crazy Silicon Valley billionaire megalomaniacs dictate the future of our cities!

 

 

Thank you to everyone who came out and showed their support Tuesday afternoon. We will keep you updated on future developments.

 

 

 

COMCAST tries to punish Democrats by cutting off their NETFLIX

COMCAST tries to punish Democrats by cutting off their NETFLIX

 

 

 

  • The largest users of NETFLIX are Democrats

  • Netflix bosses are Democrats and huge lobbyist financiers

  • Democrats control the FCC

  • The FCC just told Comcast it can’t run an Internet monopoly any more

  • …So COMCAST decided to throttle the SH*T out of NETFLIX users

 

 

 

Comcast Draws Customer Ire by Putting Netflix Addicts on a Meter

Cable Giant Imposing Extra Fees For Excessive Internet Data Usage

Published on AD AGE

Comcast Corp. customers used to be able to binge on all the Netflix and YouTube videos they wanted without repercussions. Now many are being put on a diet.

In a growing number of cities, the nation’s largest cable company has begun imposing extra fees on Internet customers who use what it considers excessive amounts of data. The move could bring in new revenue to offset losses from cord-cutters dropping pay-TV service to stream videos online.

The strategy poses risks. In 2008, Time Warner Cable Inc. tried to limit customers’ Internet use then dropped the plan the next year after a public backlash. Comcast has also faced questions from regulators about why its own streaming service doesn’t count toward subscriber data limits, as well as complaints from customers and online video providers.

“It leaves a bad taste in your mouth,” said Jonathan Strong, 33, a finance manager in Charleston, South Carolina. His family — including three children who watch Netflix every night — goes over the data limit every month, resulting in as much as $20 in extra charges, he said. “It feels like we’re getting punished for our normal use.”

In almost all of Comcast’s test markets, which include Atlanta, Nashville and Miami, customers who exceed 300 gigabytes a month — the equivalent of streaming high-definition video five hours a day, by one estimate — pay $10 more for additional increments of 50 gigabytes.

In some cities, Comcast subscribers can pay $30 to $35 more for unlimited data. Those who stay under 5 gigabytes a month — about 3 hours of streaming high-definition video, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office — get $5 off their bill. Customers get a three-month grace period before being charged fees.

Small fraction
Comcast says only a small fraction of customers — about 8% — exceed the limit, in some cases because their computers are running malicious software without their knowledge. The company says usage-based billing, which is common in the wireless industry, is about fairness. Customers who only use the Internet to check e-mail shouldn’t pay the same as subscribers with bandwidth-heavy web habits like online video games, file-sharing or binge-watching web videos, the company says.

 

Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts likens it to buying more gasoline after driving long distances or paying higher electricity bills for running the air conditioner.

‘Balanced Relationship’

“We’re just trialing ways to have a balanced relationship,” Mr. Roberts said at the Business Insider Ignition conference last month. “I don’t think it’s illogical or something people should be paranoid about.”

Customers of Philadelphia-based Comcast aren’t alone. About one-fourth of U.S. Internet subscribers have data plans that charge extra for heavy usage, according to Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson. AT&T Inc.’s subscribers have different usage limits based on their Internet speed. Cox Communications Inc., the fourth-largest cable operator, is testing a strategy similar to both Comcast and AT&T’s on customers in the Cleveland area who go over their monthly data allotment. Time Warner Cable offers discounts to light Internet users, according to Mr. Moffett.

Hoping to appease consumer advocates, Charter Communications Inc. has pledged not to place any limits on customers’ broadband data for three years if regulators approve its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks LLC.

‘Insurance Policy’
For pay-TV companies, usage-based pricing is “an insurance policy against cord-cutting,” Mr. Moffett wrote in an October report. It ensures they still get paid for delivering video in the future even if more customers drop pay-TV service for Netflix Inc., Hulu or Amazon.com Inc., he said.

“What’s at stake is nothing less than the basic business model of the cable operators,” Mr. Moffett said in an interview.

The average U.S. household watches about five hours of TV a day, according to Nielsen. That same amount streamed over the Internet would probably exceed Comcast’s limit, according to Roger Lynch, chief executive officer of Dish Network Corp.‘s Sling TV, which offers an online “skinny bundle” of more than 20 channels for $20 a month. Comcast says it would take more than seven hours of video streaming a day to exceed its limit.

“It’s something we’re quite concerned about,” Mr. Lynch said in an interview. Comcast’s 300 gigabyte limit is “very restrictive” and “clearly designed to discourage customers from using over- the-top services,” he said, using the term for online video.

Last month, Netflix said its engineers are adapting movies and TV shows available on its service so customers use less bandwidth. Anne Marie Squeo, a spokeswoman for Netflix, declined to comment on Comcast’s strategy.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which regulates pay-TV providers, hasn’t taken a position on usage-based pricing. Last year, the agency said such pricing may benefit consumers by offering them more options, calling it “an unresolved debate” that it will address on a case-by-case basis.

The FCC said in a December letter it wants “to ensure that we have all the facts” about Comcast’s new Stream TV service, which lets customers watch some programming on laptops, tablets and phones and doesn’t count toward their data allotments.

Mr. Lynch said that omission may violate an agreement Comcast made to not favor its own services over others and treat all Web traffic equally. Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said Stream TV runs over the same network as cable service, which isn’t subject to the same rules as Internet traffic.

“Users hate wireline data caps because they create artificial scarcity that increases the cost of getting online,” said Noah Theran, a spokesman for the Internet Association, a Washington trade group that represents companies including Netflix and Google Inc.’s YouTube. “To make matters worse, limited competition in the high-speed broadband market means users often have nowhere else to turn for a better deal.”

— Bloomberg News

 

 

 

 

 

ANTI GOOGLE BUS PUBLIC INTEREST OUT CRY WINS THE DAY: NEXT PROTEST – February 9, 2016

ANTI GOOGLE BUS PUBLIC INTEREST OUT CRY WINS THE DAY: NEXT PROTEST – February 9, 2016

 

 

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors revisited San Francisco’s new Commuter Shuttle Program, which regulates commuter shuttles commonly known as “Google buses.” The new legislation faced a massive out-cry, from the public opponents of the elitist shuttles. The Board decided to postpone this issue and revisit it on February 9, 2016, at San Francisco City Hall.

 

All members of the press and the public that oppose Google’s and Facebook’s privacy rape of the public and their misogynist anti-women and anti-black hiring practices are asked to meet at San Francisco City Hall on February 9, 2016. Anti-Google advocates are encouraged to begin assembly in the City Hall Plaza beginning at 8AM that day.

 

The public is asked to help voice it’s continued disdain for these white, yuppie, self-centered buses that are too ashamed of who they work for to put their logos on these commuter shuttles. These shuttles are bad for commuters, bad for pedestrians, damage the economy, and our environment, not to mention they increase traffic congestion.

 

The companies, that these generic painted buses deliver the robot-workers to, have the, federally documented, lowest hiring numbers of American, female and black workers in the Nation yet they get the largest free taxpayer hand-outs in America. Can you spell: C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N !?

 

San Francisco politicians are paid bribes by Google and Facebook to run these buses. The only people that benefit, in San Francisco are The Mayor and San Francisco’s new Commuter Shuttle Program executives when they get their campaign funding, golf memberships and free dinners at The Westin.

 

San Francisco has seen it’s City destroyed by an influx of bearded, naive, idiots who work, like mindless robots, for the “most evil corporations on Earth”. Silicon valley can’t house enough idiots to run it’s privacy abuse shops so it tells the Bro-grammers to “Go up and live in San Francisco, Don’t worry about the commute, we will pick you up!” San Francisco is being “culture-raped” by Silicon Valley billionaires who have zero concern about the indigenous people of the area. Much has been written about Silicon Valley’s “Rape Culture” but what does that term mean?

 

 

It refers to rich white men who were raised to believe that they had special social privileges because their parents, and fraternity houses, trained them to think that they existed in order to use others to meet their needs for pleasure, power and money.

 

 

This concept of “White Elitist Privilege” is a passed-on concept of land-owner and factory-owner control created in the feudal times of old Europe.

 

 

The people who owned the land, and resources, acquired by organized European murder fests called: “land wars”; created a mythos which sought to trick those who did not own those things into thinking that the rich owners had special powers, or special wisdom, due to some magic in their “blood-lines”.

 

 

In fact, due the the rape of servants, cousins, townspeople and siblings, almost no “blood-lines” remained pure for long in the “nobility”.

 

 

One might suggest that, “if the townspeople were stupid enough to believe that some guy named Smith had super-powers because he was named Smith, then they deserved all of the use-and abuse that they were subjected to”. This would be a Machiavellian, and harsh, assumption about people who were, essentially, brainwashed, from birth, to believe that the feudal Lord was better than them. As the CIA, and Google, have proven, it only takes a month of repetitive information iteration to brainwash the political, social or moral beliefs of any population.

 

 

In Silicon Valley the Joe Lonsdale rape case, the Ellen Pao Sex abuse case, The Ravi Kumar and Forrest Hayes Sex murder cases, The Stanford Frat house rape cover-ups, the Intern sex abuse scandals, The Stanford Professor’s Sex scandals, The Silicon Valley Hooker parties, The Rosewood Hotel Thursday Night Sex Pick-up parties and hundreds of other twisted perversions, which involve a Silicon Valley VC, or Tech exec, abusing a lower income person are flowing like water down the tainted white water rapids of technology deviancy.

 

 

While being an intern, Stanford co-ed, or blonde divorcée, in Palo Alto, pretty much guarantees that you will face a gauntlet of high-tech date rape drugs, extortion, moral compromise and VC sexual exploitation, the rapes and social abuse do not end with the sex. All of the fraternity houses that the Silicon Valley VC’s came from have now been charged with “rape factory” abuses. These men were raised as, and trained as, abusive animals, on every level.

 

 

BUT, Imagine having your brain raped!

 

 

The VC’s buy the politicians, tax investigators, SEC officers and law enforcement agents that are supposed to stop them from doing their crimes.

 

 

These VC’s have paid billions of dollars to Presidential, Senate, Gubernatorial, Attorney General and Mayoral campaigns, as bribes, in order to buy their way out of any law enforcement attention. The FBI should be stringing them up, but…for some special reason: they don’t. This is the rape of America’s political system. It is a rape of the public trust of over 300 million citizens. Their bribes, to allow over a trillion of their tax dollars to be hidden overseas, rapes our schools of our teachers and rapes our streets of pot-hole repair. Are your local services being cut? Thank John Doerr and Eric Schmidt.

 

 

The Silicon Valley VC’s have also formed a Mafia-like Cartel. This dark and spooky men’s club came from the Skull and Bones, Bohemian Club concept of Omerta secrecy rich boys who sought to control things by only doing business with each other in order to commercialize the commercialization of monopoly creation. They do everything you saw in the Francis Ford Coppola “Godfather” movies except they wear more khaki and drive Tesla’s instead of Cadillacs.

 

 

There is no other region, in all of America, which holds the title of misogyny, prostitution and sexual extortion capital of the nation. This fact is proven by the tens of thousands of articles, and complaints published about Silicon Valley’s abuses; and about no other city in The Nation.

 

 

Ever since HP created Sandhill road, the Cartel was just white boys. Because those white boys made their profits out of flying clever, cheap Indians over from India, getting their ideas, then shipping them back to India, before they could make any stock claims, a few Indian VC’s created a sub-Cartel. While they tried to play off their cultural “robes and temples” crunchy granola marketing, few missed the reality that India is the organized rape capital of the world. The Indian VC’s turned out to rape even more that the White Frat Boy VC’s.

 

 

The brains of the Silicon Valley rapist VC’s have one big problem…

 

 

 

They have had decades of programming and training to run spreadsheets out to the smallest decimal point but they can’t invent a good, creative, idea to save their souls. They are financial experts and ideation idiots.

 

 

To get the things that their Cartel wants to exploit, they usually steal their ideas. They rape the brains of others, often without paying for it.

 

 

They invite the idea people in for a chat, under the guise and pretense of: “we are thinking about investing in your idea..” In most cases, this come-on line is total horsesh*t.

 

 

They are inviting you in to get you to give them a free data dump, your “pitch meeting” at their offices is their fishing expedition to see what they want to steal from you.

 

 

The odds are small that you will be wearing the IZOD shirt, khaki pants, short greased haircut and have the perfectly symmetrical square jawed Aryan look that the VC’s have. They will hate you the moment they see you. You have been excluded from their club the second you walked through their door. You don’t have the look. You didn’t pass the ivy league “one-of-us” sniff test.

 

 

But you still have some power, you have the idea and the technology…for the last few minutes before you open your mouth.

 

 

They will say: “…now; we are all friends here. Tell us everything. We don’t sign non-disclosure agreements but we won’t steal your idea..ha, ha.. if we stole ideas, how could we still be in business.. ha, ha..”

 

 

You just bent over and spread your cheeks for them.

 

 

They will, then, listen carefully to your idea, take notes, argue a few points to try to get you to do more of their homework and then thank you and tell you they will “discuss it internally”, which means they will immediately start organizing a thieving party if your idea had any interest for them.

 

 

All of the VC’s on SandHill road, in Palo Alto, know each other and conspire and collude together, as proven in the “AngelGate”, “No Poaching”, “The Chieky Attack”,“Sony Hack”, “HSBC Hack” and other scandals.

 

 

One VC steals the idea and passes it to another to copy it, rename it and launch it via one of their friends. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Ebay and many other famous companies were created this way. That is why the VC’s poured billions into trying to bribe Congress to overthrow the patent laws. The VC’s live in fear of paying the creators they stole from.

 

 

When they see a great idea that they want to steal, they hire their buddies at Wired, Tech Crunch, Gawker Media or Hearst Publications to write a hatchet job article, or series of blog postings that defame and character assassinate you, while denigrating your technology and saying that it is impossible for your technology to work. They do this to prevent any possibility of non-Cartel VC’s from their Silicon Valley Cartel or the NVCA (essentially the same thing) from funding you and competing with their theft scheme.

 

 

Ironically, their total clone copycat version of your technology, that they deliver, works fine. Even though they said, in their slam articles, that it was impossible for it to work.

 

 

So they raped you, thieved you, used you and shut you down. Isn’t Silicon Valley lovely?

 

 

In the Klieiner Perkins sex abuse law suit, the Tom Perkins “Nazi Scandal”, The Ray Lane tax evasion investigation, Kleiner’s Vinohd Khosla beach lawsuit, the Steven Chu Cleantech Crash and Solyndra crimes, AngelGate, The Eric Schmidt Sex Penthouse and White House manipulation investigation, The In-Q-Tel funds and an army of other scandals; one thing is clear: Silicon Valley VC’s have no respect for morality or the law.

 

 

Voters must demand that the state and federal government bring crushing investigations, and penalties, to these VC’s and tech responsibility-dodgers because their crimes affect every single citizen.

 

 

Thank you to everyone who came out and showed their support Tuesday afternoon. We will keep you updated on future developments.

 

 

 

The -ium metals mining Corruption are the dirtiest schemes in politics

The -ium metals mining Corruption are the dirtiest schemes in politics

 

– Lithium, Indium and Uranium have led to murders and epic crimes in order to keep their dirty mining deals secret

 

– Tesla and Google investors got massive lithium kickbacks from public agencies and they funded their campaigns

 

The Clintons: is the Oregon standoff really about uranium?

 

by Jon Rappoport

 

The Clintons: is the Oregon standoff really about uranium?

 

by Jon Rappoport

 

January 27, 2016

 

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

 

Note: This article was written before the Oregon shootout in which one man was killed and another wounded.

 

Is uranium at the heart of the Oregon Malheur federal-protestor standoff? That’s the question I’m asking. It isn’t a flippant question.

 

I realize there are many other issues swirling around this event. The Hammonds, the Bundys, militias, the feds, cattle grazing on federal lands, federal land grabs, and so on. This article isn’t meant to take apart those matters.

 

It’s meant to follow up on my previous article, in which I present a circumstantial case for the Clintons’ heavy involvement in a scheme that’s transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin and Russia. And the key company in that piece is Uranium One. Remember the name. It’s apparently a major clue in what I’m about to discuss.

 

I also want to say, at the outset, that I don’t know how many independent news outlets and websites are covering the uranium question, or which outlet initiated this line of investigation. I’m relying on one provocative January 23 article at intellihub, by Shepard Ambellas:

 

“Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians, along with one-fifth of our uranium ore.”

 

Down in the body of that article, the author provides a link to a page at the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior.

 

On that BLM page (“National BLM > OR/WA > Energy > Uranium Energy”), in a section titled, “Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA,” [(image of webpage forthcoming)] is the following statement:

 

“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the ‘New U’ uranium claims.

 

“On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.

 

“The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the ‘New U’ uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.

 

“However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.”

 

The first sentence in that BLM section ties together several key elements of the story: Uranium One; a uranium mine; southern Malheur County. Southern Malheur is the general area of the federal-protestor standoff. Let me give you that first sentence again:

 

“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon.”

 

What does this have to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton? I’ll reprint my previous article so you can read the details, but the short version is: there’s a case to be made that they, through Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Putin and the Russians. And if so, and if this area of Oregon is projected to be part of that uranium mining deal, then we are looking at a stunning “coincidence”: the US federal government is coming down hard on a group of protestors who are occupying, for their own reasons, a very valuable piece of territory that goes far beyond the issue of private cattle grazing on government land.

 

It comes under the heading of those old familiar lines: you have no idea what you’re involved in; you have no idea who you’re messing with; this is way over your head; you just stepped into the middle of something that’s bigger than you can imagine.

 


 

Here is my previous article in full, “The Clintons: how Putin grabbed a fifth of all US uranium.” I’ll have a few important comments to make after the article:

 

—She’s the next US President, if an old socialist, a cowboy real estate hustler, and a bunch of emails can’t stop her.

 

He already was the President.

 

They’re married. Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics. Wow. In a land where they’re the first couple, does anybody have tickets to sell for the next flight to Mars?

 

Before I board my flight, what about the uranium scandal?

 

The what?

 

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this, consider—suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple has been running a kind of parallel operation to the government, in the form of a foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want political favors. Just suppose. And a few donors who are ponying up those $$ want to sell a company to the Russians. But because this company sells a very, very sensitive product, and that product happens to come out of the ground in the US, agencies of the US government have to approve the sale. And one of those agencies that does approve the sale happens to be headed up by half of that beautiful couple. And this sensitive American product, well, the last person you’d want to control it is the head of a place called Russia—he can sit in Moscow and have complete dominion over this product that exists on US soil…and nobody thinks this is a problem, as half of the beautiful couple runs for President of the United States. It’s a yawn. It was a big story for a day or two, and then it sank below memory and everybody moved on. Forget about it. Who cares?

 

Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”.

 

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controls a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

 

From the Times:

 

“…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

 

From the Times:

 

“The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

 

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

 

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

 

Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

 

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

 

“At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

 

“Whether the donations [to the Clinton Foundation] played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

 

“In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one ‘has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.’ He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the [uranium] deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. ‘To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,’ he added.”

 

—The US State Dept. had to sign off on the deal giving Putin control over US uranium. Hillary headed up the State Dept. Much money from Canadian mining executives, who obviously wanted the deal to go through, found its way into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation concealed these donations.

 

That’s called a circumstantial case. Every such case is different, and has to be judged by assessing probabilities. But for example, if an examination of two involved prominent figures revealed they were serial liars, it would strengthen a verdict of guilty.

 

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? And she’s going to be the next President? Can we give her a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

 

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

 

Good times.

 

—end of article—

 

So we have the Clintons, and Uranium One sold to Putin, and that sale gives him control of 20% of US uranium production. Now we have an area in Southern Oregon which has uranium, and in this area, the feds are coming down on the protestors and the occupiers.

 

What are the feds really trying to protect? Are they just trying to stop cattle grazing and routine burns on that land, or is there something more far precious at stake?

 

The feds aren’t known for making delicate distinctions. People are raising a bit of hell in the general (or specific) area where uranium mining could commence. Get them out of there! Move them off! No more cattle grazing here! This is a matter of national security!

 

Or it was. Now it’s a matter of Russian national security.

 

Make deal, protect the dealers. It’s business.

 

Consider the potential scandal and the massive irony: US citizens are asserting their sovereign right to use federal land, land that should never have been co-opted by the federal government in the first place—and now it turns out to be Russian land.

 

Jon Rappoport

 

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

 

 

 

 

Elections, Globalist, Government Fraud.

 

Post navigation

 

← The Clintons: how Putin grabbed a fifth of all US uranium

 

Human psychodrama on the world stage →

 

19 comments on “The Clintons: is the Oregon standoff really about uranium?”

 

  1. n3angus says:

    January 27, 2016 at 1:28 am

    Its has become obvious that Uranium One is running the show in the west called the takeover of resources and is very interested in the
    activities in southeastern Oregon by the posts on its facebook page , https://www.facebook.com/Uranium-One-1683613478585571/timeline , and with the Fox News story here , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcW2xTkh7rs , that talks about the 13 million acres that
    they intend to take away from the Western States for various economic
    activities like SEZ , http://www.solareis.anl.gov/sez/index.cfm

    We have started a Petition to use the same
    process of allowing for state citizens to receive just dividend royalties as
    Alaska Citizens are doing . I just started a petition calling for
    Royalties to be paid to state citizens off any economic activity on States
    lands like Alaskans get , on the White House Petitions site, We the People.
    Will you sign it? http://wh.gov/iwuee

    Any Economic activity on State lands should return a Dividend to the
    citizens of that state .

    Reply

 

  1. sunaj57 says:

    January 27, 2016 at 6:46 am

    The people who signed off on giving US territory or uranium to foreign countries should be tried for treason and jailed and these assets be returned to their rightful owners-the people of the United States

    Reply

 

 

independently of experimental observations.

Reply

 

  1. odie says:

    January 27, 2016 at 8:33 am

    and humanity slept on.

    Reply

 

    • Oliver Manuel says:

      January 27, 2016 at 9:32 am

      George Orwell realized what was happening in 1946 and moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura in 1946 to start writing a futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

      Orwell thought we would awaken to totalitarian rule by 1984, but we slept through 1984 and only partially awoke when Climaregate emails were released in Nov 2009.

 

 

 

  1. From Québec says:

    January 27, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Nice investigative reporting, Jon.

    But, what else to expect from the Clintons?

    But, you know what, I much prefer seing the Uranium in the hands of Putin, who is trying to re-build his country, than to see the Uranium in the hands of Obama, who is trying to destroy his country.

    I also think that, n3angus, is right , about allowing for state citizens to receive just dividend royalties as Alaska Citizens are doing

    Off topic:

    Jon, you do not have to publish this. It was for your own information.

    Donald Trump’s announced that he was skipping the upcoming Fox News debate.

    “Instead of attending the debate, Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said they will hold an event in Iowa to raise money for wounded veterans.

    “And Fox will go from probably having 24 million viewers to about 2 million,” he said.

    Reply

 

  1. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    January 27, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    As the truth comes out, notice the false veneer of respectability on this 26 Jan 2016 paper:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

    Reply

 

 

 

  1. Sean Oliver says:

    January 27, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    This is a little off topic maybe? but here it is anyway! Watch the whole video if you can!>>

    Fukushima & How Globe And Mail Hoodwinked Uranium Stockholders Jan 4th 2015

    Reply

 

  1. Jim G. says:

    January 28, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I forwarded Jon’s above article to a friend of mine, who sent me back the following article. Clearly there has been a lot going on from behind the scenes regarding prosecution, along with an agenda that we’re not being told about:
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/

    Reply

 

  1. enki says:

    January 28, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Within the spectrum of ….ASSET STRIPPING……Oregon acreages, you might like to consider …GOLD.

    The lands in question have been said to be rich in gold, veritable ….GOLD MINES…in fact.

    Upcoming developments in the gold market feature China’s intention to peg the Yuan to gold….in the first week of April 2016.

    http://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/gold-price-discovery-moving-to-china-in-april/

    Fort Knox and the Fed are thought to be empty, so China’s move could prove embarrassing for USA Inc: and, more particularly the….. RAT-child khazar MAFIA.

    Bloomberg has suggested gold may soar to $64,000.00 per oz.

    If, the Bloomberg estimate is true……..
    OREGON may be a GOLD MINE……………USA Inc:/RKM …… is DESPERATE to STEAL.

    http://www.goldcore.com/us/gold-blog/gold-at-64000-bloombergs-china-gold-price/

    It appears that due to the …..”DISAPPEARANCES”….of gold stocks, the market is exhibiting signs of stress.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/did-comex-just-receive-a-physical-gold-bailout-from-the-feds/

    Finally the…. RAT-child khazar MAFIA….appear to have done such a tremendous job of annihilating/stealing gold stocks and, manipulating gold prices, the result is the gold market no longer displays a shred of integrity.

    http://www.abeldanger.net/2011/02/gata-gold-market-manipulation-huge.html#more

 

Test, using billions of people, proves that TESLA CARS destroy the environment

Technology |

 

Related: Tech, Environment, China, Global Energy News

In coal-powered China, electric car surge fuels fear of worsening smog

BEIJING | By Jake Spring

 

A customer checks a BYD e6 electric car at a dealership in Beijing, China, in this December 9, 2015 file picture.

 

Reuters/Jason Lee/Files

 

Automakers’ latest projections for rapid growth of China’s green car market have added to concerns of worsening smog as the uptake of electric vehicles powered by coal-fired grids races ahead of a switch to cleaner energy.

 

Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) plans 15 new-energy models over 3-5 years, its China chief told a green car conference in Beijing on Saturday, predicting – like the government – that Chinese production of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles would grow almost six times to 2 million annually by 2020.

 

At the same event, BYD Co Ltd’s (002594.SZ) (1211.HK) chairman told media that the Chinese automaker’s electric vehicle sales would double in each of the next three years.

 

The government has been promoting electric vehicles to cut the smog that frequently envelops Chinese cities, helping sales quadruple last year and making China the biggest market, the finance minister said at the conference. Less than 1 percent of passenger cars are now new energy, but the pace of growth raises their potential to worsen smog.

 

A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus petrol-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare little better.

 

“International experience shows that cleaning up the air doesn’t need to rely on electric vehicles,” said Los Angeles-based An Feng, director of the Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation. “Clean up the power plants.”

 

China plans to convert the grid to renewable fuel or clean-coal technology as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2020.

 

That will speed the green impact of electric vehicles, said environmental science professor Huo Hong at the elite Tsinghua university. But that goal will be “really difficult to achieve.”

 

Tsinghua’s studies call into question the wisdom of aggressively promoting vehicles which the university said could not be considered environmentally friendly for at least a decade in many areas of China unless grid reform accelerates.

 

China’s industry, environment and science ministries, which devise most new energy vehicle policies, did not respond to requests for comment. BYD and Volkswagen declined to immediately comment.

 

POLICY MISMATCH

 

To promote new-energy vehicles, the government has offered various incentives in recent years including tax breaks, and set targets such as having 5 million new-energy vehicles on the road by 2020 – more than 8 times the current number.

 

Authorities in some cities particularly affected by smog have gone further. Beijing and Tianjin, for instance, have exempted new-energy vehicles from limits on the number of new cars granted license plates, and exempted them from driving restrictions that other cars face on certain days of the week.

 

This month, the industrial Hebei province decreed that all new residential complexes must have car-charging facilities.

 

In western Beijing, 62-year-old retired truck and taxi driver Zhang Zhijun bought a BYD Tang hybrid last month and plans to trade in his petrol-engine Toyota Corolla for an electric car for short rides like taking his grandson to school.

 

“Right now smog is very heavy in China. This way, if everyone does their part, it will definitely cut down on pollution,” Zhang said.

 

But Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei are all more than 90 percent reliant on coal for energy, Tsinghua’s research showed.

 

Huo and academics point out that, at the very least, the proliferation of electric vehicles pushes more sources of pollution away from heavily populated urban centers.

 

Whatever the impact, Qin Lihong, president of startup electric automaker NextEV, said cleaning the grid would be the quickest route to clear skies.

 

“It’s much easier for society to make hundreds of power plants better than change the hundreds of millions of cars in thousands of cities,” he said.

 

(Reporting by Jake Spring; Additional reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

 

 

Is Panasonic The Most Unethical Company in Tech?

 

 

 

Elon Musk will do anything for dirty tech deal’s to increase his wealth and self-promotion via taxpayer pig troughs. He loves to partner with the dirtiest name in electronics: Panasonic.

 

 

 

Apparently, twisted minds think alike. When will the FBI finally shut both of these bad actors down?

 

 

 

Panasonic kills workers. Lies, runs corruption operations, dumps goods, builds toxic factories and well, just take a look:

 

 

 

Panasonic charged with price-fixing on car components

 

 

 

Dustin Walsh
Crain’s Detroit Business

 

A federal grand jury in Detroit indicted another Japanese automotive executive on Tuesday for involvement in an international pricing-fixing conspiracy.

 

According to the charges filed in U.S. District Court, Shinichi Kotani, an executive for Panasonic Corp., participated in fixing prices on switches and steering angles sensors for Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles sold in the U.S.

 

The indictment alleges Kotani and co-conspirators participated in big-rigging meetings in the U.S. and Japan from January 2004 until at least February 2010.

 

Besides various executive roles in Japan, Kotani served as vice president of automotive systems for Panasonic Automotive Systems Co. of America in Peachtree, Ga., from April 2008 until July 2009.

 

Panasonic also has an automotive technical center in suburban Detroit. Attempts to reach a company official for comment were unsuccessful. Efforts to locate an attorney for Kotani also were unsuccessful.

 

Kotani faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines for violating the Sherman Act.

 

The indictment — part of a broad ongoing U.S. investigation into supplier price fixing — is the second coming out of Detroit in the past week. Regulators in Europe and Japan have been conducting similar investigations.

 

On Sept. 19, Ryoji Fukudome and Toshihiko Nagashima, executives for Tokyo-based Fujikura Ltd., were indicted for allegedly fixing prices on wire harnesses sold to Fuji Heavy Industries. The parts were allegedly used in Fuji’s Subaru vehicle line sold in the U.S.

 

Earlier this month, Shingo Okuda, an executive at G.S. Electech Inc., was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky for bid-rigging on wire assemblies sold to Toyota.

 

In July, Panasonic pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy and was sentenced to pay a $45.8 million criminal fine.

 

The investigation has led to 11 companies and 19 executives, including Kotani, charged in the price-fixing conspiracy.

 

More than $874 million in criminal fines have been imposed on the companies, and 14 executives have been sentenced to prison ranging from a year to two years each.

 

The list of companies that have pleaded guilty include Panasonic, Sanyo Electric Co., Diamond Electric Manufacturing Co., Tokai Rika, Autoliv, TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH, Nippon Seiki Co., Fujikura, Furukawa Electric Co., Denso Corp., Yazaki Corp. and G.S. Electech.

 

 

 

Panasonic will spend up to $1.6 billion on Tesla gigafactory

 

Posted by Charles Morris & filed under Newswire, The Tech.

 

 

Panasonic has been involved with Tesla’s Gigafactory from the beginning of the project, but until now, it hasn’t said exactly how much it plans to invest.

Now Panasonic President Kazuhiro Tsuga has told Marketwatch that the company will invest up to $1.6 billion, hoping to secure its future in automotive electronics.

 

Sales to carmakers represented about 15 percent of Panasonic’s revenue in 2015, but the company aims to double that over the next four years. That objective is highly dependent on Tesla’s ability to meet its goal of selling 500,000 cars a year by 2020, as batteries are expected to provide the lion’s share of Panasonic’s automotive-market sales.

 

“We are sort of waiting on the demand from Tesla,” Mr. Tsuga said. “If Tesla succeeds and the electric vehicle becomes mainstream, the world will be changed and we will have lots of opportunity to grow.”

 

 

Tesla and Panasonic plan to build the factory in eight phases, and are currently in the first phase. So far, the Japanese company’s investment has been small, but by the time the Gig is fully up to speed, Panasonic will have provided between 1.5 and 1.6 billion dollars, out of a total price tag of 4 to 5 billion, Mr. Tsuga said.

 

Panasonic employees were expected to arrive in Nevada at the end of 2015 to prepare for the start of cell production. The factory will begin producing batteries this year for Tesla’s Powerwall energy storage business.

 

 

 

Source: Marketwatch via Green Car Reports

 

Tags: Panasonic, Tesla Gigafactory

 

 

 

 

Panasonic and Its Subsidiary Sanyo Agree to Plead Guilty in Separate Price-Fixing Conspiracies Involving Automotive Parts and Battery Cells

 

Lg Chem Ltd. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price-fixing Conspiracy Involving Battery Cells, First Charges Filed in Battery Cell Investigation

 

Panasonic Corp. and its subsidiary, SANYO Electric Co. Ltd., have agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of $56.5 million in criminal fines for their roles in separate price-fixing conspiracies involving automotive parts and battery cells, the Department of Justice announced today.  LG Chem Ltd., a leading manufacturer of secondary batteries, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $1.056 million criminal fine for price fixing involving battery cells.

 

  Osaka, Japan-based Panasonic agreed to pay a $45.8 million criminal fine for its role in the automotive parts conspiracy. SANYO agreed to pay a $10.731 million criminal fine for its role in the battery cells conspiracy.  The guilty pleas against SANYO and LG Chem are the first in the department’s ongoing investigation into anticompetitive conduct in the cylindrical lithium ion battery cell industry.

The three-count felony charge against Panasonic was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Separate one-count felony charges were filed against SANYO and LG Chem in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  As part of the plea agreements, which are subject to court approval, the charged companies have agreed to cooperate in the department’s ongoing antitrust investigations.

 

 Panasonic has agreed to plead guilty for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of switches, steering angle sensors and automotive high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere.  SANYO and LG Chem Ltd. have agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to fix the prices of cylindrical lithium ion battery cells sold worldwide for use in notebook computer battery packs.

 

 “Panasonic is charged with participating in separate price-fixing conspiracies affecting numerous parts used in cars made and sold in the United States while its subsidiary was also fixing prices on battery cells used by consumers of notebook computers,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “Pleading guilty and cooperating with the division’s ongoing investigations is a necessary step in changing a corporate culture that turned customers into price-fixing victims.” 

 

 According to the first count of a three-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, Panasonic participated in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of steering wheel switches, turn switches, wiper switches, combination switches and door courtesy switches sold to Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere. According to the court document, Panasonic and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy from at least as early as September 2003 until at least February 2010.

 

 The second count charges that Panasonic, during this same time period, participated in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of steering angle sensors sold to Toyota in the United States and elsewhere. The department said that Panasonic and its co-conspirators agreed, during meetings and conversations, to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of steering angle sensors sold to Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere.

 

 According to the third count of the charge, from at least as early as July 1998 and continuing until at least February 2010, Panasonic and its co-conspirators participated in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing, during meetings and conversations, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of automotive HID ballasts sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Mazda Motor Corp. and Mazda Motor of America Inc., and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere.

 

 I ncluding Panasonic, 11 companies and 15 executives have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and have agreed to pay a total of more than $874 million in criminal fines as a result of the auto parts investigation. Additionally, 12 of the individuals have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve jail sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each. The three additional executives have agreed to serve time in prison and are currently awaiting sentencing.

 

 

 

“The FBI remains committed to protecting American consumers and businesses from corporate corruption. The conduct of Panasonic, SANYO, and LG Chem resulted in inflated production costs for notebook computers and cars purchased by U.S. consumers,” said Joseph S. Campbell, FBI Criminal Investigative Division Deputy Assistant Director.  “These investigations illustrate our efforts to ensure market fairness for U.S. businesses by bringing corporations to justice when their commercial activity violates antitrust laws.”

 

 According to the one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, SANYO and LG Chem engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of the cylindrical lithium ion battery cells used in notebook computer battery packs from about April 2007 until about September 2008. Cylindrical lithium ion battery cells are rechargeable batteries that are often incorporated in groups into more powerful battery packs commonly used to power electronic devices.

 

 According to the charges, SANYO, LG Chem and their co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and conversations to price cylindrical lithium ion battery cells for use in notebook computer battery packs to customers at predetermined levels and issuing price quotations to customers in accordance with those agreements. The department also said that SANYO, LG Chem and their co-conspirators collected and exchanged information for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices and took steps to conceal the conspiracy.

 

 Panasonic, SANYO and LG Chem are each charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine for the company may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

 

 Today’s charges arose from an ongoing investigation in the cylindrical lithium ion battery cells industry being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI in San Francisco as well as an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by each of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI. Today’s automotive parts charges were brought by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the FBI’s Detroit Field Office, with the assistance of the FBI headquarters’ International Corruption Unit. Anyone with information on price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct related to other products in the automotive parts industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258, visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html or call the FBI’s Detroit Field Office at 313-965-2323. Anyone with information concerning illegal or anticompetitive conduct in the battery industry is urged to call the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

 

 

Panasonic Execs Charged In Price-Fixing Sting

 

By Kaitlin Ugolik

Law360, New York — A grand jury in Michigan on Tuesday indicted former executives of Panasonic Corp., Whirlpool Corp. and Tecumseh Products Co. for their alleged participation in an international refrigerant compressor price-fixing scheme.

The indictment is the first in an ongoing investigation by the U .S. Department of Justice into price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices in the worldwide refrigerant compressor market.

“Cracking down on international price-fixing cartels has been, and will continue to be, among the most significant priorities for the Antitrust Division,” Sharis Pozen, Special Investigator, said.

 

FBI Probing Kickbacks By Panasonic Supplier

By

The FBI said this week federal prosecutors charged William McMahon, CEO and co-owner of Trustin Technology, and Sean Volin, who was a manager for Pansonic Corp. of North America at its Secaucus, N.J., office, with wire fraud. McMahon paid kickbacks to Volin to ensure his company would continue to receive contracts from Panasonic that brought tens of millions of dollars to the company, the FBI said in a statement.

Tell Sony and Panasonic: Stop Poisoning Tijuana’s Workers!

Marisa Natale 

 

 

I am writing to address the manufacturing practices of international corporations in Mexico, especially Tijuana. The workers in their plants are treated inhumanely, and they are destroying the communities around their factories. They are able to escape fair treatment of their workers and responsible chemical use by moving their manufacturing to Mexico – out of sight and out of mind of their customers. The fact that any company would be so deliberately manipulative is disgusting and unbelievable.

            The chemicals the workers are constantly exposed to are killing them – they are inhaling lead, burning their skin with chemical adhesives and giving birth to children with defects. They have sores and infections in their lungs and organs. They are going to die young – their children are living in the company waste and filth.

They are offered no rights, no protection, and no fair treatment. To make matters worse, they do not get a reprieve at home. The worker communities surrounding the plants are wastelands of corporate footprints. The rivers run with chemicals – the rivers that serve as drinking, cooking and washing water for the inhabitants. The ground is saturated with dangerous and harmful substances used in their factories. When the rains run, the polluted rivers overrun into people’s homes and they must cross them on foot simply to get to work, where they are exposed to even more chemicals.

            They are not responsible for the workers’ living conditions. They are not responsible for downed power lines, education issues or lack of proper homes. However, nothing I have mentioned in this petition is beyond their control. They can stop the use of dangerous and deadly chemicals in factories. They can clean up their act. They can stop letting their chemicals run off into the workers’ water supplies, homes and bodies. They can hire an environmental task force to clean up the communities that they have ruined, which would create legitimate jobs. They can hire engineers to figure out solutions to replace the deadly chemicals with harmless ones that still enable them to produce a high-quality product.

            Sony and Panasonic are committed to serving their customers with dignity and respect – but their employees deserve to be treated in the same way. Until Sony and Panasonic change their production practices and clean up the communities they have ruined, I am instituting a boycott of their products.  This is unacceptable and will not be allowed to continue – as free Americans we vote with our dollars and we cannot choose to vote for their companies until change happens.

 

So when you buy a piece of electronic equipment, whether it is a television or a camera cable, to a microwave or a toaster, LOOK FOR THE SONY/PANASONIC LABEL. Sony brands many of its products clearly, but you may have to look carefully for the Panasonic name. Don’t allow this to continue. If the profit margins aren’t working, Panasonic and Sony will have to change their manufacturing practices, and we have to make it hurt where it counts for them to listen. Aim high! Invite your friends! Sign away! We want as many thousands of signatures as possible!

 

 

Letter to

 

 

 

Panasonic Communications

 

We are writing to you to address your manufacturing practices in Mexico, especially Tijuana. The workers in your plants are treated inhumanely, and you are destroying the communities around your factories. You are able to escape fair treatment of your workers and responsible chemical use by moving your manufacturing to Mexico – out

 

Panasonic’s Toxic Factories Take Toll On China’s Labor Force

 

 

 

By

Jane Spencer and

Juliet Ye

Over the holidays, millions of American children received Chinese-made toys powered by cadmium batteries.

Cadmium batteries are safe to use. They are also cheap, saving American parents about $1.50 on the average toy, compared with pricier batteries.

But cadmium batteries can be hazardous to make. In southern China, Wang Fengping worked for years in plants that produced cadmium batteries for the likes of Mattel Inc., Toys “R” Us Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Like hundreds of her colleagues, Ms. Wang regularly inhaled the toxic red cadmium dust that filled the air in the plant.

Now, at 45, Ms. Wang is often too weak to walk. Her kidneys have failed, and her doctors have identified cadmium poisoning as the likely culprit. About 400 other workers at her former employer, Hong Kong-based GP Batteries International Ltd., have been found to harbor unsafe levels of cadmium, a toxic metal like mercury and lead that can cause kidney failure, lung cancer and bone disease.

In recent months, Americans have discovered the dark side of their reliance on cheap Chinese goods. From lead-tainted toys to contaminated pet food, the safety of Chinese products is suddenly an American obsession.

But in China, workers making goods for American consumers have long borne the brunt of a global manufacturing system that puts cost cutting ahead of safety. The search for cheaper production means dirty industries are migrating to countries with few worker protections and lenient regulatory environments.

The nickel-cadmium battery illustrates this trend. Once widely manufactured in the West, the batteries are now largely made in China, where the industry is sickening workers and poisoning the soil and water.

Now, some regulators and companies are taking action. This year, the European Union is banning the sale of nearly all cadmium batteries. A few companies, including Hasbro Inc., are eschewing the battery.

Yet cadmium batteries, a technology dating back to 1899, continue to represent 3% of total battery sales, and are still widely used in toys, power tools, cordless phones and other gadgets sold in the U.S. Besides being inexpensive, they can provide a quick surge of power.

The near-disappearance of the American cadmium-battery industry can be understood from a visit to an overgrown field in Cold Spring, N.Y. Here, the Marathon Battery factory churned out nickel-cadmium batteries for the U.S. military for three decades. After the plant was shuttered in 1979, the cadmium-laden ground became one of the nation’s highest-profile superfund sites, sparking a $130 million clean-up and a class-action lawsuit by nearby residents that was settled for millions of dollars in 1998.

Poisoned Words

Edited excerpts from Ms. Wang’s blog, written in Chinese and translated by The Wall Street Journal. Click on the image to go to the blog itself.

ENLARGE

  • From the blog’s undated introduction
    Hello friends! Do you want to know how Gold Peak Battery treats its cadmium-poisoned employees? Would you like to hear a personal account from a victim of workplace cadmium poisoning? Panasonic Battery and past and present battery factory workers, would you like to know more specific facts? Then please read my blog, and let’s unite in concern for cadmium poisoning!

  • Nov. 20, 2007 — Global warming, colder heart
    It was hard to get up to eat a bit of breakfast, my head hurt and my whole body felt discomfort, but finally I decided to go outside. Everyone is talking about global warming, temperatures are rising, but today I felt the wind was pretty strong and the temperature colder than yesterday. I felt as if I was sleepwalking through unfamiliar streets. After a while, I gathered my thoughts and returned home.

  • Nov. 11, 2007 — The visible and the invisible
    Our society is full of love; if a person gets into trouble, others will help. But when it comes to occupational diseases — a hidden killer — that cannot be seen, I’m afraid that it’s very difficult for those without personal experience to understand. Most workers have limited knowledge, ultimately you don’t know how many hidden killers are in your workplace. The boss knows, but he won’t tell you!

  • Nov. 11, 2007 — First application for an occupational illness diagnosis
    My name is Wang Fengping. I am an engineer in the engineering department of the Gold Peak Battery Factory in Huizhou city, Guandong province. I was born in May 1962 and began work at Gold Peak on August 1, 1995. From that date until December 2005, I was continuously engaged in the production and follow-up design of manufacturing equipment and machinery. This entry includes an account of all of Ms. Wang’s jobs, workplaces, names of co-workers, and whether those employees had symptoms similar to Ms. Wang’s.

  • Nov, 7, 2007 — Poem, in Chinese and English
    “It is my prayer, it is my longing, that we may pass from this life together / a longing which shall never perish from the earth, / but shall have place in the heart of every wife that loves, / until the end of the time; and it shall be called by my name.”

As the U.S. and other Western nations tightened their regulation of cadmium, production of nickel-cadmium batteries moved to less-developed countries, most of it eventually winding up in China. “Everything was transferred to China because no one wanted to deal with the waste from cadmium,” says Josef Daniel-Ivad, vice president for research and development at Pure Energy Visions, an Ontario battery company.

Today, only two American companies still make cadmium batteries, and they specialize in high-end batteries for use in equipment such as aircraft engines. U.S. laws require them to follow strict guidelines on worker safety and environmental protection.

In China, government standards on cadmium exposure are in line with those endorsed by the World Health Organization. And without question, there are safe cadmium plants in China.

But having rules and enforcing them are two different things. China has dozens of so-called “hot spots” where the cadmium contamination is similar to levels at U.S. superfund sites. More that 10% of China’s arable land is contaminated with heavy metals such as cadmium, according to the State Environmental Protection Agency, and the metals are entering China’s food supply. At least a dozen academic studies in the past two years have found unsafe levels of cadmium in fruit and vegetables grown in Chinese soil. In a study published last year, researchers at the Guangdong Institute of Ecology found excessive levels of cadmium in Chinese cabbage grown in Foshan. The battery industry isn’t the only source of environmental cadmium contamination in China, but it is a major contributor.

Often, these risks extend to workers. Last year, at least 20 workers at a Panasonic Corp. cadmium-battery plant in Wuxi were found to have elevated levels of the toxin, and two were diagnosed as poisoned. In 2005, 1,000 workers at Huanyu Power Source Co., based in Xinxiang, Henan, were also found with cadmium exposure. Both Panasonic and Huanyu say they have taken care of the affected workers, providing health care and compensation exceeding the requirements of Chinese law.

Yet these findings didn’t necessarily result from corporate or government vigilance. The Panasonic-plant contamination, for instance, came to light after some workers watched a television show about cadmium poisoning — and got themselves tested.

Protest about contamination at the GP plants has persisted in part because of the determination of Ms. Wang, a GP engineer, to publicize the matter.

Born into a relatively well-off family, Ms. Wang attended university and obtained an engineering degree before hiring on at a newly opened GP factory in the southern Chinese city of Huizhou, a fast-growing center of China’s electronics industry. The year was 1995, and GP Batteries, a Singapore-listed unit of Hong Kong-listed Gold Peak Industries (Holdings) Ltd. Huizhou, was a prestigious employer, eventually becoming one of the largest makers of nickel-cadmium batteries in China.

As a machine designer, Ms. Wang worked in the management offices of a walled compound of pink-tiled buildings where some 1,500 women in matching blue smocks worked 12-hour days assembling nickel-cadmium battery packs for toys and other products. GP’s clients eventually came to include dozens of U.S. companies including Energizer Battery Co., Proctor & Gamble Co.’s Duracell, Spectrum Brands Inc.’s Ray-O-Vac, Hasbro, Mattel, Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us.

For years, factory workers complained about illnesses — nausea, hair loss and exhaustion, for instance. But GP management says it wasn’t aware of the extent of the cadmium danger. “We knew it was dangerous, but we thought that if it was handled in a reasonable manner you should be OK,” says Henry Leung, chief operating officer of GP Batteries. “This is all new for China.”

At the factory, Ms. Wang spent the bulk of her time in an office, quietly sketching machine designs. But between 2002 and 2004, she spent long hours in production areas, inhaling cadmium dust, according to a lawsuit filed by Ms. Wang against the factory.

In 2003, some sick workers paid for their own tests at an occupational-disease hospital and learned they had elevated cadmium levels. The news touched off panic on the factory floor, and workers demanded the company pay for cadmium tests. Hundreds of workers eventually went on strike.

GP says it began paying for cadmium checkups in mid-2004, as soon as the region set up facilities that could handle large volumes of cadmium testing. In the initial tests, 177 workers showed levels of cadmium above China’s safe-exposure limit, and two qualified as poisoned. Dozens were immediately hospitalized.

Cadmium affects people in radically different ways, so many GP workers with elevated levels aren’t sick, but may become so in the years ahead.

Roughly 900 workers quit their jobs, and GP offered cadmium-affected workers one-time exit compensation starting at about $500. GP says the average package was $2,100. Many workers say the compensation failed to cover their medical bills.

GP says it has paid out more than $1 million in compensation and medical care for affected workers and has exceeded the legal requirements. “We want to take care of workers,” says GP’s Mr. Leung, but he says some workers are feigning sickness to obtain money. “They want to be recorded as poisoned, so people will keep giving them compensation,” he says.

Ms. Wang watched on the sidelines as the bitter saga unfolded at her factory. During her nine years at the factory, she rarely had contact with rank-and-file workers, and her $540 weekly salary was nearly triple what they earned. While other workers ate in a cafeteria, Ms. Wang sat in a manager’s dining room with table cloths and porcelain dishes.

But in October of 2004, when GP first paid for companywide cadmium tests, Ms. Wang’s result came back showing cadmium levels above the safe-exposure limit set by the Chinese government. However, to qualify for continuing monitoring, China’s occupational-disease laws require two consecutive positive tests. A second test showed Ms. Wang’s cadmium level in the normal range, disqualifying her for assistance.

Three occupational-medicine doctors — in London, Sweden and the U.S. — who reviewed Ms. Wang’s medical records for The Wall Street Journal say her initial test showed clear indications of kidney damage, a marker of possible cadmium poisoning.

“There’s no doubt that in 2004, she had smoking-gun-type indicators of kidney damage, and in a person who works with cadmium, that should not be ignored,” says Dr. Arch Carson, an expert in occupational medicine and environmental sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

GP says it relies on medical experts at government-run occupational-disease hospitals in the nearby city of Guangzhou to determine if workers required monitoring.

Having no symptoms, Ms. Wang continued playing badminton and jogging. But in early 2006, she began to feel extremely weak, and suffered headaches. Her skin began to age rapidly, and her eyes became sunken hollows. In November 2006, Ms. Wang was diagnosed at a local hospital with chronic renal failure that doctors said would likely shorten her life.

On Dec. 25, 2006, Ms. Wang approached GP management with news of her diagnosis. She requested that GP send her to the occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou, which has facilities for treating cadmium exposure.

ENLARGE

A stalemate ensued. The company says it was willing to help, but that Ms. Wang refused to follow local legal procedures. Local laws required that Ms. Wang visit a local hospital first, in order to be referred to the main occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou. The company says Ms. Wang demanded they send her directly to the Guangzhou hospital, in violation of regulations.

In May, Ms. Wang sued the factory for $400,000 in compensation and medical care. To build her case, Ms. Wang used her access to company computers to download files that showed other workers in her department were exposed to cadmium. GP says there is no evidence that Ms. Wang’s illness is related to cadmium, and doctors at the Guangzhou Occupational Disease Hospital say her kidney failure doesn’t meet the criteria for occupational disease.

By last summer, Ms. Wang’s health was failing. According to medical records from a hospital in Nanjing, she was admitted with a fever and a respiratory infection. Doctors there treated her for chronic renal failure, and listed “long-term exposure to cadmium-containing substances” as a possible cause, according to her medical records.

As workers, including Ms. Wang, sought to bring attention to the issue, a public-relations battle erupted. In 2005, GP filed a lawsuit against labor-rights groups representing the workers, charging libel. The case is moving through Hong Kong courts.

On their way to an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter in August, Ms. Wang and several colleagues were pulled over by police and detained for nearly 13 hours in a Huizhou police station, according to several sources familiar with the incident. A person present at the Huizhou police station says the workers were told they would be charged with treason if they spoke to the media again. The Huizhou government says its police detained no battery workers.

Ms. Wang stopped answering her cellphone after the incident with the Huizhou police. But she began writing a blog to advise victims of cadmium poisoning. A recent post, in Chinese, said, “Basically, occupational disease could be prevented but it costs money. Money is the gold of bosses. And for them, the lives of workers are worthless.”

After revelations of its cadmium-battery problems arose, GP quit making them at its plants, and now outsources that production to independent factories in China.

In America, five years after Hasbro stopped using nickel-cadmium batteries, Mattel and Toys “R” Us are yet to follow suit, but say they are exploring alternatives. Wal-Mart no longer purchases cadmium batteries from GP but declined to comment on whether it still uses them in its products.

Mattel says cadmium batteries have some performance advantages over alternatives, such as a better ability to retain a charge when not used for long periods.

—Sky Canaves in Hong Kong contributed to this article.

 

Panasonic ‘covered up’ poisoning at battery factory, report claims

By Texyt Staff – Sat, 04/28/2007 – 11:51.

Panasonic hid evidence that workers were poisoned at a battery factory, a report in a Chinese newspaper claims. Even pregnant women were not warned they might have been exposed to high levels of Cadmium, a potentially lethal heavy metal, the report alleges, quoting a manager who says he was laid off when he threatened to turn whistleblower.

The allegations are being made by a former human resources manager according to an article in the 21st Century Economic Report, a newspaper published by China’s respected Southern Daily Group (Linked sites are in Chinese).

Panasonic has not yet responded to a request for comment on the case, which is claimed to have taken place over the past three years at a factory (photo) manufacturing rechargeable Nickel-Cadmium batteries in Wuxi, north of Shanghai. Exposure to even tiny amounts of Cadmium is known to increase the risk of cancer and can lead to a variety of crippling and potentially-fatal health conditions.

‘Health reports buried’, claim

The newspaper’s source, named as ex-human resources manager, Pan Wei, claims he was hired by the company in October 2006. Later that same month, he told reporters, the company doctor gave him safety reports on Cadmium exposure to sign.

The original health tests showed that ten staff had Cadmium levels above safety limits, Mr. Pan said. However, an overall safety report stated that no staff had any such problem.

The doctor told Pan that this was normal procedure, and staff with dangerous Cadmium exposure were rotated to different work until their health reports improved, the ex-manager alleges.

Continued for three years?

According to the newspaper article: “Pan realized that since 2003, the company has handled the staff health examination every year, and every year the examination says all the staff have no problem, so none of the staff have been notified of the real poisonous Cadmium level”

The story continues: “The doctor said, this is our normal procedure. The director of the factory has signed his name, and higher people above have signed their names too. So you sign your name and there will be no problem”

Pregnant workers affected, report claims

Some workers had left the factory to work at other jobs where they might be exposed to Cadmium poisoning, without realizing they already had dangerous levels of Cadmium in their bodies, Pan alleges. In addition, he says, some of those affected were pregnant. Pan claims he was laid off after he demanded executives warn these workers of the risk. Panasonic informed him he had not performed satisfactorily during his probationary employment period, he says.

Panasonic is a trading name of Japan’s giant Matsushita Electric Industrial group. The company has not yet responded to a request for comment on this case.

Public perception

Leading Japanese firms such as Matsushita are major investors in Chinese manufacturing. However, Chinese people have mixed perceptions about Japan. While they admire the country’s advanced economy and culture, they also tend to believe that Japan has abused China in the past, particularly during the Second World War, and has failed to apologize adequately.

This negative perception has been fed by a heavy diet of official anti-Japanese propaganda, including school text books which harp upon Japan’s historical misdeeds.

In this environment, Japanese firms operating in China are highly sensitive to negative publicity which might combine with smouldering anti-Japanese sentiment to ignite a firestorm of criticism.

Update April 29: ‘ The website of the Wuxi battery factory was taken offline yesterday’ – removed this line as the website was only taken offline temporarily and is currently accessible with no obvious changes from the previous version – thanks to anonymous commenter below.

Red Dust – documentary on cadmium poisoning in Chinese women battery workers for Tesla Cars

 

Aug 06, 2010

 

 

Red Dust, a documentary directed by Karin Mak, chronicles the struggle for justice by women workers in China who have been poisoned by cadmium while manufacturing nickel-cadmium batteries. 

 

Click here to view the trailer.

Cadmium has been in the international and USA news lately as found in jewellery and McDonald’s Shrek glasses. However, the majority of cadmium is used for production of nickel-cadmium batteries, a type of rechargeable battery.

Cadmium is a very toxic heavy metal and the brave women in the film live with its debilitating effects in addition to risking their safety in their fight for justice. It covers themes of workers’ rights, globalization, occupational safety and health, China’s economic development and women’s rights.

 

Red cadmium dust drifted freely in China’s nickel-cadmium battery factories owned and operated by GP BATTERIES (GP), one of the world’s top battery manufacturers. Ren, a migrant worker originally from Sichuan, suffers from frequent headaches and breathing difficulties. If untreated, the cadmium poisoning can lead to kidney failure, cancer, and even death.

Red Dust tells an unexamined side of China’s economic development: the resistance, courage, and hope of workers battling occupational disease, demanding justice from the local government and global capital. Chinese migrant workers are deemed disposable by factory owners and are stereotypically viewed as quiet and passive victims. However, Ren and other GP workers (Min, Fu, and Wu) fight back. Labor issues are very sensitive in China, and workers who publicly discuss their struggles do so at great risk. The audience discovers along with the filmmaker, a Chinese American, the horrors of the global assembly line.

This documentary is about women who are the engine of the global economy. Although the film takes place in China, the characters’ experiences are universal to workers on the margins around the world, where poverty, migration, and workplace hazards are common realities.

 

The film is 20 minutes, in Mandarin and Sichuanhua, with English subtitles. 

 

 What is Cadmium Poisoning?
Cadmium (cd) is a heavy metal used primarily in the production of nickel-cadmium batteries. Workers exposed to cadmium can suffer symptoms such as memory loss, dizziness, headaches, lack of strength, and pain in the back and limbs. In 2006, the European Union banned cadmium in electronics due to its extremely toxic properties.

Workers who suffer from cadmium poisoning may not look sick, and serious health issues may take several years to arise. Once cadmium enters the body, it takes between seven to thirty years for the body to flush it out, which is particularly harmful for the kidneys. Cadmium poisoning has also been linked to kidney failure and cancer. The effects of cadmium poisoning can be fatal. In 2006, Fu Hong Qin, a co-worker of the women featured in RED DUST, died from kidney failure. She had worked at a GP BATTERIES factory for 2 years.

Unsafe workplaces are not uncommon in China. According to the country’s State Administration for Work Safety (SAWS) 2004 report, China has the world’s highest number of occupational disease victims and deaths resulting from occupational diseases.

 

Click here to read more.

 

The director

 

Karin T Mak was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri, USA to immigrants originally from Hong Kong. She spent several years on immigrant and workers’ rights campaigns in California. In 2003, she received the prestigious New Voices Fellowship to work with Sweatshop Watch, a Los Angeles-based non-profit educating the public about globalization. Mak is winner of the 2008 Roy W. Dean LA Film Grant.

 

Panasonic also face issue like hiding evidence that workers were poisoned at a battery factory in China . During that time, Panasonic are manufacturing rechargeable Nickel-Cadmium batteries in Wuxi, north of Shanghai. The worker were not warned when they have been exposed to high level of Cadmium, a potentially lethal heavy metal that can lead to a variety of crippling and potentially-fatal health conditions thus increasing the risk of death

 

 

 

 

 

How Did Elon Musk get involved in so many dirty schemes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elon Musk is a Lying Scumbag” say critics!

It is, now, well known that all of Elon Musk’s companies would not exist, today, if not for White House kick-backs and West Wing mandated steam-rolling of his competitors, in order to protect his loose relationship with morality.

The many news article about how Musk has based his whole career on getting handed taxpayer cash, as Payola, in exchange for his partners funding political campaigns, are published around the world.

While Musk may be a con-artist, carpet bagger and public funds thief, one has to wonder if his ability to convincingly lie is incumbent to his nature.

Is he like all of those zillions of guys that you see on that TV show: “48 Hours”? You know, the ones who meet the girl, her family says “he is wonderful”, his co-workers say he “was the nicest guy”. His neighbor says he “wouldn’t hurt a fly’… and you always find out he cut off her head, ate her liver and chopped her into sausage. Is he like that? Always smiling, but hiding a meat cleaver behind the smile?

Musk has taken nearly two decades to sell only as many cars as a “real” car company sells in two weeks? He says he had to “figure out” how to build a car, so that is why it took so long. Is that true? Why did he spend so long, on something so rudimentary, only to have it turn out to be “ the official car of douchebags and assholes”?

In those two decades, he has spent more money on those few cars than other real car companies spent on 10 cars. He says his run of the mill car was “so hard to build” and that was why it was $118,000.00 over budget PER CAR, at the time he applied for federal emergency cash. Was it really hard to build or was he siphoning money out to political campaigns?

He says the car is “Totally different” but it is the same electric car layout that electric cars have had since the 1800’s. The Nissan Leaf and all of the other famous car company electric cars did not have any of the problems, delays or issues that Musk always has. Is he lying or just an idiot?

Critics say that Tesla was created to war-profiteer Afghan lithium that his campaign financier partners had inside deals with Russian mobsters for. They say that Solar City was created to accept kick-backs from Steven Chu at the Department of Energy and that Space X was created so Musk’s partners, at spy agency IN-Q-Tel, could profit off of public surveillance systems. Musk says “no”, in spite of millions of pages of evidence to the contrary. Is he lying?

Bernie Tse, and about 18 Tesla employees, worked for Elon Musk to create a battery sales division, but that fell apart when massive amounts of federal reports emerged, in 2006 and 2007 that proved that Tesla partner: Panasonic, was involved in bribes, crime, dumping, killing workers with poison chemicals and other crimes. At the same time, Elon Musk saw reports that confirmed that his lithium ion would blow up spontaneously, catch on fire when stressed by a car, exude toxic fumes that cause cancer, liver damage, cellular breakdown and fetal mutation and that you had to invade Afghanistan and Bolivia to get the lithium. Even, today, as Tesla’s, hover-boards, and numerous lithium ion devices, explode regularly, Musk says there is “no problem” with lithium ion. Is he lying?

The Department of Energy documents filed by Elon Musk, to get taxpayer cash have over 100 things that Musk promised, in writing, that turned out to never have happened and/or never been true. Did he lie..or just have a few typos?

His numerous divorces and break-ups have resulted in people, who knew him intimately, saying he was a “fraud and a “liar”.

His co-founders at Tesla sued him saying he was a “liar” and a “scam artist”.

His investors have said, in lawsuits, that he is a “liar” and a “fraud”.

Erick Strickland, the head of the highway safety agency, was confronted with covering up the DRAMATIC number of safety issues known about the Tesla. He quit the next day. What doesn’t Musk quit?

In a recent article about Musk and Space X, with a cover photo depicting Musk in the company of rats, his own employees are quoted calling him a “liar”.

There are hundreds and hundreds of news articles describing different things that Musk has lied about.

Is Musk really a liar? Is he a scumbag Silicon Valley misogynist laboring under another facade of self-deluded privilege and narcissistic self-promoting elitism?

While Musk’s partner: Google, gladly spins out Musk’s “Look-at-me” self glorification press hype on a daily basis, is Musk telling the truth in those wild-eyed pronouncements?

In his latest press hype: Musk now wants to build a haven for the 1%, On Mars, much like his peer: Vinohd Khosla tried to build a haven for 1%-ers on a public beach, he took over, in Half Moon Bay, California.

We can only pray that Musk will go to Mars as soon as possible. Ideally, tomorrow…and stay there!

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUSTED! FACEBOOK caught manipulating the Internet for its billionaire owners private desires

BUSTED! FACEBOOK caught manipulating the Internet for its billionaire owners private desires

 

 

 

– FACEBOOK found to be the world’s largest political correctness engine

 

 

 

– Every private thing you do on FACEBOOK is sold to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which can’t keep national secrets secret

 

 

 

– Former staff say FACEBOOK was created to manipulate elections using “mood manipulation” and “Subliminal PsyOps techniques”

 

The big myth Facebook needs everyone to believe

 
 

In the middle of January, in a change noticed nowhere but Spain, Facebook added six words to a single dialogue box – and inadvertently stumbled into a tortuous national debate.

The dialogue box is part of Facebook’s content-reporting process, the means by which users can request that the social network censor their friends. The six words appeared to invite Spanish users to report on a new category of things: Under the option “it’s inappropriate, it annoys me, or I don’t like it,” Facebook listed Spain’s millennium-old national pastime, bullfighting.

Bullfighting is a controversial sport; even within Spain, few people still follow it. But columnists from Madrid to Malaga bristled at the suggestion that a federally recognized piece of heritage could be branded offensive.

“Facebook equates bullfighting with prostitution,” declared ABC, the country’s third-largest newspaper, on Jan. 14. Days later, when Facebook inevitably backtracked and deleted its references to bullfighting – clarifying, in a statement to The Post, that it had been included mistakenly – Spain’s second-largest paper, El Mundo, rejoiced that the network had “rectified” the situation.

[You don’t know it, but you’re working for Facebook. For free.]

But unfortunately for the suits at Facebook, who had suffered considerable headaches over the bullfighting mess, that situation was just the latest in a string of unintended clashes as inevitable as they are endless. As Facebook has tentacled out from Palo Alto, Calif., gaining control of an ever-larger slice of the global commons, the network has found itself in a tenuous and culturally awkward position: how to determine a single standard of what is and is not acceptable – and apply it uniformly, from Maui to Morocco.

For Facebook and other platforms like it, incidents such as the bullfighting kerfuffle betray a larger, existential difficulty: How can you possibly impose a single moral framework on a vast and varying patchwork of global communities?

If you ask Facebook this question, the social-media behemoth will deny doing any such thing. Facebook says its community standards are inert, universal, agnostic to place and time. The site doesn’t advance any worldview, it claims, besides the non-controversial opinion that people should “connect” online.

“Every day, people come to Facebook to connect with people and issues they care about,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “Given the diversity of the Facebook community, this means that sometimes people share information that is controversial or offends others. That’s why we have a set of global Community Standards that explain what you can and cannot do on our service. . . We work hard to strike the right balance between enabling expression while providing a safe and respectful experience.”

Facebook has modified its standards several times in response to pressure from advocacy groups – although the site has deliberately obscured those edits, and the process by which Facebook determines its guidelines remains stubbornly obtuse. On top of that, at least some of the low-level contract workers who enforce Facebook’s rules are embedded in the region – or at least the time zone – whose content they moderate. The social network staffs its moderation team in 24 languages, 24 hours a day.

[An hour-by-hour look at how a conspiracy theory becomes ‘truth’ on Facebook]

In response to recent criticism that Facebook has mishandled takedown requests from users in the Middle East, Facebook’s policy director for the region assured users that “all reports are assessed by teams of multilingual, impartial and highly trained people” – including native speakers of Hebrew and Arabic, who presumably understand the region’s particular issues.

And yet, observers remain deeply skeptical of Facebook’s claims that it is somehow value-neutral or globally inclusive, or that its guiding principles are solely “respect” and “safety.” There’s no doubt, said Tarleton Gillespie, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, New England, that the company advances a specific moral framework – one that is less of the world than of the United States, and less of the United States than of Silicon Valley.

If you study Facebook’s community standards, going back to the long-forgotten time when users voted on a version of them, the site has always erred on the side of radical free speech, corporate opaqueness and a certain American prudishness: Its values are those of the early Web, moderated by capitalist conservatism.

The values that Facebook articulates are not always the ones it enforces. Below that top-level standard are the unknown thousands of invisible click-workers forced to interpret it, and below them are the self-deputized users flagging their friends’ content. Between the site’s demonstrably U.S. orientation and the layers of obfuscation below, there can be little doubt that the values Facebook ends up imposing on its “community” of 1.55 billion people are not agreed upon by many – perhaps even most – of them.

Somehow, it seems that we only notice the imposition when there’s a glitch in the machine: I can’t use a tribal name on Facebook? The site maligned bullfighting? Why, how dare this private company impose its worldview on me!

This is not merely a problem for Facebook; Gillespie, the Microsoft researcher, calls it the unsolvable “basic paradox” of all Internet companies: They’re private and they have their own corporate motives, but they’re called upon to police public speech. Alas, as their public grows more diverse, the worldviews of the “community” and its corporate sponsor would appear to align less and less. As of 2013, eight of the world’s 10 top Web properties were based in the United States – and 81 percent of their users were located outside of it. (If nothing else, there’s a compelling statistical reason why Google, Amazon.com, Facebook and Apple, collectively acronymed “GAFA,” have been called the new face of “American cultural imperialism.”)

Facebook will never make everyone happy, of course; nor does anyone suggest it should. But in a better world, the largest social network would at least admit that it’s not an impartial, value-neutral observer. After all, every single thing Facebook does – from advance a single global “community,” to add six extra words in a dialogue box – reshapes the public space of its users.

“The myth of the social network as a neutral space is crumbling, but it’s still very powerful,” Gillespie said. “For Facebook to finally say, ‘Yes, we construct social life online. We construct public discourse’ – that would be so important, but for them, dangerous.”

Liked that? Try these!

Caitlin Dewey is The Post’s digital culture critic. Follow her on Twitter @caitlindewey or subscribe to her daily newsletter on all things Internet. (tinyletter.com/cdewey)
 

Think Target and Home Depot invade your privacy? Political campaigns might be worse

When presidential candidates turn to data crunchers at Rocket Fuel in Silicon Valley for help finding voters who want tougher immigration enforcement, the firm comes up with a surprisingly specific answer: Chevy truck drivers who like Starbucks.

The data modeling from Rocket Fuel shows that this group leans against a path to citizenship for workers in the U.S. illegally. And these particular voters have become surprisingly easy – some argue creepily so – for campaigns to find and approach. So have consumers of frozen vegetables, who are more likely to oppose abortion. As have people curious about diabetes, a group that tends to settle on a candidate early in the race.

“Knowing the nuances of each voter beyond whether they lean right or left makes every difference,” said JC Medici, the firm’s national director of politics and advocacy. “We can identify what people are persuadable.”

TRAIL GUIDE: All the latest news on the 2016 presidential campaign >>

But as presidential campaigns push into a new frontier of voter targeting, scouring social media accounts, online browsing habits and retail purchasing records of millions of Americans, they have brought a privacy imposition unprecedented in politics. By some estimates, political candidates are collecting more personal information on Americans than even the most aggressive retailers. Questions are emerging about how much risk the new order of digital campaigning is creating for unwitting voters as the vast troves of data accumulated by political operations becomes increasingly attractive to hackers.

The security breach last month at the major voter database controlled by the Democratic National Committee, and another days later involving a large political data firm, have raised concerns about the fitness of candidates to safely manage their data. At the same time, the methods used by independent “data brokers” that acquire and disseminate private details for political campaigns and scores of other clients are at the center of a years-long regulatory battle, with the Federal Trade Commission warning Congress that consumers need more protections.

Yet the push for more accountability and transparency rules on the accumulation of private data is faltering in Congress, where lawmakers are reluctant to rein in the industry that they increasingly rely on to win elections.

“This is the Wild West,” said Tim Sparapani, a data privacy consultant and former director of public policy for Facebook. “There is nothing that is off-limits to political data mining.” The fleeting, impulsive nature of campaigns, he said, means they often have far less stringent security procedures than retailers and social media firms, which themselves often fail to adequately protect sensitive information.

The mining of such data for politics is not a new phenomenon. Presidential candidates began pioneering the approach more than a decade ago, and it was a key part of Barack Obama’s winning strategy in 2008 and 2012. But technological advancements, plunging storage costs and a proliferation of data firms have substantially increased the ability of campaigns to inhale troves of strikingly personal information about voters, spit it into algorithms, and use the results to narrowly customize messaging and outreach to each individual household.

“There is a tremendous amount of data out there and the question is what types of controls are in place and how secure is it,” said Craig Spiezle, executive director of the nonprofit Online Trust Alliance. The group’s recent audit of campaign websites for privacy, security and consumer protection gave three-quarters of the candidates failing grades.

The campaigns and the data companies are cagey about what particular personal voter details they are trafficking in.

One firm, Aristotle, boasts how it helped a senior senator win reelection in 2014 using “over 500 demographic and consumer points, which created a unique voter profile of each constituent.” Company officials declined an interview request.

When investigators in Congress and the FTC looked into the universe of what data brokers make available to their clients – be they political, corporate or nonprofit – some of the findings were unsettling. One company was selling lists of rape victims; another was offering up the home addresses of police officers.

The data companies are required by law to keep the names of individuals separate from the pile of data accumulated about them. Instead, each voter is assigned an online identification number, and when a campaign wants to target a particular group – say, drivers of hybrid vehicles or gun owners – the computers coordinate a robocall, or a volunteer’s canvassing list, or a digital advertisement with relevant accounts.

See more of our top stories on Facebook >>

Since campaigns are ultimately in the business of finding particular people and getting them to show up to vote, some scholars are dubious their digital targeting efforts offer the same level of anonymity as those of corporations.

“A retailer doesn’t care what person is behind a particular online profile, just that they are buying new sneakers,” said Ira Rubinstein, a research fellow at New York University School of Law who specializes in data privacy. “This is about targeting very specific people to go out and vote.”

————

For the record

7:44 a.m.: An earlier version of this story misspelled the name of New York University research fellow Ira Rubinstein as Rubenstein.

———— 

An exhaustive paper Rubinstein recently published on voter privacy found that “political dossiers may be the largest unregulated assemblage of personal data in contemporary American life.”

Basic privacy guidelines that apply to other industries don’t appear to apply to candidates. Some do not even have clear privacy policies posted on their websites, which would be grounds for a private business to have their site shut down under both federal and California law, according to the Online Trust Alliance.

Rules that require companies to notify their customers if there has been a data breach also do not necessarily apply to campaigns, Rubinstein said.

“It’s an unregulated entity whose only goal is to elect a candidate over a short term, then it goes away,” he said. “They are not circumstances in which security is made a priority.”

Campaign digital strategists take umbrage. They say their operations are constantly withstanding the attacks of hackers, and that candidates are in no position to be cavalier with all the sensitive information on their servers, as voters would punish them for it.

Yet it is also unclear whether many voters are aware how much could be on those servers. Among the regulations the Federal Trade Commission is urging Congress to implement is one that would allow consumers to find out what information the data brokers are selling to their many clients, political campaigns among them. Consumers could more easily adjust which data are being sold or could opt out of the monitoring altogether.

“The problem with the data broker industry is consumers have no idea this is going on,” said FTC commissioner Julie Brill. “They are creating hundreds of millions of profiles of American consumers. … Some of this information can impact consumers in a negative way.”

Back at Rocket Fuel, which specializes in placing potential voters into  hundreds of different audiences, each targeted for a package of digital advertisements specifically catered to their interests, there are warnings that more regulation could have its own unintended consequences.

“We’d no longer be able to put the right message in front of the right people,” Medici said. “If what we are putting in front of voters is relevant to them and of interest, it is a natural part of the process.”

Twitter: @evanhalper

ALSO

Donald Trump helps rally Iowa’s Latinos – mostly to caucus against him

Donald Trump, feuding with Fox News over Megyn Kelly, pulls out of GOP debate

In Clinton-Sanders battle, two candidates with very different visions

 

 

U.S. Department of Energy Faces Hell Storm Of Charges

Nikki Haley Sues Energy Department For $1 Million A Day Over Nuclear Waste

Nikki Haley Sues Energy Department For $1 Million A Day Over Nuclear Waste bing news

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Ha­ley outlined a lawsuit against the Department of Energy (DOE) Tuesday for $1 million in daily fines after the agency failed to meet a Jan. 1 legal deadline to complete a program which was supposed to turn …

bing news

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/27/nikk[…]or-1-million-a-day-over-nuclear-waste/

 

South Carolina Governor will take legal steps against US Department of Energy

22 hour(s), 40 minute(s) ago cached

She said that the people of South Carolina will not let DOE continue its violation of the federal law. MOX or the Savanah River Site mix-oxide project is made to turn weapon-grade plutonium into a commercial nuclear reactor fuel, it is now behind

google news

http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/2[…]ps-against-us-department-of-energy.htm

 

U.S. Department Of Energy And New Mexico Finalize $74M In Settlement Agreements For Nuclear Waste Incidents Of 2014

Jan 26, 2016 cached

U.S. Department Of Energy And New Mexico Finalize $74M In Settlement Agreements For Nuclear Waste Incidents Of 2014 bing news

Washington, DC — Today, the New Mexico Environment Department, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors signed two settlement agreements to resolve the State of New Mexico Environment Department’s claims against DOE and its contractors …

bing news

http://breakingenergy.com/2016/01/26/u[…]s-for-nuclear-waste-incidents-of-2014/

Department Of Energy Hacked Over 150 Times In Four Years

Sep 13, 2015 cached

Department Of Energy Hacked Over 150 Times In Four Years digg

The US Department of Energy, the agency that helps regulate our power grid, nuclear arsenal, and national labs, has been hacked 159 times between 2010 and 2014, according to a review of f…

digg

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energ[…]over-150-times-in-four-year-1730259071

 

Department of Energy attempts cover-up and whitewash of the most criminally corrupt program in U.S. history!

 

By Donna Gleason – Special to Voat

 

 

The American energy department is flooding news outlets with articles that seek to convince voters that its mind-numbing crimes, epic failures and horrific political payola scams never happened.

In a campaign which mirrors the twisted revisionist perversions of “the-holocaust-never-happened” people, The Department of Energy believes it can convince the voters that it has truly only delivered green-energy Unicorn farts to America and that voters should bow, on their knees to the god-like wonder of Secretary Moniz’s bizarre haircut. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”, they trumpet, Oz-like, across the press release circuits.

The FACTS are quite different than the cotton candy clouds of PR hype that have recently emerged from the DOE in a tsunami of press BS.

The DOE lost over a trillion taxpayer dollars because of their crony-ism and failures

The DOE handed Goldman Sachs tens of billions of dollars of upfront fees and bankruptcy tax write-offs for jamming ” cleantech” companies into the death line, where they instantly went bankrupt after filling up the campaign investors bank accounts via illegal skims.

The DOE handed campaign billionaire financier Frank Guistra, now under investigation in both the funding of Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns, illicit lithium and uranium contracts. The DOE, under a bill for emergency green energy funding in a “crisis-level domestic economy” handed U.S. taxpayer cash to Russian mobster billionaires in the Ener1 and Severstal give-aways, in exchange for kick backs in Afghanistan mining deals. Ener1 immediately went bankrupt, yet campaign billionaires made a hundred million dollars in profit by exploiting tax write-offs.

The DOE funded Solyndra, which had covert ownership by Senator Feinstein. Solyndra immediately went bankrupt and got raided by the FBI. Solyndra dumped toxic materials, was shown to have been owned by campaign financiers and lost over $500M in taxpayer cash. Goldman Sachs made over $40M on the failure. Solyndra’s tubes exploded into flames, on their own, on users roofs, as did panels from other DOE funded, Afghanistan-mined, projects.

 

A123 got taxpayer cash; was co-owned by DOE officials, relied on Afghan lithium mining contracts, suddenly went bankrupt, after getting the taxpayer cash, and the Sachs Cartel took a windfall on the tax write-off, again.

The same thing happened with Abound Solar. Sudden bankruptcy, toxic dumping, investigations.

The DOE funded the most cancer-causing; factory worker killing; fire starting; fetus mutating; liver damaging; airplane crashing; explosive; self-flame initiating; Afghan War profiteered program in the world: Lithium ion batteries. DOE staff and bosses own the lithium ion companies, and their stock. Even DOE’s own scientists wrote extensive papers about this toxic material which becomes increasingly unstable over time, explodes when it gets wet, or bumped, and may have been why Afghanistan was invaded. By the way, that Afghan war has now lost American taxpayers over $6 Trillion dollars according to major universities.

The DOE funded the campaign financier called: Fisker Cars. Then millions of dollars of lithium ion Fisker cars blew up and melted into slag heaps when they got wet in a storm. Your Tesla and Fisker blow up if their batteries get wet. The global crisis of exploding hover-boards, proves how deadly these batteries are. Fisker was suddenly bankrupt, taxpayers lost more money, Goldman Sachs made a profit on “fees”, “skims”, “stock pumps” and “write-offs and the company was sold to China, via Senator Feinstein’s husband, a close buddy of China’s.

Silicon Valley collusion firm: Kleiner Perkins, paid to put Department of Energy staff in office so that those DOE bosses could crony-kick-back the DOE cash to ONLY Kleiner Perkins and their Cartel members who own most of Google. History now proves that only Kleiner/Google Cartel members got cash and every single one of their competitors were denied and sabotaged by DOE staff working with Google and Kleiner hit job resources.

The DOE funded the giant solar mirror project called Ivanpah. The system never worked for anything but roasting birds in mid air, blinding pilots and wasting money. It was not only not the promised “free” or “cheap electricity”, it turned out to be the most expensive electricity in America. To underscore the failure, special supplemental generators had to be built to even keep Ivanpah going.

Elon Musk has now been revealed to exist in the world only due to tens of billions of dollars of government handouts and monopoly rights, given to him, and his backers in a crony payoff scheme. He famously built toxic, exploding cars, rockets and a battery factory that poisons its workers and the environment. Most of Musk’s crony payoffs came from DOE, which hired his business partners to make “fair” decisions.

DOE solicited hundreds of companies and asked them to bring the best technologies on Earth to help the nation. Their request was a sham. It was a cover story for a bundle of cash that had already covertly been hard-wired and secretly promised to a handful of political crony’s. None of those great American innovators were ever going to be given a chance at that cash and DOE knew that from the day they announced the grant and loan programs. DOE defrauded the applicants, tricked them into waiting and spending money on false promises, and used them to manufacture the cover story that the program was ” open to all”. It wasn’t. The DOE programs are rigged, and staged, for the exclusive purpose of crony payola compensation in exchange for the payment of political bribes.

60 Minutes has an investigative episode, which you can see on their website, called: ” THE CLEANTECH CRASH”. It details how Kleiner Cartel members raped taxpayer’s, using the Department of Energy as their bitch, and then gave America’s technology to China at low ball prices. Senator Feinstein’s family assisted with that and profited on the China deals. The whole thing stinks from Palo Alto to Beijing.

 

There are hundreds of other hard facts and proven examples of organized crime-level corruption and historical failures in the Department of Energy period from 2007 to today. This is not “spin”. This is not an opinion that is “subject to interpretation”. These are hard facts with proven evidence from the GAO, The SEC, The NSA, Chinese Hackers, The FBI, The U.S. Senate and the national news media. All of these corrupt crony failures happened. They happened at the Department of Energy. It is a travesty for the Department of Energy to use taxpayer resources to try to cover it up and re-write historical facts.

Now the Department of Transportation (DOT) is being used to conduit cash kickbacks, again, to Tesla and Google for their Afghan War mining scam contracts to exploit dirty lithium ion in their “driver-less cars”. This is just an extension of the DOE crony kick-back program.

Does that sound like the DOE was ” successful”? They were successful in operating the largest criminal revolving door and bribery payoff campaign, ever! Their efforts on behalf of America, and the voters, were an epic failure.

Department of Energy officials say that they “conducted massive due diligence on each applicant”, but the only due diligence that was undertaken by Steven Chu and Secretary Moniz was that they were very diligent about ensuring that only campaign financiers got the money, and that all other applicants were stone-walled and sabotaged.

 

There are a plethora of reports and investigations citing “White House orders” to manipulate the Department of Energy program funding to exclusively benefit campaign financiers. This brings about the famous Watergate question: “ What did the President know and when did he know it?”

 

Bibliography and Evidence Sets

Filed with law enforcement. the public, the media, and the court system in an extensive number of duplicate repositories.

An extensive number of documents, reports, white papers, grand jury reviews, indictments, news stories and law enforcement reports have been published. These materials document, in deep detail, the crimes and corruption that certain politicians, their staff and campaign financiers, engaged in, in order to stop outsiders from competing with their crony deals. There were an extensive number of victims of these malicious attacks by elected officials. The following bibliography provides indisputable evidence of the crimes and cover-ups.

These are the key outside materials of interest in this matter. Click the highlighted item to download the document, usually a .pdf or image file:


REPOSITORY ONE –

Download Area –

FREE E-BOOK. DOWNLOAD THE WIKI-CREATED FREE ADOBE PDF BOOK: “THE SILICON COUP”

The Silicon Coup. An ongoing internet authored book about the characters and historical circumstances involved in the biggest corruption case in modern times:
Click This Link To Download >>> The Silicon Coup 4.5e

Get a free copy, in other digital formats, at:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/593602

Additional free downloads:

A Corruption bibliography. A list of top documents that cover the corruption procedures used by the suspects in this case:
Click This Link To Download >>> Corruption Bibliography 2015

The Solyndra Appendix. Actual emails and documents, acquired by Senate investigators, showing corrupt collusion between elected officials and Silicon Valley VC’s:
Click This Link To Download >>> TheSolyndraAppendixPt1HIGH

The Political Retribution Tactics used against competing applicants by federal and state officials, illegally:
Click This Link To Download >>> POLITICAL PAYBACK TACTICS USED

The Book of Tesla. A live document, constantly expanding, detailing the most audacious one of the crony kick-back schemes in the “Cleantech Crash”:
THE BOOK OF TESLA EDIT ODT V.3.0c

A Discussion Site: http://thecleantechcrash.wordpress.com

A Discussion Site: https://policystudy.wordpress.com

The U.S. Senate Investigation which found the Department of Energy Program to be rife with corruption and kickbacks:
Click This Link To Download >>> FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees-Report

More On the U.S. Senate Investigation:
Click This Link To Download >>> House Oversight Committee Reports $14B Missing

Check back here to download the free public WIKI Book with detailed public investigation lessons, tips and procedures to deploy CIA/FBI-class investigative journalism skills, from the comfort of your living room, to “fry”, or legally terminate, any criminally corrupt politician or campaign financier.
Click This Link To Download >>> How To Investigate and Terminate 1.7

How Google was “Weapon-ized” as a defamation and political payback tool in the Department of Energy scam. Google executives and Google investors were a large part of the scam, using their company to rig voter perceptions, and stock market valuations, in favor of elected officials and their campaign financiers:
Click This Link To Download >>> How Google was Weaponized Against Consumers 1.2

Click This Link To Download >>> How Google Bribed It’s Way To The Top: https://crimesquad1.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/how-google-bribed-its-way-to-the-top.pdf

The Corruption Of Senator Feinstein. A detailed, constantly updated, analysis about how one elected official used their office to enrich them-self and damage millions of taxpayers, in this case.
Click This Link To Download >>> The Corruption Of Senator Feinstein.

A University analysis of the Department of Energy Corruption:
Click This Link To Download >>> AADeRugy_testimony_final

REPOSITORY TWO –

THE MOST REFERENCED LINKS, REPOSITORIES AND ARTICLE SETS:

http:/www.xyzcase.com

http://thecleantechcrash.wordpress.com

http://vcracket.weebly.com

http://greencorruption.blogspot.com

http://www.paybackpolitics.org

http://wp.me/P6h5en-60q

http://www.crimebusters77.com/xyz-case-investigation-22-documentation/who-is-gawker-media/

http://www.policystudy.wordpress.com

http://www.teslawow.com

http://gawker-media-attacks.weebly.com

http://thegaryconleycase.weebly.com

http://congressionalreview.weebly.com

Evidence Data and Video Sets, Mirrors

https://policystudy.wordpress.com/top-videos/

http://wp.me/P6h5en-60q

https://vimeo.com/126887156

http://www.FBI.gov

http://www.dailycaller.com

http://www.voat.co

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zqiewke7y0ixgv6/AACsXYtbh7XUoNINhTTWRBHwa?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xhv8ii2blr8olma/AACypntka0OmZhvtNQ6b6Z3ja?dl=0

Films About This Case:

In addition to the many films linked on this WIKI, a number of feature films detail the exact methods and actions that took place in this matter, among them:

THE BIG SHORT
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

TOO BIG TOO FAIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)

INSIDE JOB
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

MERCHANTS OF DOUBT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt_(film)

Automated mass internet manipulation attack “Troll Farm” Tactics used by The Silicon Valley Cartel to hype Tesla, Pump Stocks and Attack Reporters:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/columbia-chemical-hoax-tracked-to-troll-farm-dubbed-the-internet-research-agency/story-fnjwnhzf-1227383608441

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3297994/posts?page=17

http://okcupidtrolls.tumblr.com/

http://mightygirl.com/2015/06/02/russian-troll-farms/

VENTURE CAPITAL COLLUSION, MARKET RIGGING, VALUATION FIXING:

Silicon Valley cartel: Apple, Google, and others 

A group of 60,000 Silicon Valley workers got clearance today to move ahead with a lawsuit based on an explosive allegation that Apple, Google, Adobe, and …

slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/15/silicon_valley_…

More results

The Cartels of Silicon Valley – CounterPunch

Last week Mark Ames published an article that should forever destroy any connection between theSilicon Valley tech billionaires and libertarian worldviews.

counterpunch.org/2014/02/06/the-cartels-of-silicon-valley/

More results

The Silicon Valley cartel | MetaFilter

Mark Ames on Silicon Valley’s conspiracy to drive down workers’ wages: In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple’s Steve Jobs …

metafilter.com/135966/The-Silicon-Valley-cartel

More results

Former NYC Regulator: Uber a ‘SiliconValley Cartel’ in ..

Silicon Valley’s latest class of transportation disruptors, which is led by Uber and Lyft, can be described in a myriad of ways, but the word “cartel …

foxbusiness.com/technology/2014/07/24/former-nyc-regulato…

More results

Mexican Cartel Links to Silicon Valley | NBC Bay Area

Often, families living in Silicon Valley work for the cartel processing the drugs, sometimes out of their homes. “It is a business,” he said.

nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Mexican-Cartel-Links-to-Silico…

More results

Silicon Valley fends off cartel concerns | GlobalPost

Mexico’s Silicon Valley fends off cartel concerns. Tech geeks scramble to build the next Facebook in the drug war’s shadow. Tweet. Enlarge.

globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120…

More results

Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech 

The gentleman’s agreement that several Silicon Valley firms are now widely known to have taken part in to minimize employee poaching within their own circles went …

yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/23/1945242/silicon-valley-ant…

More results

REVEALED: Court docs show role of Pixar and Dreamworks

Just when the tech giants behind the Silicon Valley “Techtopus” wage fixing cartel thought the worst was behind them, US District Judge Lucy Koh has thrown a …

pando.com/2014/07/07/revealed-court-docs-show-role-…

More results

The Techtopus The Silicon Valley Wage Suppression Cartel 

The Techtopus The Silicon Valley Wage Suppression Cartel W Mark Ames, TV Series Full Episodes English Subtitles

tvseriesonline.xyz/bVhXTMpP-d0/the-techtopus-the-silicon-val…

More results

Silicon Valley Drug Bust Shows Strong Ties To Mexican Cartels 

Patrick Vanier, Santa Clara County, Silicon Valley, … Silicon Valley Drug Bust Show Strong Ties To Mexican Cartel; KCBS’ Matt Bigler Reports

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/25/silicon-valley-drug-bust-shows…

More results

Engineers Allege Hiring Collusion in SiliconValley – NYTimes.com

A class-action suit by Silicon Valley engineers against companies including Google, Apple and Intel has revealed details of an agreement among them not to …

nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-allege-hi…

More results

Elon Musk: Government’s $5 Billion Man – Investors.com

C apitalism 2015: In corporate finance today, the theme is “Go where the money is.” For Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX, the place to hunt for cash isn …

news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060515-756051-elon-musk-ma…

More results

Elon Musk | AgainstCronyCapitalism.org

Elon Musk, as likable a guy as he is and as cool as his cars are, is a big time crony capitalist. In fact, as the LA Times reports, crony capitalism is absolutely …

againstcronycapitalism.org/tag/elon-musk/

More results

Tesla Loving Care | The American

But that doesn’t mean we won’t continue to be forced to “help” Elon Musk build these mobile … Tesla Loving Care. The charmed life of a crony corporatist …

spectator.org/articles/61877/tesla-loving-care

More results

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in crony cash. Let’s crowd-fund Elon Musk’s trip to Mars and send him there as fast as possible ..

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies … Musk/Tesla and company are very good about repaying Govt loans.

 

 

 

 

Peer-to-Peer Internet and “Neighbor-Networked Web” just made ISP’s obsolete overnight

 

 

FREE UN-CAPPED, UN-THROTTLED, ULTRA-HIGH-SPEED INTERNET WITHOUT CENSORING HAS ARRIVED AND THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO STOP IT

 

The founder of Aereo is promising to bring gigabit internet to every home

 

 

At a launch event in New York City today, Chaitanya “Chet” Kanojia, the founder of the now-deceased startup Aereo, launched an ambitious new wireless hub called Starry. Starry is supposed to offer gigabit internet to the home, but delivered over a wireless network rather than a traditional wired one. The technology was built by the same antenna experts who made Aereo, and may run into its own regulatory troubles as it attempts to leverage unlicensed bands of spectrum.

 

“It’s a little bit like witchcraft.”

 

Like Aereo, Starry is a questionably ambitious idea. Kanojia wants to deliver extremely high-speed internet over the air using millimeter waves, which don’t travel very far and aren’t very good at penetrating obstacles — not even water in the air. That means Starry will have a lot of technical hurdles to overcome. The company is only presenting a sleek wireless hub at its event today, but it seems like more hardware — perhaps something outside the home — will be needed to fully connect to Starry’s gigabit wireless network. It also means that Starry will need to set up broadcast points in very close proximity to its customers or use some sort of mesh technology to improve its reach. Doing that would likely make it harder for Starry to reach its goal of gigabit speeds. So, to be very clear, there’s a lot to be skeptical about here.

 

Starry hasn’t provided details on how it’ll get around the many technical limitations in its way. “What are millimeter waves you ask? It’s a little bit like witchcraft,” Kanojia says. The company keeps repeating a dense list of technologies — OFDM modulation, MU-MIMO, active phased array — which apparently add up to a solution. Kanojia acknowledges that no one has attempted internet delivery over millimeter waves before because it’s difficult to get a connection from outside to inside of a house. But Starry has supposedly figured out a way to “steer” the signal using a bank of tiny antennas that increase the connection’s power and accuracy. “People historically assumed fiber was the answer at all times,” Kanojia says. Starry’s approach, he claims, is “the most meaningful, scalable architecture anyone has proposed to this point.”

 

 

Kanojia says that he wanted to launch Starry to give consumers an option about how they get internet. Most people are stuck with only one choice of internet provider — two if they’re lucky — and it’s difficult for new competitors to enter the space. Laying wires is expensive, as is launching a more traditional wireless network, so Kanojia is once again in charge of a company taking an unconventional approach in an attempt to quickly enter and disrupt an established market.

 

The company’s hub, called Starry Station, doubles as a Wi-Fi router that can be controlled through a small touchscreen. The Station is supposed to include a built-in “internet health monitoring system,” which will break down how much bandwidth different devices are using throughout the home and can suggest creating new networks to better suit specific devices.

 

“Did he say what the solution was?”

 

Starry still has a lot to prove. “A phased array is the worst possible choice for millimeter wave antenna. It’s terrible. I don’t understand it. The feed structure is very lossy, and it’s not cost-effective compared to a reflector or lens antenna,” says Spencer Webb, an antenna consultant and President of AntennaSys. “[Kanojia] said it’s hard to go from the outside to the inside, but did he say what the solution was? Millimeter wave won’t go through a window.”

 

Starry will launch its service first in Boston, with its hub selling for $349.99. It hasn’t said yet how much it’ll cost to get internet service delivered to that hub, but it has said that there will be no contracts or data caps. Sales will start on February 5th, with deliveries beginning in March. Starry plans to launch in additional cities throughout the year.

 

 

To start using free-forever internet today, see:

 

SopCast – Free P2P internet TV | live football, NBA, cricket

 

cached

 

SopCast is a simple, free way to broadcast video and audio or watch the video and listen to radio on the Internet. Adopting P2P(Peer-to-Peer) technology, It is very …

 

bing yahoo

 

http://sopcast.com/

 

FilesOverMiles – Send files direct to other users (P2P …

 

cached

 

Your files are sent the shortest way – directly between the recipient and you. There are no intermediate servers slowing down the process. Try FilesOverMiles and send …

 

bing yahoo

 

http://www.filesovermiles.com/

 

Freenet

 

cached

 

wikidata

 

http://www.freenetproject.org

 

Peer to Peer: Das neue Internet | ZEIT ONLINE – Die Zeit

 

cached

 

Kein Problem: Wer seine Daten den umstrittenen Internet-Giganten nicht … Office -Anwendung, Video- und Datentausch über P2P-Netzwerke.

 

google

 

http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2012/05/Das-alternative-Netz

 

wikipedia PPTV

 

cached

 

wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPTV

 

Peer-to-peer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

cached

 

Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or work loads between peers. Peers are equally privileged …

 

bing google

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

 

Shareaza – Bringing P2P Together

 

cached

 

Shareaza is a peer-to-peer client for Windows that allows you to download any file-type found on several popular P2P networks. Shareaza is FREE & contains NO Spyware …

 

bing yahoo

 

http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/

 

Watch Football Online

 

cached

 

Watch Football Online. Football live streaming from England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France to your pc or mobile devices. It is free preview only.

 

bing yahoo

 

http://asiaplatetv.com/

 

Ares – [Home] Download latest version 2.3.8

 

cached

 

AresGalaxy is a free Filesharing-Bittorrent p2p client connected to TCP supernode/leaf network and UDP DHT network. Ares features a built-in directshow media player …

 

bing

 

http://aresgalaxy.sourceforge.net/

 

Peer-to-Peer – Wikipedia

 

cached

 

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Connection (von englisch peer „Gleichgestellter“, … auf dem Internet realisiert werden, ist daher ein zweites internes Overlay-Netz, welches …

 

google

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-Peer

 

Ares | Ares Download – P2P File Sharing Program |…

 

cached

 

Ares.net is the official Ares website of the ONLY working version of Ares – the revolutionary P2P file-sharing platform that lets you download unlimited free music …

 

yahoo

 

http://www.ares.net/

 

gulli.com – Internet – Filesharing – Grundwissen – P2P

 

cached

 

P2P steht eigentlich für Peer-to-Peer, also die Verbindung zwischen zwei Teilnehmern einer Tauschbörse. Gemeint ist hierbei also der direkte Austausch von …

 

google

 

http://www.gulli.com/internet/filesharing/grundlagen/p2p

 

P2P/Winsock/Internet Programming VB.NET tutorial

 

cached

 

Welcome to the p2p.wrox.com Forums. You are currently viewing the VB.NET section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of tens of …

 

bing

 

http://p2p.wrox.com/vb-net/9681-p2p-wi%5B…%5Drogramming-vbulletin-net-tutorial.html

 

Internet2 Peer to Peer Working Group – P2P WG

 

cached

 

The Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative (E2Epi) is aimed at improving end-to-end performance in the network infrastructure by focusing resources and …

 

google

 

http://p2p.internet2.edu/

 

The Pirate Bay founders are building a P2P internet | KitGuru

 

cached

 

6 Jan 2014 … The Pirate Bay has been shaking up the internet for over a decade at this point, first by helping popularise torrents, then by its founders …

 

google

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security%5B…%5D-bay-founders-building-a-p2p-internet/

 

How to setup and configure DVR Cloud P2P …

 

cached

 

Complete version of how to connect DVR to Internet and Android mobile and laptop or Internet Explorer settings from http://www.cctvcameraspy.com In this video we …

 

bing

 

 

The Alternative P2P Wireless Internet Network: The Netsukuku Idea

 

cached

 

Would it be possible, using p2p and wireless technologies, to gain independence from internet providers and make free and open net …

 

google

 

http://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alte%5B…%5Ds-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/

 

P2P, Top-Downloads für Linux – Download – heise online

 

cached

 

Internet, Dateitransfer, P2P, 12 Programme für Linux bei heise Download.

 

google

 

http://www.heise.de/download/linux/internet/dateitransfer/p2p-50003505129/

 

Firechat Enables Private Off-The-Internet (P2P) – Disruptive Telephony

 

cached

 

In the text he outlines how they do decentralized “off-the-grid” private messaging using an ad hoc mesh network established between users of …

 

google

 

http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/201%5B…%5Dp2p-messaging-using-mobile-phones.html

 

 

 

How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton
 
by Jim Geraghty
 
Could the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga end with FBI Director James Comey resigning in protest? Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, knows the laws regarding classified information firsthand. In his private practice, Cuccinelli defended a Marine lieutenant colonel court martialed on charges of possessing such information outside a secure facility. He says Clinton’s actions in the e-mail scandal clearly satisfy all five requirements necessary to sustain charges of mishandling classified material, and constitute a breach perhaps even more glaring than the one for which General David Petraeus was convicted. Like Petraeus, Clinton was clearly “an employee of the United States government.” Like Petraeus, Clinton obtained and created “documents and materials containing classified information” through her work at the State Department. In response to a Congressional inquiry earlier this month, I. Charles McCullough, III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, declared that an intelligence official examined “several dozen e-mails containing classified information determined . . . to be . . . CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP information” residing on Clinton’s server. (SAP is an acronym for ‘special access programs,’ a level of classification above top secret.)
 
Like Petraeus, Clinton “knowingly removed such documents or materials.” Cuccinelli points out that she actually committed this crime on a significant scale three separate times: First, by setting up her e-mail system to route messages to and through her unsecured server, then by moving the server to Platte River Networks, a private company, in June of 2013, and then by transferring the server’s contents to her private lawyers in 2014. RELATED: Why the Justice Department Won’t Work with the FBI on Clinton’s E-mail Case Like Petraeus, Clinton did not have the authority to remove classified information from secure locations. “Simply being secretary of state does not allow Hillary Clinton to ‘authorize herself’ to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials, and information,” Cuccinelli says. “There is no known evidence, and Clinton has not asserted, that her arrangement to use the private e-mail server in her home was undertaken with proper authority as it relates to classified documents, materials, or information.” And like Petraeus, Clinton demonstrated the “intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” A private residence can be an “authorized” location, and non-government servers and networks can be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, but there are specific and stringent requirements for such authorization, and there is no indication that Clinton undertook the steps necessary to obtain it for her house, her private server, Platte River Networks, or her lawyers. “If she had, she would not have offered the ‘my house is guarded by the Secret Service’ excuse,” Cuccinelli says. Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet As FBI Director, Comey was completely in the loop on the decision to bring charges against Petraeus, so Clinton’s case is familiar territory for him. Cuccinelli says that if the FBI’s handling of Petraeus is any guide, Comey’s agents are likely to recommend a Clinton indictment to the Department of Justice. Then, the issue becomes really high-stakes. There is no time limit on how long Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the DOJ can take in reviewing the FBI’s recommendation and the evidence on which it’s based. But if the Department of Justice gives the signal that they’re going to ignore the FBI’s investigations, or drag out their own review past election day, Cuccinelli — along with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Roger Stone, Charles Krauthammer, and other observers — predicts that Comey will resign in protest, and other high-level FBI officials could follow him out the door. More Clinton E-mail Scandal Hillary Can’t Pin E-mailgate on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Why the Justice Department Won’t Work with the FBI on Clinton’s E-mail Case State Department Seeks to Delay Release of Final Clinton E-mails until After Iowa & New Hampshire Not many people remember that Comey almost resigned a high-profile law-enforcement job once before, upset because he thought White House politics were overruling the law.
 
Back in 2004, Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy. The Justice Department determined that the Bush administration’s domestic-surveillance program, run by the National Security Agency, was illegal. Ashcroft was hospitalized at the time with a pancreatic ailment, and his authority had been transferred to Comey during the hospitalization. Then–White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., went to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to re-authorize the program. Comey and then–FBI director Robert Mueller raced to the hospital to lobby Ashcroft against signing the authorization papers. Ultimately, Bush agreed with the Justice Department’s assessment and scrapped the program. Comey later told Congress that he, Ashcroft, Mueller, and their aides had prepared a mass resignation in case the White House ignored or defied their legal assessment. In short, Comey’s been willing to defy a White House before, as Obama acknowledged in announcing his nomination to head the FBI: To know Jim Comey is also to know his fierce independence and his deep integrity. Like Bob [Mueller], he’s that rarity in Washington sometimes — he doesn’t care about politics; he only cares about getting the job done. At key moments, when it’s mattered most, he joined Bob in standing up for what he believed was right. He was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong. Is Comey still prepared to give up the job rather than be part of something he feels is fundamentally wrong? If, as those who know him suspect, it will much harder for the Department of Justice to ignore what his bureau has to say about Clinton’s dangerous misconduct. — Jim Geraghty is the senior political correspondent for National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430343/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-james-comey-resign-protest

Department of Energy attempts cover-up and whitewash of the most criminally corrupt program in U.S. history!

 

Department of Energy attempts cover-up and whitewash of the most criminally corrupt program in U.S. history!

 

 

 

By Donna Gleason – Special To Voat

 

 

 

 

The American energy department is flooding news outlets with articles that seek to convince voters that its mind-numbing crimes, epic failures and horrific political payola scams never happened.

In a campaign which mirrors the twisted revisionist perversions of “the-holocaust-never-happened” people, The Department of Energy believes it can convince the voters that it has truly only delivered green-energy Unicorn farts to America and that voters should bow, on their knees to the god-like wonder of Secretary Moniz’s bizarre haircut. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”, they trumpet, Oz-like, across the press release circuits.

The FACTS are quite different than the cotton candy clouds of PR hype that have recently emerged from the DOE in a tsunami of press BS.

The DOE lost over a trillion taxpayer dollars because of their crony-ism and failures

The DOE handed Goldman Sachs tens of billions of dollars of upfront fees and bankruptcy tax write-offs for jamming ” cleantech” companies into the death line, which instantly went bankrupt.

The DOE handed campaign billionaire financier Frank Guistra, now under investigation in both the funding of Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns, illicit lithium and uranium contracts. The DOE, under a bill for emergency green energy funding in a “crisis-level domestic economy” handed U.S. taxpayer cash to Russian mobster billionaires in the Ener1 and Severstal give-aways, in exchange for kick backs in Afghanistan mining deals. Ener1 immediately went bankrupt, yet campaign billionaires made a hundred million dollars in profit by exploiting tax write-offs.

The DOE funded Solyndra, which had covert ownership by Senator Feinstein. Solyndra immediately went bankrupt and got raided by the FBI. Solyndra dumped toxic materials, was shown to have been owned by campaign financiers and lost over $500M in taxpayer cash. Goldman Sachs made over $40M on the failure. Solyndras tubes exploded into flames, on their own, on users roofs, as did panels from other DOE funded, Afghanistan-mined, projects.

 

 

A123 got taxpayer cash; was co-owned by DOE officials, relied on Afghan lithium mining contracts, suddenly went bankrupt, after getting the taxpayer cash, and the Sachs Cartel took a windfall on the tax write-off, again.

The same thing happened with Abound Solar. Sudden bankruptcy, toxic dumping, investigations.

The DOE funded the most cancer-causing, factory worker killing, fire starting, fetus mutating, liver damaging, airplane crashing, explosive, self-flame initiating, Afghan War profiteered program in the world: Lithium ion batteries. DOE staff and bosses own the lithium ion companies, and their stock. Even DOE’s own scientists wrote extensive papers about this toxic material which becomes increasingly unstable over time, explodes when it gets wet or bumped and may have been why Afghanistan was invaded. By the way, that Afghan war has now lost American taxpayers over $6 Trillion dollars according to major universities.

The DOE funded campaign financier: Fisker Cars. Then millions of dollars of lithium ion Fiskers blew up and melted into slag heaps when they got wet in a storm. Fisker was suddenly bankrupt, taxpayers lost more money, Goldman Sachs made a profit and the company was sold to China.

Silicon Valley collusion firm: Kleiner Perkins, paid to put Department of Energy staff in office so that those DOE bosses could crony kick back the DOE cash to ONLY Kleiner Perkins and their Cartel members who own most of Google. History now proves that only Kleiner/Google Cartel members got cash and every single one of their competitors were denied and sabotaged by DOE staff working with Google and Kleiner hit job resources.

The DOE funded the giant solar mirror project called Ivanpah. The system never worked for anything but roasting birds in mid air, blinding pilots and wasting money. It was not only not the promised “free” or “cheap electricity”, it turned out to be the most expensive electricity in America. To underscore the failure, special supplemental generators had to be built to even keep Ivanpah going.

Elon Musk has now been revealed to exist only due to tens of billions of dollars of government handouts and monopoly rights, given to him, and his backers in a crony payoff scheme. He famously built toxic, exploding cars, rockets and a battery factory that poisons its workers and the environment. Most of Musk’s payoffs came from DOE

DOE solicited hundreds of companies and asked them to bring the best technologies on Earth to help the nation. Their request was a sham. It was a cover story for a bundle of cash that had already covertly been hard-wired and secretly promised to a handful of political crony’s. None of those great American innovators were ever going to be given a chance at that cash and DOE knew that from the day they announced the grant and loan programs. DOE defrauded the applicants, tricked them into waiting and spending money on false promises, and used them to manufacture the cover story that the program was ” open to all”. It wasn’t. The DOE programs are rigged, and staged, for the exclusive purpose of crony payola compensation in exchange for the payment of political bribes.

60 Minutes has an investigative episode, which you can see on their website, called: ” THE CLEANTECH CRASH”. It details how Kleiner Cartel members raped taxpayer’s, using the Department of Energy as their bitch, and then gave America’s technology to China at low ball prices. Senator Feinstein’s family assisted with that and profited on the China deals. The whole thing stinks from Palo Alto to Beijing.

 

 

 

There are hundreds of other hard facts and proven examples of organized-crime corruption and historical failures in the Department of Energy period from 2007 to today. This is not “spin”. This is not a point “subject to interpretation”. These are hard facts with proven evidence from the GAO, The SEC, The FBI, The U.S. Senate and the national news media. All of these corrupt crony failures happened. They happened at the Department of Energy. It is a travesty for the Department of Energy to use taxpayer resources to try to cover it up and re-write historical facts.

Now the Department of Transportation (DOT) is being used to conduit cash kickbacks, again, to Tesla and Google for their Afghan War mining scam contracts to exploit dirty lithium ion in their “driver-less cars”. This is just an extension of the DOE crony kick-back program.

Does that sound like the DOE was ” successful”? They were successful in operating the largest criminal revolving door and bribery payoff campaign. Their efforts on behalf of America and the voters was an epic failure.

Department of Energy officials say that they “conducted massive due diligence on each applicant”, but the only due diligence that was undertake by Steven Chu and Secretary Moniz was to be very diligent about ensuring that only campaign financiers got the money, and that all other applicants were stone-walled and sabotaged.

 

 

There are a plethora of reports and investigations citing “White House orders” to manipulate the Department of Energy program funding to exclusively benefit campaign financiers. This brings about the famous Watergate question: “ What did the President know and when did he know it?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Spends How Much On This Failed Car Program?

Obama Spends How Much On This Failed Car Program?

car program

A scandal-plagued “green” auto program that’s fleeced American taxpayers out of huge sums just got another $58 million from the Obama administration to support the development of advanced technology vehicles that meet higher efficiency standards.

The experimental program is known as Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) and it’s one of the president’s many disastrous green-energy investments. The public funds are funneled through the Department of Energy (DOE), which is handing out cash like candy on Halloween. In all, the administration has set aside an astounding $25 billion for the cause and a chunk of it has already been lost on initiatives that have failed miserably.

Among them is fly-by-night electric car company called Fisker Automotive that shut down after getting an eye-popping $193 million from the government. The Obama DOE originally pledged $529 million for the California startup but the cash finally stopped flowing when Fisker laid off three quarters of its employees and announced it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Judicial Watch has an ongoing investigation into the Fisker scandal and has sued the DOE for records detailing the government “loan” that will obviously never be repaid because the company went under. The Obama administration touted it as a great investment in a company that would create thousands of jobs in a region hit hard by unemployment. The administration also promised Fisker would develop two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that could run up to 300 miles on a rechargeable Lithium-ion battery. None of this ever came close to materializing and instead taxpayers got stuck with the huge loss of this failed experiment.

Soon after Fisker’s collapse another startup called Vehicle Production Group (VPG) went under after losing $50 million in taxpayer funds. VPG was supposed to create special vans for the disabled that run on compressed natural gas. Here’s how the Obama administration justified funding this experiment with public dollars: “This project invests in a socially and environmentally responsible product that will create new jobs, promote the use of alternative fuels, and help the U.S. maintain its competitive edge in the automotive industry.” The DOE eventually took the page down, but JW got the quote straight from the agency’s announcement touting VPG, which turned out to be yet another costly failure for taxpayers.

This hasn’t stopped the administration from pouring big bucks into these dubious green energy initiatives. In announcing the $58 million ATVM allocation this month, the DOE has the audacity to claim that the controversial program has enjoyed great “successes.” The agency press release says the funding will solicit projects across vehicle technologies like energy storage, electric drive systems, materials, fuels and lubricants and advanced combustion.

The technologies will help save American consumers money and decrease carbon emissions by increasing the fuel efficiency of conventional cars and trucks, according to the agency. It will also support the administration’s goal to make electric vehicles as affordable as gas-powered vehicles by 2022. “These successful investments in next-generation vehicle technologies are a clear example of the impact innovation can have on industry and consumers,” said DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz.

DOES GOOGLE BRIBE POLITICIANS TO GIVE IT FREE GOVERNMENT HAND OUTS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE?

Google’s worldwide web of tax loopholes: Osborne under fire as Google is set to pay THREE times as much tax in France – even though it employs thousands more people and does more business in Britain

  • Government accused of agreeing ‘derisory’ £130m tax deal with Google
  • Google set to pay £380m in France despite UK being its largest base
  • French officials refusing to allow sales to be funneled via Dublin not Paris
  • But HMRC’s ‘sweetheart deal’ backs Google’s claim it has no fixed UK base
  • George Osborne had hailed £130m deal as a ‘victory for the taxpayer’
  • But Downing Street and MPs have distanced themselves from his claims
Google is set to pay three times more back tax to France than the UK, despite making three times as much money and employing four times more staff in its British outpost (pictured)

Google is set to pay three times more back tax to France than the UK, despite making three times as much money and employing four times more staff in its British outpost (pictured)

The Government was today accused of gross incompetence after agreeing Google could pay £130milllion in tax even though the web giant is about to hand over three times more in France.

Aggressive French officials are close to getting £380million from Google even though Britain is its biggest market outside the US and employs thousands more people than in France.

Paris tax bosses have refused to accept Google’s ploy of funnelling its international sales via Dublin to benefit from Ireland’s lower tax rate.

George Osborne hailed the £130million deal as a ‘victory’ for the taxpayer but critics branded it ‘derisory’ because Google has made around £6billion in profit in the UK in the past decade.

Yesterday even Downing Street distanced itself from the Chancellor’s claims and the agreement is now going to be subject to three inquiries.

Both Google and HM Revenue and Customs are now set to be hauled in front of MPs to explain the deal, after the Commons public accounts committee and the Treasury committee last night launched separate inquiries. 

Sources at the National Audit Office revealed they are also poised to investigate the deal. 

HMRC officials have taken six years to get the the internet giant to pay back just £130million to cover a decade of back-taxes.

This means they have been taxed at a rate that may be as low as 3 per cent – although the Government is still refusing to disclose what they charged them for ‘confidentiality’ reasons, minister David Gauke said yesterday. 

Experts have claimed the bill should be closer to £200million a year. 

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons public accounts committee, said it was just a ‘cosy deal’, adding: ‘It beggars belief that they didn’t challenge that basic question (of no fixed base). It underlines my real concerns about HMRC not keeping up with the big guys.’ 

But the French authorities have been aggressively chasing Google for more than 500million euros, furious at the tax avoidance ploy used by the firm, which registered all European sales in Dublin and benefitted from the lower tax rate in Ireland.

‘We have a hard time believing that some 150 well-paid salespeople with advanced degrees employed by one particular company in France are nothing more than busboys for Ireland,’  a French official said last year, according to The Times. Italy is also reportedly demanding £1billion from Google. 

Google uses a complicated web of businesses across the globe to reduce its tax bill and still claims it has no ‘fixed base’ in the UK despite its plans for a £1billion central London office housing up to 5,000 staff. Currently its thousands of UK employees are split between two offices.  

HQ: This is Google's UK reception at one of its central London offices, where thousands are employed, but it insists that it has no 'fixed base' in Britain

HQ: This is Google’s UK reception at one of its central London offices, where thousands are employed, but it insists that it has no ‘fixed base’ in Britain

French authorities have been aggressively chasing Google for more than 500 Euros, furious at the tax avoidance ploy used by the firm, which registered all European sales in Dublin and benefitted from the lower tax rate in Ireland. Pictured is Google's office in Paris

French authorities have been aggressively chasing Google for more than 500 Euros, furious at the tax avoidance ploy used by the firm, which registered all European sales in Dublin and benefitted from the lower tax rate in Ireland. Pictured is Google’s office in Paris

HOW GOOGLE FUNNELS ITS MONEY VIA A WEB OF COMPANIES TO SHRINK ITS TAX BILL

Web: This is Google’s complicated web of holding companies that allows the web giant to reduce its international tax bill. Google US has set up two Irish companies, one of which is based in Bermuda, with a middle company in the Netherlands. The network allows revenue from around the world to be sent back to Bermuda via Ireland and Holland, with their generous tax rates, allowing Google to reduce its tax bill

Google manages to reduce its tax bill by using a set of subsidiary companies across the globe.

The network – nicknamed the ‘Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich’ – is hugely controversial but totally legal.

Google moved its headquarters for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to Ireland in 2008 to benefit from the country’s lower tax rate on profits.

In Britain, its biggest market outside the US, Google is classified as having no ‘fixed base’ so none of its sales are technically made in the UK.

It means when a British company buys a Google advert for the UK, for example, the money goes straight to Dublin, meaning it pays little tax to the UK Treasury.

After paying Ireland’s lower corporation tax rate of 12.5%, international profits are then funnelled via Google Netherlands Holdings, taking advantage of generous tax laws there.

The profits are then sent to Google’s main overseas company, another Irish business domiciled in Bermuda – where the corporation tax rate is zero. 

This complicated arrangement is explained by experts as the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich – with the Irish businesses being the bread and the Dutch subsidiary being its filling. 

It means that Google’s overseas tax rate on all its profits falls to around five per cent when in the UK it would have to pay 20 per cent.

Though this process has been branded ‘immoral’ by MPs, it is not illegal and Google says it has abided by international tax rules. 

The company also says its Bermuda operation does not impact the tax it pays in the UK.

Executives say the reported UK profit margins are far below the group average because most of its algorithms and codes, which drive the company’s profits, are developed outside the country.

Google still pays the majority of its taxes in America, but on its American profits only. 

 
 
 

Google’s sales were valued at £3.8 billion in Britain during 2013 but it paid just £20.4 million in UK taxes that year. Between 2006 and 2011 the company’s revenue in the UK hit around £12.6 billion but its corporation tax payments for the period totalled £11.2 million 

Its tax set-up allows the business to send UK sales revenue through an Irish subsidiary and legally avoid corporation tax in Britain.

That cash is then funneled via Holland, which offers a tax break too, and on to a holding company in Bermuda, which has a zero rate of corporation tax. 

Money from all of Google’s international businesses is sent to Bermuda in the same way.

MPs on all sides demanded further action to extract tax from Google and other giant corporations like Apple, Starbucks, Amazon and Facebook that make huge sums in the UK but pay little or no tax. 

The Times has also reported that HMRC officials failed to question Google’s claim that it had no ‘permanent establishment’ in the UK. 

This enabled the company to avoid paying millions in UK corporation tax, by booking sales through Ireland, with the profits then diverted to Bermuda – one of the world’s biggest tax havens. 

Britain is Google’s biggest foreign market, and the UK wing has four times as many staff as Google France. 

Tax expert Steve Lewis, who featured in the BBC Two show The Town That Took on the Taxman where locals took their businesses offshire, branded the situation ‘ridiculous’.

He said: ‘Google must have been over the moon with how lightly it got off. They probably thought all their Christmases and New Years had come at once.

‘If you look at their turnover for the UK it is eight figures – the money they should pay back should have been around £1 billion, not £130 million.

George Osborne, pictured, is facing three inquiries over his deal with Google that will see the internet giant pay £130m to cover a decade of back-taxes

George Osborne, pictured, is facing three inquiries over his deal with Google that will see the internet giant pay £130m to cover a decade of back-taxes

‘If a small firm makes an error with its tax return there’s no tolerance whatsoever. You’re not in any position to negotiate – you have to pay the fine plus interest.’ 

Mr Osborne has faced a barrage of criticism over the deal with HMRC, which covers money owed since 2005. 

And even Downing Street yesterday distanced itself from Mr Osborne’s claim that the agreement was a ‘victory’ for the taxpayer, as Tory MPs queued up to demand further action to extract tax from Google and other giant corporations that contribute little or nothing in the UK. 

Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie said tax law had become a ‘piece of elastic’ that allowed corporations to get away with paying almost nothing.

He said: ‘The complexity of tax law is turning what should be a straightforward principle – that everybody should pay the correct amount of tax – into a piece of elastic. For corporation tax the problem is exacerbated by the globalisation of economic activity and any liability to tax that accompanies it.’

Labour said the deal set a dangerous precedent, and asked why ministers were settling for so little, when Italy was demanding £1billion from Google.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said analysis by experts suggested ‘the effective rate of tax faced by Google is around 3 per cent’ – against the current corporation tax rate of 20 per cent.

Treasury minister David Gauke dismissed the figure, saying Google was paying a higher rate of tax on its profits in the UK. But he flatly refused to tell MPs what the real rate was, or how it had been calculated.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, a member of the Treasury committee, said the deal was an insult to taxpayers. She added: ‘A lot of people are struggling to fill out their tax returns right now – they can’t go and have a word with HMRC and say, ‘I think I’ll just pay £1,000 this year.’ They have to pay their fair share.’

The deal with Google announced on Friday covers a period dating back to 2005. Mr Osborne hailed it as ‘a victory for the action we’ve taken’.

 
 
 
Google has agreed to pay just £130million in taxes dating back to 2005. The amount was branded 'derisory' in light of the fact that the firm racked up sales of £4.5billion in Britain in 2014 alone

Google has agreed to pay just £130million in taxes dating back to 2005. The amount was branded ‘derisory’ in light of the fact that the firm racked up sales of £4.5billion in Britain in 2014 alone

Downing Street today played down reports that it was distancing itself from the Chancellor, who had described the deal as a ‘victory’ and a ‘major success’.

‘The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are of the same mind on this,’ a Downing Street spokesman said. ‘This was a good deal. There is no difference in the position – the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s view on this is the same.’

OTHER GIANTS IN THE DOCK: MAJOR FIRMS AND CORPORATION TAX 

Facebook: The social media titan paid just £4,327 in corporation tax in 2014, despite reporting UK revenues of £105million.

Apple: The US-based technology firm behind the iPad and the iPhone made £34billion in profit during the year to September 2014.

Experts estimate that the UK accounted for £1.9billion of that profit, but the firm only paid £11.8million in British corporation tax.

Amazon: The online shopping giant took £5.3billion in sales from British shoppers in 2014 but paid just £11.9million in tax after announcing profits of £34.4million.

Starbucks: The coffee chain paid just £8.6million of tax over 14 years between 1998 and 2012 when sales totalled £3billion.

But latest company filings show it paid £8.1million in corporation tax for last year on profits of £34.2million.

The spokesman said the tax settlement was agreed with Google by HMRC, adding: ‘No ministers were involved in agreeing this deal. It is done by HMRC on an operational basis.’

He added: ‘The key point on this is that HMRC is satisfied with the tax due and what it has collected.’

The spokesman said he was aware of ‘speculation’ that France is seeking more than 500 million euros from Google, but added: ‘Clearly at this stage, there’s no outcome, so it does remain to be seen how much they get.’

London Mayor Boris Johnson also hit out at the ‘derisory’ tax settlement, and called for reform of the tax system.

Mr Osborne dodged scrutiny of the deal in the Commons yesterday, preferring to press ahead with a pre-arranged trip to Liverpool with Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates. Instead, it was left to Mr Gauke to deal with the criticism from MPs on all sides.

Tory Anne Main asked why HMRC had allowed Google to avoid paying its taxes for so many years and fellow Conservative Mark Garnier questioned whether the internet giant had broken the law. Mr Gauke flatly refused to disclose details, citing taxpayer confidentiality. He insisted the deal was good for Britain, and said it provided ‘solid evidence’ that firms were responding to strengthened rules.

Google’s sales were valued at £3.8billion in Britain during 2013 but it paid just £20.4million in UK taxes that year. Between 2006 and 2011 the company’s revenue in the UK hit around £12.6billion but its corporation tax payments for the period totalled £11.2million.

It said: ‘After a six-year audit by the tax authority we are paying the amount of tax that HMRC agrees we should pay. Governments make tax law, the tax authorities enforce the law and Google complies with the law.’ 

Revealed: The incredibly close links between Google and Downing Street  

David Cameron and the Tories have links to the very top of Google going back decades.

The Prime Minister has enjoyed a special relationship with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who made billions making the business into a global powerhouse.

For years Mr Schmidt was on Mr Cameron’s business advisory board, which is used as a ‘sounding board’ on business matters, but the Google executive left in July.

The billionaire has reportedly also offered Mr Cameron on economic policy.

Former Google CEO and now executive chairman Eric Schmidt chats to Prime Minister David Cameron at a drinks reception - and has in the past advised Cameron on economic matters

Former Google CEO and now executive chairman Eric Schmidt chats to Prime Minister David Cameron at a drinks reception – and has in the past advised Cameron on economic matters

Links: Steve Hilton (left) was David Cameron's policy guru and his wife Rachel Whetstone (right) was a Google PR executive who worked for the Tories

Rachel Whetstone and Boris Johnson

Links: Steve Hilton was David Cameron’s policy guru and his wife Rachel Whetstone (together left) was a Google PR executive who worked for the Tories (right with Boris Johnson)

The links do not end there because Steve Hilton, once the Prime Minister’s closest political adviser, is married to Rachel Whetstone, who was vice-president of global communications at Google until last year before she moved to Uber.

Rachel Whetstone is a former No 10 aide and was Michael Howard’s director of communications when he was Tory leader and Mr Cameron is godfather to her younger son.

Mr Hilton was godfather to Ivan Cameron, the late eldest child of David and Samantha.

Hilton and Whetstone have been called the ‘most powerful couple in Britain’ while she and Mr Cameron have known each other since starting at Conservative Central Office in their early 20s.

Hilton and Whetstone later bought a Oxfordshire holiday home close to the Camerons. 

Last year Mr Hilton, who quit as Mr Cameron’s former chief strategist, admitted too many of those at the heart of government go to the same dinner parties and send their children to the same schools.

Mr Hilton warned: ‘Regardless of who’s in office, the same people are in power. It is a democracy in name only, operating on behalf of a tiny elite no matter the electoral outcome.’ 

In 2013 David Cameron, accompanied by his wife Samantha and their daughter Florence, went to the wedding of a Naomi Gummer, a senior Google executive with the brief of ‘public policy’.

She was previously a political adviser to Jeremy Hunt when he was Culture Secretary in charge of internet regulation – so he was in attendance too.

David Cameron and his wife Samantha attended the wedding of Google exec Naomi Gummer

Google executive Naomi Gummer with husband Henry

Guests: David Cameron and his wife Samantha attended the wedding of Naomi Gummer, right with husband Henry,  a senior Google executive with the brief of ‘public policy’.

The Hilton/Whetstone axis is not the only relationship between Google and Government.

Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has long been close to Downing Street and has in the past advised Cameron on economic matters.

In 2006, Mr Cameron travelled from visiting Google in Silicon Valley to Bournemouth to address the Conservative Party conference.

Then in 2010 when Cameron announced a review of Britain’s intellectual property laws as the founders of Google have said they could never have started their company in Britain’.

In 2012 it emerged that Tory ministers held meetings with Google an average of once a month. 

Official records show that David Cameron met Google executives three times and Chancellor George Osborne four times. 

Google has held five meetings with the UK government over the past two years to discuss launching driverless cars in Britain.

It is not just a case of former government policy staff exiting through Westminster’s ‘revolving door’ to Google – it works the other way too.

Tim Chatwin was Mr Cameron’s head of strategic communications and had worked closely with Mr Hilton since the start of the Cameron modernisation project. He joined Google after the 2012 Tory conference.

Amy Fisher was once Google’s PR chief for European affairs and later bagged a job advising then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.

Tim Chatwin was Mr Cameron's head of strategic communications and joined Google after the 2012 Tory conference

Tim Chatwin was Mr Cameron’s head of strategic communications and joined Google after the 2012 Tory conference

LABOUR WRITES TO CHANCELLOR AND TELLS HIM: THESE ARE THE 8 QUESTIONS YOU MUST ANSWER ON THE £130M GOOGLE TAX DEAL

Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell today wrote to George Osborne demanding more information on Google’s tax bill.

In his letter he said that there are eight questions he must answer:

  • Firstly, please can you clarify exactly when you were first made aware of the details of the deal with Google? Did you (or any other Treasury Minister) personally sign it off, and were other Ministers involved in the settlement?
  • What discussions, if any, did you or members of your private office have with HMRC and with Google representatives about the deal?
  • Did HM Treasury and HMRC discuss details of the deal with Number 10 before the announcement was made?
  • What is HMRC’s understanding of the effective tax rate faced by Google over the past 10 years as a result of this settlement?
  • Are you confident that this deal will not undermine international co-operation on tax avoidance, such as the OECD base erosion and profit shifting scheme?
  • Can you clarify whether Google is changing the company structures that enabled this avoidance to take place over the past decade?
  • What concerns, if any, do you have that this agreement creates a precedent for future deals with other large technology corporations?
  • To help ensure HMRC is best placed to address complex issues like this will you now halt the programme of HMRC staffing cuts? 

Is the Google sweetheart deal another blunder by HMRC boss Dame Disaster? 

Google’s £130million ‘sweetheart deal’ with the taxman could be another blunder by HM Revenue and Customs boss nicknamed Dame Disaster.

HMRC has refused to say who signed off on the Google agreement but Treasury sources have said that the deal is likely to have been signed off by Lin Homer.

It is not the first ‘sweetheart deal’ agreed with HMRC as her predecessor Dave Hartnett also signed off agreements which saved Starbucks and Vodafone millions or even billions in tax payments.

High life: Dame Lin Homer is pictured here sipping champagne on a plane after an HMRC crisis and as boss it is likely she has signed off the Google deal

High life: Dame Lin Homer is pictured here sipping champagne on a plane after an HMRC crisis and as boss it is likely she has signed off the Google deal

An inquiry into Google’s tax arrangements started in 2009 when Mr Hartnett was in charge before he left in 2012 and Mrs Homer took over. 

Her tenure has been tarnished by a string of blunders and she will stand down two years early in April with a pension worth £2.2million.

Her 35-year career in the public sector has been dogged by a string of scandals and failures.

Previous HMRC boss Dave Hartnett, pictured, also signed off agreements which saved Starbucks and Vodafone millions or even billions in tax payments.

 

Previous HMRC boss Dave Hartnett, pictured, also signed off agreements which saved Starbucks and Vodafone millions or even billions in tax payments.

In 2005, as chief executive of Birmingham City Council, she was caught up in a postal votes scandal, which a judge said would have ‘disgraced a banana republic’.

Election judge Richard Mawrey said Mrs Homer, acting as the city’s returning officer, had ‘thrown the rule book out of the window’.

She went on to become the £200,000-a-year boss of the immigration system, at the time it was branded ‘not fit for purpose’ by the then Home Secretary John Reid.

During her time in charge it emerged that 1,000 foreign criminals had been mistakenly released, and 450,000 asylum case files were discovered dumped in boxes at the Home Office.

She later became head of the now defunct UK Border Agency, where she was criticised by MPs for a ‘catastrophic leadership failure’.

Despite the criticism, she was rewarded with a new post as head of HMRC.

At the time of her appointment, in 2012, the Home Affairs Committee said it was ‘astounded’ that she was being promoted to become the chief executive at Revenue & Customs adding: ‘The status quo, in which catastrophic leadership failure is no obstacle to promotion, is totally unacceptable.’

Recently pictures emerged of her as she raised a glass of champagne in first class, this is the head as she jetted off to America as her department floundered. 

Days before her summer holiday last July she announced that 18million of the 60million annual calls to the HMRC helpline were never answered by staff.

Dame Lin was forced to set aside an extra £45million to improve customer service because so many calls were never picked up or were met with a busy tone. 

She said at the time: ‘Despite our best efforts, our call performance hasn’t been up to scratch and we apologise to all those customers who have struggled to get through to us’.

But instead of staying in the UK, photographs from her husband Ian’s Facebook account reveal they still went to America for a summer break.

THE BILLIONAIRE GOOGLE BOSSES WHO CLAIM TO BE PAID AS LITTLE AS $1

Larry Page, 42, Google co-founder and chief executive at Alphabet – Google’s parent company

Salary: $1

Worth: £36.8bn

Computer scientist and entrepreneur Page (right) co-founded Google Inc with Sergey Brin – his friend at Stanford University – in 1998, when they developed a search engine that listed results according to the popularity of the pages as part of a research project.

Both men became billionaires in August 2004 when Google held its initial public offering.

Page stepped aside as CEO in August 2001 in favour of Eric Schmidt, but re-assumed the role in April 2011. Last July he announced his intention to step aside a second time, in order to to become CEO of Alphabet.

Documents filed with regulators in April last year also disclosed that Page and the company’s other founder, Sergey Brin, limited their 2014 pay to $1 each, as has been their practice for years.

In 2011, he splashed out $45m on his own super yacht – but unlike many moguls, he bought his yacht second-hand.

Last year, a survey by review site Glassdoor named him as the highest-rated chief executive in America.

Sergey Brin, 42, Google co-founder, Alphabet President and head of Google X

Salary: $1

Worth: £36bn

Born in the Soviet Union, Brin (right) and his family moved to the US when he was six years old. He met Google co-founder Page in 1995 after he went to Stanford University to study computer science, and the pair set up what was initially called BackRub would become the internet giant as part of a project.

Like Page, Brin takes a salary of just $1, but his wealth is estimated at £36bn.

Brin is also an investor in Airship Ventures and a private space travel company, Space Adventures. He became a benefactor for research into Parkinson’s disease, after his mother, Eugenia was diagnosed with the disease. He also learned he has a genetic mutation increasing the odds that he he too will get it, and in February 2014, Brin and his now ex-wife Anne Wojcicki donated $53 million to Michael J Fox Foundation.

After the couple’s separation in 2013, Wojcicki remained in the couple’s $7million Los Altos home with their two children.

Eric Schmidt, 60, Executive chairman at Alphabet

Pay/bonuses: $109m

Worth: $9billion

Schmidt (right) was brought in as Google’s CEO in 2001 by creators Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who relied on his expertise to turn their modest internet search engine into a global media powerhouse.

Also known for his colourful private life, Schmidt is among the world’s richest people with an estimated fortune of $9 billion, according to Forbes.

He reportedly owns a $72.3million superyacht, a $15 million penthouse in Manhatten, a home near Google’s Silicon Valley HQ, and a $38 million estate in Montecito, California

In April last year it was revealed he had earned nearly $109 million in that financial year while the company’s stock slumped. Most of this consisted of stock valued at $100 million – the largest stock package that Schmidt had received since 2011 when Google Inc. awarded him a bundle valued at $94 million at the time he relinquished the CEO’s job to company co-founder Larry Page.

Schmidt also pocketed a $1.25 million salary, a $6 million bonus and perks valued at nearly $1 million. His total pay last year soared by more than five-fold from 2013 when his Google compensation was valued at $19.3 million.

Sundar Pinchai, 43, Google chief executive

Pay/Bonuses: $50m

Worth: $150m

Long-hailed as a rising star in the company, Pinchai (right) was promoted to Google’s chief executive last August as part of the firm’s radical shake-up and Alphabet rebrand.

Twitter tried to poach him in 2011, and he was slated to become Microsoft CEO in 2013, but stuck with Google – where he has ascended to the top in just over six years.

The 43-year-old married father-of-two (one son, one daughter) was born in Chennai, India, and reportedly did not own a telephone until he was 12.

Pichai moved to America after his bachelor’s degree in engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.

He went to Stanford for his MSc, the University of Pennsylvania for his MBA, then worked in business management and engineering before joining Google in 2004.

At Google he was one of the driving forces behind Gmail and Google Maps, and has headed up the development side of Chrome and Chrome OS.

He is widely described as ‘nice’, ‘mild-mannered’ and warm’. 

Backlash builds against Google tax deal

Backlash builds against Google tax deal

 

 

 

 

FRANCE-INTERNET-GOOGLE...A person prepares to search the internet using the Google search engine, on May 14, 2014, in Lille. In a surprise ruling on May 13, the EU's top court said individuals have the right to ask US Internet giant Google to delete personal data produced by its ubiquitous search engine. AFP PHOTO / PHILIPPE HUGUEN (Photo credit should read PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP/Getty Images)

Downing Street distanced itself on Monday from George Osborne’s claim that the tax deal with Google represented “a major success”, amid growing criticism of the settlement.

Google’s agreement to pay £130m in back taxes to the UK government has reignited a controversy that pushed tax avoidance to the top of the international agenda three years ago.

The deal ended a decade-long probe by tax authorities into whether the tech group had skirted its tax bill by allocating profits earned in the UK — its second biggest market — to its European base in Ireland, where tax rates are lower

Conservative MPs — led by Boris Johnson, London mayor — have lined up to criticise what they said was a “derisory” payment by the US multinational.

Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Commons treasury committee, announced an inquiry into corporate taxation saying that fundamental reforms would “probably now have to be considered”.

The chancellor’s enthusiastic reception of the Google agreement was not echoed by Number 10. David Cameron’s spokesman declined to repeat Mr Osborne’s assertion that the deal was a “major success” and “a victory”.

“It’s a step forward but there’s more to do,” the prime minister’s spokesman said. “We have made it clear that we want to see low taxes for business but tax must be paid. Clearly there is more work for the government to do to make sure multinational companies pay their tax.”

David Gauke, treasury minister, was forced to defend the deal in the House of Commons and rejected suggestions from some MPs that Google’s effective tax rate was just 3 per cent. But he said he could not say what rate the company had paid because he was not privy to tax information.

[Critics form] an unholy alliance between myself, The Sun, the mayor of London and even No 10

– John McDonnell

He reminded MPs that international rules dating back to the 1920s decree that corporation tax was paid on the basis of where economic activity takes place rather than where profit was made.

But Mr Tyrie’s treasury committee will look at whether the rules need to be changed. MPs are also expected to call multinationals such as Google, Facebook and Amazon to give evidence on their tax affairs.

John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, claimed the deal with Google had helped to form “an unholy alliance between myself, The Sun, the mayor of London and even Number 10”.

Steve Baker, one Tory MP, said the Google deal was “derisory”, echoing the view of Mr Johnson, and “totally unacceptable” to the public. The Sun newspaper said it was “a kick in the goolies”.

The issue of corporation tax has also been rising up the US political agenda. On Monday, Johnson Controls revived a debate about tax-cutting “inversion” deals, after it agreed a $20bn combination with Tyco International which would move the US manufacturer’s domicile to Ireland.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools.
Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

 

COMMENTS (34)
 
By submitting this comment I confirm that I have read and agreed to the FT Terms and Conditions. Please also see our commenting guidelines.

 

Sierra One 35 minutes ago

Perhaps we should see the £130m as the *price* Google decided it would pay to *buy* the termination of the UK’s “decade-long probe by tax authorities into whether the tech group had skirted its tax bill”.

It is Mr Osborne’s Treasury and HMRC that have an interest in spinning this as Google agreeing to pay “back taxes”; i.e. a victory by them over Google. But Google would rather not hear (nor say) the word “tax” at all. “What avoidance? We broke no law! End of.” True — and revealing:

What we actually learn from this episode is the going rate for buying the silence of Mr Osborne’s Treasury: circa 3%. Think about that for a moment.

Perhaps henceforth Mr Osborne should be known as “Mr 3%”. And perhaps *Never knowingly undersold* can be made the UK’s corporation tax policy; works as a Tweet too.

(More trivially: Clumsy of Mr Osborne to expose himself this way to his “friend” Boris.)

Citizen88 49 minutes ago

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1df11896-c383-11e5-b3b1-7b2481276e45.html#ixzz3yJMEbkXv

The debate is not really about the Google payment but the highlighting of the arcane and anachronistic tax system we have.  Corporate and personal.  Application of existing rules is also poor as it is difficult to imagine a personal tax payer, without penalty, being given up to 10 years to argue the toss. For Google to take that time and employ advisors you know the outcome was worth it.

Reform however badly needed should not be underestimated.  While living in Hong Kong many years ago the US Congress sent a committe to review the spectacularly successful tax system of 15% flat (personal) and 16.5% if your employer paid for your housing.  Their simplified conclusion: a 25% flat tax would collect a meaningfully larger tax revenue but be over-run by the unemployment in legal, accounting and government employment.  It is much the same with reform of Corporate Tax.  With the added complexity of the stock market and braoder corporate financing as companies were forced to pay closer to or at headline tax rates. Headline tax rates are frankly meaningless when the majority of companies structure to minimise.

As a previous commentor suggested changes to the system reflecting the times in which we live would transform the collection and amount.  Now at a time where interest rates are at historic and predicted long term lows is the best time to make the change.  We also need to be cognisant of the numbers that companies, particularly public, want to promote and therefore require some honesty.  For example a 5% tax on gross earnings may be more relevant today.  A recent Australian review of public companies showed that of 1539 corporate entities, 38 per cent did not pay any tax in 2013-14, 22 per cent incurred a current year loss, 8 per cent offset tax profit against prior year tax losses, and 7 per cent used franking credits and other offsets (such as foreign tax credits and research and development tax breaks) to reduce their tax.  It may be the rules but the rules appear broke.  The UK sitution is likely to be similar.

This reform is financially and socially important.  The employees of these companies have often supped at the State teat and if we are prevented from recovering some societal benefit through corporations and personal tax at reasonable levels we kill the society we are meant to enhance for our very economic success.  Of course reform of government spending should follow hand in hand.  Like the Google tax investigation it is a decade long  process but the context of a fairer system working as stated (e.g. headline rates are the tax rates) is worth fighting for.

Citizen88 55 minutes ago

The debate is not really about the Google payment but the highlighting of the arcane and anachronistic tax system we have.  Corporate and personal.  Application of existing rules is also poor as it is difficult to imagine a personal tax payer, without penalty, being given up to 10 years to argue the toss. For Google to take that time and employ advisors you know the outcome was worth it.

Reform however badly needed should not be underestimated.  While living in Hong Kong many years ago the US Congress sent a committe to review the spectacularly successful tax system of 15% flat (personal) and 16.5% if your employer paid for your housing.  Their simplified conclusion: a 25% flat tax would collect a meaningfully larger tax revenue but be over-run by the unemployment in legal, accounting and government employment.  It is much the same with reform of Corporate Tax.  With the added complexity of the stock market and braoder corporate financing as companies were forced to pay closer to or at headline tax rates. Headline tax rates are frankly meaningless when the majority of companies structure to minimise.

As a previous commentor suggested changes to the system reflecting the times in which we live would transform the collection and amount.  Now at a time where interest rates are at historic and predicted long term lows is the best time to make the change.  We also need to be cognisant of the numbers that companies, particularly corporate, want to promote and therefore require some honesty.  For example a 5% tax on gross earnings may be more relevant today.

This reform is financially and socially important.  The employees of these companies have often supped at the State teat and if we are prevented from recovering some societal benefit through corporations and personal tax at reasonable levels we kill the society we are meant to enhance for our very economic success.  Of course reform of government spending should follow hand in hand.  Like the Google tax investigation it is a decade long  process but the context of a fairer system working as stated (e.g. headline rates are the tax rates) is worth fighting for.

L’anziano 1 hour ago

Hold on a minute. Google obeyed the law. So does Starbucks. So does Amazon. So does Apple. These are not charitable organisations, they’re set up to make money. What did you expect them to do? If the law is flawed, then for goodness sake, change the law. Politicians, if you’ve designed a flawed tax system, that’s your fault! It’s no good posturing and trying to lay the blame at the feet of the ‘evil Americans’. The UK is a democracy. All you have to do – particularly in the ‘elected dictatorship’-style democracy which exists here – is pass legislation. It clearly won’t be unpopular to kick the evil corporations in the teeth.

Somehow, though, I’ll bet politicians will prefer to ‘line up’ to criticise the big, bad American corporations and demand extra-legal ‘shake down’ payments whilst maintaining their lower corporate tax rate than the US as well as their cozy relationships with these corporations. Heaven forbid they do anything so bold as to legislate!

This is complete PR hogwash!

Vyvian 3 hours ago

So Google has settled a 10 year review by HMRC by agreeing to pay £130m. In doing so Google negotiated with the HMRC and one assumes that HMRC applied tax laws as legislated for by the UK parliament (and not the multinationals ) for that period of 10 years. So unless the HMRC is totally incompetent what’s the issue?

The multinationals after all play the international tax game to their advantage, not surprisingly – that is the logical rational approach.

So rather than rail with  pathetic socialist envy or opportunistic populist rage, do something about it,  you politicians. Then look around at the rest of the world laughing at a country that positively seems to enjoy defecating  where it eats its meals….and encouraging those same multinationals to relocate

Unless there is international consenus on tax , it will always be as has been.

Ca 3 hours ago

Its probably time to abolish Corporation Tax thereby ending all the farcical tax ‘planning’ which seeks to divert taxable profit into lower tax jurisdictions, or make it 10% but disallow interest payments or insist on at least a 50% equity or or or. So many simple things a Government could do to sort this out but don’t. 

Nicki 5 hours ago

Osborne does seem to specialise in foot in mouth disease.

MaxSense 3 hours ago

Give him a break. He’s a bloody historian. What can he know about taxes… or the whole fiscal system for that matter.

Anthony Dunn 2 hours ago

@MaxSense 

On the basis of his revolting kow-towing to the Chinese last year, Gideon clearly knows *$%! all about history either.  It grieves me to see such a remarkable lack of historical understanding paraded in the manner that Gideon has chosen to display his ignorance.  But, I suppose, to be fair, he was only doing as instructed by his paymasters in the Hedge Fund industry.

Abacab 5 hours ago

After a six-year investigation, HMRC have stated that Google have paid their tax. Now we have eveyone from the Labour party, the FT, and the prime minister’s office demanding that companies “pay their tax”. Well Google have paid their tax. This payment reflects what Google actually do in the UK, which is to sell something created, developed and operated outside the UK.

The FT’s argument amounts to little more than “there’s a large pile of cash over there – I want some of it”. And as it’s an “American”, and “multinational” pile of cash, then nothing more needs to be said really – does it? Clearly it’s immoral, if not downright evil, to have a pile of cash like that and not to give me some.

2RecommendReply

How Google Steals Ideas From Entrepreneurs! The Google Innovation Theft Factory

How Google Steals Ideas From Entrepreneurs

 

By Sarah Dunn and Anthony Harvard

 

A recent article in The New York Times called: “How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s Business” describes how Google Boss Larry Page covertly attends technology conferences in order to get ideas from entrepreneurs. He does not seem to ever pay those entrepreneurs, for the technology he takes from them, and makes billions of dollars off of at Google.

 

Google Boss Eric Schmidt just spent over $1 Billion to try to lobby Congress to change the patent laws in order to make patents for entrepreneurs nearly illegal, and to try to make patents almost entirely unenforceable, so that Google would not have to pay for the technology it steals. Google seems to love killing the American dream.

 

Google spent millions of dollars to nominate, lobby for, influence and place it’s top lawyer in charge of the U.S. Patent Office. Now Google’s “inside-man” makes sure that patents, that Google is infringing, are either turned down or, in some cases, have their approvals reversed.

 

Google’s motto seems to be: “Why Compete When You Can Cheat”. This is a far more relevant motto than ‘Don’t be evil”.

 

The New York Times article, and hundreds of stories from entrepreneurs, describes how Mr. Page cuddles up to technologists in ordinary street wear, does not identify himself, and Hoover’s up their innovations for his company. The article, details the following:

 

Three years ago, Charles Chase, an engineer who manages Lockheed Martin’s nuclear fusion program, was sitting on a white leather couch at Google’s Solve for X conference when a man he had never met knelt down to talk to him.

 

They spent 20 minutes discussing how much time, money and technology separated humanity from a sustainable fusion reaction — that is, how to produce clean energy by mimicking the sun’s power — before Mr. Chase thought to ask the man his name.

 

I’m Larry Page,” the man said. He realized he had been talking to Google’s billionaire co-founder and chief executive.

 

He didn’t have any sort of pretension like he shouldn’t be talking to me or ‘Don’t you know who you’re talking to?’” Mr. Chase said. “We just talked.”

 

The article also reveals the show-boating of how Mr. Page likes to “ ignore the main stage and follow the scrum of fans and autograph seekers who mob him in the moments he steps outside closed doors.”

 

The article goes on to show that.. He is a regular at robotics conferences and intellectual gatherings like TED. Scientists say he is a good bet to attend Google’s various academic gatherings, like Solve for X and Sci Foo Camp, where he can be found having casual conversations about technology or giving advice to entrepreneurs. Mr. Page is hardly the first Silicon Valley chief with a case of intellectual wanderlust, but unlike most of his peers, he has invested far beyond his company’s core business and in many ways has made it a reflection of his personal fascinations.”

 

 

 

Further Page has “… said on several occasions that he spends a good deal of time researching new technologies, focusing on what kind of financial or logistic hurdles stand in the way of them being invented or carried out. His presence at technology events, while just a sliver of his time, is indicative of a giant idea-scouting mission that has in some sense been going on for years but is now Mr. Page’s main job.”

 

Photo

 

 

Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, wearing Google Glass. Credit Carlo Allegri/Reuters

 

Then the article grows dark, it says: Many former Google employees who have worked directly with Mr. Page said his managerial modus operandi was to TAKE new technologies or product ideas and generalize them to as many areas as possible. Why can’t Google Now, Google’s predictive search tool, be used to predict everything about a person’s life? Why create a portal to shop for insurance when you can create a portal to shop for every product in the world?

 

But corporate success means corporate sprawl, and recently Google has seen a number of engineers and others leave for younger rivals like Facebook and start-ups like Uber. Mr. Page has made personal appeals to some of them, and, at least in a few recent cases, has said he is worried that the company has become a difficult place for entrepreneurs, according to people who have met with him.”

 

People who have worked with Mr. Page say that he tries to guard his calendar, avoiding back-to-back meetings and leaving time to read, research and see new technologies that interest him.”

 

The articles details Page’s under-cover intelligence gathering: People who work with Mr. Page or have spoken with him at conferences say he tries his best to blend in, ..” “ The scope of his curiosity was apparent at Sci Foo Camp, an annual invitation-only conference that is sponsored by Google, O’Reilly Media and Digital Science.

 

 

 

The article goes on to reveal that Google was forced to engage in a break-up, into a front operation called “Alphabet” in order to try to create overt shell companies to build buffers from the Tsunami of legal actions that are coming after it.:

 

Of course, for every statement Mr. Page makes about Alphabet’s technocorporate benevolence, you can find many competitors and privacy advocates holding their noses in disgust. Technology companies like Yelp have accused the company of acting like a brutal monopolist that is using the dominance of its search engine to steer consumers toward Google services, even if that means giving the customers inferior information.

 

In fact, the company’s main business issue seems to be that it is doing too well. Google is facing antitrust charges in Europe, along with investigations in Europe and the United States. Those issues are now mostly Mr. Pichai’s to worry about, as Mr. Page is out looking for the next big thing.”

 

It is hard to imagine how even the most ambitious person could hope to revolutionize so many industries. And Mr. Page, no matter how smart, cannot possibly be an expert in every area Alphabet wants to touch.

 

His method is not overly technical. Instead, he tends to focus on how to make a sizable business out of whatever problem this or that technology might solve. Leslie Dewan, a nuclear engineer who founded a company that is trying to generate cheap electricity from nuclear waste, also had a brief conversation with Mr. Page at the Solve For X conference.

 

She said he questioned her on things like modular manufacturing and how to find the right employees.

 

He doesn’t have a nuclear background, but he knew the right questions to ask,” said Dr. Dewan, chief executive of Transatomic Power. “‘Have you thought about approaching the manufacturing in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about the vertical integration of the company in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about training the work force this way?’ They weren’t nuclear physics questions, but they were extremely thoughtful ways to think about how we could structure the business.”

 

Dr. Dewan said Mr. Page even gave her an idea for a new market opportunity that she had not thought of. Asked to be more specific, she refused. The idea was too good to share.”

 

Yet, Dr. Dewan did share, seduced by the understated encouragement of a top intelligence gathering officer: Larry Page.

 

Below, you will find a small sample of tens of thousands of blog articles and news articles discussing the overt experience of Google’s intellectual property theft. When you have a zillion billion dollars and own your own Senators, ethics do not seem to fall within range of your moral compass.

 

Entrepreneurs have charged that Google has overtly, stolen its video broadcasting technology, virtual reality systems, Internet balloons, search engine system, wireless technology and many other items. We spoke with technologists who showed us United States Government issued patents and communications that showed that they had designed, engineered, built, patent filed and launched a number of the technologies that Google now has filled their bank accounts from. Google’s financiers at Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures and other groups had come to them, looked at the technologies confidentially, under the guise of “maybe we’ll invest”, and then sent the technologies over to Google to build 100% clones of.

 

How hard is it to sue Google for patent infringement? With Google controlling the patent office and 80% of the technology law firms, the hapless entrepreneur is out-gunned.

 

Google even tried the lamest shell game in history by posting ads on technology blogs asking inventors to just send Google their patents and Google would look at them and offer a low-ball check if Google thought they might get in trouble. That ploy was universally mocked on the web.

 

Google remains a big, dumb, reckless billionaire’s toy with no regard for the individual. As a creator, your idea is Google’s to plunder. As a citizen, your privacy is Google’s to plunder. As the buyer of elected officials and federal agencies, the law is now Google’s bitch.

 

American FTC investigators wrote, in their report, that “Google is a threat to domestic innovation”. The European Union investigators have found “…Google to be a private out of control corporate government that has more power than the U.S. Government.”

 

It is time the FBI came in and shut that train down. Google is nothing but bad news for modern society and innovation.

 

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? – Yahoo News

 

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a worrying amount of our data – but even more than that, it has an …

news.yahoo.com/video/does-google-steal-ideas-113004631.html

 

Google Steals Ideas From Bing, Bing Steals Market Share From …

 

Last month, Google added a new feature to its homepage that enabled users to select a background image. Google included a gallery of professional photos to choose …

 

fastcompDany.com/1672922/google-steals-ideas-bing-bing-ste…

 

Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas – Forbes

 

Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas Just because you’re … Google offers its own Web-based

 

 

 

Google Stealing Apple’s Ideas And Other Tales Of … – TechCrunch

 

This morning I woke up and saw an interesting headline on Techmeme from Forbes writer Brian Caulfield: Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas. Wow, a story …

 

techcrunch.com/2009/07/11/google-stealing-apples-ideas-a…

 

 

Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas – Tom’s Guide

 

Monday this week Google launched its App Engine, which was very well received by developers and users alike. Unfortunately, attention turned elsewhere on Tuesday as …

 

tomsguide.com/us/google-huddlechat-campfire,news-977.html

Google Steals Your Ideas – YouTube

 

Google Steals Your Ideas Alltime Conspiracies. Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 887,471 887K. Loading … – Does Google Spy On You?: https: …

 

youtube.com/watch?v=XKHUc2ouMXA

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your Idea” Caveat …

 

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your … Seems in the current downturn its google’s policy … I know that everyone thinks tere ideas are …

 

marketingpilgrim.com/2009/03/google-ventures-launches-with-we-…

Lawsuit Accuses Google, YouTube Of Stealing Sharing Idea In …

 

Be In, a company that created the video sharing service CamUp, is accusing Google of stealing trade secrets and violating its copyrights when it added a “Watch with …

 

marketingland.com/lawsuit-accuses-google-youtube-of-stealin…

 

Newspiracy.com | Google Steals Your Ideas

 

Google Steals Your Ideas 0 Posted by newspiracy – January 24, 2016 – Alltime Conspiracies. Alltime Conspiracies Sun, January 24, 2016 10:50am URL: Embed:

 

newspiracy.com/conspiracy-theory/alltime-conspiracies/go…

 

Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking Your Traffic …

 

[Continue reading Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking … Are they going to decide they can better serve the customers in your market by stealing your …

 

graywolfseo.com/seo/google-hijackingtraffic/

Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered …

 

Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn’t know its software would collect the private information

 

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150606/Google-deliberately-…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Panasonic The Most Unethical Company in Tech?

Is Panasonic The Most Unethical Company in Tech?

 

 

 

Elon Musk will do anything for dirty tech deal’s to increase his wealth and self-promotion via taxpayer pig troughs. He loves to partner with the dirtiest name in electronics: Panasonic.

 

 

 

Apparently, twisted minds think alike. When will the FBI finally shut both of these bad actors down?

 

 

 

Panasonic kills workers. Lies, runs corruption operations, dumps goods, builds toxic factories and well, just take a look:

 

 

 

Panasonic charged with price-fixing on car components

 

 

 

Dustin Walsh  RSS feed
Crain’s Detroit Business

 

A federal grand jury in Detroit indicted another Japanese automotive executive on Tuesday for involvement in an international pricing-fixing conspiracy.

 

According to the charges filed in U.S. District Court, Shinichi Kotani, an executive for Panasonic Corp., participated in fixing prices on switches and steering angles sensors for Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles sold in the U.S.

 

The indictment alleges Kotani and co-conspirators participated in big-rigging meetings in the U.S. and Japan from January 2004 until at least February 2010.

 

Besides various executive roles in Japan, Kotani served as vice president of automotive systems for Panasonic Automotive Systems Co. of America in Peachtree, Ga., from April 2008 until July 2009.

 

Panasonic also has an automotive technical center in suburban Detroit. Attempts to reach a company official for comment were unsuccessful. Efforts to locate an attorney for Kotani also were unsuccessful.

 

Kotani faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines for violating the Sherman Act.

 

The indictment — part of a broad ongoing U.S. investigation into supplier price fixing — is the second coming out of Detroit in the past week. Regulators in Europe and Japan have been conducting similar investigations.

 

On Sept. 19, Ryoji Fukudome and Toshihiko Nagashima, executives for Tokyo-based Fujikura Ltd., were indicted for allegedly fixing prices on wire harnesses sold to Fuji Heavy Industries. The parts were allegedly used in Fuji’s Subaru vehicle line sold in the U.S.

 

Earlier this month, Shingo Okuda, an executive at G.S. Electech Inc., was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky for bid-rigging on wire assemblies sold to Toyota.

 

In July, Panasonic pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy and was sentenced to pay a $45.8 million criminal fine.

 

The investigation has led to 11 companies and 19 executives, including Kotani, charged in the price-fixing conspiracy.

 

More than $874 million in criminal fines have been imposed on the companies, and 14 executives have been sentenced to prison ranging from a year to two years each.

 

The list of companies that have pleaded guilty include Panasonic, Sanyo Electric Co., Diamond Electric Manufacturing Co., Tokai Rika, Autoliv, TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH, Nippon Seiki Co., Fujikura, Furukawa Electric Co., Denso Corp., Yazaki Corp. and G.S. Electech.

 

 

 

Panasonic will spend up to $1.6 billion on Tesla gigafactory

 

Posted by Charles Morris & filed under Newswire, The Tech.