Public officials and Silicon Valley oligarchs exchanged felony bribes and manipulated government actions in order to benefit themselves and harm us. These are the facts including the lists of bribes, attacks and covert financing routes!
Famous members of Congress lie, cheat, steal and manipulate public records in order to protect their trillions of dollars of Google, Facebook, Netflix, Tesla and Amazon stock market payola.
Now the public is working together, around the globe, to end this corruption forever by exposing every single one of the corrupt and all of their dirty secrets!
Department of Energy Staff (ie: Chu), White House Staff (ie: Emanual), CIA staff (ie: Woolsey) owned the rare earth (ie: lithium, indium) mining scam stock (ie: Goldman Sachs transfers) market securities from foreign countries (ie: Afghanistan) which only benefited themselves, Elon Musk and his Silicon Valley Cartel.
DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE DIVESTITURE OF ALL STOCK MARKET HOLDINGS OF ALL POLITICIANS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE THAT IS HOW MOST BRIBES ARE NOW PAID!
Press Clipping Gallery: http://testimony111.com/index.php?gallery/KEY **PROOF**
See How EVERY Politician In These Crimes Is Getting Busted: SOFTWARE REVEALED THAT EXPOSES THE MOBSTERS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS.pdf
Broadcast News Reports About This Case, Set 2: https://wordwiki.info
Click each icon, below, to view -
SEE HARD EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF STOCKS AND SECURITIES TO PAY BRIBES AND QUID-PRO-QUO PAYOLA TO FAMOUS POLITICIANS AT:
MEGA Upload Sets
Snowden/ICIJ Journalist Sets
And daily auto-generated mirror clones
Corruption And Bribery Case Evidence Samples Top Archives:
TO BILL COOPER AND STEVE SKUBEL:
Watch the opening of this feature film about this case. We are interdicting the bribes, stock market payola, crony capitalism, revolving door kick-backs and black-listing at the U.S. Department of Energy, on a priority-basis, and we WILL get compensated for the damages from DOE, one way, or the other, or DOE will be shut down and your careers, legacy and Congressional protections will vaporize. Every Secretary of Energy since CHU has left in shame, don't let your boss be the next one. This is the largest open-source public criminal investigation in history. Tens of millions of pages of evidence herein prove the charges with indisputable corroboration. You stealth-hired Google, Gawker, Gizmodo, YouTube, Fusion GPS and Black Cube to produce tens of millions of dollars of political reprisal media attacks. Now we are returning the favor! You have been caught! Your lies and your "Obama Judges" will not help you now! Resolve this today! EVERY voter is watching:
(Push "PLAY" Button, Above, Or Download Movie At This Link: http://testimony111.com/public/POLITICAL_CORRUPTION_101_-_OPENING_-_MEDIUM.m4v )
"...White House and Department of Energy officials joined with their sick Silicon Valley Oligarch financier/beneficiaries to run $40M+ of hit-jobs and attacks on us for reporting crimes. Now for about $1.00, we are wiping every one of them out, 100% legally, until we get our damages paid for!..."
The Political Corruption Crimes We Experienced In California And Washington DC
The government is responsible to us for the damages to us. We, as natural born citizens, suffered injuries caused by the crimes of government staff during, and after, our work for the government.
The NY Times reported: "Ms. Feinstein and her husband sold $1.5 million to $6 million worth of stock in Allogene Therapeutics, a California-based biotech company, in transactions that took place on Jan. 31 and Feb. 18." She, as usual, claimed that she has "no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions" to avoid criticism. Do you really think that she has no idea about multi-million dollar deals that her husband is involved in? Dianne Feinstein, and her family owned the HR services, the construction company, the leasing services and the stock market accounts in Tesla and Solyndra and got the owners of those companies their government hand-outs. White House Staff and Department of Energy staff were fully aware of this and covered up these conflicts to protect their own stock holdings and revolving door jobs. She, and other Senators, ordered hit-jobs on the competitors to those companies, who were their constituents, in order to protect their stock holding profiteering efforts.
Public integrity at The Department of Energy and The U.S. Congress is in shambles because of this audacious corruption.
These are just a few of the corrupt financial conflicts of interest we experienced while engaging in a federally contracted program:
We saw Congress not only fail to eliminate both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; we saw Senators, White House staff and Department of Energy executives optimize the support structure to engage in such criminality. Americans must be confident that actions taken by public officials are intended to serve the public, and not those officials. The actions taken by Obama Administration staff and Department of Energy officials in illicit coordination
with U.S. Senators were criminal acts in violation of RICO and other laws.
We saw illicit individual stock ownership by Members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries, senior congressional staff, federal judges, White House staff and other senior agency officials while in office. Those government officials acquired, held, 'pump-and-dumped' and traded stock where its value was influenced by their agency, department, or actions in efforts that harmed us.
We saw our government officials engage in organized crime.
We saw conflict of interest laws and ethics violated by the President and Vice President in violation of Conflicts of Interest standards in which the President and the Vice President did not place conflicted assets, including businesses, into a blind trust to be sold off and hid conflicts of interest.
We saw senior Department of Energy government officials, employees, contractors and White House staff invest inprivately-owned assets that did present conflicts and harmed us, including large companies like Tesla, Google, Facebook, Sony, Netflix, etc., and commercial real estate.
We saw an organized crime scheme to not respond to filings by citizens or reporters. Former White House and Energy Department staff use 'stone-walling' to intentionally delay responses for a decade, or more, and that tactic continues to this day.
We saw ethics rules violations by government employees, including unpaid White House staff and advisors.
We saw executive branch employees fail to recuse from all issues that might financially benefit themselves or a previous employer or client from the preceding 4 years in the "Cleantech" programs.
We saw a 'Revolving Door' between Silicon Valley industry and government and we saw tech companies buying influence in the government or profiting off of the public service of these officials.
We saw lobbying by the President, Vice Presidents Members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet Secretaries; and, we saw other federal employees lobbying their former office, department, House of Congress, or agency.
We saw our competitors immediately hiring or paying these senior government officials from agencies, departments, and/or Congressional offices recently lobbied by those companies and staff from our Senator's office go freely back-and-forth at jobs at the companies and the offices of the Senators.
We saw the world’s largest companies, banks, and monopolies, especially Goldman Sachs, (measured by annual revenue or market capitalization) hiring or paying former senior government officials mentioned herein. We saw the massive, and unfair, ability of companies to buy influence through current government employees
We saw current lobbyists taking government jobs after lobbying.
We saw corporate outlaws like Google, Tesla, Facebook, Linkedin, Netflix, Sony, etc., working in government via top corporate leaders whose companies were caught breaking federal law.
We saw contractor corruption where federal contractors and licensee employees worked at the agency awarding the contracts.
We saw “Golden Parachutes” that provide corporate bonuses to executives for federal service as bribes.
We saw massive influence-peddling in Washington DC.
We saw the manipulation of the federal definition of a “lobbyist” to exclude most individuals paid to influence government.
We saw individuals paid to influence government on behalf of for-profit entities and their front-groups who were facades for Silicon Valley oligarchs.
We saw the obfuscation of the disclosure of lobbyist activities and influence campaigns where our competitor's lobbyists did not disclose specific bills, policies, and government actions they attempted to influence; nor many meetings with public officials; and many documents they provided to those officials
We saw massive influence-peddling by Foreign Actors such as that which occurred in the ENER1, Severstal, Solyndra and related scandals. We saw substantial foreign influence in Washington by foreign lobbying.
We saw American lobbyists accepting money from foreign governments, foreign individuals, and foreign companies to influence United States public policy at the Department of Energy and other agencies.
We saw our competitors current lobbyists taking government jobs after lobbying and using those positions against us where they exploited 'Legalized Lobbyist Bribery' and traded money for government favors for our competitors.
We saw political donations from lobbyists to candidates or Members of Congress in exchange for helping our competitors that the lobbyists worked for and that the Members of Congress owned stock in. We saw those lobbyists operate contingency fees that allowed those lobbyists to be paid for a guaranteed public policy outcome.
We saw our competitor's lobbyist gifts to the executive and legislative branch officials they lobby.
We saw our Congressional representatives use our competitor's lobbyists for "expertise" and information in our industry.
We saw those in our congressional service get paid non competitive salaries that do not track with other federal employees.
We saw the removal of the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment to avoid providing open-source critical scientific and technological support to Members of Congress in order to tunnel-vision info about our competitors.
We saw a non-level playing field between our competitor's corporate lobbyists and government via excessive lobbying over $500,000 in annual lobbying expenditures by our competitors in a huge number of anti-trust violations.
We saw a COMPLETE failure of individuals and corporations to disclose funding or editorial conflicts of interest in research submitted to agencies that is not publicly available in peer-reviewed publications.
We saw McKinsey-type sham research which undermines the public interest by not requiring that such studies, that present conflicts of interest, undergo independent peer review to be considered in the Congressional rule-making process.
We saw agencies refuse to justify withdrawn public interest rules via public, written explanations.
We saw loopholes exploited by powerful corporations like Google, Facebook, Tesla, Netflix, Sony, etc., to block public interest actions.
We saw loopholes that allow corporations, like Tesla and Google, to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest.
We saw Silicon Valley oligarchs and their agency shills delay or dominate the rule-making process by the practice of inviting Google, Tesla or Facebook to negotiate rules they have to follow.
We saw inter-agency review manipulation as a tool for corporate abuse used for the banning of informal review and closed-door industry lobbying at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
We saw abusive injunctions from rogue judges, like Jackson, et al, where individual District Court judges, can temporarily block agencies from implementing final rules.
We saw hostile agencies use sham delays of implementation and enforcement by using the presence of litigation to postpone the implementation of final rules.
We saw obfuscation by agency public advocates to prevent public engagement.
We saw the blockading of private lawsuits by members of the public to hold agencies accountable for failing to complete rules or enforce the law, and to hold corporations accountable for breaking the rules.
We saw a failure to inoculate government agencies against corporate capture such as Google undertook against the White House.
We saw our complaints and whistle-blowing buried in an avalanche of lobbyist activity.
We saw our competitor corporations game the courts by requiring courts to presumptively defer to agency interpretations of laws and prohibiting courts from considering sham McKinsey studies and research excluded by agencies from the rule-making process
We saw blocking of the Congressional Review Act provision banning related rules that prevent agencies from implementing the will of Congress based on Congress’ prior disapproval of a different, narrow rule on a similar topic.
We saw a failure in the integrity of the judicial branch by reducing rules that prevent conflicts of interest.
We saw individual stock ownership by federal judges in our competitors.
We saw judges accepting gifts or payments to attend private seminars from private individuals and corporations that were our competitors.
We saw non-ethical behavior by the Supreme Court in which the Court did not follow the Code of Conduct that binds all other federal judges
We saw a lack of public insight into the judicial process by the hiding of information about the process and an increase in the barriers to accessing information.
We saw reduced disclosure of non-judicial activity by federal judges and the hiding of judges’ financial reports, recusal decisions, and speeches.
We saw a blockade of public access to court activity by refusing to live-stream, on the web, audio of their proceedings, making case information easily-accessible to the public free of charge, and by federal courts not sharing case assignment data in bulk.
We saw our rights restricted and our access to justice blocked to all but the wealthiest individuals and companies.
We saw barriers that prevented us as individuals from having our case heard in court via harsh pleading standards that make it too hard for individuals and businesses that have been harmed to make their case before a judge.
We saw no independent agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics and anti-corruption laws.
We saw no support for stronger ethics and public integrity laws via stronger enforcement.
We saw no federal ethics enforcement with effective investigative and disciplinary powers that would help individuals.
We saw minimal enforcement of ethics laws via corrective action, levying civil and administrative penalties, and referring egregious violations to the Justice Department for criminal arrest and enforcement.
We saw no IG anti-corruption and public integrity oversight over federal officials, including oversight of agency Inspectors General, or ethics matters for White House staff and agency heads, or waivers and recusals by senior government officials.
We saw no investigation independent and protected from partisan politics through a single Director operating under strict selection, appointment, and removal criteria.
We saw no easy online access to key government ethics and transparency documents, including financial disclosures; lobbyist registrations; lobbyist disclosures of meetings and materials; and all ethics records, recusals, and waivers.
We saw no independent and empowered ethics office insulated from congressional politics.
We saw few criminal and civil violations in our case referred to the Justice Department, the Office of Public Integrity, or other relevant state or federal law enforcement.
We saw broken Federal Open Records laws, public official and candidate tax disclosures.
We saw Silicon Valley Oligarch special interests using secret donations from corporations and their Cartel of billionaires to influence public policy without disclosure
We saw Google and Facebook provide over a billion dollars of political campaign financing with NO action by the FEC.
We saw fake tech company 'nonprofit organizations' refuse to list donors who bankrolled the production of any specific rule-making comment, congressional testimony, or lobbying material, and refuse to reveal whether the donors reviewed or edited the document at the Silicon Valley insider companies.
We saw the hiding of individuals and corporations disclosures of funding, or editorial conflicts of interest, in research submitted to agencies that is not publicly available in peer-reviewed publications.
We saw McKinsey sham "Cleantech" and "battery research" reports undermineg the public interest by using studies that present conflicts of interest to independent peer review to be considered in the rule-making process.
We saw loopholes in our open records laws that allow federal officials to hide tech industry and Silicon Valley oligarch industry influence.
We saw a failure of the presumption of disclosure and a failure to affirmatively disclose records of public interest, including meeting agendas; government contracts; salaries; staff diversity; and reports to Congress.
We saw Tesla Motors get in-person, hand-walked, through the DOE government cash give-away while all of Tesla's competitors were ignored, black-listed, never communicated with and blockaded.
We saw no use of a central FOIA website that is searchable and has downloadable open records databases with all open FOIA requests and all records disclosed through FOIA.
We saw limited FOIA enforcement by not limiting FOIA exemptions and loopholes, and by not giving the National Archives the authority to overrule agency FOIA decisions and to compel disclosure.
We saw Congress become less transparent by not ending the corporate lobbyists leg up in the legislative process. The
public deserves to know what Congress is up to and how Silicon Valley lobbyists influence legislation.
We saw a failure to require all congressional committees to immediately post online more information, including hearings and markup schedules, bill or amendments text, testimonies, documents entered into the hearing record, hearing transcripts, written witness answers, and hearing audio and video recordings.
We saw a refusal of Members of Congress to post a link to their searchable voting record on their official websites
We saw a hiding, by Silicon Valley lobbyists of when they lobby a specific congressional office; specific topics of visit; the official action being requested; and all documents provided to the office during the visit.
We saw much, much more...
There are many, many news reports, 60 Minutes episodes and Ethics Committee reports and Pacer.gov filings, that anyone can look up, to see stories about many other people who saw all of these same exact things.
We now want to see: 1.) Our damages paid for, 2.) the FBI 302 reports on our case, 3.) arrests of the government employees who engaged in this corruption and 4.) new laws to make sure this never happens again!
The victims in this case were damaged by their work for, and whistle-blowing about, criminally corrupt government officials
They were assisting federal investigators with a criminal investigation of federal and state officials.
That on-going investigation has resulted in arrests, new laws, federal executive terminations and federal indictments of some of those officials
The history of the issues behind this case, from the past, are fully relevant to the issues of the matter today. It is not ethically possible for government officials to refuse to hear all of the facts. It is not morally right for government officials, who are supposed to solve the problem, to selectively try to piece-meal parts of this in order to avoid political embarrassment.
As federal whistle-blowers and crime victims of a felony crime, the victims have been subjected to political dirty tricks reprisals using taxpayer funded government agency resources. Political dirty tricks services like Fusion GPS, Black Cube, Gizmodo, In-Q-Tel, etc. are in the news headlines regularly because of what they do to citizens like the victims when those kill-services are hired by corrupt Senators and White House staff.
These reprisals are operated by a small, but extremist, handful of government officials because the victims are federal witnesses in an ongoing active major law enforcement investigation involving the political and stock market assets of the associates of those officials. The fact that screwball politicians engage in dirty tricks ops with government agencies is in the headlines of the news every single day! This can no longer be called conspiracy theory because it is now forensic fact!
Those officials are now known to have manipulated government benefits and payments process in reprisal for reporting their crimes.
In one instance, in a 2008 filing, the government responded that a Victim was qualified to receive their rights but ‘not yet’. History and legal records have proven that assessment to have been 100% wrong relative to duration and to be politically biased in reprisal for whistle-blowing and, over a decade later, that victim is still waiting.
The victims are government whistle-blowers and crime victims in the largest organized crime case in America!
The victims have won White House, Congressional and Mayoral proclamations and commendations for their service; yet, by their hand, the Feds have prevented them from being able to afford housing, or any life more than a Nigerian refugee might expect, since 2008, because their benefits were blockaded as political reprisal.
By blockading their benefit rights, VA and SSA caused them to go from living in their own 2 bedroom house to living in a car. SSA’s blockade of their benefits in political reprisal took their lives away.
Some of the victims filed and won one of the largest federal U.S. Court Of Claims citizen lawsuits in history proving that corrupt insiders were manipulating federal agencies to cut off their funding in reprisal. There are front page news stories about it in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Major TV shows, etc.
Their case set historical legal precedents that created many federal court firsts and new legal standards. There should be no question in the mind of any court about the fact that these government agency attacks on these victims did occur and were illegally operated as political reprisals. The Courts, the FBI, Congress and extensive investigations have proven these assertions as indisputable fact. Even though they won their historical lawsuit, the victims still never got any compensation aside from knowing they exposed the crime.
Part of that evidence proof is on display at the url: www.majestic111.com and in the video documentaries provided therein. Millions of citizens have viewed that site and these videos on network TV.
The competing companies to the businesses of these victims are owned by famous U.S. Senators who want the victim’s past technologies out of business because those technologies obsolete their insider trading schemes in the companies they own the stocks of. Their actions are a violation of anti-trust and RICO laws.
In one case, a San Mateo SSA staffer exemplifies the latest in the political ruckus associated with SSA staff bias which the Inspector General and private investigator records now prove to be endemic. SSA Staffer ‘M’ and his staff were provided with extensive and complete documentation to prove that there was no benefits issue and that a victim was a protected whistle-blower and crime victim. The victim received political and personal threats, bias, racism and abuse from SSA staffer ‘M’ (which was recorded by multiple parties) for personal political reasons, that ‘M’ had, because one of victim’s former lawyer’s is now The White House lawyer for the United States Of America at the Oval Office in Washington, DC. SSA staffer ‘M’ hates this person for personal political reason’s and decided that anybody who knows him must suffer.
SSA staffer ‘M’ engaged in felony abuse of federal agency resources for political and personal reasons and the whistle-blower victim has demand damages compensation for ‘M’’s actions, his threats, his abuse and for creating an unsafe environment in a government office.
Most of the government officials working on this and related cases were hand-picked by the victim’s business and political adversaries, for stone-walling and obfuscation purposes, to cover up the Afghan and Congo ‘Rare Earth’ metals mining scams that this investigation exposed and that many of those officials profiteered on. Web searching the term: “trillions of dollars of lithium in Afghanistan”, will explain the multi-trillion dollar mining scam crimes quite well.
The victim’s cases have never been fairly reviewed by non-biased, non-conflicted officials. The victim’s FBI-class investigators and peers have not found a single entity in the government’s case reviews, or determinations, who was not either: financed by, friends with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, making profits by consulting for, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; one of those business adversaries, or the Senators and politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political search engine manipulation services to. FBI and CIA-class Forensic data proves it.
The victims have demanded, in writing to SSA, DOJ, OSC, SEC, FBI, that an unbiased lawyer and CPA be provided by The State for the case but none has been provided. As they are now low-income, senior, disabled, felony crime victims, the federal government’s LSC Corporation and public-interest law groups have stated that it is their right to receive such case assistance from The State. The victims have contacted NOSSCR, LSC, Legal Aid, People With Disabilities Foundation, NADR, and all known local resources on the list provided by SSA but none of those have been responsive to complex, low-income, case work such as this matter and the rest of them had a conflict-of-interest with third parties.
The assertions provided by a Task Force team of 3 letter agency folks, Congressional staff, investigative reporters and crowd-sourced voters supporting the case investigations are beyond reproach, and true, unless someone refuses to hear the truth due to a personal political agenda.
The victim’s SSA-promised benefits have STILL yet to be provided to them and many of the actions by politically conflicted SSA officials, so far, have succeeded in making me either homeless or destitute by constantly reducing their sole source of income in reprisal for the support of successful organized crime interdiction's involving political bribes. The peers of the victims have received millions and millions of dollars for their Department of Energy whistle-blowing and but this group has received nothing because their case affects the most famous politicians in modern history!
SSA Falls Church Main Office senior Judge special reviews have double confirmed, in duplicate written rulings and phone conversations, that the victims are fully justified to receive their benefits but constant political tricks are undertaken by other government officials to keep the money from actually getting to the victims. Why would officials do that? To punish the victim’s in political reprisal and to stall victim’s from being able to afford a lawyer in order to sue again. Victim’s, having buddies in the CIA and FBI, have been forced to shame and dox the dirty politicians instead, until their rights are provided.
These abuses and benefits blockades are a violation of the victims human rights, U.S. Constitution and State Constitutional rights. (Yes, each State has constitutional rights you get, too)
The victims put their lives on the line for their country. They have worked 60 hours, or more, per week, since the 70’s. They more than earned their full benefits plus damages, interest and back-fees equal to precedents set in the referenced whistle-blower court cases, below.
Aside from battlefield veterans, few Applicant’s have ever sat before any Court with as many qualifying metrics to receive their benifits and who then had to go through as much abuse and political reprisal to try and get those earned benefits. White House, DOJ, Ombudsmen, Law 360 and most expert groups have stated that the victim’s should be receiving tens of millions of dollars in compensatory damages, whistle-blower fees, losses and other costs, as each of their peers has already received.
The victims are fully qualified for, and have the right to receive, a State supplied law firm to represent them but they have been blockaded from their rights because corrupt political figures are embarrassed about their crimes being exposed.
Elected officials and agency staff have one job, that job it is to work for THESE VICTIMS the citizens. Those politicians, though, have been shown to have millions of dollars in their stock market accounts from competing with these victims.
One of their Senators has over $100 million dollars in their accounts, a fact the FBI can confirm, from stock market manipulations like this. Politically driven, and greed motivated, agency staff are constantly looking for any little opportunity or reason to use agency resources to harm any whistle-blower in reprisal for the success of the anti-corruption task forces they have assisted.
Federal officials stealth-hired Google, Gawker, Gizmodo, YouTube, In-Q-Tel, Fusion GPS and Black Cube to produce tens of millions of dollars of political reprisal media attacks and coordinate toxic exposures against the victims. The attacks have been proven by federal and private investigators to have happened, The source of the attacks, the financiers of the attacks, the beneficiaries of the attacks and the operators of the attacks are the same handful of government people.
The victims are seeking an analytical, objective, reasonable, non-political review of their case. Unlike Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and other whistle-blowers, not only did they do nothing illegal but they are law enforcement and intelligence service consultant who HELP the nation! They are Smedley Butler-like and not Edward Snowden-like!
In the last 60 hours, the crooked backers of corruption have lost over $300 billion dollars in stock market failures after profiting in over $100 TRILLION dollars of stock market profits. People who move that much money around will have people killed, bribe politicians and manipulate government agencies with impunity. It is foolish for any party to ignore the capacity for crime that the Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein (ie: his threat to have Jennifer Aniston killed for reporting his sex crimes) and Larry Page oligarchs get involved in, along with the Senators they own and control.
The nature of the core crime case is profound in that it was driven by White House staff and United States Senators, who ordered attacks on the victims in reprisal. These famous political figures use the trillions of dollars in government treasuries and massive stock market scams for illicit profiteering by rigging the system exclusively for themselves and their crony insiders. They attacked the victims using government taxpayer funded media (Fusion GPS, Black Cube, Google/YouTube/Alphabet, Pysops, Gizmodo Media, Media Matters, Blumenthal, etc.) and spy agency tools because the victims competed with their businesses and reported their crimes. This month the news headlines reveal that San Francisco Bay Area government has as many corrupt politicians as Chicago and relies on the same RICO-violating insider corruption network to operate; as proven by deep AI searches of their financial records. Arrests of those officials are now underway.
Silicon Valley law enforcement records prove that the tech oligarchs that finance these political figures, engage in an organized, racketeering-based, massive sex trafficking, tax evasion, anti-trust violating, spousal abuse, money laundering, black-listing, racist, ageist, political bribery, crony racketeering crime Cartel. The Famous U.S. Senators, Governors and their staff knowingly engage in, finance, operate and benefit from these crimes in exchange for search engine manipulation and stock market insider trading.
The Google, Facebook and Twitter components of this Cartel censor and cover-up news coverage of these crimes, and attacked the victims, because they have a financial connection to the perpetrators.
All of the crooks have had their files hacked. The evidence is out there at the NSA, FBI, etc. Even hackers from Russia and China have copies of the incriminating data. The bad guys will eventually lose!
It is unlikely that any whistle-blowers have as productive a domestic resume, as many letters of reference from famous third-parties and as much proof-of-work as these victims have proven in their evidence sets. The victims have been friends with, and shared homes with, multiple White House and Senate staff and family members and some them have even vouched for the victims
The victims are bi-partisan and not affiliated with any political party but they hate political corruption and have the connections to fight it when it affects them and America. Pictures and videos of famous political figures hugging them and meeting with them abound.
In a positive turn of events Whistle-blower Walter Tamosaitis” (easily found on web searches) who was also a Department of Energy Whistle-blower, got a rare victory. Walter got $4.1 MILLION DOLLARS for his whistle-blower work about the Department of Energy malfeasance.
The rest of the victims have gotten nothing but punishing benefits blockades and benefit reductions that guaranteed they would never be able to afford rent, going to a show or a restaurant, legal services or anything else in their lives! One of the people they helped get arrested sits around and drinks and collects over $150,000.00 per year in government benefits...and they are an arrested crook. The victims are having a hard time seeing how they have been treated fairly in light of their deeply documented public service!
SSA was weaponized as a political reprisal tools against the victims. James Brown, Jr, the HHS California head of Obamacare was arrested by the FBI for political corruption and racketeering during this. In Marin county HHS investigators were also arrested for sex crime. These tiny victories do not pay the rent for the victims, though.
Some of the victims were awarded a Congressional commendation award in the Iraq War Bill under the United States Congress. They, and their team were to build America's alternative energy back-up plan for the nation under the Department of Energy. They fully executed their federal agreement and did not go bankrupt, embezzle funds, bribe California politicians or get FBI- raided like their competitor: Solyndra!
Shortly thereafter they became federal witnesses in a national embezzlement matter involving famous California and Washington DC politicians and over a 900 billion dollars of energy industry manipulations in the stock market. Part of this matter was featured on CBS News 60 Minutes investigative news segments. (ie: the segments: "THE CLEANTECH CRASH", "CONGRESS TRADING ON INSIDER INFORMATION", "THE LOBBYISTS PLAYBOOK" and investigations into hundreds of billions of dollars of stock market payola illicitly routed through Silicon Valley tech companies). If the White House, at that time, had been charged for these stock market campaign payola crimes, The President would have been forced out of office. Instead, the AG, Eric Holder, was impeached/Held-In-Contempt-Of Congress and he had to leave office.
This is why the attacks on the victims have been so spy agency oriented and high-end: To punish them for helping law enforcement and because the victims accidentally competed with Senator’s stock market schemes by making their products obsolete. There are now thousands of news and Congressional reports; from “Spygate”, to The IRS Lois Lerrner case to the FBI McCabe case and a vast number of SSA IG reports, particularly SSA about government agencies being weaponized against citizens for political reprisals. Compromised staff used SSA resources to harm the whistle-blowers and block their benefits because they helped halt one of the largest corruption schemes in modern American history.
This case is still an active case via many federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Some of the victims were cellular-level blood poisoned by exposure to toxic chemicals, compounds, powders and radioactive materials in their work environments for the Department of Energy projects. It is unclear if this poisoning was intentional “Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko-like” reprisal poisoning or accidental. The minimal Obamacare medical coverage the victims have does not fund the testing and treatment of Cesium, Thorium overdose, micro-particulant toxins, radical solvents, high energy EMF and the kinds of exotic materials that Department of Energy weapons and energy labs, that victims worked with, use in their locations.
While the victims benefits application was underway in one part of the federal building, on the upper floors of the same building, victims were assisting a federal crime investigation against powerful local and Washington DC politicians and their oligarch financiers, on other floors of that federal building, corrupt political officials were figuring out how to harm the victims and engage in reprisals.
From FBI-class federal investigators and private investigators, records prove that well known California Senate officials and well known White House officials ordered government benefits to be blocked, delayed, obfuscated, denied and otherwise harmed as political reprisal and retribution for the assistance the victims supplied to law enforcement.
Criminal forensic data has proven that digital manipulation of some of victims records and files did occur and that SSA computers are regularly hacked by many parties including the China 'Cloud Hopper' APT 10 group, currently under federal indictment, and hundreds of domestic attack groups, some of whom are hired by U.S. Senators. A number of California and Washington DC Senators and agency heads have already been arrested, indicted and/or removed from office in these matters.
Over 40 of the victims peers in this matter (Rajeev Motwani, Gary D. Conley, Seth Rich, Dr. Epstein’s wife, etc. ) are now dead from mysterious circumstances. Victims have received numerous death threats and have been personally attacked on multiple occasions including getting their cars rammed and drive-by death threats.
Some of those victims may have been murdered for whistle-blowing. Multiple senior government officials and Senators have been exposed hiring Google, YouTube, Fusion GPS, In-Q-Tel, PsyOps, Cambridge Analytica, ShareBlue, Media Matters, Black Cube, Gizmodo and other "kill services" to attack citizens in political reprisals. Books that cover some of these actions have been published including:
Catch and Kill By Ronan Farrow,
Permanent Record By Edward Snowden,
Brotopia By Emily Chang,
Throw Them All Out By Peter Schweizer,
The Circle (Based on Google and Facebook) By David Eggers,
Disrupted By Dan Lyons,
Chaos Monkeys By Antonio García Martínez,
The Creepy Line By Matthew Taylor,
The Cleantech Crash By Leslie Stahl,
Congressional officials encouraged victims to sue the United States Government and the Department of Energy in a first-of-its-kind Washington DC lawsuit, which they did. In other words: The U.S. Government asked them to sue the U.S. Government in order to correct a corruption matter in a new strategy which could give citizens as much power as a Grand Jury. Their lawsuit made history and was a first-of-its-kind! The Secretary of Energy and his staff got fired because of it!
The lawsuit was financed by public interest community law groups as it benefited the public as well as the victims. It was widely covered in the mainstream press and network TV broadcasts. Victims were the first Americans to prove in federal court that domestic citizens had their federal funding applications influenced by political corruption and reprisal attacks. Victims had lost millions of dollars when they got defrauded by the U.S. Government officials when they asked the victims to invest in building a manufacturing company after they had already covertly promised the taxpayer funds to companies who the California and Federal officials owned the stock in, partied with and conduit-ed campaign finances through, as FBI and SEC evidence proves!
They won their case proving political corruption influences citizen applications for government funds and permanently posted the corruption expose documents on public record for the world to see. Their team made new legal court precedents and laws. There should be no question, by any government office, that victims benefits have been influenced by third parties who want revenge. The past cases create a precedent and millions of dollars of legal research is now posted on PACER.gov, and in National Archives, proving the assertions of crony political payola and reprisal attacks by government officials at government agencies. The victims have proven that there were massive conflicts-of-interest with past government reviewers in their case, including felony-class HIPPA violations wherein the medical records of others were exchanged for victims medical records.
‘M’, the pro-open-borders activist at the San Mateo SSA, his records prove his intent. In the recordings between victims and ‘M’ you can clearly hear him threaten and harass victims. IC-class digital Face-tracking via Clearview Face Tracking, Yandex, Google Image library, etc., of ‘M’ across the internet on his social media and photo album hits reveal much about him and his agenda.
The victims have posted online, and presented to the government, in writing and on hard drives, MILLIONS of pages of evidence from Congress, federal and private investigators, 60 Minutes and other famous journalists and witness testimony.
The complexity and volume of the case documentation in this matter is due to the fact that FBI, DOJ, GAO, SEC, CIA, CFTC, IG and other federal agencies, along with taxpayers, are both involved with, and in some cases assisting with, this case and they have a vested interest in the deep documentation of this matter.
To repeat the key point: The victims assertions are beyond reproach, and true, unless someone refuses to hear the truth due to a personal political agenda. This is a violation of their human, U.S. and California Constitutional rights. They earned their compensation and damages. ( ie: “Tamosaitis” , Maverick Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 739 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2014), Jury Awards Former Bio-Rad Counsel $11M in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case, Jury Awards Six Million Dollars to Whistleblower in Sarbanes-Oxley Case, Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Recovers Nearly $5 Million, JP Morgan SOX Whistleblower Wins $1.13M at Trial, etc…) and Pacer.gov settlement records!
In similar related cases Terry Bollea has received $31 Million in court, Walter Tamosaitis has received $4.1 Million, etc. I have received nothing and been blocked from having proper legal representation. Most of the whistleblower retaliation statutes adjudicated, including the SOX, whistleblower protection provision, authorize compensatory damages. Two recent decisions, one from the Eighth Circuit and the other from the ARB, indicate that a whistleblower can obtain substantial compensatory damages based solely on his or her testimony.
In Maverick Transportation v. U.S. Department of Labor, the Eighth Circuit affirmed an ARB decision holding that Maverick Transportation (“Maverick”), a trucking company, had retaliated against Albert Brian Canter, one of its drivers, for refusing to drive a truck that he believed was unsafe. Maverick Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 739 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2014). The truck in question had a chaffing brake hose and leaked steering fluid, conditions that substantially increased the likelihood of a catastrophic failure of the service brakes.
Canter sued Maverick under the whistleblower protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (“STAA”), which protects truck drivers who refuse to drive due to a reasonable apprehension that a vehicle is unsafe and may cause serious injury to the driver or the public. The ALJ awarded Canter $75,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, despite the fact that Canter offered no corroborating expert testimony. See ALJ Case No. 2009-STA-054 (ARB Oct. 28, 2010). In doing so, the ALJ noted that “the ARB has awarded damages for emotional and mental distress where the claims were unsupported by medical evidence.” Id. at 15. The opinion indicates that Canter’s testimony regarding his emotional distress was compelling:
Canter lost his appetite and experienced suicidal thoughts so severe that, on one occasion, he put a pistol to his head; as he started to pull the trigger, he moved his head out of the way and put a bullet hole through the ceiling and roof.
Canter’s receipt of debt-collection notices and calls from collection agencies caused him great distress.
Canter’s checking accounts were closed due to insufficient funds, and he owed bank fees and charges for overdrafts.
Canter was forced to vacate his home in Alabama and move in with his sister in Colorado in July 2008.
Canter could not visit his stepchildren because he could not afford to travel.
Maverick appealed to the ARB, which affirmed the ALJ’s determinations “as supported by substantial evidence and prevailing law.” ARB Case No. 11-012, 2012 WL 2588598, at *4 (ARB June 27, 2012). In petitioning the Eighth Circuit for review, Maverick argued that the award of compensatory damages for emotional distress was excessive because it was supported only by Canter’s testimony. The Eighth Circuit denied Maverick’s petition for review, noting that “[a] plaintiff’s own testimony can be sufficient for a finding of emotional distress, and medical evidence is not necessary.” 739 F.3d at 1157 (quoting Christensen v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 481 F.3d 1085, 1097 (8th Cir. 2007)). The Eighth Circuit also suggested that the ARB properly awarded compensatory damages based on the severity of the injuries, rather than on the type of evidence used to prove those injuries. See id. at 1157–58.
The ARB also recently affirmed a substantial award of compensatory damages based solely on a whistleblower’s testimony. In Fink v. R&L Transfer, Inc., the ARB affirmed the ALJ’s award of $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages to a truck driver who was terminated for refusing to drive in unsafe winter weather. Fink v. R&L Transfer, Inc., ARB Case No. 13-018 (ARB Mar. 19, 2014). In awarding compensatory damages, the ALJ relied on Fink’s testimony that, among other harms:
he had to seek public assistance to pay basic living expenses;
his family ultimately lost its home;
he had to borrow money from family members; and
he had difficulty sleeping, wondering how he would be able to support his family.
Id. In affirming the award of $50,000 in punitive damages, the ARB stated that “[a]n award of punitive damages may be warranted where there has been ‘reckless or callous disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, as well as intentional violations of federal law.’” Id. (citation omitted).
In addition to obtaining large compensatory damages awards at trial that are affirmed on appeal, some whistleblowers are obtaining substantial compensatory damages awards from OSHA. For example, in September 2013, OSHA issued an order requiring Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc., to pay $1.9 million to its former chief financial officer, who was fired for warning the board of directors about ethical and financial concerns raised by a proposed merger. In addition to awarding $486,000 in lost wages, bonuses, stock options, and severance pay, OSHA awarded the complainant more than $1.4 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering, damage to career and professional reputation, and lost 401(k) employer matches and expenses.
Some of the federal whistleblower protection laws authorize an award of uncapped compensatory damages, including the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law, the False Claims Act whistleblower protection law, and the NDAA whistleblower retaliation law. Recent jury verdicts indicate that compensatory damages can be substantial, and can even exceed one million dollars.
The following are some recent jury verdicts in whistleblower cases:
In 2014, we will likely start seeing more whistleblower retaliation appeals seeking compensatory damages. The changes to the law “may also lead to more addendum appeals such as claims for compensatory and other damages or attorney’s fees,” the MSPB warned in its latest Annual Performance Report and Plan. We will also start getting a better sense of the fiscal implications of the WPEA’s compensatory damages provision. At the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), agencies found to have violated anti-discrimination laws were ordered to pay $7.2 million in compensatory damages in cases closed in fiscal year 2011. The U.S. Postal service accounted for 51 percent of that amount, according to the EEOC’s latest Annual Report on the Federal Work Force.
BCC: White House, FBI, SEC, FTC, Congress, DE, GH, DC-DOc2
Authored via Wikipedia-like collaborative team-writing efforts
Previous Case Evidence Court Sets:
http://www.pacer.gov Search our staff cases, Devin Nunes Cases by Biss, Harmeet Dhillon Cases, All cases against Tesla Motors and Elon Musk, Cases involving “lithium ion fires”, “Google and Alphabet” abuses and other keywords to be provided
Video Evidence For This Case:
Associated FBI, SEC, FTC, GAO, And Congressional Ethics Committee Case Files Database Search Keywords For Their Criminal Case Files On This Case: “Elon Musk”, “Solyndra”, “Rare Earth Mining Scam”, Tesla Motors”, “Steven Chu”, “Afghan Mining”, “Jeffrey Epstein”, “Flashboy Aglorithms”, “Silicon Valley Anti-Trust”, “UraniumOne”, “The Silicon Valley No Poaching Lawsuit”, “AngelGate”, “frank guistra”, “Raj Gupta”, “Nicholas Guido Denton”, “Larry Page Tax Evasion”, “Fusion GPS” and other case file database search keywords to be provided...
The Silicon Valley High-Tech Black-Listing Antitrust Litigation
Per The United States Congress, The FBI and the FTC: The High-Tech Antitrust Black-Listing Litigation is a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for secret collusion agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees. What kinds of people were some of these high tech oligarchs? Read their divorce Court Records about their sex trafficking, sex slaves, tax evasions, money laundering, intern abuses, political insider trading stock market bribes to U.S. Senators and other horrors.
What would you do if you found out that Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Elon Musk, Sergy Brin, John Doerr and other dynastic elitist insider frat boys were running a mob-like Cartel? Over 60,000 engineers in Silicon Valley took the problem to Federal Court!
The defendants are Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay, all high-technology companies with a principal place of business in the San Francisco–Silicon Valley area of California.
The civil class action was filed by five plaintiffs, one of whom has died; it accused the tech companies of collusion between 2005 and 2009 to refrain from recruiting each other's employees.
Additional cases are planned for filing. Formal complaints have been filed with The SEC, The DOJ, The GAO, The FBI, The FTC and The U.S. Congress. Active investigations into 'Angelgate' and related collusion and anti-trust matters are known to be under-way by federal, news outlet and private investigators as of 2020.
"No cold call" agreements
Cold calling is one of the main methods used by companies in the high-technology sector to recruit employees with advanced and specialised skills, such as software and hardware engineers, programmers, animators, digital artists, Web developers and other technical professionals. Cold calling involves communicating directly in any manner with another firm's employee who has not otherwise applied for a job opening. Cold calling may be done in person, by phone, letter, or email. According to the legal brief filed by a plaintiff in one of the class-action cases, cold calling is an effective method of recruiting for the high-technology sector because "employees of other [high-technology] companies are often unresponsive to other recruiting strategies... [and] current satisfied employees tend to be more qualified, harder working, and more stable than those who are actively looking for employment."
Amy Lambert, Google's associate general counsel, noted in a blog post shortly after the DOJ's actions, that Google's definition of cold calling does not necessarily eliminate recruiting by letter or email, but only the process of calling on the telephone. By implication, recruiting through LinkedIn incurs recruiting by "InMail" - LinkedIn's own mail contact system: "In order to maintain a good working relationship with these companies, in 2005 we decided not to "cold call" employees at a few of our partner companies. Our policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period."
The challenged "no cold call" agreements are alleged bilateral agreements between high technology companies not to cold call each other's employees. The DOJ alleges that senior executives at each company negotiated to have their employees added to 'no call' lists maintained by human resources personnel or in company hiring manuals. The alleged agreements were not limited by geography, job function, product group, or time period. The alleged bilateral agreements were between: (1) Apple and Google, (2) Apple and Adobe, (3) Apple and Pixar, (4) Google and Intel, (5) Google and Intuit, and (6) Lucasfilm and Pixar.
The civil class action further alleges that agreements also existed to (1) "provide notification when making an offer to another [company]'s employee (without the knowledge or consent of the employee)" and (2) "agreements that, when offering a position to another company's employee, neither company would counteroffer above the initial offer."
Department of Justice antitrust action
This section relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., the Department of Justice alleged that Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into a series of bilateral "No Cold Call" Agreements to prevent the recruitment of their employees (a similar but separate suit was filed against Lucasfilm on December 21, 2010). The DOJ alleged in their Complaint that the companies had reached "facially anticompetitive" agreements that "eliminated a significant form of competition...to the detriment of the affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities." The DOJ also alleged that the agreements "were not ancillary to any legitimate collaboration," "were much broader than reasonably necessary for the formation or implementation of any collaborative effort," and "disrupted the normal price-setting mechanisms that apply in the labor setting." The same day it filed the suit, the DOJ and the defendants proposed a settlement.
A final judgment enforcing the settlement was entered by the court on March 17, 2011. Although the DOJ Complaint only challenged the alleged "no cold call" agreements, in the settlement, the companies agreed to a more broad prohibition against "attempting to enter into, entering into, maintaining or enforcing any agreement with any other person to in any way refrain from, requesting that any person in any way refrain from, or pressuring any person in any way to refrain from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees of the other person", for a period of five years; the court can grant an extension. The settlement agreement does not provide any compensation for company employees affected by the alleged agreements. Lucasfilm entered into a similar settlement agreement in December 2010.
Civil class action
In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California 11-cv-2509 ) is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over 64,000 employees of Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm (the last two are subsidiaries of Disney) against their employer alleging that their wages were repressed due to alleged agreements between their employers not to hire employees from their competitors. The case was filed on May 4, 2011 by a former software engineer at Lucasfilm and alleges violations of California's antitrust statute, Business and Professions Code sections 16720 et seq. (the "Cartwright Act"); Business and Professions Code section 16600; and California's unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. Focusing on the network of connections around former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, the Complaint alleges "an interconnected web of express agreements, each with the active involvement and participation of a company under the control of Steve Jobs...and/or a company that shared at least one member of Apple's board of directors." The alleged intent of this conspiracy was "to reduce employee compensation and mobility through eliminating competition for skilled labor."
On October 24, 2013 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification for all employees of Defendant companies from January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2010.
As of October 31, 2013, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm have reached a tentative settlement agreement. Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to pay $9 million in damages, and Intuit agreed to pay $11 million in damages. In May 2014, Judge Lucy Koh approved the $20 million settlement between Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Intuit and their employees. Class members in this settlement, which involved fewer than 8% of the 65,000 employees affected, will receive around $3,840 each.
The trial of the class action for the remaining Defendant companies was scheduled to begin on May 27, 2014. The plaintiffs intended to ask the jury for $3 billion in compensation, a number which could in turn have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law. However, in late April 2014, the four remaining defendants, Apple Inc, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems, agreed to settle out of court. Any settlement must be approved by Judge Lucy Koh.
On May 23, 2014, Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe agreed to settle for $324.5 million. Lawyers sought 25% in attorneys’ fees, plus expenses of as much as $1.2 million, according to the filing. Additional award payments of $80,000 would be sought for each named plaintiff who served as a class representative. Payouts will average a few thousand dollars based on the salary of the employee at the time of the complaint.
In June 2014, Judge Lucy Koh expressed concern that the settlement may not be a good one for the plaintiffs. Michael Devine, one of the plaintiffs, said the settlement is unjust. In a letter he wrote to the judge he said the settlement represents only one-tenth of the $3 billion in compensation the 64,000 workers could have made if the defendants had not colluded.
On August 8, 2014, Judge Koh rejected the settlement as insufficient on the basis of the evidence and exposure. Rejecting a settlement is unusual in such cases. This left the defendants with a choice between raising their settlement offer or facing a trial.
On September 8, 2014, Judge Koh set April 9, 2015 as the actual trial date for the remaining defendants, with a pre-trial conference scheduled for December 19, 2014. Also, as of early September 2014, the defendants had re-entered mediation to determine whether a new settlement could be reached.
A final approval hearing was held on July 9, 2015. On Wednesday September 2, 2015, Judge Lucy H. Koh signed an order granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The settlement website stated that Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel has reached a settlement of $415 million and other companies settled for $20 million.
According to the settlement website, Gilardi & Co., LLC distributed the settlement to class members the week of December 21, 2015.
The Techtopus: How Silicon Valley's most celebrated CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers' wages
In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple's Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google's Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other's employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. On February 27, 2005, Bill Campbell, a member of Apple's board of directors and senior advisor to Google, emailed Jobs to confirm that Eric Schmidt "got directly involved and firmly stopped all efforts to recruit anyone from Apple."
Later that year, Schmidt instructed his Sr VP for Business Operation Shona Brown to keep the pact a secret and only share information "verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?"
These secret conversations and agreements between some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley were first exposed in a Department of Justice antitrust investigation launched by the Obama Administration in 2010. That DOJ suit became the basis of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered — an estimated $9 billion effectively stolen by the high-flying companies from their workers to pad company earnings — in the second half of the 2000s. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied attempts by Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe to have the lawsuit tossed, and gave final approval for the class action suit to go forward. A jury trial date has been set for May 27 in San Jose, before US District Court judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the Samsung-Apple patent suit.
In a related but separate investigation and ongoing suit, eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government and the state of California for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period.
The secret wage-theft agreements between Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, and Pixar (now owned by Disney) are described in court papers obtained by PandoDaily as "an overarching conspiracy" in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, and at times it reads like something lifted straight out of the robber baron era that produced those laws. Today's inequality crisis is America's worst on record since statistics were first recorded a hundred years ago — the only comparison would be to the era of the railroad tycoons in the late 19th century.
Shortly after sealing the pact with Google, Jobs strong-armed Adobe into joining after he complained to CEO Bruce Chizen that Adobe was recruiting Apple's employees. Chizen sheepishly responded that he thought only a small class of employees were off-limits:
I thought we agreed not to recruit any senior level employees.... I would propose we keep it that way. Open to discuss. It would be good to agree.Jobs responded by threatening war:
OK, I'll tell our recruiters they are free to approach any Adobe employee who is not a Sr. Director or VP. Am I understanding your position correctly?Adobe's Chizen immediately backed down:
I'd rather agree NOT to actively solicit any employee from either company.....If you are in agreement, I will let my folks know.The next day, Chizen let his folks — Adobe's VP of Human Resources — know that "we are not to solicit ANY Apple employees, and visa versa." Chizen was worried that if he didn't agree, Jobs would make Adobe pay:
if I tell Steve [Jobs] it's open season (other than senior managers), he will deliberately poach Adobe just to prove a point. Knowing Steve, he will go after some of our top Mac talent...and he will do it in a way in which they will be enticed to come (extraordinary packages and Steve wooing).Indeed Jobs even threatened war against Google early 2005 before their "gentlemen's agreement," telling Sergey Brin to back off recruiting Apple's Safari team:
if you [Brin] hire a single one of these people that means war.Brin immediately advised Google's Executive Management Team to halt all recruiting of Apple employees until an agreement was discussed.
In the geopolitics of Silicon Valley tech power, Adobe was no match for a corporate superpower like Apple. Inequality of the sort we're experiencing today affects everyone in ways we haven't even thought of — whether it's Jobs bullying slightly lesser executives into joining an illegal wage-theft pact, or the tens of thousands of workers whose wages were artificially lowered, transferred into higher corporate earnings, and higher compensations for those already richest and most powerful to begin with.
Over the next two years, as the tech industry entered another frothing bubble, the secret wage-theft pact which began with Apple, Google and Pixar expanded to include Intuit and Intel. The secret agreements were based on relationships, and those relationships were forged in Silicon Valley's incestuous boards of directors, which in the past has been recognized mostly as a problem for shareholders and corporate governance advocates, rather than for the tens of thousands of employees whose wages and lives are viscerally affected by their clubby backroom deals. Intel CEO Paul Otellini joined Google's board of directors in 2004, a part-time gig that netted Otellini $23 million in 2007, with tens of millions more in Google stock options still in his name — which worked out to $464,000 per Google board event if you only counted the stock options Otellini cashed out — dwarfing what Otellini made off his Intel stock options, despite spending most of his career with the company.
Meanwhile, Eric Schmidt served on Apple's board of directors until 2009, when a DoJ antitrust investigation pushed him to resign. Intuit's chairman at the time, Bill Campbell, also served on Apple's board of directors, and as official advisor — "consigliere" — to Google chief Eric Schmidt, until he resigned from Google in 2010. Campbell, a celebrated figure ("a quasi-religious force for good in Silicon Valley") played a key behind-the-scenes role connecting the various CEOs into the wage-theft pact. Steve Jobs, who took regular Sunday walks with Campbell near their Palo Alto homes, valued Campbell for his ability "to get A and B work out of people," gushing that the conduit at the center of the $9 billion wage theft suit, "loves people, and he loves growing people."
Indeed. Eric Schmidt has been, if anything, even more profuse in his praise of Campbell. Schmidt credits Campbell for structuring Google when Schmidt was brought on board in 2001:
His contribution to Google — it is literally not possible to overstate. He essentially architected the organizational structure.Court documents show it was Campbell who first brought together Jobs and Schmidt to form the core of the Silicon Valley wage-theft pact. And Campbell's name appears as the early conduit bringing Intel into the pact with Google:
Bill Campbell (Chairman of Intuit Board of Directors, Co-Lead Director of Apple, and advisor to Google) was also involved in the Google-Intel agreement, as reflected in an email exchange from 2006 in which Bill Campbell agreed with Jonathan Rosenberg (Google Advisor to the Office of CEO and former Senior Vice President of Product Management) that Google should call [Intel CEO] Paul Otellini before making an offer to an Intel employee, regardless of whether the Intel employee first approached Google.Getting Google on board with the wage-theft pact was the key for Apple from the start — articles in the tech press in 2005 pointed at Google's recruitment drive and incentives were the key reason why tech wages soared that year, at the highest rate in well over a decade.
Campbell helped bring in Google, Intel, and, in 2006, Campbell saw to it that Intuit — the company he chaired — also joined the pact.
From the peaks of Silicon Valley, Campbell's interpersonal skills were magical and awe-inspiring, a crucial factor in creating so much unimaginable wealth for their companies and themselves. Jobs said of Campbell:
There is something deeply human about him.And Schmidt swooned:
He is my closest confidant...because he is the definition of trust.Things — and people — look very different when you're down in the Valley. In the nearly 100-page court opinion issued last October by Judge Koh granting class status to the lawsuit, Campbell comes off as anything but mystical and "deeply human." He comes off as a scheming consigliere carrying out some of the drearier tasks that the oligarchs he served were constitutionally not so capable of arranging without him.
But the realities of inequality and capitalism invariably lead to mysticism of this sort, a natural human response to the dreary realities of concentrating so much wealth and power in the hands of a dozen interlocking board members at the expense of 100,000 employees, and so many other negative knock-off effects on the politics and culture of the world they dominate.
One of the more telling elements to this lawsuit is the role played by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who emerges as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the wage-theft scheme. It's almost too perfectly symbolic that Lucas — the symbiosis of Baby Boomer New Age mysticism, Left Coast power, political infantilism, and dreary 19th century labor exploitation — should be responsible for dreaming up the wage theft scheme back in the mid-1980s, when Lucas sold the computer animation division of Lucasfilm, Pixar, to Steve Jobs.
As Pixar went independent in 1986, Lucas explained his philosophy about how competition for computer engineers violated his sense of normalcy — and profit margins. According to court documents:
George Lucas believed that companies should not compete against each other for employees, because '[i]t's not normal industrial competitive situation.' As George Lucas explained, 'I always — the rule we had, or the rule that I put down for everybody,' was that 'we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing.'Translated, Lucas' wage-reduction agreement meant that Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to a) never cold call each other's employees; b) notify each other if making an offer to an employee of the other company, even if that employee applied for the job on his or her own without being recruited; c) any offer made would be "final" so as to avoid a costly bidding war that would drive up not just the employee's salary, but also drive up the pay scale of every other employee in the firm.
Jobs held to this agreement, and used it as the basis two decades later to suppress employee costs just as fierce competition was driving up tech engineers' wages.
The companies argued that the non-recruitment agreements had nothing to do with driving down wages. But the court ruled that there was "extensive documentary evidence" that the pacts were designed specifically to push down wages, and that they succeeded in doing so. The evidence includes software tools used by the companies to keep tabs on pay scales to ensure that within job "families" or titles, pay remained equitable within a margin of variation, and that as competition and recruitment boiled over in 2005, emails between executives and human resources departments complained about the pressure on wages caused by recruiters cold calling their employees, and bidding wars for key engineers.
Google, like the others, used a "salary algorithm" to ensure salaries remained within a tight band across like jobs. Although tech companies like to claim that talent and hard work are rewarded, in private, Google's "People Ops" department kept overall compensation essentially equitable by making sure that lower-paid employees who performed well got higher salary increases than higher-paid employees who also performed well.
As Intel's director of Compensation and Benefits bluntly summed up the Silicon Valley culture's official cant versus its actual practices,
While we pay lip service to meritocracy, we really believe more in treating everyone the same within broad bands.The companies in the pact shared their salary data with each other in order to coordinate and keep down wages — something unimaginable had the firms not agreed to not compete for each other's employees. And they fired their own recruiters on just a phone call from a pact member CEO.
In 2007, when Jobs learned that Google tried recruiting one of Apple's employees, he forwarded the message to Eric Schmidt with a personal comment attached: "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this."
Within an hour, Google made a "public example" by "terminating" the recruiter in such a manner as to "(hopefully) prevent future occurrences."
Likewise, when Intel CEO Paul Otellini heard that Google was recruiting their tech staff, he sent a message to Eric Schmidt: "Eric, can you pls help here???"
The next day, Schmidt wrote back to Otellini: "If we find that a recruiter called into Intel, we will terminate the recruiter."
One of the reasons why non-recruitment works so well in artificially lowering workers' wages is that it deprives employees of information about the job market, particularly one as competitive and overheating as Silicon Valley's in the mid-2000s. As the companies' own internal documents and statements showed, they generally considered cold-calling recruitment of "passive" talent — workers not necessarily looking for a job until enticed by a recruiter — to be the most important means of hiring the best employees.
Just before joining the wage-theft pact with Apple, Google's human resources executives are quoted sounding the alarm that they needed to "dramatically increase the engineering hiring rate" and that would require "drain[ing] competitors to accomplish this rate of hiring." One CEO who noticed Google's hiring spree was eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who in early 2005 called Eric Schmidt to complain, "Google is the talk of the Valley because [you] are driving up salaries across the board." Around this time, eBay entered an illegal wage-theft non-solicitation scheme of its own with Bill Campbell's Intuit, which is still being tried in ongoing federal and California state suits.
Google placed the highest premium on "passive" talent that they cold-called because "passively sourced candidates offer[ed] the highest yield," according to court documents. The reason is like the old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to belong to a club that would let you join it — workers actively seeking a new employer were assumed to have something wrong with them; workers who weren't looking were assumed to be the kind of good happy talented workers that company poachers would want on their team.
For all of the high-minded talk of post-industrial technotopia and Silicon Valley as worker's paradise, what we see here in stark ugly detail is how the same old world scams and rules are still operative.
Follow all of our Techtopus coverage here.
Court documents below...
- Singer, Bill. "After Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Pixar, And Intuit, Antitrust Employment Charges Hit eBay". Forbes. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- DOJ. "Complaint, US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al" (PDF). DOJ. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- "Complaint, Hariharan v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al" (PDF). Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- "Complaint, US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al" (PDF). Department of Justice. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- Richey, Warren. "Lucasfilm settles antitrust case over wage suppression of top animators". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- "Complaint, US v. Lucasfilm Ltd". Department of Justice. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- "Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. September 24, 2010. Retrieved 2016-01-14.
- "U.S. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al.: Final Judgment". United States Department of Justice. March 17, 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2016.
- "Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel, Google, Adobe". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- Dan Levine (2014-04-24). "Apple, Google agree to settle lawsuit alleging hiring conspiracy". Chicago Tribune. Reuters. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
- Rosenblatt, Joel. "Apple, Google Must Face Group Antitrust Hiring Lawsuit". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2013-10-27.
- "Judge Grants Class-Action Status in Silicon Valley Hiring Suit". The Wall Street Journal. 2002-10-03. Retrieved 2013-10-27.
- "Complaint, Hariharan v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al" (PDF). Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- Cooley, Brian (2014-05-16). "Judge approves first payout in antitrust wage-fixing lawsuit". CNET. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
- "Dockets & Filings: In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation". Justia. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
- Levine, Dan (2014-04-24). "Apple, Google agree to settle lawsuit alleging hiring, salary conspiracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
- Levine, Dan (2014-04-24). "Apple, Google agree to settle lawsuit alleging hiring conspiracy". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
- "Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe Settle for $324.5 Million". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2014-05-26.
- "Judge questions settlement in Silicon Valley no-poaching case". San Jose Mercury News. 2014-06-19. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
- "Court Rejects Deal on Hiring in Silicon Valley". The New York Times. 9 August 2014.
- "Judge Koh Sets April 2015 Trial In Tech Anti-Poach Row". Retrieved 2015-01-13.
- "Court preliminarily approves $415m settlement of high-tech no-poaching lawsuit". Retrieved 2015-06-30.
- Docket for US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al.
- Docket for US v. Lucasfilm Ltd.
- The Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Conspiracy
- Docket for In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
- Order Granting Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification, In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, no 11-CV-02509 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013)
- High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administration Website
Catch and Kill By Ronan Farrow
Permanent Record By Edward Snowden
Throw Them All Out By Peter Schweizer
The Circle (Based on Google and Facebook) By David Eggers
Disrupted By Dan Lyons
Chaos Monkeys By Antonio García Martínez
The Creepy Line By Matthew Taylor
The Cleantech Crash By Leslie Stahl
THE INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AT GOOGLE:
So the "russian hackers" meddling in the election was Google all along. Why isn't this the biggest story in America right now? None of the "trusted" news sources have commented on this at all. (politics)
THE LIES, CORRUPTION AND ANTI-TRUST VIOLATING INSIDER TRADING SCAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Any voyage onto the path of funding from the Department of Energy will be a road to hell.
While frozen-smile aides will shake your hand and tell you how "excited they are to welcome your application", behind your back they are sharpening their knives.
Over 100 past Applicants were lied to, defrauded, stone-walled, bottom-drawer'd, sabotaged, and generally screwed with by The Department of Energy in order to: 1.) protect campaign financiers who were their competitors and 2.) stone-wall those Applicant's for being competitive against the Elon Musk and Solyndra chosen insiders.
Almost EVERY competing Applicant was faster, cheaper, had better MPG, was easier to manufacture, had lower cost to the main-stream market, had a better set of financials, had a better debt ratio, was safer, etc. but they missed one key factor: THEY DID NOT OFFER BRIBES AS LARGE AS ELON MUSK DID!
Even in 2020 you would have to be a sucker to apply for DOE funds. There are people inside DOE who are dedicated to making sure you never get that money. You can get a faster loan from a commercial bank without thousands of hidden "gotchas" and insider trading schemes to trip you up. These tricks, built into the Department of Energy process, are created to ensure that DOE insiders have thousands of excuses to never let you get the money unless you agree to finance the correct political candidates.
Title XVII Innovative Energy Technology Loan Guarantee Program
DOE is supposed to support the commercial development of innovative clean energy technologies through its Loan Programs Office (LPO). Authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Title XVII Loan Program enables the DOE to issue loans ranging from several million to more than $1 billion for advanced fossil, advanced nuclear, renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that employ "new or significantly improved technology." And in 2018, LPO announced an open solicitation for energy projects on tribal lands. These solicitations remain open and are supposedly actively seeking qualified applicants as a result of continued congressional support and new programmatic direction but the historical facts prove that this program has been manipulated to operate as a political slush-fund to finance insider favorites and sabotage their competitors.
Under Title XVII program authority, the DOE can guarantee loans for up to 80 percent of total project costs for eligible proposals. As of March 2020, LPO maintains $25.9 billion in loan guarantee authority across the solicitations mentioned above. LPO has closed only one loan since 2011 – for the Vogtle nuclear power station in Georgia and, more than ever, seems to be simply a sham for insider political campaign financiers to get payola from. Notably, LPO is under increasing pressure from Congress to move more applications through diligence and to loan close.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Program
Under the ATVM Program, automobile manufacturers or advanced vehicle automobile component or material manufacturers are supposed to eligible to obtain direct loans from the DOE for projects that re-equip, expand or establish manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce "ultra-efficient vehicles," passenger automobiles, light duty trucks or associated components that meet the DOE's emission and fuel economy standards for "advanced technology vehicles." Political insiders will always, though, find a way to disqualify any applicant who competes with campaign financier favorites. Hundreds of highly qualified applicants were denied because Elon Musk knew they could put Tesla out of business without DOE's exclusive support of his monopoly. Tesla's own senior staff have written widely about the 'gate-keeper' insider trading scam at DOE. DOE is an anti-trust operator who is a gatekeeper of industry winners and losers based on who donated the most to certain PACs.
To date, the DOE has funded five loans under the ATVM program totaling $8.4 billion, approximately one-third of its $25 billion loan authority. The ATVM program is not subject to an expiration date, and despite previous congressional efforts to rescind ATVM's corruption-based funding, the program and its remaining $16.6 billion in loan authority remain available for insider projects that can be trusted to kick campaign financing back to certain politicians. In the most recent DOE funding bill, Congress directed LPO to "expeditiously evaluate and adjudicate all loan applications received" by the ATVM program, another sign that Congress wants to see a resumption of federal loan guarantees.
The Secretary of Energy and the Chief Counsel for the United States Department of Energy have been challenged, in writing, to provide the names of ANY Loan Programs Office (LPO) or Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Program official, reviewer, advisor or staffer who was not, from 2007 forward, either financed by, friends, with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; one of those business adversaries, or the Senators and Department of Energy politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political digital services to. From 2008 forward, The White House and The Department Of Energy were controlled by the Silicon Valley tech oligarchs! That is a violation of the law, the Constitution and the American Way.
Department of Energy PR officials blindly push their revisionist history propaganda party-line hype that the DOE has been "fair and successful". There has never been a bigger lie on Earth since the first frat boy told the first sorority girl "don't worry, I won't get it in your mouth.."
One group used CIA and FBI style investigation tools to hunt down every reviewer, contractor and insider involved in the Loan Programs Office (LPO) or Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Program since 2007. A forensic chart was produced showing the insider trading, revolving door and social engagements of each. In almost 97% of the cases, every person was found to have glaringly unethical, often criminal, conflicts of interest between beneficiary lines of connection.
In fact, multiple groups have insisted that the FBI, the NSA, The CIA and 60 Minutes conduct their own independent studies, on a name, by name basis of the DOE staff involved and publish the results of that study to Congress and the public. The forensic facts prove the following:
- Famous political figures use the trillions of dollars in government treasuries and the stock market for illicit profiteering by rigging the system exclusively for themselves and their crony insiders.
- They attacked whistle-blowers using government taxpayer funded media (Fusion GPS, Black Cube, Google, Pysops, Gizmodo, Media Matters, Blumenthal, etc.) and spy agency tools because others competed with their businesses and reported their crimes.
- San Francisco Bay Area government has as many corrupt politicians as Chicago and relies on the same RICO-violating insider corruption network to operate; as proven by deep AI searches of their financial records. Arrests of those officials is now underway.
- Silicon Valley law enforcement records prove that these tech oligarchs engage in an organized, racketeering-based, massive sex trafficking, tax evasion, anti-trust violating, spousal abuse, money laundering, black-listing, racist, ageist, political bribery, crony racketeering crime Cartel.
- Famous U.S. Senators, Governors and their staff knowingly engage in, finance, operate and benefit from these crimes in exchange for search engine manipulation and stock market assets.
- Silicon Valley and Hollywood media companies censor and cover-up news coverage of these crimes because they have a financial connection to the perpetrators.
- Most of the government officials working on this were hand-picked by the adversaries of the whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowers cases have never been fairly reviewed by non-biased, non-conflicted officials. FBI associates have not found a single entity in the case reviews, or determinations, who was not either: financed by, friends, with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; one of those business adversaries, or the Senators and politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political digital services to.
The U.S. Department of Energy has supplied no apologies, no compensation for damages to the victims and no halt in the slush-fund payola schemes!
Do you doubt the veracity of these claims? Show this letter to Bill Cooper, the head lawyer for DOE. Ask him to provide forensic data proving any of these assertions are not true! He can't do it!
We can provide thousands of FBI agents, investigative journalists and Congressional staff to prove these assertions are true.
Dept. of Energy staff claim that they got rid of all of the bad people at DOE and that the evil ones don't work there any more but OPM confirms that to be a lie. The stock market holdings, revolving door deals, voter records and social media postings of the current Dept of Energy staff prove that the corrupt ones never left. Tell DOE to take a look at their moral construct if they contact you!
See http://www.majestic111.com for more on this.
Jay Carney was Obama's "Hit Man" in the Oval Office at The White House during the Cleantech Crash. It was Carney who helped order character assassinations and hit jobs on members of the public who spoke out about the crimes. Carney was recently caught, again, ordering hit jobs at Amazon, as well. In a famous magazine interview, his home was revealed to be covered in communist propaganda posters.Leaked notes from an internal meeting of Amazon leadership obtained by VICE News reveal company executives discussed a plan to smear fired warehouse employee Christian Smalls, calling him “not smart or articulate” as part of a PR strategy to make him “the face of the entire union/organizing movement.”
“He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers,” wrote Amazon General Counsel David Zapolsky in notes from the meeting forwarded widely in the company.
The discussion took place at a daily meeting, which included CEO Jeff Bezos, to update each other on the coronavirus situation. Amazon SVP of Global Corporate Affairs Jay Carney described the purpose to CNN on Sunday: “We go over the update on what's happening around the world with our employees and with our customers and our businesses. We also spend a significant amount of time just brainstorming about what else we can do” about COVID-19.
Amazon fired the warehouse worker Smalls, after he led a walkout of a number of employees at a Staten Island distribution warehouse. Amazon says he was fired for violating a company-imposed 14-day quarantine after he came into contact with an employee who tested positive for the coronavirus.Zapolsky’s notes from the meeting detail Amazon’s plan to deal with a wave of bad press and calls for investigations from elected officials following the firing of Smalls. They also show top Amazon brass wanted to make Smalls the focus of its narrative when questioned about worker safety.
“We should spend the first part of our response strongly laying out the case for why the organizer’s conduct was immoral, unacceptable, and arguably illegal, in detail, and only then follow with our usual talking points about worker safety,” Zapolsky wrote. “Make him the most interesting part of the story, and if possible make him the face of the entire union/organizing movement.”
They discussed encouraging Amazon executives to use Smalls to discredit the wider labor movement at Amazon. Employees at the warehouse, known as JFK8, launched an effort to unionize in 2018.
In his notes, Zapolsky wrote that there was “general agreement” on this point among the other attendees of the meeting. (Zapolsky’s notes also mention SVP of worldwide operations and customer service Dave Clark and SVP of human resources Beth Galetti.) This is the typical culture of the Obama crowd of insider executives who will destroy any citizen who gets in their way. Jay Carney runs a Massive covert organized corruption team at Amazon in order to manipulate Democracy.
Massive covert organized corruption teams operate these kinds of manipulation of the truth and of Democracy with the cooperation of U.S. Senators and agencies like The Department of Energy.
They are all part of a wealthy dark money network that manipulates public policy for personal profiteering.
American Bridge 21st Century and Pacronym are cutting ads thrashing outsiders as super PACs who go after people they don't like, The Washington Post reported. Both groups also have ties to two fake false-front large nonprofit groups — New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund — connected to a massive extreme-leaning consulting group.
NVF gave one of Pacronym’s nonprofits — ACRONYM — $250,000 while providing American Bridge $40,000 in 2018, according to NVF’s 2018 IRS documents. IRS records also indicated American Bridge pulled in $200,000 in 2018 from nonprofit Sixteen Thirty Fund, which reportedly spent $141 million on various extreme-leaning causes during the midterm election year.
Sixteen Thirty Fund and nonprofit NVF are tied into the same sprawling network, according to an analysis by investigators. Arabella Advisors, a philanthropic consulting company based in Washington, D.C., manages four nonprofits, including the NVF, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund and the Windward Fund.
Sixteen Thirty Fund has not responded to requests for comment, while NVF acknowledged making a grant to ACRONYM in 2018 but noted that it “has nothing to do with the activities at PACRONYM or American Bridge.”
Arabella representative Steve Sampson called NVF merely a “client of ours,” even though the consulting group shares a Washington, D.C., office with all four groups, according to NVF and Sixteen Thirty Fund’s 2018 IRS records. American Bridge has not responded to requests for comment.
“Arabella Network is the umbrella, and they have these two funds that flow toward both of these groups. A clearly full-blown extremist arm that is casting itself as a nonprofit is politiicizing this event,” former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt told the press.
Laxalt is the Outside Counsel to Americans for Public Trust, a group dedicated to uncovering unethical behavior. Americans for Public Trust has covered the network in the past. (RELATED: Billionaire Allegedly Behind A False Flag Operation In Alabama Helped Finance The Group Behind Iowa Caucus Chaos)
“American lives are more important than scoring cheap political points,” he added after suggesting that the group is striking while the iron is hot and making certain they capitalize on a crisis that has so far killed thousands of people.
Laxalt is referring to Pacronym’s announcement on March 17 to plow $5 million into a digital advertising campaign railing against those they hate. The ads are published through Four is Enough, a Pacronym project.ACRONYM’s founder said the campaign makes sense from a public health and national security perspective.
Democratic operative David Plouffe another Jay Carney-type "hit-man", who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 White House bid, sits alongside McGowan on ACRONYM’s board.
ACRONYM has not responded to the DCNF’s repeated requests for comment. (RELATED: Tech Firm Behind Iowa Caucus Disaster Also Played Role In Creating A Covert Democratic Propaganda Media Outfit)
Some academics argued that orchestrating such a campaign skirts ethical rules. Running advertisements thrashing the president during a health crisis looks bad, according to Daniel Kreiss, a professor of political communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“It’s a very fine line between ensuring that the president has the legitimacy to speak authoritatively on what Americans must do in order to be safe, and the very real and legitimate questions to raise regarding how the president has handled this crisis given that he’s on the ballot in November,” Kreiss told WaPo in a March 17 report addressing the ad campaign push.
Laxalt, Nevada’s former attorney general, expressed a similar position.
“The timing of attacking the president in battleground states is appalling. If they are going to do it, then you name the place. I think that doing it right this second is outrageous,” he told the DCNF.
Meanwhile, ACRONYM’s McGowan is also creating a constellation of local news websites that act as progressive arms targeting the president and his policies.
McGowan, a digital producer for Obama for America in 2011 and the proprietor behind ACRONYM, raised at least $25 million from wealthy liberals to create a media company called Courier Newsroom that is designed to deliver information favorable to Democrats. Courier is rolling out newspapers in swing states to counter what its founder believes is right-wing spin on Facebook and across the digital domain.
Along with the Courier Newsroom, McGowan is reportedly creating Virginia Dogwood and Arizona’s Copper Courier, among others that are expected to roll out in Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, all battleground states.
Mind the Gap at Stanford University is an even sneakier covert group from this crowd. Their efforts haven’t previously been reported. They recently petitioned some donors for at least $100,000 to support its efforts. Backers include people like Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, San Francisco power broker Ron Conway, and a coterie of major Democratic donors from across Silicon Valley, including fundraiser Amy Rao. What is also unusual is that Mind the Gap is led not by highly experienced political hands, but by academics with no professional backgrounds as fundraisers. The group’s leaders are a pair of Stanford law professors: Barbara Fried, who has no apparent campaign experience, and Paul Brest, the former president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Graham Gottlieb, a Stanford fellow who served in junior roles for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and in his White House, is its executive director.
While dressed in khaki's and acting like they are "saving the trees", the people behind these groups are cold-blooded mercenaries drunk on power, hookers, private jets and a sense of being above-the-law.