Thursday, October 28, 2010

Collateral Damage USA: Extremist cells target 350,000 US civilians - National Human Rights | Examiner.com

Collateral Damage USA: Extremist cells target 350,000 US civilians

  • August 30th, 2010 4:48 am ET

Extremist cells operating in US manipulate others to isolate target: Easier access for worse assault
Photo: Targeted Individuals.com

Hundreds of thousands of Americans could be suffering direct effects of a well-hidden form of terrorism sweeping America involving interconnected extremist cells keeping targets under covert surveillance and assaulting them with psychological warfare tactics and military grade directed energy weapons' (DEWs) invisible ammunition. New FOI documents reveal that the number of Americans targeted by such cells in the campaign of terror could exceed 350,000.

The state-sponsored terror program is a likely arm of the Bush/Obama 'locate and assassinate' New Phoenix Program in the petrochemical-military-industrial-complex (PMIC) 'war on terror' in which anyone not "with" government lies and deceit is a "terrorist." In other words, the program is genocide of good, honest people. (See: Dupe, D. Let's kill all the good people, August 29, 2010) This atrocity could be another WikiLeaks' Modified Limited Hangout distraction from an even greater crime: Collateral Damage U.S.A.

That government is unleashing terror on America's "greatest people," that secret weapons with invisible force and fascist techniques refined since Nazi Germany days are ruining lives of innocent U.S. civilians should come as no surprise. G.W. Bush told the world that the U.S. would apply such wrath on anyone not "with" the PMIC agenda. Seen and heard throughout the world on September 11, 2001, Bush declared via satellite tv the evil plan for Targeted Individuals, precisely what they suffer daily:

"We will direct every resource at our disposal… every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war to the disruption and eventual defeat of terrorism… Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists… Americans should expect a battle unlike any other they have ever seen, not one battle, but a lengthy campaign, some visible, others secret. We will drive terrorists from place to place until there is no refuge or rest." (1)

Extrapolating from Bill Taylor, LPI Targeted Individual cases known to be RFID implanted, one-tenth of extremists' targets have been secretly, forcibly implanted for easier tracking and assaulting with DEWs. (2)

In February, in reporting on the scheduled Directed Energy Professional Society national symposium, some of which was held behind closed doors, the writer highlighted in the article Directed Energy Weapons aimed at American targets: Learning opportunity:

"The Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) fosters research and development in directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave (HPM) technologies, for national defense and civilian applications through professional communication and education." (DEPS website - emphasis added)

Aside from being the best hidden weapons, the Navy Times reports that DEWs are the "most feared and controversial weapon of modern age." Common bio-effects of electromagnetic and other non-lethal weapons include effects to the human central nervous system resulting in physical pain, difficulty breathing, vertigo, nausea, disorientation and other systemic discomfort. Weapons not considered "lethal" can cause cumulative damage to the human body including death through "slow-kill."

Microwave pulses can affect not only the epidermis (skin), but also the dermis, the thick sensitive layer of skin and connective tissue beneath the epidermis that contains blood, lymph vessels, sweat glands, and nerve endings, generating a burn or inducing terminal disease from as far as 700 yards or more if applied by satellite.

Since the new weapons' ammunition penetrates buildings to injure targets, they leave no evidence of the perpetrator, a perfect crime weapon. The heart attack gun and the ray gun are only a couple of many in the arsenal of military high-tech weapons now passed on to the Department of Justice that can be used to assassinate American civilians exposing too much truth. American Targeted Individuals claim being injured, in some cases tortured and in some cases tortured to death with the new weaponry.

Domestic surveillance, extreme stalking psychological warfare on civilians

New Freedom of Information documents reveal that the DOJ published statistics in a report, Stalking Victimization in the United States in 2009 included a survey that misled the American public by omitting extreme stalking material facts.(3)

“Extreme stalking” involves organized domestic terror cells stalking targets. It is also known as “gang-stalking," "cause stalking," or “organized stalking.”

Stalking experts agree that stalking is terror. For example, among first words to describe stalking, Crime Victim Services states, "Stalking is a form of terror that 5-20% of women in the US experience."

Targeted Individuals consistently report ongoing, frequent, extreme stalking tactics: professional unforced house break-ins, illegal searches, thefts, pet killings, gas-lighting (such as moving personal property when the subject is away or asleep), use of weapons; and use of a variety of tactics. These are the same tactics that Psychiatrist stalking specialists, Doctors Emmelkamp and Kamphius, identify as “extreme stalking” and as indicators of future physical violence and lethality.(4)

“Somewhat more extreme [stalking] forms include ordering goods and services in the victim's name and charging to the victim's account, placing false advertisements or announcements, ordering funeral wreaths, spreading rumours about the victim, starting numerous frivolous law suits, smearing the victim's home or destroying or moving their property, threatening the victim with violence, or actually attacking them. Stalkers sometimes involve third parties, which leads to victimisation by association of their family, friends, colleagues, lawyers, psychiatrists or psychologists, etc. (Emmelkamp and Kamphius)

Five hallmarks of extremist cell targeting include:

1. High frequency of attacks and long-term duration of attacks
2. Use of a variety of tactics
3. Professional unforced house entry, with no sign of force regardless of types of locks, often to access targets while asleep.
4. Law enforcement refusal to protect targets, investigate, or prosecute
5. Covering-up the crime with torture tactics created to appear so unbelievable that bogus “mental illness” is used to discredit targets, or so well-disguised that the induced “mysterious illnesses” neutralize targets

Extremist stalking cells stalking prey

FOIA request No. 10-00169 to DOJ Office of Justice Programs via a letter dated March 22, 2010 reveal that 446,790 stalking incidents are committed by three or more people, almost half involving offenders working together, a new form of organized crime. (5)

Of the 446,790 episodes of stalking committed by 3 or more persons, 4 in 10 were committed by the offenders working together.

Did All These People Act as a Team or a Group? In the total 3 or more offenders of the 446,790 100, 185,050 41.2 answers were "Yes," and 230,080 51.5 answers were "No," 26,550 5.9 were "Don't know and
6,110 1.4 were "Missing."

Significant numbers of group stalkers were reported in groups of between 3 and up to 50 stalkers working as part of a "team or group," in the tens of thousands.

"The study shows at least 185,050 group or cell stalking victims exist in the U.S. "This number is artificially low," however, "due to two confounding variables in the study" states the Now Public report:

1. The 5.9 percent reporting not knowing whether a team or group was involved contains an unknown number of group stalking victims. Assuming it is the same as the 41.2 percent for victims knowing three or more stalkers are working in teams or groups, the number of victims exceeds 200,000.

2. The 2,262,940 "harassment victims" were excluded from the study if they did not state they feared for their safety, or, the safety of a family member.(3) This means that if the excluded harassment group follows a similar pattern of harassment as those deemed "stalking victims, the number of U.S. citizens being gang stalked exceeds 350,000."

"Stalkingis typically defined as the willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing of another person that threatens hisor her safety." (Meloy & Gothard, 1995, p. 258).

Based on the 350,000 number, 35,000 Targeted Individuals could be implanted unwillingly and unknowingly. As Taylor commented, some sources day all of them are implanted.

Based on the 2009 DOJ report, Katrina Baum, Ph.D., Shannan Catalano, Ph.D., Michael Rand, Kristina Rose found that:

  • About half (46%) of stalking victims experienced at least one unwanted contact per week, and 11% of victims said they had been stalked 5 years or more.
  • Approximately 1 in 4 stalking victims reported some form of cyberstalking such as e-mail (83%) or instant messaging (35%).
  • Women were at greater risk than men for stalking victimization; however, women and men were equally likely to experience harassment victimization.(6)

Who works in the cells?

In his book, Cause Stalking, David Lawson describes his 12 years of infiltrating extremist cells and quotes stalking cell recruits:

"'We are like the police except we are ABOVE the police.'

'We are a citizen's group that helps the police. We are trying to alert people in the area about this person [the target] before he gets to do what he did in the last place he lived.'

'When I get the call, I go to whatever the address is. It doesn't matter what they [targets] do, they can never get away from us.'

'Who are we? We drive the ambulances that take you to the emergency room. When your house is burning, we put out the fire. We are security guards. We protect you at night. YOU ONLY HAVE ELECTRICITY, PHONE AND CABLE SERVICE BECAUSE OF US. We are janitors. We have the keys. We fix your cars. YOU DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH US.'"

Most stalking victims do not recognize that they are under surveillance until the intrusions have occurred over a long period or become overtly threatening or violent.

Most families and friends of targets do not recognize that a target is under surveillance and DEW assaults until it is too late.

1. O’Connor. T. The Criminology Of Terrorism: History, Law, Definitions, Typologies, Syllabus for JUS 429. Austin Peay State University. MegaLinks in Criminal Justice

2. See: Dupre, D. Secretly forced brain implants: Ex-SS, FBI contractor defends targets and Secretly forced brain implants Pt IV: Intel expert on the doctors, children, military research)

3. Gang-stalking: New FOIA documents prove DOJ Know Truth, Now Public, http://www.nowpublic.com/world/gang-stalking-new-doj-foia-documents-prove-doj...

4. J. H. Kamphius, PhD and P.M.G. Emmelkamp, PhD, Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Stalking — a contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psychiatry, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2000, 176: 206-209 online: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/3/206

5. DOJ, Stalking Victimization in the United States, page 10, D.O.J. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January, 2009

6. DOJ, “Stalking Victimization in the United States: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1211)

Copyright © 2010 Deborah Dupré. All rights reserved. This article cannot be copied, posted, emailed, or republished without author permission.

The author grants permission to copy this article title and first paragraph only - linked to this Examiner page.

Deborah Dupré, with post-graduate science and education degrees from U.S. and Australian universities, has been a human and environmental rights advocate for over 25 years in the U.S., Vanuatu and Australia. Support her work by subscribing to her articles and forwarding the link of this article to friends and colleagues or reposting only the title and first paragraph linked to this Examiner page. Dupre welcomes emails: info@DeborahDupre.com See her Vaccine Liberty or Death book plus Compassion Film Project DVDs.

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/extremist-stalking-cells-ame...

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Esoteric Agenda - FULL LENGTH MOVIE - WELCOME TO YOUR AWAKENING! via @firetown

Afghan Leader Admits His Office Gets Cash from Iran… | Project World Awareness#

Afghan Leader Admits His Office Gets Cash from Iran…

Posted on October 27, 2010 by rockingjude


Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
President
Hamid Karzai, right, with his counterpart from Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, at a joint news conference on Monday.

By DEXTER FILKINS and ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: October 25, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai acknowledged on Monday that he regularly receives bags of cash from the Iranian government in payments amounting to millions of dollars, as evidence mounted of a worsening rift between his government and its American and NATO supporters.

During an often hostile news conference, Mr. Karzai also accused the United States of financing the “killing” of Afghans by paying private security contractors to guard construction projects and convoys in Afghanistan. He has declined to postpone a December deadline he set for ending the use of private security forces despite urgent pleas from Western organizations, including development organizations, that need protection here.

President Hamid KarzaiHis statements were the latest indication that American relations with Mr. Karzai were badly frayed, despite diplomatic efforts to mend ties and improve governance in Afghanistan. The tensions threaten to undermine President Obama’s goal of handing responsibility for the war against the Taliban to Mr. Karzai and the Afghan military, allowing the United States to begin withdrawing troops next year.

“They do give us bags of money — yes, yes, it is done,” Mr. Karzai said, responding to questions about a report in The New York Times on Sunday that Iran sends regular cash payments to his chief of staff, Umar Daudzai. “We are grateful to the Iranians for this.”

“Patriotism has a price,” he said.

Afghan and Western officials said the Iranian payments were intended to drive a wedge between Mr. Karzai and the United States and NATO.

On Sunday, Mr. Karzai held a volatile meeting with the NATO commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, as well as other senior Afghan and Western officials to discuss the private security firms. Mr. Karzai stormed out of the session, saying that he did not need the West’s help, according to people knowledgeable about the confrontation.

President Karzai has so far refused to modify the ban, although he has said that he would consider requests to delay it on a case-by-case basis. In many respects, his sharp words reflect a widespread feeling among Afghans, especially in insecure areas, that foreign security firms are running roughshod over them and intruding in culturally unacceptable ways on their daily lives.

At the news conference, Mr. Karzai lashed out at the United States, implying that American officials had leaked information to The New York Times about Iranian payments because of disagreements over the private security companies.

The private security companies, many of which are paid for by the United States, are spreading chaos and unjustly killing Afghan civilians, Mr. Karzai said.

“The money dealing with the private security companies starts in the hallways of the U.S. government,” he said. “Then they send the money for killing here.”

Under a decree he issued in August, all private security firms must stop operations by Dec. 17. The United States and other Western governments here say they accept the ban, and they are trying to switch to the use of the Afghan police and soldiers to protect their military convoys. But many Western officials say the Afghan police and military are undertrained, overstretched and ill equipped to provide proper protection for foreign interests.

They have asked for additional time to make the change, especially for civilian development organizations. Those organizations say they will not be able to continue work without security for employees, potentially endangering several billion dollars worth of programs and projects.

The Afghan president said security companies were responsible for a litany of bloody crimes against the country’s people. “When this money comes to Afghanistan, it causes insecurity in Afghan homes and causes the killing of Afghan children and causes explosions and terrorism in Afghanistan,” Mr. Karzai said.

He leveled several accusations against Western interests in Afghanistan and the news media, even going so far as to say that the security companies were interchangeable with the Taliban.

“In fact we don’t know how many of the explosions are the fault of the Taliban and how much by them,” said Mr. Karzai, referring to the security companies.

Mr. Karzai’s distrust of the Western alliance has increased over the past several months even as more soldiers have flowed into the country and more civilian development workers have begun to carry out projects, leaving diplomats and military officials increasingly frustrated and confused.

Western officials said they were disheartened but not surprised by the virulence of his tone, and they said they would continue to try to find a solution that allowed development projects to continue.

“It’s disappointing, but it’s vintage Karzai,” said a Western official in Kabul, adding that the accusations were hurtful when Western soldiers and Marines were dying in the field. “But when you are losing the numbers we are as an alliance and then when you got your reliable partner in Kabul saying such things, it sticks in the craw a bit.”

The Iranian payments are another significant source of tension. Mr. Karzai discounted their importance, claiming that the cash transfers were well known, and that he had even disclosed them to former President George W. Bush during a meeting at Camp David. He says that he uses the money to pay expenses incurred in the course of doing his job, including for “special expenses and helping people.”

Mr. Karzai says others give him cash payments as well. “The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices,” he said.

He says Mr. Daudzai is the courier for the Iranian cash, which amounts to about $1 million “once or twice a year.” The Times previously quoted Afghan and Western officials as saying that Mr. Daudzai has received regular payments from Iran that totaled about $6 million.

Asked what he does in return for the Iranian money, Mr. Karzai said: “They have asked for good relations in return and for lots of other things in return.”

Mr. Karzai’s admission followed firm denials by members of his staff that such payments existed. Iran’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Feda Hussein Maliki, also denied that he or his government passed any money to Mr. Karzai’s office.

The Iranian payments are not large, at least compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars the United States has spent to oust the Taliban from power, support Mr. Karzai’s government and fight a tenacious insurgency intent on toppling Mr. Karzai.

But Western officials say they are disturbed by Mr. Karzai’s close relationship with Iran’s leaders, in part because of mounting evidence that the country’s intelligence services are aggressively trying to undermine the American-led mission here. NATO officials say that Iran is paying for, arming and training Taliban fighters, as well as financing political candidates in the parliamentary elections.

In his news conference, Mr. Karzai also attacked The Times for publishing the report about Iranian payments, even as he confirmed receiving such payments. He urged the Afghan news media to “defame The New York Times as they defame us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Afghan Leader Admits His Office Gets Cash from Iran… | Project World Awareness via @rockingjude

Afghan Leader Admits His Office Gets Cash from Iran…

Posted on October 27, 2010 by rockingjude


Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
President
Hamid Karzai, right, with his counterpart from Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, at a joint news conference on Monday.

By DEXTER FILKINS and ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: October 25, 2010

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai acknowledged on Monday that he regularly receives bags of cash from the Iranian government in payments amounting to millions of dollars, as evidence mounted of a worsening rift between his government and its American and NATO supporters.

During an often hostile news conference, Mr. Karzai also accused the United States of financing the “killing” of Afghans by paying private security contractors to guard construction projects and convoys in Afghanistan. He has declined to postpone a December deadline he set for ending the use of private security forces despite urgent pleas from Western organizations, including development organizations, that need protection here.

President Hamid KarzaiHis statements were the latest indication that American relations with Mr. Karzai were badly frayed, despite diplomatic efforts to mend ties and improve governance in Afghanistan. The tensions threaten to undermine President Obama’s goal of handing responsibility for the war against the Taliban to Mr. Karzai and the Afghan military, allowing the United States to begin withdrawing troops next year.

“They do give us bags of money — yes, yes, it is done,” Mr. Karzai said, responding to questions about a report in The New York Times on Sunday that Iran sends regular cash payments to his chief of staff, Umar Daudzai. “We are grateful to the Iranians for this.”

“Patriotism has a price,” he said.

Afghan and Western officials said the Iranian payments were intended to drive a wedge between Mr. Karzai and the United States and NATO.

On Sunday, Mr. Karzai held a volatile meeting with the NATO commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, as well as other senior Afghan and Western officials to discuss the private security firms. Mr. Karzai stormed out of the session, saying that he did not need the West’s help, according to people knowledgeable about the confrontation.

President Karzai has so far refused to modify the ban, although he has said that he would consider requests to delay it on a case-by-case basis. In many respects, his sharp words reflect a widespread feeling among Afghans, especially in insecure areas, that foreign security firms are running roughshod over them and intruding in culturally unacceptable ways on their daily lives.

At the news conference, Mr. Karzai lashed out at the United States, implying that American officials had leaked information to The New York Times about Iranian payments because of disagreements over the private security companies.

The private security companies, many of which are paid for by the United States, are spreading chaos and unjustly killing Afghan civilians, Mr. Karzai said.

“The money dealing with the private security companies starts in the hallways of the U.S. government,” he said. “Then they send the money for killing here.”

Under a decree he issued in August, all private security firms must stop operations by Dec. 17. The United States and other Western governments here say they accept the ban, and they are trying to switch to the use of the Afghan police and soldiers to protect their military convoys. But many Western officials say the Afghan police and military are undertrained, overstretched and ill equipped to provide proper protection for foreign interests.

They have asked for additional time to make the change, especially for civilian development organizations. Those organizations say they will not be able to continue work without security for employees, potentially endangering several billion dollars worth of programs and projects.

The Afghan president said security companies were responsible for a litany of bloody crimes against the country’s people. “When this money comes to Afghanistan, it causes insecurity in Afghan homes and causes the killing of Afghan children and causes explosions and terrorism in Afghanistan,” Mr. Karzai said.

He leveled several accusations against Western interests in Afghanistan and the news media, even going so far as to say that the security companies were interchangeable with the Taliban.

“In fact we don’t know how many of the explosions are the fault of the Taliban and how much by them,” said Mr. Karzai, referring to the security companies.

Mr. Karzai’s distrust of the Western alliance has increased over the past several months even as more soldiers have flowed into the country and more civilian development workers have begun to carry out projects, leaving diplomats and military officials increasingly frustrated and confused.

Western officials said they were disheartened but not surprised by the virulence of his tone, and they said they would continue to try to find a solution that allowed development projects to continue.

“It’s disappointing, but it’s vintage Karzai,” said a Western official in Kabul, adding that the accusations were hurtful when Western soldiers and Marines were dying in the field. “But when you are losing the numbers we are as an alliance and then when you got your reliable partner in Kabul saying such things, it sticks in the craw a bit.”

The Iranian payments are another significant source of tension. Mr. Karzai discounted their importance, claiming that the cash transfers were well known, and that he had even disclosed them to former President George W. Bush during a meeting at Camp David. He says that he uses the money to pay expenses incurred in the course of doing his job, including for “special expenses and helping people.”

Mr. Karzai says others give him cash payments as well. “The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices,” he said.

He says Mr. Daudzai is the courier for the Iranian cash, which amounts to about $1 million “once or twice a year.” The Times previously quoted Afghan and Western officials as saying that Mr. Daudzai has received regular payments from Iran that totaled about $6 million.

Asked what he does in return for the Iranian money, Mr. Karzai said: “They have asked for good relations in return and for lots of other things in return.”

Mr. Karzai’s admission followed firm denials by members of his staff that such payments existed. Iran’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Feda Hussein Maliki, also denied that he or his government passed any money to Mr. Karzai’s office.

The Iranian payments are not large, at least compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars the United States has spent to oust the Taliban from power, support Mr. Karzai’s government and fight a tenacious insurgency intent on toppling Mr. Karzai.

But Western officials say they are disturbed by Mr. Karzai’s close relationship with Iran’s leaders, in part because of mounting evidence that the country’s intelligence services are aggressively trying to undermine the American-led mission here. NATO officials say that Iran is paying for, arming and training Taliban fighters, as well as financing political candidates in the parliamentary elections.

In his news conference, Mr. Karzai also attacked The Times for publishing the report about Iranian payments, even as he confirmed receiving such payments. He urged the Afghan news media to “defame The New York Times as they defame us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Whistleblower's Long Journey - WSJ.com #BigPharma

In 2002, drug maker GlaxoSmithKline PLC sent one of its quality-assurance managers, Cheryl Eckard, to Puerto Rico to help clean up a mess at one of its biggest manufacturing plants. U.S. authorities had just cited the plant for several violations, including making a contaminated ointment used to treat skin infections on children.

Ms. Eckard's journey from North Carolina to the Caribbean set off a chain of events culminating in this week's announcement that she would collect at least $96 million for her role in helping the government secure a criminal guilty plea and a $750 million payment from Glaxo to settle an investigation of manufacturing deficiencies.

Ms. Eckard's bounty is believed to be the largest award given to a single whistleblower in U.S. history.

Other drug companies, such as Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co., have collectively paid billions of dollars to settle probes. Lawyers say the publicity surrounding each new settlement triggers a wave of would-be whistleblowers looking to get in on the action, leading to more substantive cases with bigger awards. Strengthened whistleblower protections also have contributed to the surge.

"The breadth of cases has expanded to include different areas we've never seen before," said Joseph E.B. White, a Philadelphia attorney who represents whistleblowers.

Mr. White sees the focus of health-care-fraud cases expanding to allegations of manufacturing problems and the submission of false clinical-trial data to secure regulatory approval for new drugs. He also says manufacturers of medical equipment and devices are increasingly in the sights of would-be whistleblowers and government investigators. Ms. Eckard, 51 years old, wasn't available for an interview, according to her attorneys. They said she is originally from North Carolina but declined to say where she lives now, citing her privacy. She currently works as a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry on quality-assurance projects.

"This is not something I ever wanted to do, but I felt I had no choice because of the safety concerns," Ms. Eckard said in a statement Tuesday in Boston.

Glaxo said in a statement that it regretted the way it operated the Puerto Rico plant, which has since been closed, and it's committed to continuously improving manufacturing quality. The company denied Ms. Eckard's allegations, and said her lawsuit will be dismissed as part of the settlement and payout to her. In its planned guilty plea, Glaxo agreed to admit that it sold adulterated products with the intent to defraud or mislead. A court date hasn't yet been set for Glaxo to formally enter the plea and receive sentencing.

Ms. Eckard worked at Glaxo from 1992 to 2003 and was a manager of global quality assurance at the company's Research Triangle Park, N.C., site at the time she was asked to visit the plant in Cidra, Puerto Rico.

What Ms. Eckard found when she arrived in Cidra in 2002, according to court documents, were even more problems than those cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The plant had received complaints that drugs of different types and strengths were being mixed up in the same bottle, and plant managers had made no attempt to issue a recall or correct the cause of the mix-ups, according to a lawsuit Ms. Eckard later filed in federal court in Boston.

She learned of one consumer complaint that a boy was given double the dose of the antidepressant Paxil due to such mix-ups, according to her lawyer Neil Getnick.

Ms. Eckard made some strong recommendations to her superiors: Stop shipping all products from the plant, suspend manufacturing for two weeks to allow time to resolve the problems, and notify the FDA about the product mix-ups.

But according to her lawsuit, Ms. Eckard's recommendations were ignored because her supervisors were too busy preparing for an FDA inspection in October 2002 they hoped would clear the way for approval to market two new products, including the diabetes drug Avandamet, which was eventually approved. A Glaxo spokeswoman said two of Ms. Eckard's superiors cited in her lawsuit, who are still with the company, weren't available to comment. Others weren't reachable for comment.

Ms. Eckard continued to make trips to Cidra into 2003. She eventually told her boss that "she would not participate in a cover-up of the quality assurance and compliance problems at Cidra," according to her lawsuit.

Steven Eckard, Cheryl's ex-husband, said, "I can tell you as a quality-assurance auditor she was very good at her job. She was a company person. She was not a malcontent. She was a person who really worked hard for the company up until things went sour."

Mr. Eckard separated from Ms. Eckard in 2000, and two later divorced.

By mid-2003, Ms. Eckard was terminated in what the company called a "redundancy" related to the merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham PLC a couple of years before.

After she left the company, she continued to try to persuade its compliance department that more needed to be done at Cidra. But she says the company took no action. Finally, in August 2003, she called the FDA's San Juan office and spent more than two hours detailing her concerns.

It was soon after that the FDA began an investigation and executed search warrants at the plant to seize documents and other potential evidence. The following year, Ms. Eckard filed a federal lawsuit against Glaxo.

Ms. Eckard's lawsuit was filed under the U.S. False Claims Act. The law, which dates back to the Civil War, prohibits people or businesses from defrauding the government, and provides incentives for people who suspect wrongdoing to come forward. Lawsuits are typically filed confidentially in federal court to protect the identity of the plaintiff. The Justice Department then determines whether the case has enough merit for it to take over.

If the Justice Department is successful in recovering money—usually through a settlement—the whistleblower is generally entitled to receive from 15% to 25% of the award.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year found payouts to whistleblowers have ranged from $100,000 to $42 million per person, with a median recovery of about $3 million. Attorneys' fees however, can eat into that, ranging from 30% to 50%, according to Mr. White. Ms. Eckard's lawyers declined to say what their cut was.

Several whistleblowers split about $100 million of Eli Lilly's $1.4 billion settlement in 2009 to resolve a probe of off-label promotion of antipsychotic Zyprexa. One of them, a former Lilly sales rep named James Wetta, went on to work for AstraZeneca PLC and tipped off federal authorities about alleged off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Seroquel, resulting in Astra's $520 million settlement in April.

Mr. Wetta stood to get at least $45 million of that settlement, though he was to share an undisclosed portion with another whistleblower in that case. His attorney, Michael Mustokoff, declined to specify the exact amounts he received.

Mr. Mustokoff said Mr. Wetta has declined to be interviewed, saying most whistleblowers "want to live anonymously and they want to enjoy their good fortune."

—James Oberman and Jon Kamp contributed to this article.

Write to Peter Loftus at peter.loftus@dowjones.com

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

CFTC Is Urged to Act in Silver Probe - WSJ.com @rockingjude @firetown #armstrong ;-)

Act Now, CFTC Is Urged

A Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulator is putting pressure on the agency to take action in a high-profile, two-year-old investigation of the silver market.

At a CFTC hearing Tuesday to consider new rules to strengthen its commodity-enforcement powers, commissioner Bart Chilton said market players have made "repeated" and "fraudulent efforts to persuade and deviously control" silver prices. Mr. Chilton said he believed there have been violations of CFTC rules that should be prosecuted, though he couldn't publicly disclose trader names.

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler declined to comment on the silver investigation or Mr. Chilton's comments.

The call to action on the silver investigation comes as the CFTC faces increasing pressure because of its expanded role overseeing derivatives trading under the new financial-overhaul law. For years, lawmakers have criticized the agency for failing to aggressively police the commodities markets.

In its 36-year history, the CFTC has reached settlements in more than three dozen manipulation-related cases, though it has successfully concluded just one manipulation case from trial through appeal. To win manipulation cases in the past, the CFTC had to prove that a trader intended to manipulate prices. Under the financial overhaul's new fraud-based manipulation powers, the CFTC's burden of proof would be lower.

The CFTC's investigation of silver has heated up in recent weeks. The agency's enforcement staff has circulated a packet of information to CFTC lawyers and commissioners, outlining some of its findings in the silver probe, including documents that could suggest there have been attempts to manipulate prices. In recent days, the commissioners have been discussing how to proceed in the investigation, but they haven't made a decision.

The investigation comes as more individual investors enter the red-hot area of commodities trading, rushing to buy exchange-traded funds. The broad ETF market has ballooned to more than $900 billion in recent years, including iShares Silver Trust, a silver ETF with a market value of $7.8 billion.

Meanwhile, the price of silver, gold and other precious metals are soaring. On Tuesday, silver traded at $23.824 an ounce, up 1.2%.

The silver market is no stranger to controversy. Theories that the price of silver is being manipulated have long been held by a vocal segment of traders. Many big banks, traders and longtime players in the silver market dismiss that notion.

The silver market was at the center of one of the most high-profile cases in the commodities world. In 1985, the CFTC accused the Hunt brothers of Texas and others with illegally manipulating silver prices in 1979 and 1980. Large purchases of silver by the Hunts "artificially" drove up prices, the CFTC said, leading to a plunge.

The Hunts at the time denied wrongdoing. In 1989, Nelson Bunker Hunt agreed to pay penalties of up to $10 million and consented to a ban from commodities trading. William Hunt, who now works for an energy-exploration company owned by the Hunt family, said: "We didn't manipulate the market or corner the market" and added that he no longer is involved in the silver market.

The continuing CFTC investigation of the silver market began two years ago, after Mr. Chilton and others at the CFTC were besieged with emails from hundreds of investors, who complained that they believed silver prices were being manipulated. A number of the emails allege that the CFTC is dragging its feet and ignoring evidence of manipulation in the silver market.

It isn't the first time in recent years that the CFTC has examined similar allegations in the silver market. The agency's market-oversight division conducted a 2008 study and found no evidence of manipulation.

After complaints continued, the agency's enforcement division made an unusual announcement in September 2008 that it had launched an investigation into the matter.

Over the past two years, silver prices have bounced around, rising to around $20 just before the May 2008 CFTC report, then dropping to around $9. In 2009, silver prices climbed back to just under $20. This year, silver prices have soared 41.6% amid a lower U.S. dollar and rising concerns over inflation, at one point hitting their highest level in 30 years.

Despite silver's lofty price, some analysts and others suspecting manipulation believe the metal should be trading at far higher levels.

Earlier this year, the investigation took a new twist when the CFTC began looking into allegations by a trader in London who contended that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., one of the largest silver traders, was involved in manipulative silver trading, a person close to the situation says.

In recent months, CFTC lawyers have interviewed employees of J.P. Morgan in its metals-trading business as well as industry traders, commodity executives, experts and employees of other metals-trading firms, a person familiar with the situation says.

J.P. Morgan and HSBC Holdings PLC traditionally have been big players in the silver market. A CFTC weekly report for Oct. 19, the most recent period, shows that less than four market players hold 24.3% of all net bearish bets in the silver market. J.P. Morgan and HSBC are among those market participants, according to silver traders and a person close to the investigation. In recent months, however, the banks with large futures positions have sharply reduced the size of their holdings.

Both J.P. Morgan and HSBC declined to comment on any aspect of the investigation.

—Sarah N. Lynch contributed to this article.Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page C1

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Commissioner Chilton’s statement on silver market rigging… | Project World Awareness

Commissioner Chilton’s statement on silver market rigging…

Posted on October 26, 2010 by rockingjude
Silver ore with Lincoln penny for scale
Image via Wikipedia

Submitted by cpowell on 10:01AM ET Tuesday, October 26, 2010. Section: Daily Dispatches
Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Public Hearing on Anti-Manipulation and Disruptive Trading Practices
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010

I take this opportunity to comment on the precious metals markets and in particular the silver markets.

More than two years ago the agency began an investigation into silver markets. I have been urging the agency to say something on the matter for months. The public deserves some answers to their concerns that silver markets are being, and have been, manipulated.

The legal definition of manipulation under the law is a high bar to prove. It is a much different test than what the average person might consider as manipulation. Under existing law, to prove manipulation, the government is required to demonstrate not only specific intent; we also need to prove that as a result of the intent and market control, that activity caused an artificial price — a point that can certainly be debated by economists.

Attempted manipulation is less difficult to prove — requiring an intent to manipulate and some overt act in furtherance of that intent. There are also other violations of law that could contort markets and distort prices.

I believe that there have been repeated attempts to influence prices in the silver markets. There have been fraudulent efforts to persuade and deviously control that price. Based on what I have been told by members of the public and reviewed in publicly available documents, I believe violations to the Commodity Exchange Act have taken place in silver markets and that any such violation of the law in this regard should be prosecuted.

In saying this, I am fully aware of the prohibition from divulging trader names or information about their positions I am extremely careful not to violate the law in this, or any, regard. I also cannot pre-judge anything the agency may do with regard to our silver investigation, or any other matter.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which I strongly supported, contains new manipulation provisions as well as anti-disruptive trading rules. These new authorities, along with the implementation of thoughtful position limits in metals, will go a long way toward ensuring more efficient and effective metals markets devoid of fraud, abuse, and manipulation.

Thoughtful investigations take time. The CFTC staff has worked extremely hard on the silver investigation. That said, there is a point at which it is our responsibility to say something. Within the law, I have done so. I am hopeful that the agency will speak publicly about the investigation in the very near future and when they do so that it will be in a more granular fashion than I am permitted from doing at this time.

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

CoIntelPro: What you should know… | Project World Awareness

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

BBC News - UN urges US and Iraq to probe Wikileaks torture claims

UN urges US and Iraq to probe Wikileaks torture claims

US soldier in Iraq in 2004, file image The Wikileaks files are mainly accounts from the ground written by soldiers

The US and Iraq should investigate claims of abuse contained in files published on the Wikileaks website, the UN's rights chief says.

Navi Pillay said the files suggested US forces had continued to hand detainees to Iraqi authorities despite evidence that they had been tortured.

Meanwhile, the UN's adviser on torture, Manfred Novak, called for a wider inquiry to include alleged US abuses.

The US military has denied turning a blind eye to torture in Iraq.

On Monday, Gen George Casey, who was in charge of US forces in Iraq from 2004 to 2007, said all soldiers were instructed to report any allegations of abuse.

But Ms Pillay said the Wikileaks disclosure of almost 400,000 secret war logs added to her concerns that serious breaches of international human rights law had occurred in Iraq.

"The US and Iraqi authorities should take necessary measures to investigate all allegations made in these reports and to bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious human rights abuses," she said in a statement.

Fewer allegations

Mr Novak said it was not enough to investigate only what happened in Iraq.

He urged US President Barack Obama to launch a full investigation into all allegations of torture against US military and intelligence officials.

He said the inquiry should include accounts of US agents handing detainees to states such as Egypt, Morocco and Syria, knowing they would be ill treated.

Mr Novak told journalists he now received far fewer allegations of torture than he had done during the so-called war on terror launched by former US President George W Bush.

But he pointed out that Mr Obama, like his predecessor, had refused to grant private interviews with detainees, and had invoked state secrecy privileges to prevent civil lawsuits by alleged victims of US torture.

More on This Story

Wikileaks War Files

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

PressTV - Fresh riots rock Belfast, N. Ireland

Fresh riots rock Belfast, N. Ireland
Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:34PM

Share | Email | Print

Rioters have torched a bus and hijacked a number of vehicles as serious disturbances rocked near Belfast in Northern Ireland.

Police said Monday night disturbances involving at least 400 rioters in the loyalist Rathcoole estate in Newtownabbey caused up to £200,000 worth of damage, the daily Belfast Telegraph reported.

Youths threw stones at the approaching police vehicles who had come to the scene to restore order, according to the report.

It is the latest outbreak of trouble in east Antrim following serious disorder in Carrickfergus and Ballyclare two weeks ago.

Alderman Paula Bradley, the mayor of Newtownabbey, condemned the rioting.

“This violence is an absolute disgrace,” she said. “We are in a time of cutbacks and yet you have people going out burning cars and buses. A minority of people are causing havoc and it's the whole community who suffers.”

Bradley said the trouble may be linked to police activity in the area earlier this month.

Two weeks ago, loyalist paramilitaries caused a night of violence in the area which left two officers injured. A female officer was hurt in Carrickfergus when her vehicle was attacked by a gang of up to 25 men wielding bats.

There was also trouble in Eden where youths blocked the road.
A PSNI spokesman said: "Police will continue to investigate the incidents and identify those involved."

Meanwhile, Unite union representative Michael Dornan threatened to end the bus services in Newtownabbey after the driver of the torched bus suffered serious facial injuries.

"It was a sinister, callous and brutal attack, carried out on a person carrying out his work. These people boarded the bus and poured petrol inside. They then trailed him off the bus and beat him," he told the daily.

"The driver has sustained a facial injury during the attack and we have to warn the general public that we will not allow our members safety to be compromised during civil unrest," he added.

MOL/

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

404 Not Found #FreeGary #TweetStorm4Gary #Family4Gary

Not Found

The requested URL /hashtag/@Mikegarrick New Landmark Law: Accused must have lawyer: Gary had no lawyer during 2002 police interviewes: <a href= was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


Apache/2.2.16 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.16 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_fcgid/2.3.5 Phusion_Passenger/2.2.15 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at hashparty.com Port 80

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Eric Clapton / Tears in Heaven

NWO ( The Illuminati Card Game)

Will the U.S. Lose Europe to Russia? | Project World Awareness

Will the U.S. Lose Europe to Russia?…

Posted on October 26, 2010 by admin

By JOHN VINOCUR
The Eiffel Tower is lighting Paris by jver64PARIS — The United States used to call wayward members of NATO back to the reservation with a whistle or a shout. It decided what was deviation from doctrine, and that decision was pretty much law.

When the Obama administration stamped its foot this time, no one snapped to attention.

Rather, Germany and France, meeting with Russia in Deauville, northern France, last week, signaled that they planned to make such three-cornered get-togethers on international foreign policy and security matters routine, and even extend them to inviting other “partners” — pointing, according to diplomats from two countries, to Turkey becoming a future participant.

That can look like an effort to deal with European security concerns in a manner that keeps NATO, at least in part, at a distance. And it could seem a formula making it easier for Russia to play off — absolutely no novelty here — the European allies against the United States, or NATO and the European Union, against one another.

But there’s more detail in the theoretical Euro-Atlantic apostasy department: Add Chancellor Angela Merkel’s proposal, made in June, that the European Union and Russia establish their own Political and Security Committee, and President Nicolas Sarkozy’s intention, enunciated in Deauville, to establish an E.U.-Russia economic space “with common security concepts.”

Just before the Deauville meeting, Vladimir Chizov, Russia’s ambassador to the E.U., leapt ahead of the Merkel/Sarkozy plans and told a reporter that Russia now wants a formalized relationship with the existing E.U. committee on foreign and security policy. “I don’t expect to be sitting at every committee session,” he said, “but there should be some mechanism that would enable us to take joint steps.”

As for the Obama administration stamping its foot, what it came down to was a senior U.S. official saying: “Since when, I wonder, is European security no longer an issue of American concern, but something for Europe and Russia to resolve? After being at the center of European security for 70 years, it’s strange to hear that it’s no longer a matter of U.S. concern.”

So, a follow-on burst of European contrition? I asked a German official about it. He spoke of German and French loyalty to NATO. And he said, “I understand there are American suspicions.”

“But,” he added, “the United States must accept that the times are changing. There are examples of it having done this. Why wouldn’t it accept our view in this respect?”

The official did not list them, but there are obvious factors explaining the French and German initiatives.

A major one is President Barack Obama’s perceived lack of interest and engagement in Europe. His failure to attend a Berlin ceremony commemorating the end of the Cold War and his cancellation of a meeting involving the E.U.’s new president has had symbolic weight.

At the same time, the U.S. reset with Russia and the administration’s willingness to treat President Dmitri A. Medvedev as a potential Western-oriented partner has given the Germans and French the sense they were free to act on the basis of their own interpretations of the changes in Moscow.

In this European view, the United States has become significantly dependent on Russia through its maintenance of military supply routes to Afghanistan and its heightened pressure, albeit in wavering measure, on Iran. Because the reset is portrayed by the administration to be a U.S. foreign policy success, criticism from Washington of Russia is at a minimum.

Consider this irony: the more Russia makes entry into the E.U.’s decision-making processes on security issues a seeming condition for deals the French and/or Germans want (think, for example, of France’s proposed sale to Moscow of Mistral attack vessels), the more the impression takes hold that the administration’s focus for complaint about the situation has been off-loaded onto the Europeans.

Example: Ivo H. Daalder, the United States’ permanent representative at NATO, gave a speech in Paris last week in which he skipped over the Russians’ maneuvering, but described as “baffling” and “very strange” that “NATO doesn’t have a real strategic partnership with the E.U.”

True enough. On the other hand, Russia is getting a whole series of passes: Ten days ago, when Mr. Medvedev offered Hugo Chávez of Venezuela help to build the country’s first nuclear power station, the State Department expressed concern about technology migrating to “countries that should not have that technology” — but added (bafflingly), that the relationship between Venezuela and Russia (for years Iran’s supplier of nuclear wherewithal) “is not of concern to us.”

Last week, more of the same. When Mr. Medvedev bestowed Russia’s highest honors at a Kremlin ceremony on a group of sleeper spies who were expelled from the United States last July, a State Department spokesman turned away a reporter’s question with a “no comment.” Washington chooses not to say anything either about Mr. Medvedev’s support, repeated in Deauville, for Mr. Sarkozy’s plan, as next year’s president of the G-20 consultative grouping, to focus its attention on limiting the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.

In the Deauville aftermath, the Americans have preferred applauding Mr. Medvedev’s decision to come to a NATO summit meeting in Lisbon next month, following U.S. congressional elections. He is not expected to announce Russian participation in or endorsement of a U.S.-initiated antimissile shield for Europe — the United States’ notionally organic bond in strengthening the alliance’s trans-Atlantic future — yet the Russian president’s appearance as a guest on NATO’s turf could be seen as an important gesture of real cooperation.

Still, for all the Americans’ concern about Europe dealing with Russia on its own, there hardly has been a corresponding public statement from the administration that’s a call for caution about Moscow’s interest in setting up rivalries between NATO and the E.U. For David J. Kramer, a former senior State Department official with responsibility for Russia, the new circumstances show “the Russians now have far more leverage in the U.S. relationship than they should.”

It was unexpected in the circumstances, but at a briefing in the run-up to the Deauville meeting the administration liked so little, a French presidential source put a big asterisk — more than Washington does openly — next to France’s desire to create “an anchorage in the West” out of “fragile” indications of change in Russia.

“We do not have assurance there is a permanent strategic turn,” the Élysée Palace said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/europe/26iht-politicus.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous