IMF heralds catastrophe for major banks of EU and US


, ,

imfThe International Monetary Fund said in a report published on October 5 that a significant number of major banks in wealthiest countries of the world are so weak that neither the growth of world economy nor the increase in interest rates will help them solve their problems.

The list of problematic credit organizations includes one-third of European banks with assets totaling $ 8.5 trillion and a quarter of US banks with assets worth $ 3.2 trillion.

According to the IMF, the financial stability now depends on how well financial institutions can adapt themselves to the new era with tougher regulation and supervision, restrained growth and low interest rates.

Experts note that despite the improvement in the structure of bank assets and equity indices, low profitability remains a significant problem that can not be solved through cycles of economic recovery. The report, in particular, draws attention to euro-zone banks, the profits of which have halved since average levels of 2003-2006.

“Financial stability now depends on how well financial institutions are adapting to this new era” with tougher regulation and supervision, restrained growth and low interest rates. We need a fundamental change in the business model of banks, and in the structure of the system to ensure a viable and healthy banking system, “– experts say the IMF report.

Experts believe that Europe lags behind the US in terms of the disposal of bad loans. Both the IMF and the European Central Bank see the extremely loose monetary policy as the main cause of banking problems.

It is also significant concerns of IMF experts in the medium term is the financial stability of Japan and China. Meanwhile, experts said the pressure drop in the emerging markets in terms of higher prices for raw materials and some stabilization of the Chinese economy.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has revised its forecasts on the dynamics of Russia’s GDP in 2016. This figure was increased by 0.4 percentage points – to decline by 0.8%. It is stated in the updated forecast of the world economy World Economic Outlook (WEO).








International Monetary Fund (IMF): Country Information

World Economic Outlook (WEO), April 2016: Too Slow for Too Long …

IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) Update, July 2016: Uncertainty in …

Global debt reaches all time high as IMF calls for govt intervention


Global Financial Stability Report Press Conference – 2016 IMF Annual …

Transcript of the Press Conference on the Release of the … – IMF

Your IMF Update: Transcript – Google Groups

IMF Report: Ghana To End 2016 With A Surplus | Anang Tawiah




CDC Whistleblower Subpoena Stonewalled by CDC Director Thomas Frieden



vaccinesAccording to this press release from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith, they have subpoenaed the CDC Whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, to testify in a court of law about what he knows about research fraud at the CDC, but CDC Director, Thomas Frieden is blocking testimony. The next step is to take CDC to federal court to compel them to allow Thompson’s testimony.

For Immediate Release


Contact: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.                                      Contact:  Bryan Smith
Ph  914-422-4343                                                              Ph  901-333-1833

CDC Blocks Testimony of Vaccine Whistleblower
says World Mercury Project

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Vows Appeal

Washington, DC:  The Director of the CDC, Thomas Frieden, has sent a letter blocking CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, from testifying in a Tennessee court case involving a 16 year old boy who claims his autism is caused by vaccine injuries.

The boy’s attorneys, Bryan Smith and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., both of Morgan & Morgan, sought to have Dr. Thompson testify to explain his charges that the CDC committed data manipulation in a series of studies that found no link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Thompson has publically stated to Congressman William Posey and others that he and his colleagues in the CDC Vaccine Safety Branch were ordered to commit scientific fraud, destroy evidence and manipulate data to conceal the link between autism and vaccines.

William Acree, Tennessee State Circuit Judge, had ordered the trial extended so that Thompson could be subpoenaed to testify. In a recent letter to the court, Dr. Frieden denied the request to allow Dr. Thompson to testify stating that “Dr. William Thompson’s deposition testimony would not substantially promote the objectives of CDC or HHS.”

Kennedy strongly disagrees. Dr. Thompson co-authored four key CDC studies widely touted to exonerate the MMR and vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, from causing autism. Thompson is a 19 year veteran at the CDC and formerly a senior vaccine safety scientist at their Immunology Safety Office.  In August 2014, under Federal whistleblower protection, Dr. Thompson revealed that despite CDC’s claims to the contrary, the vaccine safety studies in question demonstrated a causal link between vaccines and autism symptoms.

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Thompson’s testimony is critical: “This boy, and thousands of others, lost their cases in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because the CDC and Justice Department submitted fraudulent science wrongly denying the vaccine-autism link.” Smith explained that “Frieden’s denial was a disappointment but not a surprise, since the inescapable implication of Dr. Thompson’s allegation is that the agency altered the science to undermine autism cases worth potentially $1 trillion in compensation ordered by Congress.” The attorneys promised to immediately appeal the CDC’s denial to Federal court.

More information can be found at A longer, more detailed article covering the case can be found at Contact Morgan & Morgan at

Background on the Lawsuit

The Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) resulted in judgments against the more than 5,000 families alleging that childhood vaccines caused their children’s autism, despite the likelihood that more than 500 clear-cut cases had already been compensated and one test case, that of Hannah Poling, was removed from the proceeding and quietly conceded.

The way the 1986 law that created the VICP is worded, vaccine injury cases must go through the VICP first, and only after a judgment is made — no matter how long it takes — can a family file a lawsuit in a real court. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of many that justice would finally be done by ruling that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” and therefore, vaccine manufacturers cannot not be sued for the damage their products do.

The one legal avenue that remains open, in an extremely small number of situations, is medical malpractice lawsuits against the doctors. The parents of yates – Photo: Yates Hazlehurst’s father, Rolf Hazlehurst on the steps of the Supreme Court

Hazlehurst, now 16, who was the subject of the second test case of the OAP, have managed to keep the case “alive” in Tennesse. And now, for the first time in 30 years, a vaccine injury case is being tried in a court of law. Yates’ attorneys, Bryan Smith and Robert F. Kennedy have subpoenaed a number of key witnesses, including one known as the “CDC Whistleblower,” Dr. William Thompson, senior research scientist at the CDC and an integral part of a number of CDC studies supposedly “debunking” the vaccine/autism link, as well as the subject of the documentary film VaxXed.

As a federal employee, Thompson would have to be granted permission by CDC Director Thomas Frieden to testify. As you can see from the press release, Frieden is stonewalling. He is refusing to let Thompson testify.

In Monday’s article in The Hill about the formal complaint filed by 12 senior CDC research scientists alleging that “questionable and unethical practices” which undermine the CDC’s credibility had become the “norm,” CDC spokeswoman Kathy Harben is quoted as saying, “CDC takes seriously its responsibility to comply with the ethics rules, inform employees about them, and take steps to make it right any time we learn that employees aren’t in compliance.”

To that we say, Oh, yeah? Prove it!”

Let the scientist who has been subpoenaed testify as to  ethics at the CDC. Spare the taxpayers the expense of compelling the testimony they deserve to have.

****************** ACTION ITEM 1 ******************

We at TMR know how vitally important it is to FINALLY get Thompson to testify — on the record — about the crimes being committed at the CDC with respect to autism science.

That’s why we’re asking you to CALL, FAX, or EMAIL — or better yet, all three!

CDC Director, Thomas Frieden 
Phone: 404-639-7000 (press 8)
Fax: 404-639-5073
Email: or

And say something like the following:

“I believe Dr. William Thompson, also known as the CDC Whistleblower, should be allowed to testify in court, and we taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of the appeal to compel his testimony. Thompson’s knowledge of  vaccine/autism research is unparalleled and extremely relevant. Blocking his testimony would be a perversion of justice.”

****************** ACTION ITEM 2 ******************

The CDC Director reports to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who in turn is appointed by the President. That means that whoever wins the November election will have a great deal of influence on whether or not Thompson, or any other whistleblower from the CDC, gets to testify at any time.

So we’re also asking you to call the campaign offices of the two main candidates and say,

“What would President (Clinton/Trump) do to make sure that William Thompson, also known as the CDC Whistleblower, gets to testify before Congress or in a court of law with regard to scientific research fraud allegations at the CDC?”




More information can be found at A longer, more detailed article covering the case can be found at Contact Morgan & Morgan at








The Immune Response – ABA Journal

Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters | US Court of Federal Claims

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – Health Impact News

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | CIVIL | Department of Justice

The Immune Response – ABA Journal

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – HRSA

Hazlehurst v. Secretary of Health and Human Services – US Court of …

World Mercury Project

Cranks of a feather, part 3: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and … – ScienceBlogs

CDC Director is Blocking Thompson from testifying in Front of …

cdcwhistleblower hashtag on Twitter

Breaking News: US Homeland Security investigating denial-of-service attacks impacting several major websites



Can’t access your favorite website today? You’re not alone

twitter-down-or-not-working-current-status-and-down-detectorInternet users around the world, but mostly in the US, reported that some top websites were not loading on Friday morning.

The affected sites include Amazon, Twitter, Netflix, Etsy, Github, and Spotify.

The issue is currently ongoing.

It was mostly resolved at 9:20 a.m. ET, but at 12:07 p.m. ET, the issue started to crop up again, according to one of the companies at the center of the apparent cyber attack.

The issue appears to have something to do with DNS hosts — in particular, Dyn, one of the biggest DNS companies.

Domain Name Servers are a core part of the internet’s backbone. They translate what you type into your browser —, for example — into IP addresses that computers can understand.

Dyn said on Friday that it suffering a DDoS attack, or a distributed denial of service. That basically means hackers are overwhelming Dyn’s servers with useless data and repeated load requests, preventing useful data — the Twitter IP address, for example — from getting through.

No group has taken credit for the DDoS attack yet. The Department of Homeland Security is monitoring the attack, Politico’s Eric Geller reports.

The second round of attacks seems to effect the West Coast of the US and Europe as well.

Here’s how it unfolded, according to Dyn, the company being attacked.



Update: Domain host company Dyn warns of another cyber attack after websites and services were shut down earlier Friday – CNBC



Update: Dyn DNS Company says ‘services have been restored to normal’ as of 9:20 am ET following DDoS attack



Update: Domain name servers host Dyn suffering distributed denial-of-service attack, causing outages to several websites – Business Insider





Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks | US-CERT

Twitter down or not working? Current status and … – Down Detector

Massive Dyn DNS outage | Hacker News

Dynstatus : Website stats and valuation

NBC News

Commitment 2016: Nebraska, Iowa results | KETV – Live Wire

Internet traffic firm Dyn warns of new attack, earlier assault impacted …

Can’t access website

The Nation’s Criminals Can’t Keep Up With The Government’s Legalized Theft Programs


, , , , ,

propertyThe Institute for Justice has released its latest report on asset forfeiture. Despite some recent legislative attempts to add a much-needed conviction requirement to the seizure of property, most of the country still allows law enforcement to proceed under the assumption that money, vehicles and houses are “guilty,” even if those they take this property from are, for all intents and purposes, innocent.

The absence of this key factor has resulted in decades of nationwide abuse. The IJ’s updated chart ranking states’ asset forfeiture policies on an A-F scale shows only one A rating: New Mexico. The state’s recent passage of significant asset forfeiture reform is the only highlight in the report. The rest of the nation continues on its path of underachievement, preferring to defer to law enforcement’s best judgment on how to fight the Drug War. (While also occasionally used to target fraud and organized crime, forfeiture programs are now mostly deployed to take money from people/vehicles that smell like marijuana.)

The largest amount of resistance to asset forfeiture reform efforts come from the agencies that benefit most from the liquidation of seized property.

The highest grades correspond directly to states where local agencies have the least to gain from seized assets. Unsurprisingly, removing the incentive to simply take money/property has resulted in less abuse of forfeiture programs.

But these (few) speed bumps have done next to nothing to slow the asset forfeiture machine. It’s been on a downhill roll since the late 80s, resulting in $12.6 seized at the federal level from 1989 to 2010. Since 2010, though, the year-to-year increases have been exponential. In 2014 alone, US Attorneys “forfeited” $4.5 billion. This dollar amount now places federal law enforcement at the top of the list of of “People Who Take Stuff That Belongs To Others.”

According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

Of course, there are several legitimate (i.e., tied to convictions) forfeitures included in that amount, whereas no burglary can ever be considered “legitimate.” And, as the DOJ points out, some recent sizable seizures have produced gaudy forfeiture numbers.

A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year.

So, there are mitigating factors in this law enforcement-to-criminals comparison, but that doesn’t mean asset forfeiture programs are largely “right” or free from abuse. The federal government has argued it has the right to seize even “untainted” funds and a majority of cash seizures — especially at the local level — don’t rise to “drug kingpin” levels. As was noted, when Washington, DC moved forward with asset forfeiture reform, its local police force more resembled pathetic stickup men than the dismantlers of drug empires.

In addition, the bill sets other limits. Vehicles may not be seized unless “clear and convincing evidence” exists that they were used in the commission of a crime. Cash amounts under $1,000 would be presumed “innocent,” i.e., not subject to forfeiture. This stipulation cuts to the heart of the DC PD’s abuse of asset forfeiture — more than half of its $5.5 million in cash seizures were for less than $141, with over 1,000 of the 12,000 seizures being for less than $20.

Further watering down the comparison is this depressing fact: in asset forfeiture, the government (both local and federal) tends to place the burden of proof on the former owners of seized property. Arrested burglars, however, are given the Constitutional benefit of a doubt (presumed innocent) when they end up in court.


From the documentaryIn Search of the Second Amendment.” What you have to understand is that they are not here to protect you or anyone else but themselves. That is why if someone steals your property (Car, Money, etc..) You can’t sue them because they failed to protect it- THEY OWE YOU NO DUTY!! That is why you can’t find the word Police anywhere in the Constitution. Look at 911- The “Constitution” says they are here to protect us and our Rights- yet they come right out and say “we can’t be sued for 911” because they don’t have a duty to protect. Plain and simple folks, we continue to be hoodwinked.



In Search Of The Second Amendment FULL







Asset Forfeiture Program | Department of Justice

The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take …

Asset forfeiture : ABOUT FORFEITURE.GOV

U.S. Marshals Service, Asset Forfeiture, Assets

Obama’s DOJ Sets Back Justice With Asset Forfeiture Program | Op Ed

Victims Of Civil Asset Forfeiture Criticize New Federal Rules : NPR

Asset Forfeiture Program | Department of Justice

The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take …

Politics|Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to …

Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals –


Washington DC Council Moves To Protect Its Citizens From Its Cops …

Now Is the Time to Act on Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform .

Property Rights: A Valued American Ideal

Asset Forfeiture | Drug War Facts

Federal Asset Seizure Total In Two Funds Tripled … – The Crime Report

Supreme Court Examines The Sixth Amendment Ramifications Of Pre …

Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect ..

In Search of the Second Amendment

In Search of the Second Amendment


, , , , ,

2ndamendmentWhile the American right to arms has for a century been controversial in courts, scholarship, and the popular press, its history has never before been explored by a documentary. ‘In Search of the Second Amendment‘ is the first documentary on the history of the American right to arms. Twelve law professors, including four of the biggest names in Constitutional Law, lay out the history of the individual right.

In Search of the Second Amendment is based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. It was produced and directed by American author and attorney David T. Hardy. He argues the individual rights model of the Second Amendment. Hardy also discusses the Fourteenth Amendment.

Outline of the documentary (see documentary below):

How Did You Become Interested in the Second Amendment?
  • Legal Scholarship and the Second Amendment
England and the Militia
  • Duty to be Armed
A Medieval Duty Becomes an “Antient[1] and Indubitable Right”
Rights of Englishmen, Rights of Americans

The Right Is Challenged as Revolution Approaches
The First State Constitutions Give Different Models for a Right to Arms
A Proposal for a New Constitution Leads to Calls for a National Right to Arms
  • The Constitutional Convention and the Bill of Rights
  • State Ratification and Declaration of Rights Proposals
  • Virginia and the Demand for a Bill of Rights
  • The Compromise and James Madison
  • Drafting of the Right to Arms
  • The Militia and Standing Armies
In the First Congress, James Madison Fulfills the Great Compromisegreat-compromise

So What’s the Debate? Tracing the Origin of the Belief that the 2nd Amendment Relates to a State’s Right to have a National Guard
The 14th Amendment Creates a New Guarantee of the Right to Arms: The Afro–American Experience
Civil Rights Movement
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Symposium on the Right to Arms
  • Meaning of “The People” Revisited
  • Dred Scott Revisited
  • A New View of Standing Armies and Militias
  • The Fourteenth Amendment Revisited
  • Republican and Democratic Party Platforms on the Right to Arms
  • Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 Revisited
  • 18th and 19th Century Interpretation of the Second Amendment
Governments, Genocides, and Utility of the Right
  • Armed Resistance and Genocide
  • Protection from Different Sources of Oppression
  • Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses and Crimes Committed
  • Guns and Number of Lives Saved vs. Lives Taken
  • Police and the Legal Duty to Protect the Public
  • Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
  • View of Fellow Citizens
  • Effectiveness of Defensive Gun Use
  • Right of Self–defense and the Right to Arms
  • Protecting the Second Amendment and Other Rights




Persons appearing in the documentary

Professors of law
Professor School
Akhil Amar Yale Law School
Randy Barnett Boston University School of Law
Robert Cottrol George Washington University Law School
Brannon Denning Cumberland School of Law
Nicholas Johnson Fordham University School of Law
Sanford Levinson University of Texas School of Law
Nelson Lund George Mason University School of Law
Joyce Lee Malcolm George Mason University School of Law
Joseph Olson Hamline University School of Law
Daniel Polsby George Mason University School of Law
Glenn Harlan Reynolds University of Tennessee College of Law
Eugene Volokh UCLA School of Law
Professors of criminology
Professor School
Gary Kleck Florida State University
Name Background
Carol Bambery Attorney, NRA Director
Clayton Cramer Historian, author
Sandy Froman Attorney, NRA President
Stephen Halbrook Attorney, Second Amendment author
David T. Hardy Attorney, Second Amendment author
Roy Innis National Chairman of CORE, NRA Director
Don Kates Civil rights attorney, author
Dave Kopel Attorney, Research Director of Independence Institute
Larry Pratt Author, Executive Director of GOA

External links:



In Search of the Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Constitution of the United States (1787) – Heritage Foundation

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

Robert F. Williams, Negroes With Guns, Ch. 3-5, 1962

How Seizing Assets Leads To More Surveillance… And Then More Seized Assets… And Then More Surveillance… And Then..


, , ,

 civil_asset_forfeiture_2001_2014From the nefarious-cycle dept

Note: The bulk of the research in this post was compiled prior to Attorney General Eric Holder’s surprise announcement that he is curtailing the federal equitable sharing program. The post may be updated as further ramifications of the policy decision become clear.

“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the f*** it’s gonna take you.”

This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO seriers The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.

Asset forfeiture has long been a topic of controversy in law enforcement. Cops and prosecutors have had the power to seize property and cash from suspects before anyone has actually been convicted of a crime (usually narcotics-related). Then these law enforcement agencies have plugged a portion of that money (and money derived from auctioning of property) into their own budgets, allowing them to spend in ways that possibly would not have passed scrutiny during the formal appropriations process.

Critics note that asset forfeiture creates a perverse incentive for policing priorities: the more assets cops seize, the more money they get to spend. Satirist John Oliver characterized the practice as akin to “legalized robbery by law enforcement” in a must-watch segment on his show Last Week Tonight. News organizations, including New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Free Beacon have recently outlined abuses of the system.

The good news is that, on Friday, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Eric Holder is taking steps to rein in the federal version of the program, barring state and local law enforcement agencies from “using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without evidence that a crime occurred.”

Last year, the Washington Post‘s investigative team used the Freedom of Information Act to liberate hundreds of thousands of documents associated with federal asset forfeiture, including the entire collection of annual spending disclosures (“Equitable Sharing Agreements”) filed with the U.S. Department of Justice by each individual law enforcement agency and task force across the country that receives these funds. The documents reveal a wide variety of spending, from using seized assets to pay for new vehicles and helicopters, drug “buy” money, payments to confidential informants, travel expenses, law enforcement equipment, and rewards for police, such as “challenge coins.”

An examination of these documents reveal the connection between seized assets and electronic surveillance across the country.  It many ways, it has been a circular, self-sustaining system: asset forfeiture helps law enforcement agencies pay for electronic surveillance, which allows cops to seize more money to pay for electronic surveillance.

According to data compiled by the Washington Post for the years 2008-2013, law enforcement agencies around the country collectively spent $121 million of federal asset forfeiture funds on electronic surveillance equipment, an annual nationwide average  $20.2 million.

The forms do not clearly define “electronic surveillance,” but it typically includes the type of equipment used in wiretaps. The amount of seized assets spent on electronic surveillance could potentially be much higher, since law enforcement agencies can categorize staff time spent on surveillance in other categories. Sometimes agencies weren’t sure how to categorize certain technologies, such as automatic license plate readers and GPS tracking devices, so they reported them separately under other categories. To put it another way: these numbers are just the chunk of the iceberg viewable through public records.

The data sets are enormous, so let’s drill down on California. Brace yourself, it’s about to get mathy.

How Wiretaps Are Used to Seize Funds

asset-forfeitureCalifornia law enforcement agencies executed 2,078 wiretap orders between 2011 and 2013, according to the California Electronic Interceptions Reports, an annual accounting of electronic surveillance compiled by the California Attorney General’s Office.  These reports show that these agencies seize hundreds of millions of dollars each year in wiretap-related criminal investigations, usually involving narcotics or gang activities, and frequently in partnership with federal agencies.

In Los Angeles County, law enforcement agencies conducted 515 wiretap operations over that three-year period, leading to the seizure of at least $25 million in assets. The California Electronic Interceptions Report provides details on the outcome of every single wiretap, which typically include the number of communications captured, the number of individuals affected by the wiretap, and any arrests made or drugs or assets seized. For example, you might see that one 2013 LA wiretap intercepted 9,273 communications involving 67 people, resulting in a single arrest and the seizure of $427,000 in alleged narcotics proceeds. Or that in 2012, LA authorities captured 6,176 communications involving 245 people, resulting in the seizure of $440,000 in alleged drug money.

The Cost of Wiretaps

Electronic surveillance isn’t cheap. Between 2011 and 2013, the average cost to execute a wiretap order in California was $40,594, which included $36,807 for staff time and $3,787 for equipment-related expenses.

From a bird’s eye view, California law enforcement agencies collectively spent $84 million on electronic interceptions during that period, an average of $28 million per year. Of that, staff time spent on electronic surveillance cost California agencies $76 million ($25 million annually) and equipment-related expenses cost $7.9 million  ($2.6 million annually).

In Los Angeles County alone, law enforcement agencies spent $20.3 million between 2011 and 2013, including $2.1 million on wiretap equipment.

How Seized Assets Were Turned into Electronic Surveillance

When local law enforcement agencies participated in federal investigations, the federal government paid them back by divvying out a portion of the proceeds from the seizures.  These agencies included police department, sheriff offices, and district attorney offices, as well as investigative task forces that span multiple jurisdictions. These agencies were required to broadly report how they spent the money in a variety of categories, including electronic surveillance, on an annual basis.

Between 2011 and 2013, law enforcement agencies in California spent a total of $13.6 million in funds from the federal asset forfeiture program on electronic surveillance equipment, a statewide average of $4.5 million per year.

To give a sense of scale: that was enough to cover the cost of wiretap equipment (including installation fees, supplies, and equipment) for the entire state of California, with change left over.

To look at it another way, that’s enough to pay for equipment in more than 3,500 wiretaps, far more than these agencies actually conducted. This could indicate that either agencies may have bought more equipment than they needed to carry out these wiretaps or that they may have spent significant portions of the money on surveillance that doesn’t require a wiretap order.

l-a-impact-task-forceLos Angeles County is made up of dozens of local law enforcement agencies and task forces, but two in particular consistently rose to the top of electronic surveillance spending: the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office and Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Team (L.A. Impact), a cross-jurisdictional task force.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department dug deep into seized federal asset forfeiture funds to run its electronic surveillance operations. Between 2008 and 2014, the LA Sheriff received a total of $47.3 million from the federal program and spent roughly $4 million of that on electronic surveillance equipment. Meanwhile, LA IMPACT received approximately $30 million in asset forfeiture funds over that period, two thirds of which it transferred to other law enforcement agencies. Of the remaining money, about $620,000 went towards electronic surveillance.

That’s how it works (or worked on the federal level before Holder’s announcement): police spend money on electronic surveillance, which leads to the seizure funds from suspected criminals, and then that money is channeled back to police to use on more electronic surveillance.

Holder’s announcement could have a significant impact on how law enforcement agencies fund electronic surveillance. However, it’s important to remember that the next administration’s attorney general could easily reverse this policy decision. Further, many states also have their own asset forfeiture programs, so a whole second layer of funding remains on the state level.

The Washington Post has released its giant cache of Equitable Sharing Agreements from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country. We urge you to dig in, find your local cops, identify out how they’ve spend this money, and let the world know what you find.






California Enacts Asset Forfeiture Reform, Mostly Closing Lucrative

IRS Shuts Down Another High-Profile Asset Fo

June 13, 2016 VIA EMAIL Senator Holly Mitchell Capitol Office State …

Gov’t Officially Steals More Than Thieves: “Civil Asset Forfeitures …

Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California

How the Government Is Deterring This State From Reforming Forfeiture

Institute for Justice

State of California – Department of Justice

Policing for Profit: California – Institute for Justice

DOJ Helping Law Enforcement Agencies Fight Back Against Asset …

Asset Forfeiture stories at Techdirt.

California Governor Brown Signs Bill Protecting Californians from Civil …

Tough new laws will target drug dealers’ cash a

Feds Stealing More Than Thieves: Federal Civil

Asset Forfeiture and the Cycle of Electronic Surveillance Funding …

California Criminal Defense Lawyers



California Passes Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill That Closes Federal Loophole, Adds Conviction Requirement



State of California

State of California

According to data compiled by the Washington Post for the years 2008-2013, law enforcement agencies around the country collectively spent $121 million of federal asset forfeiture funds on electronic surveillance equipment, an annual nationwide average  $20.2 million.

After years of civil asset forfeiture abuse, legislators are finally fighting back. Reform bills have been offered up all over the country. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it to state governors’ desks intact. The DOJ itself has played an integral part in thwarting true forfeiture reform, but legislators are also battling powerful police unions and a law enforcement lobby that needs to do little more than say the words “drug dealer” to convince fence-straddlers to come down on their side.

New Mexico’s legislature passed one of the most stringent forfeiture reform bills in the nation, only to see it ignored by local police departments who viewed it as applicable only to state law enforcement agencies. We’ll see if the same thing happens in California, where another significant reform bill has just become law. Nick Wing  reports:

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Thursday signed a bill into law scaling back a controversial practice that allows police in the state to permanently seize people’s cash and property without obtaining a conviction or even charging someone with a crime.

sb-443Not only does the law contain a conviction requirement — something that should greatly reduce the amount of abuse — but it closes a loophole law enforcement agencies love using to route around state-level restrictions.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, police departments in California will be largely prohibited from transferring seized property to federal agencies in order to sidestep state conviction requirements. The legislation forbids the transfer of property, like vehicles and homes, and specifically raises the threshold on cash seizures, requiring the government to obtain a conviction before permanently confiscating any amount under $40,000. (The previous cap was $25,000.) For larger cash seizures, authorities must provide “clear and convincing” evidence of a connection to criminal activity before taking the money for good.

asset-equitable-sharingThese restrictions should create additional barriers against misuse. High-dollar seizures are the exception, not the rule. Law enforcement agencies don’t rake in cash from a few large busts a year. The greatest portion of this “income” derives from dozens or hundreds of smaller seizures. The lower dollar amounts ensure agencies will hold onto more money more often. The cost of challenging a seizure is often more than the amount seized — a fact many law enforcement officers are all too aware of.

Survey results from the Drug Police Alliance show civil asset forfeiture is fairly widespread, with around 10 percent of residents in a number of California counties reporting that they know someone who’s had property confiscated by police without being convicted of a crime. And forfeiture trends in California don’t appear to have changed much since 1992, when 94 percent of state forfeitures involved seizures of $5,000 or less. Adjusted to 1992 levels, the average value of a forfeiture in California in 2013 was just $5,145.

This law puts some due process back into the forfeiture system, preventing agencies from running a rigged game which pits the government against the property seized and doing everything it can to keep the rightful owner from raising objections.

Of course, law enforcement officials and representatives are already complaining that the bill will turn California into Mexico.


There’s also a broader belief that the new law will encourage the criminal element to do business in California.

“The fact is that when you’re dealing with transnational criminal enterprises, one of the crippling things that you can do is seize their assets out from under them,” said John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Narcotic Officers’ Association. “And that can be, in many cases, more efficacious than jailing a few members of that cartel.”

Except that years of drug warring and asset forfeiture haven’t done anything to reduce the flow of drugs into the country. This fact is conveniently overlooked every time law enforcement agencies try to defend taking a few thousand dollars from a motorist passing through the state. The agencies that benefit from forfeiture have almost no interest in securing convictions — a much longer, more expensive process that involves making more effort than claiming to smell marijuana before helping themselves to any cash they discover.

Agencies are also complaining about expected budget shortfalls, and without any seeming awareness that this is a mess of their own making. Effective budgets don’t allow for highly-speculative projections. Agencies have no way of knowing from year-to-year how much they can truly expect to obtain through asset forfeiture. But they pencil in amounts anyway, turning this amount into a goal to chase, rather than a possible surplus that should only be counted when — and if — it actually arrives.


If a requirement for a conviction or even just charging someone with a crime is going to be any sort of impediment to their ‘crime stopping efforts’ that says a lot about how they’ve been working so far, and the mindset they have towards stealing from the public.

If they’re really worried about the ‘transnational criminal enterprises’ then this shouldn’t affect them in the slightest, as it should be trivial for them to collect enough evidence for a conviction in order to allow the seizures to go through under the new law. If they don’t have enough evidence then they’re basically admitting that they’re robbing people simply because they think their marks might be criminals.

The only way a requirement for a conviction is a problem is if they have a habit of stealing from people based upon weak or non-existent evidence. This is a solution to a problem that shouldn’t even exist, the idea that it’s perfectly okay to steal someone’s property without first demonstrating their guilt in court is an idea that should have been thrown out the first time someone seriously suggested it, not something that requires specific laws to combat and prohibit.






Civil forfeiture in the United States

Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California

Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists …

Why Police Can (Legally) Seize Your Cash – The Daily Signal

Stop and Seize | Collections | The Washington Post

How Seizing Assets Leads To More Surveillance

The Nation’s Criminals Can’t Keep Up With The Government’s Legalized Theft Programs

California Governor Brown Signs Bill Protecting Californians from Civil …

Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill

Rep. Issa Calls Out Civil Asset Forfeiture As Letting ‘Cops Go Treasure Hunting’

How Police Officers Seize Cash From Innocent Americans

Bill Text – SB-443 Forfeiture: assets: controlled substances. – California …

SB 443 – ACLU of Northern California

Will California stop police from taking people’s property without a ..


DOJ Helping Law Enforcement Agencies Fight Back Against Asset …

California Criminal Defense Lawyers

Forfeiture Reform Advances in the Senate – The Daily Signal

Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local …

Eric Holders: no more civil forfeiture without warrant/charges | Minds

DEA Accessing Millions Of Travelers’ Records To Find Cash To Seize

According to data compiled by the Washington Post for the years 2008-2013, law enforcement agencies around the country collectively spent $121 million of federal asset forfeiture funds on electronic surveillance equipment, an annual nationwide average  $20.2 million.



The Gov’t & Banks Declare War on Your Cash


, , , , , ,


After two epic market collapses in the last 15 years, the Feds desperately tried to prop up the markets by pumping trillions of dollars into the markets and severely cutting interest rates.  Cutting rates to zero and flooding the market with funny money badly devalued the U.S. currency, sent us spiraling into record debt, and killed savers by lowering the savings rate to zero.  But with the global economy still on terribly shaky ground and interest rates already at zero, do the gov’t & banks have any ammo left?  Shockingly, yes!

The government & banks are moving quickly to impose a series of Draconian measures to prevent you and me from storing our money in cash or using cash in any way.  What’s their real agenda?  To abolish cash altogether and force us all into the digital world controlled by the gov’t & banks.  Luckily, there’s still one way to escape the tyranny.

Stage 1:  The Gov’t & Banks Tax Your Savings

When economic conditions worsen, world banks react by reducing interest rates in order to stimulate the economy.  But there comes a point when those central banks run out of room to cut, because interest rates are already at zero.  So the answer for world banks is to impose negative interest rates.  This means that instead of getting interest on your savings, you actually PAY BANKS to keep your savings on deposit.  In other words, you pay tax on your savings.  So you actually LOSE MONEY every day you keep your money in the bank.

So, what would any reasonable person do when the bank steals their savings every single day?  Pull their money out of the bank, of course!  Physical paper money provides the check against negative interest rates, because if the bank takes your savings, you can simply withdraw your funds and hoard cash.  Furthermore, when you inevitably lose faith in the banking system, physical paper money allows you to pull your savings out of the bank before the bank collapses.

Stage 2:  The Gov’t & Banks Abolish Cash

But if you think pulling money out of the bank is going to be so easy, think again.  Willem Buiter, the Global Chief Economist for Citi, has now come up with an answer to prevent you from pulling your money out of the bank:  abolish cash entirely!  You read that right.  The Global Chief Economist from one of the largest banking institutions in the world is now telling the gov’t & banks to abolish the use and private storage of YOUR cash.  And guess what?  The gov’t & banks are following orders.

Major publications like The Washington Post and New York Times have now reported on unconstitutional government seizures of millions in private citizen wealth.

Major publications like The Washington Post and New York Times have now reported on unconstitutional government seizures of millions in private citizen wealth.

Government & banks around the world are taking swift action to abolish the use and storage of cash:

  • JPMorgan Chase recently informed customers that the bank will no longer allow cash to be stored in safety deposit boxes.
  • Chase instituted a new policy which “restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans.”
  • The Justice Department has ordered bank employees to consider calling the police on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.
  • HSBC is now interrogating its account holders in the UK on how they earn and spend their money as well as restricting cash withdrawals for customers.
  • Banks in the U.S. are making it harder for customers to withdraw and deposit cash, with Chase imposing new capital controls that mandate identification for cash deposits and ban cash being deposited into another person’s account.
  • Chase banned international wire transfers while restricting cash activity for business customers (both deposits and withdrawals).
  • The French government announced it will restrict French citizens from making cash payments over €1,000 euros.

Stage 3:  The Gov’t & Banks Seize Your Cash


As the U.S. spirals toward insolvency due to massive over-spending and Fed money-printing, the U.S. government is pulling out all the stops to gain access to your money – no matter where it is across the globe.

First, the banks willingly started reporting millions of its legal customers cash transactions to the gov’t.

Next, the government started seizing citizen bank accounts with no due process.

Then, the IRS threatened foreign nations and financial institutions across the globe to turn over your private data and financial accounts, with the threat of financial warfare if they don’t comply.

And ultimately, the Department of Justice and local police started seizing cash from innocent citizens.  That’s right, the executive branch of government has been aggressively taking citizens cash without due process of law.

So in short, your ability to take your savings out of banks and storing it in cash is coming to an end.  And even if you do take possession of your savings in cash, how secure do you feel when the government comes knocking on your door asking about your stockpile of cash?

If our government is going to these lengths to track down your money and even confiscate citizen savings without due process, isn’t it much easier to track and control digital accounts than cash? Yes.  So how does the government remedy this challenge? Join the banks in a war against cash.








Options: Convert Your Savings into Gold & Silver

Do you want to remain vulnerable to the whims of government & banks, or do you want to fully protect your savings & retirement? To get true protection, there’s one asset class that sits outside the system, is completely private, and cannot be tracked and controlled by the government or banks: physical gold & silver.

Physical gold & silver have been the world’s greatest wealth protectors for over 5,000 years, shielding citizens from government & banking collapse during the worst crises in history. And physical gold & silver cannot be instantly seized with the stroke of a keyboard. So invest in gold & silver now, before you have nothing left to protect.

Why Government Hates Cash | Mises Institute

How Police Officers Seize Cash From Innocent Americans

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)

Alarming Gov’t Plan To Confiscate Your Savings | For Economic Justice

The Next “Lehman Moment”… Coming in 2017? – The Daily Reckoning

New stimulus plan – Four Winds 10

A Severe Worldwide Economic Recession in 2016-2017

Buffett’s $55 Billion Gamble is a Bet on U.S. Collapse, Warns CIA …

The War on Cash Escalates as Cash is Forbidden in Deposit Boxes

Drug Scandal About to Rock Hillary’s Campaign



1hillaryBill Clinton has a shocking addiction to cocaine — which led to a near-fatal overdose and a secret stay at a Minnesota drug rehab center!

That’s the explosive claim in a blockbuster new book by a former White House aide, who charges the ex-President’s ruthless wife, Hillary, has masterminded an elaborate cover-up of Bill’s drug problems for decades!

Bestselling author Roger Stone, who served in Richard Nixon’s White House, told The ENQUIRER that the former Commander-in-Chief, who now suffers from heart problems and Parkinson’s disease, has repeatedly received drug therapy.

And Bill was even hospitalized for an overdose!

Stone insisted that Bill’s drug problems exploded when he was governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and when he held office again from 1983 to 1992.

The bombshell disclosures in Stone’s tell-all, “The Clintons’ War on Women,” could cripple Hillary’s run for the presidency.

“After Bill Clinton dropped out of the presidential race in July 1987, his handlers set about trying to ‘clean him up’ for future political campaigns,” Stone wrote.

“Part of this process, even if Bill’s womanizing could not be stopped, was to send Bill off to a drug rehab clinic.”

Stone claimed Larry Nichols, then a member of the Clintons’ notorious “Kitchen Cabinet,” was told by Bill’s chief of staff Betsey Wright that Bill was put in rehab to “get off cocaine.”

“Nichols believes this was probably the Betty Ford Clinic in Minnesota, and Wright told Nichols that Clinton had been sent to drug rehab more than once,” added Stone.

Stone also claimed Hillary has been behind the plot to keep her husband’s drug use from America — a fact that may come back to haunt her as her own presidential bid heats up!

“This could blow Hillary right out of the water,” a political insider said.

“She stood by her husband when he cheated left and right. Now comes the information she hid his illicit drug use. There’s only so much the American public can take!”

Stone maintained Hillary was well aware of her husband’s cocaine addiction and threatened people into silence.

bill-clinton-drug-scandal“According to Sam Houston — a respected Little Rock doctor — in the early 1980s, Bill was admitted to the University of Arkansas Medical Center for emergency treatment for cocaine abuse and overdose, and had to be cared for at the hospital on one or possibly two occasions,” Stone wrote.

And journalist Christopher Ruddy reported: “When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident physicians on duty that night that they would never again practice medicine in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton’s drug problem.

“Reportedly, Hillary pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave the dire warning.”

Bill’s other women, including ex–Miss Arkansas Sally Miller and busty songbird Gennifer Flowers, also knew about his drug use, said Stone.

He wrote: “Sally said, ‘[Bill] had all of the [cocaine-snorting] equipment laid out, like a real pro.’”

Meanwhile, Gennifer said Bill would carry marijuana joints around, and sometime smoke them in her presence.

She added that she never personally saw Bill use cocaine, but he would talk about it and the effect it had on him.

“He told me about a party he had been to, and said, ‘I got so f—ed up on cocaine at that party,’” she said.

In another incident, Stone said “that while on family vacation in Boca Raton, Fla., Bill snuck away to the bathroom of a local restaurant and apparently was doing cocaine in a stall.

“Asked by a pal if he was okay, Stone said Bill replied: “Yeah, yeah … those damned sinuses are killing me.”

This is a huge scandal – the former President had 8 years in which this information could have been used against him by foreign governments. In addition, it shows that Hillary Clinton is a ruthless political operator who will stop at nothing to win… Even if it means breaking laws, destroying lives, and lying.

 Bill and Hillary take the meaning of addiction to a whole new level. Drugs, alcohol, women, money laundering, the list goes on and on. These people belong in prison, not in the white house. We, as Americans, can not afford to put these lying, cheating, deceitful people back in office.






The Crimes of Mena – What Really Happened

The Mena Coverup

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. – ncoic

Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport

Cocaine-related offense
Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says

Arkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith

the political insider

Hillary and her ‘coke habit’

NCOIC Civil Intelligence Association, Defense Oversight Group

Dark Mysteries Behind Clinton Chef’s Drownig

Internet Crisis: Global Governance October 1st, 2016


, , , , , , ,

icannBetter Censorship for Tyrants

  • The U.S. announced its plan to pass the oversight of the agency to a global governance model on October 1, 2016. The Obama Administration says that the transition will have no practical effects on the internet’s functioning or its users, and even considers the move necessary in order to maintain international support for the internet and to prevent a fracturing of its governance. Oh really?
  • The absence of the U.S. in overseeing the governance of the internet could spell the end of the current era of free speech on the internet, as well as free enterprise.
  • What guarantees are there that internet governance will not eventually end up in the hands of those very governments, seeing as they are all very eager to gain control of it? None. The Geneva Declaration of Principles makes clear that the UN, run by a majority of authoritarian governments, wants a decisive role for governments in internet governance.
  • Civil society groups and activists are calling on Congress to sue the Obama Administration — perhaps at least to postpone the date until more Americans are aware of the plan. It is not too late.

On October 1, 2016, much of the internet’s governance will shift from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) authority to a nonprofit multi-stakeholder entity, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, also known by its acronym ICANN.

Until now, NTIA has been responsible for key internet domain name functions, such as the coordination of the DNS (Domain Name System) root, IP addresses, and other internet protocol resources. But in March 2014, the U.S. announced its plan to let its contract with ICANN to operate key domain name functions expire in September 2015, passing the oversight of the agency to a global governance model. The expiration was subsequently delayed until October 1, 2016.

According to the NTIA’s press release at the time,

“NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS. NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions. Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997”.

icannAccording to the NTIA, from the inception of ICANN, the U.S. government and internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” The official reason, therefore, is that

“ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence. At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions”.

The Obama Administration says that the transition will have no practical effects on the internet’s functioning or its users, and even considers the move necessary in order to maintain international support for the internet and to prevent a fracturing of its governance.

Oh really?

While the transition may appear ostensibly “technical,” the absence of the United States in overseeing the governance of the internet could spell the end of the current era of free speech on the internet, as well as free enterprise.

This is not merely wild speculation; it is evident in the statements that several governments, who are less than enchanted with the concept of freedom of speech, have made in recent years regarding the governance of the internet.

icannSome of these statements have come to light in the preparatory work of the United Nations World Summit on Information Society, known today as WSIS+10 — a process that began in 2003 with the Geneva Declaration of Principles and that continues to this day. Purportedly, the purpose of the process is a “commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge” (section A.1), but already in section B.1 it becomes clear that the UN, run by a majority of authoritarian governments, wants a decisive role for governments in internet governance:

“Governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations have an important role and responsibility in the development of the Information Society and, as appropriate, in decision-making processes. Building a people-centred Information Society is a joint effort which requires cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders”.

The UN, in the form of International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has already tried in vain to wrestle control of the internet from ICANN, but where the ITU failed, WSIS+10 may succeed with the new “global governance” ICANN, unshielded from the protection of the US.

The urge of various governments to control the internet is evidently there. If anything, this was clear from the submissions for the December 2015 WSIS+10 UN General Assembly High Level Meeting.

internet-controlThe written submission of the Group of 77 plus China — a coalition, dating from 1964, of developing countries that now includes 134 nations — stated that, “The management of the Internet involves both technical and public-policy issues and … the overall authority for Internet related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States.”

China’s individual submission was even more interesting. It stated that,

“The multi-stakeholder governance model that brings together governments, the private sector and non-governmental organizations would be respected… This model should not be lopsided, and any tendency to place sole emphasis on the role of businesses and non-governmental organizations while marginalizing governments should be avoided. The roles and responsibilities of national governments in regard to regulation and security of the network should be upheld. It is necessary to ensure that United Nations plays a facilitating role in setting up international public policies pertaining to the Internet. We should work on the internationalization of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.”

When China says that ICANN should be internationalized, it hardly has in mind an increased role for non-governmental organizations.

wsis10Russia did not even pay lip service to the multi-stakeholder governance model but cut straight to the point:

“We consider it necessary to consecutively increase the role of governments in the Internet governance, with strengthening the activity of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in this field, as well as with support of the UNESCO activity in the development of ethical aspects of Internet use…”

“Ethical aspects of Internet use?”

Saudi Arabia, in its submission, also emphasized, that a priority for the WSIS+10 should be, “actualization of enhanced cooperation to enable governments… to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the internet”.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration — as well as many in the high-tech community — regards the long-planned move as necessary to maintain international support for the internet and prevent a fracturing of its governance — a claim critics may find dubious. The U.S. government’s role “has long been a source of irritation to foreign governments,” according to the NTIA. One look at many foreign governments and it is easy to see why. The NTIA claims that, “These calls for replacing the multi-stakeholder model with a multilateral, government-run approach will only grow louder if the U.S. government fails to complete the transition.” Is that a threat?

But what guarantees are there that internet governance will not eventually end up in the hands of those very governments, seeing as they are all very eager to gain control of it? None.

icannIn fact, those who claim to care about a free and uncensored internet, unbridled by government and international state organizations, should take a close look at the proposals for the plan for ICANN that the different stakeholders, including governments, came to agree on in March 2016 in Marrakech. According to this plan, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), a decisional participant in ICANN, will — subject to certain limitations — be able to participate in decision-making on budgets, board member removals, and other matters of ICANN corporate governance. This is new and represents a major shift, which should concern those who care about internet freedom. Even if this plan is discarded for some reason, it shows how eagerly governments are pushing for control in internet matters. That observation alone should serve as a warning to those who take at face value the U.S. administration’s declarations that nothing will change.

The decision to transfer authority to ICANN has met with resistance in the U.S. Congress, and a coalition of more than two dozen civil society groups and activists are even calling on Congress to sue the Obama Administration — perhaps at least to postpone the date until more Americans are aware of the plan. It is not too late.








US ready to Hand Over the Internet’s Naming System

Internet governance

Internet Governance Forum

WSIS: Declaration of Principles – ITU

General Assembly of the United Nations

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

International Telecommunication Union

Internet to Have Global Governance

194.66.82 – United Kingdom

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): A Global …

Building the information society: a global challenge in the new …

WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles – Mapping Global Media Policy

John Bolton on Obama’s Internet Handover: ‘Within Ten Years, the Internet as We Know It Will End’

Obama Admin. To Give Up Control Of The Internet To The World | The …

Reflections on the WSIS+10 High-Level Meeting – ICANN

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. – WSJ

World Summit on the Information Society – ITU

The World Summit on the Information Society – Public Knowledge

Why US internet controls became a political battlefield (FAQ) – CNET

UN Could Take Over ICANN, and the Internet, Oct. 1 – Breitbart