The Joe Lonsdale Silicon Valley VC Rape Case

The Sickening Rape Allegations Against a Silicon Valley Mogul

By

Image
Photo: Brian Ach/Getty Images

Last week, 24-year-old Elise Clougherty, a Stanford neuro-engineering graduate and former Ford print model, filed a lawsuit against Joseph Lonsdale, a powerful Silicon Valley entrepreneur who, along with Peter Thiel, co-founded the secretive data-mining company Palantir Technologies. The graphic suit alleges that from February 2012 to February 2013, Lonsdale took advantage of his position as Clougherty’s mentor in a Stanford mentorship program to physically, emotionally, and sexually abuse her.

Less than two days after Clougherty’s suit was made public, Lonsdale set up a defense website featuring a long letter that framed Clougherty as a vindictive ex-girlfriend with mental issues whose overbearing mother was intimately involved in her life. He then filed his own defamation countersuit, claiming their relationship was consensual and furnishing email correspondences and a signed statement from one of Clougherty’s close friends to discredit her allegations.

Lonsdale doesn’t come with the mysterious mythology that surrounds Peter Thiel or have the name recognition of Mark Zuckerberg, but despite being only 32 years old, he’s well established among Silicon Valley’s elite. A Stanford grad himself, Lonsdale co-founded Palantir in 2004 and served as the co-head of product before leaving in 2009 to found Addepar, a financial software company. In 2013, he launched Formation 8, a venture capital firm that is also named in Clougherty’s lawsuit. An outspoken libertarian, Lonsdale has been named as a member of Rand Paul’s “nascent finance team” and has hosted fund-raising events for the potential presidential candidate. Largely considered one of Thiel’s protégés, he’s also a proponent of seasteading and served as chairman of the Seasteading Institute.

Clougherty, who is currently pursuing a masters in data science at UVA as well as working as a gender violence activist, alleges in the suit that after meeting through mutual friends and maintaining a professional and sporadic email correspondence, Lonsdale specifically sought her out as a mentee in Stanford’s technology entrepreneurship mentor program. Though Clougherty had already been assigned two mentors, Lonsdale allegedly convinced the professor running the program, a friend, to reassign Clougherty to be his mentee. He arranged an internship for Clougherty at Formation 8 in the summer of 2012, where he served as her direct boss.

“Mr. Lonsdale took advantage of his position of power and Ms.Clougherty’s youth and trusting personality to draw her into a highly deviant, abusive, and controlling relationship during which he perpetrated hundreds of non-consensual, and often violent, sexual acts upon her,” reads the suit.

When Clougherty attempted to confront her mentor about his abuse, he would react violently to keep her from protesting; on occasion, he would admit to his abuse, “but claimed that he had a sickness, that he could not control himself, and that he needed her help to change.”

Clougherty’s civil suit, which seeks at least $75,000 in damages, details graphic and upsetting claims of abuse stretching across the U.S. and Europe. Among those claims:

  • On the night of their first sexual encounter, Ms. Clougherty believed that Mr. Lonsdale was picking her up from campus to go to dinner in Palo Alto to discuss her team’s project. Instead, Mr. Lonsdale drove her back to his home in Los Altos Hills. Shortly after arriving at his house, he started to kiss her aggressively and to try to take off her pants. Despite Ms. Clougherty trying to avoid him and pushing his hands away from her crotch at least a half dozen times, Mr. Lonsdale persisted. Mr. Lonsdale then pulled Ms. Clougherty into a bedroom where he took off her clothes and his pants, and began to penetrate her with his flaccid penis. During this episode, Mr. Lonsdale acted as though he were not doing anything wrong and made comments insinuating that Ms. Clougherty had wanted the sexual contact.”
  • “In the following weeks, Mr. Lonsdale repeatedly continued to force Ms. Clougherty to have sexual contact with him without her consent. From very early on, Mr. Lonsdale repeatedly told Ms. Clougherty that it was women’s nature to enjoy being raped, especially if they are raped by a man with greater means.”
  • “Before [a trip to London], Mr. Lonsdale told Ms. Clougherty that he had booked two hotel rooms — one for him, and one for her. When Ms. Clougherty arrived in London to meet him, she discovered that he had booked only one room. In London, Mr. Lonsdale continued to force her to have sexual contact with him without her consent. Throughout the trip, Mr. Lonsdale deprived her of both food and sleep by scheduling late night and early morning activities, delaying meals, not ordering her enough food, and other such tactics.”
  • “On the last evening of [a trip to] Rome, Mr. Lonsdale forcibly raped Ms. Clougherty. In their hotel room, Mr. Lonsdale penetrated her with several fingers, and then abruptly started penetrating her with his erect penis. She immediately pulled away from him. He then grabbed her and penetrated her again. She immediately pulled away a second time and ran into the bathroom, where she locked the door and cried for several hours.”
  • “To control Ms. Clougherty, Mr. Lonsdale employed many forms of psychological manipulation and control on her, including but not limited to ‘positive intermittent reinforcement,’ ‘gaslighting,’ isolation, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, anger, embarrassment, and guilt.”
  • “Mr. Lonsdale repeatedly commented to Ms. Clougherty that women needed to be raped to learn to be loyal and that they really enjoyed being raped more than they let on.”
  • “During intercourse, he would regularly shake Ms. Clougherty violently and would not stop, despite her protests, until she promised she would always ‘listen to her master.’ In addition to shaking her violently during sexual assaults, he also began strangling her, slapping her, scratching her, yanking her by the hair so hard that he would lift her torso off the bed, and slamming her body against the walls and bedboards. He would growl and yell derogatory comments at her. He frequently covered her face with a pillow or pushed her face to the side so that she could not look at him. Mr. Lonsdale also often treated Ms. Clougherty’s body like an object — for example, grabbing her head and using it to push open a shower door.”
  • “Mr. Lonsdale typically forced Ms. Clougherty to have sex several times a day — on some occasions, as many as ten or more times a day. When Ms. Clougherty was on her period, Mr. Lonsdale’s attacks were especially frequent. He often would not let her buy tampons and seemed to relish getting her blood everywhere — on her clothing, bed sheets, hotel furniture, car and bus seats, and elsewhere. He would not let her clean up the blood, and would get very angry with her if she tried to clean it up. On one occasion, in a hotel room, he even picked up her naked body and made her sit on the hotel furniture so as to smear her blood all over it.”

The relationship ended in February 2013 when Clougherty’s mother found out about the alleged abuse and they decided to report it to Stanford. The school hired an outside investigator to delve into her claims. The investigation found that Lonsdale had likely violated Title IX and that it was “more likely than not that [Ms. Clougherty] expressed to [Mr. Lonsdale] that she did not want to engage in the sexual conduct in question, but that [Mr. Lonsdale] did not comply with [her] request.”

Lonsdale, for his part, categorically denies all of the claims in Clougherty’s lawsuit. “This is a malicious attempt to destroy me, pure and simple,” he wrote on his website. “The facts and the evidence refute every allegation, however, and I will not allow my name and reputation to be tarnished any further.” His counterclaim, filed on January 30, states that Clougherty is capitalizing on the brewing discussion of campus sexual assault in order to discredit him.

After ending the relationship, the suit states that Clougherty was forced to undergo medical leave from Stanford so she could be treated for her resulting PSTD, but graduated in 2013 after completing her treatment.

 

 

 

The Stanford Undergraduate and the Mentor – The New York Times

Then came a rape allegation, a lawsuit and an investigation at one of the … three years ago, Ellie Clougherty flew from London to Rome with Joe Lonsdale. ….. “ From what I’ve heard it sounds horrific and the guy is a psycho.

Do Girls with tattoos have more indiscriminate sex?

The Madness of Web Dating

So you let your parents dump you on a yuppie scumbag who followed all the rules (listed here) after you followed all of the rules (listed here) and now you are baffled about what the deal is. This has happened so many thousands of times that Mill Valley has caused a center to be built to take care of you. Be sure to book: brookhavenretreat.com for the finest standardized nervous breakdown. All Mill Valley gold-diggers will have their nervous breakdown starting exactly 12 hours after they file the divorce papers. Get a neighborhood, or Book Depot, bulk discount with your girlfriends, when you book together.

How to prepare yourself to be an Internet gold-digger

 442780_orig

Eugenics and Facial-Racism In Dating

How do you know you are a nightmare of a person? How do you know if you are a tool? Send us tips. Here are some submissions from our readers:

Paula tells us:

“Fraternities and Sororities exist to breed genetic model ideals. “Ivy-League” schools exist for rich families and family-controlled business to control mating limits. Parents of women who are “sent to” Ivy League schools want those women to get the “Mrs.” and not their “Master’s,” in many cases. They say it is about “marrying your peers” yet most men from Ivy League schools turn into abusers, white collar felons and buy at least 4 mistresses and treat women as trophy wife property.”

Randy Says:

“Sororities & Frat houses create a stirring call for the genetically gifted to band together and form an Aryan-like Master Race. Retrogressive image-controlled mating is the target of Yale, Stanford, Princeton and similar puppy farms for yuppies. Women who have idealized model-like faces are emotionally punished if they do not date a guy who has GQ-looking aquiline facial features. Those women who do not have such features are encouraged to get surgically cut and modified to try to achieve them. Then they are all locked in a bubble to avoid outside perceptions, depth or any awareness further than 2 feet from their Land-Rover or BMW. If you don’t have the Playboy/GQ “look” it is off to the social ovens for you.”

Della says:

“Owners of companies in the Ivy-League breeding pond will not hire those who do not have the plastic yuppie/hipster/Master Race “look” for fear of tainting the pond because everyone sleeps with each other at yuppie start-ups.”

Penny Writes:

“Susan Patton’s famous letter in the daily Princetonian telling girls to bag one in an Ivy League school or you will be left out of the good breeding stock, The Atlantic article on “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”, and the “Lean In” controversy show that we have a long way to go.”

Pam Says

“The read Pride & Prejudice as if it is Ann Landers. They refer to their “station in life” as if humans are property. It is a sick society that Ivy League people come from.”

Susan Leeder from Tiburon sends us this one:

Here is the big test:

If you think that all of the people in the photos, above, look like: “Nice Happy People” and you don’t see anything disturbing or deeply wrong with the clone-like superficiality in the above pictures then you have very deep, very big problems!

You too can be a pompous, megalomaniac ivy league prick if your parents make you go to an ivy league school to program you and delete any sense of awareness, world-view or non-elitism out of you.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Carla Westly from Novato sends us this from a Stanford blog:
“Are you a robotic mercenary Stanford Yuppie who needs De-Programming? Were you turned into a robotic San Francisco Marina Yuppie by Stanford brainwashing?

You need to hurry and undo the stereotype externalizations and mental aberrations that Stanford brainwashing may have programmed into you. How do you know if you need such classes? Here are the signs:

1. Do you live in the Marina District in San Francisco? The Marina is where fraternity boys and sorority girls live in a cluster so they can reinforce their sense of privilege together. The younger ones go to Chestnut Street, the next older ones (yuppies) to Union St and they move up the hill to Pacific Heights as they get old. When “they” say those areas are “really nice”, they mean that there is no cultural diversity and that everyone looks just like them with small sharp facial features and blonde or black hair. They have “business clubs” called which make sure that they only do business with each other and don’t mix races or non-frat-house people into business deals. They have either nordic or Mediterranean features with small upturned noses. They raise their eyebrows and exaggerate their facial expressions as often as possible in order to appear to be interesting. They smile at each other but look through those who do not match the profile. If this is the case, then this class is for you!

2. Are your facial features small in size and perfectly balanced? Have you had plastic surgery to make them look even more so or died your hair and eyebrows to the darkest or lightest colors you can? Equilateral facial features are very important to Yuppies.

3. Are your parents rich and did they go to fraternities and sororities?

4. Are you and your frat buddies the only ones able to get money from the venture capitalists for your start-ups because you and they can exchange the secret Stanford handshake?

5. If you are a guy do you see women as objects to be used to demonstrate your position over other men in your Stanford Club?

6. If you are a woman do you sit in your junior league meetings and wonder which Stanford/Guardsman guy you can bag as a husband so you never have to work again? Do you wonder how quick you can get him to have an affair so you can get a great alimony deal?

7. Does the most important location in your life have the word “brewing company” in it’s name?

8. Are you unable to interact with humans on a one-to-one basis, must you always be in a group of Stanford people with beers in order to communicate? Can you laugh on que?

9. Do you drive a BMW?

10. Do you have a fanatic interest in sports but can’t explain why?

11. Do you judge others mostly by how much money they have? Do you try to appear to have as much money as possible?

12. Do you think Berkeley (Cal) University is a “bunch of filthy hippies”?

13. Do you feel like a robot that was cloned by a machine to support its infrastructure?

14. Do those around you discourage you from dating anyone who does not have the “Stanford Look” or the “Stanford way of thinking”?

15. Did Stanford make you live on campus so you wouldn’t cross-breed with any families who were not from the “proper list” of families. Did they do anything possible to keep you from seeing anybody in East Palo Alto?

16. Do you make exaggerated facial expressions of fake interest and false excitement and then does your face suddenly go blank like a robot when you think nobody is looking?”

————————————————————————————————-
Paul Bunson of Mill Valley sends us this one:

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Gold-Digger

The difference between a gold digger and someone who values your role as a provider is that the gold digger would deride and perhaps leave you if you lost your ability to provide for them financially. A good person can appreciate your financial resources, but a gold digger appreciates only that, and will not see the relationship as worthwhile if you’re not well off.

  1. Gold diggers drop hints that they’re having trouble paying their bills (sometimes they might even ask you directly for a “loan” to tide them over). They know that you don’t want to see them get an eviction notice, or get their car repossessed, and you’re a good person who’s in a position to help. But there’s a difference between a gold digger and someone who’s just fallen on bad times. What you should be looking for is if, despite their situation, this person is making poor financial decisions. Do they buy a brand new car with luxury features when they’re struggling to pay rent? Do they buy $300 shoes or watches when their phone service is at risk of getting cut off? Do they go to expensive restaurants when their credit cards are maxed out, because they “work hard” and they “earned it”? Many gold diggers know better than to ask you to fund their more luxurious tastes, at least in the beginning; they’ll tap into your desire to help them afford the things they need (food, shelter, transportation) so that they can spend their own money on the things they want.
  2. When they discuss their financial woes, suggest ways in which the suspected gold digger can make money fast. When you mention the possibility of them selling their luxury car, video console, guitar, diamond bracelet, or any other expensive item that could keep them from becoming homeless or having their utilities cut off or car repossessed, how do they respond? The average person will be saddened and may even become angry or upset, but a gold digger will be appalled at the very idea that they should have to give up their prized possessions in order to meet their own basic needs. They’ll treat the idea as ludicrous.
  3. Look for a sense of entitlement. Gold diggers feel that they deserve to be treated well, and that includes knowing that someone is willing to spend money on them. Maybe it’s because they had a bad childhood or relationship, and they feel they deserve to be happy (and it just so happens that their joy carries a high price tag). Or maybe they feel it’s their right to be able to pursue their big dreams at the expense of financial stability, and, coincidentally, haven’t considered who will foot the bill of their soul-searching. Have you noticed unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment? This sense of entitlement is one of the symptoms of narcissistic behavior, which has other symptoms that a potential gold digger might harbor:[1]grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    • believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
    • requires excessive admiration
    • lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
    • often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
  4. Ask them meaningful questions.
    • What is the best gift they’ve ever gotten? Gold diggers will almost always cite an expensive, material object, not a uniquely personal and thoughtful gift.
    • What’s the biggest thing you ever had to give up to do or get something you really wanted? What you’re searching for here is evidence of delayed gratification – the ability to give up something now so that you can achieve something greater, later. Gold diggers are notoriously spoiled or sheltered, and have never had to really wait, work, or struggle for what they want because somehow, someone was always there to help.
  5. See what questions they ask you. Certain questions which might seem harmless might really be an attempt to judge your ability to provide. None of these questions, alone, should get you worried but all of them on the first date should definitely send up a red flag:
    • How much do you make a year? Why would she/he ask this question? Because a gold digger is a mobile calculator, therefore every question that relates to money is calculated to determine the percentage of the total amount that she/he believes she/he “deserves”.
    • Are you a homeowner? And what type of car do you drive? They are trying to determine your overall worth and whether being with you is a profitable investment for them.
    • How many kids do you have? Your answer to the question will help her/him determine (calculate) much of your income and attention goes to your children and how much time you can devote to her/him. A gold digger is a needy individual that will take up a lot of your money, time and energy.
  6. Search for signs of generosity and gratitude towards you. After having gone on several dates, has this person ever offered to pay? When you do pay, does he or she say thank you? Do they ever offer to help you in other ways? (And no, physical intimacy doesn’t count); do they cook you dinner when you’ve been out working late? Fix your computer? Run an errand for you when your schedule’s especially tight? If these character traits are missing, is this really someone you want to get involved with? A person doesn’t develop gratitude and generosity overnight…
  7. Indulge in a pipe dream. A pipe dream is basically a long shot. Take one of your childhood fantasies and run with it. Tell the person you’re dating that you’re thinking about becoming the mechanic, farmer, supermodel, writer, [insert dream career here] you’ve always wanted to be. Explain how if you were to ever do this, it would require a significant lifestyle change; you’d have to go back to school, relocate, or whatever would make it clear that your standard of living will go down dramatically. How does this person respond? Do they seem concerned? That’s normal. A good person will encourage you to follow your dreams while simultaneously helping you think of ways to do it practically and responsibly. A gold digger will look horrified or disgusted and say things like “You’re not really serious, are you?” OR they are ready to call it quits and leave because you are paying attention to “you” instead of “them”.
  8. Watch yourself. It feels good to help people, whether you just helped someone avoid becoming homeless, or you’re helping an aspiring artist or entrepreneur launch his or her career, but you have to be careful that you don’t fall into a pattern where your help become the norm, so much so that without your financial assistance, the relationship would crumble. If you’re the kind of person who has trouble saying “no”, or who is intensely sympathetic and compassionate, you’re more likely to bump into a gold digger. You might also face the feeling that this is one of the most attractive or intriguing people you’ve ever dated, and you don’t want to ruin your chances, but don’t be fooled by a good looking exterior. It could cost you.
  9. Listen to the types of questions you are asked. Even seemingly innocuous questions like “What do you do?” and “Where do you live?” can be loaded questions, asked in an attempt to ascertain your net worth and lifestyle. In any case, do not answer these questions directly – but start out by explaining your life story. What things happened to you as a child/teenager that shaped the life you live today? A person truly interested in who you are will listen intently and ask questions of a more personal nature – whereas a gold digger will not have the patience to get to know you first; they will only want to find out your current financial position before investing any time in you. Gold diggers in a social situation will work the room and are “on the clock”. The longer you can delay telling them what you do, they will be unable to size you up and you stand a better chance of weeding them out.
  • Give them a piece of rope and see if they “hang themselves” with it. The next time you go out, give them a credit card so they can purchase a nice outfit. Gold-diggers will “hang” themselves by purchasing more than an outfit with the credit card you have given the[2]
  • Gold diggers can be business partners as well.
  • Protect yourself by maintaining your financial independence. Keep your own bank accounts and approach joint accounts and credit cards with extreme caution.
  • If this person complains that you don’t ever do anything nice anymore, think of 2-3 inexpensive dates and one expensive one and see what your date says. A gold digger will reliably pick out the most expensive one, every time.
  • Once a physical relationship has started, a gold digger will usually not engage in “physical” activities unless given incentive i.e. taken on a date, given a gift, etc.
  • It’s always a good idea to check court records to see if the gold-digger has been divorced. You can learn a lot by reading their complaint, motions and responses, etc. Don’t simply rely on ‘their side’ of the story.
  • Have you met their family? You can learn a lot from people close to them.
  • Watch other people’s reactions when they hear you’ve been out with someone or spending time with someone. Often, others will attempt to subtly let you know through reactions and comments that the person is a gold digger.
  • Most people don’t want to be obliged or beholden to others for large sums of money. A gold digger doesn’t have to be prompted twice to take a “loan” from you. Think about what makes sense: would you open up to someone you just met about your financial woes? Would you take a loan from a guy or girl you’ve been out with once? Probably not, but a gold digger is looking for his or her next “sugar daddy/mama” at all times.
  • Gold diggers tend to name-drop and it’s a red flag.
  • If you find yourself dating gold diggers more often than you’d like, think about where you meet people, and how you present yourself. If you look like you could be somebody’s “sugar daddy” or “sugar momma” (successful, with a high standard of living) then guess what kind of crowd you’re going to attract?
  • Don’t become overly stingy in an effort to spot a gold digger. The above steps all involve getting to know the person, and observing their behavior. You don’t have to pretend to be a total cheapskate in order to judge someone’s character.
  • Anyone can be a gold digger, male or female, rich or poor. Sometimes they will try to put on a show that they lost everything and are in a state of depression.
  • Watch out for people who frequently change jobs, or go long periods of time unemployed. Be careful when there is always an excuse to explain their unemployment, especially when the reason is always someone else’s fault (I got laid off, my boss hated me, they wanted me to work all the time, there was no room for advancement, they kept shorting my paychecks, etc.) Stuff happens, but when it happens to that person over and over, it’s a red flag.
  • Many gold diggers won’t let go of one relationship until they have a more lucrative one on the line. Watch out for the guy or girl who grows close to you, and more dependent on you, but won’t let go of the unhappy relationship they are in. They may be working both ends against the middle, wringing the last drops out of their current relationship, while setting you up to be their next.
Myrna Sykes of Greenbrae offers this one:
Here is an actual secret “instruction book” from one of the Sororities at Boston University:

– Wear tight clothes if you are lean and baggy clothes if you are fat.
Yuppies hate fat people so you might not pull it off but try.

– Use make-up to hide your natural non-equilateral aspects. Yuppies only like
symmetry.

– Keep the shine down. It is so important to keep the shine down in the
ever-troublesome T-zone – the top of your nose and your forehead. While this
especially important on a warm day, even the coolest among us may get a little
sweaty when faced with public viewing. Yuppies hate shine.

– Use make-up to hide skin redness. Yuppies love pure white or pure tan skin
tone.

– Brush your hair into place. Frizzy or loose hairs can appear messy. On the
other hand, the hair should not be apparent–not slicked down thin against the
skull and then behind the neck in a ponytail. Yuppies hate frizz.

– Keep your face in equilibrium. Look at your face in the mirror. That’s not
actually the face which shows when people look at you. Now stare at your own
reflection. After some time your face will reach its “normal” appearance, your
“equilibrium” face. Now deactivate your eye region and activate your lip region.
Don’t clench your teeth; just make sure that your upper and lower jaw molars
touch each other. If you smile with your mouth open, don’t let your upper lip
expose much of your gums, or let your lower lip cover far over the bottom of
your upper teeth. Always smile if your complexion is dark or dull and your smile
should be a slight one. At the same time, stress the corners of your eyes and
raise your eyebrows a little. Practice this exercise every day before mirror for
a few minutes. Yuppies love equilibrium.

– Arrange your body three quarters towards others with one foot in front of
the other and one shoulder closer to the viewer than the other. Women tend to do
this naturally, but it’s harder for men, who tend to present a square angle
front-on to the other because they are animals and like to confront other men.
If you turn your head slightly to the side and look straight ahead, you will
appear to be looking straight at the viewer no matter the viewing angle (like
George Washington on the US one dollar bill). (Yuppies love Money)

– If sitting, slightly angle yourself.

– Lean slightly toward the other person; it adds interest, improves facial
definition and helps to minimize the appearance of wrinkles and flabby skin.
Just keep your chin tucked down. Yuppies hate flappy chins. Get rid of a double
chin. Tilt your head up slightly and try to position yourself so that the other
person is a little above, or at, your eye level. This will hide a double chin
effectively. You can also put one hand under your chin as though you’re resting
your head on your hand (keep the thumb side of your hand out of the other
person’s view, if possible). Don’t actually rest any weight on the hand,
however, or you will push the skin into an unflattering position. Also, try
resting your tongue against the roof of your mouth.

– Focus on your posture. Not only does this matter for how others see you but
daily good posture makes everything easier in life, including your confidence.
Good posture can dramatically improve your appearance in pictures. Sitting or
standing up straight will make you look healthier and more alert and, if in a
group setting, and more attractive than your slouching companions. Breathe
normally and relax your shoulders. If you usually have bad posture, it may be
difficult to stand up straight and not look stiff, so practice this in the
mirror, working toward improving your posture in the long term.

– When smiling, try a relaxed closed-mouth smile or an open-mouth smile with
the lower lip relaxed and down, not up for a smile that gets oddly narrower
toward the middle–practice in front of a mirror.  If you know a person is about
to look at you, take a deep breath and exhale naturally, relaxing your arms and
shoulders. As you exhale, smile or strike whatever pose is appropriate. Don’t
hold your breath, either in or out, otherwise you’ll appear as though you’re
tense or suffocating .If you see the other person about to look at you too late,
don’t panic and try to strike a pose. Keep doing what you’re doing. It may not
turn out perfectly, but you’ve got a better chance than if the other person
catches you quickly trying to change your facial expression.Relax your lip
(mouth) region and don’t have any delirious thoughts filled with gloom. It’s a
natural way to appear fresh and appealing in life.Don’t be so relaxed that you
appear distracted. Distraction or annoyance always shows to the other person.

– Don’t have any tattoos; they just show that you will have sex with anybody
or do drugs all the time. If you are a girl you can get a “tramp stamp” as long
as it is classy if you are only trying to be a trophy wife so you can divorce
and get alimony.

– Smile with your eyes. Nothing projects happiness and beauty like smiling
eyes: a happy, somewhat mischievous expression of the eyes. To achieve this
effect, ALWAYS imagine that every other person is someone you have a crush on
walking into the room. This will create wider open eyes and a relaxed,
three-quarter smile. Think about your crush or lover; this will make you blush
making your cheeks rosy red. Chances are you unconsciously do this all the time;
the trick is to be able to bring it out on demand, so practice the smiling eyes
in front of a mirror, and creating a smile “trigger”.Fake it till you make it.
Pretend like you are hot for everybody no matter how much they disgust you.

– Try to get one eyebrow to go up whenever you pretend to be interested in
what others say.

– Watch Jennifer Aniston on TV and copy every facial expression she does. She
is the queen of fake facial expression. Do everything she does every chance you
get.

If you do these things. Everybody will love you and you will be able to work
downtown at an investment bank.

The Russian Connection- Lithium Miners, Silicon Valley VC’s and Mobsters

The Russian Connection- Lithium Miners, Silicon Valley VC’s and Russian Mobsters

Call them “foreign businessmen”, “oligarchs” or “mobsters”; 4 of the CARGATE implicated banks and 5 of the CARGATE implicated VC’s had extensive meetings with russian gentlemen regarding their ownership of lithium ion fields equipment, mining and manufacturing deals derived from CARGATE derived schemes. All of the Russian businessmen are now under investigation by multiple agencies. Why did Steven Chu give hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to Russian Mobsters? What was he paying them back for? Why did 99% of the people on this page have a first-person connection to “AGHANI-SCAM” ?

Why did the key investors of Tesla meet with persons and groups from the Russian government and business sectors who State Department has identified as having mob connections? Could it have to do with all of the trillions of dollars of materials used for making lithium ion electric car batteries that those Russian groups control? If those Silicon Valley VC’s  (“Cough”.. Kleiner, Draper, etc..) helped grease the deal, they certainly wouldn’t manipulate Congress for greed… would they? (SEE THE VIDEO PROOF HERE)

ABC News

Politics Test Silicon Valley’s Russian Ties

Entrepreneurs and investors say Silicon Valley’s fast-growing financial ties with Russia’s tech sector are being slowed down by current political tensions between the White House and the Kremlin.

“It’s safe to say a lot of investors here are taking a step back to see how the situation will unfold,” said Alexandra Johnson, who manages a $100 million venture fund called DFJ VTP Aurora, a Menlo Park, Calif., branch of Russian bank VTB.

For decades, Russia’s sophisticated scientists and engineers remained at arm’s length from Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists and marketing mavens. That changed in recent years with a flurry of investment, largely sparked in 2010 when then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the region and met with high-tech leaders.

Russians investors, including billionaire Yuri Milner, who has large stakes in Facebook and Twitter, poured an estimated $2 billion into U.S. tech firms over the past three years, according to Johnson, who organized a technology symposium with venture capitalists and entrepreneurs last month in San Mateo, south of San Francisco.

But Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and investors fear negative economic fallout from Russia’s takeover of Crimea, its troop buildup near Ukraine’s border and its attempts to compel constitutional changes in that country, markedly raising political tensions with the West.

Secretary of State John Kerry has charged Russia with “creating a climate of fear and intimidation” and the Obama administration has frozen assets and revoked visas of some Russian officials and their associates.

Among the concerns in this technology center are whether visa limits will make it hard for business travel or for scientists to relocate. In addition, economic sanctions could tighten the flow of dollars between tech sectors in both countries. And for those U.S. and Russian firms with ties to Ukraine, rumors of a draft are fanning fears that young entrepreneurs and engineers will have to close up shop and fight.

Experts say an investment slowdown will be temporary and will not untrack rapidly growing, lucrative U.S.- Russia business relationships in the long run.

Axel Tillmann, who invests Russian venture capital on behalf of government-sponsored RVC-USA, said the tensions are definitely going to “slow things down for a while,” describing a two- to three-month suspension of additional investment by Russian government funds in tech firms.

However, Tillmann said the flow of investments is certain to resume because Russian companies thrive on Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurship.

“Russian technologists have been at the leading forefront of technology for many years, even going back to the Soviet Union, but they had the problem they called ‘The lonely ideas,'” he said. “The ideas just sat there.”

Tillmann said the one thing Russian companies are not very good at today is commercializing their technology — something that Silicon Valley firms are masters at doing. “When we combine, we get the best of both,” he said.

In Russia, entrepreneurs and investors now tap Silicon Valley experts to try to replicate their success.

A planned technology hub outside Moscow, the Skolkovo Innovation Center, includes Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, Cisco CEO John Chambers and retired Intel CEO Craig Barrett on its 17-member board.

Russian entrepreneurs have also launched their own firms in the Silicon Valley, and tech giants are buying stakes in Russian startups. Last year, for example, Cisco acquired a stake in Russian software developer Parallels and got a seat on its board.

The Russian Innovation Center, which opened two years ago on Silicon Valley’s Sand Hill Road amid a cluster of venture capital firms, combines three firms investing in California companies committed to the Russian market.

And today more than 100 Russian high-tech firms have representative offices in the northern California region, including Russian search engine Yandex, which employs former Yahoo and Google engineers at its Palo Alto laboratory.

On April 3, San Jose-based Cisco, a valley leader in building ties to Russia, announced that it had won a contract to supply the video conferencing network for Moscow’s water and sanitation supplier. Cisco has also reported that it is currently reviewing its Russian business practices for any possibility of corruption.

Spokesman John Earnhardt said they are watching events closely, but that Russia remains an important market.

Silicon Valley-based Dmitry Akhanov, president of the U.S. subsidiary of Russia’s state-owned venture fund RUSNANO, said it has taken years to shape those East-West tech sector relationships.

“Political turmoil can happen, but business ties are much more sustainable because those are people-to-people, and those build trust,” he said. “The diplomats need to calm down and think about the immediate consequences of their decisions. It’s very easy to hurt an economy and much harder to rebuild.”

Oleg Slepov, who heads the Russian Trade Representation’s office in San Francisco, said he’s spoken with many U.S. business leaders lately who tell him they have no plans to close or scale down their business in Russia.

Slepov said he’s even optimistic that business ties may help ease the conflict.

“The interests of Russian and American companies are so intertwined today that, on itself, it becomes a factor that is contributing to easing of tensions between Russia and the U.S.,” he said.

———

Here is the NY Times research on some of their backgrounds:

Russian Organized Crime Data Pull- State- :

Multiple meetings with Silicon Valley Suspects

Alexey Mordashov

Received DOE Funds Via Severstal:

Alexey Mordashov -General director of “Severstal group”, Chairman of the board of directors in “Power Machines”, the largest shareholder of “Arcelor”,

http://rumafia.com/person.php?id=54

Surname: Mordashov
Name: Alexey
Fathername: Aleksandrovich

Position: General director of “Severstal group”, Chairman of the board of directors in “Power Machines”, the largest shareholder of “Arcelor”, a member of board of RSPP.

Biography

Mordashov Alexey Aleksandrovich was born on September 26, 1965 in Cherepovets in the Vologda area in workers’ family; Russian. In 1988 he graduated with excellence from the Leningrad Engineering-Economical Institute. During study he got acquainted with Anatoly Chubais.

From 1988 till 1989 – Senior Economist in maintenance and repair shop #1 of the Cherepovets Metallurgical Plant (CMP).

In 1989-1991 – Head of Bureau of Economics and Labor of MRS#1 at CMP.

In 1991-1992 – Deputy Director of planning department of CMP.

In 1992-1993 – Deputy Director of Economics and Finance at CMP.

Since 1993 – Financial Director of CMP (now CMP is renamed into Open Joint-Stock Company “Severstal”). Simultaneously the chairman of board of directors of joint-stock company “Severstal-Invest”. He was one of creators of the plant privatization program, and transition to active marketing practice in metal trading. Company “Severstal-Invest” was engaged in sale of rolled metal products, motor vehicles and the weapon, cultivation, processing and sale of fish, realtor and security-detective activity.

Since March, 1996 – chairman of board of “Severstal-holding” LLC (Cherepovets).

Since March, 1996 – chairman of board of directors of Joint-Stock Company “Severstal-invest” (Cherepovets).

Since September 1996 till June, 2002 – General Director of “Severstal” OAO.

Since November, 1997 – chairman of board of directors in Metkombank (Cherepovets). He was a councilor of bank “Metallinvest”. Then he was trained on courses of managers in England (in the late nineties he completed the MBA program of Newcastle Business school (NBS) in the University of Northumbria (UNN, Great Britain).

Since June, 2000 – the councilor of directors of Joint-Stock Company «Izhora pipe factory», joint venture of «Izhora factories» OAO and “Severstal” OAO. In October, 2000 he was selected as a member of bureau of board of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP).

Since June, 2001 – coordinator of RSPP Working group.

From April 2001 till April, 2003 – member of the Supervisory board of «Industrial Construction Bank» (ICB).

Since June, 2002 – chairman of the board of directors of “Severstal” OAO.

Since 2002 – General Director of “Severstal group” ZAO.

Since August, 2002 – the chairman of the board of directors of “SSM-Tyazhmash” LLC, subsidiary of “Severstal group” ZAO.

Since December, 2002 – the judicial arbitrator at the Commission on Ethics of RSPP created for settlement of corporate disputes.

In May, 2003 he was included in structure of Business Council at the government of the Russian Federation.

In December, 2003 he became the authorized representative of president Putin on presidential election on March, 14th, 2004.

In 2003 Forbes magazine included Mordashov in the list of 500 richest people in the world (348th place, fortune – 1.2 billion dollars).

In February, 2004 “Severstal” OAO informed that Mordashov supervised 82.75% of stocks of “Severstal”.

Since June, 2004 – councilor of directors of bank “Rossiya” (St.-Petersburg).

In February 2006 “Finance” magazine estimated Mordashov’s capital at 6.0 billion dollars (the tenth place in Russia).

In March, 2006 there was a next rating of Forbes Magazine in which Mordashov was on the 64th place in the world (fortune – 7.6 billion dollars).

Member of Board of guardians of RDC «Expert institute» at Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP);

Member of Advisory council on the innovations created by Ministry of Industry and Science of the Russian Federation.

He is awarded with the order «For Merits for Country» of the I and II degrees.

The winner of the All-Russia competition of businessmen “Career-96”. In December, 2000 Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs called him the best businessman of the year.

Speaks English and German.

Mordashov is married for the second time. He has three sons – one from the first marriage, two – from the second one.

Takes a great interest in poetry, painting, active winter kinds of sports.

Source: http://www.anticompromat.org/

Dossier:

By 2001 there were no any compromising materials concerning Mordashov on pages of the mass-media. As for unpleasant stories – only divorce with the wife and the ignominious alimony to the son. The only thing that was spoken about him appeared in July, 2001. Mordashov was supposed to be offered a post of the chairman in the Russian government. In reply to that Mordashov declared that even if he had been offered the post he would have had to refuse of it.

Source: http://www.rb.ru

In 2004 in mass media the materials convicting Mordashov of dishonest engagement of “Severstal” were published. The ex-general director of Cherepovets Metallurgical Plant Yury Lipuhin – who promoted Mordashov on a career ladder – became an information source. When Mordashov was already the director of “Severstal” the plant suffered from an attempt of raid capture. Trans-World Group tried to persuade Mordashov to sell the plant (it was represented by well known businessmen Vladimir Lisin, Mikhail Chernoy, Oleg Deripaska) but he resisted. After those events Mordashov convinced Lipuhin that the plant shares needed to be privatized not to admit strangers to the enterprise. The plant released metal under the low prices to the company “Severstal-Invest” created for that purpose; Mordashov spent millions of gross margin from resale on purchase of vouchers and shares from workers. So he became the owner of 51% of shares of “Severstal” and Lipuhin – 49 %.

In 1998 there was a conflict between two proprietors – Mordashov decided to diversify business and began to buy up industrial actives: stocks of ports in St.Petersburg, Tuapse and East port, coal mines, Kolomna diesel factory, UAZ factory. Lipuhin was against of such diversification of the business. In the beginning of 2001 Mordashov redeemed from Lipuhin 49 % of “Severstal-Guarant” with the big discount; Lipuhin is still offended by Mordashov for that. The latter during had enemies that period – Zavolzhsky motor factory became a subject of his conflict to GAZ owner Oleg Deripaska. Together with the head of “Eurazholding” Alexander Abramov, Mordashov struggled for “Kuzbassugol”, the metallurgical market was divided with Iskander Mahmudov.

Source: «Forbes», 4/10/2004

In youth during internship in Austria Mordashov had a conflict with the son of the minister of ferrous metallurgy Serafim Kolpakov Sergey. The minister demanded for Yury Lipuhin dismissed Mordashov, but Lipuhin then defended the young perspective employee.

Source: «Forbes», 4/10/2004

In 2001 the first spouse of Mordashov, Elena declared that Alexey Mordashov did not help their son sufficiently, didn’t let her arrange private life and promoted her dismissal from work. For 2000 Mordashov declared his income at 80 million dollars (Mordashov denied the sum soon after that), his former wife took advantage and sued for alimony and separation of jointly acquired property (he had been paying to the wife 650 dollars monthly for the son). Mordashova demanded a share in business of the husband and developed huge information war. The businessman considered that behind that claim there were competitors of metallurgical holding – the Ural mountain-metallurgical plant and “Sibal”, in particular their owner Iskander Mahmudov who was at that time the main contender of Mordashov in the metallurgical market. In August, 2001 the former wife applied to Nikulinsky Office of Public Prosecutor of Moscow with the requirement to force former husband to give 25% of the income for education of the son from first marriage. In her opinion the underpaid alimony of Mordashov made more than semi billion dollars. In maintenance of the claim the Office of Public Prosecutor managed to arrest 32.5 % of stocks of “Severstal”. Claims of former spouse Elena Mordashova for a quarter of incomes of the husband were recognized by Moscow court as groundless, and attachment was removed from property. And after that Cherepovets court took Mordashov’s side and decided that he did not owe to the former spouse 40 percent of shares of “Severstal” (Elena Mordashova had declared such requirements in the statement of claim). As a result Elena Mordashova lost both suits.

Source: «Moscow Komsomolets», 8/20/2001, “Vedomosti”, 10/30/2002

On presidential election of 2004 Alexey Mordashov was Vladimir Putin’s authorized representative. Support of the head of the country helped Mordashov to create the steel-making company the largest in Russia, which possessed the largest actives abroad on the basis of the Cherepovets plant.

Source: http://www.akado.com/news

In February, 2005 Alexey Mordashov made scandal at airport Vnukovo-3. He left the plane together with two girls accompanying him in the trip. One of his companions unexpectedly found out that she had lost a buckle from the handbag. Mordashov unexpectedly began to behave inadequately: for about a half an hour he loudly shouted at employees of the airport, and demanded to pay him one thousand dollars for the lost buckle.

Source: “Life”, 2/9/2005

Alexey Mordashov tried to unite his business with metallurgical group Arcelor being absorbed, but owners of the company refused the offer of Mordashov and group “aggressors” – Mittal Steel became its owner.

Source: Investments ? 3(334) 01.02-07.02.2010

In September, 2006 Alexey Mordashov decided to hold again the post of the general director of “Severstal”; in this connection he carried out administrative reform at the enterprise. General Director Anatoly Kruchinin, the hired manager, was removed by Mordashov from the post. Later he was appointed as the General Director of «Severstal. Russian steel» (in April, 2008 management of “Severstal” divided it into three directions: «Severstal. Russian steel», «Severstal. Resources», «Severstal Internationa»). Mordashov’s return on a post of the director of according to his plan should promote success of IPO – Kruchinin was unknown person in business while Mordashov after attempt to become the largest owner of Arcelor received world popularity. In some months Mordashov arranged IPO in London which observers considered to be not successful.

Source: “Vedomosti”, 9/21/2006

Due to lack of more interesting actual metallurgical actives for purchase, Mordashov once again tried to diversify business in adjacent spheres. New object of interest of the businessman – the main Russian manufacturer of the equipment for electric power industry, “Power machines”. Structures “Severstal” then requested permissions for the transaction in Federal antimonopoly service (FAS). Stocks of “Power machines” were the personal investment of Mordashov which was not connected with mountain-metallurgical company “Severstal”. Competitors of Mordashov in struggle for “Power machines” became Victor Vekselberg and Oleg Deripaska.

Source: http://www.newsru.com from 6/9/2007

In December, 2003 bank “Rossiya” informed that it would make additional share issue for 30 million rubles face value in advantage of Alexey Mordashov’s “Severstal-groups” under the price in 20 times above face value. Thus, the holding should pay 600 million rubles for 9% of shares of bank with own capital of 616 million rubles. The General Director of “Rossiya” Victor Myachin explained the high cost of package with consideration of the «occurrence of the foreign investor» in the capital of bank and dynamics of its development (for a year actives and the capital have trebled). Experts consider such estimation of a minority package as absolutely inadequate. The most probable explanation of such an odd act – rupture of relations with Industrial Construction Bank (ICB) and transfer of money resources to bank “Rossiya”. At the same time Mordashov since 90th years kept partner relations with Petersburg banker Vladimir Kogan, ex-founder of ICB – in the beginning of 2001 Mordashov sold a share holding of “Metkombank” to Kogan.

Source: http://www.mfd.ru News

In the beginning of 2007 in the central mass-media, in particular, in newspapers “Commersant” and “Newspaper” the information began to appear that soon there would be a merge of two largest metallurgical companies – “Eurazholding” and “Severstal”. Besides it was written about nationalization of branch and government plans about it. As there were no any concrete facts confirming possibilities of such changes, there were assumptions that this “canard” in respectful newspapers was created by their owners. The owner of “Commersant” – Alisher Usmanov was simultaneously the owner of “Metalloinvest”, the largest metallurgical companies; “Newspaper” belonged to other large “metallurgist” Vladimir Lisin, the owner of Novolipetsk metallurgical plant. The purpose: to press on competitors or to force them to buy, for example, business for high price, probably even to frighten and force to cease to put up money in development of the enterprise, to sell to competitor.

Source: «Komsomol truth», 5/30/2007

In August, 2008 at Mordashov’s company “Power machine” shareholders were replaced: 63.1 % of shares of company have appeared concentrated in three offshore now. Among shareholders of OAO there were two offshore, King Rail Trading and Ashington Trading, each owns 16,55 % of his actions. Presumably, these companies are under control of Alexey Mordashov and re-structuring of actives allows him to bypass the requirement about exhibiting of the obligatory offer by minoritaries. If Alexey Mordashov exposed the offer, he should redeem shares from minoritaries with 9 percent award to market quotations. He did not expose it but bought up company shares in the off-exchange market from many sellers. Redistribution of actives gave Mordashov also the joint-stock control over the company.

Source: “Money” ? 33 (688), 8/25/2008

The Office of Public Prosecutor accused Alexey Mordashov of legislation infringement – he, having dismissed employees of Kostomuksha mining and concentrating mill, in October, 2009 replaced them with less paid Gastarbeiters. Active workers of the enterprise arranged several meetings in the city, the Office of Public Prosecutor of Karelia began investigation. Trade-union active workers were accused of extremism and Alexey Mordashov was required by the public prosecutor of republic Karelia to exclude infringement of the labor and social rights of citizens and to provide measures on prevention social and political tension in «Karelian pellet OAO. Thereof Mordashev stopped employment of migrants.

Source: Rusmet.ru 24.12.09

Alexey Mordashova’s name was mentioned in a context of preparation of amendments by the Ministry of Finance to the article 7 of the Tax code depriving Russian businessmen of possibility to minimize taxes by using the companies in the countries having agreements with Russia on avoidance of the double taxation. It was declared that Alexey Mordashov had supervised “Severstal” through the Cyprian companies, thereby minimized taxes in the federal budget of our country.

Source: http://www.polit.ru/news, 12/2/2009

The family conflict of Alexey Mordashov with the first wife Elena Novitskaya passed to a new stage – in 2004 she submitted the claim to the Strasbourg court where she accused Russia of partiality of justice. In January, 2010 Novitskaya’s case received a priority. Few years ago the court dismissed Novitskaya’s claim about property separation, as all agreements on property division between spouses had been signed back in 1996, and Novitskaya did not apply for shares and refused them voluntarily. Having lost the court, Elena Novitskaya still owed the state duty of 213 million rubles. In European court Novitskaya demanded from Russia for compensation at amount of 500 million dollars, referring to article 6 of the European convention about human rights. Now Russia should prove that at the moment of divorce Alexey Mordashov did not possess influence on justice.

Boris G. Zingarevich

Received DOE funds through Ener1

Boris Zingarevich – Deputy Director General of Ilim Group

http://rumafia.com/person.php?id=204

Surname: Zingarevich

Name: Boris

Fathername: Gennadievich

Position: Deputy Director General of Ilim Group

Biography:

Date of Birth: 08 July 1959.

Place of Birth: Sebezh (Pskov region).

1981: Graduated from the Leningrad Technological Institute of Pulp and Paper Industry (specialty: machines and apparatus of PPI)

1991-1992: “Tekhnoferm”, the CEO

1985-1991: Leningrad carton factory, Master of cardboard shop, Production Manager

1981-1985: Kondopozhsky PPM, mechanic

Since 1992 – Deputy Director General of Ilim

Source: http://www.forbesrussia.ru

Dossier:

Until the early 90’s Boris Zingarevich, along with his brother Michael worked as a mechanic at the Leningrad cardboard factory. In 1992 they created “Ilim Pulp” – a company for export of paper products. Then they got reassigned to the woods production, and over the years have bought about 30 logging companies – then timber industry enterprises were sold at very low prices.

Easy money in the timber industry caused competition that turned into criminal fights. Most of them appeared to be in Arkhangelsk region, where the main enterprise of the holding – Kotlas PPM was. In the region, the company has developed a bad reputation to the extent that one day in January 2002, half the guests did not appear on the anniversary of the governor Anatoly Efremov, having learnt that Zingarevich brothers and their partner Zakhar Smushkin were going to be there.

In spring 1999 the house of the head of the Arkhangelsk PPC Vladimir Krupchak was bombed. In the summer of 1999 the head of OAO “Solombalskiy LDK” Evgeny Drachev and his driver were kidnapped by unknown. A few months later director general of forestry complex the department of the regional administration, Alexander Bulatov was beaten. It’s difficult to say whether those events were connected to the activities of Ilim Pulp. However, its top managers- Smushkin and the Zingareviches could have argued with those people, because the struggle for supremacy in the timber industry was very tough, and Arkhangelsk region was considered a “fiefdom” of Ilim Pulp in the field. The regional law enforcement agencies had a huge dirt on the heads of the holding, but for some reason the case went “down on the brakes” every time.

For example, the same story happened with the murder of Dmitry Varvarin, Director General of ZAP “Concern” Orimi”, the main competitor of Ilim Pulp. He was shot in St. Petersburg in March of 2000. The heads of Ilim Pulp, including Boris Zingarevich had sufficient motives for the killing, including the competition and the fact that Varvarin supported the campaign of Yuri Boldyrev for the post of mayor of St. Petersburg, which was obviously to fail. In addition, Varvarin owned shares of Ilim Pulp, so he begged Smushkin and Zingarevichey as his partners to allocate money for it.

A few days after the murder of Varvarin, unknown people killed another founder of “Orimi”, Sergey Krizhan together with his family.

Law enforcement agencies considered the version according to which the two murders were connected with the management of Ilim Pulp, as the most probable, but somehow forgot about it; the team of investigators was excluded from the investigation.

Source: Kompromat.ru from 31.07.2002

The involvement of the heads of “Ilim Pulp” in the second killing has not been confirmed, as in 2005, Andrey Yurevich – the son of commercial director of “Plastpolymer”, Victor Yurevich, and two accomplices – Alexander Ulyanov and Vyacheslav Shinkarev were sentenced for that murder. Krizhan was chairman of the board of directors of the company and clashed with Viktor Yurevich.

The newspaper “Kommersant-Petersburg” ? 216 (3300) on 17.11.2005

In spring and autumn of 2000, a new wave of crime passed.

In March, the director of Agency Company, lumber exporter – Vladimir Malkov was attacked. And in October, the hotel “Polina”, owned by Krupchak was set on fire. As leader of the Arkhangelsk Pulp and Paper Mill, he was a major player in timber market and he could have possibly conflicted to the Zingarevicheses and Smushkin quite often. In 2001 Dmitry Belyaev, External Manager of LDK-4 was attacked. Again, the connection with the management of Ilim Pulp was not confirmed, but it was on the cards, as Ilim Pulp had been seeking for the rule in the forest sector, and Belyaev could have threatened the interests of their company by his business, or could have simply competed with its leaders.

Boris Zingarevich together with the companions did the business of “Ilim Pulp” not very successful, at least for their enterprises. The main one was the debts of Kotlas pulp and paper mill in Arkhangelsk region, Bratsk Timber Complex in the Irkutsk region, as well as others, they had ruthlessly cut down the forest, accidents happened frequently, the equipment was worn out or even broken. At the same salaries were miserable.

Until 2000, the shareholders of Ilim Pulp had not received dividends. Ostensibly, they were invested in production development, but in reality everything was falling apart. The problem was that all the investments in production then were exempt from taxation. Once the tax credit was abolished, dividends went.

In addition, it became clear that Kotlas Pulp came under the control of Ilim Pulp illegally: during the investment competition the money, which the company pledged to invest in a company, were transferred to its account for one day and then were sent back to the accounts of Smushkin and the Zingarevicheses. But formally everything looked legitimate.

They purchased equipment for the companies in an interesting way: at very high prices, while in fact only half of it was brought. The money also flowed to foreign accounts of the firms affiliated with Ilim Pulp.

Other financial frauds by the Zingarevicheses and Smushkin were turned in the Bratsk Timber Industry Complex (BTIC). First they formed huge debts for electricity for the budget of Bratsk and many others. And in 1998 the company established a subsidiary company OAO “Pulp and Cardboard Plant (PCP) and began to place there their liquid assets. Thus, BTIC eventually had unprofitable production and debts. The state had a stake in BTIC and did not impede the withdrawal of assets.

Only Dmitry Medvedev, the current president objected that, then in 1993 he was Director of Legal Affairs “Ilim Pulp”, and since 1998 -a member of the Board of Directors in BTIC. His relationship with the Zingarevicheses and Smushkin worsened, and in 1999 they were completely stopped – he was distracted by new concerns associated with climbing the career ladder.

In October 2001 it became known that Ilim Pulp committed deals for the sale of pulp and paper factory to offshore companies. Then the shareholders of OAO “Irkutskenergo” which was the main creditor of BTIC – appealed to the federal agencies. They failed to find out the truth because of the legal tricks: documents submitted to the commission, were valid, but for the period prior to the fraud.

After that the minority shareholders of BTIC went to court, and it ordered to reinstate the dismissed general director BTIC George Trifonov. He restored an order, paid the debts. The Zingarevicheses and Smushkin were defeated. But when in 2002 BTIC came under their control again, they began to restore the old order by dismissing disloyal people and replacing them with loyal ones, uncomprehending in the timber industry.

In addition, the holding company began the blockade of the Ust-Ilim Timber Complex (UiLPK) by not sending paid commodity to the company. All forces were driven to expell the head of the trade union, Yuri Savinkov, they wrote denunciations to the prosecutor’s office against the former Complex director Andrey Prokopov. The new head of UiLPK Vladimir Batishchev reported that Prokopov took away the production equipment. It was a slander – he just took jeeps belonging to the management company “Continental Invest”.

In early February 2002 UILPK was entirely under the control of Ilim Pulp.

Source: Kompromat.ru from 13.02.2002

In April 2002, Ilim Pulp lost control over Kotlas and Bratsk pulp and paper mills. There were two lawsuits from shareholders, after which the company’s shares were arrested, and then purchased for the benefit of companies affiliated with the actual new owners – “Basic Element”, “Continental management” and “Banking House” Sankt-Petersburg”. Oleg Deripaska was behind those machinations, who wanted to get a strategic advantage in the industry.

Source: corp-gov.ru from 29.09.2003

The management of “Ilim Pulp” disputed the transaction through numerous courts. There were information wars. The information agencies had the news spread that the Court invalidated the new board of directors elected by shareholders. It was misinformation. To gain access to the documents of Kotlassky PPM they forged execution lists and sent them to the office of registry holders. According to them it was necessary to issue registry documents. They also launched “a fake” that the registry of the Bratsk TIC was lost.

In the end, “Ilim Pulp” prevailed in the information and judicial war. Businessmen managed to agree, but the true owner of the enterprises is still unknown. Representatives of “Bazel” argued that the blocking stake in the enterprises was still in the structures of Basel. Smushkin also announced that he possessed more than 90%. As the court ruled, the enterprises passed to Ilim Pulp. Perhaps the company paid Bazel some compensation. In any case, that was a good lesson for the Zingarevicheses and Smushkin and a signal that the empire they built up may well falter without gaining a strong support.

Source: Kompromat.ru from 31.07.2002

In 2004, the media reported that Boris Zingarevich intended to acquire a large stake in English football club Everton. Upon the request of Zingarevich, that information was retracted. According to British media, the football club was really interesting to Zingarevich’s son Anton. He himself had no money to buy it, but he practiced abroad as a football manager. There is no information confirming the purchase plans. This episode is insignificant, but given that Boris Zingarevich studiously avoided the media spotlight, it looks interesting. Maybe it was advantageous for someone to put Zingarevich as a reckless spender and a wasteful man.

Source: “Kommersant» ? 155 (2994) on 24.08.2004

Also in 2004, there were rumors in the media that the company “Ilim Pulp” is going to buy the state Vneshtorgbank, and the then owner of Promstroibank Vladimir Kogan was to be an intermediary in the transaction. The price was to be inflated in more than a billion dollars. Journalists advanced the version of such a bizarre waste of public funds. They supposed, the billion would be withdraw from the State Bank and shared by individuals, including Zingarevich. In their opinion, the deal was scheduled to be held “under the guise of” Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin. However, no further speculation happened a the possible grand scam failed for unknown reasons.

Source: Kompromat.ru from 23.09.2004

In 2006 the Zingareviches and Smushkin sold half of the holding to a foreign company International Paper, the world’s largest pulp and paper corporation. In the name of the company they found a strong partner and a way to overcome the crisis that had began with the attack by Mr. Deripaska on Kotlas and Bratsk pulp and paper mills. Once they returned the enterprises, Deripaska exchanged his remaining shares to the stake in the Arkhangelsk Pulp and Paper Mill of Vladimir Kogan, and the latter gave them to the shareholders of Ilim Pulp. That is, everything returned to business as usual. However, after such a shake-up the Zingareviches and Smushkin realized they were not omnipotent, and their old methods to maintain the credibility in the timber industry had been no longer working. The holding company needed a powerful protection of the parties and they found such a support in the name of the foreign company.

Source: Journal “Secret Firmy» ? 48 (183) on 25.12.2006

In spring 2010 the authorities of St. Petersburg passed at once three buildings – the monuments of federal importance for the reconstruction of them as hotels – to the companies close to Zingarevich brothers. OOO “Lotus Oteli” received a historic building of the former barracks of the Life Guards of the Pavlovsky Regiment on the Marsovo Pole, 1. OOO “Orange-Development” acquired the building of the former court stables Office at Konyushennaya Ploshad, 1a. The third building was on Nevsky Prospekt, 7-9A, which is the Central Agency of Aviation and airline ticket place passed to OOO “IFG-Basis-Project”. Experts say that at the auction the buildings could cost a lot of money. However, they gave them under the decision taken at a closed meeting of the government. Thus, not only the interests of the city budget were violated, but of the potential buyers who could acquire the right to use the buildings through a fair competition.

Source: “Kommersant” dated 05/21/2010

FGH-NYT

————————————————

oligarch » Agent4Stars

The Russian oligarch has spent the past decade buying up nine flats across two buildings in the exclusive Lowndes Square. … John Doerr; John Frederiksen; John Paul DeJoria; John Paulson; Jon and Karen Huntsman; Jose Mourinho; Joseph Lau; Jr. Julian H. Robertson; Ken Fisher;
agent4stars.com/tag/oligarch/

HOW TO INVESTIGATE AND FRY CORRUPT POLITICO’S

How to hunt down, and take down, truly evil, criminally corrupt people: A Voters Guide-book

Check back here to download the free public WIKI Book with detailed public investigation lessons, tips and procedures to deploy CIA/FBI-class investigative journalism skills, from the comfort of your living room, to “fry”, or legally terminate, any criminally corrupt politician or campaign financier.

CLICK THIS LINK TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE PDF BOOK – How To Investigate and Terminate

SEE HTML VERSION- CLICK HERE

Find their secret Cayman Islands, Singapore, HSBC, Ukrainian, Swiss hide-away accounts and their fake non-profit “family foundations” and bust them.

Learn how to track hidden funds and covert stealth corporations all the way back to the politicians pocket, like this:

ASSET2

TIPS:

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

 

Multiple Google self-driving car accidents covered-up by Google and hidden on Google internet

Multiple Google self-driving car accidents covered-up by Google and hidden on Google internet

Is it all just a scam to help Google bosses war profiteer in Afghan War?

Are Google smart cars just another way to spy on you?

Google self-driving car strikes bus on California street

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A self-driving car being tested by Google struck a public bus on a Silicon Valley street, a fender-bender that appears to be the first time one of the tech company’s vehicles caused a crash during testing.

Google accepted at least some responsibility for the collision, which occurred on Valentine’s Day when one of the Lexus SUVs it has outfitted with sensors and cameras hit the side of the bus near the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

No one was injured, according to an accident report Google wrote and submitted to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. It was posted online Monday.

According to the report, Google’s car intended to turn right off a major boulevard when it detected sandbags around a storm drain at the intersection.

The right lane was wide enough to let some cars turn and others go straight, but the Lexus needed to slide to its left within the right lane to get around the obstruction.

The Lexus was going 2 mph when it made the move and its left front struck the right side of the bus, which was going straight at 15 mph.

The car’s test driver – who under state law must be in the front seat to grab the wheel when needed – thought the bus would yield and did not have control before the collision, Google said.

While the report does not address fault, Google said in a written statement, “We clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn’t moved there would’t have been a collision.”

Chris Urmson, the head of Google’s self-driving car project, said in a brief interview that he believes the Lexus was moving before the bus started to pass.

“We saw the bus, we tracked the bus, we thought the bus was going to slow down, we started to pull out, there was some momentum involved,” Urmson told The Associated Press.

He acknowledged that Google’s car did have some responsibility but said it was “not black and white.”

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority said none of the 15 passengers or the driver of the bus was injured.

The transit agency is reviewing the incident and hasn’t reached any conclusions about liability, spokeswoman Stacey Hendler Ross said in a written statement.

There may never be a legal decision on fault, especially if damage was negligible – as both sides indicated it was – and neither Google nor the transit authority pushes the case.

Still, the collision could be the first time a Google car in autonomous mode caused a crash.

Google cars have been involved in nearly a dozen collisions in or around Mountain View since starting to test on city streets in the spring of 2014. In most cases, Google’s cars were rear-ended. No one has been seriously injured.

Google’s written statement called the Feb. 14 collision “a classic example of the negotiation that’s a normal part of driving – we’re all trying to predict each other’s movements.”

Google said its computers have reviewed the incident and engineers changed the software that governs the cars to understand that buses may not be as inclined to yield as other vehicles.

Jessica Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for California’s DMV, which regulates Google’s testing of about two dozen Lexus SUVs in the state, said agency officials spoke Monday with Google but would have no comment. Under state law, Google must retain data from the moments before and after any collision.

“As far as he-said she-said, there shouldn’t be any of that. It’s all there,” said Robert W. Peterson, an insurance law expert at Santa Clara University who has studied self-driving cars.

A critic of Google’s self-driving car efforts said the collision shows the tech giant should be kept from taking onto public streets self-driving prototypes it built without a steering wheel or pedals.

Google sees that as the next natural step for the technology, and has pressed California’s DMV and federal regulators to authorize cars in which humans have limited means of intervening.

“Clearly Google’s robot cars can’t reliably cope with everyday driving situations,” said John M. Simpson of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. “There needs to be a licensed driver who can takeover, even if in this case the test driver failed to step in as he should have.”


This story has been corrected to show that Google began testing on city streets in 2014, not 2015.


Online: DMV report: http://tinyurl.com/hwakzeu


Contact Justin Pritchard at http://twitter.com/lalanewsman .


AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke contributed from San Francisco.

“THINK TANKS” as BRIBERY BANKS.. PART 1

Borge Brende, the foreign minister of Norway, in June at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

 

WASHINGTON — The agreement signed last year by the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs was explicit: For $5 million, Norway’s partner in Washington would push top officials at the White House, at the Treasury Department and in Congress to double spending on a United States foreign aid program.

But the recipient of the cash was not one of the many Beltway lobbying firms that work every year on behalf of foreign governments.

It was the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit research organization, or think tank, one of many such groups in Washington that lawmakers, government officials and the news media have long relied on to provide independent policy analysis and scholarship.

More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research.

Continue reading the main story

Selected Documents on Think Tanks and Foreign Money

1 Money and Influence in the Think Tank World
Foreign governments are a major source of money for think tanks in Washington, making donations, in many cases, with a goal of…
2 Center for Global Development and Norway
Norway entered into an agreement with the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank that focuses on “how…
3 Atlantic Council and Norway
The Atlantic Council, which has experienced explosive growth in recent years, has negotiated a number of important, and…
Page 1 of 3
1 – 3 of 9 documents

The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of The Times.

As a result, policy makers who rely on think tanks are often unaware of the role of foreign governments in funding the research.

Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and expert on the statute that governs Americans lobbying for foreign governments, said the arrangements between the countries and think tanks “opened a whole new window into an aspect of the influence-buying in Washington that has not previously been exposed.”

“It is particularly egregious because with a law firm or lobbying firm, you expect them to be an advocate,” Mr. Sandler added. “Think tanks have this patina of academic neutrality and objectivity, and that is being compromised.”

The arrangements involve Washington’s most influential think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council. Each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers, hosting forums and organizing private briefings for senior United States government officials that typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas.

Most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway, and takes many forms. The United Arab Emirates, a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quietly provided a donation of more than $1 million to help build the center’s gleaming new glass and steel headquarters not far from the White House. Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.

Some scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor governments.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.”

In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of donors, they said, was coincidence.

“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings, one of the oldest and most prestigious think tanks in Washington.

“Our currency is our credibility,” said Frederick Kempe, chief executive of the Atlantic Council, a fast-growing research center that focuses mainly on international affairs and has accepted donations from at least 25 countries since 2008. “Most of the governments that come to us, they understand we are not lobbyists. We are a different entity, and they work with us for totally different purposes.”

In their contracts and internal documents, however, foreign governments are often explicit about what they expect from the research groups they finance.

“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts,” states an internal report commissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry assessing its grant making. “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”

The think tanks’ reliance on funds from overseas is driven, in part, by intensifying competition within the field: The number of policy groups has multiplied in recent years, while research grants from the United States government have dwindled.

Foreign officials describe these relationships as pivotal to winning influence on the cluttered Washington stage, where hundreds of nations jockey for attention from the United States government. The arrangements vary: Some countries work directly with think tanks, drawing contracts that define the scope and direction of research. Others donate money to the think tanks, and then pay teams of lobbyists and public relations consultants to push the think tanks to promote the country’s agenda.

Photo

Michele Dunne resigned as the head of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for the suspension of military aid to Egypt in 2013. Credit Global Development Network

“Japan is not necessarily the most interesting subject around the world,” said Masato Otaka, a spokesman for the Japanese Embassy, when asked why Japan donates heavily to American research groups. “We’ve been experiencing some slower growth in the economy. I think our presence is less felt than before.”

 

The scope of foreign financing for American think tanks is difficult to determine. But since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations, according to disclosures by the institutions and government documents. What little information the organizations volunteer about their donors, along with public records and lobbying reports filed with American officials by foreign representatives, indicates a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.

After questions from The Times, some of the research groups agreed to provide limited additional information about their relationships with countries overseas. Among them was the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whose research agenda focuses mostly on foreign policy; it agreed last month to release a list of 13 foreign government donors, from Germany to China, though the organization declined to disclose details of its contracts with those nations or actual donation amounts.

In an interview, John J. Hamre, president and chief executive of the center, acknowledged that the organization’s scholars at times advocate causes with the Obama administration and Congress on the topics that donor governments have funded them to study. But Mr. Hamre stressed that he did not view it as lobbying — and said his group is most certainly not a foreign agent.

“I don’t represent anybody,” Mr. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, said. “I never go into the government to say, ‘I really want to talk to you about Morocco or about United Arab Emirates or Japan.’ I have conversations about these places all the time with everybody, and I am never there representing them as a lobbyist to their interests.”

Several legal experts who reviewed the documents, however, said the tightening relationships between United States think tanks and their overseas sponsors could violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the 1938 federal law that sought to combat a Nazi propaganda campaign in the United States. The law requires groups that are paid by foreign governments with the intention of influencing public policy to register as “foreign agents” with the Justice Department.

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politicians influenced,” said Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, after reviewing transactions between the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups.

At least one of the research groups conceded that it may in fact be violating the federal law.

“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. “We will absolutely seek counsel on this.”

Parallels With Lobbying

The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.

Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.

Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs, including aides to Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana, and Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, seeking help in establishing a congressional caucus devoted to the partnership, lobbying records show. After those discussions, in October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To bolster the new group’s credibility, Japanese officials sought validation from outside the halls of Congress. Within weeks, they received it from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to which Japan has been a longtime donor. The center will not say how much money the government has given — or for what exactly — but an examination of its relationship with a state-funded entity called the Japan External Trade Organization provides a glimpse.

In the past four years, the organization has given the center at least $1.1 million for “research and consulting” to promote trade and direct investment between Japan and the United States. The center also houses visiting scholars from within the Japanese government, including Hiroshi Waguri, an executive in the Ministry of Defense, as well as Shinichi Isobe, an executive from the trade organization.

 

Graphic

Foreign Government Contributions to Nine Think Tanks

Foreign governments and state-controlled or state-financed entities have paid tens of millions of dollars to dozens of American think tanks in recent years, according to a New York Times investigation.

OPEN Graphic

In early December, the center held an event featuring Mr. Boustany and Mr. Reichert, who spoke about the importance of the trade agreement and the steps they were taking to pressure the White House to complete it. In addition, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing later that month, Matthew P. Goodman, a scholar at the center, testified in favor of the agreement, his language driving home the very message Japan’s lobbyists and their congressional allies were seeking to convey.

The agreement was critical to “success not only for the administration’s regional economic policy but arguably for the entire Asia rebalancing strategy,” Mr. Goodman said.

Mr. Hamre, the center’s president, acknowledged that his organization’s researchers were pushing for the trade deal (it remains pending). But he said their advocacy was rooted in a belief that the agreement was good for the United States economy and the country’s standing in Asia.

Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the center, said that language in the agreements the organization signs with foreign governments gives its scholars final say over the policy positions they take — although he acknowledged those provisions have not been included in all such documents.

“We have to respect their academic and intellectual independence,” Mr. Otaka, the Japanese Embassy spokesman, said in a separate interview. But one Japanese diplomat, who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the country expected favorable treatment in return for donations to think tanks.

“If we put actual money in, we want to have a good result for that money — as it is an investment,” he said.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — two nations that host large United States military bases and view a continued American military presence as central to their own national security — have been especially aggressive in their giving to think tanks. The two Persian Gulf monarchies are also engaged in a battle with each other to shape Western opinion, with Qatar arguing that Muslim Brotherhood-style political Islam is the Arab world’s best hope for democracy, and the United Arab Emirates seeking to persuade United States policy makers that the Brotherhood is a dangerous threat to the region’s stability.

The United Arab Emirates, which has become a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the past decade, turned to the think tank in 2007 after an uproar in Congress about the nation’s plan to purchase control of terminals in several United States ports. After lawmakers questioned whether the purchase would be a national security threat to the United States, and the deal was scuttled, the oil-rich nation sought to remake its image in Washington, Mr. Hamre said.

The nation paid the research organization to sponsor a lecture series “to examine the strategic importance” of the gulf region and “identify opportunities for constructive U.S. engagement.” It also paid the center to organize annual trips to the gulf region during which dozens of national security experts from the United States would get private briefings from government officials there.

These and other events gave the United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomats an important platform to press their case. At a round table in Washington in March 2013, Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador to the United States, pressed Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about whether the United States would remain committed to his country given budget reductions in Washington.

Mr. Dempsey’s reply was quickly posted on the Facebook page of the United Arab Emirates Embassy: The country, he assured Mr. Al Otaiba and others in the crowd, was one of America’s “most credible and capable allies, especially in the gulf region.”

Access to Power

Small countries are finding that they can gain big clout by teaming up with American research organizations. Perhaps the best example is Norway.

As one of the world’s top oil producers, a member of NATO and a player in peace negotiations in spots around the globe, Norway has an interest in a broad range of United States policies.

The country has committed at least $24 million to an array of Washington think tanks over the past four years, according to a tally by The Times, transforming these nonprofits into a powerful but largely hidden arm of the Norway Foreign Affairs Ministry. Documents obtained under that country’s unusually broad open records laws reveal that American research groups, after receiving money from Norway, have advocated in Washington for enhancing Norway’s role in NATO, promoted its plans to expand oil drilling in the Arctic and pushed its climate change agenda.

Photo

John J. Hamre, the president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that he did not view as lobbying his scholars’ advocacy on topics foreign donors have funded them to study. Credit Drew Angerer for The New York Times

Norway paid the Center for Global Development, for example, to persuade the United States government to spend more money on combating global warming by slowing the clearing of forests in countries like Indonesia, according to a 2013 project document describing work by the center and a consulting company called Climate Advisers.

Norway is a major funder of forest protection efforts around the world. But while many environmentalists applaud the country’s lobbying for forest protection, some have attacked the programs as self-interested: Slowing deforestation could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market even as Norway and other countries push for new carbon reduction policies. Oilwatch International, an environmental advocacy group, calls forest protection a “scheme whereby polluters use forests and land as supposed sponges for their pollution.”

Kare R. Aas, Norway’s ambassador to the United States, rejected this criticism as ridiculous. As a country whose territory extends into the Arctic, he said, Norway would be among the nations most affected by global warming.

“We want to maintain sustainable living conditions in the North,” Mr. Aas said.

But Norway’s agreement imposed very specific demands on the Center for Global Development. The research organization, in return for Norway’s money, was not simply asked to publish reports on combating climate change. The project documents ask the think tank to persuade Washington officials to double United States spending on global forest protection efforts to $500 million a year.

“Target group: U.S. policy makers,” a progress report reads.

The grant is already paying dividends. The center, crediting the Norwegian government’s funding, helped arrange a November 2013 meeting with Treasury Department officials. Scholars there also succeeded in having language from their Norway-funded research included in a deforestation report prepared by a White House advisory commission, according to an April progress report.

Norway has also funded Arctic research at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at a time when the country was seeking to expand its oil drilling in the Arctic region.

Mr. Hamre, of the center, said he was invited to Norway about five years ago and given a presentation on the Arctic Circle, known in Norway as the “High North.”

“What the hell is the High North?” he said in an interview, recalling that he was not familiar with the topic until then.

But Norway’s government soon began sending checks to the center for a research program on Arctic policy. By 2009, after the new Norway-supported Arctic program was up and running, it brought Norway officials together with a key member of Congress to discuss the country’s “energy aspirations for the region.”

In a March 2013 report, scholars from the center urged the Obama administration to increase its military presence in the Arctic Circle, to protect energy exploration efforts there and to increase the passage of cargo ships through the region — the exact moves Norway has been advocating.

The Brookings Institution, which also accepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country gain access to American officials, documents show. One Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official, according to a government email. The Norway official wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.

Brookings organized another event in April 2013, in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next to the State Department’s senior official on the topic and reiterated the country’s priorities for expanding oil exploration in the Arctic.

William J. Antholis, the managing director at Brookings, said that if his scholars help Norway pursue its foreign policy agenda in Washington, it is only because their rigorous, independent research led them to this position. “The scholars are their own agents,” he said. “They are not agents of these foreign governments.”

Photo

A drilling rig in the Barents Sea in 2012. Norway, which as a top oil producer has an interest in United States policy, has committed at least $24 million to Washington think tanks in recent years. Credit Harald Pettersen/Statoil, via Scanpix, via Associated Press

But three lawyers who specialize in the law governing Americans’ activities on behalf of foreign governments said that the Center for Global Development and Brookings, in particular, appeared to have taken actions that merited registration as foreign agents of Norway. The activities by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Atlantic Council, they added, at least raised questions.

“The Department of Justice needs to be looking at this,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a lawyer at Sandler Reiff.

Ona Dosunmu, Brookings’s general counsel, examining the same documents, said she remained convinced that was a misreading of the law.

Norway, at least, is grateful for the work Brookings has done. During a speech at Brookings in June, Norway’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, noted that his country’s relationship with the think tank “has been mutually beneficial for moving a lot of important topics.” Just before the speech, in fact, Norway signed an agreement to contribute an additional $4 million to the group.

Limits on Scholars

The tens of millions in donations from foreign interests come with certain expectations, researchers at the organizations said in interviews. Sometimes the foreign donors move aggressively to stifle views contrary to their own.

Michele Dunne served for nearly two decades as a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the State Department, including stints in Cairo and Jerusalem, and on the White House National Security Council. In 2011, she was a natural choice to become the founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, named after the former prime minister of Lebanon, who was assassinated in 2005.

The center was created with a generous donation from Bahaa Hariri, his eldest son, and with the support of the rest of the Hariri family, which has remained active in politics and business in the Middle East. Another son of the former prime minister served as Lebanon’s prime minister from 2009 to 2011.

But by the summer of 2013, when Egypt’s military forcibly removed the country’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soon realized there were limits to her independence. After she signed a petition and testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the United States to suspend military aid to Egypt, calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “military coup,” Bahaa Hariri called the Atlantic Council to complain, executives with direct knowledge of the events said.

Ms. Dunne declined to comment on the matter. But four months after the call, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.

In an interview, Mr. Kempe said he had never taken any action on behalf of Mr. Hariri to try to modify positions that Ms. Dunne or her colleagues took. Ms. Dunne left, he said, in part because she wanted to focus on research, not managing others, as she was doing at the Atlantic Council.

“Differences she may have had with colleagues, management or donors on Middle Eastern issues — inevitable in such a fraught environment where opinions vary widely — don’t touch our fierce defense of individual experts’ intellectual independence,” Mr. Kempe said.

Ms. Dunne was replaced by Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who served as United States ambassador to Egypt during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtime Egyptian military and political leader forced out of power at the beginning of the Arab Spring. Mr. Ricciardone, a career foreign service officer, had earlier been criticized by conservatives and human rights activists for being too deferential to the Mubarak government.

Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”

The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.

Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.

Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.

“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”

XP COMBAT/RESCUE VEHICLES

Per Documents and communications records: In 2007, The XP team proposed and began demonstrating the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle for the U.S. Department of Defense. XP constructed multiple full system and partial system prototypes. A HALO rapid deployment, leave-behind, hostage rescue vehicle was needed for rescue teams who needed to enter a zone from a far away drop point, yet arrive at the rescue target quickly. Our CAR-IN-ABAG was one answer. XP has now been awarded multiple U.S. Patents on this system.

THE CIAB-V4

HALO-CAR

Ultra Light Combat/Rescue Vehicle

Ground Mobility Vehicle
Type Truck
Place of origin  United States
Specifications
Weight ~4,500 lb (2,000 kg) for competitors – 600 lb for us
Ballistics Shrapnel & bullet resistant polymers

Operational
range
250 mi (400 km)   – 300 Miles electric for us

The Ultra Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) is a proposed air-droppable light off-road truck to improve the mobility of light infantry brigades. It is designed to be carried internally in a CH-47 Chinook or externally by a UH-60 Black Hawk. In order to be survivable but transportable, the ULCV would be lightly armored and use speed, maneuverability, and off-road mobility to avoid major threats.

Background

The ULCV is part of a three-vehicle effort to develop lightweight, highly mobile ground vehicles for a light infantry brigade to conduct a joint forcible entry mission. The effort also consists of a Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle and a Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV). The ULCV is the highest-priority vehicle, meant to be light and fast and deliver soldiers from a drop zone far from enemy air defenses or indirect fire systems. Five vehicles would carry a platoon headquarters, three rifle squads, and a weapons squad. The vehicle is seen as a “21st century jeep” to move troops around during an initial attack faster than the enemy can counter them with heavy weapons. Both the ULCV and LRV are to replace sling-loaded Humvees in this role (but not for other units). Interest in the effort is expected on the scale of the U.S. Special Operations Command program to replace the Ground Mobility Vehicle, which also sought to replace a Humvee-based vehicle with a lighter and more air-mobile design. Airborne infantry brigades would use the vehicles to rush forces from their airborne insertion point to seize an objective, which would become a forward airfield for reinforcing and deploying heavier follow-on forces. After follow-on forces arrive and set up positions, the ULCV would not be as useful, but could potentially allow troops to operate for up to a week without support. The ULCV is slated to become operational in 2016.[1]

Although not a program of record, or even a stated requirement, Army officials consider the ULCV a needed addition to a global response force like the 82nd Airborne Division. Currently, airdropped infantry would be flown to a target area or driven there by trucks. Either way, they then need to dismount and walk the distance to their destination, sometimes for many miles while carrying heavy gear. The ULCV would allow light infantry to be driven right to their destination, allowing them to be airdropped further away from potential enemy fire and use mobility to find an off-road avenue of approach an adversary isn’t expecting, and not be fatigued once they need to fight. The idea is to acquire up to 300 vehicles by the end of 2016 at a unit cost of $149,000, which could decrease if a second increment was bought and stationed at installations for training; predicted dates are not certain and the entire effort is subject to funding availability. They would be drawn from a pool rather than assigned to units and selectively used when required. Ability to be carried on a UH-60 Black Hawk in high/hot conditions is particularly important because battalion commanders cannot always get control of a CH-47 to carry heavier up-armored Humvees. Demonstrations of candidate vehicles were held within six months of a solicitation, which is incredibly fast for a modern military vehicle effort.[2]

History

On 22 January 2014, the Army issued a notice to industry for a commercial-off-the-shelf air-droppable Ultra Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV).[3] The notice came just as funding for the Ground Combat Vehicle program was drastically cut by 83 percent, leaving it too little to continue fully but enough to be kept as a study effort until budgets are increased. The GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle was intended to replace some 2,000 M2 Bradley vehicles, which cannot carry a full squad and does not have adequate underbody protection. Protection requirements lead to weight estimates of 60–70 tons for the GCV IFV, too much for the Army’s post-Afghanistan expeditionary posture. The ULCV is to be small and light enough to be air-dropped from C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster transport planes, fit inside a CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, and be under-slung from a UH-60 Black Hawk. Vendors must provide a vehicle with a “medium caliber” gun and that is able to carry a nine-man squad, the same number required of the GCV, which is equivalent to a 3,200 lb (1,500 kg) payload. The vehicle will mainly utilize superior mobility to survive in combat environments, rather than heavy armor protection packages. It must travel cross-country on trails, over rubble in urban combat zones, and on high-altitude ridges and summits. The mobile protected firepower requirement the proposed vehicle would fill is not currently approved, and the effort is not to create an alternative to the GCV; it is to recognize vehicle protection and mobility shortfalls for special infantry forces like the 82nd Airborne, and is currently just for demonstrating potential capabilities. Interested industry members had until February 21 to respond to the sources sought notice.[4][5]

Heavy armored vehicles are still suitable in Heavy Brigade Combat Teams that need to survive high-speed avenues of approach like roads that are more likely to be targeted. To avoid this, the ULCV is planned to travel across country on trails 75 percent of the time. The ULCV effort is not meant to compete against the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program to replace the Humvee light vehicle. Its purpose is to increase the mobility of Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, which are restricted to the speed a soldier can travel on foot, leaving them slow and vulnerable. Dismounts can be carried by Black Hawk helicopters, so the ULCV has to weigh about 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) to be transported with them sling-loaded under a Blackhawk. Some proposed vehicles are similar to open all-terrain vehicles without an enclosed cab. It is unknown how many vehicles the Army would buy, but it will not be standard for every infantry battalion and will not fully motorize IBCTs.[6]

From 9–13 June 2014, the Army held a Platform Performance Demonstration (ULCV-PPD) at Fort Bragg for interested ULCV vendors to demonstrate their vehicles’ ability to be utilized by infantry squads. Because the effort is not at the acquisition phase, all activities and materials were provided at no cost to the government. The PPD had vehicles demonstrate a range of threshold requirements including being driven onto and out of a CH-47 with a full nine-man squad and their equipment on board, ability to operate on various forms of terrain, be rigged and de-rigged by two soldiers within two minutes for sling-load operations, and others. Threshold requirements identify the maximum curb weight of the vehicle at 4,500 lb with a range of 250 mi (400 km).[7] Six vendors took part in the technology demonstration and compared their vehicles to the Humvee as part of a global response force mission.[1] The six vendors included the GD Flyer, the Boeing-MSI Defense Phantom Badger, the Polaris Defense deployable advanced ground off-road (DAGOR), the Hendrick Dynamics Commando Jeep, the Vyper Adamas Python V3x,[8] and the Lockheed Martin High Versatility Tactical Vehicle, a version of the British Army‘s HMT-400 Jackal.[9]

In March 2015, the Army changed the name of the ultra light vehicle from ULCV to the Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV). This created confusion, as the name is the same as the USSOCOMGround Mobility Vehicle, whose replacement was recently chosen as the General Dynamics Flyer in the GMV 1.1 configuration, a variant of which was also submitted for the ULCV and LRV; the Army acknowledged GD’s potential advantages because of the SOCOM contract but stated it is considering all options and will not sole-source their award. Despite having the same program name, the Army’s planned GMV differs from SOCOM’s vehicle in lighter weight, being able to be slung under a UH-60 while the GMV 1.1 cannot, and while the Special Operations truck can be uparmored, the GMV’s job is to move paratroopers from the landing point to the objective in place of walking with their equipment, though exiting the vehicle before actually fighting. Although the GMV is initially planned for narrow fielding in the 18th Airborne Corps, it is possible the vehicle could fill other roles as the Army becomes more expeditionary. An analysis of alternatives will be launched in 2016, and a request for proposals (RFP) is planned before the end of the year.[10]

Candidates

The following is the list of candidates, and a description of what they are proposing:

  • Polaris Defense is submitting its DAGOR (Deployable Advanced Ground Off-Road) vehicle for the ULCV program, a larger version of its lightweight MRZR two-seat and four-seat vehicles engineered to carry nine personnel with a gross weight 3,250 lb (1,470 kg), and equivalent payload capacity. The vehicle is fitted with a diesel JP8 engine and has a range of 500 miles (805 km). Vehicle dimensions are 4.5 m (15 ft) long by 1.8 m (5.9 ft) tall and 1.8 m (5.9 ft) wide. Although it was designed without armor to meet weight requirements, it can accept armor when necessary.[11][12] Although the DAGOR was designed for special forces, the back end was converted from storage space to seating for infantrymen.
  • General Dynamics has submitted a version of their Flyer 72 vehicle for ULCV testing.
  • Boeing demonstrated its Phantom Badger, a 240-horsepower truck with a top speed of 80 mph (130 km/h). It keeps costs down by using commercial parts in 60 percent of its design, including the engine of the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee.[2]
  • Hendrick Dynamics participated in the ULCV-PPD and submitted its Commando Jeep.[9][13]
  • Lockheed Martin is proposing its High Versatility Tactical Vehicle, a version of the British Army’s HMT-400 Jackal.

References

3_4AA700lCUALC3

CAR-BUILD

Copy (2) of CARPURPLEDASHBOARD1

————————————————————————————————-


SEE THESE FELLOWS, BELOW, THEY ARE STANDING ON A COMPLETELY INFLATABLE AIR-PLANE WING. THAT IS HOW TOUGH PRESSURE MEMBRANE SYSTEMS CAN BE!

showimage2

SUVTANK2   xt3

top4

top2

ridgetest       bag-car-test

XPV-MARK7    TEST-BOARD

COMPARE2

DOORS6   doorball1     DOORS 8

———————————————————————————————

We can’t show you the inflatable flying rescue car we developed, because it still has DoD functionality but this guy has the right idea. The ultra light range, and packing, dynamics advantages also give these types of vehicles a great short term flight vehicle advantage as well.

Since he is openly showing his in public, take a look:

TACTICAL-FLYING-CAR

DOWNLOAD THE PUBLIC ARMY PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT 050200-opa1

TESLA ON TEST DRIVE EXPLODES INTO FLAMES – SAFETY COVER-UP CHARGED

TESLA ON TEST DRIVE EXPLODES INTO FLAMES – SAFETY COVER-UP CHARGED

 

 

 

 

 

Tesla Model S catches on fire during a test drive in France

Electrek

As part of its ‘Electric Road Trip’ tour for the summer, Tesla stopped in Biarritz, France to promote Model S and Model X over the weekend. During a …

 

A Tesla Model S burst into flames while someone was test driving itBGR

 

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Model S Catches Fire In FranceValueWalk

 

Tesla Model S unexpectedly catches fire during test drive [Developing]LeftLane News

 

Full Coverage

Google Plus

Facebook

Twitter

Flag as irrelevant

 
 

It’s going to take a while for Tesla to catch up with gas-powered cars when it comes to fires

Business Insider

Teslas have caught fire before, and it’s important to remember that we don’t yet … If Tesla can recover software logs from the vehicle, we might find out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tesla Model S catches on fire during a test drive in France

Electrek

As part of its ‘Electric Road Trip’ tour for the summer, Tesla stopped in Biarritz, France to promote Model S and Model X over the weekend. During a …

 

A Tesla Model S burst into flames while someone was test driving itBGR

 

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Model S Catches Fire In FranceValueWalk

 

Tesla Model S unexpectedly catches fire during test drive [Developing]LeftLane News

 

Full Coverage

Google Plus

Facebook

Twitter

Flag as irrelevant

 
 

It’s going to take a while for Tesla to catch up with gas-powered cars when it comes to fires

Business Insider

Teslas have caught fire before, and it’s important to remember that we don’t yet … If Tesla can recover software logs from the vehicle, we might find out.

 

 

 

 

THE SILICON MOBSTERS: The Dirty Side of Silicon Valley

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

How The U.S. Patent Office Failed American Inventors

Google’s Control of U.S. Government Is Now Complete As Google’s Lawyer in Patent Office tells American inventors to “suck it!”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Michelle Lee, Google’s lawyer who also runs the U.S. Patent Office, praised the ruling and said it would allow the appeals board “to maintain its vital mission of effectively and efficiently resolving patentability disputes while providing faster, less expensive alternatives to district court litigation.” The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the process for challenging invalid patents, making it easier for Google to steal as much technology as it wanted, without paying inventors.

The justices were unanimous in backing the legal standard used to cancel patents by a new Google-controlled appeals board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Congress created the board in 2011 over concerns federal officials were issuing too many patents and fueling the rise of American inventors getting paid for their invenions.

The high court ruled against Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, a New Jersey company that had its patent for speedometer displays in cars declared invalid. Cuozzo had argued that the board was using an overly broad legal standard. The Supreme Court disagreed as instructed by Silicon Valley campaign financiers. 

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the patent office has the authority to construe patent claims “according to the broadest reasonable construction of its words.”

How Google Steals Ideas From Entrepreneurs

By Sarah Dunn and Anthony Harvard

A recent article in The New York Times called: “How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s

Business” describes how Google Boss Larry Page covertly attends technology conferences in order to

get ideas from entrepreneurs. He does not seem to ever pay those entrepreneurs, for the technology he

takes from them, and makes billions of dollars off of at Google.

Google Boss Eric Schmidt just spent over $1 Billion to try to lobby Congress to change the patent laws

in order to make patents for entrepreneurs nearly illegal, and to try to make patents almost entirely

unenforceable, so that Google would not have to pay for the technology it steals. Google seems to love

killing the American dream.

Google spent millions of dollars to nominate, lobby for, influence and place it’s top lawyer in charge of

the U.S. Patent Office. Now Google’s “inside-man” makes sure that patents, that Google is infringing,

are either turned down or, in some cases, have their approvals reversed.

Google’s motto seems to be: “Why Compete When You Can Cheat”. This is a far more relevant motto

than ‘Don’t be evil”.

The New York Times article, and hundreds of stories from entrepreneurs, describes how Mr. Page

cuddles up to technologists in ordinary street wear, does not identify himself, and Hoover’s up their

innovations for his company. The article, details the following:

Three years ago, Charles Chase, an engineer who manages Lockheed Martin’s nuclear fusion

program, was sitting on a white leather couch at Google’s Solve for X conference when a man he

had never met knelt down to talk to him.

They spent 20 minutes discussing how much time, money and technology separated humanity from

a sustainable fusion reaction — that is, how to produce clean energy by mimicking the sun’s power

before Mr. Chase thought to ask the man his name.

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

and chief executive.

He didn’t have any sort of pretension like he shouldn’t be talking to me or ‘Don’t you know who

you’re talking to?’” Mr. Chase said. “We just talked.”

The article also reveals the show-boating of how Mr. Page likes to “ ignore the main stage and follow

the scrum of fans and autograph seekers who mob him in the moments he steps outside closed

doors.”

The article goes on to show that.. “ He is a regular at robotics conferences and intellectual

gatherings like TED. Scientists say he is a good bet to attend Google’s various academic gatherings,

like Solve for X and Sci Foo Camp, where he can be found having casual conversations about

technology or giving advice to entrepreneurs. Mr. Page is hardly the first Silicon Valley chief with acase of intellectual wanderlust, but unlike most of his peers, he has invested far beyond his

company’s core business and in many ways has made it a reflection of his personal fascinations.”

Further Page has “… said on several occasions that he spends a good deal of time researching new

technologies, focusing on what kind of financial or logistic hurdles stand in the way of them being

invented or carried out. His presence at technology events, while just a sliver of his time, is

indicative of a giant idea-scouting mission that has in some sense been going on for years but is now

Mr. Page’s main job.”

Then the article grows dark, it says: “Many former Google employees who have worked directly with

Mr. Page said his managerial modus operandi was to TAKE new technologies or product ideas and

generalize them to as many areas as possible. Why can’t Google Now, Google’s predictive search

tool, be used to predict everything about a person’s life? Why create a portal to shop for insurance

when you can create a portal to shop for every product in the world?

But corporate success means corporate sprawl, and recently Google has seen a number of engineers

and others leave for younger rivals like Facebook and start-ups like Uber. Mr. Page has made

personal appeals to some of them, and, at least in a few recent cases, has said he is worried that the

company has become a difficult place for entrepreneurs, according to people who have met with

him.”

People who have worked with Mr. Page say that he tries to guard his calendar, avoiding back-to-

back meetings and leaving time to read, research and see new technologies that interest him.”

The articles details Page’s under-cover intelligence gathering: “ People who work with Mr. Page or

have spoken with him at conferences say he tries his best to blend in, ..” “ The scope of his curiosity

was apparent at Sci Foo Camp, an annual invitation-only conference that is sponsored by Google,

O’Reilly Media and Digital Science.The article goes on to reveal that Google was forced to engage in a break-up, into a front operation

called “Alphabet” in order to try to create overt shell companies to build buffers from the Tsunami of

legal actions that are coming after it.:

Of course, for every statement Mr. Page makes about Alphabet’s technocorporate benevolence, you

can find many competitors and privacy advocates holding their noses in disgust. Technology

companies like Yelp have accused the company of acting like a brutal monopolist that is using the

dominance of its search engine to steer consumers toward Google services, even if that means giving

the customers inferior information.

In fact, the company’s main business issue seems to be that it is doing too well. Google is facing

antitrust charges in Europe, along with investigations in Europe and the United States. Those issues

are now mostly Mr. Pichai’s to worry about, as Mr. Page is out looking for the next big thing.”

It is hard to imagine how even the most ambitious person could hope to revolutionize so many

industries. And Mr. Page, no matter how smart, cannot possibly be an expert in every area Alphabet

wants to touch.

His method is not overly technical. Instead, he tends to focus on how to make a sizable business out

of whatever problem this or that technology might solve. Leslie Dewan, a nuclear engineer who

founded a company that is trying to generate cheap electricity from nuclear waste, also had a brief

conversation with Mr. Page at the Solve For X conference.

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

employees.

He doesn’t have a nuclear background, but he knew the right questions to ask,” said Dr. Dewan,

chief executive of Transatomic Power. “‘Have you thought about approaching the manufacturing in

this way?’ ‘Have you thought about the vertical integration of the company in this way?’ ‘Have you

thought about training the work force this way?’ They weren’t nuclear physics questions, but they

were extremely thoughtful ways to think about how we could structure the business.”

Dr. Dewan said Mr. Page even gave her an idea for a new market opportunity that she had not

thought of. Asked to be more specific, she refused. The idea was too good to share.”

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

officer: Larry Page.

Below, you will find a small sample of tens of thousands of blog articles and news articles discussing

the overt experience of Google’s intellectual property theft. When you have a zillion billion dollars and

own your own Senators, ethics do not seem to fall within range of your moral compass.

Entrepreneurs have charged that Google has overtly, stolen its video broadcasting technology, virtualreality systems, Internet balloons, search engine system, wireless technology and many other items. We

spoke with technologists who showed us United States Government issued patents and communications

that showed that they had designed, engineered, built, patent filed and launched a number of the

technologies that Google now has filled their bank accounts from. Google’s financiers at Kleiner

Perkins, Google Ventures and other groups had come to them, looked at the technologies confidentially,

under the guise of “maybe we’ll invest”, and then sent the technologies over to Google to build 100%

clones of.

How hard is it to sue Google for patent infringement? With Google controlling the patent office and

80% of the technology law firms, the hapless entrepreneur is out-gunned.

Google even tried the lamest shell game in history by posting ads on technology blogs asking inventors

to just send Google their patents and Google would look at them and offer a low-ball check if Google

thought they might get in trouble. That ploy was universally mocked on the web.

Google remains a big, dumb, reckless billionaire’s toy with no regard for the individual. As a creator,

your idea is Google’s to plunder. As a citizen, your privacy is Google’s to plunder. As the buyer of

elected officials and federal agencies, the law is now Google’s bitch.

American FTC investigators wrote, in their report, that “Google is a threat to domestic innovation”.

The European Union investigators have found “…Google to be a private out of control corporate

government that has more power than the U.S. Government.”

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

and innovation.

Sources:

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a

worrying amount of our data – but even more than that, it has an …

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

Google Steals Ideas From Bing

Last month, Google added a new feature to its homepage that enabled users to select a background

image. Google included a gallery of professional photos to choose …

fastcomp D any.com/1672922/google-steals-ideas-bing-bing-ste…

Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas – Forbes

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

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

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

TechCrunch

This morning I woke up and saw an interesting headline on Techmeme from Forbes writer Brian

Caulfield: Why Google Is Stealing Apple’s Ideas. Wow, a story …

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

Google Retracts After Caught Stealing Ideas – Tom’s Guide

Monday this week Google launched its App Engine, which was very well received by developers and

users alike. Unfortunately, attention turned elsewhere on Tuesday as …

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

Google Steals Your Ideas – YouTube

Google Steals Your Ideas Alltime Conspiracies. Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 887,471 887K.

Loading … – Does Google Spy On You?: https: …

youtube.com/watch?v=XKHUc2ouMXA

Does Google Steal Your Ideas ? – AlleyWatch

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? By AlleyWatch · December 3, 2014 · 0. Op-ED, Videos . 163. … art

and ideas at its fingertips. Is Google stealing our ideas? …

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

Does Google Steal Your Ideas ? – AOL On

Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a worrying amount of our data – but even

more than that, it has an unprecedented number of our thoughts, art …

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

Google Ideas – Google

Google Ideas builds products to support free expression and access to information for people who need

it most — those facing violence and harassment.

google.com/ideas/

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your Idea “

Caveat …

Google Ventures Launches with “We May Steal Your … Seems in the current downturn its google’s

policy … I know that everyone thinks tere ideas are …

marketingpilgrim.com/2009/03/google-ventures-launches-with-we-…Lawsuit Accuses Google , YouTube Of Stealing Sharing Idea In …

Be In, a company that created the video sharing service CamUp, is accusing Google of stealing trade

secrets and violating its copyrights when it added a “Watch with …

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

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

Image via CrunchBase Apple is currently locked in a legal battle with Samsung over claims that

Samsung’s smartphones and tablets infringe on Apple’s patents.

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

Is Someone Stealing Your Ideas ? Let Them – CBS News

You will never create a solid career for yourself by worrying about who is stealing your ideas. People

hate whiners, they hate bickering, and, most …

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

Newspiracy.com | Google Steals Your Ideas

Google Steals Your Ideas 0 Posted by newspiracy – January 24, 2016 – Alltime Conspiracies. Alltime

Conspiracies Sun, January 24, 2016 10:50am URL: Embed:

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

Stealing Ideas Quotes – Search Quotes

Stealing Ideas quotes – 1. Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,

you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats.

searchquotes.com/search/Stealing_Ideas/

Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking Your Traffic …

[Continue reading Is Google Stealing Your Content and Hijacking … Are they going to decide they can

better serve the customers in your market by stealing your …

graywolfseo.com/seo/google-hijackingtraffic/

Is Google Stealing Apple’s Ideas ? | Seeking Alpha

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

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

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

They Cannot Steal What Really Matters. 39 … Google with only millions of … The person who I was

working with told me she was stealing my ideas and she was mean …

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

Google

Search the world’s information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many

special features to help you find exactly what you’re looking for.

google.com

Steal – definition of steal by The Free Dictionary

steal (stēl) v. stole (stōl), sto·len (stō′l ə n), steal·ing, steals v.tr. 1. To take (the property of another)

without right or permission. 2. To present or …

thefreedictionary.com/steal

Google Ventures steals two marketing masterminds to blow its …

Google Ventures steals two marketing masterminds to blow its portfolio up. … The duo will be part of

Google Ventures’ already large marketing team, …

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

Google : Bing Is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results

Google has run a sting operation that it says proves Bing has been watching what people search for on

Google, the sites they select from Google’s results, then uses …

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

Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered …

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

collect the private informationdailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150606/Google-deliberately-…

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

Microsoft has started to sell t-shirts, hats, mugs, and sweatshirts that bear slogans from its Scroogled

campaign that needles Google as bad on privacy.

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

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

Did Apple iOS 5 Steal Ideas … When you said goo

GAWKER MEDIA’S NICK DENTON TRIES SCAM TO HIDE HIS MONEY FROM HULK HOGAN AND FAILS!!!

Bankruptcy Judge Denies Gawker’s Efforts to Shield Nick Denton from Hulk Hogan

 

A rejected injunction motion likely means personal bankruptcy for the Gawker founder.
Nick Denton  John Pendygraft-Pool/Getty Images

 

 

 

Gawker founder Nick Denton appears headed for personal bankruptcy after a bankruptcy judge on Tuesday refused to stop Hulk Hogan’s collection pursuits.

Denton had hoped that Gawker’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filed on June 10 would give him temporary relief from his portion of a $140 million judgment in favor of Hogan, who prevailed in an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit over the posting of a sex tape.

In conjunction with Gawker’s bankruptcy, Denton’s company brought an adversary case against its legal foes and warned that if Hogan was allowed to pursue Denton, it would distract from the planned sale of Gawker. The two sides stipulated to a temporary restraining order, but when it came time to determine whether a judge would convert this into a preliminary injunction, Hogan fought back.

On Tuesday, Denton took the witness stand and was questioned about his ongoing involvement with Gawker. He also faced cross-examination from Hogan’s lawyers about whether he was really indispensable to Gawker’s reorganization. Despite Denton’s word that he has had to reassure staff about what’s been happening at the company as well as communicate with potential bidders including stalking horse Ziff Davis, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Stuart Bernstein denied the injunction motion.

Denton, who has gotten a $200,000 loan and has at least prepared bankruptcy papers, may now move quickly to file for personal bankruptcy so as to take advantage of an automatic stay that will result in pausing Hogan’s collection pursuits. Denton has testified that his main assets are Gawker stock holdings and his New York City apartment, which he recently listed for sale.

While Gawker and Denton both figure to be in bankruptcy together, the company still has hopes of overturning the Hogan judgment on appeal and battling back efforts by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, who funded the Hogan lawsuit and has reportedly made it a mission to sink the company. 

In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, Denton said: “As I’ve said, Peter Thiel’s vendetta against my company may well require me as well as the company to file for bankruptcy protection until the Florida appeals court can rule on the extraordinary $140 million judgment. I’m focused now on the sale process which will conclude in a month, and maintaining the value of the business. This story will conclude with Gawker Media’s popular brands sheltered under new ownership and the importance of a free and critical press reaffirmed by the courts. In the end, the Facebook board member will have nothing to show for his petty grudge other than legal expenses and a reputation for thin skin.”

July 19, 3:30 p.m.: Updated with Denton’s statement

 

 

Phoenix Motor Cars: A Great Idea Ruined By Steven Chu’s Crony Politics

(Stonewalled by DOE)

Phoenix Cars LLC., d.b.a. Phoenix Motorcars based in Ontario, California, is a leading developer of zero emission, all-electric vehicles (EV), focused on the deployment of light- and medium-duty EVs into the fleet and transit markets.[4] The company was founded in 2002 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Yousuf LLC in 2009. Phoenix launched its all-electric 14-22 passenger shuttle bus with 100 mile range per charge in 2013. The bus is based on the versatile Ford E350/450 Series vehicle.[5]

Phoenix is fully California Air Resource Board (CARB) approved and is currently delivering vehicles to customers.[6][7]

Contents

Restructuring and financing

On March 19, 2008, Phoenix Motorcars announced that it had completed a financing and restructuring, with Dubai, United Arab EmiratesAl Yousuf LLC, and Arlington, Virginia-based AES Corporation, as new investors, the departure of the Phoenix Motorcars’ original founders and the appointment of a new board of directors.[8]

In mid-2010, Al Yousuf LLC closed on a deal with AES Corporation that enabled Phoenix Motorcars to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Yousuf LLC.[9] This led to another restructuring of Phoenix Motorcars in less than 2 years, with the company switching its focus to its 3rd generation drive system targete for buses and trucks on the Ford E350/E450 cutaway chassis.[9][10]

Production

Zero Emission Utility Shuttle -ZEUS

Phoenix launched its third product in 2013, which is based on the versatile Ford E350/E450 Series, an all-electric 14-22 passenger shuttle bus with 100-mile range per charge.[4] It is currently available in the United States and Canada.

This product achieved California Air Resource Board (CARB)[6][7] certification in July, 2014 in the 10,001-14,000# GVWR range. Along with its 100-mile range per charge, the ZEUS shuttle is capable of rapid charging via CHAdeMO or SAE standards. It also has optional features such as ADA capability and advanced battery diagnostic display.

Electric Flatbed Truck

Phoenix launched its electric Flatbed in 2015, which is also based on the Ford E350/450 Series, with 100 mile range per charge. It is currently available in the United States and Canada.

References

 

“Electric Cars, Green Vehicle”. Phoenix Motorcars. Retrieved 2013-05-03

 

Who Is California’s New Green Cleantech Czar Gary Kreman?

Who Is California’s New Green Cleantech Czar Gary Kreman?

 

 

By Tony West For The LA Times Edt.

 

 

California just put more money than god in a special “Cleantech Cash” pot created by taxpayer funds in a special Proposition. The taxpayers were just told: “it will create jobs”. What the politicians may have meant was: “It will create jobs for our personal bankers at Goldman Sachs”.

 

 

A fellow named Gary Kremen is now in charge of that cash. Who is he?

 

 

He founded Sex.com. Opponents of Mr. Kremen try to use this as a bad thing, against Mr. Kreman, but for gosh sakes: The guy has made a mint off of selling sex. If he can sell sex then he certainly can sell California politicians shaky relationship with green corruption cash. Solyndra, and a host of green corruption payola schemes, put the FBI spotlight on California. Everyone is getting ready for round two. Republicans are touting Kremen as a “trafficker” in the state that is seeking to implement the toughest anti-trafficking laws in the nation. Supporters of Kremen retort that sex.com shows every kind of sexual perversion so it clearly “does not discriminate against any kind of sexual inclination.” That sounds mighty fair.

 

 

Kremen founded Match.com. Match.com is the most sued dating site in the world. Match.com has been sued for murder, rape, the largest set of fake profiles on Earth, fraud and a host of other issues. Match.com scans every dating photo and profile, harvests user activity and sends that off to the NSA and data analysis companies. It sounds like Kremen knows how to gather consumer data so, again, what is promoted as a negative could have Kremen being a huge winner in helping California harvest private voter data for the elections. Another plus for Kremen!

In 1993, Kremen founded Electric Classifieds, Inc. Funded by private investors in November 1994, he launched the online personals service Match.com in April 1995.[3] After troubles with venture capitalists over his insistence that the company serve profitable alternative market segments including the LGBT market, he left Match.com in March 1996, remaining on the board of Electric Classifieds. Over Kremen’s objections, Match.com was sold to Cendant Corporation for $7 million in 1998[3] and sold by Cendant to Ticketmaster a year and a half later for $50 million.[4] The NSA deploys aspects of these services. From 1995 to 1996, Kremen founded and served as president of NetAngels.com, Inc., an Internet profiling, spying and personalization company[2] that suggested web sites to users. He left when NetAngels merged with Boston personalization software firm Firefly Network, Inc.[3] in 1997,[5] and Firefly was sold to Microsoft in 1998 in a reported $40 million deal.[6]

 

In 1999, Kremen was listed as an equity-holding officer or director of Brightcube, Inc.[2] The same year, he sold Computer.com for $500,000.[7][8]

 

Kremen is credited as a primary inventor on a 1995-filed patent for dynamic web pages, US patent number 5,706,434,[9] which he later sold for over $1,250,000.[10] Additionally, Kremen holds two other patents in financial-related systems management: US patent number 7,698,219[11] and US patent number 7,890,436[12]

 

A 2007 New York Times article on “millionaires who don’t feel rich” reported that Kremen estimated his net worth at $10 million.[13]

 

Kremen resides in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the founder of residential solar financing start-up Clean Power Finance, Inc., which raised $6.9 million from investors in January 2010,[14] $25 million from Kleiner Perkins, $75 million from Google [15] in September 2011,[16] and $62 million from other investors.[17][18]

 

Kleiner Perkins is now under felony-grade investigation for rigging the original “Cleantech Crash”.

 

SEE: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleantech-crash-60-minutes/

 

In an ironic twist. Kleiner and Google VC’s are under suspicion of rigging the Afghan War to create an exclusive mining monopoly (See Frank Giustra Investigation) for lithium metal for Tesla and Indium Metal for Solyndra. This resulted in losses of over a trillion dollars to taxpayers. How California decided that Gary Kremen was the “Go To Guy” for Cleantech Cash could be explained by Presidential and Senator campaign finance records..but maybe not. Republicans appear to have hired a number of private investigators to seek to get “the whole story on Mr. Kremen”.

 

 

He was also founder and chairman of Sociogramics, a financial services company that focuses on bringing credit to the underbanked yuppies, having raised seed capital from Tugboat Ventures, Harmony Venture Partners, Trinity Ventures, Greylock Partners, Claremont Creek Ventures, and QED Investors.[19]

 

Kremen is the founding investor and a board member of CrowdFlower[20] and WaterSmart Software[21] and CapGain Solutions.[22] He is an elected board member and president of the Purissima Hills Water District[23] as well as involved with local non-profit organizations.[24] He is also a co-founder of Menlo Incubator, which is an early-stage startup program that focuses heavily on mentorship.[25][26]

 

Kremen was appointed to the Proposition 39 Citizens Oversight Board by California State Controller John Chiang in January 2014.[27] On February 24, 2014, Identive Group appointed him a member of the Board of Directors.[28]

 

Kremen was elected to the Santa Clara Valley Water District of Directors in the 2014 election.[29] On January 13, 2015, the Board elected him as the 2015 Board Chair.

 

Sex.com saga

 

Kremen first registered the domain name sex.com in 1994[30] as well as jobs.com, housing.com, and autos.com. In 1996, Stephen M. Cohen contacted Network Solutions and fraudulently had the domain transferred to his name. Kremen sued Cohen for the return of the sex.com domain name. As Cohen had profited from sex.com while assigned to him, Kremen was awarded a judgment of $65 million against Cohen. Cohen fled to Mexico and moved the money offshore. Kremen obtained Cohen’s Rancho Santa Fe mansion, where Kremen relocated to after the court case resolved. In 2003, Kremen successfully litigated against Network Solutions.[31][32] On October 28, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported Cohen had been arrested in Mexico and turned over to US authorities.[33] Kremen sold sex.com in 2006 to Boston-based Escom LLC for $15 million in cash and stock, and sold sex.net for $454,500 later that year.[34][35][36]

 

One of Kremen’s companies is called Kremen/Father. Gabriel Spitzer tell’s one of the stories about Gary Kremen’s run in with entrepreneurs:

 

 

Splashed: The fall of Hot Liquid Media

 

 

Morality tale of how a smart idea got skunked

 

 

By Gabriel Spitzer

 

 

In the spring of 2000, Justin Fortune was in Arizona, setting up his booth at a conference organized by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America and the Transit Auto Bureau.

 

Fortune was there to introduce his company, Hot Liquid Media, and the coffee-cup sleeves that HLM placed advertisements on, to the advertising community.

 

“That was kind of our coming-out party,” recalls Fortune, former president and chief executive officer of Hot Liquid Media.

 

As it turns out, Fortune’s booth was right next to the booth for Pinpoint Golf Marketing, with whom HLM had an investor in common.

 

“An employee of Pinpoint introduced himself to me and said, ‘Oh, you’re Hot Liquid Media. Phillip wanted me to see if you would be a good candidate to be rolled up into the Pinpoint Golf media family,’” recalls Fortune.

 

That’s funny, Fortune thought. This was the first time he’d heard anything about “rolling up” Hot Liquid Media into anything.

 

Phillip Father, one of the partners at venture capital firm Kremen, Father and Partners in San Francisco, hadn’t mentioned anything about it to Fortune.

 

“That was the moment I knew they were up to something,” says Fortune.

 

For Fortune, the episode in Arizona turned out to be the prelude to a yearlong drama that would culminate in the collapse of Hot Liquid Media about a month ago.

 

Stories like this, that involve lawsuits and hurt feelings and disputed facts, often have two very different sides.

 

This is Fortune’s side of that story, and it is something of a morality tale of what can happen to a young, successful business that tangles with a venture capital firm and comes out the loser.

 

Calls to Kremen, Father and Partners for its side of this story were not returned.

 

Hot Liquid Media formed in early 1999 when Fortune, then working in radio ad sales, had the idea that the coffee cups so ubiquitous in his hometown of San Francisco were an untapped advertising resource.

 

Soon, Hot Liquid Media was turning the insulated sleeves on coffee cups into little billboards. The company’s first client was Streetlight Record, a small, local chain. Next came Pennzoil, then CNET.

 

Before long, Hot Liquid Media had assembled an impressive list of clients, including Disney, Boeing, Sony, CBS Marketwatch, Columbia Tri-Star, Kosmo.com and The Washington Post.

 

“From there we just kind of exploded. Within our first year, we were billing about $2.6 million. We had offices in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Albuquerque,” Fortune says.

 

At one point early on, Fortune’s then-girlfriend (they are now married) and business-partner Sarina Wolff called a friend of hers for financial advice. That friend worked for Kremen, Father and Partners.

 

“A day or two later he called back saying that he and his partner were interested in our company and would like to invest. It wasn’t something we asked for, it was just kind of dangled in front of our faces,” says Fortune.

 

“They invested $60,000, and we gave up 30 percent of the company.”

 

Fortune and Wolff gave up one other thing that they would soon come to regret: three seats on Hot Liquid Media’s five-person board.

 

“There were three original investors, and we thought, why not? That was just a mistake we made,” says Fortune.

 

Meanwhile, Hot Liquid Media continued to grow. It improved the quality of the photos on its coffee sleeves and began placing ads on beer coasters.

 

But then came the incident in Arizona, and Fortune quickly found out what he believes were his investors’ true intentions for the company.

 

“The company was a cash cow, and the investors wanted a quick payoff. They told us to roll it up with one or more of the other companies they had investments in, or buy their shares back,” says Fortune.

 

Moreover, Kremen, Father and Partners presented Fortune with a valuation of the company at $10 million, and they wanted a third of that sum in a buy-back, Fortune says.

 

According to Fortune, that valuation was way, way too high, and came not from an outside source but from the investors’ own calculations.

 

“They gave us a one-month deadline. When that deadline came around and we didn’t give them any answers, they became upset and started taking aggressive action,” says Fortune.

 

“So they held an illegal board meeting in the attorney’s office over three days and essentially executed the buyout.”

 

After the meeting, Fortune and Wolff fired the board. Soon thereafter, Kremen, Father and Partners filed suit against Fortune and Wolff.

 

Then, says Fortune, things started to get really ugly.

 

Somehow, he says, the investors managed to lock up the company’s cash holdings, leaving it with no operating funds.

 

From there the company’s demise was swift.

 

“That made it difficult to operate. If our clients couldn’t get us the money up front, we had to turn the deal down.”

 

Finally, with lawsuits still pending and lawyers’ bills piling up, Hot Liquid Media closed its doors for good.

 

Since then, Fortune has gone back into the advertising world. The transition from CEO to desk job has not been easy, but Fortune has definitely learned a thing or two.

 

“Business partners are like personal relationships. You have to be very careful who you get into bed with. The sheets can get soiled. It can put you in a position where you’ve screwed yourself so royally if there’s a dispute, that people can turn your life upside down,” he says.

 

“An investor is always going to take you down a different path than what you intended. Whether you’re giving up five, 10 or 90 percent, that investor is never going to view the business the same way you do. A dime is a million bucks to them.”

 

 

 

-Gabriel Spitzer is a staff writer for Media Life.

 

 

I found this interested tidbit in a leaked law enforcement doc:

 

 

Kremen, Father & Partners, LLC

 

Gary Kremen

 

Philip Father

 

North America USA California San Francisco

 

Address: 2544 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

 

Phone: +1 415 920 0944

 

Fax: +1 415 920 0945

 

Kremen, Father & Partners, LLC gkremen@aol.com

 

KREMEN FATHER & PARTNERS in San francisco is a company that specializes in “Investment Advice”. Our records show it was established in California.

 

Estimated Yearly Revenue: $1,245,000 in 2002 SIC Code: 6282

 

Founders/Owners: Match.com, Sex.com

 

Consultants to: Kleiner Perkins, lithium ion battery sources, political campaigns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • United States Patent number 7,698,219 Issued April 13, 2010: Methods, systems and agreements for increasing the likelihood of repayments under a financing agreement for renewable energy equipment.

 

 

 

  • [1] Greentech Media, Retrieved on 2009-01-05

 

  • [2] Google invests $75M into Clean Power Finance solar fund

 

  • [3] Google Invests $75 Million in Home Solar Venture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Afghan Papers -22

Whistleblower “Singled Out For Retaliation And Retribution” For Exposing Pentagon’s $850,000,000 Disappearing Act

Kaiblast

Separation-Line

January 22nd, 2016 | by CoNN

pentagon whistle blower

Kaiblast

Separation-Line

In the aftermath of allegations of misuse of funds meant to rebuild Afghanistan, The Senate Judiciary Committee chair has asked the Pentagon whether an Army colonel who had whistle-blown on the wasteful nature of the Afghan aid task force was being punished for taking a stand.

Kaiblast

Separation-Line

pentagon_small

Kaiblast

Credit: thomasjamesillustration

Separation-Line

John Hope is the Army Colonel in question, and he is in the best position to judge whether the funds had been corruptly misused: he was formerly the director of the Afghanistan Task Force for Business Stability Operations- the five-year program that was supposedly intended to restart the Afghan economy, but which is now defunct.

“After the Task Force disbanded, I basically became unemployed, because I never got Officer Evaluation Report (OER) you need to get your next assignment,” he said, explaining that he had previously been recommended for promotion to brigadier general. “It’s now eight months late, and I’m still waiting. Right now, I’m stuck.”

“From the beginning, there was no property book officer, ” he said. “We even had weapons that had gone missing for two years, and no one was keeping track.”

Hope says that he was “singled out for retaliation and retribution” because he had exposed the lack of accountability of the spending.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley had sent DoD Seccretary Ashton Carter a letter asking about how they had treated Hope.

Hope had informed Grassley of the Pentagon’s apparent retaliation, after it had put  his performance review on hold.

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko, appointed by congress to investigate waste in the program, had earlier revealed that the Pentagon had spent 140 times more than it should have cost to build a compressed Natural gas station in Afghanistan. Sopko stated that the Pentagon was stonewalling his investigation.

“SIGAR has received more allegations about TFBSO than any other program in Afghanistan,” InspectorGeneral John F. Sopko told VICE News, noting that the investigation is still underway. “We are currently talking with numerous individuals, including Colonel Hope.”

Kaiblast

Separation-Line

Senator Grassley wrote this to Ashton Carter:

“Being long overdue, (the evaluation) has placed his next assignment in jeopardy, leaving him in limbo. Would you please look into this and find out why Colonel Hope’s (evaluation) has not been completed? I respectfully ask that you provide a deadline for completing that task and providing Colonel Hope with a new set of orders for his next assignment. Your assistance is necessary in this case.”

Of the subject of the CNG station, Grassley, who has raised concerns over the project in the past, said its cost “remains unexplained, unjustified, and undocumented and is in need of congressional and administration oversight and scrutiny.

The Pentagon has refused to allow Sopko access to task force’s former acting director, Joseph Catalino, or documents that could explain the massive spending discrepancy.

“DOD spent nearly $800 million on TFBSO, but now they claim no one knows anything about it,” Sopko said. “DOD made $800 million disappear, and now they have made the agency disappear too.”

Democrat Ron Wyden had earlier used Sopko’s revelations to request for an audit which will take place in 2017.

Senator Kelly Ayotte has also schedueled a hearing on the matter, which will take place next month.

Senator Claire McCaskill has also said that this was one of the most heinous cases of wasteful spending she had witnessed:

“There are few things in this job that literally make my jaw drop,” she said in a statement. “But of all the examples of wasteful projects in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Pentagon began prior to our wartime contracting reforms, this genuinely shocked me.”

Kaiblast

Separation-Line

Sources: RT

Source Cited: http://anonhq.com/41477-2/

Separation-Line

This Article (Whistleblower “Singled Out For Retaliation And Retribution” For Exposing Pentagon’s $800,000,000 Disappearing Act) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com

Brammo: Screwed By Steven Chu and the Crony Politics of the U.S. Department of Energy

(STONEWALLED AND REJECTED BY DOE)

 

via Autobloggreen.com

by Sebastian Blanco on Jun 14th 2009 at 11:16AM

The Secretary of the Department of Energy, Steven Chu, gave the commencement address at CalTech on Friday, and electric vehicle advocates could find something to cheer about from his words of advice to the Class of 2009. Plug-in supporter Paul Scott went to the ceremony, and was happy ot hear Chu say that we needed to prepare for the “inevitable transition to electricity as the energy for our personal transportation.” Scott writes:

While most may have missed the importance of this comment, it meant everything to me. Those at the top of the Obama administration understand the need to move from dirty fossil fuels to renewable electricity, and their efforts so far show they are serious.

Chu’s defunding, at the federal level, of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle means he knows we need to put our efforts toward solutions that are ready now, not some expensive, inefficient technology that requires us to continue buying our energy from oil companies.

Alas Chu seems to have lied to poor Brammo

THE BRAMMO ENERTIA

The Enertia is an electric motorcycle designed and sold by Brammo, Inc. It uses a Lithium iron phosphate battery, and is intended as a commuter vehicle. Enertia motorcycles first went on sale in late July 2009,[2] and began selling at Best Buy in August 2009.[3]

Contents

Construction and components

The body uses monocoque construction. Early prototypes used carbon fiber as the principal material, but Brammo later decided to produce the monocoque body out of aluminum. Some of the bike’s components are made entirely of recycled material, while the body panels are created from a mixed percentage of recycled and new materials.[4]

The Enertia’s permanent magnet AC Synchronous motor is powered by six Valence lithium iron phosphate battery modules, which can provide a top speed of over 62 mph (100 km/h).[4] The vehicle’s batteries can be recharged via the onboard charger within three hours by plugging into a standard 110 volt electrical outlet.[5]

Brammo has stated the Enertia does not have regenerative braking because of the limited benefit that current regenerative braking technology provides to motorcycles, and the risk of traction problems.[citation needed]

According to Cycle World magazine, “With its wide, mild-rise handlebar, sporty steering geometry and narrow 18-inch-front/17-inch-rear Avon RoadRiders, the Enertia is a light and responsive handler.” The road test editor recorded a 0-60 mph time of 16.1 seconds, and a quarter-mile run of 20.19 seconds at 60.78 mph. [6]

The current testing versions of the Enertia being shown to the media are described as enjoyable to ride, nimble and easy to control. It is also capable of better speed than widely promised, up to 65 mph (105 km/h), although this quickly drains the battery.

Most of the cost of the motorcycle is due to the battery. Brammo is hoping for the cost of this component to fall in the future, and is talking of creating a program to lease rather than own the battery.[7]

Comparison with conventional motorcycles

With 12 to 25 hp (8.9–18.6 kW), and 17 to 34 ft·lbf (23–46 N·m) of torque in the ‘performance’ mode, the Enertia’s power output is comparable to a conventionally powered Kawasaki Ninja 250 motorcycle.[8][9] However, the 2009 Ninja 250 has a top speed of 95.5 mph (153.7 km/h),[10] while the Enertia’s top speed is 50 mph[8] or 55 mph (89 km/h).[4][11] It has no gears or clutch so shifting is not required, which Brammo claims enables the Enertia to go from 0 to 30 mph (0 to 48 km/h) in 3.8 seconds in performance mode.[8] Tested by Cycle World, the Ninja 250 accelerates from 0 to 30 mph (0 to 48 km/h) in 2.0 seconds.[12] Motorcycle Consumer News projected a range of 246 mi (396 km) for the Ninja 250 based on their tested 51.2 mpg-US (4.59 L/100 km; 61.5 mpg-imp).[10] Brammo claims the Enertia has a range of 40 to 50 miles (64–80 km) between charges if power is set to the minimum level, 40%.[8]

At 19.564 lb (8.874 kg)[13][14] of carbon dioxide (CO2) per gallon consumed,[15] the Ninja 250 would emit 93.9 lb (42.6 kg) per 4.8 US gal (18 l; 4.0 imp gal) tank, or about 4,967 lb (2,253 kg) of CO
2
per year if ridden the US average of 13,000 miles (21,000 km) per year.[16] The Enertia would consume 260 charges over the course of 13,000 miles (21,000 km) at 50 miles (80 km) per charge. With a battery pack capacity of 3.1 kW·h,[17] the annual consumption of electricity would be 806 kW·h. With a US national average emissions of 1.297 lb (0.588 kg) CO
2
per kW·h, the Enertia’s yearly carbon emissions would be 1,045 lb (474 kg).[16]

References

 

 

Brammo Website

10 Ways The Department of Energy Lied About It’s “Cleantech” Funding Program. You will be horrified by number 6!

10 Ways The Department of Energy Lied About It’s “Cleantech” Funding Program. You will be horrified by number 6!

By A. Keaton

#1. Somewhere between 800 million, and over six trillion, dollars of U.S. taxpayer money was embezzled in corruption schemes in Afghanistan. Electric car Lithium mining contracts in Afghanistan appear to have been exchanged for campaign financing traded out through the U.S. Department of Energy.

#2. Campaign financiers, including Google and Elon Musk, were directly involved in organizing some of these Afghan corruption scams and hold huge stakes in Afghan mining deals for products that Google and Tesla sell directly, or indirectly. White House staff and advisors held, or hold, stock in the companies related to Google and Tesla. U.S. Senators charged with corruption, held, or hold, stock in the companies related to Google and Tesla and had major conflicts of interest with the Companies given funds by Steven Chu, their friend, at the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

#3. Solyndra, backed by the Department of Energy, was raided by the FBI. Solyndra was created to exploit indium and lithium from Afghanistan. California State Officials held, or hold, stock in the companies in Solyndra, Google and Tesla and had major conflicts of interest with the companies given funds by Steven Chu and the Department of Energy.

 

#4. U. S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu held, or holds, stock in the companies related to Google and Tesla and had major conflicts of interest with the Companies given funds by himself while working at the Department of Energy. Chu and his Department of Energy staff sabotaged most applicants that competed with Afghanistan lithium mining holdings of campaign investors.

 

#5. Google holds various interests in Elon Musk’s companies and his suppliers. Google and Elon Musk’s companies would not be in existence today if not for state and federal government hand-outs at taxpayer expense facilitated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Google placed more of it’s staff in the White House and federal agencies, in direct conflict-of-interest, than any other company in the world.

 

#6. White House senior executives have ordered federal agencies to “stand down”, “take no action”, “cover up” or “punish reporters” in these charges. The Attorney General: Eric Holder, ran a cover-up of these crimes on behalf of Silicon Valley campaign financiers.

 

#7. Goldman Sachs had a managing, profit-taking and political campaign finance relationship with almost every suspect in these crimes and was the investment banker for almost every one of them.

 

#8. Google manipulated the internet to attack and destroy politicians, reporters, companies and individuals who competed with Google, Elon Musk or Kleiner Perkins-related assets with the support of U.S. Department of Energy and White House officials.

 

#9. Tesla and Solyndra have the same property, supplier, Senate, construction, leasing, HR service and related political kick-back deals in effect and the family of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was involved in profit taking on each of those aspects.

 

#10. U.S. taxpayers lost trillions of dollars, jobs, 401K asset value and suffered other damages because of these crimes.

 

See these sites for more information:

 

 

Topics: Steven Chu, Solyndra, FBI raid, Tesla Motors, Model X, Elon Musk, Kleiner Perkins, Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Energy, Afghanistan, U.S. Department of Energy, ATVM Loan, Loan Guarantee Program, CleanTech, Google Driverless cars, Afghanistan lithium, corrupt mining deals, Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein

Consumer Reports Calls Tesla “UNSAFE” and “DANGEROUS”; Demands That Tesla Cease Dangerous Tactics

Tesla’s Autopilot: Too Much Autonomy Too Soon

Consumer Reports calls for Tesla to disable hands-free operation until its system can be made safer


Following a series of crashes, one of which was fatal, Tesla Motors, the automaker known for its high-performance electric vehicles and envelope-pushing technology, is now under intense scrutiny for the way it deployed and marketed its Autopilot driving-assist system.

The company’s aggressive roll-out of self-driving technology—in what it calls a “beta-test”—is forcing safety agencies and automakers to reassess the basic relationship between human drivers and their increasingly sophisticated cars. Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sent a letter to Tesla requesting detailed information about Autopilot, including any design changes and updates to the system, as well as detailed logs of when the system has prompted drivers to take over steering.

The most serious of the Autopilot crashes happened in Florida on May 7. According to the accident report, 40-year-old Ohio resident Joshua Brown died in a collision near Williston, Fla., with a tractor trailer that was making a left turn in front of his Model S. Tesla later acknowledged that the car was in Autopilot mode at the time. On June 30, Tesla published a blog post about the accident, stating “neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.”

Autopilot comprises multiple systems (including Autosteer and Auto Lane Change) that use cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors and data to, in Tesla’s words “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic.” The company also claims the features “help the car avoid hazards and reduce the driver’s workload.”

The Florida crash has prompted investigations by NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether Tesla failed to tell investors about the crash in a timely fashion.

While the exact cause of the fatal accident is not yet known, the incident has caused safety advocates, including Consumer Reports, to question whether the name Autopilot, as well as the marketing hype of its roll-out, promoted a dangerously premature assumption that the Model S was capable of truly driving on its own. Tesla’s own press release for the system announced “Your Autopilot has arrived” and promised to relieve drivers “of the most tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel.” But the release also states that the driver “is still responsible for, and ultimately in control of, the car.”

Consumer Reports experts believe that these two messages—your vehicle can drive itself, but you may need to take over the controls at a moment’s notice—create potential for driver confusion. It also increases the possibility that drivers using Autopilot may not be engaged enough to to react quickly to emergency situations. Many automakers are introducing this type of semi-autonomous technology into their vehicles at a rapid pace, but Tesla has been uniquely aggressive in its deployment. It is the only manufacturer that allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel for significant periods of time, and the fatal crash has brought the potential risks into sharp relief.

“By marketing their feature as ‘Autopilot,’ Tesla gives consumers a false sense of security,” says Laura MacCleery, vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports. “In the long run, advanced active safety technologies in vehicles could make our roads safer. But today, we’re deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology. ‘Autopilot’ can’t actually drive the car, yet it allows consumers to have their hands off the steering wheel for minutes at a time. Tesla should disable automatic steering in its cars until it updates the program to verify that the driver’s hands are on the wheel.”

Companies must commit immediately to name automated features with descriptive—not exaggerated—titles, MacCleery adds, noting that automakers should roll out new features only when they’re certain they are safe.

“Consumers should never be guinea pigs for vehicle safety ‘beta’ programs,” she says. “At the same time, regulators urgently need to step up their oversight of cars with these active safety features. NHTSA should insist on expert, independent third-party testing and certification for these features, and issue mandatory safety standards to ensure that they operate safely.”


Consumer Reports calls for Tesla to do the following:

  • Disable Autosteer until it can be reprogrammed to require drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel
  • Stop referring to the system as “Autopilot” as it is misleading and potentially dangerous

  • Issue clearer guidance to owners on how the system should be used and its limitations

  • Test all safety-critical systems fully before public deployment; no more beta releases

Consumer Reports contacted Tesla about these concerns, and the company sent this response via email:

“Tesla is constantly introducing enhancements, proven over millions of miles of internal testing, to ensure that drivers supported by Autopilot remain safer than those operating without assistance. We will continue to develop, validate, and release those enhancements as the technology grows. While we appreciate well-meaning advice from any individual or group, we make our decisions on the basis of real-world data, not speculation by media.”

Tesla also defended the safety record of the system, writing that “130 million miles have been driven on Autopilot, with one confirmed fatality.” The company underscored that its beta software development process includes “significant internal validation.”

Consumer Reports has owned three Teslas (2013 Model S 85, 2014 Model S P85D, and 2016 Model X 90D) and we’ve seen first-hand how such beta software is transmitted wirelessly into the cars. When software in a desktop computer or handheld electronic device is labeled as “beta”—it typically means that functionality is not fully developed and is still being fine-tuned.

Tesla says that the system makes frequent checks to ensure that the driver’s hands remain on the wheel, but our recent testing on a Model X in Autopilot mode on a long, straight road found that the system took more than three minutes after our tester’s hands were removed from the wheel before the vehicle gave any warning.

Being early adopters, many Tesla owners may want to test the limits of cutting-edge features included in updates to their cars. And while some drivers may be skilled and understanding of such features, confidence in or over reliance on the technology can have potentially fatal consequences.

Regaining Control

Research shows that humans are notoriously bad at re-engaging with complex tasks after their attention has been allowed to wander. According to a 2015 NHTSA study (PDF), it took test subjects anywhere from three to 17 seconds to regain control of a semi-autonomous vehicle when alerted that the car was no longer under the computer’s control. At 65 mph, that’s between 100 feet and quarter-mile traveled by a vehicle effectively under no one’s control.

This is what’s known by researchers as the “Handoff Problem.” Google, which has been working on its Self-Driving Car Project since 2009, described the Handoff Problem in a 2015 monthly report (PDF). “People trust technology very quickly once they see it works. As a result, it’s difficult for them to dip in and out of the task of driving when they are encouraged to switch off and relax,” said the report. “There’s also the challenge of context—once you take back control, do you have enough understanding of what’s going on around the vehicle to make the right decision?”

Autonomous vehicle operation also relies upon the technology working correctly. Speaking at the National Press Club shortly after the Tesla crash, Christopher A. Hart, the head of the NTSB, acknowledged that true driverless cars could significantly improve highway safety. But he also pointed out that decades of investigating transportation accidents had revealed deadly consequences when humans rely upon systems that don’t always work properly.

“The theory of removing human error by removing the human assumes that the automation is working as designed,” said Hart. “So the question is what if the automation fails. Will it fail in a way that it is safe? If it cannot be guaranteed to fail safe, will the operator be aware of the failure in a timely manner, and will the operator then be able to take over to avoid a crash?”

As with the Tesla Autopilot crash, when an autonomous system fails to see an obstacle that it was supposed to see, the human operator must be able to take the controls and react quickly, or the results can be fatal.

In his speech, Hart of the NTSB gave the example of a 2009 Washington, D.C. Metro train accident which killed the train operator and eight passengers. In that accident, a train became “electronically invisible” and the operator of a train behind it assumed the track was unoccupied and was not warned in enough time to avoid a crash.

Consumer Reports Calls Tesla “UNSAFE” and “DANGEROUS”; Demands That Tesla Cease Dangerous Tactics

Tesla’s Autopilot: Too Much Autonomy Too Soon

Consumer Reports calls for Tesla to disable hands-free operation until its system can be made safer


Following a series of crashes, one of which was fatal, Tesla Motors, the automaker known for its high-performance electric vehicles and envelope-pushing technology, is now under intense scrutiny for the way it deployed and marketed its Autopilot driving-assist system.

The company’s aggressive roll-out of self-driving technology—in what it calls a “beta-test”—is forcing safety agencies and automakers to reassess the basic relationship between human drivers and their increasingly sophisticated cars. Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sent a letter to Tesla requesting detailed information about Autopilot, including any design changes and updates to the system, as well as detailed logs of when the system has prompted drivers to take over steering.

The most serious of the Autopilot crashes happened in Florida on May 7. According to the accident report, 40-year-old Ohio resident Joshua Brown died in a collision near Williston, Fla., with a tractor trailer that was making a left turn in front of his Model S. Tesla later acknowledged that the car was in Autopilot mode at the time. On June 30, Tesla published a blog post about the accident, stating “neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.”

Autopilot comprises multiple systems (including Autosteer and Auto Lane Change) that use cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors and data to, in Tesla’s words “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic.” The company also claims the features “help the car avoid hazards and reduce the driver’s workload.”

The Florida crash has prompted investigations by NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether Tesla failed to tell investors about the crash in a timely fashion.

While the exact cause of the fatal accident is not yet known, the incident has caused safety advocates, including Consumer Reports, to question whether the name Autopilot, as well as the marketing hype of its roll-out, promoted a dangerously premature assumption that the Model S was capable of truly driving on its own. Tesla’s own press release for the system announced “Your Autopilot has arrived” and promised to relieve drivers “of the most tedious and potentially dangerous aspects of road travel.” But the release also states that the driver “is still responsible for, and ultimately in control of, the car.”

Consumer Reports experts believe that these two messages—your vehicle can drive itself, but you may need to take over the controls at a moment’s notice—create potential for driver confusion. It also increases the possibility that drivers using Autopilot may not be engaged enough to to react quickly to emergency situations. Many automakers are introducing this type of semi-autonomous technology into their vehicles at a rapid pace, but Tesla has been uniquely aggressive in its deployment. It is the only manufacturer that allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel for significant periods of time, and the fatal crash has brought the potential risks into sharp relief.

“By marketing their feature as ‘Autopilot,’ Tesla gives consumers a false sense of security,” says Laura MacCleery, vice president of consumer policy and mobilization for Consumer Reports. “In the long run, advanced active safety technologies in vehicles could make our roads safer. But today, we’re deeply concerned that consumers are being sold a pile of promises about unproven technology. ‘Autopilot’ can’t actually drive the car, yet it allows consumers to have their hands off the steering wheel for minutes at a time. Tesla should disable automatic steering in its cars until it updates the program to verify that the driver’s hands are on the wheel.”

Companies must commit immediately to name automated features with descriptive—not exaggerated—titles, MacCleery adds, noting that automakers should roll out new features only when they’re certain they are safe.

“Consumers should never be guinea pigs for vehicle safety ‘beta’ programs,” she says. “At the same time, regulators urgently need to step up their oversight of cars with these active safety features. NHTSA should insist on expert, independent third-party testing and certification for these features, and issue mandatory safety standards to ensure that they operate safely.”


Consumer Reports calls for Tesla to do the following:

  • Disable Autosteer until it can be reprogrammed to require drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel
  • Stop referring to the system as “Autopilot” as it is misleading and potentially dangerous

  • Issue clearer guidance to owners on how the system should be used and its limitations

  • Test all safety-critical systems fully before public deployment; no more beta releases

Consumer Reports contacted Tesla about these concerns, and the company sent this response via email:

“Tesla is constantly introducing enhancements, proven over millions of miles of internal testing, to ensure that drivers supported by Autopilot remain safer than those operating without assistance. We will continue to develop, validate, and release those enhancements as the technology grows. While we appreciate well-meaning advice from any individual or group, we make our decisions on the basis of real-world data, not speculation by media.”

Tesla also defended the safety record of the system, writing that “130 million miles have been driven on Autopilot, with one confirmed fatality.” The company underscored that its beta software development process includes “significant internal validation.”

Consumer Reports has owned three Teslas (2013 Model S 85, 2014 Model S P85D, and 2016 Model X 90D) and we’ve seen first-hand how such beta software is transmitted wirelessly into the cars. When software in a desktop computer or handheld electronic device is labeled as “beta”—it typically means that functionality is not fully developed and is still being fine-tuned.

Tesla says that the system makes frequent checks to ensure that the driver’s hands remain on the wheel, but our recent testing on a Model X in Autopilot mode on a long, straight road found that the system took more than three minutes after our tester’s hands were removed from the wheel before the vehicle gave any warning.

Being early adopters, many Tesla owners may want to test the limits of cutting-edge features included in updates to their cars. And while some drivers may be skilled and understanding of such features, confidence in or over reliance on the technology can have potentially fatal consequences.

Regaining Control

Research shows that humans are notoriously bad at re-engaging with complex tasks after their attention has been allowed to wander. According to a 2015 NHTSA study (PDF), it took test subjects anywhere from three to 17 seconds to regain control of a semi-autonomous vehicle when alerted that the car was no longer under the computer’s control. At 65 mph, that’s between 100 feet and quarter-mile traveled by a vehicle effectively under no one’s control.

This is what’s known by researchers as the “Handoff Problem.” Google, which has been working on its Self-Driving Car Project since 2009, described the Handoff Problem in a 2015 monthly report (PDF). “People trust technology very quickly once they see it works. As a result, it’s difficult for them to dip in and out of the task of driving when they are encouraged to switch off and relax,” said the report. “There’s also the challenge of context—once you take back control, do you have enough understanding of what’s going on around the vehicle to make the right decision?”

Autonomous vehicle operation also relies upon the technology working correctly. Speaking at the National Press Club shortly after the Tesla crash, Christopher A. Hart, the head of the NTSB, acknowledged that true driverless cars could significantly improve highway safety. But he also pointed out that decades of investigating transportation accidents had revealed deadly consequences when humans rely upon systems that don’t always work properly.

“The theory of removing human error by removing the human assumes that the automation is working as designed,” said Hart. “So the question is what if the automation fails. Will it fail in a way that it is safe? If it cannot be guaranteed to fail safe, will the operator be aware of the failure in a timely manner, and will the operator then be able to take over to avoid a crash?”

As with the Tesla Autopilot crash, when an autonomous system fails to see an obstacle that it was supposed to see, the human operator must be able to take the controls and react quickly, or the results can be fatal.

In his speech, Hart of the NTSB gave the example of a 2009 Washington, D.C. Metro train accident which killed the train operator and eight passengers. In that accident, a train became “electronically invisible” and the operator of a train behind it assumed the track was unoccupied and was not warned in enough time to avoid a crash.

The EyeOpener -Exposing In-Q-Tel

The EyeOpener -Exposing In-Q-Tel

Error
This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

Silicon Valley’s creepy tech lawyers: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati hacked?

Silicon Valley’s creepy tech lawyers: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati hacked?

 

Palo Alto- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati are known for being the “go-to” guys when your offshore tax haven gets raided, your bank records are found in a Senator’s Swiss account or your electric car company is sued for fraud and corruption.

 

Wilson Sonsini has a hoard of sketchy clients who seem to always be involved in some scandal, political intrigue or overt crimes against the public.

 

While one might have thought that Wilson Sonsini was only one FBI raid away from non-existence, the FBI did raid Wilson Sonsini’s covert buddy: Solyndra, and still has not released the final investigation results.

 

Wouldn’t it be handy for the FBI if they had all of the information off of all of the hard drives from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati from the last decade?

 

The wishes of the FBI, and other investigators may have come true.

 

The troubled larcenies of Tesla Motors, another WSGR politically financed tech company, are coming to light.

 

It appears that either the FBI, Russia, China, Guccifer, or some other hacker extraordinaire may have gutted the secrets of WSGR. If a disgruntled employee did not do a dump then maybe WSGR’s client: Juniper Networks (Known for having put spy back-doors in all of their network equipment), provided the access by simply being Juniper Networks. The terrible manner in which Juniper Networks implemented their back-doors makes any hacks that go through them UNDETECTABLE!

 

An unusual amount of insider Panama Papers-like material has started to appear on the internet and it is not pretty for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

 

Government Investigations – Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

 

WSGR’s attorneys have represented companies and their officers and directors in financial and accounting fraud investigations, including inquiries related to …

 

google cached

 

https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx%5B…%5Dinternal-government-investigations.htm

 

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and how to avoid getting caught – Wilson Sonsini Goodrich …

 

FCPA. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati has a team of attorneys who have advised corporate clients on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) matters.

 

https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=practice/FCPA.htm

 

White Collar Crime – Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

 

WSGR’s attorneys have represented companies and their officers and directors in financial and accounting fraud matters and investigations, including inquiries …

 

https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx%5B…%5Dar-crime-government-investigations.htm

 

Former Wilson Sonsini attorney admits fraud | News | Palo Alto Online |

 

A former attorney for Palo Alto-based law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati pleaded guilty in a New Jersey federal court Wednesday (Dec.

 

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23631

 

 

 

Wilson Sonsini Staffer Sentenced For Role In $1M Fraud – Law360

 

to serve a combined 36 months in prison for fraudulently billing Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC more than $1 million for office supplies.

 

http://www.law360.com/articles/205337/%5B…%5Dstaffer-sentenced-for-role-in-1m-fraud

 

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati – Global Investigations Review

 

The IT company disclosed government corruption investigations last August. … One Wilson Sonsini partner submitted his comments on the proposed rules to …

 

http://globalinvestigationsreview.com/%5B…%5Dfirms/wilson-sonsini-goodrich-&-rosati

 

Wilson Sonsini employee pleads guilty to insider trading in N.Y. …

 

at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati pleaded guilty onThursday to … of securities fraud, two years after another Wilson Sonsini employee, …

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/insider%5B…%5Drtrading-lawfirm-idUSL2N0T315R20141113

 

 

 

Ripoff Report | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Complaint Review …

 

Jun 20, 2014 … Unethical and Corrupt Law Firm Santa Barbara California … Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Larry Sonsini Lied to me to get me to sign a …

 

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Wilson-S%5B…%5D-to-get-me-to-sign-a-contract–1077356

 

 

 

Wilson Sonsini lawyer erases fraud-ridden Entellium from client list

 

Oct 9, 2008 … … with wire fraud and cooking the company’s books, Entellium disappeared from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partner Craig Sherman’s .

 

google cached

 

http://gawker.com/5061379/wilson-sonsi%5B…%5Draud-ridden-entellium-from-client-list

 

 

 

Tesla In More Trouble- Did Elon Musk Lie?

Tesla In More Trouble- Did Elon Musk Lie?

 

Feds Seek Autopilot Data From Tesla in Crash Probe

 

  • By tom krisher, ap auto writer

 

DETROIT —

 

Federal safety investigators are asking electric car maker Tesla Motors for details on how its Autopilot system works and why it failed to detect a tractor trailer that crossed its path in a Florida crash.

 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in a letter to Tesla posted Tuesday, also requests data on all crashes that happened because its system did not work as expected.

 

The agency is investigating the May 7 crash in Williston, Florida, that killed 40-year-old Joshua Brown, of Canton, Ohio. Tesla says the cameras on his Model S sedan failed to distinguish the white side of a turning tractor-trailer from a brightly lit sky and didn’t automatically brake.

 

The agency gave Tesla until Aug. 26 to fully comply with its request. The company faces penalties of up to $21,000 per day, to a maximum of $105 million if it doesn’t comply.

 

Although the agency called the problem with Tesla’s Autopilot system an “alleged defect,” a spokesman said in a statement that it hasn’t determined if a safety defect exists. The information request is a routine step in an investigation into the crash, spokesman Bryan Thomas said.

 

The investigation could have broad implications for the auto industry and its steps toward self-driving cars. If the NHTSA probe finds defects with Tesla’s system, the agency could seek a recall. Other automakers have or are developing similar systems that may need to be changed as a result of the probe.

 

Tesla’s system uses cameras, radar and computers to detect objects and automatically brake its vehicles if they’re about to hit something. It also can steer the car to keep it centered in its lane. The company says that before Autopilot can be used, drivers have to acknowledge that the system is an “assist feature” that requires a driver to keep both hands on the wheel at all times. Drivers are told they need to “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while using the system, and they must be prepared to take over at any time, Tesla has said.

 

In the letter, which was dated July 8, NHTSA also asked Tesla for results of its own investigation into the May 7 crash, and for all consumer complaints, field reports from dealers, reports of crashes, lawsuits and all data logs and images from problems with the Autopilot system. It also seeks details on any modification to the Autopilot system that Tesla has made.

 

“Describe all assessments, analyses, tests, test results, studies, surveys, simulations, reconstructions, investigations, inquiries and or evaluations that relate to or may relate to the alleged defect,” the letter says.

 

Investigators also want to know how the system recognizes objects and decides whether they are crossing the path of a Tesla. They also asked the company to describe how the system detects how signals from cameras or other sensors have been compromised or degraded and when that information is communicated to the driver.

 

Tesla Has No Plans to Disable Autopilot Feature in Its Cars

 

Tesla sees autopilot as stock market pump technology and plans to redouble efforts to educate customers on use so that Musk does not look like more of a loser

 

 

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

 

U.S. Deepens Investigation of Tesla in Fatal Autopilot Collision

 

By NEAL E. BOUDETTE

 

 

The dashboard of a Model S equipped with Autopilot, Tesla’s autonomous driving system. Credit David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

 

Federal highway safety officials, deepening their investigation of Tesla Motors and the company’s Autopilot technology, have asked a set of detailed questions about the company’s crash-prevention systems and any incidents in which they failed to work properly, including the fatal May 7 accident that sparked the inquiry.

 

The request, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced on Tuesday, comes as the federal government is increasing its scrutiny of Tesla.

 

 

Document: Regulators Ask Tesla About Autopilot

 

A separate agency, the National Transportation Safety Board, which more typically investigates airline accidents, is also looking into the accident, which killed Joshua Brown, an entrepreneur from Ohio.

 

Mr. Brown’s 2015 Tesla Model S collided with a tractor-trailer on a Florida highway while the car’s Autopilot system was engaged.

 

Graphic

 

Inside the Self-Driving Tesla Fatal Accident

 

After Joshua Brown, 40, of Canton, Ohio, was killed driving a Tesla Model S in the first fatality involving a self-driving car, questions have arisen about the safety of the car’s technology.

 

 

OPEN Graphic

 

The questions raised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in a nine-page letter dated July 8, indicate the agency is investigating whether there are defects in the various crash-prevention systems related to the Autopilot system. Those include automatic emergency braking, which is supposed to stop Tesla models from running into other vehicles detected by radar and a camera, and Autosteer, which uses radar and camera input to guide the vehicles on highways or in slow-moving traffic.

 

The company warns drivers they must keep their hands on the steering wheel and remain alert while using Autopilot. And since the May 7 crash, the company has emphasized that Autopilot is intended to be a driver assistance feature and not a fully automated driving system.

 

Photo

 

 

Joshua Brown, shown with his Tesla Model S, had the Autopilot system engaged when he was killed in a crash in May. Credit Krista Kitchen/Krista Kitchen, via Associated Press

 

The agency’s letter asks Tesla to provide a wide range of data, including a list of all vehicles sold in the United States that are equipped with the Autopilot system; the miles driven with Autosteer activated; the number of incidents in which Tesla vehicles’ automatic emergency braking was activated; and how many times the automatic system warned drivers to put their hands back on the steering wheel.

 

Tesla remotely collects vast volumes of information about its cars as they are being driven.

 

The letter also asks Tesla to turn over any information on consumer complaints or reports of crashes or other incidents in which a vehicle’s accident-prevention systems may not have worked properly. The agency is also seeking detailed data about how Tesla’s technology detects pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles, including vehicles moving laterally across a road.

 

The tractor-trailer involved in the Florida crash made a left turn across the path of Mr. Brown’s Tesla, which the accident investigation report indicated did not slow before hitting the trailer and then continuing under it at high speed before eventually running off the road and striking a utility pole that brought the car to a stop.

 

Tesla has said that in Mr. Brown’s accident, the Autopilot system failed to see the white truck against a bright sky and that neither the system nor Mr. Brown braked before the impact.

 

 

 

Related Coverage

 

 

 

 

Related Coverage

 

      1. Fatal Tesla Crash Draws In Transportation Safety Board

            1. WHEELS

            Makers of Self-Driving Cars Ask What to Do With Human Nature

                1. U.S. Safety Agency Investigates Another Tesla Crash Involving Autopilot

                 

                 

                Tesla Motors: It’s the Nondisclosure Not the Crash

                 

                 

                 

                By Ben Levisohn

                 

                UBS analysts Colin Langan and Eddie Hsieh asses the news that Tesla Motors (TSLA) is now being investigated by the SEC for failing to disclose the death of a driver using its Autopilot system:

                 

                Associated Press

                 

                Yesterday, the WSJ reported that the SEC is investigating Tesla for failing to disclose to investors the fatal crash in May involving a model operated in Autopilot mode. This is the latest in a series of negative Tesla headlines including the original report of the Autopilot crash, the Q2 delivery miss, & concerns around the SolarCity (SCTY) deal. The SEC is reportedly investigating if the accident is considered a material event that a reasonable investor would have deemed important. The fatal accident occurred prior to the May capital raise. The article states that the investigation is in the very early stages, and Tesla said it has not received any communication from the SEC. Legal experts cited in the media highlight the fact that the stock rose the day after the crash was announced will make it tough to prove the crash was a material event and that it’s common that SEC investigations ultimately lead nowhere.

                 

                Autopilot issue largely focused on disclosure, not systems performance: Many autonomous driving experts believe Tesla’s Autopilot is a good ‘Level 2′ semiautonomous system. However, there is debate if the communication of the system’s limitation to owners is sufficient. For example, according to Reuters, the driver of the Autopilot fatality may have been watching a DVD, clearly placing too much trust in the system’s capabilities. Ensuring the driver is ready & able to take back control over the vehicle may ultimately be a key addition to this type of system (ex. possibly adding a camera to monitor driver). That said, we believe Tesla’s comparison of the Autopilot fatality as the first in >130 million miles of driving vs. all US vehicles (one in every 94 million miles) doesn’t take into account that Autopilot is operated in certain restricted conditions (highway) and with human oversight, while the overall US stats include all environments and a broad range of safety technology.

                 

                Shares of Tesla Motors have advanced 0.3% to $225.50 at 11:15 a.m. today, while SolarCity has risen 0.9% to $24.75.

                 

                 

                no, it IS the crash

                or more specifically, the crashes.

                Several tesla cars have been wrecked now while ‘self driving’, not just the last three in the last couple weeks.

                Tesla is promoting its self driving autopilot function as a primary aspect of the level of technology in the car.

                Tesla has already said that in the near future the car will be able to drive itself all the way from NYC to LA with no one in the car. THAT is the level of expectation tesla has created.

                the reality is, unless you are fully engaged and ready to take control of the car in an instant, you LIFE IS IN DANGER.

                As with all things tesla, they cannot cash the checks that elons ego is writing.

                That is why it was a SEC is involved, because tesla cars are NOT what tesla claims, and the crashes are the proof.

                      • JULY 12, 2016 11:55 A.M.

                      • Anonymous wrote:

                      There are larger issues here than just the non-disclosure of the task.

                      TSLA had a $2B stock offering on 5/18 and the announced the $7.7B acquisition of SCTY on 6/20. This represents a 25% dilution of TSLA’s stock. Impossible that the board was not contemplating the SCTY offer on 5/18. Musk has admitted to speaking with large shareholders prior to 5/18.

                            • JULY 12, 2016 1:30 P.M.

                            • 216 wrote:

                            “… They are always people who have fallen far, far short of his success in life….”

                            Elon is personally billions of dollars in debt. Last fall he took a $1.6B personal loan, using his tesla stock as collateral at $216 per share. He needed that money to bail out spaceX, which was burning cash faster than his rocket explosion in the summer of 2015, leaving spaceX sitting dead in the water for over 6 months.

                            tesla is billions in debt. Solar city is billions in debt. None of Elon’s companies are making a profit.

                            I am eternally grateful to the powers that be, that I am what you consider “far short of his success in life”.

                            Saying that autopilot functions will get better and save thousands of lives is pure bull. To match the intelligence of an average driver will take a room full of computers for EACH car.

                            The joke is on you, and you are the punch line. Before the fatal tesla auto-accident people were debating whether a self driving tesla car should run over a box of kittens, crash into pedestrians, ram a school bus full of disabled children, or sacrifice the driver of the tesla car in a no-win scenario. As if somehow THAT was the level of sophistication of self driving cars and the ethical dilemma they were struggling with.

                            And then reality rears its ugly head, and a tesla car broad sides an 18 wheeler at 80mph, because it thought the truck, trailer and all 9 visible 3 foot diameter moving black wheels was a sign over the roadway, and it could just drive ‘under it’.

                            It is now perfectly clear that when it comes to self driving cars, tesla’s got nothing going on.

                                  • JULY 12, 2016 1:32 P.M.

                                  • 216 wrote:

                                  “Autopilot crashes and investigations are minor bumps in the road. ”

                                  Pretty compassionate of you to refer to the man who’s head got splattered like a pumpkin all over the highway in his self driving tesla, as a minor bump in the road.

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                  History: The Business Plot

                                  Error
                                  This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

                                  Google’s VC sex scandal stirs talk of how VCs treat women

                                  Google’s VC sex scandal stirs talk of how VCs treat women

                                  By Marissa Lang

                                  Photo: Michael Kovac, FilmMagic

                                  Mike Goguen arrive at The Grossman Burn Foundation’s “Art Of Humanity” Gala at SLS Hotel on October 8, 2010 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Michael Kovac/FilmMagic)

                                  A recent lawsuit claiming that a prominent venture capitalist sexually and physically abused a woman for 13 years — then reneged on an agreement to pay her $40 million for her suffering and discretion — has left many shocked and appalled.

                                  But for many women who have worked in and among Silicon Valley venture capital firms, the news was less surprising.

                                  They see the scandal, while extreme, as an affirmation of the sexism and misogyny they say has long pervaded the VC industry and an example of behavior and attitudes they have encountered.

                                  Sequoia Capital, based in Menlo Park, has tried to distance itself from the accusations against Michael Goguen, who announced his resignation as a managing partner after reports of the lawsuit first surfaced. The firm, which has backed Silicon Valley companies Apple, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, said it asked Goguen to step down.

                                  I don’t want this lawsuit, and (Sequoia) pushing out a partner, to make it look like this is an isolated problem,” said Robin Wolaner, a former tech startup founder and executive now at We Care Solar, a Berkeley nonprofit. “It may be extreme, but it is not at all isolated.”

                                  This is as patriarchal as any industry could be imagined to be,” said Rebecca Eisenberg, a compensation negotiation lawyer and founder of Private Client Legal Services. “Women are not respected or viewed as equals. It is not a meritocracy. It’s about who are the male VCs comfortable hanging out with.”

                                  Typical of VC firms

                                  Sequoia Capital is one of hundreds of American VC firms that have no female investing partners. Less than a third of venture capital firms in the United States employ at least one woman to conduct business or participate in investment decisions, according to the Page Mill Publishing study issued last year that underscored a long-standing problem with the VC industry’s diversity.

                                  And the problem has gotten worse, not better. Babson College’s Diana Project estimated in 2014 that 6 percent of venture capitalists are women, down from 10 percent in 1999.

                                  In response to the industry’s dismal diversity record, the National Venture Capital Association, which advocates for the industry, established a task force in 2014 to expand venture capital opportunities for women and underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities and has recently expanded its own board to include more women. About 30 percent of the NVCA board is now female.

                                  Obviously when you look at an industry with the number of women at 5 percent, plus or minus, that is not at all where we mean to be,” said Kate Mitchell, an NVCA board member and co-founder of Scale Venture Partners. “We want to take it a level beyond creating opportunity for women to where we, as an industry, see women and underrepresented minorities as an actual asset.”

                                  Lawsuit against Goguen

                                  The NVCA declined to comment on the Goguen case, whose details have drawn national media attention.

                                  Amber Laurel Baptiste filed a breach of contract lawsuit in San Mateo County on March 8 that accused Goguen of entering a physical relationship with her while she was victim of human trafficking, and continuing to “sexually, physically and emotionally” abuse her for the next 13 years.

                                  Baptiste said that she suffered the abuse because she had been relying on Goguen, and his financial support, to free her from the human traffickers to whom she owed money. The $40 million contract was drafted by Goguen’s lawyers, according to Baptiste’s court filing, as a means of compensating her for enduring “the horrors she suffered at his hands” and keeping quiet.

                                  Goguen admitted in court documents that he had a sexual relationship with Baptiste over the course of three marriages, and that he had agreed to pay her $40 million for her discretion. He denied all allegations of abuse and mistreatment. In his countersuit, Goguen said he made the first payment of $10 million because he was being extorted, harassed and threatened by Baptiste, whom he described as a vengeful woman “consumed by anger, obsession and jealousy.”

                                  Sequoia said the lawsuit caught the firm by surprise.

                                  We didn’t learn about these claims until March 10, after they were filed in court,” the firm said. “We understand that these allegations of serious improprieties are unproven and unrelated to Sequoia. Nevertheless, we decided that Mike’s departure was the appropriate course of action.”

                                  Goguen has since stepped down from nearly a dozen boards where he served as Sequoia’s representative.

                                  The revelations regarding Goguen underscored for many what they say is a prevailing industry attitude toward women — in and out of the office.

                                  The VC boys’ club

                                  In an interview last year with Bloomberg, for instance, Sequoia Capital Chairman Michael Moritz was quoted saying the firm would consider hiring women — so long as doing so didn’t require it to “lower our standards.”

                                  The year before that, VC firm CMEA Capital spent an undisclosed amount of money to settle a sexual and racial harassment lawsuit with three female former employees that accused a former partner of commenting lewdly about his co-workers’ bodies, watching pornography in the office and making unwanted sexual advances.

                                  In a Stanford University-backed survey of women with at least 10 years of experience in Silicon Valley, 90 percent said they have seen sexist behavior at company off-site events or industry conferences. The Elephant in the Valley project included responses from 200 women, about a quarter of whom were C-level executives and 11 percent of whom worked in venture capital.

                                  Nearly two-thirds of those polled said they had been sexually harassed. And three-quarters said they had been asked about their family life, marital status and children during professional interviews.

                                  Seeing women be hard-driving and get treated like your equal is a major and significant experience for a man,” said labor economist and Stanford Professor Myra Strober. “Men who see women’s only role as a one thing — being at home, being a wife or a mother — treat women who they work with differently.”

                                  Attorney Eisenberg held top legal positions at PayPal, Pure Digital Technologies and Trulia — all three funded by Sequoia. She helped take PayPal public in 2002, then negotiated the $590 million sale of Pure Digital, the maker of Flip handheld video cameras, to Cisco in 2009.

                                  Disputed remark

                                  After the Pure Digital sale, Eisenberg said, Moritz invited her to a meeting to discuss her career. She told him she wanted a job — at Sequoia.

                                  He looked at me and said, ‘I just don’t know what I would do with someone like you here,’” she said.

                                  More by Marissa Lang

                                  Bots and Beer party lets humans, robots network

                                  Moritz “categorically denies” making the comment, a Sequoia representative said.

                                  Christina Noren, an entrepreneur who’s been the CEO and founder of multiple venture-backed startups, said she’s seen women passed over for jobs because of their gender since the start of her career. She said the attitude in venture capital has gotten worse over time.

                                  It’s gone from dismissive to downright nasty,” she said, citing an interaction several years ago with partners at a Silicon Valley VC firm. “I was told point-blank that I need to be more sensitive to male egos and how they feel when they’re corrected by a woman.”

                                  Another female chief executive, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions for her venture-backed company and employees, said when she made partner at a San Francisco venture-capital firm, her male colleagues chided her for attending partner dinners.

                                  They’d be like, ‘You should really be home with your kids. Are you sure it’s a good idea for you to be working? Because your kids need you at home,’” she said.

                                  There is a latent unconscious bias in an industry like venture capital such that if you ask most people do they feel they’re racist, do they feel they’re sexist? They will answer that they don’t,” Strober said.

                                  The high-profile gender-discrimination case brought against VC firm Kleiner Perkins by then-partner Ellen Pao in 2012 sparked a nationwide conversation about what happens in tech when diversity is ignored. Under pressure from news outlets and employees, Google, Facebook and Pinterest started releasing their workforce demographics and making plans to improve representation of women and minorities.

                                  Incentivizing diversity

                                  Few of the venture-capital firms that have backed these companies have followed their lead.

                                  No one has held them accountable,” Wolaner said. “Until they start losing out on investment deals or getting pressure to diversify from investors, it’s not going to change.”

                                  Strober, who has worked with companies on diversity issues, said making diversity a priority means giving people an incentive to diversify.

                                  The person in charge has to be 100 percent behind this,” the professor said. “So, if the CEO says, ‘I want you to hire more women and I want you to spend time finding qualified women, and I’m going to make your bonus depend in part on how well you succeed in this,’ guess what? Everybody will fall in line.”

                                  After prevailing in the Pao case, which aired the firm’s dirty laundry, including an incident where one male partner showed up at a colleague’s hotel room in a bathrobe, Kleiner Perkins began publishing its own diversity data.

                                  In an onstage interview with Fortune writer Dan Primack in July, Kleiner partner John Doerr, who testified in the Pao case, characterized the victory as a Pyrrhic one and bashed his own industry for its record of excluding women.

                                  I believe this is an overdue conversation,” Doerr told Primack. “We collectively are pathetic on the issue. Six percent of the venture capitalists are female. You know as a matter of social justice, because it’s better for business, because it’s our values, that’s just dumb.”

                                  Marissa Lang is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mlang@sfchronicle.com

                                  Who Is Hacking And Crashing All Of The Tesla’s?

                                   

                                  CLICK HERE TO READ MORE…

                                  The facts are clear.

                                  The following facts are now documented in numerous broadcast, and published, news reports; federal reports, university studies and investigation field reports. The FBI, GAO, NHTSA, SEC and Congressional authorities have now received all of the confirming evidence, in writing:

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries were promoted by those who wished to exploit the Afghanistan War for personal profit by controlling the Afghan lithium mining fields

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries blow up on their own

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries blow up when they get wet

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries fires cannot be put out by any common fire-fighting resources

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries set themselves on fire

                                  • Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit cancer-causing vapors when they burn

                                  • Tesla Motors Vehicles toxicity poison bystanders, nearby vehicular passengers, airline passengers in planes carrying said batteries in their holds, and environments where such incidents occur

                                  • Fires in Tesla Motors vehicles turn the entire car into a slag pile of melted metal and plastic and turn the bodies, inside the Tesla, into “unrecognizable lumps”

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries blow up when bumped by the same level of car incident that would, otherwise, only dent a normal car bumper

                                  • In an accident, when a Tesla rolls over, molten metal and plastic can drip on and burn the occupants alive

                                  • Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit brain damaging chemicals when they burn

                                  • Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals, burning, or not, that can damage an unborn fetus

                                  • Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause lung damage

                                  • Per MSDS documents, Tesla Motors batteries emit chemicals that can cause liver damage

                                  • Per published lawsuits and news reports, the factories that make Tesla Motors batteries have been charged with the deaths, and potentially fatal illness, of over 1000 workers and the poisoning of nearby towns

                                  • Panasonic, Tesla’s battery partner, has been charged with corruption, toxic poisoning, dumping and price fixing by, at least, two different nations, including the U.S.

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries become even more dangerous over time, particularly when tasked by electric transportation systems like Hover-boards and Tesla’s.

                                  • Tesla Motors batteries were never designed to be used in automobiles. Tesla used non-automotive batteries in one of the most dangerous configurations possible

                                  • Tesla Motors occupants experience higher EMF radiation exposure than gasoline vehicle occupants

                                  • Elon Musk’s Space X vehicles and Tesla Motors vehicles have both had a higher-than-average number of explosions. This has caused outside experts to doubt Musk’s ability to place safety considerations over his need for hyped-up PR

                                  • Leaked Sandia National Labs and FAA research videos dramatically demonstrate the unstoppable, horrific, “re-percussive accelerating domino-effect” explosive fire effect of the Tesla Motors batteries

                                  • Tesla’s own “Superchargers” and home 3-prong chargers have set Tesla’s, homes and businesses on fire

                                  • Consumer rights groups contacted Erick Strickland, the head of the NHTSA, and charged him with a cover-up. He quit days later. The NHTSA then issued a safety investigation request to Tesla Motors, which would have more publicly exposed these dangers, but the safety investigation was never under-taken due to White House requests and lobbyist bribes, from Tesla, which got the investigation shut down

                                  • NEPA regulations for the Tesla NUMMI factory in California and the Nevada Tesla “Gigafactory” have been violated relative to environmental safety standards

                                  • Tesla Motors vehicles are not “Factory Built” “like Ford” builds cars, as Tesla professes. They are hand built in small volumes and subjected to numerous defects. Blogs have documented hundreds of defects, as listed by Tesla owners. Tesla has lost at least one LEMON CAR LAWSUIT for defective manufacturing

                                  • Tesla’s “showrooms” are often “pop-up” retail storefronts that are in tight-proximity retail centers, putting it’s neighbors at risk of total loss from fire damage

                                  • Tesla Motors vehicles have been hacked and taken over. Their doors, steering, listening devices and navigation have been taken over by outside parties. Multiple Tesla have suddenly swerved off the road, over cliffs and into other vehicles, killing bystanders and Tesla drivers

                                  • Three Tesla top engineers and two competing senior executives, all of whom had whistle-blown on Tesla, who were in perfect health one day, suddenly died mysteriously the next day

                                  • Multiple employees, founders, investors, marital partners, suppliers and others have sued Tesla Motors, and/or it’s senior executives for fraud

                                  • The above, and over 30 additional safety issues with Tesla Motors vehicles, have been documented, yet investigations have been covered up, and/or manipulated by public officials with a financial and political investment in Tesla Motors and lithium ion batteries. This level of cover-up is said to be a felony-level crime

                                  Not all public officials have been implicated. Senator Chuck Schumer once publicly called for a safety review of lithium ion batteries but was shouted down by his peers. The public is encouraged to seek out public officials who will take action, on behalf of the public. The public is also encouraged to sue Tesla Motors in order to call attention to these outrages.

                                  Members of the public are taking this news article to staff at Tesla show-rooms, and factories, world-wide, as well as the landlords, adjacent retail merchants and each of their insurance companies, globally. It is hoped that all adjacent parties will adjust their insurance coverage, accordingly, relative to these now, widely documented, issues.

                                  At a point where the voting public have told leading polls (including Gallop, etc.) that they have the lowest trust in the U.S. Congress, in history, and the highest disdain for CORRUPTION, in a national election year, it would seem to be “political suicide” for public officials to further this cover-up.

                                  Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashes into van parked …

                                  May 26, 2016 · Within a week of Tesla releasing Autopilot to the masses last fall, we started seeing some generally scary videos of people putting a little too much trust …

                                  bing yahoo cached

                                  Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashes into stalled van on …

                                  A Tesla Model S crashes into the back of a stalled vehicle on a highway. Who is responsible, Autopilot, TACC, or the driver? Ultimately, we know the answer but not …

                                  http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s%5B…%5Dautopilot-crashes-stalled-van-highway/

                                  A Tesla Model S with autopilot and cruise control …

                                  A Tesla Model S driver has crashed into the back of a van while the car’s autopilot, active cruise control and automatic emergency brake were activated.

                                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech%5B…%5Dashes-van-damaging-entire-end-car.html

                                  Tesla Model S driver crashes into a van while on Autopilot [Video …

                                  May 26, 2016 … A Tesla Model S driver published a video of his car crashing into a van while on Autopilot which acts as a great PSA to remind Tesla drivers not …

                                  http://electrek.co/2016/05/26/tesla-model-s-crash-autopilot-video/

                                  Tesla says Model X accident caused by driver error, not …

                                  Puzant Ozbag said his Tesla Model X, which was being driven by his 45-year-old wife, accelerated by itself as it was being parked and plowed into the side of a …

                                  Tesla Says Autopilot Self-Driving Will ‘Revolutionize …

                                  Tesla still considers the system to be in the “public beta” stage, but plans to add more capabilities over time. At the launch of Autopilot, Elon Musk advised drivers …

                                  http://www.greencarreports.com/news/11%5B…%5Driving-will-revolutionize-your-commute

                                  Tesla Model X autonomously crashes into building, …

                                  In the latest of several Tesla vehicle accidents, the owner of a Tesla Model X SUV claims the vehicle suddenly accelerated on its own and crashed into the side of a …

                                  http://www.computerworld.com/article/3%5B…%5Drashes-into-building-owner-claims.html

                                  New Book About Tesla Motors Offers Shocking Inside Views Of Car Company

                                   Sample Section Overview of the Publication:

                                  The Unofficial History Of Tesla Motors

                                  By Rory Scheider & Pamela West

                                  DRAFT ADVANCE COPY SECTION

                                  Table of Contents

                                  The Unofficial History Of Tesla Motors 1

                                  HIGHLIGHTS OF SECTIONS IN THE FULL FOUR VOLUME SET OF BOOKS WITH OVER 2000 PAGES OF HARD FACTS: 3

                                  Tesla and Google 3

                                  Tesla Spies On You 4

                                  The Afghanistan War For Elon Musk’s Lithium 4

                                  The NUMMI Real Estate Scam 4

                                  Elon’s “Moles” 4

                                  Investor Collusion 4

                                  The Tesla Time-line That Elon Musk Does not want you to see 5

                                  Bribing the NHTSA 5

                                  The DEATHS 5

                                  More Bribes? 5

                                  Was it all just a stock market pump-and-dump skim? 5

                                  The “Factory Building” Scam 5

                                  The Toxic Battery Fumes Cover-Up 5

                                  The Many Dead Workers Tesla Does Not Want You To Know About 5

                                  Elon Musk Took Billions of Your Tax Dollars For “American Jobs” yet hires underpaid workers from overseas 6

                                  Elon Musk and Tesla Motors “Point-Blank Lied About Battery Safety…” 6

                                  Tesla Sell’s It’s Cars To It’s Own Investors Who Buy Them As Shills To “Pump The Stock Valuation” 6

                                  Tesla and Musk lied on their Department of Energy Application and, in fact, never legally qualified for the Section 136 funds 6

                                  Does Having A Round Oval On The Front Of Your Sports Car Make A Driver Not Realize He is a “Douchebag”? 7

                                  All Most Tesla Buyers Drunks and Drug Addicts? 7

                                  The Trolls of Tesla 7

                                  What is Wrong With Tesla Drivers? The Psych Study 7

                                  Did Tesla Cheat On It’s “Safety Reports”? 7

                                  Elon Likes To Spy On People 7

                                  Dianne Feinstein’s Family Profiteering Scheme With Tesla and Solyndra 7

                                  The Hell The Elon Musk Puts Women Through According To His Ex-Women 8

                                  How Elon Musk Got Huge Numbers Of Taxpayer Paid For Freebies 8

                                  Did bribed politicos, like Steven Chu, help Tesla lie to the Government? 8

                                  The Silicon Valley Cartel: The mobsters of Stanford University 8

                                  The California State Politicians Who Enabled The Tesla and Solyndra Scams 8

                                  Which Senators Were On Tesla’s Payroll & Perk List 9

                                  The Fraud Lawsuits Against Tesla and Musk 9

                                  The NHTSA Rigging 9

                                  The Tax Evasions and Tax Waivers 9

                                  The Conflicts of Interest 9

                                  Did Elon Musk Bribe PR Publications For “Reviews”? 9

                                  Taxpayer Cash For Musk’s Offshore Deals 9

                                  Was Tesla Just A Front To Fund The Obama Campaign? 10

                                  How Did Kleiner- Perkins And Draper – Fisher Rig The System? 10

                                  Tesla’s Patent Filings Reveal It’s Lies 10

                                  The Stock Market Flash Boys Skims 10

                                  Deloitte and Wells Fargo: The Mechanics of Corruption 10

                                  – Did Welles Fargo conspire with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes? 10

                                  – Did Goldman Sachs conspire with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes? 10

                                  The Revolving Doors 10

                                  The Government-backed “hit-jobs” 10

                                  The Stone-walling projects to “Lois Lerner” the investigations 11

                                  Facts Vs. Tesla Hype Jobs 11

                                  The Matrix 11

                                  Rigging The White House and Department of Energy Hiring Rosters 11

                                  The MSDS Documents 11

                                  Seven Ways That Tesla Batteries Kill You And Burn Your Home 11

                                  The Intellectual Property Theft Issues With Tesla 11

                                  The Epic Engineering Screw-ups And Cover-ups of Those Bad Decisions 11

                                  The White House Rat Pack That Made The Illegal Crony Deals With Musk 12

                                  Assholes Anonymous 12

                                  Who Said What 12

                                  A Break-down of the California kick-backs 12

                                  The German Part of the scam 12

                                  The Proof Of The Dangers of Lithium Ion 12

                                  The Expert Organizations That Say Tesla Motors is Lying 12

                                  The fire-bomb under your car seat in a Tesla 13

                                  The “Worst Possible Engineering Concept For Batteries” 13

                                  How Tesla Covers-Up Defects: The NDA 13

                                  Keep an eye out for the full 4 volume box set of “The Unofficial History Of Tesla Motors” 13

                                  Appendices 14

                                  HIGHLIGHTS OF SECTIONS IN THE FULL FOUR VOLUME SET OF BOOKS WITH OVER 2000 PAGES OF HARD FACTS:

                                  Tesla and Google

                                  – Are Tesla and Google, essentially, the same entity by virtue of the same investors, agenda and stock market manipulations?

                                  – When damaging news about Tesla emerges, do Tesla and Google investors place multiple stock-buy orders from a multi-billion dollar slush fund in order to make it appear that individual outside investors are excited by Tesla when, in fact, it is only a small internal group of investors “pumping the market”?

                                  – Does Google “bury” any negative stories about Tesla in their searches on orders from Tesla/Google investors? Is that a violation of securities laws?

                                  – Is it not a fact that Google deletes, or hides any bad PR about Tesla on it’s network? Would this be considered stock market manipulation in violation of SEC laws?

                                  Tesla Spies On You

                                  – It is said that the Tesla Model S has the most surveillance devices to watch, track, listen-to and broadcast the activities of the occupants, built into it than any other car in the world. Elon Musk has personally told reporters that his cars constantly watch the driver and occupants. Why is that? Why are Tesla and Google obsessed with spying on the public?

                                  The Afghanistan War For Elon Musk’s Lithium

                                  – How Elon Musk and his partners pushed for War in Afghanistan in order to try to get lithium from Russian mobster-connected companies

                                  The NUMMI Real Estate Scam

                                  – In multiple recorded interviews, Elon Musk is on public record telling the news media that, after careful research, the NUMMI plant in Fremont California would be a very bad choice for Tesla? Why did that suddenly change? What participation did Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband’s real estate Company CBRE have on that decision and the award of the loan to Tesla? Why do Senator Feinsteins staff now work for Tesla? Why did Glenn Greenwald call Feinstein’s actions “suspicious”? What political support or funding did Tesla or Google provide to any related political officials?

                                  Elon’s “Moles”

                                  – From 2008 to 2010 numerous competing electric car companies have charged that Tesla Motors placed Tesla Motors “moles” inside of their companies to intelligence-gather and cause disruption. Is that true?

                                  Investor Collusion

                                  – Google and Tesla motors share the same venture capital investor groups and alliances. Numerous expert at Tech-Crunch, Valleywag and other industry journals have published articles about the fact that those VC’s actively collude with each other to lock competing technologies and companies out of the market and create business monopolies. Did Tesla investors and associates participate in such activities as reported in the “AngelGate” and “Silicon Valley No Poaching Lawsuit”? If so, would that not be a violation of SEC laws?

                                  The Tesla Time-line That Elon Musk Does not want you to see

                                  – Things are not as the PR says. Elon Musk had nothing to do with starting Tesla. He took it away, in a hostile takeover, from the guys who really started it.

                                  – Martin, the real founder of Tesla

                                  Bribing the NHTSA

                                  – How does Elon avoid federal investigations from the massive number of safety defects Tesla has developed? Is it nothing a bribe, or two, can’t fix?

                                  The DEATHS

                                  – Key Tesla staff suddenly died. Top reporters suddenly died. Drivers and innocent bystanders were killed by Tesla’s. Why are so many bizarre deaths connected to Tesla Motors

                                  More Bribes?

                                  – Did Tesla and/or Google reward certain politicians with campaign funding, web promotion, revolving door jobs for staff, and other incentives, in exchange for “hot-tracking” State and Federal taxpayer money for Tesla Motors?

                                  Was it all just a stock market pump-and-dump skim?

                                  – While other companies built consumer priced electric cars before and during Tesla’s existence, why did Tesla choose to build an un-affordable car and position the marketing of it to “the 1%” when the money for that car came from the 99% taxpayers?

                                  The “Factory Building” Scam

                                  – Numerous cities were told that they would have the Tesla car factory and then they stated, or sued Tesla, saying Tesla acted “in bad faith” and “used false and misleading information” to induce them to provide assurances which were used to pump the stock market. Why did Tesla lead so many cities on?

                                  The Toxic Battery Fumes Cover-Up

                                  – The factory that builds your batteries and the U.S. Government states, in their formal technical documents, that when Tesla batteries are on fire they emit lethal, brain-damaging, carcinogenic, liver, lung and DNA damaging fumes and smoke. Why do you not inform the public of this danger in your literature?

                                  The Many Dead Workers Tesla Does Not Want You To Know About

                                  – Lithium ion production kills and terminally sickens workers overseas. Multiple Tesla workers have been burned alive at your factory. OSHA has launched an investigation. What have you done to prevent the accidental and long term injuries to your staff and contractors? Is Panasonic a lying, corrupt partner of Tesla Motors?

                                  – Why does Tesla avoid talking about the dead workers and poisoned towns in Asia where it’s batteries are made?

                                  Elon Musk Took Billions of Your Tax Dollars For “American Jobs” yet hires underpaid workers from overseas

                                  – The Elon Musk labor scam gets unreeled.

                                  Elon Musk and Tesla Motors “Point-Blank Lied About Battery Safety…”

                                  – Bernard Tse, and other main Tesla Engineering staff including: electric engineer Doug Bourn, electrical engineer Andrew Ingram, Brian M. Finn, senior manager of interactive electronics and George Blankenship; while investigating battery purchases for Tesla Motors, received numerous white-papers and technical documents from LG Chem, Panasonic and the U.S. D.O.E and vast numbers of other battery-makers which specifically stated that lithium-ion batteries would be “stressed” and “likely to combust” when used in the configuration which Tesla intended. They stated that the batteries were “not intended for use in cars”. Why then, did Tesla still use them? What effect did the monopolistic ownership of lithium ion mining and manufacturing resources by Tesla and Google investors have on the decision to use lithium ion?

                                  – Did Tesla Motors lie about the safety metrics of its lithium ion battery system?

                                  Tesla Sell’s It’s Cars To It’s Own Investors Who Buy Them As Shills To “Pump The Stock Valuation”

                                  – Is it not a fact that a majority of your cars have been sold to your own investors or associates who act as “fluffers” against any bad PR?

                                  – How Value Walk, Think Progress, and a very specific list of hired shills blog Elon Musk’s fake hype

                                  Tesla and Musk lied on their Department of Energy Application and, in fact, never legally qualified for the Section 136 funds

                                  – In multiple recorded interviews, Elon MUsk is on public record stating that, at the time of application for the DOE loan Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy. The DOE loan was mandated under a Federal law known as Section 136. This law stated that no car company could receive money if it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Past accountants of Tesla have stated that Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the loan application. Numerous Tesla staff and contractors have verified this. Did Tesla commit a felony and acquire “unfair advantage” per the GAO?

                                  – According to DOE staff, who were at DOE when the Tesla application was submitted, nothing that Tesla submitted was ever built by Tesla. In fact, these staff state that the vehicle that Tesla eventually sold was not even designed or engineered when Tesla was approved for the loan money, contrary to the Section 136 law requirement. They say that Tesla took the money and THEN hired people to figure out what they were going to do with it. As shown in the DOE files, the engineering of the shipping Tesla cars has no element that was submitted to DOE. Is that true?

                                  – Did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s Federal funding?

                                  Does Having A Round Oval On The Front Of Your Sports Car Make A Driver Not Realize He is a “Douchebag”?

                                  – Analyzing the culture of Tesla owners

                                  All Most Tesla Buyers Drunks and Drug Addicts?

                                  – Relative to the number of cars sold, why has Tesla had so many Tesla drunk driver related crashes, deaths and homicides. Why are Tesla drivers killing innocent pedestrians simply because the Tesla’s “smell bad”?

                                  The Trolls of Tesla

                                  – Elon Musk hires armies of trolls, meat-puppets and click-farms to create a fake impression that there is hype about Tesla and Musk.

                                  What is Wrong With Tesla Drivers? The Psych Study

                                  – Psychographic, demographic and marketing studies have been published showing that Tesla drivers have a higher-than-average inclination towards drugs, strange sexual behavior and risk. Could this account for the number of Tesla crashes and deaths?

                                  Did Tesla Cheat On It’s “Safety Reports”?

                                  – Is it true that safety testing was done on Tesla cars without fully charged batteries and in a moisture-locked environment because Tesla staff knew that fully charged batteries and moisture in a crash WOULD cause a fiery explosion, as they already have?

                                  Elon Likes To Spy On People

                                  – Numerous periodicals, including Valleywag, document the fact that Elon Musk sends spy emails to his employees, each with a few words changed in order to track them and see who might reveal anything damaging to regulators?

                                  Dianne Feinstein’s Family Profiteering Scheme With Tesla and Solyndra

                                  – Who are all of the property holders and lease-owners of the Tesla and Solyndra, past and current, real-estate?

                                  – What other “Family business ventures” did the Feinstein family profit on with Musk?

                                  – A U.S. Senator officiated at the opening of the Tesla NUMMI plant and lobbied for Tesla’s tax waivers, credits, acquisition of NUMMI and discounts and then that U.S. Senator had their staff work in Tesla’s offices. Is it a conflict of interest that this senator received campaign funding and this senator’s family received real estate deals from the Tesla and, (next door to Tesla), Solyndra real estate deals?

                                  The Hell The Elon Musk Puts Women Through According To His Ex-Women

                                  – Elon Musks wives and founders have filed lawsuits and made public statements that he is a fraud and coerced them into participation. Is it proper fiduciary practice to allow Mr. Musk to continue with the company?

                                  How Elon Musk Got Huge Numbers Of Taxpayer Paid For Freebies

                                  – Why did Tesla not have to pay the cash participation fee that the Section 136 law said everybody had to pay? Tesla staff stated, at numerous documented Silicon Valley open meetings that they got a “special applicant participation waiver”. Why did Tesla get that waiver?

                                  Did bribed politicos, like Steven Chu, help Tesla lie to the Government?

                                  – Did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s Federal waivers, tax deferrals, credits and discounts?

                                  The Silicon Valley Cartel: The mobsters of Stanford University

                                  – Kleiner Perkins and certain silicon valley VC’s, all investors in a number of DOE “winners” (including Tesla, Fisker, Solyndra, A123 and others), organized meetings with a Dmitry Medvedev and other men known by the State Department, CIA, FBI and federal investigators to be involved in Russian mobsterism and then Ener1, Severstal and A123, dark-money funded and run by billionaires (many of whom own lithium mining interests) known by the State Department, the CIA and federal investigators to be involved in Russian mobsterism, were awarded taxpayer funds by Steven Chu, who was nominated by Kleiner Perkins. Was any of this a
                                  conflict of interest?

                                  The California State Politicians Who Enabled The Tesla and Solyndra Scams

                                  – Why is the only company to receive California State real estate exclusives, exclusive tax waivers, credits and stock enhancers and free rides on taxpayer backs also the same company who’s investors were the largest funders of certain State officials?

                                  – Did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s State funding? Did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s State waivers, tax deferrals, credits and discounts? Did Tesla investors bribe, or influence Congress people?

                                  Which Senators Were On Tesla’s Payroll & Perk List

                                  – Federal communications monitoring of text, voice and email communications of certain highly placed Senators, lobbyists and venture capitalists from 2005 to today should be made available to ALL federal criminal investigators. Have they been? Are one or more Senators blocking this effort because they are compromised?

                                  The Fraud Lawsuits Against Tesla and Musk

                                  – Why have so many fraud lawsuits been filed against Elon Musk and Tesla Motors?

                                  The NHTSA Rigging

                                  – The head of the NHTSA (Strickland) Tesla investigation quit because of increased scrutiny. The facts, such as these, demonstrate that Tesla and Fisker never should have passed any NHTSA safety review. How can the public be assured that ongoing NHTSA investigations regarding Tesla will not be rigged?

                                  The Tax Evasions and Tax Waivers

                                  – Did Tesla report tax credits as revenue/sales in stock reports in order to trick investors into thinking Tesla was making profit that it was actually not making?

                                  The Conflicts of Interest

                                  – Did Tesla staff or owners investors bribe, or influence Congress people? Did Tesla staff, owners or investors provider misleading information to investors? Was there a conflict of interest between Department of Energy staff and Tesla owners, investors or staff? Was there a conflict of interest between White House staff and Tesla owners, investors or staff? Was there a conflict of interest between Senate staff and Tesla owners, investors or staff? Did Tesla Motors use taxpayer money to hire off-shore staff?

                                  Did Elon Musk Bribe PR Publications For “Reviews”?

                                  – Marketing sales staff from the ad agencies for 60 Minutes, Consumer Reports, GQ, Fortune and other mainstream periodicals have stated that Elon Musk purchased “puff piece” stories about himself in those broadcasts and magazines and that none of those stories were internally generated. Is it good fiduciary practice for an executive to use corporate resources for personal glorification?

                                  Taxpayer Cash For Musk’s Offshore Deals

                                  – Did Tesla Motors use taxpayer money to purchase supplies offshore that could have been purchased in the United States? Did Tesla Motors participate in a market rigging scam to rig lithium ion purchasing for its investors? Did Tesla Motors participate in a market rigging scam to rig the electric car market for its investors? Did Tesla Motors staff, or owners, sabotage competitors?

                                  Was Tesla Just A Front To Fund The Obama Campaign?

                                  – Did Tesla Motors staff, owners or investors exchange campaign funding quid pro quo for business financing?

                                  How Did Kleiner- Perkins And Draper – Fisher Rig The System?

                                  – Did Silicon Valley companies, owned by Tesla investors and campaign financiers, use internet technology to falsify information to the public in order to manipulate stock market perceptions in violation of SEC, RICO, and various other laws?

                                  Tesla’s Patent Filings Reveal It’s Lies

                                  – Was Tesla Motors holding safety metric data in its files which differed fully from the safety metrics data it provided to investors and NHTSA?

                                  The Stock Market Flash Boys Skims

                                  – Did Tesla Motors violate securities law by using false information to acquire a federal loan which it then used to falsify its stock metrics in order to “pump” it’s stock?

                                  Deloitte and Wells Fargo: The Mechanics of Corruption

                                  – Did Deloitte accounting firm conspire with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes and did that firm manipulate Department of Energy review data on Tesla’s behalf?

                                  – Did Welles Fargo conspire with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes?

                                  – Did Goldman Sachs conspire with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes?

                                  The Revolving Doors

                                  – Were Department of Energy staff manipulating Tesla funding data in order to favor Tesla and it’s campaign funding investors in violation of RICO Statutes?

                                  The Government-backed “hit-jobs”

                                  – Were Department of Energy staff manipulating Tesla funding data in order to disfavor Tesla competitors and competitors to it’s campaign funding investors in violation of RICO Statutes?

                                  The Stone-walling projects to “Lois Lerner” the investigations

                                  – Did Tesla owners, staff or investors attempt to delay federal investigations and indictments by asserting influence in violation of RICO Statutes and numerous other laws?

                                  Facts Vs. Tesla Hype Jobs

                                  – Documents show there have been more Tesla fires that actually occurred than Tesla has reported in the media. How many actual Tesla factory fires, test car fires and Tesla battery fires have actually occurred?

                                  The Matrix

                                  – An identification matrix showing campaign backers who were lithium ion investors who had had their contacts exert influence over NHTSA decisions regarding Tesla?

                                  Rigging The White House and Department of Energy Hiring Rosters

                                  – The Secretary of energy was friends with all of your investors. We have been unable to find the name of even one person from OPM and Congressional nomination file wrapper for Steven Chu’s nomination, who Chu did not later give DOE $$ or perks to. Why is that?

                                  The MSDS Documents

                                  – The U.S. Post Office, The TSA, The DOE, The GAO, Panasonic and over 100 of the leading technical companies in the world say lithium ion batteries can spontaneously explode. Why do you not disclose this to your buyers in your literature?

                                  Seven Ways That Tesla Batteries Kill You And Burn Your Home

                                  – The Tesla can blow-up from it’s charger and/or it’s batteries. Are there other dangers that have also not been disclosed?

                                  The Intellectual Property Theft Issues With Tesla

                                  – Is Tesla operating in violation of the patents of any other company?

                                  The Epic Engineering Screw-ups And Cover-ups of Those Bad Decisions

                                  – By Elon Musk’s own admission, at the time of the DOE loan application all of the car designs were $100,000.00, PER CAR, over budget and they had no final design for a factory production run DFM. How could Tesla have gotten the loan with the worst debt ratio, the least engineering, the greatest financial risk and the least collateral of any applicant?

                                  The White House Rat Pack That Made The Illegal Crony Deals With Musk

                                  – Tesla lobbyists worked with Rahm Emanuel in the White House, to arrange their loan deal. Rahm Emanuals Senior Finance Aide was recently arrested for bribes, kickbacks, corruption and money Laundering. Steve Rattner, The West Wing “Car Czar”, who Tesla investors worked with to secure the Tesla loan, was also indicted for corruption. Almost everyone at DOE involved in your loan was forced to quit or fired. Does this call your dealings into question?

                                  Assholes Anonymous

                                  – Rolls-Royce Holdings said the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office has opened a formal investigation into bribery and corruption of government officials for cars for the 1%. Why rich guy sports car companies usually end in corruption

                                  Who Said What

                                  – The NHTSA said that Elon Musk lied about Fire Safety Review approval and who made the request for recall and investigation. Should we trust Elon Musk?

                                  A Break-down of the California kick-backs

                                  – Tesla got another $34 MILLION of our tax money in exclusive campaign finance kickbacks for billionaires from the State of California. Why did Tesla billionaires need a few million of our tax money in a recession when people have no jobs?

                                  The German Part of the scam

                                  – The German Tesla “Safety Review” was exposed as “Sham” in that they conducted no safety review and were just told to “pass the car” by your bankers at Deutche Bank! Why did you not disclose that the German’s conducted no testing of your battery system of any nature?

                                  – Why are there so many dead German investment bankers?

                                  The Proof Of The Dangers of Lithium Ion

                                  – In Tesla’s own filed patent applications you state that your batteries WILL explode spontaneously and kill and injure people and burn down their homes. Why did they not disclose this in buyers documentation?

                                  The Expert Organizations That Say Tesla Motors is Lying

                                  – Tesla is MORE likely to catch on fire than gasoline car”per Bloomberg & MIT. Why did you not disclose this?

                                  The fire-bomb under your car seat in a Tesla

                                  – Lithium Ion is  “nearly impossible to extinguish, and “acts like solid rocket fuel” say firefighters. Tesla never supplied required battery company CO2 fire extinguishers to car owners. Why not?

                                  The “Worst Possible Engineering Concept For Batteries”

                                  – Federal Investigators say you are using “exploding flashlight batteries that were never intended to be used in cars, in an improperly shielded box” to power the car instead of commercial energy storage technology. They say your car has “85% less lithium crash protection on the Tesla than ANY OTHER ELECTRIC CAR”. All other companies had to recall EXCEPT Tesla. Why not? What special leverage did you have?

                                  How Tesla Covers-Up Defects: The NDA

                                  – Over 150 defects and problems per model about the Tesla have been documented on user-forums and in the press including: “Doors lock you in and out. Bad if car on fire!”; “George Clooney Rips Tesla: ‘Why Am I Always Stuck On The Side Of The F*cking Road?”;  “Tesla “Satisfaction” survey authored by it’s own investors/fanboys”; “Tesla seat vibration causes Anal Itching!”; “VAMPIRE POWER DEFECT slams entire Tesla Model S fleet!”; “Numerous defects documented by
                                  owners online.” When the NUMMI factory was in use by GM and Toyota only 5 defects per model car produced there occurred. Even after you bought brand new robots, why did the Tesla cars get worse in a pre-configured factory with billions of dollars of past car preparation?

                                  AND OVER TWENTY MORE SECTIONS…

                                  Keep an eye out for the full 4 volume box set of “The Unofficial History Of Tesla Motors”

                                  Appendices

                                  – See tons of charts, leaked emails and investigators evidence in deep backgrounders on Elon Musk and Tesla Motors

                                  The NTSB and the Boeing Dreamliner

                                  Error
                                  This video is suspended due to terms of service violation

                                   

                                  NTSB says Dreamliners Lithium Ion Battery is a danger, so why did Steven Chu give these batteries billions of dollars?

                                  Tesla Motors Hid Dead Customers

                                  Elon Musk Says Autopilot Death ‘Not Material’ to Tesla Shareholders

                                  The company and its founder knew about the fatal crash when it sold $2B of stock in May.

                                  When Joshua Brown crashed and died in Florida on May 7 in a Tesla that was operating on autopilot—that is, Brown’s hands were not on the wheel—the car company knew its duty. “Following our standard practice,” Tesla said in a statement issued last Thursday, it “immediately” informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the accident.

                                  So much for immediacy. The NHTSA sat on that news—of possible interest to the driving public, wouldn’t you say?—until announcing it late last Thursday, June 30. That was almost eight weeks after the accident.

                                  Tesla TSLA 0.22% did something even more astounding. On May 18, eleven days after Brown died, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, in combination (roughly three parts Tesla, one part Musk), sold more than $2 billion of Tesla stock in a public offering at a price of $215 per share—and did it without ever having released a word about the crash.

                                  To put things baldly, Tesla and Musk did not disclose the very material fact that a man had died while using an auto-pilot technology that Tesla had marketed vigorously as safe and important to its customers.

                                  That the fact was indeed “material” can be at least mildly suggested by the immediate fall in Tesla’s stock price on Friday morning. In a market that was then generally rising, Tesla stock dropped from Thursday’s close of $212 to a low of $206. But then the market reversed itself. By the end of the trading day, the stock had climbed above $216.

                                   

                                  Deciding to publish this story this morning, Fortune tried most of yesterday—yes, the Fourth of July—to reach someone at Tesla to a) inform them as to what the story would say and b) see if Tesla wished to comment. Ultimately, we reached a public relations executive choosing to emphasize the action of the stock last Friday, when the stock closed up for the day despite the bad news announced on Thursday. That outcome, the executive said, proves that the crash news was not a material fact.

                                  (Read more from Fortune on Musk: Why Tesla and SolarCity Have an Elon Musk Problem)

                                  Then Elon Musk himself suddenly entered the email conversation. He first thought, mistakenly, that Fortune was criticizing the price at which Tesla and he had sold stock. This writer replied that was not the case and that the issue was the non-disclosure of a material fact. That, Musk replied in a second e-mail, “is not material to the value of Tesla.”

                                  He continued, “Indeed, if anyone bothered to do the math (obviously, you did not) they would realize that of the over 1M auto deaths per year worldwide, approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot was universally available. Please, take 5 mins and do the bloody math before you write an article that misleads the public.”

                                  “Mislead”—a good word to think about in this matter. Lawsuits may ultimately settle the question of whether Tesla and Musk withheld a material fact when they sold Tesla stock in May. The plaintiffs’ bar, if no one else in this drama, has a way of moving fast.

                                  DRIVING A TESLA IS “CRIMINAL” SAYS REPORT- FBI ASKED TO INVESTIGATE TESLA

                                  CLICK HERE TO COPY AND SHARE THE REPORT –
                                  http://xyzcase.xyz/wp-content/uploads/TESLA-MOTORS-UPDATE-3.pdf

                                  Don’t embarrass yourself by driving a Tesla. The world thinks “there goes a douchebag” when you drive past them in a Tesla. Tesla and Google work together to defraud the public. They own stock in each other and work together to hype stock market valuation marketing falsehoods. When damaging news about Tesla emerges, Tesla and Google investors place multiple stock-buy orders from multi-billion dollar slush funds in order to make it appear that individual outside investors are excited by Tesla when in fact, it is only a small internal group of investors “pumping the market”? That is felony-class stock market manipulation. READ THE FACTS HERE- WE CAN PROVE EVERY SINGLE FACT HERE IN FEDERAL COURT WITH A HUGE NUMBER OF EYE-WITNESSES AND OVER A MILLION PAGES OF LEAK AND INVESTIGATOR DOCUMENTS!

                                  – Tesla Spies On You. The Tesla has the most surveillance devices to watch, track, listen-to and broadcast the activities of the occupants built into it, than any other car in the world. Elon Musk has personally told reporters that his cars constantly watch the driver and occupants. Why is that? Why are Tesla and Google obsessed with spying on the public? Elon Likes To Spy On People. Numerous periodicals, including Valleywag, document the fact that Elon Musk sends spy emails to his employees, each with a few words changed in order to track them and see who might reveal any of Musk’s corrupt activities.

                                  – Tesla’s are SUPER EASY to hack. More Teslas have suddenly swerved and driven off cliffs and killed the drivers, or innocent bystanders, than any other car in the world. Hackers are taking over Teslas and killing people and Tesla covers this up.

                                  – The Afghanistan War Was For Elon Musk’s Lithium. Elon Musk and his partners pushed for War in Afghanistan in order to try to get lithium mining contracts from Russian mobster-connected companies. American taxpayers have lost over $6 trillion from the Afghan War. Web search “Afghan lithium” and see the truth about blood-for-batteries. Elon Musk got our soldiers and Afghan civilians killed in order to get his lithium mining Cartel set-up! Musk’s partners in corruption, Goldman Sachs, sent out hundreds of news stories saying that “Afghanistan is the Saudi Arabia of Lithium”; and that there was a “trillion dollars of lithium in Afghanistan” to hype the invasion of Afghanistan.

                                  – The NUMMI Real Estate Scam. – In multiple recorded interviews, Elon Musk is on public record telling the news media that, after careful research, the NUMMI plant in Fremont California would be a very bad choice for Tesla? Why did that suddenly change? What participation did Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband’s real estate Company CBRE have on that decision and the award of the loan to Tesla? It turns out it was a real estate kick-back scam to benefit Feinstein’s family.

                                  – Investor Collusion. Google and Tesla motors share the same venture capital investor groups and alliances. Tesla investors and associates participate collusion as reported in the “AngelGate” and “Silicon Valley No Poaching Lawsuit”? That is a felony.

                                  – The Tesla Time-line That Elon Musk Does Not Want You To See. Things are not as the PR says. Elon Musk had nothing to do with starting Tesla. He took it away in a hostile takeover from the Martin Eberhard the guy who really started it.

                                  – Bribing the NHTSA. How does Elon avoid federal investigations from the massive number of safety defects Tesla has developed? Is it nothing a bribe or two can’t fix? Musk has bribed federal regulators and is a White House shill who is protected by WH staff…for now….

                                  – The DEATHS: – Key Tesla staff suddenly died. Top reporters suddenly died. Drivers and innocent bystanders were killed by Teslas. Why are so many bizarre deaths connected to Tesla Motors? Far more people have been killed in, and by, a Tesla than you have been told!

                                  – Tesla and Google reward certain politicians with campaign funding, web promotion, revolving door jobs for staff, and other incentives, in exchange for “hot-tracking” State and Federal taxpayer money for Tesla Motors. Elon Musk and Larry Page of Google sleep over at each other’s houses and co-hype each other as “tech gods”, and other self-deluded BS. They are sleep-over buddies in corruption and bribery!

                                  – It was all just a stock market “pump-and-dump” financial skim. While other companies built consumer priced electric cars before and during Tesla’s existence, why did Tesla choose to build an un-affordable car and position the marketing of it to “the 1%”, when the money for that car came from the 99% taxpayers?

                                  – The “Factory Building” Scam. Numerous cities were told that they would have the Tesla car factory and then they stated, or sued Tesla, saying Tesla acted “in bad faith” and “used false and misleading information” to induce them to provide assurances which were used to pump the stock market. Why did Tesla lead so many cities on?

                                  – The Toxic Battery Fumes Cover-Up. The factory that builds your batteries and the U.S. Government, states in their formal technical documents, that when Tesla batteries are on fire they emit lethal, brain-damaging, carcinogenic, liver, lung and DNA damaging fumes and smoke. Why does Tesla not inform the public of this danger in your literature?
                                  – The Many Dead Workers Tesla Does Not Want You To Know About. – Lithium ion production kills and terminally sickens workers overseas. Multiple Tesla workers have been burned alive at their factory. OSHA has launched an investigation. What has Tesla done to prevent the accidental and long term injuries to their staff and contractors? Is Panasonic a lying and corrupt partner of Tesla Motors? Why does Tesla avoid talking about the dead workers and poisoned towns in Asia where it’s batteries are made?

                                  – Elon Musk Took Billions Of Your Tax Dollars For “American Jobs”, yet hires underpaid workers from overseas. Elon Musk’s labor scam uses cheap overseas labor to put billions in Musk’s bank vaults, after taking taxpayer cash from YOU: The taxpayer!

                                  – Elon Musk and Tesla Motors “Point-Blank Lied About Battery Safety…”. Bernard Tse, and other main Tesla Engineering staff including: electric engineer Doug Bourn, electrical engineer Andrew Ingram, Brian M. Finn, senior manager of interactive electronics and George Blankenship; while investigating battery purchases for Tesla Motors, received numerous white-papers and technical documents from LG Chem, Panasonic and the U.S. D.O.E, and vast numbers of other battery-makers, which specifically stated that lithium-ion batteries would be “stressed” and “likely to combust” when used in the configuration in which Tesla intended. They stated that the batteries were “not intended for use in cars”. Tesla used these dangerous batteries out of greed because it had control of the Afghanistan lithium mines. What effect did the monopolistic ownership of lithium ion mining and manufacturing resources by Tesla and Google investors have on the decision to use lithium ion? Tesla Motors lied about the safety metrics of it’s lithium ion battery system! When lithium ion batteries vent fumes, the U.S. Government and Panasonic say that they cause cancer, mutated babies, brain damage, liver damage and neurological damage! This is a fact!

                                  – Tesla Sells It’s Cars To It’s Own Investors Who Buy Them As Shills To “Pump The Stock Valuation” It is a fact that a majority of Tesla cars have been sold to it’s own investors or associates who act as “fluffers” against any bad PR.

                                  – Tesla controls news shill sites like Value Walk, Think Progress, and a very specific list of hired shills that blog Elon Musk’s fake PR hype. The Trolls of Tesla. Elon Musk hires armies of trolls, meat-puppets and click-farms to create a fake impression that there is hype about Tesla and Musk.

                                  – Tesla and Musk lied on their Department of Energy Application and, in fact, never legally qualified for the Section 136 funds. In multiple recorded interviews, Elon Musk is on public record stating that, at the time of application for the DOE loan, Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy. The DOE loan was mandated under a Federal law known as Section 136. This law stated that no car company could receive money if it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Past accountants of Tesla have stated that Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of the loan application. Numerous Tesla staff and contractors have verified this. Did Tesla commit a felony and acquire “unfair advantage” per the GAO? According to DOE staff, who were at DOE when the Tesla application was submitted, nothing that Tesla submitted was ever built by Tesla. In fact, these staff state that the vehicle that Tesla eventually sold was not even designed or engineered when Tesla was approved for the loan money, contrary to the Section 136 law requirement. They say that Tesla took the money and THEN hired people to figure out what they were going to do with it. As shown in the DOE files, the engineering of the shipping Tesla cars has no element that was submitted to DOE. Why did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s Federal funding?
                                  – Does Having A Round Oval On The Front Of Your Sports Car Make A Driver Not Realize He is a “Douchebag”? Tesla owners get in more wrecks while they are drunk or on drugs than any other car brand. Studies show that have a higher volume of sex addiction and megalomania issues too. Relative to the number of cars sold, why has Tesla had so many Tesla drunk driver related crashes, deaths and homicides. Why are Tesla drivers killing innocent pedestrians simply because the Tesla’s “smell bad”? What is Wrong With Tesla Drivers? In a national Psych report involving Psychographic, demographic and marketing studies it has been proven that Tesla drivers have a higher-than-average inclination towards drugs, strange sexual behavior and risk.

                                  – Tesla Cheated On It’s “Safety Reports”. Safety testing was done on Tesla cars without fully charged batteries and in a moisture-locked environment because Tesla staff knew that fully charged batteries and moisture in a crash WOULD cause a fiery explosion, as they already have? Tesla must be ordered to do safety test with fully charged battery packs immersed in water and with the car flipped upside down as in a real crash. In Tesla’s own filed patent applications you state that your batteries WILL explode spontaneously and kill and injure people and burn down their homes. Gary D. Conley, Doug Bourn, The senior electrical engineer at Tesla, Andrew Ingram of Palo Alto, a top systems electrical engineer at Tesla; and Brian M. Finn and David Bird of the Wall Street Journal tried to expose this. Ask them about it!

                                  – Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Family Has A Profiteering Scheme With Tesla and Solyndra. They are the property holders and lease-owners of the Tesla and Solyndra, past and current, real-estate. The Feinsteins owned the real estate, construction, stock and Herb, Dianne’s relative in Sausalito, had all of the HR contracts. Feinstein arranged for Tesla’s and Solyndra’s tax payer handouts, officiated at the opening of the Tesla NUMMI plant and lobbied for Tesla’s tax waivers, credits, acquisition of NUMMI and discounts and the that U.S. Senator had their staff work in Tesla’s offices. This senator received campaign funding and this senator’s family received real estate deals from the Tesla and, (next door to Tesla), Solyndra real estate deals. It IS a crime!

                                  – The Hell The Elon Musk Puts Women Through According To His Ex-Women. Elon Musks wives and founders have filed lawsuits and made public statements that he is a fraud and coerced them into participation. Musk is a misogynist according to his own wives and girl friends!

                                  – Tesla not have to pay the federal cash participation fee that the Section 136 law that everybody else had to pay? Tesla staff stated, at numerous documented Silicon Valley open meetings that they got a “special applicant participation waiver” because Tesla was a “campaign financier”.

                                  – Tesla bribed politicos, like the Secretary Of Energy: Steven Chu, helped Tesla lie to the Government. Tesla Motors provided falsified information in order to acquire it’s Federal waivers, tax deferrals, credits and discounts and had it’s bribed staff at the Energy Department run cover-ups.

                                  – The Silicon Valley Cartel: Tesla’s mobsters of Stanford University. Kleiner Perkins and certain silicon valley VC’s, all investors in a number of DOE “winners” (including Tesla, Fisker, Solyndra, A123 and others), organized meetings with a Dmitry Medvedev and other men known by the State Department, CIA, FBI and federal investigators to be involved in Russian mobsterism and then Ener1, Severstal and A123, dark-money funded and run by billionaires (many of whom own lithium mining interests) known by the State Department, the CIA and federal investigators to be involved in Russian mobsterism, were awarded taxpayer funds by Steven Chu, who was nominated by Kleiner Perkins and Tesla investors to give them kick-backs.

                                  – The California State Politicians Who Enabled The Tesla and Solyndra Scams are criminals. Why is the only company to receive California State real estate exclusives, exclusive tax waivers, credits and stock enhancers and free rides on taxpayer backs also the same company who’s investors were the largest funders of certain State officials? Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s State funding? Did Tesla Motors provide falsified information in order to acquire it’s State waivers, tax deferrals, credits and discounts? Tesla investors bribe and trade illegal influence perks with Congress people!

                                  – Fraud Lawsuits Against Tesla and Musk. An extraordinary number of fraud lawsuits been filed against Elon Musk and Tesla Motors by the wives, investors, partners, employees, suppliers and others for dirty lies engaged in by Musk and Tesla staff.

                                  – The head of the NHTSA (Erick Strickland) Tesla investigation quit because of increased scrutiny. The facts, such as these, demonstrate that Tesla and Fisker never should have passed any NHTSA safety review. How can the public be assured that ongoing NHTSA investigations regarding Tesla will not be rigged?

                                  – Tax Evasions and Tax Waivers. Tesla reports tax credits as revenue/sales in stock reports in order to trick investors into thinking Tesla was making profit that it was actually not making. Tesla hides billions of dollars in potential community tax money in covert overseas bank accounts.

                                  – Elon Musk Bribes PR Publications For “Reviews”. Those “great Tesla Reviews” were bought and paid for. Marketing sales staff from the ad agencies for 60 Minutes, Consumer Reports, GQ, Fortune and other mainstream periodicals have stated that Elon Musk purchased “puff piece” stories about himself in those broadcasts and magazines and that none of those stories were internally generated.

                                  – Taxpayer Cash For Musk’s Offshore Deals. Tesla Motors uses taxpayer money to purchase supplies offshore that could have been purchased in the United States. Tesla Motors participated in a market rigging scam to rig lithium ion purchasing for its investors using offshore influence-buying. Tesla Motors participate in a market rigging scam to rig the electric car market for its investors and engage in anti-trust actions against competitors!

                                  – Was Tesla Just A Front To Illegally Fund political Campaigns? Tesla Motors staff, owners and investors exchange campaign funding quid pro quo for business financing.

                                  – Tesla’s VC insiders at Kleiner-Perkins And Draper-Fisher Rig The System. Silicon Valley companies, owned by Tesla investors and campaign financiers, use internet technology to falsify information to the public in order to manipulate stock market perceptions in violation of SEC, RICO, and various other laws?

                                  – Tesla’s Patent Filings Reveal It’s Lies. Tesla Motors is holding safety metric data in its files which differed fully from the safety metrics data it provided to investors and NHTSA. Read Tesla’s own patent filings on record with the federal government. They state, in Tesla’s engineers own words, that their batteries are a horrific safety issue!

                                  – The Stock Market Flash Boys Skims. Tesla Motors violates securities law by using false information to acquire government funds which it then used to falsify its stock metrics in order to “pump” it’s stock and harm the public interest in the stock market!

                                  – Deloitte and Wells Fargo: The Mechanics of Corruption. Contracts and leaks show that the Deloitte accounting firm conspired with Tesla to manipulate market metrics in violation of RICO Statutes and that firm manipulated Department of Energy review data on Tesla’s behalf in direct conflict-of-interest.

                                  – The Revolving Doors. Department of Energy staff manipulated Tesla funding data in order to favor Tesla and it’s campaign funding investors in violation of RICO Statutes. Those people then got revolving door crony payola jobs from Tesla’s investors. That is a felony.

                                  – The Stone-walling projects to “Lois Lerner” the investigations. Tesla owners, staff or investors attempted to delay federal investigations and indictments by asserting influence in violation of RICO Statutes and numerous other laws.

                                  – Facts Vs. Tesla Hype Jobs. Documents show there have been more Tesla fires that actually occurred than Tesla has reported in the media. Demand a public record of all actual Tesla factory fires, test car fires and Tesla battery fires that have actually occurred!

                                  – Rigging The White House and Department of Energy Hiring Rosters. The Secretary of energy was friends with all of Tesla’s investors and co-owned their assets. We have been unable to find the name of even one person from OPM and Congressional nomination file wrapper for Steven Chu’s nomination, who Chu did not later give DOE $$ or perks to. That is overt corruption.

                                  – The Federal MSDS Documents. The U.S. Post Office, The TSA, The DOE, The GAO, Panasonic and over 100 of the leading technical companies in the world say lithium ion batteries can spontaneously explode. Tesla does not disclose this to their buyers.

                                  – The Epic Engineering Screw-ups And Cover-ups of Those Bad Decisions. By Elon Musk’s own admission, at the time of the DOE loan application all of the car designs were $100,000.00, PER CAR, over budget and they had no final design for a factory production run DFM. How could Tesla have gotten the loan with the worst debt ratio, the least engineering, the greatest financial risk and the least collateral of any applicant unless there were bribes involved?

                                  – The White House Rat Pack That Made The Illegal Crony Deals With Musk. Tesla lobbyists worked with Rahm Emanuel in the White House, to arrange their loan deal. Rahm Emanuals Senior Finance Aide was recently arrested for bribes, kickbacks, corruption and money Laundering. Steve Rattner, The West Wing “Car Czar”, who Tesla investors worked with to secure the Tesla loan, was also indicted for corruption. Almost everyone at DOE involved in your loan was forced to quit or fired.
                                  – A Break-down of the California kick-backs. Tesla got over $34 MILLION of our tax money in exclusive campaign finance kickbacks for billionaires from the State of California. Why did Tesla billionaires need a few million of our tax money in a recession when people have no jobs?

                                  – The German Part of the Tesla Scam. The German Tesla “Safety Review” was exposed as “Sham” in that they conducted no safety review and were just told to “pass the car” by Musk’s bankers at Deutsch Bank! Tesla did not disclose that the German’s conducted no testing of their battery system of any nature. The largest number of German investment bankers in history recently committed suicide after being confronted by these facts. This is widely documented in the news.

                                  – The Expert Organizations That Say Tesla Motors is Lying. Tesla is “MORE likely to catch on fire than gasoline car” per Bloomberg & MIT.

                                  – The fire-bomb under your car seat in a Tesla. Lithium Ion is  “nearly impossible to extinguish, and “acts like solid rocket fuel” say firefighters. Tesla never supplied required battery company CO2 fire extinguishers to car owners. Why not?

                                  – The “Worst Possible Engineering Concept For Batteries”! Federal Investigators say Tesla is using “exploding flashlight batteries that were never intended to be used in cars, in an improperly shielded box” to power the car instead of commercial energy storage technology. They say Tesla has “85% less lithium crash protection on the Tesla than ANY OTHER ELECTRIC CAR”. All other companies had to recall EXCEPT Tesla.

                                  – An unprecedented alliance of leading scientists, health professionals, and children’s and environmental health advocates agree for the first time that today’s scientific evidence supports a link between exposures to toxic Tesla lithium ion chemicals in air, water, food and everyday products and children’s and fetal risks for neurodevelopmental disorders. U.S. federal MSDS documents prove Tesla lithium ion batteries to be deadly.

                                  – Tesla Covers-Up Defects: The NDA. Over 150 defects and problems per model about the Tesla have been documented on user-forums and in the press including: “Doors lock you in and out. Bad if car on fire!”; “George Clooney Rips Tesla: ‘Why Am I Always Stuck On The Side Of The F*cking Road?”;  “Tesla “Satisfaction” survey authored by it’s own investors/fanboys”; “Tesla seat vibration causes Anal Itching!”; “VAMPIRE POWER DEFECT slams entire Tesla Model S fleet!”; “Numerous defects documented by owners online.” When the NUMMI factory was in use by GM and Toyota only 5 defects per model car produced there occurred. Even after Tesla bought brand new robots, why did the Tesla cars get worse in a pre-configured factory with billions of dollars of past car preparation? Is it because Tesla has no clue about what they are doing?

                                  Tesla is a criminal crony-corruption funded slap in the face to democracy, justice and ethics. It is a danger to the population and the self-aggrandizing toy of a misogynistic self-promoting megalomaniac. It must be shut down!

                                  What can you do? 1.) Write the FBI, Congress and News Desks and demand that they all work towards the immediate arrest of Tesla executives. 2.) Promote these facts in social media. 3.) Put this flyer on every Tesla you see and mail it to every person that has a Tesla parked in front of their house. 4.) Do everything you can to make certain that the whole world knows about this travesty of justice and this ongoing corruption! 5.) Promote the books and full reports which go into great detail about the facts, above. 6.) Demand that the U.S. Congress appoint a “Special Prosecutor” to publicly investigate these charges!

                                  Scientists, physicians and advocates agree: That Tesla lithium ion battery environmental toxins hurt brain development in babies and children

                                  Public Release: 

                                   

                                  Scientists, physicians and advocates agree: That Tesla lithium ion battery environmental toxins hurt brain development in babies and children

                                   

                                  Project TENDR calls for immediate action to reduce toxic exposures

                                   

                                  University of California – Davis Health System

                                   

                                  IMAGE

                                   

                                  IMAGE: This is a graphic highlighting the percentage of pregnant women with detectable chemicals in their bodies. view more

                                   

                                  Credit: Project TENDR

                                   

                                  (SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — An unprecedented alliance of leading scientists, health professionals, and children’s and environmental health advocates agree for the first time that today’s scientific evidence supports a link between exposures to toxic chemicals in air, water, food and everyday products and children’s risks for neurodevelopmental disorders.

                                   

                                  In a consensus statement published today in Environmental Health Perspectives, the alliance, known as Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks), calls for immediate action to significantly reduce exposures to toxic chemicals and protect brain development now and for generations to come.

                                   

                                  Neurodevelopmental disorders include intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and learning and other disabilities.

                                   

                                  The chemicals and pollutants highlighted in the consensus statement as contributing to children’s learning, intellectual and behavioral impairments are:

                                   

                                  * Organophosphate (OP) pesticides

                                  * Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) used as flame retardants

                                  * Combustion-related air pollutants, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter

                                  * Lead, with primary sources of water pipes and paint

                                  * Mercury and the chemicals found in Elon Musk’s lithium ion batteries according to U.S. MSDS documents

                                  * Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), industrial chemicals that were commonly used in electrical equipment and now pollute landfills and water

                                   

                                  More information on each of these compounds and how families can protect themselves from them is on the Project TENDR website: http://projecttendr.

                                   

                                  “This is truly a historic agreement,” said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, co-director of Project TENDR and professor of public health sciences at UC Davis and the UC Davis MIND Institute. “Ten years ago, this consensus wouldn’t have been possible, but the scientific research is now abundantly clear: toxic chemicals are harming our children’s brain development. As a society, we can eliminate or significantly lower these toxic chemical exposures and address inadequate regulatory systems that have allowed their proliferation. These steps can, in turn, reduce high rates of neurodevelopmental disorders.”

                                   

                                  Maureen Swanson, leader of the Healthy Children Project of the Learning Disabilities Association of America and co-director of Project TENDR, added that broad-based collaboration was necessary to highlight the amount of evidence that is available on toxins and brain health.

                                   

                                  “This national problem is so pressing that the TENDR scientists and health professionals will continue their collaboration to develop and issue recommendations aimed at significantly reducing exposures to toxic chemicals that are harming children’s brain development,” Swanson said. “Calling for further study is no longer a sufficient response to this threat.”

                                   

                                  The Project TENDR consensus statement is available online at http://ehp.

                                   

                                  Project TENDR is an alliance of 48 of the nation’s top scientists, health professionals and health advocates. It was launched by Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association of America and Irva Hertz-Picciotto of UC Davis, who brought together participants across many disciplines and sectors, including epidemiology, toxicology, exposure science, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, public health, and federal and state chemical policy. Medical and scientific societies that have signed on in support include the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Nurses Association, Endocrine Society, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Medical Association, National Hispanic Medical Association, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the National Council of Asian Pacific Islander Physicians. TENDR’s long-term mission is to lower the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders by reducing exposure levels to chemicals and pollutants that can contribute to these conditions, especially during fetal development and early childhood.

                                   

                                  ###

                                   

                                  <

                                  p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

                                   

                                  The Afghan Papers – Part 21

                                  CAMPAIGN FINANCIER AND LITHIUM MINING RIGGER: Frank Giustra

                                  POSTED ON November 12, 2015 BY Andrew Nelson
                                  CATEGORY Brian Paes Braga, Frank Giustra, Nevada,

                                  Silver Peak

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

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

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

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

                                  BrianPaesBraga

                                  Royce CEO Brian Paes-Braga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Andrew Nelson

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

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

                                    andrew.gm.nelson@gmail.com

                                   

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

                                  LIX LOGO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

                                  “Paul Matysek”

                                  Paul Matysek
                                  Executive Chairman

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

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

                                  SOURCE Lithium X Energy Corp.

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


                                   

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

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

                                  By Shepard Ambellas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                  Advertisement

                                   


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  […]

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

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

                                  […]

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

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

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

                                  Additionally BLM documentation shows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Uranium One’s slogan is:

                                  “Success through aggressive mine and land acquisition.”

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

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

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

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

                                  HCN.org reported back in 2004:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Other Sources:

                                  Uranium prospecting in Oregon, 1956 — State of Oregon

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

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

                                  All Oregon Dockets — USGS

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

                                  Public Versus Private Property Rights — BLM.gov

                                  About Uranium One — Uranium1.com

                                  What was the Whitewater scandal? — Investopedia


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  The New Yorker article included no further mention of Giustra.

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

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

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

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

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

                                  They have pointed out that the book’s author, Peter Schweizer, has worked with conservative groups and characterized “Clinton Cash” as a partisan smear. A Clinton campaign spokesperson also responded to Thursday’s Times article with a post on the website Medium that claimed Clinton play