FBI/DOJ Call Apple Liars and Hypsters; accuse Apple of ‘Corrosive’ manipulation of media to save dying company

Apple: DOJ ‘desperate,’ brief reads like indictment


The Justice Department on Thursday filed its latest response to Apple in the fight over iPhone encryption, calling the tech giant’s rhetoric in the San Bernardino, California, case “false” and “corrosive” of institutions that safeguard rights.

The debate surrounds whether Apple should comply with a court order to help authorities unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year’s San Bernardino attack, which left 14 people dead.

“Here, Apple deliberately raised technological barriers that now stand between a lawful warrant and an iPhone containing evidence related to the terrorist mass murder of 14 Americans. Apple alone can remove those barriers so that the FBI can search the phone, and it can do so without undue burden,” the DOJ wrote in the filing.

Apple is due to face the FBI in court later this month. The company, which has said it would have to create software to allow investigators to crack the phone, has argued that doing so could create a dangerous precedent. In a call with reporters Thursday, Apple senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell said the DOJ has become “so desperate” that it has “thrown all decorum to the wind.

“The tone of the brief reads like an indictment,” he said.

Sewell called the brief an “unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple.” In the call, attorneys for Apple said they plan to file a reply brief, which is due March 15. The attorneys reiterated Apple’s position that the disagreement should not be settled in the court system.

Authorities claim they only seek to unlock the device in question. The DOJ reiterated that point Thursday, calling the court order “modest” and arguing it “invades no one’s privacy.”

“It applies to a single iPhone, and it allows Apple to decide the least burdensome means of complying,” the filing said.

Attorneys for Apple questioned Thursday where the limits of the power will stop. Some critics of the court order believe it could lead to a so-called back door through Apple’s encryption system. The DOJ contended the case would not give it that power.

Apple, by keeping close control over its software and devices, “maintains a continued connection to its phones,” the DOJ’s filing said.

“Apple is not some distant, disconnected third party unexpectedly and arbitrarily dragooned into helping solve a problem for which it bears no responsibility,” the DOJ wrote.

Many prominent technology companies have backed Apple in the case. Amazon.com, Alphabet‘s Google, Facebook and Microsoft, among others, recently filed a joint brief in support of Apple.

President Barack Obama will not discuss the dispute on Friday during his keynote address at the South by Southwest music and technology conference, Reuters reported, citing a White House official.

Reuters contributed to this report. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/justice-department-accuses-apple-of-false-corrosive-rhetoric-in-fbi-dispute.html

Government Response to Apple


FBI/DOJ Call Apple Liars and Hypsters; accuse Apple of ‘Corrosive’ manipulation of media to save dying company



The United States Department of Energy defrauded hundreds of American companies and tens of thousands of domestic workers


The United States Department of Energy defrauded hundreds of American companies and tens of thousands of domestic workers







Just prior to President Obama’s election, United States Department of Energy officials made arrangements with Silicon Valley campaign financing billionaires to exclusively hand them hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for their support. They made this deal illegally and at the expense of a huge number of American companies, employees and future jobs.



The cover-up has grown so thin, and has become so laughably obvious, that the American public has anointed the most hell-raiser candidates, for the White House in 2016. The voters overtly want an end to this kind of horrific political crony corruption. They are calling in a mandate to end this kind of public policy crime.



The kick-back scheme involved a process called “hard-wiring”. In this political crony payola scam, the Department of Energy created a carve-out of the U.S. Treasury called the “ATVM Fund”. Only the Silicon Valley billionaires best friend, one Mr. Steven Chu, had control over the distribution of that taxpayer cash. In a shockingly blatant and audacious act, Steven Chu only gave the taxpayer money to his friends and business partners. Those friends and business partners were also the very people who lobbied to put him in charge of the Department of Energy. They also turned out to be the very same people who skimmed off the top of those taxpayer dollars and took wind-fall “unjust gains” profits by “cooking the books” with tax write-offs when all of Chu’s friends sham companies went belly up.



It was a crime of historical proportions.



The very guy who was charged with arresting Mr. Chu, the U.S. Attorney General: Eric Holder, turns out to have been business partner with all of Chu’s associates.



During the course of this crime, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) defrauded hundreds of American companies and tens of thousands of domestic workers by inviting them to spin their wheels applying for those fake “ATVM Funds”. Huge numbers of non-insider technology companies spent millions of dollars and years of their time under-going artificially created hurdles and endless decision stonewalling by The Department of Energy. These outsider and indie companies lost billions of dollars because the United States Department of Energy put “hit jobs” on them.



From day one of the application process DOE’s Steven Chu, Lachlan Seward, Matt Rogers, Carol Battershel, Steve Silver, Steve Spinner, Alison Spinner and the rest of the “DOE WEASAL PACK”, as they have come to be known, knew that not a single one of the non-crony applicants had even the most remote chance of receiving the Department of Energy funding. The money had been secretly hard-wired for John Doerr, Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, Solyndra and other crony Silicon Valley campaign financiers.



These many domestic companies were lied to, deceived, defrauded and jerked around until they could no longer survive. At the time, the national venture capitol funds were also entirely controlled by Steven Chu’s business partners. Elon Musk’s marketing head: Darryl Siry, quit Tesla, in disgust, and penned an article in the national news disclosing how the Department of Energy had rigged the market to be the gate-keeper of who got to play. Bright Automotive issued a public letter disclosing the racket, XP Vehicles sued the Department of Energy for corruption and racketeering and the U.S. Senate ethics committee issued a scathing report on the wholesale crime culture that pervaded the energy department. Steven Chu, and his mobster-like technology Cartel, sabotaged and destroyed some of the nation’s greatest innovators, simply because their products were better than his buddies products.



Voters, this is the America you have allowed to happen. This rampant criminality, at one of the largest agencies in America, is corruption at it’s deepest and darkest. In 2016, you get to chose if this is how you want your hard-earned money managed. Make the right choice this time around.





See more related stories at:









p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>Tags: Darryl Siry, Steven Chu, Department of Energy, XP Vehicles, Bright Automotive, Steven Chu, Lachlan Seward, Matt Rogers, Carol Battershel, Steve Silver, Steve Spinner, Alison Spinner, President Obama, ATVM LOAN, Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Attorney General: Eric Holder, eric holder, eric schmidt, the daily mail UK, The guardian, edward snowden,


Rich Google yuppie execs and Tech Bros Want Homeless People Destroyed

Why does San Francisco seem to have such a huge homeless problem?

Michael Rosen

In my neighborhood in San Francisco, a normal sight is tent cities set up by homeless people. Lately, the cities have been growing. Homelessness in San Francisco, is, as the Chronicle dubbed it in a series begun in 2003, “the shame of the city.”

Every two years, America counts its homeless. This is San Francisco’s last decade of counting.

This week, a tech entrepreneur voiced his frustration over having to see “homeless riff raff.” Commando.io CEO Justin Keller wrote an open letter to San Francisco’s mayor, complaining about the effect of the city’s very visible homeless population:

The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day.

As the Guardian points out, it’s not the first time a “tech bro” has complained about the homeless. In 2013, the year that I moved here, two tech entrepreneurs complained that homelessness is worse and uglier in San Francisco than it is in the rest of the country.

The homeless people are “crazier” here, complained one. In other cosmopolitan cities, wrote a start-up CEO, the homeless people “keep to themselves” and “beg coyly” but “in downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you.” The CEO later apologized after taking an online beating. On Valleywag, Sam Biddle criticized his lack of empathy, but wrote, “he’s very slightly right.” Commenters on the article agreed that there’s something different and worse about SF’s homelessness problem.

Why does San Francisco’s homeless problem feel worse?

“SF does not have more homeless people than other cities,” Coalition on Homelessness, S.F. director Jennifer Friedenbach told me by email. “Urban areas in the U.S. have between 7 to 9% of their extremely low income population experiencing homelessness at any one time, and SF is right in there.”

San Francisco does not have more homeless people than other cities.

Relative to the cities’ populations, the over 6,000 people that are homeless in San Francisco is higher than in New York City, but lower than in L.A., Seattle, and D.C. What’s different in San Francisco is the space. The city is just 46.9 square miles. “This is a tiny ass little fucking city,” advocate for the homeless Paul Boden said to me by phone.

Based on 2014 data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

San Francisco is second only to New York City for the densest homeless population by land mass. But in NYC, the homeless are “sheltered” at much higher numbers, meaning fewer people actually sleeping on the street.

San Francisco also differs from New York in the number of chronically homeless—the people who are not simply temporarily down on their luck, but near-permanent street dwellers. According to the 2015 Homeless Count Report, a biannual “Point-in-Time survey” that is done across the nation in January, the chronically homeless were 7% of NYC’s homeless population count and a quarter of San Francisco’s.

Friedenbach said homelessness is also more visible in SF because the poorest neighborhood–the Tenderloin—butts up against the city’s commercial center, where start-up and tech workers head to work each day. The largest percentage of San Francisco’s homeless are in District 6 which is also where you’ll find the headquarters for companies like Twitter, Uber and Commando.io.

A map of the homeless in San Francisco via the 2015 Homeless Count Report

“Secondly, somewhat related, is we do have a higher percentage of the general population of people experiencing mental illnesses here in SF,” Friedenbach continues. “Some are housed some are not, but nobody knows why.”

A third of San Francisco’s homeless population has psychiatric and emotional problems, according to the 2015 point in time survey

According to a 2013 report on homelessness in San Francisco, 37% of homeless people suffered from a mental illness. The majority had chronic depression—unsurprising, given their circumstances—while 22% had a disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia.

Those demographics help explain why homelessness feels “worse.” So then the question is why a city of such concentrated wealth and modern ingenuity as San Francisco hasn’t figured out how to solve a problem that has plagued it for decades.


In 1984, homelessness as a chronic problem nationally was still a novelty. In a congressional hearing that year, city leaders from around the U.S. lamented homeless people who “exist like the untouchables of Calcutta, sleeping in streets and alleys and abandoned automobiles,” in the words of Chicago’s then mayor Harold Washington. “Homelessness in the United States has quietly taken on crisis proportions,” said New York’s then governor Mario Cuomo.

Before the 1980s, the only newspaper articles that mentioned “homeless” in San Francisco were about earthquakes.

Before the 1980s, the only newspaper articles that mentioned “homeless” in San Francisco were about earthquakes. But by 1980, the city realized it had a problem. A local church thought it had a solution.

That year a Methodist church bought a 50-by-100 foot lot on Sixth Street between Howard and Mission for $73,000 and spent $40,000 turning it into a park. ”We saw hundreds of people standing around on the street in that area, drinking, talking, drifting,” Rev. Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial Methodist Church told the New York Times. ”So we got the property and asked them what they wanted us to do with it. They told us they wanted a place where they would not be intruded on from the outside, even by the police. They wanted places to sleep, to sit at tables and to cook.”

The park had toilets, benches, a water fountain, a fire pit, greenery, shelter, and a basketball hoop. Initially it had big concrete pipes to use as sleeping tubes, but they were removed after people fought over who would sleep in them and women were raped in them. Williams called it People’s Park, but it was more often referred to as Wino Park.

In July 1982, a San Francisco Examiner writer named Paul Shinoff went “undercover” and lived there “as a bum for a month.” Shinoff pretended to be an L.A. carpenter down on his luck, running from child support payments. He wore an old t-shirt, two torn sweatshirts, old jeans and steel-toed boots with $5 tucked inside, and carried a pocket knife. He befriended his first “wino” by buying him a bottle of Thunderbird, which is still referred to 30 years later as “bum wine.

After spending time there for a month, including nights in a sleeping bag on the ground, Shinoff wrote a scathing story headlined “Nightmare in Wino Park” describing the place as a drug traffic center, where violent criminals rested between attacking people and “boosting cars.”

After the article, which church employees called “distorted,” then-mayor Dianne Feinstein asked Rev. Williams to “do something with that park.” In 1983, Williams gated it and put it up for sale.

Living as a bum did not soften Paul Shinoff’s heart toward the downtrodden. Two decades later, in February 2002, 8 months before his death, the award-winning labor journalist who went on to found a public relations firm called for “throwing the bums out,” saying 25 years of social experiments had failed.

“The rights of citizens with beds to sleep in [have been] mostly ignored. They were forced to wake up and smell the urine, step over bodies, dodge shopping carts and fend off in-your-face panhandlers,” he wrote more than a decade ago. “Nowhere in the country has the homeless population been as visible, or as tolerated, as in San Francisco.”

He sounds a lot like Justin Keller and the other tech entrepreneurs who now use Facebook and blogs, instead of newspapers, to voice their complaints.

“It’s time the homeless became the streetless,” Shinoff concluded.


Paul Boden became homeless as a teen in New York. “I was 16. My mom died and my dad was an asshole,” he told me. “I came home one day and he had sold the house and moved. I went from suburban white boy in Long Island to a couch surfer with my sisters.”

When one of his sisters moved to California, he followed. In 1983, when he was 22, he moved to San Francisco. “I thought it would be fucking warm,” he says. Like many a visitor to San Francisco, he discovered hoodies are popular here for a reason.

They thought when the economy got better these guys would go home.

In the 1980s, funding for homelessness programs across the nation was described as temporary. “They thought when the economy got better these guys would go home,” said Boden, who is now an advocate for the homeless at Western Regional Advocacy Center.

But the homeless problem became a chronic one. Boden blames it on the budget cuts to subsidized housing in the early 80s, funding that went away and never came back. “All these people from subsidized housing started hitting the streets in droves. People just started sleeping on the floor of these churches and food programs,” he says.

In the 90s, Boden says there was a national competition between mayors: “Who could get the homeless out of sight fastest.” Financial policies encouraged people to buy homes, not provide shelter to those without. “Assholes in the media started talking about ‘compassion fatigue,’” he said.

“People don’t want to solve the homeless problem,” Boden told me. “They just don’t want to have to see it. Homeless people would have to simply disappear to appease them.”

Boden points to ways San Francisco has made life more difficult for its homeless, including the closure of recycling centers around town, so that poor people can no longer collect trash for cash.

Boden wants a homeless ‘bill of rights,’ that includes, for example, the right to sleep in a legally parked car.

“These guys are worried about, ‘I see homeless people when I walk down Market Street. Fuck you. There are homeless kids on the street,’” said Boden. “It’s mindblowing. The tip of the iceberg is what you see on Market Street.”


The feeling of the “worseness” of San Francisco’s homeless problem is not a new feeling. People have been complaining for decades. “Take away the homeless” wrote San Francisco Chronicle columnist Arthur Hoppe in a 1990 editorial that used humor to mock those who were increasingly speaking out about SF’s homeless problem.

“We have created an economic system that produces $5 trillion worth of goods and services every year. Yet we can’t find enough to provide for those unable to make the system work for them,” Hoppe wrote. “I have no pat solutions to their problems. But I’m pretty sure that unless we accept our guilt for each of them individually and all of them collectively, their problems—and ours—will be with us for a long, long time.”

That was 26 years ago.


Many people assume San Francisco offers more benefits to its homeless population than other cities thus “attracting” homeless types. Peter Connery of Applied Survey Research has been collecting data on homelessness, particularly in San Francisco, since 1999. He disputed that San Francisco had more benefits, and called the assumption itself—the “magnet theory”—flawed.

“It’s a common thought that homeless respond in a market-based way to the availability of shelters and services, that they will move to areas where there are greater services available to them because services act like a magnet,” said Connery. “Researchers like us have regularly found that’s not really the case, but it’s hard to definitively kill the argument.”

Connery told me by phone that homeless people don’t move as “consumers of services.” “They’re moving around because they have friends or family in other cities,” he said. “They move to a city because like anyone else, they think there’s an employment opportunity. They’re not really moving around to take advantage of infrastructure or available services or public safety tolerance.”

Connery says services have not increased in SF. “The number of shelter beds is trending downward,” he said.

Connery thinks the solution for homelessness is more federal funding, a bigger social safety net, and more community outreach programs. “From our perspective there’s a real danger because the social safety nets are really tapped out right now,” he says. “There’s been no substantive increase in funding at the federal level.”


Why are people in San Francisco homeless? When asked, homeless people state the obvious: Because they can’t pay rent.

What is the solution? Of course, because this is Silicon Valley, there are techie ones offered. A homeless GoPro cam to build empathy. An “app” to find resources. A tech lab for the homeless.

Some of these solutions are ridiculously simplistic. An app is not going to end homelessness, especially given the target population. When the homeless were asked in 2013 why they couldn’t get a job, 28% of respondents said it was because they didn’t have a phone. (There is a federal program that gives out phones to low income people; it is sometimes derisively called the Obamaphone program.)

In the city with one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the world, it seems like we could get some better options.

San Francisco’s 2016 budget proposal includes $1.2 billion for “human welfare and neighborhood development,” from which funding for homelessness programs comes. Plans for 2016, according to the budget, include 500 new “supportive housing units” for the homeless, 7 mobile restrooms in the Tenderloin to cut back on the amount of defecation on the street, and $4.6 million to build a dedicated adult shelter with 30 beds, nurses and counseling for homeless people with chronic medical conditions. The budget notes that San Francisco provides emergency shelter for over 2,000 homeless people, but that’s only a third of the homeless population.

San Francisco gave tax breaks to companies, like Twitter, that were willing to headquarter themselves on Market Street in the area that is ground zero for the homeless population. The hope was for corporate gentrification of a pretty rough zone. Now called “Mid-Market,” it has reportedly simply pushed the homeless into nearby areas.

San Francisco also has Project Homeless Connect, one-day events that seek to connect homeless and low-income people with essential services. And of course, like most cities, San Francisco has a “Homeward Bound” program that promises to give people a one-way ticket out of the city. These programs don’t seem to be putting a dent in the problem.

The only state that has dramatically solved its homeless problem is Utah. It did so by giving homeless people homes and providing them with counseling. Utah focused on its chronically homeless, cutting the size of that population by 91 percent over a decade. According to state officials, the solution has saved the state millions of dollars. It’s cheaper to give someone an apartment than to deal with the costs incurred from their living on the street, with police encounters, jail time and emergency room visits.

As the chronically homeless are such a large percentage of San Francisco’s population, that seems like the best approach. But in a city where the cost of living is skyrocketing and nuns who help the homeless get threatened with eviction because the rent is too high, that’s not an easy task.

To the tech entrepreneurs who keep complaining about San Francisco’s homeless problem, know this: At the end of the day, the only way to end the homeless problem is to give people homes or the funding and support they need to find affordable housing themselves. There’s not an app that will fix it. It’s the kind of problem onto which you simply have to pour time and money.



Where Gawker editor draws the line: A sex-tape of a 4-year-old!




By Julia Marsh and Yaron Steinbuch


Jurors in Hulk Hogan’s sex video trial on Wednesday heard a videotaped deposition of Gawker’s former editor in chief — saying he’d draw the line at posting the sex tape of a celebrity who is under 4 years old.


A.J. Daulerio, 41, was sitting ramrod straight in the Florida courtroom during the awkward moment when he was asked on video by Hogan’s lawyer, “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?”


Daulerio answered flatly, “If they were a child.”


“Under what age?” attorney Charles Harder asked.


“Four,” he said.


“No four-year-old sex tapes, OK,” Harder said.


A Gawker spokesman later insisted Daulerio was being flippant.


“He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear,” the spokesman said.


Daulerio, who looked bored throughout the grilling, wiping his eyes and resting his hand on his chin, also claimed he would have no problem if his own hypothetical sex tape was published.


Modal Trigger Photo: Splash News


“It wouldn’t upset you in any way to have your sexual encounters appear on the Internet?” he was asked.


“I somewhat expect that to happen at some point,” Daulerio said.


During Day 3 of the trial, jurors seemed distressed by Daulerio’s cavalier attitude about posting the sex tape.


One male juror squinted his eyes, pursed his lips and leaned back in his chair while a female juror kept her arms crossed then jotted down notes.


A third woman looked down during parts of the testimony as Daulerio sat next to Gawker founder Nick Denton in the front row.


On the opposite side sat Hogan, wearing a pinstripe suit and his trademark black bandanna on his head.


Daulerio said he first heard about the sex video when it was a story on TMZ in March 2012. He said that in early October 2012, he received an actual copy of the full, 30-minute video from a source.


“I watched it and watched it one or two times and then, then decided whether or not we are going to publish some of the contents of it, and was discussing how we could possibly share some of the contents of it, and was discussing how we could possibly share some of the footage on Gawker.com,” he said.


He said he turned the tape over to his video editor and “selected various spots of the tape that I considered both newsworthy in the context of our story and had her twiddle it down to whatever the time frame was, I believe it was close to two minutes of footage.”


He said he wanted to verify that Hogan and Heather Clem – then-wife of Hogan’s former best pal Bubba the Love Sponge Clem – “were actually having sex, so I believe we did small snippets of those two having intercourse.”


Daulerio went on to say that he found the video “very amusing” and “newsworthy” – and would be “somewhat popular” on the site.


“Did you give any consideration prior to Oct. 4, 2012, as to whether publishing the Hulk Hogan sex tape would distress Hulk Hogan,” the lawyer asked.


“No,” he answered.


“You didn’t care, really, did you?” Harder asked.


“No,” he said again.


“Had you known that Hulk Hogan would be emotionally distressed by this publication you would have still published it, correct?” he was asked.


“Sure, yes,” Daulerio said.


Harder also showed an email from Denton that said Daulerio “breaks all the rules of orthodox management.”


“Is that a positive thing?” Harder asked Daulerio.


“I don’t know the exact answer to that but I would assume yes, he enjoyed me breaking the rules of orthodox management,” Daulerio said.


Harder read the jury a paragraph from a 2011 GQ profile of Daulerio when he was the head of Gawker’s brother sports site Deadspin.


It said: “His tactics -— reporting rumors, paying for news and making Deadspin’s money on stories that are really about sex, not sports — are questionable. His success is not. When he became editor of the site in July 2008, it had 700,000 readers per month. Today it has 2.3 million.”


The pseudo-journalist also admitted to paying $12,000 for photos of now-retired NFL player Brett Favre’s penis.


He said he didn’t consider the 2012 publication of Duchess Kate Middleton’s naked breasts an “invasion of privacy” because “she’s a public figure” and thought the size of Hogan’s penis was “newsworthy.”


In later testimony, Hogan’s longtime attorney David Houston said the sex tape spread like a cancer online after Gawker posted it in October 2012.


Questioned by Harder, Houston said he zeroed in on tracking down the culprit responsible for making the video after TMZ first reported its existence in March 2012.


He described why he and Hogan went on TMZ Live at that time to talk about the tape


“If it were a sex tape out there I felt it incumbent upon me as counsel to try to find it and essentially put a bullet in it,” Houston said.


In a clip played for the jury, Hogan said that he didn’t know who the woman was because “the truth is it wasn’t just one brunette … I was running pretty wild there for a few months.”


“The purpose naturally was to announce if anyone goes forward with this thing we’re going to find him and we’re going to prosecute him,” Houston said. “At that point we were desperate for knowledge.”


Two porn sites reached out to Hogan to buy the steamy footage – Vivid.com and Sex.com.


Vivid’s letter said: “We understand that you believe this tape was filmed without your permission. Whatever the case we would still like to dis the opportunity to work together as we feel this would be one of the best selling celerity sex tapes of all time.”


Sex.com’s letter said: “We are truly serious about working with you. This isn’t some shameless press opportunity, we have an open check book.”


“We want no part in the dissemination, we weren’t in this to sell the sex tape,” Houston said.


He said he first saw the tape at Gawker.


“I saw a video depicting my client having sex, oral sex, standard sexual intercourse, took great pains to display his penis and even went so far as to demonstrate what everyone was saying to each other in that tape by virtue of incorporating subtitles,” he said.


Houston pleaded with Denton in an email a day after the tape was published.


“I’m asking you, please, as a fellow human being, to take down the video,” he said.


Houston said he sent 60 cease-and-desist letters asking various Web sites to remove the video.


The former pro wrestler, whose given name is Terry Bollea, is suing Gawker Media for $100 million for posting an edited version of the sex video.


Gawker is defending the publication by arguing that Hogan had talked openly about his sex life before, including on Howard Stern’s radio show.


Filed under gawkerhulk hogantrials



p style=”margin-bottom:0;”> 



Ex-Gawker editor admits Hulk Hogan’s penis had no news value

Ex-Gawker editor admits Hulk Hogan’s penis had no news value

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The ex-Gawker editor who posted an online sex tape of Hulk Hogan was body-slammed in court Monday, with the pro wrestler’s lawyer using his own words against him to show that he didn’t take the $100 million lawsuit against his former employer seriously and repeatedly joked about child pornography.

Hogan’s lawyer, Shane Vogt, got ex-editor A.J. Daulerio to admit that he didn’t care whether he was protected by the First Amendment when he posted the footage.

“It didn’t really matter if it was a morbid and sensational prying into someone’s life, that didn’t matter, did it?’’ Vogt asked.

“No,’’ Daulerio replied.

The ex-editor also was hammered as he tried to claim that he was just kidding when he said in a 2013 deposition that a celebrity sex tape involving even a child over age 4 would be newsworthy enough to post.

Vogt noted that Daulerio never said he was making a tasteless joke or tried to retract or explain anything at the time.

“You read your deposition carefully, didn’t you? … That’s your signature, isn’t it?” Vogt asked Daulerio at the start of the second week of Hogan’s invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the website and its former editor in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Daulerio replied yes to both questions.

The former editor got himself in trouble again by repeatedly contradicting himself over why he showed Hogan’s erect penis in the footage.

He had claimed in his deposition that it was to add “color” to his online commentary on the tape, then said under direct examination it was because he considered the footage newsworthy.

But under cross-exam, he changed his tune again, reverting to his original claim that it was “to add some color to my commentary.”

“Mr. Bollea’s penis had no news value, did it?” Vogt asked Daulerio, referring to Hogan by his real name, Terry Bollea.

“Uh, no,’’ Daulerio admitted.

He then added snarkily, “I included images of his penis because that is sometimes what happens when two people have sex. There are nude body parts involved.’’

At one point, Daulerio was asked to read for jurors what he wrote about Hogan’s penis at the time: that it “appears to be the size of a thermos you’d find in a child’s lunchbox.’’

Vogt noted that Daulerio didn’t care whether the tape “would have emotionally distressed” Hogan, with the former editor replying, “That’s not my job.”

The laywer said, “You put that out in the public because you believed it was true and interesting, right?”

Daulerio replied, “Yes.”

Daulerio told Gawker’s lawyer that he could have published a much racier version of the video.

He said he received the full 30 minutes of footage showing Hogan romping in a canopy bed with Heather Clem, the wife of his best friend, radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge, from an anonymous source.

But Daulerio said he posted “well under 10 seconds” of sexual activity — and the rest was “banal conversation” between the two.

“I take it this was not a highlight reel of the most graphic sexual material,” Gawker lawyer Michael Sullivan asked.

“No, not at all,” Daulerio answered.

“I wanted the more innocuous and banal conversations between Mr. Hogan and Ms. Clem. I wanted to focus on the things being said.”

But he did give the jury a sneak peak at the awkward timeline of the tryst.

Daulerio described how Bubba told his wife and best friend, “You guys go ahead and have fun now,” after the WWE champ “was performing oral sex on Heather Clem.”

As Daulerio described the bawdy scene, Hogan buried his head in his hands, which he had in a praying position.

Daulerio said he got a $2,000 bonus the month the footage was posted.

He added that he grew up rooting against Hogan in the ring and was instead a fan of Rowdy Roddy Piper and Mr. Wonderful.

Gawker publisher Nick Denton is expected to take the stand Monday afternoon.

Share this article:

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