| The term red pill and its opposite, blue pill, are pop culture terms that have become a common symbol for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). |
| Take The Journey |
|
|
Department of Homeland Security Prepares to Grab DNA From Kids
A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation has revealed a plan by the Department of Homeland Security to collect DNA from children 14 years old and up without a search warrant or criminal prosecution.
EFF reported on Monday that the DHS plan
appears to be working its way through DHS in the wake of regulations from the Department of Justice that require all federal agencies – including DHS and its components such as ICE – to collect DNA from individuals arrested for federal crimes as well as “from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States,” whether or not they have been involved in criminal activity.
“Collecting DNA from anyone detained by the government for any number of non-criminal reasons – especially juveniles – seems to be yet another step on the slippery slope to collecting DNA from everyone in the United States, no matter their status,” writes Jennifer Lynch for the digital rights organization.
Judicial Watch Sues Obama Administration for Documents Detailing Secret Settlement Negotiations with Mortgage Lenders Accused of Faulty Mortgage Practices
Obama DOJ and HUD Ignore Freedom of Information Act Requests on Effort to Extract $20 Billion from Banking Industry
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on January 3, 2012, against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain documents pertaining to accusations of fraud against the nation’s five largest mortgage companies and the creation of “federal accounts” to settle probes into faulty mortgage practices (Judicial Watch v. HUD and DOJ (No. 1:12-cv-0002)). The Obama administration has reportedly been engaged in settlement negotiations behind closed doors with mortgage companies that would result in at least $20 billion in payments from the nation’s major banks.
Pursuant to a Judicial Watch FOIA request filed with the DOJ and HUD on May 17, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:
- A set of government audits used to support allegations that the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in the handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans.
- A term sheet which outlined the Obama administration’s settlement offer to the mortgage companies accused of fraud. The terms described on this document allegedly included the creation of a federal account funded by the nation’s largest mortgage firms to help distressed borrowers avoid foreclosure and settle state and federal probes into alleged faulty mortgages practices.
Continue reading
Why isn’t Wall Street in jail?
Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?
Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them
Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.
“Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail,” he said. “That’s your whole story right there. Hell, you don’t even have to write the rest of it. Just write that.”
I put down my notebook. “Just that?”
“That’s right,” he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. “Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there.”
Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.
Eric Holder’s New Scandal: Money Laundering For Cartels
Scandal: The House committee probing government gun-running now sets it sights on possible money-laundering involving drug cartel funds run in the name of drug enforcement. Why should we believe DOJ this time?
It’s an old adage that when investigating criminal activity you should follow the money. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has announced an investigation into a money-laundering operation allegedly run by the Drug Enforcement Administration. We may need to follow the people following the money.
Just as Fast and Furious was allegedly intended to track and interdict gun-trafficking into Mexico, this operation, detailed in a New York Times article Sunday, is said to have as its purpose to follow how criminal organizations move their money, where they keep their assets and, most important, who their leaders are.
But the question once again arises: Have the feds interrupted or aided the flow?
After a Friday document dump showing how deliberately deceptive the Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder were regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the government’s gun-running operation that led to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, it’s hard to believe this latest scheme was well-run.
In a Monday letter to Holder, Issa noted that as in Fast and Furious “this same goal of dismantling Mexican drug cartels motivated the Drug Enforcement Administration in aiding and abetting these same cartels in laundering millions of dollars in cash.”
It may have produced equally tragic results. Continue reading
DOJ: Lying on Match.com needs to be a crime
The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com.
In a statement obtained by CNET that’s scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites’ often-ignored, always-unintelligible “terms of service” policies.
The law must allow “prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider,” Richard Downing, the Justice Department’s deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow.
Scaling back that law “would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution,” and jeopardize prosecutions involving identity theft, misuse of government databases, and privacy invasions, according to Downing.
The law in question, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, has been used by the Justice Department to prosecute a woman, Lori Drew, who used a fake MySpace account to verbally attack a 13-year old girl who then committed suicide. Because MySpace’s terms of service prohibit impersonation, Drew was convicted of violating the CFAA. Her conviction was later thrown out.
Holder’s ‘Right To Lie’
A Department of Justice withholding Fast and Furious gun-running information from Congress proposes shredding the Freedom of Information Act by being able to deny certain documents even exist.
The most transparent administration in history has struck another blow for opaqueness with a proposed new federal regulation expanding its ability to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as the new rule states, “as if the excluded documents did not exist.”
Current provisions that allow for denying access to documents are found in 5 U.S.C. section 552(c) and were enacted in 1986. Government can deny document access if the FOIA requester is under criminal investigation and the investigation would be jeopardized, when the request concern’s an informant whose identity is otherwise not known, or when the request seeks records “pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism, and the existence of the records is classified information.”
In denying the request, the government must cite the relevant exemption. The requester can then challenge the denial in court. The proposed rule change would allow the government to just say the documents don’t exist, eviscerating FOIA and pre-empting the right to challenge the secrecy. A court cannot examine a document the government… Continue reading
