TOP-SECRET by the FBI – Real Estate Investor Convicted for Leading a Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy

PHOENIX—Eitan Maximov, 39, a citizen of Israel and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted yesterday after a six day jury trial on one Count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire and Bank Fraud and one count of Wire Fraud as a result of his leadership in a cash-back mortgage fraud scheme that took place during 2006-2008.

The defendant was taken into custody following the jury verdict and his sentencing is set before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell on February 27, 2012.

Acting U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel said: “During the height of the real estate boom, this defendant saw an opportunity to profit and he took it. He furthered his scam by creating fictitious companies and billed himself as an investor. However, the only investment he made was in his lavish lifestyle that eventually crashed down on him.”

“Yesterday’s guilty verdict illustrates the commitment by the FBI, our law enforcement partners, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in combating mortgage fraud,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge James L. Turgal. “When individuals use the housing market to intentionally defraud the public for their own personal financial gain, using other people’s money and dreams to live lavish lifestyles, it damages our economy and further exacerbates the mortgage crisis. The FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force will continue to investigate those who orchestrate and participate in various mortgage fraud schemes in order to protect the public against those who would seek to further damage our local and national economy.”

The defendant played a leadership role in the underlying conspiracy which involved at least nine residential properties in the Scottsdale area. The objective of the conspiracy was to recruit unqualified borrowers as straw buyers, submit fraudulent loan applications on their behalf and on his own behalf, obtain mortgage loans in excess of the selling price of the property and then take the excess amount of the loans out through escrow in what is known as a “cash back” scheme.

The defendant recruited straw buyers and worked with an escrow officer in the scheme to defraud and then benefitted from their involvement in the scheme. Most of the properties were purchased or attempted to be purchased for in excess of a million dollars. Following the funding of the loans, the defendant received “cash back” or proceeds that he used to live a lavish lifestyle and further perpetuate the scheme. All of the homes purchased through the conspiracy have been foreclosed or sold at a loss to the lending institutions. The conspiracy resulted in approximately $5,000,000 in loans obtained by fraud and an actual and intended loss to lending institutions of nearly $6,500,000.

A conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Wire and Bank and Wire Fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison, a $1,000,000 fine or both. In determining an actual sentence, Judge Campbell will consult the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide appropriate sentencing ranges. The judge, however, is not bound by those guidelines in determining a sentence.

The investigation in this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution was handled by Kevin M. Rapp and Monica B. Klapper, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, District of Arizona, Phoenix.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.

The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force visit: http://www.stopfraud.gov.

Unveiled – Egypt Protest Photos 2


[Image]Protesters gather in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011. Egyptian police are clashing with anti-government protesters for a fifth day in Cairo. Tens of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square have rejected a promise by Egypt’s military ruler to speed up a presidential election to the first half of next year. They want Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi to step down immediately in favor of an interim civilian council. (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]An injured protester, center, is aided by men on a motorcycle during clashes with Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An injured protester is carried by other men during clashes with the Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Egyptian riot policeman clash with protesters near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An Egyptian protester using scrap metal as a shield takes cover from tear gas during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An Egyptian protester, center, uses a sling shot during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Egyptian protesters take cover from tear gas during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Egyptian protesters throw stones at security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An Egyptian riot policeman throws a rock at protesters during clashes near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]A protester takes a break during clashes with Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An injured Egyptian cleric from Al-Azhar, the country’s most prominent Islamic institution, wears a scarf as a mask to shield him from tear gas during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]A wounded protester is aided by a comrade during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]A protester walks away from tear gas fired during clashes with Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Female medics and doctors distribute supplies during nearby clashes with Egyptian riot police, in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]An Egyptian protester waves a national flag during clashes with security forces near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Protesters sit on a partially demolished wall during a temporary cease-fire with the Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Protesters sit on a barricade during a temporary cease-fire with the Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.
[Image]Protesters sit on the sidewalk during a temporary cease-fire with the Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011.

24th of November 1964 – Jack Ruby shoots Lee Harvey Oswald

November 24, 1963, two days after the assassination of JFK.

FBI-Mafia Takedown Largest Coordinated Arrest in FBI History

Agents knock on door in Brooklyn
Agents search a house in Brooklyn

Agents during processing in Brooklyn

BI agents and partner law enforcement officers began arresting nearly 130 members of the Mafia in New York City and other East Coast cities charged in the largest nationally coordinated organized crime takedown in the Bureau’s history.

Members of New York’s infamous Five Families—the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese, and Luchese crime organizations—were rounded up along with members of the New Jersery-based DeCavalcante family and New England Mafia to face charges including murder, drug trafficking, arson, loan sharking, illegal gambling, witness tampering, labor racketeering, and extortion. In one case involving the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) at the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the alleged extortion has been going on for years.

Mafia Org Chart

More than 30 of the subjects indicted were “made” members of the Mafia (see graphic), including several high-ranking family members. The arrests, predominantly in New York, are expected to seriously disrupt some of the crime families’ operations.

“The notion that today’s mob families are more genteel and less violent than in the past is put to lie by the charges contained in the indictments unsealed today,” said Janice Fedarcyk, assistant director in charge of our New York Field Office. “Even more of a myth is the notion that the mob is a thing of the past; that La Cosa Nostra is a shadow of its former self.”

The Mafia—also known as La Cosa Nostra (LCN)—may have taken on a diminished criminal role in some areas of the country, but in New York, the Five Families are still “extremely strong and viable,” said Dave Shafer, an assistant special agent in charge who supervises FBI organized crime investigations in New York.  

Today’s operation began before dawn. Some 500 FBI personnel—along with about 200 local, state, and other federal law enforcement officers—took part, including key agencies such as the New York Police Department and the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General. By 11 a.m., more than 110 of the 127 subjects charged had been taken into custody.

DONWLOAD MAFIA FAMILY TREE HERE

mafia-family-tree

ADIC Janice Fedarcyk speaks during press conference in Brooklyn
Janice Fedarcyk, assistant director in charge of the New York FBI, speaks during a press conference
in Brooklyn. To her left is Attorney General Eric Holder. |

The idea for a nationally coordinated LCN takedown originated at the Department of Justice last summer, said Shafer, a veteran organized crime investigator. “We have done big LCN takedowns before, but never one this big.”

Among those charged:

  • Luigi Manocchio, 83, the former boss of the New England LCN;
  • Andrew Russo, 76, street boss of the Colombo family;
  • Benjamin Castellazzo, 73, acting underboss of the Colombo family;
  • Richard Fusco, 74, consigliere of the Colombo family;
  • Joseph Corozzo, 69, consigliere of the Gambino family; and
  • Bartolomeo Vernace, 61, a member of the Gambino family administration.

The LCN operates in many U.S. cities and routinely engages in threats and violence to extort victims, eliminate rivals, and obstruct justice. In the union case involving the ILA, court documents allege that the Genovese family has engaged in a multi-decade conspiracy to influence and control the unions and businesses on the New York-area piers.

“If there’s money to be made,” said Diego Rodriguez, special agent in charge of the FBI’s New York criminal division, “LCN will do it.” He noted that today’s Mafia has adapted to the times. “They are still involved in gambling and loan sharking, for example, but in the old days the local shoemaker took the betting slips. Now it’s offshore online gambling and money laundering. If you investigate LCN in New York,” Rodriguez added, “it’s a target-rich environment.”

FBI-More Than 35 Search Warrants Executed in United States, Five Arrests in Europe as Part of Ongoing Cyber Investigations

WASHINGTON—Fourteen individuals were arrested today by FBI agents on charges related to their alleged involvement in a cyber attack on PayPal’s website as part of an action claimed by the group “Anonymous,” announced the Department of Justice and the FBI. Two additional defendants were arrested today on cyber-related charges.

The 14 individuals were arrested in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio on charges contained in an indictment unsealed today in the Northern District of California in San Jose. In addition, two individuals were arrested on similar charges in two separate complaints filed in the Middle District of Florida and the District of New Jersey. Also today, FBI agents executed more than 35 search warrants throughout the United States as part of an ongoing investigation into coordinated cyber attacks against major companies and organizations. Finally, the United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service arrested one person and the Dutch National Police Agency arrested four individuals today for alleged related cyber crimes.

According to the San Jose indictment, in late November 2010, WikiLeaks released a large amount of classified U.S. State Department cables on its website. Citing violations of the PayPal terms of service, and in response to WikiLeaks’ release of the classified cables, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks’ accounts so that WikiLeaks could no longer receive donations via PayPal. WikiLeaks’ website declared that PayPal’s action “tried to economically strangle WikiLeaks.”

The San Jose indictment alleges that in retribution for PayPal’s termination of WikiLeaks’ donation account, a group calling itself Anonymous coordinated and executed distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal’s computer servers using an open source computer program the group makes available for free download on the Internet. DDoS attacks are attempts to render computers unavailable to users through a variety of means, including saturating the target computers or networks with external communications requests, thereby denying service to legitimate users. According to the indictment, Anonymous referred to the DDoS attacks on PayPal as “Operation Avenge Assange.”

The defendants charged in the San Jose indictment allegedly conspired with others to intentionally damage protected computers at PayPal from Dec. 6, 2010, to Dec. 10, 2010.

The individuals named in the San Jose indictment are: Christopher Wayne Cooper, 23, aka “Anthrophobic;” Joshua John Covelli, 26, aka “Absolem” and “Toxic;” Keith Wilson Downey, 26; Mercedes Renee Haefer, 20, aka “No” and “MMMM;” Donald Husband, 29, aka “Ananon;” Vincent Charles Kershaw, 27, aka “Trivette,” “Triv” and “Reaper;” Ethan Miles, 33; James C. Murphy, 36; Drew Alan Phillips, 26, aka “Drew010;” Jeffrey Puglisi, 28, aka “Jeffer,” “Jefferp” and “Ji;” Daniel Sullivan, 22; Tracy Ann Valenzuela, 42; and Christopher Quang Vo, 22. One individual’s name has been withheld by the court.

The defendants are charged with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage to a protected computer. They will make initial appearances throughout the day in the districts in which they were arrested.

In addition to the activities in San Jose, Scott Matthew Arciszewski, 21, was arrested today by FBI agents on charges of intentional damage to a protected computer. Arciszewski is charged in a complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida and made his initial appearance this afternoon in federal court in Orlando, Fla.

According to the complaint, on June 21, 2011, Arciszewski allegedly accessed without authorization the Tampa Bay InfraGard website and uploaded three files. The complaint alleges that Arciszewski then tweeted about the intrusion and directed visitors to a separate website containing links with instructions on how to exploit the Tampa InfraGard website. InfraGard is a public-private partnership for critical infrastructure protection sponsored by the FBI with chapters in all 50 states.

Also today, a related complaint unsealed in the District of New Jersey charges Lance Moore, 21, of Las Cruces, N.M., with allegedly stealing confidential business information stored on AT&T’s servers and posting it on a public file sharing site. Moore was arrested this morning at his residence by FBI agents and is expected to make an initial appearance this afternoon in Las Cruces federal court. Moore is charged in with one count of accessing a protected computer without authorization.

According to the New Jersey complaint, Moore, a customer support contractor, exceeded his authorized access to AT&T’s servers and downloaded thousands of documents, applications and other files that, on the same day, he allegedly posted on a public file-hosting site that promises user anonymity. According to the complaint, on June 25, 2011, the computer hacking group LulzSec publicized that they had obtained confidential AT&T documents and made them publicly available on the Internet. The documents were the ones Moore had previously uploaded.

The charge of intentional damage to a protected computer carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each count of conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

An indictment and a complaint merely contain allegations. Defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

To date, more than 75 searches have taken place in the United States as part of the ongoing investigations into these attacks.

These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Northern District of California, Middle District of Florida, and the District of New Jersey. The Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section also has provided assistance.

Today’s operational activities were done in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Service in the United Kingdom and the Dutch National Police Agency. The FBI thanks the multiple international, federal, and domestic law enforcement agencies who continue to support these operations.

TOP-SECRET- Anonymous’ Texas Takedown Thursday: Chinga La Migra IV – ORIGINAL LETTER

         #         ######
                      ###      ####  ##                ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;!
                     ## #   ###    ###              !!i #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED~;
             #     ##   ####      ###       ###### !;L  #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
            # ######               #####      ##   ;!i; #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
           #                                ##    !;!i; #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
     #######                       #       ###    !;1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
      #  ##                 #####   #           ####1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
    ###                           ##########      !###: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
    ##        #                              #####!;1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED 1
      ##### ###                         ####  #####;1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
         ######      #                      ###  ###1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !
         ##          #####                     ####;1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED +;
    ###              #######                 #### !;1?:#OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #O ~
   ##                 ########               ### ##;1?:WNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED
    ##          ###   #########              ##   !;1?: #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OW
      ####      #          ########        ##     !;1?:NED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED
          #     #                ######  ##       !;1?:#OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWN
           #    ##               #########        !;1?:ED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #
          ##   #####                  ##          !;1?:OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNE
        ######      ##               ##           !;1?:D #OWNED #OW!~NED #OWNED
      ##               ##           ##            !L1?~#OWNED #OWN! !D #OWNED #O
     ##  #####            ####   ####                      WNED #!  !+NED #OWNED
    ##        ####################             #########        #!   ! WNED #OWN
   ##   ####         ###                #####          ######        !+ED #OWNED
  ##          ####    ##           ###         !!!;Li        ###      1  #OWNED
 #############    ######       ###:::::::~::::::~~~~~  #~?1     ###    111111iiO
##                   ##    !##~WNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED ~?;     ###        !L+#
##     ################  ##;!1 :OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED  ?;     ##      L+ #O
#####               ## ## !;!1? ~WNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #O  ;         L+WNED
##        ######   ####    !;!i?+:~#OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED +        !;#OWNED
 #              #  ##       !;L1i +;  #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OW ;        !1 NED #
 #   #          ###          !!;!1? +~OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWN !   L L   ;;ED #O
  #  ###  ####   ####          !!L!i?+;~WNED #OWNED #OWNED #O~L !!;WN  L  1 ED #
  #############   #####          !;L1i +:~OWNED #OWNED #OWNED !!: #OWNED+L;: #OW
   ##### ######        ##         !!;!1? ; NED #OWNED #OWNED  : #OWNED #O ++WNED
   ##  ##          #######          !;L1? ; #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #
 ##   #####      ############         !L1?+ OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #O
##    ##     ###            ##         !!i :WNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OWNED #OW
 #  ######           ########          !L1i  NED #OWNED #O :;;::~~WNED #OWNED #O
     #######         #####              ;L1?+:WNED #OWNED  ?ii?? +;   #OWNED #OW
                                        !;L1? +:NED #OWNE+!LLLL!i? +: D #OWNED #
                                         !;L!i? +;~OWNE +L!!!!!;L!1? ;~D #OWNED
                                           !;L!1i?  ;::?;!!     !;L!i ; #OWNED #
                                             !;;L!1ii1!;!         !L!i ;OWNED #O
                                                !;;LL;;!           !L1? ~WNED #O

################################################################################
#### #ANTISEC #### #CHINGALAMIGRA COMMUNUQUE 4 #### #TEXASTAKEDOWNTHURSDAY #####
################################################################################
      _  _                   __  .__
   __| || |__ _____    _____/  |_|__| ______ ____   ____        #antisec
   \   __   / \__  \  /    \   __\  |/  ___// __ \_/ ___\       #anonymous
    |  ||  |   / __ \|   |  \  | |  |\___ \\  ___/\  \___       #freeanons
   /_  ~~  _\ (____  /___|  /__| |__/____  |\___ \ \___  |      #freetopiary
     |_||_|        \/     \/             \/     \/     \/       #chingalamigra

################################################################################
# ANTISEC MESSES WITH TEXAS, ATTACKS DOZENS OF POLICE SYSTEMS AND CHIEF EMAILS #
################################################################################

Greetings professional hypocrites in law enforcement!

Having a slow day behind the desk, filing papers, staring at your colleague's
fine posterior? What have you been up to since our last visit? Don't answer
that. We already know.

Lewd jokes? Check. Racist chain mails? Check. You lost your radio license? Lulz.
Playing on the fears of voters? Check. But we already figured that. Our friends,
allies, and vessels are threatened with 10+ years in prison. Yet terrorists like
Luis Posada Carilles go free. This hypocritical and paranoid reaction puts us
and the citizens you are supposed to protect in the same boat. You call us a
national security risk. Yet BATFE guns go directly to drug dealers so they can
take out rivals who don't launder money through backrooms of dominant banks. Any
press can check court documents from operations like 'Fast and Furious'. Who
came up with that one? What you didn't see 'From Dusk 'til Dawn'? Better title.
Be more creative next time.

In retaliation for the arrests of dozens of alleged Anonymous suspects, we
opened fire on dozens of Texas police departments and stole boatloads of
classified police documents and police chief emails across the state. During the
San Jose courtdate we defaced and gave out live backdoor and admin access to the
website TexasPoliceChiefs.org while allied ships launched ddos attacks upon
Justice.gov and other law enforcement websites. For every defendant in the
anonymous "conspiracy" we are attacking two top Texas police chiefs, leaking 3GB
of their private emails and attachments. Mind you, we don't expect a sane
response. Even a few insults would have been better than the way you cowards
hide behind protocol, innuendo, and your badge. 

For more than a month we have been lurking their emails, law enforcement
portals, and records and reporting systems. We leaked a few teasers including
access to fbivirtualacademy.edu, several classified documents, voicemail
recordings, live passwords, and even some dirty pictures. To continue the
fighting spirit of WikiLeaks, we want to share the full Texas collection and
expose these bumbling fools and all their secrets to the world.

Thousands of documents are available on tor hidden services / bittorrent and
include several dozen FBI, Border Patrol, and counter-terrorism documents
classified as "law enforcement sensitive" and "for official use only". The
emails also included police records, internal affairs investigations, meeting
notes, training materials, officer rosters, security audits, and live password
information to government systems. The private chief emails also included
several racist and sexist chain email forwards and personal details sure to
embarrass, discredit, and incriminate several of these so-called "community
leaders".

We are attacking Texas law enforcement as part of "Chinga La Migra" as they
continue to harass immigrants and use border patrol operations as a cover for
their backwards racist prejudice. The notoriously racist police state of Texas
recently passed SB 9 and "Secure Comminities" anti-immigration laws. Texas is
well known and hated for being full of Minutemen, Tea Party and KKK groups,
murdering the most amount of innocent people on death row, and giving us the
Bush and Cheney administration. Two months ago on the 1st we attacked the
Arizona DPS and defaced several Fraternal Order of Police websites. One month
ago we "Shot The Sheriff" and released 10GB of private law enforcement data
while defacing dozens of police department websites in several states in the
south. A week ago we released private emails belonging to Richard T. Garcia, VP
of Texas-based Vanguard Defense Industries, and also a former FBI agent and
current Infragard executive board member.

We are doing this in solidarity with the "Anonymous 16" PayPal LOIC defendants,
accused LulzSec member Jake Davis "Topiary", protesters arrested during #OpBart
actions, Bradley Manning, Stephen Watt, and other hackers and leakers worldwide.
We also call for the release of Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, Oscar Lopez
Rivera, Troy Davis, the Angola 3, and all others behind bars standing up to
state repression. While many of our comrades facing charges and in prison are
innocent, there is no such thing as an innocent police officer, and we will
continue to directly attack the prison industrial complex by leaking their
private data, destroying their systems, and defacing their websites.

We might have respect for these officers if they understood their job and whom
they serve. But unlike some that left the force decades ago and rumors abound
that they may have joined our ranks, these officers hide behind their badge and
use policies to ignore their great responsibility. These officers betrayed the
trust citizens have in them by choosing be drones of the system rather than
protectors of freedom and the peace of their communities. From the lowest prison
guard to the mightiest chief, we will continue to attack the cogs of the
police state that protects the interests of the rich and powerful.

Hackers all over the world are uniting to make 2011 the year of hacks and
revolutions. Join us, comrades: open fire on governments, law enforcement
organizations, white hat, corporate and military targets!

NOTE: THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET

FBI – Member of Hacking Group LulzSec Arrested for June 2011 Intrusion of Sony Pictures Computer Systems

LOS ANGELES—A member of the LulzSec hacking group was arrested this morning for his role in an extensive computer attack against the computer systems of Sony Pictures Entertainment, announced André Birotte Jr., the United States Attorney in Los Angeles; and Steven Martinez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office.

Cody Kretsinger, 23, of Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested this morning by FBI agents without incident. On September 2, 2011, a federal grand jury returned an indictment filed under seal in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles charging Kretsinger with conspiracy and the unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. The federal indictment was unsealed this morning upon Kretsinger’s arrest.

From approximately May 27, 2011, through June 2, 2011, the computer systems of Sony Pictures Entertainment were compromised by a group known as “LulzSec,” or “Lulz Security,” whose members anonymously claimed responsibility on LulzSec’s website. Kretsinger, also known by the moniker “recursion,” is believed to be a current or former member of LulzSec. The extent of damage caused by the compromise at Sony Pictures is under investigation.

According to the indictment, Kretsinger resided in Tempe, Arizona at the time the alleged criminal activity took place. In order to carry out the attack, Kretsinger allegedly sed a proxy server in an attempt to mask or hide his Internet Protocol (IP) address. The indictment alleges that Kretsinger and other coconspirators obtained confidential information from Sony Pictures’ computer systems using an “SQL injection” attack against its website, a technique commonly used by hackers to exploit vulnerabilities and steal information.

The indictment alleges that Kretsinger and his co-conspirators distributed the stolen information, including by posting the information on LulzSec’s website, and then announced the attack via its Twitter account. The indictment further alleges that, in order to avoid detection by law enforcement, Kretsinger permanently erased the hard drive of the computer he used to conduct the attack on Sony Pictures.

LulzSec is known for its affiliation with the international group of hackers known as “Anonymous.” Anonymous, according to the indictment, is a collective of computer hackers and other individuals located throughout the world that conduct cyber attacks, including the dissemination of confidential information stolen from victims’ computers, against individuals and entities they perceive to be hostile to its interests.

In the recent past, LulzSec has been linked to the hacking or attempted hacking of numerous targets, including various websites that represent governmental or business entities, among others.

Kretsinger will make an initial appearance before a federal magistrate in U.S. District Court in Phoenix today. The government will request that Kretsinger be removed to Los Angeles, the district in which he was charged, to face prosecution. If convicted, Kretsinger faces a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. This investigation was conducted by the Electronic Crimes Task Force (ECTF) in Los Angeles. The ECTF is comprised of agents and officers from the FBI, United States Secret Service, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, United States Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and the California Highway Patrol.

This case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

An indictment merely contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at trial.

Unveiled – Fuck the FBI message by Anonymous – Orginal Letter



Greetings Pirates, and welcome to another exciting #FuckFBIFriday release.

As part of our ongoing effort to expose and humiliate our white hat enemies, we
targeted a Special Agent Supervisor of the CA Department of Justice in charge of
computer crime investigations. We are leaking over 38,000 private emails which
contain detailed computer forensics techniques, investigation protocols as well
as highly embarrassing personal information. We are confident these gifts will 
bring smiles to the faces of our black hat brothers and sisters (especially 
those who have been targeted by these scurvy dogs) while also making a mockery 
of "security professionals" who whore their "skills" to law enforcement to 
protect tyrannical corporativism and the status quo we aim to destroy.

We hijacked two gmail accounts belonging to Fred Baclagan, who has been a cop
for 20 years, dumping his private email correspondence as well as several dozen 
voicemails and SMS text message logs. While just yesterday Fred was having a 
private BBQ with his CATCHTEAM high computer crime task force friends, we were 
reviewing their detailed internal operation plans and procedure documents. We 
also couldn't overlook the boatloads of embarrassing personal information about 
our cop friend Fred. We lulzed as we listened to angry voicemails from his 
estranged wives and ex-girlfriends while also reading his conversations with 
girls who responded to his "man seeking woman" craigslist ads. We turned on his 
google web history and watched him look up linux command line basics, golfing 
tutorials, and terrible youtube music videos. We also abused his google 
voice account, making sure Fred's friends and family knew how hard he was owned.

Possibly the most interesting content in his emails are the IACIS.com internal
email list archives (2005-2011) which detail the methods and tactics cybercrime 
units use to gather electronic evidence, conduct investigations and make 
arrests. The information in these emails will prove essential to those who want 
to protect themselves from the techniques and procedures cyber crime 
investigators use to build cases. If you have ever been busted for computer 
crimes, you should check to see if your case is being discussed here. There are 
discussions about using EnCase forensic software, attempts to crack TrueCrypt 
encrypted drives, sniffing wireless traffic in mobile surveillance vehicles, how 
to best prepare search warrants and subpoenas, and a whole lot of clueless 
people asking questions on how to use basic software like FTP. In the end, we
rickrolled the entire IACIS list, causing the administrators to panic and shut
their list and websites down.

These cybercrime investigators are supposed to be the cream of the crop, but we
reveal the totality of their ignorance of all matters related to computer
security. For months, we have owned several dozen white hat and law enforcement
targets-- getting in and out of whichever high profile government and corporate
system we please and despite all the active FBI investigations and several
billion dollars of funding, they have not been able to stop us or get anywhere
near us. Even worse, they bust a few dozen people who are allegedly part of an
"anonymous computer hacking conspiracy" but who have only used 
kindergarten-level DDOS tools-- this isn't even hacking, but a form of
electronic civil disobedience. 

We often hear these "professionals" preach about "full-disclosure," but we are
sure these people are angrily sending out DMCA takedown notices and serving
subpoenas as we speak. They call us criminals, script kiddies, and terrorists, 
but their entire livelihood depends on us, trying desperately to study our 
techniques and failing miserably at preventing future attacks. See we're cut 
from an entirely different kind of cloth. Corporate security professionals like
Thomas Ryan and Aaron Barr think they're doing something noble by "leaking" the
public email discussion lists of Occupy Wall Street and profiling the "leaders"
of Anonymous. Wannabe player haters drop shitty dox and leak partial chat logs
about other hackers, doing free work for law enforcement. Then you got people 
like Peiter "Mudge" Zatko who back in the day used to be old school l0pht/cDc 
only now to sell out to DARPA going around to hacker conventions encouraging 
others to work for the feds. Let this be a warning to aspiring white hat 
"hacker" sellouts and police collaborators: stay out the game or get owned and 
exposed. You want to keep mass arresting and brutalizing the 99%? We'll have to 
keep owning your boxes and torrenting your mail spools, plastering your personal 
information all over teh internets.

Hackers, join us and rise up against our common oppressors - the white hats, the 
1%'s 'private' police, the corrupt banks and corporations and make 2011 the year 
of leaks and revolutions! 

We are Anti-Security,
We are the 99%
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect Us!

NOTE THE RELEVANT FILES MENTIONED ARE ALREADY IN CIRCULATION

TOP-SECRET-FAA Comunications Security 1991

https://i0.wp.com/cryptome.org/0005/faa-comsec.jpg

                                    ORDER
         Date:  3/5/91                                                         

      Initiated
           by:  ACO-300                                                        

      Subject: COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) 
 
 FOREWORD                                     

      This order establishes policies and procedures and assigns
      responsibilities for ensuring agency compliance with requirements
      of the national communications security (COMSEC) policy.                 

      The guidance in this order is based upon COMSEC policy directives
      promulgated by the National Security Agency and implementing
      regulations and directives issued by the United States Air Force.
      Should a conflict exist between the requirements of this order
      and the appropriate national COMSEC policy or implementing
      directive, the national policy or directive will in all cases
      apply.  Instances of this type will be reported expeditiously to
      this headquarters.                                                       

      This order is marked FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.  It is to be
      safeguarded, handled and processed in accordance with
      requirements of Order 1600.15D.  This order is not releasable to
      contractors or to foreign nationals without the specific approval
      of the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security,
      Washington, D.C.  However, dissemination of pertinent information
      extracted from this order to contractors having a need-to-know is
      permissible when such release is authorized by applicable
      National COMSEC Instructions (NACI).                                     

      Changes in national COMSEC policy reflected in this order such as
      the institution of the Formal Cryptographic Access Program have
      been coordinated with and accurately state the position of the
      Office of the Secretary of Transportation.                               

      All FAA personnel whose duties require them to handle, process,
      store, safeguard, or otherwise have access to classified
      cryptographic material are required to become familiar with and
      conform to the requirements of this order.                               

      /s/ James B. Busey
          Administrator                                                        

                            FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                     NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
         NOT RELEASABLE TO CONTRACTORS WITHOUT ORIGINATOR'S APPROVAL

                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                

                                                                  Page         

      CHAPTER 1. GENERAL                                       1           

           1.  Purpose                                             1
           2.  Distribution                                        1
           3.  Cancellation                                        1
           4.  Explanation of Changes                              1
           5.  Definitions                                         2
           6.  Forms and Reports                                   2
           7.  Requests for Information                            2
           8.  Statement of Intent                                 2
           9.  Scope                                               2
          10.  Responsibilities                                    2
          11.  Interpretation                                      2
          12.  Authority to change this Order                      7
          13.-19.  Reserved                                        7           

      CHAPTER 2. POLICY FOR GRANTING ACCESS TO U.S.
 CLASSIFIED CRYPTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION            13           

          SECTION 1.  POLICY                                      13           

          20.  General                                            13
          21.  Policy                                             13           

          SECTION 2.  DEFINITION                                  13           

          22.  Cryptographic Information                          13           

          SECTION 3.  CRITERIA                                    14           

          23.  Access Requirements                                14
          24.  Polygraph                                          14
          25.  Contacts with Foreign Nationals and Unofficial
               Foreign Travel to Communist or other Designated
               Countries                                          15           

          SECTION 4.  GRANTING FORMAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS        15           

          26.  Scope                                              15
          27.  Preparing AFCOMSEC Form 9                          17
          28.  Withdrawing FCA                                    18
          29.  Certificates of Personnel Declining Cryptographic
               Access                                             19
          30.-34.  Reserved                                       19           

      CHAPTER 3. COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) DUTIES AND
		       RESPONSIBILITIES                                27           

          35.  General                                            27
          36.  COMSEC Custodians and Alternates                   27
          37.  Training                                           28
          38.  Waivers                                            30
          39.  Duties of the COMSEC Custodian                     30
          40.  Performance Standards                              31
          41.  Appointment of Custodians and Alternates           32
          42.  Monitoring Responsibilities                        32
          43.-49.  Reserved.                                      33           

      CHAPTER 4. SAFEGUARDING COMSEC FACILITIES                  39           

          SECTION 1.  GENERAL                                     39           

          50.  Purpose                                            39
          51.  Referenced Publications                            39
          52.  Background                                         39           

          SECTION 2.  PHYSICAL SECURITY STANDARDS                 40           

          53.  Physical Security Standards for Fixed COMSEC
               Facilities                                         40
          54.  Installation Criteria                              40
          55.  Facility Approvals, Inspection, and Tests          41
          56.  Intrusion Detecting Systems                        43
          57.-60.  Reserved                                       43           

          SECTION 3.  ACCESS RESTRICTIONS AND CONTROLS            43           

          61.  Unescorted Access                                  43
          62.  Escorted Access                                    45
          63.  Visitor Register                                   45
          64.  No-Lone Zones                                      46
          65.  Guard Services                                     46
          66.-70.  Reserved                                       47           

          SECTION 4.  PROTECTION OF UNATTENDED COMSEC EQUIPMENT   47           

          71.  General                                            47
          72.  Protection Requirements                            47
          73.-77.  Reserved                                       48           

          SECTION 5.  PROTECTION OF LOCK COMBINATIONS             48           

          78.  Purpose                                            48
          79.  Protection Requirements                            48
          80.  Access to Combinations                             49
          81.  Record of Combinations                             49
          82.-86.  Reserved.                                      50           

          SECTION 6.  NONESSENTIAL AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT         51           

          87.  Personally Owned Equipment                         51
          88.  Government Owned Equipment                         51
          89.-94.  Reserved                                       51           

          SECTION 7.  STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP)         51           

          95.  Requirement                                        51
          96.  Emergency Plan                                     52
          97.-101.  Reserved                                      53           

      CHAPTER 5. SAFEGUARDING AND CONTROL OF COMMUNICATIONS
                  SECURITY MATERIALS                              65           

         102.  General                                            65
         103.  Definitions                                        66
         104.  Handling Keying Material                           66
         105.109.  Reserved                                       66           

          SECTION 1.  GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO ALL
                      COMSEC MATERIAL                             66           

         110.  Responsibilities for Safeguarding COMSEC Material  66
         111.  Transport of COMSEC Material                       67
         112.  Courier Responsibilities                           68
         113.  Open Display of COMSEC Material and Information    68
         114.  Destruction                                        68
         115.  Reporting Insecurities                             68
         116.  Evidence of Tampering                              69
         117.  Alteration of COMSEC Material                      69
         118.  Clearance Requirements for Guards                  69
         119.  Storage Requirements                               69
         120.  Other COMSEC Information                           70
         121.  Disposition of COMSEC Materials                    71
         122.  Page Checks of COMSEC Publications                 72
         123.  Daily or Shift Inventory Requirements              73
         124.  COMSEC Account Record File                         73
         125.-129.  Reserved                                      74           

      CHAPTER 6. CONTROLLED CRYPTOGRAPHIC ITEMS (CCI)            79           

         130.  Purpose and Background                             79
         131.  Definitions                                        79
         132.  Control Requirements                               80
         133.  Inventories                                        84
         134.  Reporting Insecurities                             84
         135.  Routine and Emergency Destruction                  84
         136.-144.  Reserved                                      84           

      CHAPTER 7. SECURE VOICE                                    89           

          SECTION 1.  GENERAL                                     89           

         145.  Purpose                                            89
         146.  Types and Models of STU-III                        89
         147.  Definitions                                        89
         148.-150.  Reserved                                      91           

          SECTION 2.  EXCEPTIONS                                  91           

         151.  Requests for Exception                             91
         152.-153.  Reserved                                      91           

          SECTION 3.  COMSEC CUSTODIAN DUTIES AND
                      RESPONSIBILITIES                            91           

         154.  General                                            91
         155.  Receipt of Key                                     91
         156.  Accounting for Key                                 92
         157.  Notices from the KMS/CAO                           93
         158.-160.  Reserved                                      94           

          SECTION 4.  KEYING OF TERMINALS                         94           

         161.  Initial Keying of Terminals                        94
         162.-163.  Reserved                                      94           

          SECTION 5.  ACCOUNTABILITY                              94           

         164.  Cryto-Ignition Key Handling and Local Accounting   94
         165.-166.  Reserved                                      95           

          SECTION 6.  REKEYING                                    96           

         167.  Electronic Rekeying                                96
         168.-170.  Reserved                                      96           

          SECTION 7.  PHYSICAL SECURITY                           96           

         171.  Unkeyed Terminal Type 1                            96
         172.  Keyed Terminal                                     96
         173.  Terminal Display                                   97
         174.  Use by Other U.S. Personnel                        97
         175.  Use by Foreign Nationals                           98
         176.  Storage                                            98
         177.  Use of the Secure Data Mode                        98
         178.  After Hours Protection                             98           

          SECTION 8.  TRANSPORTATION                              98           

         179.  Type 1 Terminals                                   98
         180.-182.  Reserved                                      99           

          SECTION 9.  INSTALLATION                                99           

         183.  General                                            99
         184.  Residences                                         100
         185.-186.  Reserved                                      100          

          SECTION 10.  MAINTENANCE                                100          

         187.  General                                            100
         188.  Access                                             100
         189.-190.  Reserved                                      100          

         SECTION 11.  PROTECTION OF KEY STORAGE DEVICES           101          

         191.  General                                            101
         192.  Fill Devices                                       101
         193.  Crypto-Ignition Keys (CIKs)                        102
         194.  Protection and Use of the Micro-KMODC              104
         195.-198.  Reserved                                      104          

          SECTION 12.  DESTRUCTION AND EMERGENCY DESTRUCTION      104          

         199.  General Requirement                                104
         200.  Reserved                                           104          

          SECTION 13.  REPORTABLE INSECURITIES                    105          

         201.  Insecure Practice/COMSEC Incident Handling         105
         202.-204.  Reserved                                      106          

          SECTION 14.  RECORDS RETENTION                          106          

         205.  General                                            106
         206.-208.  Reserved                                      106          

      APPENDIX 1. REQUIRED FORMS AND REPORTS (2 pages)           1          

      APPENDIX 2. SAMPLE CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS BRIEFING (9 pages) 1          

      APPENDIX 3. CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS CERTIFICATE (1 page)      1          

      APPENDIX 4. SECURE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY 1 
 AND COMSEC ACCOUNT CHECKLIST (6 pages)                    

      APPENDIX 5. PUBLICATIONS TO BE MAINTAINED BY ALL 1 
 FAA COMSEC ACCOUNTS (2 pages)                             

      APPENDIX 6. PHYSICAL SECURITY STANDARDS FOR FIXED 1 
 COMSEC FACILITIES (3 pages)                               

      APPENDIX 7. STANDARDS FOR SAFEGUARDING KEYING MATERIAL     1
                     (4 pages)          

      APPENDIX 8. ROUTINE DESTRUCTION AND EMERGENCY PROTECTION 1 
 OF COMSEC MATERIAL (7 pages)                              

                           FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                         PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                        DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

                             CHAPTER 1. GENERAL                               

      1.  PURPOSE.  This order prescribes FAA standards and procedures
      for communications security (COMSEC) and implements changes in
      national COMSEC policy for FAA COMSEC operations.                        

      2.  DISTRIBUTION.  This order is distributed to Regional
      Administrators and Center Directors:  to the director level in
      the Office of System Engineering and Program Management, Office
      of Air Traffic System Management, Air Traffic Plans and
      Requirements Service, Advanced System Design Service, Office of
      Human Resource Development, Office of Training and Higher
      Education, and Logistics Service; to the division level in the
      Systems Maintenance Service, and Office of Civil Aviation
      Security, Operations to Emergency Operations Staff (ADA-20),
      Regional and Aeronautical Center Civil Aviation Security
      Divisions, Technical Center Civil Aviation Security Staff,
      Europe, Africa and Middle East Civil Aviation Security Staff; to
      COMSEC custodians including Air Route Traffic Control
      Centers; to the FAA manager/supervisor at each Joint Use System
      Long Range Radar Site; to Associate Program Managers for
      Engineering, Communications and Aircraft Acquisition Program.            

      3.  CANCELLATION.  Order 1600.8B, Communications Security
      (COMSEC), dated November 14, 1975, is canceled                           

      4.  EXPLANATION OF CHANGES.  This order updates FAA COMSEC
      policies and procedures to reflect national COMSEC policy
      guidance from the National Security Agency (NSA), and the U.S.
      Air Force (USAF).  It also establishes new training standards for
      individuals assigned as COMSEC custodians.  This revision:
           a.  Promulgates changes in national policy contained in NSA
      National COMSEC Instructions (NACSI) and National
      Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Instructions
      (NTISSI).                                                                

           b.  Establishes a Formal Cryptographic Access (FCA) Program
      in FAA to include mandatory requirements for cryptographic access
      briefings and Cryptographic Access Certificates.                         

           c.  Disseminates USAF guidance for implementing national
      COMSEC policy as set forth in USAF Regulations (AFR), USAF
      Special Purpose/Operational Miscellaneous (AFSAL) publications
      and related documents.                                                   

           d.  Prescribes policies and procedures governing the
      utilization and safeguarding of Controlled Cryptographic Items
      (CCI).                                                                   

           e.  Prescribes mandatory formal training requirements for
      COMSEC custodians.                                                       

           f.  Prescribes guidance concerning the Secure Terminal Unit
      (STU) III secure voice system.                                           

           g.  Establishes requirements for the inclusion of COMSEC
      duties and responsibilities as a Critical Job Element (CJE) in
      the individual performance standards for the COMSEC custodian and
      alternate(s).                                                            

      5.  DEFINITIONS.  The definitions contained in National
      Communications Security Committee (NCSC) 9 and Air Force
      Regulation (AFR) 56-2 apply to this order.  Definitions not
      contained in these references will be provided in the body of the
      order.                                                                   

      6.  FORMS AND REPORTS.  Appendix 1, Required Forms and Reports,
      contains a listing of the forms and reports required by this
      order.  Additional reporting requirements will be addressed in
      the portion of the order to which they pertain.                          

      7.  REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.  Questions on the interpretation of
      the provisions of this order or their application shall be
      referred to the servicing security element in regions and centers
      or to the Director, Office of Civil Aviation Security,
      Operations, ACO-1, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,
      D.C. 20591.                                                              

      8.  STATEMENT OF INTENT.  It is the intention of the FAA to
      ensure that requirements of the national COMSEC policy are fully
      understood and implemented by all having responsibilities for
      COMSEC operations and support within the agency.                         

      9.  SCOPE.                                                               

           a.  The provisions of this order apply to all FAA employees,
      military, civilian, and contractor, who are holders or users of
      NSA produced or authorized cryptographic information or who
      otherwise have access to such information, regardless of duty
      station, location, or position.                                          

           b.  FAA procurement actions which result in requirements for
      contractors to generate or utilize NSA approved or authorized/
      cryptographic information in the performance of the contract will
      be accomplished in accordance with Order 1600.56, Guidelines for
      FAA Participation in the Department of Defense (DOD) Industrial
      Security Program (ISP).  Access requirements shall be specified
      in accordance with National Telecommunications and Information
      Systems Security Policy (NTISSP) Number 3.                               

      10.  RESPONSIBILITIES.                                                   

           a.  Director, Office of Civil Aviation Security, ACO-1 is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Implementing the national COMSEC policy and the
      provisions of this order within the FAA.                                 

                (2)  Recommending policies for safeguarding of FAA
      information and data using COMSEC techniques to provide the
      required degree of protection.                                           

                (3)  Ensuring that cryptologic access briefings and
      debriefings are conducted and that cryptographic access
      certificates are signed in accordance with provisions of this
      order.                                                                   

                (4)  Establishing and ensuring the implementation of
      standards and procedures for handling, safeguarding, accounting,
      destruction, storage, access and control of classified and
      unclassified COMSEC and other NSA approved and authorized
      cryptographic materials in accordance with national COMSEC policy
      and this order.                                                          

                (5)  Developing standards and procedures for physical
      and environmental security of FAA cryptographic communications
      installations.                                                           

                (6)  Ensuring in coordination with the Program Director
      for Communications, FAA COMSEC equipment installations are
      designed in accordance with applicable national COMSEC policies
      pertaining to on-line and TEMPEST engineering standards.                 

                (7)  Monitoring headquarters, region, and center COMSEC
      accounts and appointment of COMSEC custodians.                           

                (8)  Ensuring that countermeasures and specialized
      communications security inspections are conducted of COMSEC
      secure communications areas in accordance with NSA and USAF
      directives, and this order.                                              

           b.  National Airspace System Engineering Service, ASE, is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Development of National Airspace System (NAS)
      plan/and baseline system requirements for COMSEC systems.                

                (2)  Ensuring the baselined COMSEC system requirements
      and interface requirements are consistent with national COMSEC
      engineering and security standards established by the NSA.               

                (3)  Formulating guidance and standards applicable to
      acquisition of facilities and equipment including COMSEC systems.        

                (4)  Coordination with the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security, on NAS plans and NAS system specifications involving
      COMSEC security requirements and resources.                              

           c.  Office of Air Traffic Systems Management, ATM, is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Establishing COMSEC requirements for support of
      air traffic control operational telecommunications.                      

                (2)  Developing and recommending national guidance,
      standards, and procedures for implementation of COMSEC in the
      security control of military and other air traffic pursuant to
      the FAA's support of the national defense.                               

                (3)  Coordination with the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security in establishing procedures and standards for the
      identification of sensitive and classified information and data
      in the air traffic control system requiring COMSEC protection.           

                (4)  Ensuring that sensitive and classified
      telecommunications in the air traffic control system are
      safeguarded in accordance with national COMSEC policy.                   

           d.  Air Traffic Plans and Requirements Service, ATR, is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Coordination with the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security in developing and implementing procedures and standards
      for the identification of COMSEC support required to ensure a
      secure and effective air traffic system telecommunications
      capability.                                                              

                (2)  Serving as the air traffic system focal point for
      coordination of COMSEC programs and requirements in support of
      the NAS.
           e.  Systems Maintenance Service, ASM, is responsible for:           

                (1)  Coordination with the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security to:                                                             

                     (a)  Identify requirements for communications
      security during network planning and engineering of future
      telecommunications networks or expansions or modifications to
      present networks.                                                        

                     (b)  Ensure operational compliance with
      communications security requirements in telecommunications
      maintenance support.                                                     

                (2)  Participate in the development of maintenance
      planning for COMSEC equipment and systems in the FAA, including
      identification of required COMSEC maintenance training for FAA
      personnel.                                                               

           f.  Office of Human Resource Development, AHD, is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Providing administrative and technical guidance
      and support for inclusion of the COMSEC custodian position in the
      Performance Evaluation Rating (PER) system.                              

                (2)  Establishing standards and criteria for
      designating the responsibilities of the custodian and alternate
      as CJE'S.                                                                

           g.  Office of Training and Higher Education, AHT, is
      responsible for:                                                         

                (1)  Providing administrative and technical guidance
      and support for mandatory training for custodians at the USAF
      COMSEC Account Management course.                                        

                (2)  Establishing and incorporating in appropriate
      directives criteria for evaluation of COMSEC responsibilities and
      training in career development programs for selected employees.          

           h.  Office of Labor and Employee Relations, ALR, is
      responsible for facilitating the implementation of the
      requirements of this order as required.                                  

           i.  Regions and Centers are responsible for implementation
      of this order within their areas of jurisdiction.                        

           j.  Office of Air Traffic System Management, Air Traffic
      Plans and Requirements Service, Systems Maintenance Service,
      National Airspace System Engineering Service are responsible for:        

                (1)  Implementing this order in those organizations
      that report to them who have a requirement for access to COMSEC
      information.                                                             

                (2)  Ensuring that COMSEC custodians receive formal
      COMSEC account management training and that operators and
      maintenance personnel are properly trained in procedures for
      safeguarding and handling of COMSEC material required in the
      performance of their duties.                                             

                (3)  Ensuring that all authorized COMSEC materials are
      properly obtained, procured, installed, operated, safeguarded,
      destroyed, or transferred when no longer required.                       

                (4)  Ensuring that viable emergency plans exist to
      minimize the risk of compromise of COMSEC materials during crisis
      situations.                                                              

           k.  Region and Center Civil Aviation Security Divisions and
      Staffs are responsible for:                                              

                (1)  Ensuring that COMSEC information and material in
      offices and activities under their control or jurisdiction are
      safeguarded and controlled in accordance with this order.                

                (2)  Providing staff guidance, assistance, and
      interpretation with regard to this order.                                

                (3)  Conducting COMSEC account inspections.                    

                (4)  Ensuring that insecurities involving COMSEC
      materials are reported to cognizant authorities in a timely and
      comprehensive manner as required by U.S. Air Force General
      Publication (AFKAG) 2 and NTISSI-4003.                                   

                (5)  Developing and administering a Cryptologic Access
      Program in accordance with provisions of chapter 2, of this
      directive, to include the following:                                     

                     (a)  Ensuring that all personnel within their
      jurisdiction requiring access to U.S. classified cryptographic
      information sign a Cryptologic Access Certificate (AFCOMSEC Form
      9) prior to being granted access in accordance with provisions of
      Chapter 2 of this order and                                              

                     (b)  Ensuring that the signed cryptographic access
      certificate is made a permanent part of the individual employee's
      official security records and is accounted for in accordance with
      provisions of Order 1600.1C concerning retention of security
      clearance/access certificates.                                           

           l.  COMSEC Custodian is the properly appointed individual
      who manages and controls the accountable COMSEC material in the
      COMSEC Material Control System charged to his/her activity with
      responsibilities which include:                                          

                (1)  The receipt, storage, amendment, accountability,
      inventory, and issuance of COMSEC material charged to his/her
      account and destruction or transfer of material when it is no
      longer required.                                                         

                (2)  Ensuring that appropriate COMSEC material is
      readily available to properly authorized individuals whose duties
      require its use.                                                         

                (3)  Ensuring that all persons requiring access to U.S.
      classified cryptographic information receive a cryptographic
      access briefing in accordance with this directive and sign a
      cryptographic access certificate before they are permitted
      access.                                                                  

                (4)  Advising users and supervisors, as appropriate, of
      the required protection and procedures which must be provided
      COMSEC material issued to them for use, including the authorized
      procedures for destruction or disposition of such material when
      it is no longer required.                                                

                (5)  Reporting COMSEC insecurities in accordance with
      instructions in AFKAG-2 and NTISSI-4003.  COMSEC insecurities
      fall into three categories, cryptographic, personnel and
      physical.  Specific examples of each type are given in NTISSI
      4003.                                                                    

           m.  Individual users are responsible for:                           

                (1)  Knowledge of the requirements of this order.              

                (2)  Safeguarding and proper employment of all COMSEC
      material he or she uses or for which he or she is responsible in
      accordance with the provisions of this order.                            

                (3)  Promptly reporting to the custodian any
      occurrences, circumstances, or acts which could jeopardize the
      security of COMSEC material.  Should the custodian be unavailable
      the report is submitted to the servicing security element or
      ACO-300.                                                                 

           p.  Program Manager, Communications and Aircraft
      Acquisition, ANC-1, is responsible for:                                  

                (1)  Management of engineering planning, development,
      acquisition, and implementation of COMSEC equipments and systems
      in support of FAA requirements and the national COMSEC policy.           

                (2)  Recommending, through coordination with the Office
      of Air Traffic System Management and the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security, and other Federal Agencies, appropriate COMSEC
      equipments and systems to meet identified needs.                         

                (3)  Identification of required maintenance training
      for FAA personnel in coordination with the Systems Maintenance
      Service and the Office of Training and Higher Education.                 

                (4)  Coordination with the Office of Civil Aviation
      Security, Operations, to ensure that plans and specifications for
      COMSEC installations are reviewed and meet all FAA NSA security
      requirements prior to installation.                                      

                (5)  Developing and recommending engineering standards
      and procedures to implement national TEMPEST and COMSEC
      engineering criteria for the secure installation and operation of
      COMSEC equipment in the FAA in concert with ACS.                         

      11.  INTERPRETATION.  Questions regarding the interpretation of
      the provisions of this order or their application shall be
      referred to the Regional or Center Civil Aviation Security
      Division or Staff, or to the Manager, Investigations and Security
      Division, ACO-300, Office of Civil Aviation Security Operations,
      800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20591.                  

      12.  AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS ORDER.  The Assistant Administrator
      for Civil Aviation Security is authorized to issue changes to
      this order which do not contain policy, assign responsibilities,
      or delegate authority.                                                   

      13.-19.  RESERVED.                                                       

                            FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                          PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                        DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

               CHAPTER 2. POLICY FOR GRANTING ACCESS TO U.S. 
 CLASSIFIED CRYTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION                       

                             SECTION 1.  POLICY                                

      20.  GENERAL.  In accordance with policies established by the
      National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security
      Committee (NTISSC) in National Telecommunications and Information
      Systems Security Policy (NTISSP) Number 3, issued in December
      1988, and implemented by the Air Force Systems Security
      Instruction (AFSSI) 4000 of October 1, 1989, the FAA requires
      special access controls for certain U.S. classified cryptographic
      information, the loss of which would cause serious or
      exceptionally grave damage to U.S. national security.  This order
      provides policy, guidelines, and procedures as applicable to the
      Formal Cryptographic Access (FCA) Program.  It provides for an
      individual's eligibility, unofficial foreign-travel requirements,
      contacts with foreign nationals, procedures for granting and
      withdrawing FCA, and actions to take when personnel decline FCA.         

      21.  POLICY.  A formal Cryptographic Access Program is
      established in the FAA whereby access to certain U.S. classified
      cryptographic information shall only be granted to individuals
      who satisfy the criteria set forth herein.  All FAA employees and
      FAA contractor employees assigned duties as communications
      security (COMSEC) custodians; alternate COMSEC custodians; COMSEC
      accountants; COMSEC inspectors; cryptoequipment maintenance and
      installation personnel; key distribution center (KDC) personnel;
      telecommunications center personnel; any personnel identified by
      ACO-300; and any other persons who work full time in the above
      areas who have access to the cryptomaterial must have the FCA to
      meet the requirements of this order as well as the requirements
      established for two-person integrity.                                    

                           SECTION 2.  DEFINITION                              

      22.  CRYPTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.  The terms used in this order are
      defined in AFR 56-2.  For the purposes of this directive U.S.
      classified cryptographic information is defined as:                      

           a.  TOP SECRET and SECRET, CRYPTO designated, key and
      authenticators.                                                          

           b.  All cryptographic media which embody, describe, or
      implement classified cryptographic logic; this includes full
      maintenance manuals, cryptographic descriptions, drawings of
      cryptographic logics, specifications describing a cryptographic
      logic, cryptographic computer software, or any other media which
      may be specifically identified by the NTISSC.                            

                            SECTION 3.  CRITERIA                               

      23.  ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.  An individual may be granted access to
      U.S. classified cryptographic information, only if that
      individual:                                                              

           a.  Is a U.S. citizen.                                              

           b.  Is an FAA employee or is a U.S. Government-cleared
      contractor approved by ACO-300.                                          

           c.  Possesses a security clearance appropriate to the
      classification of the U.S. cryptographic information to be
      accessed.                                                                

           d.  Possesses a valid need-to-know that has been determined
      to be necessary to perform duties for, or on behalf, of FAA.             

           e.  Receives a security briefing from the servicing security
      element in regions and centers, or from ACO-300 in headquarters,
      detailing the sensitive nature of cryptomaterial and the
      individual's responsibility for protecting cryptomaterial.
      Appendix 2 contains the text of the briefing.                            

           f.  Acknowledges the granting of such access by signing the
      Cryptographic Access Certificate AFCOMSEC Form 9 an example of
      which is contained in Appendix 3 of this order.                          

      24.  POLYGRAPH.  The NTISSP Number 3 provides for utilization of
      non lifestyle counterintelligence polygraph examinations under
      certain conditions.  FAA has determined however that the use of
      the polygraph will not be a requirement in the FAA COMSEC
      Program.                                                                 

      25.  CONTACTS WITH FOREIGN NATIONALS AND UNOFFICIAL FOREIGN
      TRAVEL TO COMMUNIST OR OTHER DESIGNATED COUNTRIES.                       

           a.  All FAA employees possessing an FCA must advise their
      servicing security element of all contacts with nationals of the
      listed governments and receive written permission from their
      facility or office manager with an information copy to the
      servicing security element and to ACO-300 for unofficial travel
      to these countries.                                                      

           Afghanistan                   Latvia
           Albania                       Libyan Arab Republic
           Angola                        Lithuania
           Berlin (Soviet Sector)        Mongolian Peoples
           Bulgaria                       Republic (Outer
           Cambodia (Kampuchia)           Mongolia)
           Peoples Republic of           Nicaragua
            China (Including Tibet)      Poland
           Cuba                          Rumania
           Czechoslovakia                South Yemen
           Estonia                       Syria
           Ethiopia                      Union of Soviet
           Hungarian Peoples             Socialist Republics
            Republic (Hungary)            (Russia)
           Iran                          Democratic Republic of
           Iraq                           Vietnam (North
           Democratic Peoples             Vietnam)
            Republic of Korea            South Vietnam
            (North Korea)                Yugoslavia
           Laos                                                                

           b.  The above restrictions are in addition to those
      requirements of Order 1600.61, Defensive Security Briefing
      Requirements for FAA Employees Traveling to Communist-Controlled
      Countries.                                                               

              SECTION 4.  GRANTING FORMAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS                 

      26.  SCOPE.  This policy shall apply to all FAA employees
      civilian and military who satisfy the requirements of Section 3,
      above, and whose official duties require continuing access to
      U.S. classified cryptographic information.  Procedures to be
      followed in the granting of a Cryptographic Access Certificate
      are as follows:                                                          

           a.  COMSEC Manager and Custodian.  The COMSEC custodian or
      the manager responsible for COMSEC operations in a facility or
      office shall:                                                            

                (1)   Upon receipt of this order take appropriate
      action to coordinate with the supporting personnel office and the
      servicing security element to provide them with the names and
      positions of all personnel requiring FCA.                                

                (2)  Immediately notify the servicing security element
      of any change in status or need-to-know of individuals having
      FCA.                                                                     

            b.  Personnel Offices.  The personnel office will
      coordinate with the supporting security element to accomplish the
      following:                                                               

                (1)  To ensure that the master record reflects the
      requirement for FCA, and to arrange for the procedures to be
      followed to provide the required briefing, as well as
      need-to-know and clearance verification for each individual.             

                (2)  The personnel office will be responsible for
      entering into the Consolidated Management Information System
      (CPMIS) the correct information pertaining to FCA requirements
      for designated positions.                                                

                (3)  To develop procedures that will ensure that the
      servicing security element is informed whenever individuals with
      FCA change positions, terminate or otherwise no longer have need
      for the FCA in accordance with this directive.                           

                (4)  To coordinate with the servicing security element
      and to take such additional actions as may be required to ensure
      that the national security objectives of the FCA are supported
      and implemented.                                                         

           c.  Servicing Security Element.  The servicing security
      element will designate in writing an individual to serve as the
      FCA point-of-contact for implementation and coordination of the
      FCA Program.  This individual may be the personnel security
      officer and will be responsible for implementing the FCA Program
      within his/her area of responsibility.  To include the following
      actions:                                                                 

                (1)  Ensure that the requirements of this order are
      met.                                                                     

                (2)  Provide guidance to operating offices and
      personnel offices on the FCA Program.                                    

                (3)  Ensure that clearance data and other relevant
      information pertinent to individuals seeking FCA is correct and
      is entered into the CPMIS and Civil Aviation Security Information
      System (CASIS) to the extent that is necessary to permit accurate
      tracking of individuals in the FCA Program.                              

                (4)  Coordinate with Personnel and the operating
      facility or office to schedule briefing indoctrinations required
      for FCA and to obtain required signatures on Cryptographic Access
      Certificates (AFCOMSEC Form 9).                                          

                (5)  Ensure that the properly filled out AFCOMSEC Form
      9 (Cryptographic Access Certificate) is handled, documented, and
      retained as required by Order 1600.1C for clearance
      certifications.                                                          

           d.  Cryptographic Access Certificate.                               

                (1)  The facility or office manager having
      responsibility for the COMSEC operation or his or her designated
      representative in coordination with the supporting personnel
      office and the servicing security element will establish
      procedures for briefing personnel requiring FCA.                         

                (2)  Upon completion of the required briefing each
      individual requiring FCA will be asked to sign the Cryptographic
      Access Certificate.  The manager will normally sign as witness to
      the signature of the persons being granted access.                       

                (3)  The original copy of the signed certificate will
      be forwarded to the servicing security element in regions and
      centers, and to ACO-300 in the Washington Headquarters, where it
      will be permanently retained.                                            

           e.  Local Tracking Procedures for FCA.  Each facility or
      office having personnel assigned duties in paragraph 21 will, in
      coordination with the supporting Personnel Office and the
      servicing security element, develop written procedures, to
      include out-processing, for reporting the granting and
      termination of FCA.                                                      

           f.  FAA employees requiring an FCA at TDY locations and who
      meet all requirements of the FCA Program will be briefed prior to
      their departure and asked to sign the Cryptographic Access
      Certificate.  When all requirements have been met, clearance
      status notifications will include the fact that the individual
      has FCA.                                                                 

      27.  PREPARING AFCOMSEC FORM 9.                                          

           a.  AFCOMSEC Form 9.  (Appendix 3)  Include the following
      information on the AFCOMSEC Form 9:                                      

                (1)  Installation.  Facility or office where the
      individual is permanently assigned.                                      

                (2)  Unit or Office Symbol.  Individual's office and
      office symbol.                                                           

                (3)  Supporting COMSEC Account.  Self-explanatory.             

                (4)  Signature.  Payroll signature.                            

                (5)  Name.  Full name, last name, first name, middle
      initial.                                                                 

                (6)  SSN:  Will contain dashes (that is 001-01-0001)           

                (7)  Grade and Date of Birth.  Self-explanatory.               

                (8)  In Section 2, paragraph B, a line will be drawn
      through the last sentence in this paragraph which reads:  "I
      understand that I am subject to and consent to a periodic,
      counterintelligence polygraph examination."  This modification
      will be initialed both by the person signing the form and by the
      witness.                                                                 

      NOTE:  Type AFCOMSEC Forms 9 to ensure legibility and accuracy of
      the information.  The servicing security element and ACS-300 will
      return AFCOMSEC Forms 9 not properly and completely filled in.           

           b.  FAA Cryptographic Access Program.  Prepare three copies
      of AFCOMSEC Form 9.  Forward the original signed certificate to
      the servicing security element in regions and centers and to
      ACS-300 in the Washington Headquarters; one copy to the
      individual; and one copy for retention by the local COMSEC
      account (Folder 2).  Maintain locally retained certificates as
      long as individuals require cryptographic access.  Termination
      statements shall be copies of the locally retained certificate
      with the properly filled in bottom portion.                              

           c.  Supply of AFCOMSEC Forms 9.  Initial distribution of
      AFCOMSEC Forms 9 will be made by ACO-300 to servicing security
      elements in regions and centers who in turn will distribute the
      forms to the accounts for which they have monitor responsibility.
      After initial distribution, forms should be requisitioned as
      needed in accordance with guidance provided in AFKAG-2.                  

      28.  WITHDRAWING FCA.                                                    

           a.  Once granted the FCA may be withdrawn for only three
      reasons:                                                                 

                (1)  Administrative.  An individual is being reassigned
      by the facility or office manager to a position not requiring
      FCA, or a person is being reassigned to another FAA facility or
      region or is terminating employment.
                (2)  Suspension.  If a person's security clearance or
      any special access is suspended as outlined in Order 1600.1C,
      that person's FCA must be suspended until the matter is
      adjudicated favorably.  Suspension of the FCA requires that the
      individual be removed from COMSEC custodian and accounting duties
      that require access to cryptographic material until a final
      determination of reinstatement or revocation can be made.                

                (3)  Revocation.  Any person who has a security
      clearance withdrawn or special access denied will also have the
      FCA revoked.  This revocation of FCA is permanent and cannot be
      reinstated and permanently bars the individual from ever being
      assigned to duties within the areas in paragraph 21.                     

           b.  Facility and office managers will advise the servicing
      security element by message of any change in a person's FCA
      status resulting from suspension or revocation including reason
      for suspension or revocation.  The servicing security element
      will advise ACO-300 by message of all such actions.  In addition
      the facility and office manager will send an original copy of the
      Cryptographic Access Certificate to the servicing security
      element.  Keep a copy of the Cryptographic Access Certificate for
      90 days after signature for local records.                               

      29.  CERTIFICATES OF PERSONNEL DECLINING CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS.
      Send the original copy of certificates of any personnel who
      decline to sign the Cryptographic Access Certificates through the
      servicing security element to ACO-300 for permanent retention.
      Certificates should contain all the information on the individual
      less the signature.  State that the individual has refused FCA on
      the face of the form and on the administering official's
      signature and signature block.                                           

      30.-34.  RESERVED.                                                       

                             FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                           PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                         DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

           CHAPTER 3. COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) DUTIES AND 
 RESPONSIBILITIES                                        

      35.  GENERAL.  All COMSEC material shall be entered into and
      retained in the COMSEC accounting system from the time of its
      origin until its ultimate destruction.  COMSEC accounts are
      established when a facility or activity manager has a need for
      secure information processing, and application is made through
      the servicing security element and ACO-300 to the USAF
      Cryptologic Support Center (AFCSC).  Upon approval by AFCSC the
      type of COMSEC account established will vary according to the
      mission it supports.  Within the FAA the two most common types of
      accounts are operational and administrative or monitor accounts.         

      36.  COMSEC CUSTODIANS AND ALTERNATES.                                   

           a.  Designation.  When a COMSEC account has been authorized
      the cognizant facility or office manager will appoint a qualified
      COMSEC custodian and at least one alternate custodian.  The
      appointment will be made in writing by properly completing an Air
      Force COMSEC (AFCOMSEC) Form 3, Appointment of COMSEC Custodians,
      for each COMSEC account.                                                 

                (1)  Managers of Civil Aviation Security Divisions
      shall be the appointing officials for COMSEC monitor accounts
      under their security cognizance.                                         

                (2)  The Manager, Investigations and Security Division,
      Operations, ACO-300, will be the appointing official for the
      headquarters COMSEC monitor account custodian and alternate.             

           b.  Grade Requirements.                                             

                (1)  FAA COMSEC custodians must be grade GS-9 or above.        

                (2)  FAA alternate custodians must be grade GS-7 or
      higher.                                                                  

           c.  Clearance Requirements.  Custodians and alternate
      custodian(s) positions are designated as non-critical sensitive
      for COMSEC accounts handling material at the Secret level or
      lower classification; for accounts handling Top Secret material
      the custodian and alternate custodian(s) positions are designated
      as critical sensitive.  Persons designated to fill these
      positions must be cleared for the highest classification of
      COMSEC material they will be required to handle or have access
      to.  Requirements are as follows:                                        

                (1)  For Top Secret COMSEC accounts, the designating
      official must ensure that persons designated as custodians and
      alternate custodians have a final Top Secret clearance based on a
      favorably adjudicated background investigation completed within
      the past 5 years.  Periodic reinvestigations (PRI) will be
      conducted within 5 years from the date of the last Sensitive
      Background Information, Background Information, or PRI in
      accordance with Order 1600.1C.                                           

                (2)  For COMSEC accounts handling classified material
      up to and including Secret, the designating official must ensure
      that the individuals designated as custodian and alternate
      custodian(s) as a minimum, have a final Secret clearance based on
      a favorably adjudicated Minimum Background Investigation (MBI).
      A PRI is recommended 5 years after placement and every 5 years
      thereafter.                                                              

                (3)  In making selections for custodian and alternate
      custodian the designating official shall give preference to
      qualified candidates who have maximum retainability in their
      current assignment.  Other considerations include the following:         

                     (a)  The individual must never have been relieved
      from COMSEC custodian duties for cause.                                  

                     (b)  If practical, custodians and alternate
      custodians should be selected on the basis of best qualified
      rather than seniority.  In this regard, consideration should be
      given to the following:                                                  

                          1  Persons with a background in COMSEC.              

                          2  Persons having a minimum total of three
      years previous COMSEC experience.                                        

      37.  TRAINING.                                                           

           a.  COMSEC Custodian.  For the purposes of this order the
      following shall apply:                                                   

                (1)  For individuals who have had no prior COMSEC
      experience and for individuals who have not been actively engaged
      in COMSEC activities during the 3 years prior to the date of
      their designation, attendance at the three week COMSEC Account
      Management Course conducted by the USAF is mandatory.                    

                     (a)  It is the responsibility of the FAA manager
      or other official designating the custodian to ensure that the
      designee is scheduled for attendance at this course within 60
      days of the date of appointment.                                         

                     (b)  Because the waiting period for this
      particular course is often several months, it is important that
      requests for allocations be submitted through appropriate
      region/center channels as soon as possible.                              

                     (c)  Additional information concerning this course
      may be obtained from the servicing security element, or from
      ACO-300, Washington, D.C.                                                

                (2)  For employees who have attended the U.S. Air Force
      COMSEC Account Management Course or other formal COMSEC training
      provided by the government within the past 3 years prior to their
      designation as custodian, attendance at the USAF COMSEC Account
      Management Training Course will normally not be required.
      Similarly, employees who have been actively engaged in COMSEC
      operations during the 3 years prior to their designation, will
      not be required to attend formal COMSEC training provided the
      nature of their duties has enabled them to develop the skills and
      proficiency required to perform the duties of custodian.                 

           b.  Alternate COMSEC Custodian(s).  Training for the
      employee(s) designated as alternate COMSEC custodian(s) is
      important, since the alternate performs the duties of the
      custodian in the custodian's absence.                                    

                (1)  Normally if the individual(s) designated as
      alternate custodian(s) have been engaged in COMSEC activities
      during the 3 years prior to their designation additional formal
      training will not be required.  It is highly desirable that at
      least one alternate custodian attend the 3 week USAF COMSEC
      Account Management Course.                                               

                (2)  As a minimum, however, it is mandatory that
      alternate custodians who have not been actively engaged in COMSEC
      activities during the 3 years prior to their designation be
      scheduled to attend approved COMSEC training of shorter duration
      than the USAF course within 60 days of their appointment.                

                     (a)  Courses approved for alternate custodian
      training include COMSEC account management training courses
      offered by the General Services Administration (GSA).  These are
      1 week training courses in COMSEC accounting offered at various
      times during the year in different geographic locations.                 

                     (b)  Allocations for GSA courses are obtained
      through appropriate region/center personnel training channels.
      Information concerning these courses is available from the
      General Services Administration, Communications Security Training
      Center, ATTN:  Registrar 7 KET-6, 1500 East Bannister Road,
      Kansas City, MO 64131-3087.                                              

           c.  Qualification Training Package.  As an interim training
      measure while an individual is awaiting a class date for the
      COMSEC Account Management Course in the case of custodians, or
      the GSA course for alternate custodians, the Qualification
      Training Package (QTP) should be used.  This is an Air Force
      produced COMSEC Account Management training package designed for
      self-study.  Requests for this package should be addressed to
      ACO-300 through the servicing security element.                          

           d.   Recurrent Training.  Recurrent training for COMSEC
      custodians and alternates shall be scheduled as necessary to
      ensure that individuals maintain a high level of proficiency in
      COMSEC account management procedures and practices.  Recurrent or
      proficiency training should be scheduled when the custodian
      determines that such training is required to achieve the required
      level of proficiency.                                                    

           e.  Coordination.  The servicing security element COMSEC
      monitor account will be provided an information copy of all
      requests for COMSEC training for custodians and alternate
      custodians.                                                              

      38.  WAIVERS.                                                            

           a.  Problems encountered in meeting minimum grade or
      training requirements for custodians or alternate custodians will
      be referred to ACO-300, through the appropriate servicing
      security element.                                                        

           b.  Where operational necessity is a consideration a request
      for waiver of minimum requirements may be submitted.                     

           c.  ACO-300 will be the approving authority for all waiver
      requests.  If a waiver is granted, it applies only to the
      designated individual and must not be transferred; it applies to
      the designated individual only while currently assigned; and it
      must be terminated if a qualified person meeting minimum grade
      requirements becomes available.  In addition, the waiver must be
      renewed annually.  Include the following information in all
      requests:                                                                

                (1)  COMSEC account number.                                    

                (2)  Name, grade, and clearance of the individuals
      desired for appointment.                                                 

                (3)  Present duty assignment.                                  

                (4)  Type custodian (primary or alternate).                    

                (5)  Complete justification.                                   

                (6)  Reason for nonselection, if applicable, of
      assigned individuals who are senior in grade and meet all other
      selection criterions.                                                    

                (7)  Date of any known projected personnel gains who
      would meet the minimum grade and/or training requirements.               

                (8)  Date the appointment is planned.                          

      39.  DUTIES OF THE COMSEC CUSTODIAN.  Specific duties for which
      the COMSEC custodian is responsible include the following:               

           a.  The development and implementation of a comprehensive
      user-training program for all persons who, in performing official
      duties, deal with COMSEC material.  An example would be the
      employees responsible for operation of COMSEC equipment at Joint
      Use Sites.  The training will include programs for user personnel
      that ensure these individuals are completely familiar with their
      duties and responsibilities in areas of control, physical
      protection, inventory and destruction of COMSEC material, and
      reporting of security hazards, violations, and possible
      compromises.  Refresher training is required as needed.                  

           b.  Ensure that requirements established in FAA's Formal
      Cryptographic Access (FCA) Program are understood and
      implemented.  This includes ensuring that personnel having an
      operational need for access have received a cryptographic access
      briefing, and have signed a Cryptographic Access Certificate,
      AFCOMSEC Form 9, as required by this order.                              

           c.  Be thoroughly familiar with directives concerning
      classified material such as Order 1600.2C, National Security
      Information.                                                             

           d.  Issue on hand receipt, all COMSEC material to users who
      need it for their job and ensure that all responsible users of
      this material know the procedures for protecting, accounting,
      destroying, and reporting possible compromise of such material.          

           e.  In coordination with the facility emergency planning
      staff, develop written plans to protect COMSEC materials in an
      emergency, and ensure that the plans are integrated with the
      facility contingency plan.  Train COMSEC personnel in their
      duties under the plan and ensure that adequate and appropriate
      destruction equipment and materials are readily available.               

           f.  Ensure that all necessary and appropriate COMSEC
      material is maintained by the account and that disposition
      instructions have been requested from the Central Office of
      Record (COR) for surplus or unneeded material.  Prepare and
      submit accounting reports promptly and accurately.                       

           g.  Ensure that standard operating procedures (SOP) are
      prepared as required, for secure and efficient conduct of
      COMSEC/operations within the cryptofacility.                             

      40.  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.                                              

           a.  General.  The position of COMSEC custodian and that of
      alternate COMSEC custodian require persons of unquestioned
      integrity and loyalty.  The quality of the work performance of
      individuals in these positions has a direct reflection on the
      national security of the United States and is a vital factor in
      the support provided by the FAA COMSEC effort to the National
      Airspace System.  It is appropriate therefore that the position
      descriptions (PD) for individuals designated as COMSEC custodian
      or alternate COMSEC custodian include the COMSEC responsibilities
      assigned to that individual.                                             

           b.  Requirement.  Managers responsible for performance
      evaluation rating of individuals designated as COMSEC custodians
      or alternate COMSEC custodians will:                                     

                (1)  Ensure that the PD's include the COMSEC
      responsibilities of the individual(s).                                   

                (2)  Identify the COMSEC responsibility as a critical
      job element (CJE) in the performance standards for the
      individual(s).                                                           

      41.  APPOINTMENT OF CUSTODIANS AND ALTERNATES.                           

           a.  Each COMSEC account must have a COMSEC custodian and at
      least one alternate COMSEC custodian.  From a practical
      viewpoint, the COMSEC custodian should be thoroughly familiar
      with the day-to-day transactions of the COMSEC account.                  

           b.  As part of their monitor responsibilities, servicing
      security elements will:                                                  

                (1)  Ensure that proposed custodians and alternates
      meet the clearance requirements and qualifications for
      appointment as described in paragraph 21.                                

                (2)  Obtain original signatures of the designated
      custodian and alternate(s) in the proper blocks on each of four
      copies (three copies when action concerns a monitoring account)
      of AFCOMSEC Form 3.                                                      

                (3)  Ensure that all applicable blocks of all copies of
      the AFCOMSEC Form 3 are completed, including the "Effective Date"
      and "From" block.                                                        

                (4)  Forward the original copy of AFCOMSEC Form 3 under
      a covering letter to the Air Force Cryptologic Support Center
      (AFCSC), Attention:  MMIC, San Antonio, Texas 78243.  Refer to
      Situation F-2, AFKAG-2.  The letter should designate appointment
      or rescission of a custodian or alternate(s), as appropriate.
      One copy of AFCOMSEC Form 3 will be forwarded to FAA
      Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attention:  ACO-300.  One
      copy shall be retained by the servicing security element
      monitoring account, and one copy shall be retained in the
      operational account.                                                     

      42.  MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES.                                        

           a.  FAA/USAF Agreement.  By agreement with the U.S. Air
      Force (USAF), FAA will provide for the monitoring of all FAA
      COMSEC accounts.  The Manager, Investigations and Security
      Division, Operations, ACO-300, is responsible for the agencywide
      COMSEC monitoring effort at the headquarters level.  ACO-300 is
      also responsible for monitoring the administrative/monitor
      accounts of the regions, Aeronautical Center and Technical
      Center, and the operational and user accounts at the Washington
      Telecommunications Center.  The regional and center servicing
      security elements have been established as administrative
      accounts with the responsibility for the monitoring of
      operational and secure telecommunications facilities within their
      respective jurisdictions.                                                

           b.  Monitor/Inspection Requirements.  Monitor and inspection
      activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following
      requirements:                                                            

                (1)  Regional and center monitor accounts shall conduct
      a general inspection of each operational COMSEC account and
      secure telecommunication facility in their jurisdiction at least
      once each year.  Additional inspections will be conducted as
      required by Order 1650.7B.                                               

                (2)  Appendix 4, Secure Telecommunications Facility and
      COMSEC Account Checklist, shall be used as a guide in the conduct
      of the inspection.  The completion of the checklist does not in
      itself constitute a COMSEC inspection.  The inspector must be
      competent and knowledgeable in all phases of COMSEC.  A formal
      written report containing the results of the inspection and
      recommended corrective actions shall be provided to the facility
      or office manager having responsibility for the COMSEC operation,
      and to the custodian of the inspected account.  An information
      copy of COMSEC inspection reports shall be provided to ACO-300,
      ATTN:  ACO-320.                                                          

                (3)  Technical surveillance countermeasures (TSCM)
      inspections of secure telecommunications facilities shall be
      conducted in accordance with provisions of this order and Order
      1600.12C, Technical Security Countermeasures Program.                    

                (4)  ACO-300 will inspect regional and center monitor
      accounts at least once every two years.  In addition, ACO-300
      will schedule COMSEC inspections and surveys as required
      agencywide to ensure effective monitoring of regional and center
      COMSEC programs.                                                         

           c.  Administrative Requirements.                                    

                (1)  The custodian of each FAA COMSEC account shall
      forward a copy of all reports, correspondence, etc., pertaining
      to COMSEC accounting to his/her servicing security element
      monitoring account.  Regional and center monitor accounts shall
      provide copies of the documents pertaining to their account
      operations to ACO-300, ATTN:  ACO-320.  Conversely, AFCSC sends a
      copy of all reports, correspondence, etc., it originates to the
      appropriate monitoring account.                                          

                (2)  The monitoring account shall review these
      documents and ensure the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness
      of the accounting actions.  In the event that a monitor account
      receives a copy of a discrepancy report from AFCSC, the monitor
      account custodian shall ensure that the required corrective
      action is accomplished expeditiously.                                    

      43.-49.  RESERVED.                                                       

                      FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                       PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                     DETERMINED UNDER U.S.C. 552

                 CHAPTER 4. SAFEGUARDING COMSEC FACILITIES                    

                             SECTION 1.  GENERAL                               

      50.  PURPOSE.  National Communications Security Instruction
      (NACSI) 4008, Safeguarding COMSEC Facilities, dated March 4,
      1983, prescribes standards for safeguarding COMSEC Facilities.
      NACSI 4008 is implemented for all USAF supported COMSEC accounts
      by Air Force Regulation AFR 56-6, same subject, dated November 3,
      1986, all FAA COMSEC accounts are required to comply with the
      policies and procedures established in these directives.  This
      chapter identifies specific requirements for which compliance is
      mandatory.                                                               

      51.  REFERENCED PUBLICATIONS.  Appendix 5, to this order contains
      a reference listing of NACSI'S, NTISSI'S, and AFR's that are to
      be maintained by all FAA COMSEC accounts.  The publications
      listed below pertain specifically to areas covered in this
      chapter.                                                                 

           a.  NACSI No. 4005, Safeguarding and Control of
      Communications Security Material, dated October 12, 1979.  This
      NACSI is implemented in USAF publication AFR 56-13, same subject,
      dated July 28, 1987.                                                     

           b.  NACSI No. 4009, Protected Distribution Systems, dated
      December 30, 1981.  Implemented by USAF publication AFR 56-19,
      same subject, dated November 3, 1986.                                    

           c.  NTISSI No. 4004, Routine Destruction and Emergency
      Destruction of COMSEC Material, dated March 11, 1987.
      Implemented by USAF publication AFR 56-5, same subject, dated
      August 28, 1987.                                                         

           d.  NCSC-9, National COMSEC Glossary, dated September 1,
      1982.                                                                    

      52.  BACKGROUND.                                                         

           a.  National standards for safeguarding COMSEC facilities
      are necessary to ensure the integrity of the classified COMSEC
      material contained therein.                                              

           b.  The principal threats which such safeguards must defend
      against are:                                                             

               (1)  Unauthorized access to or observation of classified
      COMSEC material.                                                         

               (2)  Tampering with or TEMPST exploitation of, COMSEC
      and associated telecommunications equipment.                             

               (3)  Clandestine exploitation of sensitive
      communications within a secure telecommunications
      facility (e.g. "bugging").                                               

                   SECTION 2.  PHYSICAL SECURITY STANDARDS                     

      53.  PHYSICAL SECURITY STANDARDS FOR FIXED COMSEC FACILITIES.            

           a.  Application.  For the purposes of this order, unless
      specifically stated otherwise, all FAA COMSEC facilities are
      considered as "fixed."  Should questions arise concerning the
      application of the physical security standards prescribed by this
      order to a specific facility they shall be addressed through the
      servicing security element to Manager, Investigations and
      Security Division, ACO-300, Washington, D.C., for resolution.            

           b.  Standards.  All FAA COMSEC secure telecommunications
      facilities will be designated as CLOSED Areas in accordance with
      Order 1600.2C and will comply with the physical security
      standards specified in this section and Appendix 3.                      

           c.  Special Security Requirements.  Users of COMSEC
      equipment should be aware of special security requirements that
      may apply to the system they are using.  NSA publishes these
      special doctrinal guidance documents as NACSI's in the 8000
      series.  The USAF implements the 8000 series NACSI's as AFSAL's
      and publishes and distributes them as specialized COMSEC
      publications in the COMSEC Material Control System (CMCS).  These
      documents are indexed in AFKAG-13 and are available on request to
      all COMSEC custodians.                                                   

           d.  Security/Engineering Approval.                                  

               (1)  The manager of the office or activity in which a
      secure telecommunications facility is located is responsible for
      ensuring that design and construction plans are coordinated
      through the servicing security element with ANC-120 and ACO-300
      prior to implementation.  This includes engineering and
      construction plans and specifications for proposed secure
      telecommunications facilities and ancillary terminal equipments,
      as well as plans for the reengineering or modification of
      existing facilities.  Failure to do this will result in automatic
      loss of certification for the secure telecommunications facility.
               (2)  Specifications and associated drawings must be
      submitted through the servicing security element to ACO-300 and
      to ANC-120.  Subsequent to a review of the plans and
      specifications, a joint determination will be made by ANC-120 and
      ACO-300 either approving the plans or identifying corrective
      actions that must be taken.                                              

      54.  INSTALLATION CRITERIA.  FAA facilities which generate,
      process, or transfer unencrypted classified information by
      electrical, electronic, electromechanical, or optical means shall
      conform to the guidance and standards in NACSI 4009, NACSIM
      5100A, and NACSIM 5203 with regard to protected wireline
      distribution systems.  Questions concerning security requirements
      shall be addressed through the servicing security element to
      ACO-300 for resolution.  Questions relevant to engineering and
      construction standards should be coordinated through the
      appropriate regional/center Airway Facilities channel and
      forwarded in writing to ANC-120, with an information copy to
      ACO-300 and the servicing security element.                              

      55.  FACILITY APPROVALS, INSPECTION, AND TESTS.                          

           a.  Approval to Hold Classified COMSEC Material.  Each FAA
      facility must be approved by the servicing security element
      before the facility may hold classified COMSEC material.  Such
      approval shall be based on an inspection by the servicing
      security element which determines that the facility meets the
      physical safeguarding and other requirements of this order.              

                (1)  The servicing security element will advise the
      facility manager by letter of the approval or disapproval of the
      facility with an information copy to ACO-300.  The facility will
      retain a copy of the approval letter in its COMSEC file.                 

                (2)  After initial approval, each FAA facility holding
      classified COMSEC material shall be reinspected in accordance
      with provisions of FAA Order 1650.7B as they pertain to Category
      1 facilities.  The facility shall also be reinspected and the
      approval reviewed, when:                                                 

                (a)  There is evidence of penetration or tampering,            

                (b)  Alterations are made which significantly change
      the physical characteristics of the facility,                            

                (c)  The facility is relocated or the facility is
      reoccupied after being temporarily abandoned.                            

           b.  Approval to Operate Secure Telecommunication Facilities.
      In addition to the requirement for physical security approval to
      hold classified COMSEC material, FAA secure telecommunications
      facilities require the following inspections and tests:                  

                (1)  General COMSEC Inspection.  ACO-300 is responsible
      for conducting a general COMSEC inspection of secure
      telecommunications facilities prior to initial activation where
      practicable, but in any case within 90 days after activation.
      Thereafter reinspection is required at intervals of no greater
      than 18 months.  At a minimum, the inspection shall assess secure
      operating procedures and practices, handling and storage of
      COMSEC material, routine and emergency destruction capabilities,
      compliance with installation (Red/Black) criteria, and obvious
      technical security hazards.
                (2)  Technical Surveillance Countermeasures
      Inspections.  TSCM inspections are conducted by ACO-300 in
      accordance with provisions of Order 1600.12C.                            

                     (a)  COMSEC custodians shall send requests for
      TSCM inspections of new secure telecommunications facilities
      through the appropriate servicing security element to ACO-300 in
      accordance with procedures required by Order 1600.12C.  Requests
      will be appropriately classified and should be submitted at least
      90 days before the projected activation date for the facility.           

                     (b)  After the initial TSCM survey ACO-300 will
      schedule subsequent surveys.                                             

                     (c)  Requests for TSCM support shall be submitted
      when any of the conditions exist that are described in
      subparagraphs 5b(2)(a), (b), and (c), Annex A to NACSI 4008/AFR
      56-6.                                                                    

                (3)  TEMPEST Inspections and Tests.  Visual TEMPEST
      inspections and, where determined to be necessary by ANC-120,
      instrumented TEMPEST tests shall be conducted at secure
      telecommunications facilities in accordance with requirements
      specified in subparagraphs 4b(3)(a) and (b), Annex A to NACSI
      4008/AFR 56-6.                                                           

      Written requests for instrumented TEMPEST test support should be
      submitted by the office or activity manager or COMSEC custodian
      through appropriate region/center channels to ANC-120 with an
      information copy to ACO-300.                                             

           c.  Daily Security Check.                                           

               (1)  Continuously Manned Facility.  In a continuously
      manned facility, a security check shall be made at least once
      every 24-hours.  This shall be a visual check to ensure that all
      classified COMSEC information is properly safeguarded, and that
      physical security protection system/devices (e.g., door locks and
      vent covers) are functioning properly.                                   

                (2)  Facilities that are Not Continuously Manned.  In a
      facility which is not continuously manned, the security check
      shall be conducted at least every 24 hours if the facility is in
      operation for 24 hours or more and prior to departure of the last
      person and shall include additional checks to ensure that the
      facility entrance door is locked and that, where installed,
      intrusion detection systems are activated.  Where a facility is
      unmanned for periods greater than 24 hours (e.g., during weekends
      and holidays) and the facility is not protected by an intrusion
      detection system that has been approved by ACO-300, a check shall
      be made at least once every 24 hours to ensure that all doors to
      the facility are locked and that there have been no attempts at
      forceful entry.                                                          

           d.  Activity Security Checklist.  FAA secure
      telecommunications facilities will use Standard Form (SF) 701,
      Activity Security Checklist, to record the daily security check.
      The national stock number for the SF 701 is 7540-01-213-7899.
      The form is available from the GSA.  In facilities which operate
      continuously, at the end of each shift, the person responsible
      (shift supervisor, for example) makes the security check.  The
      daily security check may be a part of, but not a substitute for,
      the daily (or shift) inventory of COMSEC material.
      NOTE:  If in a continuously operating facility the security
      container is not unlocked it will not be opened solely to
      inventory the contents.  An inventory will be conducted when the
      container is opened.                                                     

      56.  INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS.  Intrusion detection systems
      used to protect COMSEC information must be specifically approved
      for that purpose by ACO-300 prior to installation.  When approved
      alarm systems replace permanent guards, they must be used with an
      immediate guard response which will not exceed 5 minutes under
      any condition.                                                           

      57.-60.  RESERVED.                                                       

                SECTION 3.  ACCESS RESTRICTIONS AND CONTROLS                   

      61.  UNESCORTED ACCESS.                                                  

           a.  General.  Unescorted access to FAA offices/activities
      handling, storing, or processing classified COMSEC material will
      be limited to:                                                           

                (1)  FAA government civilian or military personnel who
      are U.S. citizens and whose duties require such access and, if
      the material is classified, who have been granted a security
      clearance equal to or higher than the classification of the
      COMSEC material involved.                                                

                (2)  Normally, these individuals will have regular duty
      assignments in the facility.  The individuals must meet all
      requirements of the FAA Formal Cryptographic Access (FCA) Program
      as specified on Chapter 2 of this order.                                 

                (3)  The names of all such individuals shall appear on
      a posted formal access list.                                             

                (4)  Official visitors whose names do not appear on the
      access list may also be granted unescorted access by the COMSEC
      custodian or the facility manager having responsibility and
      authority for the COMSEC operations, provided the visitors
      require such access and meet the access requirements of NACSI
      4005 and this order to include verification of the fact that the
      individuals have received a cryptographic access briefing and
      have a current signed cryptographic access authorization.  All
      such visits shall be recorded on the visitor register (FAA Form
      1600.8 or equivalent).                                                   

                (5)  No individual will be allowed unescorted access to
      an FAA COMSEC facility who has not received a cryptographic
      access briefing and signed a cryptographic access authorization.         

           b.  Access Controls and Procedures for Secure
      Telecommunications Facilities.  The following controls and
      procedures will be used to control access to secure
      telecommunications facilities:                                           

                (1)  Entrance controls will be established to prevent
      entry by persons not listed on the authorized entrance list.
      Facilities using the locked-door system must have a buzzer system
      and a way to challenge and identify persons before they enter.           

                (2)  Entrance doors to FAA facilities shall be equipped
      with a fish-eye viewing device to permit identification of
      persons seeking admittance.                                              

                (3)  If guards are assigned, station them immediately
      outside the entrance.  Regardless of the control system used,
      entry procedures must ensure identification of persons seeking
      entry so as to prevent viewing of activities within the facility
      before entry is permitted.                                               

                (4)  Unrestricted entry to the secure
      telecommunications center will be limited to persons whose names
      appear on an official posted entrance list.  The authorized
      entrance list must contain the names of all persons regularly
      assigned duties within the secure telecommunications facility and
      those others whose duties require them to have frequent access.
      All personnel on the authorized entrance list must have received
      a cryptographic access briefing and must have a current signed
      Cryptographic Access Certificate on file which is verified by the
      custodian or the manager having responsibility for the COMSEC
      operation.  In addition, each individual on the list must have a
      valid clearance equal to or higher than the COMSEC information
      being given access to.  It is the COMSEC custodian's
      responsibility to verify the clearance for each individual on the
      authorized entrance list.  Custodians should consult with the
      servicing security element to determine the most effective method
      to verify clearance information and cryptographic access
      authorization data for each facility.                                    

                (5)  The following statement will be placed on the
      authorized entrance list, certifying that all persons listed
      thereon have been granted access to classified COMSEC information
      and that a security clearance is on file for each person:  "ALL
      PERSONNEL LISTED HEREON HAVE BEEN GRANTED ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED
      COMSEC INFORMATION AND APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION IS ON FILE."  By
      affixing his or her signature to this statement the custodian
      affirms that he or she has personally verified with the facility
      or activity personnel officer, or the servicing element, that
      each individual on the authorized access list has:                       

                     (a)  A current Form 1600.54, Notification of
      Personnel Security Action, on file;                                      

                     (b)  A clearance equal to the highest
      classification level of COMSEC material to which he/she will have
      access.                                                                  

                     (c)  Received a cryptographic access briefing and
      has signed a current Cryptographic Access Certification as
      required by this order.                                                  

                (6)  On the authorized entrance list, the COMSEC
      custodian will specifically designate those persons, by name, who
      may authorize admittance to others not on the list.  The number
      of persons authorized to admit others in this manner shall be
      kept to a minimum.  Usually, the facility manager having
      responsibility and authority over the COMSEC operation, and the
      custodian may authorize admittance.                                      

                (7)  The authorized entrance list will be signed and
      dated by the COMSEC custodian.  It is the custodian's
      responsibility to ensure that the list is current at all times.          

                (8)  An FAA Form 1600-8, Visitor Register, will be
      maintained to record the arrival and departure of all persons
      whose names do not appear on the authorized entrance and access
      list.  Completed FAA Form 1600-8, shall be maintained on file by
      the custodian for a period of two calendar years, after which
      they may be destroyed.                                                   

           c.  Access Control for Administrative/Monitor Accounts.  FAA
      administrative and monitor accounts do not require the stringent
      security measures required for secure telecommunications
      facilities.                                                              

                (1)  Administrative/monitor accounts are those which
      hold only general COMSEC publications or serve as issue points
      for codes and authentication systems.  This type of account
      requires adequate storage facilities and inventory controls.
      However, they may be located within general office space if
      measures are taken to exclude unauthorized and uncleared
      personnel and prevent viewing of COMSEC material when in use.            

                (2)  The custodian must closely control access to an
      administrative account's holdings; access must be limited to
      persons within the immediate working area who have a need-to-know
      and others whose duties require frequent access.  The
      requirements for granting access and certification or
      verification thereof are the same as for secure
      telecommunications facilities.                                           

      62.  ESCORTED ACCESS.
           a.  Uncleared visitors.  Uncleared visitors may be
      authorized admittance by the custodian, or the manager having
      operational responsibility for the COMSEC facility, provided
      effective security precautions are taken to preclude unauthorized
      access to classified information.  These visitors shall be under
      continuous escort by an individual whose name appears on the
      access list.  All such visits shall be recorded in the visitor
      register.                                                                

           b.  Repairmen.  When uncleared repairmen are admitted to
      perform maintenance on commercially contracted information-
      processing equipment which is connected to circuits protected by
      cryptographic equipment, the escort shall be a cryptorepair
      person or other technically qualified individual who is capable
      of recognizing acceptable and proper repair procedures for that
      type of equipment.  This is a means to control attempts at
      malicious action against the involved COMSEC equipment or
      installation.                                                            

      63.  VISITOR REGISTER.                                                   

           a.  Requirement.  A visitor register, FAA Form 1600.8, will
      be maintained at the COMSEC facility entrance area to record the
      arrival and departure of authorized visitors.                            

           b.  Procedure.  The visitor register shall contain the
      following information for each individual.                               

                (a)  Date and time of arrival and departure.                   

                (b)  Printed name and signature of visitor.                    

                (c)  Purpose of visit.                                         

                (d)  Signature of individual admitting visitor.                

           c.  Disposition.  Records of authorized visitors shall be
      retained in the custodian's files for a period of two calendar
      years, after which they may be destroyed.                                

      64.  NO-LONE ZONES.                                                      

           a.  Facilities which produce or generate key (in any form)
      distribution centers, and depots and other logistic activities
      which store or distribute large quantities of keying material
      shall employ no-lone-zone restrictions within all areas in which
      these activities take place.                                             

           b.  Refer to AFR 56-1, paragraph 3-5, for restrictions on
      single person access.                                                    

           c.  The majority of FAA COMSEC facilities handling or
      processing COMSEC material at the SECRET level or below will not
      have a need for institution of no-lone-zone measures.  Custodians
      having questions concerning no-lone-zone applications should
      direct them to ACO-300 through their servicing security element.         

      65.  GUARD SERVICES.                                                     

           a.  Purpose.  FAA facilities requiring the services of a
      secure telecommunications facility may for various reasons not be
      able to have a COMSEC resource in-house.  This would be the case
      for example, if a secure telecommunications facility were being
      reengineered and it was necessary to take the facility off-line
      for a period of time.  When this situation occurs, the FAA
      facility may enter into an agreement with another U.S. Government
      or military secure telecommunications facility to receive and
      transmit their classified and operational messages until the
      facility circuits are operational.  This is referred to as
      "guarding."                                                              

           b.  Requirement.  The FAA manager having operational
      authority and responsibility for a secure telecommunications
      facility will inform ANC-120 and ACO-300, through appropriate
      regional channels to include the servicing security element, of a
      requirement for "guard" service prior to making arrangements for
      such support.  Only secure telecommunications facilities operated
      by U.S. Government or military personnel will be used for
      guarding for classified FAA telecommunications.  Contractor
      operated secure telecommunications facilities will not be used.          

      66.-70.  RESERVED.                                                       

            SECTION 4.  PROTECTION OF UNATTENDED COMSEC EQUIPMENT              

      71.  GENERAL.                                                            

           a.  Noncontinuously Manned Facility.  In a noncontinuously
      manned facility, unattended COMSEC equipment shall be protected
      as prescribed in this section during periods when the facility is
      not manned.                                                              

           b.  Construction.  A facility which meets the construction
      requirements of Appendix 6 provides sufficient protection, under
      normal circumstances, for unattended, unkeyed COMSEC equipment
      installed in an operational configuration.  The requirements for
      the protection of COMSEC equipment in secure telecommunications
      facilities which normally operate unmanned for extended periods
      of time are covered in Annex C, NACSI 4008/AFR 56-6, under
      "Unattended, Fixed Secure Telecommunications Facilities."                

      72.  PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.                                            

           a.  General.  In some situations there may be significant
      technical or operational reasons to locate communications and
      associated COMSEC equipments in unattended sites.  Any
      requirement for FAA activities to locate COMSEC equipment at
      unattended sites must be submitted through the servicing security
      element to ACO-300 for approval prior to implementation.  The
      request for approval will be submitted in writing, by the
      custodian or facility manager having authority over the COMSEC
      assets and will include the measures to be taken to satisfy the
      safeguarding requirements listed in subparagraph b, below.               

           b.  Safeguards.  Paragraph IID, Annex C to NACSI 4005/AFR
      56-13 establishes the following safeguard requirements:                  

                (1)  The site must be located in an area firmly under
      U.S. control.                                                            

                (2)  Cryptonets whose keying variables are held in
      COMSEC equipments located at unattended sites must be kept as
      small as possible, with unique keying material used on each link
      terminated at an unattended site where feasible.                         

                (3)  COMSEC equipment not in use may not be stored at
      an unattended site.  All COMSEC equipments located at unattended
      sites must be operationally required as on-line, standby or
      back-up items to terminate an active circuit.                            

                (4)  Keying material other than that which is
      electrically or physically held in the COMSEC equipments may not
      be stored at unattended sites.
                (5)  The FAA manager responsible for operation of the
      unattended site must arrange for timely guard force response to
      investigate incidents involving threats to the COMSEC equipment
      at the site.  Response planning should be conducted in
      coordination with the servicing security element.  The servicing
      security element will advise the manager on effective security
      planning and will provide investigative support when necessary.
      The FAA custodian responsible for the COMSEC material must be
      knowledgeable of these arrangements.                                     

                (6)  The FAA manager responsible for operation of the
      unattended site must ensure that inspections of the sites are
      conducted to verify that the COMSEC equipments have not been
      tampered with.  The inspections should be at random and at
      irregular intervals without excessive delay between the
      intervals.                                                               

      73.-77.   RESERVED.                                                      

                 SECTION 5.  PROTECTION OF LOCK COMBINATIONS                   

      78.  PURPOSE.                                                            

           a.  General.  The requirements of this section apply to
      combination locking devices for FAA COMSEC facility doors and
      security containers which hold classified, telecommunications
      security (TSEC) nomenclatured material.                                  

           b.  Collateral Classified Materials.  Combinations to FAA
      security containers which are used to store only collateral
      classified material that is not accountable under the COMSEC
      Material Accounting System (CMCS), may be controlled in
      accordance with this section or the requirements of Order
      1600.2C.  If a container is used to store both collateral and
      TSEC nomenclatured material the protection requirements of this
      section will apply.                                                      

      79.  PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.                                            

           a.  Selection of Combinations.  Each lock must have a
      combination composed of randomly selected numbers.  This
      combination shall not deliberately or accidentally duplicate a
      combination selected for another lock within the facility and
      shall not be composed of successive numbers, numbers in a
      systematic sequence, nor predictable sequences (e.g., birthdates,
      social security numbers, and phone numbers).                             

           b.  Changing Combinations.  A lock combination shall only be
      changed by a cleared individual having a need-to-know for the
      information safeguarded by the lock.  Combinations must be
      changed:                                                                 

                (1)  When the lock is initially placed in use.  (The
      manufacturer's preset combination shall not be used.)                    

                (2)  When any person having authorized knowledge of the
      combination no longer requires such knowledge (e.g., through
      transfer or loss of clearance).                                          

                (3)  When the possibility exists that the combination
      has been subjected to compromise.                                        

                (4)  At least annually.
           c.  Classification of Combinations.  Lock combinations shall
      be classified the same as the highest classification of the
      information protected by the locks.  For a security container,
      this is the highest classification of the information held in the
      container; for a facility door, it is the highest classification
      of the information held in the facility to which the door
      controls access including that information stored in containers.         

      80.  ACCESS TO COMBINATIONS.                                             

           a.  Access to the combination of a lock used to protect
      COMSEC material shall be limited to individuals who are
      authorized access to the material in accordance with NACSI
      4005/AFR 56-13, and Chapter 2 of this order.                             

           b.  Where a container is used to store future editions of
      keying material, access to the combination shall be further
      restricted to the COMSEC Custodian and the Alternate
      Custodian(s).  Where this restriction cannot be applied because
      others must have access to the container for current editions of
      keying material or other material, future editions of keying
      material shall be stored separately in a locked strongbox which
      can be opened only by the Custodian and the Alternate
      Custodian(s).  The strongbox shall be kept in the security
      container.  Exceptions may be made in operational areas to allow
      shift supervisors access to the next future edition of keying
      material, but not to later future editions.                              

           c.  Access to combinations for security containers used to
      store Top Secret keying material will be controlled in accordance
      with requirements of NTISSI 4005, and Appendix 7.
      81.  RECORD OF COMBINATIONS.                                             

           a.  Standard Form 700.  The Standard Form (SF) 700, Security
      Container Information, NSN:  7540-01-214-5372, will be used to
      record the current combination to COMSEC containers.  Parts 2 and
      2A of each completed copy of SF 700 shall be classified at the
      highest level of classification of the information authorized for
      storage in the security container.  A new SF 700 must be
      completed each time the combination to the security container is
      changed.                                                                 

           b.  Emergency Access.  To provide for ready access to
      secured material in emergencies, a central record of lock
      combinations shall be maintained in a security container approved
      for storage of the highest classified combination.  The
      combination to this container shall be restricted to persons with
      proper clearance and need-to-know.  Provision must be made for
      access to the record of combinations in case of an emergency.            

           c.  Packaging Requirements.  Combinations to FAA COMSEC
      containers will be packaged and handled as follows:                      

                (1)  The SF 700 Part 2 and 2A containing the
      combination will be assigned a classification equal to the
      highest category of classified material stored within the
      container.  In addition to the classification, the SF 700 will be
      annotated to reflect the following:                                      

                     (a)  The identity of the container (reference
      paragraph 191, chapter 8, Order 1600.2C).  This will include the
      container, room, and building number.
                     (b)  The date the combination was changed.                

                     (c)  The responsible persons authorized access to
      the combination.                                                         

                (2)  Safe combination will be maintained within COMSEC
      channels.  This will not prevent storing combinations in FAA
      areas outside the secure communications facility or vault.  For
      combinations up to and including Secret a properly filled out SF
      700 should be forwarded to the servicing security element monitor
      account through COMSEC channels.  Proper packaging is required
      and delivery should be accomplished by courier.  Persons who have
      access to the security containers which house COMSEC combinations
      must have a clearance level equal to or above that required for
      access to security containers or vaults for which the
      combinations have been recorded, and must meet FAA FCA Program
      requirements specified in Chapter 2 of this order.  For storage
      outside the secure communications facility or vault the COMSEC
      custodian will require an SF 154 hand receipt for the combination
      and will maintain the current SF 154 receipt(s) in the COMSEC
      file.                                                                    

                (3)  For storage outside the secure telecommunications
      facility or vault, a combination storage location shall be chosen
      which allows ready access in an emergency but which is restricted
      to persons with proper clearance and need-to-know.  Top Secret
      combinations do not have to be recorded with the Top Secret
      Control Office (TSCO) since they are controlled within COMSEC
      channels.  Top Secret combination must be controlled however in
      accordance with NTISSI 4005, and Appendix 7.                             

           d.  Prohibition.  It is specifically prohibited for
      individuals to record and carry, or store insecurely for personal
      convenience, the combinations to facilities or containers in
      which COMSEC material is stored.  Also, records of such
      combinations may not be stored in electronic form in a computer.         

      82.-86.  RESERVED.                                                       

               SECTION 6.  NONESSENTIAL AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT                 

      87.  PERSONALLY OWNED EQUIPMENT.  Personally owned receiving,
      transmitting, recording, amplification, information-processing,
      and photographic equipment (e.g., radios, tape recorders,
      stereos, televisions, cameras, magnetic tape and film) shall not
      be permitted in FAA secure telecommunications facilities.                

      88.  GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT.  Government-owned or leased (or
      company owned-or leased in the case of contractor-operated
      facilities) receiving, transmitting, recording, amplification,
      video, and photographic equipment (e.g., radios, music systems,
      TV monitors/cameras, and amplifiers) which are not directly
      associated with secure telecommunications operations or
      information processing activities may be used in secure
      telecommunications facilities provided approval for their use is
      granted by the FAA facility chief or manager having
      responsibility for and authority over COMSEC operations on a
      case-by-case basis, subject to the following:                            

           a.  The Government-owned equipment in FAA telecommunications
      facilities must be subjected to and pass all the same technical
      and TEMPEST security requirements that mission-essential
      equipment must pass.                                                     

           b.  Equipment must be reinspected or tested each time it is
      removed and then returned to the facility.                               

           c.  The manager responsible for approving the location of
      the equipment in the secure telecommunications facility will also
      be responsible for ensuring that a record of the latest approval
      and inspection/test is maintained in the secure
      telecommunications facility, and a copy provided to ACO-300
      through the servicing security element.                                  

           d.  The reinspection/test and record requirements do not
      apply to approved portable telephone "beepers" and two-way radios
      carried by visiting key personnel on official duty, if approved
      by the COMSEC custodian.                                                 

      89.-94.  RESERVED.                                                       

               SECTION 7.  STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP)                 

      95.  REQUIREMENT.                                                        

           a.  Requirement. Each FAA COMSEC secure telecommunications
      facility shall have a written COMSEC SOP.                                

           b.  Procedure.  The COMSEC custodian will prepare and
      maintain in a current status a written SOP which shall contain
      provisions for the secure conduct of facility operations and for
      the safeguarding of COMSEC material, for example the SOP should
      include procedures for:
                (1)  Cryptographic operations.                                 

                (2)  Local accountability of COMSEC material.                  

                (3)  Obtaining COMSEC maintenance support.                     

                (4)  Controlling access to the COMSEC area.                    

                (5)  Storage.                                                  

                (6)  Routine and emergency destruction.                        

                (7)  Reporting of insecurities.                                

           c.  Coordination.  The custodian will require all persons
      associated with the day-to-day operations of the secure
      telecommunications facility to familiarize themselves with the
      SOP initially and signify by their initials that they have reread
      the SOP at least once every 3 months thereafter.                         

      96.  EMERGENCY PLAN.  As an adjunct to its SOP each FAA Plan
      COMSEC facility shall have a current emergency plan prepared in
      accordance with guidance contained in NTISSI 4004/AFR 56-5.              

      The plan shall be written, and, as a minimum shall be structured
      to address the following concerns:                                       

           a.  Coordination with the overall facility/activity
      emergency contingency planning staff.  COMSEC
      emergency/contingency and destruction planning should be an
      integral part of the overall facility plan.
           b.  Fire reporting and initial fire fighting by assigned
      personnel.                                                               

           c.  Assignment of on-the-scene responsibility for ensuring
      protection of the COMSEC material held.                                  

           d.  Procedures for securing or removing classified COMSEC
      material and evacuation of the area(s).                                  

           e.  Protection of material when admission of outside
      firefighters into the secure area(s) is necessary.                       

           f.  Assessment and reporting of probable exposure of
      classified COMSEC material to unauthorized persons during the
      emergency.                                                               

           g.  Post-emergency inventory of classified COMSEC material
      and reporting of any losses or unauthorized exposure to the
      servicing security element.                                              

      97.-101.  RESERVED.

           CHAPTER 5. SAFEGUARDING AND CONTROL OF COMMUNICATIONS 
 SECURITY MATERIAL                                       

      102.  GENERAL                                                            

           a.  Purpose.  This chapter specifies minimum safeguards and
      establishes standard criteria for the protection and control of
      Communications Security (COMSEC) material in accordance with
      guidelines set forth in National Communications Security
      Committee document NCSC-1, Safeguarding COMSEC Material.  The
      NCSC has been replaced by the National Telecommunications and
      Information Systems Security Committee (NTISSC).  The U.S. Air
      Force implementing directive is AFR 56-13, Safeguarding and
      Control of Communications Security Material, dated July 28, 1986.        

           b.  Scope.  Controls for safeguarding COMSEC material apply
      to access, use, production, development, transportation, storage,
      accounting, and disposition.  Safeguards and control criteria for
      COMSEC material are specified herein in the following categories:        

                (1)  Keying material marked "CRYPTO" (e.g., key lists,
      key cards, codes, authenticators, one-time pads, CRIBS, rotors,
      keying plugs, tapes, keyed microcircuits, etc.).                         

                (2)  Crypto-equipment (including communications and
      information processing equipment with integral cryptography) and
      components thereof which embody the principles or logic of a
      cryptosystem, including COMSEC computer software and firmware.           

      NOTE:  "Firmware" refers to software that is permanently stored
      in a hardware device which allows reading and executing the
      software but not writing or modifying it.                                

                (3)  Other COMSEC material of the following types:             

                     (a)  General COMSEC instructional documents,
      TEMPEST information, COMSEC equipment operating maintenance
      manuals, changing call signs and frequency systems, brevity
      lists, and keying material not marked "CRYPTO."                          

                     (b)  Crypto-ancillary material (including
      equipment or software designed specifically to facilitate
      efficient or reliable operation of crypto-equipment, or designed
      specifically to convert information to a form suitable for
      processing by crypto-equipment).                                         

      103.  DEFINITIONS.  For the purposes of this order the following
      terms shall have the meanings set forth below:                           

           a.  Communications Security (COMSEC).  Communications
      security (COMSEC) means protective measures taken to deny
      unauthorized persons information derived from telecommunications
      of the United States Government related to national security and
      to ensure the authenticity of such communications.  Such
      protection results from the application of security measures
      (including cryptosecurity, transmission security, emissions
      security) to electrical systems generating, handling, processing,
      or using national security or national security related
      information.  It also includes the application of physical
      security measures to communications security information or
      materials.                                                               

           b.  Telecommunications.  Telecommunications means the
      transmission, communication, or processing of information,
      including the preparation of information, by electrical,
      electromagnetic, electromechanical, or electro-optical means.            

           c.  National security.  National security means the national
      defense and foreign relations of the United States.                      

      104.  HANDLING KEYING MATERIAL.  Keying material marked "CRYPTO"
      must be handled within the COMSEC Material Control System (CMCS).
      This is a unique system set up for producing, transmitting,
      storing, accounting for, and destroying COMSEC material including
      International Pact Organization (IPO) material.  All
      nomenclatured COMSEC material (except material handled through
      publication distribution channels; such as National COMSEC
      Instructions (NACSI), National COMSEC/EMSEC Information Memoranda
      (NACSEM) and National COMSEC Information Memoranda (NACSIM)), is
      controlled within the CMCS throughout its life.  The system
      requires that all COMSEC material be handled only between COMSEC
      custodians through established channels.  Classified COMSEC
      material never enters the regular document distribution and
      control system.                                                          

      105.-109  RESERVED.                                                      

                SECTION 1.  GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO ALL
                            COMSEC MATERIAL                                    

      110.  RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFEGUARDING COMSEC MATERIAL.                   

           a.  Managers of FAA facilities and offices which use or
      handle COMSEC material are responsible for safeguarding and
      controlling all COMSEC material provided to or produced by their
      facility or office, and for establishing procedures which include
      the following:                                                           

                (1)  A Central Office of Record (COR).  For the FAA the
      U.S. Air Force Cryptologic Support Center, AFCSC/MMIC, San
      Antonio, Texas 78243-5000, is the Central Office of Record.              

                (2)  Establishment and Disestablishment of COMSEC
      Accounts.  Directive guidance for the establishment and
      disestablishment of FAA COMSEC accounts is contained in AFKAG-2
      and this order.                                                          

           b.  COMSEC Custodian.  The COMSEC Custodian is the properly
      appointed individual who manages and controls the accountable
      COMSEC material in the CMCS charged to his/her activity.  The
      custodian's responsibilities include:                                    

                (1)  Receiving, storing, amending, accounting for
      inventorying, and issuing COMSEC material charged to his/her
      account and destroying or transferring of material when it is no
      longer required.                                                         

                (2)  Ensuring that appropriate COMSEC material is
      readily available to properly authorized individuals whose duties
      require its use.                                                         

                (3)  Advising user and supervisors, as appropriate, of
      the required protection and procedures which must be provided
      COMSEC material issued to them for use, including the authorized
      procedures for destruction or disposition of such material when
      it is no longer required.
                (4)  Reporting insecurities in accordance with AFKAG-2
      and NTISSI 4003, COMSEC insecurities fall into three categories,
      cryptographic, personnel and physical.  Specific examples of each
      type are provided in NTISSI 4003, Reporting COMSEC Insecurities.         

           c.  Individual Users.  Individuals involved in the use of
      COMSEC material are personally responsible for:                          

                (1)  Safeguarding and proper employment of all material
      he or she uses or for which he or she is responsible.                    

                (2)  Reporting to proper authorities any occurrences,
      circumstances, or acts which could jeopardize the security of
      COMSEC material.                                                         

      111.  TRANSPORT OF COMSEC MATERIAL.                                      

           a.  Department of Defense Courier Service, State Department
      Diplomatic Courier Service, or departmental couriers are the
      preferred means of transporting COMSEC material.                         

           b.  Use of commercial passenger aircraft for the
      transportation of current or superseded keying material is
      normally prohibited.                                                     

           c.  FAA employees are not authorized to transport current or
      superseded key material for any reason without specific prior
      approval of the servicing security element in regions and
      centers, and ACO-300 in Washington Headquarters.  In addition,
      the employee must have a valid courier letter in accordance with
      the provisions of Order 1600.2C.  The courier letter must be
      signed by the employee's facility or office manager.  Before
      signing the letter it is the manager's responsibility to ensure
      that the employee has received a briefing on his or her
      responsibilities as a courier as required by Order 1600.2C.              

      112.  COURIER RESPONSIBILITIES.                                          

           a.  Couriers are responsible for ensuring the integrity of
      COMSEC material in their custody at all times.  Couriers will
      retain their letter of authorization in their possession at all
      times while actually transporting key materials.                         

           b.  Couriers transporting material into foreign countries
      must ensure that material is not subject to inspection by
      unauthorized personnel.  In no case will U.S. COMSEC material be
      permitted to enter foreign distribution channels unless it has
      been authorized for release by the proper U.S. authorities.              

           c.  In cases where the bulk of the material to be
      transported, or the physical configuration of the conveyance will
      not allow for the courier to keep the material on his person or
      in view at all times, arrangements should be made with the
      carrier to effect a "last-in-first-out" procedure that will
      ensure the material is given the most protection possible, and
      not left unattended at loading docks, cargo storage areas,
      baggage areas, railways platforms, etc.                                  

      113.  OPEN DISPLAY OF COMSEC MATERIAL AND INFORMATION.  The open
      or public display of U.S. Government or foreign COMSEC material
      and information at nongovernmental symposia, meetings, open
      houses, or for other nonofficial purposes is forbidden.  This
      prohibition includes discussion, publications, or presentation of
      COMSEC information for other than official purposes.  Any
      requests for the public or nonofficial display or publications of
      COMSEC information, including Freedom of Information Act
      requests, will be referred through ACS-300 to the Director,
      National Security Agency.                                                

      114.  DESTRUCTION.  Appendix 8 Routine Distribution and Emergency
      Protection of COMSEC Material, contains criteria and procedures
      for secure destruction of COMSEC material.  FAA COMSEC custodians
      will ensure that destruction requirements set forth in this order
      and AFKAG-2 are followed.                                                

      115.  REPORTING INSECURITIES.                                            

           a.  General.  Requirements for reporting COMSEC insecurities
      are specified in NTISSI 4003.  The USAF implementing regulation
      for NTISSI 4003 is AFR 56-12.                                            

           b.  Requirements.                                                   

                (1)  Insecurities associated with FAA COMSEC activities
      will be reported in accordance with NTISSI 4003 or AFR 56-12.
      Information copies of reports of COMSEC insecurities will be
      provided through COMSEC channels to the servicing security
      element and to ACS-300.                                                  

                (2)  The servicing security element will conduct an
      investigation of reported insecurities and submit four copies of
      FAA Form 1600-32 (Report of Investigation) to the Manager,
      Investigations and Security Division, ATTN:  ACO-300.                    

           c.  Classification of Insecurity Reports.  Reports of COMSEC
      insecurities and associated investigative reports shall be
      classified according to content in accordance with provisions of
      NTISSI 4002 and NTISSI 4003.  If there is doubt about the correct
      classification assistance should be requested from the servicing
      security element or ACO-300.  If there is doubt as to whether a
      report should be classified or unclassified, handle and safeguard
      it as classified until a final determination is made in
      accordance with provisions of chapter 4 in Order 1600.2C.                

      116.  EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING.  All instances where COMSEC material
      displays evidence of tampering shall be promptly reported to
      Director, National Security Agency, ATTN:  S-213, in accordance
      with provisions of NTISSI 4003 and AFR 56-12.  Information copies
      of the report shall be provided to the servicing security element
      and ACO-300.                                                             

      117.  ALTERATION OF COMSEC MATERIAL.  No modifications or changes
      in classification or markings or alterations of any kind shall be
      made to COMSEC material without prior approval of the NSA.
      Requests of this nature from FAA COMSEC activities will be
      submitted through COMSEC channels to AFCSC, ATTN:  AFCSC/MMI,
      with information copies to the servicing security element and
      ACS-300.  AFCSC will coordinate with the NSA as required.                

      118.  CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GUARDS.  Those guards whose
      duties include responsibility for access and protection of
      classified COMSEC material will be appropriately cleared.  Those
      guards whose duties are primarily area control (gate guards,
      building security) need not be cleared when they are used to
      supplement other security measures and will not normally have
      access to classified information.  All guards must be responsible
      and trustworthy personnel and instructed concerning their
      responsibilities.  Foreign guards may be used for control only.
      Questions concerning clearance requirements for FAA guard
      personnel should be coordinated with the appropriate servicing
      security element.                                                        

      119.  STORAGE REQUIREMENTS.                                              

           a.  General.  Storage means the use of security containers,
      vaults, alarms, guards, etc., to protect COMSEC information
      during nonworking hours or when it is not under the direct and
      continuous control of properly cleared and authorized personnel.
      FAA managers and custodians responsible for COMSEC operations
      will ensure that the requirements of this paragraph as well as
      the more detailed standards and criteria in appendix 11 of this
      order are complied with.  Servicing security elements will assist
      COMSEC custodians in implementing these requirements.                    

           b.  Storage Requirements.  For each vault or container used
      to store classified COMSEC material:                                     

                (1)  Designate the level of classified material
      authorized for storage therein but do not show this designation
      externally.                                                              

                (2)  Assign a number or symbol for identification
      purposes.  Place the number or symbol in a conspicuous location
      on the outside of the vault or container.                                

                (3)  Prepare a General Services Administration/
      Information Security Oversight Office (GSA/ISOO) Form SF-700
      (Security Container Information Form) for each security container
      and vault door.  On this form identify the names, addresses and
      home telephone numbers of persons to be notified if the container
      is found insecure.  Post part 1 of the SF-700 conspicuously on
      the inside of the locking drawer of each security container, and
      on the inside of each vault door.  Refer to chapter 8 in Order
      1600.2C.  Even though more than four persons may know the
      combination, only those persons to be notified need be listed on
      part 1.  For ordering purposes the NSN for the GSA/ISOO SF-700
      form is 7540-01-214-5372.                                                

                (4)  Security containers or vaults used to store COMSEC
      information shall be located in areas not accessible to general
      traffic, which are locked or otherwise protected during
      nonworking hours.                                                        

                (5)  Security containers or vaults used to store keying
      material of any classification must never have been drilled to
      gain access unless the drilled parts are replaced with new or
      repaired combination locks or drawer heads.  This also applies to
      SECRET and TOP SECRET COMSEC material other than keying material.
      When containers have been drilled to gain access and have been
      repaired and inspected to ensure acceptable safeguarding
      capabilities/(reference chapter 8 in Order 1600.2C), they may be
      used to store COMSEC material including International Pact
      Organization (IPO) other than keying material, classified no
      higher than CONFIDENTIAL.                                                

      120.  OTHER COMSEC INFORMATION.                                          

           a.  General.  Classified COMSEC information not specifically
      covered by this order shall be safeguarded in accordance with
      requirements of Order 1600.2C, National Security Information.            

           b.  Requirement.  FAA COMSEC accounts will receive
      classified documents such as NACSIS, NTISSIs, AFRs, etc., that
      are not controlled within the CMCS.  Documents of this type are
      referred to as "collateral classified" and will not have a
      register number and will not be listed on inventories provided by
      AFCSC.  Because these documents are distributed through COMSEC
      channels they will normally be delivered directly to the
      custodian and will not be placed under control at the facility
      security control point (SCP).  It is the custodian's
      responsibility to ensure that documents of this type are placed
      under control in accordance with provisions of Order 1600.2C.
      Normally, this means returning documents classified SECRET or
      higher, to the facility/activity SCP, having them logged in, and
      then signed back to the COMSEC custodian.  Reference chapter 7,
      in Order 1600.2C.                                                        

           c.  Location of SCP.  The security control point (SCP)
      function for a facility/activity should not be collocated with
      the COMSEC secure telecommunications facility, in order to ensure
      separation between the document control functions of the SCP and
      the CMCS responsibilities of the custodian and alternate.                

      121.  DISPOSITION OF COMSEC MATERIAL.                                    

           a.  General.  After COMSEC material has been issued to an
      account or user it cannot be transferred or destroyed without
      specific prior approval.  The term "disposition" as used in this
      paragraph means the transfer (return to AFCSC or transfer to
      another FAA account or to an account of another department or
      agency) or destruction of COMSEC material.  Refer to AFKAG-2,
      chapters 5 and 6.                                                        

           b.  Requirements.  When material on hand excess to
      requirements is to be returned to AFCSC or is to be shipped to
      another account to meet operational requirements, specific
      disposition instructions must be furnished as follows:                   

                (1)  ACO-300 is the approval authority to transfer to
      another FAA account.                                                     

                (2)  AFCSC gives authority:                                    

                     (a)  To transfer to an account of another
      department or agency or return to account 616600.                        

                     (b)  For destruction.                                     

           c.  Request.  Requests for disposition instructions will be
      routed through the servicing security element with an information
      copy to ACS-300.                                                         

           d.  Exception.  The above rules do not apply to
      crypto-equipment.  AFCSC gives advance approval for all movement
      of crypto-equipment (AFKAG-2).  To meet contingencies and
      emergencies, ACO-300 in coordination with ANC-120 may approve the
      relocation of FAA assets and then notify AFCSC.                          

      122.  PAGE CHECKS OF COMSEC PUBLICATIONS.                                

           a.  General.  The integrity of COMSEC material must be
      ensured so that all material produced must be accounted for and
      maintained at the lowest possible exposure rate.  Although in
      most cases FAA COMSEC custodians have free access to the secure
      telecommunications facility (TCF) they support, keying material
      issued to the secure TCF is considered to be outside the COMSEC
      material control environment because of the exposure factor.
      When material is issued by the custodian, the receiver, whether
      the actual user or an intermediary, is considered to be a user.
      A local courier is not considered to be a user because, until
      material is sighted for by line item, the material is still
      accountable within the CMCS.                                             

           b.  Requirements.  A page check of all classified COMSEC
      publications is mandatory on certain occasions, both to satisfy
      security requirements and to ensure usability.  Page checks are
      to be made by first consulting the list of effective pages on the
      cover of the document and ensuring that each page is exactly as
      described.  The page check is recorded on the record of page
      checks page; or, if the publication has no record of page checks
      page, record the page check on the record of amendments page or
      on the front cover.  The date checked, signature, and
      organizational identification of the person making the check are
      required.  Page checks will be made:                                     

                (1)  On receipt of classified COMSEC material from any
      source.                                                                  

                (2)  During change of custodian.                               

                (3)  When entering an amendment or changes which adds,
      deletes, or replaces pages or affects page numbers (COMSEC Users
      Guide - AFR 56-10).                                                      

                (4)  At least annually.                                        

                (5)  Before destruction.  The page check conducted
      before a document is destroyed does not have to be recorded.
      Sealed keying material, whether sealed with the original
      production wrapping or sealed by the custodian according to Annex
      B, paragraph IIE3b, NACSI 4005/AFR 56-13, does not require page
      check before destruction.                                                

           c.  Exceptions to Page Check Requirements.  The following
      are exceptions to page check requirements listed in paragraph
      122b:                                                                    

                (1)  Check one-time pads that are sealed on the edges
      as individual pages are used.  No separate record of page check
      is required.  A page check of one-time pads that are not sealed
      on the edges is required only on issue to a user.                        

                (2)  Keycards and keylists enclosed in protective or
      restrictive wrappers should be retained within these wrappers for
      as long as possible.                                                     

                (3)  One-time tape does not require a segment check.           

           d.  Additional page checks.  FAA custodians are authorized
      to conduct additional page checks as needed.                             

      123.  DAILY OR SHIFT INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS.  A daily or shift
      inventory is required for:                                               

           a.  Legend 1 COMSEC material.  Equipments are identified by
      the suffix CA to the national stock number (NSN).                        

           b.  Legend 1 International Pact Organization COMSEC
      material; that is North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
           c.  Legend 2 COMSEC material.  Equipments are identified by
      the suffix CS to the NSN.                                                

           d.  Legend 3 COMSEC material.  Material whose accountability
      has been dropped between AFCSC and the FAA COMSEC account.               

           e.  Legend 5 COMSEC material.  Material which has not been
      placed into effect (reserve or contingency material).                    

      124.  COMSEC ACCOUNT RECORD FILE.  Each FAA COMSEC account shall
      maintain an account record file consisting of six folders as
      required by AFKAG-2.  A description of these files follows:              

           a.  Folder 1.  Accounting reports and an AFCOMSEC Form 14:          

                (1)  File authenticated copies of all accounting
      reports in numerical sequence by the account's voucher number.           

                (2)  Maintain an AFCOMSEC Form 14 in the front of the
      folder.                                                                  

                (3)  Classify this folder a minimum of CONFIDENTIAL.           

           b.  Folder 2.  AFCOMSEC Form 3.  This folder contains the
      current records appointing and rescinding the COMSEC custodian
      and alternate custodians for the COMSEC account.  AFCOMSEC form 9
      also shall be retained in this folder.                                   

           c.  Folder 3.  General accounting correspondence.  File
      copies of correspondence about COMSEC distribution and accounting
      (such as disposition instructions, procedure changes, and tracer
      actions).  Classify this folder equal to the highest
      classification of the correspondence therein.                            

           d.  Folder 4.  Mail and courier package receipts.  File
      package receipts for classified COMSEC material transmitted or
      received through Armed Forces Courier Service, other officially
      designated couriers, or the U.S. Postal Service.                         

           e.  Folder 5.  Hand receipts.  File signed copies of hand
      receipts for COMSEC material issued to users.  Destroy the
      receipt according to the instructions in AFKAG-2.                        

           f.  Folder 6.  Local destruction reports.  Keep reports as
      instructed in Situation E4, AFKAG-2.                                     

      125.-129.  RESERVED.                                                     

                        FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                      PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                    DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552


              CHAPTER 6. CONTROLLED CRYPTOGRAPHIC ITEMS (CCI)                 

      130.  PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND.                                            

           a.  The Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI) category applies
      to specified, unclassified, secure telecommunications and
      information handling equipments and associated cryptographic
      components.  The intent is to promote the broad use of secure
      telecommunications and information handling equipments for the
      protection of national security (classified), and other sensitive
      information which should be protected in the national interest.          

           b.  Secure telecommunications and information and handling
      equipments and associated cryptographic components which are
      designated "Controlled Cryptographic Item" or "CCI" use a
      classified cryptographic logic; it is only the hardware or
      firmware embodiment of that logic which is unclassified.  The
      associated cryptographic drawings, logic descriptions, theory of
      operation, computer programs, and related cryptographic
      information remains classified.                                          

           c.  Procedures for controlling CCI secure telecommunications
      and information handling equipments and associated cryptographic
      components are required to guard against preventable losses to an
      actual or potential enemy.                                               

                (1)  In keeping with the spirit of expanded use of
      these equipments, minor lapses in carrying out control procedures
      shall be referred to the responsible manager as a matter of
      administrative discretion.  FAA employees can be held liable for
      the loss, damage, or destruction of Government property caused by
      their negligence, willful misconduct, or deliberate unauthorized
      use.                                                                     

                (2)  More serious infractions of CCI control procedures
      may constitute sabotage, loss through gross negligence, theft, or
      espionage that would be punishable under various sections of the
      United States Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.              

      131.  DEFINITIONS.                                                       

           a.  Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI).  A secure
      telecommunications or information handling equipment, or
      associated cryptographic components, which is unclassified but
      controlled.  Equipments and components so designated shall bear
      the designator "Controlled Cryptographic Item" or "CCI".                 

           b.  Secure Telecommunications and Information Handling
      Equipment.  Equipment designed to secure telecommunications and
      information handling media converting information to a form
      unintelligible to an unauthorized intercepter and by reconverting
      the information to its original form for authorized recipients.
      Such equipment, employing a classified cryptographic logic, may
      be stand-alone-crypto-equipment, as well as telecommunications
      and information handling equipment with integrated or embedded
      cryptography.                                                            

           c.  Crytopgraphic Component.  The hardware or firmware
      embodiment of the cryptographic logic in a secure
      telecommunications or information handling equipment.  A
      cryptographic component may be a modular assembly, a printed
      circuit board, a microcircuit, or a combination of these items.
           d.  Access.  The ability or opportunity to obtain, modify,
      or use.  External viewing of a CCI does not constitute access.           

      132.  CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.  The following subparagraphs set
      forth the minimum requirements for controlling unkeyed CCI
      equipments and components utilized by the FAA.  Where such
      equipments and components contain classified key they shall be
      protected in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5 of
      this Order.  Also, depending upon the application, other more
      stringent requirements may be prescribed.                                

           a.  Access.  A security clearance is not required for access
      to unkeyed CCI equipments and components.  However, access shall
      normally be restricted to U.S. citizens whose duties require such
      access.  Access may be granted to permanently admitted resident
      aliens who are U.S. Government civilian employees or active duty
      or reserve members of the U.S. Armed Forces whose duties require
      such access.  ACO-300 may grant waivers to permit non-U.S.
      citizens unescorted access to installed CCIs, regardless of the
      release status of the CCI, under conditions listed below:                

      NOTE:  The approval of the National Managers must be obtained by
      ACO-300 through AFCSC/SRMP before allowing such access by non-
      U.S. citizens in Communist block or other countries listed in the
      Attorney General Criteria Country List.  Such requests shall be
      routed through the servicing security element to ACO-300 together
      with complete justification and explanation of operational need.         

                (1)  Unkeyed CCI's:                                            

                     (a)  Such access is in conjunction with building
      maintenance, custodial duties, or other operational
      responsibilities normally performed by such personnel unescorted
      in the area now containing the CCIs before their installation;
      and                                                                      

                     (b)  The CCI is installed within a facility which
      is a U.S.-controlled facility or a combined facility with a
      permanent U.S. presence, as opposed to a host nation facility,
      even through the primary staffing is by host nation personnel;
      and                                                                      

                     (c)  The servicing security element has determined
      that the risk of tampering with the CCI which could result in
      compromise of U.S. information, classified or unclassified but
      sensitive, is acceptable in light of the local threat and
      vulnerability and the sensitivity of the information being
      protected and indicated by its classification, special security
      controls, and intelligence life; and                                     

                     (d)  Such access is not prohibited by Department
      of State policies and procedures applicable to FAA operation in a
      given geographic area.                                                   

                     (e)  The system doctrine for the CCI does not
      specifically prohibit such access.                                       

                (2)  Keyed CCI's.  In addition to all of the
      requirements for unkeyed CCIs, the following apply for unescorted
      access or use by foreign personnel:                                      

                     (a)  The foreign personnel are civilian employees
      of the U.S. Government or assigned to a combined facility; and
                     (b)  The CCI remains U.S. property, a U.S. citizen
      is responsible for it, and the presence of such installed CCIs is
      verified at least monthly; and                                           

                     (c)  The communications to be protected are
      determined to be essential to the support of FAA or combined
      operations; and                                                          

                     (d)  FAA and other U.S. users communicating with
      such terminals are made aware of the non-U.S. citizen status of
      the CCI user; and                                                        

                     (e)  Only U.S. personnel with classified U.S. keys
      may key CCI's.  Authorized foreign personnel may key CCIs with
      allied keys or unclassified keys.                                        

                (3)  Special Security Requirements.  If a CCI is to be
      installed and operated in a foreign country at a facility which
      is either unmanned or manned entirely by non-U.S. citizens,
      additional special security measures, such as vault areas,
      locking bars, safes, alarms, etc., are required.  Should an
      installation of this nature be required to support FAA operations
      it must be approved in advance by ACO-300 after coordination with
      AFCSC/SRM on a case-by-case basis.                                       

                (4)  Moving CCI's.  CCI's will not normally be moved
      from an environment where the tampering risk presented by non-
      U.S. citizen access is acceptable to a more sensitive environment
      where the risk is not acceptable.  If such action is an
      operational necessity, it must receive the prior approval of the
      FAA servicing security element and in overseas areas the
      cognizant representative of the Department of State for the
      particular geographic area.  All such CCI's must be examined for
      signs of tampering by qualified COMSEC maintenance personnel.
      Any evidence of tampering shall be reported as a COMSEC incident
      and immediate action will be taken to remove the CCI from
      operational use pending notification from the Director, National
      Security Agency.                                                         

           b.  Courier.  Authorized FAA employees and contractor
      employees (U.S. citizens) may courier CCI equipment and
      components.  Requirements for courier authorization are specified
      in FAA Order 1600.2C, National Security Information.                     

                (1)  Authorized persons may transport CCI aboard both
      Government and commercial aircraft, either handcarried or as
      checked baggage.  If it is checked as hold baggage on commercial
      airliners, it must be packaged in a container which is sealed in
      a manner that will detect unauthorized access to the enclosed
      material, such as tamper-detections tape, wire seals, etc.               

                (2)  CCI can be subjected to X-ray inspections;
      however, if airport security personnel require physical
      inspection, the inspection must be limited to external viewing
      only.  To avoid unnecessary delays and searches by airport
      personnel, prior coordination with the servicing security element
      shall be accomplished to ensure that airport personnel are
      informed in a timely manner of the transfer of CCI material.             

           c.  Storage and Transportation.                                     

                (1)  General.  Store and transfer CCI equipment and
      components in a manner that affords protection at least equal to
      that which is normally provided to weapons, computers,
      electronics equipment, etc., and ensures that access and
      accounting integrity is maintained.                                      

                (2)  Storage.  Handle CCI's in connection with
      warehouse functions provided they are under direct supervision of
      an individual who meets the access requirements of this chapter.         

                (3)   Transportation.                                          

                     (a)  General.  Ship CCI equipments and components
      by a traceable means in accordance with the following:                   

                          1  Within CONUS:                                     

                             a  Commercial carrier providing DOD
      Constant Surveillance Service (CSS)  (NOTE:  Contact the
      Transportation Officer of the nearest Defense Contract
      Administration Service Management Area (DCASMA) office for
      information concerning the carriers servicing the specific
      geographic area.  CSS is not available overseas.                         

                             b  U.S. registered mail provided the mail
      does not at any time pass out of U.S. control.                           

                             c  Authorized FAA or contractor courier.
      For contractor couriers, the authorization to act as a courier or
      escort for CCI equipment and components may be granted by the
      servicing FAA security element in accordance with FAA Order
      1600.2C.                                                                 

                             d  Diplomatic courier service.
                          2   Outside CONUS:  In foreign countries
      where there are two or more FAA facilities where FAA personnel
      are stationed, foreign nationals who are employed by the FAA may
      transport CCI's provided:                                                

                             a  There is a signature record that
      provides continuous accountability for custody of the shipment
      from pickup to ultimate destination, and                                 

                             b  There is a constant U.S. presence (for
      example, a U.S. person accompanies a foreign driver in couriering
      the material), or                                                        

                             c  The material is contained in a closed
      vehicle or shipping container which is locked and has a shipping
      seal that will prevent undetected access to the enclosed
      material.                                                                

           d.  Accounting.                                                     

                (1)  Within the FAA, CCI equipments shall be delivered
      to a primary FAA COMSEC account.                                         

                (2)  The COMSEC Custodian shall initially receipt for
      the CCI equipment, and will be responsible for ensuring that
      before further distribution is made the individual CCI items are
      entered into the Property Management System for the using
      facility, Region, or Center as appropriate.                              

      NOTE:  The custodian should coordinate with the responsible
      property management officer to ensure that the requirements of
      this order are met.                                                      

                (3)  CCI equipments shall be accounted for by serial
      number.  CCI components, installed in this equipment, do not
      require separate accountability.  Spares or other uninstalled CCI
      components shall be accounted for by quantity.                           

                (4)  The accounting system must provide the following:         

                     (a)  Establish a central point designated by the
      Property Management Officer for the using facility, region or
      center for control of CCI equipments.                                    

                     (b)  The identification of CCI equipment and
      components which are lost.                                               

                     (c)  Individual accountability in order to support
      prosecution in cases which involve infractions that would be
      punishable under the United States Code or the Uniform Code of
      Military Justice.                                                        

                (5)  The manager having property management
      responsibility for the using facility region or center shall
      ensure that procedures are followed to permit entering CCI
      equipment into the Property Management System data base in such a
      way that equipments can be accurately inventoried when necessary.        

      133.  INVENTORIES.                                                       

           a.  CCI equipments shall be inventoried at least annually.
      This includes uninstalled CCI equipments.  An inventory should
      also be accomplished whenever there is a change of personnel
      responsible for the safekeeping or accounting of an
      organization's holdings of CCI equipments and components.
      Reports of inventory shall be submitted to the central control
      point established for control of CCI equipments.  Inventory
      records shall be maintained current for as long as the using
      facility, region or center maintains CCI assets.                         

           b.  Inability to reconcile an organization's holdings of CCI
      equipments and components with the record of accountability at
      the established central control point shall be reported as an
      insecurity in accordance with this order and AFR 56-12.                  

      134.  REPORTING INSECURITIES.                                            

           a.  Users of CCI must be familiar with the criteria that
      constitutes an insecurity as specified in AFR 56-12.                     

           b.  All insecurities involving CCI equipments or components
      shall be reported through COMSEC channels in accordance with the
      following:                                                               

                (1)  Keyed equipment.  Report insecurities involving
      keying material according to AFR 56-12.                                  

                (2)  Unkeyed equipment.  Insecurities involving unkeyed
      CCI equipments shall be reported in accordance with AFR 56-12 and
      applicable FAA property management directives concerning the
      responsibilities for safeguarding and protection of high value
      U.S. Government property.                                                

      135.  ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY DESTRUCTION.                                 

           a.  The routine and emergency destruction procedures of AFR
      56-5 apply to CCI equipments and components.                             

           b.  Routine destruction of CCI equipment and components by
      FAA users is not authorized.  Equipment that is inoperative or no
      longer required shall be reported to the FAA servicing security
      element with a request for disposition instructions.  The
      servicing security element will be responsible for coordinating
      all such requests with ACO-300 prior to any disposition of the
      equipment.                                                               

      136-144.  RESERVED.                                                      

                          FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                        PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                      DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

                          CHAPTER 7. SECURE VOICE                             

                             SECTION 1.  GENERAL                               

      145.  PURPOSE.  This chapter provides guidelines for use by the
      COMSEC custodian when dealing with the third generation or "user
      friendly" Secure Telephone Units; i.e., STU-III's, that are used
      to transmit classified information.                                      

      146.  TYPES AND MODELS OF STU-III.                                       

           a.  Type I.  These terminals are Controlled Cryptographic
      Items (CCI).  Type I STU-III terminals may be used to secure
      classified information, or unclassified but sensitive, voice or
      data communications when keyed with an appropriate level of
      keying material.  STU-III terminals are considered keyed when
      keying material has been loaded and an authorized Crypto Ignition
      Key (CIK) is inserted.  When keyed, Type I STU-III terminals must
      be safeguarded to the same classification level that the keying
      material being used is authorized to protect.  When the terminals
      are unkeyed, they are considered as high value property and are
      to be protected as CCI in accordance with provisions of NTISSI
      4001, Controlled Cryptographic Items, NTISSI 3013, Operational
      Security Doctrine for the secure Telephone Unit III (STU-III)
      Type 1 Terminal, AFSAL 4001A, Air Force COMSEC Publication
      Controlled Cryptographic Items and this order.                           

           b.  Type II.  Type II terminals may only be used with
      unclassified keying material.  Use of these terminals is not
      addressed in this chapter.                                               

      147.  DEFINITIONS.                                                       

           a.  Authentication Information.  Information which
      identifies a STU-III terminal.  Authentication information is
      specified for each STU-III key ordered and is included as a part
      of the key.  Each terminal's authentication information is
      displayed on the distant terminal during a secure call.
      Authentication information includes:                                     

                (1)  Classification level - the highest classification
      level authorized for an individual STU-III terminal.  During a
      secure call, the clearance level displayed on each terminal is
      the highest level common to both terminals, and is the authorized
      level for the call.                                                      

                (2)  Identification of the using organization (e.g.,
      FAA HQ, Wash. DC).                                                       

                (3)  Expiration date of the terminal's key.                    

                (4)  Foreign access to the terminal, where appropriate
      (e.g. CAN, US/KOR, US/NATO).                                             

           b.  Authorized Person.  A person who meets the access
      requirements of NTISSI/AFSAL No. 4001, Controlled Cryptographic
      Items, (AFR 56-20 when published), and this directive, and who
      has adequate clearance if classified material is involved.               

           c.  Crypto-Ignition Key (CIK).  A key storage device (KSD)
      which contains a portion of STU-III key(s) in encrypted form.
      Insertion of the CIK into the terminal(s) for which it was
      created allows the terminal(s) to be used in the secure mode;
      withdrawal disables the secure mode.                                     

           d.  CIK Information.  Split portions of an encrypted STU-III
      key, a part of which resides in the CIK, the other in the
      terminal.                                                                

           e.  Interoperable CIK.  A single CIK which may be programmed
      to work in more than one terminal.                                       

           f.  Key.  Information (usually a sequence of random binary
      digits) used to initially set up and to periodically change the
      operations performed in a crypto-equipment for purposes of
      encrypting or decrypting electronic signals; for determining
      electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM) patterns (e.g., for
      frequency hopping or spread spectrum); or for producing other
      keys.                                                                    

      NOTE:  Key replaces the terms "variable," "key(ing) variable,"
      and "cryptovariable".                                                    

           g.  Keyed Terminal.  A terminal which has been keyed, in
      which the CIK is inserted.                                               

           h.  Key Encryption Key (KEK).  A key that is used in the
      encryption and/or decryption of other keys for transmission
      (rekeying) or storage.                                                   

           i.  Key Storage Device (KSO).  The name given to the
      physical device that can be used as a fill device and also as a
      CIK for all Type 1 terminals.  It is a small device shaped like a
      physical key and contains passive memory.  When it is used to
      carry key to Type 1 terminals it is termed a fill device; when it
      is used to protect key that has been loaded into Type 1
      terminals, it is termed a CIK.                                           

           j.  Master CIK.  A CIK which may be used to create
      additional CIKs for a terminal as they are required, up to the
      terminal's maximum.                                                      

           k.  Micro-KMODC.  An MS-DOS compatible personal computer
      with a custom hardware/software configuration which, when
      connected to a Type 1 terminal, may be used to electronically
      order and receive STU-III keys.                                          

           1.  Unkeyed Terminal.  A terminal which contains no keys or
      one which has been keyed but from which the CIK has been removed
      and properly secured.                                                    

           m.  User Representative.  A person formally designated to
      order keys for STU-III terminals.                                        

           n.  U.S. Controlled Space.  An area, access to which is
      physically controlled by authorized U.S. Government personnel.           

      148.-150.  RESERVED.                                                     

                           SECTION 2.  EXCEPTIONS                              

      151.  REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTION.  Requests for exception to any of
      the provisions of this chapter must be submitted prior to
      implementation to the Emergency Operations Staff, ADA-20, who is
      Controlling Authority for the FAA STU-III Program.                       

      152.-153.  RESERVED.                                                     

          SECTION 3.  COMSEC CUSTODIAN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES             

      154.  GENERAL.  The COMSEC Custodian handling STU-III key
      performs those responsibilities normally associated with handling
      and controlling other COMSEC material as specified in this order.
      The COMSEC Custodian is responsible for initial receipt of key,
      for storage until issued to a user, and for all accounting until
      the key is "destroyed."  Although the COMSEC Custodian may be
      the person who actually keys terminals and creates the associated
      CIK's, he or she may instead issue the key to authorized users,
      who load the key and create CIK's.  COMSEC Custodians are also
      responsible for the preparation of a number of control and
      accountability reports.                                                  

      155.  RECEIPT OF KEY.  The COMSEC Custodian will receive the key
      from the Key Management System (KMS) in the form of a key storage
      device, KSD-64A, used as a fill device.  The following applies:          

           a.  Fill Device Labels.  Each fill device will have an
      attached card label.  The card label will be removed by the
      COMSEC Custodian when the key in the fill device is loaded into a
      terminal.  The fill device card label contains space for the
      COMSEC Custodian to write the serial number of the terminal, the
      name of the each user, and the serial number of each KSD-64A that
      is used as a CIK for the terminal.  It is important that a local
      record be maintained of the terminal serial number as it relates
      to the key material identification (KMID) number (or Registration
      Number) binding.                                                         

            b.  Fill Device Packaging.  Fill devices will be shipped
      from the KMS packaged in heat sealed plastic bags.  Packaged fill
      devices will be placed in boxes with shipping papers (SF-153
      COMSEC Material Report).  The boxes will be double wrapped in
      accordance with appropriate COMSEC standards.  A copy of the
      SF-153 COMSEC Material Report must be signed by the COMSEC
      Custodian and returned as the receipt for the key.                       

           c.  Incoming Inspection.  The procedures for incoming
      inspection are as follows:                                               

                (1)  Inspect the package.  If any tampering is evident,
      submit a COMSEC incident report.                                         

                (2)  Take inventory of the package contents against the
      shipping papers.                                                         

                (3)  If all is in order, fill in the appropriate
      blocks, sign the enclosed receipt and return it to the
      KMS/Central Accounting Office (CAO).                                     

                (4)  If all is not in order, call the KMS immediately,
      note the discrepancy on the SF-153, and send it to the KMS/CAO.          

           d.  Storage and Protection of Key.  Fill devices stored by a
      COMSEC Custodian prior to loading into a terminal should remain
      sealed in the plastic bag.  The storage of the fill devices must
      be in accordance with procedures prescribed by this order for the
      storage of classified COMSEC keying material.                            

      156.  ACCOUNTING FOR KEY.  The COMSEC Custodian plays a critical
      role in accounting for STU-III key.  The Custodian is supported
      by the STU-III CAO and the cognizant Central Office of Record
      (COR).                                                                   

           a.  STU-III Type I Key.  The STU-III Type I operational and
      Type I seed key is accounted for by registration number
      Accounting Legend Code 1 (ALC-1).  All test key is unclassified
      and assigned ALC-4 (i.e. after receipt at the user COMSEC
      account, they are locally accountable).                                  

      NOTE:  TOP SECRET Type I operational key requires two person
      integrity handling in accordance with National doctrine, unless a
      specific exemption has been granted by the controlling authority
      (ADA-20) with approval of the National Manager (NSA).                    

           b.  Reports.  In addition to complying with all cognizant
      COR rules and requirements, the COMSEC Custodian is responsible
      for submitting the following reports directly to the KMS/CAO:            

                (1)  Key Receipts.  An SF-153 COMSEC Material Report
      will be included in each key order shipped from the KMS.  The
      Custodian must verify that all listed devices were received and
      then fill in the appropriate blocks, sign the SF-153, and return
      the original to the KMS/CAO.                                             

                (2)  Transfer Reports.  The sending COMSEC Custodian
      must generate an SF-153 Transfer Report whenever STU-III key is
      shipped between COMSEC accounts.  A copy of the report must be
      sent to the KMS/CAO.  The receiving Custodian must receipt for
      the keys and send a copy of the receipt to the KMS/CAO.                  

      Only STU-III key should be listed on Transfer Reports sent to the
      KMS/CAO.  Transfer reports for other types of key and for COMSEC
      equipment should be sent to the appropriate COR (for FAA accounts
      the COR for COMSEC materials other than STU-III is normally the
      US Air Force Cryptologic Support Center (USAFCSC), Kelly Air
      Force Base, TX).                                                         

                (3)  Destruction Reports.  The COMSEC Custodian must
      generate and submit an SF-153 Destruction Report to the KMS/CAO
      when Type I operational key is loaded into a terminal or
      zeroized.  Destruction Reports generated for key loaded in a
      terminal will contain the signature of the Custodian or alternate
      and the serial number of the STU-III terminal in the Remarks
      Column (Block 13).  Destruction Reports for TOP SECRET Type I
      operational key require two signatures, that of the Custodian or
      alternate and a witness.  Destruction Reports for zeroized key
      require two signatures.  Do not mix STU-III key destruction
      reports with other key transactions.  Destruction Reports are not
      required for Type I seed key successfully loaded into a STU-III
      terminal since the electronic conversion call to the KMS results
      in the automatic generation of a Key Conversion Notice (KCN)
      which serves as the Destruction Report.  The KSD-64A should not
      be physically destroyed by breaking or smashing the device as
      this does not guarantee destruction of the key material in the
      device.  For approved destruction procedures refer to the current
      STU-III Key Management Plan and the servicing security element.          

                (4)  Possession Reports.  Possession Reports are used
      when a shipment of key material is received without any
      accompanying paperwork.  The receiving Custodian should generate
      an SF-153 Possession Report and submit it to the KMS/CAO and
      other locations as directed by his COR.  Do not mix STU-III key
      Possession Reports with other key Possession Reports.                    

      157.  NOTICES FROM THE KMS/CAO.                                          

           a.  Key Conversion Notices.  When Type 1 seed key is loaded
      into a terminal, the user must call the KMS to obtain (convert it
      to) the Type I operational key.  The KMS/CAO generates a Key
      Conversion Notice which is sent to the accountable COMSEC
      Custodian informing him or her of the KMID numbers of seed key
      converted to operational key.  This notice indicates the serial
      number of the terminal into which the seed was loaded, the KMID,
      and the date of conversion.  The Custodian should verify that
      this is the terminal in which the key was loaded in order to
      maintain accurate records.  Additionally, this notice must be
      used by the COMSEC Custodian to ensure that all seed keys listed
      have, in fact, been converted.  Any discrepancies must be
      immediately reported as a COMSEC incident.  Delay in reporting
      constitutes a reportable COMSEC incident.  The KCN also documents
      any Type 1 operational key that has been rekeyed before
      notification of a destruction is received at the KMS/CAO.                

           b.  Tracers.  When a key shipment has been sent via
      registered mail to a COMSEC account and the SF-153 key receipt is
      not returned to the KMS/CAO within 30 days, or when key is sent
      by DCS to a COMSEC account and the SF-153-30 key receipt is not
      returned within 45 days, the KMS/CAO will send a Tracer Report to
      the Custodian to determine if the key has been received.  If the
      Custodian has received the key, the key receipt should have the
      applicable blocks filled in and should be submitted to the
      KMS/CAO.  If the key has not been received, the Custodian should
      immediately contact the KMS/CAO for instructions.                        

      158.-160.  RESERVED.
                       SECTION 4.  KEYING OF TERMINALS                         

      161.  INITIAL KEYING OF TERMINALS.                                       

           a.  Procedures for the initial keying of terminals differ
      slightly depending on the type of key.  A separate procedure for
      each type of key (seed and operational) is described below.
      These procedures may vary if a master CIK is desired and may vary
      among terminal vendors.  For detailed information on the specific
      key loading procedures for terminals, see the vendor's key
      loading instructions.                                                    

           b.  CIK's are created for a terminal during the key loading
      procedure.  Therefore, the user organization must decide if a
      master CIK should be created to allow CIK's to be programmed at a
      later time, or decide the number of regular CIKs needed for each
      terminal prior to loading the key.  The STU-III permits creation
      of a master CIK, which allows additional CIKs to be created at a
      later time.                                                              

      162.-163.  RESERVED.                                                     

                         SECTION 5.  ACCOUNTABILITY                            

      164.  CRYPTO IGNITION KEY HANDLING AND LOCAL ACCOUNTING.  To
      operate in the secure mode, a CIK must be inserted into a
      terminal and turned.  This paragraph discusses the accountability
      requirements prescribed for CIK's in terms of guidance in the
      STU-III doctrine and factors that affect both the accounting
      procedures and the number of CIK's required for an organization.
      It is understood that each user organization will disseminate any
      detailed or clarifying doctrinal guidance.                               

           a.  Local Accountability Requirements.                              

                (1)  CIK's are locally accountable.  This means that a
      local record of the CIK's and the persons to whom CIK's for each
      terminal are issued should be maintained.  The COMSEC Custodian
      or an authorized user should record the serial number of the
      STU-III terminal, the KSD-64A serial numbers, and the name of
      each terminal user in the appropriate spaces on the back of the
      fill device card.  Each card is perforated so that it can be
      detached and retained by the Custodian or an authorized user in a
      3x5 card file.                                                           

                (2)  Taking a periodic inventory of the CIK's for each
      terminal is encouraged.                                                  

                (3)  When loss of a CIK is locally reported, the
      Custodian or the authorized user can disable use of that CIK on
      the appropriate terminal.                                                

                (4)  Local guidance to terminal users concerning CIK
      accountability should be formulated and distributed
      appropriately.                                                           

           b.  Crypto Ignition Key Management.  There are a number of
      factors that affect the management and control of CIK's to
      include those listed below.                                              

                (1)  Multiple Terminal Users.  Each user activity or
      office must determine how many people will be allowed to use a
      terminal, which method(s) of multiple use will be allowed, and
      how many CIK's are required.  The methods for supporting multiple
      users of a terminal are as follows:                                      

                     (a)  Shared CIK'S.  A single CIK can be shared
      among a number of users.  During normal duty hours, this CIK can
      be left in the terminal if the terminal is located in a secure
      area where no unauthorized person could gain access to the
      terminal.                                                                

                     (b)  Multiple CIK'S.  STU-III terminals will
      support up to eight CIK's for each key.  The identification
      information displayed during a secure call will be the same for
      each of the eight CIK'S, and any of the eight CIK's can be used
      to operate the terminal.  These CIK's can be issued to several
      users.                                                                   

                     (c)  Multiple Key Sets per Terminal.  STU-III
      vendors offer terminals which can be filled with more than one
      key at a time.                                                           

                (2)  Multiple Terminals per Crypto Ignition Key.
      STU-III vendors offer a feature which will allow a single CIK to
      be associated with more than one terminal (an "interoperable"
      CIK).  This feature requires a single CIK to be programmed by
      each terminal with which it is to be used.  The use of multiple
      terminals per CIK complicates local accountability and security
      procedures, but permits greater flexibility for the user.                

                (3)  Master Crypto Ignition Keys.  STU-III's contain a
      master CIK feature which allows additional CIK's to be created at
      a later date.  However, the total number of CIK's per key stored
      in a terminal may never exceed eight.                                    

      165.-166.  RESERVED.                                                     

                            SECTION 6.  REKEYING                               

      167.  ELECTRONIC REKEYING.  The STU-III KMS provides for
      electronic rekeying of Type I terminals through a rekey call to
      the KMS.  (The Type 2 terminals cannot be electronically
      rekeyed.)  During this process, the terminals identification
      information is not changed.  Only the terminal's cryptographic
      information is changed.  The KMS supports electronic rekey over
      the public telephone networks (1-800 service and regular
      commercial networks) and the DOD AUTOVON network.  The situations
      in which electronic rekeying is performed are:                           

           a.  Initial Keying.  When a terminal is physically keyed
      with Type 1 seed key, a call to obtain Type I operational key is
      necessary.  When a terminal is physically keyed with Type I
      operational key, a call to the KMS rekey number is strongly
      recommended to obtain a current copy of the Compromised Key List
      (CKL) and the Compromise Information Message (CIM).                      

           b.  Scheduled Rekeying.  The terminal user is required to
      call the KMS for an electronic rekey at least once each year.
      Some terminals display the key expiration date automatically each
      time the CIK is inserted.                                                

           c.  When Rekey Notification is Received from the KMS.  A
      universal rekey notification to call for a rekey will be
      promulgated by mail or AUTODIN to all COMSEC Custodians.  The
      COMSEC Custodians will be responsible for directing each of their
      terminal users to call for a rekey.  In addition, the STU-III KMS
      has the capability to use the CIM message to notify STU-III
      terminals via the terminal display to call for a rekey.  (In
      those circumstances where a terminal user cannot call for an
      electronic rekey when such a notice is received, the terminal
      will have to be physically rekeyed.)                                     

      NOTE:  Electronic rekeying is performed by placing a secure call
      to the KMS through toll-free 800 service, AUTOVON, or direct dial
      lines.  The rekey telephone numbers are listed in the STU-III
      User's Manual.                                                           

      168.-170.  RESERVED.                                                     

                        SECTION 7.  PHYSICAL SECURITY                          

      171.  UNKEYED TERMINAL - TYPE 1.  In the unkeyed mode, the
      terminal can be used to place only unsecured, unclassified calls
      which are not sensitive.  An unkeyed terminal must be protected
      in accordance with the requirements of NTISSI/AFSAL 4001, and
      chapter 6 of this order.                                                 

      172.  KEYED TERMINAL.  When the terminal is keyed, it may be used
      in the secure mode by authorized persons only.  The terminal must
      be afforded protection commensurate with the classification of
      the key it contains as required by NACSI 4005/AFR 56-13, and
      Chapter 5, of this order.  When persons in an area are not
      cleared to the level of the keyed terminal, it must be under the
      operational control and within view of at least one appropriately
      cleared, authorized person.
      173.  TERMINAL DISPLAY.  Proper use requires strict attention to
      the authentication information displayed on the terminal during
      each secure call.  When two terminals communicate in the secure
      mode, each terminal automatically displays authentication
      information of the distant terminal.  The information displayed
      indicates the system capacity, and does not authenticate the
      person using the terminal.  Therefore, users must use judgement
      in determining need-to-know when communicating sensitive but
      unclassified or classified information.  If the display fails the
      terminal must not be used in the secure mode.                            

           a.  Authentication.  Authentication information is
      representative of the distant terminal and should match the
      distant user.  If there is question as to the validity of this
      information, sensitive but unclassified and classified
      information should not be communicated, even though voice
      recognition may be possible.                                             

           b.  Display.  When the display indicates that the distant
      terminal's key has expired, this could be an indication of
      unauthorized system access.  If the period is excessive (e.g.
      more than two months), users should not exchange sensitive
      unclassified or classified information.                                  

           c.  Classification Level.  Users must adhere to the
      classification level indicated on the terminal display.  Because
      of the interoperability among terminals of different
      classification levels, the display may indicate a level less than
      the actual classification of either terminal's own key(s) (e.g.,
      when a SECRET terminal calls a CONFIDENTIAL terminal,
      "CONFIDENTIAL" is displayed on both terminals as the approved
      level for the call).  Therefore users must observe the display
      with each call and limit the level of information accordingly.           

           d.  System Testing.  During system testing, authentication
      information on the display may vary, as required for the test;
      however, the display will always indicate that the call is for
      TEST purposes only.  Classified information may not be
      transmitted during system tests.                                         

      174.  USE BY OTHER U.S. PERSONNEL.                                       

           a.  Keyed Type 1 terminals may be used by or under the
      direct supervision of authorized persons only.  When
      operationally required, authorized persons may permit others not
      normally authorized to use the keyed terminal (e.g., persons not
      assigned to the FAA office, service or facility identified in the
      display and persons whose clearance does not meet the level
      indicated on the display) under the following conditions:                

                (1)  The call must be placed by an authorized person.          

                (2)  After reaching the called party, the caller must
      identify the party on whose behalf the call is being made,
      indicating their level of clearance.  Again, the maximum
      classification level may not exceed that level which appears on
      the terminal display.                                                    

           b.  Uncleared or otherwise unauthorized persons must not be
      permitted to overhear classified conversations or to have access
      to classified or sensitive information transmitted over the
      terminal.                                                                

      175.  USE BY FOREIGN NATIONALS.  NTISSI 4001/AFR 56-20 and
      Chapter 6 of this order, limit access to CCI equipments to U.S.
      citizens and permanently admitted resident aliens who are
      employees of the U.S. Government.  For the FAA prior approval of
      the Manager, Emergency Operations Staff, ADA-20, is required for
      any exception to this policy.                                            

      176.  STORAGE.  Type 1 terminals must be stored as specified in
      NTISSI/AFSAL 4001, and Chapter 6, of this order.  Foreign
      nationals who are employed by the U.S. Government at locations
      described in paragraph 179 below, may handle Type 1 terminals in
      connection with warehouse functions, provided they are under the
      direct supervision of an individual who meets the access
      requirements of NTISSI/AFSAL 4001, and Chapter 6.                        

      177.  USE OF THE SECURE DATA MODE.  During data transmissions,
      each Type I terminal must be manned by authorized persons.  The
      data must be sent only after the sending and receiving parties
      have observed the terminal display and have assured themselves of
      the appropriateness of the information transfer (i.e., is the
      sending/receiving party's organization level in the terminal
      display?).  If the terminal is attached to a computer, computer
      security and system issues should be addressed separately with
      the servicing security element prior to start of operations.
      Additional assistance in the area of computer security is
      available if needed from ACO-340, Washington, D.C.  It is
      important that these issues be addressed because of the inherent
      interoperability of all STU-III terminals.                               

      178.  AFTER HOURS PROTECTION.  When authorized persons are not
      present, the CIK must be removed from the terminal and properly
      protected as specified in this chapter.  Area controls must be
      sufficient to ensure access and accounting integrity of the
      terminal.                                                                

                         SECTION 8.  TRANSPORTATION                            

      179.  TYPE I TERMINALS.                                                  

           a.  Type 1 terminals must be unkeyed during shipment.  In no
      instance may KSDs containing seed or operational KEK's or CIK's
      be included in the same container or shipment as Type 1
      terminals.                                                               

           b.  Type I terminals may be transported by any means that
      provides continuous accountability and protection against losses
      and unauthorized access while in transit.  These criteria are
      satisfied by any of the following:                                       

                (1)  FAA courier authorized in accordance with
      provisions of Order 1600.2C.                                             

                (2)  FAA authorized contractor/company, U.S. citizen
      courier.                                                                 

                (3)  U.S. Registered Mail provided it does not at any
      time pass out of U.S. control and does not pass through a foreign
      postal system or any foreign inspection.                                 

                (4)  Commercial carriers under constant surveillance
      service (CSS) in CONUS only.  FAA elements may obtain information
      concerning these services from the General Services
      Administration (GSA), ATTN:  Traffic and Travel Services.
                (5)  U.S. military or military-contractor air service
      (e.g., Military Airlift Command, LOGAIR, QUICKTRANS) provided the
      requirements for CSS are observed.                                       

                (6)  U.S. Diplomatic Courier Service (overseas service
      only).  FAA STU-III units intended for overseas installation in
      FAA facilities or office spaces will be transferred to the
      Department of State for transportation to the overseas location.
      All movements of this type will be coordinated through the
      Manager, Emergency Operations Staff, ADA-20, Washington, D.C.            

                (7)  Armed Forces/Defense Courier Service (ARFCOS)
      outside the 48 contiguous states when no other means of secure
      transportation is available.                                             

      180.-182.  RESERVED.                                                     

                          SECTION 9.  INSTALLATION                             

      183.  GENERAL.  Type 1 terminals may be installed in U.S.
      controlled spaces (including vehicles) and in residences of U.S.
      Government officials.  The fundamental purpose of the Type 1
      terminal is to provide a readily available, easy to use secure
      telephone capability for all personnel who have a need to discuss
      classified or sensitive information.                                     

           a.  Acoustic Security.  Local acoustic security is an
      important consideration.  The greatest security threat to
      telephone conversations is where they are most vulnerable to
      hostile intercept and exploitation -- during transmission over
      the telephone network.  Therefore, a common-sense approach should
      be followed on acoustic security for the Type 1 installation.            

           b.  Servicing Security Element.  Specific provisions for
      achieving acoustical security should be determined in
      coordination with the servicing security element for each FAA
      using organization prior to STU-III installation.  The manager or
      supervisor having responsibility for the STU-III terminal is
      responsible for ensuring that acoustical security measures are
      enforced to preclude unauthorized overhearing of classified or
      sensitive but unclassified telephonic discussions.                       

      184.  RESIDENCES.  Type 1 terminals installed in residences may
      be used only by the persons for whom they are installed.  All of
      the security requirements for preventing unauthorized access to
      classified and sensitive information, and to the keyed terminal
      must be observed.                                                        

           a.  The terminal must be located in an area of the home
      where family members or other unauthorized persons will not
      overhear or view classified or sensitive information.                    

           b.  The CIK must be removed from the terminal following each
      use and kept in the personal possession of the user, or properly
      stored.                                                                  

           c.  If the CIK is stored in the residence and the associated
      terminal is used to protect classified information, the CIK must
      be protected in a GSA-approved security container.                       

           d.  When the terminal is used in the data mode, classified
      information that is viewed on the screen should be removed as
      soon as possible, and should not be printed out unless there is
      appropriate classified storage.                                          

           e.  Installation of STU-III equipments in residences will
      require the prior approval of the servicing security element and
      the responsible COMSEC custodian.                                        

      185.-186.  RESERVED.                                                     

                          SECTION 10.  MAINTENANCE                             

      187.  GENERAL.  NTISSI/AFSAL 4001 contains the training
      requirements which apply to all persons who maintain COMSEC
      equipment, to include the Type 1 terminal.  Authorized
      maintenance personnel need not be cleared unless they require
      access to classified COMSEC information to perform terminal
      maintenance.                                                             

      188.  ACCESS.  Maintenance personnel may not have access to a
      terminal which has been keyed for normal operations.  Therefore,
      any terminal which will be removed or disassembled for repair
      should first be zeroized.  However, if terminal malfunction
      prevents zeroization, the terminal may be returned, minus the
      CIK, which must be retained in appropriate storage by authorized
      persons.  When an FAA terminal is removed from an operational
      area by maintenance personnel the associated KEK's will be
      zeroized.                                                                

      189.-190.  RESERVED.                                                     

               SECTION 11.  PROTECTION OF KEY STORAGE DEVICES                  

      191.  GENERAL.  When they contain KEK's or CIK information, KSD's
      must be protected against unauthorized access.  When they contain
      none of the above information, KSDs require no special handling
      or protection, and their loss is not a reportable insecurity.            

      192.  FILL DEVICES.  Fill devices containing KEK's must be
      safeguarded in accordance with Annex B of NACSI 4005/AFR 56-13,
      and Chapter 5 of this order.                                             

           a.  Access.  An appropriate clearance is required for access
      to a fill device when it contains a classified operational KEK.
      Although seed KEK's are handled as UNCLASSIFIED CRYPTO, COMSEC
      Custodians and users must also be appropriately cleared to
      receive seed KEK's with classified data.                                 

           b.  Classification and Accountability.  See Section 3, of
      this Chapter.                                                            

           c.  Transportation.                                                 

                (1)  Within the U.S.  Fill devices containing
      classified operational KEK's should routinely be transported by
      cleared designated courier or ARFCOS.  However, if distribution
      is to a location which cannot reasonably be served by the above
      means, or the urgency for delivery precludes their use,
      operational KEK's classified up through SECRET may be transported
      by U.S. Registered Mail.  Seed KEK's and unclassified operational
      KEK's may be transported by any means prescribed for transporting
      classified COMSEC material or by U.S. Registered Mail.                   

                (2)  Outside of the U.S.  Fill devices containing
      operational KEK's, regardless of classification, must be
      transported in accordance with arrangements made with the U.S.
      Department of State Office of Communications Security.  Seed
      KEK's, regardless of clearance data may be transported by any
      means prescribed for operational KEK'S.                                  

                (3)  Quantity.  Normally, up to 50 operational and/or
      seed KEK's may be shipped in a single package.  However, when for
      emergency reasons classified operational KEK's must be
      transported by U.S. Registered Mail within the U.S., no more than
      25 may be included in a single package.                                  

           d.  Reserve Key.  Although there is no prohibition against a
      COMSEC Custodian holding some level of seed or operational key in
      reserve for emergency use (e.g., if a terminal fails), that level
      should be kept to a minimum consistent with operational
      requirements, in order to limit the exposure of keys in long-term
      storage.                                                                 

                (1)  COMSEC Custodians must notify the KMS of damaged,
      broken, or otherwise unusable fill devices and return them to the
      KMS for disposition.  The devices must be returned at their
      original classification.                                                 

                (2)  A seed or operational key is considered destroyed
      after it has been loaded in a terminal.  Seed KEK's are
      automatically dropped from central accountability once the
      terminal has been rekeyed through a call to the KMS.  A formal
      destruction report is not required.                                      

                     (a)  COMSEC Custodians must submit a formal
      destruction report for operational KEKs which have been manually
      loaded into the terminal, where a call is not made to the KMS for
      rekeying (a witness to the destruction is not required since the
      terminal records the identification of the key loaded).                  

                     (b)  Manually loaded operational KEK's not
      replaced through a call to the KMS or reported destroyed by a
      destruction report will appear on the COMSEC Custodian's next
      scheduled inventory.                                                     

           f.  Unused KEK(s).  An unused KEK which has passed its
      expiration date should be zeroized (in a Type I terminal) by the
      COMSEC Custodian.  Zeroization must be witnessed by another
      authorized person (e.g., the alternate custodian) who must also
      sign the destruction report submitted to the KMS by the COMSEC
      custodian.  Once zeroized, the KSD may then be used as a CIK.            

      193.  CRYPTO-IGNITION KEYS (CIKS).                                       

           a.  General.  At least one CIK must be created immediately
      following the manual loading of a KEK into a terminal.
      Additional CIK'S, up to the terminal's maximum, may be created at
      this time; or, if the terminal design supports it, the first CIK
      may be designated as a master CIK, allowing subsequent creation
      of additional CIK's as they are required.  Since CIK's permit the
      terminal to be used in the secure mode, they must be protected
      against unauthorized access and use.  The number of CIK's created
      should be kept to the minimum required for operational necessity.        

           b.  Access.  CIK's may normally be retained in the personal
      custody of authorized persons, who must protect them as valuable
      personal property.  Any person who may have unrestricted access
      to the keyed terminal may retain the CIK.                                

           c.  Accountability.  CIK's should be accounted for locally
      to minimize insecurities associated with their use.  Local
      accounting includes maintaining a record of all CIK's created
      along with the names, organizations/locations of the persons to
      whom they are issued.  In addition, the user should verify at
      least once a year to the COMSEC Custodian that he or she still
      holds the CIK.  Verification of CIK holdings should be in writing
      from user to COMSEC account in accordance with procedural
      instruction published by the respective user organizations or the
      Controlling Authority.                                                   

           d.  Transportation.  CIK's may be transported by any means
      prescribed for seed KEKs, or on the person of an authorized user.
      CIKs must always be shipped separately from terminals.                   

           e.  Protection in Use.  During operational hours the CIK may
      be left in the terminal so long as authorized persons are present
      and the terminal is under the continuous visual supervision and
      physical control of an authorized user.  If the area is left
      unattended, authorized persons are not present, or if for any
      reason it is not possible for an authorized user to maintain
      constant visual surveillance and physical control over the
      terminal, the CIK will be removed from the terminal and
      maintained in the personal possession of an authorized user.  In
      the event that the CIK is to be kept in the same room as the
      terminal, the CIK must be afforded protection commensurate with
      the classification of the keyed terminal (e.g., in a GSA-approved
      security container for CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET).             

           f.  Losses.
                (1)  Loss of a CIK must be promptly reported to the
      responsible COMSEC Custodian, who must initiate immediate action
      to delete that CIK from all terminals with which it was
      associated.  All losses shall be reported within 72 hours of the
      loss to the responsible FAA COMSEC Custodian.                            

                (2)  In the event of the loss of an unkeyed terminal,
      the associated CIK(s) must be protected at the classification
      level of the key.  Absence of the terminal prevents the erasure
      of the CIK information in the terminal; therefore, the CIK must
      be zeroized, or protected at the level of the terminal when
      keyed.                                                                   

           g.  Disposition.  Once a CIK has been disassociated from a
      terminal (either through deletion of the CIK from the terminal,
      or zeroization of the associated seed or operational KEK in the
      terminal), the CIK requires no special controls and may be
      retained for further use in the same or other terminals.                 

           h.  Master CIK.  The master CIK should be subject to
      additional controls to prevent its loss or use to make
      unauthorized CIK's or unauthorized secure calls.  Master CIK's
      should be kept under the personal control of an authorized person
      who has been briefed on its sensitivity and the requirements for
      its control.                                                             

                (1)  The master CIK should be maintained in a GSA
      approved security container except when it is required to create
      other CIK's or to place secure calls.                                    

                (2)  Storage of the master CIK must be commensurate
      with the classification of the associated KEK.                           

           i.  Interoperable CIK.  An interoperable CIK may be created
      for concurrent use with one of the keys in up to four Type 1
      terminals.  Authentication information associated with the
      interoperable CIK (i.e., organization and clearance level) must
      be representative of every person with access to this CIK.  If
      the clearance level varies between terminals, any person with
      access to the interoperable CIK must be cleared to the highest
      level of the associated key.  While use of an interoperable CIK
      provides users operational flexibility, COMSEC Custodians should
      assure that the appropriate accounting is maintained and that
      losses are acted upon promptly.  It is important that the
      custodian be aware of the status of an interoperable CIK since
      the terminals in which it is used will probably not be colocated
      and each terminal may also have other CIK's associated with it.
      For these reasons, it is recommended that an interoperable CIK
      remain at all times in the personal possession of a single
      individual assigned responsibility for its use.                          

      194.  PROTECTION AND USE OF THE MICRO-KMODC.  The micro-KMODC may
      be used to electronically order and receive keys.  User
      representatives may order keys, but only appropriately cleared
      COMSEC Custodians may receive keys.  The following guidelines
      apply:                                                                   

           a.  Location.  There are no restrictions on where the
      micro-KMODC may be installed.  However, during use, controls must
      be instituted to prevent unauthorized access to the system and
      its keys.                                                                

           b.  Classifications.  All classifications of key may be
      ordered through a micro-KMODC.  However, only unclassified
      operational KEKs, and all seed KEKs regardless of their clearance
      data, may be received at the micro-KMODC.                                

           c.  Disks.  Floppy disks containing seed and operational
      KEK's received at the micro-KMODC must be labelled and handled as
      UNCLASSIFIED CRYPTO material, and must remain under the local
      control of the COMSEC Custodian.  Each KEK on the disk is
      centrally accountable to the KMS.  A receipt is automatically
      generated for these keys between the micro-KMODC and the KMODC,
      and the appropriate COR notified.  Therefore, a separate
      possession report is not required.  KEK's which remain in the
      COMSEC Custodian's account, whether on the disk or in a fill
      device, will be subject to continuous central accounting until
      converted (seed KEK's) or reported destroyed (operational KEK's).        

           d.  Destruction.  When the floppy disks will no longer be
      used for storage of keys, they must be destroyed in accordance
      with NTISSI 4004/AFR 56-5.                                               

      195.-198.  RESERVED.                                                     

              SECTION 12.  DESTRUCTION AND EMERGENCY PROTECTION                

      199.  GENERAL REQUIREMENT.  The provisions of NTISSI 4004/AFR
      56-5, must be followed in the disposal and emergency protection
      of Type 1 terminals and KSD's used as fill devices and CIK'S.            

      200.  RESERVED.                                                          

                    SECTION 13.  REPORTABLE INSECURITIES                       

      201.  INSECURE PRACTICE/COMSEC INCIDENT HANDLING.                        

           a.  General.  With any secure communications system,
      incidents and compromises of terminals and key are possible.  The
      design of the STU-III terminals and keying concept minimizes the
      threat of compromised traffic; therefore, compromise recovery is
      focused on preventing an adversary from posing as a valid user
      (e.g. a keyed terminal is lost and someone is pretending to be
      the individual identified by the terminal's key).  This paragraph
      provides an introduction into the compromise recovery feature for
      Type I terminals.  For Type 2 terminals, there is no compromise
      recovery capability available.                                           

           b.  Compromise Types.  The terminal users and COMSEC
      Custodians are primarily responsible for detecting potential
      compromises and following through with necessary reporting
      procedures.  These potential compromises are broken into two
      classes:  insecure practices/locally reportable events; and,
      COMSEC incidents/centrally reportable events.                            

                (1)  Insecure Practices/Locally Reportable Events.
      Insecure practices are not in and of themselves COMSEC incidents,
      but could lead to loss of integrity of the user's information as
      well as information of other system users.  For this reason,
      insecure practices should be managed locally.  Examples of
      locally reportable events are the loss of a CIK, and failure to
      rekey a terminal within two months of the end of the
      cryptoperiod.  STU-III doctrine contains a complete listing of
      insecure practices.  Incidents of this type shall be reported to
      the servicing security element for the region or center
      concerned.                                                               

                (2)  COMSEC Incidents/Centrally Reportable.  Centrally
      reportable events are reported to the NSA by secure phone,
      AUTODIN, or registered mail.  The AUTODIN reports should be sent
      to:  DIRNSA FT GEO G MEADE MD//S2// (Reports of insecurities
      involving KEK's must include the assigned KEK identification
      number, whether or not there were any CIK's involved, and whether
      they were under protection when the insecurity occurred.)  The
      following are examples of centrally reportable incidents:                

                     (a)  Loss of a master CIK.                                

                     (b)  Failure to zeroize CIK information from a
      Type I terminal within 72 hours of the loss of a CIK.                    

                     (c)  Failure of the COMSEC Custodian to notify the
      KMS that a seed KEK listed on the conversion notice still exists
      in his or her COMSEC account.                                            

                     (d)  Use in the secure mode of a terminal whose
      display is inoperable.                                                   

                     (e)  Failure to adequately protect or zeroize a
      CIK that is associated with an unkeyed terminal which is lost.           

                     (f)  Indication in the terminals display that the
      distant terminal contains compromised key.                               

      202.-204.  RESERVED.                                                     

                       SECTION 14.  RECORDS RETENTION                          

      205.  General.  In addition to the normal records which are
      retained for accounting purposes, certain information must be
      kept to facilitate the automated Federal Secure Voice System
      compromise recovery mechanism.  The following information must be
      maintained for each KEK until it is truly destroyed (i.e.,
      finally zeroized from the terminal or overwritten by a new KEK):         

           a.  The identification of the terminal into which each KEK
      was loaded.                                                              

           b.  The identification of all CIK's associated with each KEK
      by terminal.                                                             

           c.  The identification of all terminals associated with each
      CIK, by CIK.                                                             

      NOTE:  This information may be recorded on the card which
      accompanies each fill device or it may be computerized.                  

      206.-208.  RESERVED.                                                     

                       FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                     PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                   DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

                   APPENDIX 1. REQUIRED FORMS AND REPORTS                     

          Form Number          Unit of             Title
                               Issue                                           

      1.  AFCOMSEC Form 3      Sheet          Record of Custodian              

      2.  AFCOMSEC Form 9      Sheet          Cryptographic Access
                                              Certificate                      

      3.  AFCOMSEC Form 14     Sheet          COMSEC Material Voucher
                                              and Package Register             

      4.  AFCOMSEC Form 16     Sheet          COMSEC Account Daily-
                                              Shift Inventory                  

      5.  FAA Form 1600.8      Sheet          Visitor Register
                                              (Stock No. 0052-00-91
                                              -2000)                           

      6.  FAA Form 1600.54     Sheet          Notification of Personnel
                                              Security Action
                                              (Stock No. 0052-00-869
                                              -4000)                           

      7.  SF-153               Sheet          COMSEC Material Report           

      8.  SF-700               Sheet          Security Container
                                              Information
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-214-5372)         

      9.  SF-701               Sheet          Activity Security Check
                                              - list.
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-213-7899)         

      10.  SF-702              Sheet          Security Container Check
                                              Sheet NSN 7540-01-213
                                              -7900                            

                                              (NSN:  7540-01-213-7900)
      11.  SF-703              Sheet          TOP SECRET Cover Sheet
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-213-7901)         

      12.  SF-704              Sheet          SECRET Cover Sheet
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-213-7902)         

      13.  SF-705              Sheet          CONFIDENTIAL Cover Sheet
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-213-7903)         

      14.  SF-706              Pack           TOP SECRET Label
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-207-5536)         

      15.  SF-707              Pack           SECRET Label
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-207-5537)         

      16.  SF-708              Pack           CONFIDENTIAL Label
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-207-5538)         

      17.  SF-709              Pack           CLASSIFIED Label
                                              (NSN:  7540-01-207-5540)         

      NOTE:  Ordering information for the above forms is as follows:           

                a.  FAA Forms:  Orders for additional copies of FAA
      forms should be submitted to the FAA Depot, Mike Monroney
      Aeronautical Center, ATTN:  AAC-434, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma
      City, Oklahoma 73125.                                                    

                b.  AFCOMSEC forms should be ordered by letter request
      60 days before current supply is depleted.  Letter request should
      be sent to HQ ESC/DAPD, San Antonio, TX 78243-5000.  Request an
      estimated 6 month supply.                                                

                c.  Standard forms (SF) should be ordered through
      normal document acquisition channels from the GSA.  If any
      difficulty is encountered obtaining specific SFs contact the
      servicing security element for assistance.                               

                         FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                   Public Availability to be Determined
                           Under 5 U.S.C. 552

              APPENDIX 2. SAMPLE CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS BRIEFING                

      1.  You have been selected to perform duties that will require
      access to U.S. classified cryptographic information.  It is
      essential that you be made aware of certain facts relevant to the
      protection of this information before access is granted.  You
      must know the reason why special safeguards are required to
      protect U.S. classified cryptographic information.  You must
      understand the directives which require these safeguards and the
      penalties you will incur for the unauthorized disclosure,
      unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of U.S. classified
      cryptographic information.  Failure to properly safeguard this
      information could cause serious to exceptionally grave damage, or
      irreparable injury, to the national security of the United States
      or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.                       

      2.  U.S. classified cryptographic information is especially
      sensitive because it is used to protect classified information.
      Any particular piece of cryptographic keying material and any
      specific cryptographic technique may be used to protect a large
      quantity of classified information during transmission.  If the
      integrity of a cryptographic system is breached at any point, all
      information protected by the system may be compromised.  The
      safeguards placed on U.S. classified cryptographic information
      are a necessary component of government programs to ensure that
      our Nation's vital secrets are not compromised.                          

      3.  Because access to U.S. classified cryptographic information
      is granted on a strict need-to-know basis, you will be given
      access to only that cryptographic information necessary to
      perform your duties.  You are required to become familiar with
      Order 1600.8C, as well as AFRs 56-10 and 56-13.  Sections 641,
      793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, U.S. Code are contained in
      attachments 1 through 6 of this appendix.  Cited directives and
      Executive Order 12356 are attached in a briefing book for your
      review at this time.                                                     

      4.  Especially important to the protection of U.S. classified
      cryptographic information is the timely reporting of any known or
      suspected compromise of this information.  If a cryptographic
      system is compromised, but the compromise is not reported, the
      continued use of the system can result in the loss of all
      information protected by it.  If the compromise is reported,
      steps can be taken to lessen an adversary's advantage gained
      through the compromise of the information.                               

      5.  You should know that intelligence services of some foreign
      governments prize the acquisition of U.S. classified
      cryptographic information.  They will go to extreme lengths to
      compromise U.S. citizens and force them to divulge cryptographic
      techniques and materials that protect the nation's secrets around
      the world.  You must understand that any personal or financial
      relationship with a foreign government's representative could
      make you vulnerable to attempts at coercion to divulge U.S.
      classified cryptographic information.  You should be alert to
      recognize those attempts so that you may successfully counter
      them.  The best personal policy is to avoid discussions that
      reveal your knowledge of, or access to, U.S. classified
      cryptographic information and thus avoid highlighting yourself to
      those who would seek the information you possess.  Any attempt,
      either through friendship or coercion, to solicit your knowledge
      regarding U.S. classified cryptographic information must be
      reported immediately to your servicing security element, or to
      ACO-300, ATTN:  ACO-320, Headquarters, Federal Aviation
      Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.,
      telephone 202-267-3961.                                                  

      6.  In view of the risks noted above, unofficial travel to
      certain communist or other designated countries will require the
      prior approval of your manager and the servicing security
      element, or ACO-300.  It is essential that you contact your
      manager and the region/center security office, or ACO-300, if
      such unofficial travel becomes necessary.                                

      7.  Finally, you must know that, should you willfully or
      negligently disclose to any unauthorized persons any of the U.S.
      classified cryptographic information to which you will have
      access, you will be subject to administrative and civil
      sanctions, sanctions, including adverse personnel actions, as
      well as criminal sanctions under the Uniform Code of Military
      Justice or the criminal laws of the United States, as
      appropriate.                                                             

                                 APPENDIX 2
                                Attachment 1                                   

                  Title 18, United States Code Section 641.
                     Public Money, Property or Records.                        

      "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins or knowingly converts to his
      use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys
      or disposes of any records, voucher, money, or thing of value of
      the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any
      property made or being made under contract for the United States
      or any department or agency therefor;                                    

      "Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
      convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
      stolen, purloined or converted - shall be fined not more than
      $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both; but if the
      value of such property does not exceed the sum of $100, he shall
      be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one
      year or both.                                                            

      "The word 'value' means face, par, or market value, or cost
      price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater."                

                                 APPENDIX 2
                                Attachment 2                                   

                  Title 18, United States Code Section 793.
           Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.              

      "(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
      the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
      information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or
      to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies
      over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel,
      aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine
      base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard,
      canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph,
      telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office,
      research laboratory or station or other place connected with the
      national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of
      construction by the United States or under the control of the
      United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or
      agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
      States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms,
      munitions, or any other materials or instruments for use in time
      of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
      subject of research or development, under any contract or
      agreement with the United States, or any department or agency
      thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or
      otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place
      so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or
      in case national emergency in which anything for the use of the
      Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or
      stored, information as to which prohibited place the President
      has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or          

      (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like or reason
      to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
      copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
      negative, blueprint, plant map, model, instrument, appliance,
      document, writing, or note of anything connected with the
      national defense; or                                                     

      (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
      agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
      any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal
      book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
      map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected
      with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe,
      at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to
      receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken
      made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of
      this chapter; or                                                         

      (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
      over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
      signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative,
      blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note
      relating to the national defense, or information relating to the
      nation defense which information the possessor has reason to
      believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to
      the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates,
      delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered or
      transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver transmit or cause
      to be communicated, delivered or transmitted to receive it, or
      willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to
      the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive
      it; or                                                                   

      (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
      control over any documents, writing, code book, signal book,
      sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
      model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national
      defense, or information relating to the national defense which
      information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to
      the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign
      nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to
      be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to
      communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
      delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
      receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
      to the officer of employee of the United States entitled to
      receive it; or                                                           

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession of
      control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
      photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
      instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the
      national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same
      to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to
      anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen,
      abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same
      has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or
      delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or
      stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report
      of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
      officer -- shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not
      more than ten years, or both, or                                         

      (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
      foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
      persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each
      of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the
      punishments provided for the offense which is the object of such
      conspiracy."                                                             

                                 APPENDIX 2
                                Attachment 3                                   

                  Title 18, United States Code Section 794.                    

                       Gathering or delivering defense
                   information to aid foreign government.                      

      "(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be
      used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a
      foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts
      to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government,
      or to any fraction or party or military or naval force within a
      foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United
      States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee,
      subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly any
      document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
      photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note,
      instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national
      defense, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for any term
      of years or for life.                                                    

      (b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be
      communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or
      communicates or attempts to elicit any information with respect
      to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition
      of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of
      the United States or with respect to the plans or conduct, or
      supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or
      with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected
      with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place,
      or any other information relating to the public defense, which
      might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by
      imprisonment for any term of years or for life.                          

      (c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and
      one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of
      the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be
      subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the
      object of such conspiracy."                                              

                                 APPENDIX 2
                                Attachment 4                                   

                  Title 18, United States Code Section 798.
                    Disclosure of classified information.                      

      "(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
      transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized
      person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the
      safety of interest of the United States or for benefit of any
      foreign government to the detriment of the United States and
      classified information -                                                 

           (1)  concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
      cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
      foreign government; or                                                   

           (2)  concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance,
      or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared
      or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government
      for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or             

           (3)  concerning the communication intelligence activities of
      the United States or any foreign government; or                          

           (4)  obtained by the process of communications intelligence
      from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
      same to have been obtained by such processes - shall be fined not
      more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.        

      (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -- The term
      'classified information' means information which, at the time of
      a violation of this section, is for reasons of national security,
      specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for
      limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; the terms
      'code,' 'cipher,' and 'cryptographic system' include in their
      meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of
      secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method
      used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents,
      significance, or meanings of communications; the term 'foreign
      government' includes in its meaning any person or persons acting
      or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party,
      department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a
      foreign government, or for or on behalf of any government or any
      person or persons purporting to act as a government within a
      foreign country, whether or not such a government is recognized
      by the United States.  The term 'communications intelligence'
      means all procedures and methods used in the interception of
      communications and the obtaining of information from such
      communications by other than intended recipients; The term
      'unauthorized person' means any person who, or agency which, is
      not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth
      in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the
      head of a department or agency of the United States Government
      which is expressly designated by the President to engage in
      communication intelligence activities for the United States.             

      (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon
      lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted
      committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United
      States of America, or joint committee thereof."                          

                                  APPENDIX 2
                                 Attachment 5                                  

                  Title 18, United States Code Section 952.
                    Diplomatic codes and correspondence.                       

      "Whoever, by virtue of this employment by the United States,
      obtains from another or has or has had custody of or access to,
      any official diplomatic code, and without authorization or
      competent authority, willfully publishes or furnishes to another
      any such code or matter, or any matter which was obtained while
      in the process of transmission between any foreign government and
      its diplomatic mission in the United States, shall be fined not
      more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
      both."                                                                   

                                 APPENDIX 2
                                Attachment 6                                   

                  Title 50, United States Code Section 783
                                  Offenses.                                    

      "Communications of classified information by Government officer
      or employee.  It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of
      the United States or any department or agency thereof, or of any
      corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part
      by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to
      communicate in any manner or by any means, to any person whom
      such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an
      agent or representative of any foreign government or member of
      any Communist organization as defined in paragraph (5) of section
      782 of this title, any information of a kind which shall have
      been classified by the President (or by the head of any such
      department, agency, or corporation with approval of the
      President) as affecting the security of the United States,
      knowing or having reason to know that such information has been
      so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been
      specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the
      department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or
      employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such
      information."                                                            

                       FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                        PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                      DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

                APPENDIX 3. CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS CERTIFICATE                  

                      CRYPTOGRAPHIC ACCESS CERTIFICATE
              (This form is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974)                

      Privacy Act Statement:  Authority.  Executive Order 9397.
      Routine and sole use of the SSN is to identify the individual
      precisely when necessary to certify access to US cryptographic
      information.  While disclosure of your SSN is voluntary, your
      failure to do may delay certification, and in some cases, prevent
      original access to US cryptographic information.                         

                            Section 1 (Type Only)
      _________________________________________________________________
      | Installation    | Unit/Office Symbol    | Supporting COMSEC   |
      |                 |                       | Account Number      |
      |                 |                       |                     |
      |_________________|_______________________|_____________________|        

      Instructions:  Section 2 of this certificate must be accomplished
      before an individual may be granted access to US cryptographic
      information.  Section 3 will be accomplished when the individual
      no longer requires such access.  This certificate (original) will
      be made a permanent part of the official records of the person
      concerned.                                                               

                     Section 2.  Authorization for Access to US
                                 Cryptographic information                     

        A.  I understand that I am being granted access to US
      cryptographic information.  I understand that my being granted
      access to cryptographic information involves me in a position of
      special trust and confidence concerning matters of national
      security.  I hereby acknowledge that I have been briefed
      concerning my obligation with respect to such access.                    

        B.  I understand that safeguarding US cryptographic information
      is of the utmost importance and that the loss or compromise of
      such information could lead to irreparable damage to the US and
      its allies.  I understand that I am obligated to protect US
      cryptographic information and I have been instructed in the
      special nature of this information and the principle for the
      protection of such information.  I acknowledge that I have also
      been instructed in the rules requiring that I report any
      unofficial foreign contacts and travel to my appropriate security
      officer and that, before this briefing, I reported any
      unauthorized foreign travel or foreign contacts I may have had in
      the past.  I understand that I am subject to and consent to an
      aperiodic, counterintelligence security polygraph examination.           

        C.  I understand fully the information presented at the
      briefing I have received and am aware that any disclosure of US
      cryptographic information to unauthorized persons may make me
      subject to prosecution under the criminal law of the US.  I have
      read this certificate and my questions, if any, have been
      answered.  I acknowledge that the briefing officer has made
      available to me the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798,
      and 952, Title 18, US Code and Executive Order 12356.  I
      understand that, if I disclose to any unauthorized person any of
      the cryptographic information to which I have access, I may be
      subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
      and/or the criminal laws of the US.  I understand and accept that
      unless I am released in writing by an authorized representative
      of my appropriate security office, the terms of this certificate
      and my obligation to protect all cryptographic information to
      which I may have access apply during the time of my access and at
      all times thereafter.                                                    

      ACCESS GRANTED THIS ____________ DAY OF _________________ 19 ____        

      SIGNATURE ______________________ NAME, GRADE, SSN, DOB __________
                                                            (Type Only)        

      ________________________________ ________________________________
      SIGNATURE OF ADMINISTERING       NAME, GRADE,         (Type Only)
      OFFICIAL                         OFFICIAL POSITION                       

                     SECTION 3.  TERMINATION OF ACCESS TO US
                                 CRYPTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION                     

      I am aware that my authorization for access to cryptographic
      information is being withdrawn.  I fully appreciate and
      understand that the preservation of the security of US
      cryptographic information is of vital importance to the welfare
      and defense of the US.  I certify that I will never divulge any
      US cryptographic information I acquired, nor discuss with any
      person any of the US cryptographic information to which I have
      had access, unless and until freed from this obligation by
      unmistakable or categorical official notice from competent
      authority.  I have read this agreement carefully and my
      questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction.  I
      acknowledge that the briefing officer has made available to me
      Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, US Code,
      Section 783(b) of Title 50, US Code; and Executive Order 12356.          

                                       () Administrative
      REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL           () Suspension
      (Check One:)                     () Revocation
      ACCESS WITHDRAWN THIS __________ DAY OF _________________ 19 ____        

      SIGNATURE ______________________ NAME, GRADE, SSN, DOB __________
                                                            (Type Only)        

      ________________________________ ________________________________
      SIGNATURE OF ADMINISTERING       NAME, GRADE,     (Type or Stamp)
      OFFICIAL                         OFFICIAL POSITION                       

                     FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                  Public Availability to be Determined
                        Under 5 U.S.C. 552

             APPENDIX 4. SECURE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND 
 COMSEC ACCOUNT CHECKLIST                             

      1.  All items in the checklist apply to COMSEC accounts and
      COMSEC user facilities unless considered not applicable by the
      servicing security element or ACS-300 due to specific
      circumstances.  Only those items preceded with an asterisk in
      parentheses (*) apply to administrative accounts.                        

      (*)  2.  (Some questions are self contained that is, good
      management practice dictates an affirmative response to the
      question, but the question itself is the only authority.                 

                                   General                                     

      (*)  1.  Is a semiannual (or upon change of custodian) inventory
      of the COMSEC account being performed as required?
      (AFR 56-10)                                                              

      (*)  2.  Have all discrepancies indicated on previous inspection
      reports (regional/center servicing security element inspections
      and Headquarters ACS-300 inspections) been corrected?
      (AFKAG-1)                                                                

      (*)  3.  If the answer to (2) is "no" what discrepancies still
      exist and what action has been taken to correct them?  Have
      timely follow-up actions been taken? (AFKAG-1)                           

      (*)  4.  Has the COMSEC custodian verified the final clearance of
      all personnel listed on the COMSEC accounts authorized
      entrance/access list each month?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)
      (*)  5.  Has the custodian verified that each person on the
      authorized entrance/access list has complied with all
      requirements of FAA's Formal Cryptographic Access (FCA) Program
      to include having received a briefing and having a signed,
      current Cryptographic Access Certificate on file?  (AFSSI 4000,
      Order 1600.8C)                                                           

      (*)  6.  Has the facility manager having responsibility for
      COMSEC or the COMSEC custodian validated the authorized
      entrance/access list on a monthly basis?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)          

      (*)  7.  Do the COMSEC storage areas of the COMSEC account meet
      minimum physical security requirements established by National
      COMSEC Instruction (NACSI) 4008 and Order 1600.8C?                       

      (*)  8.  Is there documented approval on file certifying that the
      COMSEC account has been inspected and approved for the storage of
      classified COMSEC information by the servicing security element
      for regions/center and by ACS-300 for Washington Headquarters?
      (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                              

      (*)  9.  Are SF 700, Security Container Information, prepared and
      affixed to the inside of vault doors and the locking drawer of
      GSA approved safes and containers? (AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                

      (*)  10.  Are safe/vault combinations changed in accordance with
      Order 1600.2C to include at least every 12 months or when a
      person knowing the combination is relieved, transferred, or
      terminated? (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)
      (*)  11.  Does the COMSEC facility have an emergency plan which
      provides adequate instructions for implementing
      safeguarding/destruction procedures in the event of an emergency?
      (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                    

      (*)  12.  Have all assigned personnel including COMSEC custodian
      and alternates, reviewed and participated in quarterly tests (dry
      runs) of the emergency plans?  (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                    

      (*)  13.  Have the COMSEC emergency plans been coordinated with
      the contingency plans or the facility both initially and whenever
      significant changes are made?  (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004, AFR
      56-10/COMSEC User's Guide)                                               

      (*)  14.  Have adequate destruction equipment and materials been
      provided or suitable arrangements made for emergency destruction?
      (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                                                   

      (*)  15.  Does the account report file contain transfer,
      destruction, and inventory reports?  Are they filed in numerical
      order by voucher Number? (AFKAG-2)                                       

      (*)  16.  Is the account report file properly classified, with a
      minimum of CONFIDENTIAL? (AFKAG-2)                                       

      (*)  17.  Does the account properly maintain the AFCOMSEC Form
      14, COMSEC Material-Voucher and Package Register?  (AFKAG-2)             

      (*)  18.  Is the AFCOMSEC Form 3 current and maintained in the
      account report file?  (AFKAG-2)                                          

      (*)  19.  Is the proper disposition made of all COMSEC files and
      records?  (AFKAG-1, AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide)                       

                              Physical Security                                

      (*)  20.  Were correct procedures used to identify and admit
      inspection personnel?  Was each person in the inspection party
      required to sign the FAA Form 1600.8, Visitor Register, upon
      admittance?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                       

      NOTE:  All personnel not listed on the access list must be signed
      in on FAA Form 1600.8 prior to being granted access to the COMSEC
      area.                                                                    

           21.  Has a way been provided so that persons seeking entry
      may be identified prior to admission or viewing of COMSEC
      operations?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                 

           22.  Are all secure telecommunications facility doors
      solidly constructed and fitted with approved secure locks?
      (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                              

           23.  Is the secure telecommunications facility sound proofed
      and have measures been taken to prevent acoustic interception?
      (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                                    

           24.  Is an authorized entrance list posted inside the
      facility or inside the COMSEC security container (for an
      administrative facility)?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                         

           25.  Is the authorized entrance list limited to persons
      assigned and others whose duties may require frequent admittance?
      (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                                    

           26.  Are specific persons designated by name to authorize
      admittance to those persons not on the authorized entrance and
      access list?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                      

           27.  Are visitors being processed in and escorted within the
      facility?  (AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                         

           28.  Is a copy of the most current TSCM survey on file?
      (AFKAG-1, Order 1600.12C)                                                

      (*)  29.  Have the operational STU-III terminals located in
      offices and residences been inspected within the previous 6
      months by technically competent personnel?                               

      (*)  30.  Is strict accountability maintained for all accountable
      COMSEC material held?  (AFKAG-2, AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide,
      and AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                                                

      (*)  31.  During the periodic inventories prescribed in AFKAG-2,
      is the material physically sighted, including material on hand
      receipts to users?  (AFKAG-2)                                            

      (*)  32.  Are written directives in effect that ensure all
      persons who have classified COMSEC material on hand receipt are
      relieved from accountability before permanent departure?
      (AFKAG-2)                                                                

      (*)  33.  Is a daily or shift inventory made for all COMSEC
      materials and equipments where applicable?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC
      User's Guide, AFR 56-13/ NACSI 4005)                                     

      (*)  34.  Is an inventory performed of COMSEC materials stored in
      a locked safe or other container before closure or locking of the
      container?  (AFR 56-13/NACS1 4005)                                       

           35.  (U)  Is COMSEC and keying material at user activities
      being destroyed immediately, but no later than 12 hours after
      supersession?  (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                                    

           36.  (U)  Are COMSEC materials at the COMSEC account being
      destroyed as soon as possible after supersession, but within the
      time requirements of AFR 56-5?  (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                   

      (*)  37.  (U)  Is proper documentation being maintained locally
      for accountable COMSEC materials destroyed before normal
      reporting to the central office of record (COR)?  (AFR
      56-5/NTISSI 4004, AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide)                         

      (*)  38.  (U)  Are all assigned personnel familiar with the
      procedures for reporting possible physical compromises?  (AFR
      56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)                        

      (*)  39.  (U)  Have page checks been made and properly recorded
      in COMSEC documents as required?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide,
      AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                                                    

      (*)  40.  (U)  Are security checks being performed at the end of
      each shift or on a daily basis as required?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC
      User's Guide)                                                            

      (*)  41.  (U)  Are adequate authorized facilities available to
      destroy classified waste and are they convenient to each facility
      or account?  (AFR 56-5/NTISSI 4004)                                      

      (*)  42.  (U)  Are there appropriate signs displayed to designate
      the secure telecommunications facility as a CLOSED Area?  (Order
      1600.8C, Order 1600.2C)                                                  

      NOTE:  This item applies to administrative accounts only if
      operations codes or authentication systems are held for issue to
      users.                                                                   

      (*)  43.  (U)  Are users given adequate guidance on effective
      dates, accounting, supersession, destruction, physical security,
      and reporting of COMSEC insecurities?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's
      Guide, AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and Responsibilities)                     

           44.  (U)  Has the account developed written standard
      operating procedures (SOP), on handling, controlling and
      protecting COMSEC assets including inventory and destruction?
      (AFKAG-1, AFR 56-6/NACSI 4008)                                           

           45.  (U)  Have user accounts developed in coordination with
      the COMSEC custodian their own written SOPs on the handling,
      controlling and safeguarding of COMSEC assets to include
      inventory and destruction?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR
      56-6/NACSI 4008)                                                         

           46.  Are all applicable TOP SECRET keying material being
      handled and protected under Two Person Integrity or is an AFCSC
      approved waiver on file?                                                 

                           Cryptographic Security                              

           47.  Are the referenced directives used with appropriate
      SOPs to report insecurities?  (AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)                    

           48.  Has a training program been initiated to ensure
      proficiency in all phases of COMSEC operation.  Is this training
      documented?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-11/COMSEC
      Duties and Responsibilities)                                             

           49.  Has a specified time been established for circuit
      changes and is a record kept of the time of last change to ensure
      the cryptoperiod is not exceeded?  (AFKAG-1.  AFR 56-5/NTISSI
      4004, AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)               

           50.  Does the operations section maintain SOPs which list
      current SPECAT codewords and outline specific procedures for
      processing and safeguarding these types of messages?  (AFKAG-1)          

           51.  If appropriate, have persons been briefed on any
      special handling procedures required by the originator or
      recipient of SPECAT messages?  (AFKAG-1)                                 

                              COMSEC Management                                

      (*)  52.  Are all COMSEC materials (initial and resupply) and
      amendments thereto being received and posted on a timely basis?
      (AFKAG-2 and AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and Responsibilities)               

      (*)  53.  When permissible, are extracts made from COMSEC
      publications rather than requesting increased allowance?  (AFR
      56-9/NACSI 4004)                                                         

      (*)  54.  With reference to 54, above - was controlling authority
      approval obtained to make extracts?  (AFR 56-9/NACSI 4004)               

      (*)  55.  Are all items and amounts of COMSEC materials limited
      to those which are absolutely essential to the efficient
      operation and mission of the FAA facility being supported?
      (AFKAG-1, AFKAG-2, AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR
      56-11/COMSEC Duties and Responsibilities, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)          

      (*)  56.  Are COMSEC holdings surveyed on a continuing basis to
      determine if items are no longer required or are being received
      in quantities in excess of requirements?  (AFKAG-1, AFKAG-2, AFR
      56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and
      Responsibilities, AFR 56-13/NACSI 4005)                                  

      (*)  57.  Has required annual COMSEC indoctrination or training
      been administered to FAA contractors having access to COMSEC
      materials or information (training identical to that provided for
      FAA personnel)?  (AFKAG-1, AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)                        

      (*)  58.  Are both the custodian and the alternates familiar with
      and actively performing their assigned duties and
      responsibilities?  (AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and Responsibilities)        

      (*)  59.  Are all insecurity reports thoroughly reviewed for
      accuracy by the COMSEC custodian and the facility or office
      manager having responsibility for COMSEC before being forwarded
      through official channels?  (AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)                      

      (*)  60.  Has corrective action been taken to prevent the
      recurrence of COMSEC insecurities?  (AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)              

      (*)  61.  Are insecurity reports being processed in a timely
      manner? (AFR 56-12/NTISSI 4003)                                          

      (*)  62.  Is the COMSEC custodian conducting user training prior
      to issue of COMSEC materials and at least annually?  (AFR
      56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and
      Responsibilities)                                                        

      (*)  63.  Is there training documentation available at the
      account?  (AFR 56-10/COMSEC User's Guide, AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties
      and Responsibilities)                                                    

      (*)  64.  Has the COMSEC custodian made maximum use of the
      Qualification Training Package (QTP) 491X1-30E, COMSEC Account
      Management, for training of all assigned personnel not attending
      the formal COMSEC training course.  Is documentation of training
      on hand in the COMSEC account?  (AFR 56-11/COMSEC Duties and
      Responsibilities)                                                        

           65.  Have all applicable personnel been granted Formal
      Cryptographic Access (FCA)?  Have procedures been established to
      debrief personnel upon departure (PCS, termination or
      retirement), and for suspension or revocation of access.  (Order
      1600.8C)                                                                 

           66.  Are all waivers granted to COMSEC accounts or COMSEC
      responsible personnel current?                                           

                               FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                             PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                           DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

           APPENDIX 5. PUBLICATIONS TO BE MAINTAINED BY ALL FAA COMSEC 
 ACCOUNTS                                               

      1.  General.  The publications listed in paragraph 3, below, are
      to be maintained in each FAA COMSEC operational and monitor
      account.                                                                 

      2.  Abbreviations.  The following abbreviations are used in this
      Appendix with the associated meanings as shown below.                    

           a.  AFR - Air Force Regulation.  This is an Air Force policy
      document.  The 56-series of AFRs are directives implementing the
      national COMSEC policy as established by the National Security
      Agency (NSA).                                                            

           b.  NACSI - National Communications Security Instruction.
      The NACSI is an NSA publication that establishes national COMSEC
      policies and procedures.                                                 

           c.  NTISSI - National Telecommunications And Information
      Systems Security Instruction.  The NTISSI is also an NSA
      document.  NTISSIs are used to promulgate current COMSEC doctrine
      and frequently will supersede an older NACSI.                            

           d.  NACSI/AFR or NTISSI/AFR.  When the AFR number is also
      provided on a NACSI or NTISSI it indicates that the Air Force has
      added its own guidance and interpretation to the basic NSA
      document.                                                                

      3.  Publication Listing.                                                 

      _________________________________________________________________
      Item          AFR NO.     NSA Reference          Subject
      _________________________________________________________________
      01             56-1                          Signal Security             

      02             56-2        NCSC-9         Communications Security
                                                  Glossary                     

      03             56-3        NTISSI 4002    Classification Guide
                                                  for COMSEC                   

      04             56-4        NACSI 6002     Security of Defense
                                                  Contractor
                                                    Telecommunications         

      05             56-5        NTISSI 4004    Routine Destruction and
                                                  Emergency Protection
                                                    of COMSEC Material         

      06             56-6        NACSI 4008     Safeguarding COMSEC
                                                  Facilities                   

      07             56-7        NACSI 4007     Management of Manual
                                                  Cryptosystems                

      08             56-9        NACSI 4004     Controlling Authorities
                                                  for COMSEC Material          

      09             56-10       .....          COMSEC User's Guide            

      10             56-11       .....          COMSEC Duties and
                                                  Responsibilities
      11             56-12       NTISSI 4003    Reporting COMSEC
                                                  Insecurities                 

      12             56-13       NACSI 4005     Safeguarding and
                                                  Control of COMSEC
                                                    Material                   

      13             56-19       NACSI 4009     Protected Distribution
                                                  Systems                      

      14             56-20       NACSI 4001     Controlled
                                                  Cryptographic Items          

      15             .....       NTISSI 4005    Control of TOP SECRET
                                                  Keying Material              

      16             AFSAL 4001  NTISSI 4001    Controlled
                                                  Cryptographic Items          

      17             .....       NTISSI 3013    Operational Security
                                                  Doctrine for the
                                                    Secure Telephone
                                                    Unit III (STU-III)
                                                    Type 1 Terminal            

                       FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                       PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                      DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

             APPENDIX 6. PHYSICAL SECURITY STANDARDS FOR FIXED 
 COMSEC FACILITIES                                

      1.  INTRODUCTION.  This appendix sets forth the standards for the
      physical security safeguarding of fixed FAA COMSEC facilities.
      It implements the provisions of Annex A, NACSI No. 4008/AFR 56-6.
      These standards apply to fixed FAA facilities which contain
      classified COMSEC material and which are devoted principally to
      normal activities involving these materials (e.g., secure
      telecommunications, manufacturing, training, maintenance, and
      storage).  Unless reference is made to a specific facility type,
      these standards apply equally to all FAA fixed COMSEC facilities.        

      2.  LOCATION.  FAA fixed COMSEC facilities will be located in an
      area which provides positive control over access, and is as far
      as possible from areas which are difficult or impossible to
      control (e.g., parking lots, ground floor exterior walls,
      multiple corridors or driveways, or surrounded by other
      uncontrolled buildings or offices).                                      

      3.  CONSTRUCTION.  A fixed COMSEC facility must be constructed of
      solid, strong materials to prevent unauthorized penetration and
      to show evidence of attempts at unauthorized penetration.  It
      must provide adequate attenuation of internal sounds which could
      divulge classified information through walls, doors, windows,
      ceilings, air vents and ducts.  Maximum physical security is
      achieved when these facilities are of vault-type construction as
      specified in Annex E to NACSI No. 4005/AFR 56-13.  As a minimum,
      construction or modification of an area containing a FAA fixed
      COMSEC facility shall conform to the following requirements.             

           a.  Walls, Floor, and Ceilings.  Walls, floors, and ceilings
      shall be of sufficient structural strength to prevent, or show
      evidence of attempts at, unauthorized penetration.  Walls shall
      be constructed from true floor to true ceiling.  Where false
      ceilings are used, additional safeguards are required to resist
      unauthorized entry (e.g., installation of an approved intrusion
      detection system in the area above the false ceiling).                   

           b.  Doors and Entrance Areas.  Only one door shall be used
      for regular entrance to the facility.  Other doors may exist for
      emergency exit and for entry or removal of bulky items.  All
      doors shall remain closed during facility operations and will
      only be opened to admit authorized personnel or material.  The
      following standards apply to FAA COMSEC facility doors and
      entrance areas.                                                          

                (1)  Main Entrance Door.                                       

                     (a)  Design and Installation.  The door must have
      sufficient strength to resist forceful entry.  In order of
      preference, examples of acceptable doors are:                            

                          1  GSA-approved vault doors.                         

                          2  Standard 1-3/4-inch, internally
      reinforced, hollow metal industrial doors.                               

                          3  Metal-clad or solid hardwood doors with a
      minimum thickness of 1-3/4-inches.                                       

      The door frame must be securely attached to the facility and must
      be fitted with a heavy-duty/high-security strike plate and hinges
      installed with screws long enough to resist removal by prying.
      The door shall be hung so that the hinge pins cannot be removed
      from the exterior side of the door.                                      

                     (b)  Door Lock.  The main entrance door to FAA
      fixed C0MSEC facilities must be equipped with a GSA-approved,
      built-in, Group 1-R lock. (Note:  A GSA-approved Group 1-R lock
      is a three-position combination lock with a changeable
      combination, is manipulation proof, and is radiation resistant.)
      When FAA COMSEC facilities are continuously manned, an
      electronically actuated lock (e.g., cipher lock or keyless
      pushbutton lock) may be used on the entrance door to facilitate
      the admittance of authorized personnel when the facility is
      operationally manned.  Electronic locks do not afford the
      required physical security protection and may not be used as a
      substitute for the Group 1-R lock required to secure the facility
      when it is not manned.                                                   

                          1  If a cipher lock is used, it must be one
      of the following:                                                        

                             a  Federal Stock Number (FSN) 6350-957-
      4190.  This lock is being produced by several manufacturers.  FSN
      5340-757-0691, manufacturers' part number 152, electric latch
      release, is also needed.                                                 

                             b  Simplex Pushbutton Combination Lock,
      Model NL-A-200-S.  This lock is manufactured by Simplex Security
      Systems, Inc., Collinsville, CT.                                         

      Note:  The knowledge of the combination must be strictly
      controlled and released only to persons assigned regular duties
      within the secure telecommunications facility.  It is emphasized
      that this type of lock is used only as a convenience feature and
      affords no protection from forced or surreptitious manipulation.
      Pushbuttons must be cleaned at least weekly.                             

                          2  A key-operated, pin-and-tumbler,
      night-latch-type lock may be used for personnel access control
      during periods when the facility is operationally manned if the
      following conditions are met:
                             a  The lock must be mounted so that it
      cannot be removed from the outside.                                      

                             b  The lock must have a spring-load
      locking feature.                                                         

                             c  All keys must be numbered and issued
      only on hand receipts to provide a written record of all keys.
      Extra keys will be maintained within the FAA COMSEC facility and
      will be accounted for on the daily inventory.                            

                (2)  Other Doors.  Other doors (e.g., emergency exit
      doors and doors to loading docks) must meet the same installation
      requirements as facility entrance doors but must be designed so
      that they can only be opened from inside the facility.  Approved
      panic hardware and locking devices (lock bars, dead bolts, knobs,
      or handles) may be placed only on the interior surfaces of other
      doors to the facility.                                                   

                (3)  Entrance Areas.  Entrances to FAA COMSEC
      facilities shall be equipped with a device which affords
      personnel desiring admittance the ability to notify personnel
      within the facility of their presence.  A method shall be
      employed to establish positive visual identification of a visitor
      before entrance is granted.  Additionally, the entrance area
      shall be designed in such a manner that an individual cannot
      observe classified activities until access requirements are
      completed.                                                               

           c.  Windows.  COMSEC facilities should not contain windows.
      Where windows exist they will be secured in a permanent manner to
      prevent them from being opened.  Windows will be alarmed and/or
      barred to prevent their use as an access point.                          

      Observation of internal operations of the facility shall be
      denied to outside viewing by covering the windows from the inside
      or otherwise screening the secure area from external viewing.            

                (5)  Other Openings.  Air vents, ducts, or any similar
      openings which breach the walls, floor or ceiling of the facility
      shall be appropriately secured to prevent penetration.  Openings
      which are less than 90 square inches shall have approved baffles
      installed to prevent an audio or acoustical hazard.  If the
      opening exceeds 90 square inches, acoustical baffles shall be
      supplemented by either hardened steel bars or an approved
      intrusion detection system.  All holes, cracks, and other
      openings in walls, floors, and ceilings will be permanently
      filled in or sealed to prevent insertion of surveillance devices.        

                               FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                                PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                              DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

           APPENDIX 7. STANDARDS FOR SAFEGUARDING KEYING MATERIAL             

              SECTION 1.  PHYSICAL ACCESS, STORAGE AND CONTROLS                

      1.  Basis for Protection.  The cryptographic security of
      transmitted information is based primarily on the proper use of
      uncompromised keying material.  The safeguarding and control of
      keying materials used to protect national security information
      are of paramount importance.  To ensure that these keying
      materials are provided the most rigorous and comprehensive
      handling and protection, they must be distributed through the
      COMSEC Material Control System.  Safeguarding of keying material
      is achieved procedurally through restrictions and controls
      governing access, distribution, storage, accounting, use, and
      disposition.                                                             

      2.  Controls.                                                            

           a.  Application.                                                    

                (1)  The requirements of this Appendix apply to all
      hard-copy keying material intended for use to protect
      telecommunications carrying national security information, or to
      ensure their authenticity.  Such keying material, both classified
      and unclassified, will be marked "CRYPTO."                               

                (2)  Additional or differing guidance for certain types
      of keying material may appear in the handling or operating
      instructions of affected systems, and will take precedence over
      the provisions of this appendix and the basic order.                     

                (3)  Specific guidance concerning controls for keying
      variables in electronic form will appear in NSA-published system
      NACSIs and USAF AFSALS.                                                  

                (4)  Guidance on handling of maintenance and test key
      is contained in Annex D, NACSI 4005/AFR 56-13, and in specific
      handling instructions for the material.  In cases of conflict,
      specific handling instructions for the material will take
      precedence.                                                              

           b.  Access.                                                         

                (1)  Government Civilian or Military Personnel Who Are
      U.S. Citizens.  Access to COMSEC keying material other than TOP
      SECRET may be granted to U.S. citizens whose duties require such
      access and, if the material is classified, who have been granted
      a security clearance equal to or higher than the classification
      of the keying material involved.  Access to TOP SECRET COMSEC
      keying material will be governed by requirements of NTISSI 4005.         

                (2)  Contractors and Foreign Nationals.  Access by U.S.
      contractor personnel and by noncitizens is governed by national
      COMSEC policy directives.  Questions concerning such access
      should be directed to ACS-300 through the servicing security
      element.                                                                 

                (3)  Immigrant Aliens.  Refer to Annex B, NACSI
      4005/AFR 56-13.                                                          

                (4)  Need-to-Know.  Clearance or rank does not, in
      itself, entitle any individual to have access to keying material.
      Each person having access to keying materials must need the
      material in the performance of his or her duties or
      responsibilities and be familiar with his or her responsibilities
      for its protection, use and disposition.                                 

           c.   Storage.  Unless appropriately cleared persons are
      using or otherwise safeguarding keying material, it will be
      stored in the most secure facilities available.  As a minimum,
      the following storage requirements apply:                                

                (1)  TOP SECRET.  (Refer to NTISSI 4005)                       

                     (a)  TOP SECRET material will be stored in an
      approved steel security container meeting requirements for
      two-person integrity controls as specified in NTISSI 4005.  The
      container will be physically located in a room or vault that has
      an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) installed, and which has been
      inspected and approved by the servicing security element for TOP
      SECRET storage.                                                          

                     (b)  As an alternative to (a) above, TOP SECRET
      material may be stored in an area that has been approved by the
      servicing security element as a secure area, and is manned
      continuously 24-hours a day by personnel holding final clearances
      authorizing them access to the highest classification of material
      stored.  Two-person integrity controls apply.                            

                     (c)  A Class "A" vault constructed in accordance
      with the specifications outlined in Annex E, NACSI 4005/AFR
      56-13.                                                                   

                     (d)  At user locations, TOP SECRET keying material
      shall be stored under two-person integrity controls employing two
      different GSA approved Group 1R combination locks, with no one
      person authorized access to both combinations.  Storage can be in
      a strongbox within a security container, in a security container
      within a vault, or in a security container with two combination
      locks.  At least one of the combination locks must be built-in,
      as in a vault door or in a security container drawer.  If a
      requirement exists for an approved combination padlock the lock
      selected must be a changeable, three position combination padlock
      meeting Federal Specification FF-P-110.                                  

                (2)  SECRET.  SECRET keying material shall be stored
      in:                                                                      

                     (a)  Any manner approved for TOP SECRET.                  

                     (b)  An approved steel security safe procured from
      the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply
      Schedule.                                                                

                     (c)  A Class "B" vault constructed in accordance
      with the specifications outlined in Annex E, NACSI 4005/AFR
      56-13.                                                                   

                (3)  CONFIDENTIAL.  CONFIDENTIAL keying material shall
      be stored in:                                                            

                     (a)  Any manner approved for TOP SECRET or SECRET.        

                     (b)  An approved steel security container having a
      built-in Group 1R, three position, changeable combination lock.          

                (4)  UNCLASSIFIED.  Unclassified keying material shall
      be stored in:                                                            

                     (a)  The same manner as required for TOP SECRET,
      SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL.                                                 

                     (b)  In the most secure manner available to the
      user.                                                                    

      3.  Supplementary Controls and Older Containers.  Supplementary
      controls such as guard forces, alarms, etc., shall be used as
      determined necessary by the servicing security element to protect
      security containers and areas against unauthorized access.
      Security containers which do not meet the prescribed standards
      may continue to be used until approved containers can be
      procured, in accordance with provisions of chapter 8, Order
      1600.2C.  If a nonapproved container is used or open area storage
      is unavoidable, the classified keying material must be under
      protection of a guard force, or protected by an alarm system
      approved by ACO-300, with immediate guard response capability.
      Frequent and irregular checks should be made of the area.                

      4.  Keyed Equipments.  Equipments which must be stored in a keyed
      condition must be protected in a manner consistent with the
      classification of the keying variable they contain.  Protection
      provided may never be less than for the classification of the
      unkeyed condition of the equipment.                                      

      5.  Split Variables.  Security procedures for equipments
      utilizing split variables will normally be addressed in the
      handling and security doctrine for the specific system.  In most
      cases, removal of part of a split variable permits the equipment
      to be handled as if it were unkeyed.
                          SECTION 2.  DISTRIBUTION                             

      1.  General.  COMSEC custodians are responsible for ensuring that
      keying materials are properly prepared for shipment, that only
      authorized means of shipment are used, that accounting and
      transfer reports are submitted on a timely basis, and that
      packages are examined upon receipt for signs of tampering and
      possible tampering reported.                                             

           a.  Preparation for Shipment.                                       

                (1)  Wrapping:  Keying material will be double-wrapped
      and securely sealed prior to shipment.                                   

                (2)  Markings:                                                 

                     (a)  Inner wrapping will be marked with the
      security classification of the material, "TO" and "FROM"
      addressees, the COMSEC account number, and the instruction "ATTN:
      COMSEC Custodian", or "To Be Opened Only By COMSEC Custodian" or
      equivalent, and the "CRYPTO" marking.                                    

                     (b)  Outer wrappings will contain the "TO" and
      "FROM" addressees and any other notations to facilitate delivery.
      The outer wrapping of the package shall not reveal whether the
      package contains classified information or keying material.
      Material transmitted by State Department diplomatic pouch must
      indicate that "Courier Accompaniment is Required."                       

           b.  Methods of Transmittal.                                         

                (1)  Keying materials must be moved in the custody of
      authorized, and, if classified material is involved, cleared
      department, service, agency, or contractor couriers, U.S.
      Diplomatic Courier Service, or Department of Defense Courier
      Service.  Refer to Annex B, NACSI 4005/AFR 56-13.                        

                (2)  For TOP SECRET keying material, two-person
      integrity controls shall apply whenever local couriers are used
      to transport TOP SECRET key material from a user COMSEC account
      to another user account or location.  Refer to NTISSI 4005.
      Controls shall apply whenever local couriers are used to
      transport TOP SECRET key material from a user COMSEC account to
      another user account or location.  Refer to NTISSI 4005.                 

                        FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                      PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                    DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552

               APPENDIX 8. ROUTINE DESTRUCTION AND EMERGENCY 
 PROTECTION OF COMSEC MATERIAL                      

      1.  INTRODUCTION.  This appendix implements the provisions of
      NTISSI Number 4004/AFR 56-5, and establishes standards and
      procedures for the routine and emergency destruction of COMSEC
      materials within the FAA.  The security that is achieved through
      the proper use of contemporary U.S. cryptosystems is heavily
      dependent upon the physical protection which is afforded the
      associated keying material.  Current and superseded keying
      material is extremely sensitive, since its compromise potentially
      exposes to compromise all traffic encrypted with it.                     

      2.  POLICY.                                                              

           a.  Keying Material.  Keying material must be destroyed as
      soon as possible after it has been superseded or has otherwise
      served its intended purpose.  Destruction reports are submitted
      in accordance with AFKAG-2.                                              

           b.  Defective or Faulty Key Material.  As an exception to
      the stated policy defective or faulty key will not be destroyed.
      Instead material in these categories will be reported to
      AFCSC/MMIA, through COMSEC channels, with information copies to
      DIRNSA/S042, and ACS-300.  The material will be held for
      disposition instructions.                                                

           c.  Superseded or Obsolete Cryptoequipment.  Destruction of
      superseded or obsolete cryptoequipment and its supporting
      documentation is also required.  FAA COMSEC accounts will request
      disposition instructions from AFCSC/MMIA.
           d.  Waste Paper Material.  All waste paper material, whether
      containing classified information or not, which is removed from
      the secure telecommunications facility or from the associated
      teletypewriter equipment area, shall be safeguarded and destroyed
      as classified waste.  Teletypewriter, printer, and typewriter
      ribbons used to process classified information will also be
      safeguarded and destroyed as classified material.                        

               SECTION 1.  PROCEDURES FOR ROUTINE DESTRUCTION
                             OF COMSEC MATERIAL                                

      3.  GENERAL.                                                             

           a.  Routine Destruction.  Routine destruction will normally
      be accomplished by the COMSEC custodian and the alternate COMSEC
      custodian(s).  However, this restriction should not preclude
      granting the authority to perform destruction of superseded
      material to additional appropriately cleared persons, who then
      certify the destruction to the COMSEC custodian, if such action
      is required to avoid delay in accomplishing the destruction.  The
      terms "appropriately cleared" and "cleared" mean possession of a
      security clearance for the highest classification of material to
      be destroyed.                                                            

           b.  FAA COMSEC Activities.  In FAA facilities the COMSEC
      custodian, alternate custodian, or appropriately cleared person
      designated by the custodian, will accomplish actual destruction
      in the presence of a cleared witness.                                    

           c.  Requirements.
                (1)  Routine destruction may be accomplished at the
      using facility by a cleared individual and witness.  The issuing
      COMSEC custodian must be advised by the user, either verbally or
      in writing, that the user has destroyed the material.  Verbal
      confirmation must be followed up with written confirmation of
      destruction as soon as possible.  For accounting purposes the
      COMSEC custodian will then consider the material destroyed.  In
      such cases, the COMSEC custodian must brief the user on the
      necessity for prompt and complete destruction of superseded
      keying material, and for prompt reporting of any loss of control
      of material before destruction could be accomplished.                    

                (2)  Extreme care must be taken not to accidentally
      destroy COMSEC material.  Do not destroy COMSEC material unless
      one or more of the following conditions exists:                          

                     (a)  The COMSEC custodian has issued instructions
      to the user.  For example, the material is listed on the COMSEC
      custodian's formal monthly destruction report or in a status
      document, such as AFKAG-14, as being authorized for destruction.         

                     (b)  A superseding document authorizes, in its
      handling instructions, the superseded document to be destroyed.          

                     (c)  The controlling authority supersedes the
      document and authorizes its destruction.                                 

                     (d)  Emergency destruction plans are in effect.           

                (3)  Destruction and witnessing officials for user
      accounts must be appointed in writing and a copy provided to the
      COMSEC custodian.                                                        

                (4)  The user records destruction of legend 1 and 2
      material by preparing two copies of each destruction report (SF
      153).  Users will send one copy to the COMSEC custodian and
      retain the other in the user COMSEC account files.                       

      4.  SCHEDULING ROUTINE DESTRUCTIONS.                                     

           a.  Keying Material.  Keying material designated CRYPTO
      which has been issued for use should be destroyed as soon as
      possible after supersession.  In any event, the destruction
      should be accomplished within not more than 12 hours after
      supersession.  Where special circumstances prevent compliance
      with the 12-hour standard the FAA facility manager having
      responsibility for COMSEC operations may grant an extension of up
      to 24 hours.                                                             

           b.  Complete Editions of Key Material.  Complete editions of
      superseded keying material designated CRYPTO which are held by a
      user account shall be destroyed within 5 days after supersession.
      Every effort must be made by COMSEC personnel however, to destroy
      the superseded material within the 12 hour period established as
      the standard.                                                            

           c.  Maintenance and Sample Key Material.  Maintenance and
      sample keying material not designated CRYPTO is not regularly
      superseded and need only be destroyed when physically
      unserviceable.                                                           

           d.  Classified COMSEC Publications.  Superseded classified
      COMSEC publications which are held by a user COMSEC account shall
      be destroyed within 15 days after supersession.  Every effort
      must be made by COMSEC account personnel to destroy superseded
      material within the 12 hour standard period.                             

           e.  Amendment Residue.  The residue of entered amendments to
      classified COMSEC publications shall be destroyed within 5 days
      after entry of the amendment.                                            

           f.  Compromised Material.  Compromised material will be
      destroyed no later than 12 hours after receipt of disposition
      instructions.  DO NOT destroy the COMSEC material involved in an
      investigation unless directed by NSA or AFCSC.                           

           g.  Correspondence.  When it has no further value destroy
      correspondence concerning superseded documents and material.             

      5.  ROUTINE DESTRUCTION METHODS.                                         

           a.  General.  The authorized methods for routinely
      destroying paper COMSEC material are burning, pulverizing or
      chopping, crosscut shredding, and pulping.  Nonpaper COMSEC
      material authorized for routine destruction must be destroyed by
      burning, chopping or pulverizing, or chemical alteration.  FAA
      COMSEC custodians are responsible for ensuring that destruction
      of paper COMSEC material is accomplished using an NSA-approved
      paper destruction device (some of which are also approved for
      destruction of printed circuit boards), and employing
      NSA-approved destruction methods.  In addition to the guidance
      provided in this order, all FAA COMSEC custodians must also be
      familiar with, and abide by, the requirements for destruction
      reflected in the following references:                                   

                (1)  NSA-approved paper destruction devices are listed
      in Annex B, NTISSI 4004/AFR 56-5.                                        

                (2)  NSA-approved destruction methods are explained in
      Annex C, NTISSI 4004/AFR5 6-5.
           b.  Paper COMSEC Material.  The criteria given below apply
      to classified COMSEC keying material and media which embody,
      describe, or implement a classified cryptographic logic.  Such
      media include full maintenance manuals, cryptographic
      descriptions, drawings of cryptographic logics, specifications
      describing a cryptographic logic, and cryptographic software.
      Other paper COMSEC material may be destroyed by any means that
      are listed in Chapter 9, FAA Order 1600.2C that are approved for
      other paper material of equal classification or sensitivity.             

                (1)  When destroying paper COMSEC material by burning,
      the combustion must be complete so that all material is reduced
      to white ash, and contained so that no burned pieces escape.
      Ashes must be inspected and, if necessary, broken up or reduced
      to sludge.                                                               

                (2)  When pulping, pulverizing, or chopping devices are
      used to destroy paper COMSEC material, they must reduce the
      material to bits no larger than 5 millimeters (0.197 inches) in
      any dimension.                                                           

                (3)  DO NOT PULP paper-mylar-paper key tape or high wet
      strength paper (map stock) and durable-medium paper substitute
      (e.g., TYVEC olefin, polyethylene fiber).  These materials will
      not reduce to pulp, and must be destroyed by burning,
      pulverizing, chopping or crosscut shredding.                             

                (4)  When crosscut (double cut) shredders are used to
      destroy COMSEC material, they must reduce the material to shreds
      not more than 3/64-inch (1.2 mm) in width and not more than
      1/2-inch (13 mm) in length, or not more than 1/35-inch (0.73 mm)
      in width and not more than 7/8-inch (22.2 mm) in length.                 

           c.  Nonpaper COMSEC Material.  The authorized methods of
      routinely destroying nonpaper COMSEC material are burning,
      melting, chopping, pulverizing, and chemical alteration.  The
      material must be destroyed to the extent that there is no
      possibility of reconstructing classified information by physical,
      chemical, electrical, optical, or other means.                           

                (1)  Microforms.  Microforms (microfilm, microfiche, or
      other reduced-image photo negatives), may be destroyed by burning
      or by chemical means, such as immersion in household bleach (for
      silver film masters), or acetone or methelyne chloride (for diazo
      reproductions) for approximately 5 minutes.  When destroying by
      chemical means, film sheets must be separated and roll film must
      be unrolled.  Refer to Annex C, NTISSI 4004/AFR 56-5, for
      additional methods and guidance.  Use caution when destroying by
      chemical means to avoid potential hazards.  Protective clothing
      and goggles should be worn.                                              

                (2)  Magnetic Media.  Magnetic or electronic storage or
      recording media are handled on an individual basis.  Refer to
      Annex C, NTISSI 4004/AFR 56-5.                                           

                (3)  Plastic Canisters.  The objective in destroying
      plastic canisters used to hold keying material is to disfigure
      the two large flat surfaces (sides) of the canister.  This can be
      accomplished by inserting the canister inside a zip-lock bag and
      either puncture or smash the empty canister.  An empty canister
      will shatter.  Do not attempt to destroy an empty canister
      without the noted safety precautions included in the handling
      instructions.  Zip-lock bags are not furnished with the
      canisters.  Adequate safety precautions must be taken to prevent
      injuries that could. be caused by flying pieces of plastic when
      the canister shatters.                                                   

           d.  COMSEC Equipment and Components.  Routine destruction of
      COMSEC equipment and components is NOT AUTHORIZED.  Equipment
      which is unserviceable and cannot be repaired, or which is no
      longer required shall be reported to ANC-120, and to ACO-300
      through the appropriate region/center servicing security element.
      Custodians should review and be familiar with the procedures
      contained in AFKAG-2, USAF COMSEC Accounting Procedures, for
      returning COMSEC equipment and components.  Equipment which is
      unserviceable or no longer required will be retained until
      disposition instructions are provided.                                   

      6.  REPORTING ROUTINE DESTRUCTION.                                       

           a.  General.  FAA COMSEC accounts will report routine
      destruction in accordance with guidance in chapter 6, AFKAG-2.
      FAA accounts and users must destroy and witness all classified
      COMSEC material and record the destruction on an SF 153.                 

           b.  Legend 1 and 2 Material.  Users of keycards, keytapes,
      and keylists will:                                                       

                (1)  Use the destruction record provided with the
      material to record destruction of each day's key settings as soon
      as possible after supersession but no later than 72 hours.  FAA
      facilities which have a normal Monday through Friday operation
      are authorized superseded weekend key settings on the Monday
      following that particular weekend.  If the supersession date
      falls on a non-duty day, return the material on the first duty
      day thereafter.                                                          

                (2)  Return keycard booklet covers or keylist booklets
      or keytape canisters and records of destruction as well as unused
      emergency key settings to the issuing FAA custodian or destroy as
      directed by the custodian no later than 24 hours after monthly
      supersession.                                                            

           c.  Legend 3 or 5 Material.                                         

                (1)  Superseded legend 3 or 5 material must be
      destroyed as soon as possible after use, but no later than 12
      hours after supersession.  The 12-hour time limit is authorized
      for use only when mission requirements preclude immediate
      destruction.                                                             

                (2)  Destroy Secret and Confidential COMSEC material
      (by appropriately cleared destruction and witnessing officials)
      and certify destruction on an SF-153.                                    

                (3)  FAA users will retain certificates of destruction
      (SF 153, COMSEC Material Report, or AFCOMSEC Form 1) for all
      classified legends 3 and 5 material for a period of 2 calendar
      years.                                                                   

           d.  Disposing of Legend 4 Material.  Classified or
      unclassified material is accountable to AFCSC by the accounting
      number or by the quantity on initial receipt and must be reported
      to AFCSC when it is transferred or becomes excess.                       

                (1)  When accounting legend 4 material is no longer
      needed or superseded, users must return the material, except
      amendment residue, to the issuing COMSEC account.                        

                (2)  FAA COMSEC accounts will forward a decrease
      request for the legend 4 material according to AFKAG-2.                  

                (3)  The issuing COMSEC account must destroy and
      witness classified legend 4 COMSEC material.  Destruction is
      recorded on an SF-153.                                                   

           e.  Destruction and Witnessing Official.  Both the
      destruction and the witnessing officials must sign all
      destruction reports subject to the following rules:                      

                (1)  The FAA COMSEC custodian, or alternate COMSEC
      custodian in the absence of the custodian, must sign the
      AFCSC-prepared monthly destruction report.                               

                (2)  Within FAA COMSEC accounts grade requirements are
      as specified in chapter 2, of this directive.                            

                (3)  For FAA COMSEC users, the destruction official
      will be an appropriately cleared responsible individual.  There
      is no grade requirement specified formally for users, therefore,
      facility and activity managers having responsibility for COMSEC
      must use their discretion when appointing responsible
      individuals, and must ensure that these individuals are
      trustworthy and knowledgeable.                                           

                (4)  Clearance requirements are:                               

                     (a)  Within FAA COMSEC-accounts, the witnessing
      official must meet the clearance requirements of the COMSEC
      material being destroyed.  If, for any reason, no one is
      available who meets this requirement, the COMSEC custodian may
      waive the clearance requirement for the witnessing official, in
      which case the witnessing official's examination of the material
      to be destroyed must be confined to the front cover of the
      material.                                                                

                     (b)  For FAA users, the witnessing official must
      meet the clearance requirements of the material being destroyed.
      In an emergency, the destruction official may waive the clearance
      requirement of the witnessing official, subject to the same
      precautions noted in (a), above.                                         

                           FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
                         PUBLIC AVAILABILITY TO BE
                        DETERMINED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 552


CONFIDENTIAL-Microsoft MSN Online Services Subpoena/Legal Compliance Guide

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MSN-Compliance_Page_1-791x1024.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MSN-Compliance_Page_2-791x1024.jpg

Video – Anonymous Message to Germany

New Film – President Kennedy a day before he was assassinated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhXgVuEsrtc&feature=channel_video_title

CONFIDENTIAL-Blizzard Entertainment World of Warcraft Law Enforcement Subpoena Guides

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blizzard2009_Page_01-791x1024.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blizzard2009_Page_10-799x1024.jpghttps://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blizzard2009_Page_15-791x1024.jpg

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL – AOL Information Request/Subpoena Guidelines

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AOL-2010_Page_01-791x1024.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AOL-2010_Page_11-791x1024.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AOL-2010_Page_13-791x1024.jpg

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

AOL-2010

CONFIDENTIAL-Egypt Protest Photos


[Image]Protesters keep a pathway clear to move injured people during nearby clashes with Egyptian riot police in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s ruling military moved up the date for transferring power to a civilian government to July next year and consulted Tuesday with political parties on forming a new Cabinet. But the major concessions were immediately rejected by tens of thousands of protesters in Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square threatening a “second revolution.” (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]Women protesters stand in a group during nearby clashes with Egyptian riot police in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s ruling military moved up the date for transferring power to a civilian government to July next year and consulted Tuesday with political parties on forming a new Cabinet. But the major concessions were immediately rejected by tens of thousands of protesters in Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square threatening a “second revolution.” (AP Photo/Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]Egyptian protesters perform prayers as they are guarded by other protesters who hold the national flag at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egyptian politicians say the ruling military has moved up the date for transferring power to a civilian government to July 1, 2012. (Ahmed Ali)
[Image]Protesters demonstrate during clashes with Egyptian riot police, not pictured, near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s ruling military moved up the date for transferring power to a civilian government to July next year and consulted Tuesday with political parties on forming a new Cabinet. But the major concessions were immediately rejected by tens of thousands of protesters in Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square threatening a “second revolution.” (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]Protesters chant slogans during clashes with the Egyptian riot police near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011.Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]A protester runs to throw a tear gas canister away during clashes with the Egyptian riot police near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011.Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Protesters run for cover during clashes with the Egyptian riot police near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Protesters carry a wounded man during clashes with the Egyptian riot police near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011.Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]A protester on a motorcycle chants slogans during clashes with the Egyptian riot police near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]An Egyptian riot police officer fires tear gas during clashes with protesters near Tahrir square in Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. Egypt’s civilian Cabinet has offered to resign after three days of violent clashes in many cities between demonstrators and security forces, but the action failed to satisfy protesters deeply frustrated with the new military rulers. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Egyptian protesters and riot police face off in Alexandria, Egypt, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. Security forces fired tear gas and clashed Monday with several thousand protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in the third straight day of violence that has killed dozens of people and has turned into the most sustained challenge yet to the rule of Egypt’s military.
[Image]Protesters gather in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. Security forces fired tear gas and clashed Monday with several thousand protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in the third straight day of violence that has killed dozens of people and has turned into the most sustained challenge yet to the rule of Egypt’s military.(Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Protesters evacuate a wounded man during clashes with Egyptian riot police to a field hospital near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. Security forces fired tear gas and clashed Monday with several thousand protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in the third straight day of violence that has killed at least two dozen people and has turned into the most sustained challenge yet to the rule of Egypt’s military. (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]Canadian volunteer nurse, Merikel, below right, helps an Egyptian medical team to treat an injured protester at a field hospital at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. Egyptian riot police clashed Monday with thousands of protesters demanding that the ruling military quickly announce a date to hand over power to an elected government. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Egyptian protesters throw stones at Egyptian riot police, unseen, in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. Police are clashing for a third day in Cairo’s central Tahrir Square with stone-throwing protesters demanding the country’s military rulers quickly transfer power to a civilian government. (Ahmed Ali)
[Image]Protesters throw stones as they take cover during clashes with Egyptian riot police near the interior ministry in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011. Firing tear gas and rubber bullets, Egyptian riot police on Sunday clashed for a second day with thousands of rock-throwing protesters demanding that the ruling military quickly announce a date to hand over power to an elected government. The police battled an estimated 5,000 protesters in and around central Cairo’s Tahrir Square.
[Image]Tear gas surrounds Egyptian riot police as they stand guard during clashes in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011. Thousands of police clashed with protesters for control of downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Saturday after security forces tried to stop activists from staging a long-term sit-in there. The violence took place just nine days before Egypt’s first elections since the ouster of longtime President Hosni Mubarak in February. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Egyptian riot police clash with protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011. Egyptian riot police beat protesters and dismantled a small tent city set up to commemorate revolutionary martyrs in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Saturday. The clashes occurred after activists camped in the central square overnight following a massive Friday rally. The military tolerates daytime demonstrations in the central square, a symbol of the country’s Jan. 25-Feb. 11 uprising.

OCCUPY-Movement – Pepper Sprayed-Maced Protests Photos

[Image]In this Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, photo University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike uses pepper spray to move Occupy UC Davis protesters while blocking their exit from the school’s quad Friday in Davis, Calif. Two University of California, Davis police officers involved in pepper spraying seated protesters were placed on administrative leave Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011, as the chancellor of the school accelerates the investigation into the incident. (Wayne Tilcock)
[Image]In this Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, photo Occupy University of California, Davis, protesters including David Buscho, far left, react after being pepper sprayed by police who came to remove tents set up on the school’s quad Friday in Davis, Calif. Two University of California, Davis police officers involved in pepper spraying seated protesters were placed on administrative leave Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011, as the chancellor of the school accelerates the investigation into the incident. (Wayne Tilcock)
[Image]In this Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, photo occupy protester David Buscho is helped after being pepper sprayed by campus police while blocking their exit from the school’s Quad Friday in Davis, Calif. Two University of California, Davis police officers involved in pepper spraying seated protesters were placed on administrative leave Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011, as the chancellor of the school accelerates the investigation into the incident. (Wayne Tilcock)
[Image]In this image made from video, a police officer uses pepper spray as he walks down a line of Occupy demonstrators sitting on the ground at the University of California, Davis on Friday, Nov. 18, 2011. The video – posted on YouTube – was shot Friday as police moved in on more than a dozen tents erected on campus and arrested 10 people, nine of them students. AP

[Image]

[Image]University of California, Davis, student Mike Fetterman, receives a treatment for pepper spray by UC Davis firefighter Nate Potter, after campus police dismantled an Occupy Wall Street encampment on the campus quad in Davis, Calif. , Friday, Nov. 18, 2011. UC Davis officials say eight men and two women were taken into custody. AP
[Image]A police officer uses pepper spray on an Occupy Portland protestor at Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland Ore. , Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011. AP
[Image]A protester affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement pours liquid over the eyes of another fellow protester to ease the pain from pepper spray during an unannounced raid by the New York City Police Department outside Zuccotti Park in New York, in the early hours of November 15, 2011. Police wearing helmets and carrying shields evicted protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement early on Tuesday from the park in New York City’s financial district where they have camped since September. Reuters
[Image]Seattle Police officers deploy pepper spray into a crowd during an Occupy Seattle protest on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at Westlake Park in Seattle. Protesters gathered in the intersection of 5th Avenue and Pine Street after marching from their camp at Seattle Central Community College in support of Occupy Wall Street. Many refused to move from the intersection after being ordered by police. Police then began spraying pepper spray into the gathered crowd hitting dozens of people. AP
[Image]Seattle activist Dorli Rainey, 84, reacts after being hit with pepper spray during an Occupy Seattle protest on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at Westlake Park in Seattle. Protesters gathered in the intersection of 5th Avenue and Pine Street after marching from their camp at Seattle Central Community College in support of Occupy Wall Street. Many refused to move from the intersection after being ordered by police. Police then began spraying pepper spray into the gathered crowd hitting dozens of people. AP
[Image]A woman who gave her name as Jennifer and said she was two months pregnant is rushed to an ambulance after being hit with pepper spray at an Occupy Seattle protest on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at Westlake Park in Seattle. Protesters gathered in the intersection of 5th Avenue and Pine Street after marching from their camp at Seattle Central Community College in support of Occupy Wall Street. Many refused to move from the intersection after being ordered by police. Police then began spraying pepper spray into the gathered crowd hitting dozens of people. AP
[Image]A man is treated by fellow protesters after he was sprayed in the face with pepper spray by police during the Occupy Seattle’s protest against JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in Seattle November 2, 2011. About 300 rain-soaked protesters blocked the street outside the Sheraton hotel where Dimon was scheduled to speak at an event organized by the University of Washington’s school of business. Reuters
[Image]A police officer escorts an Occupy Tulsa protestor who was pepper sprayed in the face while being arresting for an alleged curfew violation for inhabiting a city park at night at Centennial Green in downtown Tulsa, Okla. , early Wednesday morning Nov. 2, 2011. Police warned demonstrators that they were in violation of a city curfew and gave them the choice of leaving before applying pepper spray and forcibly removing demonstrators sitting in a circle at the park shortly before 2 a.m. AP
[Image]Protesters use a metal structure against riot police as the police use pepper spray against them during clashes outside the Greek parliament in Athens, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011. Greek anger over new austerity measures and layoffs erupted into violence outside parliament on Wednesday, as demonstrators hurled chunks of marble and gasoline bombs and riot police responded with tear gas and stun grenades that echoed across Athens’ main square. Wednesday was the first day of a two-day general strike that unions described as the largest protests in years, with at least 100,000 people marching through central Athens. AP
[Image]A San Diego Police officer maces a demonstrator at the Civic Center Plaza Friday, Oct. 14, 2011 in San Diego. Police on Friday began removing about a half-dozen tents after warning demonstrators that their personal belongings couldn’t stay in the Occupy San Diego camp. (Lenny Ignelzi)
[Image]A demonstrator receives help after San Diego Police used pepper spray during a demonstration at the Civic Center Plaza Friday, Oct. 14, 2011 in San Diego. Police on Friday began removing about a half-dozen tents after warning demonstrators that their personal belongings couldn’t stay in the Occupy San Diego camp. AP
[Image]A demomstrator tries to wash pepper spray from his eyes after a clash with the San Diego Police at the Civic Center Plaza Friday, Oct. 14, 2011 in San Diego. Police on Friday began removing about a half-dozen tents after warning demonstrators that their personal belongings couldn’t stay in the Occupy San Diego camp. AP
[Image]Two demonstrators cover themselves after San Diego Police used pepper spray during a protest at the Civic Center Plaza Friday, Oct. 14, 2011 in San Diego. Police on Friday began removing about a half-dozen tents after warning demonstrators that their personal belongings couldn’t stay in the Occupy San Diego camp. AP
[Image]One demonstrator helps another flush her eyes with water after after police pepper-sprayed a group of protestors, who were trying to get into the National Air and Space Museum in Washington Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna sprays protestors, 26 September 2011. Charlie Grapski via Daily Kos

[Image]

[Image]A protester is hit by pepper spray when police used them against protesters as they broke through a police cordon to carry out a sit-in protest in the Hong Kong’s central business district Friday, July 1, 2011, Tens of thousands people march to vent their anger over skyrocketing property prices and government policies, the 14th anniversary of the former British colony’s return to Chinese rule. AP
[Image]A riot police reacts, after his colleagues used pepper spray, against protesters outside the Health Ministry in Athens, Thursday, May 26, 2011. Police have used pepper spray to disperse protesting doctors and state hospital staff, in the latest protest against public spending cuts.
[Image]Israeli riot police detain a man whose face was sprayed with pepper spray during riots in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya on May 13, 2011 as Israeli police flooded the streets of Jerusalem, fearing violence as Palestinians began marking the ‘Nakba’ or ‘catastrophe’ which befell them following Israel’s establishment in 1948.
[Image]Police spray pepper gas and water canons at protesters in Ankara, Turkey, Thursday, Feb. 3, 2011, trying to stop a march on Parliament by workers protesting government-proposed legislation that they say will strip them of their rights. About ten thousands of workers, many of whom had traveled from across Turkey, had gathered in the capital Ankara and vowed to reach Parliament in defiance of laws that bar demonstrations near the assembly building. AP

 

Volcano Accident in Guatemala: Journalist being killed on duty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw7n5MwSLVc&feature=channel_video_title

CONFIDENTIAL-NYPD Patrol Guide Procedure 203-09: Officers Must Courteously Identify Themselves

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NYPD-OfficerIdentifyYourself.png

Civilians filed 231 allegations of “refusal to provide name and/or shield number” in 1999, 349 in 2000, 468 in 2001, and 636 in 2002, a 175% increase in just four years and an 82% increase in the last three years. During these same years, refusal to provide name and/or shield number constituted less than one percent, 5%, 8%, and 10% of all allegations the board substantiated. These increases led the CCRB to take a closer look at this allegation and summarize its findings in this report. As the basis for this mini-study, the agency chose to examine all complaints in which the civilian filed this allegation that the board closed after a full investigation between January 1 and June 30, 2002.

A word must first be said about the legal landscape in which this allegation exists. The New York City Police Department Patrol Guide, procedure 203-09 (Public Contact—General), states that officers must “give name and shield number to anyone requesting them.” New York City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”) has issued a number of recent opinions that examine what this patrol guide procedure requires of officers. In essence, these cases have held that the patrol guide procedure imposes an “affirmative obligation” to “give name and shield number to anyone requesting them;” in other words, a demand for a name or badge number demands an “affirmative response.”

1. As a result of a recommendation contained in the 2002 “New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board’s Status Report” and in order to claritY the obligation of members of the service to provide their name and shield number to the public, Patrol Guide procedure 203-09, “Public Contact- General” has been revised.

2. Therefore, effective immediately, Patrol Guide procedure 203-09, “Public Contact – General,” is amended as follows:

a. REVISE current step “1″, page “1″ to read:

“PUBLIC CONTACT

1. Courteously and clearly state your rank, name, shield number and command, or otherwise provide them, to anyone who requests you to do so. Allow the person ample time to note this information.”

3. Any provisions of the Department manual or other Department directive in conflict with the contents of this order are suspended.

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

NYPD-OfficerIdentifyYourself

Taliban show video with the execution of a person alleged spying for the CIA

Unveiled – Nazi Leaders Executed At Nuremberg

A short film I made, covering the execution of the former Nazi leaders in Nuremberg in October 1946.

CONFIDENTIAL-Clark Lytle Geduldig Cranford Occupy Wall Street Lobbyist Response Proposal for the American Bankers

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OWS-CLGC.png

Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracing the growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement to prevent Republican gains in Congress and the White House next year. We have seen this process of adopting extreme positions and movements to increase base voter turnout, including in the 2005-2006 immigration debate. This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leading companies of this sector is allowed to become an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinated Democratic campaign, it has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the Democratic party or even President Obama’s re-election team would campaign against Wall Street in this cycle. However the bigger concern should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies- and might start running against them too.

Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism. Both the radical left and t he radical right are channeling broader frustration about the state of the economy and share a mutual anger over TARP and other perceived bailouts. This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.

Democratic strategists have identified the OWS movement as a way to tap this populist anger. As an example, the L.A. Times reported that Robby Mook, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, wrote an email to supporters saying “protestors are assembling in New York and around the country to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans.”

They are certainly in the field right now testing messaging options and developing the plans to deploy them in ads, speeches, social media and grassroots communications as early as this year. The focus of those campaign efforts would be to tar the financial services sector- and in particular high-profile Wall Street investment house brands-as being responsible for the economic problems facing the country and middle class Americans. As the Democrat half of the well-known Battleground Survey polling team, Celinda Lake, said: “It has enormous potential.” It may be easy to dismiss OWS as a ragtag group of protestors but they have demonstrated that they should be treated more like an organized competitor who is very nimble and capable of working the media, coordinating third party support and engaging office holders to do their
bidding. To counter that, we have to do the same. Putting the cornerstone elements of a plan in place right now will prepare firms to respond quickly and collectively at the earliest and most influential point when embracing OWS goes from concept planning to execution. The cornerstone elements of a plan include: survey research and message testing, opposition research, targeted social media monitoring, coalition planning, and advertising creative and placement strategy development.

Targeted Social Media Monitoring

The transparency of social media platforms offers an excellent opportunity to anticipate future OWS tactics and messaging as well as identify extreme language and ideas that put its most ardent supporters at odds with mainstream Americans. These platforms may not be a place where engaging OWS supporters directly could be successful but with sophisticated monitoring and analytical tactics it could provide exceptional political intelligence.

Deliverable: We will conduct and report on an audit of most active social media platforms used by OWS with the identification of trends in their engagement. This audit will offer analysis of those trends and identify effective reporting tools to develop actionable intelligence that could be rapidly acted on when a campaign becomes fully operational.

Pricing

This initial effort to develop the cornerstone elements of a strategic campaign is achievable within 60 days and would best provide you with a range of effective response options if the move to adopt OWS continues on its current path. The cost of the deliverables identified above is $850,000.

DOWNLAOD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

Unveiled – The botched execution of the real SS-Commander Amon Goeth from Steven Spielbergs “Schindlers List”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgxoRLXiUPc&feature=related

Amon Goeth (full name Amon Leopold Göth) was a Nazi SS officer who was in charge of a concentration camp in Plaszow, Poland. After the war, the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland at Kraków found Göth guilty of murdering tens of thousands of people. He was hanged on September 13, 1946, aged 37, not far from the former site of the Płaszów camp. At his execution, Göth’s hands were tied behind his back. The executioner twice miscalculated the length of rope necessary to hang Göth, and it was only on the third attempt that the execution was successful.

TOP-SECRET FROM THE WHITE HOUSE – Implementation of Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties

Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 225 November 22, 2011 Part II Department of State ———————————————————————– 22 CFR Parts 120, 123, 124, et al. Implementation of Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules [[Page 72246]] ———————————————————————– DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, and 129 [Public Notice 7683] RIN 1400-AC95 Implementation of Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Proposed rule. ———————————————————————– SUMMARY: The Department of State is proposing to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to implement the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, and identify via a supplement the defense articles and defense services that may not be exported pursuant to the Treaties. Additionally, the Department of State proposes to amend the section pertaining to the Canadian exemption to reference the new supplement, and, with regard to Congressional certification, the Department of State proposes to add Israel to the list of countries and entities that have a shorter certification time period and a higher dollar value reporting threshold. DATES: The Department of State will accept comments on this proposed rule until December 22, 2011. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments within 30 days of the date of the publication by any of the following methods: Email: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with the subject line, Regulatory Change–Treaties. Persons with access to the Internet may also view and comment on this notice by searching for its RIN on the U.S. Government regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Heidema, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, Telephone (202) 663-2809; Fax (202) 261-8199; or Email DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change–Treaties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ———————————————————————— ITAR Part Proposed change ———————————————————————— Part 120…………………….. Section 120.19 revised to clarify meaning of reexport or retransfer; new Sec. Sec. 120.33 and 120.34 added to provide definitions of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties between the United States and Australia and the U.K., respectively; new Sec. Sec. 120.35 and 120.36 added to define the implementing arrangements pursuant to the Treaties between the United States and Australia and the United States and the U.K., respectively. Part 123…………………….. Clarifying edits made throughout section and references to new proposed Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17 added; Israel added to Sec. 123.9(e). Part 124…………………….. Sec. 124.11 revised to add Israel to the list of countries and entities subject to the 15-day time period regarding Congressional certification. Part 126…………………….. Clarifying edits made throughout section; Sec. 126.5(b) revised to reference the new supplement to part 126, consequently, Sec. Sec. 126.5(b)(1)-(21) are removed; Sec. 126.16 added to describe the exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia; Sec. 126.17 added to describe the exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom; Supplement No. 1 to part 126 added. Part 127…………………….. Clarifying edits made throughout section; revised to make reference to new proposed Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17. Part 129…………………….. Sections 129.6(b)(2), 129.7(a)(1)(vii), and 129.7(a)(2) revised to include Israel in the listing of countries and entities. ———————————————————————— These proposed amendments are pursuant to the Security Cooperation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-266), with the inclusion of other proposed changes. Title I of the Security Cooperation Act, the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties Implementation Act of 2010, implements the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia, done at Sydney, Australia, on September 5, 2007; and the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, done at Washington, DC and London on June 21 and 26, 2007, respectively (collectively referred to herein as the “Treaties”). We propose a supplement to part 126 that will identify those defense articles and defense services exempt from the scope of the Treaties. These proposed amendments would affect parts 120, 123, 126, and 127, with new sections in part 126 describing the licensing exemptions pursuant to the Treaties. Title III of the Security Cooperation Act creates for Israel a status in law similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the member countries of NATO, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea concerning certification to the Congress. Pursuant to the proposed change, we would require certification for transfers to Israel prior to granting any license or other approval for transactions of major defense equipment sold under a contract in the amount of $25,000,000 or more (currently required for amounts of $14,000,000 or more), or for defense articles and defense services sold under a contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more (currently required for amounts of $50,000,000 or more), and provided the transfer does not include any other countries. The change would also shorten from thirty (30) to fifteen (15) calendar days the certification time period during which approval may not be granted. This proposed amendment would affect parts 123, 124, and 129. Additionally, we are revising Sec. 126.5, describing the Canadian exemption, to reference the proposed supplement to part 126. This proposed amendment would affect part 126. Section by section identification of the proposed changes follows. We are revising the authority citation for part 120 to include Public Law 111-266; section 120.1 to reference the Treaties as authorities; and section 120.19 to clarify the meaning of reexport or retransfer. In Sec. 120.28, we are correcting an outdated reference (Shipper’s Export Declaration) to refer to the Electronic Export Information. We are proposing new Sec. Sec. 120.33 and 120.34 to provide definitions of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties between the United States and Australia and the U.K., respectively. Also, we are proposing new Sec. Sec. 120.35 and 120.36 to define the implementing arrangements pursuant to the Treaties between the United States and Australia and the United States and the U.K., respectively. The proposed change in Sec. 123.4 replaces the word “export” with the word “exporter.” In the last sentence in [[Page 72247]] Sec. 123.9(a), “a person” will replace “exporters,” and we are adding “destination” as an item that must be determined prior to the submission of an application or the claiming of an exemption. We are adding a note following this section. We are revising section 123.9(b) to expand the reference to documents, and to reference the new proposed Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17. We are adding clarifying language to Sec. Sec. 123.9(c), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and adding the language of the current (c)(4) to (c)(3). New language pertaining to new Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17 will comprise a new (c)(4). We are removing and reserving section 123.9(d). We are adding Israel to the list of countries and entities in Sec. 123.9(e); citing the new Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17 in Sec. 123.9(e)(1); and adding clarifying language to Sec. Sec. 123.9(e)(3) and (e)(4). We are adding Israel to the list of countries and entities in Sec. Sec. 123.15(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b). We are adding Australia and the United Kingdom to Sec. 123.16(a), and reference to the Electronic Export Information replaces reference to the Shipper’s Export Declaration in this section and in Sec. 123.16(b)(1)(iii). We are clarifying documents in Sec. 123.16(b)(2)(vi), and adding new Sec. Sec. 123.16(c) and (d) referencing the new Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17. Section 123.22(b)(2) replaces references to the Shipper’s Export Declaration with the Electronic Export Information. We are revising the title and text for Sec. 123.26. We are revising the authority citation for part 124 to include Public Law 111-266. We are revising section 124.11 to add Israel to the list of countries and entities subject to the 15-day time period regarding Congressional certification. We are revising the authority citation for part 126 to include Public Law 111-266, and revising section 126.1(e) for clarification. We are adding a section (e)(1), to contain the current requirement found in (e) to notify the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of any transactions that contravene the prohibitions of Sec. 126.1(a). We are reserving section (e)(2). We are revising section 126.3 to change “Director” to “Managing Director” and “Office” to “Directorate.” We are replacing references to Shipper’s Export Declaration with Electronic Export Information in Sec. 126.4(d). We are revising section 126.5(a) to change “Port Director” to “Port Directors.” We are revising section 126.5(b) to reference the new supplement to part 126; consequently, we are removing Sec. Sec. 126.5(b)(1)-(21). We are removing and reserving section 126.5(c) (defense services not subject to exemption will be covered by the new supplement to part 126). We are revising Section 126.5(d) to change “re-transfer” to “retransfer,” and revising Sec. 126.5(d)(2) Note 2 to reference the proposed new supplement to part 126. We are adding the terms “criminal complaint” and “other criminal charge” to Sec. 126.7(a)(3), and adding clarifying language to Sec. 126.7(a)(7). We are revising section 126.13(a) to include reference to Sec. 123.9; revising Sec. 126.13(a)(1) to add the terms “criminal complaint” and “other criminal charge”; and revising Sec. 126.13(a)(4) to include reference to Sec. 123.9. We are proposing section 126.16 to describe the exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia, and proposing Sec. 126.17 to describe the exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. We are proposing the addition of Supplement No. 1 to part 126, and this provision will delineate those items of the U.S. Munitions List that are outside the scope of the exemptions established by the Treaties and the Canadian exemptions at Sec. 126.5. We are revising the authority citation for part 127 to include Public Law 111-266. We are revising section 127.1 to make reference, where appropriate, to new proposed Sec. Sec. 126.16 and 126.17, and we are providing clarifying language, leading to the inclusion of a new proposed Sec. 127.1(e). We are adding the words “or attempt to use” in Sec. 127.2(a); “subchapter” will replace “section” in Sec. 127.2(b); we are adding “reexport” and “retransfer to Sec. 127.2(b)(1); adding “Electronic Export Information filing” to Sec. 127.2(b)(2); and proposing a new Sec. 127.2(b)(14). We are adding clarifying language to Sec. 127.3(a); adding the words “or by exemption” to Sec. 127.4(a); adding the words “or claim of an exemption” to Sec. 127.4(c); and proposing new Sec. 127.4(d). We are revising section 127.7(a) to remove the words “for which a license or approval is required by this subchapter.” In Sec. 127.10(a), we are modifying the word “approval” with addition of the word “written.” We are proposing new Sec. 127.12(b)(5). We are revising the structure of Sec. 127.12(d), removing an unnecessary level, and expanding the example list for “shipping documents”. We are revising sections 129.6(b)(2), 129.7(a)(1)(vii), and 129.7(a)(2) to include Israel in the listing of countries and entities. Regulatory Analysis and Notices Administrative Procedure Act The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from Sec. 553 (Rulemaking) and Sec. 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the Department is of the opinion that this proposed rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, the Department is publishing this proposed rule with a 30-day provision for public comment and without prejudice to its determination that controlling the import and export of defense services is a foreign affairs function. Regulatory Flexibility Act Since this proposed amendment is not subject to the notice-and- comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed amendment does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Executive Order 13175 The Department of State has determined that this proposed amendment will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirement of Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed amendment. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed amendment has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 This proposed amendment will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various [[Page 72248]] levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this proposed amendment. Executive Order 12866 The Department is of the opinion that restricting defense articles exports is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules governing the conduct of this function are exempt from the requirements of Executive order 12866. However, the Department has nevertheless reviewed this regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. Executive Order 12988 The Department of State has reviewed this proposed amendment in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Executive Order 13563 The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed amendment does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects 22 CFR Parts 120, 123, 124, and 126 Arms and Munitions, Exports. 22 CFR Part 127 Arms and Munitions, Crime, Exports, Penalties, Seizures and Forfeitures. 22 CFR Part 129 Arms and Munitions, Exports, Brokering. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, parts 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, and 129 are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 120–PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 120 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2794; E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; E.O. 13284, 68 FR 4075; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Pub. L. 111-266. 2. Section 120.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as follows: Sec. 120.1 General authorities and eligibility. (a) Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778), as amended, authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services. The statutory authority of the President to promulgate regulations with respect to exports of defense articles and defense services was delegated to the Secretary of State by Executive Order 11958, as amended. This subchapter implements that authority. Portions of this subchapter also implement the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. (Note, however, that the Treaties are not the source of authority for the prohibitions in part 127, but instead are the source of one limitation on the scope of such prohibitions.) By virtue of delegations of authority by the Secretary of State, these regulations are primarily administered by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade and Regional Security and the Managing Director of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. * * * * * (c) Receipt of Licenses and Eligibility. (1) A U.S. person may receive a license or other approval pursuant to this subchapter. A foreign person may not receive such a license or other approval, except as follows: (i) A foreign governmental entity in the United States may receive an export license or other export approval; (ii) A foreign person may receive a reexport or retransfer approval; and (iii) A foreign person may receive a prior approval for brokering activities. Requests for a license or other approval other than by a person referred to in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) will be considered only if the applicant has registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls pursuant to part 122 or 129 of this subchapter, as appropriate. (2) Persons who have been convicted of violating the criminal statutes enumerated in Sec. 120.27 of this subchapter, who have been debarred pursuant to part 127 or 128 of this subchapter, who are subject to indictment or are otherwise charged (e.g., by information) for violating the criminal statutes enumerated in Sec. 120.27 of this subchapter, who are ineligible to contract with, or to receive a license or other form of authorization to import defense articles or defense services from any agency of the U.S. Government, who are ineligible to receive an export license or other approval from any other agency of the U.S. Government, or who are subject to a Department of State policy of denial, suspension or revocation under Sec. 126.7(a) of this subchapter, or to interim suspension under Sec. 127.8 of this subchapter, are generally ineligible to be involved in activities regulated under this subchapter. (d) The exemptions provided in this subchapter do not apply to transactions in which the exporter, any party to the export (as defined in Sec. 126.7(e) of this subchapter), any source or manufacturer, broker or other participant in the brokering activities, is generally ineligible as set forth above in paragraph (c) of this section, unless prior written authorization has been granted by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. 3. Section 120.19 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 120.19 Reexport or retransfer. Reexport or retransfer means the transfer of defense articles or defense services to an end-use, end-user, or destination not previously authorized by license, written approval, or exemption pursuant to this subchapter. 4. Section 120.28 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 120.28 Listing of forms referred to in this subchapter. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) Electronic Export Information filed via the Automated Export System. * * * * * 5. Section 120.33 is added to read as follows: Sec. 120.33 Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia means the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [[Page 72249]] Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Sydney, September 5, 2007. For additional information on making exports pursuant to this treaty, see Sec. 126.16 of this subchapter. 6. Section 120.34 is added to read as follows: Sec. 120.34 Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom means the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Washington DC and London, June 21 and 26, 2007. For additional information on making exports pursuant to this treaty, see Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter. 7. Section 120.35 is added to read as follows: Sec. 120.35 Australia Implementing Arrangement. Australia Implementing Arrangement means the Implementing Arrangement Pursuant to the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Washington, March 14, 2008, as it may be amended. 8. Section 120.36 is added to read as follows: Sec. 120.36 United Kingdom Implementing Arrangement. United Kingdom Implementing Arrangement means the Implementing Arrangement Pursuant to the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Washington DC, February 14, 2008, as it may be amended. PART 123–LICENSES FOR THE EXPORT OF DEFENSE ARTICLES 9. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2753; E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2776; Pub. L. 105- 261, 112 Stat. 1920; Sec 1205(a), Pub. L. 107-228. 10. Section 123.4 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 123.4 Temporary import license exemptions. * * * * * (d) Procedures. To the satisfaction of the Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the importer and exporter must comply with the following procedures: * * * * * 11. Section 123.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), (e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(4), and removing and reserving paragraph (d), to read as follows: Sec. 123.9 Country of ultimate destination and approval of reexports or retransfers. (a) The country designated as the country of ultimate destination on an application for an export license, or in an Electronic Export Information filing where an exemption is claimed under this subchapter, must be the country of ultimate end use. The written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls must be obtained before reselling, transferring, reexporting, retransferring, transshipping, or disposing of a defense article to any end-user, end-use, or destination other than as stated on the export license, or in the Electronic Export Information filing in cases where an exemption is claimed under this subchapter, except in accordance with the provisions of an exemption under this subchapter that explicitly authorizes the resell, transfer, reexport, retransfer, transshipment, or disposition of a defense article without such approval. A person must determine the specific end-user, end-use, and destination prior to submitting an application to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls or claiming an exemption under this subchapter. Note to paragraph (a): In making the aforementioned determination, a person is expected to review all readily available information, including information available to the public generally as well as information available from other parties to the transaction. (b) The exporter shall incorporate the following statement as an integral part of the bill of lading, airway bill, or other shipping documents and the invoice whenever defense articles or defense services are to be exported or transferred pursuant to a license, other written approval, or an exemption under this subchapter, other than the exemptions contained in Sec. 126.16 and Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter (Note: for exports made pursuant to Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter, see Sec. 126.16(j)(5) or Sec. 126.17(j)(5)): “These commodities are authorized by the U.S. Government for export only to [country of ultimate destination] for use by [end-user]. They may not be transferred, transshipped on a non- continuous voyage, or otherwise be disposed of, to any other country or end-user, either in their original form or after being incorporated into other end-items, without the prior written approval of the U.S. Department of State.” (c) Any person requesting written approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for the reexport, retransfer, other disposition, or change in end use, end user, or destination of a defense article or defense service initially exported or transferred pursuant to a license or other written approval, or an exemption under this subchapter, must submit all the documentation required for a permanent export license (see Sec. 123.1 of this subchapter) and shall also submit the following: (1) The license number, written authorization, or exemption under which the defense article or defense service was previously authorized for export from the United States (Note: For exports under exemptions at Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter, the original end- use, program, project, or operation under which the item was exported must be identified.); (2) A precise description, quantity, and value of the defense article or defense service; (3) A description and identification of the new end-user, end-use, and destination; and (4) With regard to any request for such approval relating to a defense article or defense service initially exported pursuant to an exemption contained in Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter, written request for the prior approval of the transaction from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls must be submitted: (i) By the original U.S. exporter, provided a written request is received from a member of the Australian Community, as identified in Sec. 126.16 of this subchapter, or the United Kingdom Community, as identified in Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter (where such a written request includes a written certification from the member of the Australian Community or the United Kingdom Community providing the information set forth in this subsection); or (ii) By a member of the Australian Community or the United Kingdom Community, where such request provides the information set forth in this section. (d) [Reserved] (e) Reexports or retransfers of U.S.-origin components incorporated into a foreign defense article to NATO, NATO agencies, a government of a NATO [[Page 72250]] country, or the governments of Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea are authorized without the prior written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, provided: (1) The U.S.-origin components were previously authorized for export from the United States, either by a license, written authorization, or an exemption other than those described in either Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter; * * * * * (3) The person reexporting the defense article provides written notification to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the retransfer not later than 30 days following the reexport. The notification must state the articles being reexported and the recipient government. (4) The original license or other approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls did not include retransfer or reexport restrictions prohibiting use of this exemption. 12. Section 123.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) to read as follows: Sec. 123.15 Congressional certification pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act. (a) * * * (1) A license for the export of major defense equipment sold under a contract in the amount of $14,000,000 or more, or for defense articles and defense services sold under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more, to any country that is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea that does not authorize a new sales territory; or (2) A license for export to a country that is a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea, of major defense equipment sold under a contract in the amount in the amount of $25,000,000 or more, or for defense articles and defense services sold under a contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more, and provided the transfer does not include any other countries; or * * * * * (b) Unless an emergency exists which requires the proposed export in the national security interests of the United States, approval may not be granted for any transaction until at least 15 calendar days have elapsed after receipt by the Congress of the certification required by 22 U.S.C. 2776(c)(1) involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea or at least 30 calendar days have elapsed for any other country; in the case of a license for an export of a commercial communications satellite for launch from, and by nationals of, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, or Kazakhstan, until at least 15 calendar days after the Congress receives such certification. * * * * * 13. Section 123.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii), (b)(2)(vi), and adding paragraphs (c) and (d), to read as follows: Sec. 123.16 Exemptions of general applicability. (a) The following exemptions apply to exports of unclassified defense articles for which no approval is needed from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. These exemptions do not apply to: Proscribed destinations under Sec. 126.1 of this subchapter; exports for which Congressional notification is required (see Sec. 123.15 of this subchapter); MTCR articles; Significant Military Equipment (SME); and may not be used by persons who are generally ineligible as described in Sec. 120.1(c) of this subchapter. All shipments of defense articles, including but not limited to those to and from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, require an Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing or notification letter. If the export of a defense article is exempt from licensing, the EEI filing must cite the exemption. Refer to Sec. 123.22 of this subchapter for EEI filing and letter notification requirements. (b) * * * (1) * * * (iii) The exporter certifies in the EEI filing that the export is exempt from the licensing requirements of this subchapter. This is done by writing, “22 CFR 123.16(b)(1) and the agreement or arrangement (identify/state number) applicable”; and * * * * * (2) * * * (vi) The exporter must certify on the invoice, the bill of lading, air waybill, or shipping documents and in the EEI filing that the export is exempt from the licensing requirements of this subchapter. This is done by writing “22 CFR 123.16(b)(2) applicable”. * * * * * (c) For exports to Australia pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia refer to Sec. 126.16 of this subchapter. (d) For exports to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom refer to Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter. 14. Section 123.22 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 123.22 Filing, retention, and return of export licenses and filing of export information. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) Emergency shipments of hardware that cannot meet the pre- departure filing requirements. U.S. Customs and Border Protection may permit an emergency export of hardware by truck (e.g., departures to Mexico or Canada) or air, by a U.S. registered person, when the exporter is unable to comply with the Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing timeline in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. The applicant, or an agent acting on the applicant’s behalf, in addition to providing the EEI using the AES, must provide documentation required by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and this subchapter. The documentation provided to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the port of exit must include the External Transaction Number (XTN) or Internal Transaction Number (ITN) for the shipment and a copy of a notification to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls stating that the shipment is urgent accompanied by an explanation for the urgency. The original of the notification must be immediately provided to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The AES filing of the export information when the export is by air must be at least two hours prior to any departure from the United States; and, when a truck shipment, at the time when the exporter provides the articles to the carrier or at least one hour prior to departure from the United States, when the permanent export of the hardware has been authorized for export: * * * * * 15. Section 123.26 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 123.26 Recordkeeping for exemptions. Any person engaging in any export, reexport, transfer, or retransfer of a defense article or defense service pursuant to an exemption must maintain records of each such export, reexport, transfer, or retransfer. The records shall include the following information: A description of the defense article, including technical data, or defense service; the name and address of the end-user and other available contact information (e.g., telephone number and electronic mail address); the name of the natural person [[Page 72251]] responsible for the transaction; the stated end-use of the defense article or defense service; the date and time of the transaction; the Electronic Export Information (EEI) Internal Transaction Number (ITN); and the method of transmission. The person using or acting in reliance upon the exemption shall also comply with any additional recordkeeping requirements enumerated in the text of the regulations concerning such exemption. * * * * * PART 124–AGREEMENTS, OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT AND OTHER DEFENSE SERVICES 16. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2776; Pub. L. 105-261. 17. Section 124.11 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 124.11 Congressional certification pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. * * * * * (b) Unless an emergency exists which requires the immediate approval of the agreement in the national security interests of the United States, approval may not be granted until at least 15 calendar days have elapsed after receipt by the Congress of the certification required by 22 U.S.C. 2776(d)(1) involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that Organization, or Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea or at least 30 calendar days have elapsed for any other country. Approvals may not be granted when the Congress has enacted a joint resolution prohibiting the export. * * * * * PART 126–GENERAL POLICIES AND PROVISIONS 18. The authority citation for part 126 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp. p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266. 19. Section 126.1 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 126.1 Prohibited exports, imports, and sales to or from certain countries. * * * * * (e) Proposed sales. No sale, export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer and no proposal to sell, export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer any defense articles or defense services subject to this subchapter may be made to any country referred to in this section (including the embassies or consulates of such a country), or to any person acting on its behalf, whether in the United States or abroad, without first obtaining a license or written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. However, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, it is the policy of the Department of State to deny licenses and approvals in such cases. (1) Duty to Notify: Any person who knows or has reason to know of such a proposed or actual sale, export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer of such articles, services, or data must immediately inform the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Such notifications should be submitted to the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. (2) [Reserved] * * * * * 20. Section 126.3 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 126.3 Exceptions. In a case of exceptional or undue hardship, or when it is otherwise in the interest of the United States Government, the Managing Director, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, may make an exception to the provisions of this subchapter. 21. Section 126.4 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 126.4 Shipments by or for United States Government agencies. * * * * * (d) An Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing, required under Sec. 123.22 of this subchapter, and a written statement by the exporter certifying that these requirements have been met must be presented at the time of export to the appropriate Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection or Department of Defense transmittal authority. A copy of the EEI filing and the written certification statement shall be provided to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls immediately following the export. 22. Section 126.5 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c) and revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d) introductory text, and Notes 1 and 2, to read as follows: Sec. 126.5 Canadian exemptions. (a) Temporary import of defense articles. Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and postmasters shall permit the temporary import and return to Canada without a license of any unclassified defense articles (see Sec. 120.6 of this subchapter) that originate in Canada for temporary use in the United States and return to Canada. All other temporary imports shall be in accordance with Sec. Sec. 123.3 and 123.4 of this subchapter. (b) Permanent and temporary export of defense articles. Except as provided in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter and for exports that transit third countries, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and postmasters shall permit, when for end-use in Canada by Canadian Federal or Provincial governmental authorities acting in an official capacity or by a Canadian-registered person for return to the United States, the permanent and temporary export to Canada without a license of unclassified defense articles and defense services identified on the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR 121.1). The exceptions noted above are subject to meeting the requirements of this subchapter, to include 22 CFR 120.1(c) and (d), parts 122 and 123 (except insofar as exemption from licensing requirements is herein authorized) and Sec. 126.1, and the requirement to obtain non-transfer and use assurances for all significant military equipment. For purposes of this section, “Canadian-registered person” is any Canadian national (including Canadian business entities organized under the laws of Canada), dual citizen of Canada and a third country other than a country listed in Sec. 126.1, and permanent resident registered in Canada in accordance with the Canadian Defense Production Act, and such other Canadian Crown Corporations identified by the Department of State in a list of such persons publicly available through the Internet Web site of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and by other means. (c) [Reserved] (d) Reexports/retransfer. Reexport/retransfer in Canada to another end user or end use or from Canada to another destination, except the United States, must in all instances have the prior approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Unless otherwise exempt in this subchapter, the original exporter is responsible, upon request from a Canadian-registered person, for obtaining or providing reexport/ retransfer approval. In any instance when the U.S. exporter is no longer available to the Canadian end user the [[Page 72252]] request for reexport/retransfer may be made directly to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. All requests must include the information in Sec. 123.9(c) of this subchapter. Reexport/retransfer approval is acquired by: * * * * * Notes to Sec. 126.5: 1. In any instance when the exporter has knowledge that the defense article exempt from licensing is being exported for use other than by a qualified Canadian-registered person or for export to another foreign destination, other than the United States, in its original form or incorporated into another item, an export license must be obtained prior to the transfer to Canada. 2. Additional exemptions exist in other sections of this subchapter that are applicable to Canada, for example Sec. Sec. 123.9, 125.4, and 124.2, that allow for the performance of defense services related to training in basic operations and maintenance, without a license, for certain defense articles lawfully exported, including those identified in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter. 23. Section 126.7 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(7) and (e) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 126.7 Denial, revocation, suspension, or amendment of licenses and other approvals. (a) * * * (3) An applicant is the subject of a criminal complaint, other criminal charge (e.g., an information), or indictment for a violation of any of the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in Sec. 120.27 of this subchapter; or * * * * * (7) An applicant has failed to include any of the information or documentation expressly required to support a license application, exemption, or other request for approval under this subchapter, or as required in the instructions in the applicable Department of State form or has failed to provide notice or information as required under this subchapter; or * * * * * (e) Special definition. For purposes of this subchapter, the term “Party to the Export” means: * * * * * 24. Section 126.13 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), and (a)(4) to read as follows: Sec. 126.13 Required information. (a) All applications for licenses (DSP-5, DSP-61, DSP-73, and DSP- 85), all requests for approval of agreements and amendments thereto under part 124 of this subchapter, and all requests for other written authorizations (including requests for retransfer or reexport pursuant to Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter) must include a letter signed by a responsible official empowered by the applicant and addressed to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, stating whether: (1) The applicant or the chief executive officer, president, vice- presidents, other senior officers or officials (e.g., comptroller, treasurer, general counsel) or any member of the board of directors is the subject of a criminal complaint, other criminal charge (e.g., an information), or indictment for or has been convicted of violating any of the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in Sec. 120.27 of this subchapter since the effective date of the Arms Export Control Act, Public Law 94-329, 90 Stat. 729 (June 30, 1976); * * * * * (4) The natural person signing the application, notification or other request for approval (including the statement required by this subsection) is a citizen or national of the United States, has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (and maintains such lawful permanent residence status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101(a), section 101(a)20, 60 Stat. 163), or is an official of a foreign government entity in the United States, or is a foreign person making a request pursuant to Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter. * * * * * 25. Section 126.16 is added to read as follows: Sec. 126.16 Exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia. (a) Scope of exemption and required conditions. (1) Definitions. (i) An export means, for purposes of this section only, the initial movement of defense articles or defense services from the United States Community to the Australian Community. (ii) A transfer means, for purposes of this section only, the movement of a defense article or defense service, previously exported, by a member of the Australian Community within the Australian Community, or between a member of the United States Community and a member of the Australian Community. (iii) Retransfer and reexport have the meaning provided in Sec. 120.19 of this subchapter. (iv) Intermediate consignee means, for purposes of this section, an entity or person who receives defense articles, including technical data, but who does not have access to such defense articles, for the sole purpose of effecting onward movement to members of the Approved Community. (2) Persons or entities exporting or transferring defense articles or defense services are exempt from the otherwise applicable licensing requirements if such persons or entities comply with the regulations set forth in this section. Except as provided in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and postmasters shall permit the permanent and temporary export without a license to members of the Australian Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the Australian Community) of defense articles and defense services not listed in Supplement No. 1 to part 126, for the end-uses specifically identified pursuant to paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. The purpose of this section is to specify the requirements to export, transfer, reexport, retransfer, or otherwise dispose of a defense article or defense service pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia. (3) Export. In order for an exporter to export a defense article or defense service pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia, all of the following conditions must be met: (i) The exporter must be registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and must be eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to obtain an export license (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government without restriction (see paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for specific requirements); (ii) The recipient of the export must be a member of the Australian Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the Australian Community). Australian entities and facilities that become ineligible for such membership will be removed from the Australian Community; (iii) Intermediate consignees involved in the export must be eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to handle or receive a defense article or defense service without restriction (see paragraph (k) of this section for specific requirements); (iv) The export must be for an end-use specified in the Defense Trade [[Page 72253]] Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and mutually agreed to by the U.S. Government and the Government of Australia pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the Implementing Arrangement thereto (the Australia Implementing Arrangement) (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); (v) The defense article or defense service is not excluded from the scope of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia (see paragraph (g) of this section and Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter for specific information on the scope of items excluded from export under this exemption) and is marked or identified, at a minimum, as “Restricted USML” (see paragraph (j) of this section for specific requirements on marking exports); (vi) All required documentation of such export is maintained by the exporter and recipient and is available upon the request of the U.S. Government (see paragraph (l) of this section for specific requirements); and (vii) The Department of State has provided advance notification to the Congress, as required, in accordance with this section (see paragraph (o) of this section for specific requirements). (4) Transfers. In order for a member of the Australian Community to transfer a defense article or defense service under the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia, all of the following conditions must be met: (i) The defense article or defense service must have been previously exported in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section or transitioned from a license or other approval in accordance with paragraph (i) Transitions of this section; (ii) The transferor and transferee of the defense article or defense service are members of the Australian Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the Australian Community) or the United States Community (see paragraph (b) for information on the United States Community/approved exporters); (iii) The transfer is required for an end-use specified in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and mutually agreed to by the United States and the Government of Australia pursuant to the terms of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the Australia Implementing Arrangement (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); (iv) The defense article or defense service is not identified in paragraph (g) of this section and Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter as ineligible for export under this exemption, and is marked or otherwise identified, at a minimum, as “Restricted USML” (see paragraph (j) of this section for specific requirements on marking exports); (v) All required documentation of such transfer is maintained by the transferor and transferee and is available upon the request of the U.S. Government (see paragraph (l) of this section for specific requirements); and (vi) The Department of State has provided advance notification to the Congress in accordance with this section (see paragraph (o) of this section for specific requirements). (5) This section does not apply to the export of defense articles or defense services from the United States pursuant to the Foreign Military Sales program. (b) Authorized exporters. The following persons compose the United States Community and may export defense articles and defense services pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia: (1) Departments and agencies of the U.S. Government, including their personnel, with, as appropriate, a security clearance and a need- to-know; and (2) Nongovernmental U.S. persons registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to obtain an export license (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government without restriction, including their employees acting in their official capacity with, as appropriate, a security clearance and a need-to-know. (c) An exporter that is otherwise an authorized exporter pursuant to subsection (b) above may not export pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia if the exporter’s president, chief executive officer, any vice-president, any other senior officer or official (e.g., comptroller, treasurer, general counsel); any member of the board of directors of the exporter; any party to the export; or any source or manufacturer is ineligible to receive export licenses (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government. (d) Australian Community. For purposes of the exemption provided by this section, the Australian Community consists of the Australian entities and facilities identified as members of the Approved Community through the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Web site at the time of a transaction under this section; Australian entities and facilities that become ineligible for such membership will be removed from the Australian Community. (e) Authorized End-uses. The following end-uses, subject to subsection (f), are specified in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia: (1) United States and Australian combined military or counter- terrorism operations; (2) United States and Australian cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs; (3) Mutually determined specific security and defense projects where the Government of Australia is the end-user; or (4) U.S. Government end-use. (f) Procedures for identifying authorized end-uses pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section: (1) Operations, programs, and projects that can be publicly identified will be posted on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site; (2) Operations, programs, and projects that cannot be publicly identified will be confirmed in written correspondence from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; or (3) U.S. Government end-use will be identified specifically in a U.S. Government contract or solicitation as being eligible under the Treaty. (4) No other operations, programs, projects, or end-uses qualify for this exemption. (g) Items eligible under this section. With the exception of items listed in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter, defense articles and defense services may be exported under this section subject to the following: (1) An exporter authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section may market a defense article to the Government of Australia if that exporter has been licensed by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to export (as defined by Sec. 120.17 of this subchapter) the identical type of defense article to any foreign person. (2) The export of any defense article specific to the existence of (e.g., reveals the existence of or details of) anti-tamper measures made at U.S. Government direction always requires [[Page 72254]] prior written approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. (3) U.S.-origin classified defense articles or defense services may be exported only pursuant to a written request, directive, or contract from the U.S. Department of Defense that provides for the export of the classified defense article(s) or defense service(s). (4) Defense articles specific to developmental systems that have not obtained written Milestone B approval from the Department of Defense milestone approval authority are not eligible for export unless such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the Department of Defense for an end-use identified pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1), (2), or (4) of this section. (5) Defense articles excluded by paragraph (g) of this section or Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter (e.g., USML Category XI(a)(3) electronically scanned array radar) that are embedded in a larger system that is eligible to ship under this section (e.g., a ship or aircraft) must separately comply with any restrictions placed on that embedded defense article under this subsection. The exporter must obtain a license or other authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for the export of such embedded defense articles (for example, USML Category XI(a)(3) electronically scanned array radar systems that are exempt from this section that are incorporated in an aircraft that is eligible to ship under the this section continue to require separate authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for their export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer). (6) No liability shall be incurred by or attributed to the U.S. Government in connection with any possible infringement of privately owned patent or proprietary rights, either domestic or foreign, by reason of an export conducted pursuant to this section. (7) Sales by exporters made through the U.S. Government shall not include either charges for patent rights in which the U.S. Government holds a royalty-free license, or charges for information which the U.S. Government has a right to use and disclose to others, which is in the public domain, or which the U.S. Government has acquired or is entitled to acquire without restrictions upon its use and disclosure to others. (h) Transfers, Retransfers, and Reexports. (1) Any transfer of a defense article or defense service not exempted in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter by a member of the Australian Community (see paragraph (d) of this section for specific information on the identification of the Community) to another member of the Australian Community or the United States Community for an end-use that is authorized by this exemption (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) is authorized under this exemption. (2) Any transfer or other provision of a defense article or defense service for an end-use that is not authorized by the exemption provided by this section is prohibited without a license or the prior written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses). (3) Any retransfer or reexport, or other provision of a defense article or defense service by a member of the Australian Community to a foreign person that is not a member of the Australian Community, or to a U.S. person that is not a member of the United States Community, is prohibited without a license or the prior written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraph (d) of this section for specific information on the identification of the Australian Community). (4) Any change in the use of a defense article or defense service previously exported, transferred, or obtained under this exemption by any foreign person, including a member of the Australian Community, to an end-use that is not authorized by this exemption is prohibited without a license or other written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses). (5) Any retransfer, reexport, or change in end-use requiring such approval of the U.S. Government shall be made in accordance with Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter. (6) Defense articles excluded by paragraph (g) of this section or Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter (e.g., USML Category XI(a)(3) electronically scanned array radar) that are embedded in a larger system that is eligible to ship under this section (e.g., a ship or aircraft) must separately comply with any restrictions placed on that embedded defense article unless otherwise specified. A license or other authorization must be obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for the retransfer, reexport or change in end-use of any such embedded defense article (for example, USML Category XI(a)(3) electronically scanned radar systems that are exempt from this section that are incorporated in an aircraft that is eligible to ship under the this section continue to require separate authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for their export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer). (7) A license or prior approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is not required for a transfer, retransfer, or reexport of an exported defense article or defense service under this section, if: (i) The transfer of defense articles or defense services is made by a member of the United States Community to Australian Department of Defense (ADOD) elements deployed outside the Territory of Australia and engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using ADOD transmission channels or the provisions of this section (Note: For purposes of paragraph (h)(7)(i)-(iv), per Section 9(9) of the Australia Implementing Arrangement, “ADOD Transmission channels” includes electronic transmission of a defense article and transmission of a defense article by an ADOD contracted carrier or freight forwarder that merely transports or arranges transport for the defense article in this instance.); (ii) The transfer of defense articles or defense services is made by a member of the United States Community to an Approved Community member (either U.S. or Australian) that is operating in direct support of Australian Department of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of Australia and engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using ADOD transmission channels or the provisions of this section; (iii) The reexport is made by a member of the Australian Community to Australian Department of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of Australia engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using ADOD transmission channels or the provisions of this section; (iv) The retransfer or reexport is made by a member of the Australian Community to an Approved Community member (either United States or Australian) that is operating in direct support of Australian Department of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of Australia engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using ADOD transmission channels or the provisions of this section; or [[Page 72255]] (v) The defense article or defense service will be delivered to the Australian Department of Defense for an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); the Australian Department of Defense may deploy the item as necessary when conducting official business within or outside the Territory of Australia. The item must remain under the effective control of the Australian Department of Defense while deployed and access may not be provided to unauthorized third parties. (8) U.S. persons registered, or required to be registered, pursuant to part 122 of this subchapter and Members of the Australian Community must immediately notify the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of any actual or proposed sale, retransfer, or reexport of a defense article or defense service on the U.S. Munitions List originally exported under this exemption to any of the countries listed in Sec. 126.1 of this subchapter, any citizen of such countries, or any person acting on behalf of such countries, whether within or outside the United States. Any person knowing or having reason to know of such a proposed or actual sale, reexport, or retransfer shall submit such information in writing to the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. (i) Transitions. (1) Any previous export of a defense article under a license or other approval of the U.S. Department of State remains subject to the conditions and limitations of the original license or authorization unless the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has approved in writing a transition to this section. (2) If a U.S. exporter desires to transition from an existing license or other approval to the use of the provisions of this section, the following is required: (i) The U.S. exporter must submit a written request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, which identifies the defense articles or defense services to be transitioned, the existing license(s) or other authorizations under which the defense articles or defense services were originally exported; and the Treaty-eligible end- use for which the defense articles or defense services will be used. Any license(s) filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection should remain on file until the exporter has received approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to retire the license(s) and transition to this section. When this approval is conveyed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the license(s) will be returned to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in accordance with existing procedures for the return of expired licenses in Sec. 123.22(c) of this subchapter. (ii) Any license(s) not filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection must be returned to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls with a letter citing the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ approval to transition to this section as the reason for returning the license(s). (3) If a member of the Australian Community desires to transition defense articles received under an existing license or other approval to the processes established under the Treaty, the Australian Community member must submit a written request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, either directly or through the original U.S. exporter, which identifies the defense articles or defense services to be transitioned, the existing license(s) or other authorizations under which the defense articles or defense services were received, and the Treaty-eligible end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) for which the defense articles or defense services will be used. The defense article or defense service shall remain subject to the conditions and limitations of the existing license or other approval until the Australian Community member has received approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to transition to this section. (4) Authorized exporters identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section who have exported a defense article or defense service that has subsequently been placed on the list of exempted items in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter must review and adhere to the requirements in the relevant Federal Register notice announcing such removal. Once removed, the defense article or defense service will no longer be subject to this section, such defense article or defense service previously exported shall remain on the U.S. Munitions List and be subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations unless the applicable Federal Register notice states otherwise. Subsequent reexport or retransfer must be made pursuant to Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter. (5) Any defense article or defense service transitioned from a license or other approval to treatment under this section must be marked in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section. (j) Marking of Exports. (1) All defense articles and defense services exported or transitioned pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and this section shall be marked or identified as follows: (i) For classified defense articles and defense services the standard marking or identification shall read: “//CLASSIFICATION LEVEL USML//REL AUS and USA Treaty Community//.” For example, for defense articles classified SECRET, the marking or identification shall be “// SECRET USML//REL AUS and USA Treaty Community//.” (ii) Unclassified defense articles and defense services exported under or transitioned pursuant to this section shall be AUS classified as “Restricted USML” and, the standard marking or identification shall read “//RESTRICTED USML//REL AUS and USA Treaty Community//.” (2) Where defense articles are returned to a member of the United States Community identified in paragraph (b) of this section, any defense articles AUS classified and marked or identified pursuant to paragraph j(1)(ii) of this section as “//RESTRICTED USML//REL AUS and USA Treaty Community//” shall no longer be AUS classified and such marking or identification shall be removed; and (3) The standard marking and identification requirements are as follows: (i) Defense articles (other than technical data) shall be individually labeled with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section; or, where such labeling is impracticable (e.g., propellants, chemicals), shall be accompanied by documentation (such as contracts or invoices) clearly associating the defense articles with the appropriate markings as detailed above; (ii) Technical data (including data packages, technical papers, manuals, presentations, specifications, guides and reports), regardless of media or means of transmission (physical or electronic), shall be individually labeled with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section; or, where such labeling is impracticable (oral presentations), shall have a verbal notification clearly associating the technical data with the appropriate markings as detailed above; and (4) Contracts and agreements for the provision of defense services shall be identified with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section. (5) The exporter shall incorporate the following statement as an integral part [[Page 72256]] of all shipping documentation (airway bill, bill of lading, manifest, packing documents, delivery verification, invoice, etc.) whenever defense articles are to be exported: “These commodities are authorized by the U.S. Government for export only to Australia for use in approved projects, programs or operations by members of the Australian Community. They may not be retransferred or reexported or used outside of an approved project, program or operation, either in their original form or after being incorporated into other end-items, without the prior written approval of the U.S. Department of State.” (k) Intermediate Consignees. (1) Unclassified exports under this section may only be handled by: (i) U.S. intermediate consignees who are: (A) Exporters registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and eligible; (B) Licensed customs brokers who are subject to background investigation and have passed a comprehensive examination administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection; or (C) Commercial air freight and surface shipment carriers, freight forwarders, or other parties not exempt from registration under Sec. 129.3(b)(3) of this subchapter that are identified at the time of export as being on the list of Authorized U.S. Intermediate Consignees, which is available on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site. (ii) Australian intermediate consignees who are: (A) Members of the Australian Community; or (B) Freight forwarders, customs brokers, commercial air freight and surface shipment carriers, or other Australian parties that are identified at the time of export as being on the list of Authorized Australian Intermediate Consignees, which is available on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site. (2) Classified exports must comply with the security requirements of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M and supplements or successors). (l) Records. (1) All exporters authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section who export pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and this section shall maintain detailed records of all exports, imports, and transfers made by that exporter of defense articles or defense services subject to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the requirements of this section. Exporters shall also maintain detailed records of any reexports and retransfers approved or otherwise authorized by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of defense articles or defense services subject to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the requirements of this section. These records shall be maintained for a minimum of five years from the date of export, import, transfer, reexport, or retransfer and shall be made available upon request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or any other authorized U.S. law enforcement officer. Records in an electronic format must be maintained using a process or system capable of reproducing all records on paper. Such records when displayed on a viewer, monitor, or reproduced on paper, must exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability. (For the purpose of this section, “legible” and “legibility” mean the quality of a letter or numeral that enables the observer to identify it positively and quickly to the exclusion of all other letters or numerals. “Readable” and “readability” means the quality of a group of letters or numerals being recognized as complete words or numbers.) These records shall consist of the following: (i) Port of entry/exit; (ii) Date/time of export/import; (iii) Method of export/import; (iv) Commodity code and description of the commodity, including technical data; (v) Value of export; (vi) Reference to this section and justification for export under the Treaty; (vii) End-user/end-use; (viii) Identification of all U.S. and foreign parties to the transaction; (ix) How the export was marked; (x) Classification of the export; (xi) All written correspondence with the U.S. Government on the export; (xii) All information relating to political contributions, fees, or commissions furnished or obtained, offered, solicited, or agreed upon as outlined in paragraph (m) of this section; (xiii) Purchase order or contract; (xiv) Technical data actually exported; (xv) The Internal Transaction Number for the Electronic Export Information filing in the Automated Export System; (xvi) All shipping documentation (airway bill, bill of lading, manifest, packing documents, delivery verification, invoice, etc.); and (xvii) Statement of Registration (Form DS-2032). (2) Filing of export information. All exporters of defense articles and defense services under the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and the requirements of this section must electronically file Electronic Export Information (EEI) using the Automated Export System citing one of the four below referenced codes in the appropriate field in the EEI for each shipment: (i) 126.16(e)(1): used for exports in support of United States and Australian combined military or counter-terrorism operations (the name or an appropriate description of the operation shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); (ii) 126.16(e)(2): used for exports in support of United States and Australian cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs (the name or an appropriate description of the program shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); (iii) 126.16(e)(3): used for exports in support of mutually determined specific security and defense projects where the Government of Australia is the end-user (the name or an appropriate description of the project shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); or (iv) 126.16(e)(4): used for exports that will have a U.S. Government end-use (the U.S. Government contract number or solicitation number (e.g., “U.S. Government contract number XXXXX”) shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well). Such exports must meet the required export documentation and filing guidelines, including for defense services, of Sec. 123.22(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of this subchapter. (m) Fees and Commissions. All exporters authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall, with respect to each export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer, pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and this section, submit a statement to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls containing the information identified in Sec. 130.10 of this subchapter relating to fees, commissions, and political contributions on contracts or other instruments valued in an amount of $500,000 or more. (n) Violations and Enforcement. (1) Exports, transfers, reexports, and retransfers that do not comply with the conditions prescribed in this section will constitute violations of the Arms Export Control Act and this subchapter, [[Page 72257]] and are subject to all relevant criminal, civil, and administrative penalties (see Sec. 127.1 of this subchapter), and may also be subject to other statutes or regulations. (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have the authority to investigate, detain, or seize any export or attempted export of defense articles that does not comply with this section or that is otherwise unlawful. (3) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other authorized U.S. law enforcement officers may require the production of documents and information relating to any actual or attempted export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer pursuant to this section. Any foreign person refusing to provide such records within a reasonable period of time shall be suspended from the Australian Community and ineligible to receive defense articles or defense services pursuant to the exemption under this section or otherwise. (o) Procedures for Legislative Notification. (1) Exports pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and Australia and this section by any person identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall not take place until 30 days after the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has acknowledged receipt of a Form DS-4048 (entitled, “Projected Sales of Major Weapons in Support of Section 25(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act”) from the exporter notifying the Department of State if the export involves one or more of the following: (i) A contract or other instrument for the export of major defense equipment in the amount of $25,000,000 or more, or for defense articles and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more; (ii) A contract or other instrument for the export of firearms controlled under Category I of the U.S. Munitions List of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in an amount of $1,000,000 or more; (iii) A contract or other instrument, regardless of value, for the manufacturing abroad of any item of significant military equipment; or (iv) An amended contract or other instrument that meets the requirements of paragraphs (o)(1)(i)-(o)(1)(iii) of this section. (2) The Form DS-4048 required in paragraph (o)(1) of this section shall be accompanied by the following additional information: (i) The information identified in Sec. 130.10 and Sec. 130.11 of this subchapter; (ii) A statement regarding whether any offset agreement is proposed to be entered into in connection with the export and a description of any such offset agreement; (iii) A copy of the signed contract or other instrument; and (iv) If the notification is for paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, a statement of what will happen to the weapons in their inventory (for example, whether the current inventory will be sold, reassigned to another service branch, destroyed, etc.). (3) The Department of State will notify the Congress of exports that meet the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) of this section. 26. Section 126.17 is added to read as follows: Sec. 126.17 Exemption pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. (a) Scope of exemption and required conditions. (1) Definitions. (i) An export means, for purposes of this section only, the initial movement of defense articles or defense services from the United States to the United Kingdom Community. (ii) A transfer means, for purposes of this section only, the movement of a defense article or defense service, previously exported, by a member of the United Kingdom Community within the United Kingdom Community, or between a member of the United States Community and a member of the United Kingdom Community. (iii) Retransfer and reexport have the meaning provided in Sec. 120.19 of this subchapter. (iv) Intermediate consignee means, for purposes of this section, an entity or person who receives defense articles, including technical data, but who does not have access to such defense articles, for the sole purpose of effecting onward movement to members of the Approved Community. (2) Persons or entities exporting or transferring defense articles or defense services are exempt from the otherwise applicable licensing requirements if such persons or entities comply with the regulations set forth in this section. Except as provided in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and postmasters shall permit the permanent and temporary export without a license to members of the United Kingdom Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the United Kingdom Community) of defense articles and defense services not listed in Supplement No. 1 to part 126, for the end-uses specifically identified pursuant to paragraphs (e) and (f) below. The purpose of this section is to specify the requirements to export, transfer, reexport, retransfer, or otherwise dispose of a defense article or defense service pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. (3) Export. In order for an exporter to export a defense article or defense service pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, all of the following conditions must be met: (i) The exporter must be registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and must be eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to obtain an export license (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government without restriction (see paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for specific requirements); (ii) The recipient of the export must be a member of the United Kingdom Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the United Kingdom Community). United Kingdom entities and facilities that become ineligible for such membership will be removed from the United Kingdom Community; (iii) Intermediate consignees involved in the export must be eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to handle or receive a defense article or defense service without restriction (see paragraph (k) of this section for specific requirements); (iv) The export must be for an end-use specified in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and mutually agreed to by the U.S. Government and the Government of the United Kingdom pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and the Implementing Arrangement thereto (United Kingdom Implementing Arrangement) (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); (v) The defense article or defense service is not excluded from the scope of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom (see paragraph (g) of this section and Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter for specific [[Page 72258]] information on the scope of items excluded from export under this exemption) and is marked or identified, at a minimum, as “Restricted USML” (see paragraph (j) of this section for specific requirements on marking exports); (vi) All required documentation of such export is maintained by the exporter and recipient and is available upon the request of the U.S. Government (see paragraph (l) of this section for specific requirements); and (vii) The Department of State has provided advance notification to the Congress, as required, in accordance with this section (see paragraph (o) of this section for specific requirements). (4) Transfers. In order for a member of the United Kingdom Community to transfer a defense article or defense service under the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, all of the following conditions must be met: (i) The defense article or defense service must have been previously exported in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section or transitioned from a license or other approval in accordance with paragraph (i) Transfers of this section; (ii) The transferor and transferee of the defense article or defense service are members of the United Kingdom Community (see paragraph (d) of this section regarding the identification of members of the United Kingdom Community) or the United States Community (see paragraph (b) of this section for information on the United States Community/approved exporters); (iii) The transfer is required for an end-use specified in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and mutually agreed to by the United States and the Government of United Kingdom pursuant to the terms of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Implementing Arrangement (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); (iv) The defense article or defense service is not identified in paragraph (g) of this section and Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter as ineligible for export under this exemption, and is marked or otherwise identified, at a minimum, as “Restricted USML” (see paragraph (j) of this section for specific requirements on marking exports); (v) All required documentation of such transfer is maintained by the transferor and transferee and is available upon the request of the U.S. Government (see paragraph (l) of this section for specific requirements); and (vi) The Department of State has provided advance notification to the Congress in accordance with this section (see paragraph (o) of this section for specific requirements). (5) This section does not apply to the export of defense articles or defense services from the United States pursuant to the Foreign Military Sales program. (b) Authorized exporters. The following persons compose the United States Community and may export defense articles and defense services pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom: (1) Departments and agencies of the U.S. Government, including their personnel, with, as appropriate, a security clearance and a need- to-know; and (2) Nongovernmental U.S. persons registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and eligible, according to the requirements and prohibitions of the Arms Export Control Act, this subchapter, and other provisions of United States law, to obtain an export license (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government without restriction, including their employees acting in their official capacity with, as appropriate, a security clearance and a need-to-know. (c) An exporter that is otherwise an authorized exporter pursuant to subsection (b) above may not export pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom if the exporter’s president, chief executive officer, any vice-president, any other senior officer or official (e.g., comptroller, treasurer, general counsel); any member of the board of directors of the exporter; any party to the export; or any source or manufacturer is ineligible to receive export licenses (or other forms of authorization to export) from any agency of the U.S. Government. (d) United Kingdom Community. For purposes of the exemption provided by this section, the United Kingdom Community consists of the United Kingdom entities and facilities identified as members of the Approved Community through the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site at the time of a transaction under this section; non- governmental United Kingdom entities and facilities that become ineligible for such membership will be removed from the United Kingdom Community. (e) Authorized End-uses. The following end-uses, subject to subsection (f), are specified in the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom: (1) United States and United Kingdom combined military or counter- terrorism operations; (2) United States and United Kingdom cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs; (3) Mutually determined specific security and defense projects where the Government of the United Kingdom is the end-user; or (4) U.S. Government end-use. (f) Procedures for identifying authorized end-uses pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section: (1) Operations, programs, and projects that can be publicly identified will be posted on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site; (2) Operations, programs, and projects that cannot be publicly identified will be confirmed in written correspondence from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; or (3) U.S. Government end-use will be identified specifically in a U.S. Government contract or solicitation as being eligible under the Treaty. (4) No other operations, programs, projects, or end-uses qualify for this exemption. (g) Items eligible under this section. With the exception of items listed in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter, defense articles and defense services may be exported under this section subject to the following: (1) An exporter authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section may market a defense article to the Government of the United Kingdom if that exporter has been licensed by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to export (as defined by Sec. 120.17 of this subchapter) the identical type of defense article to any foreign person. (2) The export of any defense article specific to the existence of (e.g., reveals the existence of or details of) anti-tamper measures made at U.S. Government direction always requires prior written approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. (3) U.S.-origin classified defense articles or defense services may be exported only pursuant to a written request, directive, or contract from the U.S. Department of Defense that provides for the export of the classified defense article(s) or defense service(s). (4) Defense articles specific to developmental systems that have not obtained written Milestone B approval from the Department of Defense milestone approval authority are not [[Page 72259]] eligible for export unless such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the Department of Defense for an end-use identified pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1), (2), or (4) of this section. (5) Defense articles excluded by paragraph (g) of this section or Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter (e.g., USML Category XI (a)(3) electronically scanned array radar) that are embedded in a larger system that is eligible to ship under this section (e.g., a ship or aircraft) must separately comply with any restrictions placed on that embedded defense article under this subsection. The exporter must obtain a license or other authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for the export of such embedded defense articles (for example, USML Category XI (a)(3) electronically scanned array radar systems that are exempt from this section that are incorporated in an aircraft that is eligible to ship under the this section continue to require separate authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for their export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer). (6) No liability shall be incurred by or attributed to the U.S. Government in connection with any possible infringement of privately owned patent or proprietary rights, either domestic or foreign, by reason of an export conducted pursuant to this section. (7) Sales by exporters made through the U.S. Government shall not include either charges for patent rights in which the U.S. Government holds a royalty-free license, or charges for information which the U.S. Government has a right to use and disclose to others, which is in the public domain, or which the U.S. Government has acquired or is entitled to acquire without restrictions upon its use and disclosure to others. (8) Defense articles and services specific to items that appear on the European Union Dual Use List (as described in Annex 1 to EC Council Regulation No. 428/2009) are not eligible for export under the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. (h) Transfers, Retransfers, and Reexports. (1) Any transfer of a defense article or defense service not exempted in Supplement No.1 to part 126 of this subchapter by a member of the United Kingdom Community (see paragraph (d) of this section for specific information on the identification of the Community) to another member of the United Kingdom Community or the United States Community for an end-use that is authorized by this exemption (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) is authorized under this exemption. (2) Any transfer or other provision of a defense article or defense service for an end-use that is not authorized by the exemption provided by this section is prohibited without a license or the prior written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses). (3) Any retransfer or reexport, or other provision of a defense article or defense service by a member of the United Kingdom Community to a foreign person that is not a member of the United Kingdom Community, or to a U.S. person that is not a member of the United States Community, is prohibited without a license or the prior written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraph (d) of this section for specific information on the identification of the United Kingdom Community). (4) Any change in the use of a defense article or defense service previously exported, transferred, or obtained under this exemption by any foreign person, including a member of the United Kingdom Community, to an end-use that is not authorized by this exemption is prohibited without a license or other written approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses). (5) Any retransfer, reexport, or change in end-use requiring such approval of the U.S. Government shall be made in accordance with Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter. (6) Defense articles excluded by paragraph (g) of this section or Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter (e.g., USML Category XI (a)(3) electronically scanned array radar systems) that are embedded in a larger system that is eligible to ship under this section (e.g., a ship or aircraft) must separately comply with any restrictions placed on that embedded defense article unless otherwise specified. A license or other authorization must be obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for the retransfer, reexport or change in end-use of any such embedded defense article (for example, USML Category XI(a)(3) electronically scanned array radar systems that are exempt from this section that are incorporated in an aircraft that is eligible to ship under the this section continue to require separate authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls for their export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer). (7) A license or prior approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is not required for a transfer, retransfer, or reexport of an exported defense article or defense service under this section, if: (i) The transfer of defense articles or defense services is made by a member of the United States Community to United Kingdom Ministry of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of the United Kingdom and engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using United Kingdom Armed Forces transmission channels or the provisions of this section; (ii) The transfer of defense articles or defense services is made by a member of the United States Community to an Approved Community member (either U.S. or U.K.) that is operating in direct support of United Kingdom Ministry of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of the United Kingdom and engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end- uses) using United Kingdom Armed Forces transmission channels or the provisions of this section; (iii) The reexport is made by a member of the United Kingdom Community to United Kingdom Ministry of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of the United Kingdom engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using United Kingdom Armed Forces transmission channels or the provisions of this section; (iv) The retransfer or reexport is made by a member of the United Kingdom Community to an Approved Community member (either U.S. or U.K.) that is operating indirect support of United Kingdom Ministry of Defense elements deployed outside the Territory of the United Kingdom engaged in an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) using United Kingdom Armed Forces transmission channels or the provisions of this section; or (v) The defense article or defense service will be delivered to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense for an authorized end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses); the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense may deploy the item as necessary when conducting official business within or outside the Territory of the United Kingdom. The item must remain under the effective control of the United [[Page 72260]] Kingdom Ministry of Defense while deployed and access may not be provided to unauthorized third parties. (8) U.S. persons registered, or required to be registered, pursuant to part 122 of this subchapter and Members of the United Kingdom Community must immediately notify the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of any actual or proposed sale, retransfer, or reexport of a defense article or defense service on the U.S. Munitions List originally exported under this exemption to any of the countries listed in Sec. 126.1 of this subchapter, any citizen of such countries, or any person acting on behalf of such countries, whether within or outside the United States. Any person knowing or having reason to know of such a proposed or actual sale, reexport, or retransfer shall submit such information in writing to the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. (i) Transitions. (1) Any previous export of a defense article under a license or other approval of the U.S. Department of State remains subject to the conditions and limitations of the original license or authorization unless the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has approved in writing a transition to this section. (2) If a U.S. exporter desires to transition from an existing license or other approval to the use of the provisions of this section, the following is required: (i) The U.S. exporter must submit a written request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, which identifies the defense articles or defense services to be transitioned, the existing license(s) or other authorizations under which the defense articles or defense services were originally exported; and the Treaty-eligible end- use for which the defense articles or defense services will be used. Any license(s) filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection should remain on file until the exporter has received approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to retire the license(s) and transition to this section. When this approval is conveyed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the license(s) will be returned to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in accord with existing procedures for the return of expired licenses in Sec. 123.22(c) of this subchapter. (ii) Any license(s) not filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection must be returned to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls with a letter citing the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ approval to transition to this section as the reason for returning the license(s). (3) If a member of the United Kingdom Community desires to transition defense articles received under an existing license or other approval to the processes established under the Treaty, the United Kingdom Community member must submit a written request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, either directly or through the original U.S. exporter, which identifies the defense articles or defense services to be transitioned, the existing license(s) or other authorizations under which the defense articles or defense services were received, and the Treaty-eligible end-use (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section regarding authorized end-uses) for which the defense articles or defense services will be used. The defense article or defense service shall remain subject to the conditions and limitations of the existing license or other approval until the United Kingdom Community member has received approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to transition to this section. (4) Authorized exporters identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section who have exported a defense article or defense service that has subsequently been placed on the list of exempted items in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter must review and adhere to the requirements in the relevant Federal Register notice announcing such removal. Once removed, the defense article or defense service will no longer be subject to this section, such defense article or defense service previously exported shall remain on the U.S. Munitions List and be subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations unless the applicable Federal Register notice states otherwise. Subsequent reexport or retransfer must be made pursuant to Sec. 123.9 of this subchapter. (5) Any defense article or defense service transitioned from a license or other approval to treatment under this section must be marked in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section. (j) Marking of Exports. (1) All defense articles and defense services exported or transitioned pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section shall be marked or identified as follows: (i) For classified defense articles and defense services the standard marking or identification shall read: “//CLASSIFICATION LEVEL USML//REL UK and USA Treaty Community//.” For example, for defense articles classified SECRET, the marking or identification shall be “// SECRET USML//REL UK and USA Treaty Community//.” (ii) Unclassified defense articles and defense services exported under or transitioned pursuant to this section shall be UK classified as “Restricted USML” and, the standard marking or identification shall read “//RESTRICTED USML//REL UK and USA Treaty Community//.” (2) Where defense articles are returned to a member of the United States Community identified in paragraph (b) of this section, any defense articles UK classified and marked or identified pursuant to paragraph j(1)(ii) as “//RESTRICTED USML//REL UK and USA Treaty Community//” no longer be UK classified and such marking or identification shall be removed; and (3) The standard marking and identification requirements are as follows: (i) Defense articles (other than technical data) shall be individually labeled with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section; or, where such labeling is impracticable (e.g., propellants, chemicals), shall be accompanied by documentation (such as contracts or invoices) clearly associating the defense articles with the appropriate markings as detailed above; (ii) Technical data (including data packages, technical papers, manuals, presentations, specifications, guides and reports), regardless of media or means of transmission (physical or electronic), shall be individually labeled with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section; or, where such labeling is impracticable (oral presentations), shall have a verbal notification clearly associating the technical data with the appropriate markings as detailed above; and (4) Contracts and agreements for the provision of defense services shall be identified with the appropriate identification detailed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section. (5) The exporter shall incorporate the following statement as an integral part of all shipping documentation (airway bill, bill of lading, manifest, packing documents, delivery verification, invoice, etc.) whenever defense articles are to be exported: “These commodities are authorized by the U.S. Government for export only to United Kingdom for use in approved projects, programs or operations by members of the United Kingdom [[Page 72261]] Community. They may not be retransferred or reexported or used outside of an approved project, program, or operation, either in their original form or after being incorporated into other end-items, without the prior written approval of the U.S. Department of State.” (k) Intermediate Consignees. (1) Unclassified exports under this section may only be handled by: (i) U.S. intermediate consignees who are: (A) Exporters registered with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and eligible; (B) Licensed customs brokers who are subject to background investigation and have passed a comprehensive examination administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection; or (C) Commercial air freight and surface shipment carriers, freight forwarders, or other parties not exempt from registration under Sec. 129.3(b)(3) of this subchapter that are identified at the time of export as being on the list of Authorized U.S. Intermediate Consignees, which is available on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site. (ii) United Kingdom intermediate consignees who are: (A) Members of the United Kingdom Community; or (B) Freight forwarders, customs brokers, commercial air freight and surface shipment carriers, or other United Kingdom parties that are identified at the time of export as being on the list of Authorized United Kingdom Intermediate Consignees, which is available on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ Web site. (2) Classified exports must comply with the security requirements of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M and supplements or successors). (l) Records. (1) All exporters authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section who export pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section shall maintain detailed records of all exports, imports, and transfers made by that exporter of defense articles or defense services subject to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section. Exporters shall also maintain detailed records of any reexports and retransfers approved or otherwise authorized by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of defense articles or defense services subject to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section. These records shall be maintained for a minimum of five years from the date of export, import, transfer, reexport, or retransfer and shall be made available upon request to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or any other authorized U.S. law enforcement officer. Records in an electronic format must be maintained using a process or system capable of reproducing all records on paper. Such records when displayed on a viewer, monitor, or reproduced on paper, must exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability. (For the purpose of this section, “legible” and “legibility” mean the quality of a letter or numeral that enables the observer to identify it positively and quickly to the exclusion of all other letters or numerals. “Readable” and “readability” means the quality of a group of letters or numerals being recognized as complete words or numbers.) These records shall consist of the following: (i) Port of entry/exit; (ii) Date/time of export/import; (iii) Method of export/import; (iv) Commodity code and description of the commodity, including technical data; (v) Value of export; (vi) Reference to this section and justification for export under the Treaty; (vii) End-user/end-use; (viii) Identification of all U.S. and foreign parties to the transaction; (ix) How the export was marked; (x) Classification of the export; (xi) All written correspondence with the U.S. Government on the export; (xii) All information relating to political contributions, fees, or commissions furnished or obtained, offered, solicited, or agreed upon as outlined in subsection (m) below; (xiii) Purchase order or contract; (xiv) Technical data actually exported; (xv) The Internal Transaction Number for the Electronic Export Information filing in the Automated Export System; (xvi) All shipping documentation (airway bill, bill of lading, manifest, packing documents, delivery verification, invoice, etc.); and (xvii) Statement of Registration (Form DS-2032). (2) Filing of export information. All exporters of defense articles and defense services under the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section must electronically file Electronic Export Information (EEI) using the Automated Export System citing one of the four below referenced codes in the appropriate field in the EEI for each shipment: (i) 126.16(e)(1): Used for exports in support of United States and United Kingdom combined military or counter-terrorism operations (the name or an appropriate description of the operation shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); (ii) 126.16(e)(2): Used for exports in support of United States and United Kingdom cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs (the name or an appropriate description of the program shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); (iii) 126.16(e)(3): Used for exports in support of mutually determined specific security and defense projects where the Government of the United Kingdom is the end-user (the name or an appropriate description of the project shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well); or (iv) 126.16(e)(4): Used for exports that will have a U.S. Government end-use (the U.S. Government contract number or solicitation number (e.g., “U.S. Government contract number XXXXX”) shall be placed in the appropriate field in the EEI, as well). Such exports must meet the required export documentation and filing guidelines, including for defense services, of Sec. 123.22(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of this subchapter. (m) Fees and Commissions. All exporters authorized pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall, with respect to each export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer, pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section, submit a statement to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls containing the information identified in Sec. 130.10 of this subchapter relating to fees, commissions, and political contributions on contracts or other instruments valued in an amount of $500,000 or more. (n) Violations and Enforcement. (1) Exports, transfers, reexports, and retransfers that do not comply with the conditions prescribed in this section will constitute violations of the Arms Export Control Act and this subchapter, and are subject to all relevant criminal, civil, and administrative penalties (see Sec. 127.1 of this subchapter), and may also be subject to other statutes or regulations. (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have the authority to investigate, detain, or seize [[Page 72262]] any export or attempted export of defense articles that does not comply with this section or that is otherwise unlawful. (3) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other authorized U.S. law enforcement officers may require the production of documents and information relating to any actual or attempted export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer pursuant to this section. Any foreign person refusing to provide such records within a reasonable period of time shall be suspended from the United Kingdom Community and ineligible to receive defense articles or defense services pursuant to the exemption under this section or otherwise. (o) Procedures for Legislative Notification. (1) Exports pursuant to the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom and this section by any person identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall not take place until 30 days after the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has acknowledged receipt of a Form DS-4048 (entitled, “Projected Sales of Major Weapons in Support of Section 25(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act”) from the exporter notifying the Department of State if the export involves one or more of the following: (i) A contract or other instrument for the export of major defense equipment in the amount of $25,000,000 or more, or for defense articles and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more; (ii) A contract or other instrument for the export of firearms controlled under Category I of the U.S. Munitions List of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in an amount of $1,000,000 or more; (iii) A contract or other instrument, regardless of value, for the manufacturing abroad of any item of significant military equipment; or (iv) An amended contract or other instrument that meets the requirements of paragraphs (o)(1)(i)-(o)(1)(iii) of this section. (2) The Form DS-4048 required in paragraph (o)(1) of this section shall be accompanied by the following additional information: (i) The information identified in Sec. 130.10 and Sec. 130.11 of this subchapter; (ii) A statement regarding whether any offset agreement is proposed to be entered into in connection with the export and a description of any such offset agreement; (iii) A copy of the signed contract or other instrument; and (iv) If the notification is for paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, a statement of what will happen to the weapons in their inventory (for example, whether the current inventory will be sold, reassigned to another service branch, destroyed, etc.). (3) The Department of State will notify the Congress of exports that meet the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) of this section. 27. Supplement No. 1 is added to Part 126 read as follows: Supplement No. 1 * —————————————————————————————————————- (CA) Sec. (AS) Sec. (UK) Sec. USML category Exclusion 126.5 126.16 126.17 —————————————————————————————————————- I-XXI……………………………….. Classified defense articles and X X X services. See Note 1. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense articles listed in the X X X Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex. I-XXI……………………………….. U.S. origin defense articles ………. X X and services used for marketing purposes and not previously licensed for export in accordance with this subchapter. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense services for or X ………. ………. technical data related to defense articles identified in this supplement as excluded from the Canadian exemption. I-XXI……………………………….. Any transaction involving the X ………. ………. export of defense articles and services for which congressional notification is required in accordance with Sec. 123.15 and Sec. 124.11 of this subchapter. I-XXI……………………………….. U.S. origin defense articles ………. X X and services specific to developmental systems that have not obtained written Milestone B approval from the U.S. Department of Defense milestone approval authority, unless such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense for an end use identified in subsections (e)(1), (2), or (4) of Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter and is consistent with other exclusions of this supplement. I-XXI……………………………….. Nuclear weapons strategic X ………. ………. delivery systems and all components, parts, accessories, and attachments specifically designed for such systems and associated equipment. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to the existence or method of compliance with anti- tamper measures made at U.S. Government direction. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to reduced observables or counter low observables in any part of the spectrum. See Note 2. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to sensor fusion beyond that required for display or identification correlation. See Note 3. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to the automatic target acquisition or recognition and cueing of multiple autonomous unmanned systems. I-XXI……………………………….. Nuclear power generating ………. ………. X equipment or propulsion equipment (e.g. nuclear reactors), specifically designed for military use and components therefore, specifically designed for military use. See also Sec. 123.20 of this subchapter. I-XXI……………………………….. Libraries (parametric technical ………. ………. X databases) specially designed for military use with equipment controlled on the USML. I-XXI……………………………….. Defense services or technical X ………. ………. data specific to applied research as defined in Sec. 125.4(c)(3) of this subchapter, design methodology as defined in Sec. 125.4(c)(4) of this subchapter, engineering analysis as defined in Sec. 125.4(c)(5) of this subchapter, or manufacturing know-how as defined in Sec. 125.4(c)(6) of this subchapter. [[Page 72263]] I-XXI……………………………….. Defense services that are not X ………. ………. based on a written arrangement (between the U.S. exporter and the Canadian recipient) that includes a clause requiring that all documentation created from U.S. origin technical data contain the statement that “This document contains technical data, the use of which is restricted by the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. This data has been provided in accordance with, and is subject to, the limitations specified in Sec. 126.5 of the International Traffic In Arms Regulations (ITAR). By accepting this data, the consignee agrees to honor the requirements of the ITAR”. I…………………………………… Defense articles and services X ………. ………. related to firearms, close assault weapons, and combat shotguns. II(k)……………………………….. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories II(c), II(d), or II(i). See Note 4. II(k)……………………………….. Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Category II(d). See Note 5. III…………………………………. Defense articles and services X ………. ………. related to ammunition for firearms, close assault weapons, and combat shotguns listed in Category I. III…………………………………. Defense articles and services ………. ………. X specific to ammunition and fuse setting devices for guns and armament controlled in Category II. III(e)………………………………. Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Categories III(d)(1) or III(d)(2) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. III(e)………………………………. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories III(d)(1) or III(d)(2). See Note 4. IV………………………………….. Defense articles and services X X X specific to man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). See Note 6. IV………………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. ………. X specific to rockets, designed or modified for non-military applications that do not have a range of 300 km (i.e., not controlled on the MTCR Annex). IV………………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to torpedoes. IV………………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. ………. X specific to anti-personnel landmines. IV(i)……………………………….. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories IV(a), IV(b), IV(c), or IV(g). See Note 4. IV(i)……………………………….. Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Categories IV(a), IV(b), IV(d), or IV(g) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. V…………………………………… The following energetic ………. ………. X materials and related substances:. a. TATB (triaminotrinitrobenzene) (CAS 3058-38-6) b. Explosives controlled in USML Category V(a)(32) or V(a)(33) c. Iron powder (CAS 7439-89-6) with particle size of 3 micrometers or less produced by reduction of iron oxide with hydrogen d. BOBBA-8 (bis(2- methylaziridinyl)2-(2- hydroxypropanoxy) propylamino phosphine oxide), and other MAPO derivatives e. N-methyl-p-nitroaniline (CAS 100-15-2) f. Trinitrophenylmethyl- ………. ………. ………. nitramine (tetryl) (CAS 479-45- 8) V(c)(7)……………………………… Pyrotechnics and pyrophorics ………. ………. X specifically formulated for military purposes to enhance or control radiated energy in any part of the IR spectrum. V(d)(3)……………………………… Bis-2, 2-dinitropropylnitrate ………. ………. X (BDNPN). VI………………………………….. Defense Articles specific to ………. ………. X equipment specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne or space applications, capable of operating while in motion and of producing or maintaining temperatures below 103 K (-170 [deg]C). VI………………………………….. Defense Articles specific to ………. ………. X superconductive electrical equipment (rotating machinery and transformers) specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, or space applications and capable of operating while in motion. This, however, does not include direct current hybrid homopolar generators that have single-pole normal metal armatures which rotate in a magnetic field produced by superconducting windings, provided those windings are the only superconducting component in the generator. VI………………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to naval technology and systems relating to acoustic spectrum control and awareness. See Note 10. VI(a)……………………………….. Nuclear powered vessels…….. X X X VI(c)……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to submarine combat control systems. VI(d)……………………………….. Harbor entrance detection ………. ………. X devices. VI(e)……………………………….. Defense articles and services X X X specific to naval nuclear propulsion equipment. See Note 7. VI(g)……………………………….. Technical data and defense X X X services for gas turbine engine hot sections related to Category VI(f). See Note 8. VI(g)……………………………….. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories VI(a) or VI(c). See Note 4. VII…………………………………. Defense articles specific to ………. ………. X equipment specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, or space applications, capable of operating while in motion and of producing or maintaining temperatures below 103 K (-170 [deg]C). [[Page 72264]] VII…………………………………. Defense articles specific to ………. ………. X superconductive electrical equipment (rotating machinery and transformers) specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, or space applications and capable of operating while in motion. This, however, does not include direct current hybrid homopolar generators that have single-pole normal metal armatures which rotate in a magnetic field produced by superconducting windings, provided those windings are the only superconducting component in the generator. VII…………………………………. Armored all wheel drive ………. ………. X vehicles, other than vehicles specifically designed or modified for military use, fitted with, or designed or modified to be fitted with, a plough or flail for the purpose of land mine clearance. VII(e)………………………………. Amphibious vehicles………… ………. ………. X VII(f)………………………………. Technical data and defense X X X services for gas turbine engine hot sections. See Note 8. VIII………………………………… Defense articles specific to ………. ………. X equipment specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, or space applications, capable of operating while in motion and of producing or maintaining temperatures below 103 K (-170 [deg]C). VIII………………………………… Defense articles specific to ………. ………. X superconductive electrical equipment (rotating machinery and transformers) specially designed or configured to be installed in a vehicle for military ground, marine, airborne, or space applications and capable of operating while in motion. This, however, does not include direct current hybrid homopolar generators that have single-pole normal metal armatures which rotate in a magnetic field produced by superconducting windings, provided those windings are the only superconducting component in the generator. VIII(a)……………………………… All Category VIII(a) items….. X ………. ………. VIII(b)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to gas turbine engine hot section components and digital engine controls. See Note 8. VIII(f)……………………………… Developmental aircraft, engines X ………. ………. and components identified in Category VIII(f). VIII(g)……………………………… Ground Effect Machines (GEMS).. ………. ………. X VIII(i)……………………………… Technical data and defense X X X services for gas turbine engine hot sections related to Category VIII(b). See Note 8. VIII(i)……………………………… Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Categories VIII(a), VIII(b), or VIII(e) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. VIII(i)……………………………… Software source code related to ………. X X Categories VIII(a) or VIII(e). See Note 4. IX………………………………….. Training or simulation ………. ………. X equipment for MANPADS. See Note 6. IX(e)……………………………….. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories IX(a) or IX(b). See Note 4. IX(e)……………………………….. Software that is both ………. ………. X specifically designed or modified for military use and specifically designed or modified for modeling or simulating military operational scenarios. X(e)………………………………… Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Categories X(a)(1) or X(a)(2) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. XI(a)……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to countermeasures and counter-countermeasures See Note 9. XI………………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to naval technology and systems relating to acoustic spectrum control and awareness. See Note 10. XI(b) XI(c) XI(d)…………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to communications security (e.g., COMSEC and TEMPEST). XI(d)……………………………….. Software source code related to ………. X X Category XI(a). See Note 4. XI(d)……………………………….. Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Categories XI(a)(3) or XI(a)(4) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. XII…………………………………. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. See Note 9. XII(c)………………………………. Defense articles and services X ………. ………. specific to XII(c) articles, except any 1st- and 2nd- generation image intensification tubes and 1st- and 2nd-generation image intensification night sighting equipment. End items in XII(c) and related technical data limited to basic operations, maintenance, and training information as authorized under the exemption in Sec. 125.4(b)(5) of this subchapter may be exported directly to a Canadian Government entity. XII(c)………………………………. Technical data or defense X X X services for night vision equipment beyond basic operations, maintenance, and training data. However, the AS and UK Treaty exemptions apply when such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense for an end use identified in subsections (e)(1), (2), or (4) of Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter and is consistent with other exclusions of this supplement. XII(f)………………………………. Manufacturing know-how related X X X to Category XII(d) and their specially designed components. See Note 5. XII(f)………………………………. Software source code related to ………. X X Categories XII(a), XII(b), XII(c), or XII(d). See Note 4. XIII(b)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to Military Information Security Assurance Systems. [[Page 72265]] XIII(c)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. ………. X specific to armored plate manufactured to comply with a military standard or specification or suitable for military use. See Note 11. XIII(d)……………………………… Carbon/carbon billets and ………. ………. X performs which are reinforced in three or more dimensional planes, specifically designed, developed, modified, configured or adapted for defense articles. XIII(f)……………………………… Structural materials……….. ………. ………. X XIII(g)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. ………. X related to concealment and deception equipment and materials. XIII(h)……………………………… Energy conversion devices other ………. ………. X than fuel cells. XIII(i)……………………………… Metal embrittling agents……. ………. ………. X XIII(j)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. X X related to hardware associated with the measurement or modification of system signatures for detection of defense articles as described in Note 2. XIII(k)……………………………… Defense articles and services ………. X X related to tooling and equipment specifically designed or modified for the production of defense articles identified in Category XIII(b). XIII(l)……………………………… Software source code related to ………. X X Category XIII(a). See Note 4. XIV…………………………………. Defense articles and services ………. X X related to toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment. XIV(a) XIV(b) XIV(d) XIV(e) XIV(f)……… Chemical agents listed in X ………. ………. Category XIV(a), (d) and (e), biological agents and biologically derived substances in Category XIV(b), and equipment listed in Category XIV(f) for dissemination of the chemical agents and biological agents listed in Category XIV(a), (b), (d), and (e). XV(a)……………………………….. Defense articles and services X X X specific to spacecraft/ satellites. However, the Canadian exemption may be used for commercial communications satellites that have no other type of payload. XV(b)……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to ground control stations for spacecraft telemetry, tracking, and control. XV(c)……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to GPS/PPS security modules. XV(c)……………………………….. Defense articles controlled in X ………. ………. XV(c) except end items for end use by the Federal Government of Canada exported directly or indirectly through a Canadian- registered person. XV(d)……………………………….. Defense articles and services X X X specific to radiation-hardened microelectronic circuits. XV(e)……………………………….. Anti-jam systems with the X ………. ………. ability to respond to incoming interference by adaptively reducing antenna gain (nulling) in the direction of the interference. XV(e)……………………………….. Antennas having any of the following: (a) Aperture (overall dimension of the radiating portions of the antenna) greater than 30 feet; (b) All sidelobes less than or equal to -35 dB relative to the peak of the main beam; or (c) Designed, modified, or X ………. ………. configured to provide coverage area on the surface of the earth less than 200 nautical miles in diameter, where “coverage area” is defined as that area on the surface of the earth that is illuminated by the main beam width of the antenna (which is the angular distance between half power points of the beam). XV(e)……………………………….. Optical intersatellite data X ………. ………. links (cross links) and optical ground satellite terminals. XV(e)……………………………….. Spaceborne regenerative X ………. ………. baseband processing (direct up and down conversion to and from baseband) equipment. XV(e)……………………………….. Propulsion systems which permit X ………. ………. acceleration of the satellite on-orbit (i.e., after mission orbit injection) at rates greater than 0.1 g. XV(e)……………………………….. Attitude control and X ………. ………. determination systems designed to provide spacecraft pointing determination and control or payload pointing system control better than 0.02 degrees per axis. XV(e)……………………………….. All specifically designed or X ………. ………. modified systems, components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for all Category XV(a) items, except when specifically designed or modified for use in commercial communications satellites. XV(e)……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to spacecraft and ground control station systems (only for telemetry, tracking and control as controlled in XV(b)), subsystems, components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment. XV(f)……………………………….. Technical data and defense X X X services directly related to the other defense articles excluded from the exemptions for Category XV. XVI…………………………………. Defense articles and services X X X specific to design and testing of nuclear weapons. XVI(c)………………………………. Nuclear radiation measuring X ………. ………. devices manufactured to military specifications. XVI(e)………………………………. Software source code related to ………. X X Category XVI(c). See Note 4. XVII………………………………… Classified articles and defense X X X services not elsewhere enumerated. See Note 1. XVIII……………………………….. Defense articles and services ………. X X specific to directed energy weapon systems. XX………………………………….. Defense articles and services X X X related to submersible vessels, oceanographic, and associated equipment. XXI…………………………………. Miscellaneous defense articles X X X and services. —————————————————————————————————————- [[Page 72266]] Note 1: Classified defense articles and services are not eligible for export under the Canadian exemptions. U.S. origin defense articles and services controlled in Category XVII are not eligible for export under the UK Treaty exemption. U.S. origin classified defense articles and services are not eligible for export under either the UK or AS Treaty exemptions except when being released pursuant to a U.S. Department of Defense written request, directive or contract that provides for the export of the defense article or service. Note 2: The phrase “any part of the spectrum” includes radio frequency (RF), infrared (IR), electro-optical, visual, ultraviolet (UV), acoustic, and magnetic. Defense articles related to reduced observables or counter reduced observables are defined as: a. Signature reduction (radio frequency (RF), infrared (IR), Electro-Optical, visual, ultraviolet (UV), acoustic, magnetic, RF emissions) of defense platforms, including systems, subsystems, components, materials, (including dual-purpose materials used for Electromagnetic Interference (EM) reduction) technologies, and signature prediction, test and measurement equipment and software and material transmissivity/reflectivity prediction codes and optimization software. b. Electronically scanned array radar, high power radars, radar processing algorithms, periscope-mounted radar systems (PATRIOT), LADAR, multistatic and IR focal plane array-based sensors, to include systems, subsystems, components, materials, and technologies. Note 3: Defense Articles related to sensor fusion beyond that required for display or identification correlation is defined as techniques designed to automatically combine information from two or more sensors/sources for the purpose of target identification, tracking, designation, or passing of data in support of surveillance or weapons engagement. Sensor fusion involves sensors such as acoustic, infrared, electro optical, frequency, etc. Display or identification correlation refers to the combination of target detections from multiple sources for assignment of common target track designation. Note 4: Software source code beyond that source code required for basic operation, maintenance, and training for programs, systems, and/or subsystems is not eligible for use of the UK or AS Treaty Exemptions, unless such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense for an end use identified in subsections (e)(1), (2), or (4) of Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter and is consistent with other exclusions of this supplement. Note 5: Manufacturing know-how, as defined in Sec. 125.4(c)(6) of this subchapter, is not eligible for use of the UK or AS Treaty Exemptions, unless such export is pursuant to a written solicitation or contract issued or awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense for an end use identified in subsections (e)(1), (2), or (4) of Sec. 126.16 or Sec. 126.17 of this subchapter and is consistent with other exclusions of this supplement. Note 6: Defense Articles specific to Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) includes missiles which can be used without modification in other applications. It also includes production equipment specifically designed or modified for MANPAD systems, as well as training equipment specifically designed or modified for MANPAD systems. Note 7: Naval nuclear propulsion plants includes all of USML Category VI(e). Naval nuclear propulsion information is technical data that concerns the design, arrangement, development, manufacture, testing, operation, administration, training, maintenance, and repair of the propulsion plants of naval nuclear-powered ships and prototypes, including the associated shipboard and shore-based nuclear support facilities. Examples of defense articles covered by this exclusion include nuclear propulsion plants and nuclear submarine technologies or systems; nuclear powered vessels (see USML Categories VI and XX). Note 8: Examples of gas turbine engine hot section exempted defense article components and technology are combustion chambers/liners; high pressure turbine blades, vanes, disks and related cooled structure; cooled low pressure turbine blades, vanes, disks and related cooled structure; advanced cooled augmenters; and advanced cooled nozzles. Examples of gas turbine engine hot section developmental technologies are Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET), Versatile, Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE), Ultra- Efficient Engine Technology (UEET). Note 9: Examples of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures related to defense articles not exportable under the AS or UK Treaty exemptions are: a. IR countermeasures; b. Classified techniques and capabilities; c. Exports for precision radio frequency location that directly or indirectly supports fire control and is used for situation awareness, target identification, target acquisition, and weapons targeting and Radio Direction Finding (RDF) capabilities. Precision RF location is defined as angle of arrival accuracy of less than five degrees (RMS) and RF emitter location of less than ten percent range error; d. Providing the capability to reprogram; and e. Acoustics (including underwater), active and passive countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures Note 10: Examples of defense articles covered by this exclusion include underwater acoustic vector sensors; acoustic reduction; off-board, underwater, active and passive sensing, propeller/propulsor technologies; fixed mobile/floating/powered detection systems which include in-buoy signal processing for target detection and classification; autonomous underwater vehicles capable of long endurance in ocean environments (manned submarines excluded); automated control algorithms embedded in on-board autonomous platforms which enable (a) group behaviors for target detection and classification, (b) adaptation to the environment or tactical situation for enhancing target detection and classification; “intelligent autonomy” algorithms which define the status, group (greater than 2) behaviors, and responses to detection stimuli by autonomous, underwater vehicles; and low frequency, broad-band “acoustic color,” active acoustic “fingerprint” sensing for the purpose of long range, single pass identification of ocean bottom objects, buried or otherwise. (Controlled under Category XI(a), (1) and (2) and in (b), (c), and (d)). Note 11: The defense articles include constructions of metallic or non-metallic materials or combinations thereof specially designed to provide protection for military systems. The phrase “suitable for military use” applies to any articles or materials which have been tested to level IIIA or above IAW NIJ standard 0108.01 or comparable national standard. This exclusion does not include military helmets, body armor, or other protective garments which may be exported IAW the terms of the AS or UK Treaties. —————————————————————————————————————- * An “X” in the chart indicates that the item is excluded from use under the exemption referenced in the top of the column. An item excluded in any one row is excluded regardless of whether other rows may contain a description that would include the item. PART 127–VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 28. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read to as follows: Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 42, Public Law 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2791); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; Pub. L. 111-266. 29. Section 127.1 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 127.1 Violations. (a) Without first obtaining the required license or other written [[Page 72267]] approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, it is unlawful: (1) To export or attempt to export from the United States any defense article or technical data or to furnish or attempt to furnish any defense service for which a license or written approval is required by this subchapter; (2) To reexport or retransfer or attempt to reexport or retransfer any defense article, technical data, or defense service from one foreign end-user, end-use, or destination to another foreign end-user, end-use, or destination for which a license or written approval is required by this subchapter, including, as specified in Sec. 126.16(h) and Sec. 126.17(h) of this subchapter, any defense article, technical data, or defense service that was exported from the United States without a license pursuant to any exemption under this subchapter; (3) To import or attempt to import any defense article whenever a license is required by this subchapter; (4) To conspire to export, import, reexport, retransfer, furnish or cause to be exported, imported, reexported, retransferred or furnished, any defense article, technical data, or defense service for which a license or written approval is required by this subchapter. (b) It is unlawful: (1) To violate any of the terms or conditions of a license or approval granted pursuant to this subchapter, any exemption contained in this subchapter, or any rule or regulation contained in this subchapter. (2) To engage in the business of brokering activities for which registration and a license or written approval is required by this subchapter without first registering or obtaining the required license or written approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. For the purposes of this subchapter, engaging in the business of brokering activities requires only one occasion of engaging in an activity as reflected in Sec. 129.2(b) of this subchapter. (3) To engage in the United States in the business of either manufacturing or exporting defense articles or furnishing defense services without complying with the registration requirements. For the purposes of this subchapter, engaging in the business of manufacturing or exporting defense articles or furnishing defense services requires only one occasion of manufacturing or exporting a defense article or furnishing a defense service. (c) Any person who is granted a license or other approval or who acts pursuant to an exemption under this subchapter is responsible for the acts of employees, agents, and all authorized persons to whom possession of the defense article or technical data has been entrusted regarding the operation, use, possession, transportation, and handling of such defense article or technical data abroad. All persons abroad subject to U.S. jurisdiction who obtain temporary or permanent custody of a defense article exported from the United States or produced under an agreement described in part 124 of this subchapter, and irrespective of the number of intermediate transfers, are bound by the regulations of this subchapter in the same manner and to the same extent as the original owner or transferor. (d) A person with knowledge that another person is then ineligible pursuant to Sec. Sec. 120.1(c) or 126.7 of this subchapter may not, directly or indirectly, in any manner or capacity, without prior disclosure of the facts to, and written authorization from, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: (1) Apply for, obtain, or use any export control document as defined in Sec. 127.2(b) of this subchapter for such ineligible person; or (2) Order, buy, receive, use, sell, deliver, store, dispose of, forward, transport, finance, or otherwise service or participate in any transaction which may involve any defense article or the furnishing of any defense service for which a license or approval is required by this subchapter or an exemption is available under this subchapter for export, where such ineligible person may obtain any benefit therefrom or have any direct or indirect interest therein. (e) No person may knowingly or willfully cause, or aid, abet, counsel, demand, induce, procure, or permit the commission of, any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by, 22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2779, or any regulation, license, approval, or order issued thereunder. 30. Section 127.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and adding (b)(14), to read as follows: Sec. 127.2 Misrepresentation and omission of facts. (a) It is unlawful to use or attempt to use any export or temporary import control document containing a false statement or misrepresenting or omitting a material fact for the purpose of exporting, transferring, reexporting, retransferring, obtaining, or furnishing any defense article, technical data, or defense service. Any false statement, misrepresentation, or omission of material fact in an export or temporary import control document will be considered as made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1001, 22 U.S.C. 2778, and 22 U.S.C. 2779. (b) For the purpose of this subchapter, export or temporary import control documents include the following: (1) An application for a permanent export, reexport, retransfer, or a temporary import license and supporting documents. (2) Shipper’s Export Declaration or an Electronic Export Information filing. * * * * * (14) Any other shipping document that has information related to the export of the defense article or defense service. 31. Section 127.3 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 127.3 Penalties for violations. Any person who willfully: (a) Violates any provision of Sec. 38 or Sec. 39 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2779) or any rule or regulation issued under either Sec. 38 or Sec. 39 of the Act, or any undertaking specifically required by part 124 of this subchapter; or (b) In a registration, license application, or report required by Sec. 38 or Sec. 39 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2779) or by any rule or regulation issued under either section, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall upon conviction be subject to a fine or imprisonment, or both, as prescribed by 22 U.S.C. 2778(c). 32. Section 127.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c), and adding paragraph (d), to read as follows: Sec. 127.4 Authority of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. (a) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers may take appropriate action to ensure observance of this subchapter as to the export or the attempted export of any defense article or technical data, including the inspection of loading or unloading of any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft. This applies whether the export is authorized by license or by written approval issued under this subchapter or by exemption. * * * * * (c) Upon the presentation to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer of a license or written approval, or claim of an exemption, authorizing the export [[Page 72268]] of any defense article, the customs officer may require the production of other relevant documents and information relating to the proposed export. This includes an invoice, order, packing list, shipping document, correspondence, instructions, and the documents otherwise required by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (d) If an exemption under this subchapter is used or claimed to export, transfer, reexport or retransfer, furnish, or obtain a defense article, technical data, or defense service, law enforcement officers may rely upon the authorities noted above, additional authority identified in the language of the exemption, and any other lawful means to investigate such a matter. 33. Section 127.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 127.7 Debarment. (a) Debarment. In implementing Sec. 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs may prohibit any person from participating directly or indirectly in the export, reexport and retransfer of defense articles, including technical data, or in the furnishing of defense services for any of the reasons listed below and publish notice of such action in the Federal Register. Any such prohibition is referred to as a debarment for purposes of this subchapter. The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs shall determine the appropriate period of time for debarment, which shall generally be for a period of three years. However, reinstatement is not automatic and in all cases the debarred person must submit a request for reinstatement and be approved for reinstatement before engaging in any export or brokering activities subject to the Arms Export Control Act or this subchapter. * * * * * 34. Section 127.10 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 127.10 Civil penalty. (a) The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs is authorized to impose a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed that authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2778, 2779a, and 2780 for each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2778, 2779a, and 2780, or any regulation, order, license, or written approval issued thereunder. This civil penalty may be either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other liability or penalty which may be imposed. * * * * * 35. Section 127.12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5), and revising paragraph (d), to read as follows: Sec. 127.12 Voluntary disclosures. * * * * * (b) * * * (5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to negate or lessen the affirmative duty pursuant to Sec. Sec. 126.1(e), 126.16(h)(5), and 126.17(h)(5) of this subchapter upon persons to inform the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the actual or proposed sale, export, transfer, reexport, or retransfer of a defense article, technical data, or defense service to any country referred to in Sec. 126.1 of this subchapter, any citizen of such country, or any person acting on its behalf. * * * * * (d) Documentation. The written disclosure should be accompanied by copies of substantiating documents. Where appropriate, the documentation should include, but not be limited to: (1) Licensing documents (e.g., license applications, export licenses, and end-user statements), exemption citation, or other authorization description, if any; (2) Shipping documents (e.g., Shipper’s Export Declarations; Electronic Export Information filing, including the Internal Transaction Number), air waybills, and bills of laden, invoices, and any other associated documents); (3) Any other relevant documents must be retained by the person making the disclosure until the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls requests them or until a final decision on the disclosed information has been made. * * * * * PART 129–REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF BROKERS 36. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 38, Pub. L. 104-164, 110 Stat. 1437, (22 U.S.C. 2778). 37. Section 129.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 129.6 Requirements for License/Approval. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) Brokering activities that are arranged wholly within and destined exclusively for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that Organization, Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea, except in the case of the defense articles or defense services specified in Sec. 129.7(a) of this subchapter, for which prior approval is always required. 38. Section 129.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vii) and (a)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 129.7 Prior Approval (License). (a) * * * (1) * * * (vii) Foreign defense articles or defense services (other than those that are arranged wholly within and destined exclusively for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that Organization, Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea (see Sec. Sec. 129.6(b)(2) and 129.7(a)). (2) Brokering activities involving defense articles or defense services covered by, or of a nature described by part 121, of this subchapter, in addition to those specified in Sec. 129.7(a), that are designated as significant military equipment under this subchapter, for or from any country not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea whenever any of the following factors are present: * * * * * Dated: November 7, 2011. Ellen O. Tauscher, Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of State. [FR Doc. 2011-29328 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P

SECRET – CIA’s Clandestine Services Histories of Civil Air Transport

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/historical-collection-publications/clandestine-services-histories-of-civil-air-transport/CATbooklet_thumb.jpg

CIA’s Clandestine Services Histories of Civil Air Transport

This booklet and CD represent the public release of some of the most closely held activities in CIA history concerning one of the most controversial operations in American history. Within these pages, you will find excerpts of the CIA’s Clandestine Services Histories of Civil Air Transport (CAT) – the precursor to Air America. The Histories were written by Alfred T. Cox who was named the President of CAT when CIA acquired it, and guided both the covert operations side and the public commercial side of the airline for a number of years. As the name suggests, these histories are normally not released in any form to the public. In this case, time and circumstances allow us to release these particular products in concert with the 2011 CAT Association Reunion. You also will find pictures of the men and women who dedicated their lives to keeping the airline afloat through good times and bad. These people became a family in the early days and, although many of the founding members have passed on, the CAT community remains committed to the memory of the enormous accomplishments they and their families
achieved with this airline.

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

CAT Booklet

Unveiled – The Execution of “The Marshal” Ion Antonescu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwBKfJwXwA&feature=related

The Execution of German General Dostler in Italy WW II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0NwwCi9bUw&feature=related

The Execution of a German General
He served as Chief of Staff of the 7th Army. Subsequently, he commanded the 57th Infantry Division (1941-1942), the 163rd Infantry Division (1942) and the 42nd Army Corps (1943-1944). He was appointed to command the 75th Army Corps in January 1944.

Confidential – Obama – Implementing National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PPD-2.png

This Presidential Policy Directive is one of a number that have not previously been released. It was publicly posted to a collaboration server for U.S. military personnel complete with its National Security Council coversheet intact, providing a rare look at dissemination guidelines utilized in high-level documentation.

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ppd-22.pnghttps://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ppd-23.png

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ppd-24.png

TOP SECRET – White House “WikiLeaks” Executive Order on Improving Security of Classified Networks

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WikiLeaksExecutiveOrder.png

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT BELOW

WikiLeaksExecutiveOrder

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to ensure the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified national security information (classified information) on computer networks, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Our Nation’s security requires classified information to be shared immediately with authorized users around the world but also requires sophisticated and vigilant means to ensure it is shared securely. Computer networks have individual and common vulnerabilities that require coordinated decisions on risk management.

This order directs structural reforms to ensure responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks that shall be consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. Agencies bear the primary responsibility for meeting these twin goals. These structural reforms will ensure coordinated interagency development and reliable implementation of policies and minimum standards regarding information security, personnel security, and systems security; address both internal and external security threats and vulnerabilities; and provide policies and minimum standards for sharing classified information both within and outside the Federal Government. These policies and minimum standards will address all agencies that operate or access classified computer networks, all users of classified computer networks (including contractors and others who operate or access classified computer networks controlled by the Federal Government), and all classified information on those networks.

Sec. 2. General Responsibilities of Agencies.

Sec. 2.1. The heads of agencies that operate or access classified computer networks shall have responsibility for appropriately sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks. As part of this responsibility, they shall:

(a) designate a senior official to be charged with overseeing classified information sharing and safeguarding efforts for the agency;

(b) implement an insider threat detection and prevention program consistent with guidance and standards developed by the Insider Threat Task Force established in section 6 of this order;

(c) perform self-assessments of compliance with policies and standards issued pursuant to sections 3.3, 5.2, and 6.3 of this order, as well as other applicable policies and standards, the results of which shall be reported annually to the Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee established in section 3 of this order;

(d) provide information and access, as warranted and consistent with law and section 7(d) of this order, to enable independent assessments by the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks and the Insider Threat Task Force of compliance with relevant established policies and standards; and

(e) detail or assign staff as appropriate and necessary to the Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office and the Insider Threat Task Force on an ongoing basis.

Sec. 3. Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established a Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee (Steering Committee) to exercise overall responsibility and ensure senior-level accountability for the coordinated interagency development and implementation of policies and standards regarding the sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks.

Sec. 3.2. The Steering Committee shall be co-chaired by senior representatives of the Office of Management and Budget and the National Security Staff. Members of the committee shall be officers of the United States as designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Information Security Oversight Office within the National Archives and Records Administration (ISOO), as well as such additional agencies as the co-chairs of the Steering Committee may designate.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Steering Committee shall include:

(a) establishing Government-wide classified information sharing and safeguarding goals and annually reviewing executive branch successes and shortcomings in achieving those goals;

(b) preparing within 90 days of the date of this order and at least annually thereafter, a report for the President assessing the executive branch’s successes and shortcomings in sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks and discussing potential future vulnerabilities;

(c) developing program and budget recommendations to achieve Government-wide classified information sharing and safeguarding goals;

(d) coordinating the interagency development and implementation of priorities, policies, and standards for sharing and safeguarding classified information on computer networks;

(e) recommending overarching policies, when appropriate, for promulgation by the Office of Management and Budget or the ISOO;

(f) coordinating efforts by agencies, the Executive Agent, and the Task Force to assess compliance with established policies and standards and recommending corrective actions needed to ensure compliance;

(g) providing overall mission guidance for the Program Manager-Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) with respect to the functions to be performed by the Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office established in section 4 of this order; and

(h) referring policy and compliance issues that cannot be resolved by the Steering Committee to the Deputies Committee of the National Security Council in accordance with Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System).

Sec. 4. Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office.

Sec. 4.1. There shall be established a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office (CISSO) within and subordinate to the office of the PM-ISE to provide expert, fulltime, sustained focus on responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks. Staff of the CISSO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Steering Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of CISSO shall include:

(a) providing staff support for the Steering Committee;

(b) advising the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks and the Insider Threat Task Force on the development of an effective program to monitor compliance with established policies and standards needed to achieve classified information sharing and safeguarding goals; and

(c) consulting with the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the ISOO, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and others, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with policies and standards under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, Executive Order 12829 of January 6, 1993, as amended, Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010, and Executive Order 13556 of November 4, 2010.

Sec. 5. Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense and the Director, National Security Agency, shall jointly act as the Executive Agent for Safeguarding Classified Information on Computer Networks (the “Executive Agent”), exercising the existing authorities of the Executive Agent and National Manager for national security systems, respectively, under National Security Directive/NSD-42 of July 5, 1990, as supplemented by and subject to this order.

Sec. 5.2. The Executive Agent’s responsibilities, in addition to those specified by NSD-42, shall include the following:

(a) developing effective technical safeguarding policies and standards in coordination with the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS), as re-designated by Executive Orders 13286 of February 28, 2003, and 13231 of October 16, 2001, that address the safeguarding of classified information within national security systems, as well as the safeguarding of national security systems themselves;

(b) referring to the Steering Committee for resolution any unresolved issues delaying the Executive Agent’s timely development and issuance of technical policies and standards;

(c) reporting at least annually to the Steering Committee on the work of CNSS, including recommendations for any changes needed to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of that work; and

(d) conducting independent assessments of agency compliance with established safeguarding policies and standards, and reporting the results of such assessments to the Steering Committee.

Sec. 6. Insider Threat Task Force.

Sec. 6.1. There is established an interagency Insider Threat Task Force that shall develop a Government-wide program (insider threat program) for deterring, detecting, and mitigating insider threats, including the safeguarding of classified information from exploitation, compromise, or other unauthorized disclosure, taking into account risk levels, as well as the distinct needs, missions, and systems of individual agencies. This program shall include development of policies, objectives, and priorities for establishing and integrating security, counterintelligence, user audits and monitoring, and other safeguarding capabilities and practices within agencies.

Sec. 6.2. The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, or their designees. Membership on the Task Force shall be composed of officers of the United States from, and designated by the heads of, the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the ISOO, as well as such additional agencies as the co-chairs of the Task Force may designate. It shall be staffed by personnel from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), and other agencies, as determined by the co-chairs for their respective agencies and to the extent permitted by law. Such personnel must be officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States. To the extent permitted by law, ONCIX shall provide an appropriate work site and administrative support for the Task Force.

Sec. 6.3. The Task Force’s responsibilities shall include the following:

(a) developing, in coordination with the Executive Agent, a Government-wide policy for the deterrence, detection, and mitigation of insider threats, which shall be submitted to the Steering Committee for appropriate review;

(b) in coordination with appropriate agencies, developing minimum standards and guidance for implementation of the insider threat program’s Government-wide policy and, within 1 year of the date of this order, issuing those minimum standards and guidance, which shall be binding on the executive branch;

(c) if sufficient appropriations or authorizations are obtained, continuing in coordination with appropriate agencies after 1 year from the date of this order to add to or modify those minimum standards and guidance, as appropriate;

(d) if sufficient appropriations or authorizations are not obtained, recommending for promulgation by the Office of Management and Budget or the ISOO any additional or modified minimum standards and guidance developed more than 1 year after the date of this order;

(e) referring to the Steering Committee for resolution any unresolved issues delaying the timely development and issuance of minimum standards;

(f) conducting, in accordance with procedures to be developed by the Task Force, independent assessments of the adequacy of agency programs to implement established policies and minimum standards, and reporting the results of such assessments to the Steering Committee;

(g) providing assistance to agencies, as requested, including through the dissemination of best practices; and

(h) providing analysis of new and continuing insider threat challenges facing the United States Government.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word “agencies” shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to change the requirements of Executive Orders 12333 of December 4, 1981, 12829 of January 6, 1993, 12968 of August 2, 1995, 13388 of October 25, 2005, 13467 of June 30, 2008, 13526 of December 29, 2009, 13549 of August 18, 2010, and their successor orders and directives.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede or change the authorities of the Secretary of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Secretary of Defense under Executive Order 12829, as amended; the Secretary of Homeland Security under Executive Order 13549; the Secretary of State under title 22, United States Code, and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986; the Director of ISOO under Executive Orders 13526 and 12829, as amended; the PM-ISE under Executive Order 13388 or the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended; the Director, Central Intelligence Agency under NSD-42 and Executive Order 13286, as amended; the National Counterintelligence Executive, under the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002; or the Director of National Intelligence under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, NSD-42, and Executive Orders 12333, as amended, 12968, as amended, 13286, as amended, 13467, and 13526.

(d) Nothing in this order shall authorize the Steering Committee, CISSO, CNSS, or the Task Force to examine the facilities or systems of other agencies, without advance consultation with the head of such agency, nor to collect information for any purpose not provided herein.

(e) The entities created and the activities directed by this order shall not seek to deter, detect, or mitigate disclosures of information by Government employees or contractors that are lawful under and protected by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Inspector General Act of 1978, or similar statutes, regulations, or policies.

(f) With respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the Director of National Intelligence deems necessary to implement this order.

(g) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(1) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(2) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals

(h) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(i) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 7, 2011.

 

Live at the Locations – Women Protest Worldwide Photos 7

[Image]Members of the Galician pro-indepence group Ceive stage a protest in favor of the transfert of jailed Galician independentist to Galician jails, next to a polling station in the village of Escravitude, some 20 kms from Santiago de Compostela, northwestern Spain, on November 20, 2011. Spaniards voted in rain-swept elections Sunday that were all but certain to hand a thundering victory to the right and topple yet another debt-laden eurozone government. Bowed by a 21,5 percent jobless rate, economic stagnation and deep spending cuts, the first voters of the 36 million-strong Spanish electorate headed to polls ready to punish the ruling Socialists. Getty
[Image]A protester gestures during clashes with Egyptian riot police, not seen, near the interior ministry in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011. Firing tear gas and rubber bullets, Egyptian riot police on Sunday clashed for a second day with thousands of rock-throwing protesters demanding that the ruling military quickly announce a date to hand over power to an elected government. (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]A protester overcome with tear gas inhalation is helped inside a cafe during clashes with the Egyptian riot police, not seen, near the interior ministry in downtown Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011. Firing tear gas and rubber bullets, Egyptian riot police on Sunday clashed for a second day with thousands of rock-throwing protesters demanding that the ruling military quickly announce a date to hand over power to an elected government. (Tara Todras-Whitehill)
[Image]Wounded protesters are seen in a field hospital during clashes with Egyptian riot police in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011. Firing tear gas and rubber bullets, Egyptian riot police on Sunday clashed for a second day with thousands of rock-throwing protesters demanding that the ruling military quickly announce a date to hand over power to an elected government. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Occupy Oakland protester Abby Balanda demonstrates during a march through Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011. Anti-Wall Street protesters in Oakland pushed down a chain-link fence surrounding a city-owned vacant lot where they planned a new encampment on Saturday. (Noah Berger)
[Image]An Occupy Oakland protester, who declined to give her name, pitches a tent to establish a new encampment in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011. Police raided the group’s previous camp on Monday. Anti-Wall Street protesters in Oakland pushed down a chain-link fence surrounding a city-owned vacant lot where they planned a new encampment on Saturday. (Noah Berger)
[Image]A police officer arrests a demonstrator affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement as they block the entrance to the New York Stock Exchange on Broad Street, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 in New York. Two days after the encampment that sparked the global Occupy protest movement was cleared by authorities, demonstrators marched through New York’s financial district and promised a national day of action with mass gatherings in other cities. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]Police officers arrest a demonstrator affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 in New York. Two days after the encampment that sparked the global Occupy protest movement was cleared by authorities, demonstrators marched through New York’s financial district and promised a national day of action with mass gatherings in other cities. (Mary Altaffer)[Image]
[Image]Naked Israeli women pose for a photograph in Tel Aviv, November 19, 2011, to show solidarity with Egyptian blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, who put naked pictures of herself on the Internet, support free expression and protest against Islamic extremism. The banner reads: “Love With No Boundaries”. Picture taken November 19, 2011. Reuters
[Image]Tibetan Buddhist nun Palden Choetso sits in a house, in this handout picture taken in 1998 and recently released by the http://www.freetibet. org organisation. The 35-year-old Tibetan Buddhist nun burned herself to death on a public street an hour’s drive away on November 3, 2011, the latest in a string of self-immolations to protest against Chinese religious controls over Tibet. In China, eleven Tibetan monks and nuns — some former clergy — have resorted to the extreme protest since March this year. At least six have been fatal. Reuters
[Image]Activists are blocked by the police during a march against the use of fur on November 19, 2011 in Paris, France. The march, in its third year, is held to protest the use of animal fur in fashion and animal cruelty. Getty
[Image]Pro-Syrian regime protesters shout pro-Syrian President Bashar Assad slogans during a demonstration to show their soldarity with their president, in Damascus, Syria, on Sunday Nov. 20, 2011. Residents in the Syrian capital awoke to two loud explosions Sunday amid reports from activists that the Damascus headquarters of the ruling Baath party had been hit by several rocket-propelled grenades. But eyewitnesses said the party headquarters appeared intact and reported no significant security deployments.
[Image]Women supporters hold placards during a protest organised by Awami National Conference in Srinagar on November 19, 2011. The protesters demanded revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act in restive Kashmir. The draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was introduced in 1990 to give the army and paramilitary forces sweeping powers to detain people, use deadly force and destroy property. Violence is at its lowest in Indian Kashmir since the start of the insurgency that has so far left more than 47,000 people dead by official count but separatists putting the toll twice as high. Getty
[Image]Spain’s ‘indignant’ protesters demostrate in the Puerta del Sol square in Madrid on November 19, 2011 against spending cuts, high unemployment and political corruption, a week before a general election. Spain’s so-called ‘indignant’ protest movement was born when thousands of people set up camp in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol square ahead of May 22 municipal elections. Getty
[Image]A female protester gestures as she argues with Egyptian riot police officers in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011. Egyptian riot police beat protesters and dismantled a small tent city set up to commemorate revolutionary martyrs in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Saturday. (Khalil Hamra)
[Image]Egyptian women wave flags during a rally in Cairo’s Tahrir square, Egypt, Friday, Nov.18, 2011, in a protest against what they say are attempts by the country’s military rulers to reinforce their powers. The rally Friday was dominated by the country’s most organized political group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
[Image]Egyptian Laila Soueif, at left, the mother of prominent blogger Alaa Abdel-Fattah who was jailed by Egypt’s ruling generals, who is on hunger strike to protest her son’s detention, as they celebrate Alaa’s 30th birthday in Cairo’s Tahrir square, Friday, Nov. 18, 2011. At Friday’s rally in Tahrir square, protesters gathered to celebrate the birthday of one of the most prominent revolutionary bloggers to be jailed by the military prosecutor. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Bahraini demonstrators gesture Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, in A’ali, Bahrain, in front of a replica of the massive protest encampment that was demolished by government forces last spring in the crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising, complete with tents and a model of the landmark pearl monument (unseen). Thousands of Shiite-led protesters calling for greater rights streamed into the area outside the capital of Manama in one of the largest demonstrations in weeks against the Gulf kingdom’s rulers.
[Image]Muslims rally in Foley Square during a protest of ethnic profiling by law enforcement on November 18, 2011 in New York City. Muslims held a rally and Friday prayers and were joined by protesters affiliated with Occupy Wall Street. Getty
[Image]Animal activists, painted in “blood”, lie on a pile of fur during a protest in Belgrade November 18, 2011. The protest was held in conjunction with the “anti-fur” campaign in Europe. Reuters
[Image]Syrians living in Turkey write ‘Freedom’ with their blood during a protest against the government of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in front of the Syrian consulate in Istanbul, on November 18, 2011. Turkey added its voice Friday to warnings that civil war threatens Syria, while France’s top diplomat called for stepped up sanctions against Damascus, which he said had left it too late to reform. Getty
[Image]Opponents of ousted Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra hold banners as they shout during a protest in central Bangkok November 18, 2011. Opponents of Thaksin Shinawatra said on Thursday they could take to the streets if the government led by his sister tried to push through an amnesty that would let him return from exile a free man. Reuters
[Image]Muslims listen during a rally in Foley Square to protest against the NYPD surveillance operations of Muslim communities, Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, in New York. Hundreds of Muslims gathered in prayer Friday to oppose a decade of police spying on Muslim communities. The crowd filled about three-fourths of Foley Square in lower Manhattan, not far from City Hall. Demonstrators were scheduled to march on police headquarters (Bebeto Matthews)
[Image]Dorli Rainey, 84, left, who was pepper-sprayed by police last Tuesday while taking part in an “Occupy Seattle” protest, speaks Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, in front of police headquarters in downtown Seattle. Rainey and several dozen others marched to the station Friday and held the rally to call attention to how protesters have been treated. (Ted S. Warren)
[Image]Virila Perez, left, and Francisco Gonzalez, who work as municipal trash collectors, demonstrate against proposed lay-offs by lying on broken glass in Asuncion, Paraguay, Friday Nov. 18, 2011. Asuncion’s municipal government is proposing cuts in employment to reduce the cost of municipal workers to 60% of the city budget. The sign covering them reads in Spanish “Until the final fight, overcome or die.” (Jorge Saenz)
[Image]Annette Jones waits with other demonstrators to be arrested during a protest organized by Occupy Chicago and Stand Up Chicago November 17, 2011 in Chicago, Illinois. The demonstration was one of many protests held nationwide to mark the second month of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Getty
[Image]Occupy Seattle protestors demonstrate at the University Bridge, temporarily shutting it down, after meeting others from Seattle Central Community College during a national day of action, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011, in Seattle. Traffic was snarled around Seattle’s University District as two rallies marched toward the bridge. (Kevin P. Casey)
[Image]Eugene Police officers carry an Occupy Eugene protester away after arresting her for blocking the entrance to a Chase Bank in Eugene, Ore. Nov. 17, 2011. Occupy Eugene protesters spent an afternoon demonstrating at bank offices, and 17 were arrested. (Chris Pietsch)
[Image]A Occupy Portland protester is arrested by Portland Police officers after protesters take over a Wells Fargo bank Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011, in Portland, Ore. Occupy Wall Street demonstrators held modestly sized, but energetic rallies around the country Thursday to celebrate two months since the movement’s birth and signal that they aren’t ready to quit yet, despite police raids that have destroyed some of their encampments. (Rick Bowmer)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters walk across the Brooklyn Bridge after a rally in Foley Square, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 in New York. Organizers with the Service Employees International Union and progressive groups staged similar bridge marches in several cities in an event that was planned weeks ago, but happened to coincide with rallies marking two months since the start of the Occupy movement (Henny Ray Abrams)
[Image]Protesters willing to be arrested, including Donna Cassult, left, of Minneapolis, linked arms and sat on the roadway of the 10th Ave. Bridge in Minneapolis and waited for police to place them in custody Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011. Demonstrators peacefully shut down the 10th Ave. Bridge during rush hour to call attention to the need for more jobs and racial equality in employment.
[Image]Police officers arrest a demonstrators affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 in New York. Two days after the encampment that sparked the global Occupy protest movement was cleared by authorities, demonstrators marched through New York’s financial district and promised a national day of action with mass gatherings in other cities. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]20-year-old Egyptian blogger Aliaa Mahdy. Photograph: Aliaa Mahdy

Live at the Locations – Women Protest Worldwide Photos 6

[Image]Spanish ‘indignant’ protesters hold a placard reading ‘We do not want fascists’ during a protest in front of a campaign meeting of the far-right party ‘Plataforma per Catalunya’ on November 13, 2011 in Barcelona. Hundreds of Spain’s ‘indignant’ protesters marched through the streets of Madrid Sunday to protest spending cuts, high unemployment and political corruption, a week before a general election. In Barcelona about 30 members of the movement decided at an assembly Saturday to camp out in the Plaza de Catalunya until the general election on November 20. Getty
[Image]Two girls holds a coffin with a doll inside that wearing a mask with the faces of presidential candidates of Popular Party Mariano Rajoy and Socialist Party Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba during a demonstration against the government and banks in Madrid on Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011. Spain goes to the polls for presidential elections on November 20. (Arturo Rodriguez)
[Image]Public workers march during a protest in Lisbon’s main avenue of Liberdade November 12, 2011. Public workers, policemen and military personnel are holding several protests in Lisbon against the job and 2012 state budget cuts. Reuters
[Image]A woman holds up a sign that reads “No is No” as she takes part in the “Marcha de las Putas” (SlutWalk), held to protest against discrimination and violence against women in Lima, November 12, 2011. The march is part of the SlutWalk protest movement which started after a policeman advised women students in Canada to “avoid dressing like sluts”. Reuters
[Image]Pro-Syrian regime protesters, hold up portraits of Syrian President Bashar Assad with Arabic words: ” The lion (Assad) of resistance and the rejectionism” during a demonstration against the Arab League decision to suspend Syria in front the Syrian embassy, in Beirut, Lebanon, on Sunday Nov. 13, 2011. Tens of thousands of pro-regime demonstrators gathered in a Damascus square Sunday to protest the Arab League’s vote to suspend Syria over its bloody crackdown on the country’s eight-month-old uprising.
[Image]Syrian protesters shout anti-Syrian Preident Bashar Assad slogans during a protest in front of the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011 where the League emergency session on Syria is to discuss the country’s failure to end bloodshed caused by government crackdowns on civil protests. Protesters called the Arab League to suspend the country’s membership. Arabic read ” step out, we need to build civilian modern country” (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Demonstrators with cooking pots and colanders on their heads stand in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011. Thousands of people formed a human chain around the Frankfurt bank towers protesting against the power of banks. German police say more than ten thousand people are protesting against the banks’ dominance in two of the country’s major cities.
[Image]A group of protesters prepare their signs before heading out into the ocean to hold an anti-APEC protest at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu on Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 as the summit is held in Oahu over the weekend. (Marco Garcia)
[Image]Demonstrators hold a ribbon reading “smash banks, redistribute wealth” in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011. Thousands of people formed a human chain with the ribbon around the Frankfurt bank towers to protest against the power of banks.Thousands of people formed a human chain around the Frankfurt bank towers protesting against the worldwide power of banks. German police say more than ten thousand people are protesting against the banks’ dominance in two of the country’s major cities.
[Image]Protestors march through downtown Lisbon during a demonstration by military personnel associations against austerity measures Saturday, Nov. 12 2011. The Portuguese government plans to introduce more pay cuts and steep tax hikes next year while the country is struggling to restore its fiscal health despite a euro78 billion ($106 billion) bailout earlier this year. Banner reads ” Amnesty for the military punished for offenses of opinion” refering to military who have been punished for taking part in protests.
[Image]Students march against government plans to reform higher education in Medellin, Colombia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of students march in the country’s main cities despite President Juan Manuel Santos’ proposal to withdraw a reform bill on higher education. (Luis Benavides)
[Image]A UCLA student arrested by Los Angeles Police Department officers after she attempted to escape after eleven student protesters sat in circle in middle of the Westwood and Wilshire boulevard intersection as part of a protest of bank practices and rising fees at public universities on November 9, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. The protest organized by ReFund California was one of several planned at universities around the state. Getty
[Image]Students demonstrate against an education reform bill in Bogota, on November 10, 2011. Thousands of students from more than 30 public universities took to the streets in Colombia to protest against proposed education reforms they fear will partially privatize higher education. The students have been on strike over the past month to protest a bill put forward by President Juan Manuel Santos that would require public universities to generate some of their own revenues. On Wednesday Santos offered to withdraw the draft and open a dialogue if the more than half a million students on strike lift their form of pressure. Getty
[Image]A demonstrator holds a banner against the ECB in Naples on November 11, 2011 during a rally called ‘Occupy Napoli’ (Occupy Naples), refering to the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, to protest against banks and international financial power. Getty
[Image]Hungarian and foreign activists and sympathizers of the ‘True Democracy Now’ group hold banners reading ‘Direct Democracy’ (R) and ‘Be part’, (L) as an elderly woman mouth’s is covered by a fake 1000 euro bill in front the central bank of Budapest on November 11, 2011 during a demonstration for a better and livable world and to protest against the political and economical system. Getty
[Image]A protester holds a sign reading “Neither Tremonti nor Monti” during a protest in front of the Ministry of Finance in Rome November 11, 2011. The package of austerity measures that were demanded by the European Union will now go to the Italian lower house, which is expected to approve it on Saturday. That vote will trigger the resignation of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The signs refer to Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti and former European Commissioner Mario Monti, who is tipped as the favourite to replace Berlusconi. Reuters
[Image]A Yemeni woman covers her mouth with her hand painted in the colours of the national flag during to a protest against the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh in the capital Sanaa, on November11, 2011. Forces loyal to Yemeni President Abdullah Saleh shelled the country’s second largest city Taez, killing nine people, among them two women and a child, a medic and witnesses said. Getty
[Image]A protester holding a banner camps outside the Banca d’Italia on November 11, 2011 in Venice, Italy. Protest in several Italian cities have been called by the Indignados, students, social centres and other organizations for today 11.11.11 to protest against financial insitutions and cuts proposed by the Government. Getty
[Image]Dalbir Kaur, sister of Indian national Sarabjit Singh on death row in Pakistan, second right, along with supporters of All India Youth Foundation takes an oath for securing his release in front of the India Gate war memorial at 11:11 am, in New Delhi, India, Friday, Nov. 11, 2011. A placard on left reads, “People’s Voice, Sarabjit.” (Gurinder Osan)
[Image]An Indonesian Muslim woman wears a Palestinian flag face mask during a solidarity protest for the Palestinian people in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. (Irwin Fedriansyah)
[Image]Demonstrators of a group “Occupy Rio” protest against Rio de Janeiro’s governor Sergio Cabral in downtown Rio de Janeiro November 10, 2011. The demonstration, inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, seeks to address the corruption in the police and the problems with the health care system under the governance of Cabral. Cabral had originally organized a demonstration to rally against an oil reform amendment approved by the lower house of Congress. Reuters
[Image]Protesters from the communist-affiliated trade union PAME shout slogans during an anti-government protest in Athens November 10, 2011. Greece named former European Central Bank vice-president Lucas Papademos on Thursday to head a crisis government, ending a chaotic search for a leader to save the country from default, bankruptcy and an exit from the euro zone. Reuters
[Image]A demonstrator marches during a student protest against government plans to reform higher education at the main square in Bogota, Colombia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of students marched in the country’s main cities despite a government proposal to withdraw a reform bill on higher education. (William Fernando Martinez)
[Image]People wave flags of Rio de Janeiro state during a protest against an oil reform amendment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of Brazilians are demonstrating against a plan that reduces revenue for oil-producing states and the federal government while increasing oil royalties for non-producing states. (Felipe Dana)
[Image]Christian fundamentalist holds a candle during a demonstration against Italian director Romeo Castellucci’s play “On the Concept of the Face, Regarding the Son of God” in Rennes, western France, Thursday Nov. 10, 2011. Christian fundamentalists gathered outside the cultural palace the Theatre National de Bretagne, (National Theatre of Brittany), to protest against the play which they claim is blasphemous. (David Vincent)
[Image]One of the students with peaceful attitude cleans the shield of a riot policemen that was stained with paint by more violent protesters, during a demonstration against an education reform bill at Bogota’s main square Plaza de Bolivar, on November 10, 2011. Thousands of students from more than 30 public universities took to the streets in Colombia to protest against proposed education reforms they fear will partially privatize higher education. The students have been on strike over the past month to protest a bill put forward by President Juan Manuel Santos that would require public universities to generate some of their own revenues. On Wednesday Santos offered to withdraw the draft and open a dialogue if the more than half a million students on strike lift their form of pressure. Getty
[Image]NOVEMBER 09: UCLA graduate student Cheryl Deutsch is arrested by Los Angeles Police Department officers after she and 10 other student protesters sat in circle in middle of the Westwood and Wilshire boulevard intersection as part of a protest of bank practices and rising fees at public universities on November 9, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. The protest organized by ReFund California was one of several planned at universities around the state. Getty
[Image]A woman shouts out as police officers move into the crowd of demonstrators and push people back during a student anti-cuts protest in London, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. Thousands of students marched through central London on Wednesday to protest cuts to public spending and a big increase in university tuition fees. Police said there were “a number of arrests for public order offenses” Wednesday, but the march was largely peaceful as demonstrators made their way through the city center.
[Image]A protester cries out as students and campaigners march through the streets of London in a protest against higher tuition fees and government cuts, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. (Sang Tan)
[Image]A lone protester stands outside the Scottsdale Plaza Resort to protest Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain who was addressing the media Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011, in Scottsdale, Ariz. Cain said Tuesday that he would not drop his bid for the Republicans’ presidential nomination in the face of decade-old allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. (Charlie Leight)
[Image]Two members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who are covered from head to toe in green and blue bodypaint, as they hold a banner reading, “Save the Planet, Go Vegan,” at the Nanjing pedestrian street in Shanghai, China Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. (Eugene Hoshiko)
[Image]Protestors from Occupy Philly participate in a ‘die in’ demonstration outside a PNC Bank branch in Philadelphia on Monday Nov. 7, 2011. The demonstration was conducted to draw attention to PNC Bank’s business practices. (Joseph Kaczmarek)
[Image]A Syrian woman, who lives in Cairo, reacts as others wave a giant Syrian revolution flag during an anti-Syrian President Bashar Assad demonstration at Tahrir Square, the focal point of Egyptian uprisings, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011 to support protesters in Syria during the first day of Islamic Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]An activist of the Ukrainian female rights organization “Femen” shows a placard demanding freedom for women, during a protest at the end of Pope Benedict XVI’s Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011. (Pier Paolo Cito)
[Image]Yemeni girls hold a giant Yemeni flag, left, as Syrians hold their revolution flag, right, during a protest against Yemeni and Syrian regimes at Tahrir Square, the focal point of Egyptian uprising, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011 to support protesters in Yemen and Syria during the first day of Islamic Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Amy Barnes protests as police move in to clear a downtown street during an Occupy Atlanta demonstration late Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011 in Atlanta. (David Goldman)
[Image]In this Nov. 27, 2010 file photo, Susanna Camusso, leader of Italy’s largest labor confederation CGIL, arrives to deliver her speech during a demonstration to protest government policies regarding the economical crisis, in Rome. In an interview with The Associated Press Monday Nov. 7, 2011, Camusso is predicting 2012 will be a “terrifying” year for the economy even if beleaguered Premier Silvio Berlusconi leaves power soon.

HOLOCAUST – Firing Squad – Execution of 3 Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG3FIs8B91g

Cruel War – US Soldier Lost 1/3 of Brain in Iraq

Unveiled – Saddams Execution

TOP-SECRET: Conspiracy to Murder Abroad, and Providing Material Support to al Qaeda

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department announced that Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty today in the Eastern District of New York to a three-count superseding information charging him with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction (explosive bombs) against persons or property in the United States, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and providing material support to al Qaeda. Among other things, Zazi admitted that he brought TATP [Triacetone Triperoxide] explosives to New York on Sept. 10, 2009, as part of plan to attack the New York subway system.

Zazi, 25, a resident of Aurora, Colo., and legal permanent resident of the United States from Afghanistan, entered his guilty plea today before Chief U.S. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie. Zazi faces a maximum statutory sentence of life in prison for the first two counts of the superseding information and an additional 15 years in prison for the third count of the superseding information.

FBI agents in Colorado first arrested Zazi on Sept. 19, 2009, on a criminal complaint charging him with knowingly and willfully making false statements to the FBI in a matter involving international and domestic terrorism. On Sept. 23, 2009, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a one-count indictment alleging that Zazi knowingly and intentionally conspired with others to use one or more weapons of mass destruction, specifically explosive bombs and other similar explosive devices, against persons or property within the United States.

As Zazi admitted during today’s guilty plea allocution and as reflected in previous government filings, he and others agreed to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and fight against United States and allied forces. In furtherance of their plans, they flew from Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, N.J., to Peshawar, Pakistan at the end of August 2008. Although Zazi and others initially intended to fight on behalf of the Taliban, they were recruited by al-Qaeda shortly after arriving in Peshawar. Al Qaeda personnel transported Zazi and others to the Waziristan region of Pakistan and trained them on several different kinds of weapons. During the training, al Qaeda leaders asked Zazi and others to return to the United States and conduct suicide operations. They agreed.

Zazi later received additional training from al Qaeda on constructing the explosives for the planned attacks in the United States. Zazi had discussions with al Qaeda leaders about target locations, including subway trains in New York City. Zazi took detailed notes during the training, and later e-mailed a summary of the notes to himself so that he could access them when he returned to the United States. Zazi also provided money and computers to al Qaeda before he left Pakistan.

Zazi returned to the United States in January 2009 and moved to Denver. Beginning in June 2009, he began reviewing the bomb-making notes from his training and conducting research on where to buy the ingredients for the explosives. Zazi then traveled to New York and met with others to discuss the plan, including the timing of the attack and where to make the explosives.

Zazi returned to Denver and used the bomb-making notes to construct the explosives for the detonator components of the bombs. As set forth in the government’s detention memorandum filed earlier in the case, in July and August 2009, Zazi purchased large quantities of components necessary to produce TATP and twice checked into a hotel room near Denver, where bomb making residue was later found.

On Sept. 8, 2009, Zazi rented a car and drove from Denver to New York, taking with him the explosives and other materials necessary to build the bombs. Zazi arrived in New York City on Thursday, Sept.10, 2009. Zazi and others intended to obtain and assemble the remaining components of the bombs over the weekend and conduct the attack on Manhattan subway lines on Sept. 14, Sept. 15, or Sept. 16, 2009. However, shortly after arriving in New York, Zazi realized that law enforcement was investigating his activities. Zazi and others discarded the explosives and other bomb-making materials, and Zazi traveled back to Denver. He was arrested on Sept. 19, 2009.

“This was one of the most serious terrorist threats to our nation since September 11, 2001, and were it not for the combined efforts of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, it could have been devastating,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “This attempted attack on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have been deadly. We were able to thwart this plot because of careful analysis by our intelligence agents and prompt actions by law enforcement. They deserve our thanks and praise.”

“Today’s plea is an important development in this complex and ongoing criminal investigation and intelligence operation that in many ways illustrates the evolving nature of the terrorist threat today,” said FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole. “The plea is the result of the dedication and hard work by agents and officers assigned to Joint Terrorism Task Forces in both New York and Colorado working closely with federal prosecutors.”

This case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado and the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The investigation is being conducted by the New York and Denver FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which combined have investigators from more than fifty federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Brutal Execution in the Iraq

FBI-Director Mueller about Terrorists, Spies, and Hackers The New National Security Landscape

Taliban kills two Afghan for alleged prostitution

Taliban execute 2 Afghans publicly

TOP-SECRET-U.C. Berkeley Police Crowd Control Policy

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/UCB-CrowdControl.png

This Policy is to provide an outline of basic steps to be taken and/or considered by UCPD in the management of campus demonstrations. It is recognized that no policy can completely cover every possible situation and thus we rely on the expertise of the commanders and supervisors to manage the situation utilizing this policy as a guideline. This policy is primarily intended to cover demonstrations on campus and involving primarily University affiliates but many of the elements are applicable to any demonstration. “Demonstration”, for the purposes of this policy, includes a broad range of gatherings. Generally they are events with a significant crowd intending to express a particular point of view to others, often “The University”, and often through highly visible and possibly disruptive means. They are distinguished from peaceful meetings but may spring from them.

PHILOSOPHY

The University and UCPD recognize the rights of all individuals to assemble and speak freely, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California State Constitution, and will actively protect those rights. The rights all people have to march, demonstrate, protest, rally or perform other First Amendment activities come with the responsibility to not abuse or violate the civil and property rights of others. The University has a right to continue normal business without disruption and all members of our community have the right to go about their business freely and safely. At times these rights result in competing interests which must be resolved. Toward this end, the University has established “time, place and manner” rules that should be used as guidelines. Only certain specific areas on campus are designated as forums for public expression.

The responsibility of UCPD is to protect the lives, property and rights of all people and to enforce the law. Personal safety is of primary importance for participants, non-participants and those who must be present by virtue of their positions (including Police Officers). Security of University facilities and continuation of normal business are also priorities.

When it becomes necessary to manage the actions of a crowd that constitutes an unlawful assembly or has committed other violations of law or University rules, the commitment and responsibility of law enforcement is to manage it lawfully, efficiently, and with minimal impact on the community. A variety of techniques and tactics may be necessary to resolve such an incident. Only that force which is reasonable may be used to arrest violators and/or restore order. Participants are expected to realize their obligation to comply with the lawful orders of police officers and to submit when arrested.

MASS ARRESTS:

When it becomes necessary to make arrests of numerous individuals over a relatively short period of time the OIC/Overall Commander should ensure that:

• The area is contained and the violators isolated.
• Personnel understand whether someone may leave the area and under what conditions.
• The proper dispersal order is read outlining the unlawful assembly, other committed violations, and the dispersal route.
• An arresting/reporting officer is assigned.
• An arrest team is designated to take custody of the demonstrators.
• All arrests are done in accordance with policies, procedures, and training. The use of various types of arrest techniques should be based upon the type of resistance presented as well as the exigency of the situation.
• All arrested prisoners are searched, photographed, and properly identified.
• A decision is made as to how prisoners will be processed, i.e. field cited (on-site or off site) or transported to Berkeley Jail or Santa Rita Jail for booking; and whether protesters will be subject to 626 PC (626.4 for students/626.6 for others).
• If a significant number of students will be arrested, Office of Student Conduct representatives are requested to consider delivering Student Conduct violation notices at the booking station as appropriate.
• An adequate secure area is designated in the field for holding arrestees for the booking process or after the initial booking process while awaiting transportation.
• An adequate number of vehicles are made available to remove the arrestees to the detention center/jail.
• All injured prisoners are provided medical attention as appropriate prior to being incarcerated.
• All arrested juveniles are handled in accordance with the Department’s procedures for arrest, transportation, and detention of juveniles (GO-B3).
• All evidence and weapons taken from arrestees are processed in accordance with the department’s policy on the preservation and custody of evidence (GO-P1).

Taliban execute 2 Afghans publicly

In a gruesome public spectacle, Taliban-linked militants on Friday executed two Afghan men accused of spying for the United States, slitting their throats and parading their severed heads before a cheering crowd

The Execution of the Polish engineer Piotr Stańczak by Terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fcoEemfurE

Occupy Wall Street NYC Photos

Media Interviews Julian Assange after Secret Meeting with DoJ on Plea Deal to Heave Bradley Manning from Freedom Tower[Image]
NYPD: If You See Something Say Something[Image]
Media Has Lost Interest in OWS[Image]
Arrow Taken in Ear Union Trooper Packs Egg-Stash Bivouac after Gettysburg Chicken-Out[Image]
Student Debt Too Big to Fail[Image]
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Fall-out Data Gathering[Image]
Jim, It Asked About You[Image]
Pigeons There, Me Here, Where’s Justice[Image]
As She Sashays, the Cop Watch Tower Tumesces[Image]
Home Sweet Home Wet[Image]
Pizza Conga[Image]
Narcissist Eyes Photographer Twin[Image]
Her Excellency Protestor and Merc Spearchucker[Image]
Mic Checking a Senior Cop While 292-Cop Prepares to Loogie[Image]
National Lawyer Guild Rep ID-Checks Prideful Illegal Alien[Image]
Memorial to Immolated Tibetan[Image]
Medical Team Back from Patching Cop Whackamoles[Image]
Another Medical Team Back from Wiping Hegemon Spittle[Image]
Cops Reassemble Un-Zipped Barricades After Masked Man Eats Plastic Tie[Image]
Senior Police Official’s Warm and Dry Pussy Wagon Quietly Rockabyeing Whiles Eyes are Averted.[Image]
Constitutionally Coddled Media Covering Wall Street from Remote Studios.[Image]
Beshitten Sergeant Coddling the Bull’s Balls While Sweettalking Mommie Dearest[Image]
Wall Street Security Crud at the South Portal to Inevitable Revolution[Image]

	

Execution in China

Vietnam Execution

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT – Occupy Toronto Eviction Notice

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OccupyTorontoEviction.png

NOTICE UNDER THE TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT – NOVEMBER 15, 2011

You are hereby given notice that you are prohibited from engaging in the following activities in St. James Park and in any other City of Toronto park:

1. Installing, erecting or maintaining a tent, shelter or other structure;

2. Using, entering or gathering in the park between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m..

The City of Toronto hereby directs you immediately to stop engaging in the activities listed above and to remove immediately any tent, shelter, structure, equipment and debris from St. James Park. If you do not immediately remove any and all tents, shelters, structures, equipment and debris from St. James Park, such tents, shelters, structures, equipment and debris shall be removed from St. James Park by or on behalf of the City of Toronto. You are further ordered immediately to stop using, entering or gathering in St. James Park between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m..

Please be advised that this notice may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. T21 or by any other legal means available to the City of Toronto. Please be further advised that under the Trespass to Property Act, every person who engages in an activity on premises when the activity has been prohibited under the Act is guilty of an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $2000.

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

OccupyTorontoEviction

The last hour of Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_azkovlxv4

Keine der Diktaturen in Osteuropa war totalitärer als die des Nicolae Ceausescu – und keine wurde blutiger gestürzt. Die Hinrichtung des Ehepaars Ceausescu am 25. Dezember 1989 in der Militärkaserne von Tirgoviste bildet den dramatischen Höhepunkt einer Revolution, deren Hintergründe bis heute ungeklärt sind. DIE LETZTEN TAGE DER CEAUSESCUS erzählt die rumänische Revolution erstmals von innen heraus und macht die Atmosphäre jener Tage aus Euphorie, Unsicherheit und Verrat spürbar.

TOPSECRET UNVEILED – EU Study on Crowd Control Technologies

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/EU-CrowdControl.png

This study grew out of the 1997 STOA report, ‘An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control’ and takes that work further. Its focus is two fold:(i) to examine the bio-medical effects and the social & political impacts of currently available crowd control weapons in Europe; (ii) to analyse world wide trends and developments including the implications for Europe of a second generation of so called “non-lethal” weapons. Seven key areas are covered by the report’s project: (a) a review of available crowd control technologies; (b) relevant legislation at national and EU levels; (c) the relative efficiency of crowd control technologies; (d) their physical and mental effects on individuals; (e) the actual and potential abuse of crowd control technologies; (f) an assessment of future technologies and their effects; and finally (g) an appraisal of less damaging alternatives such as CCTV.The report presents a detailed worldwide survey of crowd control weapons and the companies which manufacture supply or distribute them. It was found that at least 110 countries worldwide deploy riot control weapons, including chemical irritants, kinetic energy weapons, water cannon and electro-shock devices. Whilst presented as humane alternatives to the use of lethal force, the study found examples in 47 countries of these so called “non-lethal” crowd control weapons being used in conjunction with lethal force rather than as a substitute for it, leading directly to injury and fatalities.

Within Europe, the study found that the biomedical research necessary to justify the deployment of certain crowd control technologies was either absent, lacking or incomplete and that there was inadequate quality control at production level to ensure that adverse or even lethal effects were avoided. Evidence is also presented of the misuse of these technologies and the breach of deployment guidelines which can make their effects either severely damaging or lethal. Member States currently have inadequate export controls to prevent the transfer, brokerage or licensed production of crowd control weapons to human rights violators, including weapons such as electroshock devices which have been directly implicated in torture. The report warns against adopting ever more powerful crowd control weapons as ‘technical fixes’. It suggests their use should be limited and provides a number of options to make the adoption and use of these weapons more democratically accountable. These include licensing and independent evaluation of the biomedical impacts of such weapons via a formal process
of ‘Social Impact Assessment’; legal limits on weapons which are exceptionally hazardous or lethal; legally binding rules of engagement; better post incident inquiry procedures and more effective, accountable and transparent export controls.

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

EU-CrowdControl

Death of Heinrich Himmler 1945

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVu7EjEE2s

Escape from Sobibor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyzgwVwDTq0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMkhA6vF-Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FGirk5xyY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSrffmgvZIY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuWFWZc24u8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyeMUe_wpA0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eph4Lo9Gi0c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVMRCxaM5VA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcGTIBkKt1w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLQSbpEEDs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LZIIXcnvWc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oe9SdDhJFc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qC8nnnACsU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=310JfdrpTx4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4-i25VNB4&feature=related

Escape from Sobibor (1987) (TV Movie)

The uncut version

143min

Occupy Wall Street NYC Photos

Liberty Park is encircled with tied-together barricades, with only two points of entry to the park, one each along Liberty and Cedar Streets.[Image]
Green-vested “guards” are numerous. These outnumber the few police outside the park.
Some of the guards appear to be undercover cops, perhaps all of them.[Image]
The guard-cop at left ordered a visitor to remove coffee and food from a bench.[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
Books coming in to replace those trashed by Bloomberg.
No ban on books so in large numbers they may be used as materials to fabricate shelter.[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]These gents appear leery of being photographed, and rightly so, due to persistent infiltration and photography by cops. Or could be undercover cops.[Image]
[Image]
Giant sculptures are now barricaded.[Image]
Barricades along Wall Street at the New York Stock Exchange have been reduced.[Image]
Horses have replaced heavily armed cops for tourist appeal, long pretending to protect the stock exchange.[Image]
The original Wall Street occupiers at Wall Street and Broadway protesting the folly over 200 years later.[Image]

	

TOP-SECRET-(U//FOUO) Asymmetric Warfare Group Tactical Information Superiority Report

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/USArmy-InfoSuperiority.png

This document facilitates discussion, training, and implementation of effective information superiority methods at the Battalion and Brigade level. This paper discusses the Center of Gravity analysis model for identifying threat networks, Critical Capabilities, and Critical Vulnerabilities; use of the methodology to determine the threat vulnerabilities; and as a basis for understanding how to achieve Information Superiority.

The battalion commander instantly knew from looking at the map, with all of the red significant activities plotted on the overlay, that renewed operations in the valley would be rough. Almost every route into and out of the area had seen recent Improvised Explosive Device (IED) activity. Worse, it seemed that many of the villages in the valley were supportive of insurgent activity. The insurgents had recently stepped up their propaganda campaign in the area, as well, intimidating villagers, kidnapping elders, assassinating key figures, leaving behind strong warnings against cooperating with Coalition Forces, while also reinforcing their own message: the insurgents would prevail over the foreign forces because they were from the region, the insurgents would take care of the people that supported their activities, and they would continue to be in the area long after the Coalition Forces left.

The commander planned a deliberate clearing operation to regain control of the major routes in the area, deny insurgents traditional safe havens, and bolster Host Nation Security Forces and Government officials, but he also knew t hat if he entered the valley using too much force that he might further alienate the locals. The commander could not stay in the valley, holding the terrain against insurgent reinfiltration indefinitely-he would be forced to withdraw and plan for other operations, hoping the locals and Host Nation Security Forces would be willing and able to defend the area against the enemy.

How could the commander expect the villagers to aid his unit in denying the area as a support base for insurgents when there was no apparent common ground? How was he, as a Commander, supposed to communicate his intent to the local people, Host Nation officials, and to other key individuals? His battalion’s task organization included three Infantry Companies, an Anti-Tank Company, a Mortar Platoon, and a Scout Sniper Platoon. Additionally, the commander’s capabilities were augmented by a Tactical Military Information Support Team, a Military Source Operations (MSO) qualified Counterintelligence (CI) Team, and an Explosive Ordnance Detachment (EOD) Team. The commander also had new devices (including the Radio-In-The-Box or RIAB); some of these newly issued devices were pieces of equipment his leaders and Soldiers had never seen or used before deploying into theater.

The commander had enough combat forces to clear, and temporarily hold the valley, but what then? The commander knew he would achieve immediate but limited security in the area and also reach his higher headquarter’s directed end state. But how could he achieve longer term effects so that he would not have to repeat the mission again in just four months?

Lethal options in a Counter Insurgency (COIN) environment are only a portion of the necessary operations that must be successfully conducted at the tactical level. Non-Lethal options provide a balance to more kinetic operations, providing choices that can impact the threat and the population in longer term ways. Information Superiority, at the tactical level, is an essential requirement for successfully defeating insurgents in the COIN fight.

Shoah (Full Film)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0WcZu9O74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qYsck03Y0c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAb9xnXDMRA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78wWAASwDuY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQ9jYe_7HY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6swl-y_gdQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRR12SGT9rM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaI37UnEQU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUfQzYIjw78&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGGvEZ9EvE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUaso_ZYZhY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5r8JoEheno&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPn5KiPQRU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctUGParqSEo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctUGParqSEo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv5PhOGOB9U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUowCIZEI0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1CZClrQdQE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0EKmDxz3c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GtFdh1Qzw0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkAscq51a9E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCrbTMVHdE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI4gW1IWdNU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grlAt3_1OO0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2qCnd2hpGI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as9RR9BvSgQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uGGkqeWv2k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfFAH3BA04&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6nvodrL7Qo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pikZ2ZH3AWg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_esZvpojBI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ZNc1Yugow&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgCg4rXUKzE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsk2GAv9YhM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXCate3eOXk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PinlEp0ziaY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoKdN6V924I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O3BVStZQXU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcyLOgTcMw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek98CExwy_E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4qfE8ipRo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_blStpYhs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4ThXhdujf0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t540Ge_W9c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOPha2kPXXU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lEIhg-oexQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUFJhy2-aSI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqRW6uesCEc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wKQGSuuK4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857GObd-t7I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz0RLUf9se0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoPoVJnfzNM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clFSTvpxAVM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YH8GMehq2U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHv4BusEgs8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijd8az6vwyE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkCQ-_0iosE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-IFwoskyGU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bye20G7lDxs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP7gf_RDREs&feature=related

Mass Murder of Jews in Liepaja, Latvia, 1941.

TOP-SECRET-Fukushima Daiichi NPS Restoration Status

DOWNLOAD THE ORGINAL DOCUMENTS HERE

daiichi-111711-00

daiichi-111711-01

daiichi-111711-02

daiichi-111711-03

daiichi-111711-04

daiichi-111711-05

FBI-Man Sentenced to Prison and Ordered to Pay Over $30 Million in Restitution for Multiple Concert Promotion Ponzi Schemes

PHOENIX—Miko Dion Wady, 36, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced late Monday by U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay over $30 million in restitution and perform 250 hours of community service. Wady previously pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud and five counts of transactional money laundering.

At sentencing Judge Teilborg also ordered that Wady forfeit numerous seized items, and the proceeds from the sale of additional seized items, including a 41 foot Rinker Express Cruiser boat, a Ferrari, over $100,000 held in cash and accounts, jewelry, firearms and recreational equipment including a Weekend Warrior 5th wheel trailer.

“This individual sought to profit by creating a sophisticated money laundering scheme designed to scam investors out of their money,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel. “The court’s stiff sentence reflects the seriousness of his crime and this office’s resolve to prosecute individuals who profit from unsuspecting investors.”

In the course of his guilty plea, Wady admitted that he operated and had an ownership interest in various business enterprises that purportedly were engaged in the business of promoting concerts or tours of well known entertainers and artists. The enterprises included Dezert Heat Entertainment, Inc.; Dezert Heat, Inc.; Dezert Heat Worldwide, LLC; NATO Enterprises, LLC; and NATO Entertainment, LLC.

Wady admitted that he and others misled victim investors into believing that Wady entered into performance contracts and other business arrangements with nationally and internationally known entertainers, arranged performance venues throughout the world, and greatly profited by putting on these concert or tour events. Wady, with the assistance of others, falsely claimed during the period 2004 through 2007 to have promoted concerts for at least forty artists and entertainers, including many who were nationally and internationally known.

Through various entities and associates, Wady obtained victim investor funds to finance purported concerts and tours supposedly being promoted by Wady. From at least August 2004 through March 2007, Wady and associates entered into loan and event funding agreements, totaling approximately fifty million dollars, with approximately 250 victim investors. The “investments” were purportedly to finance approximately 150 concerts or concert tours “promoted” by Wady. At the time of Wady’s sentencing, approximately 240 investors and groups of investors were known to have sustained losses totaling $30,040,197.

The “investment” loan agreements victim investors entered into regularly specified that each “investment” loan was for the financing of a particular concert or tour of a designated performer. The “investment” loan terms regularly called for repayment to the victim investors within 30 days after receipt of the net concert proceeds for the designated concert or tour. Victim investors were typically promised interest rates of 4 percent per month for the first two months, and 2.5 percent per month thereafter until the investment loans were repaid.

Upon receipt of victim investor funds by associates of Wady, the associates transferred the funds to Wady for the purported financing of concert or tour events. Because Wady had no association or contractual arrangement with any of the concerts or tours, the investor funds given to Wady by his associates were never actually used as represented to the victim investors. Most of the funds were instead returned by Wady to his associates within a short period of time, typically one or two days, under the guise that these repayments represented the net proceeds from some other concert or tour that was recently completed. In essence, because no actual investments were used for the represented concerts or tours, new victim investor monies were simply used to repay old victim investors. From beginning to end, this was primarily a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme collapsed in March 2007.

From January 2004 through March 2007, Wady used no less than three million dollars of victim investor funds to pay for his lavish lifestyle. During this period, Wady purchased for himself and others, at least 30 vehicles, including a Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Bentley. Wady also purchased a $175,000 luxury boat and $800,000.00 in real estate. All of these purchases were paid from funds Wady obtained from victim investors.

The investigation in this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S Postal Inspection Service and the Internal Revenue Service – Office of Criminal Investigation with assistance from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Mesa Police Department. The prosecution is being handled by Frederick A. Battista and Peter Sexton, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, District of Arizona, Phoenix.

CASE NUMBER: CR 09-1485-PHX-JAT

RELEASE NUMBER: 2011-255(Wady)

LIVE-TV – Watch Wall Street Shut Down. Live:

Watch Wall Street Shut Down. Live:

http://occupywallst.org/


[Image]

Maps.google.com

[Image]


	

Confidential-US-ARMY -Asymmetric Warfare Group Sniper Awareness and Counter-Sniper Reference Card

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/USArmy-AntiSniper-1024x788.png

DOWNLOAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

USArmy-AntiSniper

SECRET-DoJ-DHS Law Enforcement Guidelines for First Amendment-Protected Events

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DoJ-FirstAmendment.png

As articulated in the United States Constitution, one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment is the right of persons and groups to assemble peacefully. Whether demonstrating, counterprotesting, or showing support for a cause, individuals and groups have the right to peacefully gather. Law enforcement, in turn, has the responsibility to ensure public safety while protecting the privacy and associated rights of individuals.

To support agencies as they fulfill their public safety responsibilities, the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) developed this paper to provide guidance and recommendations to law enforcement officers in understanding their role in First Amendment-protected events. This paper is divided into three areas, designed to provide in-depth guidance for law enforcement.

  • Pre-Event Stage—Discusses how law enforcement will plan for an event or demonstration where First Amendment protections are involved, focusing on the activity that begins when law enforcement leadership learns of an event and must determine the level, if any, of involvement at the event, from both public safety and investigative standpoints.
  • Operational Stage—Focuses on how law enforcement will respond to the event, based on the findings from the Pre-Event Stage, including the development and execution of the Operations Plan.
  • Post-Event Stage—Addresses how and whether information obtained as a result of the event (both during the Pre-Event Stage and Operational Stage) will be evaluated, disseminated, retained, or discarded, as per agency policy.

As agencies respond to First Amendment-protected events, law enforcement leadership should be aware of certain “red flag” issues that may arise as they assess whether the agency and personnel should be involved in these events and, if so, what form that involvement should take. As agencies review and understand the concepts and recommendations within this paper, special consideration should be given to these “red flag” issues to ensure that law enforcement agencies and personnel do not infringe on the rights of persons and groups.

The purpose of this paper is to provide greater awareness and understanding of the appropriate role of law enforcement in events and demonstrations where First Amendment rights are involved. This paper provides guidance and recommendations to law enforcement officers as they prepare for, respond to, and follow up with events, activities, and assemblies that are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

As officers address these types of events, the three-stage process identified in this paper should be incorporated into agency policies, manuals, and/or directives. This process, while focusing on law enforcement’s response to First Amendment events and activities, is not designed to limit the ability of officers to engage in normal criminal investigations or public safety missions. A law enforcement agency may have special rules and procedures governing the levels of review and approval required to engage in preliminary or full investigations or other activities discussed herein; as such, officers should be aware of and understand these rules and procedures.

Fusion Centers

Fusion centers can play a valuable role in supporting law enforcement’s involvement in First Amendment-protected events. As part of the Pre-Event Stage, fusion centers can support state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies as they undergo a Pre-Event Assessment. This support may include the completion of an applicable assessment and the utilization of publicly available material (such as social media tools and resources) that pertains to potential threats to the event and/or organizations participating in the event, including potential counterdemonstration groups. If the Pre-Event Assessment does not identify any risk or threat, then the fusion center should not distribute the assessment beyond those customers who are serving a public safety role for the event. Fusion centers may also support the Operational Stage by assisting in information-/intelligence-related inquiries officers may have in response to an event.

If a criminal predicate or reasonable suspicion is identified or the findings of the Pre-Event Assessment provide specific, actionable intelligence, fusion centers may support agency leadership and law enforcement officers by identifying the collection requirements3 applicable to the event, based on the mission and role of the fusion center. In those limited circumstances, fusion centers should also be involved in any post-event activities, including the information evaluation, dissemination, and retention efforts. Fusion centers should not be involved in post-event evaluation, dissemination, and retention efforts of events that involve only routine public safety issues, such as conflicts between demonstrators or crowd-control problems.

“Red Flag” Areas

“Red flags” are issues and concerns identified throughout the three-stage process that law enforcement should carefully evaluate before proceeding. As agencies utilize the guidance identified in this paper and respond to First Amendment-protected events, there are certain areas that law enforcement leadership must be aware of as they assess whether and to what degree, if any, officers should be involved in these events. Law enforcement leadership should clearly articulate the reason, purpose, and justification for collecting information when addressing these “red flag” areas in the agency Operations Plan.

1. Pre-Event Red Flags
• Collecting information based solely on participants’ beliefs/groups’ actions.
• Collecting names of organizations, proposed participants, or contact organizers (other than event organizers), including counterdemonstration groups.

2. Operational Red Flags
• Sharing information about the group(s) with other law enforcement agencies or criminal justice entities that do not have an applicable law enforcement mission.
• Taking pictures and videos of the event.
– Collecting names or other identifying information (such as license plates) of participants, people in the area, counterdemonstrators, or bystanders watching the event.

3. Post-Event Red Flags
• Retaining information beyond the purpose for which it was obtained or where no indication of criminal activity was found.
• Sharing information about the group with other justice entities.
• Not responding to reasonable inquiries regarding the role of law enforcement at the event.

It is imperative that law enforcement leadership distinguish between appropriate operational planning for activities where a criminal predicate exists and those activities protected by the U.S. Constitution. Leadership should recognize and consider these issues throughout their planning process and clearly articulate law enforcement’s role (as well as what law enforcement will not be involved in) throughout the planning process. If a legal or justified basis cannot be articulated, further research should be conducted before proceeding.

As with all law enforcement response, officers should adhere to constitutional protections, both federal and state; court decision(s); state statutes; and local ordinances, as well as agency privacy policies and procedures and other relevant resources, to ensure their response is in line with agency policy and procedures.

Prohibited conduct may include:

  • Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons or groups solely because they are involved in constitutionally protected activity.
  • Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons or groups solely because of the content of their speech (e.g., if there is no reasonable law enforcement purpose, such as criminal conduct advocated or planned or threat to public safety).
  • Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons’ or groups’ exercise of their First Amendment rights for a purpose unrelated to the event.
  • Instructing the debriefing of or questioning witnesses, event participants, or arrestees regarding their social, political, or religious views unless specifically related to criminal conduct and then only as necessary to achieve the clearly stated objective in the Pre-Event Work Plan.
  • Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information that is outside the scope of the stated objectives of the investigation unless exigent circumstances justify modification of those objectives.
  • Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information without evaluating it and marking it for source reliability and content validity prior to maintaining, using, or sharing it.
  • Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information (such as names) in political petitions, mailing lists, organizational memberships, or writings espousing a particular view that is protected by the First Amendment.
  • Investigating persons or groups solely because of:
    • Advocating a position in their speech or writings that an officer finds to be offensive or disagreeable.
    • Support for unpopular causes.
    • Ethnic background, race, or national origin.
    • Religion or religious affiliations.
    • Noncriminal personal habits.
    • Associations with persons that are not of a criminal nature.
    • Association with or being related to persons belonging to an organization espousing views protected by the First Amendment.
  • Investigating, disrupting, interfering with, or harassing any person for the purpose of:
    • Preventing the person from engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment.
    • Retaliating against the person for engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment.
    • Discriminating against the person on the basis of conduct protected by the First Amendment.

Professional conduct—The presence of law enforcement officers at an event may arouse concern. Therefore, emphasis should be made regarding the importance for officers to be courteous and respectful. Officers should not:

  • Harass, confront, or intimidate persons attending public gatherings or make comments about the views they express.
  • Interview or otherwise question event participants engaged in First Amendment-related activities, unless directed by a supervisor as part of an authorized investigative effort.
  • Exception: If an officer witnesses a crime being committed or has reasonable suspicion that a crime may be committed (such as an expressed threat), based on the Operations Plan, agency policy, or state law, the officer may question participants, as appropriate.
  • Seize participants’ or onlookers’ cameras, cell phones, or materials unless during the course of placing the person under a lawful arrest.
  • Disclosure of identity—If consistent with the Operations Plan, officers may attend public rallies and walk in public parades without disclosing their identity provided that their purpose is solely to monitor the rally or parade for public safety and criminal conduct issues. In this capacity, officers will not direct or influence the participants of the event and will not affirmatively represent themselves to be a participant or a member of an organization participating in the event (such as wearing clothing indicating their involvement with the organization). If there is an investigative element based on criminal activity, undercover tactics may be applied to officers attending the event based on agency policies and procedures.

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

DoJ-FirstAmendment

TOP-SECRET-NATO Commanders’ and Staff Handbook for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED)

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NATO-CIED.png

1. There is likely to be an IED threat in all military deployments and this should be a key consideration when undertaking the preparation, planning and execution of current and future NATO deployed operations. Generic detail of the threat environments and the C-IED approach are described in Reference A but for each deployment further specific operational analysis must be undertaken to ensure a mission focussed approach. Key to this is the generation of C-IED awareness and capability within the staff at every level of command.

2. This handbook sits under References A and B and is intended to be complimentary to existing NATO doctrinal publications and formation HQ operational planning and capability development. It should be noted that although the handbook is aligned with the AJP 3.15A, it seeks only to provide an operational and tactical level staff perspective. It is designed for use within military HQs at all levels and is equally applicable for National C-IED capability development. It will be a living document and updated and amended in conjunction with NATO publications and the lessons identified/ lessons learned process.

3. This handbook does not seek to define staff HQ or national operational planning processes for C-IED but should be used as a reference manual during the planning and execution of operations. Every operational deployment will have different requirements, depending upon environmental and operational variables; therefore the Commander must identify appropriate C-IED activities and processes within his staff functions as a priority.

4. C-IED is a relatively new phenomenon and has yet to be fully institutionalised into existing military staff training and functions. All staff must be aware of this fact and take every opportunity to develop wider awareness and understanding to better integrate C-IED aspects into all training and processes.

AIM OF THE HANDBOOK

5. The aim of the handbook is to outline outputs, staff responsibilities and enablers for Commanders and staff to consider when integrating C-IED into the preparation, planning and execution of operations, and to foster an Attack the Network mindset.

CONCEPT AND APPLICABILITY

6. It is widely acknowledged that IEDs will be a major threat for all levels of current and future operations and it is therefore imperative that national and NATO Formation and Unit HQs are able to prepare for, plan and conduct C-IED activities. Clearly defined C-IED outputs will enable the force to undertake these activities throughout the JOA in order to achieve the mission.

7. Definition. Reference A defines C-IED as follows:
The collective efforts at all levels to defeat the IED system by attacking the networks, defeating the device and preparing the force.

8. C-IED approaches the IED as a systemic problem and C-IED actions aim to defeat the IED System. However, IEDs are only one of a number of forms of asymmetric attack used by insurgents, criminals, terrorists and other malign actors. The networks (e.g. Narcotics, Financial, Cyber, Piracy, Human Trafficking, IED, Terrorism, etc.) overlap and, therefore, will concurrently service the plethora of other requirements and activities of the adversary. Attack the Networks activities should take place at all levels: strategic, operational and tactical and, as the networks are predominantly personality-based, activities will focus against adversarial personalities and processes/activities as well as against IEDs/facilities/materials and their production, and will require a broad approach to the problem.

9. As there is an overlap of activities within the networks, they concurrently support the different aspects of the insurgents’ or adversaries aims and objectives. Understanding of, and intelligence on, these networks will be vital to not only the overall attack the network process but also the ability to identify the nodes and linkages within the financial, commercial, and communication sectors as well as an adversary’s own structures and interactions within the population. Most importantly, understanding these networks will highlight the adversary’s critical vulnerabilities; the target for all operational planning and activity. Thus planning for C-IED actions must include consideration of, and actions against, the adversarial networks in the widest context and recognition and understanding of friendly force Attack the Network operations taking place to achieve unity of effort and meet the Commander’s intent.

10. As the breadth of Attack the Network activities can transcend boundaries at all levels, from national through political to military, it is vital to engage with those functions, activities and personalities that are involved in the fight. This will entail military planners and commanders stepping outside their ‘comfort zone’ and engaging with entities from organizations that they may have had little or no contact with. This requires flexibility and adoption of new mind sets and appreciation of differing priorities and perspectives and, as personally uncomfortable and challenging as this may be, it is vital to success in attacking the networks and the C-IED system they support.

11. C-IED operations should not be planned or executed in isolation and must be fully integrated into the national or NATO force strategic objectives. A C-IED capability is generated when a series of tasks, activities and techniques are undertaken and integrated within the wider context of operational and tactical activities. C-IED may be undertaken within the full spectrum of operations although it is likely to be a greater factor within hybrid threat environments such as an insurgency, terrorism campaigns and during Stabilisation, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations (SSTRO). C-IED should be viewed as an activity to achieve the overarching mission rather than a distinct and separate function.

12. C-IED activities can take place at the local, national, regional, and international level. Subsequently, designing an operation to defeat the IED threat requires a comprehensive strategy that integrates and synchronizes series of actions and tasks from the tactical to the strategic levels of command and requires interaction with non-military organizations and the populace. As with the wider hybrid operations C-IED actions may be categorized as direct (focused on the enemy) or indirect (focused on the population). Whether direct or indirect, C-IED operations can be proactive or reactive and applicable to one or more of the three C-IED pillars. The guidance within the handbook is designed to be scalable, flexible and applicable to a variety of structures and requirements.

Download Original Document here

NATO-CIED

Original Document: New York Supreme Court Decision to Evict Occupy Wall Street

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OWS-TRO_Page_1-798x1024.jpg

This judgment to deny continuance of a temporary restraining order issued earlier in the day maintains that previous eviction orders presented to the Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park are lawful and should be upheld.

NOTE: The New York Supreme Court is the trial-level court of the State of New York and is separate from the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest appellate court similar in function to other states’ “Supreme Court”.

Downlaod the original document here:

OWS-Eviction

Hate crimes – The FBI Versus the Klan Part 5: Trouble in Texas

 

1997 Sourgas Chemical Tankers
Energy plant in Texas that was the target of a potential KKK operation in 1997.

A husband and wife chatted as they passed an energy plant in north Texas.

“I hate to be that way, but if it has to be…” the wife said matter-of-factly after she and her husband realized that blowing up the natural gas processing facility would kill many people, including young children at a nearby school.

The year was 1997. The couple belonged a regional extremist group called the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and was casing the plant for a Klan operation. Along with two other True Knights, their plan was to build a homemade bomb—like the one used in Oklahoma City two years earlier—and explode it near large storage tanks at the facility. They hoped that the resulting explosion would release a cloud of hydrogen sulfide—so-called “sour gas”—that would kill hundreds of people. The children were just collateral damage.

As grisly as that sounds, it was just the beginning of their plan. The bombing was simply a cover to distract law enforcement while the Klan robbed an armored car of some $2 million on the other side of town. In fact, to add to the chaos and help clear the way for the robbery and getaway, the plot called for detonating a second bomb when law enforcement and first responders arrived at the scene of the explosion.

1997 Sourgas Suspects
The husband and wife suspects in Operation Sour Gas.

And the point of the robbery? To raise money to go to war with the U.S. government in the run-up to the millennium, when paranoia among homegrown extremists was rising.

It was no idle talk. “They were building and testing improved explosive devices,” says Special Agent John Fraga, who led the Operation Sour Gas investigation while supervising our North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force and is now the acting head of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center in the FBI Laboratory. “They knew how to rupture the tanks.”

What the Klan members didn’t know was that the FBI office in Dallas was well aware of the entire scheme—thanks to a well-placed source within the True Knights. Its multi-agency terror task force was watching the group’s every step and had even bugged the cab of the couple’s truck as they callously dismissed the possible outcome of the attack while driving past the facility.

With plenty of evidence in hand, we arrested all four conspirators in April 1997 before they could carry out their sinister plot. Each pled guilty by early October and was ultimately sentenced to jail.

“This case was one of the Bureau’s first weapons of mass destruction preventions,” says Fraga. And it was yet another successful victory in the FBI’s fight against the KKK, which started in the years prior to World War I and continues to this day.

Over that time, the Klan has continued to morph and change. Today, it’s a shadow of its brazen, lawless self in the 1950s and 1960s—thanks in large part to the dogged work of the FBI and its partners during that era—but as the Texas case demonstrates, the threat remains.

As always, the FBI remains committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans—whether from crimes of hatred or acts of terror—carried out by the KKK and like-minded extremists. Look to this website in the future for more news and information on this continuing effort…

Hate crimes – The FBI Versus the Klan Part 4: A Leader Emerges

Opening of Jackson Field Office in 1964

In a July 1964 event marking the opening of the Jackson Field Office, Roy Moore is seen next to the American flag. To the right are FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. Deloach and Director J.Edgar Hoover

12/13/10

Roy Moore had seen the Klan in action, and he knew what he was up against.

While head of the FBI’s office in Little Rock, he was asked to lead a special squad investigating the KKK’s 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, which had killed four African-American girls and injured many more.

Recollections on Roy Moore
Roy Moore in 1937 (left) and 1974.

A few thoughts on Special Agent in Charge Moore from agents who worked for him:

– Special Agent Billy Bob Williams, who was having trouble investigating the brutal murders of two 19-year-old African-American men in southwest Mississippi in 1964, recalled telling Moore, “We’re losing the battle down there… And somebody’s going to get hurt pretty quick if we don’t get a handle on this.” Williams said that Moore thought for a second, then started writing out a list of 25 agents on a piece of paper, which he then gave to his secretary so she could contact them. Moore then called FBI Headquarters and said he’d sent for these agents and would need them to stay a while.

– When the Klan firebombed the house of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer in 1966, Special Agent James Awe remembered that “[a]s soon as Roy Moore learned of the incident, he sent most of the senior resident agents and a large staff from Headquarters, including clerical personnel, to Hattiesburg, Mississippi and established quarters at a Holiday Inn in Hattiesburg. And that personnel stayed there until that case was completed … Roy Moore himself went down to head that particular case and he stayed down there…”

– In the mid-1960s, a Mississippi Klan leader named Devers Nix threatened Agents Awe and Ingram with arrest when they tried to interview him at his house, claiming that they were intimidating him. Nix went down to the police station and had arrest warrants filed. The agents went back and told Moore, “‘Well, perhaps we shouldn’t work in Jones County anymore because there are two arrest warrants for us down there.’” Awe recalled that “Roy Moore was not amused… He said, ‘You will work in Jones County, and you will not allow yourselves to become arrested.’” The agents were never arrested and carried on their work.

– Special Agent E. Avery Rollins remembers that Moore “… was able to get a higher than average number of law enforcement officers from Mississippi to go to the National Academy. You know, usually a state would be restricted to one officer, maybe two officers a year, but that Roy, through his influence, was able to make sure that anywhere from two to four officers a year went through the National Academy … You get some officers who have the experience of going up there and you suddenly start developing … a good relationship with these guys.”

So when the call came on July 2, 1964 from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Special Agent in Charge Moore was ready. Later that afternoon, the historic Civil Rights Act would be signed into law, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had already instructed Hoover’s FBI, which was about to gain new authorities, to establish a stronger presence in Mississippi. Hoover chose Moore—a trusted Bureau veteran who’d joined the FBI in 1938 and earned his stripes finding the culprit of a massive mid-air explosion in 1955—to set up a new field office in Jackson.

At the time, Mississippi was the epicenter of violent Klan activity, and Hoover wanted to send a powerful message that the FBI was in business there and was determined to reassert the rule of law. So he asked Moore to make preparations quickly and quietly as part of what Hoover considered a “psychological operation” against the KKK in the state.

The morning after the July 4 holiday, Moore reported to Jackson. A week later, he joined Hoover, the Mississippi attorney general, and others in announcing the formal opening of the office in a rented downtown bank building.

Moore’s immediate job was to help solve the KKK-fueled murder of three civil rights workers—James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—in Neshoba County less than a month earlier. What became known as the infamous “Mississippi Burning” case gained national attention and helped spur the passage of the landmark civil rights bill. With his support, the FBI located the three men’s bodies buried under an earthen dam and fingered a series of suspects by year’s end. 

For Moore, it was just the beginning. Over the next seven years, he spearheaded the Bureau’s work to loosen the Klan’s stranglehold in Mississippi and restore law and order through a series of investigations and other efforts.

Moore was well respected by the agents who worked with and for him. He was considered a tough, demanding boss but an “outstanding individual” and “one of the great leaders of that time.” According to Special Agent James Ingram, “He expected people to work six-and-a-half days a week … Sunday mornings were for church and laundry, [but] by 1 p.m. you were back to work.”

Moore’s leadership made a critical difference in turning the tide against the Klan in the 1960s. He was reassigned to Chicago in 1971, then retired in December 1974—moving back to Mississippi, where he lived out his days. When Moore died in 2008, veteran Mississippi journalist Bill Minor was quoted as saying in a Washington Post obituary, “How close Mississippi stood in the 1960s to being taken over by the law of the jungle is still a frightening thought…There was only one reliable law enforcement agency in Mississippi at the time, and that was the FBI, headed by Roy Moore.”

Hate crime – The FBI Versus the Klan Part 3: Standing Tall in Mississippi

The FBI reports

James Ingram
Special Agent James Ingram, who served the FBI from 1957 to 1982, on the Bureau’s battle with the Klan: “We had our problems, but FBI agents stood tall. Oh my goodness, did they stand tall.”

As the civil rights movement began to take shape in the 1950s, its important work was often met with opposition—and more significantly, with violence—by the increasingly resurgent white supremacists groups of the KKK.

FBI agents in our southern field offices were on the front lines of this battle, working to see that the guilty were brought to justice and to undermine the efforts of the Klan in states like Mississippi. That was often difficult given the reluctance of witnesses to come forward and testify in court and the unwillingness of juries to convict Klansmen even in the face of clear evidence.

Fortunately, the struggles and insights of many of these agents have been recorded for posterity, and transcripts are available for review by the general public—thanks to the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Foundation, which broke ground on a museum earlier this month.

In this story and the next in our Klan series, we’ll highlight a few of these memorable discussions with our agents concerning their work against the KKK. The first comes from FBI Agent James Ingram, who served from 1957 to 1982 and played a key role in many civil rights investigations. Agent Ingram, who died recently, was assigned to the newly opened Jackson Field Office in Mississippi in 1964. A retired agent and colleague in Jackson, Avery Rollins, interviewed Ingram before his death:

Special Agent Rollins:      “You said that your average work week was six-and-a-half days. I                                                would assume that your average work day was anywhere from 10                                                to 12 hours long?”

Special Agent Ingram:      “Oh, it was. …That’s why we defeated the Klan. … there was never                                               a defeatist attitude because we were all on the same schedule.                                               And everyone knew that we had to work.”

That work continued following passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Special Agent Ingram:     “There was one thing about [the law], Mr. Hoover knew that it was                                               important. He gave Inspector Joe Sullivan and [Jackson Special                                               Agent in Charge] Roy Moore a mandate. And he said, ‘You will do                                               whatever it takes to defeat the Klan, and you will do whatever it                                               takes to bring law and order back to Mississippi.’”

James Ingram, Photo courtesy of The Clarion-Ledger.In His Own Words “Mr. So and So, I understand that you’re going to whip any FBI agent that walks into your store. I’m not armed, but I wanted to let you know if you would like to whip me, let’s get started…”

The threats to FBI agents were real:

“Agents would always watch. They’d look underneath their cars to make sure we did not have any dynamite strapped underneath … Then you’d open your hood and make sure that everything was clear there. We had snakes placed in mailboxes. We had threats.”

But using informants and other tools, the tide began to turn:

  • “[W]e infiltrated the Klan in many ways. We had female informants. … And we had police officers that were informants for us.”
  • “When you look back, the FBI can be proud that they stopped the violence [of the KKK]. We had the convictions. We did what we had to do from Selma, Alabama to Jackson, Mississippi to Atlanta, Georgia.”
  • In the words of Special Agent Rollins, “…the FBI broke the back of the Klan in Mississippi. And eradicated it…

Hate crime – The FBI Versus the Klan Part 2: Trouble in the 1920s

kkk500.jpg

The KKK marches down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. in 1925.

The Roaring Twenties were a heady time, full of innovation and exploration—from the novelty of “talking pictures” to the utility of mass-produced Model Ts…from the distinct jazz sounds of Duke Ellington to the calculated social rebellion of the “flappers”…from the pioneering flights of Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart to the pioneering prose of F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner.

clarke.jpg

Edward Young Clarke

It was also a lawless decade—an age of highly violent and well-heeled gangsters and racketeers who fueled a growing underworld of crime and corruption. Al Capone and his archrival Bugs Moran had formed powerful, warring criminal enterprises that ruled the streets of Chicago, while the early Mafia was crystallizing in New York and other cities, running various gambling, bootlegging, and other illegal operations.

Contributing to criminal chaos of the 1920s was the sudden rise of the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK. In the early 1920s, membership in the KKK quickly escalated to six figures under the leadership of “Colonel” William Simmons and advertising guru Edward Young Clarke. By the middle of the decade, the group boasted several million members. The crimes committed in the name of its bigoted beliefs were despicable—hangings, floggings, mutilations, tarring and featherings, kidnappings, brandings by acid, along with a new intimidation tactic, cross-burnings. The Klan had become a clear threat to public safety and order.

memo11_125.jpg
Read the Memos:
Sept. 25 1922
Nov. 13, 1922

Matters were getting so out of hand in the state of Louisiana that Governor John M. Parker petitioned the federal government for help. In a memo dated September 25, 1922, J. Edgar Hoover—then assistant director of the Bureau—informed Director Burns that a reporter had brought a personal letter from Parker to the Department of Justice. “The Governor has been unable to use either the mails, telegraph, or telephone because of interference by the Klan … Conditions have been brought to a head at Mer Rouge, when two white men … were done away with mysteriously,” Hoover wrote. He also said that the governor was seeking assistance because “local authorities are absolutely inactive” and because he feared judges and prosecuting attorneys had been corrupted.

The Department responded, immediately sending four Bureau agents—A. E. Farland, J. D. Rooney, J. P. Huddleston, and W. M. Arkens—to work with the Louisiana attorney general to gather evidence of state and federal crimes. The agents soon found the bodies of the two men and pinpointed members of the vigilante mob that kidnapped and brutally murdered them. They also identified the mob’s leader—Dr. B.M. McKoin, the former mayor of Mer Rouge

parker.jpg
Gov. John M. Parker

The agents’ work put their own lives in danger. On November 13, 1922, an FBI Headquarters memo noted that “confirmation has just been received of the organized attempt of klansmen and their friends to arrest, kidnap, and do away with special agents of the Department who were in Mer Rouge.” To make matters worse, the plot was “stimulated by the United States Attorney at Shreveport,” reportedly an active KKK member. The U.S. attorney had already ordered the investigating agents, detailed from the Houston Division, to leave the area or be arrested because he thought they had no business investigating those matters. “Only their hurried exit saved them,” the memo said. Still, the agents continued their work.

In 1923, McKoin was arrested and charged with the murders of the two men. Despite National Guard security, witnesses were kidnapped by the Klan, and other attempts were made to sabotage the trial. The grand jury refused to return an indictment. Other KKK members, though, ended up paying fines or being sentenced to short jail terms for miscellaneous misdemeanors related to the murders.

Despite the Bureau’s work, the power of the KKK in certain places was too strong to crack. But as revelations of leadership scandals spread and figures like Edward Young Clarke went to jail, the Klan’s membership dropped off precipitously. By the end of the decade, thanks in part to the Bureau, the KKK had faded into the background—at least for a time.

Hate crime – The FBI Versus the Klan Part 1: Let the Investigations Begin

The FBI reorts –

KKK rally
Early KKK rally in Florida. Photo courtesy of the National Archives.

Ninety-five years ago this month—in February 1915—the D.W. Griffith movie later titled The Birth of a Nation premiered in a Los Angeles theater. Though considered progressive in its technique and style, the film had a decidedly backwards plot that glorified a short-lived, post-Civil War white supremacist group called the Ku Klux Klan. The movie’s broad release in March provoked riots and even bloodshed nationwide.

It also revived interest in the KKK, leading to the birth of several new local groups that summer and fall. Many more followed, mostly in southern states at first. Some of these groups focused on supporting the U.S. effort in World War I, but most wallowed in a toxic mix of secrecy, racism, and violence.

As the Klan grew, it attracted the attention of the young Bureau. Created just a few years earlier—in July 1908—the Bureau of Investigation (as the organization was known then) had few federal laws to combat the KKK in these formative days. Cross burnings and lynchings, for example, were local issues. But under its general domestic security responsibilities, the Bureau was able to start gathering information and intelligence on the Klan and its activities. And wherever possible, we looked for federal violations and shared information with state and local law enforcement for its cases.

Our early files show that Bureau cases and intelligence efforts were already beginning to mount in the years before 1920. A few examples:

  • In Birmingham, a middle-aged African-American—who fled north to avoid serving in the war—was arrested for draft dodging in May 1918 when he returned to persuade his white teenage girlfriend to marry him. A Bureau agent looking into the matter discovered that the local KKK had gotten wind of the interracial affair and was organizing to lynch the man. The agent came up with a novel solution to resolve the draft-dodging issue and to protect the man from harm: he escorted the evader to a military camp and ensured that he was quickly inducted.
  • In June 1918, a Mobile agent named G.C. Outlaw learned that Ed Rhone—the leader of a multi-racial group called the Knights of Labor—was worried by the abduction of another labor leader by reputed Klansmen. “This uneasiness of the Knights of Labor,” our agent noted, “is the first direct result of the Ku Klux activities.” Agent Outlaw investigated and assured Rhone we would protect him from any possible harm.
  • At the request of a Bureau agent in Tampa, a representative of the American Protective League—a group of citizen volunteers who helped investigate domestic issues like draft evasion during World War I—convinced an area Klan group to disband in August 1918.

World War I effectively came to an end with the signing of a ceasefire in November 1918, but the KKK was just getting started. Pro-war oriented Klan groups either folded or began to coalesce around a focus on racial and religious prejudice. Teaming up with advertising executive Edward Young Clarke, the head of the Atlanta Klan—William Simmons—would oversee a rapid rise in KKK membership in the 1920s.

That’s another story, and one that we will tell as part of this new history series detailing the work of the FBI to protect the American people—especially minorities and other groups—from the evils of the modern-day Klan. Over the course of the year, we will track the major aspects of this fight, with new documents and pictures to help tell the tale. Stay tuned.

Inside the FBI- Combating Hate Crimes-Interview

Mr. Schiff: Hello, I’m Neal Schiff, and welcome to Inside the FBI, a weekly podcast about news, cases, and operations. Today we’re talking about hate crimes.

Ms. Deitle: “The FBI can investigate instances of racial discrimination, religious discrimination, especially those against a religious structure like a church, a mosque, or a synagogue.”

Mr. Schiff: Hate crimes have been around a long time, and the FBI takes these horrific crimes seriously. Supervisory Special Agent Cynthia Deitle is the Acting Chief of the Civil Rights Unit in the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.

Ms. Deitle: “A hate crime under most state and federal statutes is a crime which is committed against a person or property and which is motivated in whole or in part by the perpetrators’ bias or animus against the victim’s race or religion or national origin or disability.”

Mr. Schiff: What kind of hate crimes are there? Do they get put into categories?

Ms. Deitle: “They do, and I think some of the states that have passed hate crime legislation are different than the federal statute. Probably the biggest difference that we have in the federal system is that our statute has a requirement that we need some type of force, some type of force or threat of force as part of the crime for the FBI to be able to investigate it. So for example, if you have an action which is forceful where somebody is trying to interfere or intimidate with the victims’ right to engage in a certain activity—like for example, trying to eat at a restaurant, trying to enter a movie theater—and that person is prohibited from doing so because of his race or religion or national origin, that could be considered a federal hate crime. So we’re a little bit more limited than a lot of the other state statutes which are similar.”

Mr. Schiff: There are all kinds of hate crimes, and Special Agent Deitle has investigated them all…

Ms. Deitle: “There are many examples of hate crimes that I can speak to. Some of the crimes that we look at in the FBI, for example, involve housing discrimination. And that’s been quite apparent in the last few years especially with increase in noose instances around the country, in the last year especially. A lot of the nooses that were hung on a private property, on a home for example, were considered a violation of the Fair Housing Statute, because it was seen as a type of force or threat of force which interfered or intimidated with that person’s right to just occupy their home. There also is religious discrimination. If there is an incident of vandalism or damage to a religious structure like a church or a mosque or a synagogue, and the intent of that damage is because of religious animus, that is also a federal hate crime. We have election crimes, which is obviously relevant in the last few months, where we can investigate a violation of election laws if somebody is prohibited from voting, for example, based on their religion, their race, their color, and, if there is, again, some type of force or threat of force. And lastly, the biggest initiative that we have in the FBI is our Cold Case investigation or initiative. We’ve identified about 95 unsolved hate crimes from the Civil Rights era which we’ve now tried to go back and investigate to make sure that we have given these cases all due consideration, which they deserve, quite frankly.”

Mr. Schiff: How is the FBI making inroads to combat hate crimes? Who are we working with?

Ms. Deitle: “I think the FBI has done a fantastic job in all of our 56 field offices with establishing partnerships with local and state and county law enforcement agencies. So we do a good job of coordinating our investigations with a local police department, a state district attorney’s office, and also, and even somewhat more importantly, we’ve established liaison partnerships with a lot of non-governmental organizations like NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, LULAC, CAIR, and various other groups to open up some dialogue with them so that if they hear about a hate crime they can call us and we can respond.”

Mr. Schiff: The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 mandated that the Attorney General collect information about hate crimes. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program in the Criminal Justice Information Services Division compiles the data from input from police agencies across the United States. The Chief of the program, known as UCR, is Greg Scarbro. His staff compiled the latest information…

Mr. Scarbro: “In 2007 the FBI report statistics that about 6,624 incidents involving about 9,006 offenses, were reported to the FBI as the result of a bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or a physical or mental disability. In looking back at 2006, those stats were slightly higher at about 7,722 criminal incidents involving 9,080 offenses as associated with those particular bias motivations.”

Mr. Schiff: Not only are people victims of hate crimes but property as well…

Mr. Scarbro: “In 2007 we had 5,400 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons. Leading that classification was intimidation which accounted for 47.4 percent of crimes against persons. Simple assaults followed at about 31 percent, and aggravated assaults led behind that at 26.9 percent. Interestingly, nine murders were reported as the result of a hate crime. On the flip side, there were 3,579 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property. Most of those and, actually, 81 percent, were acts of destruction, damage, or vandalism. The remaining 18.6 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses which included bribery and things such as counterfeiting.”

Mr. Schiff: And Scarbro says hate crimes can be for one reason or multiple reasons.

Mr. Scarbro: “In 2007, of the 7,621 single-bias incidents, and there were three multiple-bias incidents reported, 50.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 18 percent were motivated by religious bias, 16 percent or closer to 17 percent were motivated by sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent were motivated by ethnicity or national origin bias. One percent involved a bias against a disability.”

Mr. Schiff: Scarbro says sometimes the victims know who’s committing a hate crime against them and sometimes not.

Mr. Scarbro: “In 2007, out of 9,965 known offenders, 62.9 percent were white, 20.8 percent were black, the race of unknown accounted for 9.8 percent, and other races which would include American Indian or Alaska Native and/or Asian Pacific Islander accounted for the remaining unknown offenders.”

Mr. Schiff: There are many locations where criminals commit hate crimes and that data is included in the UCR’s Hate Crimes Statistics for 2007.

Mr. Scarbro: “In 2007 35.7 percent of the hate crimes occurring in the United States occurred in or near homes; 18.9 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 11 percent happened at schools or colleges; 6 percent in parking lots or garages and 4 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The remaining 29.3 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified locations, multiple locations, or unknown locations such as government buildings.”

Mr. Schiff: How does the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program compile these hate crime statistics?

Mr. Scarbro: “The collection of hate crime is reported to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program on a voluntary basis by some 17,000 law enforcement agencies around the country. Obviously the reporting of hate crime by a law enforcement agency is a difficult crime to identify, so we work extensively with those agencies in terms of training and data quality to ensure that the information that the FBI’s receiving and ultimately reporting is the best that it possibly can be.”

Mr. Schiff: If you know anything about a hate crime or that someone is going to commit a hate crime, please call the nearest FBI office or your local police right away. There’s more information on the FBI’s Internet homepage, including the complete UCR Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, at http://www.fbi.gov. That concludes our show. Thanks for listening. I’m Neal Schiff of the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs.

Re: Neo-STASI-“GoMoPa” hate crimes – toxic like dioxin

klan3.jpg

Hate crimes add an element of bias to traditional crimes—and the mixture is toxic to our communities.

Crimes of hatred and prejudice—from lynchings to cross burnings to vandalism of synagogues—are a sad fact of American history, but the term “hate crime” did not enter the nation’s vocabulary until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups like the Skinheads launched a wave of bias-related crime. The FBI began investigating what we now call hate crimes as far back as World War I, when the Ku Klux Klan first attracted our attention. Today, we remain dedicated to working with state and local partners to prevent these crimes and to bring to justice those who commit them.

Stalker-“GoMoPa”: Hate Crimes Remain Steady 2010 FBI Report Released

11/14/11

Hate crimes report logoIntimidation…vandalism…assault…rape…murder. These are crimes by anyone’s definition. But add an element of bias against the victims—because of their race or religion, for example—and these traditional crimes become hate crimes.

And based on data from the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics report for 2010, the 6,628 hate crime incidents reported to us by our law enforcement partners stayed consistent with the 6,604 incidents reported in 2009.

Today, we’re releasing on our website the full 2010 report, which contains information about the types of biases that motivate hate crimes, the nature of the offenses, and some information about the victims and offenders. It also breaks down hate crimes by jurisdiction and includes data by state and by agency.

The hate crimes report is fairly reflective of the country—agencies that participated in the Uniform Crime Reporting Hate Crime Statistics Program effort in 2010 represented more than 285 million people, or 92.3 percent of the nation’s population, and their jurisdictions covered 49 states and the District of Columbia. Of the 14,977 agencies that submitted data, 1,949 reported that hate crime incidents had occurred in their jurisdictions.

Here are some of the report’s highlights:

  • Hate Crimes graphic

    Law enforcement reported 8,208 victims of hate crimes—a “victim” can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole.

  • Of the 6,628 hate crime incidents reported to us for 2010, nearly all (6,624) involved a single bias—47.3 percent of the single-bias incidents were motivated by race; 20 percent by religion; 19.3 by sexual orientation; 12.8 percent by an ethnicity/national origin bias; and 0.6 by physical or mental disability.
  • As a result of the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crime Prevention Act, the FBI is implementing changes to collect additional data for crimes motivated by a bias against a particular gender or gender identity, as well as for hate crimes committed by or directed against juveniles.
  • A reported 4,824 offenses were crimes against persons—intimidation accounted for 46.2 percent of these offenses; simple assault for 34.8 percent; and aggravated assault for 18.4 percent.
  • There were 2,861 reported offenses of crimes against property—the majority (81.1 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism.
  • Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 were white and 18.4 percent were black.
  • 31.4 percent of reported hate crime incidents took place in or near homes.

The FBI takes its role in investigating hate crimes very seriously—it’s the number one priority of our civil rights program. “Almost a fourth of our 2010 civil rights caseload involved crimes motivated by a particular bias against the victim,” said Eric Thomas, our civil rights chief in Washington, D.C., “and we frequently worked these cases with state and local law enforcement to ensure that justice was done—whether at the state level or at the federal level.”

This report, and the FBI’s hate crime data collection effort as a whole, would not have been possible without the support of national and state criminal justice organizations and the thousands of law enforcement agencies nationwide whose officers investigate, identify, and report hate crimes to us.

Occupy Wall Street NYC Photos, 15 November 2011

[Image]Occupy Wall Street Encampment at Zuccotti Park seen is empty of demonstrators, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 in New York. The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on the protesters. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters hold a general assembly meeting inside an enclosed site near Canal Street on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Hundreds of police officers in riot gear before dawn Tuesday raided the New York City park where the Occupy Wall Street protests began, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters from what has become the epicenter of the worldwide movement protesting corporate greed and economic inequality. (Seth Wenig) [Photo taken and transmitted before Seth Wenig was arrested along with the protestors.]
[Image]Police prepare to enter an enclosed site near Canal Street where Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Hundreds of police officers in riot gear before dawn Tuesday raided the New York City park where the Occupy Wall Street protests began, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters from what has become the epicenter of the worldwide movement protesting corporate greed and economic inequality. (Seth Wenig)

[Image]Occupy Wall Street activists gain entrance in to Duarte Square to protest after police removed the protesters early in the morning from Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty
[Image]NYPD officers standoff with Occupy Wall Street activists after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty
[Image]NYPD officers clear out Occupy Wall Street activists after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty [AP journalist Karen Matthews is at upper right in light blue jacket (and in earlier photos below). She was arrested with AP photographer Seth Wenig (at center in following photo).][Image][Image]
Cryptome photos, 3 October 2011.
[Image]NYPD officers arrest an Occupy Wall Street activist after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty
[Image]NYPD officers arrest Occupy Wall Street activists after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City.  Getty
[Image]NYPD officers attempt to arrest an Occupy Wall Street activist after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty
[Image]NYPD officers arrest an Occupy Wall Street activist after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Getty
[Image]NYPD officers arrest Occupy Wall Street activists after they gained entrance in to the private park next to Duarte Square to protest on November 15, 2011 in New York City. Police removed the protesters early in the morning from their encampment in Zuccotti Park. Hundreds of protesters, who rallied against inequality in America, have slept in tents and under tarps since September 17 in Zuccotti Park, which has since become the epicenter of the global Occupy movement. The raid in New York City follows recent similar moves in Oakland, California, and Portland, Oregon. Getty

[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters return to Zuccotti Park on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 in New York. After an early police raid removing protesters, hundreds returned to Zuccotti Park carrying photocopies of a court order they say gives them the right to return to the park. The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules.
[Image]Police arrest an Occupy Wall Street protester at Zuccotti Park on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 in New York. After an early police raid removing protesters, hundreds returned to Zuccotti Park carrying photocopies of a court order they say gives them the right to return there.
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters rally in a small park on Canal Street in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Police officers evicted the protesters from their base in Zuccotti Park overnight. The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on the protesters. (Seth Wenig)
[Image]A police officer watches from the grounds of City Hall as Occupy Wall Street protesters linked hands to block media from attending a news conference held by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. The protesters eventually dispersed peacefully.
[Image]An empty and closed Zuccotti Park is seen in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Police officers evicted Occupy Wall Street protesters from the park overnight. The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on the protesters. (Seth Wenig)
[Image]A pedestrian takes a picture of an empty and closed Zuccotti Park in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Police officers evicted Occupy Wall Street protesters from the park overnight. The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on the protesters. (Seth Wenig)

[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protestor draws contact from a police officer near Zuccotti Park after being ordered to leave the longtime encampment in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011, in New York, after police ordered demonstrators to leave their encampment in Zuccotti Park.[Image]

[Image]

[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters clash with police at Zuccotti Park after being ordered to leave their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (Craig Ruttle)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protestor is arrested on the ground by police near Zuccotti Park after being ordered to leave their longtime encampment in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011, in New York, after police ordered demonstrators to leave their encampment in Zuccotti Park.
[Image]A demonstrator yells at police officers as they order Occupy Wall Street protesters to leave Zuccotti Park, their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protester yells out at police after being ordered to leave Zuccotti Park, their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters clash with police near Zuccotti Park after being ordered to leave their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (John Minchillo)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters are pushed by police near the encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous.
[Image]Demonstrators clash with police after being ordered to leave the Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Police handed out notices earlier from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (Craig Ruttle)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protester is arrested by police near the encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents.
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protestor is arrested during a march on Broadway, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011, in New York, after police ordered demonstrators to leave their encampment in Zuccotti Park. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (John Minchillo)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protester is detained by police officers after being ordered to leave Zuccotti Park, their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (John Minchillo)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters are detained by police officers after being ordered to leave Zuccotti Park, their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (John Minchillo)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are arrested after being ordered to leave Zuccotti Park, their longtime encampment in New York, early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters march through the streets after they were evicted from Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011 in New York. Hundreds of police in riot gear dismantled the Occupy Oakland camp Monday, evicting and arresting protesters in the second such US move in as many days as authorities get tough against the two-month-old protest movement. Getty
[Image]A police officer carries trash through Zuccotti Park, the longtime encampment for Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York, as the cleanup effort begins early Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, police handed out notices from the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, and the city saying that the park had to be cleared because it had become unsanitary and hazardous. Protesters were told they could return, but without sleeping bags, tarps or tents. (John Minchillo)
[Image]Two protesters and their dog, who said they have stayed slept with other protesters for the last 56 nights, sit along a police barricade at the edge of Zuccotti Park in New York, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 after the Occupy Wall Street encampment was cleared from the park in the early morning hours after a nearly two month occupation,wa;;w and before the park reopened. (Craig Ruttle)
[Image]New York City sanitation crews clean Zuccotti Park after city officials evicted the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest from the park in the early morning hours of November 15, 2011 in New York. Occupy Wall Street protestors most feared the coming winter, but it was on the mildest of nights, when activists slept soundly in their tents, that New York police sprang a surprise operation to end the eight-week demonstration. Getty
[Image]People walk past New York Police Department officers guarding a closed Zuccotti Park after city officials evicted the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest from the park in the early morning hours of November 15, 2011 in New York. Getty

Der Beweis: Meridian Capital über die Fälschung der anonymen “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen

“Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen”-”GoMoPa”-Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008

image001 150x150 Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.20081103021 6 Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008Nachfolgend bringen wir eine Original-Pressemeldung von „GoMoPa“, dem „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ mit dem Meridian Capital, London, erpresst werden sollte. Der Artikel strotzt nur von Fehlern. Damit ist deutlich, dass „GoMoPa“ tatsäch Meridian Capital erpresst hat und die Aktionen von Meridian Capital sich gegen „GoMoPa“ gerichtet haben.
Die gefälschte Pressemitteilung von Meridian Capital in Bezug auf unser Haus soll von dem „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“ ablenken.

„GoMopa“ schreibt:

08.09.2008
Weltweite Finanzierungen mit Widersprüchen

Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. gibt an, weltweite Finanzierungen anbieten zu können und präsentiert sich hierbei auf aufwendig kreierten Webseiten. GOMOPA hat die dort gemachten Angaben analysiert und Widersprüche entdeckt.

Der Firmensitz

Der Firmensitz befindet sich laut eigener Aussage in Dubai, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate. In einem GOMOPA vorliegenden Schreiben der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. heißt es jedoch, der Firmensitz sei in London. Auf der Homepage des Unternehmens taucht die Geschäftsadresse in der Londoner Old Broad Street nur als „Kundenabteilung für deutschsprachige Kunden“ auf. Eine weitere Adresse in der englischen Hauptstadt, diesmal in der Windsor Avenue, sei die „Abteilung der Zusammenarbeit mit Investoren“.

Die Meridian Capital Enterprises ist tatsächlich als „Limited“ (Ltd.) mit Sitz in England und Wales eingetragen. Aber laut Firmenhomepage hat das Unternehmen seinen „rechtlichen Geschäftssitz“ in Dubai. Eine Abfrage beim Gewerbeamt Dubais (DED) zu dieser Firmierung bleibt ergebnislos.

gomopa artikel meridian capital Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008

Bemerkenswert ist auch der vermeintliche Sitz in Israel. Auf der Webseite von Meridian Capital Enterprises heißt es: „Die Firma Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist im Register des israelischen Justizministeriums unter der Nummer 514108471, gemäß dem Gesellschaftsrecht von 1999, angemeldet.“ Hierzu Martin Kraeter, Gomopa-Partner und Prinzipal der KLP Group Emirates in Dubai: „Es würde keinem einzigen Emirati – geschweige denn einem Scheich auch nur im Traum einfallen, direkte Geschäfte mit Personen oder Firmen aus Israel zu tätigen. Und schon gar nicht würde er zustimmen, dass sein Konterfei auch noch mit vollem Namen auf der Webseite eines Israelischen Unternehmens prangt.“

Auf der Internetseite sind diverse Fotos mit Scheichs an Konferenztischen zu sehen. Doch diese großen Tagungen und großen Kongresse der Meridian Capital Enterprises werden in den Pressearchiven der lokalen Presse Dubais mit keinem Wort erwähnt.
Martin Kraeter: „ Ein ‚britisch-arabisch-israelisches bankfremdes Finanzinstitut sein zu wollen, wie die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. es darstellt, ist mehr als zweifelhaft. So etwas gibt es schlicht und ergreifend nicht! Der Nahostkonflikt schwelt schon seit mehr als 50 Jahren. Hier in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten (VAE) werden Israelis erst gar nicht ins Land gelassen. Israelische Produkte sind gebannt. Es gibt nicht einmal direkte Telefonverbindungen. Die VAE haben fast 70% der Wiederaufbaukosten des Libanon geschultert, nachdem Israel dort einmarschiert ist.“

Zwei angebliche Großinvestitionen der Meridian Capital Enterprises in Dubai sind Investmentruinen bzw. erst gar nicht realisierte Projekte. Das Unternehmen wirbt mit ihrer finanziellen Beteiligung an dem Dubai Hydropolis Hotel und dem Dubai Snowdome.

Der Aktivitätsstatus der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist laut englischen Handelsregister (UK Companies House) „dormant“ gemeldet. Auf der Grundlage des englischen Gesellschaftsrechts können sich eingetragene Unternehmen selbst „dormant“ (schlafend) melden, wenn sie keine oder nur unwesentliche buchhalterisch zu erfassende Transaktionen vorgenommen haben. Dies ist angesichts der angeblichen globalen Investitionstätigkeit der Meridian Capital Ltd. sehr erstaunlich.

image002 150x150 Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008

Der Webauftritt

Die Internetseite der MCE ist sehr aufwendig gestaltet, die Investitionen angeblich in Millionen- und Milliardenhöhe. Bei näherer Betrachtung der Präsentationselemente fällt jedoch auf, dass es sich bei zahlreichen veröffentlichen Fotos, die Veranstaltungen der Meridian Capital Enterprises dokumentieren sollen, meist um Fotos von Online-Zeitungen oder frei zugänglichen Medienfotos einzelner Institutionen handelt wie z.B. der Börse Dubai.

Auf der Internetpräsenz befinden sich Videofilmchen, die eine frappierende Ähnlichkeit mit dem Werbematerial von NAKHEEL aufweisen, dem größten Bauträger der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate. Doch den schillernden Videos über die berühmten drei Dubai Palmen „Jumeirah, Jebel Ali und Deira“ oder das Archipel „The World“ wurden offensichtlich selbstproduzierte Trailersequenzen der Meridian Capital Enterprises vorangestellt. Doch könnte es sich bei den Werbevideos um Fremdmaterial handeln.

Auch die auf der Webseite wahllos platzierten Fotos von bekannten Sehenswürdigkeiten Dubais fungieren als Augenfang für den interessierten Surfer mit eigenem Finanzierungswunsch. Bei einem Volumen von 10 Millionen Euro oder höher präsentiert sich die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. als der passende Investitionspartner. Das Unternehmen verfügt weltweit über zahlreiche Standorte: Berlin, London, Barcelona, Warschau, Moskau, Dubai, Riad, Tel Aviv, Hong Kong und New York. Aber nahezu alle Standorte sind lediglich Virtual Offices eines global arbeitenden Büroservice-Anbieters. „Virtual Office“ heißt im Deutschen schlicht „Briefkastenfirma“. Unter solchen Büroadressen sollen laut Meridian Capital Enterprises ganze Kommissionen ansässig sein, alles zum Wohle des Kunden.“

Zitatende

Dies ist das altbekannte Muster des „NACHRCHTENDIENSTES“ „GoMoPa“ und seiner Berliner und Hamburger Komplizen Falschmeldungen zu verbreiten, um Firmen und Personen erpressen oder ausschalten zu können.

 Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008

Originaltexte (SIEHE AUCH ANLAGE ANBEI)

FINANZNACHRICHTEn meridian gomopa

 Weltweite Finanzierung mit Widersprüchen GoMoPa Erpressungsversuch an Meridian Capital vom 8.9.2008

Millionen Finanzierungen mit Widersprüchen / Die Werbemethoden der Meridian Capital Enterprises

ORIGINAL ARTIKEL GOMOPA 2

ORIGINAL ARTIKEL GOMOPA

ZUM DOWNLOAD OBEN CLICKEN

ORIGINAL -STELLUNGNAHME DER MERIDIAN CAPITAL HIER:

http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/stasi-falschungen-der-gomopa/

Confidential – Prez Orders Efficient Spending, Feds ROFLAP

Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)] [Presidential Documents] [Pages 70863-70864] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2011-29683] [[Page 70861]] Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 220 November 15, 2011 Part III The President ———————————————————————– Executive Order 13589–Promoting Efficient Spending Presidential Documents Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Presidential Documents ___________________________________________________________________ Title 3– The President [[Page 70863]] Executive Order 13589 of November 9, 2011 Promoting Efficient Spending By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further promote efficient spending in the Federal Government, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. My Administration is committed to cutting waste in Federal Government spending and identifying opportunities to promote efficient and effective spending. The Federal Government performs critical functions that support the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. As they serve taxpayers, executive departments and agencies (agencies) also must act in a fiscally responsible manner, including by minimizing their costs, in order to perform these mission-critical functions in the most efficient, cost-effective way. As such, I have pursued an aggressive agenda for reducing administrative costs since taking office and, most recently, within my Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. Building on this effort, I direct agency heads to take even more aggressive steps to ensure the Government is a good steward of taxpayer money. Sec. 2. Agency Reduction Targets. Each agency shall establish a plan for reducing the combined costs associated with the activities covered by sections 3 through 7 of this order, as well as activities included in the Administrative Efficiency Initiative in the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, by not less than 20 percent below Fiscal Year 2010 levels, in Fiscal Year 2013. Agency plans for meeting this target shall be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within 45 days of the date of this order. The OMB shall monitor implementation of these plans consistent with Executive Order 13576 of June 13, 2011 (Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government). Sec. 3. Travel. (a) Agency travel is important to the effective functioning of Government and certain activities can be performed only by traveling to a different location. However, to ensure efficient travel spending, agencies are encouraged to devise strategic alternatives to Government travel, including local or technological alternatives, such as teleconferencing and video-conferencing. Agencies should make all appropriate efforts to conduct business and host or sponsor conferences in space controlled by the Federal Government, wherever practicable and cost-effective. Lastly, each agency should review its policies associated with domestic civilian permanent change of duty station travel (relocations), including eligibility rules, to identify ways to reduce costs and ensure appropriate controls are in place. (b) Each agency, agency component, and office of inspector general should designate a senior-level official to be responsible for developing and implementing policies and controls to ensure efficient spending on travel and conference-related activities, consistent with subsection (a) of this section. Sec. 4. Employee Information Technology Devices. Agencies should assess current device inventories and usage, and establish controls, to ensure that they are not paying for unused or underutilized information technology (IT) equipment, installed software, or services. Each agency should take steps to limit the number of IT devices (e.g., mobile phones, smartphones, desktop and laptop computers, and tablet personal computers) issued to employees, consistent with the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-292), operational requirements (including continuity of operations), and initiatives designed to create efficiency through the effective implementation of technology. To promote further efficiencies in IT, agencies should [[Page 70864]] consider the implementation of appropriate agency-wide IT solutions that consolidate activities such as desktop services, email, and collaboration tools. Sec. 5. Printing. Agencies are encouraged to limit the publication and printing of hard copy documents and to presume that information should be provided in an electronic form, whenever practicable, permitted by law, and consistent with applicable records retention requirements. Agencies should consider using acquisition vehicles developed by the OMB’s Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative to acquire printing and copying devices and services. Sec. 6. Executive Fleet Efficiencies. The President’s Memorandum of May 24, 2011 (Federal Fleet Performance) directed agencies to improve the performance of the Federal fleet of motor vehicles by increasing the use of vehicle technologies, optimizing fleet size, and improving agency fleet management. Building upon this effort, agencies should limit executive transportation. Sec. 7. Extraneous Promotional Items. Agencies should limit the purchase of promotional items (e.g., plaques, clothing, and commemorative items), in particular where they are not cost-effective. Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; (ii) functions of the Director of OMB related to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or (iii) the authority of inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) Independent agencies are requested to adhere to this order. (d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (Presidential Sig.) THE WHITE HOUSE, November 9, 2011. [FR Doc. 2011-29683 Filed 11-14-11; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295-F2-P

TOP-SECRET-CIA operations in Iran underway to take out Tehran bigs in mission to dismantle weapons program

Vahid Salemi/AP

In public Sunday, President Obama was at a summit unsuccessfully leaning on Russia and China to back diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuke program.

In private Sunday, there was more evidence of an efficient and brutal covert operation that continues to degrade Iran’s military capabilities.

Iranian officials revealed that one of the 17 men killed in a huge explosion at a munitions depot was a key Revolutionary Guard commander who headed Iran’s missile program. And the IRNA state news agency reported that scientists had discovered a new computer virus in their systems, a more sophisticated version of the Stuxnet worm deployed last year to foul up Iran’s centrifuges.

Iran said the army base explosion was an accident and the new Duqu virus was contained. But Israeli newspapers and some U.S. experts said it appeared to be more from an ongoing secret operation by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.

The covert campaign encompasses a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and a similar explosion at another Iranian missile base two years ago both widely attributed to the Mossad.

“May there be more like it,” was all Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said when Army Radio asked about the new blast.

There was a third mysterious event: The son of a top Iranian hard-liner was found dead — a seeming suicide — in a Dubai hotel on Sunday. His father called it “suspicious” and linked to the base explosion, without elaborating.

Israel was accused of deploying the 11 agents who killed a top Hamas terrorist in a Dubai hotel last year.

Tension has risen in recent weeks between Iran and the United States as a key United Nations report said Iran was close to being able to build a nuclear weapon.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Hawaii, Obama tried to get Russia and China to back a bid to tighten sanctions on Iran, meeting individually with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Afterward, Hu didn’t even mention Iran, and Medvedev said only that he had spoken with Obama about Iran.

Obama came under withering fire from the GOP presidential candidates at a debate Saturday, when the front-runners agreed he had been too weak on Iran and vowed to go to war to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions if needed.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) slammed Obama for not being “smart” on Iran.

Gingrich said he would launch “maximum covert operations” against Iran, “including taking out their scientists. . . . All of it covertly, all of it deniable.”

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters that pressure on Iran had put its leadership in disarray, and “the Iranian economy has ground to a halt.”

Media: CIA, Mossad Using Terrorist Groups to Target Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program ?

Amateur video shows smoke billowing out from an Iranian military base near Tehran after an explosion which is thought to have killed at least 27 Revolutionary Guards.

CIA operations in Iran underway to take out Tehran bigs in mission to dismantle weapons program (New York Daily News):

In public Sunday, President Obama was at a summit unsuccessfully leaning on Russia and China to back diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuke program.

In private Sunday, there was more evidence of an efficient and brutal covert operation that continues to degrade Iran’s military capabilities.

Iranian officials revealed that one of the 17 men killed in a huge explosion at a munitions depot was a key Revolutionary Guard commander who headed Iran’s missile program. And the IRNA state news agency reported that scientists had discovered a new computer virus in their systems, a more sophisticated version of the Stuxnet worm deployed last year to foul up Iran’s centrifuges.

Iran said the army base explosion was an accident and the new Duqu virus was contained. But Israeli newspapers and some U.S. experts said it appeared to be more from an ongoing secret operation by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.

The covert campaign encompasses a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and a similar explosion at another Iranian missile base two years ago both widely attributed to the Mossad.

“May there be more like it,” was all Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said when Army Radio asked about the new blast.

There was a third mysterious event: The son of a top Iranian hard-liner was found dead — a seeming suicide — in a Dubai hotel on Sunday. His father called it “suspicious” and linked to the base explosion, without elaborating.

Israel was accused of deploying the 11 agents who killed a top Hamas terrorist in a Dubai hotel last year.

Israel Behind Deadly Explosion at Iran Missile Base (TIME):

Israeli newspapers on Sunday were thick with innuendo, the front pages of the three largest dailies dominated by variations on the headline “Mysterious Explosion in Iranian Missile Base.” Turn the page, and the mystery is answered with a wink. “Who Is Responsible for Attacks on the Iranian Army?” asks Maariv, and the paper lists without further comment a half-dozen other violent setbacks to Iran’s nuclear and military nexus. For Israeli readers, the coy implication is that their own government was behind Saturday’s massive blast just outside Tehran. It is an assumption a Western intelligence source insists is correct: the Mossad — the Israeli agency charged with covert operations — did it. “Don’t believe the Iranians that it was an accident,” the official tells TIME, adding that other sabotage is being planned to impede the Iranian ability to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. “There are more bullets in the magazine,” the official says.

The powerful blast or series of blasts — reports described an initial explosion followed by a much larger one — devastated a missile base in the gritty urban sprawl to the west of the Iranian capital. The base housed Shahab missiles, which, at their longest range, can reach Israel. Last week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had experimented with removing the conventional warhead on the Shahab-3 and replacing it with one that would hold a nuclear device. Iran says the explosion was an accident that came while troops were transferring ammunition out of the depot “toward the appropriate site.”

Report: CIA Using MKO, Terrorist Groups for Bombings inside Iran (Fars News Agency):

As former CIA veteran Robert Baer explained in the documentary ‘Vanguard: America’s Secret War With Iran’ the US has been at war with Iran through its terrorist proxies for years, notably PJAK terrorist group, which has been blamed for numerous attacks in Iran.

As the London Telegraph, ABC News and numerous other mainstream outlets reported back in 2007, the US is also using the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group Jundollah to carry out suicide bombings and other destabilization attacks in Iran, a policy crafted by the Bush administration which has been continued under Obama.

“President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the clergies,” reported Telegraph.

Part of that destabilization campaign involved the CIA “Giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundollah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” stated the report.

Jundollah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In October 2009, Jundollah attacked the IRGC at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan, killing 40 people.

The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

In May 2008, ABC News reported on how Pakistan was threatening to turn over six members of Jundollah to Iran after they were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.

“US officials tell ABC News US intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundollah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran,” reported ABC news, highlighting again the close relationship between the terror group and the CIA.

In July 2009, a Jundollah member admitted before a court in Zahedan Iran that the group was a proxy for the US and Israel.

Abdolhamid Rigi, a senior member of the group and the brother of the group’s leader Abdolmalek Rigi, who was one of the six members of the organization extradited by Pakistan, told the court that Jundollah was being trained and financed by “the US and Zionists”. He also said that the group had been ordered by America and Israel to step up their attacks in Iran.

Jundollah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the US is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known terrorist organization known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran.

After a bombing inside Iran in March 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official blew the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic Republic to give up its nuclear program.

A story entitled, US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, reveals how funding for the attacks carried out by the terrorist groups “comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget,” a fact that is now “no great secret”, according to a former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

DoJ Military and Civil Law Enforcement Nonlethal Weapons and Equipment Review

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DoJ-NonLethalMunitions.png

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

DoJ-NonLethalMunitions

Under its Less-Lethal Technologies Program, established in 1986, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—the research, development, and evaluation arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—provides funds to identify, develop, and evaluate new or improved devices and other technology that will minimize the risk of death and injury to law enforcement officers, suspects, prisoners, and the general public. Many Federal, State, and local civil law enforcement and corrections agencies use less-lethal weapons and equipment to help minimize the loss of life and property. These devices are used to quell prison riots, suppress mobs, and subdue hostile individuals. NIJ has prepared this equipment review to inform Federal, State, and local agencies about the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program and the less-lethal weapons and equipment used by civil law enforcement agencies. This review does not address issues surrounding DoD’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program or issues related to nonlethal weapons research and development programs.

DoD has deployed less-lethal technology under its Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program since 1995, when civil agencies provided less-lethal weapons and equipment, technical assistance, and training to support the U.S. military’s redeployment to Somalia. The technology enables U.S. forces to reduce unintended casualties and infrastructure damage during complex missions; discourage, delay, or prevent hostile action; limit escalation where lethal force is not the preferred option; protect U.S. forces; and temporarily disable equipment and facilities.

Currently used DoD and U.S. Coast Guard nonlethal weapons and equipment are described in sections II and III. Section IV includes representative descriptions of less-lethal devices used by the Chicago Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, Seattle SWAT team, and U.S. Marshals Service. The product descriptions include photographs and information about manufacturers, costs, the services or law enforcement agencies that use each product, and each item’s operational capability or use. Agencies that lack adequate research and development funding for less-lethal weapons and equipment often rely on private manufacturers to meet this need.

The equipment selection process is discussed in appendix A. The appendix also includes descriptions of DoD’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program; nonlethal weapons programs in the military branches (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force), the DoD Special Operations Command, and U.S. Coast Guard; and civil law enforcement less-lethal weapons. A glossary is presented in appendix B. Typically, DoD uses the term “nonlethal” and NIJ and civil law enforcement agencies use the term “less-lethal” when referring to the same technology.

Law enforcement officers of the 21st century encounter many of the same challenges and issues their predecessors faced during the late 20th century. Incidents involving hostage rescue, vehicle pursuit, attempted suicide, the need to detain or control unruly individuals and crowds, and domestic disturbances continue to dominate daily activities. However, technology advances have matured, and new tactics provide law enforcement officers with additional options for handling many of these situations. A difficult aspect of civil law enforcement continues to be the need to manage individuals or groups when more than a show of force or voice commands are required and deadly force is neither authorized nor the preferred method of resolution. To meet this need, many Federal and State agencies and local law enforcement departments have developed and used less-lethal technology.

In the context of civil law enforcement, less-lethal weapons are those primarily designed to temporarily disable or stop suspects without killing, thereby providing an alternative to lethal force where appropriate. These weapons are “less lethal” in a literal sense because none can be guaranteed to avoid serious injury or death. As in the military, law enforcement officers should never consider less-lethal weapons to be a replacement for the legal use of lethal force; rather, they should use less-lethal weapons as an instrument of force in the continuum between show of force or verbal commands and deadly force.

Civil law enforcement’s development and use of less-lethal weapons and equipment contributes daily to officers’ ability to engage hostile individuals and to project force at a lower response level. Within the civil law enforcement community, the costs to conduct nonlethal weapons research and development and the levels of funding available vary dramatically. In larger Federal and State agencies, budgets generally range from several thousand dollars to, in rare cases, several hundred thousand dollars. In smaller, local law enforcement departments, nonlethal weapons and equipment research and development funding is minimal at best and often nonexistent. For many years, civil law enforcement organizations have relied on the manufacturers and developers of less-lethal technology to buffer this lack of research and development funding.

TOP-SECRET-DoJ Hand-Held Aerosol Tear Gas Weapons Assessment

This document, NIJ Standard-01 10.00, Hand-Held Aerosol Tear Gas Weapons, is an equipment standard developed by the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards. It is produced as part of the Technology Assessment Program of the National Institute of Justice. A brief description of the program appears on the inside front cover.

This standard is a technical document that specifies performance and other requirements equipment should qeet to satisfy the needs of criminal justice agencies for high quality service. Purchasers can use the test methods described in this standard themselves to determine whether i particular piece ofequipment meets the essential requirements, or they may have the tests conducted on their behalf by a qualified testing laboratory. Procurement officials may also refer to this standard in their purchasing documents and require that equipment offered for purchase meet the requirements. Compliance with the requirements of the standard may be attested to by an independent laboratory or guaranteed by the vendor.

This standard establishes minimum performance requirements and methods of test, including safety and handling aspects, for hand -held aerosol tear gas (less -than -lethal) weapons used by law enforcement agencies. These devices are used by law enforcement officers to incapacitate or distract one person or several whose behavior must be modified when the situation is not sufficiently dangerous to require the use of a firearm. The scope of this standard is limited to hand-held tear gas weapons that incorporate ortho-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS) or alpha-chloroacetophenone (CN) as the active agent (lacrimator), sprayed from an aerosol dispenser.

..

Occupy Oakland Eviction Notice

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OccupyOaklandEviction-791x1024.jpg

Women Protest Worldwide Photos 5

[Image]Spanish ‘indignant’ protesters hold a placard reading ‘We do not want fascists’ during a protest in front of a campaign meeting of the far-right party ‘Plataforma per Catalunya’ on November 13, 2011 in Barcelona. Hundreds of Spain’s ‘indignant’ protesters marched through the streets of Madrid Sunday to protest spending cuts, high unemployment and political corruption, a week before a general election. In Barcelona about 30 members of the movement decided at an assembly Saturday to camp out in the Plaza de Catalunya until the general election on November 20. Getty
[Image]Two girls holds a coffin with a doll inside that wearing a mask with the faces of presidential candidates of Popular Party Mariano Rajoy and Socialist Party Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba during a demonstration against the government and banks in Madrid on Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011. Spain goes to the polls for presidential elections on November 20. (Arturo Rodriguez)
[Image]Public workers march during a protest in Lisbon’s main avenue of Liberdade November 12, 2011. Public workers, policemen and military personnel are holding several protests in Lisbon against the job and 2012 state budget cuts. Reuters
[Image]A woman holds up a sign that reads “No is No” as she takes part in the “Marcha de las Putas” (SlutWalk), held to protest against discrimination and violence against women in Lima, November 12, 2011. The march is part of the SlutWalk protest movement which started after a policeman advised women students in Canada to “avoid dressing like sluts”. Reuters
[Image]Pro-Syrian regime protesters, hold up portraits of Syrian President Bashar Assad with Arabic words: ” The lion (Assad) of resistance and the rejectionism” during a demonstration against the Arab League decision to suspend Syria in front the Syrian embassy, in Beirut, Lebanon, on Sunday Nov. 13, 2011. Tens of thousands of pro-regime demonstrators gathered in a Damascus square Sunday to protest the Arab League’s vote to suspend Syria over its bloody crackdown on the country’s eight-month-old uprising.
[Image]Syrian protesters shout anti-Syrian Preident Bashar Assad slogans during a protest in front of the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011 where the League emergency session on Syria is to discuss the country’s failure to end bloodshed caused by government crackdowns on civil protests. Protesters called the Arab League to suspend the country’s membership. Arabic read ” step out, we need to build civilian modern country” (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Demonstrators with cooking pots and colanders on their heads stand in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011. Thousands of people formed a human chain around the Frankfurt bank towers protesting against the power of banks. German police say more than ten thousand people are protesting against the banks’ dominance in two of the country’s major cities.
[Image]A group of protesters prepare their signs before heading out into the ocean to hold an anti-APEC protest at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu on Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 as the summit is held in Oahu over the weekend. (Marco Garcia)
[Image]Demonstrators hold a ribbon reading “smash banks, redistribute wealth” in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, Nov.12, 2011. Thousands of people formed a human chain with the ribbon around the Frankfurt bank towers to protest against the power of banks.Thousands of people formed a human chain around the Frankfurt bank towers protesting against the worldwide power of banks. German police say more than ten thousand people are protesting against the banks’ dominance in two of the country’s major cities.
[Image]Protestors march through downtown Lisbon during a demonstration by military personnel associations against austerity measures Saturday, Nov. 12 2011. The Portuguese government plans to introduce more pay cuts and steep tax hikes next year while the country is struggling to restore its fiscal health despite a euro78 billion ($106 billion) bailout earlier this year. Banner reads ” Amnesty for the military punished for offenses of opinion” refering to military who have been punished for taking part in protests.
[Image]Students march against government plans to reform higher education in Medellin, Colombia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of students march in the country’s main cities despite President Juan Manuel Santos’ proposal to withdraw a reform bill on higher education. (Luis Benavides)
[Image]A UCLA student arrested by Los Angeles Police Department officers after she attempted to escape after eleven student protesters sat in circle in middle of the Westwood and Wilshire boulevard intersection as part of a protest of bank practices and rising fees at public universities on November 9, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. The protest organized by ReFund California was one of several planned at universities around the state. Getty
[Image]Students demonstrate against an education reform bill in Bogota, on November 10, 2011. Thousands of students from more than 30 public universities took to the streets in Colombia to protest against proposed education reforms they fear will partially privatize higher education. The students have been on strike over the past month to protest a bill put forward by President Juan Manuel Santos that would require public universities to generate some of their own revenues. On Wednesday Santos offered to withdraw the draft and open a dialogue if the more than half a million students on strike lift their form of pressure. Getty
[Image]A demonstrator holds a banner against the ECB in Naples on November 11, 2011 during a rally called ‘Occupy Napoli’ (Occupy Naples), refering to the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, to protest against banks and international financial power. Getty
[Image]Hungarian and foreign activists and sympathizers of the ‘True Democracy Now’ group hold banners reading ‘Direct Democracy’ (R) and ‘Be part’, (L) as an elderly woman mouth’s is covered by a fake 1000 euro bill in front the central bank of Budapest on November 11, 2011 during a demonstration for a better and livable world and to protest against the political and economical system. Getty
[Image]A protester holds a sign reading “Neither Tremonti nor Monti” during a protest in front of the Ministry of Finance in Rome November 11, 2011. The package of austerity measures that were demanded by the European Union will now go to the Italian lower house, which is expected to approve it on Saturday. That vote will trigger the resignation of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The signs refer to Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti and former European Commissioner Mario Monti, who is tipped as the favourite to replace Berlusconi. Reuters
[Image]A Yemeni woman covers her mouth with her hand painted in the colours of the national flag during to a protest against the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh in the capital Sanaa, on November11, 2011. Forces loyal to Yemeni President Abdullah Saleh shelled the country’s second largest city Taez, killing nine people, among them two women and a child, a medic and witnesses said. Getty
[Image]A protester holding a banner camps outside the Banca d’Italia on November 11, 2011 in Venice, Italy. Protest in several Italian cities have been called by the Indignados, students, social centres and other organizations for today 11.11.11 to protest against financial insitutions and cuts proposed by the Government. Getty
[Image]Dalbir Kaur, sister of Indian national Sarabjit Singh on death row in Pakistan, second right, along with supporters of All India Youth Foundation takes an oath for securing his release in front of the India Gate war memorial at 11:11 am, in New Delhi, India, Friday, Nov. 11, 2011. A placard on left reads, “People’s Voice, Sarabjit.” (Gurinder Osan)
[Image]An Indonesian Muslim woman wears a Palestinian flag face mask during a solidarity protest for the Palestinian people in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. (Irwin Fedriansyah)
[Image]Demonstrators of a group “Occupy Rio” protest against Rio de Janeiro’s governor Sergio Cabral in downtown Rio de Janeiro November 10, 2011. The demonstration, inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, seeks to address the corruption in the police and the problems with the health care system under the governance of Cabral. Cabral had originally organized a demonstration to rally against an oil reform amendment approved by the lower house of Congress. Reuters
[Image]Protesters from the communist-affiliated trade union PAME shout slogans during an anti-government protest in Athens November 10, 2011. Greece named former European Central Bank vice-president Lucas Papademos on Thursday to head a crisis government, ending a chaotic search for a leader to save the country from default, bankruptcy and an exit from the euro zone. Reuters
[Image]A demonstrator marches during a student protest against government plans to reform higher education at the main square in Bogota, Colombia, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of students marched in the country’s main cities despite a government proposal to withdraw a reform bill on higher education. (William Fernando Martinez)
[Image]People wave flags of Rio de Janeiro state during a protest against an oil reform amendment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011. Thousands of Brazilians are demonstrating against a plan that reduces revenue for oil-producing states and the federal government while increasing oil royalties for non-producing states. (Felipe Dana)
[Image]Christian fundamentalist holds a candle during a demonstration against Italian director Romeo Castellucci’s play “On the Concept of the Face, Regarding the Son of God” in Rennes, western France, Thursday Nov. 10, 2011. Christian fundamentalists gathered outside the cultural palace the Theatre National de Bretagne, (National Theatre of Brittany), to protest against the play which they claim is blasphemous. (David Vincent)
[Image]One of the students with peaceful attitude cleans the shield of a riot policemen that was stained with paint by more violent protesters, during a demonstration against an education reform bill at Bogota’s main square Plaza de Bolivar, on November 10, 2011. Thousands of students from more than 30 public universities took to the streets in Colombia to protest against proposed education reforms they fear will partially privatize higher education. The students have been on strike over the past month to protest a bill put forward by President Juan Manuel Santos that would require public universities to generate some of their own revenues. On Wednesday Santos offered to withdraw the draft and open a dialogue if the more than half a million students on strike lift their form of pressure. Getty
[Image]NOVEMBER 09: UCLA graduate student Cheryl Deutsch is arrested by Los Angeles Police Department officers after she and 10 other student protesters sat in circle in middle of the Westwood and Wilshire boulevard intersection as part of a protest of bank practices and rising fees at public universities on November 9, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. The protest organized by ReFund California was one of several planned at universities around the state. Getty
[Image]A woman shouts out as police officers move into the crowd of demonstrators and push people back during a student anti-cuts protest in London, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. Thousands of students marched through central London on Wednesday to protest cuts to public spending and a big increase in university tuition fees. Police said there were “a number of arrests for public order offenses” Wednesday, but the march was largely peaceful as demonstrators made their way through the city center.
[Image]A protester cries out as students and campaigners march through the streets of London in a protest against higher tuition fees and government cuts, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. (Sang Tan)
[Image]A lone protester stands outside the Scottsdale Plaza Resort to protest Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain who was addressing the media Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011, in Scottsdale, Ariz. Cain said Tuesday that he would not drop his bid for the Republicans’ presidential nomination in the face of decade-old allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. (Charlie Leight)
[Image]Two members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who are covered from head to toe in green and blue bodypaint, as they hold a banner reading, “Save the Planet, Go Vegan,” at the Nanjing pedestrian street in Shanghai, China Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. (Eugene Hoshiko)
[Image]Protestors from Occupy Philly participate in a ‘die in’ demonstration outside a PNC Bank branch in Philadelphia on Monday Nov. 7, 2011. The demonstration was conducted to draw attention to PNC Bank’s business practices. (Joseph Kaczmarek)
[Image]A Syrian woman, who lives in Cairo, reacts as others wave a giant Syrian revolution flag during an anti-Syrian President Bashar Assad demonstration at Tahrir Square, the focal point of Egyptian uprisings, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011 to support protesters in Syria during the first day of Islamic Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]An activist of the Ukrainian female rights organization “Femen” shows a placard demanding freedom for women, during a protest at the end of Pope Benedict XVI’s Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011. (Pier Paolo Cito)
[Image]Yemeni girls hold a giant Yemeni flag, left, as Syrians hold their revolution flag, right, during a protest against Yemeni and Syrian regimes at Tahrir Square, the focal point of Egyptian uprising, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011 to support protesters in Yemen and Syria during the first day of Islamic Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice. (Amr Nabil)
[Image]Amy Barnes protests as police move in to clear a downtown street during an Occupy Atlanta demonstration late Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011 in Atlanta. (David Goldman)
[Image]In this Nov. 27, 2010 file photo, Susanna Camusso, leader of Italy’s largest labor confederation CGIL, arrives to deliver her speech during a demonstration to protest government policies regarding the economical crisis, in Rome. In an interview with The Associated Press Monday Nov. 7, 2011, Camusso is predicting 2012 will be a “terrifying” year for the economy even if beleaguered Premier Silvio Berlusconi leaves power soon.

TOP-SECRET – Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station 12 November 2011

[Image]An official from the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), wearing a protective suit and mask, uses a plastic covered megaphone to speak to fellow TEPCO workers and journalists as they drive towards the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station in Okuma, Japan, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. Conditions at Japan’s wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant, devastated by a tsunami in March, were slowly improving to the point where a “cold shutdown” would be possible as planned, officials said on Saturday during a tour of the facility. The nuclear reactor buildings were still surrounded by crumpled trucks, twisted metal fences, and large, dented water tanks. Smaller office buildings around the reactors were left as they were abandoned on March 11, when the tsunami hit.
[Image]Japanese police man a checkpoint near the edge of the contaminated exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station near Okuma, Fukushima prefecture, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]A deserted street inside the contaminated exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen from bus windows in Fukushima prefecture, November 12, 2011.
[Image]A deserted field and buildings inside the contaminated exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station are seen through a bus window near Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]An official from the Tokyo Electric Power Co., right, and an unidentified man, both wearing protective suits and masks ride on a bus as they pass by the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station, seen through the window, in Okuma, Japan, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]Officials from the Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Japanese journalists look at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station from bus windows in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. Media allowed into Japan’s tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant for the first time Saturday saw a striking scene of devastation: twisted and overturned vehicles, crumbling reactor buildings and piles of rubble virtually untouched since the wave struck more than eight months ago. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]A view of Tokyo Electric Power Co’s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima prefecture November 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant’s No.4, No.3, No.2 and No.1 (R-L) reactor buildings are seen from bus windows in Fukushima prefecture November 12, 2011. Reuters
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen from bus windows in Fukushima prefecture, November 12, 2011. Reuters
[Image]The Unit 4 reactor building of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is seen through a bus window in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. Media allowed into Japan’s tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant for the first time Saturday saw a striking scene of devastation: twisted and overturned vehicles, crumbling reactor buildings and piles of rubble virtually untouched since the wave struck more than eight months ago. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]The Unit 4 reactor building of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is seen through a bus window in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]Broken vehicles are abandoned outside Unit 4 turbine building at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station as they are observed from inside a bus in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011.
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant’s upper part of the No.3 reactor building is seen from a bus window in Fukushima prefecture, November 12, 2011. Reuters
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is seen through a bus window in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. Media allowed into Japan’s tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant for the first time Saturday saw a striking scene of devastation: twisted and overturned vehicles, crumbling reactor buildings and piles of rubble virtually untouched since the wave struck more than eight months ago. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen from bus windows in Fukushima prefecture, November 12, 2011. Reuters
[Image]The crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is seen from bus windows in Fukushima prefecture, November 12, 2011.  Reuters
[Image]Crushed piping is observed from inside a bus at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. Media allowed into Japan’s tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant for the first time Saturday saw a striking scene of devastation: twisted and overturned trucks, crumbling reactor buildings and piles of rubble virtually untouched since the wave struck more than eight months ago. (Ikuro Aiba, Pool)
[Image]Units five and six of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station are seen through a bus window in Futaba, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]Members of the media, wearing protective suits, interview Japan’s Minister of the Environment, Goshi Hosono, and Chief of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, Masao Yoshida, inside the emergency operation center at the crippled nuclear power station in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)
[Image]Tokyo Electric Power Co. employees work inside the emergency operation center at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station in Okuma, Japan Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011. (David Guttenfelder, Pool)

 

U.S. Plans Large Sale of “Bunker Buster” Bombs to the United Arab Emirates

A F-15 dropping multiple Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Photo via Boeing.

U.S. may sell precision-guided bombs to UAE (Reuters):

The U.S. government may soon announce plans for a large sale of precision-guided bombs to the United Arab Emirates, a source familiar with the arms sales plans said late on Thursday, as tensions mounted with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Pentagon is considering a significant sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions made by Boeing Co, adding to other recent arms deals with the UAE. These include the sale of 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles about which U.S. lawmakers were notified in September.

The sale of Boeing-built “bunker-buster” bombs and other munitions to UAE, a key Gulf ally, is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.

No comment was immediately available from the Pentagon’s press office or the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign arms sales.

Boeing has sold thousands of JDAM bombs to the United States and its allies in recent months as they have replenished their arsenal of the popular precision-guided bombs.

Boeing spokesman Garrett Kasper said the company was unable to discuss the proposed contract since it would involve a foreign military sale, something that would be discussed at a government-to-government level.

The proposed sale, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would expand the existing capabilities of UAE’s air force to target buildings such as the bunkers and tunnels where Iran is believed to be developing nuclear or other weapons. The newspaper said Washington was eyeing the sale of 4,900 of the so-called smart bombs.

Washington considers selling bunker-busting bombs to UAE (Telegraph.co.uk):

The Pentagon is considering a significant sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions made by Boeing, adding to other recent arms deals with the UAE. Those included the sale of 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles about which the US Congress was notified in September.

The sale of Boeing-built “bunker-buster” bombs and other munitions to UAE, a key Gulf ally of Washington, is part of an ongoing US effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.

The proposed sale, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would expand the existing capabilities of UAE’s air force to target buildings such as the bunkers and tunnels where Iran is believed to be developing nuclear or other weapons. The newspaper said Washington was eyeing the sale of 4,900 of the so-called smart bombs.

Tension over Iran’s nuclear program has increased since Tuesday when the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a bomb and may still be conducting secret research to that end.

Speculation has heightened in the Israeli media that Israel may strike Iran’s nuclear sites and there is speculation in the Western press about a possible US attack.

But Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, warned that military action against Iran could have “unintended consequences” in the region. Tehran had warned earlier that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met by “iron fists”.

The US government also approved the sale of a £4.2 billion terminal missile defence program to UAE that would be built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Washington has also sought to build up missile-defence systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.

The UAE has a fleet of advanced US-made F-16 fighters, also built by Lockheed, that could carry the JDAMs.

Once the Pentagon formally notifies Congressmen about a proposed sale, they have 30 days to raise objections, although such action is rare since sales are carefully vetted with Congress before they are formally announced.

Large-Scale Cash Smuggling Drives Billions of Dollars Out of Syria

Demonstrators protesting against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad wave old Syrian flags as they march through the streets on the first day of the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Adha in Alsnmin near Daraa November 6, 2011.

Syrian capital flight intensifies (Financial Times):

Money has been streaming out of Syria as fears for the unstable economy lead Syrians to seek a safer place for their assets, according to members of the country’s business community.

Cash is being smuggled over the border to Lebanon “every day, every hour,” said one Syrian businessman, while another claimed Syrian money is being stashed in the grey economy that has long existed between the two countries.

In what many see as an example of the cross-border transfer, Syrian state news reported last month that officials had intercepted over $100,000 worth of Syrian pounds being smuggled across the Lebanese border under the seat of a car.

Samir Seifan, a Dubai-based Syrian economist, estimated Syria’s middle and upper classes had moved between three and five billion dollars out of the country since unrest broke out in March, alarmed by pressures on the currency and the dearth of investment opportunities.

The squeeze on Assad – June 30, 2011 (The Economist):

Public finances are in deep trouble. The president has raised government salaries and various subsidies to appease the populace. He cannot afford to do this. The government will probably print the money to meet its promises, so runaway inflation is likely, further fuelling popular anger as cash deposits become worthless.

Capital flight is rampant. Drivers on the roads into Lebanon talk of clients going from their bank in Damascus straight to one in Beirut, carrying large bags. According to one estimate, $20 billion has left the country since March, putting pressure on the Syrian pound. To slow capital flight, the government has raised interest rates. A phone company controlled by the Assad family sent out messages urging people to put money back into their accounts.

But a run on the banks cannot be ruled out. Over the past few years, about 60% of lending in Syria has been for people to buy their own cars. Many can no longer keep up with payments. A leading financier says, “If one of the smaller banks defaults, we all go down.” Some branches are even displaying millions of dollars—in bundles of notes piled head high—to reassure worried customers. Some keep enough cash in the vaults to repay almost half their depositors on the spot.

FBI San Diego – Reward of $20,000 Offered in “Geezer Bandit” Investigation

The FBI and local law enforcement are seeking the public’s assistance to identify and arrest the individual dubbed the “Geezer Bandit.” The “Geezer Bandit” is believed to be responsible for 15 bank robberies dating back to August 28, 2009. The first robbery in this series was in Santee, California, and the latest on Friday, September 30, 2011, in La Jolla, California (San Diego County).

On Friday, September 30, 2011, at approximately 6:34 p.m., the Wells Fargo Bank, located inside of the Von’s grocery store, 7544 Girard Avenue, La Jolla, California, was robbed by an unknown male. The robber approached the teller counter, made a verbal demand for money and pointed a revolver pistol at the teller. The teller complied with the robber’s demand and provided him with a sum of money. After receiving a sum of money the robber walked out of the same door he entered through.

Since August 2009, the San Diego and Los Angeles FBI offices, San Diego Police Department (SDPD), San Diego Sheriff’s Department, and other California law enforcement agencies have sought the public’s help in identifying the “Geezer Bandit.”

Witnesses from previous robberies have described the “Geezer Bandit” as follows:

Sex: Male
Race: White
Age: 60-70 years old
Height: Approximately 5’10” to 6’0” tall
Weight: Approximately 190 to 200 lbs.
Build: Average
Clothing: Navy-colored blazer, navy or black-colored baseball cap, dark-colored pants, and possibly wearing a mask and rubber gloves
Weapon: Revolver pistol that he carries in his left hand

The Geezer Bandit is believed to be responsible for robbing the following banks:

August 28, 2009, Friday, 11:47 a.m. US Bank 9643 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA
September 12, 2009, Saturday, 10:10 a.m. San Diego National Bank 7877 Ivanhoe, La Jolla, CA
October 9, 2009, Friday, 2:07 p.m. US Bank 4627 Carmel Mountain Road, San Diego, CA
October 26, 2009, Monday, 10:04 a.m. Bank of America 17008 Avenida de Acacias, Rancho Santa Fe, CA
November 16, 2009, Monday, 5:54 p.m. Bank of America 7680 Girard Avenue, La Jolla, CA
January 27, 2010, Wednesday, 5:50 p.m. San Diego National Bank 1075 Rosecrans, San Diego, CA
April 20, 2010, Tuesday, 9:10 a.m. California Bank and Trust 140 Escondido Avenue, Vista, CA
April 30, 2010, Friday, 2:14  p.m. US Bank 1301 East Vista Way, Vista, CA
May 11, 2010, Tuesday, 9:45 a.m. Bank of America 9711 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA
June 7, 2010, Monday, 2:55 p.m. US Bank 14837 Pomerado Road, Poway, CA
June 24, 2010, Thursday, 1:15 p.m. Bank of America 31934 Highway 79 South, Temecula, CA
November 12, 2010, Friday,  6:00 p.m. Bank of America 4480 Coffee Road, Bakersfield, CA
January 28, 2011, Friday, 5:55 p.m. Bank of America 5892 Calle Real, Goleta, CA
May 27, 2011, Friday, 2:17 p.m. Heritage Oaks Bank 310 Morro Bay Boulevard, Morro Bay, CA
September 30, 2011, Friday, 6:34 p.m. Wells Fargo Bank 7544 Girard Avenue, La Jolla, CA

Bank surveillance photographs from Wells Fargo Bank , 7544 Girard Avenue, La Jolla, California, on Friday, September 30, 2011.

Bank Robbery Suspect Bank Robbery Suspect Bank Robbery Suspect

Since September 30, 2011, FBI agents and San Diego Police robbery detectives have conducted additional investigation into the Wells Fargo robbery. Based upon this investigation, agents and detectives believe there is a reasonable belief that the “Geezer Bandit” is responsible for this robbery.

Anyone with information concerning the “Geezer Bandit” is asked to contact the FBI at telephone number (858) 565-1255, or your local law enforcement agency. The “Geezer Bandit” is considered armed and dangerous. A $20,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the “Geezer Bandit.”

Today in History for November 13th

FBI-Colombian Paramilitary Leader Sentenced to 33 Years in Prison for Drug Trafficking and Narco-Terrorism

WASHINGTON—Carlos Mario Jimenez-Naranjo, aka “Macaco,” a paramilitary leader and one of Colombia’s most notorious drug traffickers, has been sentenced to 33 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard in Miami for leading an international drug trafficking conspiracy that supported a foreign terrorist organization, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer for the Southern District of Florida.

According to court documents, Jimenez-Naranjo was one of the top leaders of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a Colombian right-wing paramilitary and drug trafficking organization. The AUC is a U.S. Department of State-designated foreign terrorist organization. From the mid 1990s through 2007, Jimenez-Naranjo led the Bloque Central Bolivar (BCB), a group within the AUC, commanding an estimated 7,000 armed combatants. Jimenez-Naranjo controlled large areas where cocaine was produced, and his organization was responsible for exporting thousands of kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to Central America, Mexico and the United States using seaports and clandestine airstrips. Jimenez-Naranjo was extradited from Colombia to the United States on May 7, 2008, based on a provisional arrest warrant from separate indictments in the District of Columbia and in the Southern District of Florida.

On Jan. 7, 2010, Jimenez-Naranjo pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to charges of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, with intent to import the cocaine into the United States, and to engaging in drug trafficking with the intent to provide something of value to a terrorist organization or narco-terrorism.

On June 21, 2010, Jimenez-Naranjo pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Florida to a superseding indictment charging him with conspiracy to import thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States using clandestine airstrips and airplanes, and conspiracy to possess thousands of kilograms of cocaine, which were exported from Colombia onboard maritime vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The two cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida for sentencing. Jimenez-Naranjo was sentenced on May 9, 2011, and the sentencing was unsealed today.

“Mr. Jimenez-Naranjo led the largest paramilitary group within the AUC,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Under his decades-long leadership, the group trafficked thousands of kilograms of illegal narcotics to the United States by land, air and sea—from Colombia, through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Mr. Jimenez-Naranjo’s sentence is a step forward in our efforts to stem the illegal flow of narcotics to the United States and hold dangerous drug traffickers accountable.”

“Jimenez-Naranjo and his organization conspired to import thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States using secret airstrips and airplanes,” said U.S. Attorney Ferrer. “Transnational drug trafficking organizations, like this one, threaten the security of our borders and endanger the safety and well-being of our citizens. For this reason, we in South Florida remain determined and focused on the mission of eradicating these dangerous organizations.”

“Investigations such as this clearly define the connection between drugs and terrorism,” said Special Agent in Charge Mark R. Trouville of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Miami Field Office. “International narco-terrorist organizations oppress communities in their home countries through force and corruption, and fund these activities by supplying illegal drugs in our communities. Every time DEA and our federal and international law enforcement partners dismantle a drug trafficking organization that funds or supports terrorism, we remove a serious threat and stop a funding source for terrorist acts.”

“The FBI continues working to eradicate international narco-traffickers, like Carlos Mario Jimenez-Naranjo, who infiltrate our shores and pollute our society with cocaine,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge William Maddalena of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. “I especially want to thank the Colombian National Police for their assistance and cooperation in this case.”

“ICE HSI will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our law enforcement partners to identify and dismantle drug trafficking organizations smuggling large quantities of drugs into the country,” said Michael Shea, Acting Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) in Miami. “Those who think that they are safely beyond our reach should think twice. HSI and its partners are vigilant and these criminal actors will be arrested and brought to justice.”

The evidence from the two cases established that Jimenez-Naranjo’s drug trafficking organization processed and manufactured multi-ton quantities of cocaine in Colombia-based laboratories and exported that cocaine from Colombia to Central America, Mexico and elsewhere, some of which was ultimately imported into the United States. During the same time, Jimenez-Naranjo permitted the proceeds of his cocaine production and trafficking activities to be used to facilitate and finance the activities of the AUC. Jimenez-Naranjo’s laboratories processed coca paste and crystallized and converted it into cocaine HCL, producing between 200 and 500 kilograms of cocaine HCL per month at their peak. Jimenez-Naranjo sold this cocaine to transportation specialists, who used fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and go-fast boats, among other forms of transportation, to move the cocaine within Colombia and to export the cocaine to Central America and Mexico. Jimenez-Naranjo also maintained his own airstrips for his narcotic trafficking and charged other traffickers a fee to use his airstrips.

According to court documents, Jimenez-Naranjo also earned money through the BCB’s control of certain areas of Colombia. Specifically, taxes were levied upon other narcotics traffickers who needed passage through BCB-controlled territories. Jimenez-Naranjo used the proceeds from his drug trafficking activities to finance the activities of the AUC and specifically the BCB. Narcotics profits enabled the BCB to purchase weapons and other needed supplies for the BCB narcotics trafficking and other AUC activities. In addition, the cocaine profits were used to pay taxes to other AUC groups who similarly charged the BCB for the passage of the BCB’s narcotics through their territories. The BCB and Jimenez-Naranjo were able to maintain tight control of their territories in Colombia through bribery and intimidation of corrupt members of the Colombia government, including law enforcement, politicians and the military.

Following the demobilization of Jimenez-Naranjo and the BCB in 2005 as part of Colombia’s Justice and Peace Law, Jimenez-Naranjo was incarcerated but continued his cocaine trafficking activities. In conjunction with those activities, Jimenez-Naranjo continued to support individuals and organizations that had engaged in, or were engaging in, terrorism or terrorism-related activity, including individuals who had been part of his armed group but who had not demobilized. Jimenez-Naranjo used co-defendants and others to continue to manage the organization’s drug trafficking operations from prison in Colombia, including collecting taxes from other drug traffickers, some of whom continued their involvement in the AUC.

Under the terms of the to the extradition request, the United States provided assurances to the Government of Colombia that a life sentence would not be sought, but would seek instead a term of years. This assurance is made for all defendants extradited from Colombia to the United States.

The U.S. government expressed its grateful appreciation to the government of Colombia and the Colombia National Police for their assistance and support during the investigations, arrest and extradition.

The District of Columbia charges were obtained by the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and resulted from an investigation conducted by the DEA Bogota, Colombia, Country Office.

The Southern District of Florida charges were obtained by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami and resulted from a separate joint investigation conducted by the FBI’s Miami Field Division, the DEA’s Miami Field Division and the Miami ICE-HSI office.

These cases were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Hoffman and Alejandro O. Soto from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Southern District of Florida, and Trial Attorneys Robert J. Raymond of the Criminal Division’s NDDS, and Glenn C. Alexander, formerly of NDDS and presently in the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. NDDS Judicial Attachés in Bogotá provided crucial support and assistance on this matter. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided assistance. The Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Fusion Center provided investigative and administrative support in this case.

WASHINGTON—Carlos Mario Jimenez-Naranjo, aka “Macaco,” a paramilitary leader and one of Colombia’s most notorious drug traffickers, has been sentenced to 33 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard in Miami for leading an international drug trafficking conspiracy that supported a foreign terrorist organization, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer for the Southern District of Florida.

According to court documents, Jimenez-Naranjo was one of the top leaders of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a Colombian right-wing paramilitary and drug trafficking organization. The AUC is a U.S. Department of State-designated foreign terrorist organization. From the mid 1990s through 2007, Jimenez-Naranjo led the Bloque Central Bolivar (BCB), a group within the AUC, commanding an estimated 7,000 armed combatants. Jimenez-Naranjo controlled large areas where cocaine was produced, and his organization was responsible for exporting thousands of kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to Central America, Mexico and the United States using seaports and clandestine airstrips. Jimenez-Naranjo was extradited from Colombia to the United States on May 7, 2008, based on a provisional arrest warrant from separate indictments in the District of Columbia and in the Southern District of Florida.

On Jan. 7, 2010, Jimenez-Naranjo pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to charges of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, with intent to import the cocaine into the United States, and to engaging in drug trafficking with the intent to provide something of value to a terrorist organization or narco-terrorism.

On June 21, 2010, Jimenez-Naranjo pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Florida to a superseding indictment charging him with conspiracy to import thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States using clandestine airstrips and airplanes, and conspiracy to possess thousands of kilograms of cocaine, which were exported from Colombia onboard maritime vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The two cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida for sentencing. Jimenez-Naranjo was sentenced on May 9, 2011, and the sentencing was unsealed today.

“Mr. Jimenez-Naranjo led the largest paramilitary group within the AUC,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Under his decades-long leadership, the group trafficked thousands of kilograms of illegal narcotics to the United States by land, air and sea—from Colombia, through Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. Mr. Jimenez-Naranjo’s sentence is a step forward in our efforts to stem the illegal flow of narcotics to the United States and hold dangerous drug traffickers accountable.”

“Jimenez-Naranjo and his organization conspired to import thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States using secret airstrips and airplanes,” said U.S. Attorney Ferrer. “Transnational drug trafficking organizations, like this one, threaten the security of our borders and endanger the safety and well-being of our citizens. For this reason, we in South Florida remain determined and focused on the mission of eradicating these dangerous organizations.”

“Investigations such as this clearly define the connection between drugs and terrorism,” said Special Agent in Charge Mark R. Trouville of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Miami Field Office. “International narco-terrorist organizations oppress communities in their home countries through force and corruption, and fund these activities by supplying illegal drugs in our communities. Every time DEA and our federal and international law enforcement partners dismantle a drug trafficking organization that funds or supports terrorism, we remove a serious threat and stop a funding source for terrorist acts.”

“The FBI continues working to eradicate international narco-traffickers, like Carlos Mario Jimenez-Naranjo, who infiltrate our shores and pollute our society with cocaine,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge William Maddalena of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. “I especially want to thank the Colombian National Police for their assistance and cooperation in this case.”

“ICE HSI will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our law enforcement partners to identify and dismantle drug trafficking organizations smuggling large quantities of drugs into the country,” said Michael Shea, Acting Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) in Miami. “Those who think that they are safely beyond our reach should think twice. HSI and its partners are vigilant and these criminal actors will be arrested and brought to justice.”

The evidence from the two cases established that Jimenez-Naranjo’s drug trafficking organization processed and manufactured multi-ton quantities of cocaine in Colombia-based laboratories and exported that cocaine from Colombia to Central America, Mexico and elsewhere, some of which was ultimately imported into the United States. During the same time, Jimenez-Naranjo permitted the proceeds of his cocaine production and trafficking activities to be used to facilitate and finance the activities of the AUC. Jimenez-Naranjo’s laboratories processed coca paste and crystallized and converted it into cocaine HCL, producing between 200 and 500 kilograms of cocaine HCL per month at their peak. Jimenez-Naranjo sold this cocaine to transportation specialists, who used fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and go-fast boats, among other forms of transportation, to move the cocaine within Colombia and to export the cocaine to Central America and Mexico. Jimenez-Naranjo also maintained his own airstrips for his narcotic trafficking and charged other traffickers a fee to use his airstrips.

According to court documents, Jimenez-Naranjo also earned money through the BCB’s control of certain areas of Colombia. Specifically, taxes were levied upon other narcotics traffickers who needed passage through BCB-controlled territories. Jimenez-Naranjo used the proceeds from his drug trafficking activities to finance the activities of the AUC and specifically the BCB. Narcotics profits enabled the BCB to purchase weapons and other needed supplies for the BCB narcotics trafficking and other AUC activities. In addition, the cocaine profits were used to pay taxes to other AUC groups who similarly charged the BCB for the passage of the BCB’s narcotics through their territories. The BCB and Jimenez-Naranjo were able to maintain tight control of their territories in Colombia through bribery and intimidation of corrupt members of the Colombia government, including law enforcement, politicians and the military.

Following the demobilization of Jimenez-Naranjo and the BCB in 2005 as part of Colombia’s Justice and Peace Law, Jimenez-Naranjo was incarcerated but continued his cocaine trafficking activities. In conjunction with those activities, Jimenez-Naranjo continued to support individuals and organizations that had engaged in, or were engaging in, terrorism or terrorism-related activity, including individuals who had been part of his armed group but who had not demobilized. Jimenez-Naranjo used co-defendants and others to continue to manage the organization’s drug trafficking operations from prison in Colombia, including collecting taxes from other drug traffickers, some of whom continued their involvement in the AUC.

Under the terms of the to the extradition request, the United States provided assurances to the Government of Colombia that a life sentence would not be sought, but would seek instead a term of years. This assurance is made for all defendants extradited from Colombia to the United States.

The U.S. government expressed its grateful appreciation to the government of Colombia and the Colombia National Police for their assistance and support during the investigations, arrest and extradition.

The District of Columbia charges were obtained by the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and resulted from an investigation conducted by the DEA Bogota, Colombia, Country Office.

The Southern District of Florida charges were obtained by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami and resulted from a separate joint investigation conducted by the FBI’s Miami Field Division, the DEA’s Miami Field Division and the Miami ICE-HSI office.

These cases were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Hoffman and Alejandro O. Soto from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Southern District of Florida, and Trial Attorneys Robert J. Raymond of the Criminal Division’s NDDS, and Glenn C. Alexander, formerly of NDDS and presently in the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. NDDS Judicial Attachés in Bogotá provided crucial support and assistance on this matter. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided assistance. The Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Fusion Center provided investigative and administrative support in this case.

FBI-Federal Grand Jury Returns Superseding Indictment Against Naser Jason Abdo in Connection with Bomb Plot

United States Attorney Robert Pitman and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson announced that 21-year-old Naser Jason Abdo faces new charges in connection with a July bomb plot in Killeen, Texas.

This afternoon, a federal grand jury in Waco returned a superseding indictment against Abdo charging him with one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction; one count of attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States, two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence; and two counts of possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.

The six-count superseding indictment specifically alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo unlawfully attempted to create and detonate a bomb in an attempt to kill, with pre-meditation and malice aforethought, members of the uniformed services of the United States and to shoot survivors of said detonation with a firearm. The indictment further alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo did knowingly possess a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol while carrying out his plot.

According to court records, officers with the Killeen Police Department arrested Abdo on July 27, 2011. At the time of his arrest, the defendant, an absent without leave (AWOL) soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in possession of the handgun, plus instructions on how to build a bomb as well as bomb making components. Court documents also allege that Abdo intended to detonate the destructive device inside an unspecified restaurant frequented by soldiers from Fort Hood.

The federal grand jury returned an initial indictment in this case on August 9, 2011. While those charges—possession of an unregistered destructive device, possession of a firearm by a fugitive from justice and possession of ammunition by a fugitive from justice—remain in effect, prosecutors will first proceed on the charges contained in the superseding indictment.

Abdo remains in federal custody. If convicted of the charges contained in the superseding indictment, Abdo faces up to life in federal prison for the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction charge; up to 20 years in federal prison for the attempted murder charge; a mandatory 30 years’ imprisonment for each possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge; and, a mandatory five years in federal prison for each possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge.

This case is being investigated by agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation together with U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Killeen Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant United States Attorneys Mark Frazier and Gregg Sofer are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

FBI-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Charges Seven Individuals for Engineering Sophisticated Internet Fraud Scheme That Infected Millions of Computers Worldwide and Manipulated Internet Advertising Business

United States Attorney Robert Pitman and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson announced that 21-year-old Naser Jason Abdo faces new charges in connection with a July bomb plot in Killeen, Texas.

This afternoon, a federal grand jury in Waco returned a superseding indictment against Abdo charging him with one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction; one count of attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States, two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence; and two counts of possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.

The six-count superseding indictment specifically alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo unlawfully attempted to create and detonate a bomb in an attempt to kill, with pre-meditation and malice aforethought, members of the uniformed services of the United States and to shoot survivors of said detonation with a firearm. The indictment further alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo did knowingly possess a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol while carrying out his plot.

According to court records, officers with the Killeen Police Department arrested Abdo on July 27, 2011. At the time of his arrest, the defendant, an absent without leave (AWOL) soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in possession of the handgun, plus instructions on how to build a bomb as well as bomb making components. Court documents also allege that Abdo intended to detonate the destructive device inside an unspecified restaurant frequented by soldiers from Fort Hood.

The federal grand jury returned an initial indictment in this case on August 9, 2011. While those charges—possession of an unregistered destructive device, possession of a firearm by a fugitive from justice and possession of ammunition by a fugitive from justice—remain in effect, prosecutors will first proceed on the charges contained in the superseding indictment.

Abdo remains in federal custody. If convicted of the charges contained in the superseding indictment, Abdo faces up to life in federal prison for the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction charge; up to 20 years in federal prison for the attempted murder charge; a mandatory 30 years’ imprisonment for each possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge; and, a mandatory five years in federal prison for each possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge.

This case is being investigated by agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation together with U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Killeen Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant United States Attorneys Mark Frazier and Gregg Sofer are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

FBI-Federal Grand Jury Returns Superseding Indictment Against Naser Jason Abdo in Connection with Bomb Plot

United States Attorney Robert Pitman and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson announced that 21-year-old Naser Jason Abdo faces new charges in connection with a July bomb plot in Killeen, Texas.

This afternoon, a federal grand jury in Waco returned a superseding indictment against Abdo charging him with one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction; one count of attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States, two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence; and two counts of possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence.

The six-count superseding indictment specifically alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo unlawfully attempted to create and detonate a bomb in an attempt to kill, with pre-meditation and malice aforethought, members of the uniformed services of the United States and to shoot survivors of said detonation with a firearm. The indictment further alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo did knowingly possess a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol while carrying out his plot.

According to court records, officers with the Killeen Police Department arrested Abdo on July 27, 2011. At the time of his arrest, the defendant, an absent without leave (AWOL) soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in possession of the handgun, plus instructions on how to build a bomb as well as bomb making components. Court documents also allege that Abdo intended to detonate the destructive device inside an unspecified restaurant frequented by soldiers from Fort Hood.

The federal grand jury returned an initial indictment in this case on August 9, 2011. While those charges—possession of an unregistered destructive device, possession of a firearm by a fugitive from justice and possession of ammunition by a fugitive from justice—remain in effect, prosecutors will first proceed on the charges contained in the superseding indictment.

Abdo remains in federal custody. If convicted of the charges contained in the superseding indictment, Abdo faces up to life in federal prison for the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction charge; up to 20 years in federal prison for the attempted murder charge; a mandatory 30 years’ imprisonment for each possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge; and, a mandatory five years in federal prison for each possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence charge.

This case is being investigated by agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation together with U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Killeen Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant United States Attorneys Mark Frazier and Gregg Sofer are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

FBI-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Charges Seven Individuals for Engineering Sophisticated Internet Fraud Scheme That Infected Millions of Computers Worldwide and Manipulated Internet Advertising Business

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and PAUL MARTIN, the Inspector General of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector General (“NASA OIG”), today announced charges against six Estonian nationals and one Russian national for engaging in a massive and sophisticated Internet fraud scheme that infected with malware more than four million computers located in over 100 countries. Of the computers infected with malware, at least 500,000 were in the United States, including computers belonging to U.S. government agencies, such as NASA; educational institutions; non-profit organizations; commercial businesses; and individuals. The malware secretly altered the settings on infected computers enabling the defendants to digitally hijack Internet searches and re-route computers to certain websites and advertisements, which entitled the defendants to be paid. The defendants subsequently received fees each time these websites or ads were clicked on or viewed by users. The malware also prevented the installation of anti-virus software and operating system updates on infected computers, leaving those computers and their users unable to detect or stop the defendants’ malware, and exposing them to attacks by other viruses.

Six of the defendants, VLADIMIR TSASTSIN, 31, TIMUR GERASSIMENKO, 31, DMITRI JEGOROV, 33, VALERI ALEKSEJEV, 31, KONSTANTIN POLTEV, 28, and ANTON IVANOV, 26, all Estonian nationals, were arrested and taken into custody yesterday in Estonia by the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will seek their extradition to the United States. The seventh defendant, ANDREY TAAME, 31, a Russian national, remains at large.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: “These defendants gave new meaning to the term, ‘false advertising.’ As alleged, they were international cyber bandits who hijacked millions of computers at will and re-routed them to Internet websites and advertisements of their own choosing—collecting millions in undeserved commissions for all the hijacked computer clicks and Internet ads they fraudulently engineered. The international cyber threat is perhaps the most significant challenge faced by law enforcement and national security agencies today, and this case is just perhaps the tip of the Internet iceberg. It is also an example of the success that can be achieved when international law enforcement works together to root out internet crime. We are committed to continuing our vigilance and efforts—it is essential to our national security, our economic security, and our citizens’ personal security.”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK said: “The defendants hijacked 4 million computers in a hundred countries, including half a million computers in the United States, rerouting Internet traffic and generating $14 million in illegitimate income. The globalization of the legitimate economy was the inspiration for Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat. The global reach of these cyber thieves demonstrates that the criminal world is also flat. The Internet is pervasive because it is such a useful tool, but it is a tool that can be exploited by those with bad intentions and a little know-how. In this context, international law enforcement cooperation and strong public-private partnerships are absolute necessities, and the FBI is committed to both.”

NASA Inspector General PAUL MARTIN said: “These arrests illustrate the level of cooperation needed to confront the growing worldwide threat of cyber crime. We will continue working with our national and international colleagues to help protect governments, U.S. agencies like NASA, businesses, and individual users of the Internet from fraud and theft.”

The Cyber-Fraud Scheme

According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

Internet advertising is a multi-billion-dollar industry in which website owners sell advertising space on their sites. Because of the vast number of website operators—also referred to as publishers—and advertisers on the Internet, advertisers often rely on third party “ad brokers” to contract with and deliver their advertisements to publishers. Similarly, rather than contract with ad brokers individually, website publishers often join together and form “publisher networks” to contract with ad brokers collectively.

As alleged in the Indictment, from 2007 until October 2011, the defendants controlled and operated various companies that masqueraded as legitimate publisher networks (the “Publisher Networks”) in the Internet advertising industry. The Publisher Networks entered into agreements with ad brokers under which they were paid based on the number of times that Internet users clicked on the links for certain websites or advertisements, or based on the number of times that certain advertisements were displayed on certain websites. Thus, the more traffic to the advertisers’ websites and display ads, the more money the defendants earned under their agreements with the ad brokers. As alleged in the Indictment, the defendants fraudulently increased the traffic to the websites and advertisements that would earn them money. They accomplished this by making it appear to advertisers that the Internet traffic came from legitimate clicks and ad displays on the defendants’ Publisher Networks when, in actuality, it had not.

To carry out the scheme, the defendants and their co-conspirators used what are known as “rogue” Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, and malware (“the Malware”) that was designed to alter the DNS server settings on infected computers. Victims’ computers became infected with the Malware when they visited certain websites or downloaded certain software to view videos online. The Malware altered the DNS server settings on victims’ computers to route the infected computers to rogue DNS servers controlled and operated by the defendants and their co-conspirators. The re-routing took two forms that are described in detail below: “click hijacking” and “advertising replacement fraud.” The Malware also prevented the infected computers from receiving anti-virus software updates or operating system updates that otherwise might have detected the Malware and stopped it. In addition, the infected computers were also left vulnerable to infections by other viruses.

Click Hijacking

When the user of an infected computer clicked on a search result link displayed through a search engine query, the Malware caused the computer to be re-routed to a different website. Instead of being brought to the website to which the user asked to go, the user was brought to a website designated by the defendants. Each “click” triggered payment to the defendants under their advertising agreements. This click hijacking occurred for clicks on unpaid links that appear in response to a user’s query as well as clicks on “sponsored” links or advertisements that appear in response to a user’s query—often at the top of, or to the right of, the search results—thus causing the search engines to lose money. Several examples of click hijacking illustrated in the Indictment include:

  • When the user of an infected computer clicked on the domain name link for the official website of Apple-iTunes, the user was instead taken to a website for a business unaffiliated with Apple Inc. that purported to sell Apple software.
  • When the user of an infected computer clicked on a domain name link for Netflix, the user was instead taken to a website for an unrelated business called “BudgetMatch.”
  • When the user of an infected computer clicked on the domain name link for the official government website of the Internal Revenue Service, the user was instead taken to the website for H&R Block, a major tax preparation business.

Advertising Replacement Fraud

Using the DNS Changer Malware and rogue DNS servers, the defendants also replaced legitimate advertisements on websites with substituted advertisements that triggered payments to the defendants. Several examples of the advertising replacement fraud illustrated in the Indictment include:

  • When the user of an infected computer visited the home page of the Wall Street Journal, a featured advertisement for the American Express “Plum Card” had been fraudulently replaced with an ad for “Fashion Girl LA.”
  • When the user of an infected computer visited the Amazon.com website, a prominent advertisement for Windows Internet Explorer 8 had been fraudulently replaced with an ad for an email marketing business.
  • When the user of an infected computer visited the ESPN website, a prominent advertisement for “Dr. Pepper Ten” had been fraudulently replaced with an ad for a timeshare business.

The defendants earned millions of dollars under their advertising agreements, not by legitimately displaying advertisements through their Publisher Networks, but rather by using the Malware to fraudulently drive Internet traffic to the websites and ads that would earn them more money. As a result, the defendants and their co-conspirators earned at least $14 million in ill-gotten gains through click hijacking and advertisement replacement fraud. The Indictment further alleges that the defendants laundered the proceeds of the scheme through numerous companies including, among others, Rove Digital, an Estonian corporation, and others listed in the Indictment.

The defendants’ scheme also deprived legitimate website operators and advertisers of substantial monies and advertising revenue. In addition to search engines losing revenue as a result of click hijacking on their sponsored search result listings, advertisers lost money by paying for clicks that they believed came from interested computer users, but which were in fact fraudulently engineered by the defendants. Furthermore, the defendants’ conduct risked reputational harm to businesses that paid to advertise on the Internet—but that had no knowledge or desire for computer users to be directed to their websites or advertisements through the fraudulent means used by the defendants.

* * *

Each defendant is charged with five counts of wire and computer intrusion crimes (see below chart). In addition, TSASTSIN is charged with 22 counts of money laundering.

Remediation Efforts

In conjunction with the arrests yesterday, authorities in the United States seized computers at various locations, froze the defendants’ financial accounts, and disabled their network of U.S.-based computers—including dozens of rogue DNS servers located in New York and Chicago. Additionally, authorities in the United States took steps with their foreign counterparts to freeze the defendants’ assets located in other countries. Remediation efforts were immediately undertaken to minimize any disruption of Internet service to the users of computers infected with the Malware. This remediation was necessary because the dismantling of the defendants’ rogue DNS servers—to which millions of computers worldwide had been redirected—would potentially have caused all of those computers, for all practical purposes, to lose access to websites.

The remediation effort is being carried out pursuant to the order of a Manhattan federal court judge. As part of that order, the defendant’s rogue DNS servers have been replaced with legitimate ones. Internet Systems Consortium (“ISC”), a not-for-profit entity, was appointed by the court to act as a third-party receiver for a limited period of 120 days during which time it will administer the replacement DNS servers. Although the replacement DNS servers will provide continuity of Internet service to victims, those replacement servers will not remove the Malware from the infected computers. Users who believe their computers may be infected can find additional information at FBI.gov.

Mr. BHARARA praised the investigative work of the FBI, NASA OIG, and the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board. Mr. BHARARA also specially thanked the National High Tech Crime Unit of the Dutch National Police Agency. The FBI and NASA OIG received assistance from multiple domestic and international private sector partners, including Georgia Tech University, Internet Systems Consortium, Mandiant, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Neustar, Spamhaus, Team Cymru, Trend Micro, University of Alabama at Birmingham and members of an ad hoc group of subject matter experts known as the DNS Changer Working Group (DCWG).

The Office’s Complex Frauds and Asset Forfeiture Units are handling this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys SARAH LAI, JAMES PASTORE, and ALEXANDER J. WILSON are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. v. Tsastsin, et al.

COUNT
CHARGE
DEFENDANTS
MAXIMUM PENALTIES
1
Wire fraud conspiracy
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
ANDREY TAAME
TIMUR GERASSIMENKO
DMITRI JEGOROV
VALERI ALEKSEJEV
KONSTANTIN POLTEV
ANTON IVANOV
30 years in prison
2
Computer intrusion conspiracy
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
ANDREY TAAME
TIMUR GERASSIMENKO
DMITRI JEGOROV
VALERI ALEKSEJEV
KONSTANTIN POLTEV
ANTON IVANOV
10 years in prison
3
Wire fraud
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
ANDREY TAAME
TIMUR GERASSIMENKO
DMITRI JEGOROV
VALERI ALEKSEJEV
KONSTANTIN POLTEV
ANTON IVANOV
30 years in prison
4
Computer intrusion (furthering fraud)
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
ANDREY TAAME
TIMUR GERASSIMENKO
DMITRI JEGOROV
VALERI ALEKSEJEV
KONSTANTIN POLTEV
ANTON IVANOV
Five years in prison
5
Computer intrusion (transmitting information)
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
ANDREY TAAME
TIMUR GERASSIMENKO
DMITRI JEGOROV
VALERI ALEKSEJEV
KONSTANTIN POLTEV
ANTON IVANOV
10 years in prison
6
Money laundering
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
30 years in prison
7
Engaging in monetary transactions of value over $10,000 involving fraud proceeds
VLADIMIR TSASTSIN
Per count: 10 years in prison

 

TOP-SECRET-FBI-Alleged Terrorist Charged with Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to al Qaeda

BROOKLYN, NY—A federal grand jury in Brooklyn has returned an indictment charging Abdeladim El-Kebir, 30, also known as “Abi al-Barra,” with conspiring to provide material support, including personnel, training, lethal substances and explosives, to al Qaeda.

El-Kebir is also charged with conspiring to possess weapons, including a destructive device, in connection with his agreement to provide material support to al Qaeda. He was arrested by German law enforcement on April 29, 2011, and is currently in custody in Germany.

The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; and Janice K. Fedarcyk, Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the FBI. The government’s investigation is being conducted by the FBI New York Joint Terrorism Task Force.

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Zainab Ahmad and Carter H. Burwell, with assistance provided by Bridget Behling of the Counterterrorism Section in the Department of Justice’s National Security Division.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Confidential-Gerald A. Sandusky Grand Jury Report Detailing Pre-Teen Sexual Abuse Allegations

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/SanduskyGrandJuryPresentment.png

The Grand Jury conducted an investigation into reported sexual assaults of minor male children by Gerald A. Sandusky (“Sandusky”) over a period of years, both while Sandusky was a football coach for the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) football team and after he retired from coaching. Widely known as Jerry Sandusky, the subject of this investigation founded The Second Mile, a charity initially devoted to helping troubled young boys. It was within The Second Mile program that Sandusky found his victims.

Sandusky was employed by Penn State for 23 years as the defensive coordinator of its Division I collegiate football program. Sandusky played football for four years at Penn State and coached a total of 32 years. While coaching, Sandusky started “The Second Mile” in State College, Pennsylvania, in 1977. It began as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys. It grew into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families. It is now a statewide, three region charity and Sandusky has been its primary fundraiser. The Second Mile raises millions of dollars through fundraising appeals and special events. The mission of the program is to “help children who need additional support and would benefit from positive human interaction.” Through The Second Mile, Sandusky had access to hundreds of boys, many of whom were vulnerable due to their social situations.

On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant (“graduate assistant”) who was then 28 years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant, who was familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get some recruiting tapes to watch. It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught. The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno (“Paterno”), head football coach of Penn State. The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to them that “inappropriate conduct” or activity that made him “uncomfortable” occurred in the Lasch Building shower in March 2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant reported anal sex or anything of a sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely “horsing around”. When asked whether the graduate assistant had reported “sexual conduct” “of any kind” by Sandusky, Curley answered, “No” twice. When asked if the graduate assistant had reported “anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child,” Curley testified, “Absolutely not.”

Curley testified that he informed Dr. Jack Raykovitz, Executive Director of the Second Mile of the conduct reported to him and met with Sandusky to advise Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward. Curley testified that he met again with the graduate assistant and advised him that Sandusky had been directed not to use Penn State’s athletic facilities with young people and “the information” had been given to director of The Second Mile. Curley testified that he also advised Penn State University President Graham Spanier of the information he had received from the graduate assistant and the steps he had taken as a result. Curley was not specific about the language he used in reporting the 2002 incident to Spanier. Spanier testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley. Curley did not report the incident to the University Police, the police agency for the University Park campus or any other police agency.

Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student. Schultz was present in a subsequent meeting with Curley when the graduate assistant reported the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and a boy. Schultz was very unsure about what he remembered the graduate assistant telling him and Curley about the shower incident. He testified that he had the impression that Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy’s genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy. While equivocating on the definition of “sexual” in the context of Sandusky wrestling with and grabbing the genitals of the boy, Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. However, Schultz testified that the allegations were “not that serious” and that he and Curley “had no indication that a crime had occurred.” Schultz agreed that sodomy between Sandusky and a child would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct. He denied having such conduct reported to him either by Paterno or the graduate assistant.

TOP-SECRET – DHS-FBI Bulletin: Radio Controlled Model Aircraft as Possible IED Delivery Platforms

This is the text-only version of a FBI-DHS Joint Intelligence Bulletin from May 2008.  A PDF version is not available at this time.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Intelligence Bulletin No. 294
Joint FBI-DHS Bulletin

(U//FOUO) Radio Controlled Model Aircraft as Possible Improvised Explosive Device Delivery Platforms

14 May 2008

(U) Handling Notice: Recipients are reminded that joint FBI and DHS intelligence bulletins contain sensitive terrorism and counterterrorism information meant for use primarily within the law enforcement and homeland security communities. Such bulletins shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval from an authorized FBI or DHS official.

(U) The Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG) reviewed and/or commented on this product from the perspective of our non-federal partners.

(U//FOUO) This intelligence bulletin addresses the terrorism (TERR) topic of the NIPF and responds to FBI intelligence requirements: IT-II.A.1,C.3. & III.C.2 and FBI Terrorism Production Topic 8, Tactic and Techniques.

(U) Scope

(U//FOUO) FBI and DHS are providing this assessment for general awareness of the potential threat posed by terrorists using radio-controlled model aircraft as an improvised explosive device delivery platform.

(U) Key Findings

  • (U//FOUO) Terrorist organizations have demonstrated continued interest in using radio-controlled model aircraft (RCMA) equipped with explosives to conduct attacks.
  • (U//FOUO) The toy and hobby industries provide an array of inexpensive RCMA that terrorists could adapt for use in attacks.
  • (U//FOUO) FBI and DHS have no current, credible intelligence indicating terrorist intent to use this delivery tactic in the Homeland.

(U) Terrorist Use of Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft

(U//FOUO) RCMA are readily available and inexpensive platforms that terrorists could modify for use in attacks by adding explosive payloads.

  • (U//FOUO) In mid-2005, US media reported that a Hizballah fighter apparently tried, but failed, to build a rudimentary RCMA packed with explosives.
  • (U//FOUO) During an August 2002 raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) drug-processing facility, Colombian Government forces recovered several RCMA that the rebels intended to equip with explosives. The rebels already had outfitted one RCMA with a one-kilogram payload of plastic explosives.

(U) Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Systems Readily Available

(U//FOUO) RCMA systems are readily available from commercial sources in fixed and rotary wing models.

Purchasers can obtain kits from toy and hobby shops and via the Internet in configurations that require varying levels of skill to assemble and operate. In most cases, RCMA can remain aloft for about 30 minutes with the operator required to maintain a constant line of site, which limits the operating range. More sophisticated RCMA can overcome this range limitation by using onboard video cameras or global positioning systems (GPSs).

(U) Implications for Infrastructure Sectors

(U//FOUO) The FBI and DHS assess that terrorists could use explosives-laden RCMA singly or in groups to circumvent ground-based defenses at targeted infrastructure to damage or destroy exposed critical components. Terrorists also could use RCMA to attack and sow panic at large gatherings of people.

(U) Outlook

(U//FOUO) The FBI and DHS assess that continued technological advancements in wireless video, GPS-based autonomous guidance, and miniaturization of electronics and control systems will increase the feasibility of adapting RCMA for use as terrorist weapons.

(U) Potential Indicators of Malicious Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Systems Intent

(U//FOUO) The ability to detect terrorist plans to use an RCMA as an airborne IED is limited by the difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate use of these devices. Possible indicators could include:

  • (U//FOUO) An individual’s focus on weight carrying capability of an aircraft at point of purchase.
  • (U//FOUO) A beginner hobbyist’s pursuit of advanced capabilities such as autonomous flight methods.
  • (U//FOUO) Pursuit of techniques to increase range and flight time.
  • (U//FOUO) RCMA interest coincident with indicators of homemade explosives and improvised explosive device production.

(U) Reporting Notice

(U) Recipients should immediately report suspicious or criminal activities potentially related to terrorism to their local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and the DHS National Operations Center (NOC). FBI regional phone numbers can be found at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. The NOC can be reached via telephone at 202-282-8101 or by e-mail at HSCenter@dhs.gov.

(U) Administrative Note: Law Enforcement Response

(U//FOUO) Information contained in this intelligence bulletin is for official use only. No portion of this bulletin should be released to the media, the general public, or over nonsecure Internet servers. Release of this material could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities. Specific comments or suggestions about the content or format of this bulletin can be provided to tau@leo.gov.

Olympus Scandal Fuels Rumors of Yakuza Involvement in Japanese Business

Former CEO of Olympus Michael Woodford sits in a television studio before an interview with Reuters in London November 8, 2011. Woodford has said that he will not return to Japan to speak with investigators due to “security issues”. REUTERS/Kevin Coombs

Japan tries, again, to cut corporate ties to yakuza (Reuters):

Aki Tsurumaki says he never felt his life was in danger during the 15 years he has been helping companies escape entanglements with Japan’s “yakuza” crime syndicates.

But the 42-year-old lawyer jokes that he does not take any chances, adding with a smile, “I never stand near the edge of the train platform.”

The dark and sometimes dangerous triad of ties among gangsters, businesses and politicians has a long tradition in Japan, which helps explain why a scandal engulfing Japan’s Olympus Corp has stirred up media and market talk of possible yakuza links, despite company denials and a lack of evidence.

Ousted Olympus CEO Michael Woodford has told Reuters he will not return to Japan to meet investigators due to “security issues,” although he declines to spell out his fears. And Facta, a Japanese magazine that broke the Olympus story, says a Cayman Islands firm linked to some Olympus deals had indirect ties to “anti-social forces” — a common euphemism for organised crime.

Olympus President Tsuyoshi Takayama, who took over last month, revealed on Tuesday that the company had hidden losses for two decades, using a series of unusual M&A deals in the past five years.

As for “anti-social forces,” Takayama has told reporters he is unaware of “any such thing.”

But it is not the first time that a corporate or financial controversy has given rise to speculation of yakuza involvement.

Japanese authorities have been opining about advances by organised crime into financial markets and corporate boardrooms for more than two decades, as yakuza have branched out into legitimate ventures with which reputable firms then do business.

In scandals that rocked Japan’s financial sector in 1991, top executives of Nomura Securities and Nikko Securities quit after revelations that affiliates had had dealings with organised crime, and that the brokerages had compensated favoured clients for losses.

Ties between yakuza and financial firms again grabbed attention in the mid-1990s when the government budgeted funds to help wind up failed mortgage firms. Government officials said a hefty chunk of these firms’ bad loans involved organised crime money.

Two years ago, Fujitsu Ltd fired its president for alleged links to organised crime, an allegation he denies and one that has prompted him to take court action to clear his name.

Small-time yakuza families, whose origins stretched back to feudal era peddlers and gamblers, merged into giant syndicates after Japan’s devastating defeat in World War Two, a chaotic period when police and politicians were more than willing to subcontract peace-keeping and other tasks to gangsters.

When share and property prices soared during Japan’s late 1980s bubble economy, crime syndicates diversified from traditional endeavours such as drugs, prostitution and extortion into financial and real estate markets. When the bubble burst in 1990, they found new niches such as bad debt collection.

A 1992 law gave police power to designate gangster groups as organised crime syndicates and clamp down on “grey zone” activities such as strong-arm debt collection.

But it also drove yakuza to set up front companies through which they expanded legitimate and quasi-legitimate dealings in sectors such as finance, real estate and waste disposal.

“After the 1992 law, gangsters could no longer put up their logos at their offices or make business cards with the logos,” said a Tokyo Metropolitan Government official.

“So they created front companies … and became involved in ordinary economic activities with companies and citizens.”

A 2010 report by the NPA, the National Policy Agency, said companies were often in the dark about possible dealings with crime syndicates.

“As crime syndicates have become very sophisticated in making their activities to acquire illicit funds opaque in recent years, it is quite possible that ordinary companies unknowingly conduct economic transactions with them, totally unaware that counterparties of transactions are crime syndicate-linked enterprises,” the report said.

SECRET-Gerald A. Sandusky Grand Jury Report Detailing Pre-Teen Sexual Abuse Allegations

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/SanduskyGrandJuryPresentment.png

PLEASE DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

SanduskyGrandJuryPresentment

The Grand Jury conducted an investigation into reported sexual assaults of minor male children by Gerald A. Sandusky (“Sandusky”) over a period of years, both while Sandusky was a football coach for the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) football team and after he retired from coaching. Widely known as Jerry Sandusky, the subject of this investigation founded The Second Mile, a charity initially devoted to helping troubled young boys. It was within The Second Mile program that Sandusky found his victims.

Sandusky was employed by Penn State for 23 years as the defensive coordinator of its Division I collegiate football program. Sandusky played football for four years at Penn State and coached a total of 32 years. While coaching, Sandusky started “The Second Mile” in State College, Pennsylvania, in 1977. It began as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys. It grew into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families. It is now a statewide, three region charity and Sandusky has been its primary fundraiser. The Second Mile raises millions of dollars through fundraising appeals and special events. The mission of the program is to “help children who need additional support and would benefit from positive human interaction.” Through The Second Mile, Sandusky had access to hundreds of boys, many of whom were vulnerable due to their social situations.

On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant (“graduate assistant”) who was then 28 years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant, who was familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get some recruiting tapes to watch. It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught. The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno (“Paterno”), head football coach of Penn State. The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to them that “inappropriate conduct” or activity that made him “uncomfortable” occurred in the Lasch Building shower in March 2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant reported anal sex or anything of a sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely “horsing around”. When asked whether the graduate assistant had reported “sexual conduct” “of any kind” by Sandusky, Curley answered, “No” twice. When asked if the graduate assistant had reported “anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child,” Curley testified, “Absolutely not.”

Curley testified that he informed Dr. Jack Raykovitz, Executive Director of the Second Mile of the conduct reported to him and met with Sandusky to advise Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward. Curley testified that he met again with the graduate assistant and advised him that Sandusky had been directed not to use Penn State’s athletic facilities with young people and “the information” had been given to director of The Second Mile. Curley testified that he also advised Penn State University President Graham Spanier of the information he had received from the graduate assistant and the steps he had taken as a result. Curley was not specific about the language he used in reporting the 2002 incident to Spanier. Spanier testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley. Curley did not report the incident to the University Police, the police agency for the University Park campus or any other police agency.

Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student. Schultz was present in a subsequent meeting with Curley when the graduate assistant reported the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and a boy. Schultz was very unsure about what he remembered the graduate assistant telling him and Curley about the shower incident. He testified that he had the impression that Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy’s genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy. While equivocating on the definition of “sexual” in the context of Sandusky wrestling with and grabbing the genitals of the boy, Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. However, Schultz testified that the allegations were “not that serious” and that he and Curley “had no indication that a crime had occurred.” Schultz agreed that sodomy between Sandusky and a child would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct. He denied having such conduct reported to him either by Paterno or the graduate assistant.

FBI-Registered Sex Offender Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Distribution of Child Pornography

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and John V. Gillies, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, announced that Duane Gillette, 41, of Pompano Beach, Florida, was sentenced yesterday on charges of distribution of child pornography, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez sentenced Gillette to 20 years in prison.

Gillette pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography on August 29, 2011. Gillette had been charged in a three-count indictment on July 26, 2011.

According to court documents, Gillette, who had previously been convicted of a state sex offense involving a minor, traded child pornography images with an individual in the United Kingdom multiple times in November 2010. During the course of the investigation, FBI agents conducted a search of a storage unit maintained by Gillette, where they located several hard drives and digital media. One of these hard drives contained more than 2,000 child pornography images and more than 400 child pornography videos. The images included depictions of prepubescent males and females (children as young as infants and toddlers) engaged in sexually explicit conduct; naked infants in sexually explicit settings; and bondage involving minors.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the FBI. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elisa Castrolugo and Corey Steinberg.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Project Safe Childhood was launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice and is led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

TOP-SECRET-International Cyber Ring That Infected Millions of Computers Dismantled

DNS Malware graphic

Operation Ghost Click
International Cyber Ring That Infected Millions of Computers Dismantled

11/09/11

Six Estonian nationals have been arrested and charged with running a sophisticated Internet fraud ring that infected millions of computers worldwide with a virus and enabled the thieves to manipulate the multi-billion-dollar Internet advertising industry. Users of infected machines were unaware that their computers had been compromised—or that the malicious software rendered their machines vulnerable to a host of other viruses.

Details of the two-year FBI investigation called Operation Ghost Click were announced today in New York when a federal indictment was unsealed. Officials also described their efforts to make sure infected users’ Internet access would not be disrupted as a result of the operation.

 FBI Statement:
Janice Fedarcyk,
New York
Assistant Director in Charge
Janice Fedarcyk“Today, with the flip of a switch, the FBI and our partners dismantled the Rove criminal enterprise. Thanks to the collective effort across the U.S. and in Estonia, six leaders of the criminal enterprise have been arrested and numerous servers operated by the criminal organization have been disabled. Additionally, thanks to a coordinated effort of trusted industry partners, a mitigation plan commenced today, beginning with the replacement of rogue DNS servers with clean DNS servers to keep millions online, while providing ISPs the opportunity to coordinate user remediation efforts.”

The indictment, said Janice Fedarcyk, assistant director in charge of our New York office, “describes an intricate international conspiracy conceived and carried out by sophisticated criminals.” She added, “The harm inflicted by the defendants was not merely a matter of reaping illegitimate income.”

Beginning in 2007, the cyber ring used a class of malware called DNSChanger to infect approximately 4 million computers in more than 100 countries. There were about 500,000 infections in the U.S., including computers belonging to individuals, businesses, and government agencies such as NASA. The thieves were able to manipulate Internet advertising to generate at least $14 million in illicit fees. In some cases, the malware had the additional effect of preventing users’ anti-virus software and operating systems from updating, thereby exposing infected machines to even more malicious software.

“They were organized and operating as a traditional business but profiting illegally as the result of the malware,” said one of our cyber agents who worked the case. “There was a level of complexity here that we haven’t seen before.”

DNS—Domain Name System—is a critical Internet service that converts user-friendly domain names, such as http://www.fbi.gov, into numerical addresses that allow computers to talk to each other. Without DNS and the DNS servers operated by Internet service providers, computer users would not be able to browse websites or send e-mail.

Success Through Partnerships A complex international investigation such as Operation Ghost Click could only have been successful through the strong working relationships between law enforcement, private industry, and our international partners.

Announcing today’s arrests, Preet Bharara, (above left) U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, praised the investigative work of the FBI, NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board, and he specially thanked the National High Tech Crime Unit of the Dutch National Police Agency. In addition, the FBI and NASA-OIG received assistance from multiple domestic and international private sector partners, including Georgia Tech University, Internet Systems Consortium, Mandiant, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Neustar, Spamhaus, Team Cymru, Trend Micro, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and members of an ad hoc group of subject matter experts known as the DNS Changer Working Group (DCWG).

DNSChanger was used to redirect unsuspecting users to rogue servers controlled by the cyber thieves, allowing them to manipulate users’ web activity. When users of infected computers clicked on the link for the official website of iTunes, for example, they were instead taken to a website for a business unaffiliated with Apple Inc. that purported to sell Apple software. Not only did the cyber thieves make money from these schemes, they deprived legitimate website operators and advertisers of substantial revenue.

The six cyber criminals were taken into custody yesterday in Estonia by local authorities, and the U.S. will seek to extradite them. In conjunction with the arrests, U.S. authorities seized computers and rogue DNS servers at various locations. As part of a federal court order, the rogue DNS servers have been replaced with legitimate servers in the hopes that users who were infected will not have their Internet access disrupted.

It is important to note that the replacement servers will not remove the DNSChanger malware—or other viruses it may have facilitated—from infected computers. Users who believe their computers may be infected should contact a computer professional. They can also find additional information in the links on this page, including how to register as a victim of the DNSChanger malware.

NYT-Leading Banks and Wall Street Firms Repeatedly Break SEC Anti-Fraud Agreements

A graphic prepared by the New York Times demonstrating repeat violations among top financial firms that have signed anti-fraud agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Promises Made, and Remade, by Firms in S.E.C. Fraud Cases (New York Times):

When Citigroup agreed last month to pay $285 million to settle civil charges that it had defrauded customers during the housing bubble, the Securities and Exchange Commission wrested a typical pledge from the company: Citigroup would never violate one of the main antifraud provisions of the nation’s securities laws.

To an outsider, the vow may seem unusual. Citigroup, after all, was merely promising not to do something that the law already forbids. But that is the way the commission usually does business. It also was not the first time the firm was making that promise.

Citigroup’s main brokerage subsidiary, its predecessors or its parent company agreed not to violate the very same antifraud statute in July 2010. And in May 2006. Also as far as back as March 2005 and April 2000.

Citigroup has a lot of company in this regard on Wall Street. According to a New York Times analysis, nearly all of the biggest financial companies — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America among them — have settled fraud cases by promising that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to have the S.E.C. conclude they did it again a few years later.

A Times analysis of enforcement actions during the past 15 years found at least 51 cases in which the S.E.C. concluded that Wall Street firms had broken anti-fraud laws they had agreed never to breach. The 51 cases spanned 19 different firms.

Robert Khuzami, the S.E.C.’s enforcement director, said never-do-it again promises were a deterrent especially when there were repeated problems. In their private discussions, commissioners weigh a firm’s history with the S.E.C. before they settle on the amount of fines and penalties. “It’s a thumb on the scale,” Mr. Khuzami said. “No one here is disregarding the fact that there were prior violations or prior misconduct,” he said.

But prior violations are plentiful. For example, Bank of America’s securities unit has agreed four times since 2005 not to violate a major antifraud statute, and another four times not to violate a separate law. Merrill Lynch, which Bank of America acquired in 2008, has separately agreed not to violate the same two statutes seven times since 1999.

Of the 19 companies that the Times found by the S.E.C. to be repeat offenders over the last 15 years, 16 declined to comment. They read like a Wall Street who’s who: American International Group, Ameriprise, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Columbia Management, Deutsche Asset Management, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Putnam Investments, Raymond James, RBC Dain Rauscher, UBS and Wells Fargo/Wachovia.

TOP-SECRET-Fukushima Daiichi NPS Unit 4 Damage Photos


[Image]

[Image]

1 – Rebar deformed upward[Image]
2 – Floor curled up[Image]
3 – Floor pushed up[Image]
4- Wire mesh, inlet of the air-conditioning at Reactor Well was bent to the reverse direction[Image]
5 – Wire mesh, inlet of the air-conditioning at Spent Fuel Pool was bent to the reverse direction[Image]

[Image]

6 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
7- Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
8 – [Photo shown in diagram not provided, instead No. 9 was duplicated.]
9 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
10 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
11 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts (no air-conditioning ducts above)[Image]
12 – The original place of installation of air-conditioning ducts[Image]

[Image]

13 – Damages to the floor[Image]
14 – Floor pushed down (in front is rubbles from air-conditioning ducts)[Image]
15 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
16 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]
17 – Rubbles from air-conditioning ducts[Image]

 

Die “GoMoPa”-STASI-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung) UND IHRE “SEXUALAUFKLÄRUNG FÜR KINDER”

http://berndpulch.org/2011/11/01/das-kinderportal-der-anal-fixierten-gomopa-scheisshausfliegen-eigenbezeichnung/

http://berndpulch.org/die-gesamte-deutsche-presse-verabscheut-die-tatsachlich-vorbestraften-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%8

Firing Squad – Brutal Execution of Spies

Firing Squad – Brutal Execution of Spies. This harrowing clip is from the British Pathe archives. There were no details about location or dates attached to the original reel. It does mention that the firing squad is the American Military Police. We assume these events happened during World War II.

Music: “Anxious” by Duncan Pittock

Raw Video: Did Officer Fire at Occupy Filmer?

U.S. Air Force Safety Policy for Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/USAF-DEW.png

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL PDF HERE

USAF-DEW

1. The Air Force will ensure directed energy weapons (DEW) receive treatment distinct from conventional or nuclear weapons because of their characteristics, which may include speed-of-light delivery, range, and varied weapons effects. DEW require a scalable approach to safety that is commensurate with the hazard potential of each weapon.

1.1. A DEW is a system using a beam of concentrated electromagnetic energy (including but not limited to lasers and high power microwave systems), or atomic or subatomic particles primarily as a direct means to kill, injure, disable, or temporarily incapacitate people or destroy, damage or temporarily incapacitate property or materiel.

1.2. Acoustic weapons use sound across the entire frequency spectrum to kill, injure, disable, or temporarily incapacitate people. Acoustic weapons, although outside the Joint definition of DEW, have effects and hazards more similar to DEW than to conventional weapons. Acoustic weapons will follow the same safety policy as DEW.

2. The Air Force will ensure protection of personnel, property, operational capability and the environment from undue risk of damage or harm from DEW, consistent with mission requirements.

3. The Air Force will establish and conduct a safety program for DEW to ensure the safe research, development, testing, operation, training, maintenance, storage, decommissioning, and disposal of these systems. As an element of this program, the Air Force will determine the applicability of federal, state and local laws and regulations, international law and host nation laws, as well as the utility of advisory standards developed or adopted by national or international scientific safety organizations.

4. The Air Force will establish and conduct a safety certification process for DEW. DEW must be certified as safe prior to operational or training use by AF personnel.

5. The Air Force will investigate mishaps involving DEW in accordance with AFI 91-204, Safety Investigation and Reports, and other directives as appropriate.

6. This directive establishes the following responsibilities and authorities:

6.1. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics (SAF/IE) is responsible for safety and occupational health policy for DEW.

6.2. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) is responsible for ensuring awareness of DEW safety requirements in acquisition policy. SAF/AQ will ensure DEW program managers evaluate effects of DEW on human targets.

6.3. The Air Force Chief of Safety (AF/SE) is responsible for developing directed energy weapons safety policy and procedural guidance. AF/SE is responsible for ensuring compliance with safety policy and for developing and maintaining instructions to implement this directive, and is the certification authority for DEW safety. AF/SE is responsible to determine the utility of advisory standards developed or adopted by national or international scientific safety organizations. AF/SE is responsible for establishing DEW testing and employment proximity restrictions pertaining to nuclear and conventional weapons.

6.4. The Air Force Surgeon General (AF/SG) is responsible for evaluating, recommending controls, diagnosis and treatment of exposure to directed energy weapons.

6.5. At an early stage of the acquisition process, or a modification of an existing weapon, The Judge Advocate General (AF/JA), or the General Counsel (SAF/GC) for a weapon developed within a Special Access Program, will ensure that a weapon legal review is completed for all DEW and that any such weapon complies with domestic and international law.

6.6. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements (AF/A3/5) is responsible for ensuring DEW safety requirements are implemented in range operations policy.

6.7. Each MAJCOM utilizing directed energy weapons is responsible for advocating funding requirements and manpower in the budgeting process to ensure sufficient funding and manpower are available to develop and implement the requirements of the Directed Energy Weapons Safety Program.

6.8. AFMC/CC is responsible to support development of safe DEW. AFMC/CC is responsible to evaluate the human target effects of DEW. AFMC/CC is responsible for conducting medical and health effects consulting and education and training. AFMC/CC shall establish, administer, and maintain the DoD Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Injury Hotline and Tri-Service Laser Injury Hotline to provide immediate expert medical advice in the event of an injury or suspected injury to DoD personnel from EMF and lasers. AFMC/CC shall establish, administer, and maintain the EMF Overexposure Repository for DoD Components to access, analyze, and use in EMF protection programs.

6.9. AETC/CC is responsible for developing directed energy curricula and providing training to accomplish the requirements of this directive.

6.10. Commanders at all levels with a mission incorporating DEW are responsible for understanding the capabilities and hazards of DEW systems. They will incorporate DEW safety, consistent with applicable test, training or operational requirements, in their mission planning, decisions and operations.

6.10.1. Outside the United States, its territories or possessions, MAJCOM and NAF commanders must be aware of the safe-use requirements of applicable host nation laws and advise subordinate commanders.

6.10.2. Before fielding any DEW, MAJCOM, NAF, and subordinate echelon Commanders will coordinate their proposed concept of employment with their staff judge advocate (SJA) for a legal review to ensure compliance with applicable law.

7. MAJCOMs, field operating agencies, and direct reporting units, if applicable, will not issue instructions that implement this policy directive without AF/SE approval.

NEW – TOP-SECRET-IAEA Iran Making Nuclear Weapons Report November 2011 – Full Report as PDF-Download

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IAEA-IranNukes.png

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran

  • 25 pages
  • November 8, 2011

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT HERE

IAEA-IranNukes

  • 1. This report of the Director General to the Board of Governors and, in parallel, to the Security Council, is on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran).

    G. Possible Military Dimensions

    38. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these. Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.

    39. The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter.

    40. The Director General, in his opening remarks to the Board of Governors on 12 September 2011, stated that in the near future he hoped to set out in greater detail the basis for the Agency’s concerns so that all Member States would be kept fully informed. In line with that statement, the Annex to this report provides a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency to date which has given rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.

    41. The analysis itself is based on a structured and systematic approach to information analysis which the Agency uses in its evaluation of safeguards implementation in all States with comprehensive safeguards agreements in force. This approach involves, inter alia, the identification of indicators of the existence or development of the processes associated with nuclear-related activities, including weaponization.

    42. The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.

    43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

    • Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
    • Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
    • The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
    • Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

    44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.

    45. The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.

TOP-SECRET – MAGLOCLEN Asian Organized Crime Assessment

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MAGLOCLEN-AsianGangs.png

When traditional organized crime was introduced to American and Canadian societies, law enforcement was forced to alter existing investigation methods in order to successfully challenge the presence of a structured criminal group. Through the years, policing styles and theories have been developed based on organized crime, and specialized units have been created to concentrate on this criminal activity. The passing of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act in 1970 greatly impacted organized crime and accounts for the depletion of some of the major groups formerly operating in the United States. Federally-funded programs, such as the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) Centers, including the Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network (MAGLOCLEN), were established to gain control of criminal groups, and keep abreast of current intelligence involving the many facets of organized criminal activity.

With the fundamental issues of organized crime deeply integrated in present-day law enforcement, investigators are better equipped for emerging and unfamiliar types of organized crime, more specifically, Asian organized crime. The investigation into Asian criminal groups is similar to that of other organized groups. Basic investigative techniques of organized crime are applicable to Asian crime groups; however, the degree of cultural variance among people of Asian decent and Americans makes the investigation of Asian criminal groups, by American law enforcement, a challenging task.

Due to this disparity, one of the most important aspects in an effective investigation of Asian organized criminal groups is to build a strong working knowledge of the Asian people, as well as the Asian culture. Any comprehensive organized crime investigation is designed, in part, to uncover all aspects of a designated group of individuals, and their actions. This concept is better known to law enforcement as due diligence. In the case of an investigation into Asian criminal activity, the due diligence encompasses an understanding of the mindset of Asian individuals.

Many immigrants from Asia have a predisposed distrust of law enforcement based on the atrocities they have experienced or witnessed in their native countries. Here in North America, Asian immigrants are, at best, skeptical of American law enforcement. This mindset hinders vital communication between law enforcement and the victims of Asian organized crime. For law enforcement to overcome this hurdle, it will take time and involve exceeding the scope of typical policing.

Another phenomenon of Asian organized criminals is their ability to mobilize criminal activities and elude authorities. This notion has challenged law enforcement like never before. In many cases, a multi-agency approach is not only beneficial, but essential to perform any effective type of investigation of an Asian criminal group. Extensive traveling, even internationally, is a primary characteristic of such groups. Furthermore, their ability to network with criminal associates from other regions enhances the intricacy and stability of their operation. The same type of networking must be developed by law enforcement in order to compete with Asian criminal groups and make an impact on the extent of their criminal activities.

THE STUDY IS HERE READY FOR DOWNLOAD

MAGLOCLEN-AsianGangs

ROCIC Law Enforcement Guide to International Names

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ROCICInternationalNames_Page_011-791x1024.jpg

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ROCICInternationalNames_Page_04-791x1024.jpg

 

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ROCICInternationalNames_Page_06-768x1024.jpg

 

DOWNLOAD REPORT HERE

ROCICInternationalNames

DIE “WELT” ÜBER DIE STASI-DIFFAMIERUNGSMETHODEN a la anonyme “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen (Eigenbezeichnung)

http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article145822/Wie_die_Stasi_Strauss_diffamierte.html

Secret – Regional Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC) Bath Salts Designer Drug Report

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ROCIC-BathSalts.png

Marketed with harmless-sounding names such as Ivory Wave, Tranquility, and Blue Silk (among others), bath salts have become the newest trendy street drug. Comparable to methamphetamine, cocaine, and PCP, snorting bath salts can induce violent and aggressive behavior, which make users very dangerous to themselves and law enforcement.

Authorities are caught in a rush to combat this dangerous trend, as bath salts are legal in most states. Bath salts are essentially drugs that are being labeled “bath salts.” Although they are marketed “not for human consumption,” they are being purchased with the intent to be snorted, injected, or smoked by abusers, sometimes causing extreme reactions such as hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, agitation, and increased heart rate. Users have also experienced hypothermia, seizures, and delusions. None of the chemicals found in these salts are contained in legitimate bath salts sold by a reputable company.

Note: For the purpose of this report, the use of the term bath salts refers to the product that abusers are using to get a drug-like high. It does not refer to the legitimate bath salts that a bather would use.

Who uses Bath Salts?

Most states list teenagers as the main users of bath salts. The Florida Poison Control Center reported that the majority of the calls concerning bath salts were being placed by individuals 16 to 20 years of age.

In addition, according to Sheriff Chris Dickinson of Itawamba County, Miss., meth addicts are also primary consumers of bath salts and can be very dangerous when high on the drugs. Sheriff Dickinson reported 30 encounters with bath salt users within two months. The bath salt problem grew in Itawamba County after a Mississippi law began restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in making methamphetamine.

At least 25 states have received calls about exposure, but it seems to be most popular in the South. Since the end of September 2010, the Louisiana Poison Control Center has received 165 calls from people in crisis after using bath salts, representing 57 percent of the calls recorded nationwide. In addition, 85 percent of those calls were from emergency room physicians or first responders. Florida followed with 38 calls and Kentucky with 23. Next in line were Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.

U.S. poison centers in 25 states received 117 calls regarding bath salts during the first two weeks of 2011. Louisiana accounted for 48 percent of the calls.

DOWNLOAD HERE

ROCIC-BathSalts

Women Protest Worldwide Photos

[Image]In this Saturday, June 25, 2011 file photo, Yemeni women, wearing headbands that read in Arabic, “housewives”, attend a demonstration demanding the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in Sanaa, Yemen. As demonstrations first swelled in Yemen, the regime distributed a photo of female activist Tawakkul Kamran in a protest test with a male colleague _ cutting out others around them _ to taint her for sinfully sitting alone with a man. Kamran’s Nobel peace prize win win draws attention to the role of women in the Arab Spring uprisings.
[Image]On October 5, 2011, a jury in State Supreme Court in Queens foundthe woman, Barbara Sheehan, not guilty of second-degree murder charges in a case that had been viewed as a strenuous test of a battered-woman defense. Her son and daughter, the children of her slain husband, wept with joy. During the trial, the jury heard how Ms. Sheehan had been relentlessly abused by her husband, Raymond Sheehan, a former police sergeant, during their 24 years of marriage. (Uli Seit)
[Image]Africa’s first democratically elected female president, a Liberian peace activist and a woman who stood up to Yemen’s authoritarian regime won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday Oct. 7, 2011 for their work to secure women’s rights, which the prize committee described as fundamental to advancing world peace. Seen in this combo from left: Tawakkul Karman of Yemen, Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee and Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. (AP Photo)
[Image]In this Tuesday, March 8, 2011 file photo, an Egyptian female protester, second right, argues with a man as hundreds of women marched to Cairo’s central Tahrir Square to celebrate International Women’s Day, Egypt. As demonstrations first swelled in Yemen, the regime distributed a photo of female activist Tawakkul Kamran in a protest test with a male colleague _ cutting out others around them _ to taint her for sinfully sitting alone with a man. Kamran’s Nobel peace win draws attention to the role of women in the Arab Spring uprisings.
[Image]In this Friday, April 1, 2011 file photo, Egyptian women chant slogans as they attend a demonstration in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt. As demonstrations first swelled in Yemen, the regime distributed a photo of female activist Tawakkul Kamran in a protest test with a male colleague _ cutting out others around them _ to taint her for sinfully sitting alone with a man. Kamran’s Nobel peace win draws attention to the role of women in the Arab Spring uprisings.
[Image]Ellen Rios, right, donates a vegan lasagna she made to a protestor at the “Occupy Wall Street” protests in Zuccotti Park, Friday, October 7, 2011, in New York. The three-week-old campout in a lower Manhattan plaza looks like a jumble of tattered sleeping bags, but teams of volunteers working on food, sanitation, health care and other needs keep the shifting population of protesters functioning like an impromptu city within the city. (Andrew Burton)
[Image]A woman helps unpack boxes of donations in the “Shipping and Receiving” section of Zuccotti Park, where “Occupy Wall Street” protests are taking place, in New York, Friday, October 7, 2011. The three-week-old campout in a lower Manhattan plaza looks like a jumble of tattered sleeping bags, but teams of volunteers working on food, sanitation, health care and other needs keep the shifting population of protesters functioning like an impromptu city within the city. (Andrew Burton)
[Image]In this Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 file photo, Yemeni activist Tawakkul Karman, left, chants slogans along with other demonstrators holding banners during an anti-government protest in Sanaa, Yemen. Banner on right reads in Arabic, “33 years of authoritarian rule.” The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Friday, Oct. 7, 2011 to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman of Yemen for their work on women’s rights. (Hani Mohammed)
[Image]Protesters hold carnations in their mouths in Bucharest, Romania, Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011, during the Romanian version of the Slut Walk march. The Slut Walk, a protest against harassment of women initiated by the outfits they wear or their behavior in public, was the first of it’s kind in Romania, a country where it is still quite widely believed that sexual aggression victims bear at least some responsibility for being targeted.(Vadim Ghirda)
[Image]Protesters including Jean Blackwood, left, of Columbia, Mo, and Crystal Elinski, center, of Portland, Ore., hold bundles representing killed children next to a “corporate America” flag, during a march past the White House in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2011, part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin)
[Image]Occupy Boston protesters march through the Financial district in Boston, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. The group is part of a nationwide grassroots movement in support of the ongoing Wall Street protests in New York. (Elise Amendola)
[Image]One of several demonstrators is taken into custody by police after refusing to leave a Bank of America branch in downtown Los Angeles, Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011. The arrests Thursday afternoon came at the end of a demonstration that moved among high-rises housing the offices of banks and other financial institutions. (Chris Carlson)
[Image]Theresa Shoatz protests in a cross walk near City Hall Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011, in Philadelphia. Organizers of the Occupy Philadelphia demonstration say Thursday’s protest is a stand against corporate greed. (Matt Rourke)
[Image]A woman holds up a placard with the image of German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a protest outside the German embassy in the Greek capital Athens, on Thursday Oct. 6, 2011. The placard reads, “Europe will become German.” The small group of protesters said Germany must pay Greece reparations for its occupation of the country during WWII before Greece pays off its debts. (Kostas Tsironis)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters march towards Zuccotti Park in New York’s Financial District, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. Protests against Wall Street entered their 18th day Tuesday as demonstrators across the country show their anger over the wobbly economy and what they see as corporate greed by marching on Federal Reserve banks and camping out in parks from Los Angeles to Portland, Maine. (Jason DeCrow)
[Image]Pakistani opposition lawmakers rally outside the parliament to condemn severe power shortages, corruption and lawlessness, Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, Oct, 6. 2011. Dozens of opposition parliamentarians boycotted a session of parliament and held a sit-in protest at the gate of Presidential palace condemning severe power shortages, corruption and lawlessness in Pakistan. Placard on left reads “corrupt government, let poor live.”(B.K. Bangash)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protester is penned in by barricades and police after trying to march to Wall Street in New York, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. Protesters in suits and T-shirts with union slogans left work early to march with activists who have been camped out in Zuccotti Park for days. Some marchers brought along their children, hoisting them onto their shoulders as they walked down Broadway. (Seth Wenig)
[Image]Riot police detain a protester during minor clashes in Athens, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. Greek civil servants walked off the job on a 24-hour strike Wednesday, paralyzing the public sector in a protest over ever-deeper austerity measures applied as the government struggles to avoid a catastrophic default. At least 16,000 protesters converged in the Greek capital, and a crowd of about 10,000 gathered in the northern city of Thessaloniki. (Thanassis Stavrakis)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters march to join a union rally at Foley Square in New York, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. The protests have gathered momentum and gained participants in recent days as news of mass arrests and a coordinated media campaign by the protestors have given rise to similar demonstrations around the country. (Seth Wenig)
[Image]Jordan McCarthy, 22, from Sandwich, N.H., awakes from under a makeshift shelter where she is camped out among participants in the Occupy Wall Street Protest at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan on Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011 in New York. “We have allowed greed to be more important than humans,” said McCarthy who joined the camp a week ago.
[Image]Foley Square, New York, NY, October 5, 2011. (Cryptome)
[Image]Demonstrator Andrea Vitale cries during a protest to stop the eviction of Matias Gonzalez, a 52-year-old Spanish citizen who can’t pay his mortage, Barcelona Spain, Monday, Oct. 3, 2011. As in many European countries, Spanish mortgages are not like US-style ones in which defaulters can return the keys to the bank and walk away from their debt, albeit with their credit rating in ruins. Here, mortgage holders not only have to give the house back, but also pay off bank debt.
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protestor Alexi Morris is arrested along with at several others in the financial district’s Zucotti park, Monday, Oct. 3, 2011, in New York. The arrests of 700 people on Brooklyn Bridge over the weekend fueled the anger of the protesters camping in a Manhattan park and sparked support elsewhere in the country as the campaign entered its third week. (John Minchillo)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protestors play drums and sing songs in the financial district’s Zuccotti park Sunday, Oct. 2, 2011, in New York. The protests have gathered momentum and gained participants in recent days as news of mass arrests and a coordinated media campaign by the protestors have given rise to similar demonstrations around the country. (John Minchillo)
[Image]In this citizen journalism image made on a mobile phone and provided by Shaam News Network, anti-Syrian President Bashar Assad protesters flash V-victory signs as a woman in the foreground displays her hands with the Arabic word reading: “leave”, during a demonstration against the Syrian regime, in Edlib province, Syria, on Friday, Sept. 30, 2011. Syrian security forces opened fire on protesters Friday as thousands rallied across the country to call for the downfall of President Bashar Assad.
[Image]Tibetan exiles hold placards at a protest in New Delhi, India, Friday, Sept. 30, 2011. The protest was to express solidarity with two monks who self-immolated on Sept. 26 in Eastern Tibet and against alleged Chinese oppression. (Tsering Topgyal)
[Image]High school students chant slogans during a protest in front of the Greek Parliament in Athens, Thursday, Sept 29 2011. Weeks-long education protests have recently spread to state schools,with a growing number of building occupations around the country. Greece’s troubled Socialist government is facing a growing number of protests against austerity measures, aimed at securing continued bailout loan payment from eurozone countries and the IMF. (Kostas Tsironis)
[Image]Members of French aid group Medecins du Monde carrying a giant cotton bud and placards reading ” Free consultations”, demonstrate for an Universal Health Coverage, outside a meeting of the G20 Labour and Employment Ministers in Paris, Monday, Sept. 26, 2011. (Thibault Camus)
[Image]Activists hold a prayer vigil at Sule pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar, Monday, Sept. 26, 2011. The protesters said they demonstrated to honor persons killed and jailed during pro-democracy protests for years ago led by Buddhist monks. (Khin Maung Win)
[Image]Demonstrators march near the headquarters of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) during their anti-nuclear power protest, in Tokyo, Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. TEPCO’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was crippled by an earthquake and tsunami March 11, which caused the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl. (Shizuo Kambayashi)
[Image]In this June 24, 2011 photo, Pakistani students rally against right-wing student union Jamiat at the Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. Two months after the covert U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, posters emblazoned with images of the burning World Trade Center towers appeared at the prestigious university advertising a literary contest to glorify the slain al-Qaida chief. (K.M. Chaudary)
[Image]Women protest during a rally denouncing corruption, demanding better civil rights and demanding a new constitution, in Casablanca Sunday, April 24, 2011. Banners read, at left, “Freedom, equality and civil rights” and at right “Clause 19 of Constitution must go!” revering to King Mohammed VI’s power. (Abdeljalil Bounhar)
[Image]Women protest holding banners reading “the True Libya” and “Freedom for Libya” during a demonstration against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in the centre of Madrid, Spain, Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011. (Andres Kudacki)

JURICON über die STASI-Herkunft und kriminelle “Karriere” der anonymen “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfligen (Eigenbezeichnung)

Endlich ein Bild eines “GoMoPa”-Verantwortlichen (siehe oben)

Juricon zu der STASI-Herkunft und kriminellen “Serientäter-Karriere der “GoMoPa”-Berufsverberbrecher

http://berndpulch.org/juricon-uber-gomopa-inklusive-stasi-verbindung/

FBI: Operation Ghost Stories Inside the Russian Spy Case – TOP-SECRET

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/october/russian_103111/image/brush-pass

The arrests of 10 Russian spies last year provided a chilling reminder that espionage on U.S. soil did not disappear when the Cold War ended. The highly publicized case also offered a rare glimpse into the sensitive world of counterintelligence and the FBI’s efforts to safeguard the nation from those who would steal our vital secrets.

Our case against the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) operatives—dubbed Operation Ghost Stories—went on for more than a decade. Today we are releasing dozens of still images, surveillance video clips, and documents related to the investigation as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://vault.fbi.gov/ghost-stories-russian-foreign-intelligence-service-illegals/images/items-1-14-photo-03/image_large

http://vault.fbi.gov/ghost-stories-russian-foreign-intelligence-service-illegals/images/items-1-14-photo-01/image_large


Ghost Stories
Photo Gallery thumbnail Video Gallery (shade) Documents thumbnail
Photo Gallery Video Gallery Documents

Although the SVR “illegals,” as they were called, never got their hands on any classified documents, their intent from the start was serious, well-funded by the SVR, and far-ranging.

Murphy and Metsos
Spotting and Assessing
The deep-cover Russian spies may not have achieved their objective, but they were not idle. They collected information and transmitted it back to Russia, and they were actively engaged in what is known in the spy business as “spotting and assessing.”

They identified colleagues, friends, and others who might be vulnerable targets, and it is possible they were seeking to co-opt people they encountered in the academic environment who might one day hold positions of power and influence.

Perhaps the most famous example of this tactic—the Cambridge Five—took place in Great Britain. Soviet intelligence “talent spotters” were able to recruit Cambridge University students in the 1930s—including future spy Kim Philby—who would later rise to power in the British government and become Soviet operatives during World War II and into the 1950s.

“We believe the SVR illegals may well have hoped to do the same thing here,” said a counterintelligence agent.

“The Russian government spent significant funds and many years training and deploying these operatives,” said one of our counterintelligence agents who worked on the case. “No government does that without expecting a return on its investment.”

Our agents and analysts watched the deep-cover operatives as they established themselves in the U.S. (some by using stolen identities) and went about leading seemingly normal lives—getting married, buying homes, raising children, and assimilating into American society.

Using surveillance and sophisticated techniques, aided by support from intelligence analysts, investigators gathered information to understand the threat posed by the spies as well as their methods, or tradecraft.

The SVR was in it for the long haul. The illegals were content to wait decades to obtain their objective, which was to develop sources of information in U.S. policymaking circles. (See sidebar.)

Although they didn’t achieve that objective, the agent said, “without us there to stop them, given enough time they would have eventually become successful.”

After years of gathering intelligence and making sure we knew who all the players were, we arrested the illegals on June 27, 2010. Weeks later, they pled guilty in federal court to conspiring to serve as unlawful agents of the Russian Federation within the U.S.

The plea represented the culmination of a remarkable effort on the part of countless Bureau personnel, including agents, analysts, surveillance teams, linguists, and others.

“Operation Ghost Stories sends a message to foreign intelligence services that espionage threats to the U.S. will not be tolerated,” our agent said. “The FBI’s counterintelligence mission is to identify, disrupt, and defeat the activities of foreign espionage agents, and we take that job very seriously.”

Usually, the critical work of our Counterintelligence Division is carried out in conjunction with our partners in the U.S. intelligence community with the utmost secrecy. Because the public rarely hears about those efforts, it would be easy to forget how real the threat of espionage is.

“And the threat is not limited to the Russians,” the agent said. “There are a lot of foreign services who want what we have, and that’s why we have agents and analysts in FBI field offices across the country working with other intelligence community partners every day to address these threats.”

TOP-SECRET – NATO Training Mission Afghanistan (NTM-A) Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) Status Update

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NATO-ANSF-October2011_Page_1-785x1024.jpg

 

DOWNLOAD HERE

 

NATO-ANSF-October2011

TOP-SECRET – JIEDDO Afghanistan Victim Operated Improvised Explosive Device (VOIED) Recognition Guide

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/JIEDDO-VOIED.png

This Recognition Guide focuses on images of VOIED switches, components, and materials. Common IED indicators (observables) are listed and when found, indicate a high probability of IED activity. Refer to this material if something looks: suspicious, out of place, or out of character.

This guide is organized by switches (Pressure Plate, Low Metallic Signature, and No Metal Content), main charges, containers, power supplies, initiators, and finally a section on IED factories.

DOWNLOAD PDF HERE

JIEDDO-VOIED

TOP-SECRET-U.S. Navy Strategic Studies Group: Convergence of Sea Power and Cyber Power

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/USNavy-CyberPower.png

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS STRATEGIC STUDIES GROUP XXVII Way Ahead Plan: Operating at the Convergence of Sea Power and Cyber Power

1. Introduction

This plan outlines the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) Strategic Studies Group (SSG) XXVIFs approach to addressing the challenges of operating at the convergence of Sea Power and Cyber Power as presented in the CNO’s Theme. In addition to providing a framework for the approach, this plan presents SSG XXVIFs initial overarching concept and Concept Team (CT) areas of focus.

SSG XXVII convened in Newport, Rhode Island on 1 October 2007. The ten CNO Fellows and eight Technology Fellows experienced in-depth exposure to various conceptual thinking techniques, analytical methods, science, technology, and approaches for successful innovation. This portion of the SSG process established a common knowledge base through a robust exploration of various topics presented by leading figures from industry, academia, government, and national laboratories. Complemented by 14 Associate Fellows from the Naval War College and Naval Postgraduate School in December, SSG XXVII will continue its work through the spring of 2008, generating revolutionary concepts for near- and far-term implementation. The Group will report out to the CNO in July 2008.

2. Background and Context

In 2006, the CNO challenged SSG XXVI to explore “fighting in cyberspace in 2030″ and to establish a means to tie together the broader dimensions of Interagency, United Nations, Non-governmental organizations, and local government with the Navy to achieve the full spectrum of influence in 2030. Envisioning the Navy operating at the “convergence of Sea Power and Cyber Power,” SSG XXVI foresaw a world where the speed and availability of information changed the employment of Maritime Forces and the calculus of power projection. SSG XXVI concluded the Navy would maintain its distinctive role as the nation’s persistent forward presence force in a world of pervasive networks and cyber-integrated battlefields, especially within “the last tactical mile.” Moreover, they found that in a “hyper-globalized” world of 2030, the Navy would metaphorically patrol the global commons of cyberspace while maintaining the strategic underpinnings of power projection, sea control, strategic deterrence, naval presence, and strategic lift.

SSG XXVFs revolutionary concepts were Global Reach Forward, Virtually Enabled Operations, and necessary enabling concepts. Global Reach Forward focused on building awareness, capacity, and influence through a combination of virtual and physical presence to enhance coalition operations. Virtually Enabled Operations provided for real-time modeling of the battlespace by fusing information from sensors, weapons, and warriors in virtual environments. The enabling concepts included the use of ubiquitous distributed sensors across the battlespace, advanced decision aids for the commander and staff, establishment of cyber-warfare as a primary warfare area, and national level unity of effort regarding cyberspace across all agencies.

3. The CNO Theme and SSG Product

Focusing through 2020 and beyond, the CNO directed SSG XXVII to generate revolutionary concepts to integrate “physical-world and cyber-world capabilities into a seamless continuum of Sea Power.” SSG XXVII will build upon the intellectual foundation of SSG XXVI and previous SSGs, identify successes and remaining challenges, and recommend how the Navy should close the gaps. The CNO’s Theme reflects that in the future all aspects of warfare, including the prevention of conflict, will be cyber-enabled. Future Maritime Forces will employ a full range of advanced information, communication, and computing technologies. Maritime Forces will shape the strategic environment to build and sustain peace while maintaining the ability to have a decisive impact on crises and conflicts.

SSG XXVII will produce actionable concepts; recommend broad and rapid experimentation to validate those concepts; and inform near-, mid-, and long-term program decisions supporting the concepts. The Group’s work will be delivered in an operational context grounded in the human element, with synergy across the physical, information, cognitive, and social domains. It will include recommendations on manpower and equipment requirements while addressing on how the Navy should develop its people to stay relevant and succeed in employing future maritime strategies. The Group will generate roadmaps for demonstrating, maturing, and capturing promising architectures, processes, and technologies supporting these revolutionary concepts.

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cyber-power.png

North Georgia Men Arrested, Charged in Plots to Purchase Explosives, Silencer and to Manufacture a Biological Toxin

ATLANTA—Frederick Thomas, 73, of Cleveland, Ga.; Dan Roberts, 67, of Toccoa, Ga.; Ray H. Adams, 65, of Toccoa; and Samuel J. Crump, 68, of Toccoa, were arrested today relating to plans to obtain an unregistered explosive device and silencer and to manufacture the biological toxin ricin for use in attacks against other U.S. citizens and government personnel and officials.

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Sally Quillian Yates said, “These defendants, who are alleged to be part of a fringe militia group, are charged with planning attacks against their own fellow citizens and government. To carry out their agenda, two of the defendants allegedly purchased purported explosives and a silencer, while the other two defendants took steps to attempt to produce a deadly biological toxin. While many are focused on the threat posed by international violent extremists, this case demonstrates that we must also remain vigilant in protecting our country from citizens within our own borders who threaten our safety and security.”

FBI Atlanta Special Agent in Charge Brian D. Lamkin said of today’s arrests, “The FBI will act swiftly within its authority when any group or individual seeks to advance its rhetoric or ideology through force or violence. In this matter, the FBI’s Atlanta Division Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) was well positioned to address this investigation and to prevent harm to the general public.”

According to the criminal complaints, federal search warrants and documents in the public record, Thomas, Roberts, Crump, Adams and others were members of a militia organization and began participating in clandestine meetings of a fringe “covert” operations team starting in approximately March 2011. During these meetings, the complaints charge that the men discussed multiple criminal activities, ranging from murder; theft; manufacturing and using toxic agents; and assassinations in an effort to undermine federal and state government and to advance their interests.

In March and April 2011, Thomas, Roberts, Adams and others attended meetings where participants discussed targeting various government officials, including employees of federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service. These meetings also were monitored by FBI agents through the attendance of a confidential source, who recorded the meetings and provided the information to the FBI.

During the meetings, the complaints allege that Thomas, Roberts and others discussed the need to obtain unregistered silencers and explosive devices for use in attacks against federal government buildings and employees, as well as against local police. Thomas, Roberts and others also discussed the use of the biological toxin that can kill individuals in small doses. The participants acknowledged that these actions would constitute murder but reasoned that the actions were necessary in accordance with their ideology.

In May and June 2011, Thomas and Roberts met with an undercover agent purporting to be a seller of unregistered silencers and explosive devices. According to the complaints, Thomas and Roberts allegedly agreed to purchase a silencer and an unregistered explosive device and discussed using the silencers and explosive devices in attacks against federal buildings. In furtherance of this plan, Thomas conducted surveillance of federal buildings in Atlanta and discussed with the source the possibility of attacking the federal buildings using silencers and explosive devices, as punishment for what Thomas deemed to be “treasonous” activities. Thomas also allegedly stated that he believed that these actions needed to be undertaken against both federal and state government officials, and advised that the group would need a great deal of explosives to accomplish its mission.

From June through November 2011, Thomas and Roberts met with the undercover agent and negotiated the purchase of a silencer for a rifle and conversion parts to make a fully automatic rifle, as well as explosives. The complaints allege that Thomas confirmed to the agent that he planned to use the silencer that he was purchasing, and described how he would clean the rifle and use rubber gloves when he handled it so he wouldn’t leave his fingerprints on it during its use. Ultimately, Thomas agreed to purchase the silencer and conversion parts in exchange for providing the undercover agent with another gun owned by Thomas, while Thomas and Roberts allegedly agreed to split the $1,000 cost for the explosives. Thomas and Roberts later expressed concerns that the undercover agent was a “cop,” but wanted to go forward with the transaction anyway.

The complaints charge that during the investigation of Thomas and Roberts, Roberts described another individual named “Sammy” who, according to Roberts, had manufactured the biological toxin, ricin, and had access to the beans used to make ricin. During one of the group’s meetings in September, which was recorded by the confidential source, Crump arrived and said that he would like to make 10 pounds of ricin and disperse it in various United States cities, including Atlanta. Crump described a scenario for dispersing the ricin in Atlanta in which the toxin would be blown from a car traveling on the interstates. Crump allegedly also said that he possessed the ingredient used to make the toxin and cautioned the source about the dangers of handling it.

The complaints allege that in October 2011, Crump described to the source the process to manufacture ricin and advised that the materials should be purchased at different locations far from where he lived. Crump again discussed various methods of and locations to disperse ricin, and told the source that the toxin is deadly if the powder comes into contact with a person’s skin or lungs. During another meeting in October, Adams allegedly provided a sample to Crump of the beans used to manufacture ricin from a storage container of the beans contained at his residence in Stephens County, Georgia, and Crump in turn provided the sample to the source. During meetings on Oct. 29, 2011, Crump allegedly told the source that he was going to shell the beans that week, and Adams explained to the source how to manufacture ricin, showing the source a formula used to make ricin and identifying the ways he planned to obtain the ingredients to do so.

FBI agents arrested all four defendants today without incident and executed search warrants at the residences of the four defendants. The defendants are expected to make an initial appearance on the charges before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan S. Cole tomorrow.

The information provided by the source and the undercover agent allowed the agents to disrupt the defendants’ plans before they were in a position to place citizens in danger of attacks using the weapons, explosives, or a biological toxin.

Members of the public are reminded that the criminal complaints contain only allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government’s burden to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

This case is being investigated by the JTTF, which includes agents of the FBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Assistance in this case has been provided by law enforcement agencies from Habersham County and Stephens County, Ga., and the District Attorney’s Office for the Mountain Judicial Circuit.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Brown is prosecuting the case.

CIA History of DCI William Colby Finally Qualifies as “Non-Secret”


DCI William Colby speaks during a National Security Council meeting on the situation on Vietnam. April 28, 1975. Clockwise, left to right, Colby; Robert S. Ingersoll, Deputy Secretary of State; Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State; President Ford: James Schlesinger, Defense Secretary; William Clements, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Vice President Nelson Rockefeller; General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (lower left corner). Image A4234-11A ,http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/avproj/vietnam.asp Gerald R. Ford Library, Ann Arbor, MI

CIA History of DCI William Colby

Finally Qualifies as “Non-Secret”

CIA Director Distinguishes “bad”/”good”/”lesser” and “non-secrets”

Colby Bio-Documentary Opens in Washington October 28

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 362

Washington, D.C., November 6, 2011 – CIA director William Colby rebuffed criticisms from senior Agency operators about disclosure of CIA misdeeds by describing the difference between “bad secrets,” “non-secrets,” “good secrets” and “lesser” secrets, according to a previously SECRET internal CIA history of the Colby tenure, published today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org).

Colby responded in March 1974 to the head of the CIA’s clandestine service, who claimed that any public discussion would “degrade the fabric of our security” and “lead inevitably to a further exposure of intelligence sources and methods,” by writing:

“There are some ‘bad secrets’ which are properly revealed by an aggressive press. there are some older ‘non-secrets’ which no longer need to be kept secret and which we should gradually surface, but there are some ‘good secrets’ which deserve greater protection than we have been able to give them, in part by reason of their association with ‘secrets’ of lesser importance.”

The latest declassification (in August 2011) from a series of secret studies by the CIA History Staff of the agency’s directors, the volume gains credibility from its authorship by veteran CIA analyst and operative Harold Ford, who courageously presented to the Congress well-documented internal critiques of CIA director-designate Robert Gates during his confirmation hearings in 1991. To win confirmation, Gates had to promise Congress not to fire Ford in retaliation. The history, William Colby as Director of Central Intelligence, 1973-1976, provides detailed accounts of key episodes such as the firing of counterintelligence chief James Angleton, Colby’s role in the revelation of the CIA “family jewels,” and the collapse of South Vietnam, where Colby had spent much of his career.

The posting features an introduction and review written by Archive senior fellow John Prados, author of the widely-praised biography, William Colby and the CIA: The Secret Wars of a Controversial Spymaster (University Press of Kansas, 2009). The favorable Prados review points out some shortcomings as well, including the history’s lack of attention to Colby’s fraught relationships with Presidents Nixon and Ford, and most of all, Henry Kissinger. Declassified Kissinger transcripts show Kissinger fuming about Colby’s airing of the CIA’s dirty laundry, but Prados concludes that Colby in effect saved the CIA from possible abolition as an agency.

Opening in Washington, D.C. on October 28 at the Landmark E Street Theater is a biographic documentary produced by Colby’s son Carl, an award-winning documentary filmmaker, The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father, CIA Spymaster William Colby.

From the film’s Web site: “A son’s riveting look at a father whose life seemed straight out of a spy thriller . the story is at once a probing history of the CIA, a personal memoir of a family living in clandestine shadows, and an inquiry into the hard costs of a nation’s most cloaked actions .. The film forges a fascinating mix of rare archival footage, never-before-seen photos, and interviews with the ‘who’s who’ of American intelligence, including former National Security Advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense and Director of CIA James Schlesinger, as well PulitzerPrize journalists Bob Woodward, Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner.”


By John Prados

For many years it has been a CIA practice to employ its History Staff to compile secret studies of the stewardships of the agency’s leaders. This newly declassified official account covers William Egan Colby’s tenure, during an extraordinary period of modern American political history. Colby’s directorship lasted from 1973 through early 1976 and encompassed the end of the Vietnam war, the collapse of détente with the Soviet Union, and the “Year of Intelligence,” the time of the Church and Pike Committee congressional investigations of U.S. intelligence, and the Rockefeller Commission inquiry into CIA domestic activities. Bill Colby led U.S. intelligence at the watershed moment when these events led to the gestation of the modern era of American practice, where the CIA and other agencies function amid a framework of congressional oversight committees and independent inspectors general.the Colby study covers the end of the Vietnam War, the collapse of détente with the Soviet Union, and the “Year of Intelligence,” when the Church and Pike congressional committees investigated U.S. intelligence and the Rockefeller Commission reviewed CIA domestic activities. Bill Colby led U.S. intelligence at a watershed moment which led to some modicum of accountability by the CIA and other agencies, when they began to operate within a framework of congressional oversight committees and independent inspectors general.

Within the CIA, Bill Colby was and remains one of the more controversial figures in the agency’s history. There are several reasons why CIA rank and file disputed Colby’s role. It was his fate to head the agency at a moment when Richard M. Helms, Colby’s predecessor, came under fire for perjury in his own congressional testimony regarding CIA covert operations in Chile. Some charged Colby with failing to protect an agency officer assailed from the outside. World events during his tenure were also a source of controversy, in particular the fall of South Vietnam. Saigon’s collapse, the hurried U.S. evacuation, and the abandonment of CIA assets in Vietnam seared many agency officers who had had Southeast Asia as their main concern for over a decade. One senior analyst, Frank Snepp, went public with a critique of U.S. intelligence before South Vietnam fell, and of agency actions in the evacuation that was highly damaging to Colby, who had been one of CIA’s primary action officers on Vietnam throughout that period.1 But the central reason for the controversy over Bill Colby’s leadership flows from the intelligence investigations of 1975, set off by press revelations of widespread CIA domestic activity against the Vietnam antiwar movement. Both CIA officers and White House officials, including President Gerald R. Ford and national security adviser Henry A. Kissinger, condemned Colby for allegedly “giving away the store” to the inquisitors of the “Year of Intelligence.”

Given this context the CIA’s internal history of Colby’s directorship is especially interesting and significant. The volume, William E. Colby as Director of Central Intelligence, was written by the late Harold P. Ford, a former CIA official who prepared it on contract completing it in 1993.2 The selection of “Hal” Ford for this writing assignment is important. Ford had joined the CIA in the same year as Colby, and had been active on both the clandestine and analytical sides of the agency, including work as a CIA station chief (in Taiwan) and on the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Ford had worked with Colby on interagency groups dealing with Vietnam in the early 1960s, when the latter headed the Far East Division of CIA’s operations directorate, and again as a senior assistant before his 1974 retirement. More than that, Ford had labored on a futile agency paramilitary operation (against China during the Korean war), just as Colby had done as station chief in Saigon, aiming at North Vietnam during the early days of the Southeast Asian conflict. And Hal Ford had also worked the other side of the street-as a consultant to the Church Committee during its 1975 investigation and as a staff member of the newly-created Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Thus Harold Ford had an independent perspective on many of the issues which figured in the controversies over Colby and are reflected in the agency’s internal history. The result is apparent in his narrative.

In keeping with the function of the CIA History Staff, Ford’s account does not neglect Colby’s innovations and the managerial accomplishments achieved on his watch. These have for the most part been overshadowed by the controversies over the man. It was Colby who established the National Intelligence Officers (NIO) system which became the key component of the NIC, the top analytical unit of U.S. intelligence to this day, more than three decades later. That was undoubtedly his most important accomplishment, but Colby also created the highly successful National Intelligence Daily, and he refreshed CIA methods for learning through experience by means of compiling systematic postmortems of key episodes-although refusal to conduct a study of Saigon’s fall was among Frank Snepp’s grievances against the agency-as well as its system for alert and warning. Other Colby innovations proved less enduring. Ford concludes that “ingrained institutional drag throughout the Intelligence Community was the chief culprit in frustrating his managerial initiatives.”3

This CIA history passes lightly over a number of important events that took place on Colby’s watch. The coup against Salvador Allende in Chile took place a week after the new director was sworn in. The CIA’s contribution to laying the groundwork for a coup are well-known and Colby had headed the agency’s operations directorate during at least part of the time when the project evolved. This would have been a good place to provide some background on the CIA’s operations in Chile, but here Ford discusses the Chile project mostly in terms of the resulting perjury charges against Richard Helms. Similarly the fall of Saigon, the CIA covert actions in Angola and Kurdistan, and the attempt to raise a sunken Soviet submarine with using the vessel Glomar Explorer pass by in a few paragraphs. Some of these projects set or changed key limits on Colby’s ability to act and merited more extensive discussion. For example, Director Colby obtained the cooperation of journalist Seymour Hersh in keeping quiet the Glomar Explorer story, and that favor stayed Colby’s hand when Hersh went for the even more explosive story of CIA domestic activity in what Hal Ford terms Colby’s “Black December.” The end in Vietnam was intrinsically so important that it figures in the same category. Also underreported in the narrative is the bureaucratic infighting within U.S. intelligence on its estimates of Soviet military power and defense spending, which began to come under major attack from more alarmist observers during the Colby era.

White House pressures on CIA to act in Angola and with the Kurds in Iraq helped set the context in which subsequent events occurred, along with White House attitudes toward the agency as well as Colby’s sense of how his problems would be perceived by presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and their associates. The CIA history does a good job of sketching Nixon’s animosities toward the agency-and clearly its historian made use of Nixon administration official records-which makes it striking that apparently no such effort was made to consult equivalent Ford administration documents. Hal Ford quotes Colby himself to the effect that it never occurred to anyone at CIA-starting with then-director James R. Schlesinger-to tell the White House about the internal document collection known as the “Family Jewels,” which contained a number of the revelations that would explode in “Black December.” But Schlesinger was feuding with Kissinger, and when Colby took over Kissinger continued to keep the agency at arms’ length, and in any case the Family Jewels had been created for the private use of the CIA director. The Colby history does not make this clear.

It was Seymour Hersh again, in the New York Times of December 22, 1974, who set off the explosion that led to the Year of Intelligence, by revealing agency illegal domestic activity, followed over subsequent days by further revelations.4 During the months which led up to this Black December, Hersh was already onto the story of the CIA in Chile, as well as Glomar. Hersh’s investigative reporting had been discussed in Gerald Ford’s White House, and even in Richard Helms’s morning staff meetings before he left the agency. The CIA’s Colby history repeats the conventional wisdom that the director blind-sided the White House by not providing advance notice. The suggestion that White House officials needed any warning from Bill Colby to be on notice that Hersh had more agency revelations up his sleeve strains credulity. Consulting Ford administration records should clarify this problem.

The most troublesome aspect of that oversight arises in the CIA history’s treatment of the months that followed, including the creation of and investigations by the Rockefeller Commission and the Church and Pike Committees. By narrating these events solely from the agency’s side the history overstates Director Colby’s freedom of action in responding to the inquiries and neglects to treat White House efforts to constrain the investigations. For example, from CIA records the history relates several conversations between agency officials and White House aide John O. (“Jack”) Marsh, all of which are to the effect of President Ford’s emissary cautioning against exposing too much of the CIA’s secret world. The history leaves the impression this was simply an attitude, casually expressed. In fact, White House records make clear that Marsh, and Ford counsel Phil Buchen, played the key roles in shaping the administration’s response. Ford officials made specific decisions on what materials would be provided to investigators, they forced a fight on what would be revealed about the covert action policymaking unit known as the 40 Committee, formed a working group specifically to deal with the CIA political crisis, coordinated with Colby on the basic ground rules the agency set with the Church committee, backed the CIA director in his later fights with the Pike committee, and stonewalled on the release of material until achieving an understanding with Congress that recognized White House primacy in this area.5

Both of Colby’s two substantive one-on-one meetings with President Ford during 1975 concerned the CIA troubles. At the first, Ford informed the CIA that he was about to set up a presidential commission to head off congressional action. At the second, Ford reviewed with Colby the testimony on covert operations the CIA director would present the next day at the Church committee (this latter presidential action goes entirely unrecorded in the CIA internal history). Without engaging the question of the legality of information denials, in the face of long-standing law that recognized Congress had an absolute right to investigate government affairs, and an unlimited entitlement to such information as necessary for such inquiries, the CIA’s Colby history treats this entire period somewhat mechanically, as a bureaucratic dispute over who got access to what and when and whether Congressional disclosures damaged national security.

Colby’s difficulties during the Year of Intelligence would be greatly compounded by the fact he was already under fire inside CIA when Black December came. This was due to charges that Richard Helms had perjured himself in sworn testimony before Congress on the covert operation in Chile. Helms too had been caught in a dilemma-between Richard Nixon’s strict orders for secrecy on Chile and Congress’s demand for answers. The Justice Department eventually took over that inquiry and would ultimately indict Helms on this charge, which the former CIA director would not contest once it came to trial in 1977. Here Bill Colby was mousetrapped on the matter of forwarding the charge to Justice, and agency rank and file took sides with Helms or, to a lesser degree, with Colby. Even most CIA veterans do not know what really happened in the Helms affair-Director Colby initially refused to forward the charges but was forced to do so by backbench insistence and pressure from Justice Department officials. Hal Ford’s account of the Helms case is quite detailed, as is his narrative of Colby’s firing of CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton-a close friend and ally of Helms-which further inflamed passions against Colby within the agency. The CIA internal history is very useful on these matters.

Harold Ford has some sympathy for Director Colby’s basic predicament. The political disputes of the Vietnam War and the presidential excesses of Watergate had strengthened the position of Congress, while the CIA had precious little support inside the White House. The simple fact of Black December signaled that a new era was dawning for U.S. intelligence. Bill Colby’s challenge was to chart a course between the contending forces that preserved the agency, while fending off demands to do business the old way, not only from the White House but his own CIA officers. Colby, criticized as a Boy Scout or naïf, actually understood better than his associates that in 1975 the Central Intelligence Agency was in real danger of being swept away. Until the doubts that have arisen regarding the CIA in the wake of the September 11 attacks, this Year of Intelligence posed the most serious threat to the agency’s existence.

Within its limitations, the CIA secret history represents the most detailed account yet available from the agency’s perspective of the investigations of the Year of Intelligence. With most of the key actors now gone-starting with William Colby himself but including Vernon Walters, Walt Elder, Mitchell Rogovin and others-a better history of this kind seems unlikely.

It is especially worth reading for the attention it brings to a number of issues, including its major focus on the Year of Intelligence. Harold Ford has refined our understanding of the precursor events that helped create the modern American intelligence system. These origins throw needed backlight on arrangements for congressional oversight, and the competition between that oversight and presidential control which still drives the U.S. intelligence community today.


NOTES

  1. Frank Snepp, Decent Interval An Insider’s Account of Saigon’s Indecent End Told by the CIA’s Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam. New York: Random House, 1977.
  2. Harold P. Ford, William E. Colby as Director of Central Intelligence. Central Intelligence Agency: CIA History Staff, 1993 (declassified August 10, 2011).
  3. Harold Ford, William E. Colby, p. 61.
  4. Seymour Hersh, “Huge CIA Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years,” New York Times, December 22, 1974.
  5. Ibid, pp. 304-317.

DAS URTEIL WEGEN BETRUGES AM EIGENEN ANLEGER GEGEN “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7273-der-beweis-betrugs-urteil-gegengomopa-maurischat-betrug-am-eigenen-anleger-wg–10000-.html

“NOMEN EST OMEN !”

Women Protest Worldwide Photos 4

[Image]A demonstrator sits holding a sign during a protest against bullfighting in Lima, Peru, Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011. Peru hosts the oldest bullring in the Americas, the Plaza de Acho, inaugurated in 1766 under the ruling of Viceroy Manuel de Amat y Juniet, where every year bullfighters compete for the renown ‘Escapulario de Oro’ or ‘Golden Scapular’, one of the most important bullfighting trophies worldwide. (Karel Navarro)[Image]
[Image]Iranian opposition members hold an old Iranian flag as they protest against the regime in their country, asking the release of jailed dissidents and union members, in Ankara, Turkey, Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011.(Burhan Ozbilici)
[Image]An activist supporting the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) stands in front of banners in support of rights activist Irom Chanu Sharmila during a protest in New Delhi on November 5, 2011. Sharmila has been on a 10-year hunger strike demanding the Indian government to repeal the AFSPA. Getty
[Image]More than 100 police moved on Occupy Sydney protesters at Martin Place October 23, 2011, resulting in the arrest of 40 people. Damian Baker[Image]
[Image]Occupy Wall Street demonstrator Mimi Ho, right, gestures as she carries her daughter Juniper, 1, after she withdrew her savings from a Wells Fargo Bank as part of the protest in downtown Oakland, Calif. , Friday, Nov. 4, 2011. At left is Kimi Lee, who also withdrew her savings. Saturday is Bank Transfer Day for supporters to take their money out of major banks and put their money into smaller banks. AP
[Image]Students stage a protest in front of the government house in Riga November 4, 2011. Thousands of students staged the protest against education budget cuts the Latvian government is planning for 2012, local media reported. Reuters
[Image]Albanian citizens protest in front of the parliament building to stop the passing of a law that will allow the import of waste into the country, in Tirana November 3, 2011. The Albanian government insists that the controversial bill will only allow the import of a limited list of non-toxic waste for recycling purposes, but environmental activists insist that bill would turn Albania into a backyard recycling bin of Europe?s richer countries. A similar attempt to pass a law that would allow import of waste was thwarted in 2004 due to strong public opposition. Reuters
[Image]University students with their necks painted protest at Bolivar square in Bogota, Colombia, Thursday Nov. 3, 2011. Their signs read in Spanish “We have the right to be outraged,” left, and “Excellent education and for all!!” Students are protesting education reforms planned by the government that propose private funding for public institutions. (Fernando Vergara)
[Image]Protesters chant slogans in front of the Greek Parliament during an anti-austerity protest in Athens, Thursday, Nov. 3 2011. Greece’s prime minister abandoned his explosive plan to put a European rescue deal to popular vote and opened emergency talks Thursday with his opponents, demanding their support in parliament to pass the hard-fought agreement into law. (Kostas Tsironis)
[Image]Anti-government protesters pass through their makeshift barricades Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011, during a demonstration in the western village of Malkiya, Bahrain. Men, women and children waved national flags, chanted against the regime and called for prisoners to be freed. Such barricades are used in restive Shiite areas nationwide to slow riot police jeeps who often arrive to disperse the daily demonstrations. (Hasan Jamali)
[Image]Aileen Mioko Smith, center, executive director of pro-sustainable energy NGO group Green Action, and supporters shout anti-nuclear slogans by a yarn ball made by women in Fukushima as they stage a sit-in demonstration, opposing the government’s nuclear energy policy in front of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry in Tokyo Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011. (Shuji Kajiyama)
[Image]An exile Tibetan woman tries to immolate herself as others from the community try to stop her, during a protest against China and to honor Tibetans who have immolated themselves since March in a restive Tibetan area of western China, in Katmandu, Nepal, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011. Protesters urged G20 leaders to raise the issue of rights violation and crackdown on monasteries in Tibet. (Niranjan Shrestha)
[Image]Occupy Chicago protesters march in downtown Chicago, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011. Protesters are gathering in Chicago’s financial district to march in solidarity with other anti-Wall Street protesters nationwide for an Iraq War veteran who was injured in clashes between protesters and police in California. (Nam Y. Huh)
[Image]An Occupy Oakland protester wears makeup in observance of the traditional Mexican holiday “Day of the Dead,” Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Oakland’s citywide general strike, a hastily planned and ambitious action called by Occupy protesters a day after police forcibly removed their City Hall encampment last week, seeks to shut down the Port of Oakland. (Ben Margot)
[Image]A woman holds her child during a protest in Ciudad Juarez November 1, 2011. Police arrested around 25 protesters as they were trying to put up crosses in a public area in representation of the thousands of victims of the drug war. Reuters
[Image]In this photograph taken by AP Images for AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Protestors from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation deliver a bag full of petitions requesting lower AIDS drug pricing to Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Brunswick, NJ on Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011. (Charles Sykes)
[Image]An anti-G20 demonstrator poses on a fake beach during a photobooth session as she takes part in a protest against globalisation in Nice, southeastern France, November 2, 2011. G20 leaders will gather in Cannes for the final summit of France’s presidency on November 3 and 4. Reuters
[Image]A woman involved in the clean-up operation after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster shouts slogans during a protest in front of riot police at Cabinet in Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011. The veterans were demanding the right to keep the social benefits given to them after the clean-up. (Efrem Lukatsky)
[Image]Indian police officers detain Members of the Tibetan Youth Congress during a protest, on the eve of G20 summit in France , outside the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi on November 2, 2011. The protesters flew Tibetan flags,and burned Chinese flags to express their opposition to China’s policies in Tibet, and to call for support for their movement from leaders of the G20. Getty
[Image]Protester Alexis Marvel, of Boston, front, holds an American flag and shouts slogans while joining with members of the Occupy Boston movement, students from area colleges, and union workers as they march through downtown Boston, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011. The march was held to protest the nations growing student debt burden. AP
[Image]Demonstrators shout slogans in front of riot police on November 2, 2011 during a protest as the Ukrainian cabinet was meeting in Kiev. Ukrainian veterans of the clean-up from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster are demonstrating against planned benefit cuts. In September, lawmakers gave initial approval to a bill cutting back benefits paid to those who helped clean up the April 1986 nuclear disaster and those who still live on the affected lands. Getty
[Image]Tibetan nationals demonstrate to protest against China’s President Hu Jintao visit to France for Cannes’ G20 meeting, on November 2, 2011 in Paris. Getty
[Image]Young unemployed graduates protest against unemployment and the cost of living, in front of the Moroccan Parliament in Rabat November 2, 2011. Reuters
[Image]Anti-Wall Street protesters demonstrate in front of a closed bank in Oakland, California, November 2, 2011. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets of downtown Oakland at the start of what they called a general strike to protest economic conditions and police brutality in the city. Reuters
[Image]Members of the New York City chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War and dozens of other uniformed veterans known as ‘Veterans of the 99%’ march from Vietnam Veterans Plaza to Zucotti Park where the Occupy Wall Street movement is centered on November 2, 2011 in New York City. The veterans groups, which feature current and former members of the United States military, marched in support of Occupy Wall Street and to pay homage to Scott Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War vet who sustained a skull fracture after he was injured by police at an Occupy Oakland protest. Getty
[Image]A demonstrator tries to cross a police line during a protest against the Islamist Ennahda movement in Tunis November 2, 2011. The moderate Islamist party Ennahda, which advocates democracy and pledges not to impose religious bans on the secularist minority here, won 40 percent of the vote in the October 23 election for a constituent assembly. Reuters
[Image]A woman holds a placard on November 1, 2011 during a demonstration in the French city of Nice, two days ahead of the G20 summit to be held in Cannes on November 3 and 4. Thousands of anti-capitalists are to march through the streets of Nice today to protest corporate greed ahead of the G20 summit, echoing protests worldwide. The placard reads : ‘Life not money’. Getty
[Image]In this Thursday, Sept. 8, 2011 file photo, a female protestor, center, flashes the victory sign during a demonstration in Sanaa, Yemen demanding the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Women are fighting to keep a voice for their rights sounding out amid the tumult of Yemen’s landmark revolt. The main goal of the protests by millions around the country, day in and day out since February, is the ouster of President Saleh.

Central Intelligence Agency Marks 50th Anniversary of the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the Building of the Berlin Wall

The Central Intelligence Agency, in partnership with the National Declassification Center, hosted a symposium on 27 October 2011 at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., to discuss the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the subsequent construction of the Berlin Wall. In conjunction with the event, more than 370 declassified documents – totaling more than 4800 pages of material about this crucial time period – were released from the records of multiple U.S. Government agencies. This collection marks the first time so many government entities have compiled their declassified documents on a single historic event in one place.

“Eleven U.S. Government organizations contributed to the material being presented today – from intelligence reports to contingency plans to photographs to maps – all of these revealing the tremendous challenges U.S. analysts faced in predicting Nikita Khrushchev’s intentions and actions during the Berlin Crisis,” said Joseph Lambert, CIA’s Director of Information Management Services (IMS). “These documents also afford a glimpse of the many differing opinions held by Kennedy Administration advisors and various military leaders about which tactics and strategies offered the most effective U.S. response.”

Historians, intelligence experts, retired CIA officers, and policymakers from the Berlin Crisis era participated in the event. The symposium featured a keynote address by Dr. William R. Smyser, the last person to cross the Potsdamer Platz in a car as the Berlin Wall was being erected. Dr. Smyser, who now teaches at Georgetown University, discussed his firsthand experiences serving as the special assistant to General Lucius Clay, President Kennedy’s personal representative to Berlin, and as a political counselor at the American Embassy in Bonn.

The military, historical, and diplomatic views of the crisis were explored in a panel led by CIA historian Dr. Donald P. Steury. The panel consisted of Dr. Don Carter, historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History; Dr. Hope Harrison, historian at the George Washington University and Woodrow Wilson Center; Lou Mehrer, a retired CIA officer; and Dr. Greg W. Pedlow, historian at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.

This event was organized by the CIA’s Historical Collections Division (HCD), a component of IMS. HCD seeks to identify and declassify collections of documents that detail the Agency’s analysis and activities relating to historically significant topics and events.

“Of one thing I am certain,” Lambert said of the officers in HCD. They believe that “they hold these classified records in trust for the American people, and that when the sensitivity of the material attenuates over time, that they have a sense of duty to declassify and release it.”

TOP-SECRET-Local Man Pleads Guilty to Providing Material Support to Terrorist Organization

ST. LOUIS—The United States Attorney’s Office announced today that Mohamud Abdi Yusuf, 31, pled guilty to providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

According to court documents, from February 2008 through at least July 2009, Yusuf, conspired with others to provide money to al Shabaab, which was designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization in February 2008. Yusuf transferred money to al Shabaab under fictitious names and telephone numbers utilizing money remitting businesses operating in the United States.

Al Shabaab is a terrorist organization based in Somalia, whose objective is the overthrow of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), eliminating the African Union support for TFG, and the imposing Shari’a law in Somalia. Al Shabaab has engaged in, and used, violence, intimidation, and acts of terrorism in Somalia and elsewhere to further its objectives.

Yusuf admitted to soliciting money from inside and outside the Eastern District of Missouri and coordinating the transfer of the money to al-Shabaab. Members of the conspiracy frequently communicated in coded language as they planned the means by which they transferred money to al Shabaab members and affiliates in Somalia.

Duane Mohamed Diriye, who is a resident of Kenya, and Abdi Mahdi Hussein, who worked for a money remitting business in Minneapolis, were also indicted along with Yusuf on October 21, 2010. Diriye remains at large; Hussein has appeared in court and his case is still pending.

Yusuf entered guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization and three counts of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization. Each count carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000 In determining the actual sentences, a Judge is required to consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide recommended sentencing ranges. United States District Judge Henry E. Autrey set Yusuf’s case for sentencing on January 31, 2012.

“Since 9/11, this is the first international terrorism case prosecuted in Eastern Missouri,” said Special Agent in Charge Dennis L. Baker. He continued, “At least 20 American citizens from other parts of the U.S. have already traveled to Somalia to join al Shabaab, which is responsible for assassinating Somali peace activists, international aid workers, numerous civil society figures, and journalists. Senior leaders of al Shabaab are affiliated with al Qaeda.”

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Joint Terrorism Task Force, in conjunction with task force agencies. Assistant United States Attorneys Matthew Drake and Howard Marcus will be handling the case, in conjunction with the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

DAS ZDF ÜBER DIE SPIELE-MAFIA-DER “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus#/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus

FBI Counterintelligence National Strategy – Orginal Statement by the FBI

Surveillance video from Ghost Stories
Surveillance photo of two subjects of Operation Ghost Stories, an investigation into a Russian spy ring operating in the U.S. | More on Ghost Stories: Videos | Photographs | Documents

FBI Counterintelligence National Strategy
A Blueprint for Protecting U.S. Secrets

11/04/11

Espionage may seem like a throwback to earlier days of world wars and cold wars, but the threat is real and as serious as ever.

We see it—and work hard to counter it—all the time. It’s not just the more traditional spies passing U.S. secrets to foreign governments, either to fatten their own wallets or to advance their ideological agendas. It’s also students and scientists and plenty of others stealing the valuable trade secrets of American universities and businesses—the ingenuity that drives our economy—and providing them to other countries. It’s nefarious actors sending controlled technologies overseas that help build bombs and weapons of mass destruction designed to hurt and kill Americans and others.

In late October, in fact, we took part in a multi-agency and multi-national operation that led to the indictment of five citizens of Singapore and four of their companies for illegally exporting thousands of radio frequency modules from the U.S. Allegedly, at least 16 of these modules were later found in unexploded improvised explosive devices in Iraq.

As the lead agency for exposing, preventing, and investigating intelligence activities on U.S. soil, the FBI continues to work to combat these threats using our full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities. We’ve mapped out our blueprint in what we call our Counterintelligence National Strategy, which is regularly updated to focus resources on the most serious current and emerging threats.

The strategy itself is classified, but we can tell you what its overall goals are:

  • Keep weapons of mass destruction, advanced conventional weapons, and related technology from falling into the wrong hands—using intelligence to drive our investigative efforts to keep threats from becoming reality. Our new Counterproliferation Center will play a major role here.
  • Protect the secrets of the U.S. intelligence community—again, using intelligence to focus our investigative efforts and collaborating with our government partners to reduce the risk of espionage and insider threats.
  • Protect the nation’s critical assets—like our advanced technologies and sensitive information in the defense, intelligence, economic, financial, public health, and science and technology sectors. We work to identify the source and significance of the threats against these assets, and to help their “owners” to minimize vulnerabilities.
  • Counter the activities of foreign spies—whether they are representatives of foreign intelligence agencies or governments or are acting on their behalf, they all want the same thing: to steal U.S. secrets. Through proactive investigations, we identify who they are and stop what they’re doing.

One important aspect of our counterintelligence strategy involves strategic partnerships. And on that front, we focus on three specific areas:

  • The sharing of expertise and resources of the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community, other U.S. government agencies, and global partners to combat foreign intelligence activities;
  • Coordination of U.S. intelligence community efforts to combat insider threats among its own ranks; and
  • Partnerships with businesses and colleges and universities to strengthen information sharing and counterintelligence awareness.

Focus on cyber activities. Another key element of our counterintelligence strategy, according to FBI Counterintelligence Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi, is its emphasis on detecting and deterring foreign-sponsored cyber intelligence threats to government and private sector information systems. “Sometimes,” he said, “the bad guys don’t have to physically be in the U.S. to steal targeted information…sometimes they can be halfway around the world, sitting at a keyboard.”

The FBI’s Counterintelligence National Strategy supports both the President’s National Security Strategy and the National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States.

TOP-SECRET-Russian Foreign Ministry List of People and Organizations Financing Terrorism

July 6, 2011 in Russia

This “previously confidential list of people and organizations found to be involved in laundering money and funding terrorism” was presented by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian-government owned newspaper.  It was originally compiled by the Russian Foreign Ministry.  A rough, Google translation is also presented [in brackets] alongside the passages in Russian.

Организации и физические лица, включенные в перечень на основании подпунктов 6, 7 пункта 2.1 статьи 6 Федерального закона от 7 августа 2001 г. N 115-ФЗ “О противодействии легализации (отмыванию) доходов, полученных преступным путем, и финансированию терроризма”

[Organizations and individuals included in the list by virtue of subsections 6 and 7 of paragraph 2.1 of Article 6 of the Federal Law of 7 August 2001 N 115-FZ “On Combating Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and Terrorist Financing”]

Организации [Organizations]

1. ABU SAYYAF GROUP (Al Harakat Al Islamiyya)*.

2. AFGHAN SUPPORT COMMITTEE (ASC) (Lajnat Ul Masa Eidatul Afghania; Jamiat Ayat-Ur-Rhas Al Islamiac; Jamiat Ihya Ul Turath Al Islamia; Ahya Ul Turas)*; Office Locations: Headquarters – G.T. Road (probably Grand Trunk Road), near Pushtoon Garhi Pabbi, Peshawar, Pakistan; Cheprahar Hadda, Mia Omar Sabaqah School, Jalabad, Afghanistan.

3. AL BARAKA EXCHANGE L.L.C.*; P.O. BOX 3313 Deira Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 20066, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Reported to be owned or controlled by Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’Ale (QI.J.41.01).

4. AL FURQAN (Dzemilijati Furkan; Dzem’ijjetul Furqan; Association for Citizens Rights and Resistance to Lies; Dzemijetul Furkan; Association of Citizens for the Support of Truth and Suppression of Lies; Sirat; Association for Education, Culture and Building Society-Sirat; Association for Education, Cultural, and to Create Society-Sirat; Istikamet; In Siratel; Citizens’ Association for Support and Prevention of lies – Furqan)*; 30a Put Mladih Muslimana (ex. Pavla Lukaca Street), 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 42 Muhameda Hadzijahica, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 70 and 53 Strosmajerova Street, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 72 ul. Strossmajerova, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Zlatnih Ljiljana Street, Zavidovici, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a citizens’ association under the name of “Citizens’ Association for Support and Prevention of lies – Furqan” on 26 Sep. 1997. Al Furqan ceased its work by decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation (decision number 03-054-286/97 dated 8 Nov. 2002). Al Furqan was no longer in existence as at Dec. 2008.

5. AL RASHID TRUST (Al-Rasheed Trust; Al Rasheed Trust; Al-Rashid Trust; Aid Organization of the Ulema, Pakistan; Al Amin Welfare Trust; Al Amin Trust; Al Ameen Trust; Al-Ameen Trust; Al Madina Trust; Al-Madina Trust)*; 302b-40, Good Earth Court, Opposite Pia Planitarium, Block 13a, Gulshan -l Igbal, Karachi, Pakistan; Phone 4979263; 617 Clifton Center, Block 5, 6th Floor, Clifton, Karachi, Pakistan; Phone 587-2545; Jamia Maajid, Sulalman Park, Melgium Pura, Lahore, Pakistan; Jamia Masjid, Sulaiman Park, Begum Pura, Lahore, Pakistan; Phone 042-6812081; Kitab Ghar, Darul Ifta Wal Irshad, Nazimabad No. 4, Karachi, Pakistan, Phone 6683301; Phone 0300-8209199; Fax 6623814; Kitas Ghar, Nazimabad 4, Dahgel-Iftah, Karachi, Pakistan; Office Dha’rbi-M’unin ZR Brothers, Katcherry Road, Chowk Yadgaar, Peshawar, Pakistan; Office Dha’rbi-M’unin, Opposite Khyber Bank, Abbottabad Road, Mansehra, Pakistan; Office Dha’rbi-M’unin, Rm No. 3, Moti Plaza, Near Liaquat Bagh, Muree Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; Office Dha’rbi-M’unin, Top Floor, Dr. Dawa Khan Dental Clinic Surgeon, Main Baxae, Mingora, Swat, Pakistan; j) 605 Landmark Plaza, 11 Chundrigar Road, Opposite Jang Building, Karachi, Pakistan; Phone 2623818-19. Headquarters are in Pakistan. Operations in Afghanistan: Herat Jalalabad, Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar Sherif. Also operations in Kosovo, Chechnya. Has two account numbers (No. 05501741 and No. 06500138) in Habib Bank Ltd. (Foreign Exchange Branch), Pakistan. Involved in the financing of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Until 21 Oct. 2008, this entity appeared also as “Aid Organization of the Ulema, Pakistan” under permanent reference number QE.A.73.02., listed on 24 Apr. 2002 and amended on 25 Jul. 2006. Based on information confirming that the two entries Al Rashid Trust (QE.A.5.01.) and Aid Organization of the Ulema, Pakistan (QE.A.73.02.) refer to the same entity, the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee decided on 21 Oct. 2008 to consolidate the relevant information contained in both entries in the present entry.

6. AL-AKHTAR TRUST INTERNATIONAL (Al Akhtar Trust; Al-Akhtar Medical Centre; Akhtarabad Medical Camp; Pakistan Relief Foundation; Pakistani Relief Foundation; Azmat-e-Pakistan Trust; Azmat Pakistan Trust)*; Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Block 12, Karachi, Pakistan; ST-1/A, Gulsahn-e-Iqbal, Block 2, Karachi, 25300, Pakistan. Regional offices in Pakistan: Bahawalpur, Bawalnagar, Gilgit, Islamabad, Mirpur Khas, Tando-Jan-Muhammad. Akhtarabad Medical Camp is in Spin Boldak, Afghanistan.

7. AL-BARAKAAT*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

8. AL-BARAKAAT BANK*.

9. AL-BARAKAAT WIRING SERVICE*; 2940 Pillsbury Avenue, Suite 4, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408.

10. AL-BARAKAT BANK OF SOMALIA (BSS) (Barakat Bank of Somalia)*; Mogadishu, Somalia; Bossaso, Somalia.

11. AL-BARAKAT FINANCE GROUP*; Dubai, UAE; Mogadishu, Somalia.

12. AL-BARAKAT FINANCIAL HOLDING CO.*; Dubai, UAE; Mogadishu, Somalia.

13. AL-BARAKAT GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (Barakaat Globetelcompany; Al Barakat Telecommunications Ltd.)*; P.O. Box 3313, Dubai, UAE; Mogadishu, Somalia; Hargeysa, Somalia.

14. AL-BARAKAT GROUP OF COMPANIES SOMALIA LIMITED (Al-Barakat Financial Company)*; Mogadishu, Somalia; P.O. Box 3313, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

15. AL-BARAKAT INTERNATIONAL (Baraco Co.)*; P.O. Box 2923, Dubai, UAE.

16. AL-BARAKAT INVESTMENTS*; P.O. Box 3313, Deira, Dubai, UAE.

17. AL-HAMATI SWEETS BAKERIES*; Al-Mukallah, Hadhramawt Governorate, Yemen.

18. AL-HARAMAIN & AL MASJED AL-AQSA CHARITY FOUNDATION (Al Haramain Al Masjed Al Aqsa; Al Haramayn Al Masjid Al Aqsa; Al-Haramayn and Al Masjid Al Aqsa Charitable Foundation; Al Harammein Al Masjed Al-Aqsa Charity Foundation)*; 14 Bihacka Street, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 2A Hasiba Brankovica, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Описание: Branch Address; 64 Potur mahala Street, Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Used to be officially registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina under registry number 24. Al-Haramain & Al Masjed Al-Aqsa Charity Foundation ceased its work by decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation (decision on cessation of operation number 03-05-2-203/04). It was no longer in existence as at Dec. 2008. Its premises and humanitarian activities were transferred under Government supervision to a new entity called Sretna Buducnost.

19. AL-HARAMAIN FOUNDATION (Indonesia) (Yayasan Al-Manahil-Indonesia)*; Jalan Laut Sulawesi Blok DII/4, Kavling Angkatan Laut Duren Sawit, Jakarta Timur 13440 Indonesia; Tel: 021-86611265 and 021-86611266; Fax: 021-8620174; Jl. Jati padang II, No. 18-A, Jakarta Selatan 12540, Indonsia. Tel. 021-789-2870, fax 021-780-0188. Lembaga Pelayanan Pesantren & Studi Islam.

20. AL-HARAMAIN FOUNDATION (Pakistan)*; House # 279, Nazimuddin Road, F-10/1, Islamabad, Pakistan.

21. AL-HARAMAIN FOUNDATION (UNION OF THE COMOROS)*; 1652 Moroni, Union of the Comoros.

22. AL-HARAMAIN FOUNDATION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)*; 1257 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520, United States of America; 2151 E Division St., Springfield, MO 65803, United States of America; 3800 Highway 99 S, Ashland, OR 97520, United States of America. The United States-based branch of Al-Haramain Foundation was formally established by Suliman Hamd Suleiman al-Buthe (QI.A.179.04) and another associate in 1997. Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 19 Oct. 2009.

23. AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (Vazir; Vezir)*; 64 Poturmahala, Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under criminal investigation by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina as of Nov. 2007. Employees and associates include Najib Ben Mohamed Ben Salem Al-Waz (listed under permanent reference number QI.A.104.03.) and Safet Durguti (listed under permanent reference number QI.D.153.03.).

24. AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION*; Somalia.

25. AL-HARAMAIN: AFGHANISTAN BRANCH*; Afghanistan.

26. AL-HARAMAIN: ALBANIA BRANCH*; Irfan Tomini Street, # 58, Tirana, Albania.

27. AL-HARAMAIN: BANGLADESH BRANCH*; House 1, Road 1, S-6, Uttara, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

28. AL-HARAMAIN: ETHIOPIA BRANCH*; Woreda District 24 Kebele Section 13, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

29. AL-HARAMAIN: THE NETHERLANDS BRANCH (Stichting Al Haramain Humanitarian Aid)*; Jan Hanzenstraat 114, 1053SV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

30. AL-HARAMAYN FOUNDATION (KENYA)*; Dadaab, Kenya; Garissa, Kenya; Nairobi, Kenya.

31. AL-HARAMAYN FOUNDATION (TANZANIA)*; P.O. Box. 3616; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Singida; Tanga.

32. AL-ITIHAAD AL-ISLAMIYA / AIAI*; Reported to operate in Somalia and Ethiopia. Leadership includes Hassan Abdullah Hersi Al-Turki (listed under permanent reference number QI.A.172.04.) and Hassan Dahir Aweys (listed under permanent reference number QI.D.42.01.).

33. AL-NUR HONEY PRESS SHOPS (Al-Nur Honey Center)*; Sanaa, Yemen. Established by Mohamed Mohamed A-Hamati from Hufash district, El Mahweet Governerate, Yemen.

34. AL-QAIDA (“The Base”; Al Qaeda; Islamic Salvation Foundation; The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites; The Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places; The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders; Usama Bin Laden Network; Usama Bin Laden Organization; Al Qa’ida; Islamic Army)*.

35. AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ (AQI; al-Tawhid; the Monotheism and Jihad Group; Qaida of the Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers; Al-Qaida of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers; The Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers; The Organization Base of Jihad/Country of the Two Rivers; The Organization Base of Jihad/Mesopotamia; Tanzim Qa’idat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn; Tanzeem Qa’idat al Jihad/Bilad al Raafidaini; Jama’at Al-Tawhid Wa’al-Jihad; JTJ; Islamic State of Iraq; ISI; al-Zarqawi network)*.

36. AL-QAIDA IN THE ARABIAN PENINSULA (AQAP) (Al-Qaida of Jihad Organization in the Arabian Peninsula; Tanzim Qa idat al-Jihad fi Jazirat al-Arab; Al-Qaida Organization in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP); Al-Qaida in the South Arabian Peninsula; Al-Qaida in Yemen (AQY)*; AQAP is a regional affiliate of Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) and an armed group operating primarily in Arabian Peninsula. Location: Yemen. Alternative location: Saudi Arabia (2004 – 2006). Formed in Jan. 2009 when Al-Qaida in Yemen combined with Saudi Arabian Al-Qaida operatives. Leader of AQAP is Nasir ‘abd-al-Karim ‘Abdullah Al-Wahishi (QI.A.274.10.) and his deputy is Said Ali Al-Shihri (QI.A.275.10.).

37. AL-SHABAAB (Al-Shabab; Shabaab; The Youth; Mujahidin Al-Shabaab Movement; Mujahideen Youth Movement; Mujahidin Youth Movement; MYM; Harakat Shabab Al-Mujahidin; Hizbul Shabaab; Hisb’ul Shabaab; Al-Shabaab Al-Islamiya; Youth Wing; Al-Shabaab Al-Islaam; Al-Shabaab Al-Jihaad; The Unity of Islamic Youth; Harakat Al-Shabaab Al-Mujaahidiin; Harakatul Shabaab Al Mujaahidiin; Mujaahidiin Youth Movement)*; Somalia.

38. AL-SHIFA, HONEY PRESS FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE*; P.O. Box 8089, Al-Hasabah, Sanaa, Yemen; By The Shrine Next To The Gas Station, Jamal Street, Ta iz, Yemen; Al- Arudh Square, Khur Maksar, Aden, Yemen; Al-Nasr Street, Doha, Qatar.

39. ANSAR AL-ISLAM (Devotees of Islam; Jund Al-Islam; Soldiers of Islam; Kurdistan Supporters of Islam; Supporters of islam in Kurdistan; Followers of Islam in Kurdistan; Kurdish Taliban; Soldiers of God; Ansar Al-Sunna Army; Jaish Ansar Al-Sunna; Ansar Al-Sunna)*; Associated with Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01.) and Al-Qaida in Iraq (QE.J.115.04). Located and primarily active in northern Iraq but maintains a presence in western and central Iraq.

40. ARMED ISLAMIC GROUP (Al Jamm’ah Al-Islamiah Al-Musallah; GIA; Groupement Islamique Arme)*; Algeria.

41. ASAT TRUST REG.*; Altenbach 8, 9490 Vaduz Fl, Liechtenstein.

42. ASBAT AL-ANSAR*; Ein el-Hilweh camp, Lebanon.

43. BA TAQWA FOR COMMERCE AND REAL ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED (Hochburg AG; c/o Asat Trust reg.)*; Vaduz, Liechtenstein; (formerly c/o Astat Trust reg.).

44. BARAKAAT BANK OF SOMALIA (Barakaat Bank of Somalia Ltd.; Baraka Bank of Somalia; Barakat Banks and Remittances)*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Reported to be owned or controlled by Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’Ale (QI.J.41.01).

45. BARAKAAT BOSTON*; 266 Neponset Avenue, Apt. 43, Dorchester, Massachusetts 02122-3224, United States of America.

46. BARAKAAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY*; P.O. Box 3313, Dubai, UAE.

47. BARAKAAT GROUP OF COMPANIES*; Mogadishu, Somalia.

48. BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL, INC.*; 1929 South 5th Street, Suite 205, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.

49. BARAKAAT NORTH AMERICA, INC.*; 925 Washington Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts, United States of America; Inc., 925 Washington Street, Dorchester, Massachusetts; 2019 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

50. BARAKAAT RED SEA TELECOMMUNICATIONS*; Bossaso, Somalia; Nakhiil, Somalia; Huruuse, Somalia; Raxmo, Somalia; Ticis, Somalia; Kowthar, Somalia; Noobir, Somalia; Bubaarag, Somalia; Gufure, Somalia; Xuuxuule, Somalia; Ala Aamin, Somalia; Guureeye, Somalia; Najax, Somalia; Carafaat, Somalia.

51. BARAKAAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. SOMALIA, LTD.*; P.O. Box 3313, Dubai, UAE. Reported to be owned or controlled by Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’Ale (QI.J.41.01).

52. BARAKAAT WIRE TRANSFER COMPANY*; 4419 South Brandon Street, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

53. BARAKAT COMPUTER CONSULTING (BCC)*.

54. BARAKAT CONSULTING GROUP (BCG)*.

55. BARAKAT GLOBAL TELEPHONE COMPANY*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

56. BARAKAT INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES (BICO)*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

57. BARAKAT POST EXPRESS (BPE)*.

58. BARAKAT REFRESHMENT COMPANY*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

59. BARAKAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED (BTELCO)*; Bakara Market, Dar Salaam Building, Mogadishu, Somalia. Office closed and defunct in the Netherlands as at Aug. 2009.

60. BARAKO TRADING COMPANY, LLC (Baraka Trading Company)*; P.O. Box 3313, Dubai, UAE. Until 23 Mar. 2009 this entity was also listed as Baraka Trading Company (QE.B.54.01). Reported to be owned or controlled by Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’Ale (QI.J.41.01).

61. BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION (Al Bir Al Dawalia; BIF-USA; Mezhdunarodnyj blagotvoritl’nyl Fond; BIF)*; 14) Tbilisi, Georgia; 15) Nazran, Ingushetia; 16) Burgemeester Kessensingel 40, Masstricht, Netherlands; 17) Stichting Benevolence International Nederland (A.K.A. Benevolence International Nederland, A.K.A. BIN). Radeborg 14B, 6228 CV Maastricht, Netherlands. Chamber of commerce registration: 14063277; 18) House 111, First Floor, Street 64, F-10/3, Islamabad, Pakistan; 19) P.O. Box 1055, Peshawar, Pakistan; 20) Azovskaya 6, km. 3, off. 401, Moscow, Russia 113149; 21) Ulitsa Oktyabr”skaya, dom. 89, Moscow, Russia 127521; 22) P.O. Box 1937, Khartoum, Sudan; 23) P.O. Box 7600, Jeddah 21472, Saudi Arabia; 24) P.O. Box 10845, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia; 25) Dushanbe, Tajikistan; 26) United Kingdom. Other locations of BIF Activities: 1) Afghanistan; 2) Bangladesh; 3) Gaza Strip; 4) Bosnia and Herzegovina; 5) Yemen; U.S. Locations: 1) 8820 Mobile Avenue, IA, Oak Lawn, Illinois, 60453 United States of America ; 2) P.O. Box 548, Worth, Illinois, 60482 United States of America; 3) (Formerly located at) 9838 S. Roberts Road, Suite 1W, Palos Hills, Illinois, 60465 United States of America; 4) (Formerly located at) 20-24 Branford Place, Suite 705, Newark, New Jersey, 07102 United States of America. Other Locations: 1) Bashir Safar Ugli 69, Baku, Azerbaijan; 2) 69 Boshir Safaroglu St., Baku, Azerbaijan; 3) Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 4) Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 5) (Last known address) 3 King Street, South Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3Z6 Canada; 6) (Last known address) P.O. Box 1508 Station 1, Mississauga, Ontario, L4Y 4G2 Canada; 7) (Last known address) 2465 Cawthra Rd., #203, Mississauga, Ontario, L5A 3P2 Canada; 8) Ottawa, Canada; 9) Grozny, Chechnya; 10) 91 Paihonggou, Lanzhou, Gansu, China 730000; 11) Hrvatov 30, 41000, Zagreb, Croatia; 12) Makhachkala, Daghestan; 13) Duisi, Georgia. Employer Identification Number (United States of America) 36-3823186.

62. BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL FUND (Benevolent International Fund)*; Locations: 1) (Last known address) 2465 Cawthra Rd., Unit 203, Mississauga, Ontario, L5A 3P2 Canada; 2) (Last known address) P.O. Box 1508, Station B, Mississauga, Ontario, L4Y 4G2 Canada; 3) (Last known address) P.O. Box 40015, 75 King Street South, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4V1 Canada; 4) (Last known address) 92 King Street, 201, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 1P5 Canada.

63. BOSANSKA IDEALNA FUTURA (BIF-Bosnia; Bosnian Ideal Future)*; 1 Kanal Street, 72000 Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 12 Salke Lagumdzije Street, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 16 Hakije Mazica Street, 72000 Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 35 Hamze Celenke Street, Ilidza, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Sehidska Street, Breza, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosanska Idealna Futura was officially registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina as an association and humanitarian organization under registry number 59. It was the legal successor of the Bosnia and Herzegovina offices of Benevolence International Foundation (listed under permanent reference number QE.B.93.02.), doing business as BECF Charitable Educational Center, Benevolence Educational Center. Bosanska Idealna Futura was no longer in existence as at Dec. 2008.

64. DJAMAT HOUMAT DAAWA SALAFIA (DHDS) (El-Ahouel; Djamaat Houmah Al-Dawah Al-Salafiat; Katibat el Ahouel)*; Located in western Algeria. A branch of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) (QE.A.6.01.) formed as a result of the break that occurred in 1996 when Afghanistan veteran Kada Benchikha Larbi decided to oppose the head of GIA. As at 1999, the group was led by Mohammed Benslim. Yahia Djouadi (QI.D.249.08) subsequently made DHDS part of the Organization of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (QE.T.14.01). Estimated in Nov. 2007 to comprise approx. 50 members. Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 30 Jul. 2009.

65. EASTERN TURKISTAN ISLAMIC MOVEMENT (the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party; the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party of Allah; Islamic Party of Turkestan; Djamaat Turkistan)*.

66. EGYPTIAN ISLAMIC JIHAD (Egyptian al-Jihad; Jihad Group; New Jihad; Al-Jihad; Egyptian Islamic Movement)*.

67. GLOBAL RELIEF FOUNDATION (GRF) (Fondation Secours Mondial (FSM); Secours Mondial de France (SEMONDE); Fondation Secours Mondial – Belgique a.s.b.l.; Fondation Secours Mondial v.z.w.; Stichting Wereldhulp – Belgie v.z.w.; Fondation Secours Mondial – Kosova; Fondation Secours Mondial “World Relief”; FSM)*; 49 rue du Lazaret, 67100 Strasebourg, France; 9935 South 76th Avenue, Unit 1, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455, United States of America; House 267 Street No. 54, Sector F – 11/4, Islamabad, Pakistan; P.O. Box 1406, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455, United States of America; P.O. Box 6, 1040 Etterbeek 2, Brussels, Belgium; Rr. Skenderbeu 76, Lagjja Sefa, Gjakova, Kosovo; Rruga e Kavajes, Building No. 3, Apartment No. 61, P.O. Box 2892, Tirana, Albania; Rue des Bataves 69, 1040 Etterbeek, Brussels, Belgium; Vaatjesstraat, 29, 2580 Putte, Belgium; Ylli Morina Road, Djakovica, Kosovo. Other Foreign Locations: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Syria. Federal Employer Identification ( United States of America): 36-3804626. V.A.T. Number: BE 454,419,759. Belgian addresses incorrect: these are the addresses of Putte et Bruxelles de l association sans but lucratif since 1998.

68. HARAKAT UL JIHAD ISLAMI (HUJI; Movement of Islamic Holy War; Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami; Harkat-al-Jihad-ul Islami; Harkat-ul-Jehad-al Islami; Harakat ul Jihad-e-Islami; Harakat-ul-Ansar; HUA)*; Was established in Afganistan in 1980. In 1993, Harakat-ul Jihad Islami merged with Harakat ul-Mujahidin to from Harakat ul-Ansar. In 1997, Harakat-ul Jihad Islami split from Harakat ul-Ansar and resumed using its former name. Operations are in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

69. HARAKAT UL-MUJAHIDIN / HUM (al-Faran; Al-Hadid; Al-Hadith; Harakat ul-Ansar; HUA; Harakat ul-Mujahideen)*.

70. HEYATUL ULYA*.

71. INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC RELIEF ORGANIZATION, INDONESIA, BRANCH OFFICE (International Islamic Relief Agency; International Relief Organization; Islamic Relief Organization; Islamic World Relief; International Islamic Aid Organization; Islamic Salvation Committee; The Human Relief Committee of the Muslim League; World Islamic Relief Organization; Al Igatha Al-Islamiya; Hayat al-Aghatha al-Islamia al-Alamiya; Hayat al-Igatha; Hayat Al-’Igatha; Ighatha; Igatha; Igassa; Igasa; Igase; Egassa; IIRO)*; International Islamic Relief Organization, Indonesia Office; Jalan Raya Cipinang Jaya No. 90; East Jakarta, 13410, Indonesia; P.O. Box 3654; Jakarta 54021, Indonesia.

72. INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC RELIEF ORGANIZATION, PHILIPPINES, BRANCH OFFICES (International Islamic Relief Agency; International Relief Organization; Islamic Relief Organization; Islamic World Relief; International Islamic Aid Organization; Islamic Salvation Committee; The Human Relief Committee of the Muslim League; World Islamic Relief Organization; Al Igatha Al-Islamiya; Hayat al-Aghatha al-Islamia al-Alamiya; Hayat al-Igatha; Hayat Al-’Igatha; Ighatha; Igatha; Igassa; Igasa; Igase; Egassa; IIRO)*; Basilan, Philippines; Cotabato City, Philippines; International Islamic Relief Organization, Philippines Office; 201 Heart Tower Building; 108 Valero Street; Salcedo Village, Makati City; Manila, Philippines; Marawi City, Philippines; Tawi Tawi, Philippines; Zamboanga City, Philippines.

73. ISLAMIC ARMY OF ADEN*.

74. ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL BRIGADE (IIB) (The Islamic Peacekeeping Brigade; The Islamic Peacekeeping Army; The International Brigade; Islamic Peacekeeping Battalion; Islamic Peacekeeping International Brigade; International Battalion)*.

75. ISLAMIC JIHAD GROUP (Jama’at al-Jihad; Jamiyat; Libyan Society; Kazakh Jama’at; Jamaat Mojahedin; Jamiat al-Jihad al-Islami; Dzhamaat Modzhakhedov; Islamic Jihad Group of Uzbekistan; al-Djihad al-Islami; Zamaat Modzhakhedov Tsentralnoy Asii; Islamic Jihad Union)*.

76. ISLAMIC MOVEMENT OF UZBEKISTAN (IMU)*.

77. JAISH-I-MOHAMMED (Army of Moammed)*; Pakistan.

78. JAM’YAH TA’AWUN AL-ISLAMIA (Society of Islamic Cooperation; Jam’iyat al Ta’awun al Islamiyya; Jit)*; Qandahar City, Afghanistan.

79. JEMAAH ISLAMIYAH (Jema’ah Islamiyah; Jemaah Islamiya; Jemaah Islamiah; Jamaah Islamiyah; Jama’ah Islamiyah)*; The network in South-East Asia. Founded by the late Abdullah Sungkar.

80. LAJNAT AL DAAWA AL ISLAMIYA (LDI)*.

81. LASHKAR I JHANGVI (LJ)*.

82. LASHKAR-E-TAYYIBA (Lashkar-e-Toiba; Lashkar-i-Taiba; Army of the Righteous; Al Mansoorian; Al Mansooreen; Army of the Pure; Army of the Pure and Righteous; LET; Pasban-e-Kashmir; Paasban-I-Ahle-Hadith; Paasban-e-Kashmir; Pasban-e-Ahle-Hadith; Paasban-e-Ahle-Hadis; Pashan-e-ahle-Hadis; Lashkar e Tayyaba; Jamaat-ud-Dawa; JUD; Jama,at al-Dawa; Jamaat ud-Daawa; Jamaat ul-Dawah; Jamaat-ul-Dawa; Jama,at-i-Dawat; Jamaiat-ud-Dawa; Jama,at-ud-Da,awah; Jama,at-ud-Da,awa; Jamaati-ud-Dawa)*.

83. LIBYAN ISLAMIC FIGHTING GROUP (LIFG)*.

84. MAKHTAB AL-KHIDAMAT (MAK; Al Kifah)*.

85. MAMOUN DARKAZANLI IMPORT-EXPORT COMPANY (Darkazanli Company; Darkazanli Export-Import Sonderposten)*; Uhlenhorsterweg 34 11 Hamburg, Germany.

86. MOROCCAN ISLAMIC COMBATANT GROUP (Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain; GICM)*.

87. MOVEMENT FOR REFORM IN ARABIA (Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia; MIRA; Al Islah (Reform); MRA; Al-Harakat al-Islamiyah lil-Islah; Islamic Movement for Reform; Movement for (Islamic) Reform in Arabia Ltd; Movement for Reform in Arabia Ltd)*;BM Box: MIRA, London WC1N 3XX, United Kingdom; Safiee Suite, EBC House, Townsend Lane, London, NW 9 8LL, United Kingdom. Email address: info@islah.org, Tel: 020 8452 0303, Fax: 020 8452 0808, UK Company number 03834450.

88. NADA INTERNATIONAL ANSTALT*; Vaduz, Liechtenstein; (formerly c/o Asat Trust reg.). Liquidated and deleted from Commercial Registry.

89. PARKA TRADING COMPANY*; P.O. Box 3313, Deira, Dubai, UAE.

90. RABITA TRUST*; Room 9a, 2nd Floor, Wahdat Road, Education Town, Lahore, Pakistan; Wares Colony, Lahore, Pakistan.

91. RAJAH SOLAIMAN MOVEMENT (Rajah Solaiman Islamic Movement; Rajah Solaiman Revolutionary Movement)*;Barangay Mal-Ong, Anda, Pangasinan Province, Philippines; Number 50, Purdue Street, Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines; Sitio Dueg, Barangay Maasin, San Clemente, Tarlac Province, Philippines. Had its office at the Fi-Sabilillah Da’awa and Media Foundation Incorporated at number 50, Purdue Street, Cubao, Quezon City, which is also the residence of the entity’s founder, Hilarion Del Rosario Santos III (listed under permanent reference number QI.S.244.08.). Associated with the Abu Sayyaf Group (listed under permanent reference number QE.A.1.01.) and Jemaah Islamiyah (listed under permanent reference number QE.J.92.02.) including explosives training and other support for terrorist attacks in the Philippines in 2004 and 2005. Received funding from the International Islamic Relief Organization, Philippines, branch offices (listed under permanent reference number QE.I.126.06.) through Khadafi Abubakar Janjalani (listed under permanent reference number QI.J.180.04.).

92. RED SEA BARAKAT COMPANY LIMITED*; Bakaara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

93. REVIVAL OF ISLAMIC HERITAGE SOCIETY (Jamiat Ihia Al-Turath Al-Islamiya; Revival of Islamic Society Heritage on the African Continent; Jamia Ihya ul Turath; RIHS)*;Afghanistan; Pakistan. NOTE: Only the Pakistan and Afghanistan offices of this entity are hereby designated.

94. RIYADUS-SALIKHIN RECONNAISSANCE AND SABOTAGE BATTALION OF CHECHEN MARTYRS (RSRSBCM) (Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion; Riyadh-as-Saliheen; The Sabotage and Military Surveillance Group of the Riyadh al-Salihin Martyrs; Firqat al-Takhrib wa al-Istitla al-Askariyah li Shuhada Riyadh al-Salihin; Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage battalion of Shahids (martyrs)*.

95. SANABEL RELIEF AGENCY LIMITED (Sanabel Relief Agency; Sanabel L’il-Igatha; SRA; Sara; Al-Rahama Relief Foundation Limited)*; 1011 Stockport Rd, Levenshulme, Manchester M9 2TB, United Kingdom; 54 Anson Road, London, NW2 6AD, United Kingdom; 63 South Rd, Sparkbrook, Birmingham B 111 EX, United Kingdom; 98 Gresham Road, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; P.O. Box 50, Manchester M19 25P, United Kingdom. Charity number: 1083469. Registration number: 3713110. Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 28 Sep. 2009.

96. SOMALI INTERNATIONAL RELIEF ORGANIZATION*; 1806 Riverside Avenue, 2nd Floor, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.

97. SOMALI INTERNET COMPANY*.

98. SOMALI NETWORK AB*; Hallybybacken 15, 70 Spanga, Sweden.

99. SPECIAL PURPOSE ISLAMIC REGIMENT (SPIR) (The Islamic Special Purpose Regiment; The al-Jiahad-Fisi-Sabililah Special Islamic Regiment; Islamic Regiment of Special Meaning)*.

100. TAIBAH INTERNATIONAL-BOSNIA OFFICES (Taibah International Aid Agency; Taibah International Aid Association; Al Taibah, Intl; Taibah International Aide Association)*; 26 Tabhanska Street, Visoko, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 3 Velika Cilna Ulica, Visoko, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 6 Avde Smajlovica Street, Novo Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2002-2004, Taibah International – Bosnia offices used premises of the Culture Home in Hadzici, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The organization was officially registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a branch of Taibah International Aid Association under registry number 7. Taibah International – Bosnia offices ceased its work by decision of the Ministry of Justice of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation (decision on cessation of operation number 03-05-2-70/03).

101. THE ORGANIZATION OF AL-QAIDA IN THE ISLAMIC MAGHREB (Le Groupe Salafiste Pour La Prediction et Le Combat; Salafist Group For Call and Combat)*; Estimated in Nov. 2007 to comprise approx. 700 members regrouped in cells in Algeria and northern Mali. Its Emir is Abdelmalek Droukdel (listed under permanent reference number QI.D.232.07.).

102. TUNISIAN COMBATANT GROUP (Groupe Combattant Tunisien; Groupe Islamiste Combattant Tunisien; GICT)*.

103. UMMAH TAMEER E-NAU (UTN)*; Street 13, Wazir Akbar Khan, Kabul, Afghanistan; Pakistan.

104. WAFA HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (Al Wafa; Al Wafa Organization; Wafa Al-Igatha al-Islamia)*; Jordan House No. 125, Street 54, Phase II Hayatabad, Peshawar, Pakistan.Offices in: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE.

Физические лица [Individuals]

1. ABD AL HAMID SULAIMAN AL-MUJIL (Dr. Abd al-Hamid Al-Mujal; Dr. Abd Abdul-Hamid bin Sulaiman Al-Mu’jil; Abd al-Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mu’jil; Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Mu’ajjal; Abd al-Hamid Mu’jil; A.S. Mujel; Abu Abdallah; Abdulhamid Sulaiman M.Al Mojil)*; 28.04.1949 г.р., Kuwait. DOB: 29.04.1949.

2. ABD AL WAHAB ABD AL HAFIZ (Ferdjani Mouloud; Rabah Di Roma; Mourad; Abdel Wahab Abdelhafid; Said)*; 07.09.1967 г.р., Algiers, Algeria (30.10.1968 г.р., Algeria).

3. ABD AL-RAHMAN MUHAMMAD JAFFAR ‘ALI (Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Jaffir; Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Jafir ‘Ali; Abd al-Rahman Jaffir Ali; Abdul Rahman Mohamed Jaffer Ali; Abdulrahman Mohammad Jaffar; ‘Ali Al-Khal; Abu Muhammad Al-Khal)*; 15.01.1968 г.р., Muharraq, Bahrain.

4. ABD ALLAH MOHAMED RAGAB ABDEL RAHMAN (Abu Al-Khayr; Ahmad Hasan; Abu Jihad)*; 03.11.1957 г.р., Kafr Al-Shaykh, Egypt.

5. ABD EL KADER MAHMOUD MOHAMED EL SAYED (Es Sayed Kader)*; 26.12.1962 г.р., Egypt.

6. ABD-AL-MAJID AZIZ AL-ZINDANI (Abdelmajid Al-Zindani; Shaykh ‘Abd Al-Madjid Al-Zindani; Sheikh Abd Al-Meguid Al-Zindani)*; 1942 г.р., Yemen DOB: Approximately 1950.

7. ABDELGHANI MZOUDI (Abdelghani Mazwati; Abdelghani Mazuti)*; 06.12.1972 г.р., Marrakesh, Morocco.

8. ABDELHADI BEN DEBKA (Abd Al Hadi; Hadi; L’Hadi Bendebka; El Hadj Ben Debka)*; 17.11.1963 г.р., Algiers, Algeria.

9. ABDELHALIM HAFED ABDELFATTAH REMADNA (Abdelhalim Remadna; Jalloul)*; 02.04.1966 г.р., Biskra, Algeria.

10. ABDELKADER LAAGOUB*; 23.04.1966 г.р., Casablanca, Morocco.

11. ABDELMALEK DROUKDEL (Abou Mossaab Abdelouadoud)*; 20.04.1970 г.р., Meftah, Wilaya of Blida, Algeria.

12. ABDERRAHMANE KIFANE*; 07.03.1963 г.р., Casablanca, Morocco.

13. ABDUL BAQI*; 1962 г.р., Jalalabad city, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

14. ABDUL BARI AKHUND (Haji Mullah Sahib)*; 1953 г.р., Helmand province, Afghanistan.

15. ABDUL GHAFAR QURISHI (Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi)*.

16. ABDUL GHAFAR SHINWARY*; 29.03.1965 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

17. ABDUL GHAFOOR*; Kunar province, Afghanistan.

18. ABDUL GHANI BARADAR (Mullah Baradar Akhund)*; 1968 г.р., Weetmak villag, Dehrawood district, Uruzgan province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1968.

19. ABDUL HAI HAZEM*; 1971 г.р., Ghazni.

20. ABDUL HAKIM MUJAHID MUHAMMAD AWRANG (Abdul Hakim Mojahed; Abdul Hakim Mujahid Moh Aurang)*; 1956 г.р., Khajakhel village, Sharan district, Paktika province, Afghanistan.

21. ABDUL HAKIM MURAD (Murad abdul Hakim Hasim; Murad Abdul Hakim Ali Hashim; Murad Abdul Hakim Al Hashim; Saeed Akman; Saeed Ahmed)*; 04.01.1968 г.р., Kuwait.

22. ABDUL HAQ (Maimaitiming Maimaiti; Abdul Heq; Abuduhake; Abdulheq Jundullah; ‘Abd Al-Haq; Memetiming Memeti; Memetiming Aximu; Memetiming Qekeman; Maiumaitimin Maimaiti; Abdul Saimaiti; Muhammad Ahmed Khaliq; Maimaiti Iman; Muhelisi; Qerman; Saifuding)*; 10.10.1971 г.р., Chele County, Khuttan Area, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China.

23. ABDUL JABBAR OMARI*; Zabul, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958.

24. ABDUL JALIL HAQQANI (Nazar Jan)*; 1963 г.р., Arghandaab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

25. ABDUL KABIR MOHAMMAD JAN (A. Kabir)*; 1963 г.р., Zardran tribe, Paktja province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

26. ABDUL LATIF MANSUR (Abdul Latif Mansoor)*; 1968 г.р., Zurmat district, Paktia province, Afghanistan.

27. ABDUL LATIF SALEH (Abdul Latif A.A. Saleh; Abdyl Latif Saleh; Dr. Abd al-Latif Saleh; Abdul Latif A.A. Saleh Abu Hussein; Abd al-Latif Salih; Abu Amir)*; 05.03.1957 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq.

28. ABDUL MANAF KASMURI (Muhammad Al-Filipini; Intan)*; 28.05.1955 г.р., Selangor, Malaysia.

29. ABDUL MANAN*.

30. ABDUL MANAN NYAZI (Abdul Manan Nayazi; Abdul Manan Niazi; Baryaly; Baryalai)*; 1968 г.р., Pashtoon Zarghoon district, Herat province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1968.

31. ABDUL QADEER ABDUL BASEER*; 1964 г.р., Nangarhar, Afghanistan.

32. ABDUL RAHIM AL-TALHI ( Abdul-Rahim Hammad al-Talhi; Abd Al-Rahim Hamad al-Tahi; Abdulrheem Hammad A Altalhi; Abe Al-Rahim al-Talahi; Abd Al-Rahim Al Tahli; Abd al-Rahim al-Talhi; Abdulrahim Al Tahi; Abdulrahim al-Talji; Abd-Al-Rahim al Talji; Abdul Rahim; Abu Al Bara a Al Naji; Shuwayb Junayd; Abdul Rahim Hammad Ahmad Al-Talhi)*; 08.12.1961 г.р., Al-Shefa, Al-Taif, Saudi Arabia.

33. ABDUL RAHMAN AGHA*; 1958 г.р., Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

34. ABDUL RAHMAN AHMAD HOTTAK (Hottak Sahib)*; 1957 г.р., Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

35. ABDUL RAHMAN YASIN (Taha Abdul Rahman S.; Taher Abdul Rahman S.; Yasin Abdul Rahman Said; Yasin Aboud)*; 10.04.1960 г.р., Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America.

36. ABDUL RAHMAN ZAHED (Abdul Rehman Zahid)*; Logar province, Kharwar district, Afghanistan; Between 1963 and 1968.

37. ABDUL RAQIB TAKHARI*; Takhar province, Afghanistan; DOB: Between 1968 and 1973.

38. ABDUL RAUF KHADEM*; Uruzgan/Kandahar, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958-1963.

39. ABDUL RAZAQ*; 1958 г.р., Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

40. ABDUL RAZAQ AKHUND LALA AKHUND*; 1958 г.р., Spin Boldak District, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, in the area bordering Chaman district, Quetta, Pakistan.

41. ABDUL SALAM HANAFI ALI MARDAN QUL (Abdussalam Hanifi; Hanafi Saheb)*; 1968 г.р., Darzab district, Faryab district, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1968.

42. ABDUL SALAM ZAEEF (Abdussalam Zaeef)*; 1968 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

43. ABDUL SAMAD KHAKSAR*; Kandahar, Afghanistan DOB: Between 1958 and 1963.

44. ABDUL SATAR PAKTIN (Abdul Sattar Paktis)*; Paktia, Afghanistan.

45. ABDUL WAHAB*; 1973 г.р., Faryab province, Afghanistan.

46. ABDUL WAHED SHAFIQ*; 1968 г.р., Ningarhar province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1968.

47. ABDUL WASAY MU’TASIM AGHA (Mustasim Aga Jan; Agha Jan; Abdul Wasay Agha Jan Motasem)*; 1968 г.р., Kandahar city, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1968.

48. ABDUL-HAQ WASSIQ (Abdul-Haq Wasseq)*; 1975 г.р., Central Ghazni province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1975.

49. ABDULHAI MOTMAEN*; Zabul province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1973.

50. ABDULHAI SALEK*.

51. ABDULLAH AHMED ABDULLAH EL ALFI (Abu Mariam; Al-Masri Abu Mohamed; Saleh)*; 06.06.1963 г.р., Gharbia, Egypt.

52. ABDULLAH ANSHORI (Abu Fatih; Thoyib Ibnu; Toyib Ibnu; Abu Fathi)*; 1958 г.р., Pacitan, East Java, Indonesia.

53. ABDULLAH HAMAD*; 1972 г.р., Helmand, Afghanistan.

54. ABDULLAHI HUSSEIN KAHIE*.

55. ABID HAMMADOU (Abdelhamid Abou Zeid; Youcef Adel; Abou Abdellah)*; 12.12.1965 г.р., Touggourt, Wilaya (province) of Ouargla, Algeria.

56. ABU BAKAR BA’ASYIR (Baasyir Abu Bakar; Bashir Abu Bakar; Abdus Samad; Abdus Somad)*; 17.08.1938 г.р., Jombang, East Java, Indonesia.

57. ABU BAKR AL-JAZIRI (Yasir Al-Jazari)*.

58. ABU RUSDAN (Abu Thoriq; Rusdjan; Rusjan; Rusydan; Thoriquddin; Thoriquiddin; Thoriquidin; Toriquddin)*; 16.08.1960 г.р., Kudus, Central Java, Indonesia.

59. ABU SUFIAN AL-SALAMABI MUHAMMED AHMED ABD AL-RAZZIQ (Abousofian Abdelrazek; Abousofian Salman Abdelrazik; Abousofian Abdelrazik; Abousofiane Abdelrazik; Sofian Abdelrazik; Abou El Layth; Aboulail; Abu Juiriah; Abu Sufian; Abulail; Djolaiba the Sudanese; Jolaiba; Ould El Sayeigh; Abu Sufian Abd Al Razeq)*; 06.08.1962 г.р., Al-Bawgah (Albaouga), Sudan.

60. ADEL ABDUL JALIL IBRAHIM BATTERJEE (Adil Al-Battarjee; Adel Batterjee; Adil Abd al Jalil Batarji; Adel AbdulJaleel I. Batterjee)*; 01.07.1946 г.р., Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. DOB: 01.06.1946.

61. ADEL BEN AL-AZHAR BEN YOUSSEF BEN SOLTANE (Zakariya)*; 14.07.1970 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

62. ADEM YILMAZ (Talha)*; 04.11.1978 г.р., Bayburt, Turkey.

63. ADIL MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ABD AL-KHALIQ (Adel Mohamed Mahmoud Abdul Khaliq; Adel Mohamed Mahmood Abdul Khaled)*; 02.03.1984 г.р., Bahrain.

64. AGHA JAN ALIZAI (Haji Agha Jan Alizai; Hajji Agha Jan; Agha Jan Alazai; Haji Loi Lala; Loi Agha)*; 15.10.1963 г.р., Hitemchai Village, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

65. AGUS DWIKARNA*; 11.08.1964 г.р., Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia.

66. AHMAD JAN AKHUNDZADA SHUKOOR AKHUNDZADA (Ahmad Jan Akhunzada; Ahmad Jan Akhund Zada)*; Uruzgan province, Afghanistan.

67. AHMAD ZERFAOUI (Abdullah; Abdalla; Smail; Abu Khaoula; Abu Cholder; Nuhr)*; 15.07.1963 г.р., Chrea, Algeria.

68. AHMADULLAH (Ahmadulla)*; 1975 г.р., Qarabah district, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1975.

69. AHMED ABDI AW-MOHAMED (Abu Zubeyr, Muktar Abdirahman; Abuzubair, Muktar Abdulrahim; Aw Mohammed, Ahmed Abdi; Aw-Mohamud, Ahmed Abdi; Godane; Godani; Mukhtar, Shaykh; Zubeyr, Abu)*; 10.07.1977 г.р., Hargeysa, Somalia.

70. AHMED DEGHDEGH (Abd El Illah)*; 17.01.1967 г.р., Anser, Wilaya (province) of Jijel, Algeria.

71. AHMED EL BOUHALI (Abu Katada)*; 31.05.1963 г.р., Sidi Kacem, Morocco (31.05.1963 г.р., Sidi Kacem, Morocco).

72. AHMED HOSNI RARRBO (Rarrbo Abdallah; Rarrbo Abdullah; Rarrbo Ahmed Hosni)*; 12.09.1974 г.р., Bologhine, Algeria (12.09.1974 г.р., France).

73. AHMED JAN AKHUND*; Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1953-1958.

74. AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI (Ahmad Abu Bakr; Ahmed Abubakar; Ahmed Abubakar K.; Ahmed Abubakar Khalfan; Ahmed Abubakary K.; Ahmed Ahmed Khalfan; Ghailani Abubakary Khalfan Ahmed; Ghailani Ahmed; Ghilani Ahmad Khalafan; Hussein Mahafudh Abubakar Ahmed Abdallah; Khalfan Ahmed; Mohammed Shariff Omar; Ahmed The Tanzanian; Foopie; Fupi; Ahmed A; Al Tanzani Ahmad; Bakr Abu; Khabar Abu; Ali Ahmed Khalfan; Haytham al-Kini)*; 14.03.1974 г.р., Zanzibar, Tanzania. Возможно г.р.: 13.04.1974, 14.04.1974, 01.08.1970.

75. AHMED MOHAMMED HAMED ALI (Abdurehman Ahmed Mohammed; Ahmed Hamed; Ali Ahmed Mohammed; Ali Hamed; Hemed Ahmed; Shieb Ahmed; Abu Fatima; Abu Islam; Abu Khadiijah; Ahmed The Egyptian; Ahmed Ahmed; Al-Masri Ahmad; Al-Surir Abu Islam; Shuaib)*; 13.01.1967 г.р., Badari, Asyout, Egypt.

76. AIMAN MUHAMMED RABI AL-ZAWAHIRI (Ayman Al-Zawahari; Ahmed Fuad Salim; Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi Abdel Muaz; Al Zawahiri Ayman; Abdul Qader Abdul Aziz Abdul Moez Al Doctor; Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi; Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabie; Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Robi; Dhawahri Ayman; Eddaouahiri Ayman; Nur Al Deen Abu Mohammed; Abu Fatma; Abu Mohammed; Ayman Al Zawahari; Ahmad Fuad Salim)*; 19.06.1951 г.р., Giza, Egypt.

77. AKHTAR MOHAMMAD MANSOUR SHAH MOHAMMED (Akhtar Mohammad Mansour Khan Muhammad; Akhtar Muhammad Mansoor; Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor)*; 1960 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan; Kalanko Joftian, Zurmat district, Paktia province, Afghanistan.

78. AKHTAR MOHAMMAD MAZ-HARI*; 1970 г.р., Kunduz, Afghanistan.

79. AKRAM TURKI HISHAN AL-MAZIDIH (Akram Turki Al-Hishan; Abu Jarrah; Abu Akram)*; 1974 г.р., DOB: a) 1974 b) 1975.

80. AL SAYYID AHMED FATHI HUSSEIN ELIWAH (Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Eliwa; Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Alaiwah; Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Elaiwa; Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Elewah; Al Sayyid Ahmed Fathi Hussein Alaywah; El Sayed Ahmad Fathi Hussein Elaiwa; Hatim; Hisham; Abu Umar)*; 30.07.1964 г.р., Suez; Alexandria, Egypt. Возможно 30.01.1964г.р.

81. AL-AZHAR BEN KHALIFA BEN AHMED ROUINE (Salmane; Lazhar)*; 20.11.1975 г.р., Sfax, Tunisia.

82. AL-AZHAR BEN MOHAMMED BEN EL-ABED AL-TLILI (Lazar Ben Mohammed Tlili)*; 26.03.1969 г.р., Feriana, Al-Kasrain, Tunisia.

83. AL-MOKHTAR BEN MOHAMED BEN AL-MOKHTAR BOUCHOUCHA (Bushusha Mokhtar)*; 13.10.1969 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

84. ALI ABBAS ABDI*.

85. ALI AHMED NUR JIM’ALE (Ahmed Ali Jimale; Ahmad Nur Ali Jim’ale; Ahmed Nur Jumale; Ahmed Ali Jumali; Ahmed Ali Jumale; Sheikh Ahmed Jimale)*; 1954 г.р., Eilbur, Somalia.

86. ALI GHALEB HIMMAT*; 16.06.1938 г.р., Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

87. ALI MOHAMED EL HEIT (Kamel Mohamed; Alм Di Roma; Kamel Mohamed; Ali Il Barbuto)*; 20.03.1970 г.р., Rouiba, Algeria (30.01.1971 г.; 20.03.1970 г.р., Algeria).

88. ALI SAYYID MUHAMED MUSTAFA BAKRI (Ali Salim; Abd Al-Aziz; Al-Masri)*; 18.04.1966 г.р., Beni- Suef.

89. ALLAH DAD TAYEB WALI MUHAMMAD (Allah Dad Tayyab; Allah Dad Tabeeb)*; 1963 г.р., Kandahar city, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1963.

90. ALLAHDAD (Akhund)*; 1953 г.р., Spinboldak district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1953.

91. ALY SOLIMAN MASSOUD ABDUL SAYED (Ibn El Qaim; Mohamed Osman; adam)*; 1969 г.р., Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

92. AMIN MUHAMMAD UL HAQ SAAM KHAN (Al-Haq Amin; Amin Muhammad; Dr. Amin; Ul-Haq Dr. Amin)*; 1960 г.р., Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan.

93. AMINULLAH AMIN*.

94. AMIR ABDULLAH (Amir Abdullah Sahib)*; 1972 г.р., Paktika Province, Afghanistan.

95. AMIR KHAN MOTAQI (Amir Khan Muttaqi)*; Helmand province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1968.

96. AMRAN MANSOR (Henry)*; 25.05.1964 г.р., Johor, Malaysia.

97. ANGELO RAMIREZ TRINIDAD (Calib Trinidad; Kalib Trinidad; Abdul Khalil; Abdukahlil; Abu Khalil; Anis)*; 20.03.1978 г.р., Gattaran, Cagayan Province, Philippines.

98. ANWAR NASSER ABDULLA AL-AULAQI (Anwar al-Aulaqi; Anwar al-Awlaki; Anwar al-Awlaqi; Anwar Nasser Aulaqi; Anwar Nasser Abdullah Aulaqi; Anwar Nasser Abdulla Aulaqi)*; 21.04.1971 г.р., Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States of America. DOB: 22 Apr. 1971.

99. AQEEL ABDULAZIZ AQEEL AL-AQEEL (Aqeel Abdulaziz Al-Aqil; Ageel Abdulaziz A. Alageel)*; 29.04.1949 г.р., Unaizah, Saudi Arabia.

100. AREFULLAH AREF*; 1958 г.р., Zurmat district, Paktia province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958.

101. ARIF QASMANI (Muhammad Arif Qasmani; Muhammad ‘Arif Qasmani; Mohammad Arif Qasmani; Arif Umer; Qasmani Baba; Memon Baba; Baba Ji)*; 1944 г.р., Pakistan DOB: Approximately 1944.

102. ARIS MUNANDAR*; 01.01.1971 г.р., Sambi, Boyolali, Java, Indonesia. Дата рождения между 1962 и 1968 годами.

103. ARSALAN RAHMANI MOHAMMAD DAULAT (Arsala Rahmani)*; 1941 г.р., Khaleqdad village, Urgon district, Paktika province, Afghanistan.

104. ASCHRAF AL-DAGMA (Aschraf Al-Dagma; Aschraf Al Dagma; Aschraf Al Dagma; Aschraf Al Dagma)*; 28.04.1969 г.р., Absan, Gaza Strip, Palestinian Territories (28.04.1969 г.р., Kannyouiz, Palestinian Territories; 28.04.1969 г.р., Gaza Strip, Palestinian Territories; 28.04.1969 г.р., Palestinian Territories; 28.04.1969 г.р., Abasan, Gaza Strip).

105. ATA ABDOULAZIZ RASHID (Ata Abdoul Aziz Barzingy; Abdoulaziz Ata Rashid)*; 01.12.1973 г.р., Sulaimaniya, Iraq (01.12.1973 г.р.).

106. ATILLA SELEK (Muaz)*; 28.02.1985 г.р., Ulm, Germany.

107. ATIQULLAH*.

108. ATTIQULLAH AKHUND*; 1953 г.р., Shawali Kott district, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

109. AWEYS DAHIR UBEIDULLAHI*.

110. AZIZIRAHMAN*.

111. BADRUDDIN HAQQANI*; Approximately 1975-1979.

112. BASHIR MOHAMED MAHAMOUD (Bashir Mohamed Mahmoud; Bashir Mahmud Mohammed; Bashir Mohamed Mohamud; Bashir Mohamed Mohamoud; Bashir Yare; Bashir Qorgab; Gure Gap; Abu Muscab; Qorgab)*; 1982 г.р., DOB: Circa 1979-1982.

113. BEKKAY HARRACH (Abu Talha al Maghrabi; al Hafidh Abu Talha der Deutsche (“the German”)*; 04.09.1977 г.р., Berkane, Morocco.

114. BILAL BIN MARWAN*; 1947 г.р.

115. CHABAANE BEN MOHAMED BEN MOHAMED AL-TRABELSI (Chabaane Ben Mohamed Trabelsi)*; 01.05.1966 г.р., Menzel Temime, Nabeul, Tunisia.

116. CHIHEB BEN MOHAMED BEN MOKHTAR AL-AYARI (Hichem Abu Hchem)*; 19.12.1965 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

117. DAKI MOHAMMED*; 29.03.1965 г.р., Morocco.

118. DANIEL MARTIN SCHNEIDER (Abdullah)*; 09.09.1985 г.р., Neunkirchen (Saar), Germany.

119. DAWOOD IBRAHIM KASKAR (Dawood Ebrahim; Sheikh Dawood Hassan; Hizrat; Abdul Hamid Abdul Aziz; Anis Ibrahim; Aziz Dilip; Daud Hasan Shaikh Ibrahim Kaskar; Daud Ibrahim Memon Kaskar; Dawood Ibrahim Memon; Dawood Sabri; Kaskar Dawood Hasan; Shaikh Mohd Ismail Abdul Rehman; Dowood Hassan Shaikh Ibrahim; Ibrahim Shaikh Mohd Anis; Shaikh Ismail Abdul)*; 26.12.1955 г.р., a) Bombai b) Ratnagiri, India.

120. DHOU EL-AICH (Abdel Hak)*; 05.08.1964 г.р., Blida, Algeria.

121. DIEMAN ABDULKADIR IZZAT (Deiman Alhasenben Ali Aljabbari)*; 04.07.1965 г.р., Kirkuk, Iraq (04.07.1965 г.).

122. DIN MOHAMMAD HANIF (Qari Din Mohammad)*; 1955 г.р., Badakhshan province, Afghanistan.

123. DINNO AMOR ROSALEJOS PAREJA (Johnny Pareja; Khalil Pareja; Mohammad; Akmad; Mighty; Rash)*; 19.07.1981 г.р., Cebu City, Philippines.

124. DJAMEL LOUNICI (Jamal Lounici)*; 01.02.1962 г.р., Algiers, Algeria.

125. DJAMEL MOUSTFA (Ali Barkani; Kalad Belkasam; Mostafa Djamel; Mostefa Djamel; Mustafa Djamel; Balkasam Kalad; Bekasam Kalad; Belkasam Kalad; Damel Mostafa; Djamal Mostafa; Djamal Mostafa; Djamel Mostafa; Djamel Mostafa; Fjamel Moustfa; Djamel Mustafa; Djamel Mustafa; Mustafa)*; 28.09.1973 г.р., Tiaret, Algeria (22.08.1973 г.р., Morocco; 31.12.1979 г.; 31.12.1979 г.р., Maskara, Algeria; 26.09.1973 г.р., Mahdia, Algeria; 31.12.1979 г.р., Mascara, Algeria; 26.08.1973 г.р., Algiers, Algeria; 26.08.1973 г.р., Algiers, Algeria; 26.08.1973 г.р., Algiers, Algeria; 31.12.1979 г.р., Algiers, Algeria; 31.12.1979 г.р., Maskara, Algeria; 10.06.1982 г.; 31.12.1979 г.р., Maskara, Algeria; 31.12.1979 г.р., Algiers, Algeria; 28.09.1973 г.р., Tiaret, Algeria; 31.12.1979 г.; 31.12.1979 г.р., Mascara, Algeria).

126. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV*; 12.05.1964 г.р., Kharsenoy Village, Shatoyskiy (Sovetskiy) District, Chechenskaya Respublika, Russian Federation.

127. DOST MOHAMMAD (Doost Mohammad)*; Daman district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan DOB: Between 1968 and 1973.

128. EHSANULLAH SARFIDA*; Qarabagh district, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

129. EZATULLAH HAQQANI*; 1957 г.р., Laghman province, Afghanistan.

130. FAHD MOHAMMED AHMED AL-QUSO (Fahd al-Quso; Fahd Mohammed Ahmen al-Quso; Abu Huthaifah; Abu Huthaifah al-Yemeni; Abu Huthaifah al-Adani; Abu al-Bara; Abu Huthayfah al-Adani; Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Awlaqi; Huthaifah al-Yemeni; Abu Huthaifah al-Abu al-Bara; Fahd Muhammad Ahmad al-Kuss)*; 12.11.1974 г.р., Aden, Yemen.

131. FAHD MUHAMMAD ABD AL- AZIZ AL-KHASHIBAN (Fahad H. A. Khashayban; Fahad H. A. al-Khashiban; Fahad H. A. Kheshaiban; Fahad H. A. Kheshayban; Fahad H. A. al-Khosiban; Fahad H. A. Khasiban; Fahd Muhammad Abd Al- Aziz al-Khashayban; Fahd Muhammad Abd al- Aziz al-Khushayban; Fahad al-Khashiban; Fahd Khushaiban; Fahad Muhammad A. al-Khoshiban; Fahad Mohammad A. al-Khoshiban; Abu Thabit; Shaykh Abu Thabit; Shaykh Thabet; Abu Abdur Rahman; Abdur Abu Rahman; Fahad Mohammad Abdulaziz Alkhoshiban)*; 16.10.1966 г.р., Oneiza, Saudi Arabia.

132. FAHID MOHAMMED ALLY MSALAM (Fahid Mohammed Ally; Fahad Ally Msalam; Fahid Mohammed Ali Msalam; Mohammed Ally Msalam; Fahid Mohammed Ali Musalaam; Fahid Muhamad Ali Salem; Usama Al-Kini; Fahid Mohammed Aly; Ahmed Fahad; Ali Fahid Mohammed; Fahad Mohammad Ally; Fahad Mohammed Ally; Fahid Mohamed Ally; Msalam Fahad Mohammed Ally; Msalam Fahid Mohammad Ally; Msalam Fahid Mohammed Ali; Msalm Fahid Mohammed Ally; Mohammed Ally Mohammed; Ally Fahid M)*; 19.02.1976 г.р., Mombasa, Kenya.

133. FAIZ*; 1969 г.р., Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

134. FAOUZI BEN MOHAMED BEN AHMED AL-JENDOUBI (Said; Samir)*; 30.01.1966 г.р., Beja, Tunisia.

135. FARES MOHAMMED MANA’A (Faris Mana’a; Fares Mohammed Manaa)*; 08.02.1965 г.р., Sadah, Yemen.

136. FARHAD KANABI AHMAD (Kaua Omar Achmed; Kawa Hamawandi)*; 01.07.1971 г.р., Arbil, Iraq.

137. FARID AIDER (Achour Ali; Terfi Farid; Abdallah)*; 12.10.1964 г.р., Algiers, Algeria.

138. FAYCAL BOUGHANEMI (Faical Boughanmi; Faysal al-Bughanimi)*; 28.10.1966 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

139. FAZEEL-A-TUL SHAYKH ABU MOHAMMED AMEEN AL-PESHAWARI (Shaykh Aminullah; Sheik Aminullah; Abu Mohammad Aminullah Peshawari; Abu Mohammad Amin Bishawri; Abu Mohammad Shaykh Aminullah Al-Bishauri; Shaykh Abu Mohammed Ameen al-Peshawari; Shaykh Aminullah Al-Peshawari)*; Konar Province, Afghanistan DOB: a) Approximately 1967 b) Approximately 1961 c) Approximately 1973.

140. FAZL MOHAMMAD MAZLOOM (Molah Fazl; Fazel Mohammad Mazloom)*; Uruzgan, Afghanistan; DOB: Between 1963 and 1968.

141. FAZUL ABDULLAH MOHAMMED (Abdalla Fazul; Abdallah Fazul; Ali Fadel Abdallah Mohammed; Fazul Abdalla; Fazul Abdallah; Fazul Abdallah Mohammed; Fazul Haroon; Fazul Harun; Haroun Fadhil; Mohammed Fazul; Mohammed Fazul Abdalahi; Mohammed Fouad; Muhamad Fadil Abdallah; Abu Aisha; Abu Seif Al Sudani; Haroon; Harun; Abu Luqman; Abdullah Fazhl; Fazhl Haroun; Fazil Haroun; Faziul Abdallah; Fazul Abdalahi Mohammed; Haroun Fazil; Harun Fazul; Khan Fazhl; Farun Fahdl; Harun Fahdl; Haroun; Abdulah Mohamed Fadl; Fadil Abdallah Muhammad; Abdallah Muhammad Fadhul; Fedel Abdullah Mohammad Fazul; Fadl Allah Abd Allah; Haroon Fadl Abd Allah; Mohamed Fadl; Harun Al-Qamry; Abu Al-Fazul Al-Qamari; Haji Kassim Fumu; Yacub)*; 25.08.1972 г.р., Moroni, Comoros Islands. Возможно г.р. 25.12.1974, 25.02.1974, 1976, Feb. 1971.

142. FELICIANO SEMBORIO DELOS REYES JR. (Abubakar Abdillah; Abdul Abdillah)*; 04.11.1963 г.р., Arco, Lamitan, Basilan, Philippines.

143. FETHI BEN AL-RABEI BEN ABSHA MNASRI (Fethi Alic; Amor; Abu Omar; Mnasri Fethi ben Rebai; Mnasri Fethi ben Rebai; Mnasri Fethi ben al-Rabai; Mnasri Fethi ben Rebaj; Omar Tounsi; Amar)*; 06.03.1969 г.р., Al-Sanadil Farm, Nefza, Governorate of Baja, Tunisia (06.03.1963 г.р., Tunisia; 03.06.1969 г.р., Algeria; 06.03.1969 г.р., Algeria; 06.03.1963 г.р., Tunisia).

144. FETHI BEN HASSEN BEN SALEM AL-HADDAD (Fethi ben Assen Haddad; Fathy Hassan Al Haddad)*; 28.06.1963 г.р., Tataouene, Tunisia. DOB: a) 28 Jun. 1963 b) 28 Mar. 1963.

145. FRITZ MARTIN GELOWICZ (Robert Konars; Markus Gebert; Malik; Benzl; Bentley)*; 01.09.1979 г.р., Munich, Germany (10.04.1979 г.р., Liege, Belgium).

146. FUAD MOHAMED KHALAF (Fuad Mohamed Khalif; Fuad Mohamed Qalaf; Fuad Mohammed Kalaf; Fuad Mohamed Kalaf; Fuad Mohammed Khalif; Fuad Khalaf; Fuad Shongale; Fuad Shongole; Fuad Shangole; Fuad Songale; Fouad Shongale; Fuad Muhammad Khalaf Shongole)*.

147. GHAZY FEZZA HISHAN AL-MAZIDIH (Ghazy Fezzaa Hishan; Mushari Abd Aziz Saleh Shlash; Abu Faysal; Abu Ghazzy)*; 1974 г.р., DOB: a) 1974 b) 1975.

148. GUL AGHA ISHAKZAI (Mullah Gul Agha; Mullah Gul Agha Akhund; Hidayatullah; Haji Hidayatullah; Hayadatullah)*; 1972 г.р., Band-e-Timor, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

149. GUL AHMAD HAKIMI*.

150. GULBUDDIN HEKMATYAR (Gulabudin Hekmatyar; Golboddin Hikmetyar; Gulbuddin Khekmatiyar; Gulbuddin Hekmatiar; Gulbuddin Hekhmartyar; Gulbudin Hekmetyar)*; 01.08.1949 г.р., Konduz Province, Afghanistan.

151. GUN GUN RUSMAN GUNAWAN (Gunawan Rusman; Abd Al-Hadi; Abdul Hadi; Abdul Karim; Bukhori; Bukhory)*; 06.07.1977 г.р., Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia.

152. HABIB BEN AHMED AL-LOUBIRI*; 17.11.1961 г.р., Menzel Temime, Tunisia.

153. HABIB BEN ALI BEN SAID AL-WADHANI*; 01.06.1970 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

154. HABIBULLAH FAWZI (Habibullah Faizi; Habibullah Fauzi)*; 1961 г.р., Atal village, Ander district, Ghazni, Afghanistan.

155. HABIBULLAH RESHAD*; Ghazni province, Afghanistan; DOB: Between 1968 and 1973.

156. HACENE ALLANE (Hassan the Old; Al Sheikh Abdelhay; Boulahia; Abu al-Foutouh; Cheib Ahcene)*; 17.01.1941 г.р., Medea, Algeria.

157. HAFIZ MUHAMMAD SAEED (Hafiz Muhammad; Hafiz Saeed; Hafiz Mohammad Sahib; Hafez Mohammad Saeed; Hafiz Mohammad Sayeed; Hafiz Mohammad Sayid; Tata Mohammad Syeed; Mohammad Sayed; Hafiz Ji; Muhammad Saeed)*; 05.06.1950 г.р., Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan.

158. HAJI MUHAMMAD ASHRAF (Haji M. Ashraf)*; 01.03.1965 г.р.

159. HAKIMULLAH MEHSUD (Hakeemullah Mehsud; Zulfiqar)*; 1979 г.р., Pakistan.

160. HAMADI BEN ABDUL AZIZ BEN ALI BOUYEHIA (Gamel Mohmed)*; 29.05.1966 г.р., Tunisia (25.05.1966 г.р., Morocco).

161. HAMDULLAH*.

162. HAMDULLAH NOMANI*; 1968 г.р., Ghazni province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1968.

163. HAMID ABDALLAH AHMAD AL-ALI (Dr. Hamed Abdullah Al-Ali; Hamed Al-’Ali; Hamed bin ‘Abdallah Al-’Ali; Hamid ‘Abdallah Al-’Ali; Hamid ‘Abdallah Ahmad Al-’Ali; Hamid bin Abdallah Ahmed Al-Ali; Abu Salim; Hamid Abdallah Ahmed Al-Ali)*; 20.01.1960 г.р., Kuwait.

164. HAMIDULLAH AKHUND*; 1968 г.р., Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

165. HANI AL-SAYYID AL-SEBAI (Hani Yousef Al-Sebai; Hani Youssef; Hany Youseff; Hani Yusef; Hani al-Sayyid Al-Sabai; Hani al-Sayyid El Sebai; Hani al-Sayyid Al Siba’i; Hani al-Sayyid El Sabaay; El-Sababt; Abu Tusnin; Abu Akram; Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef; Abu Karim; Hany Elsayed Youssef)*; 01.03.1961 г.р., Qaylubiyah, Egypt. Возможно 16.06.1960 г.р.

166. HASSAN ABDULLAH HERSI AL-TURKI (Hassan Turki; Hassen Abdelle Fihiye; Sheikh Hassan Abdullah Fahaih; Hassan Al-Turki; Hassan Abdillahi Hersi Turki; Sheikh Hassan Turki; Xasan Cabdilaahi Xirsi; Xasan Cabdulle Xirsi)*; 1944 г.р., Region V, Ethiopia (the Ogaden Region in eastern Ethiopia). DOB: Approximately 1944.

167. HASSAN DAHIR AWEYS (Ali Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys; Awes Shaykh Hassan Dahir; Hassen Dahir Aweyes; Ahmed Dahir Aweys; Mohammed Hassan Ibrahim; Aweys Hassan Dahir; Hassan Tahir Oais; Hassan Tahir Uways; Hassan Dahir Awes; Sheikh Aweys; Sheikh Hassan; Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys)*; 1935 г.

168. HIDAYATULLAH (Abu Turab)*; 1968 г.р., Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1968.

169. HILARION DEL ROSARIO SANTOS III (Akmad Santos; Ahmed Islam; Ahmad Islam Santos; Abu Hamsa; Hilarion Santos III; Abu Abdullah Santos; Faisal Santos; Lakay; Aki; Aqi)*; 12.03.1966 г.р., 686 A. Mabini Street, Sangandaan, Caloocan City, Philippines.

170. IBRAHIM ABDUL SALAM MOHAMED BOYASSEER (Abu Al-Banaan; Ibrahim Bouisir; Ibrahim Buisir)*; 1961 г.р., Benghazi, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

171. IBRAHIM ALI ABU BAKR TANTOUSH (Al-Libi; Abd al-Muhsin; Ibrahim Ali Muhammad Abu Bakr; Abdul Rahman; Abu Anas; Ibrahim Abubaker Tantouche; Ibrahim Abubaker Tantoush; ‘Abd al-Muhsi; ‘Abd al-Rahman)*; 1966 г.р., al Aziziyya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

172. IBRAHIM BEN HEDHILI BEN MOHAMED AL-HAMAMI*; 20.11.1971 г.р., Koubellat, Tunisia.

173. IBRAHIM HASSAN TALI AL-ASIRI (Ibrahim Hassan Tali Asiri; Ibrahim Hasan Talea Aseeri; Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri; Ibrahim Hasan Tali Asiri; Ibrahim Hassan Tali Assiri; Ibrahim Hasan Tali’A ‘Asiri; Ibrahim Hasan Tali al-’Asiri; Ibrahim al-’Asiri; Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri; Abu Saleh; Abosslah; Abu-Salaah)*; 19.04.1982 г.р., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. DOB: 18 Apr. 1982; 24/26/1402 (Hijri Calendar).

174. IBRAHIM MOHAMED KHALIL (Khalil Ibrahim Jassem; Khalil Ibrahim Mohammad; Khalil Ibrahim Al Zafiri; Khalil)*; 02.07.1975 г.р., Mosul, Iraq (02.05.1972 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq; 03.07.1975 г.р., Mosul, Iraq; 1972 г.р.; 02.05.1975 г.р.).

175. IMAD BEN AL-MEKKI BEN AL-AKHDAR AL-ZARKAOUI (Zarga; Nadra)*; 15.01.1973 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

176. IMAD BEN BECHIR BEN HAMDA AL-JAMMALI*; 25.01.1968 г.р., Menzel Temine, Tunisia.

177. ISAM ALI MOHAMED ALOUCHE (Mansour Thaer)*; 21.03.1974 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq, 1972 (21.03.1974 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq).

178. ISMAIL ABDALLAH SBAITAN SHALABI (Ismain Shalabe; Ismail Abdallah Sbaitan Shalabi)*; 30.04.1973 г.р., Beckum, Germany (30.04.1973 г.р., Beckum; 30.04.1973 г.р., Beckum).

179. ISMAIL MOHAMED ISMAIL ABU SHAWEESH*; 10.03.1977 г.р., Benghazi, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

180. ISNILON TOTONI HAPILON (Isnilon Hapilun; Isnilun Hapilun; Abu Musab; Salahudin; Tuan Isnilon)*; 18.03.1966 г.р., Bulanza, Lantawan, Basilan, the Philippines. Возможно 10.03.1967 г.р.

181. JABER ABDALLAH JABER AHMAD AL-JALAHMAH (Jaber Al-Jalahmah; Abu Muhammad Al-Jalahmah; Jabir Abdallah Jabir Ahmad Jalahmah; Jabir ‘Abdallah Jabir Ahmad Al-Jalamah; Jabir Al-Jalhami; Abdul-Ghani; Abu Muhammad)*; 24.09.1959 г.р., Al-Khitan area, Kuwait.

182. JAINAL ANTEL SALI JR. (Abu Solaiman; Abu Solayman; Apong Solaiman; Apung)*; 01.06.1965 г.р., Barangay Lanote, Bliss, Isabela, Basilan, the Philippines.

183. JALALUDDIN HAQQANI (Jalaluddin Haqani; Jallalouddin Haqqani; Jallalouddine Haqani)*; 1942 г.р., Khost province, Zadran district, Afghanistan.

184. JAMAL HOUSNI (Djamel Il maroccino; Jamal Al Maghrebi; Hicham)*; 22.02.1983 г.р., Morocco.

185. JAN MOHMMAD MADANI*.

186. JANAN AGHA*; 1958 г.р., Central Uruzgan province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958.

187. KAMAL BEN MAOELDI BEN HASSAN AL-HAMRAOUI (Kamel; Kimo)*; 21.10.1977 г.р., Beja, Tunisia.

188. KAMAL BEN MOHAMED BEN AHMED DARRAJI (Kamel Darraji)*; 22.07.1967 г.р., Menzel Bouzelfa, Tunisia.

189. KAMEL DJERMANE (Bilal; Adel; Fodhil; Abou Abdeljalil)*; 12.10.1965 г.р., Oum el Bouaghi, Algeria.

190. KHADAFI ABUBAKAR JANJALANI (Khadafy Janjalani; Khaddafy Abubakar Janjalani; Abu Muktar)*; 03.03.1975 г.р., Isabela, Basilan, Philippines.

191. KHAIRULLAH KHAIRKHWAH (Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwah)*; 1963 г.р., Arghistan district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1963.

192. KHALID ABD AL-RAHMAN HAMD AL-FAWAZ (Al-Fauwaz Khaled; Al-Fauwaz Khaled A.; Al Fawwaz Khalik; Al-Fawwaz Khaled; Al Fawwaz Khaled; Al-Fawwaz Khalid; Khalid Abdulrahman H. Al Fawaz)*; 24.08.1962 г.р., Kuwait.

193. KHALIFA MUHAMMAD TURKI AL-SUBAIY (Khalifa Mohd Turki Alsubaie; Khalifa Mohd Turki al-Subaie; Khalifa Al-Subayi; Khalifa Turki bin Muhammad bin al-Suaiy)*; 01.01.1965 г.

194. KHALIL AHMED HAQQANI (Khalil Al-Rahman Haqqani; Khalil ur Rahman Haqqani; Khaleel Haqqani)*; 01.01.1966 г.р., DOB: a) 1 Jan. 1966 b) Between 1958 and 1964.

195. KHALIL BEN AHMED BEN MOHAMED JARRAYA (Khalil Yarraya; Ben Narvan Abdel Aziz; Amro; Omar; Amrou; Amr; Abdel Aziz Ben Narvan)*; 08.02.1969 г.р., Sfax, Tunisia (15.08.1970 г.р., Sereka, former Yugoslavia; 15.08.1970 г.р., Sereka, former Yugoslavia).

196. LIONEL DUMONT (Jacques Brougere; Bilal; Abu Hamza; Di Karlo Antonio; Merlin Oliver Christian Rene; Arfauni Imad Ben Yousset Hamza; Imam Ben Yussuf Arfaj; Hamza; Abou Hamza; Arfauni Imad; Koumkal; Kumkal; Merlin; Tinet; Brugere; Dimon)*; 21.01.1971 г.р., Robaix , France.

197. LOTFI BEN ABDUL HAMID BEN ALI AL-RIHANI (Abderrahmane; Lofti Ben Abdul Hamid Ben Ali Al-Rihani)*; 01.07.1977 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

198. MADHAT MURSI AL-SAYYID UMAR (Abu Hasan; Abu Khabab; Abu Rabbab)*; 19.10.1953 г.р., Alexandria, Egypt.

199. MAHFOUZ OULD AL-WALID (Abu Hafs the Mauritanian; Khalid Al-Shanqiti; Mafouz Walad Al-Walid)*; 01.01.1975 г.

200. MAHMOOD SULTAN BASHIR-UD-DIN (Mahmood Sultan Bashiruddin; Mehmood Dr. Bashir Uddin; Mekmud Sultan Baishiruddin)*; 1937 г.р., Возможно г.р. 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945.

201. MAHMOUD MOHAMMAD AHMED BAHAZIQ (Bahaziq Mahmoud; Abu Abd al-’Aziz; Abu Abdul Aziz; Shaykh Sahib)*; 17.08.1943 г.р., India.

202. MAJEED ABDUL CHAUDHRY (Majeed Abdul; Majeed Chaudhry Abdul; Majid Abdul)*; 15.04.1939 г.р., DOB: a) 15 Apr. 1939 b) 1938.

203. MAMOUN DARKAZANLI (Abu Ilyas; Abu Ilyas Al Suri; Abu Luz; Abu Al Loh; Abu Ylias)*; 04.08.1958 г.р., Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

204. MATIULLAH*; 1973 г.р., Daman district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1973.

205. MAXAMED CABDULLAAH CIISE (Maxamed Cabdullaahi Ciise; Maxammed Cabdullaahi; Cabdullah Mayamed Ciise)*; 08.10.1974 г.р., Kismaayo,Somalia.

206. MAZEN SALAH MOHAMMED (Issa Salah Muhamad; Mazen Ali Hussein)*; 18.05.1981 г.р., Arbil, Iraq (01.01.1980 г.; 01.01.1982 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq).

207. MEHDI BEN MOHAMED BEN MOHAMED KAMMOUN (Salmane)*; 03.04.1968 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

208. MEHREZ BEN MAHMOUD BEN SASSI AL-AMDOUNI (Fabio Fusco; Mohamed Hassan; Abu Thale)*; 18.12.1969 г.р., Asima-Tunis, Tunisia.

209. MERAI ZOGHBAI (F’raji di Singapore; F’raji il Libico; Mohamed Lebachir; Meri Albdelfattah Zgbye; Zoghbai Merai Abdul Fattah; Lazrag Faraj; Larzg Ben Ila; Farag; Fredj; Muhammed El Besir)*; 04.04.1969 г.р., Bengasi, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. DOB: a) 04.04.1969 b) 04.04.1960 c) 04.06.1960 (14.01.1968 г.р., Morocco; 04.06.1960 г.р., Bengasi, Libya; 13.11.1960 г.р., Libya; 11.08.1960 г.р., Libya; 13.11.1960 г.р., Libya).

210. MOHAMAD IQBAL ABDURRAHMAN (Rahman Mohamad Iqbal; A Rahman Mohamad Iqbal; Abu Jibril Abdurrahman; Fikiruddin Muqti; Fihiruddin Muqti; Abu Jibril)*; 17.08.1958 г.р., Tirpas-Selong Village, East Lombok, Indonesia.

211. MOHAMED AMIN MOSTAFA*; 11.10.1975 г.р., Karkuk, Iraq.

212. MOHAMED AMINE AKLI (Akli Amine Mohamed; Killech Shamir; Kali Sami; Elias)*; 30.03.1972 г.р., Bordj el Kiffane, Algeria.

213. MOHAMED AOUANI (Lased Ben Heni; Mohamed Abu Abda; Al-As’ad Ben Hani; Mohamed Ben Belgacem Awani; Abu Obeida)*; 05.02.1970 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia (05.02.1969 г.р., in Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; 05.02.1969 г.р., in Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya).

214. MOHAMED BELKALEM (Abdelali Abou Dher; El Harrachi)*; 19.12.1969 г.р., Hussein Dey, Algiers, Algeria.

215. MOHAMED BEN BELGACEM BEN ABDALLAH AL-AOUADI (Aouadi Mohamed Ben Belkacem; Fathi Hannachi)*; 11.12.1974 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

216. MOHAMED BEN MOHAMED BEN KHALIFA ABDELHEDI (Mohamed Ben Mohamed Abdelhedi)*; 10.08.1965 г.р., Sfax, Tunisia.

217. MOHAMED EL MAHFOUDI*; 24.09.1964 г.р., Agadir, Morocco.

218. MOHAMED GHASSAN ALI ABU DHESS (Yaser Hassan; Abu Ali Abu Mohamed Dhees; Mohamed Abu Dhess)*; 22.06.1966 г.р., Irbid, Jordan (01.02.1966 г.р., Hasmija; 01.02.1966 г.р., Hasmija; 01.02.1966 г.р., Hashmija, Iraq).

219. MOHAMED SA’ID (Atom; Mohamed Sa’id Atom; Mohamed Siad Atom)*; 1966 г.р., Galgala, Somalia.

220. MOHAMMAD ABBAS AKHUND*; 1963 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

221. MOHAMMAD AHMADI*; 1963 г.р., Daman district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

222. MOHAMMAD ALEEM NOORANI*.

223. MOHAMMAD AZAM ELMI*; 1968 г.р.

224. MOHAMMAD DAUD*; 1956 г.р., Kabul.

225. MOHAMMAD ESHAQ AKHUNZADA*; Qarabajh district, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963-1968.

226. MOHAMMAD ESSA AKHUND*; 1958 г.р., Spinboldak district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958.

227. MOHAMMAD HAMDI MOHAMMAD SADIQ AL-AHDAL (Al-Hamati Muhammad; Muhammad Muhammad Abdullah Al-Ahdal; Abu AsimAl-Makki; Mohamed Mohamed Abdullah Al-Ahdal; Ahmed)*; 19.11.1971 г.р., Medina, Saudi Arabia.

228. MOHAMMAD HASAN RAHMANI*; Panjwae district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

229. MOHAMMAD HASSAN AKHUND*; 1958 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

230. MOHAMMAD HOMAYOON*.

231. MOHAMMAD HUSAYN MUSTAS’ID (Mohammad Hassan Mastasaeed; Mstasaeed; Mostas’eed; Mohammad Husayn Mastasaeed)*; 1964 г.р.

232. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM OMARI*; Zadran valley, Khost province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958.

233. MOHAMMAD ILYAS KASHMIRI (Muhammad Ilyas Kashmiri; Elias al-Kashmiri; Ilyas, Naib Amir)*; 02.01.1964 г.р., Bhimber, Samahai Valley, Pakistan-administered Kashmir. DOB: 10 Feb. 1964.

234. MOHAMMAD JAWAD WAZIRI*.

235. MOHAMMAD MOSLIM HAQQANI (Moslim Haqqani)*; 1958 г.р., Baghlan province, Afghanistan.

236. MOHAMMAD NAIM (Mullah Naeem)*.

237. MOHAMMAD RABBANI*; 1961 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

238. MOHAMMAD RASUL*; Spinboldak district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1958-1963.

239. MOHAMMAD SADIQ AMIR MOHAMMAD*; 1934 г.р., Ghazni, Afghanistan.

240. MOHAMMAD SALIM HAQQANI*; 1967 г.р.

241. MOHAMMAD SARWAR SIDDIQMAL*.

242. MOHAMMAD SEDIQ AKHUNDZADA*; Kabul province, Afghanistan DOB: Between 1953 and 1958.

243. MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ AHMADI*.

244. MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ MOHAMMADI*; Uruzgan province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1948.

245. MOHAMMAD SHARIF*.

246. MOHAMMAD SOHAIL SHAHEEN*.

247. MOHAMMAD TAHIR HAMMID (Abdekhamid Al Kurdi)*; 01.11.1975 г.р., Poshok, Iraq.

248. MOHAMMAD WALI*; Kandahar province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1965.

249. MOHAMMAD YAQOUB*.

250. MOHAMMAD ZAHID*; 1971 г.р., Logar, Afghanistan.

251. MOHAMMADULLAH MATI*; Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

252. MOHAMMED AHMED SHAWKI AL ISLAMBOLLY (Abu Khalid; Abu Ja’far)*; 21.01.1952 г.р., El-Minya, Egypt.

253. MOHAMMED AL GHABRA*; 01.06.1980 г.р., Damascus, Syria.

254. MOHAMMED OMAR*; Uruzgan province, Adehrawood village; DOB: Approximately 1966.

255. MOHAMMED TUFAIL (Tufail S. M.; Tuffail Sheik Mohammed)*; 05.05.1930 г.р.

256. MOHAMMED YAHYA MUJAHID (Mohammad Yahya Aziz)*; 12.03.1961 г.р., Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan.

257. MOKHTAR BELMOKHTAR (Abou Abbes Khaled; Belaouar Khaled Abou El Abass; Belaouer Khaled Abou El Abass; Belmokhtar Khaled Abou El Abes; Khaled Abou El Abass; Khaled Abou El Abbes; Khaled Abou El Abes; Khaled Abulabbas Na Oor; Mukhtar Balmukhtar; Belaoua; Belaour)*; 01.06.1972 г.р., Ghardaia, Algeria.

258. MONDHER BEN MOHSEN BEN ALI AL-BAAZAOUI (Hamza; Manza Mondher; Hanza Mondher; Al Yamani Noman; Abdellah)*; 18.03.1967 г.р., Kairouan, Tunisia (18.08.1968 г.р., Tunisia; 18.08.1968 г.р., Tunisia; 28.05.1961 г.р., Yemen).

259. MOSTAFA KAMEL MOSTAFA IBRAHIM (Mustafa Kamel Mustafa; Adam Ramsey Eaman; Abu Hamza Al-Masri; Al-Masri Abu Hamza; Al-Misri Abu Hamza; Kamel Mustapha Mustapha; Mustapha Kamel Mustapha; Abu Hamza; Mostafa Kamel Mostafa)*; 15.04.1958 г.р., Alexandria, Egypt.

260. MOUNIR BEN HABIB BEN AL-TAHER JARRAYA (Yarraya)*; 25.10.1963 г.р., Sfax, Tunisia.

261. MOUNIR EL MOTASSADEQ (Mounir el Moutassadeq)*; 03.04.1974 г.р., Marrakesh, Morocco.

262. MOURAD BEN ALI BEN AL-BASHEER AL-TRABELSI (Abou Djarrah)*; 20.05.1969 г.р., Menzel Temime, Tunisia.

263. MOUSSA BEN OMAR BEN ALI ESSAADI (Dah Dah; Abdelrahmman; Bechir)*; 04.12.1964 г.р., Tabarka, Tunisia.

264. MOUSTAFA ABBES (Mostafa Abbes; Mostafa Abbas; Mustafa Abbas; Moustapha Abbes)*; 05.02.1962 г.р., Osniers, Algeria (05.02.1962 г.р., France).

265. MUBARAK MUSHAKHAS SANAD MUBARAK AL-BATHALI (Mubarak Mishkhis Sanad Al-Bathali; Mubarak Mishkhis Sanad Al-Badhali; Mubarak Al-Bathali; Mubarak Mishkhas Sanad Al-Bathali; Mubarak Mishkhas Sanad Al-Bazali; Mobarak Meshkhas Sanad Al-Bthaly; Abu Abdulrahman)*; 01.10.1961 г.р., Kuwait.

266. MUFTI RASHID AHMAD LADEHYANOY (Ludhianvi Mufti Rashid Ahmad; Armad Mufti Rasheed; Wadehyanoy Mufti Rashid Ahmad)*.

267. MUHAMMAD ABDALLAH HASAN ABU-AL-KHAYR (Mohammed Abdullah Hassan Abul-Khair; Muhammad Abdallah Hasan Abu-al-Khayr; Muhammad Bin-’Abdullah Bin-Hamd Abu -al-Khayr; Abdallah al-Halabi; ‘Abdallah al-Halabi al-Madani; Abdallah al-Makki; Abdallah el-Halabi; Abdullah al-Halabi; Abu ‘Abdallah al-Halabi; Abu Abdallah al-Madani; Muhannad al-Jaddawi)*; 19.06.1975 г.р., Al-Madinah al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.

268. MUHAMMAD ISLAM MOHAMMADI*; Rori-Du-Aab district, Samangan province, Afghanistan; DOB: Between 1953 and 1958.

269. MUHAMMAD TAHER ANWARI (Mohammad Taher Anwari; Haji Mudir)*; 1961 г.р., Zurmat district, Paktia province, Afghanistan.

270. MUHAMMAD ABDALLAH SALIH SUGHAYR (Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Sughayir; Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Sughaier; Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Sughayer; Mohd Al-Saghir; Muhammad Al-Sugayer; Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Sughair; Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Sugair; Muhammad Abdallah Salih Al-Suqayr; Abu Bakr; Abu Abdullah; Mohammad Abdullah S Ssughayer)*; 20.08.1972 г.р., 10.08.1972г.р., Al-Karawiya, Oneiza, Saudi Arabia.

271. MUHSIN FADHIL AYED ASHOUR AL-FADHLI (Muhsin Fadhil ‘Ayyid al Fadhli; Muhsin Fadil Ayid Ayshur al Fadhli; Abu Majid Samiyah; Abu Samia)*; 24.04.1981 г.р., Kuwait.

272. MUHSIN MOUSSA MATWALLI ATWAH DEWEDAR (Al-Muhajir Abdul Rahman; Al-Namer Mohammed K.A.; Abdel Rahman; Abdul Rahman)*; 19.06.1964 г.р., Dakahliya, Egypt.

273. MUSTAFA MOHAMED FADHIL (Al Masri Abd Al Wakil; Ali Hassan; Anis Abu; Elbishy Moustafa Ali; Fadil Mustafa Muhamad; Fazul Mustafa; Mohammed Mustafa; Al-Nubi Abu; Hussein; Jihad Abu; Khalid; Man Nu; Yussrr Abu; Mustafa Ali Elbishy)*; 23.06.1976 г.р., Cairo, Egypt. DOB: 01.01.1976.

274. MUSTAPHA AHMED MOHAMED OSMAN ABU EL YAZEED (Shaykh Sai’id; Mustapha Mohamed Ahmed)*; 27.02.1955 г.р., El Sharkiya, Egypt.

275. MUTHANNA HARITH AL-DARI (Dr. Muthanna Al Dari; Muthana Harith Al Dari; Muthanna Harith Sulayman Al-Dari; Muthanna Harith Sulayman Al-Dhari; Muthanna Hareth Al-Dhari; Muthana Haris Al-Dhari; Doctor Muthanna Harith Sulayman Al Dari Al-Zawba’; Muthanna Harith Sulayman Al-Dari Al-Zobai; Muthanna Harith Sulayman Al-Dari al-Zawba’i; Muthanna Hareth al-Dari; Muthana Haris al-Dari; Doctor Muthanna al-Dari; Dr. Muthanna Harith al-Dari al-Zowbai)*; 16.06.1969 г.р., Iraq.

276. NABIL BEN MOHAMED BEN ALI BEN ATTIA (Abu Salim)*; 11.05.1966 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

277. NAJIB BEN MOHAMED BEN SALEM AL-WAZ (Ouaz Najib)*; 12.04.1960 г.р., Hekaima Al-Mehdiya, Tunisia.

278. NAJIBULLAH HAQQANI HYDAYETULLAH (Najibullah Haqani)*; 1964 г.р.

279. NAJIBULLAH MUHAMMAD JUMA (Najib Ullah)*; 1954 г.р., Farah.

280. NAJMIDDIN KAMOLITDINOVICH JALOLOV*; 1972 г.р., Andijan Region, Uzbekistan.

281. NAJMUDDIN FARAJ AHMAD (Mullah Krekar; Fateh Najm Eddine Farraj; Faraj Ahmad Najmuddin)*; 07.07.1956 г.р., Olaqloo Sharbajer, Al-Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Iraq. DOB: 17.07.1963.

282. NASHWAN ABD AL-RAZZAQ ABD AL-BAQI (Abdal Al-Hadi Al-Iraqi; Abu Abdallah; Abd Al-Hadi Al-Iraqi)*; 1961 г.р., Mosul, Iraq.

283. NASIR ‘ABD-AL-KARIM ‘ABDULLAH AL-WAHISHI (Nasir al-Wahishi; Abu Basir Nasir al-Wahishi; Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi; Nasir Abd al-Karim al-Wuhayshi; Abu Basir Nasir Al-Wuhayshi; Nasser Abdul-karim Abdullah al-Wouhichi; Abu Baseer al-Wehaishi; Abu Basir Nasser al-Wuhishi; Abdul Kareem Abdullah Al-Woohaishi; Nasser Abdelkarim Saleh Al Wahichi; Abu Basir; Abu Bashir)*; 01.10.1976 г.р., Yemen. DOB: a) 1 Oct. 1976 b) 08/10/1396 (Hijri Calendar).

284. NASIRUDDIN HAQQANI (Naseer Haqqani; Dr. Naseer Haqqani; Nassir Haqqani; Nashir Haqqani; Naseruddin; Dr. Alim Ghair)*; Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1970-1973.

285. NASR FAHMI NASR HASSANNEIN (Muhammad Salah; Naser Fahmi Naser Hussein)*; 30.10.1962 г.р., Cairo, Egypt.

286. NAYIF BIN-MUHAMMAD AL-QAHTANI (Nayif Bin-Muhammad al-Qahtani; Nayef Bin Muhammad al-Qahtani; Nayif Muhammad al-Qahtani; Nayf Mohammed al-Qahtani; Naif Mohammad Said al-Qahtani Alkodri; Naif Mohammed Saeed al-Kodari al-Qahtani; Nayef Bin Mohamed al-Khatani; Mohammed Naif al-Khatani; Nayef bin Mohamed al-Khatany; Al-Qahtani Abohemem; Abi Hamam; Abu-Hamam; Abu-Humam; Abu-Hammam; Abu Hammam al-Qahtani)*; 25.03.1988 г.р., Saudi Arabia.

287. NAZAR MOHAMMAD*.

288. NAZIH ABDUL HAMED NABIH AL-RUQAI’I (Anas Al-Liby; Anas Al-Sibai; Nazih Abdul Hamed Al-Raghie)*; 30.03.1964 г.р., Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. DOB: a) 30 Mar. 1964 b) 14 May 1964.

289. NAZIRULLAH HANAFI WALIULLAH (Nazirullah Aanafi Waliullah)*; 1962 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

290. NEDAL MAHMOUD SALEH (Hitem; Nedal Mahmoud N. Saleh; Salah Nedal; Hasim; Tarek Naser)*; 26.03.1972 г.р., Tunisia.

291. NESSIM BEN MOHAMED AL-CHERIF BEN MOHAMED SALEH AL-SAADI (Abou Anis; Nassim Saadi)*; 30.11.1974 г.р., Haidra Al-Qasreen, Tunisia.

292. NESSIM BEN ROMDHANE SAHRAOUI (Dass; Nasim al-Sahrawi)*; 03.08.1973 г.р., Bizerta, Tunisia.

293. NIK MOHAMMAD*.

294. NOOR JALAL (Nur Jalal)*; 1960 г.р., Kunar province, Afghanistan.

295. NOOR MOHAMMAD SAQIB*; Bagrami district, Kabul province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1958.

296. NOORDIN MOHAMMAD TOP (Nordin Mohd. Top)*; 11.08.1969 г.р., Johor, Malaysia.

297. NOORUDDIN TURABI MUHAMMAD QASIM (Noor ud Din Turabi)*; 1963 г.р., a)Kandahar, Afghanistanb) Chora district, Uruzgan province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1963.

298. NOUREDDINE BEN ALI BEN BELKASSEM AL-DRISSI*; 30.04.1964 г.р., Tunis, Tunisia.

299. NURJAMAN RIDUAN ISAMUDDIN (Hambali; Nurjaman; Isomuddin Nurjaman Riduan; Hambali Bin Ending; Encep Nurjaman; Hambali Ending Hambali; Isamuddin Riduan; Isamudin Ridwan)*; 04.04.1964 г.р., Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia.

300. NURULLAH NURI*; Shahjoe district, Zabul province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1958.

301. OMAR MAHMOUD UTHMAN (Al-Samman Uthman; Umar Uthman; Abu Qatada Al-Filistini; Abu Umr Takfiri; Abu Omar Abu Umar; Abu Umar Umar; Abu Ismail; Omar Mohammed Othman)*; 30.12.1960 г.р., Bethlehem, West Bank, Palestinian Territories. DOB: a) 30 Dec. 1960 b) 13 Dec. 1960.

302. OTHMAN AHMED OTHMAN AL-GHAMDI*; 27.05.1979 г.р., Saudi Arabia.

303. OTHMAN DERAMCHI (Abou Youssef)*; 07.06.1954 г.р., Tighennif, Algeria.

304. PARLINDUNGAN SIREGAR (Siregar Parlin; Siregar Saleh Parlindungan)*; 25.04.1957 г.р., Indonesia. Возможно г.р. 25.04.1967.

305. PIO ABOGNE DE VERA (Ismael De Vera; Khalid; Ismael; Ismail; Manex; Tito Art; Dave; Leo)*; 19.12.1969 г.р., Bagac, Bagamanok, Catanduanes, Philippines.

306. QALAMUDIN SAR ANDAZ (Qalamuddin)*; Baraki Barak district, Logar province, Afghanistan. примерный г.р. 1958-1963.

307. QARI ABDUL WALI SEDDIQI*; 1974 г.р., Ghazni, Afghanistan.

308. QASIM YAHYA MAHDI AL-RIMI (Qasim Al-Rimi; Qasim al-Raymi; Qassim al-Raymi; Qasim al-Rami; Qasim Yahya Mahdi ‘Abd al-Rimi; Abu Hurayah al-Sana’ai; Abu ‘Ammar)*; 05.06.1978 г.р., Sanaa, Yemen.

309. QUDRATULLAH JAMAL (Haji Sahib)*; 1963 г.р., Gardez, Pakti provincea, Afghanistan.

310. RACHID FETTAR (Amine del Belgio; Djaffar)*; 16.04.1969 г.р., Boulogin, Algeria.

311. RADI ABD EL SAMIE ABOU EL YAZID EL AYASHI (Mera’I)*; 02.01.1972 г.р., El Gharbia, Egypt.

312. RADULAN SAHIRON (Radullan Sahiron; Radulan Sahirun; Radulan Sajirun; Commander Putol)*; 1955 г.р., Kaunayan, Patikul, Jolo Island, the Philippines. Возможно г.р. 1952.

313. RAFIK MOHAMAD YOUSEF (Mohamad Raific Kairadin)*; 27.08.1974 г.р., Baghdad, Iraq.

314. RAFIULLAH MUAZEN*; Paktia province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1943.

315. RAHIMULLAH ZURMATI*; Zurmat district, Paktia province, Afghanistan; Between 1953 and 1958.

316. RAHMATULLAH KAKAZADA (Rehmatullah; Kakazada; Mullah Nasir)*; 1968 г.р., Ghazni, Afghanistan.

317. RAHMATULLAH WAHIDYAR FAQIR MOHAMMAD (Ramatullah Wahidyar)*; 1957 г.р., Kotakhel village, Zormat district, Paktika province, Afghanistan.

318. RAMZI MOHAMED ABDULLAH BINALSHIBH (Binalshibh Ramzi Mohammed Abdullah; Ramzi Binalshib; Ramzi Mohamed Abdellah Omar Hassan Alassiri; Binalshibh Ramsi Mohamed Abdullah; Abu Ubaydah; ‘Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar; Binalsheidah, Ramzi Mohamed Abdullah; Bin Al Shibh, Ramzi; Omar, Ramzi Mohamed Abdellah; Mohamed Ali Abdullah Bawazir; Binalsheidah, Ramzi Mohamed Abdullah; Bin Al Shibh, Ramzi; Omar, Ramzi Mohamed Abdellah; Mohamed Ali Abdullah Bawazir; Binalshibh Ramzi Mohammed Abdullah; Ramzi Binalshib; Ramzi Mohamed Abdellah Omar Hassan Alassiri; Binalshibh Ramsi Mohamed Abdullah; Abu Ubaydah; ‘Umar Muhammad ‘Abdallah Ba’ Amar; Ramzi Omar)*; 01.05.1972 г.р., a) Gheil Bawazir, Hadramawt, Yemen b) Khartoum, Sudan. DOB: 16 Sep. 1973.

319. REDENDO CAIN DELLOSA (Abu Ilonggo; Brandon Berusa; Abu Muadz; Arnulfo Alvarado; Habil Ahmad Dellosa; Uthman; Dodong; Troy)*; 15.05.1972 г.р., Punta, Santa Ana, Manila, Philippines.

320. REDOUANE EL HABHAB (Abdelrahman)*; 20.12.1969 г.р., Casablanca, Morocco.

321. RI’AD (RAED) MUHAMMAD HASAN MUHAMMAD HIJAZI (Hijazi Raed M.; Al-Hawen Abu-Ahmad; Al-Shahid Abu-Ahmad; Al-Maghribi Rashid; Al-Amriki Abu-Ahmad)*; 30.12.1968 г.р., California, United States of America.

322. RIADH BEN BELKASSEM BEN MOHAMED AL-JELASSI*; 15.12.1970 г.р., Al-Mohamedia, Tunisia.

323. RICARDO PEREZ AYERAS (Abdul Kareem Ayeras; Abdul Karim Ayeras; Ricky Ayeras; Jimboy; Isaac Jay Galang Perez; Abdul Mujib)*; 15.09.1973 г.р., 24 Paraiso Street, Barangay Poblacion, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

324. RUBEN PESTANO LAVILLA, JR (Reuben Lavilla; Sheik Omar; Mile D Lavilla; Reymund Lavilla; Ramo Lavilla; Mike de Lavilla; Abdullah Muddaris; Ali Omar; Omar Lavilla; Omar Labella; So; Eso; Junjun)*; 04.10.1972 г.р., Sitio Banga Maiti, Barangay Tranghawan, Lambunao, Iloilo, Philippines.

325. RUSTUM HANAFI HABIBULLAH (Rostam Nuristani)*; 1963 г.р., Dara Kolum, Do Aab district, Nuristan province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1963.

326. SA’D ABDULLAH HUSSEIN AL-SHARIF*; 1969 г.р., Al-Medinah, Saudi Arabia, DOB: 1963; 11.02.1964.

327. SAAD RASHED MOHAMMAD AL-FAQIH (Abu Uthman Sa’d Al-Faqih; Sa’ad Al-Faqih; Saad Alfagih; Sa’d Al-Faqi; Saad Al Faqih; Saad Al-Fagih; Saad Al-Fakih; Saad Al-Faqih; Sa d Rashid Muhammed Al-Fageeh)*; 01.02.1957 г.р., Al-Zubair, Iraq. DOB: a) 1 Feb. 1957 b) 31 Jan. 1957.

328. SADUDDIN SAYYED (Sadudin Sayed; Sadruddin)*; 1968 г.р., Chaman district, Pakistan. DOB: Approximately 1968.

329. SAID AHMED SHAHIDKHEL*; 1975 г.р., Central Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1975.

330. SAID ALI AL-SHIHRI (Sa id Ali Jabir al-Kathim al-Shihri; Said Ali Al Shahri; Said Ali Jaber Al Khasaam Al Shahri; Said Ali Jaber Al Khassam; Abu-Sayyaf; Abu-Sufyan al-Azidi; Abu-Sayyaf al-Shihri; Abu Sufian Kadhdhaab Matrook; Salah; Salah Abu Sufyan; Salah al-Din; Abu Osama; Abu Sulaiman; Nur al-Din Afghani Azibk; Alahhaddm; Akhdam; Abu Sufian Al Azadi; Abu Asmaa)*; 12.09.1973 г.р., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

331. SAID BAHAJI (Zouheir Al Maghribi; Mohamed Abbattay; Abderrahmane Al Maghribi)*; 15.07.1975 г.р., Haselunne, Lower Saxony, Germany.

332. SAID BEN ABDELHAKIM BEN OMAR AL-CHERIF (Djallal; Youcef; Abou Salman)*; 25.01.1970 г.р., Menzel Temine, Tunisia.

333. SAID JAN ‘ABD AL-SALAM (Sa’id Jan ‘Abd-al-Salam; Dilawar Khan Zain Khan; Qazi ‘Abdallah; Qazi Abdullah; Ibrahim Walid; Qasi Sa’id Jan; Said Jhan; Farhan Khan; Aziz Cairo; Nangiali)*; 05.02.1981 г.р. (01.01.1972 г.р.).

334. SAID YOUSSEF ALI ABU AZIZA (Abdul Hamid; Abu Therab)*; 1958 г.р., Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

335. SAIFI AMMARI (El Para; Abderrezak Le Para; Abou Haidara; El Ourassi; Abderrezak Zaimeche; Abdul Rasak ammane Abu Haidra; Abdalarak)*; 01.01.1968 г.р., Kef Rih, Algeria; Guelma, Algeria.

336. SAIYID ABD AL-MAN (Abdul Manan; Agha Haji; Am)*.

337. SAJID MOHAMMED BADAT (Abu Issa; Saajid Badat; Sajid Badat; Muhammed Badat; Sajid Muhammad Badat; Saajid Mohammad Badet; Muhammed Badet; Sajid Muhammed Badet; Sajid Mahomed Badat)*; 28.03.1979 г.р., Gloucester, United Kingdom. Возможно дата рождения: 08.03.1976.

338. SALAH GASMI (Abou Mohamed Salah; Bounouadher)*; 13.04.1971 г.р., Zeribet El Oued, Wilaya (province) of Biskra, Algeria.

339. SALEH MOHAMMAD KAKAR (Saleh Mohammad)*; 1962 г.р., Nulgham Village, Panjwai District, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

340. SALEM NOR ELDIN AMOHAMED AL-DABSKI (Abu Al-Ward; Abdullah Ragab; Abu Naim)*; 1963 г.р., Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

341. SALIM AHMAD SALIM HAMDAN (Saqr Al-Jaddawi; Saqar AL Jadawi; Saqar Aljawadi; Salem Ahmed Salem Hamdan)*; 1965 г.р., POB: a) Al-Mukalla, Yemen b) Al-Mukala, Yemen.

342. SALIM Y SALAMUDDIN JULKIPLI (Kipli Sali; Julkipli Salim)*; 20.06.1967 г.р., Tulay, Jolo Sulu, Phillippines.

343. SAMI BEN KHAMIS BEN SALEH ELSSEID (Omar El Mouhajer; Saber)*; 10.02.1968 г.р., Menzel Jemil, Bizerte, Tunisia.

344. SAMIR ABD EL LATIF EL SAYED KISHK*; 14.05.1955 г.р., Gharbia, Egypt.

345. SANANI*; Zabul province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1923.

346. SAYED ALLAMUDDIN ATHEER (Sayed Allamuddin Athear)*; 15.02.1955 г.р., Badakhshan, Afghanistan.

347. SAYED ESMATULLAH ASEM (Esmatullah Asem)*; 1967 г.р., Ningarhar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1967.

348. SAYED MOHAMMAD AZIM AGHA (Sayed Mohammad Azim Agha; Agha Saheb)*; 1966 г.р., Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1966.

349. SAYEEDUR RAHMAN HAQANI (Sayed Urrahman)*; 1952 г.р., Kunar province, Afghanistan.

350. SAYF-AL ADL (Saif Al-’Adil)*; 1963 г.р., Egypt.

351. SAYYED GHIASSOUDDINE AGHA (Sayed Ghias; Sayed Ghiasuddin Sayed Ghousuddin; Sayyed Ghayasudin)*; Faryab province, Afghanistan.

352. SAYYED MOHAMMED HAQQANI (Sayyed Mohammad Haqqani)*; 1965 г.р., Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.

353. SHAFIQ BEN MOHAMED BEN MOHAMED AL-AYADI (Bin Muhammad Ayadi Chafiq; Ayadi Chafic Ben Muhammad; Aiadi Ben Muhammad; Aiady Ben Muhammad; Ayadi Shafig Ben Mohamed; Ben Mohamed Ayadi Chafig; Abou El Baraa; Chafiq Ayadi; Chafik Ayadi; Ayadi Chafiq; Ayadi Chafik; Ajadi Chafik)*; 21.01.1963 г.р., Sfax, Tunisia.

354. SHAHABUDDIN DELAWAR*; 1957 г.р., Logar province, Afghanistan.

355. SHAMS UR-RAHMAN SHER ALAM (Shamsurrahman; Shams-u-Rahman)*; Suroobi district, Kabul province, Afghanistan.

356. SHAMSUDIN*; Keshim district, Badakhshan province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1968.

357. SHAMSULLAH KMALZADA (Shamsalah Kmalzada)*.

358. SHEIKH AHMED SALIM SWEDAN (Ahmed Ally; Sheikh Ahmad Salem Suweidan; Sheikh Swedan; Sheikh Ahmed Salem Swedan; Ahmed The Tall; Bahamad; Sheik Bahamad; Sheikh Bahamadi; Ally Ahmad; Muhamed Sultan; Sheik Ahmed Salim Sweden; Sleyum Salum; Sheikh Bahamad; Sheikh Ahmed Salam)*; 09.04.1969 г.р., Mombasa, Kenya. DOB: a) 9 Apr. 1960 b) 9 Apr. 1969 c) 4 Sep. 1969.

359. SHER MOHAMMAD ABBAS STANEKZAI*; Logar province, Afghanistan. Примерный г.р. 1963.

360. SIRAJUDDIN JALLALOUDINE HAQQANI (Siraj Haqqani; Serajuddin Haqani; Siraj Haqani; Saraj Haqani; Khalifa)*; 1977 г.р., a) Danda, Miramshah, North Waziristan, Pakistan b) Srana village, Garda Saray district, Paktia province, Afghanistan c) Neka district, Paktika province, Afghanistan d) Khost province, Afghanistan. DOB: approximately 1977/1978.

361. SOBHI ABD AL AZIZ MOHAMED EL GOHARY ABU SINNA (Sheik Taysir Abdullah; Mohamed Atef; Abu Hafs Al Masri; Abu Hafs Al Masri El Khabir; Taysir)*; 17.01.1958 г.р., El Behira, Egypt.

362. SUHAYL FATILLOEVICH BURANOV*; 1983 г.р., Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

363. SULAIMAN JASSEM SULAIMAN ALI ABO GHAITH (Abo Ghaith)*; 14.12.1965 г.р., Kuwait.

364. SULAYMAN KHALID DARWISH (Abu Al-Ghadiya)*; 1976 г.р., Outside Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic. Approximately 1974.

365. SULIMAN HAMD SULEIMAN AL-BUTHE (Soliman H.S. Al Buthi)*; 08.12.1961 г.р., Cairo, Egypt.

366. TAHA*; 1963 г.р., Ningarhar province, Afghanistan. DOB: Approximately 1963.

367. TAHIS*.

368. TAREK BEN HABIB BEN AL-TOUMI AL-MAAROUFI (Abu Ismail; Abou Ismail el Jendoubi; Abou Ismail Al Djoundoubi)*; 23.11.1965 г.р., Ghardimaou, Tunisia.

369. TARIQ ANWAR EL SAYED AHMED (Hamdi Ahmad Farag; Amr Al-Fatih Fathi)*; 15.03.1963 г.р., Alexandria, Egypt.

370. TAUFIK RIFKI (Refke Taufek; Rifqi Taufik; Rifqi Tawfiq; Ami Iraq; Ami Irza; Amy Erja; Ammy Erza; Ammy Izza; Ami Kusoman; Abu Obaida; Abu Obaidah; Abu Obeida; Abu Ubaidah; Obaidah; Abu Obayda; Izza Kusoman; Yacub Eric)*; 29.08.1974 г.р., Dacusuman Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia. Dacusuman Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia. Возможно г.р.: 09.08.1974 or 19.08.1974 or 19.08.1980.

371. TAYEB NAIL (Djaafar Abou Mohamed; Abou Mouhadjir; Mohamed Ould Ahmed Ould Ali)*; 1972 г.р., Faidh El Batma, Djelfa, Algeria. DOB: Approximately 1972 (1976 г.р.).

372. THARWAT SALAH SHIHATA (Tarwat Salah Abdallah; Salah Shihata Thirwat; Shahata Thirwat; Tharwat Salah Shihata Ali)*; 29.06.1960 г.р., Egypt.

373. UBAIDULLAH AKHUND (Obaidullah Akhund; Obaid Ullah Akhund)*; 1968 г.р., Kandahar, Afghanistan.

374. USAMA MUHAMMED AWAD BIN LADEN (Usama Bin Laden; Usama Bin Muhammed Bin Awad Osama Bin Laden; Abu Abdallah Abd Al-Hakim; Ben Laden Osama; Ben Laden Ossama; Ben Laden Usama; Bin Laden Osama Mohamed Awdh; Bin Laden Usamah Bin Muhammad; Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin; Usamah Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin; Al Qaqa; Usama bin Ladin; Osama bin Ladin; Usamah bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin)*; 30.07.1957 г.р., 1) Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2) Yemen. DOB: 28.07.1957; 10.03.1957; 01.01.1957; 1956; 1957.

375. WA’ EL HAMZA ABD AL-FATAH JULAIDAN (Wa’il Hamza Julaidan; Wa’el Hamza Jalaidan; Wa’il Hamza Jalaidan; Wa’il Hamza Jaladin; Abu Al-Hasan Al Madani; Wa’el Hamza Jaladin; Wail H.A. Jlidan)*; 22.01.1958 г.р., Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia. DOB: 20.01.1958.

376. WALI UR REHMAN*; 1970 г.р., Pakistan.

377. WALIJAN*; Quetta, Pakistan; DOB: Approximately 1968.

378. WAN MIN WAN MAT (Abu Hafis; Wan Halim; Abu Hidayah)*; 23.09.1960 г.р., Kelantan, Malaysia.

379. YACINE AHMED NACER (Yacine Di Annaba; Il Lungo; Naslano)*; 02.12.1967 г.р., Annaba, Algeria.

380. YAHIA DJOUADI (Yahia Abou Ammar; Abou Ala)*; 01.01.1967 г.р., M’Hamid, Wilaya (province) of Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.

381. YAR MOHAMMAD RAHIMI*; Panjwaee district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan; DOB: Approximately 1953.

382. YASIN ABDULLAH EZZEDINE QADI (Kadi Shaykh Yassin Abdullah; Kahdi Yasin; Yasin Al-Qadi)*; 23.02.1955 г.р., Cairo, Egypt.

383. YASIN ALI BAYNAH (Ali, Yasin Baynah; Ali, Yassin Mohamed; Baynah, Yasin; Baynah, Yassin; Baynax, Yasiin Cali; Beenah, Yasin; Beenah, Yassin; Beenax, Yasin; Beenax, Yassin; Benah, Yasin; Benah, Yassin; Benax, Yassin; Beynah, Yasin; Binah, Yassin; Cali, Yasiin Baynax)*; 1966 г.

384. YASSER MOHAMED ISMAIL ABU SHAWEESH (Yasser Mohamed Abou Shaweesh)*; 20.11.1973 г.р., Benghazi, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

385. YASSIN SYWAL (Salim Yasin; Mochtar Yasin Mahmud; Abdul Hadi Yasin; Muhamad Mubarok; Muhammad Syawal; Abu Seta; Mahmud; Abu Muamar)*; 1972 г.р.

386. YASSINE CHEKKOURI*; 06.10.1966 г.р., Safi, Morocco.

387. YAZID SUFAAT (Joe; Abu Zufar)*; 20.01.1964 г.р., Johor, Malaysia.

388. YOUCEF ABBES (Giuseppe)*; 05.01.1965 г.р., Bab el Oued, Algeria.

389. YOUSSEF BEN ABDUL BAKI BEN YOUCEF ABDAOUI (Abu Abdullah; Abdellah; Abdullah; Abou Abdullah; Abdullah Youssef)*; 04.09.1966 г.р., Kairouan (Tunisia).

390. YULDASHEV TOHIR (Yuldashev Takhir)*.

391. YUNOS UMPARA MOKLIS (Muklis Yunos; Saifullah Mukhlis Yunos; Mukhlis Yunos; Saifulla Moklis Yunos; Hadji Onos)*; 07.07.1966 г.р., Lanao del Sur, Philippines.

392. ZABIHULLAH HAMIDI*.

393. ZAINI ZAKARIA (Ahmad)*; 16.05.1967 г.р., Kelantan, Malaysia.

394. ZAKARYA ESSABAR*; 13.04.1977 г.р., Essaouria / Morocco.

395. ZAKI EZAT ZAKI AHMED (Rif’at Salim; Abu Usama)*; 21.04.1960 г.р., Sharqiyah, Egypt.

396. ZAKI-UR-REHMAN LAKHVI (Zakir Rehman Lakvi; Zaki Ur-Rehman Lakvi; Kaki Ur-Rehman; Zakir Rehman; Abu Waheed Irshad Ahmad Arshad; Chachajee)*; 30.12.1960 г.р., Okara, Pakistan.

397. ZAYN AL-ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSSEIN (Abd Al-Hadi Al-Wahab; Zain Al-Abidin Muhammad Husain; Abu Zubaydah; Tariq Hani; Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn; Zeinulabideen Muhammed Husein Abu Zubeidah; Abu Zubaida)*; 12.03.1971 г.р., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

398. ZIA-UR-RAHMAN MADANI (Ziaurrahman Madani; Zaia u Rahman Madani; Madani Saheb)*; 1960 г.р., Taliqan, Takhar province, Afghanistan.

399. ZULKARNAEN (Zulkarnan; Zulkarnain; Zulkarnin; Arif Sunarso; Aris Sumarsono; Aris Sunarso; Ustad Daud Zulkarnaen; Murshid)*; 1963 г.р., Gebang village, Masaran, Sragen, Central Java, Indonesia.

400. ZULKEPLI BIN MARZUKI*; 03.07.1968 г.р., Selangor, Malaysia.

401. ZULKIFLI ABDUL HIR (Musa Abdul Hir; Muslimin Abdulmotalib; Salim Alombra; Armand Escalante; Normina Hashim; Henri Lawi; Hendri Lawi; Norhana Mohamad; Omar Salem; Ahmad Shobirin; Bin Abdul Hir Zulkifli; Abdulhir Bin Hir; Hassan; Hogalu; Hugalu; Lagu; Marwan)*; 05.01.1966 г.р., MuarJohor, Malaysia. DOB: a) 5 Jan. 1966 b) 5 Oct. 1966.

TOP-SECRET-Russian Ministry of Justice List of People and Organizations Linked to Russian Terrorism Financing

July 6, 2011 in Russia

This “previously confidential list of people and organizations found to be involved in laundering money and funding terrorism” was presented by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian-government owned newspaper.  It was originally compiled by the Russian Ministry of Justice.  A rough, Google translation is also presented [in brackets] alongside the headings in Russian.

Организации и физические лица, включенные в перечень на основании подпунктов 1 – 3 пункта 2.1 статьи 6 Федерального закона от 7 августа 2001 г. N 115-ФЗ “О противодействии легализации (отмыванию) доходов, полученных преступным путем, и финансированию терроризма”

[Organizations and individuals included in the list by virtue of subsections 1 – 3 of paragraph 2.1 of Article 6 of the Federal Law of 7 August 2001 N 115-FZ “On Combating Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and Terrorist Financing”]

Организации [Organizations]

1. АЛЬ-КАИДА В СТРАНАХ ИСЛАМСКОГО МАГРИБА (ПРЕЖНЕЕ НАЗВАНИЕ САЛАФИСТСКАЯ ГРУППА ПРОПОВЕДИ И ДЖИХАДА)*.

2. АСБАТ АЛЬ-АНСАР*.

3. БАЗА (АЛЬ-КАИДА)*.

4. БРАТЬЯ-МУСУЛЬМАНЕ (АЛЬ-ИХВАН АЛЬ-МУСЛИМУН)*.

5. ВЫСШИЙ ВОЕННЫЙ МАДЖЛИСУЛЬ ШУРА ОБЪЕДИНЕННЫХ СИЛ МОДЖАХЕДОВ КАВКАЗА*.

6. ГРУППА ДЖАМААТ МУВАХИДОВ.

7. ДВИЖЕНИЕ ТАЛИБАН*.

8. ДЖУНД АШ-ШАМ*.

9. ДОМ ДВУХ СВЯТЫХ (АЛЬ-ХАРАМЕЙН)*.

10. ИМАРАТ КАВКАЗ (КАВКАЗСКИЙ ЭМИРАТ)*.

11. ИСЛАМСКАЯ ГРУППА (АЛЬ-ГАМАА АЛЬ-ИСЛАМИЯ)*.

12. ИСЛАМСКАЯ ГРУППА (ДЖАМААТ-И-ИСЛАМИ)*.

13. ИСЛАМСКАЯ ПАРТИЯ ТУРКЕСТАНА (бывшее ИСЛАМСКОЕ ДВИЖЕНИЕ УЗБЕКИСТАНА)*.

14. ИСЛАМСКИЙ ДЖИХАД-ДЖАМААТ МОДЖАХЕДОВ*.

15. КАБАРДИНО-БАЛКАРСКАЯ РЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ СОВЕТ СТАРЕЙШИН БАЛКАРСКОГО НАРОДА КБР; ИНН: 0721013951; Рег.номер: 1060700000118; г. Нальчик Кабардино-Балкарская Республика, пр. Ленина, д. 7 “а”, офис 110.

16. КОНГРЕСС НАРОДОВ ИЧКЕРИИ И ДАГЕСТАНА*.

17. ЛАШКАР-И-ТАЙБА*.

18. МЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ НУРДЖУЛАР.

19. МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ НАЦИОНАЛ-СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО (НСО, НС).

20. МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ РЕЛИГИОЗНОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ АТ-ТАКФИР ВАЛЬ-ХИДЖРА.

21. МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ РЕЛИГИОЗНОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ ТАБЛИГИ ДЖАМААТ.

22. МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ДВИЖЕНИЕ ПРОТИВ НЕЛЕГАЛЬНОЙ ИММИГРАЦИИ.

23. МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ НАЦИОНАЛ-БОЛЬШЕВИСТСКАЯ ПАРТИЯ.

24. МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ДВИЖЕНИЕ АРМИЯ ВОЛИ НАРОДА.

25. МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ ДУХОВНО-РОДОВАЯ ДЕРЖАВА РУСЬ.

26. МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ ФОРМАТ-18.

27. МЕСТНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ГОРОДА КРАСНОДАРА ПИТ БУЛЬ (PIT BULL); г. Краснодар, ул. Гудимы, д. 32, кв. 99.

28. МЕСТНАЯ РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ АСГАРДСКАЯ СЛАВЯНСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ДУХОВНОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ АСГАРДСКОЙ ВЕСИ БЕЛОВОДЬЯ ДРЕВНЕРУССКОЙ ИНГЛИИСТИЧЕСКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ ПРАВОСЛАВНЫХ СТАРОВЕРОВ-ИНГЛИНГОВ; г. Омск; г.Омск, ул.Ивана Воронкова, 29-а.

29. МЕСТНАЯ РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ СВИДЕТЕЛИ ИЕГОВЫ ТАГАНРОГ.

30. МЕСТНАЯ РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ СЛАВЯНСКАЯ ОБЩИНА КАПИЩА ВЕДЫ ПЕРУНА ДУХОВНОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ АСГАРДСКОЙ ВЕСИ БЕЛОВОДЬЯ ДРЕВНЕРУССКОЙ ИНГЛИИСТИЧЕСКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ ПРАВОСЛАВНЫХ СТАРОВЕРОВ-ИНГЛИНГОВ; г. Омск; г.Омск, ул.Ивана Воронкова, 29-а.

31. МОСКОВСКАЯ ГОРОДСКАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ МЕЖРЕГИОНАЛЬНОГО ОБЩЕСТВЕННОГО ДВИЖЕНИЯ СЛАВЯНСКИЙ СОЮЗ.

32. ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ НЕЗАРЕГИСТРИРОВАННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ ГРУППА РАДА ЗЕМЛИ КУБАНСКОЙ ДУХОВНО РОДОВОЙ ДЕРЖАВЫ РУСЬ; г. Краснодар, ул. Коммунаров, д. 221.

33. ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ АХТУБИНСКОЕ НАРОДНОЕ ДВИЖЕНИЕ К БОГОДЕРЖАВИЮ.

34. ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ КУЗБАССКАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ СЛАВЯНСКИЙ МИР.

35. ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ ОМСКАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОГО ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО ДВИЖЕНИЯ РУССКОЕ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЕ ЕДИНСТВО.

36. ОБЩЕСТВО ВОЗРОЖДЕНИЯ ИСЛАМСКОГО НАСЛЕДИЯ (ДЖАМИЯТ ИХЬЯ АТ-ТУРАЗ АЛЬ-ИСЛАМИ)*.

37. ОБЩЕСТВО СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ РЕФОРМ (ДЖАМИЯТ АЛЬ-ИСЛАХ АЛЬ-ИДЖТИМАИ)*.

38. ОБЪЕДИНЕННЫЙ ВИЛАЙАТ КАБАРДЫ, БАЛКАРИИ И КАРАЧАЯ.

39. ПАРТИЯ ИСЛАМСКОГО ОСВОБОЖДЕНИЯ (ХИЗБ УТ-ТАХРИР АЛЬ-ИСЛАМИ)*.

40. ПРИМОРСКАЯ РЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ ПРАВОЗАЩИТНАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ СОЮЗ СЛАВЯН; ИНН: 2540087611; Рег. номер: 1082500000318; 690019, г. Владивосток, ул. Алеутская, д. 45А, офис 120.

41. РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ОБЪЕДИНЕНИЕ НАЦИОНАЛ-СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКАЯ РАБОЧАЯ ПАРТИЯ РОССИИ (НСРПР).

42. РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ГРУППА БЛАГОРОДНЫЙ ОРДЕН ДЬЯВОЛА.

43. РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ГРУППА КРАСНОДАРСКАЯ ПРАВОСЛАВНАЯ СЛАВЯНСКАЯ ОБЩИНА “ВЕК РА” (ВЕДИЧЕСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ РОССИЙСКИХ АРИЕВ) СКИФСКОЙ ВЕСИ РАССЕНИИ.

44. РЕЛИГИОЗНАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ МУЖСКАЯ ДУХОВНАЯ СЕМИНАРИЯ ДУХОВНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОГО РЕЛИГИОЗНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ ДРЕВНЕРУССКОЙ ИНГЛИИСТИЧЕСКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ ПРАВОСЛАВНЫХ СТАРОВЕРОВ-ИНГЛИНГОВ; г. Омск; г. Омск, ул. Ивана Воронкова, 29-а.

45. РЯЗАНСКАЯ ГОРОДСКАЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННАЯ ПАТРИОТИЧЕСКАЯ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ РУССКОЕ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЕ ЕДИНСТВО.

46. СВЯЩЕННАЯ ВОЙНА (АЛЬ-ДЖИХАД ИЛИ ЕГИПЕТСКИЙ ИСЛАМСКИЙ ДЖИХАД)*.

Физические лица [Individuals]

1. АБАЕВ АЛИХАН АБДИЕВИЧ*, 19.12.1986 г.р., с. Сельментаузе Веденского района ЧИАССР.

2. АБАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 29.05.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

3. АБАКАРОВ МАГОМЕД ГАСАНОВИЧ*, 12.07.1983 г.р., ст. Бороздиновская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

4. АБАСИЛОВ МАГОМЕД ПАХРУДИНОВИЧ*, 27.02.1972 г.р., с. Стальское Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

5. АБДЕЛЬ АЗИЗ МАХАММЕД АБДЕЛЬ ВАХАТ*, 07.09.1959 г.р., г. Мосул, Ирак.

6. АБДРАХМАНОВ АДЛАН АМСАДОВИЧ*, 03.07.1975 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

7. АБДУЛАЕВ ПАТАХ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 18.02.1973 г.р., с. Гимры Унцукульского района Республики Дагестан.

8. АБДУЛАЕВ ШАМИЛЬ ХАРОНОВИЧ*, 18.01.1980 г.р., с. Уч-Арал Талды-Курганской области Казахской ССР.

9. АБДУЛВАГАБОВ РУСЛАН КАЗБЕКОВИЧ*, 09.05.1978 г.р., ст. Каргалинская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

10. АБДУЛВАГАПОВ САЙД-МАГОМЕД АБУТАЛИПОВИЧ*, 31.07.1980 г.р., с. Шаами-Юрт ЧИАССР.

11. АБДУЛВАХАБОВ РУСЛАН МИЦИЕВИЧ*, 29.01.1980 г.р., с. Закан-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

12. АБДУЛКАДЫРОВ АБДУЛКАДЫР ГАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 07.09.1959 г.р., с. Кудали Гунибского района Республики Дагестан.

13. АБДУЛКАДЫРОВ РУСЛАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 23.07.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

14. АБДУЛКАДЫРОВ ШАМСУДИ САЙТХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 06.03.1981 г.р., с. Яшкуль Яшкульского района Калмыцкой АССР.

15. АБДУЛКАРИМОВ МАГОМЕД УСМАНОВИЧ*, 21.01.1974 г.р., с. Муцалаул Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

16. АБДУЛЛАЕВ АДАМ МОЛДИЕВИЧ (АБДУЛАЕВ АДАМ МОЛДИЕВИЧ)*, 20.05.1985 г.р., с. Алхан-Юрт Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР (20.05.1985 г.р., с. Алхан-Юрт Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР).

17. АБДУЛМАЖИДОВ АХМАД ДЕНИЕВИЧ*, 25.10.1981 г.р., с. Алхан-Юрт Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

18. АБДУЛХАДЖИЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ЗАНДИЕВИЧ*, 31.07.1975 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

19. АБДУРАЗАКОВ АБДУРАЗАК МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 22.01.1961 г.р., г. Буйнакск Республики Дагестан.

20. АБДУРАЗАКОВ МУРАД САЛИМОВИЧ*, 23.11.1968 г.р., с. Хоточ Гунибского района Республики Дагестан.

21. АБДУРАХМАНОВ АСЛАМБЕК САЙХАНОВИЧ*, 21.06.1975 г.р., с. Курчалой ЧИАССР.

22. АБДУРАХМАНОВ ТУРПАЛ АЛИ ИЗМУТДИНОВИЧ*, 04.11.1966 г.р., с. Замьяны Астраханской обл.

23. АБДУРАХМАНОВ ШАМИЛЬ ХАНСОЛТАЕВИЧ*, 15.11.1990 г.р., с. Байтарки Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

24. АБДУРАШИДОВ МОХМАТСЕЛАХ АБДУЛВАХИДОВИЧ*, 14.08.1965 г.р., с. Кошкельды Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики.

25. АБЖАВАТОВ АРТУР АБАКАРОВИЧ*, 26.11.1983 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

26. АБСАЛИМОВ РУСТАМ САПИРОВИЧ*, 28.08.1976 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

27. АБУБАКАРОВ ИЛЬЯС АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 24.10.1984 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

28. АБУБАКАРОВ ИЛЬЯС МУСАЕВИЧ*, 14.09.1979 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

29. АБУБАКАРОВ ЛЕМА ДЕНИСОЛТАНОВИЧ*, 10.05.1974 г.р., с. Ахкинчу-Борзой Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

30. АБУБАКАРОВ РИЗАВДИ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 29.11.1982 г.р., п. Чограйский Арзгирского района Ставропольского края.

31. АБУБАКАРОВ РИЗВАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 17.01.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

32. АБУБАКАРОВ РУСЛАН САЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 14.09.1965 г.р., г. Токмак Киргизской АССР.

33. АБУБАКАРОВ РУСЛАНБЕК БУСАНИЕВИЧ*, 27.05.1979 г.р., с. Знаменское Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

34. АБУБАКАРОВ САИДХАСАН НАЖМУДИЕВИЧ*, 09.06.1981 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

35. АБУБАКАРОВ САЙД-ХАМЗАТ АДАМОВИЧ*, 02.01.1979 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

36. АБУЕВ САИД МУСАЕВИЧ*, 08.05.1973 г.р., г. Тимер-Тау Карагалинской области Республики Казахстан.

37. АБУЕВ ХАСАН АБУСУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 21.12.1963 г.р., с. Тевзан Веденского р-на ЧИАССР.

38. АБУХАНОВ АЛИК ШАХИДОВИЧ*, 31.08.1960 г.р., с. Махкеты Введенского района ЧИАССР.

39. АВДАДАЕВ РУСТАМ ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 20.02.1979 г.р., с. Гойское Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

40. АГАЕВ ТАХИР ХАЛАДОВИЧ*, 08.08.1977 г.р., с. Байтарки Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

41. АГАМИРЗАЕВ АБДУЛХАМИД МУТАЛИПОВИЧ*, 16.05.1985 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

42. АГАМИРЗАЕВ АРТУР МУТАЛИПОВИЧ*, 26.07.1981 г.р., с. Нохч-Келой Советского района ЧИАССР.

43. АГУЕВ МАГОМЕД-ЭМИ МОВЛАЕВИЧ*, 09.07.1986 г.р., с. Новые Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

44. АГУЕВ МОВЛИД МАМАЕВИЧ*, 29.07.1970 г.р., с. Мескеты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

45. АДАЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 12.03.1984 г.р., х. Овчинников Дубовского р-на Ростовской обл.

46. АДАЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ВАЛЕРЬЕВИЧ*, 24.03.1974 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

47. АДАМОВ АБУДАРДЫ МАГАМЕДОВИЧ*, 25.07.1973 г.р., с. Арбузинка Балкашинского р-на Целиноградской области Республики Казахстан.

48. АДАМОВ МАЙРБЕК МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 07.04.1957 г.р., с. Чулактау Джамбульской области Казахской ССР.

49. АДЖИНИЯЗОВ КАЙТАРБИ СЕЙДАЛИЕВИЧ*, 22.12.1974 г.р., с. Тукуй-Мектеб Нефтекумского района Ставропольского края.

50. АДИЛЬГЕРЕЕВ ИСМАИЛ АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 24.04.1970 г.р., г. Буйнакск Республики Дагестан.

51. АДУЕВ РАМЗАН АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 27.09.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

52. АЖГЕЛЬДИЕВ ЭНВЕР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.09.1983 г.р., а. Кизыл-Юрт Хабезского района Ставропольского края.

53. АЗИЕВ АЛИХАН МОВЛАЕВИЧ*, 31.07.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

54. АЗИЕВ ИМРАН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 01.06.1973 г.р., с. Старая Сунжа Грозненского р-на ЧИАССР.

55. АЗИЕВ РИЗВАН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 21.03.1979 г.р., с. Старая Сунжа Грозненского района (возможно г. Грозный) ЧИАССР.

56. АЗИЕВ САИД-АХМЕД МУХИДОВИЧ*, 20.12.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

57. АЗИЕВ ХАЖМУРАД ЯКУБОВИЧ*, 29.09.1968 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

58. АЗИЕВ ХАМЗАТ БАДРУДИНОВИЧ*, 14.09.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

59. АЗИЕВ ХАРОН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 15.01.1975 г.р., с. Совяжа-Юрт Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

60. АЗИЕВ ШАМХАН МУХИДОВИЧ*, 10.08.1979 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

61. АЗИЕВ ЮНУС ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 08.09.1981 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

62. АЗИЗОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ АЛЫМЖАНОВИЧ*, 10.11.1982 г.р., с. Никольское Гатчинского района Ленинградской области.

63. АЗИМОВ АНЗОР ЗИЯУДИНОВИЧ*, 14.09.1982 г.р., с. Ушкалой Советского района ЧИАССР.

64. АЙБАЗОВ ОТАРИЙ АЛИЕВИЧ*, 26.05.1971 г.р., ст. Сторожевая Зеленчукского района Ставропольского края.

65. АЙБАЗОВ РАШИД ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 15.02.1980 г.р., г. Усть-Джегута Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

66. АЙГУМОВ СУЛЕЙМАН САЙД-ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 27.01.1981 г.р., с. Побединское ЧИАССР.

67. АЙДАЕВ ИБРАГИМ ГОГЛАЕВИЧ*, 15.11.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

68. АЙДАМИРОВ ВАХИТ КАЧАЕВИЧ*, 22.11.1964 г.р., с. Агишбатой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

69. АЙСУМОВ ЗАУРБЕК АСЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 24.09.1990 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

70. АЙТАЕВ АЛИ САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 16.11.1973 г.р., с. Киров-Юрт Введенского района ЧИАССР.

71. АЙТАМИРОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ИСЛАМХАНОВИЧ*, 10.01.1964 г.р., с. Татай-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

72. АЙТУКАЕВ АЛИБЕК ЮНУСОВИЧ*, 24.01.1979 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

73. АЙТУКАЕВ МЯХЬДИ МОВСАЕВИЧ*, 23.10.1984 г.р., ст. Дубовская Шелковского района Чеченской Республики.

74. АКАВОВ ЗАУР ГУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 11.08.1973 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

75. АКАЕВ СУПЬЯН ХАСУЕВИЧ*, 04.03.1976 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

76. АКБУЛАТОВ АСЛАН САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 15.05.1972 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

77. АКИЕВ АДАМ АЮБОВИЧ*, 01.07.1955 г.р., с. Джатсай Ильичевского района Ю-Казахстанской области.

78. АКИШИН ВИТАЛИЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 07.05.1969 г.р., г. Дятьково Брянской области.

79. АЛАЕВ АСЛАН САЙДАХМАДОВИЧ*, 13.06.1978 г.р., с. Нижний Герзель Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

80. АЛАЕВ ХАСАИН АБДУЛХАНОВИЧ*, 15.05.1976 г.р., с. Нижний Герзель Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

81. АЛАРХАНОВ МАГОМЕД ЭДАМОВИЧ*, 05.11.1973 г.р., с. Суворов-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

82. АЛАУДИНОВ АЛАШ АЛЬВИЕВИЧ*, 07.03.1960 г.р., Чири-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

83. АЛДАМОВ АЛИХАН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 05.10.1977 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

84. АЛДАМОВ АСЛАН ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 24.07.1976 г.р., с. Золотуха Актюбинского района Астраханской области.

85. АЛДАНОВ ХАБИБ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 13.09.1975 г.р., с. Верхний Дженгутай Буйнакского района ДАССР.

86. АЛЕКПЕРОВ МУСА НУХБАБАЕВИЧ*, 15.03.1972 г.р., с. Побегайловка Минераловодского района Ставропольского края.

87. АЛЕКСАНДРОВ НИКОЛАЙ ГЕННАДЬЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1982 г.р., г. Новочебоксарск Чувашской Республики.

88. АЛЕКСЕЙЧИК СЕРГЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 18.04.1978 г.р., г. Чимкент Республики Казахстан.

89. АЛЕРОЕВ ИБРАГИМ ХУСЕНОВИЧ*, 19.06.1976 г.р., с. Пседах Малгобекского района ЧИАССР.

90. АЛЕРОЕВ ХАЛИД СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 03.02.1974 г.р., с. Пседах Малгобекского района Республики Ингушетия.

91. АЛИ СОЙТЕКИНОГЛЫ*, 10.02.1977 г.р., Карасу, Турция.

92. АЛИБАЕВ МАРСЕЛЬ УРАЛОВИЧ*, 09.07.1974 г.р., п. Уфимский Хайбуллинского района Республики Башкортостан.

93. АЛИБИЕВ РАМАЗАН ИЛЬМАТИЕВИЧ*, 21.08.1976 г.р., с. Эдиссия Курского района Ставропольского края.

94. АЛИДИБИРОВ ЗАГИДГАДЖИ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 20.12.1960 г.р., с. Алак Ботлихского района Республики Дагестан.

95. АЛИЕВ АБДУЛЛА УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 28.01.1984 г.р., с. Билихуль Джувалинского района Джамбульской области КазССР.

96. АЛИЕВ АСЛАН БАЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 08.01.1987 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

97. АЛИЕВ АСЛАН ЮНУСОВИЧ*, 07.10.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

98. АЛИЕВ БАУДИН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 15.02.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

99. АЛИЕВ ИСА ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 24.04.1987 г.р., с.Золотуха Ахтубинского района Астраханской области.

100. АЛИЕВ РУСЛАН БОРИСОВИЧ*, 02.01.1974 г.р., г. Малгобек Республики Ингушетия.

101. АЛИЕВ СУЛТАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1959 г.р., с. Алхазурово Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

102. АЛИЕВ ТИМУРЛАН АЙГУНОВИЧ*, 04.12.1964 г.р., г. Буйнакск Республики Дагестан.

103. АЛИЕВ ХУСАЙН АБДУЛРЕШИДОВИЧ*, 24.12.1979 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района Чеченской Республики.

104. АЛИЛОВ ОМАР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 20.07.1962 г.р., с. Вихли Кулинского района Республики Дагестан.

105. АЛИЛОВА СОФИЯ МАГОМЕДОВНА*, 10.03.1986 г.р., с. Кули Кулинского р-на Республики Дагестан.

106. АЛИСУЛТАНОВ ВАХИТ АЛИХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 24.12.1984 г.р., с. Курчалой ЧИАССР.

107. АЛИСУЛТАНОВ РАШИД ТАГИРОВИЧ*, 03.09.1982 г.р., с. Чонтаул Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

108. АЛИСУЛТАНОВ САЙХАН АЛИХАНОВИЧ*, 16.10.1988 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

109. АЛИСХАНОВ АСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 10.08.1981 г.р., ст. Вознесеновская Малгобекского района ЧИАССР.

110. АЛИХАДЖИЕВ АСЛАН МОВЛАЕВИЧ*, 10.01.1982 г.р., с. Зоны Шатойского района Чеченской Республики.

111. АЛИХАДЖИЕВ ИСА ШАМИЛЕВИЧ*, 14.09.1978 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

112. АЛИХАНОВ АБИЛЬ АЗИМОВИЧ*, 22.10.1989 г.р., пос. Заволжский Палласовского района Волгоградской области.

113. АЛИХАНОВ БЕСЛАН ЗИНУЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 06.02.1984 г.р., с. Сержень-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

114. АЛСОЛТАНОВ МУСА ОЛХАЗУРОВИЧ*, 06.10.1983 г.р., поселок Татал Юстинского района Калмыкской АССР.

115. АЛХАЗУРОВ ГАЙИРБЕК КАРИМОВИЧ*, 07.12.1977 г.р., ст. Курдюковская Шелковского района Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

116. АЛХАНОВ МАГОМЕД ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 24.10.1982 г.р., с. Надтеречное, Надтеречного р-на ЧИАССР.

117. АЛХАНОВ ОМАР АБУБАКАРОВИЧ*, 08.01.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

118. АЛХАНОВ РУСЛАН ГУМАХАЕВИЧ*, 15.09.1969 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

119. АЛХОТОВ АРТЕМ ЯКУБОВИЧ*, 17.11.1983 г.р., с. Байтарки Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

120. АЛЬ-ЖУНАЙДИ АММАР МАХМУД*, 01.05.1975 г.р., г. Хеврон, Палестина.

121. АЛЬБУКАЕВ АНЗОР ДУКВАХОВИЧ*, 08.09.1984 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

122. АЛЬДАГИР АМИН БУТРОС*, 27.04.1964 г.р., г. Хама Сирийской Арабской Республики.

123. АЛЬМУРЗАЕВ АЛИ АЛИЕВИЧ*, 09.07.1958 г.р., г. Караганда КазССР.

124. АЛЬМУРЗИЕВ АЛАУДИН ОСМАНОВИЧ*, 14.08.1980 г.р., г. Нальчик Кабардино-Балкарской АССР.

125. АМАГОВ РУСЛАН МУХМАТСАНИЕВИЧ*, 25.01.1978 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

126. АМАЕВ МУХМАД МАЛИКОВИЧ*, 10.04.1978 г.р., с. Новотерское Наурского района ЧИАССР.

127. АМАЕВ РИЗВАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 25.06.1972 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

128. АМАЕВ ШАРПУДИН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 20.08.1958 г.р., с. Гехи Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

129. АМАНКАЕВ АЛИМХАН КАЙТЕРБИЕВИЧ*, 08.01.1977 г.р., с. Токуй-Мектеб Ногайского района Республики Дагестан.

130. АМРИЕВ ЗУРАБ СУЛУМБЕКОВИЧ*, 15.05.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

131. АНАСОВ САИДБЕК КУРБАНОВИЧ*, 15.12.1981 г.р., с. Энгель-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

132. АНДРЕЕВ АНДРЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 24.10.1984 г.р., станица Смоленская Северского р-на Краснодарского края.

133. АНДРЕЕВ РОМАН ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 24.07.1960 г.р., г. Гатчина Ленинградской области.

134. АНЧИН АЛЕКСАНДР АРКАДЬЕВИЧ*, 26.07.1982 г.р., п. Удачный Мирнинского района Якутской АССР.

135. АПАЕВ ЮНУС АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 06.10.1986 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

136. АРАХОВ АРКАДИЙ АЛИКОВИЧ*, 11.11.1976 г.р., г. Елгава Латвийской ССР.

137. АРСАЕВ АНЗОР АСАНОВИЧ*, 04.02.1980 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

138. АРСАЕВ ИБРАГИМ ВИСИРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 02.11.1979 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

139. АРСАЕВ МАСХУД ЮНАДИЕВИЧ*, 04.12.1974 г.р., с. Мескеты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

140. АРСАМАКОВ ШАМИЛЬ ВАХИДОВИЧ (ВАХИТОВИЧ)*, 21.11.1978 г.р., с. Ведучи Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

141. АРСАМИКОВ АЛИХАН АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 14.04.1984 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

142. АРСАМИКОВ АНЗОР САЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 08.08.1983 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

143. АРСАМИКОВ РУСТАМ САЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 16.11.1978 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

144. АРСАМИРЗУЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН АЕЛЬЕВИЧ*, 08.10.1984 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

145. АРСАНОВ ВИСХАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 20.02.1988 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

146. АРСАНОВ РУСЛАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 25.12.1977 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

147. АРСАНУКАЕВ ЗУБАЙРА ЭЛИЕВИЧ*, 17.03.1987 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

148. АРСАНУКАЕВ МОВСАР ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 01.07.1978 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

149. АРСАНУКАЕВ МУСЛИМ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 24.10.1975 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района Чеченской Республики.

150. АРСАНУКАЕВ УМАЛТ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 19.01.1973 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

151. АРСАХАНОВ ХАСАН АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 30.12.1988 г.р., с. Хамби-Ирзи Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

152. АРСЕЛЬГОВ МУХАМЕД-АЛИ ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 09.05.1976 г.р., с. Насыр-Корт Назрановского района ЧИАССР.

153. АРСЛАНБЕКОВ АЛЬБЕРТ АРСЛАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 15.11.1978 г.р., п. Дубки гор. Кизилюрт Республики Дагестан.

154. АРСЛАНОВ ЮСУП АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 08.08.1968 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

155. АРСНУКАЕВ РУСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 14.10.1976 г.р., с. Катар-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

156. АРСТЕМИРОВ РАСУЛ ШЕДИТОВИЧ*, 24.04.1982 г.р., с. Киров-Юрт Веденского района ЧИАССР.

157. АРХАГОВ РУСТАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 26.05.1983 г.р., аул Кара-Паго Прикубанского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

158. АРЦАЕВ ИБРАГИМ ВИСИРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 02.11.1979 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

159. АРЦУЕВ АХМЕД АБДУЛАЕВИЧ (АРЦУЕВ АРТУР АБДУЛАЕВИЧ)*, 08.07.1979 г.р., с. Ново-Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР (08.07.1979 г.р., с. Ново-Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР).

160. АСЕЛЬДЕРОВ МАГОМЕД ГУСЕНОВИЧ*, 18.06.1979 г.р., с.Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

161. АСЕЛЬДЕРОВ ЮСУП ГУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 24.03.1974 г.р., с.Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

162. АСЛАМБЕКОВ СУЛТАН МУМАДИЕВИЧ*, 24.11.1975 г.р., с. Агишты Веденского района ЧИАССР.

163. АСЛАМКАДИРОВ БОРЗ-АЛИ ЭЛЬМАНОВИЧ*, 07.07.1971 г.р., с. Агишбатой Чеченской Республики.

164. АСЛАНБЕКОВ МАГАДЫ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 09.12.1974 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

165. АСЛАНБЕКОВ РУСЛАН МУХТАРОВИЧ*, 23.07.1983 г.р., с. Дубовское Дубовского района Ростовской области.

166. АСТАМИРОВ АСЛАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 02.04.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

167. АСТАМИРОВ ИЛЕС ИСАЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1975 г.р., г. Грозный Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

168. АСУХАНОВ СОСЛАН АБУБАКАРОВИЧ*, 25.03.1984 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

169. АСХАБАЛИЕВ ШАМИЛЬ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.07.1975 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

170. АСХАБОВ АДАМ ГЕБЕРТУЕВИЧ*, 23.02.1984 г.р., х. Фомин Заветинского района Ростовской области.

171. АСХАБОВ АДАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 07.02.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

172. АСХАБОВ РУСЛАН ДАЙДАЛОВИЧ*, 27.08.1968 г.р., с. Майколь Кустанаевской области КССР.

173. АТАБИЕВ РАШИД ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 21.07.1980 г.р., г. Усть-Джегута Ставропольского края КЧАО.

174. АТАЕВ КАЗБЕК МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 31.01.1978 г.р., г. Малгобеке ЧИАССР.

175. АТГИРИЕВ ТУРПАЛАЛИ АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 08.05.1969 г.р., с. Аллерой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

176. АТНАЗОВ САИД-ХУСЕЙН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 20.12.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

177. АТСАЛАМОВ ЮНАДИ АДАМОВИЧ*, 28.09.1978 г.р., с. Вярды Советского района ЧИАССР.

178. АТУЕВ ИСЛАМ ИМХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 28.07.1976 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

179. АУШЕВ МАГОМЕД МУССИЕВИЧ*, 16.09.1978 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

180. АХАЕВ ЭЛЬБЕК ЛУЛУЕВИЧ*, 01.04.1963 г.р., с. Ца-Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

181. АХМАДОВ АЛЬВИ АБДУЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 31.10.1978 г.р., с. Старая Сунжа Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

182. АХМАДОВ РИЗВАН ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 20.04.1977 г.р., с. Кулары Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

183. АХМАДОВ РУСЛАН ИСРАИЛОВИЧ*, 08.12.1966 г.р., с. Исти-Су Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

184. АХМАДОВ ХАВАЖИ ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 29.12.1978 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

185. АХМАДОВ ХАСАМБЕК САЙД-АРБИЕВИЧ*, 12.03.1975 г.р., с. Батурино Чапаевского района Уральской области.

186. АХМАДОВ ХАСАН САЛАУДЫНОВИЧ*, 21.03.1977 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

187. АХМАДХАНОВ ЗАЙНДИ УМАРОВИЧ*, 22.07.1948 г.р., Джамбульская область Республики Казахстан.

188. АХМАДХАНОВ ТИМУР ШЕЙХ-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 24.09.1975 г.р., г. Гудермес Чеченской Республики.

189. АХМАТОВ РУСЛАН ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 09.01.1971 г.р., п. Горагорск Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

190. АХМЕДОВ СУЛТАН АЛИЕВИЧ*, 17.11.1981 г.р., с. Замай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

191. АХМЕДОВ ШАВКАТ РАВИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 22.09.1985 г.р., п. Бустон Матчинского района Ленинабадской обл. Таджикской ССР.

192. АХМЕРХАДЖИЕВ АЮБ ТИМИРХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 24.06.1971 г.р., ст. Гребенская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

193. АХМЕТСАФИН МУСА ШАРИФОВИЧ*, 10.05.1977 г.р., г. Белорецк.

194. АЦАЕВ АДАМ ТАУСОВИЧ*, 15.10.1975 г.р., пос. Краснокунский Краснокунского района Павлодарской области.

195. АШАХАНОВ КАХИМ ИСРАПИЛОВИЧ*, 24.12.1984 г.р., ст. Наурская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

196. АШАХАНОВ РУСЛАН САЙПАЕВИЧ*, 30.10.1972 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского р-на Чеченской Республики.

197. АШИКОВ ШАМИЛЬ БАГАВДИНОВИЧ*, 25.08.1971 г.р., с. Гуниб Гунибского района Республики Дагестан.

198. АЮБОВ ИМАЛИ ВИСАРХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 22.06.1978 г.р., пос. Новогрозненский Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

199. БАДАЕВ АНЗОР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.05.1985 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

200. БАДАШЕВ АЛХАЗУР ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 24.07.1975 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

201. БАДУЕВ САЙДМАГОМЕД ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 19.05.1986 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

202. БАДУРГОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.06.1982 г.р., Ачхой-Мартановский район ЧИАССР.

203. БАЗАЕВ ШЕМИЛЬ ЖАМЛЕЙНОВИЧ*, 24.02.1976 г.р., г. Шали ЧИАССР.

204. БАЗУЕВ УМАР УЛЬБИЕВИЧ*, 27.01.1977 г.р., г. Эмба Мугаджарского района Казахской ССР.

205. БАЗУРКАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 15.03.1975 г.р., с. Исти-Су Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

206. БАЗУРКАЕВ СУЛТАН АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 06.01.1963 г.р., с. Баматюрт Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

207. БАЙДАРОВ ШАМХАН ХАВАЖЕВИЧ*, 16.10.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

208. БАЙДУЛАЕВ АНЗОР АЛХАЕВИЧ*, 29.10.1987 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

209. БАЙДУЛАЕВ ДОККА АЛХАЕВИЧ*, 17.05.1980 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского р-на ЧИАССР.

210. БАЙДУЛАЕВ КАЗБЕК ДЖАЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 23.09.1988 г.р., хутор Страховский Новоанинского района Волгоградской области.

211. БАЙЗУРКАЕВ АРТУР АБУЕВИЧ*, 05.12.1981 г.р., г. Новый Узень Мангышлакской области КазССР.

212. БАЙМУРАТОВ АРИБИЙ АБДУЛЛАЕВИЧ*, 26.01.1987 г.р., с. Борагангечу Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

213. БАЙМУРЗАЕВ УМАР АЛИЕВИЧ*, 02.04.1983 г.р., с. Макажой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

214. БАЙРАМУКОВ МУРАТБИ АЙГУФОВИЧ*, 08.06.1976 г.р., ст. Сторожевая Зеленчукского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

215. БАЙСАГУРОВ АБДУЛАХИ ШАРИПОВИЧ*, 27.10.1986 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

216. БАЙСАЕВ УМАР ДАУДОВИЧ*, 24.04.1977 г.р., х. Мокро-Соленый Цимлянского района Ростовской обл.

217. БАЙСИЕВ ИСЛАМ ХАМАДОВИЧ*, 21.10.1991 г.р., с. Хаттуни Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

218. БАЙСУЕВ МАХДИ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 25.10.1978 г.р., с. Энгель-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

219. БАЙСУРОВ КАЗБЕК АБУХОЕВИЧ*, 21.06.1980 г.р., с. Курчалой ЧИАССР.

220. БАЙТАЕВ БЕСЛАН ХУСАИНОВИЧ*, 19.10.1975 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

221. БАЙТАЛАЕВ МУСЛОВ ХАЙДАРОВИЧ*, 06.05.1985 г.р., с. Дарго Веденского района ЧИАССР.

222. БАЙТУКАЕВ АНЗОР ЗАЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 12.06.1980 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт ЧИАССР.

223. БАЙЧОРОВ АРСЕН АХМАТОВИЧ*, 08.01.1984 г.р., г. Карачаевск Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

224. БАКАЕВ АХДАН БАУДОВИЧ*, 06.10.1980 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

225. БАКАЕВ ИДРИС САЙДАЕВИЧ*, 23.02.1971 г.р., ст. Наурская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

226. БАКАЕВ МАГДАН БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 09.11.1970 г.р., с. Энбексий-Карабулакский Алакульского р-на Талды-Курганской обл.

227. БАКАЛОВ МАГОМЕД ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 19.09.1979 г.р., с. Н.Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

228. БАКАШЕВ ДЖАМБУЛАТ ДЕНИЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 24.07.1984 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

229. БАКИЕВ ШАМИЛЬ АХМАТОВИЧ*, 06.10.1981 г.р., с. Маловодное Энбекшиказахского района Алма-Атинской области Казахской ССР.

230. БАЛАЕВ ТАМИРЛАН ТУРУЕВИЧ*, 02.10.1970 г.р., с. Харачой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

231. БАЛАНТАЕВ ВЛАДИМИР АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 22.06.1973 г.р., г. Кемерово.

232. БАЛТИЕВ УМАЛТ ДЖАМЛАЙЛОВИЧ*, 26.11.1983 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

233. БАЛУЕВ ИСМАИЛ ИСХАКОВИЧ*, 16.12.1974 г.р., г. Нальчик, с. Хасанья Кабардино-Балкарской Республики.

234. БАНТАЕВ АРБИ ХОЖ-БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 28.08.1981 г.р., с. Комсомольское Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

235. БАРАКАЕВ ШАРАБДИН САМОВДИНОВИЧ*, 16.09.1973 г.р., с. Брагуны Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

236. БАРАХАЕВ ХАМИТ АХИЯДОВИЧ*, 28.03.1954 г.р., г. Караганда Казахской ССР.

237. БАРАХОЕВ ИССА АХЪЯДОВИЧ*, 20.06.1968 г.р., с. Сурхахи Республики Ингушетия.

238. БАРЗАКОВ МАГОМЕД МАХМУДОВИЧ*, 13.05.1966 г.р., с. Мескиты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

239. БАРЗИГОВ ЛЕЧИ АХЪЯДОВИЧ*, 08.07.1979 г.р., с. Далготой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

240. БАРКИНХОЕВ АБУБУКАР ХАДЖИБИКАРОВИЧ*, 24.08.1982 г.р., с. Сурхахи Назрановского района ЧИАССР.

241. БАРКИНХОЕВ РУСЛАН ЗЕЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 21.06.1984 г.р., г. Есиль Есильского района Тургайской области Казахской ССР.

242. БАСАЕВ АЛХАЗУР САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 17.07.1962 г.р., с. Мартан-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

243. БАСАЕВ АЛЬВИ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 25.09.1968 г.р., с. Мартан-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

244. БАСАЕВ ВИС-АЛИ ХОЖАХМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.10.1972 г.р., с. Грушевое Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

245. БАСХАНОВ ИСЛАМ МУРТАНОВИЧ*, 19.11.1980 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

246. БАСХАНОВ РУСТАМ МАХАМЕДОВИЧ*, 21.06.1984 г.р., с. Новое Солкушино Наурского района ЧИАССР.

247. БАТАГОВ МАГМЕД АРБИЕВИЧ*, 03.08.1981 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

248. БАТАЕВ АСЛАН ЛОМ-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 19.09.1984 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

249. БАТАЕВ АХМЕД РАХМАНОВИЧ*, 15.04.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

250. БАТАЕВ ВИСИТ НУРДИЕВИЧ*, 03.11.1985 г.р., г. Аргун Чеченской Республики.

251. БАТАЕВ РУСЛАН ХОЖАЕВИЧ*, 29.03.1970 г.р., ст. Сары-Су Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

252. БАТАЕВ ТУРКО САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 20.12.1986 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

253. БАТАЕВ УМАР ИСАЕВИЧ*, 17.08.1981 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

254. БАТАКОВ ВАХИТ СУПЬЯНОВИЧ*, 03.08.1973 г.р., с. Брагуны Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

255. БАТАЛОВ АЛИХАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 05.08.1979 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

256. БАТАЛОВ АСЛАМБЕК ХАСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 11.03.1968 г.р., г. Аргун Шалинского р-на Чеченской Республики.

257. БАТАЛОВ ИДРИС ЭМАЛИЕВИЧ*, 24.06.1981 г.р., с. Джалка Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

258. БАТАЛОВ РУСТАМ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 25.05.1972 г.р., г. Южно-Сухокумск Республики Дагестан.

259. БАТАЛОВ ХАМЗАТ ЗАЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 31.03.1981 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

260. БАТУКАЕВ САЙДБЕК СИДИКОВИЧ*, 22.04.1987 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

261. БАТЧАЕВ АЛИМ СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 07.08.1972 г.р., ст. Сторожевая Зеленочукского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

262. БАТЫРОВ БАТЫР ГАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 02.01.1947 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

263. БАТЫРОВ СУЛЕЙМАН ГАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 21.06.1963 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

264. БАХАЕВ АХМЕД РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 22.09.1975 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

265. БАХАЕВ РОМАН МАХМУДОВИЧ*, 24.05.1976 г.р., с. Серноводск ЧИАССР.

266. БАХАЕВ ХАМЗАТ ХАРОНОВИЧ*, 15.09.1976 г.р., х. Фомин Заветинского района Ростовской области.

267. БАХАРЧИЕВ МАГОМЕД САИДСЕЛИМОВИЧ*, 19.11.1972 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

268. БАХАРЧИЕВ РУСЛАН САЙДАМИНОВИЧ*, 24.02.1978 г.р., село Промысловка Лимановского р-на Астраханской обл.

269. БАХВАЛОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 17.09.1975 г.р., г. Ленинград.

270. БАХТИЕВ АСЛАН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 13.09.1976 г.р., с. Альтиево Назрановского района ЧИАССР.

271. БАЦАЕВ АБДУЛСАЙД ЖАПАРОВИЧ*, 23.04.1966 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

272. БАЦИЕВ ДАУД ДОККАЕВИЧ*, 13.05.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

273. БАЦИЕВ ИСЛАМ САЙДАХМАТОВИЧ*, 20.10.1977 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

274. БАЦИЕВ РУСЛАН АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 23.03.1978 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

275. БАЧАЕВ ИСЛАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 21.11.1983 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

276. БАЧАЕВ МУСА УСМАНОВИЧ*, 05.03.1983 г.р., с. Старая Сунжа Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

277. БАЧАЕВ МУСЛИМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 19.12.1977 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

278. БАЧИГОВ АКРАМАН ХАРУНОВИЧ*, 04.04.1986 г.р., с. Цаца Светлояровского района Волгоградской области.

279. БАШЕЛУТСКОВ ДАВИД ВАГАРШАКОВИЧ*, 17.01.1991 г.р., село Ахалкалаки Ахалкалакского района Республики Грузия.

280. БАШИРОВ БИСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 31.01.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

281. БАШТАРОВ АДАМ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 08.02.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

282. БЕГЕЛЬДИЕВ ТАХИР ХАЙРЕТДИНОВИЧ*, 05.11.1974 г.р., с. Кара-Тюбе Нефтекумского района Ставропольского края.

283. БЕГИТОВ АСЛАНБЕК СОСЛАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 01.06.1965 г.р., с. Хал-Калой Советского района ЧИАССР.

284. БЕЙДУЛЛАЕВ ЗАУР ТЕМРАЗОВИЧ*, 27.02.1985 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

285. БЕКАЕВ КАЗБЕК ШАМСУДИЕВИЧ*, 24.01.1979 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

286. БЕКМУРЗАЕВ РАСАМБЕК СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 17.09.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

287. БЕКОВ ИССА УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 27.10.1972 г.р., с. Верхние Ачалуки Малгобекского района ЧИАССР.

288. БЕКСУЛТАНОВ МОВСАР ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

289. БЕКСУЛТАНОВ РУСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 30.01.1983 г.р., с. Мирный Курского района Ставропольской области.

290. БЕЛАШЕВ ВЛАДИМИР ИЛЬИЧ*, 30.07.1961 г.р., г. Кунгур Пермской области.

291. БЕЛИЕВ РУСЛАН ХУМАЙДОВИЧ*, 12.12.1979 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

292. БЕЛКИН ДМИТРИЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 27.01.1976 г.р., п. Шишино Топкинского р-на Кемеровской области.

293. БЕЛОВ АЛЕКСАНДР ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 08.07.1979 г.р., г. Зеленодольск Республики Татарстан.

294. БЕЛОЗЕРОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 26.03.1980 г.р., с. Красный Городок Сергиевского района Самарской области.

295. БЕРГОЕВ СУЛИМ АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 16.08.1975 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

296. БЕРИЕВ АСЛАНБЕК МАКШЕРИПОВИЧ*, 26.05.1974 г.р., ст. Ильиноская Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

297. БЕРСАНОВ ЛЕММА МУСАЕВИЧ*, 18.08.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

298. БЕРСАНОВ ЛОМ-АЛИ ЛОМАЕВИЧ*, 02.02.1982 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

299. БЕРСАНОВ ЛОМ-АЛИ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 18.08.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

300. БЕРСАНОВ САИД-ХУСЕЙН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 01.05.1977 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

301. БЕТАЛМИРЗАЕВ АСЛАН МОВЛАДОВИЧ*, 08.06.1975 г.р., совхоз “Коммунизм” Амангельдинского района Тургайкой обл. КазССР.

302. БЕТЕРГИРАЕВ ЗАУР ХИЗИРОВИЧ*, 28.05.1981 г.р., с. Шали ЧИАССР.

303. БЕЦИЕВ ХАСАН ЭМИЕВИЧ*, 03.04.1976 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

304. БИБУЛАТОВ БАДРУДИ ШАХАЕВИЧ*, 07.12.1972 г.р., с. Элистанжи Веденского района ЧИАССР.

305. БИБУЛАТОВ САЙХАН АЛГАЗИРОВИЧ*, 21.07.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

306. БИДАГОВ РУСЛАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 17.06.1978 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

307. БИДЖИЕВ ХАЗРЕТ РАКАЕВИЧ*, 06.07.1960 г.р., пос. Красноводский Республики Казахстан.

308. БИДИЕВ ЯКУБ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 30.09.1979 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР. Возможно 1970 г.р.

309. БИКАЕВ АДАМ КЮРАЕВИЧ*, 08.05.1978 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала ЧИАССР.

310. БИКТИМИРОВ РУСЛАН САЛАВАТОВИЧ*, 14.07.1975 г.р., д. Ялчикаево Кумертауского района Республики Башкортостан.

311. БИЛАЛОВ КАЗБЕК ИСАЕВИЧ*, 10.04.1982 г.р., с. Согунты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

312. БИЛЬТАЕВ ХАСАН ДУКВАЕВИЧ*, 27.05.1983 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

313. БИНИНИ ДЖОН (САУДАНИ ЕСЕФ САИДОВИЧ)*, 01.09.1975 г.р., г. Лондон (Великобритания) (18.09.1969 г.р., г. Константин (Алжир)).

314. БИССАМИРОВ ШАМИЛЬ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 03.12.1976 г.р., с. Кошкельды Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

315. БИТАЕВ СУЛИМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 10.02.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

316. БИТИЕВ АЛИХАН ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 13.12.1976 г.р., с. Черный Яр Черноярского района Астраханской области.

317. БИТИЕВ АСЛАН ШАМХАНОВИЧ*, 14.06.1969 г.р., с. Верхний Наур Надтеречного р-на Чеченской Республики.

318. БИТИЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 29.04.1979 г.р., пос. Большой Царын Октябрьского района Калмыкской АССР.

319. БИХАЕВ АНАРБЕК АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 16.09.1962 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

320. БЛОХИН АЛЕКСАНДР ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 06.12.1980 г.р., д. Горушки Яранского района Кировской области.

321. БОГАТЫРЕВ ИСА АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 28.09.1991 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

322. БОДРОВ МИХАИЛ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 27.03.1985 г.р., д. Верховая Рыбинского района Красноярского края.

323. БОЛТУКАЕВ МЕХДИН УМАРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 26.02.1990 г.р., с. Аллерой Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

324. БОПАЕВ ШАМХАН ЮСАЕВИЧ*, 23.05.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

325. БОРИСОВ АНДРЕЙ ИВАНОВИЧ*, 26.03.1968 г.р., Тюменская область.

326. БОСТАНОВ АСЛАН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 29.01.1980 г.р., г. Карачевск КЧАО.

327. БОСТАНОВ МАРАТ ИСЛАМОВИЧ*, 05.02.1964 г.р., с. Кызыл-Покун Малокарачаевского р-на КЧАО.

328. БОТАЕВ СУЛТАН ШАМСУДИНОВИЧ*, 23.04.1982 г.р., с. Чонтаул Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан (23.04.1982 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан).

329. БУГАЕВ АЛЬБЕК САЛИЕВИЧ*, 06.02.1978 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

330. БУГАЕВ КЮРИ ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 16.08.1973 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

331. БУГАЕВ РАИДИН ЯМУДИНОВИЧ*, 29.05.1978 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

332. БУЛАХ ВИТАЛИЙ ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 20.07.1963 г.р., г. Армавир Краснодарского края.

333. БУРМАСОВ СЕРГЕЙ ПАВЛОВИЧ*, 10.06.1983 г.р., п. Санболи Амурского района Хабаровского края.

334. БУРЧАЛОВ КАМИЛЬ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 16.08.1959 г.р., г. Бухара Узбекской ССР.

335. БУСЫРЕВ СЕРГЕЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 30.09.1970 г.р., г. Ленинград.

336. БУШТУРОВ ТУРПАЛБЕК ШААЕВИЧ*, 15.03.1955 г.р., с. Бегень Баскарагайского района Павлодарской области.

337. БУШУЕВ ЗУРАБ НЕДИРСУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 18.09.1979 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

338. ВАКУЕВ МАРАТ САЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 27.03.1976 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

339. ВАЛИТОВ МАРС МАРАТОВИЧ*, 14.12.1967 г.р., г. Уфа Республики Башкортостан.

340. ВАЛИТОВ РАИЛЬ РАМИЛЕВИЧ*, 04.04.1981 г.р., г. Туймазы Республики Башкортостан.

341. ВАНГАШЕВ СУЛИМ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 10.12.1975 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

342. ВАРАЕВ МАЙРБЕК ВИЙСАЕВИЧ*, 01.07.1975 г.р., п. Яшкуль Яшкульского района Калмыцкой АССР.

343. ВАРЛАКОВ АЛЕКСАНДР АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 21.04.1971 г.р., г. Свердловск.

344. ВАХАЕВ АРБИ ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 11.11.1976 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

345. ВАХАЕВ МАГДАН ХОЗАЕВИЧ*, 11.06.1986 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

346. ВАХАЕВ ТИМУР ДАДАШЕВИЧ*, 25.05.1976 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

347. ВАХИДОВ ВАХИД ШАМХАНОВИЧ*, 14.03.1976 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

348. ВАЦАНАЕВ МУХАММЕД-ШЕРИП МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 19.07.1969 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

349. ВАШАЕВ АБУБАКАР СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 20.06.1965 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

350. ВАШАЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 10.10.1969 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

351. ВЕДЕРНИКОВ ВЛАДИМИР АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 30.01.1984 г.р., Чистопольского района Республики Татарстан.

352. ВЕЗЕРХАНОВ АСЛАНБЕК ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 25.08.1978 г.р., с. Кургалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

353. ВИДАЕВ ХИЗАР ЛОМЭЛЬЕВИЧ*, 18.11.1987 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

354. ВИСАЕВ АПТИ УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 01.05.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

355. ВИСАИТОВ АДАМ АЛИЕВИЧ*, 30.01.1957 г.р., с. Джусалы Кармакчинского района Кзыл-Ординской области Казахской ССР.

356. ВИСАИТОВ АСЛАН МОВЛДИЕВИЧ*, 27.02.1974 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

357. ВИСИХАНОВ РУСЛАН ЗИНАУДИНОВИЧ*, 04.12.1979 г.р., с. Елтай Индерского района Гурьевской области Казахской ССР.

358. ВИСЛОГУЗОВ ДМИТРИЙ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 20.09.1980 г.р., г. Бийск Алтайского края.

359. ВИТУШЕВ УМАР ЗАЙНАЛОВИЧ*, 17.10.1977 г.р., с. Новый Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

360. ВИЧИГОВ РУСТАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 14.12.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

361. ВИШНЯКОВ АРТУР ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 30.10.1987 г.р., п. Шексна Вологодской области.

362. ВЛАДОВСКИЙ МИХАИЛ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 23.03.1983 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

363. ВЛАСОВ ВЛАДИМИР СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 29.07.1956 г.р., г. Москва.

364. ВОРОНОВ ДМИТРИЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 26.09.1969 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченская Республика.

365. ВЫШЕГУРОВ МАГОМЕД УМАРОВИЧ*, 04.08.1972 г.р., г. Орджоникидзе СОАССР.

366. ГАБАЕВ ИСЛАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 19.01.1989 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

367. ГАБДРАХМАНОВ РИНАТ РИФОВИЧ*, 24.12.1968 г.р., г. Уфа Республики Башкортостан.

368. ГАБДУЛХАКОВ ДАНИЛ ЛЯБИБОВИЧ*, 18.05.1982 г.р., г. Усинск Республики Коми.

369. ГАДАЕВ АНЗОР АБДУЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 04.10.1983 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

370. ГАДАЕВ МАГОМЕД КАЗБЕКОВИЧ*, 06.11.1984 г.р., с. Закан-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

371. ГАДАМУРОВ АЛИХАН АДАМОВИЧ*, 21.08.1985 г.р., с. Косиновка Обоянского района Курской области.

372. ГАДЖИАКАЕВ МАГОМАДЗАГИР УМАКАЕВИЧ*, 07.01.1975 г.р., с. Доргели Карабудахкентского района ДАССР.

373. ГАДЖИБАГОМЕДОВ МУСА ГАДЖИБАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 28.02.1972 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района ДАССР.

374. ГАДЖИЕВ МАГОМЕД АБДУСАЛИМОВИЧ*, 18.10.1968 г.р., г. Избербаше ДАССР.

375. ГАДЖИЕВ ХАБИБ САИДБЕГОВИЧ*, 10.12.1966 г.р., с. Хвайни-Кунда Цумадинского района Республики Дагестан.

376. ГАЗИЕВ БИСЛАН ХАРОНОВИЧ*, 17.08.1977 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

377. ГАЗИЕВ ЗАУРБЕК МАСХУДОВИЧ*, 15.04.1981 г.р., с. Пролетарское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

378. ГАЗИЕВ КАЗБЕК РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 24.12.1972 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

379. ГАЗИЗОВ ИЛЬЯС АХМЕТХАФИЗОВИЧ*, 16.03.1960 г.р., п. Лесхоз Сабинского района Республики Татарстан.

380. ГАИРБЕКОВ ГАЗИМАГОМЕД ГАИРБЕКОВИЧ*, 26.07.1977 г.р., с. Кванада Цумадинского района Республики Дагестан.

381. ГАИРБЕКОВ МАГОМЕД ГАИРБЕКОВИЧ*, 06.02.1976 г.р., с. Кванада Цумадинского района Республики Дагестан.

382. ГАЙГЕРАЕВ УМАР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 08.01.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

383. ГАЙТАМИРОВ АДАМ АЛИЕВИЧ*, 19.08.1976 г.р., с. Шаро-Аргун Шатойского района Чеченской Республики.

384. ГАЙТУКАЕВ ДЖАМАЛАЙ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 03.02.1979 г.р., с. Ленинское Ерментауского р-на Целиноградской обл. КазССР.

385. ГАЙХАНОВ МУСА МИНКАИЛОВИЧ*, 26.03.1953 г.р., п. Кадамжай Фрунзенского района Ошской области КиргССР.

386. ГАКАЕВ МАГОМЕД-ХУСЕЙН УМАРОВИЧ*, 18.05.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

387. ГАКАЕВ РОМАН ДЖАНДАРОВИЧ*, 01.10.1978 г.р., ст. Червленая Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

388. ГАМАДАЕВ ГАМЗАТ ЗАЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 12.08.1980 г.р., с. Новолакское Новолакского района Республики Дагестан.

389. ГАМАДАЕВ ГИЛАНИ ЗАЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 19.12.1978 г.р., с. Новолакское Новолакского района Республики Дагестан.

390. ГАМАДАЕВ ЗАЛИМХАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 20.08.1936 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

391. ГАМАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ОСМАНОВИЧ*, 30.01.1978 г.р., с. Новые-Атаги ЧИАССР.

392. ГАМАЕВ ИСА МАЙРБЕКОВИЧ*, 04.11.1978 г.р., с. Ушкалой ЧИАССР.

393. ГАМИДОВ МАГОМЕДРАСУЛ МЕДЖИДОВИЧ*, 01.03.1952 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района ДАССР.

394. ГАНАЕВ ИСРАПИЛ АДАМОВИЧ*, 30.01.1987 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

395. ГАНАТОВ ХАМЗАТ ДАУДОВИЧ*, 17.09.1967 г.р., с. Ведучи Советского района ЧИАССР.

396. ГАНИЕВ РУСТАМ СУЛУМБЕКОВИЧ*, 01.12.1979 г.р., с. Чемульга Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

397. ГАНИШИВ АБДУЛГАНИ ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 05.01.1988 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

398. ГАПАРХОЕВ ИССА МАКШАРИПОВИЧ*, 28.09.1974 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

399. ГАПАРХОЕВ МАЙРБЕК МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 12.08.1984 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

400. ГАПОНОВ МАКСИМ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 06.06.1973 г.р., г. Ташкент Республики Узбекистан.

401. ГАСТЕМИРОВ РОМАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.03.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

402. ГАСТИЕВ ИСЛАМ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 03.02.1984 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

403. ГАТИЕВ НАРИМАН ХИЗИРИЕВИЧ*, 07.01.1967 г.р., с. Османюрт Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

404. ГАЦАЕВ РАМЗАН САЙД-БЕКОВИЧ*, 15.07.1989 г.р., с. Захино Пушко-Горского района Псковской области.

405. ГАЯНОВ БУЛАТ МАРСОВИЧ*, 24.07.1972 г.р., г. Туймазы Республики Башкортостан.

406. ГАЯНОВ САЛАВАТ МАРСОВИЧ*, 15.08.1976 г.р., г. Туймазы Республики Башкортостан.

407. ГЕЗИХАДЖИЕВ ХАМЗАТ МАХЧАЕВИЧ*, 18.07.1969 г.р., с. Мескеты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

408. ГЕРИМСУЛТАНОВ АСЛАН БЕДИЕВИЧ*, 02.11.1975 г.р., ст. Гребенская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

409. ГЕРИХАНОВ МУСЛИМ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 27.09.1974 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

410. ГИГИЕВ ЛЕЧИ БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 08.06.1954 г.р., г. Текели Талды-Курганской области Казахской ССР.

411. ГИМРАНОВ РУСТАМ РАВИЛОВИЧ*, 04.05.1987 г.р., р.п. Нижняя Мактама Альметьевского района ТАССР.

412. ГИНАЕВ АСЛАМБЕК ЖУНАЙДОВИЧ*, 31.12.1976 г.р., ст. Калиновская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

413. ГИНАЕВ ТИМУР МУРАТОВИЧ*, 20.05.1984 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

414. ГЛЕБОВ КОНСТАНТИН ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 26.04.1979 г.р., г. Владивосток.

415. ГОЙДЕНКО РУСЛАН АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 04.09.1977 г.

416. ГОЙЛАБИЕВ САЛВАДИ НУРАДИЕВИЧ*, 29.03.1987 г.р., с. Байтарки Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

417. ГОЛОВНЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 14.05.1989 г.р., г. Красноярск.

418. ГОЛОДОК СЕРГЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 02.04.1962 г.р., д. Гальки Крупского р-на Минской обл. Республики Беларусь.

419. ГОРЧАКОВ ВАДИМ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 27.06.1985 г.р., г. Одинцово Московской обл.

420. ГОЧИЯЕВ РАМАЗАН ХАНАФИЕВИЧ*, 08.12.1965 г.р., ст. Сторожевая Зеленчукского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

421. ГРИЦКЕВИЧ НИКОЛАЙ ПАВЛОВИЧ*, 20.12.1959 г.р., г. Лунинец Брестской области.

422. ГУБАРЕВ ПАВЕЛ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ*, 19.02.1987 г.р., г. Омск.

423. ГУБКИН ИГОРЬ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 25.01.1964 г.р., г. Благовещенск Амурской области.

424. ГУДАЕВ АЛИХАН ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 01.03.1981 г.р., с. Советское Приозерного р-на Калмыцкой АССР.

425. ГУДКОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ГЕНАДЬЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1978 г.р., пос. Могойтуй Агинско-Бурятского АО Читинской области.

426. ГУМАРОВ РАВИЛЬ ШАФИЕВИЧ*, 22.11.1962 г.р., г. Кушва Свердловской области.

427. ГУМЕРОВ ИЛЬГАМ ШАКИРОВИЧ*, 16.03.1966 г.р., д. Чувашский Брод Алькеевского р-н Республики Татарстан.

428. ГУПОЛОВИЧ АЛЕКСАНДР ИВАНОВИЧ*, 17.02.1966 г.р., г. Донецк Ростовской области.

429. ГУЦИЕВ РИЗВАН МАГДАНОВИЧ*, 11.09.1966 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

430. ГУЧИГОВ РУСТАМ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 03.11.1977 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

431. ДАДАЕВ АМАЙ ДАУТОВИЧ*, 30.01.1989 г.р., ст. Наурская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

432. ДАДАЕВ ИЛЬМАН ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 26.02.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

433. ДАДАЕВ ЛЕЧА СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 21.02.1982 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

434. ДАДАЕВ МУСА УСМАНОВИЧ*, 20.09.1981 г.р., с. Надтеречное Надтеречного р-на ЧИАССР.

435. ДАДАЕВ РАСУЛ АРБИЕВИЧ*, 16.05.1985 г.р., с. Березовка Нелидовского района Калининской области.

436. ДАДАЕВ РУСЛАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 30.10.1969 г.р., с. Алхазурово Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

437. ДАДАЕВ ХАЗИР ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 01.07.1968 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

438. ДАДАШЕВА АСЕТ МОВЛАГАДИНОВНА*, 03.04.1963 г.р., с. Дачу-Борзой Грозненского р-на ЧИАССР.

439. ДАЕВ АХЪЯД АСХАБОВИЧ*, 04.08.1982 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

440. ДАЙДАЕВ ДЖАМИЛЬ ШАМСОЛТОВИЧ*, 27.07.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

441. ДАЙЗИЕВ МАГОМЕДШАПИ ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 24.05.1959 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнарского района ДАССР.

442. ДАКАЕВ АХМЕД ИЗРАИЛОВИЧ*, 22.07.1980 г.р., с. Энгель-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

443. ДАКАЕВ СУЛЕЙМАН СЕБЕРОВИЧ*, 18.08.1976 г.р., с. Ленинское Наурского района ЧИАССР.

444. ДАКАЕВ ЮСУП АХЯТОВИЧ*, 20.02.1990 г.р., с. Ремонтное Ростовской области.

445. ДАКАШЕВ РУСТАМ УЗГЕНБАЕВИЧ*, 01.11.1980 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

446. ДАЛЬЦАЕВ МУСА ТАТИЕВИЧ*, 02.04.1958 г.р., с. Новотерское Наурского р-на ЧИАССР.

447. ДАМАЕВ РУСТАМ РИЗВАНОВИЧ*, 28.02.1984 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

448. ДАМХАЕВ УСАМА МУСАЕВИЧ*, 25.12.1977 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

449. ДАНАШЕВ РАМЗАН АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 08.10.1971 г.р., с. Ведено Введенского района ЧИАССР.

450. ДАНДАЕВ АРБИ ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 01.02.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

451. ДАНДАЕВ ИСА МУМАДИЕВИЧ*, 17.04.1973 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт ЧИАССР.

452. ДАНДАЕВ МАГОМЕД АДЛАНОВИЧ*, 22.05.1980 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

453. ДАРАЕВ РАМЗАН ДАЛХАДОВИЧ*, 08.01.1963 г.р., с. Герменчук Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

454. ДАСАЕВ ТИМУР МОВЛИДОВИЧ*, 07.12.1979 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР. Возможно 1974 г.р.

455. ДАТАГАЕВ АЛИ ХУСАИНОВИЧ*, 17.06.1980 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

456. ДАУДОВ АХМЕД ХОЖБАУДЫЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1979 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

457. ДАУДОВ МАХМУД АЛАУДИЕВИЧ*, 24.06.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

458. ДАУДОВ РУСЛАН САИДСАЛАХАНОВИЧ*, 24.12.1970 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

459. ДАУДОВ САЛАМБЕК СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 19.02.1974 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

460. ДАУРБЕКОВ МАГОМЕД САЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 04.10.1980 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

461. ДАУТМЕРЗАЕВ РИЗВАН АХМАЕВИЧ*, 29.10.1980 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

462. ДАХАЕВ ВАХИТ ШЕРИПУЕВИЧ*, 22.06.1978 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

463. ДАЦИЕВ БЕСЛАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 07.06.1982 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

464. ДАШАЕВ КАИМ ШАМСУДИЕВИЧ*, 08.01.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

465. ДАШАЕВ ТАГИР ШАМСУДИЕВИЧ*, 14.04.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

466. ДАШТАЕВ ИДРИС ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 03.05.1977 г.р., нас. пункт Новые Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

467. ДАШУКАЕВ ВАХИД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 28.04.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

468. ДЕБИРОВ ИСМАИЛ ХУМАИДОВИЧ*, 27.04.1971 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

469. ДЕДИЕВ АСЛАН СЕЛИМОВИЧ*, 10.03.1974 г.р., с. Пролетарское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

470. ДЕККУШЕВ АДАМ ОСМАНОВИЧ*, 03.02.1962 г.р., г. Карачаевск Карачаево-Черкесской автономной области Ставропольского края.

471. ДЕМЕЛЬХАНОВ АХМЕД РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 10.10.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

472. ДЕМЕЛЬХАНОВ РАУФ ВЯЧЕСЛАВОВИЧ*, 29.06.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

473. ДЕНИЕВ РАМЗАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 06.11.1972 г.р., с. Эрсеной Веденского района ЧИАССР.

474. ДЕНИСУЛТАНОВ ЗАУРБЕК ИСМАИЛОВИЧ*, 04.11.1977 г.р., село Плодовитое Малодербетовского района Республики Калмыкия.

475. ДЕРБИШЕВ АЮБ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.12.1983 г.р., с. Кулары Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

476. ДЕЦИЕВ МАУЛАТ МАСУДОВИЧ*, 03.05.1987 г.р., г. Чимкент КазССР.

477. ДЖАБАЕВ РАМЗАН ШАХРУДИНОВИЧ*, 16.04.1958 г.р., с. Алхан Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

478. ДЖАБАЕВ САИД-МАГОМЕД АЛИЕВИЧ*, 21.05.1975 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

479. ДЖАБАРОВ ХАМЗАТ ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 18.06.1977 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

480. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ АДАМ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 01.01.1979 г.р., н.п. Курчалой ЧИАССР.

481. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ АЛИК ЛЕШАЕВИЧ*, 10.08.1976 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

482. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ АНВАР ПОХАРУДИНОВИЧ*, 10.12.1981 г.р., с. Замай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

483. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН МУХОДИНОВИЧ*, 07.09.1978 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

484. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ ИСЛАМ ОБУ-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 19.12.1989 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

485. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ ЛЕМИ БЕТИЕВИЧ*, 03.09.1967 г.р., с. Джагларги Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

486. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ МАГОМЕДГАДЖИ НУРМАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 04.05.1976 г.р., с. Сильди Цумадинского района ДАССР.

487. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ РАМЗАН ХУМИДОВИЧ*, 10.02.1979 г.р., г. Шали ЧИАССР.

488. ДЖАБРАИЛОВ УСМАН ЗЕЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 07.04.1986 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

489. ДЖАБРАИЛОВА ТУИТА АБУКОСУМОВНА*, 24.07.1967 г.р., с. Элистанжи Введенского района ЧИАССР.

490. ДЖАЛМАШВИЛИ АРСЕН ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 03.06.1986 г.р., п. Николаевский Тарбагатаевского района Бурятской АССР.

491. ДЖАМУЛАЕВ ТАМЕРЛАН АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 07.06.1982 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

492. ДЖАНТЕМИРОВ ДОККА СУЛУМБЕКОВИЧ*, 27.05.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

493. ДЖАНТУЕВ ТАХИР ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 27.12.1979 г.р., г. Тырнауз Кабардино-Балкарской Республики.

494. ДЖАНХОВАТОВ МАГОМЕД БАДРУДИНОВИЧ*, 10.08.1956 г.р., с. Кадар Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

495. ДЖАНХОТОВ АЛВИ АХМАДГИРЕЕВИЧ*, 25.05.1960 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

496. ДЖАНХОТОВ САЛЕХ УСМАНОВИЧ*, 15.02.1985 г.р., с. Кулары Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

497. ДЖАСУЕВ ИМРАН ИДРИСОВИЧ*, 20.12.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

498. ДЖАУТХАНОВ СУЛТАН САЛАМОВИЧ*, 27.09.1976 г.р., п. Ойсхара Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

499. ДЖАЦАЕВ ТУРПАЛ ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 04.12.1966 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

500. ДЖАШЕЕВ ДЖАТДАЙ БАТДАЛОВИЧ (ДЖАШЕЕВ ДЖАТДАЙ БОРИСОВИЧ)*, 21.03.1969 г.р., а. Эльтаркач Усть-Джегутинского района Ставропольского края КЧАО.

501. ДЖВАРИДЗЕ ДАВИД ЛАВРЕНТЬЕВИЧ*, 12.04.1974 г.р., г. Вале Республики Грузия.

502. ДЖИГУЕВ АМХАД МОГИТОВИЧ*, 19.10.1986 г.р., с. Ушкалой Советского района ЧИАССР.

503. ДЖУМАГИШИЕВ АБДУЛЛЯЛИМ АХМАТОВИЧ*, 10.06.1981 г.р., с. Сары-Су Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

504. ДЖУРАЕВ АЛИШЕР МАМАРАСУЛОВИЧ*, 19.06.1978 г.р., пос. им. Исаева Колхозабадского района Халтонской области Республики Таджикистан.

505. ДЖУРАЕВ УМЕДЖОН МИРЗОАХМАДОВИЧ*, 14.10.1980 г.р., г. Худжант Республики Таджикистан.

506. ДЗАНГИЕВ МУСА БОРИСОВИЧ*, 12.09.1972 г.р., с. Алхасты Сунженского района Республики Ингушетия.

507. ДЗЕЙТОВ АДАМ РУКМАНОВИЧ*, 21.12.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

508. ДЗЕЙТОВ АДЛАН РУКМАНОВИЧ*, 17.08.1978 г.р., х. Веселый Ачхой-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

509. ДЗЕЙТОВ САЛМАН РУХМАНОВИЧ*, 08.01.1980 г.р., хутор Веселый Ачхой-Мартановского ЧИАССР.

510. ДЗУБАЙРАЕВ АЛИ ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 29.03.1989 г.р., с. Элистанжи Веденского района ЧИАССР.

511. ДИБИРОВ ДЖАФАР АБДУЛЛАЕВИЧ*, 25.06.1972 г.р., с. Терекли-Мектеб Ногайского р-на Республики Дагестан.

512. ДИКИЕВ СИДИК ГИЛАНИЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1974 г.р., с. Д-Ведено ЧИАССР.

513. ДИНАЕВ ВАХИ АБУБАКАРОВИЧ*, 01.09.1975 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

514. ДОВЛЕТБИЕВ ИДРИС МОВСАРОВИЧ*, 30.12.1984 г.р., с. Чири-Юрт ЧИАССР.

515. ДОЛГИХ АНАТОЛИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 11.03.1976 г.р., с. Бегишево Вагайского р-на Тюменской области.

516. ДОМБАЕВ АСЛАН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 07.03.1977 г.р., с. Толстой-Юрт Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

517. ДОТМЕРЗОЕВ МАЙРБЕК ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 18.11.1986 г.р., ст. Троицкая Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

518. ДРОБОТОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 16.07.1960 г.р., г. Миллерово Ростовской области.

519. ДРОЗДОВСКАЯ АННА ЮРЬЕВНА*, 27.01.1984 г.р., г. Ярославль.

520. ДУБАЕВ АНЗОР РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 13.08.1986 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

521. ДУБАЕВ БЕСЛАН РИЗВАНОВИЧ*, 23.01.1987 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

522. ДУДАЕВ ХУСЕЙН ЭЛИДОВИЧ*, 20.03.1976 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

523. ДУДУЕВ КАЧАК БИЛАЛОВИЧ*, 29.09.1954 г.р., с. Советское Базаркурголинского района Республики Киргизия.

524. ДУДУЕВА МАРЕТА САЛАВДИНОВНА*, 26.03.1984 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского района Чеченской Республики.

525. ДУДУШЕВ ИБРАГИМ ВАХАХАЖИЕВИЧ*, 15.05.1966 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

526. ДУЖИЕВ АРСЛАН САДАХМЕДОВИЧ*, 09.06.1973 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района Чеченской Республики.

527. ДУКАЕВ АХМЕД ШАРАНИЕВИЧ*, 25.07.1983 г.р., с. Шали ЧИАССР.

528. ДУКАЕВ ИСА АЛХАЗУРОВИЧ*, 09.04.1968 г.р., с. Кади-Юрт Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики.

529. ДУКУЕВ ИСА СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 21.01.1986 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

530. ДУКУШОВ АБУ-УМАР УСАМОВИЧ*, 30.05.1983 г.р., с. Урд-Юхой Советского района ЧИАССР.

531. ДУЛАЕВ АХМЕД САИД-ХЕСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 12.11.1980 г.р., с. Памятой Шатойского района ЧИАССР.

532. ДУЛАЕВ МАГОМЕД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 20.10.1983 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

533. ДУЛАТОВ ШАМИЛЬ САЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 25.05.1980 г.р., с. Большая Мартыновка Мартыновского района Ростовской области.

534. ДУНДАЕВА РАЙСА ДОККАЕВНА*, 11.06.1973 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

535. ДУРАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ЛЕМАЕВИЧ*, 06.08.1969 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

536. ДУРИЕВ АЛИ АБДУЛХАМИДОВИЧ*, 13.05.1977 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

537. ДЫШНИЕВ МАГОМЕД ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 04.02.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

538. ДЬЯЧКОВ АЛЕКСАНДР СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 05.10.1980 г.р., п. Октябрьский Устьянского района Архангельской области.

539. ЕДАЕВ ИБРАГИМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 11.11.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

540. ЕДАЕВ РУСЛАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 07.02.1982 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

541. ЕДИСУЛТАНОВ АСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 13.11.1975 г.р., с. Белгатой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

542. ЕПИФАНОВ ПАВЕЛ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 24.08.1976 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

543. ЕПРИНЦЕВ НИКОЛАЙ БОРИСОВИЧ*, 08.07.1978 г.р., ст. Исправная Зеленчукского р-на Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

544. ЕСИН АРТЕМ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 08.03.1981 г.р., г. Чистополь Татарской АССР.

545. ЕФРЕМОВ АНДРЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 15.07.1971 г.р., г. Витебск Республики Беларусь.

546. ЕШУРКАЕВ МУСЛИМ НУРДЫЕВИЧ*, 28.03.1989 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

547. ЖАБРАИЛОВ АСЛАН РОМАНОВИЧ*, 15.02.1983 г.р., с. Караванное Лиманского района Астраханской области.

548. ЖАБРАИЛОВ ХИЗИР АЛИЕВИЧ*, 08.05.1980 г.р., с. Аллерой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

549. ЖАМАЛДАЕВ ЗАУРБЕК АЛХАЗУРОВИЧ*, 01.06.1985 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

550. ЖАНТУЕВ МАГОМЕД ЖАМАЛОВИЧ*, 25.08.1974 г.р., г. Нальчик Кабардино-Балкарской Республики.

551. ЖАПКАЕВ ШАРКАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 19.12.1974 г.р., с. Хаттуни Веденского района ЧИАССР.

552. ЖАРКОВ СЕРГЕЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 12.06.1985 г.р., г. Череповец Вологодской области.

553. ЖЕБРАИЛОВ ИБРАГИМ ШУДДИЕВИЧ*, 19.09.1984 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

554. ЖИДАЕВ САЛАМБЕК ИСАНОВИЧ*, 29.10.1982 г.р., с. Ширди-Мохк Веденского района ЧИАССР.

555. ЖИЛИНСКИЙ КИРИЛЛ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 26.06.1982 г.р., г. Луга Ленинградской области.

556. ЖУКОВЦОВ ВАЛЕРИЙ ВИТАЛЬЕВИЧ*, 10.04.1988 г.р., г. Москва.

557. ЗАВЛИЕВ КАЗБЕК ГАРСОЛТОВИЧ*, 25.09.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

558. ЗАГАЛАЕВ МОВСАР АНАСОВИЧ*, 23.12.1966 г.р., с. Дарго Веденского района ЧИАССР.

559. ЗАГРЕТДИНОВ МАРАТ АЛЬБЕРТОВИЧ*, 03.06.1985 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

560. ЗАИТОВ ВИСАНИ НУРИТОВИЧ*, 02.08.1970 г.р., п. Горагорск Надтеречного района Чеченской Республики.

561. ЗАЙНАГУТДИНОВ РУСТЕМ РАФИКОВИЧ*, 20.10.1971 г.р., г. Салават Республики Башкортостан.

562. ЗАЙНАЛОВ АПТИ РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 30.06.1980 г.р., с. Ведено ЧИАССР.

563. ЗАЙНУДИНОВ ИСА ИСАЕВИЧ*, 27.12.1938 г.р., с. Кудали Гунибского района ДАССР.

564. ЗАЙЦЕВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 17.11.1971 г.р., г. Томск.

565. ЗАКАЕВ ИБРАГИМ ХУСАЙНОВИЧ*, 25.11.1973 г.р., ст. Галюгаевская Курского района Ставропольского края.

566. ЗАКИРОВ ИЛЬШАТ ШАУКАТОВИЧ*, 22.06.1962 г.р., с. Олуяз Мамадышского района Республики Татарстан.

567. ЗАКРАИЛОВ РУСТАМ ХОЖАХМЕДОВИЧ*, 25.07.1980 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

568. ЗАКРИЕВ АРБИ САИДАЛИЕВИЧ*, 21.09.1979 г.р., ст. Николавская Наурского р-на Чеченской Республики.

569. ЗАКРИЕВ НУРДЫ ЯРАГИЕВИЧ*, 15.05.1952 г.р., Каратальский район Алма-Атинской области КССР.

570. ЗАКРИЕВ РАСУЛ АБДУЛВАДУДОВИЧ*, 02.04.1974 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Дагестанской АССР.

571. ЗАКРИЕВ СУЛТАН ШАЙАХМАТОВИЧ*, 19.11.1986 г.р., с. Нурадилово Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

572. ЗАМТИЕВ ЛЕМА ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 02.10.1985 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

573. ЗАРИПОВ РАДИК РАМИЛОВИЧ*, 08.10.1985 г.р., с. Большие Кибячи Сабинского района ТАССР.

574. ЗАХАРКИН ВЛАДИМИР ВАЛЕРЬЕВИЧ*, 18.02.1975 г.р., ст. Червленая Шелковского района Чеченской Республики.

575. ЗЕЛЕМХАНОВ ИБРАГИМ МАГАМЕДОВИЧ*, 27.09.1989 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

576. ЗЕУШЕВ ЭДУАРД ИСМАИЛОВИЧ*, 02.09.1977 г.р., г. Тырныауз КБР.

577. ЗИЗАЕВ АПТИ АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 06.05.1981 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

578. ЗИННУРОВ РАУФ РАШИТОВИЧ*, 09.02.1978 г.р., с. Возжаевка Белогородского района Амурской области.

579. ЗИЯВУДИНОВ ЗИЯВУДИН КУРБАНОВИЧ*, 02.05.1977 г.р., с. Кикуни Гергебельского района Республики Дагестан.

580. ЗУБАЙРАЕВ САЙД-АХМЕД САЙДЕМИЕВИЧ*, 24.10.1979 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского р-на Чеченской Республики.

581. ЗУЛКАРНАЕВ МУСЛИМ ЗАЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 18.07.1977 г.р., с. Муцалаул Хасавюртовского района РеспубликиДагестан.

582. ЗУХАЙРАЕВ АСЛАН НАГАЕВИЧ*, 12.09.1974 г.р., с. Сержен-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

583. ЗУХАЙРАЕВ МУСА АЛИЕВИЧ*, 02.05.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

584. ЗЯЛИЛОВ ИЛЬНАР ИЛЬЯСОВИЧ*, 27.09.1980 г.р., г. Казань ТАССР.

585. ИБАЕВ РУСЛАН ЛОМ-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 11.11.1983 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

586. ИБАКОВ ЯСАВИЙ БУХАРЕВИЧ*, 01.09.1970 г.р., ст. Наурская ЧИАССР.

587. ИБРАГИМОВ АЛИХАН АДНАНОВИЧ*, 21.09.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

588. ИБРАГИМОВ АРБИ ШАХИДОВИЧ*, 19.05.1974 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

589. ИБРАГИМОВ АХМЕД МАМАТОВИЧ*, 01.08.1976 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

590. ИБРАГИМОВ БИСЛАН МАСХУДОВИЧ*, 27.12.1976 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

591. ИБРАГИМОВ ДАУД ВАХОДОВИЧ*, 07.12.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

592. ИБРАГИМОВ РУСЛАН ДЖАВАДИЕВИЧ*, 27.07.1982 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

593. ИГОЛКИН МИХАИЛ ВИТАЛЬЕВИЧ*, 03.07.1974 г.р., г. Пермь.

594. ИДИГОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН АЛХАЗУРОВИЧ*, 09.06.1977 г.р., с. Старые-Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

595. ИДИГОВ РАМЗАН АСРУДИНОВИЧ*, 29.06.1979 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

596. ИДРИСОВ БЕКМИРЗА АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 06.02.1984 г.р., с. Ялхой-Мохк Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

597. ИДРИСОВ СУЛБАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 03.06.1983 г.р., г. Шали ЧИАССР.

598. ИДРИСОВ ТИМУР САЙПИЕВИЧ*, 03.11.1974 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

599. ИЖАЕВ МОВСАР САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 15.05.1983 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

600. ИЗМАЙЛОВ ВАХА РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 26.11.1983 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

601. ИЛИЕВ ИССА ДАВИДОВИЧ*, 11.06.1976 г.р., с. Камбилеевское Пригородного района Северо-Осетинской АССР.

602. ИЛЬЯСОВ АБДУЛМАЛИК АБДУЛХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 09.02.1959 г.р., с. Мирзааки Узгенский район Ошская область Киргизской ССР.

603. ИЛЬЯСОВ БАХРУДЫ ЗЕМЕЛЬЕВИЧ*, 24.05.1966 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР (24.05.1953 г.).

604. ИЛЬЯСОВ МУСЛИМ ЯРАГИЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1972 г.р., г. Шали ЧИАССР.

605. ИЛЯСОВ РАСУЛ КУРБАНОВИЧ*, 26.07.1985 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИССР.

606. ИНАЛОВ АСЛАМБЕК АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 05.06.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

607. ИНАЛОВ ТИМУР АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 02.09.1988 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

608. ИОНОВ РУСЛАН ГАЗРАИЛЕВИЧ*, 31.08.1980 г.р., г. Усть-Джегута Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

609. ИРИСБИЕВ ВАХИД ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 12.04.1973 г.р., с. Байрамаул Хасавюртовского р-на Республики Дагестан.

610. ИРИСБИЕВ МАГОМЕД УМАРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 02.08.1979 г.р., г. Гудермес Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

611. ИРИСХАНОВ ГЕЛАНИ УМАР-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 09.08.1983 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

612. ИРИСХАНОВ ИЛЕС ГИЛАНИЕВИЧ*, 22.06.1965 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

613. ИРИСХАНОВ ЛЕМА УМАР-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 07.08.1978 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

614. ИСАЕВ АЛИХАН АЗИЗОВИЧ*, 1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

615. ИСАЕВ ИСЛАМ ДЕНИЕВИЧ*, 09.05.1984 г.р., Целиноградская область КазССР.

616. ИСАЕВ ЛЕМА ЯХЪЯЕВИЧ*, 30.04.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

617. ИСАЕВ РАМЗАН УАХИТОВИЧ*, 08.08.1979 г.р., ст. Вознесеновка Малгобекского района ЧИАССР.

618. ИСАЕВ САИД-МАГОМЕД ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 18.04.1978 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

619. ИСАЕВ САЛАМБЕК МУСАЕВИЧ*, 14.11.1987 г.р., с. Бурнов Джувалинского района Джамбульской области КазССР.

620. ИСАЕВ ХАСАН БУКУЛИЕВИЧ*, 11.05.1967 г.р., с. Липовка Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

621. ИСАКОВ АБДУЛКАДЫР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 12.03.1965 г.р., с. Комсомольское Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

622. ИСАКОВ АСЛАНБЕК МОВЛДЫЕВИЧ*, 08.05.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

623. ИСАКОВ БЕСЛАН УРУХМАНОВИЧ*, 07.12.1978 г.р., с. Бережновка Николаевского района Волгоградской области.

624. ИСАКОВ ВАЛИД САИД-АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 12.08.1972 г.р., с. Рошни-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

625. ИСАКОВ КАХРАМОН ЭРГАШЕВИЧ*, 23.03.1970 г.р., г. Ташкент Республики Узбекистан.

626. ИСАКОВ ШИРЛАМ ШИРВАНЬЕВИЧ*, 19.10.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

627. ИСЛАМОВ ЛЕЧИ СИРАЕВИЧ*, 28.05.1961 г.р., с. Алхазурово Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

628. ИСЛАМОВ САИД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 31.01.1977 г.р., с. Кислово Быковского района Волгоградской обл.

629. ИСЛАМОВ УСМАН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 17.12.1979 г.р., г. Аргун Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

630. ИСМАИЛОВ АСЛАН БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 11.11.1978 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

631. ИСМАИЛОВ АХМЕД ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 24.06.1974 г.р., г. Чимкент Казахской ССР.

632. ИСМАИЛОВ ИСЛАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 29.04.1987 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

633. ИСМАИЛОВ ИСМАИЛ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 03.09.1949 г.р., с. Леваши Левашинского р-на Республики Дагестан.

634. ИСМАИЛОВ КАЗБЕК ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 09.06.1977 г.р., с. Аллерой Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

635. ИСМАИЛОВ МУХТАРПАША ХУМАИДОВИЧ*, 11.01.1972 г.р., с. Борагангечу Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

636. ИСМАИЛОВ САИД-ХУСАЙН ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 16.09.1985 г.р., с. Белгатой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

637. ИСМАИЛОВ ШАМХАН ШАМСУДИНОВИЧ*, 12.09.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

638. ИСРАИЛОВ ВАХИТ ХАСЕНОВИЧ*, 12.10.1983 г.р., с. Суворов-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

639. ИСРАИЛОВ ВИСХАН ВАЛИДОВИЧ*, 17.01.1988 г.р., с. Центарой Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

640. ИСРАИЛОВ ФАРИД ХАЙРУЛАЕВИЧ*, 12.10.1980 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

641. ИСРАИЛОВ ХАБИБ ХАВАЖИЕВИЧ*, 16.01.1985 г.р., с. Макажой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

642. ИСРАПИЛОВ АБУ-СЕЛИМ АБУ-МУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 08.01.1976 г.р., с. Рошни-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

643. ИСРАПИЛОВ ИБРАГИМ АХМАДОВИЧ*, 13.01.1960 г.р., с. Сюжи Советского района ЧИАССР.

644. ИСТАМУЛОВ БЕКСОЛТ ШИРВАНИЕВИЧ*, 14.03.1979 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

645. ИСУПХАДЖИЕВ АДАМ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 13.11.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

646. ИСУПХАДЖИЕВ САЙДАМИН АЛМАНОВИЧ*, 25.11.1976 г.р., ст. Калиновская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

647. ИЦАРАЕВ ИСА МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.11.1976 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

648. ИШКОВ РУСЛАН НАВИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 11.09.1979 г.р., г. Чистополь Республики Татарстан.

649. ИШМУРАТОВ ТИМУР РАВИЛЕВИЧ*, 05.06.1975 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

650. КАБИЛОВ БУХАРИ ГЕЛАНИЕВИЧ*, 30.07.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

651. КАБЫЛОВ АДЛАН АДАМОВИЧ*, 26.12.1979 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

652. КАВТАРАШВИЛИ АСЛАН АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 22.04.1982 г.р., с. Джоколо Ахметского района Грузинской ССР.

653. КАДИЕВ САИД-САЛАХ ХОЗУЕВИЧ*, 10.02.1974 г.р., с. Шатой Шатойского района ЧИАССР.

654. КАДИСОВ АЛАШ АТОВХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 02.10.1977 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

655. КАДЫРОВ АЛИ МОВДАЕВИЧ*, 18.10.1979 г.р., с. Нижний Герзель Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

656. КАЗАНЧЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 08.11.1971 г.р., г. Нальчик Кабардино-Балкарской Республики.

657. КАЗБУЛАТОВ ШАМИЛЬ КАСИМОВИЧ*, 10.06.1972 г.р., с. Кара-Тюбе Нефтекумского района Ставропольского края.

658. КАЗНИН ОЛЕГ ВАЛЕНТИНОВИЧ*, 02.04.1963 г.

659. КАИМОВ ИЛЬЯС БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 03.04.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

660. КАИМОВ ИСА ЛОМ-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 11.07.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

661. КАИМОВ МОЛДЫ ЛОМ-АЛИЕВИЧ*, 26.02.1976 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

662. КАЛИМУЛЛИН НАФИС МУЗАГИТОВИЧ*, 12.01.1959 г.р., с. Урсаево Азнакаевского района Республики Татарстан.

663. КАМАЛЕТДИНОВ АЙРАТ ГАМИЛОВИЧ*, 26.04.1976 г.р., г. Набарежные Челны ТАССР.

664. КАМЕНИЧЕНКО СЕРГЕЙ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 24.10.1975 г.р., ст. Ассиновская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

665. КАНАЕВ САИД САЙД-МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 14.03.1984 г.р., с. Захарово Рязанской области.

666. КАНТАЕВ АНЗОР ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 10.10.1972 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Матрановского района ЧИАССР.

667. КАНТАЕВ КАЗБЕК МАЙРБЕКОВИЧ*, 21.06.1980 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

668. КАНТАЕВ РАДЖУ ХАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 28.09.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

669. КАППУШЕВ АЛИ АНЗАУРОВИЧ*, 28.11.1967 г.р., с. Учкекен Малокарачаевского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

670. КАРАСОВ ТИМУР МУРЗАБЕКОВИЧ*, 07.11.1975 г.р., а. Адыге-Хабль Адыге-Хабльского района Ставропольского края Карачаево-Черкесской Республики (КЧАО).

671. КАРИМОВ ИСА АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 23.12.1970 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района Чеченской Республики.

672. КАРПЕНКО ВИКТОР ЯКОВЛЕВИЧ*, 09.01.1950 г.р., с. Воронцовка Фрунзенской обл. Кыргызской ССР.

673. КАРТУЕВ УВАЙС МАХМУДОВИЧ*, 13.01.1960 г.р., с. Комсомольское Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

674. КАСАТКИНА СВЕТЛАНА ВИКТОРОВНА*, 16.02.1963 г.р., г. Йошкар-Ола.

675. КАСЫМАХУНОВ ЮСУП САЛИМАХУНОВИЧ*, 15.10.1964 г.р., г. Андижан Республики Узбекистан.

676. КАТАЕВ АБУБАКАР ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВИЧ*, 01.07.1979 г.р., селение Батаюрт Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

677. КАТАЕВ АХМЕД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 27.03.1980 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

678. КАТАЕВ САИД-ЭМИН УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 27.12.1984 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

679. КАТЧИЕВ РАШИД АБРЕКЗАУРОВИЧ*, 28.08.1974 г.р., с. Учкент Малокарачаевского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

680. КАЦИЕВ СУЭЛДЫ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 12.06.1976 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

681. КЕРЕЙТОВ РУСЛАН ЮНУСОВИЧ*, 14.04.1977 г.р., а. Эркен-Халк Адыге-Хабльского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

682. КЕЧЕРУКОВ ОЙСУЛ КАЗИ-МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 02.01.1966 г.р., с. Учкекен Малокарачаевского района Ставропольского края.

683. КИБИЧОВ РИЗВАН САЛМАНОВАИЧ*, 01.12.1969 г.р., с. Мескеты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

684. КИЛАТ КОНСТАНТИН ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 27.03.1976 г.р., г. Красноводск Туркменской ССР.

685. КИМ ВАЛЕРИЙ САНГИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 14.10.1976 г.р., пос. Быков Долинского р-на Сахалинской области.

686. КИРИЕНКО КОНСТАНТИН БОРИСОВИЧ*, 13.05.1975 г.р., г. Барнаул Алтайского края.

687. КИРИЛЛОВ ИГОРЬ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 05.05.1975 г.р., г. Томск.

688. КЛЕВАЧЕВ МИХАИЛ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 30.03.1958 г.р., г. Москва.

689. КЛИМУК СЕРГЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 09.12.1970 г.р., пос. Первое Мая Илийского района Алма-Атинской области Казахской ССР.

690. КЛОЧКОВ РУСЛАН СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 04.01.1976 г.р., пос. Первомайский Тамбовской области.

691. КОВАЛЬЧУК ФЕДОР СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 06.03.1981 г.р., г. Полярные Зори Мурманской обл.

692. КОВРАЕВ АХМЕД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.04.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

693. КОВРАЕВ ВАХИД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 15.12.1974 г.р., с. Кулары Грозненского района Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

694. КОВРАЕВ ВИСХАДЖИ ВИСИТАЕВИЧ*, 18.04.1982 г.р., с. Цоци-Юрт Курчалоевского района Чеченской Республики.

695. КОВРАЕВ РАМЗАН АВАЛУЕВИЧ*, 20.12.1969 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

696. КОВРАЕВ РУСЛАН МАХМУДОВИЧ*, 03.06.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского р-на Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

697. КОДЗОЕВ МАГОМЕД МАЖИТОВИЧ*, 18.04.1975 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

698. КОЗРОЕВ РАМАЗАН ДЖАБРАИЛОВИЧ*, 07.02.1974 г.р., ст. Гребенская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

699. КОЙТЕМИРОВ АБДУЛГАСАН МАГОМЕДКАМИЛОВИЧ*, 22.02.1969 г.р., с. Н. Казанище ДАССР.

700. КОЙЧУЕВ РУСЛАН НУРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 01.12.1977 г.р., пос. Н.Сулак Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

701. КОЙЧУЕВ РУСЛАН ХАНАПИЕВИЧ*, 09.11.1969 г.р., г. Усть-Джегута Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

702. КОКУНАЕВ РУСТАМ АЛЬБЕКОВИЧ*, 06.03.1986 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

703. КОЛЧИН ЮРИЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 08.04.1968 г.р., г. Дятьково Брянской области.

704. КОРНИЕНКО ГЕННАДИЙ АДАМОВИЧ*, 27.06.1950 г.р., г. Киселевск Кемеровской области.

705. КОРОВИН РУСЛАН МУМАДИЕВИЧ*, 18.07.1983 г.р., г. Грозный Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

706. КОРОЛЕВ НИКОЛАЙ ВАЛЕНТИНОВИЧ*, 31.03.1981 г.р., г. Москва.

707. КОРОЛЕВ СЕРГЕЙ ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 12.11.1984 г.р., г. Сокольники Новомосковского района Тульской области.

708. КОРПЕНКО АЛЕКСАНДР ИННОКЕНТЬЕВИЧ*, 10.01.1979 г.р., г. Усть-Кута Иркутской области.

709. КОСАРИМ АНАТОЛИЙ ПЕТРОВИЧ*, 16.02.1961 г.р., п. Крещенский Гордеевского района Брянской области.

710. КОСИЛОВ СЕРГЕЙ ПЕТРОВИЧ*, 16.12.1953 г.р., г. Фатеж Фатежский район Курской области.

711. КОСТАРЕВ ОЛЕГ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 25.04.1986 г.р., г. Глазов Удмуртской АССР.

712. КОСТЕНКО НИКОЛАЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 20.09.1974 г.р., д. Лукошкино Топкинского района Кемеровской области.

713. КОСТОЕВ МАГОМЕТ БИСУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 29.07.1970 г.р., г. Орджоникидзе СО АССР.

714. КОСУМОВ ХАВАЖ ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 01.02.1978 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

715. КРЫМШАМХАЛОВ ЮСУФ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 16.11.1966 г.р., п. Эркен-Шахар Адыге-Хабльского района Ставропольского края.

716. КУБАЧЕВ АХМЕД МОХМАДОВИЧ*, 20.10.1981 г.р., с. Чернокозово Наурского района ЧИАССР.

717. КУДАЕВ АХМЕД РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 18.05.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

718. КУЖУЛОВ АРТУР ГАСАНОВИЧ*, 02.01.1980 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского р-на ЧИАССР.

719. КУЖУЛОВ ИСМАИЛ ИМАНОВИЧ*, 28.06.1966 г.р., с. Эшилхатой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

720. КУЛАЕВ АРТУР ХАЛИТОВИЧ*, 30.07.1980 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

721. КУЛАЕВ НУРПАШИ АБУРГКАШЕВИЧ*, 28.10.1980 г.р., с. Энгеной Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

722. КУЛИНИЧ ПАВЕЛ ВАЛЕНТИНОВИЧ*, 17.08.1973 г.р., г. Миасс Челябинской области.

723. КУЛЬВИНЕЦ АНАТОЛИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 02.06.1972 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

724. КУПРИЯНОВ КИРИЛЛ АРНОЛЬДОВИЧ*, 28.11.1973 г.р., Ленинград.

725. КУРАМШИН АДЕЛЬ РУСТЭМОВИЧ*, 09.08.1982 г.р., г. Бугульма Республики Татарстан.

726. КУРАШЕВ НАСРУДИН ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 18.01.1982 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

727. КУРГАНОВ ЛАСХАН МАМБЕТОВИЧ*, 24.06.1982 г.р., ст. Щелкозаводская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

728. КУРЕБЕДА НАТАЛЬЯ ВАЛЕНТИНОВНА*, 13.09.1975 г.р., г. Челябинск.

729. КУРКАЕВ СОСЛАН ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 11.05.1979 г.р., г. Чарск Семипалатинской области КазССР.

730. КУРКАЕВ ХУСЕН АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.06.1975 г.р., с. Слепцовская ЧИАССР.

731. КУЧАВА ЕЛГУДЖА ВАХТАНГОВИЧ*, 10.07.1977 г.р., с. Дэнвери Целенджихского района Грузинской ССР.

732. ЛАБАЗАНОВ АСЛАНБЕК СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 28.04.1971 г.р., с. Советское Советского района Чеченской Республики.

733. ЛАБАЗАНОВ МАНСУР АХЪЯТОВИЧ*, 14.03.1979 г.р., ст. Ишерская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

734. ЛАБАЗАНОВ РИЗВАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 26.09.1976 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

735. ЛАВАРСЛАНОВ ХАЙБУЛА ЛАВАРСЛАНОВИЧ*, 18.09.1940 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

736. ЛАВРЕНОВ ВИТАЛИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 25.04.1983 г.р., г. Ленинград.

737. ЛАТЫПОВ САЛАВАТ МИРЗАГИТОВИЧ*, 16.02.1975 г.р., г. Ангрен Ташкентской области Республики Узбекистан.

738. ЛЕЛИЕВ АРСЕН ВИСИРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 24.09.1973 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

739. ЛЕЛИЕВ ТАХИР ВИСИРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 20.04.1983 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Хасавюртовского р-на Республики Дагестан.

740. ЛЕЧИЕВ СУПЬЯН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 02.10.1980 г.р., с. Галайты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

741. ЛИМОНОВ КОНСТАНТИН МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 22.03.1976 г.р., пос. Пролетарье Верхотурского района Свердловской области.

742. ЛИСИЦИНА ЮЛИЯ СЕРГЕЕВНА*, 01.07.1982 г.р., г. Усть-Илимск Иркутской области.

743. ЛИХАНОВ АНДРЕЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 09.08.1978 г.р., г. Зыряновск Восточно-Казахстанской области.

744. ЛОБАЧЕВ ВЛАДИМИР ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 12.09.1970 г.р., х. Черни Усть-Донецкого района Ростовской области.

745. ЛОЛОХОЕВ МАГОМЕД КУРЕЙШОВИЧ*, 17.07.1978 г.р., с. Экажево Назрановского района Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

746. ЛОМАЕВ МУСА УМУРСОЛТОВИЧ*, 04.06.1981 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

747. ЛОРСАНОВ ИСЛАМ АБДУЛ-МУТАЛИПОВИЧ*, 20.09.1983 г.р., Ачхой-Мартановский район ЧИАССР.

748. ЛОРСАНОВ РУСЛАН ЭМДИЕВИЧ*, 07.02.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

749. ЛУКМАНОВ АЙРАТ РАЗИФОВИЧ, 27.09.1974 г.р., г. Дюртюли Республики Башкортостан.

750. ЛУКОЖЕВ ИСЛАМ БАЗДЖИГИТОВИЧ*, 22.01.1975 г.р., с. Тукуй-Мектеб Нефтекумского района Ставропольского края.

751. ЛУКЬЯНЧИКОВ ВИКТОР ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 08.01.1951 г.р., г. Волчанск Карпинский район Свердловской области.

752. ЛУЛУГОВ СЕРГЕЙ САЙДАЛИЕВИЧ*, 01.09.1955 г.р., с. Конкринка Шартандинского района Акмолинской области КазССР.

753. ЛУЛУЕВ УСПА БАЙДИНОВИЧ*, 08.08.1959 г.р., с. Эшилхатой Веденского района ЧИАССР.

754. ЛУХМЫРИН СТАНИСЛАВ АНДРЕЕВИЧ*, 12.04.1990 г.р., г. Волгоград.

755. ЛЫСОГОР СЕРГЕЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 31.08.1970 г.р., г. Приморско-Ахтарск Приморско-Ахтарского р-на Краснодарского края.

756. МААЗИЕВ МАКАМАГОМЕД МАГОМЕДШАПИЕВИЧ*, 23.09.1963 г.р., с. Губден Карабудахкентского района Республики Дагестан.

757. МААЛОВ РУСЛАН ШАМСУДИНОВИЧ*, 28.09.1970 г.р., с. Айти-Мохк Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

758. МАГАМАДОВ АРСЕН РАМАЗАНОВИЧ*, 23.07.1983 г.р., с. Знаменское Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

759. МАГАМАДОВ ВАХИ ДУТАЕВИЧ*, 23.02.1986 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

760. МАГАМАДОВ ТЕМИРХАН УСМАНОВИЧ*, 06.05.1980 г.р., п. Ики-Бурул Ики-Бурульского района Калмыцкой АССР.

761. МАГАМЕРЗУЕВ ТАХИР САЙДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 19.09.1974 г.р., с. Серноводск ЧИАССР.

762. МАГЕМЕДОВ АДАМ СЕИДИМИЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1981 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

763. МАГОМАДОВ АРСЕН СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 20.01.1986 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

764. МАГОМАДОВ АСЛАН МАВЛАДОВИЧ*, 09.03.1972 г.р., с. Знаменское Надтеречного р-на ЧИАССР.

765. МАГОМАДОВ АЮБ САИД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 06.02.1982 г.р., с. Шовхал-Берды Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

766. МАГОМАДОВ БЕСЛАН ЗИЯВДИЕВИЧ*, 23.05.1975 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

767. МАГОМАДОВ ВИСХАН ГЕЛАНИЕВИЧ*, 11.11.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

768. МАГОМАДОВ ДЖАБРАИЛ САЙД-ЭМИЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1987 г.р., с. Курчалой ЧИАССР.

769. МАГОМАДОВ ИСЛАМ ШАХИДОВИЧ*, 25.08.1980 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

770. МАГОМАДОВ РАСУ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 18.03.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

771. МАГОМАДОВ РИЗВАН РАМАЗАНОВИЧ*, 29.05.1978 г.р., с. Новый-Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

772. МАГОМАДОВ САИД-ЭМИ САЙДАНОВИЧ*, 20.09.1978 г.р., г. Балхаш Эжезказганской области Казахской АССР.

773. МАГОМАДОВ ХУСЕЙН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 23.01.1979 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

774. МАГОМАЗОВ РУСТАМ АБАКАРОВИЧ*, 18.01.1981 г.р., ст. Бороздиновская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

775. МАГОМЕДОВ АБДУРАХИМ ОМАРОВИЧ*, 15.01.1943 г.р., с. Саситли Цумадинского района ДАССР.

776. МАГОМЕДОВ АХМЕД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 19.03.1976 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

777. МАГОМЕДОВ БИСЛАН ДАДАЕВИЧ*, 28.08.1978 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

778. МАГОМЕДОВ ГАСАН АСИЛДЕРОВИЧ*, 19.09.1968 г.р., с. Гунха Ботлихского района Республики Дагестан.

779. МАГОМЕДОВ ЗАЙНУТДИН АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 05.10.1963 г.р., с. Куппа Левашинского района Республики Дагестан.

780. МАГОМЕДОВ МАГОМЕД-САЙГИД МАГОМЕДРАСУЛОВИЧ (МАГОМЕДОВ МАГОМЕДСАЙГИД МАГОМЕДРАСУЛОВИЧ)*, 16.08.1972 г.р., с. Губден Карабудахкентского района Республики Дагестан (16.08.1972 г.р., с. Каясула Нефтекумского района Ставропольского края).

781. МАГОМЕДОВ МАГОМЕДРАСУЛ ГАЗИДИБИРОВИЧ*, 10.01.1958 г.р., с. Тлондод Цумадинского района Дагестанской АССР.

782. МАГОМЕДОВ МУСЛИМ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 22.10.1985 г.р., с. Киров-Юрт Веденского района ЧИАССР.

783. МАГОМЕДОВ УВАЙС АБДУЛМУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 25.05.1970 г.р., с. Зубутли-Миатли Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

784. МАГОМЕДОВ УМАХАН РАМАЗАНОВИЧ*, 12.09.1967 г.р., с. Лобко Левашинского района ДАССР.

785. МАГОМЕДОВ ЮСУП БАГАУТДИНОВИЧ*, 05.02.1971 г.р., с. Ташкапур Левашинского района Республика Дагестан.

786. МАГОМЕДШАФИЕВ ЗАВИР МАГОМЕДНАБИЕВИЧ*, 29.09.1988 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

787. МАДАГОВ МАГОМЕД МОВЛАДИЕВИЧ*, 28.10.1985 г.р., с. Гехи Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

788. МАДАЕВ АДНАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 06.10.1985 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

789. МАДАЕВ АХМЕД РИЗВАНОВИЧ*, 31.10.1976 г.р., с. Знаменское Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

790. МАДАЕВ ГИЛАНИ САЛАМУЕВИЧ*, 12.08.1967 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

791. МАДАЕВ УЗУМ-ХАЖИ САЙТАМ-ЗАТОВИЧ*, 14.12.1980 г.р., с. Курчалой Курчалоевского района Чеченской Республики.

792. МАДАРОВ ИСРАИЛ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 04.04.1988 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

793. МАЖИЕВ ХУСЕЙН ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 21.11.1971 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

794. МАЗАЕВ АКРАМАН ЛОМАЛИЕВИЧ*, 12.09.1986 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

795. МАЗУЕВ АДЛАН САИД-ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 30.06.1984 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

796. МАЗУЕВ АРСЕН САЙД-ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 05.02.1975 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

797. МАКАЕВ ИСА АЭЛЕЕВИЧ*, 29.05.1981 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

798. МАКАЕВ МУСЛИМ САИД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 07.12.1979 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского р-на Чеченской Республики.

799. МАКАЕВ ЮНУС МОЛДИНОВИЧ*, 09.09.1978 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

800. МАКАРЕНКО АНДРЕЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 18.07.1962 г.р., г. Киселевск Кемеровской области.

801. МАКСИМЕНКО СЕРГЕЙ ЛЕОНИДОВИЧ*, 17.07.1966 г.р., г. Владивосток Приморского края.

802. МАКУЕВ РУСЛАН АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 27.05.1974 г.р., с. Самашки ЧИАССР.

803. МАЛИКОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 02.12.1985 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

804. МАЛЬСАГОВ АЛИ АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 11.02.1987 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

805. МАЛЬСАГОВ ИСЛАМ ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 13.03.1972 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

806. МАЛЬСАГОВ УМАР АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 20.11.1984 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

807. МАМАЕВ АРТУР ЗАПИРОВИЧ*, 06.10.1974 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

808. МАМАЕВ РУСЛАН РАСУЛОВИЧ*, 21.09.1974 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

809. МАМАКАЕВ ЗАУР МУСАЕВИЧ*, 15.12.1982 г.р., с. Герменчук Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

810. МАМЕДОВ САЙД-МАГОМЕД АБУАЗИТОВИЧ*, 15.06.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

811. МАМСУРОВ ХАРОН АЛАУДЫЕВИЧ*, 31.01.1985 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

812. МАМЧУЕВ ХАСАН КЕМАЛОВИЧ*, 10.07.1970 г.р., ст. Каладжинская Лабинского района Краснодарского края.

813. МАНИЯ МУРТАЗИ ГВАНДЖИЕВИЧ*, 07.02.1966 г.р., с. Бзыбь Гагрского района Абхазской АССР.

814. МАНТАГОВ АРСЛАНБЕК НАЙБИРСОЛТАНОВИЧ*, 24.01.1977 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

815. МАНФИРОВ ВАДИМ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 17.06.1982 г.р., г. Кемерово.

816. МАРЗАГИШИЕВ РУСТАМ АЙНОДИНОВИЧ*, 24.07.1976 г.р., с. Бурунское Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

817. МАРКОВ ВЛАДИСЛАВ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ*, 12.04.1983 г.р., п. Коммунар Гатчинского района Ленинградской области.

818. МАРКУЕВ АЮБХАН СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 27.10.1983 г.р., с. Шали Чеченской Республики.

819. МАСЛОВ ДМИТРИЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 27.03.1973 г.р., г. Закаменск Бурятской АССР.

820. МАСЛОВ ИВАН НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 13.07.1986 г.р., г. Пошехонье Ярославской области.

821. МАСТАЕВ АСЛАН ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 20.11.1965 г.р., п. Горагорский Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

822. МАСХУДОВ УМАТХАДЖИ АЛИЕВИЧ*, 07.12.1987 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

823. МАТАЕВ СУПЬЯН САИДГАЛИЕВИЧ*, 18.08.1980 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

824. МАТВЕЕВ АЛЕКСЕЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 18.04.1971 г.р., г. Кострома.

825. МАТВЕЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ ВАЛЕРЬЕВИЧ*, 03.10.1976 г.р., г. Кострома.

826. МАТУЕВ МОВЛДИ АБУЕВИЧ*, 18.11.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

827. МАХАЕВ ХУСЕЙН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 24.02.1985 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

828. МАХАМАДОВ АЛМАН ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 01.10.1975 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

829. МАХАТАЕВ АХАТ ТЕМИРСУЛТАНУЛЫ*, 27.07.1978 г.р., с. Советское Ленгерского района Чимкентской области Казахской ССР.

830. МАХАУРИ АЗАМАТ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 24.06.1985 г.р., ст. Ассиновская Сунженского р-на ЧИАССР.

831. МАХАУРИ АСЛАН МАХМАТГИРИЕВИЧ*, 08.10.1985 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

832. МАХМУДОВ ЮСУП УМАРОВИЧ*, 30.07.1973 г.р., п. Новогрозненский Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики.

833. МАХМУЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН АБДУРАШИДОВИЧ*, 20.06.1989 г.р., ст. Калиновская Наурского района ЧИАССР.

834. МАХНЫЧЕВ ВЛАДИМИР АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ*, 10.07.1970 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района Республики Ингушетия.

835. МАХУШЕВ РУСТАМ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 02.12.1977 г.р., с. Керла-Юрт Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

836. МАЦАЕВ МАГОМЕД ЛАУДИЕВИЧ*, 08.02.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

837. МАЦИЕВ СУЛТАН ДЕЛЕМБЕКОВИЧ*, 13.10.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

838. МЕДИЕВ ТАМЕРЛАН ХАЛИДОВИЧ*, 15.12.1986 г.р., с. Хиди-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

839. МЕДОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 02.02.1981 г.р., с. Сагопши Малгобекского района Республики Ингушетия.

840. МЕЖИДОВ ИСМАИЛ АЙНДИНОВИЧ*, 04.01.1987 г.р., с. Улус-Керт Советского района ЧИАССР.

841. МЕЖИЕВ АБУБАКАР ДОРГУЕВИЧ*, 14.04.1970 г.р., с. Ищерское Наурского района ЧИАССР.

842. МЕЖИЕВ АЛИХАН САЙД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.10.1978 г.р., с. Махкеты Веденского района ЧИАССР.

843. МЕЖИЕВ АХЯД САЙД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 09.09.1969 г.р., с. Махкеты Веденского района ЧИАССР.

844. МЕЖИЕВ ЛЕМА ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 22.11.1988 г.р., с. Садовое Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

845. МЕЖИЕВ МУСА МОВЛАЕВИЧ*, 21.05.1977 г.р., совхоз “Подгорный” Курсавского района Ставропольского края.

846. МЕЖИЕВ РУСТАМ СУПЬЯНОВИЧ*, 17.09.1975 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

847. МЕЗЕНЦЕВ ВИКТОР ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 19.07.1966 г.р., г. Ишим Тюменской области.

848. МЕРЖОЕВ АЙДИ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 18.08.1979 г.р., с. Бамут Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

849. МЕРЖОЕВ АНЗОР УСМАНОВИЧ*, 28.07.1985 г.р., с. Бамут Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

850. МЕРЖОЕВ КАЗБЕК ОМАРОВИЧ*, 06.11.1981 г.р., с. Бамут Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

851. МЕРКУЛОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 18.01.1974 г.р., г. Лесичанск Луганской области Украинской ССР.

852. МЕШИЕВ МАГОМЕД УСМАНОВИЧ*, 29.01.1985 г.р., с. Ведено ЧИАССР.

853. МИГАЕВ ИЛЬЯ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 10.12.1980 г.р., хутор Веселый Веселовского района Ростовской области.

854. МИГАЛЬ СТАНИСЛАВ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 11.12.1973 г.р., г. Камень-на-Оби Алтайского края.

855. МИЗАЕВ АДАМ РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 05.07.1979 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

856. МИЛЮКОВ АЛЕКСАНДР АРКАДЬЕВИЧ*, 31.08.1977 г.р., г. Назарово Красноярского края.

857. МИНИН АНДРЕЙ ИВАНОВИЧ*, 28.12.1972 г.р., г. Саратов.

858. МИНКАЕВ ИБРАГИМ УМАРОВИЧ*, 10.07.1989 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

859. МИНКАИЛОВ РАСУЛ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 17.11.1978 г.р., с. Новое Солкушино Наурского района ЧИАССР.

860. МИНСУЛТАНОВ АЛИ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 22.03.1979 г.р., с. Ленинаул Казбековского р-на Республики Дагестан.

861. МИРОШКИН ИГОРЬ ДМИТРИЕВИЧ*, 10.10.1970 г.р., г. Норильск Красноярского края.

862. МИТАЕВ СУПЬЯН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 19.04.1979 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

863. МИТАЛАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК НАИБОВИЧ*, 21.06.1979 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

864. МИТАЛАЕВ ХУСЕЙН УМАРОВИЧ*, 13.02.1977 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

865. МИТИГОВ МУСА ВАДУТОВИЧ*, 27.09.1978 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района ДССР.

866. МИХАЛОВ ГЕЛАНИ ЗАЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 28.09.1985 г.р., с. Радужное Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

867. МИХАЛОВ ХАВАЖИ ЗЕУДЫЕВИЧ*, 23.10.1984 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

868. МИХЕЕВ АЛЕКСАНДР МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 06.02.1964 г.р., г. Сельцо Брянской области.

869. МИХЕЕВ ИВАН ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 01.02.1985 г.р., г. Киров.

870. МОГУШКОВ РУСЛАН АХЪЯЕВИЧ*, 14.05.1976 г.р., с. Насыр-Корт Назрановского района ЧИАССР.

871. МОРОЗОВ РОМАН ИВАНОВИЧ*, 24.11.1974 г.р., село Лебедин Шполянского р-на Черкасской области.

872. МУДАЕВ ДЖАМАЛАЙ ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 07.10.1984 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

873. МУДУШОВ ВАХА-АЛИ САЙДСЕЛИМОВИЧ*, 27.03.1970 г.р., с. Согунты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

874. МУДУШОВ РАСУЛ РУХМАДОВИЧ*, 09.06.1984 г.р., с. Согунты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

875. МУЖАХОЕВА ЗАРЕМА МУСАЕВНА*, 09.02.1980 г.р., станица Ассиновская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

876. МУЗАЕВ АДАМ ИДРИСОВИЧ*, 21.10.1979 г.р., с. Энгель-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

877. МУЗАЕВ АСЛАН МОВЛДЫЕВИЧ*, 04.04.1977 г.р., н.п. Гой-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

878. МУЗАЕВ АХМЕД ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 25.09.1986 г.р., с. Серноводск Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

879. МУЗИЕВ ЭЛЬМАДИ НУРАДИЛОВИЧ*, 28.02.1972 г.р., с. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

880. МУЛАЕВ ИСА МУГУМАТОВИЧ*, 21.01.1987 г.р., с. Труновское Ставропольского края.

881. МУЛАСАНОВ МИХАИЛ ТАЙМАЗХАНОВИЧ*, 20.08.1970 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

882. МУЛУЕВ РОМАН ЭМИЕВИЧ*, 07.01.1986 г.р., с. Гуни Введенского района ЧИАССР.

883. МУЛЬКАЕВ РАСУЛ РАШИТОВИЧ*, 16.11.1979 г.р., ст. Галюгаевской Курского района Ставропольского края.

884. МУНАЕВ МАГОМЕД АПТИЕВИЧ*, 08.10.1982 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

885. МУНАПОВ ЭДИЛБЕК ДАНИЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 18.08.1981 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

886. МУРДАЛОВ АСЛАН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 02.01.1975 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

887. МУРДАШЕВ ВАХИТ ЛАКАЕВИЧ*, 01.12.1955 г.р., г. Караганда Казахской ССР.

888. МУРЖАХАТОВ АДАМ ИСРАИЛОВИЧ*, 07.10.1982 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

889. МУРТАЗАЛИЕВ РУСЛАН МУСАЕВИЧ*, 09.01.1984 г.р., ст. Николаевская Наурского района Чеченской Республики.

890. МУРТАЗАЛИЕВА ЗАРА ХАСАНОВНА*, 04.09.1983 г.р., станица Наурская Чеченской Республики.

891. МУРТАЗОВ МАГОМЕД АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 07.02.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

892. МУРТУЗАЛИЕВ ЗУБАЙРУ ОМАРОВИЧ*, 23.11.1949 г.р., с. Леваши Левашинского р-на Республики Дагестан.

893. МУСАБЕКОВ РАГИМХАН ДУВАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 12.07.1972 г.р., с. Стальск Кизилюртовского района ДАССР.

894. МУСАЕВ АДЛАН АЛИЕВИЧ*, 20.11.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

895. МУСАЕВ АСЛАН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 22.10.1977 г.р., с. Гехи Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

896. МУСАЕВ ДЖАМАЛ ХАВАЖИЕВИЧ*, 13.05.1985 г.р., ст. Ильиновская Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

897. МУСАЕВ ДОККИ ДОРШЕВИЧ*, 21.12.1970 г.р., пос. с/х 23 съезда КПСС Джездзинского района Карагандинской области Казахской ССР.

898. МУСАЕВ ИБРАГИМ ШЕРВАНИЕВИЧ*, 30.06.1974 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

899. МУСАЕВ СУЛТАН САЙДБЕКОВИЧ*, 21.12.1981 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

900. МУСАЕВ УМАР ЗАЙДХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 22.09.1982 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

901. МУСАЛАЕВ ГУСЕЙН ХИЗРИЕВИЧ*, 18.05.1980 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

902. МУСАЛОВ ГАДЖИМУРАД ШАМИЛОВИЧ*, 28.02.1978 г.р., с. Согратль Гунибского района ДАССР.

903. МУСРАПИЛОВ АДАМ УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 08.10.1973 г.р., с. Гуни Веденского района ЧИАССР.

904. МУСХАНОВ АДАМ МОВЛДИЕВИЧ*, 24.09.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Матран Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

905. МУСХАНОВ МАГОМЕД МУСУЕВИЧ*, 28.05.1986 г.р., пос. Долинский Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

906. МУТАЕВ БИСЛАН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 25.07.1983 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановский район ЧИАССР.

907. МУТАЕВ ИСМАИЛ ПАТАХОВИЧ*, 24.06.1981 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

908. МУТАЛИПОВ АСХАБ АДАМОВИЧ*, 12.02.1967 г.р., с. Ца-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

909. МУТАШЕВ ОСМАН АБУБАКАРОВИЧ*, 08.08.1975 г.р., п. Маныч Ики-Бурульского района Республики Калмыкия.

910. МУТИЕВ ИСА АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 22.12.1985 г.р., с. Новотеречное Наурского района Чеченской Республики.

911. МУТУСХАНОВ МАГОМЕД ГАБАРОВИЧ*, 04.01.1968 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

912. МУХАЕВ МЕХТИ МАХМУДОВИЧ*, 20.03.1958 г.р., с. Самашки ЧИАССР.

913. МУХАМЕДОВ НАЗАР МИДХАТОВИЧ*, 06.02.1970 г.р., с. Боз Бозского района Андижанской обл. Республики Узбекистан.

914. МУХАНИН ВЛАДИМИР ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 10.10.1972 г.р., г. Уфа.

915. МУХТАРОВ БЕСЛАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 16.02.1978 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

916. МУХТАРОВ МАГОМЕД СИРАЖУТДИНОВИЧ*, 27.10.1960 г.р., с. Куппа Левашинского района Республики Дагестан.

917. МУЦАЕВ БЕКХАН АДАМОВИЧ*, 14.11.1987 г.р., с. Старая Сунжа ЧИАССР.

918. МУЦАЛХАНОВ МУССА МУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 01.11.1979 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

919. МУЦАЛХАНОВ РИЗВАН МУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 14.11.1977 г.р., с. Танги-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

920. МУЦОЛЬГОВ ЗАУР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 14.09.1981 г.р., г. Назрань Республики Ингушетия.

921. МЫЛЬНИКОВ АНАТОЛИЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 12.12.1946 г.р., г. Ивано-Франковск.

922. НАБИУЛЛИН МУХАММАД ГАЙНУЛЛОВИЧ*, 16.10.1979 г.р., п. Раевский Альшеевского района Республики Башкортостан.

923. НАГИМАТОВ СЕРГЕЙ ИСКАНДЫРОВИЧ*, 18.10.1977 г.р., с. Березовка Брединского района Челябинской области.

924. НАЖАЕВ ШАХ ХАЛИАРОВИЧ*, 20.01.1967 г.р., с. Надтеречное Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

925. НАЗАРОВ ВЯЧЕСЛАВ ВИТАЛЬЕВИЧ*, 17.10.1970 г.р., г. Рубцовск Алтайского края.

926. НАКОНЕЧНЫЙ ИГОРЬ ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 07.01.1966 г.р., г. Уфа Республики Башкортостан.

927. НАКРАЕВ ЭДИЛБЕК ЛЕМАЕВИЧ*, 02.08.1980 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

928. НАСИПОВ РИЗВАН АБДУКАДЫРОВИЧ*, 19.12.1978 г.р., с. Рубежное Наурского р-на ЧИАССР.

929. НАСУРОВ ВАЛИД ХАСМАГАМЕДОВИЧ*, 30.03.1982 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

930. НАСУХАНОВ ИСМАИЛ АХИЯТОВИЧ*, 26.08.1984 г.р., с. Надтеречное Надтереченского района ЧИАССР.

931. НАШАЕВ АЛИХАН АЛЬВИЕВИЧ*, 20.03.1980 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

932. НАШАЕВ УМАР РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 25.04.1985 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

933. НЕВСКАЯ ОЛЬГА АЛЕКСАНДРОВНА*, 09.09.1978 г.р., г. Волжский Волгоградской области.

934. НЕДУЕВ РИЗВАН ИЛЬЯСОВИЧ*, 27.08.1966 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

935. НЕИЗВЕСТНЫЙ ИВАН АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 14.02.1984 г.р., с. Эхаби Охинского района Сахалинской области.

936. НЕМЦЕВ СЕРГЕЙ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 16.02.1985 г.р., г. Комсомольск-на-Амуре Хабаровского края.

937. НЕСМЕЯНОВ АНДРЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 31.05.1970 г.р., г. Миасс Челябинской области.

938. НЕСТЕРОВ ВЯЧЕСЛАВ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 10.04.1981 г.р., г. Таштагол Кемеровской области.

939. НЕСТЕРОВ СЕРГЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 03.03.1974 г.р., г. Котлас Архангельской области.

940. НИГОМАЕВ АЛЕКСЕЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 26.03.1961 г.р., д. Гарюшка Куединского района Пермской области.

941. НИКИТИН СЕРГЕЙ ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 07.05.1980 г.р., г. Ленинград.

942. НОВОЖИЛОВ АНДРЕЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 02.03.1962 г.р., г. Дно Псковской области.

943. НУКАЕВ МАМЕД АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 12.10.1970 г.р., с. Чилгир Яшкульского района Республики Калмыкия.

944. НУКАЕВ ХАМЗАТ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 05.07.1968 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

945. НУРГАЛИЕВ САЛАВАТ МАЛИКОВИЧ*, 20.04.1979 г.р., с. Суюндюк Бакалинского района Республики Башкирия.

946. НУРИЧЕВ АСЛАМБЕК АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 15.08.1978 г.р., с. Пролетарское Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

947. НУРМАГОМЕДОВ ЗАКИР ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 04.01.1976 г.р., с. Кижани Ботлиховского района Республики Дагестан.

948. НУРМАГОМЕДОВ МАГОМЕД БАГАУТДИНОВИЧ*, 13.06.1979 г.р., с. Хаджалмахи Левашинского района Республика Дагестан.

949. НУРМУХАМЕТОВ ТАГИР ИЛЬДАРОВИЧ*, 10.11.1984 г.р., г. Казань Республики Татарстан.

950. НУЦАЛОВ АРСЕН МУХТАРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 04.01.1980 г.р., с. Казмааул Хасавюртовского р-на Республики Дагестан.

951. ОГАНЕСЯН ГРИГОРИЙ ГУРГЕНОВИЧ*, 24.04.1969 г.р., с. Эдиссия Курского района Ставропольского края.

952. ОЗДИЕВ ИБРАГИМ МАМУРИЕВИЧ*, 18.02.1989 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

953. ОЗДИЕВ ХАМИД НУРИДОВИЧ*, 04.01.1986 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

954. ОЗДИЕВ ХАСАН ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 01.12.1980 г.р., с. Терси Кайского района Красноярского края.

955. ОЗДОЕВ АДАМ МАГОМЕТОВИЧ*, 21.03.1980 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

956. ОЗДОЕВ АЛИХАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 26.11.1977 г.р., г. Владикавказ РСО-Алания.

957. ОЗДОЕВ АСЛАН МУСТАФАЕВИЧ*, 31.07.1975 г.р., г. Владикавказ РСО-Алания.

958. ОМАРДИБИРОВ МУРАД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 17.06.1972 г.р., г. Каспийск Республики Дагестан.

959. ОМЕЛЬЧЕНКО ОЛЕГ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 09.12.1974 г.р., г. Азов Ростовской области.

960. ОПАРИН ДЕНИС НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 19.04.1979 г.р., г. Мончегорск Мурманской области.

961. ОРЗУМИЕВ ИЛЕС АБУСУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 18.03.1979 г.р., с. Нижний Герзель Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

962. ОСМАЕВ АДАМ ЖАМАЛАЙЛОВИЧ*, 12.11.1978 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

963. ОСМАНОВ МАГОМЕД АБУТАЛИМОВИЧ*, 10.02.1962 г.р., с. Губден Карабудахкентского района Республики Дагестан.

964. ОСУПОВ АЛЬБЕРТ АБУЕЗИТОВИЧ*, 12.07.1985 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

965. ОТЕГЕНОВ ТИМУР РЕЙЗАЕВИЧ*, 20.06.1973 г.р., с. Иргаклы Степновского района Ставропольского края.

966. ОТЕМИСОВ ЭСМАНБЕТ ЯМАКОВИЧ*, 14.06.1967 г.р., с. Червленные Буруны Ногайского района Республики Дагестан.

967. ОТЕПОВ НАРИМАН ОРАЗБИЕВИЧ*, 18.04.1976 г.р., с. Иргаклы Степновского района Ставропольского края.

968. ОХАЕВ ЛЕМ САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 07.07.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

969. ОЧАРХАДЖИЕВ ДЖАБРАИЛ НАИМСОЛТАЕВИЧ*, 07.01.1982 г.р., с. Ишхой-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

970. ОЧЕРХАДЖИЕВ АСЛАН ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 26.08.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

971. ПАВЛИКОВ ЭДУАРД ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 02.03.1972 г.р., г. Златоуст Челябинской области.

972. ПАДАЕВ ИСЛАМ МУХАМЕТСАЛЫЕВИЧ*, 30.03.1985 г.р., с. Чонтаул Кизилюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

973. ПАК АЛЕКСАНДР АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 20.06.1979 г.р., с. Стародубское Долинского р-на Сахалинской области.

974. ПАНИН АНДРЕЙ КОНСТАНТИНОВИЧ*, 22.06.1980 г.р., г. Норильск Красноярского края.

975. ПЕТРИЧЕНКО ДМИТРИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 26.09.1979 г.р., г. Дрезден Республика Германия.

976. ПИВОВАРОВ ДМИТРИЙ ВИТАЛЬЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1974 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

977. ПИДИЕВ АДАМ МУСТАФАЕВИЧ*, 16.12.1979 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская ЧИАССР.

978. ПИРОВ ИСКАНДАР КУРБОНАЛИЕВИЧ*, 31.03.1984 г.р., с. Курбаншахи Восейского района Кулябской области Республики Таджикистан.

979. ПЛЮСНИН ДЕНИС АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 05.04.1991 г.р., д. Середина Юрьянского района Кировской области.

980. ПОЗДЯЕВ АЛЕКСЕЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 30.03.1963 г.р., с. Ст. Турдаки Кочкуровского района Республики Мордовия.

981. ПОЛИКАРПОВ ВЛАДИМИР СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 16.04.1976 г.р., с. Косой Брод Полевского района Свердловской области.

982. ПОЛЫНЦЕВ ГРИГОРИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 28.11.1979 г.р., г. Нукус Республики Каракалпакия.

983. ПОНАРЬИН МАКСИМ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 15.11.1976 г.р., г. Будапешт Венгерской Народной Республики.

984. ПОПОВ МИХАИЛ КОНСТАНТИНОВИЧ*, 06.08.1977 г.р., г. Новосибирск.

985. ПОТЕХИН ЕВГЕНИЙ ПЕТРОВИЧ*, 26.03.1978 г.р., п. Мохнатушка г. Барнаула Алтайского края.

986. ПРИВЕДЕННАЯ ЮЛИЯ АНАТОЛЬЕВНА*, 23.05.1974 г.р., г. Стерлитамак Башкирской АССР.

987. ПРОСВЕТОВ ЕВГЕНИЙ ВИКТРОВИЧ*, 13.08.1976 г.р., г. Комсомольск-на-Амуре Хабаровского края.

988. ПРОЦЕНКО ВЯЧЕСЛАВ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 23.09.1958 г.р., ст. Октябрьская Павловского района Краснодарского края.

989. ПРОЩАВАЕВ ВЯЧЕСЛАВ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 01.07.1973 г.р., пос. Сокол Долинского р-на Сахалинской области.

990. ПУХТЕЕВ АЛЕКСЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 22.08.1982 г.р., д. Большуха Кировского района Калужской обл.

991. РАБАДАНОВ РИЗВАНУЛЛА МАММАЕВИЧ*, 01.01.1972 г.р., с. Гинти Акушинского района ДАССР.

992. РАДЧЕНКО ВЛАДИМИР ГЕННАДЬЕВИЧ*, 06.12.1958 г.р., с. Дмитриевка Ижморского района Кемеровской области.

993. РАЖАПОВ РУСЛАН АБДУЛ-ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 28.08.1966 г.р., с. Бачи-Юрт Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

994. РАЖИПОВ МУСТАПА МАГОМЕДШАПИЕВИЧ*, 02.07.1965 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

995. РАЗЗАКОВ ХАФИЗ ХАМЗАЕВИЧ*, 05.09.1975 г.р., ст. Зиадин Пахтачийского Самаркандской области Республики Узбекистан.

996. РАКС НАДЕЖДА ГЕОРГИЕВНА*, 13.01.1973 г.р., г. Ровно Республики Украина.

997. РАСКОВАЛОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ ВЯЧЕСЛАВОВИЧ*, 21.01.1964 г.р., г. Верхняя Пышма Свердловской области.

998. РАСУЕВ АДАМ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 30.12.1986 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

999. РАФИКОВ ДИАС АЛЬБЕРДОВИЧ*, 31.05.1986 г.р., г. Казань.

1000. РАХИМОВ АРСЕН ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 03.05.1978 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1001. РЕВТОВ ПАВЕЛ ИВАНОВИЧ*, 05.01.1979 г.р., г. Кустанай Кахахской ССР.

1002. РОЗОВ ДМИТРИЙ ВАЛЕРЬЕВИЧ*, 25.08.1982 г.р., г. Ленинград.

1003. РОМАНОВА ЛАРИСА ВАЛЕРЬЕВНА*, 23.04.1974 г.р., г. Москва.

1004. РЯДИНСКИЙ ВИТАЛИЙ НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 15.08.1976 г.р., п. Никитинка Боровского района Кустанайской области Казахской ССР.

1005. САБИРОВ АЗАТ ФАНИСОВИЧ*, 06.02.1987 г.р., г. Брежнев ТАССР (г. Набережные Челны Республики Татарстан).

1006. САБИТОВ РАФАЭЛЬ РИФГАТОВИЧ*, 18.06.1985 г.р., г. Казань Республики Татарстан.

1007. САБИТОВ РАФИС РИФГАТОВИЧ*, 26.07.1978 г.р., г. Казань.

1008. САВЕЛЬЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1984 г.р., г. Белорецк.

1009. САВЧЕНКО ИГОРЬ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 03.05.1972 г.р., пос. Лазаревское, г. Сочи Краснодарского края.

1010. САГАИПОВ ШАМХАН ШАРПУДИНОВИЧ*, 03.07.1977 г.р., с. Чири-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1011. САГАРИЕВ РУСТАМ ШАМСУДИНОВИЧ*, 16.11.1980 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1012. САДАЕВ МАГОМЕД ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 21.08.1975 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1013. САДУЕВ СУЛТАН ШАХРАДИЕВИЧ*, 07.03.1968 г.р., г. Аргун Чеченской Республики.

1014. САДЫКОВ АРТУР ХАКИМОВИЧ*, 12.03.1979 г.р., г. Кизляр ДАССР.

1015. САДЫКОВ РАМЗАН РИЗВАНОВИЧ*, 30.08.1976 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

1016. САЗОНОВ ЕВГЕНИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 28.12.1976 г.р., с. Орой Акшинского района Читинской области.

1017. САИДБЕКОВ МАГОМЕД ГАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 06.01.1949 г.р., с. Эчеда Цумадинского района Республики Дагестан.

1018. САИДОВ АСЛАН ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 19.12.1988 г.р., с. Автуры ЧИАССР.

1019. САИДОВ МАГОМЕД РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 21.12.1981 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1020. САИДОВ МАХМУД СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 27.10.1978 г.р., ст. Старощедринская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1021. САИЕВ ИБРАГИМ БЕКСАЛТАНОВИЧ*, 29.12.1982 г.р., пос. Новогрозненский Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1022. САИЕВ ЛЕМА МАЗЛАКОВИЧ*, 18.01.1969 г.р., г. Элиста Калмыкской АССР.

1023. САИТОВ РАСУЛ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 04.02.1985 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1024. САЙБАТАЛОВ МАРАТ ТЕМЕРБУЛАТОВИЧ*, 05.05.1972 г.р., г. Тюмень.

1025. САЙГИДОВ САЙГИД НУРМАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 16.07.1979 г.р., с. Сильди Цумадинского района Республики Дагестан.

1026. САЙДАЕВ БАДРУДИ АЛАУДЫЕВИЧ*, 05.12.1972 г.р., с. Хиди-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1027. САЙДАЕВ ХАСАН ГОЦУЕВИЧ*, 26.08.1956 г.р., с. Ново-Павловка Кызыл-Аскеровского района Киргизской ССР.

1028. САЙДАЛИЕВ АЛИХАН ОБУСУПЬЯНОВИЧ*, 21.11.1976 г.р., с. Энгеной Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1029. САЙДУЛАЕВ АДНАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 28.08.1977 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района Чеченской Республики.

1030. САЙДУЛАЕВ АРТУР ИСАЕВИЧ*, 12.12.1983 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1031. САЙДУЛАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ЗАУДИЕВИЧ*, 06.11.1976 г.р., с. Майртуп Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1032. САЙДУЛАЕВ МУСА ЗУДИНОВИЧ*, 01.03.1972 г.р., с. Майртуп Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1033. САЙДУМОВ МУСА САЛАМУЕВИЧ*, 05.12.1976 г.р., с. Дышне-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1034. САЙТАМУЛОВ АЛИ БАЙТЕМИРОВИЧ*, 02.08.1977 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республика Дагестан.

1035. САЛАВАТОВ ШАМСУДИН ДАДАШЕВИЧ*, 30.01.1971 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

1036. САЛАМОВ БАЙ-АЛИ САИД-ЭМИЕВИЧ*, 11.06.1987 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1037. САЛАТАЕВ АБУБАКАР БАВАДИЕВИЧ*, 13.09.1969 г.р., с. Ялхой-Мохк Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1038. САЛАТАЕВ ИБРАГИМ САЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 23.06.1977 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1039. САЛАТАЕВ ИЛЬЯС ДАЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 15.03.1972 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1040. САЛИХОВ АЛИСУЛТАН САПИЮЛАЕВИЧ*, 06.11.1969 г.р., Гунибский район ДАССР.

1041. САЛИХОВ БАГАУТДИН САПИЮЛАЕВИЧ*, 30.03.1972 г.р., г. Буйнакск ДАССР.

1042. САЛМУРЗАЕВ МАГОМЕД ШАМАНОВИЧ*, 27.12.1980 г.р., х. Семечный Дубовского района Ростовской области.

1043. САЛПАГАРОВ ДАХИР МЕКЕРОВИЧ*, 04.01.1964 г.р., аул Джегута Усть-Джегутского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1044. САЛПАГАРОВ МУРАТ КОРНЕЕВИЧ*, 18.09.1965 г.р., ст. Сторожевая Зеленчукского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1045. САЛПАГАРОВ ХЫЗЫР МЕКЕРОВИЧ*, 08.01.1959 г.р., а. Джегута Усть-Джегутинского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1046. САЛСАНОВ УМАР САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 20.07.1976 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

1047. САМБИЕВ АЙНДИ МУТАЕВИЧ*, 16.12.1977 г.р., с. Улус-Керт Советского р-на ЧИАССР.

1048. САМБИЕВ ИСА СОНТАЕВИЧ*, 24.05.1964 г.р., с. Липовка Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1049. САМБИЕВ МОВСАР МУТАЕВИЧ*, 28.02.1984 г.р., с. Улус-Керт Советского р-на ЧИАССР.

1050. САНГАРИЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 16.08.1986 г.р., с. Уштобе Каратальского района Талды-Курганской области КазССР.

1051. САНГАРИЕВ РУСЛАН АБУСОЛТОВИЧ*, 13.05.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1052. САНГИРАЕВ САЛАМБЕК ШАРПУДИНОВИЧ*, 13.10.1988 г.р., с. Новые-Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1053. САРАЛИЕВ АЛИ УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 27.07.1970 г.р., с. Гехи Урус-Мартановского р-на Чеченской Республики.

1054. САРДАЛОВ АДАМ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 31.07.1982 г.р., с. Троицкое Целинного района Калмыцкой АССР.

1055. САРДАЛОВ МАМЕД МЕРЖУЕВИЧ*, 22.04.1972 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1056. САРДАЛОВ СУЛИМАН ТАУСОВИЧ (САРДАЛОВ СУЛЕЙМАН ТАУСОВИЧ)*, 08.12.1986 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР (1986 г.).

1057. САРДАЛОВ УМАР АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 18.07.1984 г.р., пос. Первомайское Яшкульского района Калмыкской АССР.

1058. САРИЕВ УМАР ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 03.07.1966 г.р., с. Усть-Джегута Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1059. САТАБАЕВ ТИМУР ВИСИТАЕВИЧ*, 30.07.1976 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1060. САТИАДЖИЕВ МУЖАИД АЛЕВДИНОВИЧ (САТИ-АДЖИЕВ МУЖАИД АЛИРДИНОВИЧ; САТИ-АДЖИЕВ МУЖАИД АЛИВДИНОВИЧ)*, 05.04.1959 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

1061. СВЕТЛИЧНЫЙ ЮРИЙ ВАЛЕРЬЕВИЧ*, 02.04.1980 г.р., г. Киселевск Кемеровской области.

1062. СЕЛИМОВ АСЛАНБЕК СЛАВДИНОВИЧ*, 28.04.1975 г.р., с. Новосельское Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

1063. СЕМАНОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 29.11.1973 г.р., Емецкий с/с Холмогорского района Архангельской области.

1064. СЕНИН ИГОРЬ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 22.09.1965 г.р., г. Москва.

1065. СЕРИТХАНОВ АДАМ ЗАЙНАЛБЕКОВИЧ*, 26.05.1984 г.р., с. Джалагаш Джалагашского района Кзыл-Ординской области Казахской АССР.

1066. СЕРСУЛТАНОВ АДАМ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 02.01.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1067. СЕТОВ АСКЕР НУРБИЕВИЧ*, 13.09.1982 г.р., аул Шовгеновский Шовгеновского района Республики Адыгея.

1068. СИГАЧЕВ ДМИТРИЙ ИГОРЕВИЧ*, 10.02.1977 г.р., г. Москва.

1069. СИДЕЛЬНИК ВЛАДИМИР ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 18.02.1962 г.р., г. Армавир Краснодарского края.

1070. СИНЯЧКИН АЛЕКСЕЙ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 12.08.1986 г.р., деревня Алешино Касимовского района Рязанской обл.

1071. СИРАЖДИНОВ ЛЕЧИ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 26.02.1976 г.р., с. Нижний Герзель Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1072. СИТАЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 14.04.1983 г.р., станица Смоленская Северского р-на Краснодарского края.

1073. СИТНИКОВ ЮРИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 31.10.1971 г.р., с. Филипповка Кунгурского района Пермской обл.

1074. СКВОРЦОВ ГЕННАДИЙ ГЕННАДЬЕВИЧ*, 09.03.1979 г.р., г.п. Чунский Иркутской области.

1075. СКЛЯР ВАЛЕРИЙ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 17.09.1965 г.р., г. Фрунзе Республики Киргизия.

1076. СКОЛОТЯН РОМАН ПАВЛОВИЧ*, 07.10.1978 г.р., г. Березняки Пермской области.

1077. СКОРОВ ЕВГЕНИЙ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 13.04.1987 г.р., г. Иркутск.

1078. СМОРОДНИКОВ НИКОЛАЙ ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 14.07.1978 г.р., п. Карымское Карымского р-на Читинской обл.

1079. СОБРАЛИЕВ ХАМПАША ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 05.01.1972 г.р., с. Ца-Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1080. СОВМИЗ РУСЛАН АСЛАНОВИЧ*, 16.06.1983 г.р., а. Козет Тахтамукайского района Республики Адыгея.

1081. СОКОЛОВ ВАЛЕРИЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 22.06.1966 г.р., г. Рыбинск.

1082. СОКОЛОВ ИГОРЬ ЛЕОНИДОВИЧ*, 05.09.1970 г.р., г. Тверь.

1083. СОЛСАНОВ МАМЕД АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.06.1979 г.р., с. Чернокозово Наурского района ЧИАССР.

1084. СОЛТАМУРАДОВ РУСТАМ БАТЫРСУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 13.03.1978 г.р., ст. Гребенская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1085. СОЛТАХАНОВ УМАР АСЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 03.01.1982 г.р., с. Лиман Лиманского района Астраханской области.

1086. СОЛТМУРАДОВ ИСЛАМ АРБИЕВИЧ*, 09.07.1977 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1087. СОЛТУХАНОВ ХИЗИР БУВАЙСАРИЕВИЧ*, 23.03.1983 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1088. СОРОКИН СЕРГЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 23.01.1975 г.р., г. Вязьма Смоленской области.

1089. СОСЛАМБЕКОВ ШАМИЛЬ ШАХИДОВИЧ*, 28.03.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1090. СОЮПОВ МУСЛИМ РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 20.01.1982 г.р., с. Закон-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1091. СТРУГАНОВ ВИЛОР ВИКТОРОВИЧ*, 24.09.1962 г.р., г. Мариинск Кемеровской области.

1092. СУГАИПОВ АРСЕН ПАЗЛУДИНОВИЧ*, 11.09.1982 г.р., с. Племзавод Ногайского района ДАССР.

1093. СУГАТИЕВ АНЗОР ИСАЕВИЧ*, 17.01.1979 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1094. СУГАЮНОВ ГАДЕЛЬ МАХМУДЖАНОВИЧ*, 08.04.1985 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

1095. СУЛАЙМАНОВ САЛМАН АЮБОВИЧ*, 24.08.1984 г.р., с. Ленинаул Казбековского р-на Республики Дагестан.

1096. СУЛЕБАНОВ ДЖАБРАИЛ АКАЕВИЧ*, 14.10.1960 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района ДАССР.

1097. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ АСХАБ АБДУЛВАХИДОВИЧ*, 21.09.1985 г.р., с. Успеновка Ленгерского района Чимкентской области КазССР.

1098. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ АХМЕД АЛИЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1974 г.р., с. Бачи-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1099. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ ВАЛИД АЛАВДИНОВИЧ*, 27.07.1974 г.р., с. Тазен-Кала Веденского района ЧИАССР, возможно г. Грозный.

1100. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ МАЙР-АЛИ МАЙРБЕКОВИЧ*, 19.05.1984 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1101. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ РУСЛАН ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 17.11.1968 г.р., г. Шали Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1102. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ РУСТАМ ВИСРАИЛОВИЧ*, 18.06.1987 г.р., с. Нурадилова Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

1103. СУЛЕЙМАНОВ ХУСЕЙН УАЙСОВИЧ*, 12.08.1977 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1104. СУЛЕМАНОВ СУЛТАН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 30.04.1977 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

1105. СУЛИМАНОВ АДАМ АЮБОВИЧ*, 19.02.1964 г.р., с. Шали ЧИАССР.

1106. СУЛИМАНОВ ШАРПУДИ ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 30.06.1966 г.р., с. Сержень-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1107. СУЛТАНГЕРИЕВ БЕСЛАН АДЛАНОВИЧ*, 26.09.1987 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1108. СУЛТАНМУРАДОВ МУСЛИМ АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 26.01.1987 г.р., с. Ахар Новолакского района ДАССР.

1109. СУЛТАНОВ АСЛАН МАГОМЕТОВИЧ*, 11.07.1980 г.р., ст. Ассиновская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1110. СУЛТАНОВ ВАХА МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 04.09.1985 г.р., ст. Ассиновская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1111. СУЛТАНОВ МУССА МОВСАРОВИЧ*, 11.11.1979 г.р., с. Мескер-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1112. СУЛТАНОВ ХАЛИД АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 01.12.1982 г.р., с. Майское Сырдарьинского района Кзыл-Ординской области.

1113. СУЛТУХАНОВ УМАР САЙД-ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 27.07.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1114. СУНАЕВ МАХМУД АБДУЛБАСИРОВИЧ*, 27.07.1963 г.р., с. В. Казанище Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

1115. СУНГУРОВ АБДУРАХМАН ЯНУРОВИЧ*, 07.12.1974 г.р., с. Хуна Лакского района ДАССР.

1116. СУСАРИЕВ АРСАН АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 17.03.1976 г.р., с. Серноводское Сунженского района Чеченской Республики.

1117. СУСЛИКОВ АЛЕКСАНДР ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 24.01.1958 г.р., г. Москва.

1118. СУСХАНОВ ИСЛАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 30.11.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1119. СУЮПОВ УСМАН АЛЬВИЕВИЧ*, 20.07.1974 г.р., с. Гехи-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1120. СЫСКЕВИЧ ДМИТРИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 16.06.1972 г.р., г. Томск.

1121. ТАВГАЗОВ СОСЛАН АРАМОВИЧ*, 06.09.1982 г.р., с. Коста-Хетагурова Карачаевского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1122. ТАВСУЛТАНОВ ИСА АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 19.10.1987 г.р., пос. Рассвет Ленинского р-на Волгоградской обл.

1123. ТАВСУЛТАНОВ САИД СЕЛИМ-АЛИМОВИЧ*, 27.06.1976 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1124. ТАЗАБАЕВ ЛЕЧИ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 20.05.1986 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1125. ТАЗУЕВ САЙДИ ПАДИШАХОВИЧ*, 20.01.1952 г.р., с. Константино Вишневский район Акмолинской области Казахской ССР.

1126. ТАЗУРКАЕВ АХМЕД САЙДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 04.07.1980 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1127. ТАЗУРКАЕВ ОЛХАЗАР АБДУРОХМАНОВИЧ*, 08.03.1966 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1128. ТАЙМАСОВ МАГОМЕДШАРИП АБДУЛМУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 22.04.1975 г.р., с. Губден Карабудахкентского района Республики Дагестан.

1129. ТАЙМАСХАНОВ РИЗВАН ТАГИРОВИЧ*, 10.04.1979 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1130. ТАЙМАСХАНОВА ФАТИМА ДАНИЛБЕКОВНА*, 28.04.1973 г.р., г. Аргун Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1131. ТАЙСУМОВ РИЗВАН БАЛАВДИЕВИЧ*, 06.11.1979 г.р., с. Ялхой-Мохк Курчалоевского района ЧИАССР.

1132. ТАЙСУМОВ ХИЗИР ХУСАИНОВИЧ*, 27.02.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1133. ТАКАЕВ МОВСАР АРБИЕВИЧ*, 03.08.1982 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1134. ТАЛГАЕВ ИМРАН ШИРВАНИЕВИЧ*, 20.08.1971 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1135. ТАЛХАДОВ РОМАН ХАСБУЛАТОВИЧ*, 28.12.1968 г.р., х. Клинков станицы Мекенской Наурского района ЧИАССР.

1136. ТАЛХИГОВ ЗАУРБЕК ЮНУСОВИЧ*, 22.07.1977 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1137. ТАМИМДАРОВ ШАМИЛ ГАМБАРОВИЧ*, 12.08.1958 г.р., с. Сюльте Илишевского района Республики Башкортостан.

1138. ТАРАМОВ АДАМ АПТИЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1975 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1139. ТАРАСУНОВ МУРАДИН ИОСИФОВИЧ*, 29.03.1972 г.р., а. Псыж Прикубанского района Ставропольского края.

1140. ТАРМАЛИЕВ АСЛАНБЕК МОВЛИДОВИЧ*, 12.08.1977 г.р., с. Катыр-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1141. ТАСАЕВ МАГОМЕД СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 05.02.1987 г.р., с. Сельментаузен Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1142. ТАСУЕВ АХМЕД АБДУЛСАИТОВИЧ*, 11.11.1980 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1143. ТАСУЕВ ИЛЬЯС ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 16.05.1979 г.р., с. Советское Приозерного района Республики Калмыкии.

1144. ТАТАЕВ АБДУРАХМАН ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 30.06.1963 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1145. ТАТАЕВ АСЛАН ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 29.01.1971 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1146. ТАТАЕВ АТА АБАКАРОВИЧ*, 10.12.1971 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

1147. ТАТАЕВ ГУСЕЙН ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 16.01.1977 г.р., с. Османюрт Хасавюртовского района ДАССР.

1148. ТАТАЕВ ДАУР ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 29.06.1976 г.р., с. Дойкура-Эвл Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1149. ТАТАЕВ ИМРАН ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 20.10.1986 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1150. ТАТАЕВ ТУРПАЛ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 09.10.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1151. ТАТАЛОВ ХАСАН ЛОМАЛИЕВИЧ*, 03.08.1970 г.р., с. Степное Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1152. ТАУШЕВ АРСЛАН КАДРАЛИЕВИЧ*, 18.06.1973 г.р., ст. Шелковская ЧИАССР.

1153. ТАШАЕВ АРБИ ИМАЛИЕВИЧ*, 16.03.1976 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1154. ТАШУЕВ РУСЛАН АСЛАМБЕКОВИЧ*, 29.11.1979 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1155. ТЕБЕКОВ ЭЖЕР МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 07.01.1986 г.р., с. Бельтир Кош-Агачского р-на Алтайского края.

1156. ТЕГАЕВ АСЛАН УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 26.12.1984 г.р., с. Котлован Удомельского района Калининской области РФ.

1157. ТЕГАЕВ ТАМЕРЛАН УМАР-ЭЛИЕВИЧ*, 25.09.1980 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского р-на ЧИАССР.

1158. ТЕКЕЕВ ЭНВЕР ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 05.11.1963 г.р., с. Садовое Киргизской ССР.

1159. ТЕМИРБИЕВ МАХМУД ГУДАБЕРТОВИЧ*, 13.09.1979 г.р., г. Владикавказ Республики Северная Осетия – Алания.

1160. ТЕМИРБИЕВ МОВСАР АБДУЛ-ВАГАПОВИЧ*, 07.12.1977 г.р., г. Владикавказ Республики Северная Осетия-Алания.

1161. ТЕМИРБУЛАТОВ САЛМАН САИДОВИЧ*, 19.12.1972 г.р., пос. Новогрозный Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1162. ТЕМИРБУЛАТОВ СУЛТУМБЕК СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 04.02.1979 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1163. ТЕМИРСУЛТАНОВ АРСЕН ЗУВАДИЕВИЧ*, 10.08.1988 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

1164. ТЕМИРСУЛТАНОВ ВАХА АБДРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 20.02.1979 г.р., с. Уманцево Саринского района Калмыцкой АССР.

1165. ТЕМИРСУЛТАНОВ ИДРИС РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 14.10.1978 г.р., с. Суворов-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1166. ТЕМИРСУЛТАНОВ ХАМЗАТ АБДРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 11.05.1979 г.р., с. Октябрьское Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1167. ТЕПСАЕВ ХУСЕЙН ВАГИДОВИЧ*, 01.04.1967 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1168. ТЕРХОЕВ ЗАУР ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 17.02.1990 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1169. ТИЛИЕВ ИСА ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 24.03.1975 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1170. ТИМАЕВ ОСМАН РАМАЗАНОВИЧ*, 21.11.1983 г.р., с. Покровское Хасавюртовского района Республики Дагестан.

1171. ТИМАРБУЛАТОВ СУЛЕЙМАН АХЪЯДОВИЧ*, 19.11.1979 г.р., с. Катар-Юрт Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1172. ТИМЕРБУЛАТОВ МЕХИД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 06.05.1970 г.р., с. Кади-Юрт Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики.

1173. ТИМИРБУЛАТОВ САЛАУДИН ХАСМАГАМАДОВИЧ*, 01.01.1960 г.р., с. Борзой Советского района ЧИАССР.

1174. ТИМКИН ИГОРЬ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 09.06.1981 г.р., с. Поспелиха Алтайского края.

1175. ТИМКО АЛЕКСАНДР АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 20.12.1977 г.р., п. Южный (г. Городовиковск) Городовиковского р-на Республики Калмыкия.

1176. ТИМОШИН СЕРГЕЙ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 30.05.1981 г.р., г. Харьков Украинской ССР.

1177. ТИПСУРКАЕВ ИБРАГИМ СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 20.10.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1178. ТИТАЕВ ВИСИТА ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 03.10.1985 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1179. ТИХОМИРОВ ИЛЬЯ ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 26.07.1986 г.р., г. Москва.

1180. ТИХОНОВ ВИКТОР ИВАНОВИЧ*, 08.12.1954 г.р., г. Новосибирск.

1181. ТЛЕПСУК ЮРИЙ АСХАДОВИЧ*, 08.10.1981 г.р., г. Краснодар.

1182. ТЛИАП АСЛАН ХАЗРЕТОВИЧ*, 26.01.1983 г.р., г. Краснодар.

1183. ТЛИСОВ АЗАМАТ АЛИ-МУРЗОВИЧ*, 12.06.1978 г.р., пос. Кавказский Прикубанского района Ставропольского края.

1184. ТОВСУЛТАНОВ ИБРАГИМ МАГОМЕТ-САЛИЕВИЧ*, 02.11.1984 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1185. ТОДИКОВ ГЕННАДИЙ ГЕОРГИЕВИЧ*, 16.06.1938 г.р., г. Черемхово Иркутской области.

1186. ТОКАРЬ АЛЕКСАНДР МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 01.08.1983 г.р., п. Невская Дубровка Всеволжского района Ленинградской области.

1187. ТОСУЕВ МАХАРБИ ЗАКРИЕВИЧ*, 02.02.1977 г.р., ст. Курдюковская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1188. ТОТЧИЕВ АДАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 02.01.1981 г.р., с. Серноводское Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1189. ТОФАН ВИТАЛИЙ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 16.06.1983 г.р., с. Сиротское Ширяевского района Одесской области УССР.

1190. ТУГАНБАЕВ МУРАТБИЙ МАХАМБЕТОВИЧ*, 21.12.1979 г.р., ст. Преградная Урупского района КЧАО.

1191. ТУПЕЙКО БОРИС СЕРГЕЕВИЧ*, 25.05.1973 г.р., г. Душанбе Республики Таджикистан.

1192. ТУРАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК АРБИЕВИЧ*, 07.10.1969 г.р., с. Рошни-Чу Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1193. ТУРАЕВ ОБУСАЛАХ ГАЗАЛИЕВИЧ*, 01.04.1966 г.р., с. Агишбатой Чеченской Республики.

1194. ТУРЛУЕВ РУСТАМ БАРДЕЛОВИЧ*, 23.06.1975 г.р., с. Соцы-Алды Акульского района Талды-Курганского района Казахской ССР.

1195. ТУРЛУЕВ УСАМ РУКМАНОВИЧ*, 22.07.1980 г.р., пос. Новогрозненский Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1196. ТУРПУЛХАНОВ ИСЛАМ ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 14.09.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

1197. ТУРШАЕВ МАГОМЕД ОМАРОВИЧ*, 13.11.1986 г.р., пос. Никольский Енотаевского района Астраханской области.

1198. ТУТАЕВ ТИМУР АПТИЕВИЧ*, 24.12.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1199. ТУХАШЕВ ИСЛАМ ШАМИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 22.05.1981 г.р., с. Ведено Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

1200. ТЭППО АЛЕКСАНДР НИКОЛАЕВИЧ*, 10.04.1975 г.р., г. Новосибирск.

1201. ТЯГАЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН ИСАЕВИЧ*, 19.03.1985 г.р., с. Ново-Георгиевска Тарумского района Дагестанской АССР.

1202. УЗДЕНОВ МИКАИЛ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 27.06.1979 г.р., селение Ленинаул Казбековского района Республики Дагестан.

1203. УЛАБАЕВ МИКАИЛ ДОШАЕВИЧ*, 17.01.1971 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала Чеченской Республики.

1204. УЛЬБИЕВ АСЛАН ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 31.07.1981 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1205. УМАЕВ ХУСЕЙН ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 20.07.1966 г.р., с. Алхан-Юрт Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1206. УМАЛАТОВ ВАХА СУПЕНОВИЧ*, 25.03.1981 г.р., с. Подгорное Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

1207. УМАНЦЕВ СЕМЕН ГРИГОРЬЕВИЧ*, 24.12.1984 г.р., ст. Шелковская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1208. УМАРОВ АДАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 02.12.1988 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1209. УМАРОВ ЗЕЛИМХАН АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 15.07.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1210. УМАРОВ МОВСАР ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 30.05.1986 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1211. УМАРОВ МУРАД ХОЖБАХУДИЕВИЧ*, 30.12.1984 г.р., с. Беной-Ведено Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1212. УМАРОВ РАМЗАН ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 18.02.1989 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1213. УМАРОВ САЛЕХ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 24.12.1974 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1214. УМАРОВ СОСЛАН САЙХАНОВИЧ*, 21.03.1980 г.р., с. Бамут Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1215. УМАРОВ УСМАН ХАДЖИЕВИЧ*, 20.05.1963 г.р., с. Кенхи Советского района ЧИАССР.

1216. УМАРПАШАЕВ ИСЛАМ ИРИСБАЕВИЧ*, 11.02.1986 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1217. УМАРХАЖИЕВ ИСА ДЖЕБРОИЛОВИЧ*, 29.05.1980 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1218. УМАХАНОВ АДАМ ГИХОЕВИЧ*, 18.10.1983 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1219. УМАХАНОВ ШАМИЛЬ ГАСАНАЛИЕВИЧ*, 23.11.1964 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

1220. УРБАКОВ СЕРГЕЙ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ*, 24.10.1970 г.р., г. Улан-Удэ.

1221. УСАЕВ АДРАХИН ТУРПАЛОВИЧ*, 15.01.1976 г.р., с. Н.- Курчали Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1222. УСМАНОВ АПТИ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 07.06.1973 г.р., с. Знаменское Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

1223. УСМАНОВ АХМЕД ЗАЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 29.07.1975 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1224. УСМАНОВ ЛОМАЛИ ГИЛАЕВИЧ*, 26.03.1985 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1225. УСМАНОВ РАСУЛ МОУДИЕВИЧ*, 08.11.1987 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1226. УСМАНОВ ТИМУР ЛЕЧИЕВИЧ*, 27.10.1979 г.р., с. Автуры ЧИАССР.

1227. УСМАНОВ ХАМПАША ШЕРИЕВИЧ*, 06.09.1978 г.р., с. Курчалой Курчалоевского района ЧИАССР.

1228. УСПАНОВ АХМЕД АБДУЛ-КЕРИМОВИЧ*, 03.01.1981 г.р., с. Осакаровка Карагандинской области Казахской ССР.

1229. УСПАНОВ ИМРАН ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 08.10.1975 г.р., с. Чемульга Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1230. УСТАЕВ КЮРИ АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 22.07.1981 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1231. УСТАЕВ РУСТАМ САЙД-АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 26.03.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1232. УСТАРХАНОВ КАЗБЕК САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 01.06.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1233. УЦАЕВ АБУ ИСМАИЛОВИЧ*, 12.06.1981 г.р., с. Шали ЧИАССР.

1234. УЦМИГОВ АСЛАН ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 16.01.1978 г.р., ст. Старогладовская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1235. ФАЙЗУЛИН ФАРХАТ РИЗАЕВИЧ*, 14.02.1966 г.р., пос. Балезино Балезинского района Удмуртской АССР.

1236. ФАЙРУЗОВ РАФИС АТЛАСОВИЧ*, 05.01.1986 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

1237. ФАРЗАЛИЕВ КАЗБЕК ХАЧМАСОВИЧ*, 06.01.1976 г.р., г. Дербент Республики Дагестан.

1238. ФЕДОРЕНКО ИЛЬЯ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 27.05.1983 г.р., с. Среднее Верховского района Орловской области.

1239. ФИЛИН СЕРГЕЙ ВИТАЛЬЕВИЧ*, 23.12.1968 г.р., г. Магадан.

1240. ФРАНЦУЗОВ ТАУКАН КАЗИМОВИЧ*, 22.10.1962 г.р., а. Нижняя Теберда Карачаевского р-на КЧАО.

1241. ХАБИЛАЕВ ИСЛАМ САПАРБЕКОВИЧ*, 15.10.1983 г.р., д. Ильятино Бологовского района Калининской области.

1242. ХАДЖАЕВ РИЗВАН САЛАУДИЕВИЧ*, 25.02.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1243. ХАДЖАЛИЕВ ИСРАИЛ ВИСАМУРАДОВИЧ*, 19.04.1979 г.р., г. Ленинаул Казбековского р-на ДАССР.

1244. ХАДЖАЛИЕВ САИД ХИЗАРОВИЧ*, 29.06.1978 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1245. ХАДЖИЕВ АДАМ МОГДАНОВИЧ*, 28.11.1985 г.р., г. Чимкент КазССР.

1246. ХАДЖИЕВ АЛХАСТ САЙДСЕЛИМОВИЧ*, 02.06.1976 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1247. ХАДЖИЕВ МУРАД ТАУЗОВИЧ*, 30.07.1981 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1248. ХАДЖИЕВ РАМЗАН ЗАЙНУЛЛАЕВИЧ*, 12.04.1974 г.р., с. Алпатово Наурского района ЧИАССР.

1249. ХАДЖИЕВ УМАР ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 09.05.1977 г.р., ст. Наурская ЧИАССР.

1250. ХАДЖИМУРАДОВ ВИСХАН УМАРОВИЧ*, 02.07.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1251. ХАДЗИЕВ УМАР БАГАУДИНОВИЧ*, 29.04.1984 г.р., г. Владикавказ РСО-Алания.

1252. ХАДИЗОВ МУРАД ДЖАМИРЗОЕВИЧ*, 16.03.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1253. ХАДИСОВ РУСЛАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 24.10.1976 г.р., ст. Каргалинская Щелковского р-на ЧИАССР.

1254. ХАДИСОВ ШАМИЛЬ УСМАНОВИЧ*, 13.12.1981 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1255. ХАЖБАХМАДОВ УМАР МУСАЕВИЧ*, 08.07.1986 г.р., с. Киселевка Заветинского района Ростовской области.

1256. ХАЖМАГАМАЕВ ЛЕЧИ ЗУБАЙРАЕВИЧ*, 21.01.1985 г.р., с. Зандак Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1257. ХАЗАМОВ МАГОМЕДЗАГИД АБДУЛАЕВИЧ*, 21.03.1973 г.р., с. Согратль Гунибского района ДАССР.

1258. ХАЗБУЛАТОВ АБУБАКАР МАЛАТОВИЧ*, 20.12.1982 г.р., с. Надтеречное Надтеречного р-на ЧИАССР.

1259. ХАЗБУЛАТОВ АСЛАН ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 07.11.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1260. ХАЙДАЕВ ХУМАЙД АБДУЛХАМИДОВИЧ*, 20.09.1979 г.р., с. Ишхой-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1261. ХАЙДЕРХАНОВ АЛЬВИ ЛЕЧЕВИЧ*, 26.08.1979 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1262. ХАЙРУЛЛИН ВИЛЬСУР РАФИЛЕВИЧ*, 22.04.1982 г.р., пос. Кукмор Кукморского района Республики Татарстан.

1263. ХАЙХАРОЕВ АХЪЯД АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 17.10.1975 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1264. ХАЙХАРОЕВ ИМРАН УМАРОВИЧ*, 30.07.1976 г.р., с. Солдатско-Степное Быковского района Волгоградской обл.

1265. ХАКИМОВ АЛИ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 19.08.1980 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1266. ХАКИМОВ БУЛАТ БИБОЛТОВИЧ*, 27.07.1982 г.р., х. Павловка Курсавского района Ставропольского края.

1267. ХАКИМОВ МАГОМЕД УСАМОВИЧ*, 21.09.1987 г.р., с. Сельментаузен Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1268. ХАКИМОВ МОВСАР АВАЛУЕВИЧ*, 12.12.1975 г.р., с. Алхан-Юрт Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1269. ХАЛАЕВ РУСЛАН САЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 07.06.1984 г.р., с. Новые Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1270. ХАЛАЕВ ШАРУДИН БАДРУДИНОВИЧ*, 07.04.1979 г.р., с. Новые Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1271. ХАЛЕТОВ УМАР АБДУРАХМАНОВИЧ*, 24.04.1980 г.р., с. Аралбай Джангильдинского района Тургайской области Казахской АССР.

1272. ХАЛИМОВ ВАХИД ХАМЕДОВИЧ*, 22.03.1984 г.р., с. Кулары ЧИАССР.

1273. ХАЛЬДИХОРОЕВ МАЛИД ИСРАПИЛОВИЧ*, 26.09.1976 г.р., пос. Октябрьский Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1274. ХАМБУРАЕВ МАГОМЕД МАКШАРИПОВИЧ*, 13.11.1984 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская ЧИАССР.

1275. ХАМЗАЕВ МАЙРБЕК РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 11.12.1981 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1276. ХАМЗАЛАТОВ АСЛАН ХАМИТОВИЧ*, 14.03.1981 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1277. ХАМЗАТОВ АДЛАН МАГОМЕД-САЛИХОВИЧ*, 31.10.1984 г.р., с. Самашки (с. Ачхой-Мартан) Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1278. ХАМЗАТОВ АЛЬВИ АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 13.12.1966 г.р., с. Чистопольское Алакульского района Алма-атинской области КазССР.

1279. ХАМЗАТОВ ИЛЕС АЛАУДИНОВИЧ*, 06.06.1974 г.р., с. Самашки ЧИАССР.

1280. ХАМЗАТОВ ИСМАИЛ АЛАУДИЕВИЧ*, 01.05.1979 г.р., с. Самашки Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1281. ХАМЗАТХАНОВ РАХИМ АДДИЕВИЧ*, 04.09.1979 г.р., с. Ца-Ведено Веденского р-на ЧИАССР.

1282. ХАМИЕВ ЛОРС НОХЧОЕВИЧ*, 11.01.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1283. ХАМИСБИЕВ НАЗИРБЕК АЛИФТИНОВИЧ*, 08.03.1981 г.р., с. Виноградное Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1284. ХАМСТХАНОВ ХАСАН ИЛЕСОВИЧ*, 04.12.1980 г.р., с. Катар-Юрт Ачхой-Мртановского района ЧИАССР.

1285. ХАМУРАДОВ АЛИ-ХАН МАУСАРОВИЧ*, 20.08.1982 г.р., с. Старокозинка Мичуринского района Тамбовской области.

1286. ХАМУРЗАЕВ МАРТАН УСМАНОВИЧ*, 03.01.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1287. ХАМХОЕВ МАГОМЕД ГАБОЕВИЧ*, 03.12.1978 г.р., с. Яндаре Назрановского района ЧИАССР.

1288. ХАНИЕВ УМАР ИСАЕВИЧ*, 07.07.1984 г.р., с. Октябрьское Пригородного района РСО-Алания.

1289. ХАНОВ МАГОМЕД АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 14.02.1966 г.р., с. Куппа Левашинского р-на ДАССР.

1290. ХАНТАЕВ ЗАУРБЕК РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 16.12.1981 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1291. ХАРАТОКОВ ЭДУАРД МУХАМЕДОВИЧ*, 15.10.1981 г.р., а. Кубина Усть-Джегутинского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1292. ХАРИХАНОВ АНЗОР МАГОМЕДАЛИЕВИЧ*, 04.09.1985 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

1293. ХАРОНОВ СУЛИМАН ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 28.03.1978 г.р., с. Бешил-Ирзу Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1294. ХАСАЕВ ВАХА АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 09.05.1980 г.р., с. Н. Янгуль Ставропольского края.

1295. ХАСАНОВ АЗАТ ДАМИРОВИЧ*, 20.12.1977 г.р., с. Малые Болгояры Апастовского района ТАССР.

1296. ХАСАНОВ АЛМАЗ ДАМИРОВИЧ*, 20.12.1977 г.р., дер. Малые Болгояры Апастовского района ТАССР.

1297. ХАСАНОВ ИСА МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 28.08.1985 г.р., с. Шалажи Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1298. ХАСАНОВ МАГАМЕД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 20.03.1961 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1299. ХАСАНЬШИН ДАНИЛ РАФАИЛОВИЧ*, 16.11.1977 г.р., г. Ташкент Республики Узбекистан.

1300. ХАСАРБИЕВ ИСЛАМ ДЕНИЛОВИЧ*, 20.10.1972 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1301. ХАСАРОВ МАГОМЕД СУЛУМБЕКОВИЧ*, 20.05.1979 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1302. ХАСАХАНОВ САЛМАН ВАЛИТОВИЧ*, 01.01.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1303. ХАСБУЛАТОВ АБДУЛА МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 30.07.1969 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района ДАССР.

1304. ХАСБУЛАТОВ АБУБАКАР МАЛАТОВИЧ*, 20.12.1982 г.р., с. Надтеречное Надтеречного района ЧИАССР.

1305. ХАСБУЛАТОВ АХМАД ИССАКОВИЧ*, 25.09.1973 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1306. ХАСБУЛАТОВ ГАСАН ХАСБУЛАТОВИЧ*, 19.02.1958 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района ДАССР.

1307. ХАСБУЛАТОВ ЗАКАРЬЯ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 13.12.1975 г.р., с. Карамахи Буйнакского района Республики Дагестан.

1308. ХАСБУЛАТОВ РУСЛАН ХАМЗАИТОВИЧ*, 05.01.1980 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1309. ХАСИЕВ РУСЛАН ДУКВАХАЕВИЧ*, 04.07.1980 г.р., с. Валерик Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1310. ХАСИЕВ ХАМЗАТ БАУДИНОВИЧ*, 23.11.1956 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1311. ХАСИЕВА ЯХА МУТАГИРОВНА*, 23.09.1956 г.р., КазССР.

1312. ХАСУХАНОВ ИСЛАМ ШАЙХ-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 29.11.1954 г.р., с. Ворошиловское Ворошиловского района Киргизской ССР.

1313. ХАТАЕВ АЛИХАН НЕБИЮЛАЕВИЧ*, 04.06.1987 г.р., с. Дарго Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1314. ХАТУЕВ АБДУРАХМАН МОВСАРОВИЧ*, 22.12.1952 г.р., г. Караганда КазССР.

1315. ХАТУЕВ БИСЛАН АБУЯЗИТОВИЧ*, 11.04.1972 г.р., с. Орехово Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1316. ХАТУЕВ НУР-МАГОМЕД ШАХИДОВИЧ*, 16.05.1967 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР (1966 г.).

1317. ХАЦИЕВ БЕЛАН ВИСАНГИРЕЕВИЧ*, 18.06.1978 г.р., г. Джамбул Казахской ССР.

1318. ХАЧЛАЕВ ТАМИРЛАН ИЛЬЯСОВИЧ*, 08.06.1974 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

1319. ХАЧУКАЕВ ИЗРАИЛ САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 02.01.1980 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1320. ХАЧУКАЕВ ИМРАН САЙД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 16.02.1972 г.р., с. Новый-Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1321. ХАЧУКАЕВ ЭРШТХО СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 02.02.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1322. ХАШУМОВ РАШИД АМИРБЕКОВИЧ*, 08.02.1979 г.р., с. Эникали Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1323. ХИДЕРЛЕЗОВ РАСУЛ СОЛТАНСАИДОВИЧ*, 30.06.1982 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

1324. ХИДИРБЕКОВ МАГОМЕДСОЛТАН МАГОМЕДСАИДОВИЧ*, 17.05.1965 г.р., с. Манас Карабудахкентского района ДАССР.

1325. ХИДИРОВ АРСЕН МАГОМЕДНАБИЕВИЧ*, 07.12.1974 г.р., г. Махачкала ДАССР.

1326. ХИЗИРОВ УМАР ИМРАНОВИЧ*, 16.05.1977 г.р., с. Дуба-Юрт Шалинского р-на ЧИАССР.

1327. ХИЗРИЕВ ЗЕЛИМХА МУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 28.04.1978 г.р., с/х Дюрский Новокузнецкого района Саратовской области.

1328. ХИЗРИЕВ ИДРИС БУХАЙСЕРОВИЧ*, 12.01.1977 г.р., с. Кургалой Шалинского района Чеченской Республики.

1329. ХИЗРИЕВ ИЛЕС ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 17.01.1982 г.р., с. Автуры Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1330. ХИЗРИЕВ РУСТАМ ВИСИРКОВИЧ*, 22.09.1978 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1331. ХИРИХАНОВ ИБРАГИМ ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 28.11.1982 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1332. ХИСИМИКОВ САИД-МАГОМЕД ХАМЗАЕВИЧ*, 14.03.1980 г.р., г. Грозный Чечено-Ингушской АССР.

1333. ХИТИЕВА ЗАРГАН БАУДИНОВНА*, 23.02.1957 г.р., г. Кызыл-Орда Казахской ССР.

1334. ХИХОЕВ ХУСЕЙН ОМАРОВИЧ*, 02.11.1978 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1335. ХОЖАЕВ АНЗОР АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 14.09.1988 г.р., с. Пригородное Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1336. ХОЗЯИНОВ ДМИТРИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 22.10.1979 г.р., г. Нарьян-Мар Архангельской области.

1337. ХРАМЦОВ СЕРГЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 07.11.1978 г.р., пос. Светлый Котельнического района Кировской области.

1338. ХУБИЕВ АРАСУЛ ПАВЛОВИЧ*, 02.07.1977 г.р., с. Важное Усть-Джегутинского р-на Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1339. ХУБИЕВ ТАМБИЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 25.04.1977 г.р., с. Учкекен Малокарачаевского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1340. ХУГУЕВ ХАЛИД ХАСМАГОМАДОВИЧ*, 01.01.1956 г.р., пос. Чу Джамбульской области Казахской ССР.

1341. ХУДОЯРОВ ЗАЙНАДИН АЛИМХАНОВИЧ*, 22.08.1979 г.р., с. Коби Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1342. ХУДУЛОВ ВИСХАДЖИ ХУСАЙИНОВИЧ*, 06.06.1974 г.р., с. Бильты Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1343. ХУСАИНОВ АБДУЛ-МЕЛИК НАЖМУДИНОВИЧ*, 05.05.1967 г.р., с. Киров-Юрт Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1344. ХУСАИНОВ БЕСЛАН НАЖМУДИНОВИЧ, 10.12.1977 г.р., с. Киров-Юрт Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1345. ХУСАИНОВ УМАР БИЛАЛОВИЧ*, 06.04.1987 г.р., ст. Курдюковская ЧИАССР.

1346. ХУСЕЙНОВ АЛИ ХАЛИДОВИЧ*, 10.04.1979 г.р., с. Новый Шарой Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1347. ХУТИЕВ АБДУЛРАХИМ ХАЖБЕКАРОВИЧ*, 07.01.1978 г.р., с. Октябрьское Пригородного района РСО-Алания.

1348. ХУТОВ АНЗОР ЭЛЬВЕРОВИЧ*, 21.11.1978 г.р., ст. Ессентукская Предгорного района Ставропольского края.

1349. ХУТОВ РУЗАЛИ ЭЛЬВЕРОВИЧ*, 27.01.1977 г.р., совхоз Кисловодский Предгорного района Ставропольского края.

1350. ХУЦАЕВ ДУКВАХА ИСАЕВИЧ*, 15.07.1985 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1351. ХУЦАЕВ РУСТАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 11.07.1980 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1352. ЦАКАЕВ АЛИ САЙД-ХУСЕНОВИЧ*, 04.01.1977 г.р., с. Татай-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1353. ЦАКАЕВ АМХАД УМАРСОЛТАЕВИЧ*, 24.03.1988 г.р., с. Татай-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района Чеченской Республики.

1354. ЦАКАЕВ БЕСЛАН САИД-ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 03.11.1983 г.р., с. Татай-Хутор Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1355. ЦАХИГОВ МАГОМЕД ВАХИДОВИЧ*, 22.12.1976 г.р., с. Гойты Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

1356. ЦАЦАЕВА МАЛИКАТ АДАМОВНА*, 25.05.1952 г.р., с. Садовое Московского района КиргССР.

1357. ЦВИГУН ВАЛЕРИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 20.08.1982 г.р., г. Набережные Челны Татарской АССР.

1358. ЦЕЧОЕВ АДАМ АХМЕТОВИЧ*, 29.09.1976 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района Республики Ингушетия.

1359. ЦЕЧОЕВ МАГОМЕД-ХАМИД РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 02.10.1974 г.р., г. Назрань Республики Ингушетия.

1360. ЦИНАЕВ МУРАД МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 10.09.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1361. ЦИЦАЕВ РУСТАМ ИЛЬЯСОВИЧ*, 05.12.1982 г.р., г. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1362. ЦИЦИЕВ РАМЗАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 18.03.1982 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1363. ЦОКАЛАЕВ МАГОМЕД ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 21.05.1988 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1364. ЦУРАЕВ САЙД-ХАСАН УВАЙСОВИЧ*, 12.08.1980 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1365. ЦУРОВ АДАМ МУССАЕВИЧ*, 05.07.1980 г.р., п. Карца Промышленного района г. Владикавказа РСО-Алания.

1366. ЦУРОВ РУСТАМ ЮНУСОВИЧ*, 12.08.1979 г.р., г. Владикавказ Республики Северная Осетия-Алания.

1367. ЦУРОЕВ АХМЕТ АЛИХАНОВИЧ*, 30.07.1979 г.р., г. Назрань Республики Ингушетия.

1368. ЧАБДАЕВ БИСЛАН УСАМОВИЧ*, 02.10.1973 г.р., х. Бударка Котельниковского района Волгоградской области.

1369. ЧАГАЕВ САЛМАН АСЛАХОВИЧ*, 28.07.1975 г.р., с. Шалажи Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1370. ЧАГИЛОВ АЛИБЕК МУХТАРОВИЧ*, 06.09.1976 г.р., г. Карачаевск Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1371. ЧАГИЛОВ РУСТАМ РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 14.06.1978 г.р., г. Карачаевск Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1372. ЧАКАЕВ АЮБ САЙДАХМЕТОВИЧ*, 05.09.1981 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1373. ЧАЛАЕВ ИСЛАМ ТУРГУНБАЕВИЧ*, 07.06.1986 г.р., с. Симсир Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1374. ЧАЛАЕВ СУЛИМАН ХАСАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 06.07.1976 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1375. ЧАМАЕВ АХМЕД МУХАДИНОВИЧ*, 18.11.1975 г.р., с. А. Шерипова ЧИАССР.

1376. ЧАНИЕВ АХМЕД ШАБАЗГИРЕЕВИЧ*, 10.09.1966 г.р., д. Горно-Слинкино Тюменской области.

1377. ЧАРАЕВ МАГОМЕД ХУСЕЙНОВИЧ*, 08.03.1986 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1378. ЧАУШЕВ ОСМАН БОРИСОВИЧ*, 12.11.1977 г.р., а. Эльбурган Хабезского района Ставропольского края.

1379. ЧАХКИЕВ РУСЛАН МАГОМЕТОВИЧ*, 25.01.1978 г.р., с. Куртат Пригородного района Республики Северная Осетия-Алания.

1380. ЧЕРНОБРОВКИН ВИТАЛИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 28.09.1975 г.р., г. Чита.

1381. ЧЕРНОВ АЛЕКСЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ*, 13.07.1977 г.р., с. Ламки Узловского района Тульской области.

1382. ЧЕРНЯВСКИЙ ЮРИЙ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 04.10.1968 г.р., г. Приозерск Карагандинской области Казахской ССР.

1383. ЧЕСНОКОВ ВЯЧЕСЛАВ ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 23.11.1963 г.р., г. Свердловск.

1384. ЧИМАЕВ АНЗОР ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 05.03.1978 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

1385. ЧИНТАГОВ РАДЖИ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 21.02.1986 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1386. ЧИСТЯКОВ АЛЕКСАНДР ИВАНОВИЧ*, 25.03.1982 г.р., пгт. Пойковский Нефтеюганского района Тюменской области.

1387. ЧИТАЕВ СУРХО АЛИЕВИЧ*, 10.09.1980 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1388. ЧУДАЛОВ МУСЛИМ МУСАЕВИЧ*, 11.10.1979 г.р., г. Грозный (с. Аллерой Шалинского района) ЧИАССР.

1389. ЧУНЧАЕВ САЙПУДИ ЛЕЧАЕВИЧ*, 23.06.1977 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1390. ЧУПАЛАЕВ САИД-МАГОМЕД ЦУГАЕВИЧ*, 04.04.1957 г.р., с. Ириновка Урджарского р-на Семипалатинской области Казахской ССР.

1391. ШАВАЕВ МАГОМЕД НАИПОВИЧ*, 13.12.1975 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1392. ШАВАЕВ МУРАТ ИСМАИЛОВИЧ*, 17.02.1975 г.р., г. Нальчик Кабардино-Балкарской Республики.

1393. ШАВХАЛОВ ИБРАГИМ САЙДАХМЕДОВИЧ*, 23.08.1987 г.р., г. Хасавюрт ДАССР.

1394. ШАВХАЛОВ РАМЗАН РУСЛАНОВИЧ*, 08.10.1980 г.р., с. Алхан-Кала ЧИАССР.

1395. ШАГАЛИЕВ ИЛЬШАТ ИСМАГИЛОВИЧ*, 04.07.1986 г.р., г. Набережные Челны Республики Татарстан.

1396. ШАДУКАЕВ РИЗВАН БУКАЕВИЧ*, 09.08.1968 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1397. ШАИПОВ МАГОМЕД ВАХАЕВИЧ*, 09.04.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

1398. ШАИПОВ ТИМУР СУРПАШЕВИЧ*, 10.03.1984 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

1399. ШАИПОВ ШАМХАН ШАМСУДИНОВИЧ*, 17.05.1977 г.р., п. Маныч Ики-Бурульского района Республики Калмыкия.

1400. ШАЙДУЛЛИН ИЛЬМИР ИЛЬГИЗОВИЧ*, 31.10.1983 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

1401. ШАЙДУЛЛИН РУСТЕМ ИЛЬГИЗОВИЧ*, 26.02.1987 г.р., г. Азнакаево Республики Татарстан.

1402. ШАЙЛИЕВ ХАЛИС СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 21.01.1967 г.р., г. Карачаевск Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1403. ШАЙХИЕВ ШИРВАНИ ХАСМАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 14.08.1951 г.р., с. Кара-Кочкар Ошской области Киргизской ССР.

1404. ШАЙХУТДИНОВ ФАНИС АГЛЯМОВИЧ*, 27.06.1965 г.р., с. Агерзе Азнакаевского района ТАССР.

1405. ШАЛАЕВ АЙНДИ ЗАИНДИЕВИЧ*, 19.12.1974 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1406. ШАМАЕВ АЛЬВИ АИНДЫЕВИЧ*, 18.09.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1407. ШАМАНОВ ТИМУР КАЗБЕКОВИЧ*, 28.01.1975 г.р., г. Песчаный Приютненского района Калмыцкой АССР.

1408. ШАМСАДОВ ИСА МУСАЕВИЧ*, 10.09.1986 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

1409. ШАМСАДОВ СУПЬЯН МУХАДИНОВИЧ*, 14.08.1969 г.р., с. Тазбичи Советского района ЧИАССР.

1410. ШАМСАДОВ ТИМУР МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 01.06.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1411. ШАМСУДИНОВ АСЛАНБЕК АЗИЗОВИЧ*, 20.12.1972 г.р., с. Танги-Чу ЧИАССР.

1412. ШАМУРЗАЕВ МАГОМЕД САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 12.07.1974 г.р., с. Комсомольское Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1413. ШАМХАЛОВ ШАМИЛЬ ЮСУПОВИЧ*, 12.12.1979 г.р., г. Махачкала Республики Дагестан.

1414. ШАРГО МАКСИМ МАКСИМОВИЧ*, 04.10.1974 г.р., г. Петропавловск-Камчатский.

1415. ШАХГИРИЕВ РУСЛАН АБАЕВИЧ*, 21.11.1964 г.р., с. Агишбатой Веденского района Чеченской Республики.

1416. ШЕВЛЯКОВ АНАТОЛИЙ ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 06.11.1984 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1417. ШЕЙХОВ БАММАТХАН КАМИЛОВИЧ*, 04.04.1964 г.р., г. Буйнакск Республики Дагестан.

1418. ШЕПИЕВ АСЛАН АХЪЯЕВИЧ*, 08.05.1969 г.р., с. Джалка Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1419. ШЕПИЕВ РУДОЛЬФ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 11.07.1980 г.р., ст. Каргалинская Шелковского района ЧИАССР.

1420. ШИДИЕВ РИЗВАН ШУДИЕВИЧ*, 11.07.1987 г.р., с. Гуни Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1421. ШИМАЕВ ХАСУ АЙНДИЕВИЧ*, 20.04.1982 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики.

1422. ШИХОВ АЗАТ ФАТТАХОВИЧ*, 11.04.1978 г.р., с. Ульт-Ягун Сургутского района Тюменской области.

1423. ШИШХАНОВ МАЙРБЕК ОМАРОВИЧ*, 23.09.1983 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1424. ШОВХАЛОВ ВИСХАН ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 28.06.1986 г.р., д. Волково Артинского района Свердловской области.

1425. ШОВХАЛОВ РУСЛАН САЛАМУВИЧ*, 11.03.1977 г.р., совхоз Джетикульский Джамбутинского района Уральской области КазССР.

1426. ШУКУРОВ ИЛХОМ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 06.12.1976 г.р., г. Карши Кашкадарьинской области Республики Узбекистан.

1427. ШУКУРОВ ШЕРАЛИ ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 17.07.1974 г.р., г. Карши Кашкадарьинской области Республики Узбекистан.

1428. ШУМИЛКИН АЛЕКСАНДР ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ*, 23.11.1970 г.р., с. Первомайский Перелюбского района Саратовской области.

1429. ЩЕРБОВ СЕРГЕЙ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ*, 09.10.1977 г.р., с. Ярославичи Подпорожского района Ленинградской области.

1430. ЩУКИН ДМИТРИЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ*, 14.02.1979 г.р., г. Витебск Республики Беларусь.

1431. ЭДИЛСУЛТАНОВ РАМЗАН МАК-МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 25.10.1980 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1432. ЭДИЛСУЛТАНОВ РУСЛАН МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 09.05.1967 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1433. ЭДИЛЬСУЛТАНОВ ХУСЕЙН КУСУЕВИЧ*, 14.03.1961 г.р., с. Курчалой Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1434. ЭЖИЕВ РУСТАМ ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 21.01.1972 г.р., с. Сержень-Юрт Шалинского района.

1435. ЭЗЕРХАНОВ АХМЕТ РАСУЛОВИЧ*, 07.03.1985 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1436. ЭЗИРХАНОВ САЙД-ЭМИ САЙД-АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 02.03.1985 г.р., с. Кошкельды Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1437. ЭКЗЕКОВ МУРАТ УМАРОВИЧ*, 28.05.1979 г.р., г. Черкесск Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1438. ЭКТУМАЕВ ЗАУРБЕК МУХАРБЕКОВИЧ*, 30.08.1980 г.р., х. Веселый Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1439. ЭКТУМАЕВ ИСЛАМ СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 31.05.1982 г.р., ст. Орджоникидзевская Сунженского района ЧИАССР.

1440. ЭКТУМАЕВ МУСЛИМ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 27.06.1977 г.р., с. Бамут Ачхой-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1441. ЭЛАЕВ АДЛАН САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 01.10.1972 г.р., с. Дай ЧИАССР.

1442. ЭЛЖУРКАЕВ АСЛАН АРБИЕВИЧ*, 04.11.1986 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1443. ЭЛИХАДЖИЕВ ДАНИЛХАН СУЛЕЙМАНОВИЧ*, 17.07.1984 г.р., с. Курчалой Курчалоевского района ЧИАССР.

1444. ЭЛИХАНОВ ИБРАГИМ ТУХАНОВИЧ*, 19.11.1985 г.р., п. Новогрозненский Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1445. ЭЛИХАНОВ МАГОМЕД АЙСАЕВИЧ*, 18.01.1985 г.р., с. Новые Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1446. ЭЛИХАНОВ РУСЛАН АБУБАКАРОВИЧ*, 11.06.1983 г.р., с. Ялхой-Мохк Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1447. ЭЛИХАНОВ РУСТАМ ИСАЕВИЧ*, 25.09.1986 г.р., с. Каримово Бижбуляжского района Башкирской АССР.

1448. ЭЛИХАНОВ САЙД-ХУСЕЙН ХАСАНОВИЧ*, 20.10.1978 г.р., село Бачи-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1449. ЭЛЬГЕРЕЕВ РОМАН ЭЛЛИЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1977 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1450. ЭЛЬДАРОВ МАГОМЕД ИСАЕВИЧ*, 03.10.1979 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1451. ЭЛЬКАНОВ ОСМАН САЙДАХМАТОВИЧ*, 31.03.1982 г.р., п. Новый Карачай Карачаевского района Карачаево-Черкесской Республики.

1452. ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВ АРСЛАН МАМАСОЛЕБОВИЧ*, 15.03.1976 г.р., ст. Шелковская ЧИАССР.

1453. ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ХАМЗАТОВИЧ*, 10.08.1979 г.р., с. Зоны Советского района Чеченской Республики.

1454. ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВ КАЗБЕК АБДУЛ-ВАХАБОВИЧ*, 19.11.1983 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1455. ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВ МАХМА МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 01.09.1953 г.р., г. Усть-Каменогорск КазССР.

1456. ЭЛЬМУРЗАЕВ САИД ШАМАНОВИЧ*, 07.12.1981 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1457. ЭЛЬМУРЗИЕВ МУССА КУРЕЙШЕВИЧ*, 20.06.1968 г.р., г. Орджоникидзе Республики Северная Осетия.

1458. ЭЛЬСАЕВ ТИМУР КЮРАЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1987 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1459. ЭЛЬСИЕВ ЮНАДИ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 29.11.1979 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1460. ЭЛЬХАДЖИЕВ АНЗОР СУЛТАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 13.09.1979 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района ДагАССР.

1461. ЭЛЬХОДЖИЕВ АЗАМАТ СУЛТАНБЕКОВИЧ*, 23.02.1982 г.р., с. Хамавюрт Хасавюртовского района ДагАССР.

1462. ЭРЗАНУКАЕВ МОХМАД ИНДАРБЕКОВИЧ*, 20.01.1987 г.р., с. Агишты Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1463. ЭРСАБИЕВ АЛЬВИ АНДИЕВИЧ*, 25.11.1988 г.р., г. Грозный Чеченской Республики.

1464. ЭРСИМИКОВ ИБРАГИМ БИСЛАНОВИЧ*, 12.07.1983 г.р., г. Аргун ЧИАССР.

1465. ЭСАЕВ РАХМАН РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 01.05.1988 г.р., с. Ведено ЧИАССР.

1466. ЭСАМБАЕВ ХАСМАГОМЕД ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 21.04.1960 г.р., с. Ачеришки Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1467. ЭСКАРБИЕВ ВИСЛАН ВАХАРПАШАЕВИЧ*, 01.08.1976 г.р., с. Гиляны Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1468. ЭСКЕРХАНОВ АЙНДИ САЙПУДИНОВИЧ*, 01.01.1982 г.р., с. Советское Советского района ЧИАССР.

1469. ЭСКЕРХАНОВ САЛМАН ТАРХАНОВИЧ*, 26.09.1970 г.р., с. Кулары Грозненского район ЧИАССР.

1470. ЭСКИРХАНОВ ЭЛИ САЛАМОЕВИЧ*, 14.04.1974 г.р., с. Сарай Новороссийского района Актюбинской области КазССР.

1471. ЮНУСОВ АСЛАМБЕК ИДРИСОВИЧ*, 19.04.1979 г.р., с. Побединское Грозненского района Чеченской Республики.

1472. ЮНУСОВ АСЛАН АНДИЕВИЧ*, 23.07.1976 г.р., совхоз Алгайский Новоузенского района Саратовской области.

1473. ЮНУСОВ ДЖАБРАИЛ МАЙРБЕКОВИЧ*, 29.03.1970 г.р., станица Калиновская Наурского р-на ЧИАССР.

1474. ЮНУСОВ ДУКВАХИ ИЙСАЕВИЧ*, 13.10.1978 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1475. ЮНУСОВ РАМЗАН ДАУДОВИЧ*, 24.06.1984 г.р., с. Ачхой-Мартан Ачхой-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1476. ЮНУСОВ РУСЛАН ИЙСАЕВИЧ*, 14.11.1974 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1477. ЮНУСОВ ЮСУП РАМЗАНОВИЧ*, 21.07.1978 г.р., с. Курчали Веденского района ЧИАССР.

1478. ЮСУПОВ АЛИ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 01.06.1974 г.р., с. Новые-Атаги Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1479. ЮСУПОВ АЛИБЕК АЙНДЫЕВИЧ*, 25.04.1983 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан Урус-Мартановского района ЧИАССР.

1480. ЮСУПОВ АЛИБЕК ХУСАИНОВИЧ*, 19.08.1978 г.р., с. Урус-Мартановского р-на ЧИАССР.

1481. ЮСУПОВ АМХАД СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 22.01.1981 г.р., с. Майртуп Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1482. ЮСУПОВ АРЗУ МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 17.02.1985 г.р., с. Суворов-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1483. ЮСУПОВ ВАХМУРАД АЙНУТДИНОВИЧ*, 06.08.1984 г.р., г. Хасавюрт Республики Дагестан.

1484. ЮСУПОВ ВИСИТА ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 02.02.1988 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1485. ЮСУПОВ ИМРАН БОЙСУЕВИЧ*, 01.01.1983 г.р., с. Кошкельды Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1486. ЮСУПОВ ИСЛАМ АБУЕВИЧ*, 04.10.1986 г.р., с. Чири-Юрт Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1487. ЮСУПОВ КАЗБЕК САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 20.02.1981 г.р., с. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1488. ЮСУПОВ МАХМАД ГИЛАНИЕВИЧ*, 22.06.1982 г.р., с. Новые-Атаги ЧИАССР.

1489. ЮСУПОВ РАСАНБЕК ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 06.11.1984 г.р., с. Ножай-Юрт Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1490. ЮСУПОВ СКАНДАРБЕК СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 20.12.1955 г.р., колхоз им. Крупской Сталинского района Фрунзенской области Киргизской ССР.

1491. ЮСУПОВ СУЛУМБЕК АХМЕДОВИЧ*, 21.05.1985 г.р., с. Бешил-Ирзой Ножай-Юртовского района Чеченской Республики.

1492. ЮСУПОВ ХАВАЖ ХАМИДОВИЧ*, 04.04.1986 г.р., с. Аллерой Ножай-Юртовского района ЧИАССР.

1493. ЮСУПОВ ХАМЗАТ САЙДАЕВИЧ*, 05.07.1957 г.р., с. Кандыковка Шемонайхинского района Восточно-Казахстанской области КазССР.

1494. ЮШАЕВ СУЛИМА САЛМАНОВИЧ*, 17.09.1981 г.р., г. Гудермес ЧИАССР.

1495. ЯКОВЛЕВ АНДРЕЙ ЮРЬЕВИЧ*, 05.01.1970 г.р., г. Армавир Краснодарского края.

1496. ЯКОВЛЕВ ЕВГЕНИЙ ИВАНОВИЧ*, 10.10.1960 г.р., д. Кошноруй Канашского района Чувашской Республики.

1497. ЯКУБОВ АСЛАН НАСРУДИЕВИЧ*, 15.05.1970 г.р., с. Шали Шалинского района ЧИАССР.

1498. ЯКУЕВ ЗАУРБЕК НАБИУЛЛЫЕВИЧ*, 30.11.1981 г.р., с. Рубежное Наурского р-на ЧИАССР.

1499. ЯКУШЕВ РОМАН ВЛАДИМИРОВИЧ*, 03.07.1982 г.р., г. Алексин Тульской области.

1500. ЯЛХОРОЕВ ДЖАБРАИЛ УМАТ-ГИРЕЕВИЧ*, 30.11.1970 г.р., г. Грозный ЧИАССР.

1501. ЯНДАРБИЕВ ЗЕЛИМХАН АБДУЛ-МУСЛИМОВИЧ*, 12.09.1951 г.р., Верхубинский район Восточно-Казахской области Казахской ССР.

1502. ЯНДИЕВ АЛИЯ СУЛТАНОВИЧ*, 20.09.1975 г.р., г. Назрань ЧИАССР.

1503. ЯРМОЛАТОВ РАМЗАН ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 02.12.1983 г.р., с. Автуры ЧИАССР.

1504. ЯРМОЛАТОВ УМАР ВАХИТОВИЧ*, 06.07.1987 г.р., г. Шали ЧИАССР.

1505. ЯСАКОВ РЕШЕД ИБРАГИМОВИЧ*, 23.02.1972 г.р., с. Кади-Юрт Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

1506. ЯСУЕВ АСЛАНБЕК ШАРПУДИЕВИЧ*, 26.12.1984 г.р., с. Старые Атаги Грозненского района ЧИАССР.

1507. ЯСУЕВ МОВЛАДИ САИД-МАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 21.10.1984 г.р., с. Улус-Керт Советского р-на ЧИАССР.

1508. ЯХЪЯЕВ ЯКУБ ИСМАИЛОВИЧ*, 09.03.1974 г.р., х. Мирный Дубовского района Ростовской области.

1509. ЯХЬЯЕВ ДУК-ВАХА ИДРИСОВИЧ*, 03.02.1974 г.р., г. Урус-Мартан ЧИАССР.

1510. ЯШУЕВ ТАМЕРЛАН САЙДМАГОМЕДОВИЧ*, 03.08.1983 г.р., н.п. Кошкельды Гудермесского района ЧИАССР.

Примечание: 1. Отмечены (*) организации и физические лица, в отношении которых имеются сведения об их причастности к терроризму.

[Note: 1. Individuals and organizations marked (*) indicate that there is evidence of their involvement in terrorism.]

TOP-SECRET-Taxing Income of Foreign Govs-International Orgs

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68119-68124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28531]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 68119]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1 and 602

[REG-146537-06]
RIN 1545-BG08

Income of Foreign Governments and International Organizations

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed Income Tax Regulations that
provide guidance relating to the taxation of the income of foreign
governments from investments in the United States under section 892 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The regulations will affect
foreign governments that derive income from sources within the United
States.

DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing
must be received by February 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-146537-06), Room
5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-
146537-06), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-146537-06).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations,
David A. Juster, (202) 622-3850 (not a toll-free number); concerning
submission of comments, contact Richard A. Hurst at
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval under OMB approval number 1545-1053 in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the
Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue
Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:CAR:MP:T:T:SP,
Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should
be received by January 3, 2012. Comments are specifically requested
concerning:
    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed
collection of information;
    How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected may be enhanced;
    How the burden of complying with the proposed collections of
information may be minimized, including through the application of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and
    Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
    The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in
Sec. Sec.  1.892-5(a)(2)(ii)(B) and 1.892-5(a)(2)(iv). This information
is required to determine if taxpayers qualify for exemption from tax
under section 892. The collection of information is voluntary to obtain
a benefit. The likely respondents are foreign governments.
    Estimated total annual reporting burden: 975 hours.
    Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 5 hours.
    Estimated number of respondents: 195.
    Estimated annual frequency of responses: 1.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid
control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 and to
26 CFR part 602. On June 27, 1988, temporary regulations under section
892 (TD 8211, 53 FR 24060) (1988 temporary regulations) with a cross-
reference notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 24100) were published in
the Federal Register to provide guidance concerning the taxation of
income of foreign governments and international organizations from
investments in the United States. The proposed regulations contained
herein supplement the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking to
provide additional guidance for determining when a foreign government's
investment income is exempt from U.S. taxation.

Explanation of Provisions

    The Treasury Department and the IRS have recently received numerous
written comments on the 1988 temporary regulations. The proposed
regulations are issued in response to those comments.

Treatment of Controlled Entities

    Section 892 exempts from U.S. income taxation certain qualified
investment income derived by a foreign government. Section 1.892-2T
defines the term foreign government to mean only the integral parts or
controlled entities of a foreign sovereign. The exemption from U.S.
income tax under section 892 does not apply to income (1) Derived from
the conduct of any commercial activity, (2) received by a controlled
commercial entity or received (directly or indirectly) from a
controlled commercial entity, or (3) derived from the disposition of
any interest in a controlled commercial entity. Section 892(a)(2)(B)
defines a controlled commercial entity as an entity owned by the
foreign government that meets certain ownership or control thresholds
and that is engaged in commercial activities anywhere in the

[[Page 68120]]

world. Accordingly, an integral part of a foreign sovereign that
derives income from both qualified investments and from the conduct of
commercial activity is eligible to claim the section 892 exemption with
respect to the income from qualified investments, but not with respect
to the income derived from the conduct of commercial activity. In
contrast, if a controlled entity (as defined in Sec.  1.892-2T(a)(3))
engages in commercial activities anywhere in the world, it is treated
as a controlled commercial entity, and none of its income (including
income from otherwise qualified investments) qualifies for exemption
from tax under section 892. In addition, none of the income derived
from the controlled entity (e.g., dividends), including the portion
attributable to qualified investments of the controlled entity, will be
eligible for the section 892 exemption. Several comments raised
concerns that this so-called ``all or nothing'' rule represents an
unnecessary administrative and operational burden for foreign
governments and a trap for unwary foreign governments that
inadvertently conduct a small level of commercial activity. These
comments have requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS revise
Sec.  1.892-5T(a) to provide for a de minimis exception under which an
entity would not be treated as a controlled commercial entity as a
result of certain inadvertent commercial activity.
    In response to these comments, the proposed regulations at Sec.
1.892-5(a)(2) provide that an entity will not be considered to engage
in commercial activities if it conducts only inadvertent commercial
activity. Commercial activity will be treated as inadvertent commercial
activity only if: (1) The failure to avoid conducting the commercial
activity is reasonable; (2) the commercial activity is promptly cured;
and (3) certain record maintenance requirements are met. However, none
of the income derived from such inadvertent commercial activity will
qualify for exemption from tax under section 892.
    In determining whether an entity's failure to avoid conducting a
particular commercial activity is reasonable, due regard will be given
to the number of commercial activities conducted during the taxable
year, as well as the amount of income earned from, and assets used in,
the conduct of the commercial activity in relationship to the entity's
total income and assets. However, a failure to avoid conducting
commercial activity will not be considered reasonable unless adequate
written policies and operational procedures are in place to monitor the
entity's worldwide activities. The proposed regulations include a safe
harbor at Sec.  1.892-5(a)(2)(ii)(C) under which, provided that there
are adequate written policies and operational procedures in place to
monitor the entity's worldwide activities, the controlled entity's
failure to avoid the conduct of commercial activity during a taxable
year will be considered reasonable if: (1) The value of the assets used
in, or held for use in, the activity does not exceed five percent of
the total value of the assets reflected on the entity's balance sheet
for the taxable year as prepared for financial accounting purposes; and
(2) the income earned by the entity from the commercial activity does
not exceed five percent of the entity's gross income as reflected on
its income statement for the taxable year as prepared for financial
accounting purposes.
    Comments also requested further guidance on the duration of a
determination that an entity is a controlled commercial entity. In
response to these comments, the proposed regulations at Sec.  1.892-
5(a)(3) provide that the determination of whether an entity is a
controlled commercial entity within the meaning of section 892(a)(2)(B)
will be made on an annual basis. Accordingly, an entity will not be
considered a controlled commercial entity for a taxable year solely
because the entity engaged in commercial activities in a prior taxable
year.

Definition of Commercial Activity

    Section 1.892-4T of the 1988 temporary regulations provides rules
for determining whether income is derived from the conduct of a
commercial activity, and specifically identifies certain activities
that are not commercial, including certain investments, trading
activities, cultural events, non-profit activities, and governmental
functions. Several comments have expressed uncertainty about the
applicable U.S. standard for determining when an activity will be
considered a commercial activity, a non-profit activity, or
governmental function for purposes of section 892 and Sec.  1.892-4T.
    Section 1.892-4(d) of the proposed regulations restates the general
rule adopted in the 1988 temporary regulations that, subject to certain
enumerated exceptions, all activities ordinarily conducted for the
current or future production of income or gain are commercial
activities. Section 1.892-4(d) of the proposed regulations further
provides that only the nature of an activity, not the purpose or
motivation for conducting the activity, is determinative of whether the
activity is a commercial activity. This standard also applies for
purposes of determining whether an activity is characterized as a non-
profit activity or governmental function under Sec.  1.892-4T(c)(3) and
(c)(4). In addition, Sec.  1.892-4(d) of the proposed regulations
clarifies the rule in the 1988 temporary regulations by providing that
an activity may be considered a commercial activity even if the
activity does not constitute a trade or business for purposes of
section 162 or does not constitute (or would not constitute if
undertaken in the United States) the conduct of a trade or business in
the United States for purposes of section 864(b).
    Section 1.892-4T(c) lists certain activities that will not be
considered commercial activities. One such activity is investments in
financial instruments, as defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(4), which, if
held in the execution of governmental financial or monetary policy, are
not commercial activities for purposes of section 892. Several comments
have requested that the condition that financial instruments be ``held
in the execution of governmental financial or monetary policy'' be
eliminated to more closely conform the treatment of investments in
financial instruments, including derivatives, with investments in
physical stocks and securities, which under the 1988 temporary
regulations generally are not commercial activities regardless of
whether they are held in the execution of governmental financial or
monetary policy. Section 1.892-4(e)(1)(i) of the proposed regulations
modifies the rules in Sec.  1.892-4T(c)(1)(i) by providing that
investments in financial instruments will not be treated as commercial
activities for purposes of section 892, irrespective of whether such
financial instruments are held in the execution of governmental
financial or monetary policy. In addition, Sec.  1.892-4(e)(1)(ii) of
the proposed regulations expands the existing exception in Sec.  1.892-
4T(c)(1)(ii) from commercial activity for trading of stocks,
securities, and commodities to include financial instruments, without
regard to whether such financial instruments are held in the execution
of governmental financial or monetary policy. These revisions address
only the definition of commercial activity for purposes of determining
whether a government will be considered to derive income from the
conduct of a commercial activity, or whether an entity will be
considered to be engaged in commercial activities. They do not address
whether income from activities

[[Page 68121]]

that are not commercial activities will be exempt from tax under
section 892. Pursuant to Sec.  1.892-3T(a), only income derived from
investments in financial instruments held in the execution of
governmental financial or monetary policy will qualify for exemption
from tax under section 892.
    Comments have requested clarification as to whether an entity that
disposes of a United States real property interest (USRPI) as defined
in section 897(c) will be deemed to be engaged in commercial activities
solely by reason of this disposition. Section 897(a)(1) requires that a
nonresident alien or foreign corporation take into account gain or loss
from the disposition of a USRPI as if the taxpayer were engaged in a
trade or business within the United States during the taxable year and
as if such gain or loss were effectively connected with that trade or
business. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that an entity
that only holds passive investments and is not otherwise engaged in
commercial activities should not be deemed to be engaged in commercial
activities solely by reason of the operation of section 897(a)(1).
Accordingly, Sec.  1.892-4(e)(1)(iv) of the proposed regulations
provides that a disposition, including a deemed disposition under
section 897(h)(1), of a USRPI, by itself, does not constitute the
conduct of a commercial activity. However, as provided in Sec.  1.892-
3T(a), the income derived from the disposition of the USRPI described
in section 897(c)(1)(A)(i) shall in no event qualify for the exemption
from tax under section 892.
    After the 1988 temporary regulations were published, section
892(a)(2)(A) was amended by the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act
of 1988 (TAMRA), Public Law No. 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342 to provide that
income derived from the disposition of any interest in a controlled
commercial entity does not qualify for the exemption under section 892.
The proposed regulations revised Sec.  1.892-5(a) to reflect the
amendment of section 892 by TAMRA.

Treatment of Partnerships

    Section 1.892-5T(d)(3) provides a general rule that commercial
activities of a partnership are attributable to its general and limited
partners (``partnership attribution rule'') and provides a limited
exception to this rule for partners of publicly traded partnerships
(PTPs). Several comments have requested that the Treasury Department
and the IRS modify the partnership attribution rule to provide that the
activities of a partnership will not be attributed to a foreign
government partner if that government: (i) Holds a minority interest,
as a limited partner, in the partnership; and (ii) has no greater
rights to participate in the management and conduct of the
partnership's business than would a minority shareholder in a
corporation conducting the same activities as the partnership. The
comments assert that the partnership attribution rule causes many
controlled entities of foreign sovereigns to forego making investments
in foreign partnerships or other foreign entities that do not invest in
the United States out of concern that such investments might cause
those controlled entities to be treated as controlled commercial
entities.
    In response to these comments, Sec.  1.892-5(d)(5)(iii) of the
proposed regulations modifies the existing exception to the partnership
attribution rule for PTP interests by providing a more general
exception for limited partnership interests. Under this revised
exception, an entity that is not otherwise engaged in commercial
activities will not be treated as engaged in commercial activities
solely because it holds an interest as a limited partner in a limited
partnership, including a publicly traded partnership that qualifies as
a limited partnership.
    For this purpose, an interest as a limited partner in a limited
partnership is defined as an interest in an entity classified as a
partnership for federal tax purposes if the holder of the interest does
not have rights to participate in the management and conduct of the
partnership's business at any time during the partnership's taxable
year under the law of the jurisdiction in which the partnership is
organized or under the governing agreement. This definition of an
interest as a limited partner in a limited partnership applies solely
for purposes of this exception, and no inference is intended that the
same definition would apply for any other provision of the Code making
or requiring a distinction between a general partner and a limited
partner.
    Although the commercial activity of a limited partnership will not
cause a controlled entity of a foreign sovereign limited partner
meeting the requirements of the exception for limited partnerships to
be engaged in commercial activities, the controlled entity partner's
distributive share of partnership income attributable to such
commercial activity will be considered to be derived from the conduct
of commercial activity, and therefore will not be exempt from taxation
under section 892. Additionally, in the case of a partnership that is a
controlled commercial entity, no part of the foreign government
partner's distributive share of partnership income will qualify for
exemption from tax under section 892.
    Comments also assert that disparity in tax treatment exists under
the temporary regulations regarding foreign government trading activity
described in Sec.  1.892-4T(c)(1)(ii) because trading for a foreign
government's own account does not constitute a commercial activity but
no similar rule applies in the case of trading done by a partnership of
which a foreign government is a partner. The comments note that this
disparity is not generally present in determining whether an activity
is a trade or business within the United States under section 864(b).
See Sec.  1.864-2(c)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(i). In response to these
comments, Sec.  1.892-5(d)(5)(ii) of the proposed regulations provides
that an entity that is not otherwise engaged in commercial activities
will not be considered to be engaged in commercial activities solely
because it is a member of a partnership that effects transactions in
stocks, bonds, other securities, commodities, or financial instruments
for the partnership's own account. However, this exception does not
apply in the case of a partnership that is a dealer in stocks, bonds,
other securities, commodities, or financial instruments. For this
purpose, whether a partnership is a dealer is determined under the
principles of Sec.  1.864-2(c)(2)(iv)(a).

Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    These regulations are proposed to apply on the date of publication
of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in
the Federal Register. For rules applicable to periods prior to the
publication date, see the corresponding provisions in Sec. Sec.  1.892-
4T and 1.892-5T in the 1988 temporary regulations and in Sec.  1.892-
5(a) as issued under TD 9012 (August 1, 2002).

Reliance on Proposed Regulations

    Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until final
regulations are issued.

Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order
12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also
been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and because
the proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on
small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6)
does not apply.

[[Page 68122]]

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed
rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small
business.

Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8) copies) or electronic comments, that are submitted timely to the
IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the
clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to
understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and
copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by
any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is
scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing
will be published in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is David A. Juster of the
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International), within the Office of
Chief Counsel, IRS. Other personnel from the Treasury Department and
the IRS participated in developing the regulations.

List of Subjects

26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

26 CFR Part 602

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 1--INCOME TAX REGULATIONS

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for parts 1 and 601 continues
to read in part as follows:

    Authority:  26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
    Section 1.892-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 892(c). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.892-4 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  1.892-4  Commercial activities.

    (a) through (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.892-
4T(a) through (c).
    (d) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, all activities (whether conducted within or outside the United
States) which are ordinarily conducted for the current or future
production of income or gain are commercial activities. Only the nature
of the activity, not the purpose or motivation for conducting the
activity, is determinative of whether the activity is commercial in
character. An activity may be considered a commercial activity even if
such activity does not constitute a trade or business for purposes of
section 162 or does not constitute (or would not constitute if
undertaken in the United States) the conduct of a trade or business in
the United States for purposes of section 864(b).
    (e) Activities that are not commercial--(1) Investments--(i) In
general. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii)
of this section, the following are not commercial activities:
investments in stocks, bonds, and other securities (as defined in Sec.
1.892-3T(a)(3)); loans; investments in financial instruments (as
defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(4)); the holding of net leases on real
property; the holding of real property which is not producing income
(other than on its sale or from an investment in net leases on real
property); and the holding of bank deposits in banks. Transferring
securities under a loan agreement which meets the requirements of
section 1058 is an investment for purposes of this paragraph (e)(1)(i).
An activity will not cease to be an investment solely because of the
volume of transactions of that activity or because of other unrelated
activities.
    (ii) Trading. Effecting transactions in stocks, bonds, other
securities (as defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(3)), commodities, or
financial instruments (as defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(4)) for a
foreign government's own account does not constitute a commercial
activity regardless of whether such activity constitutes a trade or
business for purposes of section 162 or constitutes (or would
constitute if undertaken within the United States) the conduct of a
trade or business in the United States for purposes of section 864(b).
Such transactions are not commercial activities regardless of whether
they are effected by the foreign government through its employees or
through a broker, commission agent, custodian, or other independent
agent and regardless of whether or not any such employee or agent has
discretionary authority to make decisions in effecting the
transactions. Such transactions undertaken as a dealer (as determined
under the principles of Sec.  1.864-2(c)(2)(iv)(a)), however,
constitute commercial activity. For purposes of this paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), the term commodities means commodities of a kind
customarily dealt in on an organized commodity exchange but only if the
transaction is of a kind customarily consummated at such place.
    (iii) Banking, financing, etc. Investments (including loans) made
by a banking, financing, or similar business constitute commercial
activities, even if the income derived from such investments is not
considered to be income effectively connected with the active conduct
of a banking, financing, or similar business in the U.S. by reason of
the application of Sec.  1.864-4(c)(5).
    (iv) Disposition of a U.S. real property interest. A disposition
(including a deemed disposition under section 897(h)(1)) of a U.S. real
property interest (as defined in section 897(c)), by itself, does not
constitute the conduct of a commercial activity. As described in Sec.
1.892-3T(a), however, gain derived from a disposition of a U.S. real
property interest defined in section 897(c)(1)(A)(i) will not qualify
for exemption from tax under section 892.
    (2) through (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.  1.892-
4T(c)(2) through (c)(5).
    (f) Effective/applicability date. This section applies on the date
the regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register. See Sec.  1.892-4T for the rules that apply before the date
the regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
    Par. 3. Section 1.892-5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1.892-5  Controlled commercial entity.

    (a) In general--(1) General rule and definition of term
``controlled commercial entity''. Under section 892(a)(2)(A)(ii) and
(a)(2)(A)(iii), the exemption generally applicable to a foreign
government (as defined in Sec.  1.892-2T) for income described in Sec.
1.892-3T does not apply to income received by a controlled commercial
entity or received (directly or indirectly) from a controlled
commercial entity, or to income derived from the disposition of any
interest in a controlled commercial entity. For purposes of section 892
and the regulations thereunder, the term entity means and includes a
corporation, a partnership, a trust (including a pension trust
described in Sec.  1.892-2T(c)), and an estate, and the term controlled
commercial entity means any entity (including a controlled entity as
defined in Sec.  1.892-2T(a)(3)) engaged in commercial activities (as
defined in

[[Page 68123]]

Sec. Sec.  1.892-4 and 1.892-4T) (whether conducted within or outside
the United States) if the government--
    (i) Holds (directly or indirectly) any interest in such entity
which (by value or voting power) is 50 percent or more of the total of
such interests in such entity, or
    (ii) Holds (directly or indirectly) any other interest in such
entity which provides the foreign government with effective practical
control of such entity.
    (2) Inadvertent commercial activity--(i) General rule. For purposes
of determining whether an entity is a controlled commercial entity for
purposes of section 892(a)(2)(B) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
an entity that conducts only inadvertent commercial activity will not
be considered to be engaged in commercial activities. However, any
income derived from such inadvertent commercial activity will not
qualify for exemption from tax under section 892. Commercial activity
of an entity will be treated as inadvertent commercial activity only
if:
    (A) Failure to avoid conducting the commercial activity is
reasonable as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section;
    (B) The commercial activity is promptly cured as described in
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section; and
    (C) The record maintenance requirements described in paragraph
(a)(2)(iv) of this section are met.
    (ii) Reasonable failure to avoid commercial activity--(A) In
general. Subject to paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section,
whether an entity's failure to prevent its worldwide activities from
resulting in commercial activity is reasonable will be determined in
light of all the facts and circumstances. Due regard will be given to
the number of commercial activities conducted during the taxable year
and in prior taxable years, as well as the amount of income earned
from, and assets used in, the conduct of the commercial activities in
relationship to the entity's total income and assets, respectively. For
purposes of this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) and paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C) of
this section, where a commercial activity conducted by a partnership is
attributed under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section to an entity
owning an interest in the partnership--
    (1) Assets used in the conduct of the commercial activity by the
partnership are treated as assets used in the conduct of commercial
activity by the entity in proportion to the entity's interest in the
partnership; and
    (2) The entity's distributive share of the partnership's income
from the conduct of the commercial activity shall be treated as income
earned by the entity from the conduct of commercial activities.
    (B) Continuing due diligence requirement. A failure to avoid
commercial activity will not be considered reasonable unless there is
continuing due diligence to prevent the entity from engaging in
commercial activities within or outside the United States as evidenced
by having adequate written policies and operational procedures in place
to monitor the entity's worldwide activities. A failure to avoid
commercial activity will not be considered reasonable if the
management-level employees of the entity have not undertaken reasonable
efforts to establish, follow, and enforce such written policies and
operational procedures.
    (C) Safe Harbor. Provided that adequate written policies and
operational procedures are in place to monitor the entity's worldwide
activities as required in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the
entity's failure to avoid commercial activity during the taxable year
will be considered reasonable if:
    (1) The value of the assets used in, or held for use in, all
commercial activity does not exceed five percent of the total value of
the assets reflected on the entity's balance sheet for the taxable year
as prepared for financial accounting purposes, and
    (2) The income earned by the entity from commercial activity does
not exceed five percent of the entity's gross income as reflected on
its income statement for the taxable year as prepared for financial
accounting purposes.
    (iii) Cure requirement. A timely cure shall be considered to have
been made if the entity discontinues the conduct of the commercial
activity within 120 days of discovering the commercial activity. For
example, if an entity that holds an interest as a general partner in a
partnership discovers that the partnership is conducting commercial
activity, the entity will satisfy the cure requirement if, within 120
days of discovering the commercial activity, the entity discontinues
the conduct of the activity by divesting itself of its interest in the
partnership (including by transferring its interest in the partnership
to a related entity), or the partnership discontinues its conduct of
commercial activity.
    (iv) Record maintenance. Adequate records of each discovered
commercial activity and the remedial action taken to cure that activity
must be maintained. The records shall be retained so long as the
contents thereof may become material in the administration of section
892.
    (3) Annual determination of controlled commercial entity status. If
an entity described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section
engages in commercial activities at any time during a taxable year, the
entity will be considered a controlled commercial entity for the entire
taxable year. An entity not otherwise engaged in commercial activities
during a taxable year will not be considered a controlled commercial
entity for a taxable year even if the entity engaged in commercial
activities in a prior taxable year.
    (b) through (d)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see Sec.
1.892-5T(b) through (d)(4).
    (5) Partnerships--(i) General rule. Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(5)(ii) or (d)(5)(iii) of this section, the commercial activities of
an entity classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes will be
attributable to its partners for purposes of section 892. For example,
if an entity described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section
holds an interest as a general partner in a partnership that is engaged
in commercial activities, the partnership's commercial activities will
be attributed to that entity for purposes of determining if the entity
is a controlled commercial entity within the meaning of section
892(a)(2)(B) and paragraph (a) of this section.
    (ii) Trading activity exception. An entity not otherwise engaged in
commercial activities will not be considered to be engaged in
commercial activities solely because the entity is a member of a
partnership (whether domestic or foreign) that effects transactions in
stocks, bonds, other securities (as defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(3)),
commodities (as defined in Sec.  1.892-4(e)(1)(ii)), or financial
instruments (as defined in Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(4)) for the partnership's
own account or solely because an employee of such partnership, or a
broker, commission agent, custodian, or other agent, pursuant to
discretionary authority granted by such partnership, effects such
transactions for the account of the partnership. This exception shall
not apply to any member in the case of a partnership that is a dealer
in stocks, bonds, other securities, commodities, or financial
instruments, as determined under the principles of Sec.  1.864-
2(c)(2)(iv)(a).
    (iii) Limited partner exception--(A) General rule. An entity that
is not otherwise engaged in commercial activities (including, for
example, performing services for a partnership as

[[Page 68124]]

described in section 707(a) or section 707(c)) will not be deemed to be
engaged in commercial activities solely because it holds an interest as
a limited partner in a limited partnership. Nevertheless, pursuant to
sections 875, 882, and 892(a)(2)(A)(i), a foreign government member's
distributive share of partnership income will not be exempt from
taxation under section 892 to the extent that the partnership derived
such income from the conduct of a commercial activity. For example,
where a controlled entity described in Sec.  1.892-2T(a)(3) that is not
otherwise engaged in commercial activities holds an interest as a
limited partner in a limited partnership that is a dealer in stocks,
bonds, other securities, commodities, or financial instruments in the
United States, although the controlled entity partner will not be
deemed to be engaged in commercial activities solely because of its
interest in the limited partnership, its distributive share of
partnership income derived from the partnership's activity as a dealer
will not be exempt from tax under section 892 because it was derived
from the conduct of a commercial activity.
    (B) Interest as a limited partner in a limited partnership. Solely
for purposes of paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, an interest in
an entity classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes shall be
treated as an interest as a limited partner in a limited partnership if
the holder of such interest does not have rights to participate in the
management and conduct of the partnership's business at any time during
the partnership's taxable year under the law of the jurisdiction in
which the partnership is organized or under the governing agreement.
Rights to participate in the management and conduct of a partnership's
business do not include consent rights in the case of extraordinary
events such as admission or expulsion of a general or limited partner,
amendment of the partnership agreement, dissolution of the partnership,
disposition of all or substantially all of the partnership's property
outside of the ordinary course of the partnership's activities, merger,
or conversion.
    (iv) Illustration. The following example illustrates the
application of this paragraph (d)(5):

    Example 1. K, a controlled entity of a foreign sovereign, has
investments in various stocks and bonds of United States
corporations and in a 20% interest in Opco, a limited liability
company that is classified as a partnership for federal tax
purposes. Under the governing agreement of Opco, K has the authority
to participate in the management and conduct of Opco's business.
Opco has investments in various stocks and bonds of United States
corporations and also owns and manages an office building in New
York. Because K has authority to participate in the management and
conduct of Opco's business, its interest in Opco is not a limited
partner interest. Therefore, K will be deemed to be engaged in
commercial activities because of attribution of Opco's commercial
activity, even if K does not actually make management decisions with
regard to Opco's commercial activity, the operation of the office
building. Accordingly, K is a controlled commercial entity, and all
of its income, including its distributive share of partnership
income from its interest in Opco and its income from the stocks and
bonds it owns directly, will not be exempt from tax under section
892.
    Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
Opco has hired a real estate management firm to lease offices and
manage the office building. Notwithstanding the fact that an
independent contractor is performing the activities, Opco will still
be deemed to be engaged in commercial activities. Accordingly, K is
a controlled commercial entity, and all of its income, including its
distributive share of partnership income from its interest in Opco
and its income from the stocks and bonds it owns directly, will not
be exempt from tax under section 892.
    Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that K
is a member that has no right to participate in the management and
conduct of Opco's business. Assume further that K is not otherwise
engaged in commercial activities. Under paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of
this section, Opco's commercial activities will not be attributed to
K. Accordingly, K will not be a controlled commercial entity, and
its income derived from the stocks and bonds it owns directly and
the portion of its distributive share of partnership income from its
interest in Opco that is derived from stocks and bonds will be
exempt from tax under section 892. The portion of K's distributive
share of partnership income from its interest in Opco that is
derived from the operation of the office building will not be exempt
from tax under section 892 and Sec.  1.892-3T(a)(1).

    (e) Effective/applicability date. This section applies on the date
these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register. See Sec.  1.892-5(a) as issued under TD 9012 (August 1, 2002)
for rules that apply on or after January 14, 2002, and before the date
these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register. See Sec.  1.892-5T(a) for rules that apply before January 14,
2002, and Sec.  1.892-5T(b) through (d) for rules that apply before the
date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
Federal Register.

PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    Par. 4. The authority for part 602 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  26 U.S.C. 7805.

    Par. 5. In Sec.  602.101, paragraph (b) is amended by adding an
entry to the table in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  602.101  OMB Control numbers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Current OMB
   CFR part or section where identified and described       Control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
1.892-5.................................................       1545-1053

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-28531 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P

TOP-SECRET – German Ministry of Defense Report Regarding Military Security at G8 Summit

https://i0.wp.com/www.publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Kriegsministerium-Bericht_G8.jpg

Federal Ministry of Defense

  • VS – NUR FÜR DEN DIENSTGEBRAUCH

Wie aile Behörden des Bundes und der Lander sind auch die Dienststellen der Bundeswehr nach Art. 35 Abs. 1 GG verpflichtet, zu Gunsten anderer Bundes-, Landes- und Kommunalbehörden Amtshilfe zu leisten. Voraussetzung ist jeweils ein ausdriickliches und hinreichend konkretes Ersuchen der zu unterstützenden Behörden. Die Initiative für Amtshilfeleistungen der Streitkrafte geht somit niemals von der Bundeswehr aus.

Einem Amtshilfeersuchen ist grundsätzlich zu entsprechen, sofem die ersuchende Behörde nicht in der Lage ist, die Amtshandlung selbst vorzunehmen oder diese nur mit unvertretbarem Aufwand bewaltigen kann. Unter dieser Voraussetzung kommt eine Ablehnung der Amtshilfe nur in Betracht, sofem

~ die Bundeswehr aus rechtlichen Griinden dazu nicht in der Lage ist,

~ durch die Hilfeleistung dem Wohl des Bundes oder eines Landes erhebliche Nachteile bereitet wiirden,

~ eine andere Behörde die Hilfe wesentlich einfacher oder mit genngerem Aufwand erbringen kann,

~ die Hilfe nur mit unverhältnismäßigem Aufwand zu leisten ist oder

~ durch die Hilfeleistung die eigene Aufgabenerfüllung der Bundeswehr ernstlich gefahrdet wiirde.

Der damit eingeschriinkten Möglichkeit, ein Amtshilfeersuchen abzulehnen, entspricht es, dass die rechtliche und sachliche Verantwortlichkeit fUr die mit der Amtshilfe zu unterstiitzende Gesamtrnaßnahme bei der ersuchenden Behörde verbleibt. Dies gilt insbesondere für Lagebewertungen und die Beurteilung der ZweckmiiBigkeit zu treffender MaBnahmen. Demgegeniiber verbleibt die Verantwortung für die Durchfiihrung der konkreten Amtshilfeleistung bei der Bundeswehr und beurteilt sich nach den für sie einschlägigen rechtlichen Vorgaben. Eine Erweiterung ihrer Kompetenzen und Zustandigkeiten erfolgt durch die Amtshilfeleistung nicht. Vor diesem allgemeinen Hintergrund wandte sich der Innenrninister des Landes M-V (M-V) mit Schreiben vom 21. März 2006 an den Bundesminister der Verteidigung und
bat – unter Verweis auf eine Zusage des ehemaligen Bundeskanzlers Gerhard Schröder – um Unterstiitzung durch die Bundeswehr. Der Bundesrninister der Verteidigung hat dies dem Innenrninister des Landes M-V am 8. Mai 2006 zugesagt.

g. Bereitstellung von Infrastruktur

Mit Schreiben vom 24. April 2006 bat das Innenministeriurn des Landes M-V u.a. urn Untersrutzung bei der Unterbringung von ca. 15.000 Einsatzkraften. In einer Koordinierungsbesprechung zu moglichen Untersrutzungsleistungen der Bundeswehr am 25. April 2006 wurde auch urn Prüfung gebeten, ob Liegenschaften, die ab Anfang 2007 von der Bundeswehr aufgegeben und im Rahmen der Konversion einer zivilen Nutzung zugeführt werden sollten, fur die Unterbringung verfugbar gemacht werden konnten. Nach Billigung durch die Leitung des BMVg wurde die WEV Nord bereits im Juni 2006 angewiesen, die Kasernen in Dabel, Demen, Stern-Buchholz, Karow und spater auch in Burg Stargard zunachst nicht in das Allgemeine Grundvermogen abzugeben sondem für die Unterstützung im Rahmen des G8-Gipfels vorzuhalten und zeitgerecht herzurichten. Für die bedarfsgerechte Ausstattung der teilweise bereits geraurnten Kasemen wurden insgesamt ca. 25.000 zusatzliche Möbelsrucke dorthln transportiert und eingeräurnt. Die erreichte Unterbringungskapazitat in Dabel, Demen, Stern-Buchholz und Karow betrug 6.030 Betten. 1m Durchschnitt wurden im Zeitraurn von zwei Wochen vor dem G8-Gipfel bis zu dessen Ende in den inaktiven Liegenschaften 4.600 polizeiliche Einsatzkrafte untergebracht. In der Spitzenauslastung erfolgte eine Unterbringung von tiber 6000 Polizisten. Zusätzlich vorgehaltene Unterbringungskapazilliten der Liegenschaft Burg Stargard (ca. 300) wurden nicht genutzt.

V. Unterstiitzungsleistung Sicherheit im Luftraurn

Die Gesamtverantwortung für die Absicherung gegen eine mogliche Gefahrdung aus der Luft wlihrend des G8-Gipfels in Heiligendamrn lag bei der Innenbehorde des betroffenen Landes M-V. Die Luftwaffe wurde auf Antrag tatig (1M M-V, 21. Miirz 2006 ). Der Inspekteur der Luftwaffe hat die notwendigen MaBnahmen im Rahmen der Dauereinsatzaufgabe Schutz des deutschen Luftraurns sowie auf Weisung BM und nach Vorliegen der entsprechenden Anfrage des Landes M-V zur Gewiihrleistung der Sicherheit im Luftraum (SILURA) in Abstimmung mit den zustiindigen Stellen (NATO, BMI, BMYBS, 1M M-V) getroffen. Das Land M-V hat das BMYg offiziell urn Unterstiitzung zur Abwehr von Gefahren aus der Luft durch zivile Flugobjekte gebeten. Ein entsprechendes Hilfeersuchen lag damit vor (1M M-V vom 13. Miirz 2007).

CONFIDENTIAL German Bundeswehrplan

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Bundeswehrplan_2009_Page_01-723x1024.jpgBundeswehrplan_2009

DOWNLOAD LINK ABOVE

1 Vorbemerkungen

1.1 Zweck des Bundeswehrplans 2009

Der jährliche Bundeswehrplan (BwPlan) legt die ressortinterne Grundlage für die weiteren Schritte zur Haushaltsaufstellung. Der Bedarf in den Kategorien Versorgung, Personal, Organisation, Betrieb, Rüstung und Infrastruktur wird in seiner finanzplanerischen Dimension erfasst, auf die konzeptionellen Vorgaben abgestimmt, fähigkeitsorientiert bewertet und am vorgegebenen Finanzrahmen gemessen. Der BwPlan ist das Instrument, mit dem der Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr seine gesamtplanerische Verantwortung einschließlich Priorisierung von Bedarfsforderungen zur Auftragserfüllung wahrnimmt. Die Inspekteure und Leiter der zivilen Abteilungen/Stäbe unterstützen dabei im Rahmen ihrer jeweiligen Verantwortung.

Das Datenwerk zum BwPlan umfasst eine detaillierte Darstellung der finanzplanerischen Ansätze für den Planungszeitraum 2009 – 2013. Darüber hinausreichende Planungen werden bei wesentlichen Rüstungsprojekten auch in der Langfristperspektive dargestellt.

Im Textteil werden, wie bereits in den BwPlänen 2007 und 2008, neben einplanbaren Projekten auch die Auswirkungen des im Finanzrahmen nicht abdeckbaren Bedarfs bewertet.

1.2 Grundlagen der Planung

Die Konzeption der Bundeswehr (KdB, 09.08.2004) und das Weißbuch 2006 bilden nach wie vor die Grundlage für die Transformation der Bundeswehr. Mit der Finanzvorgabe/-linie für den BwPlan 2009 (21.08.2007) hat der Bundesminister der Verteidigung auf Grundlage der mittelfristigen Finanzplanung des Bundes die Randbedingungen festgelegt. Die Planungen gründen weiterhin auf dem Stationierungskonzept (01.11.2004), den Realisierungsplänen der Militärischen Organisationsbereiche (MilOrgBer) zur Ausgestaltung der Strukturen bis auf Einheitsebene, dem aktuellen Erkenntnisstand zu Ausstattungsumfängen
(Dezember 2007), internationalen Verpflichtungen sowie Projektverläufen in den Bereichen Optimierung des Betriebes, IT-Unterstützung sowie Ausrüstung. Die bisherigen planerischen Annahmen waren zu überprüfen. Erforderliche Nachsteuerungen
sind, soweit erforderlich, in den einzelnen Bereichen dargestellt. Unverändertes Ziel ist die Begrenzung der Betriebsausgaben als eine Voraussetzung für die Realisierung der dringlichen Investitionen zur Anpassung der Ausrüstung an die erforderlichen Fähigkeiten im Einsatz. Die Entwicklungen der Materialerhaltungsausgaben erfordern dabei besondere Aufmerksamkeit.

2 Rahmenbedingungen

2.1 Konzeptioneller Rahmen

Militärische Einsätze außerhalb Deutschlands sind bestimmendes Merkmal im Alltag der Bundeswehr. Neben der Teilnahme an Operationen wie ISAF, OEF, UNIFIL, KFOR und EUFOR beteiligt sich Deutschland mit signifikanten Beiträgen an den Stand-by Elementen von NATO (NRF), EU (EU BG) und VN (UNSAS). Darüber hinaus sind ständig Kräfte für nationale Evakuierungsoperationen (MilEvakOp) und zur Wahrnehmung hoheitlicher Aufgaben in Deutschland vorzuhalten. Die Bundeswehr leistet damit einen substantiellen Beitrag zur gesamtstaatlichen Sicherheitsvorsorge Deutschlands und seiner Partner.

Übergeordnetes Ziel der Transformation bleibt unverändert die nachhaltige Verbesserung der Einsatzfähigkeit der Bundeswehr im vorgegebenen Aufgabenspektrum. Hierzu sind in einem langfristigen, fortlaufenden und vorausschauenden Anpassungsprozess Aufgaben und Fähigkeiten, die wesentlich durch Personal und Ausrüstung bestimmt werden, mit den Finanzmitteln in einem bundeswehr- und streitkräftegemeinsamen Ansatz zu synchronisieren. Kernelemente der Fähigkeitsentwicklung sind

– die Berücksichtigung der Kräftekategorien Eingreif-, Stabilisierungs- und Unterstützungskräfte (EingrKr, StabKr, UstgKr), die jeweils aufgabenorientiert ausgerüstet, ausgebildet und eingesetzt werden,

– ein an den wahrscheinlicheren Einsätzen ausgerichtetes Fähigkeitsprofil,

– die nach Kräftekategorien abgestufte Befähigung zur Vernetzten Operationsführung (NetOpFü). Die Bundeswehr als Ganzes ist zudem so weiterzuentwickeln, dass die Streitkräfte uneingeschränkt interoperabel im multinationalen Umfeld operieren können.

Die operativen Vorgaben der KdB legen im Sinne einer Nationalen Zielvorgabe Umfang und Qualität von deutschen Beiträgen zu Einsätzen im gesamten Aufgabenspektrum fest. Die Notwendigkeit eines ausgewogenen Fähigkeitsaufwuchses über das Schließen
von Fähigkeitslücken begründet sich im Schwerpunkt aus dieser Zielvorgabe. Da die finanzielle Ausstattung der Bundeswehr absehbar nicht ausreicht, um alle erforderlichen Projekte zum Schließen vorhandener Fähigkeitslücken auf kurze bis mittlere Sicht und in erforderlichem Umfang realisieren zu können, ist die zwangsläufig zeitlich und umfänglich gestaffelte Projektrealisierung in streitkräftegemeinsamer Betrachtung so zu steuern, dass eine Ausstattung erreicht wird, die einen ausgewogenen Fähigkeitsaufwuchs über das gesamte Aufgabenspektrum der Bundeswehr ermöglicht. Die hierzu erforderliche Priorisierung führt zu den zeitlich gestaffelten Ausrüstungsstufen Anfangs-, Grund- und Zielausstattung.

bundes

TOP-SECRET-IACP State and Provincial Police Planning Sections (SPPPOS) Directory

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/wp-post-thumbnail/7Q081w.png

The State and Provincial Police Planning Officers section (SPPPOS) is a part of the Division of State and Provincial Police of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Membership includes police agencies with responsibilities consisting of both highway patrol and criminal investigation responsibilities in the service of state and provincial governments, the federal government of Canada, or other sovereign governments exercising jurisdiction over territories within the United States or Canada. The organization is comprised of five geographic areas; the North Atlantic, North Central, North Atlantic, Mountain Pacific, and Southern regions. Each region may convene meetings as needed. An international conference is held annually.

The purposes of the organization are to facilitate the exchange of planning information and experiences among member organizations and other planning associations, to serve as a resource available to all members of the section for dealing with agency issues and problems, and to maintain an on-line projects and statistical data base for access to all section members. Additionally, SPPPOS strives to provide for the sharing of information among member organizations and to encourage the development of the planning function within member organizations.

An annual conference is graciously hosted by a different member state each year. Conference agendas include some of the most timely and provocative issues facing state and provincial police organizations. The advances and challenges of information technology, communications, mobile data computing, patrol car accident investigation, officer safety, policy development, operational issues, and budget issues have been topics of past conference agendas.

One valuable feature of the SPPPOS group is the “Projects in Progress” (PIP) forum. PIP is an opportunity for participating organizations to list current, significant research and development projects on the IACP database allowing members with the same or similar types of research an opportunity to exchange ideas, saving time and resources. Members are allowed an opportunity to make a brief presentation at the annual conference on PIP topics in order to present the completed project or to solicit further research on the subject.

Another valuable tool for information sharing is the SPPPOS Listserv; an internet communications forum allowing member agencies an opportunity to post questions directly to the SPPPOS group. The Listserv provides the opportunity for timely responses to the more pressing issues that may require consistency in research and development.

SPPPOS AGENCY CONTACTS

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY………………………………………………………… 7
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY …………………………………………………………… 7
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY………………………………………………………….. 8
ARKANSAS STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………… 9
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL HEADQUARTERS ………………………. 10
COLORADO STATE PATROL ………………………………………………………………………………… 12
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ………………………………………………….. 13
DELEWARE STATE POLICE………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL ……………………………………………………………………………… 14
GEORGIA STATE PATROL HEADQUARTERS…………………………………………………………… 15
IDAHO STATE POLICE ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE ……………………………………………………………………………………. 17
INDIANA STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………… 18
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF’S OF POLICE …………………………………………. 18
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ………………………………………………………………. 25
KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL ……………………………………………………………………………… 26
KENTUCKY STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………. 27
LOUISIANA STATE POLICE…………………………………………………………………………………… 28
MAINE STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
MARYLAND STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………. 30
MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………………….. 31
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………… 32
MINNESOTA STATE PATROL ……………………………………………………………………………….. 33
MISSISSIPPI HIGHWAY SAFETY PATROL ………………………………………………………………. 34
MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL ……………………………………………………………………. 35
MONTANA HIGHWAY PATROL ……………………………………………………………………………. 36
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION …………………………………… 36
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL …………………………………………………………………………………. 38
NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL ………………………………………………………………………………. 39
NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………. 40
NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………………………… 40
NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………………………… 42
NEW YORK STATE POLICE …………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PATROL ………………………………………………………… 44
NORTH DAKOTA HIGHWAY PATROL …………………………………………………………………….. 45
OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL …………………………………………………………………………… 46
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ………………………………………………………. 47
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE …………………………………………………………………………….. 48
OREGON STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE ……………………………………………………………………………… 49
RHODE ISLAND STATE POLICE ……………………………………………………………………………….. 51
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE …………………………………………………………………….. 52
SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL …………………………………………………………………….. 53
SOUTH DAKOTA HIGHWAY PATROL……………………………………………………………………….. 54
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY ……………………………………………………………………. 55
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ……………………………………………………………….. 56
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY …………………………………………………………………. 58
VERMONT STATE POLICE ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE ………………………………………………………………. 59
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL ………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE……………………………………………………………………………….. 62
WISCONSIN STATE PATROL ……………………………………………………………………………………. 62
WYOMING HIGHWAY PATROL ………………………………………………………………………………… 6

DOWNLOAD LINK HERE

IACPpolicedirectory2008

California Congressional Representatives Letter to President Obama on Medical Marijuana Crackdown

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/SenatorsMedicalMarijuana.png

Dear President Obama,

We write to express our concern with the recent activity by the Department of Justice against legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries in California that are operating legally under state law. As you know, in October of 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of cannabis for medical purposes. The guidelines were spelled out in a memo to United States Attorneys from then Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, saying in part that the Attorneys should not focus federal resources in their state “on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

Despite this guidance and further clarification from current Deputy Attorney General James Cole that it would not be “an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers,” the Justice Department has continued an active role in enforcing federal laws against individuals acting in accordance with California state law. Last week, California’s four U.S. attorneys held a press conference to speak about the letters their offices had sent out to dozens of landlords and property owners who rent buildings or land where dispensaries provide safe and legal access to medical cannabis, notifying them that they are violating federal drug laws.

The U.S. attorney letters state that federal law “takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana.” The letters warn that the dispensaries must shut down within 45 days or the landlords and property owners will face criminal charges and confiscation of their property – both “real and personal” – even if they are operating legally under the state’s medical cannabis law. The actions mandated in these letters and echoed at the ensuing press conference directly interfere with California’s 15 year old medical cannabis law by eliminating safe access to medication for the state’s thousands of medical cannabis patients.

We are also aware that these threats by the Justice Department against property owners in California come after many months of federal interference in other medical cannabis states. This year alone has seen aggressive SWAT-style federal raids in at least seven medical marijuana states, as well as threats of criminal prosecution by U.S. attorneys against local and state public officials. It is our strong position that local and state governments must be allowed to develop, implement and enforce their own public health laws with regard to medical cannabis.

Medical cannabis has been and continues to be recommended by physicians to alleviate a number of serious illnesses and medical conditions that have not responded to other medications and treatments. During your presidential campaign, you repeatedly pledged to end federal raids against the individuals and collectives authorized by state law to use or provide medical cannabis, giving hope to patients who legitimately use medical cannabis to treat their conditions that their long struggle to safely access their medicine was finally over. By pursuing the same harsh policies that have been in place for years, we fear that the federal government will push legitimate patients back into the uncertainty and danger of the illicit market.

For these reasons, it is more urgent now than ever to reschedule marijuana as a legitimate controlled substance for medicinal purposes. Classifying marijuana as a Schedule II or III drug will have the effect of harmonizing federal law with the laws of several states, such as California. No longer should the federal government’s laws supersede the wishes of local citizens who have decided that their fellow neighbors ought to have the right to legitimately use medical marijuana. As we have seen for years, seriously ill patients will attempt to obtain their medication however they can and it is unconscionable for the DOJ to use its limited resources to endanger the lives of patients who are simply seeking to ease their suffering.

We respectfully request that your administration reschedule marijuana as a Schedule II or III drug administratively, or publicly support the adoption oflegislation that would change federal statute to achieve this same goal. One such proposal, H.R. 1983, the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, which was introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) earlier this year, would do just this. Changing federal marijuana policy through legitimate administrative channels or Congressional action will give countless patients and their physicians the respect they deserve and will clear up any ambiguity as to what the legitimate role of the federal government is in this arena.

DOWNLOAD ORGINIAL DOCUMENT HERE

CongressMedicalMarijuana

TOP-SECRET- DHS Warning: Terrorists Making Explosives With Commercial Products

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DHS-CommercialBombs.png

Terrorist Acquisition of Commercial Products for Improvised Explosive Device Production

  • 2 pages
  • For Official Use Only
  • October 14, 2011

(U//FOUO) Recent plots and attacks in the Homeland and overseas demonstrate a continuing terrorist focus on acquiring commercially available materials and components that can be used in constructing improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Heightened public and state and local official awareness, as well as tightened legal controls, have made it more difficult to purchase certain products that contain explosive precursors in bulk quantities or concentrated forms. Operatives are now more likely to use surreptitious, though legal, methods—such as multiple purchases in smaller quantities—to acquire sufficient amounts to create explosives.

— (U) On 27 July 2011, investigators found precursor chemicals and other IED components, including smokeless powder, clocks, batteries, wires, and other items commonly used to make IEDs in the hotel room of a US Army soldier who allegedly sought to target military personnel.
— (U) The admitted perpetrator of the 22 July 2011 attacks in Oslo, Norway avoided law enforcement suspicion by acquiring through legal means the ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, nitromethane, and blenders he used in constructing IEDs.

(U//FOUO) Commercial products containing precursor materials may include:
— (U//FOUO) Fertilizer and first aid cold packs (ammonium nitrate).
— (U//FOUO) Swimming pool chemicals (calcium hypochlorite/hydrogen peroxide).
— (U//FOUO) Some types of water filtration/treatment systems (potassium permanganate).
— (U//FOUO) Beauty supply products (hydrogen peroxide and acetone).
— (U//FOUO) Industrial cleaning supplies (hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid).

(U) Potential Indicators of suspicious purchases: Most commercial products suitable for constructing IEDs serve legitimate purposes. Consequently, it is often difficult to identify purchases or other activities that may be associated with terrorist intent to create explosives. No single indicator is likely to divulge suspicious purchases, but, depending on specific circumstances, a combination of the behaviors listed below may warrant reporting and investigation:

— (U) Attempts to purchase all available stock or materials in bulk, especially by individuals with no previous history of bulk purchases.
— (U) Payment or insistence on payment in cash for bulk purchases, or using a credit card in another person’s name.
— (U) Insistence on in-store pickup instead of store delivery of bulk purchase.
— (U) Use of rented or out-of-state vehicle to transport bulk purchases.
— (U) Smaller purchases of the same products at different locations within a short period of time.
— (U) Displays of nervous or suspicious behavior and evasive or vague responses to questions about intended use of products.

(U//FOUO) For additional information, please see DHS-FBI Joint Homeland Security Assessment “(U//FOUO) Use of Common Precursor Chemicals to Make Homemade Explosives,” 10 August 2010; and Roll Call Release “(U//FOUO) Indicators of Suspicious Acquisition of Beauty Supply Products,” 26 February 2010.

DOWNLOAD PDF HERE

DHS-CommercialBombs

TOP-SECRET – German Bundeswehrplan

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Bundeswehrplan_2010.jpg

Bundeswehr

 

DOWNLOAD LINK BELOW

Bundeswehrplan_2010

  • 12 pages
  • VS – NUR FÜR DEN DIENSTGEBRAUCH

1 Rahmenbedingungen

Oas Weißbuch 2006 und die Konzeption der Bundeswehr (KdB, 09.08.2004) bilden unverandert die Grundlage für die Bundeswehrplanung. Um auch künftig ihre Aufgaben in einem breiten Spektrum erfolgreich wahrzunehmen, braucht die Bundeswehr zeitgemaf!, e und zukunftsorientierte Fahigkeiten, reprasentiert durch gut ausgebildetes und motiviertes Personal, wirtschaftliche Verfahren sowie belastbare Strukturen. Oer Bundeswehrplan zielt dabei auf einen ausgewogenen Fahigkeitsaufwuchs im gesamten Fahigkeitsspektrum für die Eingreif-, Stabilisierungs- und UnterstOtzungskrafte im Zuge des streitkraftegemeinsamen Ansatzes der Transformation der Bundeswehr. Auf diese Weise kbnnen die Streitkrafte qualitativ und quantitativ angemessen fUr das gesamte Spektrum wahrscheinlicher Einsatze bereitgestellt werden. Oabei ist der breit aufgestellten Risikovorsorge zunachst auf hinreichendem Niveau der Vorzug einzuraumen gegenüber der sofortigen Vollausstatlung in einzelnen Bereichen.

Mit dem Haushalt 2009/42. Finanzplan (FiPI) wurde die mit dem 39. FiPI eingeleitete Anhebung der Plafondlinie in der Finanzplanung nicht nur verstetigt, sondern gesteigert. Oadurch kbnnen der investive Anteil moderat gestarkt, die laufenden Modernisierungsprojekte und Betreiberlbsungen abgesichert sowie die nach dem Bundesbesoldungsund -versorgungsanpassungsgesetz 2008/2009 steigenden Personalausgaben berücksichtigt werden.

bundes1

Ausgaben im Rahmen der Mitgliedschaft in NATO & EU

Für die vertraglich vereinbarte Beteiligung an NATO-ROstungsagenturen ist eine bedarfsgerechte Vorsorge getroffen. Neben der Einplanung des mit NATO-Partnern gemeinsam betriebenen FrOhwarnsystems AWACS ist auch eine Beteiligung an einem gemeinsam zu betreibenden System zur luftgestotzten weitraumigen abbildenden Aufklarung (NATO AGS) berOcksichtigt.

Kooperationsfelder mit der WirtschaftlBetreibervertrage

Dieser Ausgabenbereich ist im Wesentlichen wie im Vorjahr dotiert. Erstmalig aufgenommen wurde das Betreibermodell Liegenschaften. Betreibermodelle und kooperative Lbsungen mit der Industrie bilden auch weiterhin eine Mbglichkeit, um eine wirtschaftl iche AufgabenerfOliung, die Entlastung der Bundeswehr von Nicht-Kernaufgaben und ein Freisetzen von Ressourcen zu erzielen.

TOP-SECRET – German Navy Vision 2025+ Deutsche Marin 2025+

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Marine2025_.pngZielvorstellung Marine 2025+

  • Inspekteur der Marine
  • 43 pages
  • VS – Nur für den Dienstgebrauch
  • November 24, 2008

1. Sicherheitspolitischer Rahmen und Trends

Deutschland (DEU) wird auch zukünftig eine wichtige Rolle – insbesondere in Europa – einnehmen, um seiner sicherheitspolitischen Verantwortung in der Staaten-gemeinschaft gerecht zu werden. Das DEU Engagement wird deshalb nicht hinter den aktuellen Stand zurück fallen, sondern sich eher ausweiten und verstärken. DEU wird der Zusammenarbeit in NATO, EU und VN auch weiterhin große Bedeutung beimessen. Außerdem muss es sich ggf. auch an kurzfristig zusammentretenden Koalitionen beteiligen können, um Bedrohungen vorzubeugen und ihnen rechtzeitig dort zu begegnen, wo sie entstehen.

Das Potenzial für gewaltsame Konflikte bleibt weiterhin hoch, wobei Auseinander-setzungen mit halbstaatlichen und nichtstaatlichen Gegnern durch asymmetrische Formen der Kriegführung gekennzeichnet sein werden. In Konflikten mit Beteiligung staatlicher Akteure können jedoch auch klassische militärische Mittel zum Einsatz kommen. Eine sich absehbar verschärfende Konkurrenz um den Zugang zu Roh-stoffen und anderen Ressourcen erhöht das zwischenstaatliche Konfliktpotenzial. Konventionelle, reguläre Seestreitkräfte regionaler Mächte können dabei den freien und ungehinderten Welthandel als Grundlage des DEU und europäischen Wohlstands ebenso gefährden, wie kriminelle oder terroristische Bedrohungen der maritimen Sicherheit.

Die strategischen Rahmenbedingungen und die DEU sicherheitspolitischen Inte-ressen bleiben im Grundsatz unverändert. Gleichwohl lässt sich absehen, dass es in Teilbereichen zu Verschiebungen kommen kann. So werden Versorgungs- und Energiesicherheit ein höheres Gewicht erhalten. Das erfordert Flexibilität bei der Planung militärischer Fähigkeiten.
Der Prozess der Transformation der Bundeswehr mit dem Ziel der Steigerung der Einsatzfähigkeit wird fortgesetzt. Zusammenarbeit mit militärischen und zivilen Partnern gewinnt dabei weiter an Bedeutung. Mit den KGv „Basis See“1 hat die Marine die Grundlagen für den streitkräftegemeinsamen Einsatz ihrer Mittel gelegt.

Die Aufgaben der maritimen Sicherheit werden in enger Zusammenarbeit mit zivilen Stellen wahrzunehmen sein.
International bleibt die Marine tief in die NATO integriert, die auch weiterhin wesent-liche Impulse für die internationale Interoperabilität von Streitkräften geben wird. Sie wird ihre Aktivitäten verstärkt über ihr Vertragsgebiet hinaus ausdehnen und weitere Staaten als Kooperationspartner zu gewinnen suchen. Daneben gewinnt die Zusammenarbeit in der EU zunehmend an Bedeutung. UNIFIL hat verdeutlicht, dass auch die VN künftig maritime Einsätze führen werden.

Bis zum Planungshorizont 2025+ werden die europäischen Sicherheitsstrukturen weiter ausgebaut, integrierte europäische Streitkräfte werden im zu betrachtenden Zeitraum jedoch nicht oder nur auf niedrigem Niveau realisiert werden2. Damit bleiben die Möglichkeiten für ein multinationales burden sharing im Sinne einer grundsätzlichen Aufgabenverteilung unter Verzicht auf nationale militärische Kern-fähigkeiten eingeschränkt.

DEU wird deshalb auch bei künftig noch engerer internationaler Abstimmung von Streitkräfteplanungen in NATO und EU auf eigene militärische Fähigkeiten im maritimen Bereich nicht verzichten können. Wie zuletzt die Erfahrungen aus UNIFIL zeigen, ist die Fähigkeit, zu Beginn einer neuen Operation Führungsaufgaben zu übernehmen, eine Voraussetzung dafür, im multinationalen Rahmen handlungsfähig zu sein. Das deutsche Kontingent hat sich dort als Rückgrat eines multinationalen Verbandes bewährt, dem sich auch kleinere Nationen mit ihren geringeren Kräften anschließen konnten.

2. Ergänzende Rahmenbedingungen

Die absehbaren Folgen des Klimawandels – z.B. steigende Zahl und wachsendes Ausmaß von Naturkatastrophen – werden die Wahrscheinlichkeit humanitärer Hilfseinsätze erhöhen. Darüber hinaus bedeutet Klimawandel auch den möglichen Zugriff auf bisher unzugängliche Ressourcen (z.B. Nordpolarmeer) und birgt damit weiteres Konfliktpotential.

Die Notwendigkeit zur streitkräftegemeinsamen Operationsführung bleibt bestehen und wird auch unterhalb der operativen Ebene der Führung stärker zum Tragen kommen. Dies gilt analog auch für die ressortübergreifende Zusammenarbeit, die dem Prinzip der Vernetzten Sicherheit folgend weiter ausgebaut werden wird.

Die demografische Entwicklung verschärft den Wettbewerb um qualifiziertes Personal. Wegen der zunehmenden technischen Systemkomplexität steigen gleichzeitig die Ansprüche an das Personal. Der Trend zu autonomen Systemen hält an. Die erhöhte Systemkomplexität erschwert den Kompetenzerhalt, was die Abhängigkeit von zivilen Leistungserbringern vergrößern kann.
Der finanzielle Handlungsrahmen für die Bundeswehr wird insgesamt nicht anwach-sen. Optimierungspotenzial ist daher zunächst im eigenen Verantwortungsbereich zu erschließen. Dies schließt eine zukünftige Neujustierung zwischen den Organisa-tionsbereichen nicht aus.

germanmarinegermanmarine1

DOWNLOAD THIS FILE HERE

Marine2025_

Confidential – Iran works on “The BOMB”

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (L) and Industries Minister Ali Akbar Mehrabian wear protective glasses while visiting an exhibition of Iran laser science and technology in Tehran

Iran began work on Tuesday to make higher-grade nuclear fuel, a senior official said, and the Pentagon said the United States wanted a U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran “within weeks” over its nuclear programme.

The Islamic Republic, which denies its programme has military aims, announced on Sunday it would produce uranium enriched to a level of 20 percent for a Tehran research reactor making medical isotopes.

This followed a failure to agree terms for a proposed nuclear swap with major powers, under which Iran would send most of its low-enriched uranium abroad in return for such fuel.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, said preparatory work had started and production of the fuel would be officially launched later on Tuesday, in the presence of inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

“It will formally be announced in the afternoon,” Salehi told, saying he was on his way to the enrichment plant near the central city of Natanz.

State television said production had already started.

Iran currently enriches uranium to a level of 3.5 percent while 80 percent or more is needed for a nuclear bomb.

The Pentagon said the United States wants the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution “within weeks, not months,” laying the ground for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. They would be the fourth set of sanctions.

Despite Iranian denials, Western powers fear Iran is enriching uranium with a view to producing nuclear weapons.

Salehi said Iran had set up a chain of 164 centrifuges, used to refine uranium, to produce the 20 percent fuel. He said production capacity is 3 to 5 kg a month, above the Tehran reactor’s needs of 1.5 kg, ISNA news agency reported.

RUSSIA, CHINA DIFFER

A senior lawmaker in Russia, which in the past has urged talks rather than punishment, also said economic measures should be considered against Iran, a major oil producer.

Among the big powers only China, which can block any U.N. sanctions, has remained unswervingly opposed to punishing Iran.

On Tuesday Beijing urged increased diplomatic efforts to resolve the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear plans, calling for all sides to work towards agreement on the fuel exchange plan.

“This would help towards appropriately resolving the Iran nuclear issue,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said.

Possible targets for any new sanctions include Iran’s central bank, the Revolutionary Guards who Western powers say are key to Iran’s nuclear programme, shipping firms and its energy sector, Western diplomats say.

Enriching uranium to 20 percent would take Iran much of the way to having weapons-grade uranium.

But analysts said it would need a few months to reconfigure its Natanz plant to refine uranium to higher purity.

Iran may also be having more difficulty obtaining crucial components due to U.N. sanctions, said the analysts, who added that the latest move might be a negotiating tactic.

Tehran says the more highly refined uranium is destined for the research reactor, but it lacks the technology to convert the material into special fuel needed to run this plant in the capital.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tehran was still prepared to carry out the fuel swap, if its conditions were met.

On Monday, the IAEA confirmed Tehran had notified the U.N. nuclear watchdog of its plans to produce higher-grade fuel, and said it would damage chances of saving the fuel supply deal.

But Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said: “We’re still prepared, if our requirements are met, to carry out this swap … any time they are ready this can be done.”

DAS PERVERSE “KINDERPORTAL” DER FINGIERTEN “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN

http://berndpulch.org/2011/11/01/das-kinderportal-der-anal-fixierten-gomopa-scheisshausfliegen-eigenbezeichnung/

“GoMoPa” und ihr Kinderportal: Die gesamte deutsche Presse verabscheut “GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/die-gesamte-deutsche-presse-verabscheut-die-tatsachlich-vorbestraften-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%8

TOP-SECRET: Iran Nuclear Sites: Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

// The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (Persian نیروگاه اتمی بوشهر) is a nuclear power plant in Iran which is under construction 17 kilometres (11 mi) south-east of the city of Bushehr, between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf. The nuclear power plant was planned to go on network in 2009.  As late as November 28, 2009, the construction of the facility was said to be on schedule for completion.1

History

The facility was the idea of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out. He wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In August 1974, the Shah said, “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn… We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity using nuclear plants”.

The construction of the plant started in 1975 when the German Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth US$4–6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units, identical with the two reactors from the German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant, was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp AG, and was to have been completed in 1981.

Kraftwerk Union was eager to work with the Iranian government because, as spokesman Joachim Hospe said in 1976, “To fully exploit our nuclear power plant capacity, we have to land at least three contracts a year for delivery abroad. The market here is about saturated, and the United States has cornered most of the rest of Europe, so we have to concentrate on the third world.”

Kraftwerk Union fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran’s non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which paralyzed Iran’s economy and led to a crisis in Iran’s relations with the West.

In 1984, Kraftwerk Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iran-Iraq war continued. In April of that year, the U.S. State Department said, “We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr.” The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr “are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program.” The spokesman went on to say, “In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel.” The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes from 1984 to 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war.

In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed.

On 8 January 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russian company Atomstroiexport to resume work on the partially-complete Bushehr plant, installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915 MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor, with completion expected in 2007.2

U.S. Opposition to Bushehr

On 23 February 1998, the US State Department reaffirmed US opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. The United States argued that Iran had sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors were expensive, unnecessary, and could be used for military purposes. The United States strongly opposed the project, which was permitted under the NPT, and had in the past provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite this, the Russians proceeded with work on Bushehr.

US opposition to Russian construction of Bushehr rested on three main issues. First was that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the reactor allowing the Iranians to construct nuclear weapons. Secondly, the US feared that the Russians and the Iranians were using Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive technology that would normally be prohibited. Finally, the US was concerned that the knowledge gained by Iranian scientists working at Bushehr could further Irans nuclear weapons program.

US pressure to prevent the construction of Brushehr had not been limited to Russia. On 6 March 1998, during a visit by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ukraine announced that it would not sell turbines for use with reactors at Bushehr. The contract had been worth $45 million. Five days later, Vice President Gore met with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and discussed, among other things, US concerns over Russian exports of nuclear and missile technology to Iran.

Iran claimed that its nuclear program was for peaceful power-generation purposes and that it would help free up oil and gas resources for export, thus generating additional hard-currency revenues. The US had countered that Iran did not possess sufficient natural reserves of nuclear fuel, meaning that it would be dependant on costly imports to sustain a nuclear power program.

Using their own imagery satellites, the Israeli military was undoutedly also monitoring the progress towards completion of the first Bushehr reactor. Although the reactor was not designed to produce material for nuclear weapons, the spent fuel from the reactor could be reprocessed to yield plutonium, which was why the reactor was under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. As with the Iraqi Osiraq reactor two decades ago, Israel was thought to face a choice as to whether to attack the Bushehr reactor before it becomes operational. Between 2002 and June 2008 Israel, as well as the United States refused to take the possibility of a preemptive strike out of the equation. Israel even staged a military exercise in March 2008 seen as specifically geared toward preparing for such an attack.

The United States had consistantly resisted negotiating with Iranian authorities, and had stipulated a desire that they suspend enrichment activities as a prequisite. With UN Security Council Resolutions calling for this suspension passed in 2006, the United States continued to hold to this requirement for negotiations, and refused to remove the possibility of a preemptive military strike to halt such activities. By the end of July 2008, however, the United States had suggested its desire to return to a diplomatic forum to resolve the dispute. It had offered to send the Under Secretary of Defense to the next round of negotiations with Iranian authorities, which it had previously resisted.3

Russian Help

In December 2007 Russia started delivering nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant. On January 20, 2008 a fourth Russian shipment of nuclear fuel arrived in Iran destined for the Bushehr plant. Russia has pledged to sell 85 tons of nuclear fuel to the plant.

In March, 2009, the head of Russia’s state nuclear power corporation Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, announced that Russia had completed the construction of the plant. A series of pre-launch tests were conducted after the announcement. Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah has said that the Bushehr plant would begin producing 500 MW of its 1,000 MW capacity of electricity by 22 August 2009, and would be brought up to full capacity by the end of March 2010.

In September 22, 2009 it was reported that the first reactor was 96% complete and final testing would begin in the near future. In early October final testing was started. In January 2010, Kiriyenko announced to the public that the Bushehr reactor would be opening in the near-future, declaring 2010 the “year of Bushehr.”

A further two reactors of the same type are planned. The fourth unit was canceled.4

Reactor Information

Reactor unit Reactor type Net
capacity
Gross
capacity
Construction started
(Planned)
Electricity
Grid
Commercial
Operation
Shutdown
Bushehr-1 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW 01.05.1975 (01.08.2009) (31.08.2009)
Bushehr-2 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW (01.01.2011)
Bushehr-3 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW (01.01.2012)
Bushehr-4 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW Cancelled

TOP-SECRET – IAEA Report Alleging Iran’s Intention to Create a Nuclear Warhead

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/IAEAiranreport02182010.png

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran

E. Possible Military Dimensions

40. In order to confirm, as required by the Safeguards Agreement, that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities, the Agency needs to have confidence in the absence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues and the actions required of Iran,12 including, inter alia, that Iran implement the Additional Protocol and provide the Agency with the information and access necessary to: resolve questions related to the alleged studies; clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear related equipment and components by companies belonging to the defence industries.

41. The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations.

42. Among the activities which the Agency has attempted to discuss with Iran are: activities
involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives
and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as “the
green salt project”; and various procurement related activities. Specifically, the Agency has, inter alia,
sought clarification of the following: whether Iran was engaged in undeclared activities for the
production of UF4 (green salt) involving the Kimia Maadan company; whether Iran’s exploding
bridgewire detonator activities were solely for civil or conventional military purposes; whether Iran
developed a spherical implosion system, possibly with the assistance of a foreign expert
knowledgeable in explosives technology; whether the engineering design and computer modelling
studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear
payload; and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military
organizations in Iran to obtain nuclear related technology and equipment.

43. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged
activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged
projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and
experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons. Addressing these issues is important
for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to
have continued beyond 2004.

44. Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss the above issues with the Agency or to provide
any further information and access (to locations and/or people) to address these concerns, asserting
that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and
that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forgeries.

45. With the passage of time and the possible deterioration in the availability of information, it is
important that Iran engage with the Agency on these issues, and that the Agency be permitted to visit
all relevant sites, have access to all relevant equipment and documentation, and be allowed to
interview relevant persons, without further delay. Iran’s substantive engagement would enable the
Agency to make progress in its work. Through Iran’s active cooperation, progress has been made in
the past in certain other areas where questions have been raised; this should also be possible in
connection with questions about military related dimensions.

A. Current Enrichment Related Activities

A.1. Natanz: Fuel Enrichment Plant and Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant

2. In November 2003, Iran informed the Agency that it would suspend all enrichment related and
reprocessing activities in Iran. Specifically, Iran announced that it would suspend all activities on the
site of Natanz, not produce feed material for enrichment processes and not import enrichment related
items. In February 2004, Iran expanded the scope of that suspension to include the assembly and
testing of centrifuges, and the domestic manufacture of centrifuge components. In June 2004, Iran
stopped implementing the expanded voluntary measures in connection with the manufacturing of
centrifuge components and the assembling and testing of centrifuges. In November 2004, Iran notified
the Agency that it had decided, “on a voluntary basis and as [a] further confidence building measure,
to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities”. In
January 2006, Iran informed the Agency that it had decided to resume “R&D activities on the peaceful
nuclear energy programme which ha[d] been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and
Atoms for Peace non-legally binding suspension”, which included the activities carried out at the Fuel Enrichment Plant
(FEP) and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) located at Natanz. Iran restarted enrichment tests at
PFEP in February 2006; FEP was put into operation in February 2007.

3. There are two cascade halls at FEP: Production Hall A and Production Hall B. According to the
design information submitted by Iran, eight units (Units A21 to A28) are planned for Production Hall
A, with 18 cascades planned for each unit. No detailed design information has been provided for
Production Hall B.

4. On 31 January 2010, Iran was feeding natural UF6 into the 17 cascades of Unit A24, and
6 cascades of Unit A26, at FEP. One cascade of Unit A24 and one cascade of Unit A26 were under
vacuum on that date. A number of centrifuges from the remaining 11 cascades of Unit A26 had been
disconnected. Sixteen cascades of Unit A28 had been installed. Of the remaining 2 cascades of Unit
A28, all centrifuges had been removed from one cascade and removal of the centrifuges from the other
cascade was ongoing.1 Installation work in Units A25 and A27 was ongoing. All centrifuges installed
to date are IR-1 machines with 164 machines per cascade. There has been no installation work on
centrifuges in Production Hall B.

5. Between 21 November 2009 and 2 December 2009, the Agency conducted a physical inventory
verification (PIV) at FEP and verified that, as of 22 November 2009, 21 140 kg of natural UF6 had
been fed into the cascades since February 2007, and a total of 1808 kg of low enriched UF6 had been
produced. The enrichment level of the low enriched UF6 product, as measured by the Agency, was
3.47% U-235. The Agency is continuing with its assessment of the PIV and is discussing the results
with Iran. Iran has estimated that, between 23 November 2009 and 29 January 2010, it produced an
additional 257 kg of low enriched UF6,2 which would result in a total production of 2065 kg of low
enriched UF6 since the startup of FEP. The nuclear material at FEP (including the feed, product and
tails), as well as all installed cascades and the feed and withdrawal stations, are subject to Agency
containment and surveillance.3

6. The results of the environmental samples taken at FEP as of 21 November 2009 indicate that the
maximum enrichment level as declared by Iran in the relevant Design Information Questionnaire
(DIQ) (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment) has not been exceeded at that plant.4 Since the last
report, the Agency has successfully conducted 4 unannounced inspections at FEP, making a total of 35
such inspections since March 2007.

7. Between 14 and 16 September 2009, the Agency conducted a PIV at the PFEP, the results of
which confirmed the inventory as declared by Iran, within the measurement uncertainties normally
associated with such a facility. Between 28 October 2009 and 2 February 2010, a total of
approximately 113 kg of natural UF6 was fed into a 10-machine IR-2m cascade, a 10-machine IR-4
cascade, a 20-machine IR-2m cascade and single IR-1, IR-2, IR-2m and IR-4 centrifuges at PFEP.

F. Summary

46. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran
has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in
Iran is in peaceful activities.

47. Iran is not implementing the requirements contained in the relevant resolutions of the Board of
Governors and the Security Council, including implementation of the Additional Protocol, which are
essential to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to
resolve outstanding questions. In particular, Iran needs to cooperate in clarifying outstanding issues
which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, and to
implement the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early
provision of design information.

48. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has
continued with the operation of PFEP and FEP at Natanz, and the construction of a new enrichment
plant at Fordow. Iran has also announced the intention to build ten new enrichment plants. Iran
recently began feeding low enriched UF6 produced at FEP into one cascade of PFEP with the aim of
enriching it up to 20% in U-235. The period of notice provided by Iran regarding related changes
made to PFEP was insufficient for the Agency to adjust the existing safeguards procedures before Iran
started to feed the material into PFEP. The Agency’s work to verify FFEP and to understand the
original purpose of the facility and the chronology of its design and construction remain ongoing. Iran
is not providing access to information such as the original design documentation for FFEP or access to
companies involved in the design and construction of the plant.

49. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has
also continued with the construction of the IR-40 reactor and related heavy water activities. The
Agency has not been permitted to take samples of the heavy water which is stored at UCF, and has not
been provided with access to the Heavy Water Production Plant.

50. The Director General requests Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its
Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including the implementation of its Additional
Protocol.

51. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

DOWNLOAD PDF REPORT  HERE

IAEAiranreport02182010

DIE PERVERSEN METHODEN DER “GoMoPa”- SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung und Eigenbeschreibung)

Die Opfer der STASI-“GoMoPa” beschreiben es am Besten – DURCH DIE EIGENE  WORTE DER “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)

 

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=22299

TOP-SECRET-Iran Nuclear Site: Natanz Uranium Enrichment Site

//

Natanz (نطنز) is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. The complex consists of two 25,000 square meter halls and a number of administrative buildings. This once secret site was one of the two exposed by Alireza Jafarzadeh in August, 2002. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei visited the site on 21 February 2003 and reported that 160 centrifuges were complete and ready for operation, with 1000 more under construction at the site. Under the terms of Iran’s safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction. There are currently approximately 7,000 centrifuges installed at Natanz, of which 5,000 are producing low enriched uranium.

History

From Global Security:

During a press conference by the representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran held in Washington, DC in mid-August 2002, the existence of a secret nuclear facility at Natanz was revealed. Israeli military intelligence has also referred to the site as “Kashan.”

Natanz is located between Isfahan and Kashan in central Iran. The facility is reportedly 100 miles north of Esfahan, and is located in old Kashan-Natanz, near a village called Deh-Zireh, itself located about 25 miles southeast of Kashan, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Governor’s Office of Kashan.

Officially a project aimed at the eradication of deserts, construction on the facility was said to have begun in 2000 and was being carried out by the Jahad-e Towse’eh and Towese’eh-Sakhteman construction companies. As of mid-2002, construction was not due to be completed until 2003, at which point, installation of the technical facilities would begin.

According to the NCRI, as of August 2002, the project had cost 95 billion toumans. Funding had been provided by the Supreme National Security Council and was outside of the supervisory purview of the Budget and Planning Organization. A front company had specifically been created for project. Named Kala-Electric, whose headquarters were located in Tehran, it met all requirements for the project’s facilities and equipment and was run by Davood Aqajani, who was also the managing director for the Natanz heavy water project. Officials from the company reportedly made a number of trips to both China and India in 2001. The head of Atomic Enery Agency of Iran, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, reportedly pays visits to the site every months in order to oversee progress on the facility.

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) on 12 December 2002 released an issue brief expressing concern that Iran was trying to develop “the capability to make separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the two main nuclear explosive materials.” ISIS acquired satellite imagery of a site in Natanz, about 40 kilometers southeast of Kashan, which could have been a gas-centrifuge facility for uranium enrichment.

Iran strongly rejected the allegations and reiterated that the two plants were intended to generate electricity. “In the next 20 years, Iran has to produce 6,000 megawatts of electricity by nuclear plants and the launch of these two centers are aimed at producing necessary fuel for these plants,” Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said.

Tehran later invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to travel to Iran to inspect both facilities, an offer which has been accepted. “We have been in contacts with the IAEA over these two centers and we will officially invite them for inspections since the agency must inspect them and carry out their necessary planning and supervision before the centers are put into operation,” Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said.

On 10 February 2003 Gholamreza Aqazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), said that Iran had started an ambitious nuclear energy program and was poised to begin processing uranium. He said that the uranium ore processing plant should come on line soon in the central city of Isfahan and preliminary work had begun on a uranium enrichment plant. Aqazadeh said the first steps had been taken to build an enrichment plant, “but we still have a long way to go to have this plant come onstream.” Aqazadeh said the enrichment plant would be built in Kashan (at Natanz) in central Iran. The fuel would come from another facility in Isfahan, where a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) was close to inauguration.

The IAEA’s inspectors visited Iran on 21 February 2003 to look at nuclear facilities under construction there. “We will be looking at facilities not even completed yet that are not formally under safeguards,” as chief IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky put it. The visit was the “first step in a process of many visits to understand the architecture of the place and to design the most effective monitoring regime for that facility.” American officials believed new nuclear facilities in Iran could be used to make nuclear weapons.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei visited the site on 21 February 2003, in the first visit by the UN chartered IAEA. During this visit, the Director General was informed by Iran of its uranium enrichment plant (PFEP) nearing completion of construction, and a large commercial-scale fuel enrichment plant (FEP) also under construction.

It was reported on 26 August 2003, that the IAEA had found particles of highly enriched uranium in environmental samples taken at Natanz. These findings were released in a report whose distribution was initially restricted to the organization’s 35-nation Board of Governors.

During the discussions, which took place in August 2004, Iran repeated that, although the design drawings of a P-2 centrifuge had been acquired in 1995, no work on P-2 centrifuges was carried out until early 2002 when, according to Iran, the IAEO management decided that “work on a modified P-2 machine based on a sub-critical rotor design would not hurt,” and, in March 2002, a contract to study the mechanical properties of the P-2 centrifuge was signed with a small private company. Iran stated that no feasibility or other preliminary studies or experiments were conducted by Iran during the period between 1995 and 2002.

Iranian officials also stated that, in spite of frequent contacts between 1995 and 1999 on P-1 centrifuge issues with the intermediaries (who, according to Iran, had provided both the P-1 and P-2 drawings), the topic of P-2 centrifuges was not addressed at all in those meetings nor in the course of making any other foreign contacts. Iran attributed this to the fact that a decision had been made to concentrate on the P-1 centrifuge enrichment program, and that, in addition, the IAEO was undergoing senior management and organizational changes during that period of time.

On 9 April 2007, in a speech at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran has now developed the capability to produce enriched uranium which is needed to make nuclear fuel. He claimed that Iran had begun production of enriched uranium using 3,000 centrifuges. At the gathering he said, “As of today, Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.”1

Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP)

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei visited the site on 21 February, in the first visit by the UN-chartered IAEA. This visit disclosed about 160 new centrifuges in the nuclear complex that were said to have been tested and judged fully operational according to the Bush administration.

The machines at PFEP at Natanz could be recognized as an early European design, and it was not possible to develop enrichment technology, to the level seen at Natanz, based solely on open source information and computer simulations, without process testing with UF6.

There were some indications that the centrifuges Iran was using at Natanz were of Pakistani origin, according to IAEA inspectors and senior US officials. During their February visit to Iranian nuclear facilities, IAEA inspectors were reportedly “shocked” to see that the design of the centrifuges at Natanz were of Pakistani origin. “The question is, where is the factory that supplied the Iranian facility at Natanz?” a senior IAEA official said. “Is it in Pakistan, or is it in North Korea?”

In accordance with its standard practice, the Agency took baseline environmental samples at PFEP at Natanz before nuclear material was introduced in the facility. This baseline sampling campaign was conducted during inspections carried out between March and June 2003, and samples were taken at many locations within the facility. While the Agency had already received the results from some of the samples, which have been provided to Iran, other samples were still being analysed by a number of laboratories that participated in the Agency’s Network of Analytical Laboratories.

Iran stated that it had not carried out any enrichment and that no nuclear material was introduced to the PFEP prior to the Agency’s having taken its first baseline environmental samples there. However, the sampling results, which were provided to Iran on 11 June 2003, revealed particles of highly enriched uranium. During the 10–13 July and 9–12 August 2003 technical meetings, more complete environmental sampling results were provided to Iran and the matter was discussed further. The PFEP environmental sample results indicated the possible presence in Iran of enriched uranium, material that was not on its inventory of declared nuclear material. During the August 2003 meeting, Iranian authorities indicated that they had carried out extensive investigation with a view to resolving this question, and had come to the conclusion that the enriched uranium particles that had been detected must have resulted from contamination originating from centrifuge components, which had been imported by Iran.

At that meeting, Agency inspectors explained that subsequent environmental sample analysis revealed the presence of two types of enriched uranium, and noted that there had been differences among the samples taken from the surfaces of the centrifuge casings installed for the single machine tests. The Agency asked the Iranian authorities to investigate whether there were differences in the manufacturing history of those pieces of equipment. To investigate this matter further, the Agency took two additional samples from centrifuge components, which were said to have been imported and those said to have been produced domestically.

On 25 June 2003, Iran introduced UF6 into the first centrifuge for the purpose of single machine testing, and on 19 August 2003 began the testing of a small ten-machine cascade with UF6. Iran continued to cooperate with the Agency in implementing safeguards measures subsequently put in place at PFEP for monitoring single machine and small cascade testing.

After Iran agreed to a suspension of all uranium related enrichment and conversion activities, which had been in place since November 2004, the IAEA received a letter on 3 January 2006 from Iran stating its intention to resume enrichment at Natanz. On 7 January 2006, another letter was received from Iran, requesting that the IAEA remove the seals in place at the Natanz facility. Iran subsequently conducted substantial renovation of the gas handling system at the PFEP. On 8 February 2006, Iran released an updated design description for the PFEP to the IAEA. On 11 February 2006, Iran started enrichment tests by feeding a single P-1 centrifuge machine with UF6 gas. By 15 February and 22 February, a 10-machine cascade and 20-machine cascade were also tested.

In April 2006, Iran successfully completed a UF6 feeding campaign using a 164-machine cascade at the PFEP. The enriched product’s purity was estimated to be between 3.5 percent to 4.8 percent uranium-235. In May 2006, the IAEA took samples to confirm the enrichment levels of the product. Startin on 6 June 2006, Iran started feeding UF6 into the 164-machine cascade and was working on the installation of another 164-machine cascade at the PFEP. The PFEP was under surveillance by the IAEA, who also worked on containment measures, but the facility was not set up for remote surveillance. Iranian authorities suggested they might be willing to install relevant equipment for this purpose in a variety of their nuclear facilities in statements made during 2008, but by July of that year had not made any moves to do so.2

Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP)

Covering 100,000 m2, the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) complex, according to the NCRI, boasted two 25,000-meter halls, built 8 meters-deep into the ground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. Also present at the site are a number of administrative buildings.

Some observers suggested that the Natanz site appeared to be too large to be Iran’s first enriched uranium facility, suggesting that Iran might already have been operating a smaller pilot plant elsewhere. However, this assumed that the Iranian enrichment effort was indigenous, rather than a product of collaboration with Pakistan.

According to some estimates, the advanced centrifuge complex might house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, producing enough weapons-grade uranium for several dozen (over 20) weapons per year when completed at the end of the decade. Other estimates suggested the facility would house a total of 5,000 centrifuges when the initial stage of the project was completed in 2005. At that point, Iran would be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for several nuclear weapons each year.

At a 13 December 2002 briefing, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters the facility was being built partially underground, and as such was inconsistent with Iran’s claims that its nuclear intentions were peaceful: “It appears from the imagery that a service road, several small structures, and perhaps three large structures are being build below grade, and some of these are already being covered with earth. Iran clearly intended to harden and bury that facility. That facility was probably never intended by Iran to be a declared component of the peaceful program. Instead Iran has been caught constructing a secret underground site where it could produce fissile material.” Based upon what Boucher termed “hard evidence,” Iran appeared to be constructing a uranium enrichment plant at Nantaz, as well as a heavy water plant. “The suspect uranium-enrichment plant…could be used to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons. The heavy-water plant could support a reactor for producing weapons-grade plutonium. These facilities are not justified by the needs of Iran’s civilian nuclear program,” he said.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei visited the site on 21 February 2003. In a nearby building, workers were assembling parts for 1,000 more centrifuges as of February 2003.

Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hojjatoleslam Hassan Rohani said at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Mosque on 3 March 2003 that nuclear sites at Natanz in Isfahan would be inaugurated early in the Iranian year, which began on 21 March 2003. Rohani said the “gigantic nuclear site of Isfahan” took two years to build and “the use of the nuclear technology would reinforce the authority of Iran’s system.” Rohani said the Natanz facility would enrich uranium extracted in Yazd Province and that upon the inauguration of the Natanz facility, Iran would be self-sufficient in producing the fuel to run its nuclear-power stations. Such self-sufficiency would obviate the need for nuclear fuel from Russia, thereby eliminating a level of control over Iran’s ability to divert spent fuel for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

By mid-2004 the Natanz centrifuge facility was hardened with a roof of several meters of reinforced concrete and buried under a layer of earth some 75 feet deep.

The FEP was originally scheduled to be completed in 2005. The IAEA reported in June 2006, as part of verifying the design documentation supplied by Iranian authorities, that construction work still continued at the FEP facility. The IAEA received the updated design information from Iran concerning the FEP on 8 February 2006. The IAEA estimated that the installation of the first 3000 P-1 centrifuge machines at the FEP was planned for the fourth quarter of 2006 based on the movement of necessary equipment into the FEP buildings. The exact number of centrifuges in operation at Natanz continued to be a source of contention, with conflict numbers reported by various news, intelligence, and other organizations.

Iran resumed work on improved centrifuges after ending its voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol of the NPT, based on the Pakistani P-2, and referred to locally as the IR-2. As of February 2008 there were no confirmed reports that Iran had actually installed any IR-2 centrifuges at Natanz, in either the Fuel Enrichment Plant, or the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. 3

Location and Images

TOP-SECRET – The precise US Invasion Plans for the Iraq as PDF downloads

TOP SECRET POLO STEP

Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006

CentCom PowerPoint Slides Briefed to White House and Rumsfeld in 2002, Obtained by National Security Archive through Freedom of Information Act

Washington D.C., November 3, 2011 – The U.S. Central Command’s war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command’s PowerPoint briefing slides, which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org).

The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks’ commanders, refer to the “Phase IV” post-hostilities period as “UNKNOWN” and “months” in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely “re-deployed” out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).

“Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans,” said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. “First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by ‘D-Day’, then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere ‘months’. All of these were delusions.”

The PowerPoint slides reflect the continuous debate over the size of the invasion force that took place within the Bush administration. In late November 2001, President Bush asked Rumsfeld about the status of plans for war with Iraq. He asked for an updated approach, but did not want to attract attention. Rumsfeld ordered Gen. Franks to prepare a commander’s estimate of improvements needed, and Franks convened a planning group that adopted the codeword POLO STEP.

POLO STEP was a coded compartment created during the Clinton administration to encompass covert Iraq and counter-terrorism plans and activities. In the mid-1990s, the compartment specifically included the targeting of Osama bin Laden. Following the September 11 attacks, CentCom, among other military and national security components, used the designation to cover planning for the war in Iraq. (Note 1)

In mid-2002, military analyst William Arkin obtained a leaked copy of a briefing on the Iraq plans and revealed the existence of POLO STEP in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times (June 23, 2002, p. M1). According to Arkin, the revelation unleashed the fury of Gen. Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld who immediately ordered a probe of the leak that lasted until the end of 2003 and subjected more than 1,000 military and contractor personnel to sometimes repeated questioning. (Note 2)

The slides in this Web posting are a compilation reflecting various iterations in war planning. The U.S. government maintains plans for conflict with a multitude of possible adversaries. The contingency operating plan for Iraq–OPLAN 1003-98–had last been fully reviewed in 1996 and was updated in 1998. It envisioned an invasion force of more than 380,000 troops. Former CentCom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni (who saw gaps in the plan–particularly in regard to the post-war order) organized a war game–Desert Crossing–in 1999 to examine additional contingencies.

Under pressure from Secretary Rumsfeld for a leaner force (according to accounts in books by Michael Gordon/Bernard Trainor, Thomas Ricks, and Bob Woodward), Zinni’s successor, Gen. Franks, reduced the number to 275,000 in the commander’s estimate he gave to President Bush on December 28, 2001. During the course of 2002 alternative versions of the plan were developed reflecting various assumptions about levels of allied support–“robust”, “reduced”, or “unilateral”–and about the amount of lead time available between the order to invade and the deployment of forces. Under the Generated Start option Bush would have provided CentCom with 30 days notice for war, and 60 days to deploy. Following Rumsfeld’s mandate to reduce deployment time to prepare for any contingency, Franks developed the alternative Running Start option: conflict would begin with escalating Red, White, and Blue air strikes followed by ground war as troops were deployed. By mid-August 2002 a Hybrid concept had been developed–the U.S. military would quickly mobilize forces in the region, initiate an air strike campaign, then launch a ground invasion.

One account written after the war points out a basic problem with the concept of scaled-down ground forces – a “contradiction” between ends and means (Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504):

“Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task – defeating Saddam’s weakened conventional forces – and the least amount on the most demanding – rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation’s long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against.”

In the end, Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush that the U.S. needed to go to the U.N. to try to legitimize the invasion. Diplomatic efforts over the next few months allowed more time for war preparations and the final option embraced by Rumsfeld – Lt. Gen. David McKiernan’s Cobra II – was closer to Generated Start, the original plan, than the various iterations that were subsequently developed and are reflected in the declassified PowerPoint slides.

Lt. Gen. McKiernan later told Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks (Fiasco, p. 75):

“It’s quite frustrating the way this works, but the way we do things nowadays is combatant commanders brief their products in PowerPoint up in Washington to OSD and Secretary of Defense… In lieu of an order, or a frag [fragmentary] order, or plan, you get a set of PowerPoint slides… [T]hat is frustrating, because nobody wants to plan against PowerPoint slides.”

Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich told Ricks (Fiasco, pp. 75-76) that PowerPoint war planning was the ultimate insult:

“Here may be the clearest manifestation of OSD’s [Office of Secretary of Defense] contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the military profession and of the assumption among forward thinkers that technology — above all information technology — has rendered obsolete the conventions traditionally governing the preparation and conduct of war. To imagine that PowerPoint slides can substitute for such means is really the height of recklessness.”

National Security Archive senior analyst Joyce Battle asked the U.S. Army under the FOIA in 2004 for documents related to the 2001-2003 debates over troop levels for the Iraq war. In response, the Army referred the request to Central Command in 2005; and CentCom responded to the FOIA request in January 2007 with the declassified PowerPoint slides. The slides were compiled at CentCom with tabs labeled “A” through “L” (one slide is unlabeled). The Web posting today reproduces the documents as they were released by CentCom, together with additional items prepared by the National Security Archive: a brief chronology of Iraq war planning based on secondary sources, a glossary of military acronyms (essential for translating the otherwise cryptic references on the slides), and an introduction written by Ms. Battle.

Chronology:

[Based on accounts in Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006); Tommy Franks with Malcolm McConnell, American Soldier (New York: Regan Books, 2004); Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York: The Penguin Press, 2006); Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004).]

November 21, 2001 – President Bush asks Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about contingencies for war with Iraq, and directs him to initiate planning.

November 26, 2001 – Rumsfeld meets with Gen. Franks at CentCom headquarters in Tampa and they review the existing operating plan, OPLAN 1003.

December 1, 2001 – Rumsfeld asks Franks to develop a commander’s estimate as the basis for a new war plan.

December 4, 2001 – Franks presents a video conference for Rumsfeld on his commander’s estimate, outlining robust, reduced, and unilateral plans based on levels of regional support (see Tab A).

December 28, 2001 – Gen. Franks briefs President Bush at Crawford on the commander’s estimate calling for an invasion force of 275,000 troops.

January 29, 2002 – President Bush targets Iraq in his “axis of evil” State of the Union speech.

February 1, 2002 – Gen. Franks presents Generated Start, a plan building to 275,000 troops, to Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

March 3, 2002 – Gen. Franks briefs President Bush again on Generated Start, but there is pressure from Rumsfeld to reduce troop levels.

March 10, 2002 – Vice President Cheney begins a Middle East tour seeking support from friendly governments for the invasion of Iraq.

March 21, 2002 – Gen. Franks meets with commanders at Ramstein, Germany on planning that still calls for 5 and 2/3rds divisions but emphasizes a faster march to Baghdad.

March 29, 2002 – Gen. Franks briefs the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

April 20, 2002 – Gen. Franks briefs President Bush at Camp David on planning, calling for war to begin with 180,000 troops, ramping up to 250,000.

April 20, 2002 – A PowerPoint slide on “Phase I Operations” lists the following, among other steps: 1) Secure international/regional support; 2) Posture forces for offensive operations; 3) Enhance intelligence and targeting; 4) Degrade and deceive Iraqi regime; 5) Deter Iraqi internal and external operations; 6) Prepare Iraqi opposition groups for action (see Tab D).

May 10, 2002 – PowerPoint slides on a “Compartmented Plan Update” summarize several matters: timing; “enabling actions” for war, including continuing “OGA [CIA] covert action” in U.S.-controlled northern Iraq “which started 4-5 months earlier,” “post-regime government strategy,” and “strategic information operations;” force deployment; and Phase IV (post-conflict) actions, including “ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq,” The expected duration of Phase IV: months (see Tab C).

May 11, 2002 – Gen. Franks presents the “Running Start” plan to Bush at Camp David, speeding up the invasion, using “Red, White, and Blue air strike plans” as a bridge to war, launching with only one Marine Expeditionary Unit and 2 Army brigades or, maximum version, two divisions.

May 21, 2002 – When asked by the press “how many troops,” Gen. Franks says, “That’s a great question and one for which I don’t have an answer because my boss has not yet asked me to put together a plan to do that. They have not asked me for those kinds of numbers. And I guess I would tell you, if there comes a time when my boss asks me that, then I’d rather provide those sorts of assessments to him. But thanks for the question.” (Gordon/Trainor p. 52, Ricks p. 38)

June 19, 2002 – Gen. Franks briefs President Bush again on Generated Start and discusses ongoing work on Running Start.

June 27-28, 2002 – Gen. Franks tells his commanders at Ramstein to focus on Running Start because of the administration’s impatience.

August 1-2, 2002 – Gen. Franks meets his commanders at Tampa and tells them they need to be prepared to attack Iraq immediately if so ordered. But there are concerns that Running Start will result in a larger number of U.S. casualties.

August 4, 2002 – PowerPoint slides on “Compartmented Concept Update 4 Aug 2002” summarize the Generated Start plan, the Running Start plan, a Modified plan, and Phase IV actions, including “Establish a secure environment and assist in recovery and reconstruction” and “free individuals unjustly detained” (see Tab L).

August 5, 2002 – Gen. Franks briefs the president and the NSC on war planning (see Tab K and Tab L), and discusses the Hybrid concept. According to Gordon/Trainor, “it was a hit at the White House,” though Franks saw that Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts. Powell later called Franks to express his concern about force levels.

August 5, 2002 – Colin Powell tells President Bush after dinner, “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people . . . . You’ll own it all.” (Woodward, p. 150) (This the supposed “Pottery Barn rule”: you break it, you own it.)

August 14, 2002 – Gen. Franks and Maj. Gen. Gene Renuart meet with Rumsfeld and update him on the Hybrid option.

August 15, 2002 – PowerPoint slides on “Compartmented Planning Effort 15 August 2002” (Tab I) provide background on planning, noting “POTUS/SECDEF directed effort; limited to a very small group . . . Integrate / consider all elements of national power . . . Thinking ‘outside the box’, but ‘inside a compartment’.” “Key Planning Assumptions” for Generated Start included “DoS will promote creation of a broad-based, credible provisional government – prior to D-day” [invasion], and “Iraqi regime has WMD capability.”

August 26, 2002 – Vice President Cheney speaks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars targeting Iraq.

September 6, 2002 – Gen. Franks meets with President Bush and the NSC to review war planning. “Can we win this thing?” asks Bush. “Absolutely,” says Franks. (Gordon/Trainor 74)

December 12, 2002 – Rumsfeld meets with Gen. Franks and with Lt. Gen. McKiernan, who argues that the Hybrid plan should be replaced with the Cobra II alternative that he has developed calling for a larger invading force. By the end of the month it is understood that Rumsfeld has essentially endorsed Cobra II. (Gordon/Trainor 93)

March 20, 2003 – The U.S. invades Iraq.

See here the detailed invasion plans as PDF downloads

Tab A – page 8

Tab H – page 5

Tab I – page 2

Tab I – page 4

Tab K

Tab K – page 1

Tab L

SECRET – American Friends of Bilderberg 2007-2009 Tax Returns

AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BILDERBERG, INC.
C/O JAMES JOHNSON, PERSEUS, LLC
1325 AVE OF THE AMERICAS, 25TH FL
NEW YORK, NY 10019

(212) 651-6400

EIN: 51-0163715

https://i0.wp.com/publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bilderberg-2009.png

AmericanBilderberg-2007

AmericanBilderberg-2008

AmericanBilderberg-2009

DOWNLOAD LINKS ABOVE

TOP-SECRET – 2010 Bilderberg Meeting Participant List

BILDERBERG MEETINGS
Sitges, Spain
3-6 June 2010
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Honorary Chairman:

BEL Davignon, Etienne Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays Bank PLC
ESP Alierta, César Chairman and CEO, Telefónica
INT Almunia, Joaquín Commissioner, European Commission
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
USA Arrison, Sonia Author and policy analyst
SWE Bäckström, Urban Director General, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
ITA Bernabè, Franco CEO, Telecom Italia S.p.A.
SWE Bildt, Carl Minister of Foreign Affairs
FIN Blåfield, Antti Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat
ESP Botín, Ana P. Executive Chairman, Banesto
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher and Editor, Der Standard
TUR Çakir, Ruşen Journalist
CAN Campbell, Gordon Premier of British Columbia
ESP Carvajal Urquijo, Jaime Managing Director, Advent International
FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA
ESP Cisneros, Gustavo A. Chairman and CEO, Cisneros Group of Companies
CAN Clark, W. Edmund President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group
USA Collins, Timothy C. Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel SpA
GRC David, George A. Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A.
DNK Eldrup, Anders CEO, DONG Energy
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus SAS
ESP Entrecanales, José M. Chairman, Acciona
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Vice President Global Affairs, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Feldstein, Martin S. George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University
AUT Fischer, Heinz Federal President
IRL Gallagher, Paul Attorney General
USA Gates, William H. Co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Chairman, Microsoft Corporation
USA Gordon, Philip H. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner, European Commission
TUR Gürel, Z. Damla Special Adviser to the President on EU Affairs
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Holbrooke, Richard C. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
NLD Hommen, Jan H.M. Chairman, ING Group
USA Hormats, Robert D. Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs
BEL Huyghebaert, Jan Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
FIN Katainen, Jyrki Minister of Finance
USA Keane, John M. Senior Partner, SCP Partners
GBR Kerr, John Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc.
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.Ş.
USA Kravis, Henry R. Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
INT Kroes, Neelie Commissioner, European Commission
USA Lander, Eric S. President and Director, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
FRA Lauvergeon, Anne Chairman of the Executive Board, AREVA
ESP León Gross, Bernardino Secretary General, Office of the Prime Minister
DEU Löscher, Peter Chairman of the Board of Management, Siemens AG
NOR Magnus, Birger Chairman, Storebrand ASA
CAN Mansbridge, Peter Chief Correspondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
ITA Monti, Mario President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
INT Moyo, Dambisa F. Economist and Author
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
NOR Myklebust, Egil Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA
USA Naím, Moisés Editor-in-Chief, Foreign Policy
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María President and CEO, La Caixa
DNK Nyrup Rasmussen, Poul Former Prime Minister
GBR Oldham, John National Clinical Lead for Quality and Productivity
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc
USA Orszag, Peter R. Director, Office of Management and Budget
TUR Özilhan, Tuncay Chairman, Anadolu Group
ITA Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso Former Minister of Finance; President of Notre Europe
GRC Papaconstantinou, George Minister of Finance
USA Parker, Sean Managing Partner, Founders Fund
USA Pearl, Frank H. Chairman and CEO, Perseus, LLC
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
ESP Polanco, Ignacio Chairman, Grupo PRISA
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. President and CEO, Metrolinx
FRA Ramanantsoa, Bernard Dean, HEC Paris Group
PRT Rangel, Paulo Member, European Parliament
CAN Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
SWE Renström, Lars President and CEO, Alfa Laval
NLD Rinnooy Kan, Alexander H.G. Chairman, Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER)
ITA Rocca, Gianfelice Chairman, Techint
ESP Rodriguez Inciarte, Matías Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander
USA Rose, Charlie Producer, Rose Communications
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
TUR Sabanci Dinçer, Suzan Chairman, Akbank
ITA Scaroni, Paolo CEO, Eni S.p.A.
USA Schmidt, Eric CEO and Chairman of the Board, Google
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
DEU Scholz, Olaf Vice Chairman, SPD
INT Sheeran, Josette Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
INT Solana Madariaga, Javier Former Secretary General, Council of the European Union
ESP Spain, H.M. the Queen of
USA Steinberg, James B. Deputy Secretary of State
INT Stigson, Björn President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
USA Summers, Lawrence H. Director, National Economic Council
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
GBR Taylor, J. Martin Chairman, Syngenta International AG
PRT Teixeira dos Santos, Fernando Minister of State and Finance
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, ELIAMEP
INT Tumpel-Gugerell, Gertrude Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank
USA Varney, Christine A. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
USA Volcker, Paul A. Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
CHE Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
FIN Wahlroos, Björn Chairman, Sampo plc
CHE Waldvogel, Francis A. Chairman, Novartis Venture Fund
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
NLD Wellink, Nout President, De Nederlandsche Bank
USA West, F.J. Bing Author
GBR Williams, Shirley Member, House of Lords
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC
ESP Zapatero, José Luis Rodríguez Prime Minister
DEU Zetsche, Dieter Chairman, Daimler AG
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group
Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Business Correspondent, The Economist

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL – 2011 Bilderberg Meeting Participant List

Participant list and press release from the official Bilderberg Meetings website.  If you have access to an original copy of the following attendance list or information regarding any of the Bilderberg Meetings, including official copies of participant lists.

BILDERBERG MEETINGS
St. Moritz, Switzerland
9-12 June 2011
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BEL Davignon, Etienne Minister of State, Honorary Chairman
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays PLC
USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, USCYBERCOM; Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Competition
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Bazire, Nicolas Managing Director, Groupe Arnault /LVMH
ITA Bernabè, Franco CEO, Telecom Italia SpA
USA Bezos, Jeff Founder and CEO, Amazon.com
SWE Bildt, Carl Minister of Foreign Affairs
SWE Björling, Ewa Minister for Trade
NLD Bolland, Marc J. Chief Executive, Marks and Spencer Group plc
CHE Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter Chairman, Nestlé S.A.
AUT Bronner, Oscar CEO and Publisher, Standard Medien AG
CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada
FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA
NLD Chavannes, Marc E. Political Columnist, NRC Handelsblad; Professor of Journalism, University of Groningen
TUR Ciliv, Süreyya CEO, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S.
CAN Clark, Edmund President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group
BEL Coene, Luc Governor, National Bank of Belgium
USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ESP Cospedal, María Dolores de Secretary General, Partido Popular
INT Daele, Frans van Chief of Staff to the President of the European Council
GRC David, George A. Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A.
DNK Eldrup, Anders CEO, DONG Energy
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus SAS
AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Vice President, Global Affairs, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Feldstein, Martin S. George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
PRT Ferreira Alves, Clara CEO, Claref LDA; writer
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
IRL Gallagher, Paul Senior Counsel; Former Attorney General
CHE Groth, Hans Senior Director, Healthcare Policy & Market Access, Oncology Business Unit, Pfizer Europe
TUR Gülek Domac, Tayyibe Former Minister of State
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
GRC Hardouvelis, Gikas A. Chief Economist and Head of Research, Eurobank EFG
USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University
USA Hughes, Chris R. Co-founder, Facebook
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman & CEO, Lazard
CHE Janom Steiner, Barbara Head of the Department of Justice, Security and Health, Canton Grisons
FIN Johansson, Ole Chairman, Confederation of the Finnish Industries EK
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
USA Keane, John M. Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired
GBR Kerr, John Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
CHE Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA
GBR Lambert, Richard Independent Non-Executive Director, Ernst & Young
INT Lamy, Pascal Director General, World Trade Organization
ESP León Gross, Bernardino Secretary General of the Spanish Presidency
CHE Leuthard, Doris Federal Councillor
FRA Lévy, Maurice Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe S.A.
BEL Leysen, Thomas Chairman, Umicore
USA Li, Cheng Senior Fellow and Director of Research, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
IRL McDowell, Michael Senior Counsel, Law Library; Former Deputy Prime Minister
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
ITA Monti, Mario President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
RUS Mordashov, Alexey A. CEO, Severstal
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
NOR Myklebust, Egil Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA
DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María President and CEO, La Caixa
PRT Nogueira Leite, António Member of the Board, José de Mello Investimentos, SGPS, SA
NOR Norway, H.R.H. Crown Prince Haakon of
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc
CAN Orbinksi, James Professor of Medicine and Political Science, University of Toronto
USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
GBR Osborne, George Chancellor of the Exchequer
NOR Ottersen, Ole Petter Rector, University of Oslo
GRC Papaconstantinou, George Minister of Finance
TUR Pekin, Şefika Founding Partner, Pekin & Bayar Law Firm
FIN Pentikäinen, Mikael Publisher and Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
CAN Reisman, Heather Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
USA Rockefeller, David Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank
INT Rompuy, Herman van President, European Council
USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
NLD Rosenthal, Uri Minister of Foreign Affairs
AUT Rothensteiner, Walter Chairman of the Board, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG
FRA Roy, Olivier Professor of Social and Political Theory, European University Institute
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
ITA Scaroni, Paolo CEO, Eni S.p.A.
CHE Schmid, Martin President, Government of the Canton Grisons
USA Schmidt, Eric Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
DNK Schütze, Peter Member of the Executive Management, Nordea Bank AB
CHE Schweiger, Rolf Member of the Swiss Council of States
INT Sheeran, Josette Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
CHE Soiron, Rolf Chairman of the Board, Holcim Ltd., Lonza Ltd.
INT Solana Madariaga, Javier President, ESADEgeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics
NOR Solberg, Erna Leader of the Conservative Party
ESP Spain, H.M. the Queen of
USA Steinberg, James B. Deputy Secretary of State
DEU Steinbrück, Peer Member of the Bundestag; Former Minister of Finance
GBR Stewart, Rory Member of Parliament
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
GBR Taylor, J. Martin Chairman, Syngenta International AG
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
ITA Tremonti, Giulio Minister of Economy and Finance
INT Trichet, Jean-Claude President, European Central Bank
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, ELIAMEP
USA Varney, Christine A. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
USA Vaupel, James W. Founding Director, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Former Governor, Federal Reserve Board
NLD Winter, Jaap W. Partner, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
CHE Witmer, Jürg Chairman, Givaudan SA and Clariant AG
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group
Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

Press Release

Bilderberg Meetings

The 59th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in St. Moritz, Switzerland from 9 – 12 June 2011. The Conference will deal mainly with Challenges for Growth: Innovation and Budgetary Discipline, the Euro and Challenges for the European Union, the role of Emerging Economies, Social Networks: Connectivity and Security Issues, New Challenges in the Middle East, Conflict Areas, Demographic Challenges, China, Switzerland: Can it remain successful in the future?

Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America and other countries. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education, and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion.

Bilderberg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on common problems of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.

The Cold War has now ended. But in practically all respects there are more, not fewer, common problems – from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment, from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. It is hard to think of any major issue in either Europe or North America whose unilateral solution would not have repercussions for the other.
Thus the concept of  a European-American forum has not been overtaken by time. The dialogue between these two regions  is still – even increasingly – critical.

What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow  participants to speak their minds openly and freely.

In short, Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-eight conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press.  Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.

For further information refer to www.bilderbergmeetings.org. A list of participants is attached.

9 June 2011

Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General Special Review – Counterterroism Detention and Interrogation Activities

Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General Special Review

  • 259 pages
  • Redacted
  • May 7, 2004

https://i0.wp.com/www.publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cia-oig-report-plus.jpg

 

cia-oig-report-plus

 

DOWNLOAD LINK ABOVE

TOP-SECRET-U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe

German Bundestag

  • Hans M. Kristensen, Consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council
  • 27 pages

The mission

Three main reason used for retaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe:

  • Russia could turn bad and still has a lot of nonstrategic nuclear weapons
  • Symbol of continued U.S. commitment to NATO: provides trans-Atlantic glue
  • Other countries on NATO’s southern periphery are developing weapons of mass destruction

USNuclearWeaponsinEurope

DOWNLOAD LINK ABOVE

German Federal Police Forensic Analysis of Cell Phones and SIM Cards

Bundeskriminalamt

  • 14 pages
  • © 2008 Katja Koennecke
  • Technical Service Center of Information and
    Communication Services

    • Logical and physical analysis of cell phones and SIM cards
    • Cases:
    • Theft, Murder, Rape, etc.
    • And Terrorism

    Logical Analysis in a Nutshell

    • Commercial Products:
    • Oxygen, .XRY, MobileEdit, etc.
    • AT Commands, OBEX Command
    • Manufacturer Software Products
    • Hardware: IRDA, USB Cable

  • GermanyMobileForensics

  • DWOWNLOAD LINK ABOVE

UK High Court Decision Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority – download

This decision by the Queen’s Bench Division of the UK High Court of Justice in the matter of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority in full length – for download click on link below.

UK-AssangeJudgment

Bombing of Cuban Jetliner 30 Years Later

Bombing of Cuban Jetliner
30 Years Later
New Documents on Luis Posada Posted as Texas Court Weighs Release from Custody

Colgate Toothpaste Disguised Plastic Explosives in 1976 Terrorist Attack

Confessions, Kissinger Reports, and Overview of Posada Career Posted

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 202

This November 5, 1976, report from FBI director Clarence Kelly to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggested that Posada had attended meetings in Caracas where the plane bombing was planned.

Washington D.C., November 2, 2011 – On the 30th anniversary of the first and only mid-air bombing of a civilian airliner in the Western Hemisphere, the National Security Archive today posted on the Web new investigative records that further implicate Luis Posada Carriles in that crime of international terrorism. Among the documents posted is an annotated list of four volumes of still-secret records on Posada’s career with the CIA, his acts of violence, and his suspected involvement in the bombing of Cubana flight 455 on October 6, 1976, which took the lives of all 73 people on board, many of them teenagers.

The National Security Archive, which has sought the declassification of the Posada files through the Freedom of Information Act, today called on the U.S. government to release all intelligence files on Posada. “Now is the time for the government to come clean on Posada’s covert past and his involvement in international terrorism,” said Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive’s Cuba Documentation Project. “His victims, the public, and the courts have a right to know.”

Posada has been in detention in El Paso, Texas, for illegal entry into the United States, but a magistrate has recommended that he be released this week because the Bush administration has not certified that he is a terrorist.

Among the documents posted today are four sworn affidavits by police officials in Trinidad and Tobago, who were the first to interrogate the two Venezuelans–Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo–who were arrested for placing the bomb on flight 455. (Their statements were turned over as evidence to a special investigative commission in Barbados after the crime.) Information derived from the interrogations suggested that the first call the bombers placed after the attack was to the office of Luis Posada’s security company ICI, which employed Ricardo. Ricardo claimed to have been a CIA agent (but later retracted that claim). He said that he had been paid $16,000 to sabotage the plane and that Lugo was paid $8,000.

The interrogations revealed that a tube of Colgate toothpaste had been used to disguise plastic explosives that were set off with a “pencil-type” detonator on a timer after Ricardo and Lugo got off the plane during a stopover in Barbados. Ricardo “in his own handwriting recorded the steps to be taken before a bomb was placed in an aircraft and how a plastic bomb is detonated,” deputy commissioner of police Dennis Elliott Ramdwar testified in his affidavit.

The Archive also released three declassified FBI intelligence reports that were sent to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger after the bombing. The updates, classified “secret” and signed by director Clarence Kelly, focused on the relations between the FBI legal attaché in Caracas, Joseph Leo, Posada, and one of the Venezuelans who placed the bomb on the plane, to whom Leo had provided a visa. One report from Kelly, based on the word of an informant in Venezuela, suggested that Posada had attended meetings in Caracas where the plane bombing was planned. The document also quoted an informant as stating that after the plane went into the ocean one of the bombers placed a call to Orlando Bosch, the leading conspirator in the plot, and stated: “a bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff and all got killed.”

Another State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research report to Kissinger, posted again today, noted that the CIA had a source in Venezuela who had overheard Posada saying “we are going to hit a Cuban airplane” and “Orlando has the details” only days before the plane was blown up off the coast of Barbados.

Both Bosch and Posada were arrested and imprisoned in Venezuela after the attack. Posada escaped from prison in September 1985; Bosch was released in 1987 and returned to the United States illegally. Like Posada, he was detained by immigration authorities; over the objections of the Justice Department, which determined he was a threat to public security, the first President Bush’s White House issued him an administrative pardon in 1990.

Still-secret intelligence documents cited in the file review released today suggest that the CIA assigned several cryptonyms to Posada when he was working for them, first as an operative and trainer in demolitions and later as an informant based in the Venezuelan secret police service DISIP. In 1965 he was assigned the codename “AMCLEVE-15.” In 1972 he “was given a new crypt CIFENCE-4,” according to a still-unreleased CIA document, and later referred to as “WKSCARLET-3.”


Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
House Select Committee on Assassinations, LUIS POSADA CARRILES, ca. 1978

In 1978, investigators for a special committee investigation into the death of President John F. Kennedy conducted a comprehensive review of CIA, FBI, DEA and State Department intelligence files relating to the life, operations and violent activities of Luis Posada Carriles. The committee examined four volumes containing dozens of secret memos, cables and reports, dating from 1963 to 1977, relating to Posada’s employment by the CIA, his efforts to overthrow the Castro government, his transfer to Venezuela, and his involvement in the bombing of Cubana flight 455. Investigators for the committee were able to take notes on the documents and compile this list, which was declassified by the CIA as part of the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board work in the late 1990s. The annotated list of documents represents a rare but comprehensive overview of Posada’s relations with U.S. intelligence agencies and his career in violence. The National Security Archive is seeking the full declassification of documents through the Freedom of Information Act.

State Department, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Memorandum, “Castro’s Allegations,” October 18, 1976

The first report to Secretary of State Kissinger from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research on the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 details Cuba’s allegation that the CIA was involved in the bombing and provides an outline of the suspects’ relationship to the U.S. The report notes that a CIA source had overheard Posada prior to the bombing in late September 1976 stating that, “We are going to hit a Cuban airliner.” This information was apparently not passed to the CIA until after the plane went down. (This document was originally posted on May 18, 2005.)

FBI, Letter to Kissinger, [Regarding Special Agent Leo], October 20, 1976

This report to Secretary of State Kissinger from Clarence M. Kelly, director of the FBI, explains the association between Joseph S. Leo, Special Agent and Legal Attaché in Caracas, to the suspects of the Cubana Airlines Flight 455 bombing. Investigators found Leo’s name among the possessions of Hernan Ricardo Lozano, one of the suspects implicated in the bombing. The report notes that there were at least two contacts between Lozano and Leo in the weeks leading up to the bombing.

FBI, Letter to Kissinger, [Regarding Contact with Bombing Suspects], October 29, 1976

The second report to Secretary of State Kissinger from Clarence M. Kelly, director of the FBI, provides additional information regarding the relationship between Special Agent Leo and the Cubana Airlines bombing suspects. The report details Leo’s contacts with Lozano and Posada going back to the summer of 1975, and notes that Leo suspected Posada and Hernan Ricardo Lozano of acts of terrorism, but still granted Ricardo’s request for a visa to the United States.

FBI, Letter to Kissinger, [Regarding Ricardo Morales Navarette], November 5, 1976

A third report to Secretary of State Kissinger from Clarence M. Kelly, director of the FBI, relays information from a confidential FBI source that the bombing of the Cubana Airlines flight was planned in Caracas, Venezuela by Luis Posada Carriles, Frank Castro, and Ricardo Morales Navarrete. The source states that the group had made previous unsuccessful attempts to bomb Cuban aircraft in Jamaica and Panama. Shortly after the plane crashed, bombing suspect Hernan Ricardo Lozano telephoned Bosch stating, “a bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff and all got killed.” The source also states that anti-Castro Cuban exiles working with the Chilean National Directorate for Intelligence (DINA) carried out the assassination of Orlando Letelier in Washington, DC on September 21, 1976.

Statements to Police in Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security, October 27, 1976, [Randolph Burroughs deposition regarding Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo]

Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, Randolph Burroughs’ report notes that Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo checked into the Holiday Inn Hotel near the airport in Port-of-Spain under the names Jose Garcia and Freddy Perez on the day of the crash. Burroughs’ report also states that Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo originally said that they knew nothing about the Cubana airlines plane crash when he approached them for questioning at their hotel on the morning of October 7, 1976.

Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security, October 27, 1976, [Oscar King deposition regarding Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo]

Corporal Oscar King of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service attended the interviews with Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo Lozano. His statement records Lozano saying that Freddy Lugo boarded the plane with two cameras and that on his arrival in Barbados he only had one camera. Lozano further states that he is sure that the bomb was inside of the other camera.

Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security, October 26, 1976, [Gordon Waterman deposition regarding Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo]

Trinidad and Tobago Senior Superintendent of Police Gordon Waterman’s written deposition attests to statements made by Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo while the two were detained by the Criminal Investigation Department in Port-of-Spain. According to Waterman’s report, Lozano states that he and Lugo are paid members of the CIA. (He later retracted that statement.) Prior to admitting that he and Lugo bombed the plane, Lozano tells Deputy Commissioner Ramdwar, “If you use your police brain, it would be clear to you who bombed the plane.”

Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security, October 26, 1976, [Dennis Elliott Ramdwar deposition regarding Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo]

Trinidad and Tobago Deputy Commissioner of Police Dennis Ramdwar led the inquiries regarding the crash of Cubana Airline Flight 455. In his written statement he notes that Freddy Lugo initially denied knowledge of the crash. Eight days later, Lugo tells Ramdwar that he is convinced that Lozano placed the bomb on the aircraft. He states that Ricardo told him twice that he was going to blow up a Cubana aircraft as the two were headed to the airport prior to the bombing. In a separate interview, Lozano gives Ramdwar details of how a “certain chemical is filled in a tube of Colgate toothpaste after the toothpaste is extracted” to construct the bomb.

SODOM UND “GoMoPa” – NEO-STASI ERPRESST ÜBER 4.000 MENSCHEN UND FIRMEN

Liebe Leser,

über 4.o00 Menschen und Firmen wurden und werden von STASI-”GoMoPa” gestalkt und erpresst.

Dies hat zu einem – so erste Schätzungen von Schadensexperten – Schaden von über € 1 Milliarde geführt, nimmt man als Berechnungsgrundlage

die im Falle von Meridian Capital geforderte Erpressungssumme.

Der immaterielle Schäden durch zerstörte menschliche Leben und Schicksale, dieser “Dämonen im Internet” (Eigenbezeichnung von Ober-Stalker “Klaus Maurischat”) ist noch viel höher und nur mit dem von der DDR-Gestapo angerichteten Schaden vergleichbar, deren Nachfolgeorganisation die fingierten “Goldman, Morgenstern u. Partner” – “GoMoPa” zweifelsohne sind.

Darunter sind auch etliche Todesfälle und viele Personen und Firmen, die nicht auf der 4.o00 Fälle umfassenden “Warnliste”, besser Stalking, Betrugs- und Erpresserliste auftauchen.

Hinzu kommen zahlreiche Fälle von Börsenmanipulation wie im Falle “Wirecard” mit Pennystocks aus der US-Corporation-Schmiede von “GoMoPa”-Partner  “Graf” “Dr.” Stenbock.

Organisierte Kriminalität im ganz grossen Stil.

Wir bleiben am Ball.

Herzlichst Ihr

Magister Pernd Pulch

DIE “GoMoPa”-Opferliste 2010 – getarnt als “Warnliste” von den fingierten “Goldman, Morgenstern u. Partnern” erstellt

Folgende Firmen und Personen wurden u.a. von Peter Ehlers (wenn er denn so heisst) und “GoMoPa”, dem STASI-”NACHICHTENDIENST” seit Jahresanfang 2010– ohne jeden Beweis – verunglimpft und verleumdet u.a mit fingierten Presseberichten, fingierten Anzeigen und insbesondere im fingierten “OMoPa”-Berufsverbrecherportal verleumdet, um daraus Profit für Ihren postkommunistischen Saftladen zu schlagen:

GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
2
 Anton
 Abdul Sheikh
 Abraham
 Akcay
 Aksoy
 Aktürk
 Alexandre
 Alsguth
 Arnold
 Arnol Arslan
 Artschwager
 A & G Insurance Corporation
A & O Finanz- und Immobilenvertriebsservice GmbH
A+B Finanz
A+K Fina
 AA Capital
 ABAG BETEI
 Abbey House Acquisitions
 ABC Finanzdienst
 Accent-Finanz GmbH
 ACCENTA IMMOBILIEN MANAGEMENT AG
 ACI Alternative Capital Invest GmbH
 Acoreus Collection Service
 Acorn Consulting
 Activ 3000 GmbH
 Activa GmbH
 Activa Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH
 Actiwa Vermittlung von Finanz- und Vorsorgekonzepten e.K.
 Adeshieman Company
 Aditus Fonds GbR
 Admus AG
 Adolph & Komorsky International GmbH
 Advance Invest AG
 ADVANCE INVEST AG S.A.
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
3
 Advanced Group Kuwait
 Advanced Program Trading AG
 Advin Consult Finanzierungsvermittlungs GmbH
 Advisa Consulting GmbH
 Aeternus Energy Corp
 AFG AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP INC.
 Agentur Herold
 Agentur Leif Schurig
 AGR Allgemeine Gewerbedatei e.K.
 Ahorn Trust AG
 AIF Bank & Trust Company
 AJPA Broker SA
 Akeman Capital
 AKJ Allgemeine Leasing AG
 AKJ Privatfinanz AG
 AKJ-Firmengruppe
 AKK Dienstleistungs GmbH
 Aktienpower AG
 AktienPowerMarketing GmbH
 Akzenta AG
 Albion Investment Management
 Alexander Freiherr von Pillnitz & Berenberg Treuhandgesellschaft 1908 Limited
 Allgemeine Giro 24 GmbH
 ALLGEMEINE IMMOBILIEN-BÖRSE GmbH
 ALMO Hausbau GmbH
 Alpha Finanzsanierungs GmbH
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
4
 Alpha Oil Inc.
 Alphapool AG
 Alpina Finanz GmbH
 Alternative Capital Invest
 ALV Auto-Leasing und Vermietungs GmbH
 Alvino Group
 AMBROS/VBS
 American Investment & Finance Corporation
 AMK Akustikbau GmbH
 AMK Immobilienbetreuung GmbH
 Anderson & Goldberg S. L.
 Anderson McCormack Group S.L
 Anderton Stoner&Partner
 Anglo African Minerals plc
 Ango-Käufer-Service GmbH & Co. KG
 Antassia GmbH
 Anthony & Carter
 Apex Investments Corporation
 Apex Trading Group
 Applied Cash International
 APT Advanced Program Trading AG
 Aquaorbis AG
 ARCADIA Finanz- & Wirtschaftsberatung
 Arena GmbH
 Argos Finanz GmbH
 Ario AG
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
5
 Armaco
 Art Bauträger u. Immobilienhandelsgesellschaft mbH
 Artemis Financial
 AS Bau Berlin
 ASC AG für Satellitenkommunikation
 ASCANIA Vermögensverwaltung
 Ascor Media Ltd.
 ASG GmbH
 Assecura-Assecuranz Vermittlungs GmbH
 Associated Management Group
 Associated Management Group (AMG Zurich)
 Aston Rowe Consulting Advisory
 Atlantis Exploration AG
 Atlantis-Genossenschaft
 Au Vi Product GmbH
 Aufina Holding
 Aurora Gold Corp.
 Australian Lottery
 Autosafe Parkhaus AG
 Autotester 24
 AVAG Allgemeine Vermögensverwaltung AG
 AVAG-Funds
 AVD AG
 AVM AG
 AvW Invest AG
 AXXIOM AG
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
6
 Azalenia Basel AG
 Amaxopoulus
 Arntzen
 Aniol
 Altmann, Dr.
 Assenmacher
 Appel
 Aulenbach
 Aengenheister
 Amonath
 Asmus
 Almer
 Anlauf
 Aniol
 Blon von
 Barney
 Bajcar
 Bronischewski
 Butler
 Becker
 Berger
 Burat
 Buettner
 Behring
 Baumert
 Becker
 Bünning
 Bok
 Bahcecioglu
 Bahceli
 Balicioglu
 Balogh
 Barteczko
 Becker
 Bergenthal
 Bindokat
 Böhrer
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
7
 Born
 Bortstein
 Busch
 Böhm
 Braun
 Blum
 B u. S Technologie GmbH
 Bachmann Roth Advisory
 Badenia Bausparkasse
 Bagleys Investment Company
 Baltica Savings & Investment Cop.
 Bank Leumi AG
 Bankgesellschaft Berlin
 Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL)
 Barlow & Ramsey
 Barringer and Co.
 Basel Institutional
 Basic Trading Solution Ltd.
 Bau- und Grund Immobilien GmbH
 Bauconsult Gesell. für Haus- u. Grundbesitz
 Baucontrol GmbH
 Baufinanzierungszentrum Berlin – Karlshorst
 BAV-Konzept Versicherungsmakler GmbH
 Bavaria Invest Finanzmanagement
 Bavaria Trading Company
 Baye Invest
 BÖRSENPOWER Coaching und Verwaltungsges.m.b.H.
 BBAP Assekuranzmakler & Finanzdienstleistungs GmbH
 BeFa Invest GbmH & Co KG
 BelSwissBank
 BEMA Investitions- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft GmbH
 Benedict Lifeline GmbH
 BENEDICT Star GmbH
 Benitex AG
 Benson & Raymond Acquisition
 Berger Daniel
 Bergues Invest SA
 Bestgambling.Com
 BESTLIFESELECT AG
 BF Bayerische Baufinanz GmbH
 BFS Neckarsulm
 BFTS AG Schweiz
 BHG Baugenossenschaft Hockenheim e.G
 BIK Bauträger
 Biotech Development
 Bishop & Parkes Advisory
 Blanc & Baumar
 Blinder International
 BLISTER YACHTING GMBH
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
8
 Bloomfield Consulting AG
 Bond and Future Group Ltd.
 Bonetti & Wilmers
 Bonus Bauträgergesellschaft mbH
 Borsa Financial Inc.
 BR Consultance Alfaz S.L.
 Branchenklick
 Branko Financial Service
 BRAZIL-INVEST-VC LTDA
 RDS-Dienstleistungen
 Breadley Steigenberger & Partner (BSP)
 BREBA Invest S.L.
 Brentana Wohnbau GmbH
 Brett Commodities GmbH
 Bright Capital Banker Ltd
 Britannia Swiss Equities – BSE AG
 Brodowski Dach- und Fassadenbau GmbH
 Brodowski und Deyna Immobilien GmbH
 Brokers Society Sociedad de Gesti? Tramitaci Financier
 Brown & Lampe U.S. Portfolio Management Ltd.
 BSD GmbH
 Bullion Trading Group
 Bund der Verbraucher (BDV)
 Burbach Consulting GmbH
 Business Partner Credit GmbH
 Brauer
 Bogatz
 Birner
 Bastert
 Baeuerle
 Bertges
 Barteczko
 Bertges
 Beyer
 Bogatz
 Bender
 Bens
 Bösebeck
 Bouderi
 Baan
 Bender
 Birkins
 BECK
 Barthel
 Beyreuther
 Banghard
 Bohrmann
 Bauer
 Bludau
 Bajcar
 Bernhart
 Belkenheid
 Barthel
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
9
 Baumbach
 Barde
 Casula
 Carsten
 Celik
 Cengiz
 Clemann
 Cura
 Cuti
 Cuti
 Campa
 C & P Mutual
 C. Gewerbeimmobilien
 Callux Forderungsmanagement
 Calvin & Sanderson Associates
 Cambridge Asset Management AG
 Cameron Poe & Associates Inc.
 CAP-NETWORK AG
 Capital Securities International
 Capitalinform Limited SA
 Capitalinform Limited SA
 Car Leasing Agency Ltd.
 Carsten Haus GmbH
 Carver Brooks & Associates Ltd.
 Cash Group AG
 Cash-Immobilien GmbH
 Cashselect
 CasMaker Ltd.
 Castor Capital
 Cater & Sattler OHG
 Caviar Creator Inc
 CB Freie Versicherungsmakler GmbH
 CBC
 CDH AG
 Census Grund GmbH & Co KG
 Centracon
 Centracon Investment AG
 Centro Euro Service AG
 Centro Euro Service AG
 Centro-Service GmbH
 Ceptum AG
 Ceres Warenhandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH
 Certus Consulting
 CH Devisen Macht SA
 CHEAPLY SMOKING CLUB
 Chiemgauer Vermögensverwaltung
 Chips Virtual Casino
 CIC Insurance Company SA
 Cinerenta Gesellschaft für Internationale Filmproduktion mbH
 Cis Deutschland AG
 City Hyp Finanzierungsvermittlung
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
10
 City Zins Finanzierungsvermittlungs AG
 CL Inkasso AG
 CL Inkasso AG
 Clean Lease GmbH
 CLEAN PATENT GMBH
 Club Alanzo VIP Cruises
 CMP Global Consulting Ltd
 CMX Capital Markets Exchange AG
 CNP Casino
 Colebrooke Management Holdings
 Color für Kinder e.V.
 Comitas Agentur VSV
 Commercial Development Bank
 Commercial First Trading Corporation
 Complete Commodity Trading
 Comroad AG
 ComTex Vermögens- und Verwaltungs GmbH
 OMVAL Capital AG
 Concorde International – Business Consultants
 Condor Gold and Minerals Inc.
 Conductis GmbH
 Conik Invest
 Coninvest Finanz AG
 Conradi & Hilger Gbr mbH
 Consens Gesellschaft für Projektentwicklung u. Vermittlung von Immobilien
 Consolidated Capital Management Limited (CCML)
 Content Services Ltd.
 Contracta Grundstücksmanagement GmbH
 Convent Consulting GmbH
 CONVERGEX CARIBBEAN, LTD.
 Conzeptfinance Ltd.
 Cooperativa Extranjero de Credito y Investiamento SA
 Cornhill Management S.L.
 Cosena Management S.L.
 CP Medien AG
 CPTD – Central Patent & Trademark Database
 CR Consulting GmbH
 Credit for you Limited
 Credit Mirabaud
 Creditnet Bank Internationale
 CS Capital Service GmbH
 CST Umwelttechnik und Innovation e.G.
 Cumulus Gesellschaft für Immobilien- Investitionen mbH
 Cura Investitions- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft
 Cmok
 Cordes
 Chuen
 Drabnitzke
Dana
Dogs
Doll
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
11
Doujak
Dziuba
Dorsch
Becker
DAK Finanz
Danaro Invest
Asset Management
DAT Finance AG
DBVI AG
De Lotto Switzerland
Delmont Wealth Management
Deltoton AG
DEM Marketing
Demirok GmbH Bauunternehmen
Densch & Schmidt GmbH
Der Informant GmbH
Deutsche Contracting GmbH
Deutsche Immobilien Grundvermögen Holding AG
Deutsche Mentor für Finanzen (DMFF) e.K.
Deutsche Mentor für Finanzen AG
Deutschen Anlage- und Beteiligungs Aktiengesellschaft (Dabag)
Develop Management GmbH
Deyna Immobilien GmbH
DHB-Dreiländer-Handels und Beteiligungsgesellschaft Walter Fink KG
Die Agentur
Die Tradergemeinschaft – Best of Marketing SARL
Dierig Unternehmensberatung
DIHA Dienstleistungs – und Handel GmbH
DIP AG
DIREKTE VERMÖGENSBERATUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH
Direkter Anlegerschutz e.K.
Distefora Holding AG
Dividium Capital Ltd
DLF-Immobilienportfolio-Walter-Fink KG
DM Beteiligungen AG
DMI Derivatives Management Inc.
DMP-Gruppe
DMV – Deutsche Markenverlängerungs GmbH
Dohmen-Invest
Domizil Immobilien Leasing GmbH
Domusfinanz
Dow Win Financial Group Corporation
DPMV-Deutsche Patent- und Markenverlängerung GmbH
Dr. Antonio GAMPA
Dr. Bassam Bouderi
Dr. Cornelius Gregorius Consulting Inc
Dr. Gerbig Treuhand GmbH
Dr. Görlich Grundbesitzbeteiligungs GmbH
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
12
Dr. Hanne Grundstücks GmbH
Dr. Hartmannsdorf Immobilien GmbH
Dr. Mayer & Cie. GmbH
Dr. Peters
Dr. Schmitt Inc.
Dr. Werner Financial Service AG
Dragon Partners Inc.
Dreiländerfonds DLF
Dreiländerfonds DLF-94/17
Drexel Management GmbH
Dubai International Investment & Trading
Dubai-1000-Hotel-Fonds
Duesenberg Financial Group Inc.
Dunas de Corralejo S.L.
Dupont Conseille AG
Dux Partners AG
Dörflinger
Dallüge
Deutsch
Dittel
Dierkes
Deubelbeiss
Dallinger
Drewitz
Eichhorn
Erber
Elbert
Ebner
Eroglu
Eschinger
Ettelt
Evcil
E-Money Power (EMPFX)
E.U.R.O.- Unternehmens- & Wirtschaftsberatungs- Ltd.
EAG AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT für WIRTSCHAFT
Earnshaw Advisory Services
Earthsearch Communications Inc.
Easy Concept Hamburg KG ( E@sy )
EBC AG
EBCON – Europäische Verbraucherberatung
Ebcon Europäische Verbraucherberatung AG
Ecco
Economy Capital Corporation
Ecotrend Holding AG
ECP Euro Caribbean Properties Ltd.
ECTO GmbH
Ecumoney Limited
Edgar Heumann GmbH
EECH AG
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
13
EEIG – Europäische Wirtschaftskammer
Effekten- und Edelmetallberatungs GmbH
Effinance Private Equity AG
EKC
Elbe Emissionshaus
Elefant Immobilien GmbH
EM.TV AG
EMA Event Management Agentur GmbH
Embdena
Emmerson Bennett
Empresa Minera (Bergbau) AG
Enexoma AG
Equinox Private Consultants Ltd.
ERGO-Plan
Erich Holderer Finanzdiestleistungen
ESKATA Finanz- Immobilien- Handels GmbH
ESTEKAR LIMITED
Estreel GmbH & Co.KG
EuMedien
Eurefi Eurefi Holding AG
Euregio Immobilien L&F B.V.
EURENTA Gesellschaft für Anlagen-, Renten- und Sparkonzeptionen GmbH
EURENTA Gesellschaft für Marketing- und Promotion GmbH
Euring GmbH
EURO CREDIT UNION
EURO Finanz Consult AG
Euro Finanz Management
Euro Kapital AG
Euro Real Investment Company
Euro Trading GmbH
Euro-American Beteiligungsvermittlungsg. MbH
EURO-CONSULT e.K.
Euro-Pool AG
EUROCAPITAL BANK INC.
Eurocapital Investment Corporation
EURODOM Berlin GmbH
Eurogoldtrader
Eurokapital AG
Eurolink Consult GmbH
European Estates&Investment AG
European Kings Club
European Trade marks and Designs
European Trademark Organisation S.A.
Europäische Schuldenregulierungs- und Ausgleichsanstalt
Europäische Wirtschaftskammer für Handel, Gewerbe und Industrie
EUROTRADE & CONSULTING AG
Eurotrust Capital Management
EV&K
Evantus Invest
EVD Direktverkaufs AG
EWR Wirtschaftsdatenregister
Exakt Martkanalysen Research GmbH
Exeltrade
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
14
Engels
Eder
Esser
Elas
Ehrenberg
Eilts
Eich
Eich
Eder
Engler
EISENBERG
 Felgner
Flug
Feyh
Freke
Florian
Fasan
Fritsch
Freiherr von Fink
Fink
Ferrera Dr. F & P Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG
F.I.P. GmbH
F.V.F
FA. Haustein Finanzvermittlung
Fafa Capital
Faktor 1 GmbH
Falcon Euro Trading Limited
Falcon Oil Group
Falk Capital AG
Falk-Gruppe
Falken Depot Management GmbH
Falken GmbH
Falken Vermögensverwaltung GmbH
FALLON BANCROFT HOLDING
Fashionact Industries Inc.
Noske
FB Bauträger GmbH
FDMV FINANZDIENSTLEISTUNGEN
FFB Dörflinger GmbH
FFCC Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Finanzdienstleistungs KG
FG Finanz-Service AG
FGP & Cie
Fibeg Finanzberatung- und Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH
Fibu AG
Fideles & Associates AG
Fidelity International
FIDU payment services S.A.
Finama Vermögensverwaltungs KG
Finance Concept GmbH
Finance Service International
Financial Consulting
Financial Consulting UK Limited
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
15
Financial Planning Systems Ltd.
Financieros Panama – Societaet Rodriguez Batista Diaz
Finanz Score GbR
Finanz Service Hennig
Finanzprogramme Bentley & Partner
FINANZtest Center
Finanzvermittlung Fritz Guth
Finanzvermittlung und Wirtschaftsdienst Ott GmbH
Finbrands Global Limited
Fine Trading Group Finvest Asset Management
FIPTR Federated Institute for Patent- &
Trademark Registry First Canadian Joint Venture
& Consulting Inc. First Canadian Joint Venture
& Consulting Inc. (Canada)
First China Corporate Management Group
First Garant Fund AG First Intercontinental
Bancorp. Ltd. First Invest Grundbesitz
GmbH First Invest Swiss Trade
First Real Estate Grundbesitz GmbH
First Saxonia Trading Ltd
Flash Finance Floris Bank
FOCUS Immobilien und Projektbau GmbH
FOKUS INVEST AG Foma Internationale
Inkassogesellschaft mbH
Fondax Capital Trust GmbH & Co. KG
Fondshaus Hamburg FORBIS Corporation
Force Worldwide Investments Corp
Foreign Exchange Clearing House Ltd.
Forest Finance Service GmbH
Forex4free Forexone-Broker
Forst Finance AG Four Stars AG
Frankonia Sachwert AG FRD International
Free Finance -Service Futura Finanz AG
Futura-Concept GmbH FXTSwiss
Fridez Fridez
Frau Floßbach
Fritz Franko
Frerichs Fink
Fridez Fasan
Filsinger
Freiherr von Lepel
Frydenlund Foetzsch
Fridez Fridez
Fitz
Grüters
Geyer
Gonnes
Grüner
Gerlach
Gast
Gräbedünkel
Gustav

GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
16
Güttig
Gläßer
Gehle
Gerome
GOLDEN-BALLARIN
Golsch
Gronemeyer
Görlich
Götzl
Gaber
Graupner
Guth
G+M Baubetreuung GmbH
G.V.V. bR.
G.W.F. Grundwert-Bauträger G.M.B.H
Gaiacor International PLC
Galant Immobilien GmbH
Garant Kreditvermittlung
Garant-Hundsdorff-Istanbul
GEBAB
Gebrüder Schmidtlein GbR
GEcoS Holding AG
Geldfinder GmbH
Gemas GmbH
Genius Insurance Service GmbH
Genius Investments – Genius Funds
Geoteck Inc.
Gerd Esser Grundbesitz GmbH
GerGermania Grundbesitz AG
Germania Venture Capital AG
Gesellschaft für Erbenermittlung
Gesellschaft für Exklusive Veranstaltungen Dortmund mbH
Gesellschaft für Finanz- u. Wirtschaftsdienstleistungen (FiWi)
Gesellschaft zur Datensicherung im Internet (GSDI)
Gesellschaft zur Vermittlung kapitalorientierter Finanzanlagen GmbH (GVFK)
GetAssisted Group
GfS Invest GmbH
GGHF Windpark Sitten GmbH & Co. KG
GHS Unternehmensgruppe
GIP Grundstücks-Immobilien & Projektmanagement GmbH
GIV Gesellschaft für Immobilien und Vermögensverwaltung mbH
Glatt & Partner GmbH
GLOBAL – BAU Immobilien GmbH
Global AWS AG
Global Capital Group
Global Cogenix Industrial Corp.
Global Financial Invest AG
Global Foreign Exchange (Switzerland) AG
GLOBAL LIFESTYLE GROUP S.A.
Global Mineral Resources Corp.
Global Pension Plan
Globaltraiding.com Kapitalmanagement
Globalus (Immobilien) Gmbh & Co. KG
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
17
GM Capital Partners
GMF Finanz AG
GMF Treuhandgesellschaft mbH
GO AHEAD SERVICE LTD
GOJ AG
Gold-Barren-Silber.com
Gold-Versandhandel
Goldstein & Partner Inc.
GOT Thimm GmbH
GPS GmGrand Capital Ltd
Great Berlin Wheel GmbH & Co. KG
Grevenreuth AG
Grund und Boden Beteiligungs AG
Grundstücksgemeinschaft Arslan
Grupo Esdinero
Grünewälder GmbH
GSM Gesellschaft für Professionelles Sachwert Management AG
GSM Gesellsc
GTO Gap Trading Online
Gulf Oil Exploration Inc.
GVW – Wirtschaftsclub
GWG Gesellschaft für Wirtschaftsplanung mbH
Göttinger Gruppe
Göttler Finanz AG
Graf
Guillaume
Gropper
Göker
Grotelaers
Günzel
Gelbke
Haugg
Halbey
Händel
Hansen
Heise
Hensel
Hipp
Hirner
Hirth
Heider
Hickl
Hansel
Hauser
Härtel
Heckler
Hambusch Prof.
Herold
Hering Dr.
Herr Budzinski
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
18
Heyer
Hering Dr.
Hartung
Hesselmann
Hettrich
Heiner
Händel
Heinrich
Hartl
Hansch
Hartung
Hepp
Heinekken van
Hanne
Heiliger
Heumann
Hensley-Piroth
Haffa
Holderer
Helfer
Heckmann
Hormann
Hennig
Hermsmeier
Hornberger
Halabi
Herr Gieselmann
Hundsdorff
Hanisch
Hornig
Hambusch Prof.
H.R.L. International
H2O Swiss AG
Hafenstein Marketing GmbH
Hamburg Connection
Hamilton Associates A.G.
Handelshaus Schaar
Handelskontor Fischer
Hansa Treuhand
Hanse Capital
Hanse Club
Hanseatische AG
Hanseatische Senatorenkanzlei
Hansefina GmbH
Hartl Immobilien
Hartl Immobilienmanagement GmbH
Harz Börde Finanz
Haus- und Vermögensverwaltung GmbH (HaVeWa)
Hauser Treuhand Rorschach HTR
Haushaltsfuchs
HB Capital Partners
HBW-Finanz AG
HCI Capital
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
19
HDL Hausdienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH
Helvag AG
Helvetia Treuhand GmbH
Helvetia Treuhand-Union GmbH
Hentsch & Müller S.A.
Hermes Beteiligungs AG
Hermes Portfolio Management GmbH
Bens
HKA-Bank 1954 Ltd.
HNH Finanzberatung-Treuhand GmbH
Horn Wolfgang Dr.
HouseFX AG
HTB Holding
HuHWH International AG
Hypo – Leasing B.V.
Heinen
Hagen
Hoff
Hensel
Hampe
Hauser Metzler
Harksen
Huber
Hartung
Hübner
Hönnscheidt
Hettrich
Hering Dr.
Hettrich
Hübner
Ihl
Izmirlioglu
Izmirlioglu
Immega
I-investorclub Ltd.
I.B.F.T.P.R. International Bureau for Federated Trademark Patent Register
I.B.I.P. International Bureau for Intellectual Property
I.F.I. Ltd. Milincic
IAZ & Partners
IBB GmbH
IBB INTERNATIONAL
IBEKA Immobilienbeteiligung AG
IBH Limited
ICB – Intercontinental Brokerage Corporation
ICM Basel
IContent GmbH
Idee Immo Concept GmbH
Idilei-Treuinvest
IFF AG Zukunftsunternehmen für Investment, Fonds, Finanzen
IFIC Integra Financial Consulting GmbH
IFS International Financial Services Inc.
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
20
IHB Immobilien Heinen & Biege GmbH
IKF
Immorenta Immobilienbeteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
Imperia Invest IBC
Indara Projekt AG
Indices International Group IIG
Info-ZentralInformations-Service-Center (ISC)
Inkasso Team Moskau / TMA GmbH
Innoflex
Innovatio Allfinanz & Franchise System AG
INT Elektrizitätswerk Beteiligungs KG
Integral Finanz AG
Integral Treuhand Vermögensverwaltung GmbH
Integro Capital Partners
Intellectual Property Agency Ltd.
Inter Alpen AG
Inter Capital Bank
Inter Capital Bank Ltd.
Inter Credit Group
Interbank Asset Management Group AG / InterBank AG
Intercontinental Financial Developments Plc.
Interessensgemeinschaft Barbara Merkens
Interfinance Investment & Credits
Interglob AG
INTERMEX International Ltd.
International Bioremediation Services Inc.
International Insurance Holding Inc.
International Invest Ltd
International Travel Services Ltd.
Internet Media AG
Internetwebshop
Inventaire Pro
Inveractivos
InvestInvestor Relations Corp.
Inveteratus Asset Management
IOPTS International Organization for Patent & Trademark Service Corporation
IPS AG – Internationale Produktvermarktungs Systeme
ISR Management & Consulting Ltd
ISS Immobilien Schutz und Service AG (ISS AG)
ISS Immobilienschutz und Service AG
ITL-Enterprises Inc.
Immega
Ibekwe
Just
Jochum
Jester
Junges
Jaeger Research GmbH
Jefferies Associates Group
Jejkal AG Strategische Investments
Johnsons Banking Group
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
21
Johnsons Banking Group
Joseph Cooke Ltd.
Julius Brown AG
Jump
Jachnicki
Jaufmann
Jansson
Jonas
Jedlitschka
Junghänel
Junghänel
Junghänel
Juratsch
Jentzer
Jilg
Jung
Karabunar
Kriewald
Knobloch
Kinner
Käner
Kontze
Kratz
Kostas
Körner
Keffel – Fallahi
Kaiser
Klein
Klaas
Krenzer
Kletsch
Kappes
Kloiber
Kiehl
Kappes
KlaffenböcKraushaar
Kleefisch
Krefft
Klaffenböck
Kaltofen
Kühnen
K & S -Frisia
K&K. B. P. Vermögensverwaltung
K1 Group
K1-Group
Kaikatsu Group
Kanzlei Knil
Kanzlei Range & Partner
Kapital-Consult GmbH
Karriere AG
Köllner-Unternehmensgruppe
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
22
König & Cie
KCP Bank
Kingside Establishment
Kirkland Lee
KK ImmobilienFonds I AG & Co. KG a.A.
Kleeblatt4U
Koch & Eilts GmbH & Co. KG
Koh-I-Noor
Konnex ImmoInvest GmbH
Konsumgüter Direktvertrieb e.V
Kredit einfach Vermittlungs GmbH
Krug Immobilien GmbH
KSF Korrespondenz-Service für Finanzsysteme
KSK International Ltd.
KubKusch und Partner GmbH
Kutag Capital Partners AG
Kutag Group
Kuwait Finance & Investment Company
KVG Internationale Kapitalvermittlung
KVV-Profi Management- und Beteiligung AG
KWD-Marketing
Kühne Bauspar- und Finanzierungsfachbüro
Küng & Partner Vermögensverwaltung AG
Klaffenböck
Klostermann
Keiner
Klappenbach
Klappenbach
Kastler
Kuzmanovic
Kraus
Keil
Kulecki
Kahnhäuser
Klein
Kuhlee
Karabunar
K.
Knobloch
Kiok
Klinge
Koehn
Kuhlen
Lebinger
Lorenz
Luft
Lampe
Leonhard
LehnoLohmann
Lohmann
Lee
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
23
Leindecker
Lökkevik
Lucky Prices S.L.
Lepel Freiherr von
Lemke
Linder
Littig
Langanke
Limburg
Laubach
Lins
Lüthi
LAM Immobilien- und Beteiligungs AG
Landesbank Berlin – LBB/IBV Fonds
Landmark Invest Ltd.
Lange Vermögensberatung GmbH
Lange Vermögensberatung GmbH
Langenbahn AG
LBB-Fonds
LDG Capital Markets Company Limited
Lenz Immobilienhandel AG
Life
Lifetime Products Inc.
Liquid Asset Management Inc.
Lisser Consulting
Litz United GmbH & Co. KG
Locat – Projektsteuerung GmbH
Locstein Asset Management AG
Logotype Klostermann, Lässig
London Hong Kong Exchange plc
LPA Financial Services
LSC. Ltd.
Ltd. Ifi
LVA Garant Fund Inc.
Lichtenfels
Lenz
Leuze
Lengdorfer
Lutz
Marien
Möbius
Müller
Müller
Mohm
Morgenstern
Markof
Müller Dr.
Mathy
Müller
Miersch
Matten
24
Moulatsiotis
MichalMatthiesen
Milincic
Matthies
Merkens
Marx
Meyer
Madden Group Inc.
Magnus GmbH&CO KG
MALAYSIA Credit
Malaysiacredit Van Bergen Corp.
Mallorca Trading
Malmsbury, Harrington and Seaford
Maonara AG
Marine Shuttle AS
Marine Shuttle Operations Inc.
Mark Marketing S.R.O.
Matic-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Matterhorn International
Mayer und Cie GmbH
MC Management Consulting & Financial Services
MCC Mariaux Chevre & Cie
McKenzie-Boyle Associates
Med-Synergy Mallorca GmbH & Co. KG
Media Concepte
Media Inkassomanagement AG
Media-Com LTD & Co. KG
Medivest
MEG AG
Mercaforex – Silver Holdings International Ltd.
Mercantus AG
Mercury Forex Investments Assets Ltd.
Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd
METROPOL LEASING GMBH
MFIVE Ltd.
MFS 24
MG Beteiligungs AG
MICONA LTD.
MidAtlantic Holdings plc
Minera Real del Barqueno S.A.
Mitschka Alternative Advisory
MJS Developments S.A.
MK Service & Vertrieb
MK- Service & Vertrieb
MMC Medialog Marketing Company
MMCIS Investments
Mobilica.de
MOLY-FLON LIMITED
Money and Capital ASS.
Money Plus Worldwide Financial Limited
MonMach Marine Insurance Company Ltd.
Morgan Franklin Investment Inc.
MPC Capital
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
25
MPC Capital AG
Mueller Capital Management (MCM)
Multi Advisor Fund I GbR
MWB Vermögensverwaltungs AG
Mehler
MÖLLER-BÜCKINS
Montag
Morris
Manns
Meyer
Mundt
MILLS
McGregor
Müller
 Nicolic
Noske
Neumann
Naumann
Nieder
Noske
Nitsche
Natea Financial Transactions Division
Nationales Markenregister AG
Natur- und Erlebniswelt Schmölln GmbH
NEO TECH PUBLISHING COMPANY INC.
Net Mobile AG
Netsolutions FZE
NEUBERT & PARTNER FINANZMANAGEMENT GMBH
Neuburg Financial AG
Neue Medien GmbH
New Century Capital
NEW Naturpark und Erlebniswelt Schmölln
New World Financial
Newton Forest
Noble Advisory Group
Nodorf und Partner
Non plus ultra Marketing GmbH
Nord Finanz KG
Nord-Analyse/Jürgen Harksen
Nordcapital
Norddeutsche Vermögensverwaltung
North Am GmbH
NOVI BETEILIGUNGS GMBH
NUEVO GMBH
NWK Consulting
NYTS New York Trading Services Ltd.
Nünlist
Noack
 Ohles
Ohlmann
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
26
Obermann
Ohlenschläger
Ottersbach
O Online Casino
OBA OBJEKTPLANUNGS UND BAUGESELLSCHAFT MBH
Obtime GmbH
Ocean s Continental AG
EKOFINANZ PIPER & FISCHER (ÖKOFINANZ)
Offshore Shuttle AS
Olaf Tank – Rechtsanwalt
OLF OBERLAUSITZER FACTORING UND LEASING GMBH
OMNIKRON VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH
Soldwisch
Optimal-Unternehmensgruppe
Opus one Corporation
Organi Juris GmbH
ORGANIJURIS HOLDING AG
Ost Com Holding AG
Ownership Emissionshaus
Ommer
Oberle
Olek
 Petrenko
Prehn
Piroth
Pelz
Pfeiffer
Piroth
Pirkel
Pirkel
Petsch
Pröckel
Pirkel
Pilling
Pirkel
Paco Integrated Energy Inc.
Pacon Capital S.A.
Pacta Invest GmbH
PACTA-INVEST GmbH
Partner Air Limited
Partner-Computer-Group Ltd.
PayPay Inc.
PayPay S.a.r.l.
PCG
Pentafox Höhn OHG
Pepper United S.R.O.
Perfect4u
Pharma Kontor AG
Phillip Alexander Securities & Futures Ltd.
Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH
Phönix Aktiengesellschaft
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
27
Phönix Finanzsanierungs AG
Platinum Group International
Platonja GmbH
Plim Cooperation AG
PLUS CONCEPT GMBH
Plus Finanz Consulting GmbH
Postbank Finanzberatung AG
PPV Produkt-Promotion-Vertrieb
Pradofin
Premium Capital
Premium Firmenservice GmbH
Prime Core AG
Prime Gold Invest AG
Prime Select AG
Primus Consulting Optionshandel GmbH
Prinz zu Hohenlohe Jagstberg & Banghard GmbH
Private Commercial Office (PCO)
Private Equity Capital Group
Private Equity Invest AG
Private Fiduciary Trust GmbH
Private Investment Brokers and Financial Fonds Inc.
PRIZMA F.A. CENTER
Profi Moderne Wohnungsbaugenossenschaft
Profit.sawas.info
Projekta GmbH
Projostar GmbH
Prokon Kapital GmbH
Protectas Vermögensberatung GmbH
Protected International Inc.
PS-Leasing
Piroth
Petry
 Quinz
QES – Die Geldarchitekten
Quantum Asset Management
Quatro Group
QUEEN GMBH
Quinz Jürgen
Quorum AG
 Riesen van
Reegen
Riviera
Rose
Reinke
Ruppert
Rautenberg
Rüdenauer
Rist
Röll
Rohde
Runyeon
Rieß de Sanchez
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
28
Rachensperger
Ramin
Rohde
Range
Reich
Rummelt
Runyeon
Reimers
Rohbeck
R&S GmbH
R.A.P. Vermögensanlagen-Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG Immobilienverwaltung
Racingkasino.Com
Rainbow Real Estate Ltd.
Ralph Hübner Verlag
Ranston Ltd
Ranston Ltd.
Ravena Finanz Management AG
RDV GmbH
Real Estate AG
Rechtsanwalt Asmus
Register of Commerce – Markenregisterverzeichnis
Renko & Associates
Renta / Löwer
Rentmeister KG
Res Justitia GmbH
Residencia GmbH
Rheinisch Westfälische Grundbesitz AG
Richmond & Palmer Investments Inc
Riverblue GmbH
RK-invest intern. Ltd.
RKI Invest
RKV Finanzservice
Robyns Capital GmbH
Robyns Vermögensverwaltung GmbH
Rodman & Shaw Ltd.
Rontax-Treuhand
Rosiak Dr.
Ruhrstrom GmbH
Ruluso Holding Ltd.
Rushton Limited
Ruspa Capital AG
Ruyan Europe
Richter
Reime
Richtsteig
Rademann
Rippel
 Sälinger
Schwarz
Stefan
Storm
Seuchter
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
29
Seumenicht
Schaefer
Scholl
Siegert
Schuhmann
Scharl
STRÖMBERG
Stanley
Splisteser
Sablowski
Schwarz
Stumpf
Scholz
Steigenberger
Schmidt
Seebacher
Sümper
Steuten
Schwartz
Simon
Schrämli
Spilker
Spanier
Seci
Stolte
Stolte
Schmid
Schmid
Schroeder
Seidel
Schmidtlein
Stangl
Steinbach
Stecker
Szulc
Schäfer
Spilker
Scholl
Stadelmaier
Shadi
Schäfer
Schmidt
Schaul
Sulser -Eggenberger
Schwarz
Sch.
S.
Schroeder Dr.
Schierloh
Sinn
Soldwisch
Smith
Schmidt
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
30
Schrenk
Schieweck
Schmidt
S.
Schmid
S&K Deutsche Sachwert AG
S.B.E. Bank
S.B.E. Financial SA
S.L.I.C.E AG
Sachsen Planke GmbH
Sachsenpark AG
Safe Inrest Quota Obtain Ltd (auch bekannt unter SIQO)
Sagro
Sakura Financial Group
SAM FINANZ AG – Swiss Asset Management
San West Inc.
Sauer & Söhne
Saxonia Sparkasse Inc.
SBAG – Schweizerische Börsenabwicklungsgesellschaft mbH
Schmid Immobilien Ltd.
Schmiedendorf Arzneimittelvertrieb AG
Schuhbecks am Platzl GmbH
Schutzvereinigung der Versicherten, Sparer und Kapitalanleger e. V.
Schwabenland Büro
Schweizer Kapital AG
SCT Bank Ltd.
SD Global Equity AG & Co. KG
Seabed Invest AG
SEB Bank AG
Sebeka GmbH
Secured Communications Limited
Securenta AG
Securities Regulatory and Investment Board (SRIB)
Senior Invest
Servicebüro Natter
SFP Private Banking
SFR AG (Swiss Finance Research AG)
Sherwood Henderson Limited
Shibby & Partners
Sigma Leasing Ltd.
Sigma Trading Limited
Signature Equities Agency GmbH
Signum Edelsteine GmbH
Sisko System Haus AG
Skyline Advisory Group
Solatera Energy AG
Sole Invest GmbH
Solventa Finanzservice GmbH
Sophisticated Investor Inc.
SP Trade Investment Capital Ltd. / SP Trader Fund
Sparkasse Dortmund
Spree Finanz AG
Spree-Capital GmbH
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
31
Star Invest
Stebo GmbH
Steinberg Investment Research AG
Steinberg Investments Ltd.
Stephens Capital Markets Limited
Sterling Asset Management AG
STIFX (stifxonline.com)
Stifxonline.com
Stonehard Consulting d.o.o.
Stratton & Partner
Stratton Wainwright
Suisse Banking
Suisse Life Securities
Sunset Handelsgesellschaft Unternehmergesellschaft
SVK Marketing GmbH
SVM24Direkt
SWAG – Schweizerische Wertpapierabrechnungsgesellschaft AG
SWD Sächsischer Wirtschaftsdienst
Swiss Agricole Asset Management
Swiss Basis GmbH
Swiss Bellair Bank
Swiss Credit Trust AG
SWISS DIVISION
Swiss Finance Conceptions & Marketing AG
SWISS Finance Consult
Swiss Finance Consult AG
Swiss Finance Consult AG
Swiss Finance Research AG
Swiss Key Equity Consult AG
Swiss Lotto – Gesellschaft Schweizer Zahlenlotto
Swiss Lotto Agency
Swiss Lotto Highstakes
Swiss Marketing GmbH
Swiss Siam Investment Club
Swiss Trading
Swiss World Cyber Lottery International – Swiss Lottery
Swiss-American Capital Management Institute,Inc.
SwissAudit Aktiengesellschaft
SwissKap AG
Swisskontor GmbH
Swissridge International Corp.
Switzerland Investment Group
Süddeutsche Stabak AG
Süddeutsche Stabak Aktiengesellschaft AG
Südwestbank AG
System Vorsorge Kapitalvermittlung (SVK)
Schmuck
Simon
Schlag
Sonntag
Schellscheidt
Schildbach
Schmidt
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
32
Surowiec
 Tzolov
Tannenbaum
Thomson
Tucholke
Traxel
Teller
Trisl
TOBER
Tausch
Trice
Thimm
Turgut
Tank
T.K. Immobilien GmbH
Taipan
Talis Enterprise GmbH
Task Force Service GmbH
Taurus GmbH
TBC-Marketing AG
Telba GmbH
Tele Inside s.r.o.
Tellba GMBH
The Crown Group CH
The Vale Group / Vale Group InvestmentsVale Group Asset Management /
Thomas Moore
Titan
Titan Trading Group
TiViBo GmbH
Tortola Capital
Trade Direct GmbH
Transatlantic Business & Management Ltd.
TRC Telemedia e.K.
Treberhilfe Berlin gGmbH
Treff Hotel Beteiligung
Trend Capital AG
Treu-Control Wirtschaftsberatungs- und Treuhandgesellschaft mbH
Treulux AG
Tri-Hub International
Triagon Holding AG
Trias Erste KG
Trias Zweite KG
Trikom Consulting GmbH
Trinity Ventures
TSI Consulting
TSI-Consulting
Turner Mayfield Advisory A.G.
TVI Express
Two For 1 Sportsbook
TXL Business Academy GmbH
TXL Capital Management GmbH
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
33
Tang
Täubert
 Ullmann
Uhlendorff
UBS Deutschland AG
UFB VERMITTLUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH
UFP
UGV Inkasso
Ulrich Engler Daytrading
Ulrich Petry
ULRICH VERLAG KG
ULRICH- VERLAG KG
Unabhängige Wirtschaftskanzlei Wolfgang Gelbke
Unia Holding AG
Unia Industrie Holding AG
Unispar Banque PLC
United Invest Management Deutschland Ltd & Co. KG
United Investors
United Markets (Asia) Limited
United Network Industries (Uni AG)
United Re-Insurance Group
United Trust Bank Plc.
United Trust of Switzerland S.A
United Trust of Switzerland S.A.
Unitymedia Hessen GmbH & Co KG
Universal Settlements International (USI) Inc.
Univest Limited
Univesta
Univesta Björk Immobilien und Anlage GmbH & Co.
Unternehmensgruppe Esdinero
UOT Financial Services Limited
US GOLD INTERNATIONAL LTD.
US Securities Agency (USSA)
Usecom Software AG
 Volkmann
Völl
Vitor
Voß
van Dien
van Dyken
Voll
von Eugen
Varin
Varin
Vejpustek
Volk
Vogel
von Krauthahn
V-O-B Handelsgesellschaft mbH
V/F Operation Leasing GmbH
VABA AG
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
34
ValueMaker
VALUTA VERMÖGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH
VanFunds / Vandior Inc.
Vanilla
VCI
Ventana Biotech Inc.
Ventono Capital GmbH
Venture Associates
Verbraucherdienst.e.V
Verimount FZE
Versicherungsdienst
Vertex Commodities
Verum Placement Ltd.
Vierte Juragent GmbH & Co. Prozesskostenfonds KG
VIT EnvironmentSystems AG
Vitascanning AG
Viva Tenerife Services
Volkssolidarität Sozial-Immobilien GmbH
Volkssolidarität Sozialimmobilienfonds GmbH & Co. KG
 Wood
Wächter
Wintzler
Willer
Wiedenbauer
Walkemeyer
Weimer
Walkemeyer
Wolter
Wolter
Wagner
W.
Wagner
Wolfram
Wolfram
Werner Dr.
Wagner
Wulff
Wagner
Weislogel
Walker
Wagner
WABAG – Wirtschaftsanalyse und Beratung AG
Wagner Finanzvermittlung GmbH
Wahl + Partner GmbH
Warrick Management Group Ltd.
Waterman Associates
WBwso Ltd
Wconstrukt
Wealth and Asset Planning
Webtains GmbH
Weizman Associates
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
35
Weizman Associates LLC
Wellshire Securities GmbH
West Atlantic Credit Group
WESTGATE Financial AG
Westminster Financial Management Ltd
Weyhill Establishments
WFB sro
White Birds Germany GmbH
Whitherspoon, Seymour & Robinson Corp.
Who is Who Prominentenenzyklopädie AG
WIBAG Immobilien und Beteiligung Aktiengesellschaft
Wicon Wirtschafts- und Finanzkontor Betz & Kronacher Beteiligungsgesellschaft
WIETEC-Germany
WIG – Wirtschaftszentrale für Industrie und Gewerbe AG
WIHH – Wirtschaftsinstitut für Industrie, Handel, Handwerk AG
WILL GMBH FINANZBERATUNG & VERWALTUNG
William Smith Partners
Wilton Investment Group
WiRe AG
Wirtschafts- und Finanzberatung Lindow-Giebel
Wirtschaftskanzlei Jilg GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Contor GmbH
WNB Finanzanlagen AG
Wohnbaufinanz
Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Leipzig West AG
Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Leipzig-West AG
Wonsei AG
Woodbridge Business Corp.
World Capital Group
World Capital Holding Corporation
WORLD MEDIA FONDS
World Telecom Data
WorldClearing Holding Inc.
Worldexchange
WorldFX-club
WSR – Whitherspoon, Seymour & Robinson Corporation
Würzburger Aktiengesellschaft für Vermögensbeteiligungen und Verwaltung (WAG)
 X Com Ltd.
Ximex Executive Ltd
XYZ NOMINEES LTD
 Y2M Media Limited
YESILADA BANK LTD.
Young Media Spain S.L.
Yuca Park
 Ziedd
Zeitler
Zürbis
Zimmermann
GoMoPa-Warnliste 09-2010
Zimmermann
Zürbis
Zietlow
Zürbis
Zollweg
Zürbis
Zensen-Döring
Z.E.N.I.T. AG
ZAK Inkasso
Zapf Creation
ZBI Zentral Boden Immobilien AG
ZDR-Datenregister GmbH
ZeBo GmbH
ZECH & ZECH VERMÖGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH
Zeder Immobilien Treuhand AG
ZEDER INVESTMENT AG
Zenith Commodities Ltd
ZENKER WOHNBAU AG
Zentrum für Wirtschaftspraxis
Zinnwald Financiers
Zucomex The Zurich Commodities Exchange
Zurich Capital Gruppe
Zurich Direct

Opfer in 2011:

– Angela Merkel

– Wolfgang Schäuble

– Accessio AG

– Allianz Global Investors

– Antek International

– Andreas Decker

– Anna Schwertner

– Bank of America

– Barclays

– Bernd Müller

– Bernd Pulch

– Beluga

– Bliznet Group Inc.

– Centrum Immobilien

– Citigroup

– Coldwell Banker

– Commerzbank

– CPA Capital Partners

– Credit Suisse

– CSA

– CWI

– Debiselect

– D.E.U.S.eG – Jürgen Oswald

– Deutsche Bank

– Deutsche Anstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

– DKB Bank

– Dr. Paul Jensen

– Ekrem Redzepagic

– Erste Mai GmbH

– Express Kurier Europa

– Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Frankfurt

– FRONTAL 21

– Garbe

– General Global Media

– Genfer Kreditanstalt

– HCI

– HSBC

– HypoLeasing

– Indara

– JPMorgan Chase

– Kreis Sparkasse Tübingen

– Leipziger Bauträger (etliche Firmen, hier subsummiert)

– Lloyds Bank

– Lothar Berresheim

– Martina Oeder

– Martin Sachs

– Meridian Capital

– Money Pay

– Norinchukin Bank

– Oak Tree

– Prime Estate

– Prosperia Mephisto 1 GmbH & Co KG

– Raiffeisen- und Volksbanken

– Rothmann & Cie.

– Stefan Schramm

– Teldafax

– TipTalk.com

– Wirecard

Natürlich alles OHNE IRGENDEINEN BEWEIS VON VORBESTRAFTEN SERIENBETRÜGERN AUF EINER HOMEPAGE MIT KEINER ECHTEN PERSON IM IMPRESSUM STATTDESSEN MIT EINER NEW YORKER BRIEFKASTENADRESSE IM AUFTRAG MUTMASSLICH VON RA JOCHEN RESCH UND RA MANFRED RESCH, PETER EHLERS UND GERD BENNEWIRTZ -UND UNTER MITARBEIT VON GOOGLE, DEUTSCHLAND,

ALS “FRONTMANN” VON “GOMOPA” AGIERT DER DUTZENDWEISE VORBESTRAFTE KLAUS MAURISCHAT UNTER ANDEREM WEGEN BETRUGES AN SEINEM EIGENEN ANLEGER

Das Urteil gegen„GoMoPa“-Maurischat: Betrug am eigenen Anleger wg € 10.000,-

110401 6 GoMoPa SJB Opferlisteh
Die Verurteilung von Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl wegen Betruges am eigenen Anleger Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl, Betreiber vonwww.gomopa.net: Am 24. April 2006 war die Verhandlung am Amtsgericht Krefeld in der Betrugssache: Mark Vornkahl / Klaus Maurischat ./. Dehnfeld. Aktenzeichen: 28 Ls 85/05 Klaus MaurischatLange Straße 3827313 Dörverden.Das in diesem Verfahren ausschließlich diese Betrugsache verhandelt wurde, ist das Urteil gegen Klaus Maurischat recht mäßig ausgefallen.Zusammenfassung der Verhandlung vom 24.04.2006 vor dem Schöffengericht des AG Krefeld in der Sache gegen Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl.Zur Hauptverhandlung erschienen:Richter Dr. Meister, 2 Schöffen,Staatsanwalt, Angeklagter Klaus Maurischat, vertr. durch RA Meier, Berlin; aus der U-Haft zur Verhandlung überführt.1. Eine Gerichtsvollzieherin stellt unter Ausschuss der Öffentlichkeit eine Urkunde an den Angeklagten Maurischat zu.2. Bei Mark Vornkahl wurde im Gerichtssaal eineTaschenpfändung vorgenommen.Beginn der HauptverhandlungDie Beklagten verzichten auf eine Einlassung zu Beginn.Nach Befragung des Zeugen Denfeld zum Sachverhalt wurde dieVerhandlung auf Wunsch der Staatsanwaltschaft und den Verteidigern unterbrochen.Der Angeklagte Maurischat gab nach Fortsetzung derHauptverhandlung Folgendes zu Protokoll:Er sähe ein, dass das Geld auf das falsche Konto gegangen sei und nicht dem eigentlichen Verwendungszweck zugeführt wurde. Das Geld sei aber zurückgezahlt worden und er distanziere sich ausdrücklich von einem Betrug.Schließung der BeweisaufnahmeDer Staatsanwalt verließt sein PlädoyerEr halte am Vorwurf des Betruges fest. Mit Hinweis auf die einschlägigen Vorstrafen des Angekl. Maurischatund auf laufende Ermittlungsverfahren, beantrage er ein Strafmaß von 1 Jahr und 6 Monaten.Er halte dem Angeklagten zu Gute, dass dieserWiedergutmachung geleistet habe, und dass dieser geständig war. Zudem läge die letzte Verurteilung wegen Betruges 11 Jahre zurück. Auch sei der Geschädigte nicht in existentielle Not geraten, wobei der Staatsanwalt nicht über noch laufende Verfahren hinweg sehen könne. Er läge aber dem Angeklagten Maurischat nahe, keine weiteren Aktivitäten im Bezirk der Staatsanwaltschaft Krefeld auszuüben, insbesondere möchte er, dass keine weiteren Anleger im Bezirk der Staatsanwaltschaft Krefeld durch GoMoPa akquiriert werden.Die Freiheitsstrafe soll zur Bewährung ausgesetzt werden.Plädoyer des Verteidigers des Angekl. Maurischat, Herrn RA MeierEr schließe sich, wie (in der Unterbrechung) vereinbart, dem Staatsanwalt an.Es stimme, dass sein Mandant Fehler in seiner Vergangenheit gemacht habe, und dass er auch diesmal einen Fehler begangen haben könnte, jedoch sei der Hinweis wichtig, dass sein Mandant aus diesen Fehlern gelernt habe.Der Angeklagte haben das letzte Wort.Maurischat sagt, es sei bereits alles gesagt worden.Unterbrechung zu Hauptverhandlung. Der Richter zieht sich mit den Schöffen zur Beratung zurück.Urteilsverkündung:Der Angeklagte wird des gemeinschaftlichen Betrugs für schuldig befunden.Der Angeklagte Klaus Maurischat wird zu einerFreiheitsstrafe von 1 Jahr und 6 Monaten verurteilt. Diese wird zur Bewährung ausgesetzt.Die Bewährungszeit wird auf 3 Jahre festgesetzt.Der Haftbefehl gegen Klaus Maurischat wird aufgehoben.Der Angeklagte trage die Kosten des Verfahrens.UrteilsbegründungDer Richter erklärt, dass eine Täuschung des Geschädigtenvorliegt und somit keine Untreue in Betracht kommen kann.Die Fragen, ob es sich um einen Anlagebetrug handele sei irrelevant. Er hält den Angeklagten die geleistete Wiedergutmachung zu Gute.Ebenso ist das Geständnis für die Angeklagten zu werten. Zudem liegt die letzte Verurteilung des Angeklagten Maurischat 11 Jahre zurück.Die Parteien verzichten auf Rechtsmittel. Das Urteil ist somit rechtskräftig.Mit dem heutigen Urteil endet ein Kapitel in derBetrugssache Goldman Morgenstern & Partners, Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl.Alle GoMoPa.net Verantwortlichen, Maurischat, Vornkahl und Henneberg sind nun vorbestrafte Abzocker und Betrüger und die Zukunft der Pseudoklitsche GoMoPa.net sieht duster aus.Mir dem Geständnis der beiden ABZOCKER MAURISCHAT UND VORNKAHL vor Gericht bricht ein jahrelangaufrechterhaltenes Lügengeflecht von einigen primitiven Betrügern zusammen. Gewohnheitsverbrecher und Denunzianten,die rechtschaffene Personen und Firmen in ihren Verbrecherforen kriminalisierten.

Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65784-65884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26889]

[[Page 65783]]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 205

October 24, 2011

Part II

Securities and Exchange Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 65784]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

[Release No. 34-65543; File No. S7-40-11]
RIN 3235-AL05

Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-
Based Swap Participants

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 764(a) of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act'') requires the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') to issue rules to
provide for the registration of security-based swap dealers (``SBS
Dealers'') and major security-based swap participants (collectively,
``SBS Entities''). Pursuant to this requirement, the Commission is
proposing new Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Exchange Act''), to provide for
the registration of SBS Entities. The Commission is also proposing
forms to facilitate registration (and withdrawal from registration) of
these entities.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before December 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number S7-40-11 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-40-11. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments will also be available for Web site viewing
and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David W. Blass, Chief Counsel; Joseph
Furey, Assistant Chief Counsel; or Bonnie Gauch, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. General Approach to the SBS Entity Registration Process
    1. Conditional Registration
    i. Implementation Plan and the Last Compliance Date
    ii. Major Security-Based Swap Participant Applicants Registering
After the Last Compliance Date
    2. Ongoing Registration
    3. Solicitation of Comments on the General Approach to the SBS
Entity Registration Process
II. Proposed Exchange Act Rules and Forms
    A. Registration Application and Amendment
1. Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1
    i. Form of Application
    ii. Senior Officer Certification
    iii. Electronic Filing
    iv. Standards for Granting or Denying Applications
    v. Request for Comment on Additional Registration Considerations
    2. Amendments to Application Forms: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3
    B. Associated Persons
    1. Certification
    2. Alternative Process
    C. Termination of Registration
    1. Expiration: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-1
    2. Withdrawal: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-2
    3. Cancellation and Revocation: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-3
    D. Special Requirements for Nonresident SBS Entities
    1. United States Agent for Service of Process
    2. Access to Books and Records of Nonresident SBS Entity
    E. Special Situations
    1. Succession: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-5
    2. Insolvency: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-6
    F. Technical Rules
    1. Electronic Signatures
    2. Temporary Rule To Facilitate Paper Filing of Forms
    G. Forms
    1. Form SBSE
    2. Form SBSE-A
    3. Form SBSE-BD
    4. Form SBSE-C
    5. Form SBSE-W
    6. Tagged Data Formats
    H. Alternative Approaches Considered
III. Request for Comment
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
    A. Summary of Collection of Information
    B. Proposed Use of Information
    C. Respondents
    D. Total Initial and Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens
    1. Burden Associated With Filing Application Forms
    2. Burden Associated With Amending Application Forms
    3. Burden Associated With Certification
    4. Burdens Relating to Associated Persons
    5. Burdens on Nonresident SBS Entities
    6. Burden Related to Retention of Manually Signed Signature
Pages
    7. Burden Associated With Filing Withdrawal Form
    8. Burden Associated With Proposed Temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T
    9. Request for Comment on Burden Estimates
    E. Retention Period of Recordkeeping Requirements
    F. Collection of Information Is Mandatory
    G. Confidentiality
    H. Request for Comment
V. Economic Analysis
    A. Benefits
    B. Costs
    1. Costs Attributable to Filing the Forms
    2. Costs of Certification
    3. Costs Relating to Associated Persons
    4. Costs to Nonresident SBS Entities
    5. Cost of Retaining Manually Signed Signature Pages
    6. Costs Associated With Proposed Temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T
    C. Request for Comment
VI. Consideration of Impact on the Economy
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed Rules

I. Introduction

A. Background

    On July 21, 2010, the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into
law.\1\ The Dodd-Frank Act was designed to promote, among other things,
the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system.\2\ Among other
measures, the Dodd-Frank Act provides the Commission and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') with authority to regulate
certain aspects of the over-the-counter (``OTC'') derivatives market,
where the recent financial crisis demonstrated a need for enhanced
regulation. The Dodd-Frank Act is intended to provide the Commission

[[Page 65785]]

and the CFTC with effective new regulatory tools to oversee that
market, which has grown exponentially in recent years and is capable of
affecting significant sectors of the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \2\ See id., at Preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act broadly categorizes covered
products as ``swaps,'' \3\ regulated primarily by the CFTC, ``security-
based swaps,'' \4\ regulated primarily by the Commission, or ``mixed
swaps,'' jointly regulated by the Commission and the CFTC.\5\ Among
other things, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits any person from acting as a
``security-based swap dealer'' \6\ or ``major security-based swap
participant'' \7\ without being registered with the Commission, and
requires that the Commission issue rules to provide for registration of
these SBS Entities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Defined in Section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act
(``CEA'').
    \4\ Defined in Section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act. All
references to the Exchange Act contained in this release refer to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as modified by the Dodd-Frank
Act.
    \5\ In addition, Section 712(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs
the Commission and the CFTC, in consultation with the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to propose rules and
interpretative guidance to further define, among other things, the
terms ``security-based swap,'' ``swap dealer,'' ``security-based
swap dealer,'' ``major swap participant,'' and ``major security-
based swap participant.'' The Commission and CFTC jointly proposed
further rules and guidance with respect to the dealer and
participant definitions on December 7, 2010. Further Definition of
``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-Based Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap
Participant,'' ``Major Security-Based Swap Participant'' and
``Eligible Contract Participant,'' Exchange Act Release No. 63452
(Dec. 7, 2010), 75 FR 80174 (Dec. 10, 2010) (the ``Intermediary
Definitions Release''). The Commission and CFTC jointly proposed
further rules and guidance with respect to the definitions of
``swap'', ``security-based swap'', and other terms on April 29,
2011. Further Definition of ``Swap, '' ``Security-Based Swap, '' and
``Security-Based Swap Agreement''; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap
Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release No. 64372 (Apr. 29,
2011), 76 FR 29818 (May 23, 2011)).
    \6\ Subject to certain exceptions, Exchange Act Section
3(a)(71)(A) defines ``security-based swap dealer'' to mean any
person who: (i) Holds themself out as a dealer in security-based
swaps; (ii) makes a market in security-based swaps; (iii) regularly
enters into security-based swaps with counterparties as an ordinary
course of business for its own account; or (iv) engages in any
activity causing it to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or
market maker in security-based swaps. See also supra note 5.
    \7\ Exchange Act Section 3(a)(67)(A) defines ``major security-
based swap participant'' to mean ``any person: (i) who is not a
security-based swap dealer; and (ii)(I) who maintains a substantial
position in security-based swaps for any of the major security-based
swap categories, as such categories are determined by the
Commission, excluding both positions held for hedging or mitigating
commercial risk and positions maintained by any employee benefit
plan (or any contract held by such a plan) as defined in paragraphs
(3) and (32) of Section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for the primary purpose of hedging or
mitigating any risk directly associated with the operation of the
plan; (II) whose outstanding security-based swaps create substantial
counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the
financial stability of the United States banking system or financial
markets; or (III) that is a financial entity that (aa) is highly
leveraged relative to the amount of capital such entity holds and
that is not subject to capital requirements established by an
appropriate Federal banking regulator; and (bb) maintains a
substantial position in outstanding security-based swaps in any
major security-based swap category, as such categories are
determined by the Commission.'' See also supra note 5.
    \8\ The Commission has concluded that SBS Entities that were not
registered with the Commission as of the July 16, 2011, effective
date of Section 15F of the Exchange Act are permitted to lawfully
continue their business absent Commission action with respect to the
SBS Entity registration regime. See Temporary Exemptions and Other
Temporary Relief, Together With Information on Compliance Dates for
New Provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Applicable to
Security-Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 64678 (Jun. 15,
2011), 76 FR 36287, 36299-300 (Jun. 22, 2011) (the ``Effective Date
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is proposing Rules 15Fb1-1 to 15Fb6-1 under the
Exchange Act to establish procedures for an SBS Entity to register with
the Commission and additional provisions related to such registration,
including: (1) A requirement to amend an inaccurate application for
registration; (2) procedures for succession to, or withdrawal from,
registration; and (3) procedures for the Commission to cancel or revoke
registration.\9\ The proposed rules would also establish a requirement
for an SBS Entity to certify that none of its associated persons that
effect, or are involved in effecting, security-based swaps on the SBS
Entity's behalf is subject to statutory disqualification. The
Commission is proposing forms to facilitate SBS Entities' registration
and withdrawal from registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange Act gives the Commission broad authority to
craft a registration regime for SBS Entities that helps the
Commission accomplish its missions of protecting investors,
maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating
capital formation. For example, Section 15F(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act states that an application for registration ``shall be made in
such form and manner as prescribed by the Commission, and shall
contain such information as the Commission considers necessary
concerning the business in which the applicant is or will be
engaged.'' In addition, Section 15F(d)(1) of the Exchange Act
directs the Commission to ``adopt rules for persons that are
registered as [SBS Entities] under [Section 15F].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules and forms would address additional registration
requirements applicable to nonresident SBS Entities, including
requirements to appoint a U.S. agent for service of process, and to
provide an opinion of counsel regarding the entity's ability to (1)
Provide the Commission with prompt access to books and records, and (2)
be subject to onsite examinations and inspections by the Commission.
    In proposing these rules and forms, the Commission is mindful that
there are similarities and differences among SBS Entities that hold
substantial positions in security-based swaps and dealers and
participants that hold substantial positions in other financial
products. The Commission also understands that there are similarities
and differences between the security-based swap market and the markets
for other financial products. The Commission believes that, both over
time and as a result of Commission proposals to implement the Dodd-
Frank Act, further information concerning the application of existing
registration and regulatory regimes to SBS Entities and the development
of the security-based swap market may alter certain considerations
relating to the registration of SBS Entities. During the process of
implementing the Dodd-Frank Act and beyond, the Commission intends to
closely monitor developments relating to SBS Entities and the security-
based swap markets. In particular, the Commission intends to evaluate
further information concerning the range of market participants that
may register as SBS Entities, the activities of and services provided
by such market participants, whether these activities and services are
identical or similar to activities and services already regulated by
the federal securities laws or other laws, and how applicable existing
registration and regulatory regimes interact with one another and apply
to SBS Entities.

B. General Approach to the SBS Entity Registration Process

    The Commission's proposed registration requirements for SBS
Entities largely are modeled after the registration regime applicable
to broker-dealers,\10\ while also taking into account the CFTC's
registration requirements for intermediaries.\11\ We preliminarily
believe that because the proposed requirements would closely align with
current requirements for our other registrants, and would be similar to
the registration regime for CFTC registrants, this approach would
provide the Commission and the staff with key information about
registrants while leveraging Commission staff experience and standing
procedures to facilitate a

[[Page 65786]]

substantive review of applications for registration and inspections of
registrants. In addition, the broker-dealer registration regime should
be familiar to, and understood by, many SBS Entities. In particular,
SBS Dealers may already be registered and regulated as broker-dealers
or may be affiliated with a broker-dealer. Moreover, if an SBS Dealer
enters into security-based swap transactions with persons that are not
eligible contract participants, it must register as a broker-dealer
unless an exemption or exception applies.\12\ The proposed approach
would seek to ensure that a market participant registered as both an
SBS Entity and a broker-dealer is subject to a similar and
complementary registration regime. It could therefore both ease the
regulatory burden on such entities and help to establish a consistent
regime for regulating SBS Dealers and dealers of other securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This includes rules promulgated under Sections 15(b) and
17(a) of the Exchange Act.
    \11\ 17 CFR 3.1 et seq. Futures commission merchants (``FCMs'')
and introducing brokers presently register with the CFTC by filing
Form 7-R with the National Futures Association. The CFTC has
proposed to register swap dealers and major swap participants
through this same process. See 75 FR 71379, at 71382 (Nov. 23,
2010).
    \12\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5) and 78o(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below, our proposed approach to the application
process would build on our existing broker-dealer registration forms--
most notably, Form BD--but also is designed to avoid unnecessary
duplication by permitting SBS Entities that are otherwise registered or
registering as intermediaries with either the Commission or the CFTC to
complete simplified application forms. Under this process, SBS Entities
registered or registering with the Commission as broker-dealers or with
the CFTC as swap dealers or major swap participants would submit a
shorter SBS Entity registration form along with a copy of their
existing registration form.
    An SBS Entity would be permitted to file an application for
registration as soon as final registration rules and forms are adopted.
Further, each SBS Entity would need to be registered (at least
conditionally) by the compliance date set forth in the final
registration rules. In certain circumstances, SBS Entities would be
required to apply for conditional registration, which they could
convert to ongoing registration by fulfilling the applicable
requirements set forth in the proposed rules. As discussed in more
detail below, those requirements would differ depending on whether: (1)
The application was filed with the Commission before or after the
compliance dates for certain new rules to be adopted pursuant to
Section 15F of the Exchange Act; and (2) the applicant is an SBS Dealer
or instead is a major security-based swap participant. Conditional
registration would expire after a specified time, and a conditionally
registered SBS Entity would be required to cease its security-based
swap business if it had not satisfied the applicable conditions to
convert its registration to an ongoing registration. The Commission
could, however, extend any conditional registration for good cause.
    Although the Commission may be familiar with SBS Entities that are
already registered with the Commission (e.g., broker-dealers or
investment advisers), the Commission is mindful that SBS Entities will
nonetheless constitute a new class of registrants that may present
business models and practices with which the Commission will need to
gain experience. Accordingly, the Commission expects that its careful
review of each application for registration and each certification on
Form SBSE-C (the ``Senior Officer Certification'' described further
below) will not only facilitate the Commission's decision to grant or
deny registration to an SBS Entity, but also help to develop this
experience and aid in the identification of areas for further inquiry,
including, as may be appropriate, examinations of particular firms or
business units by the Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and
Examinations (``OCIE''), in order to establish an effective ongoing
examination program for such entities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition to SBS Entities, the Dodd-Frank Act requires
the Commission to register for the first time security-based swap
execution facilities, security-based swap data repositories,
municipal advisors, and certain private fund advisers. In light of
these new categories of registrants, the Commission is presently
reviewing the various standards and processes it uses to facilitate
registration of the many types of entities required to register with
it--including broker-dealers, investment advisers, nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations, transfer agents,
clearing agencies, exchanges, national securities associations, and
others. In this regard, the Commission plans to issue a concept
release designed to collect information and evaluate different
aspects of these registration standards and processes. In
particular, the Commission intends to consider the policy objectives
of registration, how best to achieve those policy objectives through
registration and other means, and the relative benefits and costs of
the various means available. Through such a concept release, the
Commission would hope to gain insight into how evolving market
practices, technology, and other considerations could affect or be
affected by the Commission's approach to the registration processes
for various types of entities. Recognizing that the Commission has
finite resources to allocate to registration, examination, and
enforcement functions, the Commission intends to use the concept
release to seek comment as to how it can most effectively and
efficiently utilize these registration and other functions to help
ensure that entities registered by the Commission to perform
important financial intermediary and other functions in the
securities markets have the capability to carry out those functions
and to fully comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCIE currently uses risk-based methodologies to focus Commission
examination resources on firms and activities that could pose the
greatest risk to investors and the integrity of the markets. Consistent
with that general approach, OCIE and the Division of Trading and
Markets intend jointly to perform a substantive review of applications
and Senior Officer Certifications received for registration of SBS
Entities to determine whether additional Commission action is
appropriate and to evaluate potential registrants' risk for purposes of
prioritizing examinations.
1. Conditional Registration
    Under the proposed rules, an SBS Entity seeking Commission
registration generally would be required to apply for conditional
registration by submitting a complete application to the Commission.
The Commission would then grant conditional registration if it finds
that the SBS Entity's application is complete, except that the
Commission may institute proceedings to determine whether the
Commission should deny conditional registration if the applicant is
subject to a statutory disqualification or the Commission is aware of
inaccurate statements in the application.\14\ The Commission would
notify the entity electronically when conditional registration is
granted, and would make information regarding registration status
publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Such proceedings would include notice of the grounds for
denial under consideration and opportunity for hearing, and that at
the conclusion of such proceedings, the Commission would grant or
deny such registration. See proposed Rule 15Fb2-1(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For an SBS Entity to convert its conditional registration to
ongoing registration, it would be required to submit a Senior Officer
Certification signed by one of its knowledgeable senior officers. The
contents of the Senior Officer Certification and the time frame within
which it must be submitted to the Commission are described more fully
below and specified in the rule. Generally, however, the Senior Officer
Certification would state that, after due inquiry, the senior officer
has reasonably determined that the SBS Entity has the operational,
financial, and compliance capabilities to act as an SBS Dealer or a
major security-based swap participant, as applicable, and has
documented the process by which he or she reached such determination.
We preliminarily believe that this certification requirement would help
to protect both investors and markets from potential problems arising
from SBS Entities that may lack the capabilities necessary to operate
their businesses in compliance with their regulatory obligations.

[[Page 65787]]

i. Implementation Plan and the Last Compliance Date
    After proposing all of the key rules under Title VII, the
Commission intends to seek public comment on a detailed implementation
plan that will permit a roll-out of the new securities-based swap
requirements in a logical, progressive, and efficient manner, while
minimizing unnecessary disruption and costs to the markets. Among other
things, the implementation plan would inform the timing of the
requirement for SBS Entities to register with the Commission, including
whether such registration requirement would exist prior to the latest
date, designated by the Commission, by which SBS Dealers and major
security-based swap participants must begin complying with all of the
initial rules promulgated under Section 15F of the Exchange Act (``Last
Compliance Date'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``Last Compliance Date'' is defined in proposed
Rule 15Fb2-1(e). The Commission anticipates that the Last Compliance
Date would be clearly stated in the relevant adopting release and
prominently announced on the Commission's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is possible that SBS Entities may be
required to register before the Last Compliance Date.\16\ For these
``transitional'' applicants, whether SBS Dealer or major security-based
swap participant, there would be a period of time before the Last
Compliance Date when the Senior Officer Certification would be either
unduly burdensome for registrants (e.g., a rule has been promulgated by
the Commission under Section 15F of the Exchange Act, but compliance
with that rule is not yet required) or inappropriate for meeting the
goals of the certification (e.g., the Commission has not yet adopted a
significant rule under Section 15F of the Exchange Act, so the
certification would not cover compliance in an important regulatory
area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that, regardless of the timing of the
Last Compliance Date, a registered SBS Entity would be required to
comply with certain self-operative provisions in Exchange Act
Section 15F upon registration (conditional or otherwise), absent
further Commission action. See Effective Date Release, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this potential transition issue, we preliminarily
believe it is appropriate to propose a conditional registration process
that would permit registration without a Senior Officer Certification
prior to the Last Compliance Date. This process would be available to
all applicants (whether SBS Dealer or major security-based swap
participant) and would, among other things, facilitate the
identification of existing SBS Entities in advance of the compliance
date of certain substantive requirements. Conditional registration
would be effective once the Commission grants such conditional
registration and would expire on the Last Compliance Date (unless
conditional registration was extended pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c)
of proposed Rule 15Fb3-1). Ongoing registration of these conditionally
registered SBS Entities would be conditioned on, among other things,
the registrant providing the Senior Officer Certification to the
Commission on or before the Last Compliance Date. As described above,
fulfillment of this requirement by an SBS Entity would provide the
Commission with some assurance that the SBS Entity understands and has
the ability to undertake its business in compliance with the applicable
requirements. Once a registrant submits its Senior Officer
Certification, the Commission would consider converting its conditional
registration to an ongoing registration.\17\ However, whether or not a
conditional registrant provides the Senior Officer Certification on or
before the Last Compliance Date, the Commission would retain the
flexibility to extend conditional registration for good cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Submission of a Senior Officer Certification also would
toll expiration of the SBS Entity's conditional registration for
thirty days, if necessary to facilitate the Commission's review, or
such longer period as the Commission finds for good cause (see
proposed Rule 15Fb3-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Last Compliance Date has occurred, the conditional
registration process for SBS Dealers would effectively collapse into
the ongoing registration process and any SBS Dealer would need to
submit its Senior Officer Certification with its application (i.e.,
after the Last Compliance Date, SBS Dealers could only apply for
ongoing registration). Major securities-based swap participants could
still conditionally register (as described below) because of challenges
separate and apart from implementation of Section 15F of the Exchange
Act.
ii. Major Security-Based Swap Participant Applicants Registering After
the Last Compliance Date
    As noted in the proposed definition of major security-based swap
participant,\18\ an entity whose security-based swap portfolio crosses
established thresholds in a fiscal quarter would have a two-month grace
period following the end of that quarter to submit a complete
application for registration as a major security-based swap
participant. The Commission preliminarily believes that, while there is
likely to be some advance notice of an impending status change due to
ongoing monitoring of portfolios in the ordinary course of business, an
entity that would likely fall within the definition of a ``major
security-based swap participant'' because of activities in a given
fiscal quarter may not have adequate compliance systems in place within
two months after the end of the triggering quarter to allow the entity
to provide the Commission with a Senior Officer Certification.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to conditionally register such new
participants based on their filing of a complete application before the
expiration of the two-month grace period, subject to a requirement that
they provide a Senior Officer Certification to the Commission within
four months of the submission of their complete application (i.e.,
within six months after the end of the triggering quarter). This
proposal is intended to balance the additional time a new major
security-based swap participant may require to build out its compliance
structure with the Commission's strong interest in having new
registrants promptly comply with applicable federal securities laws.
Such conditional registration would be effective once the Commission
grants conditional registration and would expire four months after
receipt of that application unless the firm files a Senior Officer
Certification with the Commission within that time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Intermediary Definitions Release, supra note 5, at 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with conditional registrations granted prior to the Last
Compliance Date, once a major security-based swap participant that
applies for registration after the Last Compliance Date submits its
Senior Officer Certification, the Commission could consider converting
its conditional registration to an ongoing registration, as described
below. In addition, whether or not a conditionally registered major
security-based swap participant provides the Senior Officer
Certification within four months after submitting its application, the
Commission retains the flexibility to extend the conditional
registration for good cause.
    The Commission notes that the conditional registration mechanism
for major security-based swap participants would remain in place even
after the Last Compliance Date (i.e., major security-based swap
participants could always avail themselves of a conditional
registration period).
2. Ongoing Registration
    The proposed rules would provide for the ongoing registration of
all conditionally registered SBS Entities following their fulfillment
of the applicable requirements, as well as SBS

[[Page 65788]]

Dealers registering with the Commission after the Last Compliance Date
(and, therefore would not be required to conditionally register). As
described above, an SBS Entity would need to submit both a completed
application and a Senior Officer Certification to obtain ongoing
registration. An SBS Entity that was conditionally registered would not
be required to submit a new application. At the time it applies for
ongoing registration, however, the SBS Entity would be required to
amend its application to correct any information that has become
inaccurate for any reason.
    The Commission would grant ongoing registration if it finds that
the requirements of Section 15F(b) of the Exchange Act are satisfied,
but the Commission would institute proceedings to determine whether the
Commission should deny ongoing registration if the Commission does not
make such a finding, if it finds that the applicant is subject to a
statutory disqualification, or if it is aware of inaccurate statements
in the application or certification.\19\ The Commission would notify
the entity electronically when ongoing registration is granted, and
would make information regarding registration status publicly
available. Pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb3-1(a), ongoing registration
would be effective until any cancellation, revocation or withdrawal of
the registration or on any other event the Commission determines should
trigger expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Such proceedings would include notice of the grounds for
denial under consideration and opportunity for hearing, and that at
the conclusion of such proceedings, the Commission would grant or
deny such registration. See proposed Rule 15Fb2-1(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Solicitation of Comments on the General Approach to the SBS Entity
Registration Process
    We request comment on this approach to the SBS Entity registration
process.
    Q-1. Should the Commission model the registration regime applicable
to SBS Entities more closely after one or more other registration
regimes regulated by the Commission (e.g., securities exchanges or
associations,\20\ clearing agencies,\21\ or investment advisers \22\),
self regulatory organizations (``SROs''),\23\ or other regulators? \24\
If so, please describe which model should be followed and why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(1)-(2).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c).
    \23\ See, e.g., National Association of Securities Dealers Rules
1013 and 1014; Chicago Board Options Exchange Rules 3.5(c)(ii),
8.83(b), and 44.12(b); and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22(a).
    \24\ See, e.g., National Futures Association Registration Rules
(which can be found at http://www.nfa.futures.org/nfamanual/NFAManualTOC.aspx?Section=8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-2. Does the conditional process for SBS Entity registration
outlined above provide a practicable solution to the potential timing
issues raised by the implementation of Section 15F of the Exchange Act?
Are there additional or alternative conditions or mechanisms that would
be appropriate for addressing those issues?
    Q-3. Does the conditional process for major security-based swap
participant registration outlined above provide a practicable solution
to the potential timing issues raised by the look-back features in the
proposed definition of ``major security-based swap participant''
definition? Are there additional or alternative conditions or
mechanisms that would be appropriate for addressing those issues?
    Q-4. Should the Commission delay all registrations until the Last
Compliance Date instead of adopting a conditional registration process?
Why or why not?
    Q-5. Should the Commission consider granting conditional
registration automatically based on the receipt of a completed
application or some other or additional documents? If so, why?
    Q-6. Should the Commission notify the SBS Entity that it has
granted conditional or ongoing registration prior to making the SBS
Entity's registration status publicly available? If so, why and what
should be the timing difference?
    Q-7. Should the Commission provide additional guidance regarding
the process for institution of proceedings? For instance, should the
Commission include timeframes within which proceedings would be
instituted and/or a decision to grant or deny registration based on
those proceedings should be provided (e.g., Exchange Act Section
15(b)(1))? If so, what timeframes or other guidance would be
appropriate and why?
    Q-8. Is it appropriate to seek to minimize duplication by
permitting registered intermediaries to follow a registration process
that uses simplified forms? Why or why not?
    Q-9. Should these intermediaries be required to file their existing
registration forms with the Commission as part of this process, or
should they be required to authorize the Commission to obtain access to
those forms at the relevant repository (e.g., the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') or the National Futures Association
(``NFA''))?
    Q-10. Should SBS Entities be afforded more time (beyond the Last
Compliance Date) to prepare and provide their Senior Officer
Certification? Why or why not? If so, how much additional time would be
appropriate?
    Q-11. Should major security-based swap participants that file
applications after the Last Compliance Date be afforded more or less
than four months to prepare and provide their Senior Officer
Certification? Why or why not?
    Q-12. What would be the advantages and disadvantages and costs and
benefits of the Commission adopting an approach to SBS Entity
registration that encompasses a more substantive inquiry concerning the
business of an applicant? What would be the impact on market
participants, including investors?
    Q-13. Are there additional or alternative mechanisms that the
Commission could employ to better protect markets and market
participants and minimize the burden on registrants while meeting the
regulatory objectives of a registration scheme for SBS Entities?

Commenters are encouraged to identify other possible solutions that
would allow the Commission to promptly review and consider SBS Entity
registration applications so they would not experience undue
interruptions in business while also providing the Commission
reasonable assurance that they have the ability to carry out their
business and are able to comply with applicable federal securities
laws.

II. Proposed Exchange Act Rules and Forms

A. Registration Application and Amendment

1. Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would set forth the method through which SBS
Entities could apply for registration with the Commission. Essentially,
the forms and process for filing applications and other documents
electronically with the Commission would be identical for SBS Dealers
and major security-based swap participants. This proposed rule also
would describe the timing of such filings and the standard of review
applied by the Commission in determining whether to grant or deny
registration, which may differ slightly for SBS Dealers and major
security-based swap participants, depending on the type of registration
the firm is seeking. While it may be appropriate for certain rules
applicable to SBS Dealers to differ from those applicable to major
security-based swap participants, the Commission preliminarily believes
that

[[Page 65789]]

the registration rules and forms need not differ significantly because
the information the Commission would need to determine whether
registration is appropriate is similar for both types of entities.
i. Form of Application
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would provide that an SBS
Entity would apply for registration electronically on Form SBSE, Form
SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, in accordance with the
instructions to the form. In general:
     SBS Entities registered or registering with the Commission
as broker-dealers would apply for registration using Form SBSE-BD;
     SBS Entities registered or registering with the CFTC as
swap dealers or major swap participants (and not also registered or
registering with the Commission as broker-dealers) would apply for
registration using Form SBSE-A; and
     SBS Entities that do not fit either of the above
categories would apply for registration using Form SBSE.

Specifics regarding each of these forms and their differences and uses
are discussed in more detail below. These forms would be used to
register with the Commission regardless of whether an SBS Entity was
applying for conditional or ongoing registration.
    The Commission solicits comment on the use of forms to register
with the Commission.
    Q-14. Would an alternative mechanism be more appropriate for
registering SBS Entities? If so, which one and why?
    Q-15. Should the registration forms differ based on whether the
entity is registering as an SBS Dealer or major security-based swap
participant? If so, how?
ii. Senior Officer Certification
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS
Entity provide the Commission with a certification on Form SBSE-C to
facilitate the Commission's review of each firm's application for
ongoing registration. A knowledgeable senior officer of the SBS Entity
would be required to sign the certification,\25\ which is designed to
provide the Commission with the applicant's assurance that the
applicant has the capabilities necessary to operate as an SBS Entity
and, therefore, that the applicant should qualify for registration
under Exchange Act Section 15F(b). Accordingly, the certification would
assist the Commission in determining whether to grant the SBS Entity
ongoing registration. Such an informed determination, based in part on
the certification, will help the Commission maintain orderly and
efficient markets and protect investors by helping to ensure that the
Commission only grants registration to SBS Entities that can attest
that they possess the operational, financial, and compliance
capabilities to conduct business as an SBS Entity. Specifically, under
the proposal, each SBS Entity must have a senior officer certify that,
after due inquiry, he or she has reasonably determined that the SBS
Entity has the operational,\26\ financial,\27\ and compliance \28\
capabilities to act as an SBS Entity. In addition, the proposal would
require that the senior officer certify that he or she has documented
the process by which he or she reached that determination. While the
Commission has required regulated entities to provide a certification
in other contexts,\29\ a requirement that an applicant or regulated
entity certify as to its ability to engage in the business it would be
registered to do is relatively new.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In accordance with Proposed Rule 15Fb1-1(b), the SBS Entity
will need to maintain a manually signed copy of this certification
as part of its books and records until at least three years after
the certification was filed with the Commission.
    \26\ The concept of ``operational capability'' can be an
important regulatory consideration because an SBS Entity with
insufficient infrastructure, technology, and human resources
presents operational risks that may adversely impact its
counterparties and the broader market--e.g., if transactions are
inaccurately documented, not documented at all, or if insufficient
margin is collected. See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of
Security-Based Swap Transactions, Exchange Act Release No. 63727
(Jan. 14, 2011), 76 FR 3859, at 3860 (Jan. 21, 2011) (proposing
release) (discussing the recognition by various parties of the
importance of operational infrastructure in the over-the-counter
derivatives market) (the ``Trade Acknowledgement Proposing
Release''). The Commission expects that a key foundation for the
Senior Officer Certification would be the capability of an SBS
Entity to comply with the obligations that would be imposed by the
Trade Acknowledgment Proposing Release, if adopted, other legal
obligations applicable to the operations of an SBS Entity, and the
capability of the SBS Entity to conduct its business as represented
in the SBS Entity's application for ongoing registration.
    \27\ The concept of ``financial capability'' can be an important
regulatory consideration because of, among other things, the role
adequate financing plays in protecting an SBS Entity's
counterparties and the broader market by ensuring that the SBS
Entity has sufficient working capital and liquidity for its
security-based swap business consistent with regulatory requirements
and as needed to respond to market conditions. The Commission will
separately propose capital rules for SBS Entities, as required by
the Dodd Frank Act. 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e). The Commission expects that
the capability of an SBS Entity to comply with these obligations, if
adopted, would form a key foundation for the Senior Officer
Certification.
    \28\ The concept of ``compliance capability'' can be an
important regulatory consideration because of, among other things,
the wholesale creation of a new regulatory regime for security-based
swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, in proposing business
conduct rules for SBS Entities, the Commission proposed to require
that each SBS Entity ``[establish, maintain, and enforce] written
policies and procedures addressing the supervision of the types of
security-based swap business in which the [SBS Entity] is engaged
that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.'' Business
Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 64766
(Jun. 29, 2011), 76 FR 42396, (Jul. 18, 2011), as corrected by
Exchange Act Release No. 64766, 76 FR 46668 (Aug. 3, 2011)
(proposing release). The Commission expects that development and
implementation of such a compliance regime, if adopted, would serve
as a key foundation for the Senior Officer Certification.
    \29\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.15c3-5, 17 CFR 240.13a-14, and 17 CFR
270.30a-2.
    \30\ See, e.g., Registration of Municipal Advisors, Exchange Act
Release No. 63576 (Dec. 20, 2010), 76 FR 824, (Jan. 6, 2011)
(proposing release) (the ``Registration of Municipal Advisors
Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily believes that receipt of a Senior
Officer Certification would provide assurances to the Commission that
each SBS Entity has the requisite capabilities to operate in the
capacity for which it seeks registration. The Senior Officer
Certification is designed to require a deliberate and thoughtful self-
assessment by each SBS Entity of its capabilities and thus should
provide assurances to potential investors, customers of, and
counterparties to an SBS Entity that the SBS Entity has the requisite
capabilities to act in that capacity. Further, this Senior Officer
Certification requirement could help prevent disorderly and unstable
markets that could result from the failure of a registered SBS Entity
that lacks the requisite capabilities to operate its business in a
registered capacity. The Senior Officer Certification also may enhance
market participants' ability to assess the counterparty credit risk
associated with a particular SBS Entity counterparty. In this way, the
Senior Officer Certification should help to protect investors and other
market participants from SBS Entities that are not competent to engage
in that business, lack the financial resources to do so, or are unable
or unwilling to comply with applicable law. The Commission thus
preliminarily believes that the Senior Officer Certification could help
the efficient functioning of the market and enhance the confidence of
investors and other market participants.
    The Senior Officer Certification requirement, in other words, is
meant to address many of the same considerations that arise during the
in-depth review by the Commission and its staff, or, in some cases,
SROs, prior to

[[Page 65790]]

granting registration to certain applicants.\31\ For example, under
Sections 6(b) and 19(a) of the Exchange Act, an exchange may not be
registered unless the Commission finds that the exchange ``is so
organized and has the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Exchange Act and to comply, and [* * *] to enforce compliance by
its members and persons associated with its members, with the
provisions of [the Exchange Act], the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the rules of the exchange.'' \32\ Similarly, under Section 17A of
the Exchange Act, a clearing agency may not be registered unless the
Commission finds that the agency ``has the capacity to be able to
facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions for which it is responsible, to safeguard securities and
funds in its custody or control or for which it is responsible, to
comply with the provisions of [the Exchange Act] and the rules and
regulations thereunder, [and] to enforce [* * *] compliance by its
participants with the rules of the clearing agency, and to carry out
the purposes of this section.'' \33\ To this end, the Commission has
published a series of standards ``that the [staff] will use in
reviewing the organizations, capacities and rules of clearing agencies
that currently are registered temporarily with the Commission and of
clearing agencies that may apply for registration * * *.'' \34\ Broker-
dealers that register with the Commission under Section 15(b) also must
become a member of an SRO, and SRO rules generally incorporate
membership application procedures that include, among other things,
assessments by the SRO of the broker-dealer's operational, financial,
and compliance capabilities.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) (regarding registration of
national securities exchanges), and 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(A)
(regarding registration of clearing agencies). See also 15 U.S.C.
78o-3(b)(1) and (2) (regarding registration of national securities
associations). In addition, the Commission recently proposed rules
governing the registration of security-based swap data repositories
(``SDRs''), security-based swap execution facilities (``SB SEFs''),
security-based swap clearing agencies (``SBS CAs''), and municipal
advisors that relate to potential registrants' operational,
financial, and compliance capabilities. For example, the proposed
registration rules for security-based swap data repositories are
intended to, among other things, assure the Commission that ``an SDR
is so organized, and has the capacity, to be able to assure the
prompt, accurate, and reliable performance of its functions as an
SDR, comply with any applicable provision of the Federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and carry out its
functions in a manner consistent with the purposes of Exchange
Act.'' These proposed rules may also require an SDR to file with the
Commission, as a condition of registration or continued
registration, a review relating to the SDR's operational capacity
and ability to meet its regulatory obligations. Such review could be
in the form of a report conducted by the SDR, an independent third
party, or both. Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration,
Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov.
19, 2010), 75 FR 77306 (Dec. 10, 2010) (proposing release).
Similarly, the proposed registration rules for security-based swap
execution facilities are designed to assure the Commission that a
registrant ``has adequate financial, operational, and managerial
resources to discharge each responsibility of the SB SEF, as
determined by the Commission.'' Registration and Regulation of
Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities, Exchange Act Release No.
63825 (Feb. 2, 2011), 76 FR 10948 (Feb. 28, 2011) (proposing
release). Among other things, these rules state in part that ``the
financial resources of a SB SEF shall be considered to be adequate
if the value of the financial resources exceeds the total amount
that would enable the SB SEF to cover its operating costs for a one
year period.'' The Commission also proposed registration rules for
security-based swap clearing agencies that require, among other
things, registrants to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that their
systems provide adequate levels of capacity, resiliency, and
security. Such policies and procedures shall, at a minimum: (i)
Establish reasonable current and future capacity estimates; (ii)
conduct periodic capacity stress tests of critical systems to
determine such systems' ability to process transactions in an
accurate, timely, and efficient manner; (iii) develop and implement
reasonable procedures to review and keep current its system
development and testing methodology; (iv) review the vulnerability
of its systems and data center computer operations to internal and
external threats, physical hazards, and natural disasters; and (v)
establish adequate contingency and disaster recovery plans. These
rules further require that clearing agencies that provide central
counterparty (``CCP'') services need to have a qualified person
conduct a review of models that are used to set margin levels, along
with related parameters and assumptions, in order to assure that the
models perform in a manner that facilitates prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of transactions. In determining whether a
person is qualified to conduct the model validation, clearing
agencies providing CCP services could consider several factors,
including the person's experience in validating margin models,
expertise in risk management generally, and understanding of the
clearing agency's operations and procedures. Clearing Agency
Standards for Operation and Governance, Exchange Act Release No.
64017 (Mar. 3, 2011), 76 FR 14472 (Mar. 16, 2011) (proposing
release) (the ``Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release'').
Finally, the proposed registration rules for municipal advisors
would require municipal advisors to certify that they have: ``1)
sufficient qualifications, training, experience, and competence to
effectively carry out their designated functions; 2) met, or within
any applicable timeframe will meet, such standards of training
experience, and competence, and such other qualifications, including
testing, for a municipal advisor, required by the Commission, the
MSRB or any other relevant self-regulatory organization; and 3) the
necessary understanding of, and ability to comply with, all
applicable regulatory obligations.'' Registration of Municipal
Advisors Proposing Release, supra note 30.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(A).
    \34\ The Commission has established a series of standards ``that
the [staff] will use in reviewing the organizations, capacities and
rules of clearing agencies that currently are registered temporarily
with the Commission and of clearing agencies that may apply for
registration * * *.'' Regulation of Clearing Agencies, Exchange Act
Release No. 16900 (Jun. 17. 1980), 45 FR 41920 (June 23, 1980)
(emphasis added). See also the Clearing Agency Standards Proposing
Release, supra note 30.
    \35\ See, e.g., NASD Rules 1013 and 1014 (membership application
review requires a new broker-dealer to, among other things, file a
detailed business plan, explain its sources of funding, describe the
educational background and experience of its personnel, and undergo
a membership interview). Existing FINRA members that wish to enter
into a materially new business, such as dealing in security-based
swaps, must also file an application to do so, and those
applications are similarly reviewed to determine whether the broker-
dealer has the requisite capabilities to conduct the new business.
NASD Rule 1017. Exchange Act Rule 15b2-2 requires that a new broker-
dealer be examined within six months to evaluate whether the broker-
dealer is operating in conformity with applicable financial
responsibility rules and again within twelve months to evaluate
whether it is also operating in conformity with all other applicable
provisions of the Exchange Act and rules thereunder. 17 CFR
240.15b2-2(b) & (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, although we provide guidance above regarding the
factors a senior officer would use to serve as a foundation for the
Senior Officer Certification,\36\ we are not proposing a specific
definition of the term ``operational, financial and compliance
capabilities.'' Instead, we request comment regarding whether and how
that phrase should be further defined or interpreted. The Commission
recognizes that whether an SBS Entity has the operational, financial
and compliance capabilities to act as an SBS Entity likely will depend
on its particular facts and circumstances, including, among other
things: the scope and nature of its security-based swap business; its
other related financial and business activities; the extent to which it
is subject to other registration and regulatory requirements or other
supervisory oversight with respect to its activities; its relationships
with, and reliance on, affiliates, service providers, and other
parties; and the extent and nature of its historical involvement in
security-based swap transactions. Moreover, it may be appropriate to
consider the capabilities required for this certification by reference
to regulatory standards. For example, attesting to capabilities might
include a self-assessment of whether the SBS Entity is capable of
communicating in a manner that is based on principles of fair dealing
and good faith; \37\ whether the SBS Entity has established all
contractual or other arrangements and business relationships necessary
to conduct its security-based swap business; \38\ whether the SBS
Entity has or has adequate plans to obtain facilities

[[Page 65791]]

that are sufficient for its operations; \39\ and whether the SBS Entity
is capable of maintaining a level of capital that is adequate to
support the SBS Entity's intended business operations on a continuing
basis.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See supra notes 26-28.
    \37\ See Section 15F(h)(3)(C) (providing that business conduct
requirements adopted by the Commission shall establish a duty to
communicate in a manner ``based on principles of fair dealing and
good faith'').
    \38\ See NASD Rule 1014(a)(4).
    \39\ See NASD Rule 1014(a)(5).
    \40\ See NASD Rule 1014(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would require that a senior officer of an SBS
Entity certify that he or she has reasonably determined that, after
``due inquiry,'' the security-based swap dealer or major security-based
swap participant has the operational, financial, and compliance
capabilities to act as an SBS Entity.\41\ We believe it is important to
make explicit that the senior officer is obligated under the rule to
conduct some inquiry to form his or her reasonable determination.
However, the Commission does not propose to prescribe any single method
a senior officer must use to gain an appropriate level of comfort and
information before signing the Senior Officer Certification. In other
words, different SBS Entities may utilize different processes to
provide a basis for a senior officer's reasonable determination that
the SBS Entity has the requisite capabilities.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ This certification must be accurate as of the date the
certification is filed with the Commission. An SBS Entity would not
be required to have a senior officer update the certification after
the SBS Entity has been approved for ongoing registration.
    \42\ For example, in satisfying other certification requirements
some SBS Entities may use a sub-certification process whereby the
senior officer will not certify a firm-wide statement unless and
until other persons responsible for certain activities in turn
certify to the senior officer that the standard has been met, while
other SBS Entities may use an internal or external audit-type
process whereby a senior officer may choose to employ a third party
to review an area subject to a firm-wide certification before
submitting the certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in Part I above, the proposed registration process
would include conditional and ongoing registration. Pursuant to
subparagraph (b)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively, of proposed Rule 15Fb2-
1, SBS Entities that register conditionally during the transitional
period would need to submit the Senior Officer Certification on or
before the Last Compliance Date and major security-based swap
participants that file an application after the Last Compliance Date
would need to submit the certification within four months after filing
an application. The Commission preliminarily believes that these
timeframes would provide senior officers of conditionally registered
SBS Entities sufficient time to determine that they are able to provide
the relevant certification. Pursuant to subparagraph (b)(2), an SBS
Dealer that files an application after the Last Compliance Date would
need to submit the Senior Officer Certification with its application.
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed
requirement for SBS Entities to provide the Commission with a Senior
Officer Certification on Form SBSE-C as specified in proposed Rule
15Fb2-1(b), and on the registration process generally. With respect to
this certification, the Commission is interested in commenters
responses to the following questions, and also to questions Q-54.
through Q-61. relating to Additional Registration Considerations.
    Q-16. Would the Senior Officer Certification requirement provide
sufficient assurance that each SBS Entity has the necessary
capabilities to act as a registered SBS Entity? Why or why not? Would
it provide sufficient assurance that SBS Entities have established
controls to ensure compliance with all applicable securities law
requirements? Why or why not?
    Q-17. Would the Senior Officer Certification provide sufficient
assurance to customers of and counterparties to SBS Entities,
investors, eligible contract participants and other market participants
that new SBS Entities have the requisite capabilities to act as SBS
Entities? Why or why not?
    Q-18. Should the Commission only require SBS Dealers, and not major
security-based swap participants, to provide a Senior Officer
Certification? Why or why not? What would be the comparative
advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or benefits of such an approach?
    Q-19. Alternatively, should the form of Senior Officer
Certification an SBS Entity must file be driven by whether the entity
is an SBS Dealer or major security-based swap participant? For
instance, should an SBS Dealer be required to certify to its
capabilities and a major security-based swap participant be required to
certify to its policies and procedures? If so, what form of Senior
Officer Certification should SBS Dealers be required to file and which
form of Senior Officer Certification should major security-based swap
participants be required to file? What would be the comparative
advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or benefits of requiring dealers
and participants to certify using different certification language?
    Q-20. What alternative forms of Senior Officer Certification should
be considered, if any? For example, should the proposed Senior Officer
Certification use the language that the Commission proposed with
respect to the certification to be made by municipal advisors? \43\ Why
or why not? What would be the comparative advantages, disadvantages,
costs and/or benefits of using the same certification language the
Commission has proposed for use by municipal advisors as opposed to the
language proposed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 31, regarding the certification the
Commission proposed for use by municipal advisors in the
Registration of Municipal Advisors Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-21. The concept of developing and implementing written policies
and procedures has often been used by the Commission to further its
regulatory objectives. Should the Senior Officer Certification instead
require that a senior officer certify that ``to the best of his or her
knowledge, after due inquiry, the security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant has developed and implemented written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of
federal securities laws, the rules thereunder, and applicable self-
regulatory organization rules?'' \44\ Why or why not? What would be the
impact of the Senior Officer Certification if it did not specifically
address operational capability? What would be the comparative
advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or benefits of using this language
as opposed to the language proposed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act (requiring
that broker-dealers establish, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information). 15 U.S.C. 78o(g). See also Rule
206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers
Act'') (requiring that investment advisers must adopt and implement
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent
violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder). 17 CFR
275.206(4)-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-22. Should the Commission more specifically define the term
``operational, financial, and compliance capabilities''? If so, how
should this term be defined to, among other things, provide greater
certainty to market participants about the basis for providing the
Senior Officer Certification?
    Q-23. Should the Commission specifically define the term
``capability?'' Should the Commission, for example, define the term
``capability,'' as it relates to the financial, operational, and
compliance functions of an SBS Entity, as ``having the necessary
ability or qualities''? Why or why not? Should the Commission define
the term capability in some other way? If so, how and why?
    Q-24. Alternatively, should the Commission simply adopt the
Webster's New World Dictionary definition which

[[Page 65792]]

defines the term ``capability'' to mean ``the quality of being capable;
practical ability,'' and defines the term ``capable'' to mean, among
other things, ``having ability; able; skilled; competent --capable of;
having the ability or qualities necessary for; able or ready to?'' \45\
Why or why not? Should the Commission instead adopt some other
dictionary definition? If so, what other dictionary definition should
be used and why? Alternatively, should the Commission define the term
capability in some other way? If so, how and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Websters New World Dictionary 110 (2nd concise ed. 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-25. Should the Commission determine that a firm may rely on the
establishment, maintenance and enforcement of written policies and
procedures by an SBS Entity that are reasonably designed to prevent
violation of federal securities laws, the rules thereunder, and
applicable self-regulatory organization rules as a basis for a senior
officer to certify that an SBS Entity has the appropriate ``compliance
capability?'' Why or why not?
    Q-26. Should the Commission determine that a firm may rely on the
establishment, maintenance and enforcement of written policies and
procedures by an SBS Entity that are reasonably designed to assure that
the SBS Entity complies with applicable capital and margin requirements
as a basis for a senior officer to certify that an SBS Entity has the
appropriate ``financial capability?'' Why or why not?
    Q-27. If the Commission does not specifically define what would
constitute operational, financial, and compliance capabilities, will
there still be a sufficient basis for SBS Entities and/or their senior
officers to provide the Commission with a Senior Officer Certification?
Why or why not? Would any potential uncertainty arising from the
decision not to define at this time the terms ``operational, financial,
and compliance capabilities'' and ``capabilities'' cause difficulties
for SBS Entities seeking to register on an ongoing basis? If so, please
describe.
    Q-28. Should SBS Entities be required to provide a Senior Officer
Certification as to any capabilities in addition to the three
specified? If so, what other capabilities and why? Alternatively,
should any of the capabilities be eliminated from the Senior Officer
Certification? If so, which one(s) and why? For example, should the
certification relating to an SBS Entity's capabilities be confined to
operational capability given the regulatory imperative to comply with
applicable regulations (including capital rules)? What would be the
comparative advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or benefits of adding
or eliminating such capabilities?
    Q-29. In addition to, or in lieu of the Senior Officer
Certification requirement, should the Commission utilize an approach to
demonstration of capabilities similar to the one we use to register
national securities exchanges under Exchange Act Section 6(b)(1) \46\
(which requires that an exchange have the ``capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of [the Exchange Act * * *], the rules and
regulations thereunder'')? Would such a standard provide additional
clarity as to the capabilities to be required of registrants? What
would be the advantages and disadvantages and the costs and benefits of
such an alternative process?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See supra note 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-30. Should the Commission instead utilize an approach to
demonstration of capabilities similar to the one we use to register
clearing agencies under Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3)(A) \47\ (which
requires that an exchange have the ``capacity to be able to facilitate
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions for
which it is responsible, to safeguard securities and funds in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible, to comply with the
provisions of [the Exchange Act] and the rules and regulations
thereunder, [and] to enforce [* * *] compliance by its participants
with the rules of the clearing agency, and to carry out the purposes of
this section'')? Would such a standard provide additional clarity as to
the capabilities to be required of registrants? What would be the
advantages and disadvantages and the costs and benefits of such an
alternative process?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See supra note 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-31. Should the form of Senior Officer Certification an SBS Entity
must file be driven by whether the entity is, or is not, already
registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer or with the CFTC as a
swap dealer or major swap participant? Why or why not? If so, what
forms of certification would be appropriate for use by SBS Entities
that are already registered with one of the Commission or the CFTC?
What would be the comparative advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or
benefits of this approach?
    Q-32. Should SBS Entities already registered with the Commission as
a broker-dealer or with the CFTC as a swap dealer or major swap
participant be excepted from the requirement to file a Senior Officer
Certification? Why or why not? What would be the comparative
advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or benefits of this approach?
    Q-33. If an SBS Entity were also registered with the Commission as
a broker-dealer and an SRO were to conduct a ``material change in
business review'' of the SBS Entity's security-based swap business,
should the SBS Entity be permitted to rely on the SRO's review and
approval of that new business as a basis for its Senior Officer
Certification? Would the form of Senior Officer Certification affect
the SBS Entity's ability to rely on such a review and approval? If so,
how and why? Given that SBS Entities that are also registered as
broker-dealers would be required by existing SRO rules to undergo a
material change in business review, are there any advantages and
disadvantages or costs and benefits associated with reliance on an SRO
``material change in business review'' and approval as a basis for its
Senior Officer Certification?
    Q-34. Similarly, if an SBS Entity were also involved in swap
activity, could that entity use any CFTC, NFA or prudential regulatory
agency's review of its swap business to inform its Senior Officer
Certification to the Commission? Would the form of Senior Officer
Certification affect the SBS Entity's ability to rely on such a review
and approval? If so, how and why? Are there any advantages and
disadvantages or costs and benefits associated with reliance on a CFTC,
NFA or prudential regulatory agency's review of its swap business as a
basis for its Senior Officer Certification?
    Q-35. Would the Senior Officer Certification requirement
effectively require an SBS Entity to employ a third party's services to
examine or confirm conclusions required for the certification? Why or
why not? If third party services were effectively required, what would
be the advantages and disadvantages and costs and benefits of such
third party services?
    Q-36. Should we include the due inquiry requirement in the rule?
Should we instead specify particular steps a senior officer must take
to determine whether the SBS Entity has the requisite capabilities?
    Q-37. Should the senior officer of an SBS Entity be required to
disclose on Form SBSE-C or elsewhere, the nature of the ``due inquiry''
he or she performed before signing Form SBSE-C and his or her resulting
findings and conclusions? Why or why not?
    Q-38. Should the Commission define its expectations with respect to
the ``due inquiry'' a senior officer should perform

[[Page 65793]]

before signing Form SBSE-C? If so, what should be included as part of a
senior officer's ``due inquiry?'' Should ``due inquiry'' differ
depending on whether the SBS Entity is an SBS Dealer or a major
security-based swap participant? Please explain.
    Q-39. Is the timeframe within which the proposed Senior Officer
Certification would need to be filed appropriate? If not, should the
timeframe be shorter or longer and why?
    Q-40. Should the Commission eliminate the requirement that a senior
officer certify that he or she has documented the process by which he
or she reached his or her determination regarding the SBS Entity's
capacity? Why or why not? Should the Commission instead simply require
that a senior officer document this process and require that the SBS
Entity maintain those documents as part of its books and records? Would
a senior officer believe that he or she may be second-guessed if, among
other circumstances, the senior officer certifies as to an SBS Entity's
capabilities but does not retain documentation demonstrating how he or
she reached this determination?
iii. Electronic Filing
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would address the manner in
which the application, certification, and any additional registration
documents would be filed with the Commission. Proposed paragraph (c)(1)
would require applications, certifications, and any additional
documents to be filed electronically. The Commission anticipates that
the EDGAR system will be expanded to facilitate registration of SBS
Entities because it likely would provide the most cost-effective
solution.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ To the extent the Commission utilizes the EDGAR system to
facilitate registration of SBS Entities, applicants would need to
utilize the EDGAR Filer Manual (as defined in 17 CFR 232.11) to
facilitate their filing of applications electronically. The EDGAR
Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to
submit filings using the EDGAR system. Generally, entities filing
documents in electronic format through the EDGAR system must comply
with the applicable provisions of the EDGAR Filer Manual in order to
assure the timely acceptance and processing of those filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would specify
the effective date of filing of applications and certifications
submitted pursuant to the paragraphs (a) and (b). Subparagraph
(c)(2)(i) would provide that an SBS Entity's application submitted
pursuant to paragraph (a) would be considered filed only when a
complete Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, and
all required additional documents are filed with the Commission or its
designee. Subparagraph (c)(2)(ii) would provide that an SBS Entity's
certification submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) would be considered
filed when a complete Form SBSE-C is filed electronically with the
Commission or its designee.
    If a technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of
applications is not functional by the time final rules are adopted,
proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T, described more fully below, would
require SBS Entities to file applications and additional documents in
paper form.
    The Commission requests comment on the proposed method for
receiving applications.
    Q-41. Should the Commission not require electronic submission of
applications? If not, why?
    Q-41. Instead of expanding the EDGAR system to receive SBS Entity
applications for registration, should the Commission utilize some other
system? Please explain. What would be the comparative advantages and
disadvantages and costs and benefits of utilizing a system other than
EDGAR?
    Q-43. What would be the advantages and disadvantages and costs and
benefits to prospective applicants of expansion of the EDGAR system to
receive SBS Entity applications for registration, especially with
respect to the varying levels of familiarity that they may have with
this system?
    Q-44. Should the Commission designate another entity to facilitate
the electronic receipt of applications? Why or why not? If so, what
types of entities should we consider?
    Q-45. What other issues, if any, should the Commission consider in
connection with electronic filing?
iv. Standards for Granting or Denying Applications
    Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would provide that the
Commission may grant or deny an application for registration, and would
set forth the standards the Commission would use to make that
determination. The grant or denial of a conditional registration would
depend principally on the completeness of an application, whether the
applicant is subject to a statutory disqualification, and whether the
Commission is aware of inaccurate statements in the application. The
grant or denial of an ongoing registration would also require that the
Commission find that the requirements of Exchange Act Section 15F(b)
are satisfied. As noted in Part I above, conditionally registered SBS
Entities would need to obtain ongoing registration to continue doing a
security-based swap business once their conditional registration
expires.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Proposed Rule 15Fb3-1(b)(1) would provide that conditional
registrations granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of Proposed Rule
15Fb2-1 would expire on the Last Compliance Date for SBS Entities
that filed a complete application before the Last Compliance Date,
unless the SBS Entity files with the Commission a certification on
Form SBSE-C or the Commission extends conditional registration for
good cause. Proposed Rule 15Fb3-1(b)(2) would provide that
conditional registrations granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of
Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would expire four months after a major
security-based swap participant files a complete application, if it
filed such application after the Last Compliance Date, unless the
major security-based swap participant files with the Commission a
certification on Form SBSE-C. In both cases, if the Senior Officer
Certification is filed within the given timeframe, conditional
registration is extended by 30 days to allow the Commission time to
determine whether to grant or deny ongoing registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When considering an application for conditional registration,
proposed paragraph 15Fb2-1(d)(1) provides that the Commission would
grant such registration if it finds that the firm's application is
complete, except that the Commission may institute proceedings to
determine whether to deny conditional registration if it finds that the
applicant is subject to a statutory disqualification or the Commission
is aware of inaccurate statements in the application. Such proceedings
would include notice of the grounds for denial under consideration and
opportunity for hearing. At the conclusion of such proceedings, the
Commission would grant or deny such registration.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would allow the Commission to grant ongoing
registration to an SBS Entity. It is contemplated that ongoing
registration would be sought by firms that have been conditionally
registered with the Commission, as well as by new firms entering the
marketplace that have not been conditionally registered (e.g., an SBS
Dealer seeking registration after the Last Compliance Date). Paragraph
(d)(2) would specify that the Commission would grant ongoing
registration based on a firm's application and certification. Proposed
paragraph (d)(2) would provide that if the Commission granted
conditional registration to an SBS Entity, the Commission could grant
or deny ongoing registration based on the original application
submitted by the SBS Entity, as amended,\50\ and the certification
submitted to the Commission by the SBS Entity pursuant to paragraph
(b). When considering any

[[Page 65794]]

application for ongoing registration, Rule 15Fb2-1(d)(2) would provide
that the Commission would grant registration if it finds that the
requirements of Exchange Act Section 15F(b) are satisfied, except that
the Commission may institute proceedings to determine whether ongoing
registration should be denied if it does not make such finding or if it
finds that the applicant is subject to a statutory disqualification or
the Commission is aware of inaccurate statements in the application or
certification. Such proceedings would include notice of the grounds for
denial under consideration and opportunity for hearing, and that at the
conclusion of such proceedings, the Commission would grant or deny such
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The SBS Entity may have amended its application to address
changes that may have occurred in the intervening period between the
date the application was originally filed and the date the
Commission evaluates whether ongoing registration should be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission would notify the entity
electronically when conditional or ongoing registration is granted, and
would make information regarding registration status publicly
available.
    The Commission requests comment on these proposed standards of
review for granting or denying registration in proposed Rule 15Fb2-
1(d).
    Q-46. Should the Commission consider using different standards of
review to grant conditional registration to SBS Entities who apply
before the Last Compliance Date than it uses for major security-based
swap participants that apply for conditional registration after the
Last Compliance Date?
    Q-47. Would the standard requiring denial of an application if the
applicant is subject to statutory disqualification cause undue hardship
for any possible applicants? If so, how many applicants are likely to
be affected? Should this standard be refined or eliminated? If
applicants subject to statutory disqualification should be allowed to
register, should they be subject to any additional requirements? Please
explain.
    Q-48. Should the Commission consider broader or more limited
standards for granting or denying conditional registration? If so,
please describe the standard that should be used and the reasons why it
would be more appropriate than the standard proposed.
    Q-49. Should the Commission consider using a different standard of
review to grant ongoing registration?
    Q-50. Should the Commission consider broader or more limited
standards for granting or denying ongoing registration? If so, please
describe the standard that should be used for granting or denying
ongoing registration and the reasons why it would be more appropriate
than the standard proposed.
    Q-51. Should the Commission staff base its decision only on a
review of a firm's application (including any additional documents) and
certification or should an on-site examination or some other type of
review be considered? If so, what would be the appropriate scope and
timing of such a review?
    Q-52. Is there a need to lengthen or shorten the proposed
timeframes provided for the effectiveness of conditional registration
in paragraph (d)(1)? If so, how long should they be?
    Q-53. Should the Commission provide additional guidance regarding
the process for institution of proceedings? For instance, should the
Commission include timeframes within which proceedings would be
instituted and/or a decision to grant or deny registration based on
those proceedings should be provided (e.g., Exchange Act Section
15(b)(1))? If so, what timeframes or other guidance and why?
v. Request for Comment on Additional Registration Considerations
    The Commission requests comment on what, if any, alternative
approaches should be considered to meet the Commission's regulatory
objectives in the registration process for SBS Entities and how any
such alternative approaches would compare to the current proposal.\51\
Any such comparison should describe the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative, as well as their relative costs and
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ As described in footnote 12 above, the Commission is
presently reviewing the various standards and processes it uses to
facilitate registration, and we would expect that any alternative
processes suggested by commenters here would inform that review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-54. Should the Commission not adopt a Senior Officer
Certification requirement, and instead seek to satisfy itself during
the registration process, based on documents the SBS Entity may be able
to provide to the Commission, that the SBS Entity has the operational,
financial, and/or compliance capabilities to act as an SBS Dealer or
major security-based swap participant, as applicable? What would be the
advantages and disadvantages and the costs and benefits of such an
alternative process?
    Q-55. If the Commission determines to satisfy itself during the
registration process, based on documents the SBS Entity may be able to
provide to the Commission, that the SBS Entity has the operational,
financial, and/or compliance capabilities to act as an SBS Dealer or
major security-based swap participant, as applicable, should the
Commission identify which documents or categories of documents should
be submitted in order to facilitate its review and/or decision? If so,
what types of documents (e.g., business plan, written procedures, or
annual audit statements) should the Commission identify to facilitate
this review and what would be the costs of obtaining or providing such
documents?
    Q-56. Should the Commission not adopt a Senior Officer
Certification requirement, and instead require that an SBS Entity
obtain and submit to the Commission an independent third-party review
of its operational, financial, and compliance capabilities or its
written policies and procedures before granting ongoing registration?
What practical considerations--e.g., identifying an appropriate
independent third party, measuring the time, cost, and reliability of
any such review, addressing the types of information to be shared with
a third party and the factors to be considered in its review--would
inform whether such a review would be appropriate? What would be the
advantages and disadvantages and costs and benefits of requiring a
third-party review instead of the Senior Officer Certification?
    Q-57. Should the Commission adopt a Senior Officer Certification
requirement, and also require that an SBS Entity employ a third party
to independently review its capabilities to provide a basis for that
Senior Officer Certification? What would be the advantages and
disadvantages and costs and benefits of having an SBS Entity's
capabilities independently reviewed? If such a review were required,
who could perform such a review, what would such review entail, and
should the review be submitted to the Commission along with the
certification? What would be the comparative advantages, disadvantages,
costs and/or benefits of requiring dealers and participants to have
their capabilities independently reviewed?
    Q-58. If the Commission required that SBS Entities obtain and
submit an independent third-party review, what types of entities could
perform such a review (e.g., accountants, law firms, consulting firms)
and what independence standards should apply for purposes of conducting
the review? Could a review or examination by another governmental
agency (e.g., the Federal Reserve Board, the CFTC, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency) or an SRO constitute an independent third
party review for these purposes? If not, why? Are there any practical
or legal impediments to obtaining or providing to the Commission a
review from a third party

[[Page 65795]]

or a governmental agency or an SRO? If so, could these be addressed by
contract or otherwise?
    Q-59. Are there any other forms of oversight that could or should
reinforce or replace the proposed Senior Officer Certification? What
would be the comparative advantages, disadvantages, costs and/or
benefits of such an approach?
    Q-60. Are there other approaches to registration the Commission
should consider that, in a cost-effective manner, would both fulfill
the statutory mandate to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and
efficient markets, facilitate capital formation, and ensure that the
security-based swap market smoothly transitions from a generally
unregulated marketplace to one that is regulated and subject to
appropriate oversight? If so, please explain which ones and why.
    Q-61. If the Commission were to consider an approach to
registration that required something other than a Senior Officer
Certification, would SBS Entities need more time to gather, obtain, or
submit any documents, third party review, or other items than we have
proposed for submission of the Senior Officer Certification (i.e., on
or before the Last Compliance Date or, for participants that apply
after the Last Compliance Date, within four months after it files its
completed application)? If so why or why not?
    In the Intermediary Definitions Release,\52\ the Commission
acknowledged that the statutory definitions include a provision stating
that a person may be designated as a dealer for one or more types,
classes or categories of security-based swaps, or activities. Further,
that release indicated that one commenter stated that the Commissions
should allow a person to register as a swap dealer or SBS Dealer for
only a limited set of types, classes or categories of swaps or
security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Intermediary Definitions Release, supra note 5, at 80182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-62. Should the registration process be expanded in any way to
allow firms to choose whether they register in a ``full'' or
``limited'' capacity? If so, how?
    Q-63. What additional information should be elicited by the
proposed forms to provide the Commission with sufficient information to
determine whether limited (as opposed to full) registration is
appropriate? Should there be separate forms for firms to apply for
limited, as opposed to full, registration? Should there instead be a
separate schedule to the forms as proposed? Should the timing differ
and, if so, how and why?
    Q-64. Should an applicant for limited registration be required to
provide the Commission with a different senior officer or other
certification? If so, how should the certification differ?
    Q-65. Should the Commission apply a different standard of review
when considering whether to grant or deny limited registration to an
applicant? If so, which one and why?
    Q-66. If the Commission were to grant an SBS Entity's application
for limited registration and the SBS Entity later determined that it
would prefer to be fully registered, how should this transition be
effected?

Please provide as much detail as possible in commenting on which of the
above referenced courses of action should be pursued. Please also
provide information regarding possible costs or benefits of each of
these alternatives.

2. Amendments to Application Forms: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3 would require an SBS Entity to promptly \53\
amend its Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, Form SBSE-BD, as applicable, to
correct any information it determines is, or has become, inaccurate for
any reason.\54\ The Commission preliminarily believes this proposed
Rule is necessary in order for it to have access to accurate
information as part of its ongoing oversight of SBS Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ For purposes of Rule 15b3-1, the Commission has interpreted
the term ``promptly'' to mean within 30 days. (In the Matter of
First Guarantor Securities, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 32725, 51
S.E.C. 612 (Aug. 6, 1993), which states, ``Absent extraordinary
circumstances, an amendment to Form BD filed beyond thirty days from
the change in information cannot be considered `promptly' filed in
accordance with Rule 15b3-1.'') We preliminarily believe this
standard is also appropriate with respect to the use of this term in
proposed Rule 15Fb2-3.
    \54\ This proposed rule is based on Exchange Act Rule 15b3-1,
which is applicable to registered brokers and dealers and has worked
well to assure that broker-dealers promptly amend their
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of proposed Rule
15Fb2-3.
    Q-67. Should the Commission only require SBS Entities to promptly
update their Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD when they become
``materially'' inaccurate?
    Q-68. Should SBS Entities instead be required to periodically
update these forms and, if so, what would be an appropriate timeframe
for updating (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually)? What may be the
comparative costs and benefits of periodic updating vs. ``prompt''
updating?
    Q-69. If the Commission requires SBS Entities to promptly update
their Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD when they become materially
inaccurate, should it also require that all information on the forms be
updated periodically?
    Q-70. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to require that
certain information be updated more frequently than other information?
If so, please describe what information should be subject to more
frequent updates and why, and the frequency with which each such item
should be updated.

B. Associated Persons

1. Certification
    Paragraph (b)(6) of Exchange Act Section 15F generally prohibits
SBS Entities from permitting any of their associated persons \55\ who
are subject to a ``statutory disqualification'' (as defined in Exchange
Act Section 3(a)(39)) to effect or be involved in effecting \56\
security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity if the SBS Entity
knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the
statutory disqualification. To provide SBS Entities with a mechanism to
assess their compliance with this provision, paragraph (a) of proposed
Rule 15Fb6-1 would require that an SBS Entity certify, on Schedule G of
Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, that no person
associated with it who effects or is involved in effecting security-
based swaps on its behalf is subject to statutory disqualification, as
defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act.\57\ If an associated
person later becomes

[[Page 65796]]

statutorily disqualified, the SBS Entity would need to ensure that the
associated person does not continue to effect or be involved in
effecting security-based swaps on the SBS Entity's behalf and/or
promptly amend its Schedule G in accordance with proposed Rule 15Fb2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(70) generally defines the term ``person
associated with'' an SBS Entity to include: (i) Any partner,
officer, director, or branch manager of an SBS Entity (or any person
occupying a similar status or performing similar functions); (ii)
any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or
under common control with an SBS Entity; or (iii) any employee of an
SBS Entity. However, it generally excludes persons whose functions
are solely clerical or ministerial.
    \56\ The Commission believes that associated persons ``involved
in effecting'' security-based swaps would include, but not be
limited to, persons involved in drafting and negotiating master
agreements and confirmations, persons recommending security-based
swap transactions to counterparties, persons on a trading desk
actively involved in effecting security-based swap transactions,
persons pricing security-based swap positions and managing
collateral for the SBS Entity, and persons assuring that the SBS
Entity's security-based swap business operates in compliance with
applicable regulations. In short, the term would encompass persons
engaged in functions necessary to facilitate the SBS Entity's
security-based swap business.
    \57\ Proposed Rule 15Fb1-1(b), described below, would require
each SBS Entity to maintain a manually signed copy of this
certification as part of its books and records until at least three
years after the certification has been replaced or is no longer
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support this certification requirement, paragraph (b) of
proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require SBS Entities to obtain a
questionnaire or application for employment executed by each of its
associated persons that effect or are involved in effecting security-
based swaps on its behalf; such questionnaire or application would
serve as a basis for a background check of the associated person to
determine whether the associated person is statutorily disqualified.
The questionnaires or applications would be required to contain, at a
minimum, the following information: (1) The associated person's name,
address, social security number, Central Registration Depository
(``CRD'') number (if any), Investment Adviser Registration Depository
(``IARD'') number (if any), and the starting date of the associated
person's employment or other association with the SBS Entity; (2) the
associated person's date of birth; (3) a complete, consecutive
statement of all the associated person's business connections for at
least the preceding ten years, including whether the employment was
part-time or full-time; (4) a record of any denial of membership or
registration, and of any disciplinary action taken, or sanction
imposed, upon the associated person by any federal or state agency, by
any national securities exchange or national securities association, or
by a foreign financial regulatory authority including any finding that
the associated person was a cause of any disciplinary action or had
violated any law; (5) a record of any denial, suspension, expulsion or
revocation of membership or registration of any broker, dealer, SBS
Dealer, or major security-based swap participant with which the
associated person was associated in any capacity when such action was
taken; (6) a record of any permanent or temporary injunction entered
against the associated person or any broker, dealer, SBS Dealer, or
major security-based swap participant with which the associated person
was associated in any capacity at the time such injunction was entered;
(7) a record of any arrest or indictment for any felony, or any
misdemeanor pertaining to securities (including security-based swaps),
futures or commodities (including swaps), banking, insurance or real
estate (including, but not limited to, acting or being associated with
a broker-dealer, investment company, investment adviser, futures
sponsor, bank, or savings and loan association), fraud, false
statements or omissions, wrongful taking of property or bribery,
forgery, counterfeiting or extortion, and the disposition of the
foregoing; and (8) a record of any other name or names by which the
associated person has been known or which the associated person has
used.
    The Commission believes that it is standard in the financial
services industry for firms to request this information on employment
questionnaires. This information is similar to the information
identified in Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(12)(i) and required to be
collected by broker-dealers with respect to their associated persons.
Additionally, Form U-4 contains all the information needed pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(12)(i) and would fulfill the requirement to
obtain a questionnaire or application specified in Rule 15Fb6-1(b).
Rule 17a-3(a)(12)(i) and Form U-4 provide broker-dealers with
information through which they can perform background checks on
associated persons necessary to assure that those associated persons
are not subject to statutory disqualification. Moreover, the NFA
collects similar data on associated persons of its members through the
Form 8-R. Consequently, we preliminarily believe it would be
appropriate for SBS Entities to collect this information on associated
persons to allow them to conduct background checks so that they can
comply with the prohibition in Section 15F(b)(6) of the Exchange Act
from allowing statutorily disqualified individuals to effect or be
involved in effecting SBS transactions on their behalf.
    In addition, paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require
that the SBS Entity's chief compliance officer (``CCO'') (appointed in
accordance with Exchange Act Section 15F(k)), or his or her designee,
review and sign each questionnaire or application.\58\ This provision
is designed to help ensure that due regard is being paid to this
requirement to collect information on employees and to help ensure that
none of the SBS Entity's employees who effect or are involved in
effecting security-based swaps on the SBS Entity's behalf is subject to
statutory disqualification. Moreover, to the extent the SBS Entity's
CCO, or his or her designee, must sign the certification, this
requirement helps ensure that the CCO is aware of this statutory
prohibition and is familiar with the SBS Entity's procedures to comply
with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Applicants may already have this information on their
employees, but may not have a CCO, as required pursuant to new
Section 15F(k) of the Act, until the effective date of rules the
Commission may promulgate under Section 15F(k). Security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants could be
conditionally registered even if a CCO has not signed each
associated person's questionnaire or application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraph (c) of proposed paragraph 15Fb6-1 would require
that each SBS Entity maintain the questionnaires and applications for
employment obtained pursuant to paragraph (b) as part of its books and
records for at least three years after the associated person has
terminated his or her association with the SBS Entity. It is likely
that SBS Entities would retain these records for business purposes;
however, this requirement will assure that the questionnaires and
applications are available to the Commission during inspections and
examinations.
    The Commission requests comment on proposed Rule 15Fb6-1.
    Q-71. Would the information regarding associated persons in
paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be sufficient for a CCO to make the
required certification? Why or why not?
    Q-72. Should the information requirements in paragraph (b) be
modified in any way?
    Q-73. Should applicants be required to obtain any additional
information not specified in proposed paragraph (b)?
    Q-74. Should the Commission require that SBS Entities perform
background checks on their employees (e.g., to confirm that their
associated persons do not have a criminal history) in addition to
obtaining questionnaires or applications? Why or why not?
    Q-75. If not, what other process could the Commission use to help
ensure that an applicant is not violating Exchange Act Section
15F(b)(6)?
    Q-76. Should the Commission require applicants to require credit
checks on associated persons? Why or why not?
    Q-77. What, if any, practical or legal limitations or barriers
exist that would hinder an applicant from obtaining background or
credit checks?
    Q-78. Should the Commission require applicants to obtain and
process fingerprints of their associated persons that will be effecting
or involved in effecting security-based swaps on the applicant's
behalf? Why or why not?
    Q-79. What, if any, practical or legal limitations or barriers
exist that would hinder an applicant from obtaining or running
fingerprints of associated persons?

[[Page 65797]]

    Q-80. Should the Commission instead treat the provisions of Section
15F(b)(6) as essentially self-executing and permit SBS Entities to
determine how best to screen associated persons to ensure they are not
subject to a statutory disqualification (provided that they exercise
reasonable care in so doing) and require that an SBS Entity create and
maintain reasonable policies and procedures for determining whether an
associated person is subject to a statutory disqualification? Why or
why not?
    Q-81. What would be the benefits and risks of this approach?
    Q-82. Would this approach be more or less burdensome for SBS
Entities to administer?
    Q-83. Would SBS Entities nevertheless implement an approach similar
to that required under the proposed rule?
    Q-84. How might an SBS Entity comply with Section 15F(b)(6) in ways
that differ from what is set forth in the proposed rule?
    Q-85. Would this alternative policies and procedures approach
provide SBS Entities sufficient legal certainty about whether they have
properly complied with Section 15F(b)(6)?
    Q-86. Should the Commission require that associated persons of SBS
Entities that effect or are involved in effecting security-based swaps
on behalf of the SBS Entity register directly with it? What would be
the costs or benefits involved with registration of such SBS Entity
associated persons? What, if any, practical or legal limitations or
barriers exist to this approach?
    Q-87. Are there other approaches to implementing Section 15F(b)(6)
that the Commission should consider? Please explain.
    Q-88. Should the Commission take a different view regarding which
associated persons should be considered to be ``involved in effecting''
security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity (see footnote 34)? If
so, should additional categories of associated persons be included or
should certain identified categories of associated persons be excluded?
For what reason(s)?
2. Alternative Process
    Section 15F(b)(6) expressly authorizes the Commission to establish
exceptions to this prohibition by rule, regulation, or order.\59\ This
authority is similar to authority provided to the Commission with
respect to the ``traditional'' securities industry, i.e., the industry
regulated under the Exchange Act prior to the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments. This existing Exchange Act authority permits SROs, subject
to Commission review, to allow, among other things, a person subject to
a statutory disqualification to associate with a broker-dealer.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(6).
    \60\ When such a person seeks admission to or continuance in
membership or association, the Commission and the SRO have the
opportunity to give special review to such person and to restrict or
prevent entry into, or continuance in, the business where
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of
investors. See Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
The Securities Act Amendments of 1989, S. Rep. No. 101-105, at 39
(1989); Provision for Notices by Self-Regulatory Organizations of
Stays of Such Actions; Appeals; and Admissions to Membership or
Association of Disqualified Persons, 42 FR 36409 (Jul. 14, 1977)
(adopting rule 19h-1 under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.19h-1, and
providing rules for process of filing notices, content of notices,
and Commission determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Commission Rule 193 (Applications by Barred Individuals
for Consent to Associate) provides a process by which persons that are
not regulated by a SRO (e.g., employees of an investment adviser, an
investment company, or a transfer agent) can seek to reenter the
traditional securities industry despite previously being barred by the
Commission.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 201.193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on whether it should develop an
alternative process to allow associated persons of SBS Entities who are
subject to a statutory disqualification to effect or be involved in
effecting security-based swaps on their behalf.
    Q-89. How many SBS Entities and associated persons thereof are
likely to be affected if the Commission does not provide an exemptive
process?
    Q-90. Is it possible that an associated person that is an entity
(i.e., not a natural person) that effects or is involved in effecting
security-based swaps on behalf of an SBS Entity would be subject to a
statutory disqualification? If so, should the Commission consider
excepting any such persons from the prohibition in Section 15F(b)(6)?
Under what circumstances and why?
    Q-91. Should the Commission except such persons globally (e.g., by
a blanket rule) or on an individual basis (e.g., via a Rule 193-type
process)? What would be the possible costs or benefits of each?
    Q-92. Are there certain statutorily disqualified persons who should
not be permitted to remain associated with an SBS Dealer or major
security-based swap participant based upon the nature of the
disqualification?
    Q-93. Should there be any differentiation in relief based upon the
nature of the person, e.g. a natural person or an entity? If so, what
type of differentiation and why?

C. Termination of Registration

1. Expiration: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-1
    Exchange Act Section 15F(b)(3) provides that ``each registration
under this section shall expire at such time as the Commission may
prescribe by rule or regulation.'' Although there is no Exchange Act
parallel, this provision is similar to Commodity Exchange Act Section
6f(a)(1), which provides that ``each registration shall expire on
December 31 of the year for which issued or at such other time, not
less than one year from the date of issuance, as the Commission may by
rule, regulation, or order prescribe. * * *'' CFTC Rule 3.10(b)
provides, among other things, that persons registered with the CFTC
pursuant to CFTC Rule 3.10 ``will continue to be so registered until
the effective date of any revocation or withdrawal of such
registration.'' Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-1 would establish
the same continuous registration as is set forth in CFTC Rule 3.10(b),
and would provide that registered SBS Entities would ``continue to be
so registered until the effective date of any cancellation, revocation
or withdrawal of such registration or any other event the Commission
determines should trigger expiration.''
    Q-94. Does CFTC Rule 3.10(b) provide an appropriate model to
implement Exchange Act Section 15F(b)(3)? Why or why not?
    Q-95. Should the Commission instead allow initial SBS Entity
registrations to expire and require SBS Entities to re-register to
become an ongoing registrant (while providing a grace period for this
re-registration to occur)? If so, what would be an appropriate amount
of time before expiration (e.g., one year, two years, five years, or
some other time period)?
    Q-96. Alternatively, should the Commission allow SBS Entity
registrations to expire periodically and require SBS Entities to re-
register periodically (i.e., requiring registrants to ``re-up''
indefinitely on a regular basis)? If so, what would be an appropriate
amount of time before expiration (e.g., annually, every two years,
every five years, or some other time period)? What would be the
advantages, disadvantages, costs and benefits of such an approach?
    Q-97. Via what mechanism should any such re-registration be
facilitated? For instance, should an SBS Entity be required to re-apply
by filing a new application? Alternatively, should an SBS Entity be
required to re-certify by filing a new Senior Officer Certification?

[[Page 65798]]

Would some other mechanism be more appropriate? How should any such
mechanism take into account the initial application and registration of
an SBS Entity? How should any such mechanism take into account the SBS
Entity's compliance with applicable rules during the period prior to
the re-registration? Would any type of non-compliance during such
period justify denial of re-registration, or should the nature of the
non-compliance and any remedial actions be taken into account?
    Q-98. If re-registration is facilitated by re-certification, would
the proposed form of Senior Officer Certification on Form SBSE-C be the
appropriate or would some other form or language be more appropriate?
For instance, should any re-certification for SBS Entities be drafted
to more closely follow the certification requirement proposed for
municipal advisors (wherein each municipal advisor certifies annually
that it has met its regulatory obligations over the prior period)?
    Q-99. If periodic re-registration were required, should re-
registration be based on an SBS Entity's original registration date or
should it be triggered by a calendar date (e.g., on December 31)?
    Q-100. Should the same standard of review that applies to ongoing
registration apply in the context of re-registration (see proposed rule
15Fb2-1(d)(2))? If not, what alternative standard of review would be
more appropriate and why?
    Q-101. Would any such expiration and re-registration requirement
provide the Commission with a greater ability to enforce compliance
with applicable regulations? Why or why not?
    As discussed in Part I above, under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
Rule 15Fb3-1, conditional registrations granted by the Commission to an
SBS Entity that applies for registration during the transitional period
in accordance with Rule 15Fb2-1(b) would expire on the Last Compliance
Date, unless the SBS Entity files a Senior Officer Certification with
the Commission or its designee on or before the Last Compliance Date;
in which case its conditional registration would be extended for an
additional thirty days (which should allow the Commission staff
sufficient time to review the SBS Entity's application and
certification and determine whether to grant or deny ongoing
registration). Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-1 would provide
that conditional registrations granted by the Commission to major
security-based swap participants that file applications for
registration after the Last Compliance Date would expire four months
after the major security-based swap participant files its completed
application with the Commission unless the major security-based swap
participant files a Senior Officer Certification with the Commission or
its designee within that four month period; in which case its
conditional registration would be extended for an additional thirty
days. Pursuant to paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-1, the
Commission could extend conditional registration for good cause.
    Q-102. Would these timeframes be sufficient to allow conditional
registrants to complete--and the Commission to grant or deny--ongoing
registration? Why or why not?
    Q-103. What circumstances should the Commission consider in
determining whether good cause exists to extend an SBS Entity's
conditional registration? Why? Should these circumstances include
situations in which the Commission may need additional time to review
an SBS Entity's application and certification? Why or why not?
    Q-104. Should the Commission require that an SBS Entity follow a
particular process to request an extension of the SBS Entity's
conditional registration? For instance, should an SBS Entity be
required to submit a letter requesting an extension and setting forth
the reasons why an extension is necessary? If so, what process would be
appropriate and why?
2. Withdrawal: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-2
    Proposed Rule 15Fb3-2 would provide a process by which an SBS
Entity could withdraw from registration with the Commission.\62\ The
proposed rule would require an SBS Entity to file a notice of
withdrawal from registration electronically on Form SBSE-W (described
in more detail below) in accordance with the instructions to the Form.
It also would require that an SBS Entity amend its Form SBSE, Form
SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, in accordance with proposed
Rule 15Fb2-3 to update any inaccurate information prior to filing its
notice of withdrawal from registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ This provision is similar to Exchange Act Rule 15b6-1,
which has historically worked well to facilitate broker-dealer
withdrawals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-2 would provide that a notice
of withdrawal from registration filed by an SBS Entity would generally
become effective on the 60th day after the SBS Entity files Form SBSE-
W. However, based on its experience with registered broker-dealers, the
Commission recognizes that there may be circumstances in which it would
be advisable to provide flexibility in scheduling the termination of
business operations to registered entities seeking to withdraw from
registration. Further, the Commission may determine that it would be
appropriate for a registered entity that is under investigation by the
Commission to maintain its registered status in order to allow the
Commission to conclude a pending investigation without prematurely
instituting a proceeding to impose conditions on the registered
entity's withdrawal. In such instances, it may better serve the
interests of all parties to have the registered entity consent to an
extension of the effective date of the registered entity's withdrawal
from registration beyond the general 60-day period provided for in the
proposed rule. It also may be appropriate to permit the Commission to
extend the effective date for a period if it determines, by order, that
it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors.
    Thus, paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-2 would identify
specific situations in which notices of withdrawal from registration
will not become effective on the 60th day. These would include
situations where (1) The Commission determines that a shorter period is
appropriate, (2) the SBS Entity consents to a longer period, (3) the
Commission, by order, determines that a longer period is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors,
and (4) the Form SBSE-W is filed subsequent to the date of the issuance
of a Commission order instituting proceedings to censure, place
limitations on the activities, functions or operations of, or suspend
or revoke the registration of the SBS Entity. Finally, paragraph (b) of
proposed Rule 15Fb3-2 would provide that if the Commission institutes
proceedings prior to the effective date of Form SBSE-W (1) To censure,
place limitations on the activities, functions or operations of, or
suspend or revoke the registration of the SBS Entity, or (2) to impose
terms or conditions upon the SBS Entity's withdrawal, the notice of
withdrawal shall not become effective except at such time and upon such
terms and conditions as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate
in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of proposed Rule
15Fb3-2.
    Q-105. Would the proposed withdrawal process be workable for SBS
Entities? Are the proposed timeframes reasonable for these entities?
Why or why not?

[[Page 65799]]

    Q-106. Under what other circumstances, if any, should the
Commission shorten or lengthen the timeframe for withdrawal?
3. Cancellation and Revocation: Proposed Rule 15Fb3-3
    Proposed Rule 15Fb3-3 would provide the Commission with the ability
to either cancel or revoke a registered SBS Entity's registration. More
specifically, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-3 would allow the
Commission to cancel an SBS Entity's registration if the Commission
finds that it is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as
an SBS Entity.\63\ The cancellation process outlined in paragraph (a)
is intended to be ministerial in nature, and not a means to revoke
without due process the registration of an SBS Entity that may have
violated federal securities laws. This provision is designed to help
the Commission allocate its examination and other resources to entities
that are actively engaged in business regulated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ This provision is similar to Exchange Act Section 15(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb3-3 cross-references the
Exchange Act to clarify that the Commission shall censure, place
limitations on the activities, functions, or operations of, or revoke
(on a permanent or temporary basis) the registration of any SBS Dealer
or major security-based swap participant that has registered with the
Commission if it makes a finding as specified in Section 15F(l)(2) of
the Exchange Act.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-107. Is the proposed provision for cancellation of registration
appropriate in the context of SBS Entities? Why or why not?
    Q-108. Would there be occasion for SBS Entities to have an extended
pause in their businesses such that they might appear to have ceased to
do business? If so, should the Commission provide that such entities
could notify the Commission of their intent to stay in business,
notwithstanding their lack of current activities? Should such entities
later inform the Commission when they become active?
    Q-109. Should there be a time limit on how long such an SBS Entity
could retain its registration with the Commission while it is in a
``dormant'' state?
    Q-110. Does the proposed provision for revocation in paragraph (b)
provide sufficient procedural safeguards for registered SBS Entities?
If not, what procedures could be added to provide additional
safeguards?

D. Special Requirements for Nonresident SBS Entities

    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require, among other things, that
nonresident SBS Entities that are required to register with the
Commission \65\ (1) Appoint an agent for service of process in the
United States (other than the Commission or a Commission member,
official or employee) upon whom may be served any process, pleadings,
or other papers in any action brought against the nonresident SBS
Entity, (2) furnish the Commission with the identity and address of its
agent for services of process, (3) certify that the firm can, as a
matter of law, provide the Commission with prompt access to its books
and records and can, as a matter of law, submit to onsite inspection
and examination by the Commission, and (4) provide the Commission with
an opinion of counsel concurring that the firm can, as a matter of law,
provide the Commission with prompt access to its books and records and
can, as a matter of law, submit to onsite inspection and examination by
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The Commission has received questions as to how the
registration requirements for SBS Entities would apply to non-U.S.
persons. The Commission is continuing to consider the application of
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act to non-U.S. persons and intends to
address these issues in a separate release, and notes that the
proposals described herein with respect to nonresident SBS Entities
will be informed by the considerations and comments raised in
connection with that release. See, e.g., Letter from Barclays Bank
PLC, BNP Paribas S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of Canada, The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, and UBS AG to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Jan.
11, 2011); Letter from Sarah A. Miller, Chief Executive Officer,
Institute of International Bankers, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC, and David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (Jan. 10,
2011); Letter from Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas S.A., Credit
Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Nomura Securities International,
Inc., Rabobank Nederland, Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale,
The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and UBS AG to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and Jennifer
J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Feb. 17, 2011); and Letter from Laura J. Schisgall, Managing
Director and Senior Counsel, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (Feb. 18, 2011). The Commission is
also considering the approach outlined in the letter from Katsunori
Mikuniya, Commissioner & Chief Executive, Financial Services Agency,
Government of Japan, to Gary Gensler, Chairman, U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (Apr. 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would define the term
``nonresident security-based swap dealer'' and ``nonresident major
security-based swap participant,'' for purposes of Rule 15Fb2-4. Under
this definition, an SBS Entity that is incorporated any place that is
not in the United States would be considered to be a nonresident. In
addition, an SBS Entity that has its principal place of business in any
place not in the United States would be considered to be a nonresident.
    Q-111. Should the terms ``nonresident security-based swap dealer''
and ``nonresident major security-based swap participant'' be defined
differently and, if so, how should the definitions be amended and why?
1. United States Agent for Service of Process
    Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require
that each nonresident SBS Entity registered or registering with the
Commission obtain a written irrevocable consent and power of attorney
appointing an agent for service of process in the United States (other
than the Commission or a Commission member, official or employee) upon
whom may be served any process, pleadings, or other papers in any
action brought against the nonresident SBS Entity and furnish the
Commission with the identity and address of its agent for services of
process on Schedule F \66\ to Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD,
as applicable.\67\ These requirements are important to facilitate the
Commission and others (for example, the U.S. Department of Justice and
any other agency with the power to enforce the Exchange Act) to serve
process on a nonresident SBS Entity to enforce the Exchange Act.
Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule also would require that
registered nonresident SBS Entities must promptly appoint a successor
agent if it discharges its identified agent for service of process or
if its agent for service of process is unwilling or unable to accept
service on its behalf.\68\ Further, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would
require that registered SBS Entities promptly inform the Commission,
through an amendment of the Schedule F of Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or
Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, of any change to either its agent for
service of process or the name or address of its existing agent for
service of process. Finally, paragraph (b)(5) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4
would require that the registered nonresident

[[Page 65800]]

SBS Entity maintain, as part of its books and records, the agreement
identified in paragraph (b)(1) for at least three years after the
agreement is terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The Schedule F is discussed more fully below as part of the
discussion of the Forms.
    \67\ Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4,
respectively.
    \68\ Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the requirement
for nonresident SBS Entities to appoint an agent in the United States
to receive service of process, pleadings or papers in any action
brought against the nonresident SBS Entity.
    Q-112. Should only certain types of entities (such as law firms) be
allowed to act as U.S. agent for service of process?
    Q-113. Should these requirements be expanded to require nonresident
SBS Entities to appoint a U.S. agent for purposes of all potential
legal proceedings, including those from non-governmental entities, or
is this already adequately addressed by contract?
    Q-114. Should the Commission require nonresident SBS Entities to
provide the Commission with additional information not required of U.S.
SBS Entities, such as verification of any non-U.S. registrations?
    Q-115. Is the three year time frame for which an SBS Entity would
be required to maintain, as part of its books and records, the
agreement appointing its agent for service of process appropriate?
Would a longer or shorter time period be more appropriate?
2. Access to Books and Records of Nonresident SBS Entity
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4(c)(1), regarding access to books and records,
would require that each nonresident SBS Entity registering with the
Commission \69\ provide an opinion of counsel and certify on Schedule F
of Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, that it
can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with prompt access to
its books and records and can, as a matter of law, submit to onsite
inspection and examination by the Commission.\70\ The Commission
preliminarily believes that the nonresident SBS Entity certification
and supporting opinion of counsel is important to confirm that each
nonresident SBS Entity located overseas has taken the necessary steps
to be in the position to provide the Commission with prompt access to
its books and records and to be subject to inspection and examination
by the Commission. To effectively fulfill its regulatory oversight
responsibilities with respect to nonresident SBS Entities registered
with it, the Commission must have access to those entities' records and
the ability to examine them; however, certain foreign jurisdictions may
have laws that complicate the ability of financial institutions such as
nonresident SBS Entities located in their jurisdictions from sharing
and/or transferring certain information including personal financial
data of individuals that the financial institutions come to possess
from third persons (e.g., personal data relating to the identity of
market participants or their customers). The required certification and
opinion of counsel regarding the nonresident SBS Entity's ability to
provide prompt access to books and records and to be subject to
inspection and examination will allow the Commission to better evaluate
a nonresident SBS Entity's ability to meet the requirements of
registration and ongoing supervision. Failure to make this
certification or provide an opinion of counsel may be a basis for the
Commission to deny an application for registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See supra note 65.
    \70\ In accordance with Proposed Rule 15Fb1-1(b), the SBS Entity
will need to maintain a manually signed copy of this certification
as part of its books and records until at least three years after
the certification has been replaced or is no longer effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require that
registered nonresident SBS Entities re-certify, on Schedule F to Form
SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable, within 90 days after
any changes in the legal or regulatory framework that would impact the
nonresident SBS Entity's ability to provide, or the manner in which it
provides, the Commission prompt access to its books and records or
impacts the Commission's ability to inspect and examine the nonresident
SBS Entity. The re-certification would be required to include a revised
opinion of counsel describing how, as a matter of law, the entity will
continue to meet its obligations to provide the Commission with prompt
access to its books and records and to be subject to Commission
inspection and examination under the new regulatory regime. If a
registered nonresident SBS Entity becomes unable to comply with this
certification because of such changes, or otherwise, then this may be a
basis for the Commission to revoke the nonresident SBS Entity's
registration.
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the certification
and opinion of counsel requirements contained in paragraph (c) of
proposed Rule 15Fb2-4.
    Q-116. Will this certification requirement provide the Commission
with adequate assurance that nonresident SBS Entities will be able to
provide the Commission with access to records?
    Q-117. Should the Commission specify that the opinion of counsel
contain any additional information? For instance, should the
requirement clarify that the opinion of counsel reference the
applicable local law or, in the case of an amendment, the manner in
which the local law was amended?
    Q-118. As described above, certain foreign jurisdictions may have
laws that complicate the ability of financial institutions such as
nonresident SBS Entities located in their jurisdictions from sharing
and/or transferring certain information. What impact may the
requirement that a nonresident SBS Entity obtain and submit the
described opinion of counsel have on a nonresident SBS Entity's ability
to register in the United States in such circumstances or otherwise?
Are there circumstances where it would be impossible or impractical for
the nonresident SBS Entity to obtain the opinion of counsel? Would a
nonresident SBS Entity need to cease doing business in the United
States or with U.S. persons solely because of this requirement? Why or
why not?
    Q-119. If the described opinion of counsel were not required, what
alternatives would the Commission have to assure that it is able to
access a registered nonresident SBS Entity's books and records and
examine the registered nonresident SBS Entity in order to effectively
fulfill its oversight responsibilities? What are the relative
advantages or disadvantages of any such alternatives?
    Q-120. Should the requirement that an SBS Entity obtain an amended
opinion of counsel and re-certify its ability to provide the Commission
with access to records be limited in any way?
    Q-121. The Commission has received three comment letters containing
alternative suggestions as to how the Commission should accommodate a
foreign bank with a U.S. affiliate that organizes its business so that
it could engage in security-based swap transactions with U.S. investors
while being subject to a more limited regulatory regime under the
Exchange Act in recognition that it is subject to regulation in its
home country.\71\ The

[[Page 65801]]

Commission requests comment regarding whether the requirement that an
applicant provide an opinion of counsel should be amended to recognize
or facilitate such arrangements. If so, why and in what way should the
requirement be modified? If not, why? Would an amended requirement
provide the Commission with adequate assurance that nonresident SBS
Entities will be able to provide the Commission with sufficient access
to records?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See letter to Mr. David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Ms.
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and Ms. Jennifer J.
Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC, BNP
Paribas S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank
of Scotland Group plc, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale
and UBS AG, dated January 11, 2011 (http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-39-10/s73910-9.pdf); letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, and David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, dated January 10,
2011 (http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-39-10/s73910-8.pdf); and letter
to Ananda Radhakrishnan, Director, Division of Clearing and
Intermediary Oversight, CFTC, John M. Ramsay, Deputy Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, and Mark E. Van Der
Weide, Senior Associate Director, Division of Supervision and
Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, dated
November 23, 2010 (http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-34-10/s73410-3.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Special Situations

1. Succession: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-5
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-5 would provide a process through which an SBS
Entity could succeed to the business of another SBS Entity.\72\
Consistent with the use of the term in connection with broker-dealer
registration, we propose to consider a ``succession'' to mean that a
successor firm acquires or assumes substantially all of the assets and
liabilities of the predecessor firm.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ This proposed rule is based on Exchange Act Rule 15b1-3,
which is applicable to registered brokers and dealers and has worked
well to facilitate succession of registrants.
    \73\ Registration of Successors to Broker-Dealers and Investment
Advisers, Exchange Act Release No. 31661 (Dec. 28, 1992) (58 FR 7
(Jan. 4, 1993)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-5 would provide that, if an SBS Entity succeeds
to and continues the business of another SBS Entity, the registration
of the predecessor SBS Entity will remain effective as the registration
of the successor if the successor files an application for registration
in accordance with Rule 15Fb2-1 within 30 days after such succession,
and the predecessor files a notice of withdrawal from registration on
Form SBSE-W.
    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 15Fb2-5 would allow a successor firm
that succeeds to the business of another for minor reasons, where the
ownership or control of the SBS Entity does not change (e.g., solely
because it is changing its date or state of incorporation, form of
organization, or the composition of a partnership), to simply amend the
registration of the predecessor SBS Entity on Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A,
or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, within 30 days after the change.
    Q-122. Are these proposed successor rules appropriate for SBS
Entities?
    Q-123. Should the concept of succession be the same as used in the
context of broker-dealer registration? Commenters should explain why
any differences would be appropriate.
    Q-124. Are the timeframes provided, which seem to work well in the
broker-dealer context, appropriate with respect to SBS Entity
succession?
2. Insolvency: Proposed Rule 15Fb2-6
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-6 would provide a process through which an
executor, administrator, guardian, conservator, assignee for the
benefit of creditors, receiver, trustee in insolvency or bankruptcy or
other fiduciary appointed or qualified by order, judgment or decree of
a court of competent jurisdiction could continue the business of an SBS
Entity.\74\ This is important to allow a fiduciary time to close-out
positions and/or wind down an SBS Entity's business. Under the proposed
rule, the fiduciary would be required to file with the Commission,
within 30 days after entering upon the performance of his or her
duties, an amended Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as
appropriate, indicating the fiduciary's position with respect to
management of the SBS Entity, along with a copy of the order, judgment,
decree, or other document appointing the fiduciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The proposed rule is based on Exchange Act Rule 15b1-4,
which applies to broker-dealer registrations. We believe this rule
has worked well to allow fiduciaries to wind-up broker-dealer
businesses without the need to separately register as a broker-
dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q-125. Is proposed Rule 15Fb2-6 appropriate for SBS Entities? If
another process would be more appropriate, please describe it.
    Q-126. Should fiduciaries be able to continue the business of an
SBS Entity to facilitate an orderly liquidation? If not, why?
    Q-127. Is the proposed 30-day timeframe, which is consistent with
the Rule 15b1-4 requirement for broker-dealer fiduciaries, sufficient
for an SBS Entity fiduciary to make the required filing with the
Commission?
    Q-128. Do the close-out provisions in the agreements between the
parties provide sufficient ability for counterparties to close-out open
positions in the event of an SBS Entity default so that a fiduciary
would not be needed? Please explain.

F. Technical Rules

1. Electronic Signatures
    Proposed Rule 15Fb1-1 would specify the format required for
signatures to, or within, electronic submissions (including signatories
within the forms and certifications required by Sec. Sec.  240.15Fb2-1,
240.15Fb2-4 and 240.15Fb6-1, discussed below). In addition, paragraph
(b) of proposed Rule 15Fb1-1 would require that each signatory to such
an electronic filing manually sign a signature page or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting his or her
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic filing
either before or at the time the electronic filing is made. Paragraph
(b) would also require that the SBS Entity create the manually signed
document when the electronic form is submitted, and furnish a copy of
such document to the Commission upon request. Paragraph (c) of proposed
Rule 15Fb1-1 would prohibit a person required to provide a signature on
an electronic submission from having another person sign the form or
certification on his or her behalf pursuant to a power of attorney or
other form of confirming authority. Finally, paragraph (d) would
require that the SBS Entity retain the manually signed document
associated with Schedules F and G of Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, as
appropriate, until at least three years after the form or certification
has been replaced or is no longer effective, and the manually signed
document associated with Form SBSE-C until at least three years after
the Form was submitted to the Commission.
    This proposed rule is based on Section 302 of Regulation S-T,\75\
and is designed to require standard formatting of electronic signatures
and provide the Commission with the ability to obtain additional
documents to verify those signatures. In addition, paragraph (c) of
proposed Rule 15Fb1-1 is based on paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rule
15d-14. The Commission believes that this paragraph is necessary to
assure that persons signing certifications can be held responsible for
their statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 17 CFR 232.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of Rule 15b1-1.
    Q-129. Is it adequate to require an SBS Entity to maintain a signed
copy of each certification as part of its books and records so that it
is available for examiners to review?
    Q-130. Should the Commission require SBS Entities to file the
original certifications with the Commission?
    Q-131. Are the timeframes for retention of manually signed
documents appropriate? Why or why not? If not, what timeframe or
timeframes may be more appropriate and why?

[[Page 65802]]

2. Temporary Rule To Facilitate Paper Filing of Forms
    If a technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of
applications required to be filed in accordance with Rule 15Fb2-1 is
not functional by the time final rules are adopted, proposed temporary
Rule 15Fb2-2T would require an SBS Entity to file its application on
Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable, and all
additional documents in paper form by sending it to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090,
notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 15Fb2-1. In addition, if
proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T is adopted, paragraph (b) would
require that each applicant must resubmit its Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A,
and Form SBSE-BD, as applicable and all additional documents to the
Commission electronically within three months of the date such
technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of applications
becomes functional. Depending on the timing, SBS Entities may also need
to file their Forms SBSE-C in paper format and later resubmit those
Forms electronically.
    Proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would provide a process for the
Commission to receive applications in paper format if a technological
means to facilitate receipt and retention of applications cannot be
completed before final SBS Entity registration rules are adopted.
Further, Proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would facilitate the
transition of data to an electronic format once such a system becomes
functional. The benefits of an electronic system outweigh additional
costs relating to the need for SBS Entities to file their applications
in both paper and electronic form. In addition, requiring that each SBS
Entity file its application electronically would assure that each firm
can confirm that the data entered into the electronic system is
accurate and complete.
    The Commission requests comment on proposed temporary rule 15Fb2-
2T.
    Q-132. Is this paper process practicable?
    Q-133. Should the Commission instead allow applicants to submit
their applications in PDF form via e-mail?
    Q-134. Instead of the process contemplated by paragraph (b) of
proposed Rule 15Fb2-2T, should the Commission reduce the paper filings
to electronic form instead of the applicants?

G. Forms

1. Form SBSE
    Proposed Form SBSE is generally based on Form BD--the consolidated
Form used by broker-dealers to register with the Commission, states and
SROs. Form BD has been used to gather and organize certain information
concerning applicants' business operations to facilitate Commission,
state and SRO initial registration decisions, as well as ongoing
examination and monitoring of registrations. Because SBS Entities will
be subject to many requirements similar to those that affect broker-
dealers (e.g., minimum capital, leverage, and business conduct rules
and statutory disqualification prohibitions), the Commission believes
using Form BD as a template for the registration of SBS Entities is
logical and efficient. Key differences from Form BD are outlined below:
     The phrase ``broker or dealer'' was changed to ``security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant'' because
Form SBSE will be used by firms to register as SBS Entities and not as
broker-dealers;
     References to SROs and jurisdictions were removed except
where they arose in the context of a contractual relationship or
disciplinary proceeding because SBS Entities will generally not be
required to register with SROs or states;
     References to branch offices were removed because the SBS
business is generally conducted on a more centralized basis and is not
effected through branch offices;
     The General Instructions eliminate the instructions for
filing the form in paper format because we intend to require that the
forms be filed electronically; \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ If a technological means to facilitate the receipt and
retention of applications is not finalized by the time final rules
are adopted and the Commission must adopt proposed Rule 15Fb2-2T,
instructions regarding paper filing would be re-inserted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Explanation of Terms section is substantially the
same; \77\ however the term ``jurisdiction'' was replaced with the term
``state'' to eliminate potential confusion regarding questions in Item
11 that relate to actions brought in either domestic or foreign
jurisdictions and the term ``foreign financial regulatory authority''
was removed because it is now defined in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(52);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The Explanation of Terms section includes definitions of
the terms applicant, control, state, person, self-regulatory
organization, successor, charged, control affiliate, enjoined,
felony, found, investment or investment-related, involved, minor
rule violation, misdemeanor, order, and proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Item 1-J of Form SBSE would elicit the name and contact
information for the Chief Compliance Officer designated by the
applicant in accordance with Exchange Act Section 15F(k) (broker-
dealers are not now required to provide this information on Form BD);
     Item 2b of Form SBSE would elicit information, if a firm
is registering as a major security-based swap participant, regarding
whether the firm is registering because it maintains a substantial
position, has substantial counterparty exposure, or is highly leveraged
relative to its capital position, which will assist the staff in
evaluating its application;
     Item 3 of Form SBSE would elicit whether the SBS Entity
intends to use mathematical models to calculate any applicable capital
or margin or to price customer or proprietary positions (whether or not
for regulatory purposes), which will assist the staff in considering
what types of examinations may be required;
     Item 4 of Form SBSE would elicit whether the applicant is
subject to regulation by a prudential regulator \78\ because the extent
of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities for entities subject to
regulation by a prudential regulator differ;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The term ``prudential regulator'' is now defined at 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In addition to eliciting information regarding
recordkeeping arrangements, Item 8 would also query whether the
applicant has any arrangement under which any other person, firm or
organization executes, trades, custodies, clears or settles on behalf
of the applicant (including any SRO or swap execution facility in which
the applicant is a member). This information is designed to provide the
Commission with an understanding of the SBS Entity's business
relationships.
     References to the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation in the ``Execution'' section have been eliminated because
SBS Entities are not required to become members of SIPC \79\ and
references to surety bonding and service of process in each state has
also been eliminated because Form SBSE does not facilitate registration
with states (as the Form BD does);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Only SBS Entities that are also registered as a broker-
dealer would be SIPC members. SBS Entities that are also registered
as a broker-dealer will be required to file Form SBSE-BD and not
Form SBSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Form SBSE would require disclosure of whether the
applicant is registering as an SBS dealer or major security-based swap
participant, the applicant's legal status, whether the applicant is
succeeding to the business

[[Page 65803]]

of another SBS Entity, and the applicant's control relationships; \80\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ These questions are similar to questions that appear on
pages 2 and 3 of the Form BD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Form SBSE would elicit a description of the applicant's
business in a text box rather than through the use of a list of
possible types of business.
    Proposed Form SBSE, like Form BD, would elicit information
regarding criminal disclosures, regulatory action disclosures, civil
judicial disclosures, and financial disclosures. As with Form BD,
``yes'' answers to these questions would require that the applicant
file additional information on disclosure reporting pages (or ``DRPs'')
as a supplement to the Form. As with Form BD, Form SBSE would also
elicit information on whether the applicant is registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser, registered with the CFTC as an
FCM, or whether it is engaged in any other investment-related, non-
securities business.
    Schedules A and B, which elicit information regarding direct and
indirect owners and executive officers, would be largely unchanged
(with the exception of the header, the elimination of a request for
social security numbers in the tables): however, the table in Schedule
A has been expanded to elicit information regarding prior investment-
related experience of individual owners who are not otherwise
registered through CRD or IARD to provide the Commission an
understanding of each owner's background and qualifications in light of
the fact that they will not be individually registered as is the case
with owners of broker-dealers. Schedule C would be eliminated because
electronic filing of the forms would make it unnecessary. Schedule D
would be amended slightly to address differences between the security-
based swap business and the broker-dealer business (e.g., there are no
``introducing and clearing arrangements''). In addition, Section IV in
Item D has been expanded to elicit additional information regarding the
nature of the execution, trading, custody, clearing or settlement
arrangement, as well as information regarding any prior investment-
related experience of individual control persons who are not otherwise
registered through CRD or IARD. This information is designed to provide
the Commission with an understanding of the SBS Entity's business
relationships and each control person's respective background and
qualifications in light of the fact that they will not be individually
registered as is the case with owners of broker-dealers. The staff
understands that SBS Entities may conduct security-based swap business
from multiple locations; however, those that would register with the
Commission using Form SBSE likely would not refer to those locations as
``branches.'' Consequently, Schedule E of Form SBSE \81\ would solicit
information regarding locations rather than branches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Schedule E of Form BD has been replaced by Form BR, which
is designed to enable broker-dealers to register their branch office
locations electronically with SROs and states. See, Self-Regulatory
Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed Uniform Branch Office
Registration Form (``Form BR''), Exchange Act Release No. 52543
(Sep. 30, 2005), 70 FR 58771 (Oct. 7, 2005); and Self-Regulatory
Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed
Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (``Form BR'') and Amendments
to the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or
Transfer (``Form U4'') and the Uniform Termination Notice for
Securities Industry Registration (``Form U5''), Exchange Act Release
No. 52544 (Sep. 30, 2005), 70 FR 58764 (Oct. 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed form would also include two additional schedules to be
used by SBS Entities--Schedules F and G. Schedule F must be submitted
by nonresident SBS Entities pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 to
provide the Commission with information regarding its appointed U.S.
agent for service of process and to certify that it is able to provide
the Commission with prompt access to its books and records.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Nonresident broker-dealers must presently file one of four
similar forms (Form 7-M, Form 8-M, Form 9-M or Form 10-M, depending
on the broker-dealer's form or organization) to appoint an agent for
service of process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Schedule G would be required to be submitted by all SBS Entities
pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb6-1(a). Schedule G would provide each SBS
Entity with a method to certify that none of its associated persons
that are effecting or involved in effecting security-based swaps on its
behalf is subject to statutory disqualification. This Schedule is
designed to provide the Commission with assurance that the SBS Entity
is compliant with Section 15F(b)(6) of the Exchange Act. The Form would
require that the firm's Chief Compliance Officer sign Schedule G.
    The Commission intends to use the information disclosed by
applicants in Form SBSE (including the Schedules and DRPs) to determine
whether the applicant meets the standards for registration, and to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of Form SBSE.
    Q-135. Should the registration form for SBS Entities be based on
Form BD, CFTC Form 7-R, or some other form? Please describe the reasons
for choosing a particular form over another.
    Q-136. How many firms may apply for registration as SBS Entities?
    Q-137. Should any of the instructions or questions on Form SBSE be
amended to recognize particular characteristics of the business of SBS
Entities?
    Q-138. Are any of the proposed questions on Form SBSE inapplicable
to the SBS business?
    Q-139. Should any questions be added to Form SBSE to elicit
information that is unique to the SBS business or to the SBS Entities
that engage in that business?
    Q-140. Is proposed new Schedule F the best method to collect
information regarding a nonresident SBS Entity's agent for service of
process? If not, what other method could the Commission utilize?
    Q-141. Is the requirement that an SBS Entity certify on new
Schedule F that it can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with
access to its books and records and allow the Commission to conduct
onsite inspections the best method to assure the Commission is able to
have such access? If not, what other method could the Commission
utilize?
    Q-142. Is it appropriate to require a nonresident SBS Entities to
also submit an opinion of counsel opining on this issue?
    Q-143. Is proposed new Schedule G the best method to assure that an
SBS Entity is complying with Section 15F(b)(6) of the Exchange Act? If
not, what other method could the Commission utilize?
    Q-144. Would the Form SBSE disclosure requirements present any
unique issues for financial institutions not previously subject to
similar disclosure requirements? If so, please describe.
    Q-145. Should Form SBSE include additional Schedules in which the
applicant could provide more detailed information regarding its
business (e.g., a business plan, descriptions of the types of products
the applicant will offer, the types of counterparties it will have,
information regarding the applicant's operational, supervisory and
compliance infrastructure, its major vendors, its clearing
arrangements), similar to what the Commission typically requires of
other types of applicants (e.g., clearing agencies and national
securities exchanges)? If so, what specific types of information should
be required?

[[Page 65804]]

    Q-146. If there are changes in this type of information over time,
how frequently should the registrant be required to update the relevant
schedules?
2. Form SBSE-A
    CEA Section 4s(c) and Exchange Act Section 15F(c) require that
persons that engage in both swap business and security-based swap
business must separately register with each agency. However, the staff
is proposing that applicants that are not registered with the
Commission as broker-dealers, but that are registered or registering
with the CFTC as either a swap dealer or major swap participant, file
their application for registration on an alternative to Form SBSE, or
Form SBSE-A. Form SBSE-A is a shorter form and is intended to make it
easier for dual applicants to file with both agencies. As part of its
application, a firm filing with the Commission on Form SBSE-A would
need to provide the Commission with a copy of the form it files with
the CFTC to register as a swap dealer or major swap participant. Form
SBSE-A is designed to provide the Commission with data, not included on
the form the applicant must file with the CFTC, that the Commission
believes it will need to adequately review an application for
registration.\83\ While some information elicited via Form SBSE-A also
may be elicited by the CFTC's form, it will be helpful for the
Commission to receive this information directly to allow the Commission
to match the Form SBSE-A with the CFTC Form and to coordinate the
information elicited through Form SBSE-A with other information the
Commission may have on the applicant. The Commission believes that
requiring that these applicants use Form SBSE-A would reduce the costs
and burdens associated with filing distinctly different forms to
register with both the Commission and CFTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The CFTC has proposed that swap dealers and major swap
participants file their applications on Form 7-R and accompanying
Form 8-R. Also, see supra note 10. Consequently, the Commission's
assessment of what information applicants should be required to
provide on Form SBSE-A was based on Form 7-R. If the CFTC's
application form for swap dealers or major swap participants
deviates substantially from Form 7-R, the Commission will need to
re-assess the information it would need to collect through Form
SBSE-A. Form 8-R is the Form used for registration of individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Form SBSE-A is loosely based on Form SBSE, which, as
described above is based on Form BD (the Form used by broker-dealers to
register with the Commission). As discussed more fully above, the
Commission has used Form BD to gather information necessary for it and
the SROs to determine whether to grant broker-dealer registration to an
applicant. Key differences from Form SBSE are outlined below:
     The General Instructions have been modified to identify
the Form and Schedules to be used to register as an SBS Entity and to
eliminate the instructions for filing in paper format because we intend
to require that the forms be filed electronically; \84\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To reduce potential confusion regarding the use of two
forms,\85\ the initial instruction in the Explanation of Terms section
states that terms used in Form SBSE-A that are defined in CFTC Form 7-R
shall have the same meaning as set forth in that form, and terms not
otherwise defined in CFTC Form 7-R have the same meaning as in Form
SBSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ One to register with the CFTC as a swap dealer or major
swap participant and one to register with the Commission as an SBS
Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Item 1.C. on Form SBSE-A would elicit the firm's NFA number. Items
2 through 13 of proposed Form SBSE-A would require that the applicant
identify the capacity in which it is seeking to register with the
Commission, the capacity in which it is registered with or seeking to
register with the CFTC, certain control and business relationships,
succession and other basic information regarding the firm's business.
These questions are similar to information elicited via Form SBSE,
which elicit information not otherwise elicited through Form 7-R but
which the Commission believes is useful to facilitate its oversight of
regulated entities.
    Item 2b of Form SBSE-A would elicit information, if a firm is
requesting registration as a major security-based swap participant,
regarding whether the firm is registering because it maintains a
substantial position, has substantial counterparty exposure, or is
highly leveraged relative to its capital position, which will assist
the staff in evaluating its application. Item 3 of Form SBSE-A would
elicit whether the SBS Entity intended to use mathematical models to
calculate capital or margin or to price customer or proprietary
positions because this would highlight for staff the need for a more
extensive review. Item 5 of Form SBSE would elicit whether the
applicant is subject to regulation by a prudential regulator because
the extent of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities for entities
subject to regulation by a prudential regulator differ.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Items fourteen and fifteen on Form SBSE-A would elicit information
regarding ``principals.'' The definition of ``principal'' in CFTC Form
7-R is similar to the definition of control affiliate in Form BD. Form
BD requires that an applicant file substantial information on its
control affiliates. We understand that the CFTC presently requires that
individual principals of entities registered with the CFTC file
separate registrations with the CFTC. Consequently, the CFTC would have
information on those individuals regarding any situations that would
cause those individuals to be statutorily disqualified without
requiring that the applicant include that information in its
application. In recognition of this method and to decrease duplication,
item thirteen would require that an applicant identify how many
individual principals it has. Further, the applicant would need to list
those principals on proposed new Schedule A to Form SBSE-A and provide
information regarding those individual principals similar to the
information provided on Schedule A of Form SBSE. Item fifteen asks
whether any principals of the applicant that are entities effect or are
involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the applicant.
If the question is answered in the affirmative, the applicant would
need to provide additional information on Schedule B with respect to
those entities. This information is designed help the Commission better
understand the relationship between the applicant and its principals in
order to assure compliance with Section 15F(b)(6) of the Exchange Act
and to police for manipulation and fraud.
    As discussed above, Schedule A of Form SBSE-A would require that an
applicant list all principals that are individuals and provide some
basic information regarding each (e.g., the person's title, NFA number,
and prior investment-related experience). Much of this information is
provided to the Commission via Form BD for broker-dealers, and the CFTC
would already have this information on control persons but, without new
Schedule A to Form SBSE-A, the Commission would not otherwise have this
information. This information is designed to help the Commission better
understand the relationship between the applicant and its principals
and a basic background of those principals in order to assure
compliance with Section 15F(b)(6) of the Exchange Act and to police for
manipulation and fraud.
    Schedule B would elicit information regarding other business in
which the applicant is engaged, business

[[Page 65805]]

arrangements, successions, and principals that are not identified in
Schedule A, and is based loosely on Schedule D to Form BD. Schedule C
would elicit information regarding principals that are identified in
Schedule B that would cause those persons to be statutorily
disqualified, and is based on Item 11 in Form BD.\87\ The applicant
would need to file a DRP for every ``yes'' answer in Schedule C. The
Schedules F and G to Form SBSE-A are the same Schedules as described
above in the section regarding Form SBSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Any differences between Schedule B to Form SBSE-A and
Schedule D to Form SBSE and between Schedule C of Form SBSE-A and
Item 11 in Form SBSE recognize the fact that Form SBSE-A has been
tailored to collect information not otherwise elicited via Form 7-R
which the Commission has found to be helpful to facilitate its
oversight of the entities it regulates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission intends to use the information disclosed in Form
SBSE-A to determine whether applicants meet the standards for
registration and to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
    Q-147. Is Form SBSE-A properly tailored to decrease costs for dual
registration while still providing the Commission with information
necessary on which to base its decision to grant or deny registration?
    Q-148. What are the comparative costs or benefits with respect to
filing Form SBSE versus filing Form SBSE-A for entities filing as both
swap entities with the CFTC and SBS Entities with the Commission?
    Q-149. How many firms expect to apply for registration as SBS
Entities and what is the likelihood that those entities will also
register with the CFTC as swap dealers or major swap participants?
    Q-150. Will the benefit of being able to file the same form with
the Commission as filed with the CFTC be outweighed by the requirement
to file those forms, as well as additional schedules and documents,
with more than one agency or entity or through more than one electronic
system?
    Q-151. Should FCMs registered with the CFTC that are not registered
or registering with the CFTC as either a swap dealer or a major swap
participant be allowed to register with the Commission using Form SBSE-
A?
    Q-152. Are any such FCMs likely to register with the Commission as
an SBS Entity?
    Q-153. Would it be more cost effective for the Commission to obtain
the data applicants file with the CFTC electronically from the CFTC or
its designee rather than having the applicant file a copy of that form
with the Commission?
    Q-154. Should any of the instructions or questions on Form SBSE-A
be amended to recognize particular characteristics of the business of
SBS Entities?
    Q-155. Are any of the proposed questions inapplicable to the SBS
business?
    Q-156. Should any questions be added to elicit information that is
unique to the SBS business or to the SBS Entities that engage in that
business?
3. Form SBSE-BD
    Similar to the Form SBSE-A, the staff is proposing that applicants
that are also registered or registering with the Commission as broker-
dealers file their application for registration on an alternative to
Form SBSE, or Form SBSE-BD.\88\ In addition, any entity that is
registered or registering with the Commission as a broker-dealer and
that is also registered or registering with the CFTC as a swap dealer
or major swap participant would be required to use the Form SBSE-BD.
Form SBSE-BD is based on Form BD, but is designed to provide the
Commission with data not included on the Form BD (to which the
Commission has access). The Commission believes that requiring that
these applicants use Form SBSE-BD would reduce the costs and burdens on
applicants that are already registered or registering with the
Commission as broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Over-the-counter derivatives dealers, a limited form of
broker-dealer established by the Commission in 1998, could also file
on Form SBSE-BD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Form SBSE-BD would consist of a single page that would
elicit information not included on Form BD, such as the capacity in
which the applicant is registering, whether the entity also is
registering with the CFTC and, if so, in what capacity the firm is
registering with the CFTC, if a firm is requesting registration as a
major security-based swap participant--whether the firm is registering
because it maintains a substantial position, has substantial
counterparty exposure, or is highly leveraged relative to its capital
position, whether the SBS Entity intends to use mathematical models to
calculate capital or margin or to price customer or proprietary
positions, whether the firm is subject to oversight by a prudential
regulator and information regarding the applicant's chief compliance
officer. Form SBSE-BD would also require that applicants submit
Schedules F and G, described more fully above.
    The Commission intends to use the information disclosed in Form
SBSE-BD to determine whether applicants meet the standards for
registration, and to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.
    Q-157. What will the comparative costs or benefits be with respect
to filing Form SBSE versus filing Form SBSE-BD for registered broker-
dealers filing as SBS Entities with the Commission?
    Q-158. How many firms expect to apply for registration as SBS
Entities and whether those entities are already registered with the
Commission as broker-dealers?
    Q-159. Should any of the instructions or questions be amended to
recognize particular characteristics of the business of SBS Entities?
    Q-160. Are any of the proposed questions inapplicable to the SBS
business?
    Q-161. Should any questions be added to elicit information that is
unique to the SBS business or to the SBS Entities that engage in that
business?
4. Form SBSE-C
    Proposed Form SBSE-C is designed to provide SBS Entities with a
standard format and process through which to file the Senior Officer
Certification required pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb2-1(b). Form SBSE-
C would need to be filed by all SBS Entities. As described above, SBS
Entities that submitted their applications during the transitional
period would need to file this certification either before the Last
Compliance Date or their conditional registration would expire. Major
securities-based swap participants that submitted their applications
after the Last Compliance Date would need to file this certification
within four months after filing a completed application or their
conditional registration would expire. SBS Dealers that file
applications after the Last Compliance Date would need to file both an
application and a certification simultaneously to be considered for
ongoing registration.
    Form SBSE-C includes instructions both requiring electronic
submission and explaining how the form should be filed electronically.
    Form SBSE-C would elicit the applicant's name, date, and SEC
number, along with the signature, name and title of the senior officer
signing the certification. The Commission intends to use the
certification provided by Form SBSE-C in determining whether applicants
meet the standards for ongoing registration.
    The Commission requests comment on the Form SBSE-C.
    Q-162. Should Form SBSE-C require that SBS Entities provide any
additional

[[Page 65806]]

information? If so, how should the form be amended?
    Q-163. Should the instructions to Form SBSE-C be amended?
5. Form SBSE-W
    Proposed Form SBSE-W is loosely based on Form BDW (the Form used by
broker-dealers to withdraw from registration with the Commission). The
Commission has found Form BDW to be an effective vehicle for gathering
information necessary for it and the SROs to determine whether it is
appropriate to allow a registered broker-dealer to withdraw from
registration. Because SBS Entities will be subject to many requirements
similar to those that affect broker-dealers (e.g., minimum capital,
leverage, and business conduct rules and statutory disqualification
prohibitions), the Commission believes using Form BDW as a template for
the request for withdrawal from registration of SBS Entities is logical
and efficient. Key differences from Form BDW are outlined below:
     The distinction regarding full and partial withdrawal was
eliminated from the Form SBSE-W as it is not relevant to the SBS
business; and
     Item 4 was added to elicit information regarding the
entity's reason for withdrawal from registration because we believe
this information would be useful when considering a registered SBS
Entity's request to withdraw from registration.
    The purpose of proposed Form SBSE-W is to allow the Commission to
determine whether it is in the public interest to permit a registered
SBS Entity to withdraw from registration.
    The Commission requests comment on the Form SBSE-W.
    Q-164. Given that the Commission has proposed to use different
forms for registration of certain types of applicants, should different
types of forms also be provided for withdrawals from registration? If
so, how should the form or forms be amended?
    Q-165. Should the instructions to Form SBSE-W be amended? If so,
how?
6. Tagged Data Formats
    As part of the Commission's longstanding efforts to (1) Improve the
accuracy of financial and other filed information, (2) increase the
transparency and usefulness of information, and (3) facilitate analysis
of information provided to the Commission via reports, we have begun
requiring that entities data-tag information contained in electronic
filings.\89\ Data becomes machine readable when it is labeled, or
``tagged,'' using a computer markup language that can be processed by
software programs for analysis. Such computer markup languages (such as
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and eXtensible Business Reporting
Language (XBRL)) use standard sets of definitions, or ``taxonomies,''
that translate text-based information in Commission filings into
structured data that can be retrieved, searched, and analyzed through
automated means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232. See also Electronic Filing
and Revision of Form D, Securities Act Release No. 8891 (Feb. 6,
2008) (73 FR 10592 (Feb. 27, 2008)); Interactive Data To Improve
Financial Reporting, Securities Act Release No. 9002 (Jan. 30, 2009)
(74 FR 6776 (Feb 10, 2009)); and Interactive Data for Mutual Fund
Risk/Return Summary, Securities Act Release No. 9006 (Feb. 11, 2009)
(74 FR 7748 (Feb 19, 2009)); Amendments to Rules for Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release
No. 61050 (Nov. 23, 2009) (74 FR 63832 (Dec. 4, 2009)); and Money
Market Fund Reform, Investment Company Release No. 29132 (Feb. 23,
2010 (75 FR 10060 (Mar. 4, 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to using the data provided via proposed Forms SBSE,
SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD to determine whether to grant or deny registration,
the Commission will make this data public. The fact that counterparties
of SBS Entities would have access to additional, standardized
information could improve competition amongst SBS Entities and would
enable counterparties and the marketplace to expend less time and money
to independently obtain and compile information on SBS Entities to use
in making such choices. Thus, the Commission intends to tag the
information in a machine readable format using a data standard that is
freely available, and that is consistent and compatible with the tagged
data formats already in use for SEC filings, to enable users of that
data to retrieve, search, and analyze the data through automated means.
    Q-166. What tagged data language (e.g., XML, XBRL) would be most
appropriate to be used for the required data to be provided via
proposed Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C, and SBSE-W?

H. Alternative Approaches Considered

    The Commission considered alternative approaches to registration of
SBS Entities. One possibility would be to adopt joint registration
forms with the CFTC, so that SBS Entities could register with both
agencies using the same forms. While there could be benefits to this
approach, we believe that the Commission's streamlined approach will
achieve many of the same benefits.
    Another possibility would be for the CFTC to require swap dealers
and major swap participants to register using the Commission's forms,
or for the Commission to require SBS Entities to register using the
CFTC's forms. While this approach might streamline the registration
process for regulated entities, particularly those that intend to
engage in both swaps and SBS business, it would be more difficult for
the agencies to implement given the Commissions' finite resources.
Further, differences between the Commodity Exchange Act and the
Exchange Act and the means to facilitate registration may justify
differences in the forms.

III. Request for Comment

    In addition to the questions described above, we are requesting
comments on all aspects of proposed rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and
Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W, including with respect
to the following questions:
    Q-167. Should the Commissions continue to consider whether to
develop a joint registration form?
    In addition, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the SEC
consult and coordinate to the extent possible with the CFTC for the
purposes of assuring regulatory consistency and comparability, to the
extent possible, and states that in adopting rules, the CFTC and SEC
shall treat functionally or economically similar products or entities
in a similar manner.
    The CFTC is adopting rules related to registration of swap dealers
and major swap participants as required under Section 731 of the Dodd-
Frank Act. Understanding that the Commission and the CFTC regulate
different products and markets, and as such, appropriately may be
proposing alternative regulatory requirements, we request comments on
the impact of any differences between the Commission's approach to the
registration process for SBS Entities and CFTC's approach to the
registration of swap dealers and major swap participants. Specifically:
    Q-168. Do the regulatory approaches under the Commission's proposed
rulemaking pursuant to Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the CFTC's
proposed rulemaking pursuant to Section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act
result in duplicative or inconsistent efforts on the part of market
participants subject to both regulatory regimes or result in gaps
between those regimes?
    Q-169. If so, in what ways do commenters believe that such
duplication, inconsistencies, or gaps should be minimized?
    Q-170. Do commenters believe the approaches proposed by the
Commission and the CFTC to register

[[Page 65807]]

SBS Entities and swap dealers and major swap participants are
comparable? If not, why?
    Q-171. Do commenters believe there are approaches that would make
the registration of SBS Entities and swap dealers and major swap
participants more comparable? If so, what?
    Q-172. Do commenters believe that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to adopt an approach proposed by the CFTC that differs from
our proposal? Is so, which one and why?
    We request commenters to provide data, to the extent possible,
supporting any such suggested approaches.
    The Commission is cognizant that the proposed rules discussed
herein, as well as other proposals that the Commission may consider in
the coming months to implement the Dodd-Frank Act, if adopted, could
significantly affect--and be significantly affected by--the nature and
scope of the security-based swaps market in a number of ways. For
example, the Commission recognizes that if the measures proposed in
this release are adopted and are too onerous for new entrants, they
could hinder the further development of a market for security-based
swaps by unduly discouraging competition and the formation of new SBS
Dealers and major security-based swap participants. On the other hand,
if the Commission adopts rules that are too permissive, the Commission
may grant registration to firms that may have insufficient capacity,
policies, procedures, or risk management systems. The Commission is
also mindful that the further development of the security-based swaps
market may alter the calculus for future regulation of SBS Dealers and
major security-based swap participants. As commenters review this
release, they are urged to consider generally the role that regulation
may play in fostering or limiting the development of the market for
security-based swaps (or, vice versa, the role that market developments
may play in changing the nature and implications of regulation) and
specifically to focus on this issue with respect to the proposals to
register SBS Dealers and major security-based swap participants.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of proposed Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and
Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W contain ``collection of
information requirements'' within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''). The Commission has submitted the
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review
in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507 and 5 CFR 1320.11. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number. The title of this collection is ``Registration Rules for
Security-Based Swap Entities.'' We are applying for a new OMB Control
Number for this collection in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5
CFR 1320.13.

A. Summary of Collection of Information

    As required by Exchange Act Section 15F, the Commission is
proposing Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-
BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W to facilitate registration of, certification by,
and withdrawal of SBS Entities.
    Pursuant to paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1, each SBS Entity
would be required to file an application to register with the
Commission. The Commission has sought to reduce burdens and costs
associated with the application process by providing alternate
registration forms for SBS Entities that are registered or registering
either with the CFTC as swap dealers or major swap participants or with
the Commission as broker-dealers. The alternative forms (Form SBSE-A,
and Form SBSE-BD) are both shorter and should require that an SBS
Entity expend less effort to research, complete, and file. It is
anticipated that each SBS Entity would only need to research, complete,
and file one of the proposed Forms.
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3 would require that SBS Entities promptly
amend their applications if they find that the information contained
therein has become inaccurate. While SBS Entities may need to update
their Forms periodically, each firm will only need to amend that aspect
of the Form that has become inaccurate.
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS
Entity have a knowledgeable senior officer, after due inquiry, make an
attestation on Form SBSE-C. As discussed more fully above, the
Commission is proposing to require that a senior officer certify that,
after due inquiry, he or she has reasonably determined that the SBS
Entity has the operational, financial, and compliance capabilities to
act as an SBS Dealer or major security-based swap participant, as
applicable, and has documented the process by which he or she reached
such determination. This certification process is designed to allow SBS
Entities to register with the Commission quickly so that they are not
required to suspend their security-based swap business, while providing
the Commission with a basis to take final action on SBS Entity
registration.
    Proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require that SBS Entities obtain a
questionnaire or application for employment executed by each of its
associated persons who is involved in effecting security-based swaps on
behalf of the SBS Entity that contains certain, specified
information.\90\ The proposed rule further would provide that the
questionnaire or application shall serve as a basis for a background
check of the associated person and be signed by the SBS Dealer's or
major security-based swap participant's Chief Compliance Officer (or
his or her designee). Proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require that each SBS
Entity retain these employment questionnaires or applications until at
least three years after the associated person has terminated his or her
association with the SBS Entity. Finally, the CCO would need to certify
(on Schedule G to Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as
applicable) that no associated person that effects or is involved in
effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity is subject
to a statutory disqualification. SBS Entities would only need to
fulfill these obligations for associated persons that effect or are
involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See supra notes 55 and 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require that each nonresident SBS
Entity must have in place at all times an agreement with a United
States person appointing that person as the firm's U.S. agent for
service of process. In addition, Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require
that each nonresident SBS Entity obtain an opinion of counsel stating
that it can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with access to
records and the ability to conduct onsite examinations. These entities
also must file an additional schedule (Schedule F) with their Form
SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, to identify the
firm's U.S. agent for service of process and to certify that the firm
can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with access to its
books and records. In addition, each nonresident SBS Entity would be
required to maintain its written agreement appointing a U.S. agent for
service of process until at least three years after the agreement is
terminated.
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb1-1, each signatory to an electronic
filing would be required to, when the

[[Page 65808]]

electronic filing is made, manually sign a signature page or other
document adopting his or her signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic filing. The SBS Entity would need to retain the
manually-signed page until at least three years after the form or
certification has been replaced or is no longer effective.
    Proposed Rule 15Fb3-2 would require that an SBS Entity seeking to
withdraw from Commission registration must file Form SBSE-W. Given that
the cost and effort to register as an SBS Entity likely will be
significant, the Commission believes that entities will not enter and
exit this business regularly. Further, the Commission believes it is
unlikely that any SBS Entity will seek to withdraw from registration
within the first year.
    Proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would only be adopted if a
technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of applications
is not functional by the time final rules are adopted. Pursuant to
proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T, each SBS Entity would need to file
its application and certification in paper form. Proposed temporary
Rule 15Fb2-2T also would require that each SBS Entity resubmit its
application and certification in electronic form once a technological
means to receive such documents becomes functional.

B. Proposed Use of Information

    Information collected pursuant to proposed Rules 15Fb1-1 through
15Fb6-1 and through Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, and SBSE-C would allow
the Commission to determine whether applicants meet the standards for
registration, and to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Further,
Rule 15Fb3-2 and Form SBSE-W would allow the Commission to determine
whether it is appropriate to allow an SBS Entity to withdraw from
registration and to facilitate that withdrawal.
    In addition, information collected pursuant to proposed Forms SBSE,
SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, and SBSE-C would be made publicly available.

C. Respondents

    Proposed Rule 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 would set forth rules to
facilitate registration with the Commission of entities that fit the
definition of SBS Dealer or major security-based swap participant.\91\
Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD, as applicable, are applications
through which SBS Entities would register with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See supra notes 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily believes, based on data obtained from
DTCC and conversations with market participants, that approximately
fifty entities may fit within the definition of SBS Dealer and up to
five entities may fit within the definition of major security-based
swap participant.\92\ Further, the staff estimates, based on its
experience and understanding of the unregulated swaps and security-
based swaps markets, that the majority of firms that may register as
SBS Entities (thirty-five) also will be engaged in the swaps business
and will register with the CFTC as swap dealers or major swap
participants.\93\ In addition, persons holding securities positions may
find it beneficial to hedge those positions with security-based swaps,
so it may be beneficial for a broker-dealer to become an SBS Entity so
that it can provide this option to its customers. Thus, Commission
staff estimates that approximately sixteen broker-dealers will seek to
register as SBS Entities.\94\ Finally, given the costs of being a
registered entity it may be less likely for an entity that is not
otherwise registered with the CFTC or the Commission to register as an
SBS Entity. Consequently, the Commission staff estimates that only four
firms not otherwise registered with the CFTC or the Commission will
seek to become an SBS Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ In the Intermediary Definitions Release, the Commission and
the CFTC proposed rules to define a number of terms used in Title
VII, including, among others, ``security-based swap dealer'' and
``major security-based swap participant.'' See supra note 5. As part
of that proposal, the Commission preliminarily estimated that
approximately 50 entities may be required to register as security-
based swap dealers under the proposed rules. See Intermediary
Definitions Release, n. 188 (75 FR 80174, at 80209 (Dec. 10, 2010)).
We further estimated that no more than ten entities would have
security-based swap positions large enough that they would have to
monitor whether they meet the thresholds defining a major security-
based swap participant. See Intermediary Definitions Release, (75 FR
80174, at 80207-8 (Dec. 10, 2010)). For purposes of these proposed
rules, we conservatively estimate that, of the ten entities that
would need to monitor their positions to determine whether they
cross any of the definitional thresholds, five may actually meet the
definition of ``major security-based swap participant.'' Depending
on capital and other requirements for SBS Dealers and how businesses
choose to respond to such requirements, the actual number of SBS
Dealers may be significantly fewer. See also Trade Acknowledgment
and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, Exchange Act
Release No. 63727 (Jan. 14, 2011), 76 FR 3859, at 3868 (Jan. 21,
2011); and Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap
Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act
Release No. 64766 (Jun. 29, 2011), 76 FR 42396, (Jul. 18, 2011), as
corrected by Exchange Act Release No. 64766, 76 FR 46668 (Aug. 3,
2011).
    \93\ See Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap
Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act
Release No. 64766 (Jun. 29, 2011), 76 FR 42396, (Jul. 18, 2011), as
corrected by Exchange Act Release No. 64766, 76 FR 46668 (Aug. 3,
2011).
    \94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment on the reasonableness and accuracy of
its estimates as to the number of participants in the security-based
swap market that will be required to register with the Commission
pursuant to proposed Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE,
SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD, as applicable.

D. Total Initial and Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens

1. Burden Associated With Filing Application Forms
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS Entity register
with the Commission by filing an application. The Commission has
attempted to reduce the burden associated with the application process
by providing multiple forms for SBS Entities to use to register (Form
SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD). It is anticipated that each SBS
Entity will only need to research, complete, and file one form.
    While it is likely that the time necessary to complete these forms
would vary depending on the nature and complexity of the entity's
business, the Commission staff estimates (based on its experience
relative to Form BD) that the average time necessary for an SBS Entity
to research the questions, and complete and file a Form SBSE (including
the Schedules \95\ and DRPs) would be approximately one work week or
forty hours.\96\ As discussed above, the Commission estimates that
approximately four firms would need to register using Form SBSE.
Consequently, the total burden associated with filing Forms SBSE would
be approximately 160 hours.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Except Schedules F and G, which are dealt with separately
below.
    \96\ The staff has previously estimated that the average time
necessary for a broker-dealer to complete and file Form BD, the Form
upon which Form SBSE was based, would be approximately three hours
(and that estimate has been subject to notice and comment. Broker-
Dealer Registration and Reporting, Exchange Act Release No. 41594
(July 2, 1999), 64 FR 37586.) However, some SBS Entities may not
previously have been subject to regulation and thus may need more
time to research the answers to complete Form SBSE and its schedules
and DRPs.
    \97\ (40 hours x 4 SBS Entities) = 160 hours total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff believes that, as Form SBSE-A is shorter than
the Form SBSE, it should take an SBS Entity approximately 80% of the
time that it would take to research, complete, and file a Form SBSE
(including the Schedules \98\ and DRPs), or thirty two

[[Page 65809]]

hours. As discussed above, the Commission estimates that approximately
thirty-five firms would also be registered with the CFTC and therefore
would need to register using Form SBSE-A. Consequently, the total
burden associated with filing Forms SBSE would be approximately 1,120
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See supra note 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff believes that, as Form SBSE-BD is shorter than
either Form SBSE or Form SBSE-A and broker-dealers who would be filing
Form SBSE-BD are familiar with Commission terminology and forms,
researching, completing, and filing a Form SBSE-BD should take an SBS
Entity approximately 25% of the time that it would take to research,
complete, and file a Form SBSE (including the Schedules \99\), or ten
hours. As discussed above, the Commission estimates that approximately
sixteen SBS Entities would need to register using Form SBSE-BD.
Consequently, the total burden associated with filing Forms SBSE-BD
would be approximately 160 hours.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Id.
    \100\ (10 hours x 16 SBS Entities) = 160 hours total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Burden Associated With Amending Application Forms
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3 would require that SBS Entities amend their
applications if they find that the information contained therein has
become inaccurate. While SBS Entities may need to update their Forms
periodically, each firm will only need to amend that aspect of the Form
that has become inaccurate. Further, it likely will not cost a
significant amount to make such changes because each firm will have
already completed Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as
applicable, and will only need to amend that aspect of the Form that
has become inaccurate. Based on the number of amendments the Commission
receives annually on Form BD,\101\ the Commission estimates that each
SBS Entity will file approximately three amendments annually. While it
is likely that the time necessary to file an amendment to Form SBSE,
Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable, may vary depending on the
nature and complexity of the information to be amended, the staff
estimates, based on experience relative to Form BD, that it likely
would take an SBS Entity, on average, approximately one hour to amend
its application each time it files an amendment. Consequently, the
total burden associated with amending Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD,
as applicable, would be approximately 165 hours.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ On March 1, 2010 there were 5,163 broker-dealers
registered with the Commission (based on Form BD data). The
Commission received 20,666, 17,839, 16,702, 16,365, and 17,247
amended Forms BD during the fiscal years ending 9/30/2005, 9/30/
2006, 9/30/2007, 9/30/2008 and 9/30/2009, respectively. ((20,666 +
17,839 + 16,702 + 16,365 + 17,247)/5 years)/5,163 broker-dealers =
3.44 amendments per broker-dealer per year.
    \102\ 1 hour x three per year x 55 SBS Entities = 165 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Burden Associated With Certification
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS
Entity have a knowledgeable senior officer certify that, after due
inquiry, he or she has reasonably determined that the SBS Entity has
the operational, financial, and compliance capabilities to act as an
SBS Dealer or major security-based swap participant, as applicable, and
has documented the process by which he or she has reached such
determination. Each SBS Entity would need to provide this certification
on Form SBSE-C only once. The Commission believes that the majority of
the cost associated with this certification would arise from the review
the senior officer conducts, or has others conduct, prior to certifying
that the SBS Entity has the requisite operational, financial, and
compliance capabilities. The senior officer would also need to certify
that he or she has documented this process.
    The Commission understands (based on the staff's experience with
broker-dealers and other regulated entities) that, in satisfying other
certification requirements, SBS Entities may use different processes,
depending on the facts and circumstances of their business. Some SBS
Entities may develop more or less robust process than others and, as a
result, may incur higher or lower than average costs. Some SBS Entities
may use a sub-certification process whereby the senior officer will not
certify a firm-wide statement unless and until other persons
responsible for certain activities in turn certify to the senior
officer that the standard has been met, while other firms may use an
internal or external audit-type process whereby a senior officer may
choose to employ a third party to review an area subject to a firm-wide
certification before submitting the certification. There may be other
processes an SBS Entity could use to provide a basis for a senior
officer's reasonable determination that the SBS Entity has the
requisite capabilities that we have not specifically identified here.
Many factors outside of the Commission's control \103\ may determine
whether an SBS Entity might choose to utilize an internal process, as
opposed to an external process, to serve as a basis for the Senior
Officer Certification. For purposes of this PRA, we will estimate that
approximately half, or twenty-eight of the SBS Entities, may use an
internal process and the other half, or twenty-seven of the SBS
Entities, will use an external process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ For instance, such factors could include: costs; how
comfortable the senior officer may be with his or her subordinates
within the SBS Entity's control structure; and how knowledgeable a
senior officer may be regarding the SBS Entity's capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, regardless of whether an SBS Entity
may choose to utilize an internal process, as opposed to an external
process, to serve as a basis for the Senior Officer Certification, the
burden associated with having a senior officer sign a certification
likely would be approximately five hours.\104\ The Commission has
previously estimated that it would take a senior officer approximately
twenty hours to review, document, and update compliance
procedures,\105\ which the staff believes would be analogous to
reviewing documents provided either by subordinates or a third party to
gain comfort necessary to sign the Senior Officer Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See, e.g., Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers
With Market Access, Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (Nov. 3, 2010),
75 FR 69792, at 69816 (Nov. 15, 2010).
    \105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates, based on its experience relative to the
securities and over-the-counter derivatives industries, that if a
senior officer opted to conduct an internal review of the SBS Entity's
operational, financial, and compliance capabilities, it would take
approximately one hundred and seventy five additional hours for other
SBS Entity employees to assess the SBS Entity's operational, financial,
and compliance capabilities and provide the senior officer with sub-
certifications or other documents he or she may request to obtain the
necessary comfort before signing the Senior Officer Certification.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the one-time burden for the
twenty-eight SBS Entities that utilize an internal review process would
be approximately 5,600 hours for other SBS Entity employees to assess
the SBS Entity's operational, financial, and compliance capabilities
and provide the senior officer with documents, and for the senior
officer to review those

[[Page 65810]]

documents and sign the Senior Officer Certification.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ (5 hours + 20 hours + 175 hours) x 28 SBS Entities = 5,600
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously estimated that the burden associated
with obtaining an internal control report from a third party would
cost, on average, approximately $250,000.\107\ The staff believes that
an internal control report would be roughly analogous to a third party
review of each SBS Entity capability included in the Senior Officer
Certification; however, the staff believes the cost of a third party
review of an SBS Entity's capabilities likely would be less than the
cost of three separate internal control reviews because the third party
review of capabilities would not require an accountant's opinion and
because some economies of scale likely could be achieved when a third
party reviews three capabilities for a single SBS Entity. Consequently,
the staff estimates that the cost for an SBS Entity to obtain a third
party review to provide its senior officer with the necessary comfort
to sign the Senior Officer Certification would be approximately
$600,000. Thus, the Commission estimates that the one-time burden for
the twenty-seven SBS Entities that utilize an external review process
would be approximately 675 hours \108\ for the senior officer to review
documents provided by the third party to gain the necessary comfort and
to sign the Senior Officer Certification, and $16,200,000 to have a
third party review the SBS Entity's operational, financial, and
compliance capabilities and provide the SBS Entity with evidence
sufficient to make the senior officer sufficiently comfortable to sign
the Senior Officer Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See, e.g., Custody of Funds or Securities of Clients by
Investment Advisers, Advisers Act Release No. 2968 (Dec. 30, 2009),
75 FR 1456, at 1473 (Jan. 11, 2010). Depending on the facts and
circumstances relating to an SBS Entity's business, third party
service providers may use different methods to assess each of an SBS
Entity's capabilities and report their findings to the SBS Entity,
which may affect the cost of the review and the amount a third party
charges an SBS Entity for this review.
    \108\ (5 hours + 20 hours) x 27 SBS Entities = 675 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the total burden for all SBS Entities associated with the
Senior Officer Certification would be approximately 6,275 hours and
$16,200,000.
4. Burdens Relating to Associated Persons
    Proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require an SBS Entity to obtain a
questionnaire or application for employment executed by each of its
associated persons who is involved in effecting security-based swaps on
behalf of the SBS Entity that contains certain, specified information.
The proposed rule further would provide that the questionnaire or
application must be reviewed and signed by the SBS Dealer's or major
security-based swap participant's Chief Compliance Officer. Finally,
the CCO would need to certify (on Schedule G of its Form SBSE, Form
SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable) that no associated person that
effects or is involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of
the SBS Entity is subject to a statutory disqualification. SBS Entities
would only need to fulfill these obligations for associated persons
that effect or are involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf
of the SBS Entity.\109\ The Commission estimates (based on the staff's
experience relative to the securities and OTC derivatives industries)
that SBS Entities each have, on average, twenty-five associated persons
that effect or are involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf
of the SBS Entity. The Commission believes that the information SBS
Entities would need to obtain through these questionnaires is standard
in the financial services industry, and is already collected by firms
registered with the CFTC and the SEC. In addition, SBS Entities that
are registered with the Commission or the CFTC must already perform
background checks on their employees because of the prohibitions from
employment of statutorily disqualified persons in the CEA and the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See supra notes 55 and 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates, based on its experience relative to
the securities industry, that the average time necessary for an SBS
Entity to review its employment questionnaire or application to verify
that it contains all of the required information and to update the
questionnaire would be approximately three hours. As SBS Entities that
are already registered with the Commission or the CFTC already collect
this information, the Commission estimates that the cost to all SBS
Entities to review employment questionnaires or applications, verify
that they contain all of the required information and update the
questionnaires or applications, as necessary, would be approximately 12
hours.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ 3 hours x 4 SBS Entities that are not registered with the
Commission or CFTC = 12 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission staff believes that most
financial services firms already collect all or most of the information
proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require that they collect. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the burden to require an SBS Entity's
existing associated persons that effect or are involved in effecting
security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity to provide those few
categories of information that they did not originally provide on their
employment questionnaires or applications would be approximately one
hour each.\111\ As SBS Entities that are already registered with the
Commission and the CFTC already collect this information from
employees, the Commission estimates that the burden to all SBS Entities
to obtain additional information from relevant associated persons,
would be approximately 100 hours.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Commission staff believes that, as most firms already
collect all or most of the information already, it likely would not
take employees more than an hour each, on average, to provide any
additional information. The staff believes the pay scales for
broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar. As the
categories of employees that could be required to provide additional
information is diverse (see supra notes 55 and 56) the weighted-
average cost of 46 of the positions included in Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association's (``SIFMA'') publication titled
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009,
as modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-
year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of an Attorney is
approximately $260/hour. 1 hour x 25 associated persons x $260 =
$6,500.
    \112\ One hour x 4 SBS Entities that are not registered with the
Commission or CFTC x 25 associated persons effecting or involved in
effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity = 100
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates, based on the staff's experience
relative to the securities industry, that it would take a CCO
approximately one hour to review and sign a relevant employee's
employment record. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
total burden to all SBS Entities to have their CCOs review and sign
each associated person's employment record would be approximately 1,375
hours.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ One hour x 25 associated persons x 55 SBS Entities = 1,375
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On an ongoing basis, if employee turnover at an SBS Entity averages
12%,\114\ each SBS Entity would need to perform background checks and
have their CCO review and approve in writing three new associated
persons' employment records per year. As stated

[[Page 65811]]

above, the Commission estimates that the burden to have an SBS Entity's
CCO review and sign each associated person's employment record would be
approximately one hour. Thus, the ongoing annual burden to each SBS
Entity would be approximately three hours \115\ and the total cost to
all SBS Entities to comply with Rule 15Fb6-1 on an ongoing basis would
be approximately 165 hours annually.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The staff notes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor
Turnover Survey indicates that turnover is presently in the range of
3.2%, however the staff believes that the present economic situation
has likely driven turnover to a historically low level and that this
broad statistic likely does not adequately represent actual turnover
in the financial services sector. Consequently, the staff believes,
based on its experience, that a higher number may be more
appropriate.
    \115\ One hour x three associated persons = three hours.
    \116\ Three hours x 55 SBS Entities = 165 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that as the CCO would already have reviewed
and signed each employee's employment record, signing the required
certification will not take a significant amount of time. Thus,
Commission staff estimates, based on its experience relative to the
securities industry, that it would take a CCO approximately one hour to
certify on Schedule G that no associated person that effects or is
involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity
is subject to a statutory disqualification. Consequently, the
Commission staff estimates that the total burden to all SBS Entities to
complete this certification on Schedule G would be approximately 55
hours.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ One hour x 55 SBS Entities = 55 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Burdens on Nonresident SBS Entities
    The Commission estimates, based on conversations with industry
participants, that approximately 40 percent or 22 SBS Entities will be
nonresident SBS Entities. Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require that each
nonresident SBS Entity file an additional schedule (Schedule F) with
their Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, to
identify its U.S. agent for service of process and to certify that the
firm can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with access to its
books and records and can, as a matter of law, submit to onsite
inspection and examination by the Commission.
    Commission staff conservatively estimates, based on its experience
relative to the securities industry and Form BD, that the average time
necessary for a nonresident SBS Entity to complete and file Schedule F
would be approximately one hour. Thus, the Commission estimates that
the total burden for all nonresident SBS Entities approximately to
complete and file Schedule F would be approximately 22 hours.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 1 hour x 22 nonresident SBS Entities = 22 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, nonresident SBS Entities would incur outside legal
costs associated with obtaining an opinion of counsel. In previous
releases, the Commission estimated that firms with a similar
requirement would incur, on average, approximately $900 in outside
legal costs to obtain an opinion of counsel.\119\ This estimate
originally related to the cost a foreign bank issuer would incur to
obtain a legal opinion to provide to the Commission when seeking an
exemption from the requirement to make certain additional
disclosures.\120\ Although the legal opinion for foreign bank issuers
also would address privacy laws in the issuer's home jurisdiction that
may preclude certain disclosures, upon further reflection, we believe
that the legal opinion required for nonresident SBS Entities pursuant
to the proposed rule would likely require additional research and
analysis to prepare. Based on staff experience, the Commission
estimates that each nonresident SBS Entity would incur, on average,
approximately $25,000 in outside legal costs to obtain the necessary
opinion of counsel, and that the total cost for all nonresident SBS
Entities to obtain this opinion of counsel would be approximately
$550,000.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Registration and Regulation of Security-Based Swap
Execution Facilities, Exchange Act Release No. 63825 (Feb. 2, 2011),
76 FR 10948 (Feb. 28, 2011); Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Registration, Duties, and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No.
63347 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 77306 (Dec. 10, 2010); Foreign Bank
Exemption from the Insider Lending Prohibition of Exchange Act
Section 13(k), Exchange Act Release No. 49616 (Apr. 26, 2004), 69 FR
24016 (Apr. 30, 2004). The $900 figure is based on an estimate of
$400 an hour for legal services.
    \120\ Foreign Bank Exemption from the Insider Lending
Prohibition of Exchange Act Section 13(k), Exchange Act Release No.
49616 (Apr. 26, 2004); 69 FR 24016 (Apr. 30, 2004).
    \121\ $25,000 x 22 SBS Entities = $550,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Burden Related to Retention of Manually Signed Signature Pages
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb1-1, each signatory to an electronic
filing must, when the electronic filing is made, manually sign a
signature page or other document adopting his or her signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic filing. This manually
signed page must be retained by the SBS Entity until at least three
years after the form or certification has been replaced or is no longer
effective. It is likely that each SBS Entity would need to maintain at
least three pages with manually signed signatures (the execution page
of Form SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, as applicable, Schedule G, and the
Form SBSE-C certification). In addition, nonresident SBS Entities also
would need to retain a manually signed copy of Schedule F. As so few
pages would need to be retained, the staff believes the burden
associated with retaining them would not be significant. Thus, the
Commission estimates that it would take each SBS Entity approximately
10 minutes annually to assure that these pages are retained, or a total
of approximately 9 hours annually for all SBS Entities.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ (10 minutes x 55 SBS Entities)/60 minutes = 9.17 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Burden Associated With Filing Withdrawal Form
    Given that the cost and effort to register as an SBS Entity will be
significant, the Commission believes that entities will not enter and
exit this business regularly. As the Form SBSE-W is only one page and
consists of information readily available to SBS Entities, the staff
estimates (based on experience relative to Form BD-W) that it likely
would take an SBS Entity, on average, approximately one hour to
complete and file a Form SBSE-W. While the Commission believes it is
unlikely that any SBS Entity will withdraw from registration often or
within the first year, solely for purposes of this PRA the Commission
estimates that one SBS Entity may file Form SBSE-W to withdraw from
registration annually and the total burden associated with completing
and filing Form SBSE-W would be approximately one hour each year.
8. Burden Associated With Proposed Temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T
    Proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would only be adopted if a
technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of applications
is not functional by the time final rules are adopted. Pursuant to
proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T, each SBS Entity would need to file
its application and certification in paper form, and then resubmit its
application and certification in electronic form once a technological
means to receive such documents becomes functional.
    The burden associated with completing and filing the forms once are
discussed above. Thus, the additional burden associated with proposed
temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T relate to electronic resubmission of the form.
    The staff estimates that the costs associated with resubmitting
each of the forms would be minimal, but would be contingent on the
length of the form. Further, the additional time to file the
certification (which consists of a single page) would not vary relative
to the form required to be filed, and would not add significantly to
the times required to file the registration forms. The

[[Page 65812]]

Commission staff preliminarily estimates, based on the staff's
experience relative to the securities industry and Form BD, that the
average time necessary for an SBS Entity to resubmit a Form SBSE would
be approximately four hours. As Forms SBSE-A and SBSE-BD are shorter
than Form SBSE, the Commission staff preliminarily estimates that
resubmitting Form SBSE-A would take approximately two hours, and that
resubmitting Form SBSE-BD would take approximately one hour. Thus, the
Commission estimates that the total burden to all SBS Entities to
resubmit their Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, as applicable, would be
approximately 102 hours.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ (2 hours x 35 SBS Entities already registered with the
CFTC) + (1 hour x 16 SBS Entities already registered with the
Commission) + (4 hours x 4 SBS Entities not otherwise registered
with either the Commission or the CFTC) = 102 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Request for Comment on Burden Estimates
    The Commission seeks comment on the recordkeeping and reporting
collection of information burdens associated with proposed Rule 15Fb1-1
through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, and SBSE-BD, as applicable.
    Q-173. What burdens, if any, would respondents incur with respect
to system design, programming, expanding systems capacity, and
establishing compliance programs to comply with proposed Rules 15Fb1-1
through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W, as
applicable?
    Q-174. Is it likely that SBS Entities will complete Forms SBSE,
SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W, as applicable, themselves or is it
more likely that they would obtain assistance in completing these forms
from some outside entity (e.g., outside counsel)? If an SBS Entity
obtains assistance in completing the forms from an outside entity, what
type of entity may be utilized and what may the relative costs to
employ such an entity for this purpose be?
    Q-175. Would there be different or additional burdens associated
with the collection of information under Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1
and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W, as applicable, that
a respondent does not currently undertake in the ordinary course of
business that the Commission has failed to identify? If so, please both
describe and quantify any additional burden(s).
    Q-176. Are the burden and cost estimates regarding the review
necessary to support the Senior Officer Certification appropriate? Are
there other processes a senior officer may utilize to gain the
necessary comfort to sign the Senior Officer Certification? If so, what
other processes might be used and what are the advantages, burdens and/
or costs of those other processes? Also, is the Commission's estimate
accurate regarding how many SBS Entities may utilize an external, as
opposed to an internal, review process?
    Q-177. Would nonresident SBS Entities incur greater or lesser costs
for the opinion of counsel? Would the cost more likely be closer to
$900, as previously estimated? Are the costs likely to exceed $25,000?

E. Retention Period of Recordkeeping Requirements

    Proposed Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A,
SBSE-BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W would require that each respondent retain
certain records and information for three years.

F. Collection of Information Is Mandatory

    Any collections of information required pursuant to proposed Rules
15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-C would
be mandatory to permit the Commission to determine whether applicants
meet the standards for registration, and to fulfill its oversight
responsibilities.
    The collections of information required pursuant to proposed Rule
15Fb3-2 and Form SBSE-W would be mandatory to allow the Commission to
determine whether it is in the public interest to allow an SBS Entity
to withdraw from registration.
    The collections of information required pursuant to proposed Rule
15Fb2-2T would be mandatory to provide a process for the Commission to
facilitate registration of SBS Entities if an electronic system to
facilitate registration is not functional by the time final
registration rules are adopted.

G. Confidentiality

    The Commission intends to make the information collected pursuant
to proposed Rule 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and Forms SBSE, SBSE-A, SBSE-
BD, SBSE-C and SBSE-W public.

H. Request for Comment

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits
comment to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including
whether the information shall have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
    3. Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
    4. Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and
should also send a copy of their comments to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-40-11.
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard
to this collection of information should be in writing, with reference
to File No. S7-40-11, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Records Management, Office of Filings and Information
Services, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. As OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collections of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

V. Economic Analysis

    In response to the recent financial crisis, Congress passed the
Dodd-Frank Act in July of 2010. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act
is designed to strengthen oversight, improve consumer protections, and
reduce systemic risks throughout the financial system. Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Act specifically addresses the OTC derivatives markets,
including the market for security-based swaps, and requires the
Commission to undertake a number of rulemakings to establish a
regulatory framework for SBS Entities.
    In promulgating the provisions of Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank
Act, Congress established a mandatory registration regime for SBS
Entities but left the form and manner of such registration within the
discretion of the Commission. In determining the form and manner of
such registration, the Commission may require ``such information, as
the Commission

[[Page 65813]]

considers necessary concerning the business in which the applicant is
or will be engaged.'' \124\ The Dodd-Frank Act also requires that SBS
Entities ``continue to submit to the Commission reports that contain
such information pertaining to the business of the person as the
Commission may require.'' \125\ Section 764 also provides that
registrations ``shall expire at such time as the Commission may
prescribe by rule,'' \126\ and prohibits SBS Entities from allowing
persons associated with it that are ``subject to a statutory
disqualification to effect or be involved in effecting security-based
swaps on behalf of the [SBS Entity if the entity] knew, or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the statutory
disqualification.'' \127\ Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act provides the
Commission with additional broad authority to effect registration and
regulation of SBS Entities.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(2)(A).
    \125\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(2)(B).
    \126\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(3).
    \127\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(6).
    \128\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)(4) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Commission is proposing new rules and forms that provide
a process for registration of SBS Entities. This process would require
that SBS Entities apply for registration by submitting a Form SBSE,
Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable. Further, this process
would allow SBS Entities to register conditionally or on an ongoing
basis, as necessary. In addition, each SBS Entity seeking ongoing
registration would need to submit to the Commission a certification on
Form SBSE-C, signed by a knowledgeable senior officer.
    In drafting these rules the Commission sought to design a
registration process that is similar to other registration processes
administered by the Commission. To the extent market participants are
familiar with these existing registration processes, we believe that
using similar processes to register SBS Entities would create
efficiencies for market participants. Many of the proposed rules were
drafted based on rules applicable to broker-dealers. Similarly, the
draft forms were based on Forms BD and BDW. However, the Commission
also has sought to assure that the staff has information sufficient to
make a determination as to whether registration should be granted or
denied. Thus, the Form SBSE differs from Form BD in that it requests
information specific to the SBS business and does not request
information specific to the broker-dealer business. The Commission also
sought to assure that the proposed rules, the forms, and the process
generally are as clear as possible so as to minimize confusion. The
Commission has sought to minimize, to the extent possible, duplication
and costs that the rules may impose on firms. Finally, burdens and
costs that have been estimated for PRA purposes are included in the
broader costs and benefits discussion that follows because we believe,
as the registration process would largely be forms-based, it is
appropriate to include them. The Commission is sensitive to the costs
and benefits imposed by its rules.

A. Benefits

    The proposed rules and forms described in this section would be
issued pursuant to a specific grant of rulemaking authority in the
Dodd-Frank Act. As indicated above, the forms were based on Forms BD
and BDW, which broker-dealers are familiar with and which are similar
to the Form 7-R that futures and commodities firms use to register with
the CFTC. Significantly, the Commission is proposing the use of
multiple registration forms to limit the amount of duplication and
costs imposed on firms already registered with the Commission as a
broker-dealer or with the CFTC as a swap dealer or major swap
participant. The Commission considered using only one form to
facilitate registration, but we believe using multiple forms would
provide a benefit to firms because it would reduce the costs to
register.
    In addition the proposed use of multiple forms is designed to allow
firms already registered with the SEC as broker-dealers or registered
or registering with the CFTC as swap dealers or swap participants to
submit or utilize forms they have already completed to facilitate
registration with the Commission. This use of existing forms would
allow the Commission to obtain the information it needs to determine
whether to grant registration without requiring the applicant to
duplicate substantially the same information that they have already
provided to regulators for another purpose.
    The proposed rules and forms would require that SBS Entities
provide certain standardized data (including disciplinary information)
to the Commission. The Commission would then make this information
public. This would provide SBS counterparties and the marketplace with
additional, comparable information on all SBS Entities (for instance,
by highlighting previously unrecognized comparative strengths and
weaknesses) which would allow them to make more informed choices with
respect to counterparties and collateral. The Commission also believes
that this may promote competition by leveling the playing field for
market participants who may have disparate access to information
regarding each SBS Entity. In addition, making such standardized
information on SBS Entities public would enable counterparties and the
marketplace to expend less time and money to independently obtain and
compile information on SBS Entities to use in making such choices.
    Requiring the reporting of standardized information through these
forms also will allow the Commission to identify the risk
characteristics of each SBS Entity, which should help the Commission
focus examinations and other oversight resources more efficiently and
effectively.
    Once SBS Entities are registered, they will be subject to
standardized requirements that set a baseline level of, among other
things, internal controls, capital and margin levels for all SBS
Entities. The registration and regulation of SBS Entities also may
promote capital formation by providing market participants with
certain, uniform information regarding registered SBS Entities (as
described above) and assuring market participants that registered SBS
Entities meet established standards. By facilitating oversight of SBS
Entities, registration and regulation of these entities also could
increase counterparty trust, and may encourage more counterparties and
eligible contract participants to enter the SBS marketplace. It also
may be beneficial if SBS entities that are not capable of meeting, or
are unwilling to meet, their regulatory obligations exit the market.

B. Costs

    Although the Commission believes that registration and regulation
of SBS Entities would result in significant benefits to customers of
and counterparties to SBS Entities, investors, eligible contract
participants and the market for SBS, the Commission recognizes that the
proposed registration rules and forms would also entail costs.
    The Commission preliminarily estimates that SBS Entities would
incur costs associated with: (i) Researching, completing, and filing
the forms, (ii) reviewing, completing and submitting the required
certification, and documenting the review process, (iii) obtaining or
compiling the required questionnaires or employment applications,
having the CCO review the questionnaires and certify that no relevant
associated person is subject to

[[Page 65814]]

statutory disqualification, (iv) the requirements that nonresident SBS
Entities obtain an agreement for U.S. service of process and an opinion
of counsel stating that they can provide the Commission with access to
records, (v) the requirement to retain manually signed signature pages,
and (vi) the requirements associated with filing forms in paper format
and resubmitting those forms electronically if the Commission does not
have a technological means to receive applications electronically by
the time final registration rules are adopted.
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
may impose a burden on competition for smaller SBS Entities to the
extent that they impose relatively fixed costs, which could represent a
higher percentage of net income for smaller SBS Entities. Registration
costs may also impact those SBS Entities that are not already
registered under another area of their business model to a greater
degree than they would impact SBS Entities that have previously
registered under another regulatory regime. The SBS Entity registration
requirement may cause some market participants that are not capable of
meeting their operational, financial and/or regulatory obligations to
exit the market. However, the Commission believes that any reduction in
competition resulting from an exit from the market by SBS Entities that
are not capable of meeting, or that are unwilling to meet, their
regulatory obligations is a necessary and appropriate burden on
competition.
1. Costs Attributable to Filing the Forms
    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS Entity register
with the Commission by filing Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD,
as applicable. Firms must file these forms electronically, which also
should reduce the associated costs because SBS Entities will not incur
costs associated with copying or postage. The Commission preliminarily
believes that it would cost each SBS Entity approximately $11,800 to
complete and file the Form SBSE (including the Schedules \129\ and
DRPs).\130\ As stated previously, the Commission has attempted to
reduce costs associated with the application process by providing
multiple forms for SBS Entities to use to register. The alternative
forms (Form SBSE-A, and Form SBSE-BD) are both shorter and should
require that an SBS Entity expend less effort to research, complete,
and file. Consequently, the Commission preliminarily believes that it
would cost each firm approximately $9,440 to complete Form SBSE-A \131\
(including the Schedules \132\ and DRPs) and approximately $2,950 to
complete Form SBSE-BD (including the Schedules).\133\ It is anticipated
that each SBS Entity will only need to research, complete, and file one
Form, and that it will update that Form, as necessary, as described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See supra note 95.
    \130\ The staff has previously estimated that the average time
necessary for a broker-dealer to complete and file Form BD, the Form
upon which Form SBSE was based, would be approximately three hours
(and that estimate was been subject to notice and comment. Broker-
Dealer Registration and Reporting, Exchange Act Release No. 41594
(July 2, 1999), 64 FR 37586.) However, SBS Entities have not
previously been subject to regulation and may need significantly
more time to research the answers to complete Form SBSE and its
schedules and DRPs. Thus, while it is likely that the time necessary
to complete Form SBSE would vary depending on the nature and
complexity of the entity's business, Commission staff estimates that
the average time necessary for an SBS Entity to research the
questions, and complete and file a Form SBSE would be approximately
one work week or forty hours. The staff believes that an SBS Entity
would have a Compliance Manager complete and file the form's
application on Form SBSE, and that the pay scales for broker-dealers
and SBS Entities would likely be similar. According to the SIFMA
publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost
of a Compliance Manager is approximately $295/hour. 40 hours x $295
= $11,800.
    \131\ The Commission staff believes that, as Form SBSE-A is
shorter than the Form SBSE, it should take an SBS Entity less time
to research the questions, and complete and file a Form SBSE-A.
Thus, while it is likely that the time necessary to complete Form
SBSE-A would vary depending on the nature and complexity of the
entity's business, the staff estimates that researching, completing,
and filing Form SBSE-A would take approximately 80% of the time that
it would take to research, complete, and file a Form SBSE, or thirty
two hours. The staff believes that an SBS Entity would have a
Compliance Manager complete and file the form's application on Form
SBSE-A, and that the pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities
would likely be similar. See supra note 130. 32 hours x $295 =
$9,440.
    \132\ See supra note 95.
    \133\ See supra note 95. The Commission staff believes that, as
Form SBSE-BD is shorter than either Form SBSE or Form SBSE-A, it
should take an SBS Entity less time to research the questions, and
complete and file a Form SBSE-BD. In addition, broker-dealers who
would be filing Form SBSE-BD are familiar with Commission
terminology and Forms. Thus, while it is likely that the time
necessary to complete Form SBSE-BD would vary depending on the
nature and complexity of the entity's business, the staff estimates
that researching, completing, and filing Form SBSE-BD would take
approximately 25% of the time that it would take to research,
complete, and file a Form SBSE, or ten hours. The staff believes
that an SBS Entity would have a Compliance Manager complete and file
the form's application on Form SBSE-BD. See supra note 130. 10 hours
x $295 = $2,950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily believes, based on its understanding
of the security-based swap market and conversations with industry
participants, that approximately fifty firms will fit the definition of
SBS dealer and approximately five firms will fit the definition of
major security-based swap participant. Further, based on its
understanding of the securities-based swap market, the Commission
believes that the majority of firms that may register as SBS Entities
also will be engaged in the swaps business and will register with the
CFTC as swap dealers or major swap participants. In addition, persons
holding securities positions may find it beneficial to hedge those
positions with security-based swaps, so it may be beneficial for a
broker-dealer to become an SBS Entity so that it can provide this
option to its customers. However, given the costs of being a registered
entity, it may be less likely for an entity that is not otherwise
registered to register as an SBS Entity. Consequently, the Commission
believes that thirty-five SBS Entities will register with the
Commission using Form SBSE-A, twelve SBS Entities will register with
the Commission using Form SBSE-BD, and eight SBS Entities will register
with the Commission using Form SBSE. Thus, the total estimated cost to
all entities to research, complete, and file Forms to register as SBS
Entities would be approximately $424,800.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ $424,800 = (35 x $9,440) + (16 x $2,950) + (4 x $11,800).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 15Fb2-3 would require that SBS Entities amend their
applications if they find that the information contained therein has
become inaccurate. While SBS Entities may need to update their Forms
periodically, it likely would not cost a significant amount to make
such changes because each firm will have already completed Form SBSE,
Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable, and would only need to
amend that aspect of the Form that has become inaccurate. Based on the
number of amendments the Commission receives annually on Form BD,\135\
the Commission estimates that each SBS Entity would file approximately
three amendments annually. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
the cost for each SBS Entity to complete and file amendments to its
forms is

[[Page 65815]]

approximately $885.\136\ Thus, the Commission estimates that it would
cost all SBS Entities approximately $48,675 annually to complete and
file these amendments.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ On March 1, 2010 there were 5,163 broker-dealers
registered with the Commission (based on Form BD data). The
Commission received 20,666, 17,839, 16,702, 16,365, and 17,247
amended Forms BD during the fiscal years ending 9/30/2005, 9/30/
2006, 9/30/2007, 9/30/2008 and 9/30/2009, respectively. ((20,666 +
17,839 + 16,702 + 16,365 + 17,247)/5 years)/5,163 broker-dealers =
3.44 amendments per broker-dealer per year.
    \136\ While it is likely that the time necessary to file an
amendment to Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as applicable
may vary depending on the nature and complexity of the information
to be amended, the staff estimates, based on experience, that it
likely would take an SBS Entity, on average, approximately one hour
to amend its application each time it files an amendment. The staff
believes that an SBS Entity would have a Compliance Manager complete
and file amendments to the SBS Entity's forms, and that the pay
scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar.
According to the SIFMA publication titled Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35
to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead,
the hourly cost of a Compliance Manager is approximately $295/hour.
1 hours x $295 x three per year = $885.
    \137\ $885 x 55 SBS Entities = $48,675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 15Fb3-1 would require an SBS Entity seeking to
withdraw from Commission registration to file Form SBSE-W. Given that
the cost and effort to register as an SBS Entity will be significant,
the Commission believes that entities will not enter and exit this
business regularly. Further, the Commission believes it is unlikely
that any SBS Entity will withdraw from registration within the first
year. However, there will be a cost associated with withdrawing from
registration as an SBS Entity must file a Form SBSE-W to do so. As the
Form SBSE-W is only one page and consists of information readily
available to SBS Entities, the Commission estimates that the cost for
an SBS Entity to complete and file a Form SBSE-W would be approximately
$295.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ The staff estimates, based on experience, that it likely
would take an SBS Entity, on average, approximately one hour to
complete and file a Form SBSE-W. The staff believes that an SBS
Entity would have a Compliance Manager complete and file Form SBSE-
W, and that the pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would
likely be similar. According to the SIFMA publication titled
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009,
as modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-
year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of a Compliance
Manager is approximately $295/hour. 1 hour x $295 = $295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Act clearly requires registration of SBS Entities.
All other entities that register with the Commission do so by filing
some type of application, which may be a standardized form (e.g., Form
TA-1, Form ADV and Form BD). The Commission generally requires that
registered entities amend these forms to correct inaccurate information
either as necessary or periodically. Further, all other entities that
with to withdraw from Commission registration must file some type of
notice with the Commission, which may be a standardized form (see,
e.g., Form TA-W, Form ADVW, and Form BDW). Thus, it is likely that
Congress contemplated or intended that the Commission establish this
type of registration regime. The Commission believes the use of
conditional registration and the certification process using Form SBSE-
C is a reasonable and relatively low cost method to assure that firms
have operational, financial and compliance capabilities to act as SBS
Entities and implement adequate procedures to comply with federal
securities laws and provide the Commission with a basis to take final
action on SBS Entity registration.
2. Costs of Certification
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 15Fb2-1 would require that each SBS
Entity have a knowledgeable senior officer certify that, after due
inquiry, he or she has reasonably determined that the SBS Entity has
the operational, financial, and compliance capabilities to act as an
SBS Dealer or major security-based swap participant, as applicable, and
has documented the process by which he or she has reached such
determination. Each SBS Entity would need to provide this certification
on Form SBSE-C only once. The Commission believes that the majority of
the cost associated with this certification would arise from the review
the senior officer conducts, or has others conduct, prior to certifying
that the SBS Entity has the requisite operational, financial, and
compliance capabilities.\139\ The senior officer would also need to
certify that he or she has documented this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See supra note 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands (based on the staff's experience with
broker-dealers and other regulated entities) that, in satisfying other
certification requirements, SBS Entities may use different processes,
depending on the facts and circumstances of their business. Some SBS
Entities may develop more or less robust process than others and, as a
result, may incur higher or lower than average costs. Some SBS Entities
may use a sub-certification process whereby the senior officer will not
certify a firm-wide statement unless and until other persons
responsible for certain activities in turn certify to the senior
officer that the standard has been met, while other firms may use an
internal or external audit-type process whereby a senior officer may
choose to employ a third party to review an area subject to a firm-wide
certification before submitting the certification. There may be other
processes an SBS Entity could use to provide a basis for a senior
officer's reasonable determination that the SBS Entity has the
requisite capabilities that we have not specifically identified here.
Many factors outside of the Commission's control \140\ may determine
whether an SBS Entity might choose to utilize an internal process, as
opposed to an external process, to serve as a basis for the Senior
Officer Certification. For purposes of this economic analysis, we will
estimate that approximately half, or twenty-eight of the SBS Entities,
may use an internal process and the other half, or twenty-seven of the
SBS Entities, will use an external process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See supra note 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, regardless of whether an SBS Entity
may choose to utilize an internal process, as opposed to an external
process, to serve as a basis for the Senior Officer Certification, it
will cost approximately $10,450 on average for a senior officer to
review documents provided either by subordinates or by a third party to
gain the comfort necessary to sign and to sign the Senior Officer
Certification.\141\ The Commission estimates that, if an SBS Entity
opted to conduct an internal review of the SBS Entity's operational,
financial and compliance capabilities, it will cost each SBS Entity
approximately an additional $73,150 \142\ for other SBS

[[Page 65816]]

Entity employees to assess the SBS Entity's operational, financial, and
compliance capabilities and provide the senior officer with whatever
sub-certifications or other documents he or she may request to obtain
the necessary comfort before signing the Senior Officer Certification.
Alternatively, if an SBS Entity opted to conduct an external review of
the SBS Entity's operational, financial and compliance capabilities,
the Commission estimates that it will cost each SBS Entity
approximately an additional $600,000.\143\ Thus, the Commission
estimates that this certification requirement will cost all SBS
Entities a total of approximately $18,822,950.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ The Commission has previously estimated that the burden
associated with having a senior officer sign a certification likely
would be approximately five hours. See supra note 104. The
Commission has also estimated that it would take a senior officer
approximately twenty hours to review, document, and update
compliance procedures, (Id.) which the staff believes would be
analogous to reviewing documents provided either by subordinates or
a third party to gain comfort necessary to sign the Senior Officer
Certification, and to document this review. The staff believes the
pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be
similar, and that the pay of a Chief Compliance Officer likely would
be similar to the amount paid to other senior officers. According to
the SIFMA's publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to
account for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the
hourly cost of a Chief Compliance Officer is approximately $418/
hour. 25 hours x $418 = $10,450.
    \142\ Commission staff estimates, based on its experience
relative to the securities and OTC derivatives industries, that if a
senior officer opted to conduct an internal review of the SBS
Entity's operational, financial, and compliance capabilities, it
would take approximately one hundred and seventy five additional
hours for other SBS Entity employees to assess the SBS Entity's
operational, financial, and compliance capabilities and provide the
senior officer with whatever sub-certifications or other documents
he or she may request to obtain the necessary comfort before signing
the Senior Officer Certification. The staff believes the pay scales
for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar, and
that the pay of a Chief Compliance Officer likely would be similar
to the amount paid to other senior officers. According to the
SIFMA's publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost
of a Chief Compliance Officer is approximately $418/hour. For
purposes of this estimate, we will assume that those a senior
officer may consult with are paid at approximately the same level.
175 hours x $418 = $73,150.
    \143\ The Commission has previously estimated that the burden
associated with obtaining an internal control report from a third
party would cost approximately $250,000. See supra note 107. The
staff believes that an internal control report would be roughly
analogous to a third party review of each SBS Entity capability
included in the Senior Officer Certification; however, the staff
believes the cost of a third party review of an SBS Entity's
capabilities likely would be less than the cost of three separate
internal control reviews because the third party review of
capabilities would not require an accountant's opinion and because
some economies of scale likely could be achieved when a third party
reviews three capabilities for a single SBS Entity. Depending on the
facts and circumstances of an SBS Entity's business, third party
service providers may use different methods to assess each of an SBS
Entity's capabilities and report their findings to the SBS Entity,
which may affect the cost of the review and the amount a third party
charges an SBS Entity for this review. Consequently, the staff
estimates that the cost for an SBS Entity to obtain a third party
review to provide its senior officer with the necessary comfort to
sign the Senior Officer Certification would be approximately
$600,000 to have a third party review the SBS Entity's operational,
financial, and compliance capabilities and provide the SBS Entity
with evidence sufficient to make the senior officer sufficiently
comfortable to sign the Senior Officer Certification.
    \144\ ($10,450 x 55 SBS Entities) + ($73,150 x 28 SBS Entities)
+ ($600,000 x 27 SBS Entities) = $574,750 + $2,048,200 + $16,200,000
= $18,822,950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these costs, there may be additional costs and
benefits relating to certification that are more difficult to quantify.
For instance, the requirement to certify as to capabilities may impose
costs on SBS Entities relating to the legal uncertainty and potential
liability that arises from the possibility that a regulator may find
that the certification was inaccurate or false. However, a potential
benefit would be to focus senior officers' attention to assuring that
an SBS Entity conducts its business in accordance with the
certification language. In addition, the more robust the process and
meaningful the review of an SBS Entity's capabilities, the more likely
that review will fulfill the Commission's goals in proposing the Senior
Officer Certification requirement, and the more likely the process will
help the SBS Entity to strengthen its capabilities, processes and
controls which could serve to decrease operational, financial, and
compliance risks.
    In addition, the Senior Officer Certification is designed to help
assure the Commission, potential investors in, customers of, and
counterparties to an SBS Entity that the SBS Entity has the requisite
capabilities to act in that capacity. By providing this assurance after
a senior officer has performed due inquiry, the Senior Officer
Certification requirement also could prevent entities who may be more
likely to fail because they do not have the requisite capabilities from
registering with the Commission, which could help prevent disorderly
and unstable markets. Further, the Senior Officer Certification may
enhance market participants' ability to assess the counterparty credit
risk associated with a particular SBS Entity counterparty. In this way,
the Senior Officer Certification should help to protect market
participants from SBS Entities that are not competent to engage in that
business, lack the financial resources to do so, or are unable or
unwilling to comply with applicable law.
3. Costs Relating to Associated Persons
    The Dodd-Frank Act makes it unlawful for SBS Entities to permit any
associated person subject to a statutory disqualification to effect or
be involved in effecting security-based swaps on its behalf if it knew
or, in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the
statutory disqualification. Proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 would require that
SBS Entities obtain a questionnaire or application for employment
executed by each of its associated persons who is involved in effecting
security based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity that contains certain,
specified information. The proposed rule further would provide that the
questionnaire or application must be reviewed and signed by the SBS
Dealer's or major security-based swap participant's Chief Compliance
Officer. Finally, the CCO would need to certify that no associated
person that effects or is involved in effecting security-based swaps on
behalf of the SBS Entity is subject to a statutory disqualification.
SBS Entities would only need to fulfill these obligations for
associated persons that effect or are involved in effecting security
based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity.\145\ The Commission estimates,
based on the staff's experience in dealing with entities that likely
will need to register as SBS Entities, that SBS Entities each have, on
average, 25 associated persons that effect or are involved in effecting
security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity. The Commission
believes that the information SBS Entities would need to obtain through
these questionnaires is fairly standard in the financial services
industry, and is already collected by firms registered with the CFTC
and the SEC. In addition, SBS Entities that are registered with the
Commission or the CFTC must already perform background checks on their
employees because of the prohibitions from employment of statutorily
disqualified persons in the CEA and the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See supra notes 55 and 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the cost for each SBS Entity to
review its employment questionnaire or application to verify that it
contains all of the required information and to update the
questionnaire, as necessary, to obtain any information not presently
included on that questionnaire would be approximately $950.\146\ As SBS
Entities that are already registered with the Commission and the CFTC
already collect this information, the Commission estimates that the
cost to all SBS Entities to review employment questionnaire or
application forms, verify that they contain all of the required
information and update the questionnaire or application forms, as
necessary, would be approximately $3,800.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Commission staff estimates, based on its experience, that
the average time necessary for an SBS Entity to review its
employment questionnaire or application to verify that it contains
all of the required information and to update the questionnaire
would be approximately three hours. The staff believes that an SBS
Entity would have an Attorney perform this review and update, and
that the pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely
be similar. According to the SIFMA's publication titled Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, as modified
by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of an Attorney is
approximately $316/hour. 3 hours x $316 = $948.
    \147\ $950 x 4 SBS Entities that are not registered with the
Commission or CFTC = $3,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the cost to require an SBS Entity's
existing associated persons that effect or are

[[Page 65817]]

involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity
to provide those few categories of information that they did not
originally provide on their employment questionnaires or applications
would be approximately $6,500.\148\ As SBS Entities that are already
registered with the Commission and the CFTC already collect this
information from employees, the Commission estimates that the cost to
all SBS Entities to obtain additional information from relevant
associated persons, would be approximately $52,000.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Commission staff believes that, as most firms already
collect all or most of the information already, it likely would not
take employees more than an hour each, on average, to provide any
additional information. The staff believes the pay scales for
broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar. As the
categories of employees that could be required to provide additional
information is diverse (see supra notes 55 and 56) the weighted-
average cost of 46 of the positions included in SIFMA's publication
titled Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
2009, as modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour
work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of an Attorney is
approximately $260/hour. 1 hour x 25 associated persons x $260 =
$6,500.
    \149\ $6,500 x 4 SBS Entities that are not registered with the
Commission or CFTC = $26,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the cost to have an SBS Entity's CCO
review and sign each associated person's employment record would be
approximately $418.\150\ The Commission estimates that the cost to all
SBS Entities to have their CCOs review and sign each associated
person's employment record would be approximately $574,750.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Commission staff estimates, based on staff experience,
that it would take a CCO approximately one hour to review and
approve a relevant employee's employment record. The staff believes
the pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be
similar. According to the SIFMA's publication titled Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, as modified
by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of a Chief Compliance Officer
is approximately $418/hour. 1 hour x $418 = $418.
    \151\ $418 x 25 associated persons x 55 SBS Entities = $574,750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On an ongoing basis, if employee turnover at an SBS Entity averages
12%, each SBS Entity would need to perform background checks and have
its CCO review and sign three new associated persons' employment
records per year. As stated above, the Commission estimates that the
cost to have an SBS Entity's CCO review and sign each associated
person's employment record would be approximately $418. Thus, the cost
of each new associated person would be approximately $418, the ongoing
annual cost to each SBS Entity would be approximately $1,254 \152\ and
the total cost to all SBS Entities to comply with Rule 15Fb6-1 on an
ongoing basis would be approximately $68,970.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ $418 x 3 associated persons = $1,254.
    \153\ $1,254 x 55 SBS Entities = $68,970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that as the CCO would already have reviewed
and signed each employee's employment record, signing the certification
on Schedule G will not take a significant amount of time. Thus, the
Commission estimates that the cost for each SBS Entity to have its CCO
certify on Schedule G that no associated person that effects or is
involved in effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the SBS Entity
is subject to a statutory disqualification would be approximately
$418.\154\ Consequently, the total cost for all SBS Entities to have
their CCO sign this certification on Schedule G would be approximately
$22,990.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Commission staff conservatively estimates that it would
take a CCO approximately one hour to certify that no associated
person that effects or is involved in effecting security-based swaps
on behalf of the SBS Entity is subject to a statutory
disqualification. The staff believes the pay scales for broker-
dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar. According to the
SIFMA's publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost
of a Chief Compliance Officer is approximately $418/hour. 1 hour x
$418 = $418.
    \155\ $418 x 55 SBS Entities = $22,990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, in order to comply with the
prohibition in the Dodd-Frank Act from having statutorily disqualified
associated persons that effect or are involved in effecting security-
based swaps, SBS Entities would need to at least obtain the information
required by proposed Rule 15Fb6-1 and perform a background check.
Having the CCO approve the employment applications and provide the
Commission with a certification would provide the Commission with a
degree of comfort that the SBS Entity is complying with the prohibition
in the Act and aid it in its oversight of SBS Entities.
4. Costs to Nonresident SBS Entities
    The Commission estimates, based on conversations with industry
participants, that approximately 40 percent or twenty-two SBS Entities
will be nonresident SBS Entities. Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require
that each nonresident SBS Entity must obtain an agreement with a United
States person appointing that person as the firm's U.S. agent for
service of process. In addition, Proposed Rule 15Fb2-4 would require
that each nonresident SBS Entity obtain an opinion of counsel stating
that it can provide the Commission with access to records. These
entities also must file an additional schedule (Schedule F) with their
Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or Form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, to identify
the firm's U.S. agent for service of process and to certify that the
firm can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission with access to its
books and records.
    The Commission estimates, based on internet research,\156\ that it
would cost each nonresident SBS Entity approximately $125 annually to
appoint and maintain a relationship with a U.S. agent for service of
process. Consequently, the total cost for all nonresident SBS Entities
to appoint and maintain relationships with U.S. agents for service of
process is approximately $2,750 per year.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ See, e.g., http://www.incnow.com/registered_agent.shtml,
and http://www.ailcorp.com/registeredagent.htm. The staff sought Web
sites that provided pricing information and a comprehensive
description of their registered agent services.
    \157\ $125 per nonresident SBS Entity x 22 nonresident SBS
Entities = $2,750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, nonresident SBS Entities would incur outside legal
costs associated with obtaining an opinion of counsel. In previous
releases, the Commission estimated that firms with a similar
requirement would incur, on average, approximately $900 in outside
legal costs to obtain an opinion of counsel.\158\ This estimate
originally related to the cost a foreign bank issuer would incur to
obtain a legal opinion to provide to the Commission when seeking an
exemption from the requirement to make certain additional
disclosures.\159\ Although the legal opinion for foreign bank issuers
also would address privacy laws in the issuer's home jurisdiction that
may preclude certain disclosures, upon further reflection, we believe
that the legal opinion required for nonresident SBS Entities pursuant
to the proposed rule would likely require additional research and
analysis to prepare. Based on staff experience, the Commission
estimates that each nonresident SBS Entity would incur, on average,

[[Page 65818]]

approximately $25,000 in outside legal costs to obtain the necessary
opinion of counsel, and that the total cost for all nonresident SBS
Entities to obtain this opinion of counsel would be approximately
$550,000.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties,
and Core Principles, Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov. 19, 2010);
75 FR 77306 (Dec. 10, 2010); Foreign Bank Exemption from the Insider
Lending Prohibition of Exchange Act Section 13(k), Exchange Act
Release No. 49616 (Apr. 26, 2004); 69 FR 24016 (Apr. 30, 2004). The
$900 figure is based on an estimate of $400 an hour for legal
services.
    \159\ Foreign Bank Exemption from the Insider Lending
Prohibition of Exchange Act Section 13(k), Exchange Act Release No.
49616 (Apr. 26, 2004); 69 FR 24016 (Apr. 30, 2004).
    \160\ $25,000 x 22 SBS Entities = $550,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that it would cost each nonresident SBS
Entity approximately $295 to complete Schedule F.\161\ Thus, the
Commission estimates that the total cost for all nonresident SBS
Entities approximately $6,490.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Commission staff conservatively estimates, based on staff
experience, that the average time necessary for an SBS Entity to
complete and file Schedule F would be approximately one hour. The
staff believes that an SBS Entity would have a Compliance Manager
complete and file Schedule F with its Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, or
form SBSE-BD, as appropriate, and that the pay scales for broker-
dealers and SBS Entities would likely be similar. According to the
SIFMA publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost
of a Compliance Manager is approximately $295/hour. 1 hour x $295 =
$295.
    \162\ $295 per nonresident SBS Entity x 22 nonresident SBS
Entities = $6,490.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Dodd-Frank Act does not distinguish between resident and
nonresident SBS Entities, it clearly contemplates Commission oversight
of registered SBS Entities. The Commission's experience with other
nonresident registrants has led the staff to believe that these
requirements are necessary and appropriate to allow the Commission to
adequately oversee nonresident SBS Entities.
5. Costs of Retaining Manually Signed Signature Pages
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb1-1, each signatory to an electronic
filing would be required to, when the electronic filing is made,
manually sign a signature page or other document adopting his or her
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic filing. Each
SBS Entity must retain these manually signed pages until at least three
years after the form or certification has been replaced or is no longer
effective. It is likely that each SBS Entity would need to maintain at
least three pages with manually signed signatures (the execution page
of Form SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, as applicable, Schedule G, and the
Form SBSE-C certification). In addition, nonresident SBS Entities also
will need to retain a manually signed copy of Schedule F. As so few
pages would need to be maintained pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fb1-1,
Commission staff does not believe the costs associated with retaining
them would be significant. Thus, the Commission estimates that it would
cost each SBS Entity approximately $49.17 annually assure that it is
complying with the requirement to retain these manually signed
signature pages,\163\ or a total of approximately $2,704 annually for
all SBS Entities.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Commission staff conservatively estimates, based on staff
experience, that the average time necessary for an SBS Entity to
assure that it is complying with the requirement to retain these
pages would be approximately ten minutes. The staff believes that an
SBS Entity would have a Compliance Manager to assure that it is
complying with the requirement to retain these pages, and that the
pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities would likely be
similar. According to the SIFMA publication titled Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, as modified
by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead, the hourly cost of a Compliance Manager is
approximately $295/hour. 10 minutes x $295 = $49.17.
    \164\ $49.17 per SBS Entity x 55 SBS Entities = $2,704.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Costs Associated With Proposed Temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T
    Proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would only be adopted if a
technological means to facilitate receipt and retention of applications
is not functional by the time final rules are adopted. Pursuant to
proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T, each SBS Entity would need to file
its application and certification in paper form. Proposed temporary
Rule 15Fb2-2T also would require that each SBS Entity resubmit its
application and certification in electronic form once a technological
means to receive such documents becomes functional.
    The costs associated with completing the forms are discussed above.
Thus, the additional costs associated with proposed temporary Rule
15Fb2-2T would include the postage cost to send a paper form and the
personnel costs associated with later resubmitting the form
electronically.
    The postage costs likely would be driven by the number of pages
each SBS Entity would need to send, which could vary significantly
depending on the number of DRPs each firm must include with its Form.
The staff conservatively estimates that each SBS Entity may incur, on
average, approximately $5 to send its form to the Commission. As the
certification consists of a one page Form SBSE-C, the staff estimates
that it likely would cost an SBS Entity approximately $.50 to send its
certification to the Commission. The Commission hopes that it will have
a technological means to receive these forms functional relatively
quickly; however each SBS Entity may also need to file an amendment
before that occurs. As any amendment would likely include few pages
because the SBS Entity only would need to provide updates to those
items which become inaccurate, the staff estimates that it would cost
each SBS Entity approximately $.50 to send an amendment to the
Commission. Consequently, the total postage cost to each SBS Entity
associated with proposed temporary Rule 15Fb2-2T would be approximately
$6, and the total postage costs associated with proposed temporary Rule
15Fb2-2T would be approximately $330.
    The staff estimates that the costs associated with filing each of
the forms would be minimal, but would be contingent on the length of
the form. The Commission preliminarily believes that it would cost each
SBS Entity approximately $1,180 to resubmit the Form SBSE.\165\ As
Forms SBSE-A and SBSE-BD are shorter than Form SBSE, the Commission
preliminarily believes that it would cost each SBS Entity approximately
$590 to resubmit the Form SBSE-A,\166\ and $295 to resubmit the Form
SBSE-BD.\167\ Thus, the Commission estimates that the total cost to all
SBS Entities to resubmit their Form SBSE, SBSE-A, or SBSE-BD, as
applicable, would be approximately $33,630.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Commission staff estimates, based on staff experience,
that the average time necessary for an SBS Entity to file a Form
SBSE would be approximately four hours. The staff believes that an
SBS Entity would have a Compliance Manager file the firm's
application on Form SBSE, and that the pay scales for broker-dealers
and SBS Entities would likely be similar. According to the SIFMA
publication titled Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, as modified by Commission staff to account
for a 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead, the hourly cost
of a Compliance Manager is approximately $295/hour. 4 hours x $295 =
$1,180.
    \166\ Commission staff estimates that filing Form SBSE-A would
take approximately two hours. The staff believes that an SBS Entity
would have a Compliance Manager file the form's application on Form
SBSE-A, and that the pay scales for broker-dealers and SBS Entities
would likely be similar. 2 hours x $295 = $590.
    \167\ Commission staff estimates that filing Form SBSE-BD would
take approximately one hour. The staff believes that an SBS Entity
would have a Compliance Manager complete and file the form's
application on Form SBSE-BD. 1 hour x $295 = $295.
    \168\ ($590 x 35) + ($295 x 16) + ($1,180 x 4) = $30,090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests data to quantify and estimates of the costs
and the value of the benefits of the proposed rules described above.
The Commission specifically requests the following data or estimates
with respect to the number

[[Page 65819]]

of persons that act as SBS Dealers and major security-based swap
participants. The Commission specifically requests comment on the
following:
    Q-178. Are the estimates of the number of registrants that would be
required to submit each form and the estimates of the costs associated
with completing the forms and amendments are reasonable? If not, why
not?
    Q-179. Should the Commission require different and/or additional
information to be provided on the proposed forms?
    Q-180. Would additional benefits accrue if the Commission required
different or additional information and, if so, what would these
requirements entail?
    Q-181. What other processes might an SBS Entity use to provide a
basis for a senior officer's reasonable determination that the SBS
Entity has the requisite capabilities that we may not have considered,
and what would be the advantages, disadvantages, costs and benefits of
those other processes?
    Q-182. Are there additional costs or benefits related to
registration information that the Commission should consider?
    The Commission solicits comments on the costs and benefits related
to the limited recordkeeping requirements of these proposed
registration rules. The Commission specifically requests comment on the
following:
    Q-183. Should the Commission require different and/or additional
information to be maintained by SBS Entities?
    Q-184. Would additional benefits accrue if the Commission imposed
different or additional recordkeeping requirements and, if so, what
would these requirements entail?
    Q-185. Are there additional costs or benefits related to
recordkeeping that the Commission should consider?
    We request comment on all aspects of the costs and benefits of the
proposed rules and forms, particularly any effect our proposed rules
may have on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Commentators should provide analysis and empirical data to support
their views on the costs and benefits associated with the proposed
rule.
    Q-186. What would be the competitive or anticompetitive effects of
the proposed rules and forms on any market participants if the
proposals are adopted as proposed?
    Q-187. Would proposed Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 and the
proposed forms place a burden on competition?
    Q-188. What may be the effect of the proposal on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation?

VI. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA'') \169\ the Commission must advise the Office of
Management and Budget as to whether the proposed regulation constitutes
a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where,
if adopted, it results or is likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Public Law 104-121, Tit. II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
(either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effect on competition, investment or
innovation.

If a rule is ``major,'' its effectiveness will generally be delayed for
60 days pending Congressional review.
    Q-189. What may be the potential impact of these proposed
registration rules and forms for SBS Entities? Please include empirical
data on (a) The potential annual effect of the proposed registration
rules and forms on the economy; (b) any increase in costs or prices for
consumers or individual industries associated with the proposed
registration rules and forms; and (c) any potential effect the proposed
registration rules and forms may have on competition, investment or
innovation.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \170\ requires Federal
agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules
on small entities. Section 603(a) \171\ of the Administrative Procedure
Act,\172\ as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to
undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or
proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on
``small entities.'' \173\ Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this
requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule
amendment, which if adopted, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \171\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \172\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \173\ Although Section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term
``small entity,'' the statute permits agencies to formulate their
own definitions. The Commission has adopted definitions for the term
small entity for the purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance
with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed
rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0-10, 17 CFR 240.0-10. See
Statement of Management on Internal Control, Exchange Act Release
No. 18451 (January 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (February 4, 1982).
    \174\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a
small entity includes: (i) When used with reference to an ``issuer'' or
a ``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had
total assets of $5 million or less; \175\ or (ii) a broker-dealer with
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the
Exchange Act,\176\ or, if not required to file such statements, a
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter);
and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person)
that is not a small business or small organization.\177\ Under the
standards adopted by the Small Business Administration, small entities
in the finance and insurance industry include the following: (i) for
entities in credit intermediation and related activities,\178\ entities
with $175 million or less in assets or, (ii) for non-depository credit
intermediation and certain other activities,\179\ $7 million or less in
annual receipts; (iii) for entities in financial investments and
related activities,\180\ entities with $7 million or less in annual
receipts; (iv) for insurance carriers and entities in related

[[Page 65820]]

activities,\181\ entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts;
and (v) for funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles,\182\ entities
with $7 million or less in annual receipts.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \176\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \177\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \178\ Including commercial banks, savings institutions, credit
unions, firms involved in other depository credit intermediation,
credit card issuing, sales financing, consumer lending, real estate
credit, and international trade financing. Subsector 522.
    \179\ Including firms involved in secondary market financing,
all other non-depository credit intermediation, mortgage and
nonmortgage loan brokers, financial transactions processing,
reserve, and clearinghouse activities, and other activities related
to credit intermediation. Subsector 522.
    \180\ Including firms involved in investment banking and
securities dealing, securities brokerage, commodity contracts
dealing, commodity contracts brokerage, securities and commodity
exchanges, miscellaneous intermediation, portfolio management,
providing investment advice, trust, fiduciary and custody
activities, and miscellaneous financial investment activities.
Subsector 523.
    \181\ Including direct life insurance carriers, direct health
and medical insurance carriers, direct property and casualty
insurance carriers, direct title insurance carriers, other direct
insurance (except life, health and medical) carriers, reinsurance
carriers, insurance agencies and brokerages, claims adjusting, third
party administration of insurance and pension funds, and all other
insurance related activities. Subsector 524.
    \182\ Including pension funds, health and welfare funds, other
insurance funds, open-end investment funds, trusts, estates, and
agency accounts, real estate investment trusts and other financial
vehicles. Subsector 525.
    \183\ See 13 CFR 121.201 (Jan. 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Commission's existing information about the security-
based swap market, the Commission preliminarily believes that the
market, while broad in scope, is largely dominated by entities such as
those that would be covered by the ``security-based swap dealer'' and
``major security-based swap market participant'' definitions. Subject
to certain exceptions, Exchange Act Section 3(a)(71)(A) defines
``security-based swap dealer'' to mean any person who: (i) Holds itself
out as a dealer in security-based swaps; (ii) makes a market in
security-based swaps; (iii) regularly enters into security-based swaps
with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own
account; or (iv) engages in any activity causing it to be commonly
known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-based
swaps.\184\ Exchange Act Section 3(a)(67)(A) defines ``major security-
based swap participant'' to be as any person: (i) Who is not an SBS
Dealer; and (ii)(I) who maintains a substantial position in security-
based swaps for any of the major security-based swap categories, as
such categories are determined by the Commission, excluding both
positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk and positions
maintained by any employee benefit plan (or any contract held by such a
plan) as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of Section 3 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for
the primary purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk directly
associated with the operation of the plan; (II) whose outstanding
security-based swaps create substantial counterparty exposure that
could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the
United States banking system or financial markets; or (III) that is a
financial entity that (aa) is highly leveraged relative to the amount
of capital such entity holds and that is not subject to capital
requirements established by an appropriate Federal banking regulator;
and (bb) maintains a substantial position in outstanding security-based
swaps in any major security-based swap category, as such categories are
determined by the Commission.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See supra note 6.
    \185\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on feedback from industry participants about the security-
based swap markets, the Commission preliminarily believes that entities
that will qualify as SBS Dealers and major security-based swap market
participants, whether registered broker-dealers or not, exceed the
thresholds defining ``small entities'' set out above. Thus, the
Commission believes it is unlikely that the proposed SBS Entity
registration rules and forms would have a significant economic impact
any small entity.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission certifies that the
proposed SBS Entity registration rules and forms would not have a
significant economic impact on any small entity for purposes of the
RFA.
    The Commission encourages written comments regarding this
certification. The Commission requests that commenters describe the
nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to
illustrate the extent of the impact.

VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed Rules

    The Commission is proposing Rule 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-1 pursuant
to Sections 15F(a) through (d), 17(a), 23(a) and 30 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

    Registration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities,
Security-based swaps, Security-based swap dealers, Security-based swap
participants, Forms.

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Securities and Exchange
Commission is proposing to amend Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

    1. The general authority citation for Part 240 is revised to read
as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j,
77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e,
78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o,
78o-4, 78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78dd, 78ll, 78mm,
80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et
seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; and Pub. L. 111-203, Sec.  939A, 124 Stat.
1376 (2010), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    2. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec. Sec.  240.15Fb1-1
through 240.15Fb6-1 to read as follows:

Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants

Sec.
240.15Fb1-1 Signatures.
240.15Fb2-1 Registration of security-based swap dealers and major
security-based swap participants.
240.15Fb2-2T Temporary filing requirement.
240.15Fb2-3 Amendments to application for registration.
240.15Fb2-4 Nonresident security-based swap dealers and major
security-based swap participants.
240.15Fb2-5 Registration of successor to registered security-based
swap dealer or major security-based swap participant.
240.15Fb2-6 Registration of fiduciaries.
240.15Fb3-1 Duration of registration.
240.15Fb3-2 Withdrawal from registration.
240.15Fb3-3 Cancellation and revocation of registration.
240.15Fb6-1 Reports regarding associated persons.
* * * * *

Sec.  240.15Fb1-1  Signatures.

    (a) Required signatures to, or within, any electronic submission
(including, without limitation, signatories within the forms and
certifications required by Sec. Sec.  240.15Fb2-1, 240.15Fb2-4 and
240.15Fb6-1) must be in typed form rather than manual format.
Signatures in an HTML, XML or XBRL document that are not required may,
but are not required to, be presented in a graphic or image file within
the electronic filing. When used in connection with an electronic
filing, the term ``signature'' means an electronic entry in the form of
a magnetic impulse or other form of computer data compilation of any
letters or series of letters of characters comprising a name, executed,
adopted or authorized as a signature.
    (b) Each signatory to an electronic filing (including, without
limitation, each signatory to the forms and certifications required by
Sec. Sec.  240.15Fb2-1, 240.15Fb2-4 and 240.15Fb6-1) shall manually
sign a signature page or other document authenticating, acknowledging
or otherwise adopting his or her signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic filing. Such document shall be executed before or
at the time the electronic filing is

[[Page 65821]]

made. Upon request, the security-based swap dealer or major security-
based swap participant shall furnish to the Commission or its staff a
copy of any or all documents retained pursuant to this paragraph (b).
    (c) A person required to provide a signature on an electronic
submission (including, without limitation, each signatory to the forms
and certifications required by Sec. Sec.  240.15Fb2-1, 240.15Fb2-4 and
240.15Fb6-1) may not have the form or certification signed on his or
her behalf pursuant to a power of attorney or other form of confirming
authority.
    (d) Each manually signed signature page or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting his or her
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic filing--
    (1) On Schedules F and G to Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this
chapter), SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a. of this chapter), or SBSE-BD (Sec.
249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, shall be retained by the
filer until at least three years after the form or certification has
been replaced or is no longer effective;
    (2) On Form SBSE-C (Sec.  249.1600c of this chapter) shall be
retained by the filer until at least three years after the Form was
filed with the Commission.

Sec.  240.15Fb2-1  Registration of security-based swap dealers and
major security-based swap participants.

    (a) Application. An application for registration of a security-
based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant that is
filed pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) shall be filed on Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of
this chapter) or Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter) or Form
SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, in
accordance with this section and the instructions to the forms.
    (b) Certification.
    (1) Form of certification. A knowledgeable senior officer shall
certify on Form SBSE-C (Sec.  249.1600c of this chapter) that, after
due inquiry, he or she has reasonably determined that the security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant has the
operational, financial, and compliance capabilities to act as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant, as
applicable, and has documented the process by which he or she reached
such determination.
    (2) Timing of filing of certification.
    (i) Conditional registration.
    (A) Prior to the last compliance date. Each security-based swap
dealer or major security-based swap participant that files a completed
application in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section before the
last compliance date (as defined in paragraph (e) of this section) must
file the certification described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section on
or before such last compliance date.
    (B) Major security-based swap participants. Each major security-
based swap participant that files a completed application in accordance
with paragraph (a) of this section after the last compliance date must
file the certification described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
within four months after it files its completed application.
    (ii) Ongoing registration. Each security-based swap dealer that
files a completed application in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section after the last compliance date must file the certification
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section at the time it files its
application.
    (c) Filing.
    (1) Electronic filing. Every application for registration and
certification of a security-based swap dealer or major security-based
swap participant and any additional registration documents shall be
filed electronically with the Commission or its designee.
    (2) Effective date of filing.
    (i) Application. An application of a security-based swap dealer or
a major security-based swap participant submitted pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section shall be considered filed when a complete Form SBSE
(Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this
chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as
appropriate, and all required additional documents are submitted
electronically with the Commission or its designee;
    (ii) Certification. A certification of a security-based swap dealer
or a major security-based swap participant submitted pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section shall be considered filed when a complete
Form SBSE-C (Sec.  249.1600c of this chapter) is submitted
electronically with the Commission or its designee.
    (d) Commission decision.
    (1) Conditional registration. The Commission may deny or grant
registration to a security-based swap dealer or major security-based
swap participant on a conditional basis. The Commission will grant
conditional registration if it finds that the security-based swap
dealer's or major security-based swap participant's application is
complete; Except that, the Commission may institute proceedings to
determine whether conditional registration should be denied if the
applicant is subject to a statutory disqualification (as defined in 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(39)) or if the Commission is aware of inaccurate
statements in the application. Such proceedings shall include notice of
the grounds for denial under consideration and opportunity for hearing.
At the conclusion of such proceedings, the Commission shall grant or
deny such registration.
    (2) Ongoing registration. The Commission may grant or deny ongoing
registration based on a security-based swap dealer's or major security-
based swap participant's application (filed pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section) and certification (filed pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this section). A conditionally registered security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant need not submit a new application
to apply for ongoing registration, but must amend its application, as
required pursuant to Sec.  240.15Fb2-3. The Commission will grant
ongoing registration if it finds that the requirements of Section
15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) are
satisfied; Except that, the Commission may institute proceedings to
determine whether ongoing registration should be denied if it does not
make such finding or if the applicant is subject to a statutory
disqualification (as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39)) or the Commission
is aware of inaccurate statements in the application or certification.
Such proceedings shall include notice of the grounds for denial under
consideration and opportunity for hearing. At the conclusion of such
proceedings, the Commission shall grant or deny such registration.
    (e) Definition. For purposes of this section, the term last
compliance date shall mean the latest date, designated by the
Commission, by which security-based swap dealers and major security-
based swap participant must comply with any of the initial rules
promulgated under Section 15F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78o-10).

Sec.  240.15Fb2-2T  Temporary filing requirement.

    (a) Paper filing. If a technological means to facilitate receipt
and retention of applications required to be filed in accordance with
Sec.  240.15Fb2-1 is not functional on or before [date to be
determined], each applicant for registration as a security-based swap
dealer or major security-based swap participant must, notwithstanding
Sec.  240.15Fb2-1(c)(1), file its application on Form SBSE (Sec.
249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of

[[Page 65822]]

this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as
applicable, any additional documents, and Form SBSE-C (Sec.  249.1600c
of this chapter) in paper form by sending it to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    (b) Transitional resubmission requirement. Each applicant must
resubmit its Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A
(Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), and Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of
this chapter), as applicable, any additional documents, and Form SBSE-C
(Sec.  249.1600c of this chapter) to the Commission electronically
within three months of the date such technological means to facilitate
receipt and retention of applications becomes functional.

Sec.  240.15Fb2-3  Amendments to application for registration.

    If a security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap
participant finds that the information contained in its application for
registration (as described in Sec.  240.15Fb2-1(a)), or in any
amendment thereto, is or has become inaccurate for any reason, the
security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant
shall promptly file an amendment electronically with the Commission/its
designee on Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A
(Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of
this chapter), as appropriate, to correct such information.

Sec.  240.15Fb2-4  Nonresident security-based swap dealers and major
security-based swap participants.

    (a) Definition. For purposes of this section, the terms nonresident
security-based swap dealer and nonresident major security-based swap
participant shall mean:
    (1) In the case of an individual, one who resides, or has his or
her principal place of business, in any place not in the United States;
    (2) In the case of a corporation, one incorporated in or having its
principal place of business in any place not in the United States; or
    (3) In the case of a partnership or other unincorporated
organization or association, one having its principal place of business
outside the United States.
    (b) Power of attorney.
    (1) Each nonresident security-based swap dealer and nonresident
major security-based swap participant registered or applying for
registration pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) shall obtain a written irrevocable
consent and power of attorney appointing an agent in the United States,
other than the Commission or a Commission member, official or employee,
upon whom may be served any process, pleadings, or other papers in any
action brought against the nonresident security-based swap dealer or
nonresident major security-based swap participant to enforce the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). This consent
and power of attorney must be signed by the nonresident security-based
swap dealer or nonresident major security-based swap participant and
the named agent(s) for service of process.
    (2) Each nonresident security-based swap dealer and nonresident
major security-based swap participant registered or applying for
registration pursuant to section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) shall, at the time of filing its
application on Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A
(Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of
this chapter), as appropriate, furnish to the Commission the name and
address of its United States agent for service of process on Schedule F
to the appropriate form.
    (3) Any change of a nonresident security-based swap dealer's and
nonresident major security-based swap participant's agent for service
of process and any change of name or address of a nonresident security-
based swap dealer's and nonresident major security-based swap
participant's existing agent for service of process shall be
communicated promptly to the Commission through amendment of the
Schedule F of Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A
(Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of
this chapter), as appropriate.
    (4) Each nonresident security-based swap dealer and nonresident
major security-based swap participant must promptly appoint a successor
agent for service of process if the nonresident security-based swap
dealer and nonresident major security-based swap participant discharges
its identified agent for service of process or if its agent for service
of process is unwilling or unable to accept service on behalf of the
nonresident security-based swap dealer or nonresident major security-
based swap participant.
    (5) Each nonresident security-based swap dealer and nonresident
major security-based swap participant must maintain, as part of its
books and records, the agreement identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for at least three years after the agreement is terminated.
    (c) Access to books and records.
    (1) Certification and opinion of counsel. Any nonresident security-
based swap dealer and nonresident major security-based swap participant
applying for registration pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b) shall certify on Schedule F
of Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.
249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this
chapter), as appropriate, and provide an opinion of counsel that the
nonresident security-based swap dealer and nonresident major security-
based swap participant can, as a matter of law, provide the Commission
with prompt access to the books and records of such nonresident
security-based swap dealer and nonresident major security-based swap
participant, and can, as a matter of law, submit to onsite inspection
and examination by the Commission.
    (2) Amendments. The nonresident security-based swap dealer and
nonresident major security-based swap participant shall re-certify, on
Schedule F to Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A
(Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of
this chapter), as applicable, within 90 days after any changes in the
legal or regulatory framework that would impact the nonresident
security-based swap dealer's or nonresident major security-based swap
participant's ability to, or the manner in which it provides the
Commission with prompt access to its books and records, or impacts the
Commission's ability to inspect and examine the nonresident security-
based swap dealer or nonresident major security-based swap participant.
The re-certification shall be accompanied by a revised opinion of
counsel describing how, as a matter of law, the nonresident security-
based swap dealer or nonresident major security-based swap participant
will continue to meet its obligations to provide the Commission with
prompt access to its books and records and to be subject to Commission
inspection and examination under the new regulatory regime.

Sec.  240.15Fb2-5  Registration of successor to registered security-
based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant.

    (a) In the event that a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant succeeds to and continues the business
of a security-

[[Page 65823]]

based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant registered
pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o-10(b)), the registration of the predecessor shall be deemed
to remain effective as the registration of the successor if the
successor, within 30 days after such succession, files an application
for registration in accordance with Sec.  240.15Fb2-1, and the
predecessor files a notice of withdrawal from registration on Form
SBSE-W (Sec.  249.1601 of this chapter).
    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if a security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant succeeds to
and continues the business of a registered predecessor security-based
swap dealer or major security-based swap participant, and the
succession is based solely on a change in the predecessor's date or
state of incorporation, form of organization, or composition of a
partnership, the successor may, within 30 days after the succession,
amend the registration of the predecessor security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant on Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of
this chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form
SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, to reflect
these changes. This amendment shall be deemed an application for
registration filed by the predecessor and adopted by the successor.

Sec.  240.15Fb2-6  Registration of fiduciaries.

    The registration of a security-based swap dealer or a major
security-based swap participant shall be deemed to be the registration
of any executor, administrator, guardian, conservator, assignee for the
benefit of creditors, receiver, trustee in insolvency or bankruptcy, or
other fiduciary, appointed or qualified by order, judgment, or decree
of a court of competent jurisdiction to continue the business of such
registered security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap
participant; Provided, that such fiduciary files with the Commission,
within 30 days after entering upon the performance of his or her
duties, an amended Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this chapter), Form
SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (Sec.
249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, indicating the fiduciary's
position with respect to management of the firm and, as an additional
document, a copy of the order, judgment, decree, or other document
appointing the fiduciary.

Sec.  240.15Fb3-1  Duration of registration.

    (a) General. A person registered as a security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant in accordance with Sec.
240.15Fb2-1 will continue to be so registered until the effective date
of any cancellation, revocation or withdrawal of such registration or
any other event the Commission determines should trigger expiration.
    (b) Conditional registration. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this
section, conditional registration granted by the Commission in
accordance with Sec.  240.15Fb2-1(d)(1) shall expire:
    (1) During the transitional period--on the last compliance date (as
that term is defined in Sec.  240.15Fb2-1(e)) for security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants that filed a
completed application before the last compliance date, unless the
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant
files with the Commission a certification in accordance with Sec.
240.15Fb2-1(b)(1)(i), in which case conditional registration shall
extend an additional thirty days;
    (2) Major security-based swap participants--four months after the
major security-based swap participant files its completed application,
unless the major security-based swap participant files with the
Commission a certification in accordance with Sec.  240.15Fb2-
1(b)(1)(ii); in which case the conditional registration shall extend an
additional thirty days.
    (c) Extensions. The Commission may extend conditional registration
for good cause.

Sec.  240.15Fb3-2  Withdrawal from registration.

    (a) Notice of withdrawal from registration as a security-based swap
dealer or major security-based swap participant pursuant to Section
15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b))
shall be filed on Form SBSE-W (Sec.  249.1601 of this chapter) in
accordance with the instructions contained therein. Every notice of
withdrawal from registration as a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant shall be filed electronically with the
Commission or its designee in accordance with applicable filing
requirements. Prior to filing a notice of withdrawal from registration
on Form SBSE-W, a security-based swap dealer or major security-based
swap participant shall amend its Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of this
chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter) or Form SBSE-BD
(Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, in accordance with
Sec.  240.15Fb2-3(a) to update any inaccurate information.
    (b) A notice of withdrawal from registration filed by a security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant pursuant to
Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(b)) shall become effective for all matters (except as provided in
this paragraph (b)) on the 60th day after the filing thereof with the
Commission or its designee, within such longer period of time as to
which such security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant consents or which the Commission by order may determine as
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors, or within such shorter period of time as the Commission
may determine. If a notice of withdrawal from registration is filed
with the Commission at any time subsequent to the date of the issuance
of a Commission order instituting proceedings to censure, place
limitations on the activities, functions or operations of, or suspend
or revoke the registration of, such security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant, or if prior to the effective date of
the notice of withdrawal pursuant to this paragraph (b), the Commission
institutes such a proceeding or a proceeding to impose terms or
conditions upon such withdrawal, the notice of withdrawal shall not
become effective pursuant to this paragraph (b) except at such time and
upon such terms and conditions as the Commission deems necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

Sec.  240.15Fb3-3  Cancellation and revocation of registration.

    (a) Cancellation. If the Commission finds that any person
registered pursuant to Sec.  240.15Fb2-1 is no longer in existence or
has ceased to do business as a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant, the Commission shall by order cancel
the registration of such person.
    (b) Revocation. The Commission, by order, shall censure, place
limitations on the activities, functions, or operations of, or revoke
the registration of any security-based swap dealer or major security-
based swap participant that has registered with the Commission if it
makes a finding as specified in Section 15F(l)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(l)(2)).

[[Page 65824]]

Sec.  240.15Fb6-1  Reports regarding associated persons.

    (a) Certification. No registered security-based swap dealer or
major security-based swap participant shall act as a security-based
swap dealer or major security-based swap participant unless it has
certified electronically on Schedule G of Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600 of
this chapter), Form SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a of this chapter), or Form
SBSE-BD (Sec.  249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, that no
person associated with such security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant who is effecting or involved in
effecting security-based swaps on behalf of the security-based swap
dealer or major security-based swap participant is subject to statutory
disqualification, as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39)).
    (b) To support the certification required by paragraph (a) of this
section, each registered security-based swap dealer and registered
major security-based swap participant shall obtain a questionnaire or
application for employment executed by each of its associated persons
who effects or is involved in effecting security based swaps on behalf
of the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant which questionnaire or application shall serve as a basis
for a background check of the associated person and be reviewed and
signed by the security-based swap dealer's or major security-based swap
participant's Chief Compliance Officer (designated as required by
Section 15F(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-
10(k)) or his or her designee and shall contain at least the following
information with respect to the associated person:
    (1) The associated person's name, address, social security number,
and the starting date of the associated person's employment or other
association with the security-based swap dealer and major security-
based swap participant;
    (2) The associated person's date of birth;
    (3) A complete, consecutive statement of all the associated
person's business connections for at least the preceding ten years,
including whether the employment was part-time or full-time;
    (4) A record of any denial of membership or registration, and of
any disciplinary action taken, or sanction imposed, upon the associated
person by any federal or state agency, by any national securities
exchange or national securities association, or by any foreign
financial regulatory authority including any finding that the
associated person either aided or abetted or was a cause of any
disciplinary action or had violated any law;
    (5) A record of any denial, suspension, expulsion or revocation of
membership or registration of any broker, dealer, security-based swap
dealer, or major security-based swap participant with which the
associated person was associated in any capacity when such action was
taken;
    (6) A record of any permanent or temporary injunction entered
against the associated person or any broker, dealer, security-based
swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant with which the
associated person was associated in any capacity at the time such
injunction was entered;
    (7) A record of any arrest or indictment for any felony, or any
misdemeanor pertaining to securities (including security-based swaps),
futures or commodities (including swaps), banking, insurance or real
estate (including, but not limited to, acting or being associated with
a broker-dealer, investment company, investment adviser, futures
sponsor, bank, or savings and loan association), fraud, false
statements or omissions, wrongful taking of property or bribery,
forgery, counterfeiting or extortion, and the disposition of the
foregoing; and
    (8) A record of any other name or names by which the associated
person has been known or which the associated person has used.
    (c) Each registered security-based swap dealer and registered major
security-based swap participant shall maintain all questionnaires and
applications for employment obtained pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section as part of its books and records for at least three years after
the associated person has terminated his or her association with the
registered security-based swap dealer or registered major security-
based swap participant.

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    3. The authority citation for Part 249 continues to read, in part,
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C.
1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    4. Add subpart Q to read as follows:

Subpart Q--Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major
Security-Based Swap Participants

Sec.
249.1600 Form SBSE, for application for registration as a security-
based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant or to
amend such an application for registration.
249.1600a Form SBSE-A, for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant
or to amend such an application for registration by firms registered
or registering with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a
swap dealer or major swap participant that are not also registered
or registering with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
249.1600b Form SBSE-BD, for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant
or to amend such an application for registration by firms registered
or registering with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
249.1600c Form SBSE-C, for certification by security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants.
249.1601 Form SBSE-W, for withdrawal from registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant
or to amend such an application for registration.

Sec.  249.1600  Form SBSE, for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant or
to amend such an application for registration.

    This form shall be used for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant by
firms that are not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer
and that are not registered or registering with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission as a swap dealer or major swap participant, pursuant
to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78o-10(b)) and to amend such an application for registration.

Sec.  249.1600a  Form SBSE-A, for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant or
to amend such an application for registration by firms registered or
registering with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a swap
dealer or major swap participant that are not also registered or
registering with the Commission as a broker or dealer.

    This form shall be used instead of Form SBSE (Sec.  249.1600) to
apply for registration as a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant by firms that are not registered or
registering with the Commission as a broker or dealer but that are
registered or registering with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
as a swap dealer or major swap participant, pursuant to Section 15F(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) and to
amend such an application for

[[Page 65825]]

registration. An entity that is registered or registering with the
Commission as a broker or dealer and is also registered or registering
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a swap dealer or major
swap participant shall apply for registration as a security-based swap
dealer or major security-based swap participant on Form SBSE-BD (Sec.
249.1600b) and not on this Form SBSE-A.

Sec.  249.1600b  Form SBSE-BD, for application for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant or
to amend such an application for registration by firms registered or
registering with the Commission as a broker or dealer.

    This form shall be used instead of either Form SBSE (Sec.
249.1600) or SBSE-A (Sec.  249.1600a) to apply for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant
solely by firms registered or registering with the Commission as a
broker or dealer, pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(b)) and to amend such an application for
registration. An entity that is registered or registering with the
Commission as a broker or dealer and is also registered or registering
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a swap dealer or major
swap participant, the entity shall apply for registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant on
this Form SBSE-BD and not on Form SBSE-A.

Sec.  249.1600c  Form SBSE-C, for certification by security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants.

    This form shall be used to file the certification required pursuant
to Sec.  240.15Fb2-1(b) of this chapter.

Sec.  249.1601  Form SBSE-W, for withdrawal from registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant or
to amend such an application for registration.

    This form shall be used to withdraw from registration as a
security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant,
pursuant to Section 15F(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o-10(b)).

By the Commission.

    Dated: October 12, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

    Note: The following Forms will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[[Page 65826]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.000

[[Page 65827]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.001

[[Page 65828]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.002

[[Page 65829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.003

[[Page 65830]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.004

[[Page 65831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.005

[[Page 65832]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.006

[[Page 65833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.007

[[Page 65834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.008

[[Page 65835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.009

[[Page 65836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.010

[[Page 65837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.011

[[Page 65838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.012

[[Page 65839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.013

[[Page 65840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.014

[[Page 65841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.015

[[Page 65842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.016

[[Page 65843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.017

[[Page 65844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.018

[[Page 65845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.019

[[Page 65846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.020

[[Page 65847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.021

[[Page 65848]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.022

[[Page 65849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.023

[[Page 65850]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.024

[[Page 65851]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.025

[[Page 65852]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.026

[[Page 65853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.027

[[Page 65854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.028

[[Page 65855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.029

[[Page 65856]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.030

[[Page 65857]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.031

[[Page 65858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.032

[[Page 65859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.033

[[Page 65860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.034

[[Page 65861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.035

[[Page 65862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.036

[[Page 65863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.037

[[Page 65864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.038

[[Page 65865]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.039

[[Page 65866]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.040

[[Page 65867]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.041

[[Page 65868]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.042

[[Page 65869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.043

[[Page 65870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.044

[[Page 65871]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.045

[[Page 65872]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.046

[[Page 65873]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.047

[[Page 65874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.048

[[Page 65875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.049

[[Page 65876]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.050

[[Page 65877]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.051

[[Page 65878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.052

[[Page 65879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.053

[[Page 65880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.054

[[Page 65881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.055

[[Page 65882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.056

[[Page 65883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.057

[[Page 65884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC11.058

[FR Doc. 2011-26889 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

TOP-SECRET – Bank for International Settlements v Switzerland

bis-legal

TOP SECRET – Review of Federal Reserve System Financial Assistance to AIG in Financial Crisis

gao-11-616

DIE PLEITE-FIRMEN DER FINGIERTEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa” (Eigenbezeichnung) SEIT JAHREN INSOLVENT

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?page_id=10194

DAS KINDERPORTAL DER “ANAL-FIXIERTEN” “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)

 

DIE SCHEISSHAAUSFLIEGEN DER “GoMoPA” UND IHR “KINDERPORTAL” IN DER PRESSE

http://investmentmagazin.com/?page_id=3830

FBI – Wooster Man Sentenced on Child Pornography Charges

Jeffrey L. Canfield, age 47, of Wooster, Ohio, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after previously pleading guilty to receiving and distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and possessing child pornography, said Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.

On March 24, 2011, Canfield knowingly distributed computer image and video files, which files contained visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Additionally, the indictment charges that on April 19, 2011, Canfield possessed a computer, an SD card, and six CDs, containing child pornography, according to court documents.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Michael A. Sullivan. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

DAS BETRUGSURTEIL GEGEN DIE PERVERSEN SCHEISSHAUS-STALKER DER”GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/2011/09/30/das-betrugsurteil-gegen-bennewirtz-und-peter-ehlers-gomopa-partner-maurischat-und-vornkahl-wg-betruges-am-eigen-anleger/

DIE ETHIKBANK ÜBER DIE PERVERSEN, ANONYMEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-STALKER DER STASI-“GoMoPa”

Gomopa ist tabu

Gomopa tabu für die EthikBank®

Weil sich die Ethikbank® vor dubiosen Geschäftspartnern schützen muss, haben wir bisher – unter anderem – auf die Informationen zurückgegriffen, die der Finanzinformationsservice Gomopa auf seiner eigenen Webseite zur Verfügung stellt. Auf diese Informationsquelle verzichten wir künftig aus folgendem Grund:

Der Finanzinformationsservice Gomopa ist laut eigener Darstellung mit dem Ziel gegründet worden, durch aktive Aufklärung und permanente Transparenz nachhaltig zur Betrugsprävention in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft beizutragen.

Mittlerweile haben uns kritische Stimmen erreicht, die sich mit den Geschäftspraktiken von Gomopa selbst auseinandersetzen. Daher haben wir uns entschlossen, ab sofort nicht mehr auf die Informationsquelle Gomopa zurückzugreifen.

 

http://www.ethikbank.de/die-ethikbank/rundgang/position-der-ethikbank.html

DARAUFHIN BEGANN DIE SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-KAMPAGNE DER STASI-STALKER GEGEN DIE ETHIKBANK

DAS HANDELSBLATT ÜBER DIE PERVERSEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-STALKER DER “GoMoPa” UND DEREN KRIMINELLE PARTNER

OPFER: ANONYME “SCHEISSHAUS”-STALKER DER “GoMoPa” IN IHRER WAHREN GESTALT

http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/boerse-maerkte/boerse-inside/finanzaufsicht-untersucht-kursachterbahn-bei-wirecard/3406252.html

BÖRSE ONLINE ÜBER DAS PERVERSE VERHÄLTNIS ZWISCHEN “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN UND DER WAHREN REALITÄT

OPFER: ANONYME “SCHEISSHAUS”-STALKER DER “GoMoPa” IN IHRER WAHREN GESTALT

BÖRSE ONLINE:

http://www.graumarktinfo.de/gm/aktuell/warnung/:Gomopa–Kreativer-Umgang-mit-Fakten/630671.html

http://www.graumarktinfo.de/gm/aktuell/diskussion/:Gomopa–Anwaelte-als-Finanzierungsquelle/616477.html

Click to access BoerseOnline_Nr38_16.09.2010_Wo_gehobelt_wird.pdf

BoerseOnline_Nr38_16.09.2010_Wo_gehobelt_wird

Spying On Spies: Chapman Shops, Contacts ‘Handler’

Unaware the FBI has her under surveillance, Russian spy Anna Chapman buys leggings and tries on hats at a Macy’s department store. A few months later, cameras watch her in a New York coffee shop where she meets with someone she thinks is her Russian handler. It is really an undercover FBI agent.

Tapes, documents and photos released Monday describe and sometimes show how Chapman, now a celebrity back in Russia, and other members of a ring of sleeper spies passed instructions, information and cash. The ring was shut down in June 2010 after a decade-long counterintelligence probe that led to the biggest spy swap since the Cold War.

The FBI released the material to The Associated Press in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The investigation was code-named “Ghost Stories,” the release of documents on Halloween a coincidence.

While the deep-cover agents did not steal any secrets, an FBI counterintelligence official told the AP they were making progress.

They “were getting very close to penetrating U.S. policymaking circles” through a friend of a U.S. Cabinet official, said C. Frank Figliuzzi, FBI assistant director for counterintelligence.

He did not name names, but Russian spy Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, New Jersey, provided financial planning for venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a political fundraiser with close ties to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The linchpin in cracking the case, apparently, was Col. Alexander Poteyev, a highly placed U.S. mole in Russian foreign intelligence, who betrayed the spy ring even as he ran it.

He abruptly fled Moscow just days before the FBI rolled up the operation. Poteyev’s role emerged when a Russian military court convicted him in absentia for high treason and desertion.

The materials released Monday show Chapman and the other members of Moscow’s 11-member ring of sleeper spies — deep-cover agents assigned to blend into American society — shopping in New York City, sightseeing, hanging around coffee shops or apparently just out for a stroll. While she shops at one department store, a Russian diplomat waits outside.

The FBI says seemingly mundane pursuits often served as cover for the exchange of encrypted messages or the transfer of cash, all with the long-range goal of penetrating the highest levels of U.S. policymaking.

What appears to be a family photo of one spy, Donald Heathfield of Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows him graduating from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2000. The school revoked the degree a month after the FBI rolled up the spy ring.

Other spies are seen in video and photos meeting at various locations in New York.

Called “illegals” because they took civilian jobs instead of operating with diplomatic immunity inside Russian embassies and military missions, the spies settled into quiet lives in middle-class neighborhoods and set about trying to network their way into the worlds of finance, technology and government.

The operation’s codename, Ghost Stories, stems from a number of the spies using a technique known among counter-intelligence investigators as “dead doubles” — taking the identities of people who have died. Tracey Lee Ann Foley, Michael Zottoli, Donald Heathfield and Patricia Mills all used the technique, Figliuzzi said.

The U.S. traded the 10 “Ghost Stories” spies arrested by federal agents for four Russians imprisoned for spying for the West at a remote corner of a Vienna airport on July 9 in a scene reminiscent of the carefully choreographed exchange of spies at Berlin’s Glienicke Bridge during the Cold War.

While freed Soviet spies typically have kept a low profile after their return to Moscow, Chapman became a model, corporate spokeswoman and television personality. Heathfield, whose real name is Andrey Bezrukov, lists himself as an adviser to the president of a major Russian oil company on his LinkedIn account.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev awarded the 10 freed spies Russia’s highest honors at a Kremlin ceremony.

The case was brought to a swift conclusion before it could complicate U.S. President Obama’s campaign to “reset” American relations with the Kremlin, strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. All 10 of the captured spies were charged with failing to register as foreign agents.

An 11th suspect, Christopher Metsos, who claimed to be a Canadian citizen and was accused of delivering money and equipment to the sleeper agents, vanished after a court in Cyprus freed him on bail. The FBI released surveillance photos of Metsos on Monday.

Figliuzzi said Metsos traveled into the U.S. solely for the purpose of providing the other illegals with money. Security measures after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks meant he could no longer risk carrying large amounts of cash, prompting the Russians to send officials already in the U.S. to meet with the illegals and pay them.

That could have made them more vulnerable to discovery.

He said Chapman and another illegal, Mikhail Semenko, who worked in a D.C.-area travel agency, represented a “new breed” of illegals operating in the U.S. under their own names.

Chapman and Semenko “were very tech savvy, very intellectual and bright,” he said, adding that Semenko is fluent in five languages including Chinese.

Both of the new-breed operatives used state-of-the-art wireless computer communications, but the others fell back on techniques that have been used for centuries. With the two different approaches, “the Russians were experimenting,” said Figliuzzi.

The FBI official said that Chapman’s ring was the largest network of illegals ever seen in the U.S. By working on the case for so long, he said, the FBI penetrated the ring’s communications network to the point where FBI officials were playing the part of Russian handlers. “So in a sense we began to own their communications and we became the Russians,” Figliuzzi said.

But former Soviet intelligence officials now living in the West scratched their heads over what Russia hoped to gain from its ring.

“In my view this whole operation was a waste of human resources, money and just put Russia in a ridiculous situation,” said Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB major general who spied against the U.S. during the Soviet era, in an interview earlier this year. He now lives near Washington.

Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer and journalist who has written extensively about Soviet spying in America, said the illegals were supposed to act as talent spotters and scouts, identifying Americans in positions of power who might be recruited to spill secrets for financial reasons or through blackmail.

Spies with the protection of diplomatic credentials would handle the more delicate task of recruiting and handling the agents.

Moscow’s ultimate aim, Vassiliev said, was probably to cultivate a source who could provide day-by-day intelligence on what the president’s inner circle was thinking and planning in response to the latest international crisis. But he said there was no evidence the Kremlin made any progress toward that goal.

“How are you going to recruit someone like that, on what basis? That’s quite a successful person. Why should he spy for the Russians? I can’t see any reason, said Vassiliev, who now lives in London.

FBI – Bank Crime Statistics for Second Quarter of 2011

During the second quarter of 2011, there were 1,023 reported violations of the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes Statue, a decrease from the 1,146 reported violations in the same quarter of 2010.1 According to statistics released today by the FBI, there were 1,007 robberies, 15 burglaries, one larceny, and two extortions of financial institutions2 reported between April 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011.

Highlights of the report include:

  • Loot was taken in 91 percent of the incidents, totaling more than $7.8 million.
  • Of the loot taken, 23 percent of it was recovered. More than $1.8 million was recovered and returned to financial institutions.
  • Bank crimes most frequently occurred on Friday. Regardless of the day, the time frame when bank crimes occurred most frequently was between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
  • Acts of violence were committed in 4 percent of the incidents, resulting in 31 injuries, one death, and three persons taken hostage.3
  • Demand notes 4 were the most common modus operandi used.
  • Most violations occurred in the Southern region of the U.S., with 373 reported incidents.

These statistics were recorded as of August 2, 2011. Note that not all bank crimes are reported to the FBI, and therefore the report is not a complete statistical compilation of all bank crimes that occurred in the U.S.

Bank Crime Statistics (BCS)
Federal Insured Financial Institutions
April 1, 2011 – June 30, 2011

I. Violations of the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes Statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113

Violations by Type of Institution

Robberies

Burglaries

Larcenies

Commercial Banks

909

11

1

Mutual Savings Banks

4

0

0

Savings and Loan Associations

20

2

0

Credit Unions

74

2

0

Total

1,007

15

1


Grand Total—All Violations: 1,023

Loot Taken and Recovered

Loot was taken in 933 (91 percent) of the 1,023 incidents. Loot taken is itemized as follows:

Cash

$7,820,347.96

Securities—Face Value

$0.00

Checks (Including Traveler’s Checks)

$209.88

Food Stamps

$0.00

Other Property

$0.00

Total

$7,820,557.84

Full or partial recovery of loot taken was reported by law enforcement agencies in 215 (23 percent) of the 933 incidents in which loot was taken. Loot recovered is itemized as follows:

Cash

$1,801,073.18

Securities—Face Value

$0.00

Checks (Including Traveler’s Checks)

$0.00

Food Stamps

$0.00

Other Property

$0.00

Total

$1,801,073.18

Number, Race, and Sex of Perpetrators

The number of persons known to be involved in the 1,023 robberies, burglaries, and larcenies was 1,226. The following table shows a breakdown of the 1,226 persons who have been identified by race and sex. In a small number of cases, the use of full disguise makes determination of race and sex impossible.

White Black Hispanic Other Unknown

Male

459 540 71 14 44

Female

40 37 4 0 0

Unknown Race/Sex: 17

Investigation to date has resulted in the identification of 519 (42 percent) of the 1,226 persons known to be involved. Of these 519 identified persons, 183 (35 percent) were determined to be users of narcotics and 85 (16 percent) were found to have been previously convicted in either federal or state court for bank robbery, bank burglary, or bank larceny.

Occurrences by Day of Week and Time of Day

Monday

179

6-9 a.m.

32

Tuesday

192

9-11 a.m.

309

Wednesday

172

11 a.m.-1 p.m.

240

Thursday

165

1-3 p.m.

190

Friday

204

3-6 p.m.

212

Saturday

78

6 p.m.-6 a.m.

40

Sunday

12

Not determined

0

Not Determined

21

Total

1,023

Total

1,023 

Institution/Community Characteristics

Type of Financial Institution Office

Main Office

29

Branch Office

963

Store

24

Remote Facility/Other

7

Total

1,023

Location of Financial Institution Office

Commercial District

667

Shopping Center

244

Residential

62

Other Location

50

Total

1,023

Community Type

Metropolitan

456

Suburban

185

Small City/Town

362

Rural

20

Total

1,023

Institutional Areas Involved

Counter

974

Night Depository

1

Vault/Safe

57

Auto. Teller Machine

0

Safe Deposit Area

5

Courier/Messenger

0

Office Area

25

Armored Vehicle

11

Drive-In/Walk-Up

14

Other

10

Security Devices Maintained by Victim Institutions

Alarm System

1,005

Surveillance Cameras

1,008

Bait Money

641

Guards

51

Tear Gas/Dye Packs

253

Electronic Tracking

124

Bullet-Resistant Enclosures

117

Security Devices Used During Crimes

Alarm System Activated

926

Surveillance Cameras Activated

997

Bait Money Taken

352

Guards on Duty

42

Tear Gas/Dye Packs Taken

119

Electronic Tracking Activated

65

Security Devices Functioned

Alarm System Functioned

917

Surveillance Cameras Functioned

984

Modus Operandi Used

Demand Note Used

548

Firearm Used1

275

   Handgun

264

   Other Firearm

17

Other Weapon Used2

24

Weapon Threatened3

477

Explosive Device Used or Threatened

37

Oral Demand

575

Vault or Safe Theft

6

Depository Trap Device

0

Till Theft

13

Takeover

58

1 “Handgun” and “Other Firearm” added together may not coincide with “Firearm Used” since, in some cases, both handguns and other firearms are used during the same crime.
2 “Other Weapon Used” includes knives, other cutting instruments, hypodermic needles, clubs, etc.
3 “Weapon Threatened” includes those cases where a weapon was threatened or implied either orally or in a demand note but not actually observed.

Injuries, Deaths, and Hostages Taken

Acts of violence were committed during 44 (4 percent) of the 1,023 robberies, burglaries, and larcenies, which occurred during the three-month period. These acts included 14 instances involving the discharge of firearms, 28 instances involving assaults, and three hostage situations. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.) These acts of violence resulted in 31 injuries, one death, and three persons taken hostage.

Injuries

Customer

4

Employee

15

Employee Family

0

Perpetrator

6

Law Officer

4

Guard

1

Other

1

Total

31

Number of incidents in which injuries occurred: 20

Deaths

Customer

0

Employee

0

Employee Family

0

Perpetrator

1

Law Officer

0

Guard

0

Other

0

Total

1

Number of incidents in which deaths occurred: 1

Hostages Taken

Customer

2

Employee

1

Employee Family

0

Law Officer

0

Guard

0

Other

0

Total

3

Number of incidents in which hostages were taken: 3

II. Bank Extortion Violations Which Were Investigated Under the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes Statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113 (April 1, 2011 – June 30, 2011)

Violations by Type of Institution

Commercial Banks

2

Mutual Savings Banks

0

Savings and Loans Associations

0

Credit Unions

0

Armored Car

0

Total

2

Loot Taken and Recovered

There was no loot taken or recovered.

Number, Race, and Sex of Perpetrators

The number of persons known to be involved in the two extortion incidents was zero. In a number of cases, the number and description of individuals involved are unknown due to nonobservance of the perpetrator by the victim(s) or the use of disguises.

Occurrences by Day of Week and Time of Day

Monday

0

6-9 a.m.

2

Tuesday

0

9-11 a.m.

0

Wednesday

0

11 a.m-1 p.m.

0

Thursday

1

1-3 p.m.

0

Friday

0

3-6 p.m.

0

Saturday

1

6 p.m.-6 a.m.

0

Sunday

0

Not Determined

0

Not Determined

0

Total

2

Total

2

Institution/Community Characteristics

Type of Financial Institution Office

Main Office

0

Branch Office

2

Store

0

Remote Facility/Other

0

Total

2

Location of Financial Institution Office

Commercial District

0

Shopping Center

1

Residential

1

Other Location

0

Total

2

Community Type

Metropolitan

0

Suburban

0

Small City/Town

2

Rural

0

Total

2

Security Devices Maintained by Victim Institutions

Alarm System

2

Surveillance Cameras

2

Bait Money

2

Guards

0

Tear Gas/Dye Packs

0

Electronic Tracking

0

Bullet-Resistant Enclosures

0

Security Devices Used During Crimes

Alarm System Activated

1

Surveillance Cameras Activated

0

Bait Money Taken

0

Guards on Duty

0

Tear Gas/Dye Packs Taken

0

Electronic Tracking Activated

0

Modus Operandi Used

Demand Note Used

2

Firearm Used

0

Other Weapon Used

0

Weapon Threatened

0

Explosive Device Used or Threatened

0

Telephone Call

0

Injuries, Deaths, and Hostages Taken

There were no injuries, deaths, or hostages taken during the three-month period.

III. Bank Robbery Statute Violations by Regions, Geographic Divisions, States, and Territories (April 1, 2011 – June 30, 2011)

Regional Summary

Bank Robberies

Bank Burglaries

Bank Larcenies

Bank Extortions

Northeast

134

4

0

0

North Central

214

1

0

0

South

362

8

1

2

West

291

2

0

0

Territories

6

0

0

0

Totals

1,007

15

1

2

Bank Robberies Bank Burglaries Bank Larcenies Bank Extortions

Northeast

134

4

0

0

 

 

 

 

New England

40

0

0

0

   Connecticut

18

0

0

0

   Maine

0

0

0

0

   Massachusetts

17

0

0

0

   New Hampshire

1

0

0

0

   Rhode Island

4

0

0

0

   Vermont

0

0

0

0

Middle Atlantic

167

4

0

0

   New Jersey

31

3

0

0

   New York

79

1

0

0

   Pennsylvania

57

0

0

0

Bank Robberies Bank Burglaries Bank Larcenies Bank Extortions

North Central

214

1

0

0

East North Central

152

0

0

0

   Illinois

28

0

0

0

   Indiana

18

0

0

0

   Michigan

36

0

0

0

   Ohio

62

0

0

0

   Wisconsin

8

0

0

0

West North Central

62

1

0

0

   Iowa

10

0

0

0

   Kansas

11

1

0

0

   Minnesota

12

0

0

0

   Missouri

26

0

0

0

   Nebraska

2

0

0

0

   North Dakota

1

0

0

0

   South Dakota

0

0

0

0

Bank Robberies Bank Burglaries Bank Larcenies Bank Extortions

South

362

8

1

2

 

 

 

 

South Atlantic

205

3

1

1

   Delaware

1

0

0

0

   District of Columbia

3

1

1

0

   Florida

41

0

0

0

   Georgia

46

0

0

0

   Maryland

28

0

0

0

   North Carolina

28

0

0

0

   South Carolina

20

2

0

0

   Virginia

35

0

0

0

   West Virginia

3

0

0

1

East South Central

45

2

0

0

   Alabama

11

0

0

0

   Kentucky

12

0

0

0

   Mississippi

3

2

0

0

   Tennessee

19

0

0

0

West South Central

112

3

0

1

   Arkansas

5

1

0

1

   Louisiana

11

0

0

0

   Oklahoma

25

0

0

0

   Texas

71

2

0

0

Bank Robberies Bank Burglaries Bank Larcenies Bank Extortions

West

291

2

0

0

 

 

 

 

Mountain

101

1

0

0

   Arizona

40

0

0

0

   Colorado

31

0

0

0

   Idaho

3

0

0

0

   Montana

3

0

0

0

   Nevada

5

0

0

0

   New Mexico

15

0

0

0

   Utah

4

1

0

0

   Wyoming

0

0

0

0

Pacific

190

1

0

0

   Alaska

2

0

0

0

   California

135

1

0

0

   Hawaii

3

0

0

0

   Oregon

14

0

0

0

   Washington

36

0

0

0

Bank Robberies Bank Burglaries Bank Larcenies Bank Extortions

Territories

6

0

0

0

Guam

0

0

0

0

Puerto Rico

6

0

0

0

Virgin Islands

0

0

0

0

Totals

1,007

15

1

2

IV. Violations Involving Armored Carriers Investigated Under the Hobbs Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951 (April 1, 2011 – June 30, 2011)

Armored Carrier Incidents

Hobbs Act

12

Total

12

Loot Taken and Recovered

Loot was taken in nine (75 percent) of the 12 incidents. Loot taken is itemized as follows:

Cash

$749,769.00

Securities—Face Value

$0.00

Checks (Including Traveler’s Checks)

$0.00

Food Stamps

$0.00

Other Property

$200.00

Total

$749,969.00

Full or partial recovery of loot was reported by law enforcement agencies in two of the 10 incidents in which loot was taken. Loot recovered is itemized as follows:

Cash

$30,040.00

Securities—Face Value

$0.00

Checks (Including Traveler’s Checks)

$0.00

Food Stamps

$0.00

Other Property

$200.00

Total

$30,240.00

Number, Race, and Sex of Perpetrators

The number of persons known to be involved in the 12 armored carrier incidents was 28. In a number of cases, the number and description of individuals involved are unknown due to nonobservance of the perpetrator by the victim(s) or the use of disguises. The following table shows a breakdown of the 28 known individuals involved by race and sex:

White Black Hispanic Other Unknown

Male

0 22 0 0 2

Female

0 0 0 0 0

Unknown Race/Sex: 4

Occurrences by Day of Week and Time of Day

Monday

1

6-9 a.m.

3

Tuesday

1

9-11 a.m.

7

Wednesday

2

11 a.m-1 p.m.

1

Thursday

4

1-3 p.m.

0

Friday

2

3-6 p.m.

1

Saturday

1

6 p.m.-6 a.m.

0

Sunday

1

Not Determined

0

Not Determined

0

Total

12

Total

12

Community Characteristics

Location

Commercial District

6

Shopping Center

4

Residential

2

Rural

0

Total

12

Community Type

Metropolitan

8

Suburban

3

Small City/Town

1

Rural

0

  Total

12

Modus Operandi Used

Firearm Used4

11

    Handgun

10

    Other Firearm

1

Other Weapon Used5

0

Weapon Threatened6

6

Explosive Device Used or Threatened

0

Oral Demand

9

Vault or Safe Theft

0

4 “Handgun” and “Other Firearm” added together may not coincide with “Firearm Used” since, in some cases, both handguns and firearms are used during the same crime. 
5 “Other Weapon Used” includes knives, other cutting instruments, hypodermic needles, clubs, etc. 
6 “Weapon Threatened” includes those cases where a weapon was threatened or implied either orally or in a demand note but was not actually observed. 

Injuries, Deaths, and Hostages Taken 

Acts of violence were committed during six of the 12 armored carrier incidents which occurred during the three-month period. These acts of violence resulted in one death, three injuries, and no hostages taken when the violent acts were committed. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.)

Injuries

Customer

0

Employee

0

Perpetrator

1

Law Officer

0

Guard

2

Other

0

Total

3

Number of incidents in which injuries occurred: 3

Deaths

Customer

0

Employee

0

Perpetrator

1

Law Officer

0

Guard

0

Other

0

Total

1

Number of incidents in which deaths occurred: 1

Any statistical information furnished in this booklet is subject to change upon the investigation of bank robbery incidents, which occurred during 2011.

The BCS provides a nationwide view of bank robbery crimes based on statistics contributed by FBI field offices responding to bank robberies or otherwise gathered when provided to the FBI from local and state law enforcement.

Statistics recorded as of 08/02/2011, at FBI Headquarters.

Note: Not all bank robberies are reported to the FBI, and therefore BCS is not a complete statistical compilation of all banrk obberies that occur in the United States.

OPFER: ORIGINAL ANRUF VON “GoMoPa”-“CEO” INKLUSIVE ERPRESSUNG UND DROHUNG ZUM DOWNLOAD

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=15160

SPIEGEL ÜBER STASI-VERBINDUNG VON RA RESCH ZU DEM “GoMoPa”-GRÜNDER STASI-OBERST STELZER

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13502488.html

Cybermobbing: SAT 1 berichtet

Thema Cybermobbing: Natascha Ochsenknecht trifft auf Piraten-Vizechef Schlömer bei „Eins gegen Eins“ am Montag in SAT.1.
Rund ein Drittel der 14- bis 20-jährigen Deutschen sind schon mal Opfer von Cybermobbing geworden.* Beleidigungen, Verleumdungen, Identitätsklau – die Varianten sind vielfältig und die Täter bleiben meist unerkannt. „Eins gegen Eins“, der wöchentliche Polit-Talk in SAT.1, stellt deshalb die Frage: Stoppt Cybermobbing – brauchen wir einen Ausweis für Facebook und Co.? Moderator Claus Strunz begrüßt dazu am Montag, 31. Oktober 2011, um 23.30 Uhr, im Studio: Natascha Ochsenknecht, Promi-Mutter von Wilson Gonzalez und Jimi Blue Ochsenknecht, sowie Medien-Rechtsanwalt Dr. Alexander Wachs sind für den Web-Ausweis. Ein klares Contra geben der Vizechef der Piratenpartei Bernd Schlömer und Internet-Soziologe Dr. Stephan Humer.

* Quelle: Forsa-Umfrage im Auftrag der TK, 2011

„Eins gegen Eins“ – immer montags um 23:30 Uhr in Sat1.

General Services Administration Employee Sentenced to Prison for Role in Bribery Scheme as Part of Multi-Year Corruption Investigation

WASHINGTON—A General Services Administration (GSA) customer service manager was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for his role in a bribery scheme related to payments he received for awarding GSA contracts to various government contractors, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, GSA Inspector General Brian D. Miller and Assistant Director in Charge James W. McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

Eric M. Minor, 45, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who also ordered him to pay $118,000 in restitution. Minor previously pleaded guilty to one count of bribery.

According to information presented in court, from 2007 until 2010, Minor devised and executed with others a scheme to obtain approximately $118,000 in cash kickback payments for himself from six government contractors in exchange for using his official position to retain their companies to perform maintenance and construction work at GSA facilities that he managed. Minor, a 25-year employee with GSA, served as a customer service manager in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. Minor was responsible for coordinating, planning, estimating, contracting and scheduling work for his field office—the Potomac Service Center—which is responsible for federal buildings and federal leased space in Virginia and the National Capital Region.

This case marks the culmination of a multi-year covert investigation into corruption by government employees and civilian contractors involved in the award and administration of GSA contracts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. The investigation resulted in the conviction of 11 individuals, including Minor, all of whom pleaded guilty to federal criminal offenses including bribery and conspiracy.

“As the result of this multi-year investigation, 11 federal workers and contractors have been convicted for participating in multiple bribery and kickback schemes,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Instead of serving taxpayers honestly, these government employees and contractors turned to corruption—steering business to favored individuals in exchange for kickbacks and using bribes to secure government contracts. Taxpayers have a right to know that their dollars are being put to good use, not to line the pockets of corrupt federal employees or contractors. We will continue to punish corrupt behavior wherever we find it.”

“For the past five years, our special agents have brought these corrupt officials to justice one by one,” said GSA Inspector General Miller. “The breadth of this network suggests that some officials believe it is okay to line their own pockets at the expense of taxpayers. We will not tolerate this attitude and will aggressively investigate any situation where ‘business as usual’ includes graft and corruption.”

“Today’s sentencing is a reminder that individuals who scheme to defraud the U.S. Government, violate the public’s trust and will be brought to justice,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “Through the FBI’s liaison with our government partners, we are able to identify these fraudulent improprieties and bring the full force of the government against those who seek to use tax payer dollars for private gain.”

In addition to Minor, each of the following 10 individuals pleaded guilty to federal offenses relating to bribery and kickback schemes in the award and administration of GSA contracts, and each has been sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Urbina for their illegal activities:

On Feb. 19, 2008, James Fisher pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a planner and estimator for GSA at the White House Property Management Center in the District of Columbia. Fisher was sentenced on May 13, 2008, to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $40,000 in restitution.

On Aug. 19, 2008, William Dodson pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a building manager for GSA at the Potomac Annex in the District of Columbia. Dodson was sentenced on Sept. 10, 2009, to 15 months in prison and ordered to pay $26,200 in restitution.

On Oct. 6, 2008, Daniel Money pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a government contractor at the U.S. Tax Court in the District of Columbia. Money was sentenced on Feb. 5, 2009, to 30 months in prison and ordered to forfeit $95,000.

On Aug. 14, 2008, Fred Timbol pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States related to his work as a facilities services officer at the U.S. Tax Court in the District of Columbia. Timbol was sentenced on March 5, 2009, to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $24,143 in restitution.

On June 23, 2008, Oscar Flores pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a government contractor at the U.S. Tax Court in the District of Columbia. Flores was sentenced on April 12, 2010, to six months of home confinement, three years of probation, and 300 hours of community service and was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine.

On May 12, 2008, Raj Singla pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a mechanical engineer at the Wilbur J. Cohen Building in the District of Columbia. Singla was sentenced on May 27, 2010, to five years of probation and six months of home confinement and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay a $75,000 fine and restitution of $74,000.

On Feb. 18, 2010, Suresh Malhotra pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a general engineer and project manager for GSA in the District of Columbia. Malhotra was sentenced on May 27, 2010, to five years of probation and nine months of home confinement and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay a $60,000 fine and restitution of $57,060.

On June 30, 2010, Tarsem Singh pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a consultant for a government contractor working at GSA facilities in the District of Columbia. Singh was sentenced on Nov. 1, 2010, to five years of probation and six months of home confinement and was ordered to pay a $30,000 fine.

On Dec. 16, 2010, Narsinh J. Patel pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a government contractor at GSA facilities in the District of Columbia. Patel was sentenced on March 10, 2011, to three years of probation, and was ordered to perform 250 hours of community service and pay a $10,000 fine.

On Jan. 29, 2009, Gary Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of bribery related to his work as a building manager for GSA at the Metropolitan Service Center in Maryland. Thompson was sentenced on Aug. 2, 2011, to nine months in prison, and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and forfeit $55,000.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Daniel A. Petalas, Richard B. Evans and Peter Koski of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. The case was investigated by special agents of the GSA-Office of Inspector General and the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

New Insider Trading Charges Against Former Corporate Chairman and Director Rajat K. Gupta

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of a six-count indictment against RAJAT K. GUPTA, a former corporate chairman and member of the Boards of Directors of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”) and the Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), for engaging in an insider trading scheme with Raj Rajaratnam, the founder and former head of the Galleon Group.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA stated: “Rajat Gupta was entrusted by some of the premier institutions of American business to sit inside their boardrooms, among their executives and directors, and receive their confidential information so that he could give advice and counsel for the benefit of their shareholders. As alleged, he broke that trust and instead became the illegal eyes and ears in the boardroom for his friend and business associate, Raj Rajaratnam, who reaped enormous profits from Mr. Gupta’s breach of duty. Today we allege that the corruption we have seen in the trading cubicles, investment firms, law firms, expert consulting firms, medical labs, and corporate suites also insinuated itself into the boardrooms of elite companies. ”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK stated: “Today’s surrender is the latest step in an initiative launched by the FBI in 2007 targeting hedge fund insider trading. The conduct alleged is not an inadvertent slip of the tongue by Mr. Gupta. His eagerness to pass along inside information to Rajaratnam is nowhere more starkly evident than in the two instances where a total of 39 seconds elapsed between his learning of crucial Goldman Sachs information and lavishing it on his good friend. That information (captured by the FBI) was conveyed by phone so quickly it could be termed instant messaging.”

According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

During all relevant times, GUPTA and Rajaratnam maintained a personal and business relationship. Among other things, GUPTA invested money in at least two different Galleon funds and formed separate investment and private equity funds with Rajaratnam.

From 2008 through January 2009, GUPTA disclosed to Raj Rajaratnam material, nonpublic information (the “Inside Information”) that GUPTA had learned in his capacity as a member of the Boards of Directors of Goldman Sachs and P&G with the understanding that Rajaratnam would use the Inside Information to purchase and sell securities. Rajaratnam, in turn, caused the execution of transactions in the securities of Goldman Sachs and P&G on the basis of the Inside Information, and shared the Inside Information with others at Galleon, thereby earning illegal profits, and illegally avoiding losses, of millions of dollars. The Inside Information included confidential information about the companies’ earnings and financial performance, as well as certain corporate transactions that were being undertaken by Goldman Sachs and P&G.

For example, in the late afternoon of September 23, 2008, shortly before the close of the market, GUPTA participated telephonically in a meeting of the Goldman Sachs Board. During that meeting, the Goldman Sachs Board agreed to accept a $5 billion investment by Berkshire Hathaway, a multi-national holding company. Approximately 16 seconds after GUPTA disconnected his phone from the Goldman Sachs Board call, at approximately 3:54 p.m., his assistant called Rajaratnam and shortly thereafter, connected GUPTA to the call. At approximately 3:58 p.m., just two minutes before the close of the market, Rajaratnam caused certain Galleon funds to purchase approximately 217,200 shares of Goldman Sachs common stock at a total cost of approximately $27 million.

Following the close of the market on September 23, 2008, Goldman Sachs publicly announced the investment by Berkshire Hathaway. The next morning, Goldman Sachs’s stock opened for trading at a price that was more than $3.00 per share higher than the preannouncement closing price on September 23, 2008. On September 24, 2008, Rajaratnam caused Galleon to sell the 217,200 Goldman Sachs shares that had been purchased at approximately 3:58 p.m. on September 23, 2008, generating an illegal profit of approximately $840,000.

On October 23, 2008, GUPTA participated by telephone in a meeting of the Goldman Sachs Board in which senior executives of Goldman Sachs updated the Board on significant developments at the company. As of October 23, 2008, Goldman Sachs’s internal financial analyses showed that for the quarter ending November 28, 2008, the company had lost nearly $2 per share, which was substantially worse than the prevailing market expectations. That information was particularly significant because in the firm’s history as a public company, it had never before lost money in any quarter. Goldman Sachs did not publicly disclose those negative interim financial results, and that information was confidential.

Approximately 23 seconds after GUPTA disconnected from the call with the Goldman Sachs Board on October 23, 2008, at approximately 4:49 p.m., he called Rajaratnam and spoke to him by telephone for approximately 13 minutes. During that call, GUPTA disclosed to Rajaratnam Inside Information concerning Goldman Sachs’s negative interim earnings. The next morning, beginning at approximately 9:31 a.m., Rajaratnam caused certain Galleon Funds to sell their entire position in Goldman Sachs stock, thereby avoiding a loss of several million dollars. At approximately 12:08 p.m. that same day, Rajaratnam told another Galleon employee that he had heard the day before from someone on the Goldman Sachs Board that Goldman Sachs was losing $2 per share.

Additionally, beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m., on January 29, 2009, the day before P&G publicly announced its quarterly earnings, GUPTA participated by telephone, from Switzerland, in a meeting of the Audit Committee of the P&G Board. During that call, the Audit Committee discussed the next day’s earnings release, a draft of which had previously been circulated to all members of the Committee, including GUPTA. That draft stated, among other things, that the company expected its organic sales—sales related to preexisting business segments—to grow 2-5 percent for the fiscal year. This compared negatively to the guidance that P&G had previously provided to the public.

At approximately 1:18 p.m. that same day, GUPTA called Rajaratnam from Switzerland and spoke to him for approximately eight minutes. During that call, GUPTA provided Inside Information to Rajaratnam concerning P&G’s earnings release planned for the next day. Rajaratnam then told a portfolio manager at Galleon that he had heard from someone on the P&G Board certain information concerning P&G’s organic sales growth. Beginning at approximately 2:52 p.m., on January 29, 2009, on the basis of the Inside Information that GUPTA had provided to Rajaratnam, certain Galleon funds sold short approximately 180,000 shares of P&G common stock.

* * *

GUPTA, 62, of Westport, CT, surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is expected to appear in Federal District Court later today.

GUPTA is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and five counts of securities fraud. He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and 20 years in prison on each of the securities fraud charges. In addition, with respect to the conspiracy charge, GUPTA faces a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the crime. For each of the securities fraud charges, GUPTA faces a maximum fine of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the crime.

Rajaratnam was convicted in a jury trial on May 11, 2011, of 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. He was sentenced on October 13, 2011, to 11 years in prison, and ordered to pay forfeiture in the amount of $53,816,434, and a $10 million fine.

Mr. BHARARA praised the efforts of the FBI. He also thanked the SEC for its assistance in the investigation.

This case was brought in coordination with President BARACK OBAMA’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which U.S. Attorney BHARARA serves as a co-chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President OBAMA established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys REED BRODSKY and RICHARD C. TARLOWE, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney ANDREW Z. MICHAELSON are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades

Police have clashed with hundreds of demonstrators in the U.S. city of Oakland. It happened when hundreds marched to show their anger at police clearing an “Occupy Wall Street” camp. Officers shot several rounds of tear gas into the crowd, who were trying to reclaim their position within the city centre. Earlier on Tuesday, 85 people were arrested, after they refused to take down their tents as part of the nationwide movement against corporate greed.

The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides

President Reagan meets with Contra leaders in the Oval Office. Oliver North is at far right. When this photo was officially released North’s image was cut out.

The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On

Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides

Pentagon Nominee Robert Gates Among Many
Prominent Figures Involved in the Scandal

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 210

Posted – November 24, 2006

For more information contact:
Malcolm Byrne – 202/994-7043
Peter Kornbluh – 202/994-7116
Thomas Blanton – 202/994-7000



The Iran-Contra Scandal:
The Declassified History


Washington D.C., November 24, 2006 – On November 25, 1986, the biggest political and constitutional scandal since Watergate exploded in Washington when President Ronald Reagan told a packed White House news conference that funds derived from covert arms deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran had been diverted to buy weapons for the U.S.-backed Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

In the weeks leading up to this shocking admission, news reports had exposed the U.S. role in both the Iran deals and the secret support for the Contras, but Reagan’s announcement, in which he named two subordinates — National Security Advisor John M. Poindexter and NSC staffer Oliver L. North — as the responsible parties, was the first to link the two operations.

The scandal was almost the undoing of the Teflon President. Of all the revelations that emerged, the most galling for the American public was the president’s abandonment of the long-standing policy against dealing with terrorists, which Reagan repeatedly denied doing in spite of overwhelming evidence that made it appear he was simply lying to cover up the story.

Despite the damage to his image, the president arguably got off easy, escaping the ultimate political sanction of impeachment. From what is now known from documents and testimony — but perhaps not widely appreciated — while Reagan may not have known about the diversion or certain other details of the operations being carried out in his name, he directed that both support for the Contras (whom he ordered to be kept together “body and soul”) and the arms-for-hostages deals go forward, and was at least privy to other actions that were no less significant.

In this connection, it is worth noting that Poindexter, although he refused to implicate Reagan by testifying that he had told him about the diversion, declared that if he had informed the president he was sure Reagan would have approved. Reagan’s success in avoiding a harsher political penalty was due to a great extent to Poindexter’s testimony (which left many observers deeply skeptical about its plausibility). But it was also due in large part to a tactic developed mainly by Attorney General Edwin Meese, which was to keep congressional and public attention tightly focused on the diversion. By spotlighting that single episode, which they felt sure Reagan could credibly deny, his aides managed to minimize public scrutiny of the president’s other questionable actions, some of which even he understood might be illegal.

Twenty years later, the Iran-Contra affair continues to resonate on many levels, especially as Washington gears up for a new season of political inquiry with the pending inauguration of the 110th Congress and the seeming inevitability of hearings into a range of Bush administration policies.

For at its heart Iran-Contra was a battle over presidential power dating back directly to the Richard Nixon era of Watergate, Vietnam and CIA dirty tricks. That clash continues under the presidency of George W. Bush, which has come under frequent fire for the controversial efforts of the president, as well as Vice President Richard Cheney, to expand Executive Branch authority over numerous areas of public life.

Iran-Contra also echoes in the re-emergence of several prominent public figures who played a part in, or were touched by, the scandal. The most recent is Robert M. Gates, President Bush’s nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense (see below and the documents in this compilation for more on Gates’ role).

This sampling of some of the most revealing documentation (Note 1) to come out of the affair gives a clear indication of how deeply involved the president was in terms of personally directing or approving different aspects of the affair. The list of other officials who also played significant parts, despite their later denials, includes Vice President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, CIA Director William J. Casey, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan, and numerous other senior and mid-level officials, making this a far broader scandal than the White House portrayed it at the time.

In that connection, what follows is a partial list of some of the more prominent individuals who were either directly a part of the Iran-Contra events or figured in some other way during the affair or its aftermath:

  • Elliott Abrams – currently deputy assistant to President Bush and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, Abrams was one of the Reagan administration’s most controversial figures as the senior State Department official for Latin America in the mid-1980s. He entered into a plea bargain in federal court after being indicted for providing false testimony about his fund-raising activities on behalf of the Contras, although he later accused the independent counsel’s office of forcing him to accept guilt on two counts. President George H. W. Bush later pardoned him.
  • David Addington – now Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, and by numerous press accounts a stanch advocate of expanded presidential power, Addington was a congressional staffer during the joint select committee hearings in 1986 who worked closely with Cheney.
  • John Bolton – the controversial U.N. ambassador whose recess appointment by President Bush is now in jeopardy was a senior Justice Department official who participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal in late November 1986. There is little indication of his precise role at the time.
  • Richard Cheney – now the vice president, he played a prominent part as a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf. He later pointed to the committees’ Minority Report as an important statement on the proper roles of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
  • Robert M. Gates – President Bush’s nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)
  • Manuchehr Ghorbanifar – the quintessential middleman, who helped broker the arms deals involving the United States, Israel and Iran ostensibly to bring about the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon, Ghorbanifar was almost universally discredited for misrepresenting all sides’ goals and interests. Even before the Iran deals got underway, the CIA had ruled Ghorbanifar off-limits for purveying bad information to U.S. intelligence. Yet, in 2006 his name has resurfaced as an important source for the Pentagon on current Iranian affairs, again over CIA objections.
  • Michael Ledeen – a neo-conservative who is vocal on the subject of regime change in Iran, Ledeen helped bring together the main players in what developed into the Iran arms-for-hostages deals in 1985 before being relegated to a bit part. He reportedly reprised his role shortly after 9/11, introducing Ghorbanifar to Pentagon officials interested in exploring contacts inside Iran.
  • Edwin Meese – currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, he was Ronald Reagan’s controversial attorney general who spearheaded an internal administration probe into the Iran-Contra connection in November 1986 that was widely criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
  • John Negroponte – the career diplomat who worked quietly to boost the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America as ambassador to Honduras, he also participated in efforts to get the Honduran government to support the Contras after Congress banned direct U.S. aid to the rebels. Negroponte’s profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)
  • Oliver L. North – now a radio talk show host and columnist, he was at the center of the Iran-Contra spotlight as the point man for both covert activities. A Marine serving on the NSC staff, he steadfastly maintained that he received high-level approval for everything he did, and that “the diversion was a diversion.” He was found guilty on three counts at a criminal trial but had those verdicts overturned on the grounds that his protected congressional testimony might have influenced his trial. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from Virginia in 1996. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)
  • Daniel Ortega – the newly elected president of Nicaragua was the principal target of several years of covert warfare by the United States in the 1980s as the leader of the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front. His democratic election in November 2006 was not the only irony — it’s been suggested by one of Oliver North’s former colleagues in the Reagan administration that North’s public statements in Nicaragua in late October 2006 may have taken votes away from the candidate preferred by the Bush administration and thus helped Ortega at the polls.
  • John Poindexter – who found a niche deep in the U.S. government’s post-9/11 security bureaucracy as head of the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program (formally disbanded by Congress in 2003), was Oliver North’s superior during the Iran-Contra period and personally approved or directed many of his activities. His assertion that he never told President Reagan about the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras ensured Reagan would not face impeachment.
  • Otto Reich – President George W. Bush’s one-time assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Reich ran a covert public diplomacy operation designed to build support for Ronald Reagan’s Contra policies. A U.S. comptroller-general investigation concluded the program amounted to “prohibited, covert propaganda activities,” although no charges were ever filed against him. Reich paid a price in terms of congressional opposition to his nomination to run Latin America policy, resulting in a recess appointment in 2002 that lasted less than a year. (See previous Electronic Briefing Book)


Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

THE CONTRAS

Document 1: White House, Presidential Finding on Covert Operations in Nicaragua (with attached Scope Note), SECRET, September 19, 1983

On December 1, 1981, President Reagan signed an initial, one-paragraph “Finding” authorizing the CIA’s paramilitary war against Nicaragua. A signed Finding confirms that the president has personally authorized a covert action, “finding” it to be in the national security interests of the United States. In this second Finding on covert action in Nicaragua, Reagan responds to mounting political pressure from Congress to halt U.S. efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government. This document defines CIA support for the Contras as a broad “interdiction” operation, rather than an explicit counter-revolution. The language, however, is deliberately vague enough to justify violent actions by the Contras and the CIA and to enable the CIA to work with other nations such as Honduras in the effort to undermine the Nicaraguan government.

Document 2: NSC, National Security Planning Group Minutes, “Subject: Central America,” SECRET, June 25, 1984

At a pivotal meeting of the highest officials in the Reagan Administration, the President and Vice President and their top aides discuss how to sustain the Contra war in the face of mounting Congressional opposition. The discussion focuses on asking third countries to fund and maintain the effort, circumventing Congressional power to curtail the CIA’s paramilitary operations. In a remarkable passage, Secretary of State George P. Shultz warns the president that White House adviser James Baker has said that “if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense.” But Vice President George Bush argues the contrary: “How can anyone object to the US encouraging third parties to provide help to the anti-Sandinistas…? The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return so that some people could interpret this as some kind of exchange.” Later, Bush participated in arranging a quid pro quo deal with Honduras in which the U.S. did provide substantial overt and covert aid to the Honduran military in return for Honduran support of the Contra war effort.

Document 3: CIA, Memorandum from DDI Robert M. Gates to DCI William J. Casey, “Nicaragua,” SECRET, December 14, 1984

In a “straight talk” memorandum to Casey, Robert Gates concedes that the CIA’s paramilitary force, the Contras, cannot overthrow the Sandinista government. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine and the U.S. loss in Vietnam, Gates argues that the CIA-run Contra war is “an essentially half-hearted policy.” He recommends that the Reagan administration initiate a “comprehensive campaign openly aimed at bringing down the regime,” including “the use of air strikes” against Nicaraguan military targets. “The fact is that the Western Hemisphere is the sphere of influence of the United States,” Gates advises. “If we have decided totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine … then we ought to save political capital in Washington, acknowledge our helplessness and stop wasting everybody’s time.”

Document 4: NSC, Memorandum from Oliver L. North to Robert C. McFarlane, “Fallback Plan for the Nicaraguan Resistance,” TOP SECRET, March 16, 1985 (with version altered by North in November 1986)

In a comprehensive memo to National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane, Oliver North describes a plan to sustain the Contra war if Congress refuses to vote more funds. The plan calls for approaching key donor nations, such as Saudi Arabia, for more funds and having Honduras play a key support role. A year later, when Congress began to investigate illegal Contra support operations, North attempted to cover up these activities by drafting altered versions of certain memos, including this one, for Congressional investigators.

Document 5: NSC, Memorandum from Robert C. McFarlane to the President, “Recommended Telephone Call,” SECRET, April 25, 1985

To convince the Honduran government to not to shut down Contra bases in Honduras after Congress refused further appropriations, Robert McFarlane had President Reagan personally call President Roberto Suazo Cordova. “It is imperative … that you make clear the Executive Branch’s political commitment to maintaining pressure on the Sandinistas, regardless of what action Congress takes,” McFarlane advises in this briefing paper for the call. At the end of the call Reagan added some notes at the end of the document indicating that Suazo “pledged we must continue to support the friends in Nicaragua.”

Documents 6 a-c: Documents relating to Robert Gates’ awareness of North’s Contra Activities:

Document 6a: NSC, Memorandum from Vincent M. Cannistraro to John M. Poindexter, “Agenda for Your Weekly Meeting with the DCI, Thursday, May 15, 1986,” TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE, May 14, 1986

Document 6b: NSC, PROFS Note, Oliver L. North to John M. Poindexter, “Private Blank Check,” July 24, 1986

Document 6c: NSC, PROFS Note, John M. Poindexter to Oliver L. North , “Private Blank Check,” July 24, 1986

Robert Gates faced intense investigative scrutiny in the aftermath of Iran-Contra over his knowledge of, and forthrightness about, North’s role in the Contra resupply effort. Gates has maintained that he was unaware of the NSC aide’s operational activities in support of the rebels. However, two of his former colleagues believe that he was aware, according to the Iran-Contra independent counsel’s final report, which notes several pieces of evidence that appear to support that conclusion. Among them are these three documents, which relate to North’s campaign to get the CIA to buy various assets his “Enterprise” had acquired in the course of working with the Contras.

The first document, from Vincent Cannistraro, a career CIA official then on the NSC staff, specifically mentions “Ollie’s ship,” a vessel North and his associates used to ferry arms to the rebels, and indicates the subject will come up at Poindexter’s next meeting with CIA Director Casey and DDCI Gates. Cannistraro later concluded from the discussion that followed that Gates was aware of the ship’s use in the resupply operations and of North’s connection to it.

The second and third documents are e-mails between North and Poindexter. In his note, North says it appears the NSC (and possibly Poindexter himself) has instructed the CIA not to buy “Project Democracy’s” assets. Poindexter’s response, which is difficult to read, states: “I did not give Casey any such guidance. I did tell Gates that I thought the private effort should be phased out. Please talk to Casey about this. I agree with you.”

Document 7: NSC, Diagram of “Enterprise” for Contra Support, July 1986

Oliver North sketched this organizational flow chart of the private sector entities that he had organized to provide ongoing support for the Contra war, after Congress terminated official assistance. The diagram identifies the complex covert “off-the-shelf” resource management, financial accounting, and armaments and paramilitary operational structures that the NSC created to illicitly sustain the Contra campaign in Nicaragua.

Document 8: U.S. Embassy Brunei, Cables, “Brunei Project,” SECRET, August 2, 1986 & September 16, 1986

In preparation for a secret mission by an emissary — Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Elliott Abrams – to seek secret funds for the Contra war from the Sultan of Brunei, the U.S. Ambassador in Brunei sent a cable stating that a meeting time had been organized during the Sultan’s upcoming trip to London. Abrams used the alias “Mr. Kenilworth” in his meetings, and arranged for the Sultan to secretly transfer $10 million into a bank account controlled by Oliver North. “I said that we deeply appreciate his understanding our needs and his valuable assistance,” Abrams cabled on September 16th, after the secret meeting. (The Sultan was given a private tour of the USS Vinson as a token of appreciation.) The funds were lost, however, because the account number Abrams provided was incorrect. Eventually Abrams was forced to plead guilty to charges of misleading Congress after testimony such as: “We’re not, you know, we’re not in the fund-raising business.”

Document 9: NSC, Diaries, North Notebook Entries on Manuel Noriega, August 24 & September 22, 1986

In one of the most controversial efforts to enlist third country support for the Contra war, Oliver North arranged to meet Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in a London hotel in September 1986. In return for ending U.S. pressure on Panama for Noriega’s drug smuggling operations and helping to “clean up” his image, Noriega proposed to engage in efforts to assassinate the Sandinista leadership. With authorization from National Security Advisor John Poindexter, North met with Noriega in a London hotel on September 22 and discussed how Panama could help with sophisticated sabotage operations against Nicaraguan targets, including the airport, oil refinery and port facilities. According to notes taken by North at the meeting, they also discussed setting up training camps in Panama for Contra operatives.

Document 10: CIA, Memorandum for the record from Robert M. Gates, “Lunch with Ollie North,” TOP SECRET/EYES ONLY, October 10, 1986

Robert Gates faced additional criticism for attempting to avoid hearing about the Iran and Contra operations as they were unfolding, instead of taking a more active role in stopping them. As Gates testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October 1986, his approach was to keep the agency’s distance from the so-called private Contra resupply operation. “… [W]e have, I think, conscientiously tried to avoid knowing what is going on in terms of any of this private funding … we will say I don’t want to hear anything about it.” In this memo for the record, Gates, clearly continuing to protect the CIA, relates that North told him the “CIA is completely clean” on the private resupply matter. The independent counsel’s report later commented that “Gates recorded North’s purportedly exculpatory statement uncritically, even though he was by then clearly aware of the possible diversion of U.S. funds through the ‘private benefactors.'”

Document 11: Independent Counsel, Court Record, “U.S. Government Stipulation on Quid Pro Quos with Other Governments as Part of Contra Operation,” April 6, 1989

The most secret part of the Iran-Contra operations were the quid pro quo arrangements the White House made with countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other governments who were enlisted to support the Contra war. As part of his defense, Oliver North attempted to “grey mail” the U.S. government by insisting that all top secret documents on the quid pro quos should be declassified for trial. Instead, the government agreed to the “stipulation” – a summary of the evidence in the documents — presented here.

This comprehensive synopsis reveals the approaches to, and arrangements with, numerous other governments made by the CIA and NSC in an effort to acquire funding, arms, logistics and strategic support for the Contra war. The effort ranged from CIA acquisitions of PLO arms seized by Israel, to Oliver North’s secret effort to trade favors with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. In the case of Saudi Arabia, President Reagan personally urged King Fahd to replace funds cut by the U.S. Congress. In the end, the Saudis contributed $32 million dollars to finance the Contra war campaign.

IRAN ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES

Document 12: CIA, Memorandum, “Subject: Fabricator Notice – Manuchehr ((Gorbanifar)),” SECRET, July 25, 1984

One of the key figures in the disastrous arms-for-hostages deals with Iran was weapons broker Manuchehr Ghorbanifar. Despite the CIA’s dismissal of him as a “fabricator,” by 1985 Ghorbanifar managed to persuade senior officials in three governments — the United States, Iran and Israel — to utilize him as their middleman. The parallels with Iraq in 2003 are apparent: American officials (in this case) lacking a fundamental understanding of, information about, or contacts in the country in question allowed themselves to rely on individuals whose motives and qualifications required far greater scrutiny. Ironically, press reports featuring interviews with former officials indicate that Ghorbanifar has met with Pentagon representatives interested in his take on current Iranian politics. (See also the reference to Ghorbanifar in the Introduction to this briefing book.)

Document 13: CIA, Draft Presidential Finding, “Scope: Hostage Rescue – Middle East,” (with cover note from William J. Casey), November 26, 1985

Of the six covert transactions with Iran in 1985-1986, the most controversial was a shipment of 18 HAWK (Homing-All-the-Way-Killer) anti-aircraft missiles in November 1985. Not only did the delivery run afoul — for which the American operatives blamed their Israeli counterparts — but it took place without the required written presidential authorization. The CIA drafted this document only after Deputy Director John McMahon discovered that one had not been prepared prior to the shipment. It was considered so sensitive that once Reagan signed off retroactively on December 5, John Poindexter kept it in his office safe until the scandal erupted a year later — then tore it up, as he acknowledged, in order to spare the president “political embarrassment.” The version presented here is a draft of the one Poindexter destroyed.

Document 14: Diary, Caspar W. Weinberger, December 7, 1985

The disastrous November HAWK shipment prompted U.S. officials to take direct control of the arms deals with Iran. Until then, Israel had been responsible for making the deliveries, for which the U.S. agreed to replenish their stocks of American weapons. Before making this important decision, President Reagan convened an extraordinary meeting of several top advisers in the White House family quarters on December 7, 1985, to discuss the issue. Among those attending were Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of Defense Weinberger. Both men objected vehemently to the idea of shipping arms to Iran, which the U.S. had declared a sponsor of international terrorism. But in this remarkable set of notes, Weinberger captures the president’s determination to move ahead regardless of the obstacles, legal or otherwise: “President sd. he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn’t answer charge that ‘big strong President Reagan passed up chance to free hostages.'”

Document 15: White House, John M. Poindexter Memorandum to President Reagan, “Covert Action Finding Regarding Iran,” (with attached presidential finding), January 17, 1986

While the Finding Reagan signed retroactively to cover the November 1985 HAWK shipment was destroyed, this Finding and cover memo from which Reagan received a briefing on the status of the Iran operation survived intact. It reflects the president’s personal authorization for direct U.S. arms sales to Iran, a directive that remained in force until the arms deals were exposed in November 1986.

Document 16: NSC, Oliver L. North Memorandum, “Release of American Hostages in Beirut,” (so-called “Diversion Memo”), TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE, April 4, 1986

At the center of the public’s perception of the scandal was the revelation that the two previously unconnected covert activities — trading arms for hostages with Iran and backing the Nicaraguan Contras against congressional prohibitions — had become joined. This memo from Oliver North is the main piece of evidence to survive which spells out the plan to use “residuals” from the arms deals to fund the rebels. Justice Department investigators discovered it in North’s NSC files in late November 1986. For unknown reasons it escaped North’s notorious document “shredding party” which took place after the scandal became public.

Document 17: White House, Draft National Security Decision Directive (NSDD), “U.S. Policy Toward Iran,” TOP SECRET, (with cover memo from Robert C. McFarlane to George P. Shultz and Caspar W. Weinberger), June 17, 1986

The secret deals with Iran were mainly aimed at freeing American hostages who were being held in Lebanon by forces linked to the Tehran regime. But there was another, subsidiary motivation on the part of some officials, which was to press for renewed ties with the Islamic Republic. One of the proponents of this controversial idea was National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, who eventually took the lead on the U.S. side in the arms-for-hostages deals until his resignation in December 1985. This draft of a National Security Decision Directive, prepared at his behest by NSC and CIA staff, puts forward the argument for developing ties with Iran based on the traditional Cold War concern that isolating the Khomeini regime could open the way for Moscow to assert its influence in a strategically vital part of the world. To counter that possibility, the document proposes allowing limited amounts of arms to be supplied to the Iranians. The idea did not get far, as the next document testifies.

Document 18: Defense Department, Handwritten Notes, Caspar W. Weinberger Reaction to Draft NSDD on Iran (with attached note and transcription by Colin Powell), June 18, 1986

While CIA Director William J. Casey, for one, supported McFarlane’s idea of reaching out to Iran through limited supplies of arms, among other approaches, President Reagan’s two senior foreign policy advisers strongly opposed the notion. In this scrawled note to his military assistant, Colin Powell, Weinberger belittles the proposal as “almost too absurd to comment on … It’s like asking Qadhafi to Washington for a cozy chat.” Richard Armitage, who is mentioned in Powell’s note to his boss, was an assistant secretary of defense at the time and later became deputy secretary of state under Powell.

Document 19: George H. W. Bush Diary, November 4-5, 1986

Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush became entangled in controversy over his knowledge of Iran-Contra. Although he asserted publicly that he was “out of the loop — no operational role,” he was well informed of events, particularly the Iran deals, as evidenced in part by this diary excerpt just after the Iran operation was exposed: “I’m one of the few people that know fully the details …” The problem for Bush was greatly magnified because he was preparing to run for president just as the scandal burst. He managed to escape significant blame — ultimately winning the 1988 election — but he came under fire later for repeatedly failing to disclose the existence of his diary to investigators and then for pardoning several Iran-Contra figures, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger just days before his trial was set to begin. As a result of the pardons, the independent counsel’s final report pointedly noted: “The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete.”

Document 20: Caspar W. Weinberger Memorandum for the Record, “Meeting … with the President … in the Oval Office,” November 10, 1986

This memo is one of several documents relating to the Reagan administration’s attempts to produce a unified response to the growing scandal. The session Weinberger memorializes here was the first that included all the relevant senior officials and it is notable as much for what it omits as for what it describes. For example, there is no mention of the most damaging episode of the Iran initiative — the November 1985 HAWK missile shipment — and the absence of an advance presidential finding to make it legal. This issue was at the center of administration political concerns since it, along with the matter of the “diversion,” were the most likely to raise the prospect of impeachment.

Women Protest Worldwide Photos 3

Women Protest Worldwide Photos 3

 

[Image]Ellinda McKinney offers her message to police during the Occupy Denver protest, Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011 in Denver. Occupy Denver protesters and law enforcement officers faced off on the steps of the state Capitol and Civic Center after protesters marched through downtown Denver for the fourth week in a row. (Craig F. Walker)
[Image]A woman performs as a widow during a protest against violence in Mexico City on October 28, 2011. More than 41,000 people have been killed in rising drug-related violence in Mexico since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon deployed soldiers and federal police to take on organized crime. Getty
[Image]Demonstrators march towards the Treasury Department and the White House in Washington on October 29, 2011 during a protest organized by the Occupy DC movement to call for increased taxes on the rich, a so-called ‘Robin Hood tax.’ Getty
[Image]Israelis protest against the high costs of living in Tel Aviv, Israel, Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011. According to police estimates over 30,000 participated in the Tel Aviv protest and thousands of others protested in Jerusalem on Saturday. A wave of social protests swept the country this summer as Israelis held mass protests to protest a wide range of social issues, especially high housing costs. (Maya Hasson)
[Image]A protester of the Occupy Berlin movement drinks champagne during a protest demonstration against the finance system in central Berlin, Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011. (Markus Schreiber)
[Image]A demonstrator is seen during a protest organized by the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ICCS), on October 29, 2011 in Bern. More than 1000 persons attend the demonstration. The Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ICCS), a conservative Muslim group was under criticism after chosen a symbol reminiscent of the Jewish Star of David with the word ‘Muslim’ framed by a yellow star. Getty
[Image]A woman holds a crucifix and a rosary as she demonstrates among around one thousand people called by ‘Civitas’ association, close to Christian fundamentalists on October 29, 2011 in Paris to protest against the play ‘Sur le concept du visage du fils de Dieu’ (On the Concept of the Face, Regarding the Son of God) by Italian Romeo Castellucci which is performed at the Paris Theatre de la Ville from October 20 to 30. Every evening, protesters demonstrate in front of the building to denounce the’ of the play which they found insulting. Getty
[Image]Occupy Nashville protesters, from the left, Megan Riges, Lauren Plummer and Lindsey Krinks, celebrate Friday, Oct. 28, 2011, after they were released by police after being arrested overnight on Legislative Plaza in downtown Nashville, Tenn. Twenty-nine Wall Street protesters in Nashville have been issued misdemeanor citations for criminal trespassing after being arrested by state troopers overnight. (John Partipilo)
[Image]Protesters affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street Movement are seen at the Tennessee Capitol, Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. Tennessee’s safety commissioner says Republican Gov. Bill Haslam’s office approved a pre-dawn roundup of Wall Street protesters from the state Capitol grounds. Twenty-nine people were arrested, but a night judge refused to sign warrants because the policy had only been in effect since the previous afternoon. (Erik Schelzig)
[Image]A dressed woman attends a protest in Bogota, Colombia, Wednesday Oct. 26, 2011. The protest was against education reforms planned by the government that propose private funding for public institutions. (Fernando Vergara)
[Image]Activists of Femen, a Ukrainian women movement, wearing masks representing the slaughtered animals, shout slogans and hold placards reading ‘Zoomorgue’, ‘Slaughten house’, ‘Zooghetto’ as they stage a topless protest on a roof at the entrance of the zoo in Kiev on October 27, 2011. They rally against, as they say, the intolerable living conditions for animals in the zoo. Every year the Zoo is claiming the lives of hundreds of rare and exotic animals, that die a horrific death of hunger, cold or disease, as they report to AFP. The FEMEN movement demands that the Ukrainian authorities close the Kievs ZooMorgue as they call it. Getty
[Image]Supporters of Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) attend a rally against Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in Lahore on October 28, 2011. More than 30,000 supporters of Pakistan’s main opposition party took to the streets in a protest rally on October 28, burning an effigy of President Asif Ali Zardari and demanding that he quit. The Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) called the rally in Lahore to exploit talk of early elections in its political heartland, where it controls the Punjab provincial government despite being in opposition at national level. Getty
[Image]Supporters of Pakistani politician Imran Khan and chief of Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) party, carry placards as they march during protest rally in Islamabad on October 28, 2011 against US drone attacks in Pakistani tribal region. Khan staged a rally along with tribal elders in Islamabad against the continued US drone attacks in tribal areas which they said were killing hundreds of innocent people. Nearly 60 US drone strikes have been reported in Pakistan so far this year, dozens of them since Navy SEALs killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the garrison city of Abbottabad, close to the capital Islamabad, on May 2. Getty
[Image]Protesters throw mud at a caricature of President Benigno Aquino III during a protest Friday Oct. 28, 2011 in Manila, Philippines against the President’s alleged continued support for big corporations including the big three oil companies in the country. The protest, part of the nationwide “Women’s Day of Protest,” was held following another round of oil price hike implemented late last week. (Bullit Marquez)
[Image]Relatives of missing Kashmiri youth participate in a protest demonstration organized by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) in Srinagar, India, Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. According to APDP some 8,000-10,000 people have gone missing since the beginning of the Kashmir conflict in 1989, after being arrested by Indian security forces and other security agencies. (Dar Yasin)
[Image]Anti-austerity protesters shout slogans before a scheduled military parade in the northern Greek city of Thessaloniki, Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. Thousands of anti-austerity protesters in the city forced the cancellation of Friday’s annual military parade commemorating Greece’s entry into World War II. The demonstrators heckled Greek President Karolos Papoulias and other attending officials, calling Papoulias a traitor. (Nikolas Giakoumidis)
[Image]Campaigners on the ‘Occupy London Stock Exchange’ protest encampment outside St Paul’s Cathedral on October 28, 2011 in London, England. St Paul’s Cathedral is due to reopen after being closed due to the adjacent ‘Occupy London Stock Exchange’ protest against the global financial system which has been in place for almost two weeks. Getty
[Image]Filipino Muslims hold their Friday prayers near the Presidential Palace during a “Prayer-for-Peace” rally Friday Oct. 28, 2011 in Manila, Philippines. The prayer protest was held to call for peace following the military’s launching of air strikes and military operations after one of the worst clashes in three years with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) this month killed 26 soldiers, three policemen and an undetermined number of Muslim rebels. Close to 30,000 civilians have been displaced in the ongoing operation, officials said. AP
[Image]A man consoles a distressed woman as she weeps at a protest during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia, Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. Queen Elizabeth II opened CHOGM Friday with more than 50 commonwealth nations’ leaders attending the three-day forum to discuss global and Commonwealth issues and collective policies and initiatives. AP
[Image]Members of the Mexican Huichole community take part in a protest against Canadian mining projects in Mexico City on October 27, 2011. Huicholes from Durango, Nayarit and Jalisco marched along Reforma avenue towards the presidential palace to demand the end of the Canadian exploitation of silver in Cerro del Quemado, San Luis Potosi, arguing it affects nature and their sacred path. Getty
[Image]A member of the Mexican Huichole community takes part in a protest against Canadian mining projects in Mexico City on October 27, 2011. Huicholes from Durango, Nayarit and Jalisco marched along Reforma avenue towards the presidential palace to demand the end of the Canadian exploitation of silver in Cerro del Quemado, San Luis Potosi, arguing it affects nature and their sacred path. Getty
[Image]A resident speaks with journalists as they protest outside the refinery compound of Italian oil company Eni at the town of Tazarka, about 70 km (43.5 miles) south-east of capital Tunis October 27, 2011. The protesters say that the refinery owners have not honoured their commitments to provide the local community with jobs and investments in infrastructure. Message written in Arabic reads “protest”. Reuters
[Image]People march during a protest in Zhili town, Huzhou city, Zhejiang province October 27, 2011. Hundreds of people have clashed with police and smashed public property in China’s eastern Zhejiang province after a dispute between tax authorities and a local shop owner snowballed into protests, a government-run news site said. Reuters
[Image]People watch as riot police walk along the central square during a protest in Zhili town, Huzhou city, Zhejiang province October 27, 2011. Hundreds of people have clashed with police and smashed public property in China’s eastern Zhejiang province after a dispute between tax authorities and a local shop owner snowballed into protests, a government-run news site said. Reuters
[Image]A Christian activist holds a placard reading “No fraternity without respect of the other” as she prays during a demonstration, in Paris, Thursday Oct. 27, 2011, in front of the Theatre de la ville, where the Italian director Romeo Castellucci’s play “On the Concept of the Face, Regarding the Son of God” is being performed. Christian fundamentalists protest against the play featuring the face of Christ drizzled with fake excrement. (Thibault Camus)
[Image]About 1300 hundred people attend a candlelight vigil for Scott Olsen on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. During an Occupy Oakland protest Tuesday night, a projectile apparently fired by police struck the Iraq veteran in the head leaving him in critical condition with a fractured skull. (Noah Berger)
[Image]Participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement, right, talk to pedestrians trying to walk past their tent at the encampment at Zuccotti Park, Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011 in New York. The protests, which started on Sept. 17 with a few dozen demonstrators near Wall Street, as grown into a nationwide and international movement. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image]Demonstrators supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement march in the hallways during a rally inside the state Capitol in Albany, N.Y., Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011. Several speakers criticized Gov. Andrew Cuomo for blocking a bill that would tax New Yorkers making over $1 million a year at a higher rate while cutting aid to schools, colleges and the poor. Cuomo, who was in New York City, had no immediate comment Thursday. (Hans Pennink)
[Image]Police officers look at the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp as they stand on the steps outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London, Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011. St. Paul’s Cathedral says it will reopen Friday, a week after is shut its doors because of an anti-capitalist protest camp outside. It will reopen to tourists on Saturday. Protesters have been camped outside the building since Oct. 15. Days later, cathedral officials shut the building to the public.
[Image]Demonstrators hold cutouts representing women during a protest in front of the National Assembly building during a protest to demand the return of the therapeutic abortion law, in Managua, Nicaragua, Wednesday Oct. 26, 2011. The therapeutic abortion law, which allows the termination of a pregnancy to save a mother’s life, was repealed by the legislature in 2006, handing down eight-year prison sentences to those who terminated risky pregnancies. (Esteban Felix)
[Image]In this Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2011 file photo demonstrators burn copies of emergency tax notices during a protest by the Communist-backed labor union. Groups of lawyers, trade unions and campaigners have tried to derail government efforts to collect new taxes, or to suspend tens of thousands of civil servants on partial pay. State buildings have been occupied, municipalities have stalled in delivering emergency notices ordering strikers back to work.
[Image]Two activists of the Femen Movement from Ukraine protest during a press conference ‘Euro 2012: Corruption and Prostitution’ organised in the Culture Center Nowy Wspanialy Swiat, in Warsaw, Poland, on September 15, 2011. The members of the Femen Movement were presented during the conference as Blyadek and Blyadko – alternative mascots of Euro 2012, who like sex, football and alcohol. FEMEN activists want to demostrate the ‘dark side’ of Ukraine’s preparation for Euro 2012 and expose the corrupt schemes associated with the football championships. Getty

	

WIE MICH DIE “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN MIT GOOGLE-EINTRÄGEN ERPRESSEN WOLLTEN

http://berndpulch.org/bernd-pulch-der-beweis-%E2%80%93-so-wollte-der-serienbetruger-klaus-maurischat-uns-zwingen-die-berichterstattung-uber-den-%E2%80%9Cnachrichtendienst%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-einzustellen/

http://berndpulch.org/2011/02/24/weitere-erpressung-des-vorbestraften-serienbetrugers-klaus-maurischat-gomopa/

ERPRESSUNG VON MERIDAN CAPITAL DURCH DIE ANONYMEN “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen (Eigenbezeichnung)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bernd%20pulch%20erpressung%20durch%20gomopa&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBgQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Finvestment-magazin.tv%2F%3Fpage_id%3D2953&ei=z3KtTpFhg9HhBMi_hPMO&usg=AFQjCNHlD6h04-uOBIxRsta0CDm6PjB_bw

DIE SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, DAS HANDELSBLATT UND DIE FAZ ÜBER DIE ERPRESSUNGEN DER “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen (Eigenbezeichnung) BEISPIEL WIRECARD ETC

http://googleofficial.wordpress.com/tag/suddeutsche-zeitung-u-hb-uber-den-von-der-fingierten-gomopa-u-komplizen-veranstalteten-wirecard-aktiencrash-durch-falschmeldung-u-erpressung/

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

Five Individuals Indicted in a Fraud Conspiracy Involving Exports to Iran of U.S. Components Later Found in Bombs in Iraq

WASHINGTON—Five individuals and four of their companies have been indicted as part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States that allegedly caused thousands of radio frequency modules to be illegally exported from the United States to Iran, at least 16 of which were later found in unexploded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq. Some of the defendants are also charged in a fraud conspiracy involving exports of military antennas to Singapore and Hong Kong.

Yesterday, authorities in Singapore arrested Wong Yuh Lan (Wong), Lim Yong Nam (Nam), Lim Kow Seng (Seng), and Hia Soo Gan Benson (Hia), all citizens of Singapore, in connection with a U.S. request for extradition. The United States is seeking their extradition to stand trial in the District of Columbia. The remaining individual defendant, Hossein Larijani, is a citizen and resident of Iran who remains at large.

The arrests and the indictment were announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; John Morton, Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Mark Giuliano, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch; Eric L. Hirschhorn, Under Secretary of Commerce; and David Adelman, U.S. Ambassador to Singapore.

“Today’s charges allege that the defendants conspired to defraud the United States and defeat our export controls by sending U.S.-origin components to Iran rather than to their stated final destination of Singapore. Ultimately, several of these components were found in unexploded improvised explosive devices in Iraq,” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco. “This case underscores the continuing threat posed by Iranian procurement networks seeking to obtain U.S. technology through fraud and the importance of safeguarding that technology. I applaud the many agents, analysts and prosecutors who worked on this extensive investigation.”

“These defendants misled U.S. companies in buying parts that they shipped to Iran and that ended up in IEDs on the battlefield in Iraq,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “This prosecution demonstrates why the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes cases involving misrepresentations regarding the intended use of sensitive technology so seriously. We hope for a swift response from Singapore to our request for extradition.”

“One of Homeland Security Investigations’ (HSI) top enforcement priorities is preventing sensitive technology from falling into the hands of those who might seek to harm American personnel or interests—whether at home or abroad,” said ICE Director Morton. “This international investigation conducted by ICE’s HSI and our law enforcement partners demonstrates the importance of preventing U.S. technology from falling into the wrong hands, where it could potentially be used to kill or injure our military members and our allies. Our agency will continue to work closely through our attachés to identify these criminals, dismantle their networks, and ensure they are fully prosecuted.”

“This multi-year investigation highlights that acquiring property by deceit has ramifications that resonate beyond the bottom line and affects our national security and the safety of Americans worldwide,” said FBI Executive Assistant Director Giuliano. “We continue to work side-by-side with our many partners in a coordinated effort to bring justice to those who have sought to harm Americans. We consider this investigation as the model of how we work cases—jointly with the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Commerce/Office of Export Enforcement and collectively with our foreign partners to address the threats posed by Iranian procurement networks to the national security interests of the United States both here and abroad.”

“These cases are the product of vigorous, cooperative law enforcement focused on denying to Iran items that endanger our coalition forces on the battlefield in Iraq,” said Under Secretary of Commerce Hirschhorn. “We will continue aggressively to go after such perpetrators—no matter where they operate—to guard against these types of threats.”

U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, David Adelman, praised the cooperation within the U.S. executive branch agencies and with the Singaporean authorities. “Twenty-first century law enforcement is most effective when countries work collaboratively as evidenced by this strong, cooperative effort between the U.S. and Singapore. Congratulations to all the officials in both our countries who made this happen,” he said.

The Charges

The indictment, which was returned in the District of Columbia on Sept. 15, 2010, and unsealed today, includes charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, smuggling, illegal export of goods from the United States to Iran, illegal export of defense articles from the United States, false statements and obstruction of justice.

The charged defendants are Iranian national Larijani, 47, and his companies Paya Electronics Complex, based in Iran, and Opto Electronics Pte, Ltd., based in Singapore. Also charged is Wong, 39, an agent of Opto Electronics who was allegedly supervised by Larijani from Iran. The indictment also charges NEL Electronics Pte. Ltd., a company in Singapore, along with NEL’s owner and director, Nam, 37. Finally, the indictment charges Corezing International Pte. Ltd., a company in Singapore that maintained offices in China, as well as Seng, 42, an agent of Corezing, and Hia, 44, a manager, director and agent of Corezing.

Wong, Nam, Seng and Hia allegedly conspired to defraud the United States by impeding U.S. export controls relating to the shipment of 6,000 radio frequency modules from a Minnesota company through Singapore to Iran, some of which were later found in unexploded IEDs in Iraq. Seng and Hia are also accused of conspiring to defraud the United States relating to the shipment of military antennas from a Massachusetts company to Singapore and Hong Kong. Singapore has agreed to seek extradition for Wong and Nam on the charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States relating to the components shipped to Iran, and to seek extradition for Seng and Hia on the charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States relating to the military antenna exports.

In coordination with the criminal actions announced today, the Commerce Department announced the addition of 15 persons located in China, Hong Kong, Iran and Singapore to the Commerce Department’s Entity List. In addition to the five individual defendants in this case, the Commerce Department named additional companies and individuals associated with this conspiracy. In placing these parties on the Entity List, the Commerce Department is imposing a licensing requirement for any item subject to Commerce regulation with a presumption that such a license would be denied.

Exports of U.S. Components Later Found in IEDs

According to the indictment, IEDs caused roughly 60 percent of all American combat casualties in Iraq between 2001 and 2007. The first conspiracy alleged in the indictment involved radio frequency modules that have several commercial applications, including in wireless local area networks connecting printers and computers in office settings. These modules include encryption capabilities and have a range allowing them to transmit data wirelessly as far as 40 miles when configured with a high-gain antenna. These same modules also have potentially lethal applications. Notably, during 2008 and 2009, coalition forces in Iraq recovered numerous modules made by the Minnesota firm that had been utilized as part of the remote detonation system for IEDs.

The indictment alleges that, between June 2007 and February 2008, the defendants fraudulently purchased and caused 6,000 modules to be illegally exported from the Minnesota company through Singapore, and later to Iran, in five shipments, knowing that the export of U.S.-origin goods to Iran was a violation of U.S. law. In each transaction, the defendants allegedly told the Minnesota firm that Singapore was the final destination of the goods. The defendants also caused false documents to be filed with the U.S. government, in which they claimed that a telecommunications project in Singapore was the final end-use for the modules. In reality, each of the five shipments was routed from Singapore to Iran via air cargo. The alleged recipient of all 6,000 modules in Iran was Larijani, who had directed Wong, his employee in Singapore, to order them.

According to the indictment, the defendants profited considerably from their illegal trade. The defendants allegedly made tens of thousands of dollars for arranging these illegal exports from the United States through Singapore to Iran.

The indictment alleges that several of the 6,000 modules the defendants routed from Minnesota to Iran were later discovered by coalition forces in Iraq, where they were being used as part of the remote detonation systems of IEDs. In May 2008, December 2008, April 2009, and July 2010, coalition forces found no less than 16 of these modules in unexploded IEDs recovered in Iraq, the indictment alleges.

During this period, some of the defendants were allegedly communicating with one another about U.S. laws prohibiting the export of U.S.-origin goods to Iran. For example, between October 2007 and June 2009, Nam contacted Larijani in Iran at least six times and discussed the Iran prohibitions and U.S. prosecutions for violation of these laws. Nam later told U.S. authorities that he had never participated in illicit exports to Iran, even though he had participated in five such shipments, according to the indictment.

Exports of Military Antennas

The indictment further charges Seng, Hia, and Corezing with a separate fraud conspiracy involving the illegal export of two types of military antenna from the United States. The indictment alleges that these defendants conspired to defraud the United States by causing a total of 55 cavity-backed spiral antennas and biconical antennas to be illegally exported from a Massachusetts company to Singapore and Hong Kong without the required State Department license.

These military antennas are controlled for export as U.S. munitions and are used in airborne and shipboard environments. The indictment states that the biconical antenna, for example, is used in military aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-111, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and the F-16 combat jets.

Seng, Hia and Corezing are alleged to have, among other things, conspired to undervalue the antennas to circumvent U.S. regulations on the filing of shipper’s export declarations to the U.S. government. They also allegedly used false names and front companies to obtain the antennas illegally from the United States.

Additional Misrepresentations

The indictment further alleges that Larijani, based in Iran, made false statements about doing business with an accused Iranian procurement agent and that he attempted to obstruct an official proceeding by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

In January 2010, the Department of Commerce placed Larijani’s company, Opto Electronics, on the Entity List, which is a list of companies to which U.S. businesses cannot export controlled dual-use items without obtaining U.S. government licenses. In response, Larijani repeatedly contacted Commerce Department officials in Washington, D.C., from Iran, requesting that his company be removed from the Entity List, according to the indictment. Commerce officials advised Larijani that, in considering whether his firm should be removed from the list, he needed to disclose whether he or his firm had any involvement with Majid Kakavand or Evertop Services Sdn Bhd.

Kakavand is an accused Iranian procurement agent who has been indicted in the United States, along with his Malaysian company Evertop Services, for illegally exporting U.S. goods to Iran, including to military entities in Iran involved in that nation’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Kakavand remains a fugitive and is believed to be in Iran.

According to the indictment, Larijani denied to Commerce officials on three occasions that he or his company, Opto Electronics, had done any business with Kakavand or Evertop Services. In fact, the indictment alleges that Larijani had been in communication with others about his business dealings with Kakavand on at least five occasions from 2006 through 2009.

This investigation was jointly conducted by ICE agents in Boston and Los Angeles; FBI agents in Minneapolis; and Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security agents in Chicago and Boston. Substantial assistance was provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and the Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, particularly the Justice Department Attaché in the Philippines, as well as the FBI and ICE Attachés in Singapore.

U.S. law enforcement authorities thanked the government of Singapore for the substantial assistance that was provided in the investigation of this matter.

The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anthony Asuncion and John W. Borchert of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia; and Trial Attorneys Jonathan C. Poling and Richard S. Scott of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains mere allegations. Defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

ZDF:”GoMoPa”-GLÜCKSPIEL-MAFIA – EIN AUSSTEIGER PACKT AUS

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus#/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus

Manhattan U.S. Attorney and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Announce Insider Trading Charges Against Former Corporate Chairman and Director Rajat K. Gupta

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 26, 2011
  • Southern District of New York (212) 637-2600

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of a six-count indictment against RAJAT K. GUPTA, a former corporate chairman and member of the Boards of Directors of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”) and the Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), for engaging in an insider trading scheme with Raj Rajaratnam, the founder and former head of the Galleon Group.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA stated: “Rajat Gupta was entrusted by some of the premier institutions of American business to sit inside their boardrooms, among their executives and directors, and receive their confidential information so that he could give advice and counsel for the benefit of their shareholders. As alleged, he broke that trust and instead became the illegal eyes and ears in the boardroom for his friend and business associate, Raj Rajaratnam, who reaped enormous profits from Mr. Gupta’s breach of duty. Today we allege that the corruption we have seen in the trading cubicles, investment firms, law firms, expert consulting firms, medical labs, and corporate suites also insinuated itself into the boardrooms of elite companies. ”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK stated: “Today’s surrender is the latest step in an initiative launched by the FBI in 2007 targeting hedge fund insider trading. The conduct alleged is not an inadvertent slip of the tongue by Mr. Gupta. His eagerness to pass along inside information to Rajaratnam is nowhere more starkly evident than in the two instances where a total of 39 seconds elapsed between his learning of crucial Goldman Sachs information and lavishing it on his good friend. That information (captured by the FBI) was conveyed by phone so quickly it could be termed instant messaging.”

According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

During all relevant times, GUPTA and Rajaratnam maintained a personal and business relationship. Among other things, GUPTA invested money in at least two different Galleon funds and formed separate investment and private equity funds with Rajaratnam.

From 2008 through January 2009, GUPTA disclosed to Raj Rajaratnam material, nonpublic information (the “Inside Information”) that GUPTA had learned in his capacity as a member of the Boards of Directors of Goldman Sachs and P&G with the understanding that Rajaratnam would use the Inside Information to purchase and sell securities. Rajaratnam, in turn, caused the execution of transactions in the securities of Goldman Sachs and P&G on the basis of the Inside Information, and shared the Inside Information with others at Galleon, thereby earning illegal profits, and illegally avoiding losses, of millions of dollars. The Inside Information included confidential information about the companies’ earnings and financial performance, as well as certain corporate transactions that were being undertaken by Goldman Sachs and P&G.

For example, in the late afternoon of September 23, 2008, shortly before the close of the market, GUPTA participated telephonically in a meeting of the Goldman Sachs Board. During that meeting, the Goldman Sachs Board agreed to accept a $5 billion investment by Berkshire Hathaway, a multi-national holding company. Approximately 16 seconds after GUPTA disconnected his phone from the Goldman Sachs Board call, at approximately 3:54 p.m., his assistant called Rajaratnam and shortly thereafter, connected GUPTA to the call. At approximately 3:58 p.m., just two minutes before the close of the market, Rajaratnam caused certain Galleon funds to purchase approximately 217,200 shares of Goldman Sachs common stock at a total cost of approximately $27 million.

Following the close of the market on September 23, 2008, Goldman Sachs publicly announced the investment by Berkshire Hathaway. The next morning, Goldman Sachs’s stock opened for trading at a price that was more than $3.00 per share higher than the preannouncement closing price on September 23, 2008. On September 24, 2008, Rajaratnam caused Galleon to sell the 217,200 Goldman Sachs shares that had been purchased at approximately 3:58 p.m. on September 23, 2008, generating an illegal profit of approximately $840,000.

On October 23, 2008, GUPTA participated by telephone in a meeting of the Goldman Sachs Board in which senior executives of Goldman Sachs updated the Board on significant developments at the company. As of October 23, 2008, Goldman Sachs’s internal financial analyses showed that for the quarter ending November 28, 2008, the company had lost nearly $2 per share, which was substantially worse than the prevailing market expectations. That information was particularly significant because in the firm’s history as a public company, it had never before lost money in any quarter. Goldman Sachs did not publicly disclose those negative interim financial results, and that information was confidential.

Approximately 23 seconds after GUPTA disconnected from the call with the Goldman Sachs Board on October 23, 2008, at approximately 4:49 p.m., he called Rajaratnam and spoke to him by telephone for approximately 13 minutes. During that call, GUPTA disclosed to Rajaratnam Inside Information concerning Goldman Sachs’s negative interim earnings. The next morning, beginning at approximately 9:31 a.m., Rajaratnam caused certain Galleon Funds to sell their entire position in Goldman Sachs stock, thereby avoiding a loss of several million dollars. At approximately 12:08 p.m. that same day, Rajaratnam told another Galleon employee that he had heard the day before from someone on the Goldman Sachs Board that Goldman Sachs was losing $2 per share.

Additionally, beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m., on January 29, 2009, the day before P&G publicly announced its quarterly earnings, GUPTA participated by telephone, from Switzerland, in a meeting of the Audit Committee of the P&G Board. During that call, the Audit Committee discussed the next day’s earnings release, a draft of which had previously been circulated to all members of the Committee, including GUPTA. That draft stated, among other things, that the company expected its organic sales—sales related to preexisting business segments—to grow 2-5 percent for the fiscal year. This compared negatively to the guidance that P&G had previously provided to the public.

At approximately 1:18 p.m. that same day, GUPTA called Rajaratnam from Switzerland and spoke to him for approximately eight minutes. During that call, GUPTA provided Inside Information to Rajaratnam concerning P&G’s earnings release planned for the next day. Rajaratnam then told a portfolio manager at Galleon that he had heard from someone on the P&G Board certain information concerning P&G’s organic sales growth. Beginning at approximately 2:52 p.m., on January 29, 2009, on the basis of the Inside Information that GUPTA had provided to Rajaratnam, certain Galleon funds sold short approximately 180,000 shares of P&G common stock.

* * *

GUPTA, 62, of Westport, CT, surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is expected to appear in Federal District Court later today.

GUPTA is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and five counts of securities fraud. He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and 20 years in prison on each of the securities fraud charges. In addition, with respect to the conspiracy charge, GUPTA faces a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the crime. For each of the securities fraud charges, GUPTA faces a maximum fine of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the crime.

Rajaratnam was convicted in a jury trial on May 11, 2011, of 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. He was sentenced on October 13, 2011, to 11 years in prison, and ordered to pay forfeiture in the amount of $53,816,434, and a $10 million fine.

Mr. BHARARA praised the efforts of the FBI. He also thanked the SEC for its assistance in the investigation.

This case was brought in coordination with President BARACK OBAMA’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which U.S. Attorney BHARARA serves as a co-chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President OBAMA established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys REED BRODSKY and RICHARD C. TARLOWE, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney ANDREW Z. MICHAELSON are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

DIE “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-KILLER im Film

Local Defense Attorney and Others Arrested in Connection with Scheme to Obstruct Justice

HOUSTON—Abraham Moses Fisch, 52, a criminal defense attorney in Houston, has been arrested on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and failure to file tax returns, United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson announced today along with Stephen L. Morris, special agent in charge of the FBI, and Lucy Cruz, special agent in-charge of Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI). Fisch and his wife, Monica Bertman, 60, were arrested just minutes ago and are expected to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy later today.

The indictment was returned under seal Oct. 19, 2011. On Monday, Oct. 24, 2011, the 21-count indictment was partially unsealed as to a third defendant, Lloyd Glen Williams, 67, a former used car financier. Upon the arrest of Fisch and Bertman today, the indictment was unsealed in its entirety.

The indictment alleges that from August 2006 to Oct. 19, 2011, Fisch, Williams, and Bertman conspired to defraud defendants who were facing federal criminal charges in Houston. The indictment states that the fraud was perpetrated in at least five different federal criminal cases including U.S. v. Edilberto Portillo, et al. (H-06-182), U.S. v. Joey Herrera, et al. (H-07-038), U.S. v. Umawa Oke Imo, et al. (H-09-426) and U.S. v. Clifford Ubani and Princewill Njoku, et al. (H-09-421 and H-10-416).

According to the indictment, Williams, although not an attorney, held himself out as someone who could resolve criminal cases through his contacts with government officials. Williams, Fisch, and Bertman worked together to solicit federal criminal defendants as clients under false pretenses. They claimed to the defendants that Williams had the power to cause their criminal charges to be dismissed or their sentence reduced if they would hire Fisch as their attorney, pay a large sum of money to Fisch and Williams and then provide Williams with information about their crimes. Williams claimed he would then pass that information along to contacts in various federal agencies. In return, Williams claimed his contacts would cause the criminal charges against the defendants to be dismissed or their sentences reduced.

According to the indictment, Williams claimed to the defrauded defendants that his alleged contacts were high-level government officials within the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, Williams, Fisch, and Bertman falsely stated to some defendants that government officials were being bribed on behalf of the defendants with the funds the defendants had paid to Williams and Fisch. According to the indictment, however, no government officials received bribes and Williams’ supposed contacts were either retired government officials, were not in contact with Williams or otherwise had no ability or willingness to influence the outcome of a defendant’s case.

Williams and Fisch, the indictment alleges, undermined the functioning of the federal justice system by: (1) misleading defendants about the nature of the cooperation process with the government and interfering with defendants’ cooperation with the government, including failing to pass information from a defendant to the government; (2) interfering with plea negotiations with the government by preventing defendants from timely entering guilty pleas because of the mistaken belief their case was going to be dismissed; (3) interfering with defendants’ relationships with former and subsequent counsel, including communicating with represented defendants unbeknownst to their legitimate counsel, causing defendants to fire former counsel, causing defendants not to communicate fully and truthfully with their attorneys and causing defendants not to assist their attorneys in preparing their defense or in negotiating guilty pleas; and (4) insisting that defendants keep the nature of Williams’ so-called “assistance” secret from the court, the government and other attorneys.

In addition, the indictment charges Williams and Fisch with money laundering based on their deposits of the funds they earned from this scheme, which totaled at least $1,480,000. The United States is seeking forfeiture of that amount as money derived from the criminal activity. The indictment also charges Fisch with failing to timely file tax returns each year during the period that he obtained money from this scheme, specifically 2006 through 2010.

If convicted, Fisch faces a prison term of five years imprisonment for the conspiracy charge, 10 years on each of the four counts of obstruction of justice, 10 years for each of the nine counts of money laundering, 10 years for conspiracy to commit money laundering, and one year for each of the five counts of failure to file tax returns in addition to substantial monetary fines. Bertman faces a maximum five years and 10 years, respectively, if convicted of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of justice in addition to a $250,000 fine.

Two days subsequent to his arrest, on Oct. 26, 2011, Williams entered a plea of guilty to counts one and 21 of the indictment that alleged knowingly conspiring to corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice and willfully making and subscribing to a materially false 2007 Income Tax Return. For these convictions, he faces a maximum possible punishment of five years for the conspiracy charge and three years in prison for filing a false tax return as well as a $250,000 fine.

The investigation that led to this indictment and the arrests and plea was conducted by the FBI and IRS-CI. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robert S. Johnson of the Southern District of Texas.

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

FBI Releases Visual Snapshot of Changes Since 2001

FBI by the Numbers graphic

The FBI has published “The FBI: A Decade in Numbers,” which illustrates changes the Bureau has implemented since the 9/11 attacks.

The four-page document provides a visual representation of accomplishments, strategic shifts, and how the Bureau’s role in intelligence gathering and criminal investigations has evolved over the past decade. Since 2001, the FBI has focused on the most violent criminals, the largest and most complex fraud schemes, the most sophisticated and dangerous computer intrusions, and the most corrupt public officials.

An overview of the criminal and cyber programs states: “Although the FBI has shifted substantial resources to national security, since 2001, the FBI’s criminal and cyber programs have conducted 224,586 arrests, resulting in 185,386 indictments and informations, ultimately yielding 171,241 convictions.”

The FBI has become a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization. Among the many statistics illustrated in the document:

  • Intelligence analysts on board increased 203 percent–from 1,023 in fiscal year (FY) 2001 to 3,104 in FY2010.
  • The FBI disrupted six times as many terrorist activities in FY2010 as in FY2001–from three disruptions in FY2001 to 18 disruptions in FY2010.
  • The Bureau has assigned 104 personnel to 59 fusion centers to provide intelligence support to state/local law enforcement partners.

The report also describes the expansion of FBI partnerships since 2001 and its expanded role in training law enforcement partners in the U.S. and abroad. The FBI has always relied on partners, and the last decade has shown the value of combining forces, often through joint task forces. From FY2001 to FY2010, the document shows, task forces were responsible for 50,396, or 29 percent, of the FBI’s convictions obtained, and information obtained from industry, academia, and the public was critical to nearly every FBI investigation.

TOP-SECRET-European Defence Conference 2011 Report

I cite below the full message posted by Dutchman Jan Wind in the Dutch DoD group on LinkedIn. Jan Wind is “Director at WISER Consultancy” and “Secretary (acting) at Federation of European Defence Technology Associations EDTA”.

_____

October newsletter of the European Defence Conference – the results

The European Defence Conference 2011 took place on 20 and 21 October 2011 in Warsaw and provided opportunities for a broad range of discussion on European defence co-operation from the perspective of research and development. In addition to that, researchers from various EU-countries presented some of their work and ideas for future co-operation. This first edition of the conference, organized by Fraunhofer INT and WISER Consultancy, gathered some 130 participants and was opened by the Polish Undersecretary for Defence Policy, Mr. Zbigniew Wlosowicz.

Among the topics and issues discussed were:

  • Need to adopt Smart defence specialisation of countries in military tasks and multinational solutions to equipment needs;
  • Importance of consultation with partner nations on cuts in national defence structures before final decisions are made already too frequent an occurrence;
  • Need for improved top level political engagement on European defence issues industry should raise this with governments and on parliamentary level.
  • Further improvements in information sharing across the community, with some specific policy help and advice for smaller countries;
  • Less involved pMS and SMEs expressed interest in regional workshops to educate and inform them on how to get involved in defence business; this was said in the context of not being able to get to Brussels easily and often.
  • Industry would like to see more intelligent competition in procurement not just competition at every opportunity SMEs could be assisted by adopting an engagement strategy based on best practice.

ESA was given as a “best practice” example. This should be complemented by a competence database for SMEs using an effective and proven software package.

  • Technology forecast: EDA expressed interest in the Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG) developed by NATO

The conference was well received by participants. Mr. Adam Sowa, Deputy Chief Executive of EDA and key note speaker, commented that the EDC was a very well organized and useful conference and that constructive minds had been at work. Dr. Albert van der Steen of TNO who chaired one of the sessions said that he used to believe a conference like EDC should be organised by EDA, but that the event had convinced him that an independently organised conference could be much more effective. A NATO representative also remarked they would increase their participation should a future edition be held. Captain RNLNavy Jan Wind (Rtd) of WISER Consultancy and Dr. Merle Missoweit of Fraunhofer INT speaking on behalf the organising committee said they were very pleased with the outcome of the conference:

During this first EDC, excellent speakers and a knowledgeable audience stimulated discussions in a constructive atmosphere as we had intended. I heard nothing but positive feedback these last two days. Our team will work with EDA, ASD and others to determine how to follow up on this first EDC.

DICKE STASI-HISTORIE DER “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)IC

Liebe Leser,

die STASI-Historie der serienmässig verurteilten Stalker, Rufmörder,  Betrüger und wohl auch Mörder ist evident, denn bei der STASI haben sie ihr Handwerk erlernt und “GoMoPa” wurde von dem STASI-Obersten und “Ersten Kriminalisten der DDR” Ehrenfried Stelzer, Verfasser der Mordstudie-Toxdat, gegründet.

Räumlich gesehen entstammen alle der “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen (Eigenbezeichnung) aus der ehemaligen DDR Sachsen-Anhalt (z.B – “Klaus Maurischat” alias “Siegfried Siewert”, “Sarah Müller” und Familienteile des mutmasslichen STASI-Konfident Bennewirtz,  der mutmassliche STASI-Konfident Thomas Promny aus Brandenburg und der mutmassliche “GoMoPa”-Gründer Ehrenfried Stelzer  und die mutmasslichen “GoMoPa”-Hintermänner Resch und “Peter Ehlers” aus Berlin sowie aus Dresden, der mutmassliche STASI-Konfident Sven Schmidt.

http://stasiopfer.de/component/option,com_akobook/Itemid,258/startpage,82/

http://berndpulch.co/?page_id=2144

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7279-die-killer-bibel-toxdat–die-900-seiten-stasi-mordstudie-von-gomopa-mastermind-ehrenfried-stelzer.html

Schon die Ehrenberufler der Juricon berichteten über diese STASI-Connection der “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen (Eigenbezeichnung):

http://berndpulch.org/juricon-uber-gomopa-inklusive-stasi-verbindung/

Was hier wohl alles noch an das Licht der öffentlichkeit kommen wird.

Herzlichst Ihr

Bernd Pulch, Magister Artium der Publizistik, Germanistik und Komparatistik

FBI Executive Discusses Cyber Threat

  • Shawn Henry
  • Executive Assistant Director
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Information Systems Security Association International Conference
  • Baltimore, Maryland
  • October 20, 2011

Remarks as prepared for delivery.

Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss the cyber threat, the challenges it presents, and some alternative ideas for mitigating it.

The Cyber Threat

Some of the most critical threats facing our nation today emanate from the cyber realm. We’ve got hackers out to take our personal information and money, spies who want to steal our nation’s secrets, and terrorists who are looking for novel ways to attack our critical infrastructure.

President Obama called the cyber threat one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.

I believe the cyber threat is an existential one, meaning that a major cyber attack could potentially wipe out whole companies. It could shut down our electric grid or water supply. It could cause serious damage to parts of our cities, and ultimately even kill people.

While it may sound alarmist, the threat is incredibly real, and intrusions into corporate networks, personal computers, and government systems are occurring every single day by the thousands.

We see three primary actors in the cyber world: foreign intelligence services, terrorist groups, and organized crime enterprises. Dozens of countries have offensive cyber capabilities, and their foreign intelligence services are generally the most capable of our cyber adversaries.

Their victims run the gamut from other government networks to cleared defense contractors to private companies from which they seek to steal secrets or gain competitive advantage for their nation’s companies.

One company that was recently the victim of an intrusion determined it had lost 10 years worth of research and development—valued at $1 billion—virtually overnight.

Terrorist groups are interested in impacting this country through a digital attack the same way they’ve done historically through kinetic attack; they’re always looking for creative ways to harm us. Some say they currently don’t have the capability to do it themselves. But the reality is that capability is available on the open market. And as 9/11 taught us, we can’t assume that just because something hasn’t been done before, it isn’t a possible threat.

Organized crime groups, meanwhile, are increasingly migrating their traditional criminal activity from the physical world to the computer network. Rather than breaking into a bank with guns to crack the safe, they breach corporate networks and financial institutions to pilfer boatloads of data, including user credentials, personally identifiable information, and corporate secrets, which they can monetize.

These groups, often made up of individuals living in disparate places around the world, have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from the financial services sector and its customers. Their crimes increase the cost of doing business, put companies at a competitive disadvantage, and create a significant drain on our economy.

The value of thefts via hacking the financial services sector or its customers far exceeds that of physical bank robberies many, many times over.

In one of the most sophisticated and organized attacks on the financial sector, an international network of hackers obtained access to a financial corporation’s network and completely compromised its encryption. They were inside the system for months doing reconnaissance, which enabled them to steal millions of dollars in less than 24 hours when they finally took overt action.

Another major international hacking group used an Automated Clearing House (ACH) wire transfer system to access online commercial banking accounts and distribute malicious software that led financial institutions to lose nearly $70 million.

These cases illustrate how the offense far outpaces the defense in the cyber realm. And, unfortunately, under the current Internet infrastructure, we haven’t been able to “tech” our way out of it. It’s very difficult to put a price tag on all this in the aggregate, but several consultancies have actually tried to quantify it.

The 2011 Norton Cybercrime Report put the global cost of cyber crime at nearly $400 billion a year, and found that there are more than one million victims of cyber crime every day.

And a study released in August by the Ponemon Institute found that the number of attacks on companies it surveyed this year were up 45 percent from last year and cost 70 percent more to fix. On average, each attack took 18 days and $416,000 to fix.

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg, because what I’ve referred to so far relates to remote access attacks. The reality is our adversaries use multiple attack vectors, including the supply chain, trusted insiders, and proximity attacks to target the network and its very valuable data.

Mitigating the Threat

So now that I’ve painted this grim picture, you’re probably asking, “What are we doing about it and what more should we be doing?”

Despite the fact that our adversaries’ capabilities are at an all-time high, the good news is we have made combating this challenge a top priority not only of the FBI, but the entire U.S. government. We are devoting significant resources to it. And our partnerships among government, industry, and academia have also led to a dramatic improvement in our ability to mitigate the threat.

For our part, the FBI has formed cyber squads in each of its 56 field offices, with more than 1,000 advanced cyber-trained FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, and forensic examiners. We have increased the capabilities of our employees by selectively seeking candidates with technical skills and enhancing our cyber training.

As an agency with both national security and law enforcement responsibility, the FBI is well-positioned to address the cyber threat. The anonymity of the Internet often creates challenges in determining exactly who the adversary is, but our authorities and capabilities allow us to investigate and target criminal, foreign intelligence, and terrorist actors alike.

Partnerships

But we recognize that we can’t do it alone. Through the FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), we coordinate our efforts and bring to bear the resources of 20 agencies.

The task force operates using Threat Focus Cells—small groups of agents, officers, and analysts from different agencies. They are subject-matter experts who are focused on very specific threats.

Through the NCIJTF, the FBI has collected real-time intelligence that has been incredibly valuable for the protection of our networks.

We’ve also forged tremendous relationships with the private sector, and through much more robust information sharing, we’ve prevented attacks before they’ve occurred. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve gone to a company and told them they were breached, and where the intruder was on their network, and they were shocked to hear it.

And because there is often a foreign nexus to cyber crime, we are working closely with our international law enforcement partners. In fact, we’ve physically embedded FBI agents in foreign police agencies around the world to investigate cyber intrusion jointly, including in Estonia, the Netherlands, Romania, and Ukraine.

Each year, we are training and collaborating with approximately 500 foreign law enforcement officers from more than 40 nations in cyber investigative techniques.

Return on Investment

I’m pleased to say we’re having success. In 2010, we arrested 202 criminals specifically for cyber intrusion—up from 159 in 2009. In addition, our foreign law enforcement partners made dozens and dozens of arrests last year based on intelligence we’ve shared with them. And we obtained a record level of financial judgments for those cases in excess of $100 million.

Those arrests included five of the world’s top cyber criminals. Among them were the perpetrators of the financial services company intrusion I mentioned earlier, which resulted in one of the first hackers extradited from Estonia to the United States.

We also worked with our industry partners and our law enforcement counterparts in the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and elsewhere to apprehend those responsible for the ACH fraud scheme I talked about. Operation Trident Breach targeted more than 50 of the world’s most prolific cyber and organized crime subjects. We and our international partners carried out arrests, interviews, searches, and evidence seizures in 24 cities in 12 countries.

We are also employing novel ways of combating the threat. In Operation Coreflood, the FBI worked with our private sector and law enforcement partners to disable a botnet that had infected an estimated two million computers with malicious software. The malware on this Coreflood botnet allowed infected computers to be controlled remotely by criminals to steal private personal and financial information from unsuspecting users. In an unprecedented move, the FBI seized domain names, re-routed the botnet to FBI-controlled servers, and responded to commands sent from infected computers in the United States, telling the zombies to stop the Coreflood software from running. The success of this innovative operation will help pave the way for future cyber mitigation efforts and the development of new “outside the box” techniques.

Going forward, the U.S. government as a whole is collaborating to sharpen our focus on the cyber threat.

In May, the White House issued a proposed package of legislation aimed at enhancing the security of the nation’s networks and infrastructure and increasing penalties for cyber crime. The administration also released its International Strategy for Cyberspace, which outlines the U.S. government’s vision for the future of cyberspace and sets an agenda for partnering with other nations to realize it.

Managing the Risk

But is all this enough? Because if we have to get involved in a response capacity, something bad has already happened.

Before it was created, the Internet was something very few people could have imagined. To keep pace with our adversaries, we have to continue to think on that level to mitigate the cyber threat.

This is arguably the greatest invention of our lifetime, but it can be a dangerous place, as we’ve all seen. I believe it’s key that we recognize the risk in the environment we’re working in and learn to manage that risk.

That means we must divide our resources and efforts to reduce each of the factors that put us at risk.

To do so, it’s important to understand the classic risk formula, which states, ‘risk equals threat times vulnerability times consequence.’

If we lower any of those three variable factors, we lower the risk. If we can completely eliminate any of those variables, we eliminate risk. But that’s virtually impossible, so we must adopt a defense-in-depth approach—lowering each of the three.

This is where we have to work together—kind of like a zone defense.

Think of the risk model in terms of protecting your house from being robbed: If there are no burglars in your area, you’ve dropped the threat to zero. So you wouldn’t need to spend money on a security system. And you might even leave your doors unlocked to save yourself time getting in and out.

Not because you don’t have any valuables, but it doesn’t matter how vulnerable you are because you don’t have any threat actors.

If, all of a sudden, you get reports that there are burglars operating in your area, and people’s homes are being broken into, then you begin worrying about vulnerabilitiesbecause you know there’s a threat. You start locking the doors. You leave the outside lights on. Maybe you put in an alarm system. You might move certain valuables out of your house to a safety deposit box, or even install a safe.

Or you create a community watch to look out for the bad guys and protect not just your own property, but the whole neighborhood. Maybe you even move to a gated community with a 24/7 security guard that checks IDs at the gate. You’ve reduced your threats and vulnerabilities to counter the risk.

Consequence management, then, assumes that despite your best efforts to eliminate the threat and reduce your vulnerabilities, the bad guy still gets in.

So now you manage those consequences—you purchase homeowner’s insurance to replace the valuables you may lose. Or you might put in a hidden camera to catch the thief in the act. That won’t stop your valuables from being stolen, but might lead you to be able to recover them afterward.

Translating those concepts to the cybersecurity realm, we’ve already established that the threats exist and are increasing. So we could reduce the threat by taking a law enforcement, intelligence, or economic action to prevent or deter an adversary from acting. We took 202 threats off the playing field last year, but clearly, the threat continues.

So how do we lower the vulnerabilities of the cyber threat? It requires hardening the targets, including protecting the supply chain. It could entail keeping certain pieces of information off the network—maybe in a physical safe. Do you really need the 100-year old recipe for the secret sauce stored on the network?

Managing the consequences of a cyber attack entails minimizing the harm that results when an adversary does break into a system.

An example would be encrypting data so the hacker can’t read it, or having redundant systems that can readily be reconstituted in the event of an attack.

In all cases, those who have addressed these individual risk factors have an opportunity to share information with others in order to lower our collective risk.

Alternate Models

I said earlier that under the current Internet structure, we can’t tech our way out of the cyber threat. But what if the playing field were changed?

There is a growing sense among a number of subject-matter experts that the current Internet environment is simply not sustainable.

One proposal has been to begin exploring alternate, highly secure Internet options that focus on more easily spotting and tracking the threat actors. And then providing the law enforcement and intelligence communities and others the tools they need to mete out justice and deter future attacks.

Going back to the concept of alternatives, let’s think of it in terms of the crime in the neighborhood analogy. Some people live in communities that have heightened security by focusing on who can enter at guarded posts—only certain people get in, and the rules to do so are stringent. They look for bad guys and report them to the police. These types of alternate security models can translate meaningfully to the Internet as well.

The reason the Internet is the way it is now is based on decisions made by those who developed it. They purposely allowed for anonymity, and there are legitimate reasons for wanting to keep it that way for some users and for some uses of the Internet. There are users for whom maintaining their privacy is worth the risk of intrusions into their computers or networks.

But for those critical uses of the Internet where intrusions are entirely unacceptable because the risk of compromise is so high, market-driven factors need to be explored; businesses must seek the solutions and options they want and need.

Electric power grid operators, for example, would likely opt for higher-trust models that don’t foster anonymity, but instead promote assurance and attribution.

Assurance allows the ability to detect changes in data or hardware, and attribution provides the ability to determine who’s on the network and who made any changes on it.

Right now, computer security has become an endless game of defense, which is both costly and unsurvivable in the long term if the status quo remains. Going after the threat actor is an absolutely necessary part of the risk equation, and one that can be made far more effective with alternate architectures.

Under the current environment, victims are often focused on how to get malware off their systems and on finding out what was taken. But what they should be asking is, ‘What was left behind? And did it change my data?’ Most users have no idea whether their software, hardware, or data integrity has been altered. Our current networks were never designed to detect that type of deviation.

So it’s critical to note that attribution without assurance is useless. It doesn’t do you any good to know who did it if you don’t know what they did and how to look for it.

A key question in establishing alternate Internet models is how you prevent users of both platforms from contaminating the secure one.

As many of you know, we’ve seen cases in which removable media have introduced malware from unclassified government systems onto classified ones.

To avoid this in alternate security environments, it would be critical that the networks lack interoperability. Imagine if you will a virtual version of the pumps at gas stations that offer both diesel and regular gasoline. You can’t even fit the diesel nozzle into a regular gas tank. It’s idiot-proof. If you don’t provide that kind of barrier on your new system, you would always be susceptible to human error. All users would need to adopt the same standards.

The trend toward cloud computing and new environments could present an opportunity to begin trying and testing new architectures.

U.S. innovation and ingenuity created the Internet, which is now a global phenomenon that has provided tremendous opportunities. With it, however, have come tremendous security challenges to certain users. For them, the current system will never be good enough. But it’s too late to disconnect. It’s not possible to be offline anymore, and there’s currently no alternative.

I don’t have the answers about how to build greater choices in the security architectures used today, but I do feel strongly that the discussions must begin now. I’ll leave the solution to the potential customers, the technologists, and the entrepreneurs. I’ve outlined just a few of the issues that should be considered. But I challenge you to continue the discussion about whether there is a need and enough demand to develop alternate networked environments that rely less on playing defense, and rely more on discovering and capturing threat actors so they change their own risk calculus on whether cyber crime pays.

We must continue to push forward, because our adversaries are relentless. They want our money, our property, and our secrets, and some seek to harm us well beyond that. Together, we can turn the tide against them and bolster the security of our nation’s information, networks, and infrastructure. Thank you.

Serie: Kleiner Tip für STASI-“GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung)

 

Gerne stellen wir Helfer bereit – ich bin mir sicher die besten kommen aus der örtlichen STASI

Viel Erfolg und “Good Luck!”

APROPO-“GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (Eigenbezeichnung) -Stalking: There’s an app for that?

Jason James Savedoff Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Steal Valuable Historical Documents

BALTIMORE—Jason James Savedoff, a/k/a “Jason James,” and “Justin Ward,” age 24, of New York, New York, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to steal historical documents from museums in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut and selling them for profit.

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; Special Agent in Charge Richard A. McFeely of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Inspector General Paul Brachfeld of the National Archives and Records Administration – Office of Inspector General; Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III; and Baltimore City State’s Attorney Gregg L. Bernstein.

Inspector General Brachfeld said, “I want to thank the Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero, and those employees of the National Archives and Records Administration who supported the agents in the conduct of this investigation.”

According to his plea agreement, from December 2010 through July 2011, Savedoff and his co-conspirator stole and otherwise fraudulently obtained valuable documents and manuscripts from numerous museums, including the Maryland Historical Society, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Connecticut Historical Society, and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, a component of the National Archives. Document and manuscript collections at these museums were targeted based on the content of the collections or the potential monetary value of the contents.

Savedoff admitted that he and his co-conspirator prepared lists containing the names of historical figures and other noteworthy individuals, and made notations referencing the value of signatures and documents authored or signed by the listed individuals. Savedoff, under the direction of his co-conspirator, conducted research, including via the internet, to identify collections containing valuable documents, which, when located, were targeted for theft. Savedoff also used aliases when he visited certain libraries to protect the ongoing criminal scheme.

According to his plea, Savedoff and his co-conspirator visited numerous museums posing as researchers; accessed collections of documents which they had determined to be of significant value; reviewed the documents from the collections; and used various techniques to steal them. These techniques included concealing documents inside sports coats and other outerwear which had been modified to contain hidden pockets, as well as distracting museum curators to disguise their actions. Once a document had been stolen, steps were taken to remove any marking or inventory control notations made on the document. A checklist was prepared for each stolen document which identified the author and date of the document; the collection from which it was stolen; whether the museum card catalogue had been collected; whether there existed any microfilm or other “finding aid” for the document at the museum; the nature of any markings on the document: and whether any museum markings had been removed from the document. In an effort to conceal the theft, Savedoff and his co-conspirator often took the card catalogue entries and other “finding aids,” making it difficult for the museum to discover that an item was missing.

Specifically, according to his plea, on July 9, 2011, Savedoff and his co-conspirator visited the Maryland Historical Society, where the co-conspirator had already provided the curators with a list of boxes he wished to review, stating that he was performing research for a book. Savedoff and the co-conspirator accessed the various document and manuscript collections. The conspirators attempted to distract the museum staff and shield their efforts to steal documents. Their actions concerned the curators, who summoned the police because they believed that documents were being improperly handled and possibly stolen. Savedoff had the key to one of the museum lockers, where officers discovered a a computer bag containing 79 stolen documents. A review of the documents by curators revealed that 60 documents had been removed from the Maryland Historical Society, including a land grant dated June 1, 1861, to a soldier from the Maryland Militia, War of 1812, signed by President Abraham Lincoln. The remaining 19 documents contained markings which identified them as being from collections maintained at the Connecticut Historical Society and other institutions. Other documents which Savedoff admits were stolen, and which were recovered during the investigation, include documents signed by George Washington, John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, Marie Antoinette, Napoleon Bonaparte, and others.

Savedoff faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison for the conspiracy; and 10 years in prison for theft of the documents. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has scheduled sentencing for February 10, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein praised the FBI, Baltimore Police Department, National Archives and Records Administration – Office of Inspector General, and the Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office for their work in the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein thanked Assistant United States Attorneys James G. Warwick and P. Michael Cunningham, who are prosecuting the case.

U.S. Attorney Announces Pension Disability Fraud Charges – $1 Billion

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, MARTIN J. DICKMAN, Inspector General of the Railroad Retirement Board, Office of the Inspector General (“RRB-OIG”), JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and BARRY L. KLUGER, Inspector General of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Office of the Inspector General (“MTA-OIG”), announced today charges against 11 defendants for participating in a massive fraud scheme from 1998 to the present in which Long Island Railroad (“LIRR”) workers claimed to be disabled upon early retirement so that they could receive extra pension benefits to which they were not entitled. Charged today are (i) two doctors and an office manager for one of the doctors who were involved in falsely diagnosing retiring LIRR workers as disabled; (ii) two “facilitators” who served as liaisons between retiring workers and the participating doctors; and (iii) seven LIRR retirees (including one of the charged facilitators) who claimed RRB disability benefits to which they were not entitled. The fraudulent scheme could ultimately cause the RRB to pay in excess of $1 billion in unwarranted occupational disability benefits if disbursed in full.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: “Benefit programs like the RRB’s disability pension program were designed to be a safety net for the truly disabled, not a feeding trough for the truly dishonest. And in these tough economic times—with stretched budgets, rising costs, frozen wages, and unemployed people—it is especially disheartening to think that railroad employees would tell a train of lies to pad their early retirements, and that a handful of doctors would traffic on the credibility of their profession to promote a culture of fraud. If the charges are proved, it will be yet another disheartening example of the kind of corruption we have seen all too much of lately.”

RRB-OIG Inspector General MARTIN J. DICKMAN said: “Lying in disability applications is a serious crime that honest taxpayers cannot abide, and that the RRB-OIG will aggressively continue to root out. Through our ongoing investigation, we will continue to hold accountable those who would abuse a system that is meant for legitimately disabled workers who have served on our nation’s railroads. I would like to thank the dedicated agents from my Office for their outstanding work on this investigation, as well as our law enforcement partners at the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI.”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK said: “The Complaint lays out a pervasive scheme by doctors, facilitators, and retirees to defraud the Rail Road Retirement Board disability pension program. This massive fraud, an additional burden on cash-strapped commuters, could cost more than one billion dollars. Until today, this was a game where every retiree was a winner. But today’s arrests signal the end of the line for the money train.”

MTA-OIG Inspector General BARRY L. KLUGER said: “Public pension fraud takes a toll not only on our pocketbook, but on the credibility of our government, our pension systems and our sense of fair play. We have been working for quite some time on this matter, first, with the Attorney General of the State of New York under now-Governor Andrew Cuomo, and currently with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and the Railroad Retirement Board Inspector General to take the investigation of railroad disability pension fraud to the next level. I thank U.S. Attorney Bharara, his staff, and our partners for their dedication to combating pension fraud. We are pleased to have played a part in this investigation.”

Overview of LIRR & RRB Pension System

The RRB is an independent U.S. agency that administers benefit programs, including disability benefits, for the nation’s railroad workers and their families. A unique LIRR contract allows employees to retire at the relatively young age of 50, provided they have been employed for at least 20 years. It is the only commuter railroad in the United States that offers a retirement pension at the age of 50. At that time, employees are entitled to receive an LIRR pension, which is a portion of the full retirement payment they are eligible for at 65, when they also receive an RRB pension. Therefore, if an LIRR worker retires at 50, he or she will receive less than their prior salary and substantially lower pension payments than what they would be entitled to at 65.

However, an LIRR employee who retires and claims disability may receive a disability payment from RRB on top of their LIRR pension, regardless of age. A retiree’s LIRR pension, in combination with RRB disability payments, can equal roughly the base salary earned during his or her career.

The Premeditated Disability Fraud Scheme

As alleged in the Complaint, hundreds of LIRR employees have exploited the overlap between the LIRR pension and the RRB disability program by pre-planning the date on which they would falsely declare themselves disabled so that it would coincide with their projected retirement date. These false statements, made under oath in disability applications, allowed these LIRR employees to retire as early as age 50 with an LIRR pension, supplemented by the fraudulently-obtained RRB disability annuity. Between 2004 and 2008, 61 percent of LIRR employees who claimed an RRB benefit were between the ages of 50 and 55. Each of these employees received a disability award. In contrast, only 7 percent of employees at Metro-North who stopped working and received disability benefits during this time period were between the ages of 50 and 55. It is estimated that the fraudulently obtained RRB payments to LIRR retirees could exceed $1 billion.

The Disability Doctors

As alleged in the Complaint, three New York-area doctors accounted for 86 percent of the LIRR disability applications filed prior to 2008: PETER J. AJEMIAN, PETER LESNIEWSKI and a third unnamed doctor (“Disability Doctor-3”), who is recently deceased. AJEMIAN is a Board-certified orthopedist and recommended at least 839 LIRR employees for disability between 1998 through 2008. LESNIEWSKI is also a Board-certified orthopedist and recommended at least 222 LIRR workers for disability benefits between 1998 and 2008.

AJEMIAN, with the assistance of his office manager, MARIA RUSIN, and LESNIEWSKI used their respective medical practices as “disability mills,” preparing fraudulent medical narratives for LIRR retirees well before the employees’ planned retirement dates so that the narratives could be submitted to the RRB upon retirement. These medical narratives were fabricated or grossly exaggerated to recommend a set of restrictions that, if bona fide, would have rendered it impossible for the LIRR employees to continue in their occupations. Many of the purportedly “objective” findings from the tests they conducted showed nothing more than normal degenerative changes one would expect to see in patients within the relevant age bracket.

For example, in a conversation between AJEMIAN and a colleague, (“Medical Worker-1”) that was consensually recorded, AJEMIAN stated in 2008 that he knew patients came to his office with the “expectation…[that] they’re gonna end up with a narrative suggesting disability,” and that he thought he had recommended disability “one hundred percent” of the time. In a statement written and signed by LESNIEWSKI after an October 2008 interview conducted by law enforcement agents, LESNIEWSKI admitted to preparing false disability narratives.

AJEMIAN and LESNIEWSKI received approximately $800 to $1,200, often in cash, for these fraudulent assessments and narratives, as well as millions of dollars in health insurance payments for unnecessary medical treatments and fees for preparing fraudulent medical support for the claimed disabilities. Of approximately 453 LIRR annuitants studied, AJEMIAN received approximately $2.5 million in related payments from patients and insurance companies. In turn, those patients have already received over $90 million in RRB disability benefit payments and are slated to receive more than $210 million in total. From a sampling of 134 LIRR annuitants, LESNIEWSKI received approximately $750,000 in related payments from patients and insurance companies. In turn, those patients have already received over $31 million in RRB disability benefit payments and are slated to receive more than $64 million in total.

The Facilitators

To further increase one’s chances of receiving disability from the RRB, LIRR employees utilized the services of “facilitators.” Facilitators referred LIRR workers to the disability doctors, filled out the applications on behalf of their LIRR clients, and assisted and coached their clients to fill out their disability applications in such a way as to maximize the likelihood that they would receive disability benefits.

Two facilitators charged today are MARIE BARAN and JOSEPH RUTIGLIANO. Before working as a facilitator, BARAN served as an RRB district office manager in Westbury, New York, until her retirement in December 2006. BARAN’s husband, an LIRR retiree, receives RRB disability benefits based on a medical assessment done by LESNIEWSKI.

In a September 2008 interview with BARAN that was conducted by a law enforcement agent, she said, “you are never going to figure it [this scheme] out honey.” She also said it was not her fault the disability system was “broken,” and she would simply tell her patients to, “go ahead, give it a shot at the O/D [occupational disability].”

RUTIGLIANO is a former LIRR conductor and union president who applied for and received an RRB occupational disability after his retirement in 1999. In the year prior to retiring, he worked well over 500 hours overtime, took no sick leave whatsoever, and then applied for a disability with a narrative prepared by LESNIEWSKI. The narrative stated that RUTIGLIANO fractured his spine in 1988 and that his back pain was getting worse over the years, but LESNIEWSKI offered no explanation for why this 10-year-old injury did not interfere with RUTIGLIANO’s overtime collection or failure to require any sick days. Moreover, golf course records and law enforcement surveillance performed in July 2008 indicate that RUTIGLIANO played golf at one particular course about two times per month in 2008.

The LIRR Retirees

Hundreds of the disability doctors’ patients, including JOSEPH RUTIGLIANO, GREGORY NOONE, REGINA WALSH, SHARON FALLOON, GARY SATIN, STEVEN GAGLIANO and RICHARD EHRLINGER, lied to the RRB about their ability to work in order to get disability payments.

NOONE annually receives at least $105,000 in combined pension and disability payments, based on a disability he planned months in advance of its claimed onset. In his disability application, NOONE claimed that he suffered severe pain when gripping and using simple hand tools and pain in his knees, shoulder, and back from bending or crouching. In AJEMIAN’s medical assessment, he claimed that NOONE’s condition warranted restrictions on bending, stooping, and reaching overhead. Nevertheless, NOONE regularly plays tennis several times per week, and in a nine-month period in 2008, NOONE signed in to play golf at a particular course on 140 days.

WALSH, who worked as director of employee services at the LIRR, annually receives at least $108,000 in combined pension and disability payments, based on a disability she planned months in advance of its claimed onset. In her disability application, WALSH claimed that sitting at a desk and using a computer caused her considerable neck, shoulder, and hand pain, and that she experienced leg pains when standing more than five minutes or when sitting more than 15 minutes. Nevertheless, WALSH has been surveilled shoveling heavy snow for over an hour and walking with a baby stroller for approximately 40 minutes.

FALLOON, an LIRR human resources manager, annually receives at least $90,349 in combined pension and disability payments, based on her claims that activities such as walking and standing cause her “disabling pain” and stairs are “very difficult” for her. Nevertheless, in January 2011, FALLOON was surveilled vigorously exercising at a gym, including approximately 45 minutes in a step aerobics class. Law enforcement recorded her continuously exercising at the gym for more than two hours, at which point the video concluded because the tape ran out, although FALLOON continued her workout.

SATIN annually receives at least $69,559 in combined pension and disability payments, based on a disability he planned at least one year before its claimed onset. In his disability application, SATIN claimed that his condition rendered indoor and outdoor chores “difficult,” and AJEMIAN claimed that SATIN “cannot continue working.” Nevertheless, SATIN admitted to law enforcement agents that he was still capable of performing his railroad work. In addition, SATIN has performed landscaping, contracting, and electrical work for pay since retiring from the LIRR due to a purported disability.

EHRLINGER annually receives at least $56,959 in combined pension and disability benefits, based on a disability he planned at least one year before its claimed onset. In his disability application, EHRLINGER claimed that his condition included knee pain that caused him problems walking and getting on and off trains. Nevertheless, EHRLINGER runs a party rental business and has been surveilled personally loading and unloading stacks of chairs and tables.

GAGLIANO annually receives at least $76,810 in combined pension and disability payments, for a purported disability that he claimed rendered him unable to “do any of the physical labor required in his job as a signalman” because of “severe and disabling pain in back, shoulder & legs,” and that LESNIEWSKI claimed rendered GAGLIANO occupationally disabled. Nevertheless, in 2009, GAGLIANO participated in a 400-mile bike tour in northern New York.

* * *

AJEMIAN, RUSIN, BARAN, RUTIGLIANO, NOONE, WALSH, FALLOON, GAGLIANO and EHRLINGER were taken into custody this morning and are expected to be presented in Manhattan federal court later this afternoon. SATIN was taken into custody in North Carolina and will be presented in federal court in Charlotte later today. LESNIEWSKI is expected to voluntarily surrender to authorities in the Southern District of New York tomorrow. All 11 defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Attached is a chart reflecting the age and place of residence for each of the charged defendants.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney BHARARA praised the RRB-OIG, the FBI, and the MTA-OIG for their outstanding work in the investigation, which he noted is ongoing. He also acknowledged the previous investigation conducted by the New York State Attorney General’s Office into these pension fraud issues.

The Office’s Complex Frauds Unit is handling the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys JUSTIN S. WEDDLE, E. DANYA PERRY and WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON are in charge of the prosecution.

The charge contained in the Complaint is merely an accusation and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

DIE SERIÖSE DEUTSCHE PRESSE ÜBER DIE KRIMINELLEN, ANONYMEN SCHEISSHAUSS-FLIEGEN DER STASI”GoMoPa”

Börse Online über “GoMoPa”-Betrüger und RA Jochen Resch

Börse-Online berichtet über die Organisierten Kriminellen der “GoMoPa” und wie sie die Finanzbranche bedrohen

BÖRSE ONLINE: “GoMoPa”- kreativer Umgang mit Fakten

BILD: Studie zum Tatort Internet :Jeder Dritte wurde schon gemobbt

Cyberstalking: Im Netz – Kriminalität – Gesellschaft – FAZ.NET

Cyberstalking: Wer verfolgt wird, muss sich wehren

DIE WELT ÜBER DIE DIFFAMIERUNGSMETHODEN DER STASI – VORBILD FÜR “GoMoPa”

ETHIK BANK: “GoMoPa” IST TABU

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) über die Wirtschaftskriminellen der “GoMoPa”

Handelsblatt über die kriminellen “GoMoPa”-Betrüger

Meridian Capital über die Verhaftung von GoMoPa-Chef Klaus Maurischat durch das BKA in Berlin wg. Erpressung, Betruges & Cyberstalking

Meridian Capital about GoMoPa STASI-FÄLSCHUNGEN DER “GoMoPa”

Süddeutsche Zeitung über die kriminellen Machenschaften der “GoMoPa”

SPIEGEL -“GELIEBTER GENOSSE”-WIE STASI-OBERST STELZER BND-CHEF HELLENBROICH FÜR “GoMoPa” ANWARB

SPIEGEL über die Giftstudie des “GoMoPa”-Masterminds und Resch-Protege´s STASI-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer

SPIEGEL über die STASI-Connection des mutmasslichen “GoMoPa”-Chefs Jochen Resch

ZDF:”GoMoPa”-GLÜCKSPIEL-MAFIA – EIN AUSSTEIGER PACKT AUS

http://berndpulch.org/das-system-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-google/

FBI-Web of Victims A Chilling Case of ‘Sextortion’

Shadow of a hand on a keyboard

The hacker knew every move the unsuspecting victim made. He controlled her computer webcam and microphone. He could see her in her bedroom, hear her conversations, knew every keystroke she made online. And he threatened to expose her secrets unless she bowed to his demands.

It may sound like the plot for a scary teen movie, but it actually happened, and there wasn’t just one victim—there were more than 200, and dozens of them were adolescent girls.

Don’t Let It Happen to YouHere are a few precautions that can keep you from being victimized by a social engineering attack:

– Don’t take for granted that your computer’s anti-virus software is a guarantee against intrusions.
– Turn off your computer when you aren’t using it. (The majority of computers involved in the sextortion case were laptops; many of the victims chatted on social networks so much that they never turned off their machines.)
– Cover your webcam when not in use.
– Don’t open attachments without independently verifying that they were sent from someone you know.
– It’s okay to be suspicious. If you receive a message with an attachment from your mother at 3 a.m., maybe the message is not really from your mother. “Most people are too trusting when it comes to their computers,” Agent Kirkpatrick said.
– If your computer has been compromised and you are receiving extortion threats, don’t be afraid to talk to your parents or to call law enforcement.

Unlike many computer intrusions, where a hacker uses malicious software to steal identities or financial information, this case was primarily about spying and extortion—or as our Los Angeles cyber squad more aptly termed it, “sextortion.”

The hacker, a 31-year-old California man who was arrested in June after a two-year investigation, used malicious code to infect and control the computers of his victims. Then he searched for explicit pictures from their computers, downloaded them, and used the images in an attempt to extort more pictures and videos from them.

“What’s so frightening about this case was how easily the victims’ computers were compromised,” said Special Agent Jeff Kirkpatrick, one of our Los Angeles cyber investigators who worked the case.

After the hacker infected one computer, he used a popular social networking site—and a technique called “spear phishing”—to spread the virus. “It was a social engineering attack,” said Special Agent Tanith Rogers, co-investigator on the case. “The victims were tricked. They had no idea what had happened until it was too late.”

In several instances, the hacker posed online as a young woman’s friend or sister and sent messages with attachments asking if the victim wanted to see a scary video. Because the messages appeared to be from a trusted source, the victims usually didn’t think twice about opening the attachment. When they did, the virus secretly installed itself, and the hacker had total control over their computers—including all files and folders, webcams, and microphones.

Using similar spear phishing methods—posing as a friend or a trusted source—the hacker spread the virus through the social network like wildfire. In all, there were 230 victims and more than 100 computers impacted.

“And this guy was no computer genius,” Agent Kirkpatrick said. “Anybody could do what he did just by watching an online video and following the directions.”

Have Information on the Case?
The hacker in the sextortion case used a variety of screen names and e-mail addresses, which are listed below. If you have information regarding the case—there may be other victims—please contact your nearest FBI office or submit a tip online.
Screen names:

  • gui_blt
  • Woods05
  • CoFfEkId014
  • ELEvatrHZrD03
  • Pimpcess03666
  • Your3name3here03
  • Bri23nice
  • Dmagecntr137
  • H2IOW14
  • ELEvATrhRZd03
  • Playgrl37
  • Your3name3here3
  • goldlion14
  • Hotchit13w
E-mail address:

  • yousoylammer@hotmail.com
  • christ@yahoo.com
  • gui_blt@live.com
  • mistahxxxrightme@aim.com
  • zapotin@hotmail.com
  • guich_x@aim.com
  • guicho_1.1@roadrunner.com
  • mijangos3@msn.com

Victims—particularly teenage girls—were understandably devastated when they learned their privacy had been so completely violated. Many were afraid to tell their parents about the situation.

“He was smart,” Agent Rogers said of the hacker. “He used their fear to try to control them.”

For example, the hacker attached a pornographic picture of one victim in an e-mail and demanded sexually explicit video of her in return for not telling her parents about the pictures he had downloaded from her computer.

“If he hadn’t attempted to contact the victims,” Agent Rogers said, “he could have done this forever and gone undetected—the victims would never have known he was listening and watching. That,” she added, “is one of the most disturbing things about this case.”

Occupy Protesters: Video Shows Police Violence

CYBERCRIME-FBI Seizes Servers to Stop Cyber Fraud-Botnet Operation Disabled

Linked computers
Botnets are networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by an attacker. The Coreflood virus is a key-logging program that allows cyber thieves to steal personal and financial information by recording unsuspecting users’ every keystroke.

Botnet Operation Disabled
FBI Seizes Servers to Stop Cyber Fraud

04/14/11

In an unprecedented move in the fight against cyber crime, the FBI has disrupted an international cyber fraud operation by seizing the servers that had infected as many as two million computers with malicious software.

Botnets are networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by an attacker. They can be used to steal funds, hijack identities, and commit other crimes. The botnet in this case involves the potent Coreflood virus, a key-logging program that allows cyber thieves to steal personal and financial information by recording unsuspecting users’ every keystroke.

Woman typing on laptop

The Coreflood Virus

The Coreflood virus infects only Microsoft Windows-based computers. Generally, most users will not be able to tell if their computers are infected. It is therefore important to take the following steps:

– Make sure your Microsoft Windows Automatic Updates are turned on;

– Run anti-virus programs and ensure that theyare up to date;

– Run a security firewall on your computer; and

– Check your online banking and credit history to make sure you have not been compromised. If you have been compromised, contact your financial institution.

To learn more about what you can do to protect your computer, including how to download and receive updates on security vulnerabilities, go to the following sites operated by U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) and the Federal Trade Commission, respectively: us-cert.gov/nav/nt01 and onguardonline.gov/topics/malware.aspx.

Once a computer or network of computers is infected by Coreflood—infection may occur when users open a malicious e-mail attachment—thieves control the malware through remote servers. The Department of Justice yesterday received search warrants to effectively disable the Coreflood botnet by seizing the five U.S. servers used by the hackers.

“Botnets and the cyber criminals who deploy them jeopardize the economic security of the United States and the dependability of the nation’s information infrastructure,” said Shawn Henry, executive assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. “These actions to mitigate the threat posed by the Coreflood botnet are the first of their kind in the United States,” Henry noted, “and reflect our commitment to being creative and proactive in making the Internet more secure.”

Now that we have interrupted the operation of the botnet servers, our cyber specialists can prevent Coreflood from sending stolen financial information to the cyber thieves. But victims’ computers still remain infected. That’s why we have been working closely with our private-sector partners.

Anti-virus companies are developing updated signatures to detect and remove Coreflood. To disinfect Microsoft Windows-based systems—and to keep them virus free—users are encouraged to run anti-virus software and to keep their Microsoft Windows Updates current (see sidebar).

Victimized computers that have not been disinfected using anti-virus software updates will continue to attempt to contact the Coreflood botnet servers. When this happens, we will respond by issuing a temporary stop command to the virus and then alert that user’s Internet service provider (ISP), who will inform the customer that their computer is still infected. At no time will we be collecting any personal data from victim computers.

“For most infected users who are conscientious about keeping their anti-virus programs up to date, the process of disinfection will be as invisible as the Coreflood infection was itself,” said one of our cyber agents. Still, there is a process in place with ISPs to make sure notification occurs if necessary.

We began our Coreflood investigation in April 2009 when a Connecticut-based company realized that hundreds of computers on its networks had been infected. Before we shut down the Coreflood operation, cyber thieves made numerous fraudulent wire transfers, costing companies hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yesterday, a civil complaint was filed in Connecticut against 13 “John Doe” defendants, alleging that they engaged in wire fraud, bank fraud, and illegal interception of electronic communications. Search warrants were obtained for the command and control servers in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, and California. And a seizure warrant was issued in Connecticut for 29 Internet domain names used by the thieves.

OPFER: SVEN SCHMIDT AUS DRESDEN – DER SCHEISSHAUSSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa”-CHEFSTALKER

http://investmentmagazin.com/?page_id=3845

OPFER: SVEN SCHMIDT AUS DRESDEN – DEM DEM “TAL DER AHNUNGSLOSEN” DER SCHEISSHAUSSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa”-CHEFSTALKER

ER STALKT HEMMUNGSLOS GEGEN RENATE DAUM, GRUNER & JAHR, ETHIKBANK, HERBERT ERNST, MARTIN SACHS UND VIELE ANDERE OPFER AUCH GEGEN MICH – UND IST WOHL VERHALTENSGESTÖRT UND ANAL-FIXIERT UND FÜR DAS KINDERPROTAL INKLUSIVE “KINDER-SEXUAL-AUFKLÄRUNG” AUF “GoMoPa4KIDS” ZUSTÄNDIG  – DER AUS PREKÄREN DRESDNER VERHÄLTNISSEN STAMMENDE SVEN SCHMIDT, EAGLE IT, BERLIN.

SEINE STALKER-SEITEN MIT SEINEN MUTMASSLICHEN “PARTNERN” SIND WOHL EIN EINZIGER HILFERUF IN PARANOIDER PERVERSER MANIER

“DUBIOS” – SPIEGEL ÜBER DEN MUTMASSLICHEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa”-CHEF RESCH UND SEINEN STASI-OBERST

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-65717414.html

DUBIOS ! DUBIOS ! DUBIOS !

Anscheinend inspiriert das Wort “Dubios” die anal-fixierten  “GoMoPa”-Scheisshausfliegen besonders

DIE SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN DER STASI-“GoMoPa” samt mutmasslicher Partner Ehlers Und Bennewirtz

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?page_id=11764

Occupy Wall Street-Oakland Photos, 25 October 2011, Day 39

39

[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters help a man injured after police used tear gas to disperse a large crowd of protesters at 14th Street and Broadway in Oakland, Calif., Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011. (Darryl Bush)
[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters huddle together after police use tear gas to disperse a large crowd that gathered at 14th Street and Broadway in Oakland, Calif., Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Many demonstrators were arrested. (Darryl Bush)
[Image]An Occupy Wall Street protester stands with a banner after police use tear gas to disperse a large crowd that gathered at 14th Street and Broadway in Oakland, Calif., Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Scores of demonstrators were arrested. (Darryl Bush)
[Image]Oakland police fire tear gas as they prepare to move in to Frank Ogawa Plaza to disperse Occupy Oakland protesters on Tuesday. Oct. 25, 2011 in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]Police prepare to enter Occupy Oakland’s City Hall encampment on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]Oakland Occupy protestors form a line opposing the police at the Frank Ogawa Plaza on Tuesday. Oct. 25, 2011 in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]Oakland police search tents in Frank Ogawa Plaza as they disperse Occupy Oakland protesters on Tuesday. Oct. 25, 2011 in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]Oakland police search tents in Frank Ogawa Plaza as they disperse Occupy Oakland protesters on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011 in Oakland, Calif. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]An Occupy Oakland protester waits in his tent as police clear the group’s Snow Park encampment on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]Unidentified protesters link arms as police advance on their City Hall encampment on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]An Occupy Oakland camper carries belonging in his teeth as he’s arrested from the group’s city hall encampment on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Jane Tyska)
[Image]The Oakland Occupy encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza after Oakland Police disbanded the tent community leaving debris strewn throughout the plaza on Tuesday. Oct. 25, 2011 in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Noah Berger)
[Image]Tents and debris are seen on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Police in riot gear began clearing anti-Wall Street protesters on Tuesday morning from the plaza in front of Oakland’s City Hall where they have been camped out for about two weeks. City officials had originally been supportive of the protesters, but the city later warned the protesters that they were breaking the law and could not stay in the encampment overnight. (Noah Berger)
[Image]An Oakland police officer in riot gear stands guard over Frank H. Ogawa plaza Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. Occupy Oakland protestors were evicted from the plaza early this morning. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)
[Image]

CRYTOME – Emulate Wikileaks Operation

Despite the money machine Wikileaks has become for the thousands exploiting its product and notoriety, it deserves maximum financial, moral and political support in ways that help avoid dependency upon rigged markets and leveraged endorsements.

In comparison to the braggardy and IP theft of secrecy-protected 1% MSM, governments and corporations hiding behind branded Representative Democracy, Wikileaks — and its kind — are genuinely supportive of direct democracy. Avoid centralized, branded initiatives due to their susceptibility to covert control, participate in OWS and dispersed collectives.

Individual support for these dispersed initiatives is crucial to avoid the trap of 1% funding which has enlisted millions with sinecure indulgences from gov, mil, com, org and edu — not least those of the hypnotic debt-swap easy loan of the Internet which allows aggregating personal information by spying on unwary participants. Hopefully Wikileaks will never become one of those “Goodwill Industries” — gov, mil, com, org and edu — now preying on the Internet by rigging its operation for privileged users claiming public benefit.

The disclosed legal expenses for Assange which appear to soon outweigh Wikileaks’ operating costs do not augur well for the initiative remaining unfettered democratic. No explanation of why the legal costs are not donated — unless they are being used to launder money in the legacy practice of claiming “expenses” used by the 1% to camouflage profit.

Emulate Wikileaks operations with a similar initiative and/or by mirroring the site’s courageous offerings, but avoid the legal-financial black hole entrapment.

JURICON ÜBER DIE STASI-STALKER DER KIMINELLEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/juricon-uber-gomopa-inklusive-stasi-verbindung/

 

JURICON ÜBER DIE STASI-STALKER DER KIMINELLEN SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa” UND DEREN STASI-VERBIDNUNGEN

 

SIEHE LINK OBEN

FBI – ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS – LIKE POSSIBLY “GoMoPa4KIDS”

Hands at keyboard
“It’s an unfortunate fact of life that pedophiles are everywhere online,” said Special Agent Greg Wing.

Child Predators
The Online Threat Continues to Grow

It’s a recipe for trouble: naive teenagers, predatory adults, and a medium—the Internet—that easily connects them.

Shawn Henry in Video player
 In a new video blog, Executive Assistant Director Shawn Henry warns against the dangers of online predators. Watch Video | Download (50 MB)

“It’s an unfortunate fact of life that pedophiles are everywhere online,” said Special Agent Greg Wing, who supervises a cyber squad in our Chicago Field Office.

When a young person visits an online forum for a popular teen singer or actor, Wing said, “Parents can be reasonably certain that online predators will be there.” It is believed that more than half a million pedophiles are online every day.

Agents assigned to our Innocent Images National Initiative are working hard to catch these child predators and to alert teens and parents about the dark side of the Internet—particularly when it comes to social networking sites and, increasingly, online gaming forums.

Pedophiles go where children are. Before the Internet, that meant places such as amusement parks and zoos. Today, the virtual world makes it alarmingly simple for pedophiles—often pretending to be teens themselves—to make contact with young people.

Advice for Parents Parents should talk to their children about the danger of being sexually exploited online, and they should monitor their children’s Internet use along with online video gaming, an area where pedophiles are increasingly operating.

Parents should also understand that teens are not always honest about what they are doing online. Some will let their parents “friend” them on social networking sites, for example, and will then establish another space online that is hidden from their parents.

Youngsters often employ a secret Internet language to use when their parents are nearby. Examples include:

– PAW or PRW: Parents are watching
– PIR: Parents in room
– POS: Parent over shoulder
– P911: Parent emergency
– (L)MIRL: (Let’s) meet in real life

Parents can get more information from our Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety.

Even without being someone’s “friend” online, which allows access to one’s social networking space, pedophiles can see a trove of teenagers’ personal information—the town they live in, the high school they attend, their favorite music and TV programs—because the youngsters often post it for anyone to see.

“The younger generation wants to express themselves, and they don’t realize how vulnerable it makes them,” Wing said.

For a pedophile, that personal information is like gold and can be used to establish a connection and gain a child’s trust.

There are basically two types of pedophiles on the Internet—those who seek face-to-face meetings with children and those who are content to anonymously collect and trade child pornography images.

Those seeking face-to-face meetings create bogus identities online, sometimes posing as teenagers. Then they troll the Internet for easy victims—youngsters with low self-esteem, problems with their parents, or a shortage of money. The pedophile might find a 14-year-old girl, for example, who has posted seemingly harmless information on her space for anyone to see. The pedophile sends a message saying he goes to high school in a nearby town and likes the same music or TV shows she likes.

Then the pedophile cultivates a friendly online relationship that investigators call “grooming.” It could continue for days or weeks before the pedophile begins bringing up sexual topics, asking for explicit pictures or for a personal meeting. By that time an emotional connection has been made—and pedophiles can be master manipulators. Even if an actual meeting never takes place, it is important to note that youngsters can be victimized by such sexually explicit online contact.

Innocent Images Investigators Agents on our Innocent Images squads around the country take part in overt and covert operations to stop online child predators and to identify victims.

During investigations, agents sometimes pose online as teens to infiltrate pedophile networks and to gather evidence by downloading files that are indicative of child pornography. During the investigation of known suspects, undercover agents may also “friend” people the suspect is associated with.

“Pedophiles regularly create bogus online profiles,” said Special Agent Greg Wing, who supervises a cyber squad in our Chicago Field Office. “Usually, anyone associated with that profile is either a fellow offender or a victim.”

Even worse than posting personal information for anyone to see is the fact that many youngsters will accept “friends” who are total strangers. “Nobody wants to just have five friends online,” Wing said. “It’s a popularity thing.”

Special Agent Wesley Tagtmeyer, a veteran cyber investigator in our Chicago office who works undercover during online investigations, said that in his experience, about 70 percent of youngsters will accept “friend” requests regardless of whether they know the requester.

Tagtmeyer and other cyber investigators say a relatively new trend among pedophiles is to begin grooming youngsters through online gaming forums, some of which allow two-way voice and video communication. Parents who might be vigilant about monitoring their children’s Internet activity often have no idea that online video gaming platforms can pose a threat.

“Parents need to talk to their children about these issues,” he said. “It’s no longer enough to keep computers in an open area of the house so they can be monitored. The same thing needs to be done with online gaming platforms.”

New video on Gadhafi’s death

FAIR – NEWS – Immer mehr Straftäter nutzen das Medium Internet wie z.B. “GoMoPa”

Unter Cyber-Mobbing, oder auch Cyber-Bullying und Cyber-Stalking, versteht man die Drangsalierung anderer Menschen mit Hilfe elektronischer Kommunikationsmittel durch einzelne Personen oder durch Gruppen über das Internet. Derzeit sind zahlreiche traditionsreiche Firmen der Partnervermittlungsbranche betroffen. Partner Computer Group geht auch hier wieder außergewöhnliche Wege. Außergewöhnlich eben – wie die Partner Computer Group

Leider im Trend der Zeit

Vergrößern

Anzeigen
Leider im Trend der Zeit

Vergrößern

Anzeigen

(fair-NEWS) – Auch andere erfolgreiche Unternehmen wie die Partner Computer Group stehen im Fokus von Straftätern

//

//

“Watch your Web” ist ein aktuelles Schlagwort zum Thema. Das Internet wird immer mehr auch zu einer Spielwiese für bösartige oder kriminelle Belästigung und Schädigung. Die Opfer sind Privatpersonen, und ebenso auch Unternehmen, die sich Angriffen der Konkurrenz ausgesetzt sehen. Ebenso laden unfähige Mitarbeiter Frust ab und meinen, dem einstigen Arbeitgeber damit schaden zu können. Die Täter sind dreist und schwer zu fassen. Auch als Werkzeug für schlimmere Straftaten machen sich Kriminelle das Internet zu Nutze. Zu den Opfern zählt seit April 2010 auch die Partner Computer Group (www.partnercomputergroup.info/partner-computer-group/). In einem Schreiben an den Hamburger Rechtsanwalt des Unternehmens wurde eine Summe von einer Million US $ gefordert. Im Falle, dass nicht gezahlt wird, drohten die anonymen Straftäter dem erfolgreichen Unternehmen mit Internetstalking und Rufmord. Aus Dubai wurde sich rechtswidrig eine Webseite besorgt, um die geschützte Marke Partner Computer Group in ein negatives Licht zu setzen.
Verleumdungen erschienen auf sehr fragwürdigen Seiten, die sich gomopa, boocompany und konsumerinfo nennen. Seiten wie boocompany werden anonym aus dem Ausland betrieben, um vorsätzlich juristisch in Deutschland nicht angreifbar zu sein. Tatsächlich sitzen die Urheber dieser Seite in den neuen Bundesländern.

Seriöser Erfolg zahlt sich aus

Die Partner Computer Group setzt Meilensteine mit Tradition. Kein Unternehmen im Wettbewerb bietet seinen Freelancern und Kunden bessere Konditionen. Erfreulich ist die Tatsache, dass die Partner Computer Group trotz des Internetstalking ihre Marktposition in allen Ländermärkten steigern und weiter festigen konnte. Die Manager der Partner Computer Group (www.prnewsnet.de/business-industrie/partner-computer-group-erhoeht-sicherheit-unseren-strassen.html) negierten, die Forderung der Straftäter zu zahlen.

Stalking gegen die ganze Branche der Singlevermittlungen

Kleine seriöse Wettbewerber der Partner Computer Group leiden derzeit besonders unter dem Internet-Terror. Bedingt durch eine dünne Internetpräsenz finden sich Stalkerbeiträge in den Suchmaschinen weit vorne. Dieser Terror nimmt in jüngster Zeit ständig zu. Polizeibekannte Internetstalker besitzen derzeit noch den Mut, den Inhabern kleiner regionaler Partnervermittlungen vorzulügen, dass die Partner Computer Group auf diese Weise Wettbewerbern schaden wolle. Leicht nachvollziehbar, dass solche Gerüchte nicht haltbar und beweisbar sind. Diese regionalen Vermittler bedienen einen anderen Klientenkreis wie die international tätige Singlebörse mit zertifizierter Beratung namens Partner Computer Group. Damit stehen solche Unternehmen in keinem Wettbewerb zur Partner Computer Group.

Partner Computer Group geht wieder außergewöhnliche Wege

Um die Straftäter zu enttarnen, lobt die Partner Computer Group eine Belohnung von fünfzigtausend US $ aus für Hinweise, die zu der Ergreifung und Verurteilung der Straftäter führen, die das Unternehmen Partner Computer Group mittels Rufmord erpressen. Die Auslobung gilt nicht für Personen, die den staatlichen Ermittlungsbehörden im In- und Ausland angehören. Internen Ermittlungen zufolge dürften dann auch Wettbewerber aufatmen, die derzeit unter Mobbing im Internet leiden und möglicherweise zeitnah mit Erpressermails konfrontiert werden.

Wie sagte Tim Taylor bei verschiedenen Pressekonferenzen:
YES WE CAN

// //
// //
// //


Pressekontakt:
Partner Computer Marketing
Robert Smith
69 Great Hampton Street
B18 6E Birmingham-Vereinigtes Königreich
robert.smith@partner-computer-group.com
+44 207 397 7365
http://werbungpcg.blogspot.com/
Kontakt:
Partner Computer Group
Ludwig Hoppe
Kantstr. 53
04275 Leipzig
Deutschland
Homepage: www.partnercomputer-group.com
Unternehmensinfo:
Partner Computer Group – ein Unternehmen mit Tradition seit 1981. Marktführer in vielen Ländermärkten mit einer wissenschaftlichen Methode, die in 30 Jahren gewachsen ist. Kein anderer Anbieter auf dem Weltmarkt kann dies von sich behaupten. Wir haben für viele Menschen die Einsamkeit in eine glückliche Liebe verwandelt.


Publiziert durch PR-Gateway.de.

TOP-SECRET – Buying a Car Online? Read This First

You can buy almost anything over the Internet—including clothes, a pizza, music, a hotel room, even a car. And while most transactions are conducted lawfully and securely, there are instances when criminals insert themselves into the marketplace, hoping to trick potential victims into falling for one of their scams.

Today, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) issued an alert about a specific type of cyber scam that targets consumers looking to buy vehicles online.

How the scam works. While there are variations, here’s a basic description: consumers find a vehicle they like—often at a below-market price—on a legitimate website. The buyer contacts the seller, usually through an e-mail address in the ad, to indicate their interest. The seller responds via e-mail, often with a hard-luck story about why they want to sell the vehicle and at such a good price.

In the e-mail, the seller asks the buyer to move the transaction to the website of another online company….for security reasons….and then offers a buyer protection plan in the name of a major Internet company (e.g., eBay). Through the new website, the buyer receives an invoice and is instructed to wire the funds for the vehicle to an account somewhere. In a new twist, sometimes the criminals pose as company representatives in a live chat to answer questions from buyers.

Once the funds are wired, the buyer may be asked by the seller to fax a receipt to show that the transaction has taken place. And then the seller and buyer agree upon a time for the delivery of the vehicle.

What actually happens: The ad the consumer sees is either completely phony or was hijacked from another website. The buyer is asked to move from a legitimate website to a spoofed website, where it’s easier for the criminal to conduct business. The buyer protection plan offered as part of the deal is bogus. And the buyer is asked to fax the seller proof of the transaction so the crooks know when the funds are available for stealing.

And by the time buyers realize they’ve been scammed, the criminals—and the money—are long gone.

Red flags for consumers:

  • Cars are advertised at too-good-to-be true prices;
  • Sellers want to move transactions from the original website to another site;
  • Sellers claim that a buyer protection program offered by a major Internet company covers an auto transaction conducted outside that company’s website;
  • Sellers refuse to meet in person or allow potential buyers to inspect the car ahead of time;
  • Sellers who say they want to sell the car because they’re in the U.S. military about to be deployed, are moving, the car belonged to someone who recently died, or a similar story;
  • Sellers who ask for funds to be wired ahead of time.

Number of complaints. From 2008 through 2010, IC3 has received nearly 14,000 complaints from consumers who have been victimized, or at least targeted, by these scams. Of the victims who actually lost money, the total dollar amount is staggering: nearly $44.5 million.

If you think you’ve been victimized by an online auto scam, file a complaint with IC3. Once complaints are received and analyzed, IC3 forwards them as appropriate to a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency.

SZ – SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG ÜBER DIE STASI-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN DER “GoMoPa”

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

DROHUNGEN DER STASI-“GoMoPa” – SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN GEGEN MICH UND ANDERE OPFER

http://sjb-fonds-opfer.com/?option=com_content&view=article&id=2600%3Asjb-fonds-kinder-missbrauch&catid=34%3Apeople-chat-a-news&paged=111

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=22649

Nachfolgend bringen wir eine Mitteilung der lebensgefährlich bedrohten Stalking-Opfer des verbrecherischen GoMoPa-Clans des gesuchten Klaus Maurischat (Photo), der bereits 23 mal einschlägig verurteilt wude (u.a. AZ: 28 Ls 85/05). http://golden-stars-partners.net/nv/News/Die-verbrecherischen-Stalking-Methoden-des-GoMoPa-Clans_108?SID=7d8b58badabdff32846db954b737774675762444
„Sehr geehrte Leserin, sehr geehrter Leser,
liebe GSP-ELITE-Clubfreunde!
die sehr angeschlagenen Gesundheitszustände des GSP-Admins und Managers Herbert ERNST und seines
langjährigen Vertrauensfreunds Dipl.Ing.Paul Bosel, haben mich nun veranlasst, diesen Artikel zu veröffentlichen.
Paul Bosel, der seit 8 Jahren im GoMoPa-Forum übel verleumdet wird, hat seine letzte Herzoperation gerade nochmal gut überstanden.
Herbert Ernst, der als Autor die meisten dieser News und Beiträge in dieser Community und vielen anderen Websites verfasst hat, ist nunmehr auch am gestrigen Abend wegen Herzversagen in eine Notfallklinik in der Schweiz eingeliefert worden.
Mit Herbert Ernst hatte ich als Autor dieser Zeilen in den letzten Tagen mehrmals ausführlich wegen den Gomopa-Maurischat-Attacken telefoniert.
Es ging dabei hauptsächlich um die aktuellen Drohungen des Klaus Maurischat, dass er die Webseiten von Herbert Ernst alle mit Hilfe seiner Hacker-Freunde attackieren, bzw. auslöschen würde, wenn ich nicht meine Anti-Stalking-Seiten (siehe unten) sofort bis spätestens zum 05.11.2010) vom Netz nehmen würde.
Ich mache mir nun grosse Sorgen um die weitere Gesundheit des Herbert Ernst und hoffe , dass er sich nun eine Auszeit von seinen vielfältigen Aufgaben und Bemühungen nimmt.
Meine grosse Hoffnung ist die, dass er diese immens starke Gesundheits-Warnung überlebt. Ich darf hoffen, dass es ihm nicht ähnlich ergeht, wie dem dieses Jahr plötzlich verstorbenen und sehr bekannten Anlage-Aufklärer Heinz Gerlach, der nach meiner Sicht ebenfalls ein Rufmordopfer des GoMoPa-Verantwortlichen Klaus Maurischat war. Meinen Nachruf an Heinz Gerlach finden Sie auch hier bei den News in dieser Community!
Link http://golden-stars-partners.net/nv/News/Nachruf-fuer-den-verstorbenen-Heinz-Gerlach_69
Heinz Gerlach wurde “nur 66 Jahre alt”! Herbert Ernst ist bereits 70 Jahre alt geworden, lebte immer sportlich fit, aber das, was ihm die Stalker von GoMoPa in seine Wege und Ziele zur Vermeidung von Altersarmut seit Jahren (2007) in den Weg legten, kann kein gesunder Mensch auf Dauer überleben!
Hier mein Beitrag, den hoffentlich viele Mitmenschen lesen und überdenken sollten:
Klaus Maurischats Stalking-Methoden
Ja,-sie funktioniert. Seit 8 Jahren!
Ja,- und die Methode Maurischat ist so brutal und für normal denkende Menschen kaum vorstellbar!
Wir,-die CSA-Agency, sind schon seit Beginn des GoMoPa.net-Forums seit 2002 im Kreuzfeuer seiner Bemühungen, uns auszuschalten.
Er will nun nicht nur unsere Seiten mit seinen Hackerfreunden abschiessen (löschen) lassen, sondern uns noch dazu ´ausräuchern`, wie er es seit (14.10.2010) zunächst wieder formuliert.
Ausserdem hat er uns jetzt angedroht, die ihm bekannten Angehörigen und Freunde aus dem persönlichen Umfeld unseres Presse-Autors persönlich mit seinen infamen Stalkingmethoden wie folgt in der Öffentlichkeit und in deren privatem Umfeld anzuprangern.
Um grossen persönlichen Schaden von den benannten Personen abzuwenden, hat die CSA-Agency im Interesse dieser anständigen Mitmenschen sofort (15.10.2010) alle Aufklärungsbeiträge über GoMoPa.net aus dem Internet genommen. Alle Vorgänge sind dokumentiert und stehen den Betroffenen und Ermittlungsbehörden zur Verfügung.
Maurischats Verbrechermethoden mit gezieltem Rufmord!
Er nimmt zunächst mit Hilfe seiner Helfershelfer Familienmitglieder, Angehörige, Freunde oder Nachbarn seiner Opfer aufs Korn. Ist ja heutzutage kein Problem mehr, über Soziale Netzwerke wie z.B. Facebook solche zu finden.
Er lässt mit Google-Mailadressen-Suche Hunderte von Mailadressen aus dem örtlichen Umfeld dieser Personen suchen.
Dann lanciert er einen unwahren Verleumdungsbericht in seinem GoMoPa-Forum. Diese Beiträge sind an Abscheulichkeit nicht zu übertreffen.
Meistens werden die so angeprangerten krimineller Handlungen bezichtigt. Beispielsweise der Geldwäsche, Finanzbetrügereien oder Drogenhandel.
Wir CSA-Team-Mitglieder werden so seit Beginn des Gomopa-Forums 2002 beispielsweise als international von Interpol gesuchte Finanzbetrüger bezeichnet.
So machte er es auch mit unseren früheren Homepage-Providern, die er in seinem Forum mit unwahren Berichten konfrontierte. So lange, bis wir im Interesse dieser anständigen jungen Leute alle unsere Berichte zu GoMoPa gelöscht haben. Danach löschte er die unwahren Beiträge über die Provider.
Dann konfrontiert Maurischat mit dem Link zum unwahren Beitrag im Gomopa-Forum die Inhaber der gesammelten Mailadressen aus dem Umfeld des Verleumdungsopfers.
Mit dem Resultat, dass Nachbarn, Freunde im Ort plötzlich sich vom Opfer zurückziehen. Nach dem Motto: Es könnte ja was dran sein!
GoMoPa-Presse-Portal
Des weiteren setzt Maurischat seine GoMoPa-Presse-Portal -Aktionen ein.
Maurischat rühmt sich damit, dass er mit seinen eigenen Presse-News über hunderttausend Leser erreichen kann.
Des weiteren werden die unwahren Beiträge zum Verleumdungsopfer als GoMoPa-Presse-Artikel in vielen Presseportalen gestreut.
Zudem kommt hinzu, dass Maurischat seine Helfershelfer (gegen Bezahlung natürlich) benutzt, Strafanzeigen bei der zuständigen Staatsanwaltschaft des angeprangerten Opfers zu stellen. Das wirkt natürlich besonders glaubwürdig in den Augen des Betrachters.
Tatsache ist, dass sich seine Helfershelferin Renate F., (Name,Adresse aus Anti-Stalking-Gründen gekürzt) damit brüstet, dass sie nun den dritten Strafantrag gegen ein Verleumdungsopfer stellt, nachdem die ersten beiden im Laufe von zwei Jahren von der zuständigen Staatsanwaltschaft mangels Beweisen eingestellt worden waren.
Diese Methode Maurischat ist abscheulich! Strafrechtlich werden solche Stalking-Attacken in Deutschland schon im Einzelfall mit Gefängnis bis zu drei Jahren bestraft. Bei Maurischat kommen nachweisbar viele Stalking-Tatbestände und noch weitere wie Erpressung hinzu.
Maurischat ist schon mehrfach vorbestraft und kennt deutsche Haftanstalten als Insasse gut von innen.
Zuletzt war er als Finanzbetrüger mit dreijähriger Bewährungsfrist bis April 2009 verurteilt worden.
• Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl, Betreiber von http://www.gomopa.net: Am 24. April 2006 war die Verhandlung am Amtsgericht Krefeld in der Betrugssache: Mark Vornkahl / Klaus Maurischat ./. Dehnfeld. Aktenzeichen: 28 Ls 85/05 Klaus Maurischat Lange Straße 27313 Dörverden.
Maurischat lebt heute in Portugal nahe Porto in seiner Pension. Weit weg und sicher vor den Zugriffen der deutschen Ermittlungsbehörden!
Allerdings hat Maurischat vor zwei Jahren eine deutsche GoMoPa-GmbH in Berlin eingerichtet, um seine Fassade einer GoMoPa-Briefkastenfirma in den USA zu verbessern.
So steht der deutsche GoMoPa-GmbH-Geschäftsführer Peter Reski voll in der strafrechtlich relevanten Haftung gegenüber den Geschädigten.
GoMoPa GmbH
10117 Berlin
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Telefonnummer: (030) 21233660
Telefaxnummer: (030) 212336611
Maurischats Erpressungsmethoden
Nach der Devise: ´Wer nicht zahlt wird fertiggemacht!`.
Mit Hilfe negativer Einträge in seinem GoMoPa-Forum!
Maurischat hat sein Handwerk, wie in unseren Beiträgen dokumentiert,
bereits in den 90er Jahren im letzten Jahrhundert in Form seines Russen-Inkassos gelernt.
Die entsprechenden Beiträge finden Sie heute noch im Anlegerschutz-Magazin von ´Börse Online`.
Die CSA-Agency kann aufgrund ihrer 8-Jährigen Erfahrung mit dem GoMafia-Forum davon ausgehen, dass zumindest Hunderte der genannten Personen / Unternehmen in der GoMoPa-Datenbank und in der GoMoPa-Warnliste dort zu Unrecht aufgeführt sind!
Oftmals auch zu Unrecht im Forum dargestellt, weil sie den Erpressungsversuchen des GoMoPa-Paten-Teams nicht nachgekommen sind.
Oder auch, weil sie oftmals nicht die erforderlichen Geldmittel zur Löschung der Beiträge aufwenden konnten!
Nachweisbar ist, dass die so erpressten Verleumdungsopfer zwischen ein paar tausend bis über 50.000 Euro zur Löschung der Negativ-Beiträge aufzubringen haben.
So ist nachvollziehbar, dass gerade Großbetrüger und Abzocker am Grauen Kapitalmarkt (dem staatlich nicht regulierten Kapitalmarkt) unbehelligt von Maurischat und seinem GoMOPa-Forum abzocken können.
Martin Sachs, CSA Presse Redakteur
CSA-Presse-Agentur 14.10.2010
mailto:// csa-security@web.de// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//
http://www.gomafia-stalking.net/
http://www.csa-anlegerschutz.net/“

siehe auch http://sjb-fonds-opfer.com/?p=5669

Hintergrund:

Laut den SJB-Opfern haben der „Finanzdienst-Nachrichtendienst Gomopa” unter der Führung des wegen Betrugs vorbestraften Betrügers Klaus Maurischat ( Aktenzeichen Krefeld vom 24. April 2006; AZ: 28 Ls 85/05 – Am 24. April 2006 war die Verhandlung am Amtsgericht Krefeld in der Betrugssache: Mark Vornkahl / Klaus Maurischat ./. Dehnfeld. Aktenzeichen: 28 Ls 85/05, Klaus Maurischat, Lange Straße 38, 27313 Dörverden) sowie der umstrittene Fondsvermittler SJB gemeinsame, illegale Aktivitäten begangen.
Cyber-Kriminelle am Werk

So wurden auf die Internet-Seiten http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com und http://www.bennewirtz-opfer.com wochenlang schwere Hackerangriffe vorgenommen. Einmal im Wege des „ordinären Hackens“ mit Hunderten von chinesischen IPs, die dem mutmasslichen Hackerpaar Thomas Promny., Hamburg, und Sabine Müller. Weimar, (Aktenzeichen Hamburg 035/1K/608828/2010 und ST 1044410/2010  zuzuordnen seien.
Schwerwiegender waren indes sogennante Flooding-Angriffe, bei denen durch fingierte Anfragen die Server zum Absturz gebracht werden. Maurischat, gegen den in vielen Verfahren u.a. wegen Kursmanipultion im Falle Wirecard ermittlt wird, gilt als „praktizierender Experte auf diesem Sektor“, so die SJB-Opfer. Zahlreiche Verbindungsdaten zu den Registraren Arvixe und Lin Hostern Versatel und Godaddy konnten sichergestellt werden. Seitens der SJB-Opfer wurden und werden diese Angriffe  von Gerd Bennewirtz, der selber Registrar und Server-Hoster ist angeordnet. Die ausführenden Parteien seien entweder Promny und Müller oder Klaus Maurischat gewesen.
Sjb Title: SJB FondsSkyline OHG 1989 | Gewinner bleiben
Sjb IP:
80.237.237.212
Sjb server location:
Korschenbroich in Germany
Sjb ISP:
Host Europe GmbH
ype: PERSON
Name: Gerd Bennewirtz
Address: Mediainvest Fonds-System-Software
Address: Bachstr.45c
PostalCode: 41352
City: Korschenbroich
CountryCode: DE
Phone: +49 2182 8520
Fax: +49 2182 8558141
Email:

Drehscheibe Godday

Godaddy ist auch der Haus-Hoster von „Gomopa“ und seit vielen Jahren der Registrar der „Gomopa“-Homepage. Hier werden auch zahlreiche „Gomopa“ zuzuordnende „Foren“ und „Blogs“ zugeordnet, in denen fiktive Cyber-Aliasse ihr Unwesen treiben, das natürlich nie mit Fakten belegt ist wie z.b. extremnews.com.

Registrant:

Goldman Morgenstern an Partners LLC

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: GOMOPA.NET

Gehostet hier:

Server IP: 67.23.163.233
Server Location:
Lockport, NY, 14094, United States

Gomopa IP:
67.23.163.230
Gomopa server location:
Asheville in United States
Gomopa ISP:
Netriplex LLC

Pikant auch die Internetseite der immer wieder mit Gomopa in Verbindung gebrachten Offshore-Firma Baker & Baker, Köln, wird bei Godaddy gehostet.

Server IP: 208.109.181.34
Server Location:
Scottsdale, AZ, 85260, United States

Von gekaperten Godaddy-IP-Adressen  wurden und werden auch zahlreiche Flooding-Angriffe geführt bzw. sogenannte Stalking-Seiten gehostet, die so die Opfer eine Spezialität von Klaus Maurischat seien.

Die Baker & Baker wurde bereits in der Schweiz wegen Vermögenslosigkeit liquidiert.
Siehe http://www.yasni.de/baker+offshore/person+information und

http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/baker_baker_consulting_group_ag_CH-170.3.014.447-7.htm

Dieser Firma war Heinz Gerlach ein besonderes Dorn im Auge wie man bei Durchsicht der Seite http://www.akte-heinz-gerlach.info unschwer erkennen kann. Es geht und ging dabei um die Patenschaft im grauen Markt der Kapitalanlagen.

Drehsscheibe Mediaon.com
Eine wesentliche Rolle bei den illegalen Offshore-Internet-Aktivitäten der Cyber-Kriminellen spielt auch die Briefkastenfirma Linh Wang, Honkong, bei der die Seite http://www.akte-heinz-gerlach.info registriert wurde, die bei dem dubiosen Undergrund-Unternehmen Mediaon.com in der Türkei gehostet wird, so die Opfer. Über diese Schiene wurden Dutzende betrügerischer Erpresser-Sites der Cyber-Kriminellen registriert.
Server IP: 95.0.239.251)
Domain ID:D28959891-LRMS

Domain Name:AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO

Created On:03-Jul-2009 08:59:55 UTC

Last Updated On:10-May-2010 18:16:59 UTC

Expiration Date:03-Jul-2011 08:59:55 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Alantron BLTD (R322-LRMS)

Status:OK

Registrant ID:DI_11637039

Registrant Name:Linh Wang

Registrant Organization:Linh Wang1273487281

Registrant Street1:3617 Tower 1  Lippo Centre

Registrant Street2:

Registrant Street3:

Registrant City:Hong Kong

Registrant State/Province:Queensway

Registrant Postal Code:0000089

Registrant Country:HK

Registrant Phone:+000.5230064510

Registrant Phone Ext.:

Registrant FAX:+000.5230064510

Registrant FAX Ext.:

Registrant Email: // info@xchiang.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Admin ID:DI_11637039

Admin Name:Linh Wang

Admin Organization:Linh Wang1273487281

Admin Street1:3617 Tower 1  Lippo Centre

Admin Street2:

Admin Street3:

Admin City:Hong Kong

Admin State/Province:Queensway

Admin Postal Code:0000089

Admin Country:HK

Admin Phone:+000.5230064510

Admin Phone Ext.:

Admin FAX:+000.5230064510

Admin FAX Ext.:

Admin Email: // info@xchiang.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Billing ID:DI_11637040

Billing Name:Tuce Kuyumcu

Billing Organization:Tuce Kuyumcu1273487281

Billing Street1:Market Street 45a

Billing Street2:

Billing Street3:

Billing City:Baidoa

Billing State/Province:Victoria  Mahe  Seychelles

Billing Postal Code:00000

Billing Country:HK

Billing Phone:+000.4834433490

Billing Phone Ext.:

Billing FAX:+000.4834433491

Billing FAX Ext.:

Billing Email: // tuce.kuyumcu@somali.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Tech ID:DI_11637040

Tech Name:Tuce Kuyumcu

Tech Organization:Tuce Kuyumcu1273487281

Tech Street1:Market Street 45a

Tech Street2:

Tech Street3:

Tech City:Baidoa

Tech State/Province:Victoria  Mahe  Seychelles

Tech Postal Code:00000

Tech Country:HK

Tech Phone:+000.4834433490

Tech Phone Ext.:

Tech FAX:+000.4834433491

Tech FAX Ext.:

Tech Email: // tuce.kuyumcu@somali.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Name Server:NS1.ANADOLUDNS.COM

Name Server:NS2.ANADOLUDNS.COM

Hier der Beleg über das Hosting der Anti-Gerlach-Seite, AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO,  bei dem Untergrund-Unternehmen Mediaon.com in der Türkei gehostet: Linh Wang

Domain ID:D28959891-LRMS

Domain Name:AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO

Created On:03-Jul-2009 08:59:55 UTC

Last Updated On:10-May-2010 18:16:59 UTC

Expiration Date:03-Jul-2011 08:59:55 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Alantron BLTD (R32

Mediaon Title: Anonymous Hosting – Privacy Hosting – MediaOn.com is leading the marked in privacy hosting.

Mediaon Keywords: Anonymous hosting, Whois Protection, Whois privacy services, Privacy Hosting, anonymous domain registration, managed vps

Mediaon Description: MediaOn.com is leading in anonymous hosting and privacy hosting.

Mediaon IP:
95.0.153.245
Mediaon server location:
Turkey
Mediaon ISP:
Turk Telekom
IP: 95.0.153.245
IP Country:  Turkey
This IP address resolves to dsl95-0-39413.ttnet.net.tr

Idari Yonetici / Registrant
(Admin)
Ad / Name Tekin Karaboga
Adres Catalca Yolu Menekse Mevkii Istanbul 34537
Tel +90.212.8656520

Diese Internet-Operations-Muster – so die SJB-Opfer – habe es in Ihrem Falle, aber auch bei zahlreichen anderen Betrugs-, Erpressungs- und Verleumdungsopfer in den letzten Jahren gegeben. “Nunmeh rliegen die Daten offen und die Hintermänner der feigen Cyber-Rufmorde und auch des heimtückischen Cyber-Mordes an Heinz Gerlachkönnen ermittelt werden”, so Heinz. F., Mayen, Sprecher der Opfer (die Personen-Daten wurden aus Sicherheitsgründen anonimysiert).

Wenn das BKA, LK, FBI und die Kriminalpolizei diesen Spuren weiter intensiv nachgehen würden, seien die sowieso laufenden Ermittlungen in zahlreichen Fällen wie auch im Kursmanipulationsfall „Wirecard“ von Erfolg gekrönt. Denn große Firmen wie Godaddy und auch Enom, für die der Reseller Arvixe Domains verkauft, könnten sich anders als “dubiose türkische Untergrund-Internet-Klitschen” – dem Zugriff der Justiz nicht entziehen.

Ein kleines Schmankerl am Schluss: Pikant ist und bezeichnet für die Glaubwürdigkeit der Aktiviäten des – im Gegensatz zu seinen Opfern – TATSÄCHLICH vorbestraften Klaus Maurischat ( Aktenzeichen Krefeld vom 24. April 2006; AZ: 28 Ls 85/05) ist übrigens auch, das bei dem internationalen „angeblich jüdischen New Yorker“ Unternehmen „Gomopa“ nur deutsche Texte auf der Webseite stehen und über 90% der Besucher aus Deutschland (87,4%), Österreich 4,2 % und Schweiz 1,6%) stammen.

Nachfolgend bringen wir eine Mitteilung der lebensgefährlich bedrohten Stalking-Opfer des verbrecherischen GoMoPa-Clans des gesuchten Klaus Maurischat (Photo), der bereits 23 mal einschlägig verurteilt wude (u.a. AZ: 28 Ls 85/05). http://golden-stars-partners.net/nv/News/Die-verbrecherischen-Stalking-Methoden-des-GoMoPa-Clans_108?SID=7d8b58badabdff32846db954b737774675762444
„Sehr geehrte Leserin, sehr geehrter Leser,
liebe GSP-ELITE-Clubfreunde!
die sehr angeschlagenen Gesundheitszustände des GSP-Admins und Managers Herbert ERNST und seines
langjährigen Vertrauensfreunds Dipl.Ing.Paul Bosel, haben mich nun veranlasst, diesen Artikel zu veröffentlichen.
Paul Bosel, der seit 8 Jahren im GoMoPa-Forum übel verleumdet wird, hat seine letzte Herzoperation gerade nochmal gut überstanden.
Herbert Ernst, der als Autor die meisten dieser News und Beiträge in dieser Community und vielen anderen Websites verfasst hat, ist nunmehr auch am gestrigen Abend wegen Herzversagen in eine Notfallklinik in der Schweiz eingeliefert worden.
Mit Herbert Ernst hatte ich als Autor dieser Zeilen in den letzten Tagen mehrmals ausführlich wegen den Gomopa-Maurischat-Attacken telefoniert.
Es ging dabei hauptsächlich um die aktuellen Drohungen des Klaus Maurischat, dass er die Webseiten von Herbert Ernst alle mit Hilfe seiner Hacker-Freunde attackieren, bzw. auslöschen würde, wenn ich nicht meine Anti-Stalking-Seiten (siehe unten) sofort bis spätestens zum 05.11.2010) vom Netz nehmen würde.
Ich mache mir nun grosse Sorgen um die weitere Gesundheit des Herbert Ernst und hoffe , dass er sich nun eine Auszeit von seinen vielfältigen Aufgaben und Bemühungen nimmt.
Meine grosse Hoffnung ist die, dass er diese immens starke Gesundheits-Warnung überlebt. Ich darf hoffen, dass es ihm nicht ähnlich ergeht, wie dem dieses Jahr plötzlich verstorbenen und sehr bekannten Anlage-Aufklärer Heinz Gerlach, der nach meiner Sicht ebenfalls ein Rufmordopfer des GoMoPa-Verantwortlichen Klaus Maurischat war. Meinen Nachruf an Heinz Gerlach finden Sie auch hier bei den News in dieser Community!
Link http://golden-stars-partners.net/nv/News/Nachruf-fuer-den-verstorbenen-Heinz-Gerlach_69
Heinz Gerlach wurde “nur 66 Jahre alt”! Herbert Ernst ist bereits 70 Jahre alt geworden, lebte immer sportlich fit, aber das, was ihm die Stalker von GoMoPa in seine Wege und Ziele zur Vermeidung von Altersarmut seit Jahren (2007) in den Weg legten, kann kein gesunder Mensch auf Dauer überleben!
Hier mein Beitrag, den hoffentlich viele Mitmenschen lesen und überdenken sollten:
Klaus Maurischats Stalking-Methoden
Ja,-sie funktioniert. Seit 8 Jahren!
Ja,- und die Methode Maurischat ist so brutal und für normal denkende Menschen kaum vorstellbar!
Wir,-die CSA-Agency, sind schon seit Beginn des GoMoPa.net-Forums seit 2002 im Kreuzfeuer seiner Bemühungen, uns auszuschalten.
Er will nun nicht nur unsere Seiten mit seinen Hackerfreunden abschiessen (löschen) lassen, sondern uns noch dazu ´ausräuchern`, wie er es seit (14.10.2010) zunächst wieder formuliert.
Ausserdem hat er uns jetzt angedroht, die ihm bekannten Angehörigen und Freunde aus dem persönlichen Umfeld unseres Presse-Autors persönlich mit seinen infamen Stalkingmethoden wie folgt in der Öffentlichkeit und in deren privatem Umfeld anzuprangern.
Um grossen persönlichen Schaden von den benannten Personen abzuwenden, hat die CSA-Agency im Interesse dieser anständigen Mitmenschen sofort (15.10.2010) alle Aufklärungsbeiträge über GoMoPa.net aus dem Internet genommen. Alle Vorgänge sind dokumentiert und stehen den Betroffenen und Ermittlungsbehörden zur Verfügung.
Maurischats Verbrechermethoden mit gezieltem Rufmord!
Er nimmt zunächst mit Hilfe seiner Helfershelfer Familienmitglieder, Angehörige, Freunde oder Nachbarn seiner Opfer aufs Korn. Ist ja heutzutage kein Problem mehr, über Soziale Netzwerke wie z.B. Facebook solche zu finden.
Er lässt mit Google-Mailadressen-Suche Hunderte von Mailadressen aus dem örtlichen Umfeld dieser Personen suchen.
Dann lanciert er einen unwahren Verleumdungsbericht in seinem GoMoPa-Forum. Diese Beiträge sind an Abscheulichkeit nicht zu übertreffen.
Meistens werden die so angeprangerten krimineller Handlungen bezichtigt. Beispielsweise der Geldwäsche, Finanzbetrügereien oder Drogenhandel.
Wir CSA-Team-Mitglieder werden so seit Beginn des Gomopa-Forums 2002 beispielsweise als international von Interpol gesuchte Finanzbetrüger bezeichnet.
So machte er es auch mit unseren früheren Homepage-Providern, die er in seinem Forum mit unwahren Berichten konfrontierte. So lange, bis wir im Interesse dieser anständigen jungen Leute alle unsere Berichte zu GoMoPa gelöscht haben. Danach löschte er die unwahren Beiträge über die Provider.
Dann konfrontiert Maurischat mit dem Link zum unwahren Beitrag im Gomopa-Forum die Inhaber der gesammelten Mailadressen aus dem Umfeld des Verleumdungsopfers.
Mit dem Resultat, dass Nachbarn, Freunde im Ort plötzlich sich vom Opfer zurückziehen. Nach dem Motto: Es könnte ja was dran sein!
GoMoPa-Presse-Portal
Des weiteren setzt Maurischat seine GoMoPa-Presse-Portal -Aktionen ein.
Maurischat rühmt sich damit, dass er mit seinen eigenen Presse-News über hunderttausend Leser erreichen kann.
Des weiteren werden die unwahren Beiträge zum Verleumdungsopfer als GoMoPa-Presse-Artikel in vielen Presseportalen gestreut.
Zudem kommt hinzu, dass Maurischat seine Helfershelfer (gegen Bezahlung natürlich) benutzt, Strafanzeigen bei der zuständigen Staatsanwaltschaft des angeprangerten Opfers zu stellen. Das wirkt natürlich besonders glaubwürdig in den Augen des Betrachters.
Tatsache ist, dass sich seine Helfershelferin Renate F., (Name,Adresse aus Anti-Stalking-Gründen gekürzt) damit brüstet, dass sie nun den dritten Strafantrag gegen ein Verleumdungsopfer stellt, nachdem die ersten beiden im Laufe von zwei Jahren von der zuständigen Staatsanwaltschaft mangels Beweisen eingestellt worden waren.
Diese Methode Maurischat ist abscheulich! Strafrechtlich werden solche Stalking-Attacken in Deutschland schon im Einzelfall mit Gefängnis bis zu drei Jahren bestraft. Bei Maurischat kommen nachweisbar viele Stalking-Tatbestände und noch weitere wie Erpressung hinzu.
Maurischat ist schon mehrfach vorbestraft und kennt deutsche Haftanstalten als Insasse gut von innen.
Zuletzt war er als Finanzbetrüger mit dreijähriger Bewährungsfrist bis April 2009 verurteilt worden.
• Klaus Maurischat und Mark Vornkahl, Betreiber von http://www.gomopa.net: Am 24. April 2006 war die Verhandlung am Amtsgericht Krefeld in der Betrugssache: Mark Vornkahl / Klaus Maurischat ./. Dehnfeld. Aktenzeichen: 28 Ls 85/05 Klaus Maurischat Lange Straße 27313 Dörverden.
Maurischat lebt heute in Portugal nahe Porto in seiner Pension. Weit weg und sicher vor den Zugriffen der deutschen Ermittlungsbehörden!
Allerdings hat Maurischat vor zwei Jahren eine deutsche GoMoPa-GmbH in Berlin eingerichtet, um seine Fassade einer GoMoPa-Briefkastenfirma in den USA zu verbessern.
So steht der deutsche GoMoPa-GmbH-Geschäftsführer Peter Reski voll in der strafrechtlich relevanten Haftung gegenüber den Geschädigten.
GoMoPa GmbH
10117 Berlin
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Telefonnummer: (030) 21233660
Telefaxnummer: (030) 212336611
Maurischats Erpressungsmethoden
Nach der Devise: ´Wer nicht zahlt wird fertiggemacht!`.
Mit Hilfe negativer Einträge in seinem GoMoPa-Forum!
Maurischat hat sein Handwerk, wie in unseren Beiträgen dokumentiert,
bereits in den 90er Jahren im letzten Jahrhundert in Form seines Russen-Inkassos gelernt.
Die entsprechenden Beiträge finden Sie heute noch im Anlegerschutz-Magazin von ´Börse Online`.
Die CSA-Agency kann aufgrund ihrer 8-Jährigen Erfahrung mit dem GoMafia-Forum davon ausgehen, dass zumindest Hunderte der genannten Personen / Unternehmen in der GoMoPa-Datenbank und in der GoMoPa-Warnliste dort zu Unrecht aufgeführt sind!
Oftmals auch zu Unrecht im Forum dargestellt, weil sie den Erpressungsversuchen des GoMoPa-Paten-Teams nicht nachgekommen sind.
Oder auch, weil sie oftmals nicht die erforderlichen Geldmittel zur Löschung der Beiträge aufwenden konnten!
Nachweisbar ist, dass die so erpressten Verleumdungsopfer zwischen ein paar tausend bis über 50.000 Euro zur Löschung der Negativ-Beiträge aufzubringen haben.
So ist nachvollziehbar, dass gerade Großbetrüger und Abzocker am Grauen Kapitalmarkt (dem staatlich nicht regulierten Kapitalmarkt) unbehelligt von Maurischat und seinem GoMOPa-Forum abzocken können.
Martin Sachs, CSA Presse Redakteur
CSA-Presse-Agentur 14.10.2010
mailto:// csa-security@web.de// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//
http://www.gomafia-stalking.net/
http://www.csa-anlegerschutz.net/“

siehe auch http://sjb-fonds-opfer.com/?p=5669

Hintergrund:

Laut den SJB-Opfern haben der „Finanzdienst-Nachrichtendienst Gomopa” unter der Führung des wegen Betrugs vorbestraften Betrügers Klaus Maurischat ( Aktenzeichen Krefeld vom 24. April 2006; AZ: 28 Ls 85/05 – Am 24. April 2006 war die Verhandlung am Amtsgericht Krefeld in der Betrugssache: Mark Vornkahl / Klaus Maurischat ./. Dehnfeld. Aktenzeichen: 28 Ls 85/05, Klaus Maurischat, Lange Straße 38, 27313 Dörverden) sowie der umstrittene Fondsvermittler SJB gemeinsame, illegale Aktivitäten begangen.
Cyber-Kriminelle am Werk

So wurden auf die Internet-Seiten http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com und http://www.bennewirtz-opfer.com wochenlang schwere Hackerangriffe vorgenommen. Einmal im Wege des „ordinären Hackens“ mit Hunderten von chinesischen IPs, die dem mutmasslichen Hackerpaar Thomas Promny., Hamburg, und Sabine Müller. Weimar, (Aktenzeichen Hamburg 035/1K/608828/2010 und ST 1044410/2010  zuzuordnen seien.
Schwerwiegender waren indes sogennante Flooding-Angriffe, bei denen durch fingierte Anfragen die Server zum Absturz gebracht werden. Maurischat, gegen den in vielen Verfahren u.a. wegen Kursmanipultion im Falle Wirecard ermittlt wird, gilt als „praktizierender Experte auf diesem Sektor“, so die SJB-Opfer. Zahlreiche Verbindungsdaten zu den Registraren Arvixe und Lin Hostern Versatel und Godaddy konnten sichergestellt werden. Seitens der SJB-Opfer wurden und werden diese Angriffe  von Gerd Bennewirtz, der selber Registrar und Server-Hoster ist angeordnet. Die ausführenden Parteien seien entweder Promny und Müller oder Klaus Maurischat gewesen.
Sjb Title: SJB FondsSkyline OHG 1989 | Gewinner bleiben
Sjb IP:
80.237.237.212
Sjb server location:
Korschenbroich in Germany
Sjb ISP:
Host Europe GmbH
ype: PERSON
Name: Gerd Bennewirtz
Address: Mediainvest Fonds-System-Software
Address: Bachstr.45c
PostalCode: 41352
City: Korschenbroich
CountryCode: DE
Phone: +49 2182 8520
Fax: +49 2182 8558141
Email:

Drehscheibe Godday

Godaddy ist auch der Haus-Hoster von „Gomopa“ und seit vielen Jahren der Registrar der „Gomopa“-Homepage. Hier werden auch zahlreiche „Gomopa“ zuzuordnende „Foren“ und „Blogs“ zugeordnet, in denen fiktive Cyber-Aliasse ihr Unwesen treiben, das natürlich nie mit Fakten belegt ist wie z.b. extremnews.com.

Registrant:

Goldman Morgenstern an Partners LLC

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: GOMOPA.NET

Gehostet hier:

Server IP: 67.23.163.233
Server Location:
Lockport, NY, 14094, United States

Gomopa IP:
67.23.163.230
Gomopa server location:
Asheville in United States
Gomopa ISP:
Netriplex LLC

Pikant auch die Internetseite der immer wieder mit Gomopa in Verbindung gebrachten Offshore-Firma Baker & Baker, Köln, wird bei Godaddy gehostet.

Server IP: 208.109.181.34
Server Location:
Scottsdale, AZ, 85260, United States

Von gekaperten Godaddy-IP-Adressen  wurden und werden auch zahlreiche Flooding-Angriffe geführt bzw. sogenannte Stalking-Seiten gehostet, die so die Opfer eine Spezialität von Klaus Maurischat seien.

Die Baker & Baker wurde bereits in der Schweiz wegen Vermögenslosigkeit liquidiert.
Siehe http://www.yasni.de/baker+offshore/person+information und

http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/baker_baker_consulting_group_ag_CH-170.3.014.447-7.htm

Dieser Firma war Heinz Gerlach ein besonderes Dorn im Auge wie man bei Durchsicht der Seite http://www.akte-heinz-gerlach.info unschwer erkennen kann. Es geht und ging dabei um die Patenschaft im grauen Markt der Kapitalanlagen.

Drehsscheibe Mediaon.com
Eine wesentliche Rolle bei den illegalen Offshore-Internet-Aktivitäten der Cyber-Kriminellen spielt auch die Briefkastenfirma Linh Wang, Honkong, bei der die Seite http://www.akte-heinz-gerlach.info registriert wurde, die bei dem dubiosen Undergrund-Unternehmen Mediaon.com in der Türkei gehostet wird, so die Opfer. Über diese Schiene wurden Dutzende betrügerischer Erpresser-Sites der Cyber-Kriminellen registriert.
Server IP: 95.0.239.251)
Domain ID:D28959891-LRMS

Domain Name:AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO

Created On:03-Jul-2009 08:59:55 UTC

Last Updated On:10-May-2010 18:16:59 UTC

Expiration Date:03-Jul-2011 08:59:55 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Alantron BLTD (R322-LRMS)

Status:OK

Registrant ID:DI_11637039

Registrant Name:Linh Wang

Registrant Organization:Linh Wang1273487281

Registrant Street1:3617 Tower 1  Lippo Centre

Registrant Street2:

Registrant Street3:

Registrant City:Hong Kong

Registrant State/Province:Queensway

Registrant Postal Code:0000089

Registrant Country:HK

Registrant Phone:+000.5230064510

Registrant Phone Ext.:

Registrant FAX:+000.5230064510

Registrant FAX Ext.:

Registrant Email: // info@xchiang.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Admin ID:DI_11637039

Admin Name:Linh Wang

Admin Organization:Linh Wang1273487281

Admin Street1:3617 Tower 1  Lippo Centre

Admin Street2:

Admin Street3:

Admin City:Hong Kong

Admin State/Province:Queensway

Admin Postal Code:0000089

Admin Country:HK

Admin Phone:+000.5230064510

Admin Phone Ext.:

Admin FAX:+000.5230064510

Admin FAX Ext.:

Admin Email: // info@xchiang.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Billing ID:DI_11637040

Billing Name:Tuce Kuyumcu

Billing Organization:Tuce Kuyumcu1273487281

Billing Street1:Market Street 45a

Billing Street2:

Billing Street3:

Billing City:Baidoa

Billing State/Province:Victoria  Mahe  Seychelles

Billing Postal Code:00000

Billing Country:HK

Billing Phone:+000.4834433490

Billing Phone Ext.:

Billing FAX:+000.4834433491

Billing FAX Ext.:

Billing Email: // tuce.kuyumcu@somali.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Tech ID:DI_11637040

Tech Name:Tuce Kuyumcu

Tech Organization:Tuce Kuyumcu1273487281

Tech Street1:Market Street 45a

Tech Street2:

Tech Street3:

Tech City:Baidoa

Tech State/Province:Victoria  Mahe  Seychelles

Tech Postal Code:00000

Tech Country:HK

Tech Phone:+000.4834433490

Tech Phone Ext.:

Tech FAX:+000.4834433491

Tech FAX Ext.:

Tech Email: // tuce.kuyumcu@somali.com// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it//

Name Server:NS1.ANADOLUDNS.COM

Name Server:NS2.ANADOLUDNS.COM

Hier der Beleg über das Hosting der Anti-Gerlach-Seite, AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO,  bei dem Untergrund-Unternehmen Mediaon.com in der Türkei gehostet: Linh Wang

Domain ID:D28959891-LRMS

Domain Name:AKTE-HEINZ-GERLACH.INFO

Created On:03-Jul-2009 08:59:55 UTC

Last Updated On:10-May-2010 18:16:59 UTC

Expiration Date:03-Jul-2011 08:59:55 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Alantron BLTD (R32

Mediaon Title: Anonymous Hosting – Privacy Hosting – MediaOn.com is leading the marked in privacy hosting.

Mediaon Keywords: Anonymous hosting, Whois Protection, Whois privacy services, Privacy Hosting, anonymous domain registration, managed vps

Mediaon Description: MediaOn.com is leading in anonymous hosting and privacy hosting.

Mediaon IP:
95.0.153.245
Mediaon server location:
Turkey
Mediaon ISP:
Turk Telekom
IP: 95.0.153.245
IP Country:  Turkey
This IP address resolves to dsl95-0-39413.ttnet.net.tr

Idari Yonetici / Registrant
(Admin)
Ad / Name Tekin Karaboga
Adres Catalca Yolu Menekse Mevkii Istanbul 34537
Tel +90.212.8656520

Diese Internet-Operations-Muster – so die SJB-Opfer – habe es in Ihrem Falle, aber auch bei zahlreichen anderen Betrugs-, Erpressungs- und Verleumdungsopfer in den letzten Jahren gegeben. “Nunmeh rliegen die Daten offen und die Hintermänner der feigen Cyber-Rufmorde und auch des heimtückischen Cyber-Mordes an Heinz Gerlachkönnen ermittelt werden”, so Heinz. F., Mayen, Sprecher der Opfer (die Personen-Daten wurden aus Sicherheitsgründen anonimysiert).

Wenn das BKA, LK, FBI und die Kriminalpolizei diesen Spuren weiter intensiv nachgehen würden, seien die sowieso laufenden Ermittlungen in zahlreichen Fällen wie auch im Kursmanipulationsfall „Wirecard“ von Erfolg gekrönt. Denn große Firmen wie Godaddy und auch Enom, für die der Reseller Arvixe Domains verkauft, könnten sich anders als “dubiose türkische Untergrund-Internet-Klitschen” – dem Zugriff der Justiz nicht entziehen.

Ein kleines Schmankerl am Schluss: Pikant ist und bezeichnet für die Glaubwürdigkeit der Aktiviäten des – im Gegensatz zu seinen Opfern – TATSÄCHLICH vorbestraften Klaus Maurischat ( Aktenzeichen Krefeld vom 24. April 2006; AZ: 28 Ls 85/05) ist übrigens auch, das bei dem internationalen „angeblich jüdischen New Yorker“ Unternehmen „Gomopa“ nur deutsche Texte auf der Webseite stehen und über 90% der Besucher aus Deutschland (87,4%), Österreich 4,2 % und Schweiz 1,6%) stammen.

Muamar Gaddafi punched and kicked in head

DAS BETRUGSURTEIL GEGEN DIE SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-STALKER DER STASI-“GoMoPa”

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7273-der-beweis-betrugs-urteil-gegengomopa-maurischat-betrug-am-eigenen-anleger-wg–10000-.html

FBI – The NCFTA Combining Forces to Fight Cyber Crime

NCFTA logoLong before it was acknowledged to be a significant criminal and national security threat, the FBI established a forward-looking organization to proactively address the issue of cyber crime.

Since its creation in 1997, the National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance (NCFTA), based in Pittsburgh, has become an international model for bringing together law enforcement, private industry, and academia to share information to stop emerging cyber threats and mitigate existing ones.

“The exchange of strategic and threat intelligence is really the bread and butter of the NCFTA,” said Special Agent Eric Strom, who heads the FBI unit—the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit (CIRFU)—assigned to the NCFTA. “The success of this effort at every level comes down to the free flow of information among our partners.”

When the nonprofit NCFTA was established, the biggest threat to industry was from spam—those annoying unsolicited e-mails that fill up inboxes. Today, the organization deals with malicious computer viruses, stock manipulation schemes, telecommunication scams, and other financial frauds perpetrated by organized crime groups who cause billions of dollars in losses to companies and consumers.

CIRFU logo
Cyber Takedowns

The FBI has conducted a number of major cyber takedowns with the help of the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit (CIRFU)—the cyber unit attached to the NCFTA. Here is a brief look at a three of those cases:

Dark Market: Fifty-six individuals were arrested worldwide and $70 million in potential loss was prevented. A CIRFU undercover agent posing as a cyber crook infiltrated a criminal Internet forum at its highest level.

Coreflood: Investigators disrupted an international cyber fraud operation by seizing the servers that had infected as many as two million computers with malicious software.

Trident Breach: This major bust targeted a theft ring that used a Trojan horse virus to steal millions of dollars from victims’ bank accounts.

The NCFTA essentially works as an early-warning system. If investigators for a major banking institution, for example, notice a new kind of malware attacking their network, they immediately pass that information to other NCFTA members.

Alliance members—many have staff permanently located at the NCFTA—then develop strategies to mitigate the threat. FBI agents and analysts from CIRFU, also located at NCFTA headquarters, use that information to open or further existing FBI investigations, often in concert with law enforcement partners around the world.

“Cyber crime has changed so much since those early days of spamming,” Strom said. “And the threat continues to evolve globally, which is why the NCFTA’s work is so critical to both business and law enforcement.”

The organization draws its intelligence from hundreds of private-sector members, Carnegie Mellon University’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). That extensive knowledge base has helped CIRFU play a key role in some of the FBI’s most significant cyber cases in the past several years. (See sidebar.)

Training is another important role of the NCFTA. Last year, an international internship program was held in which cyber investigators from Germany, Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the Ukraine came to the alliance headquarters for 90 days to share knowledge, build relationships, and help with each others’ investigations.

“Working with CIRFU and the NCFTA makes our cooperation very direct,” said Mirko Manske, a cyber investigator for the German Federal Criminal Police. “We can work in real time, sharing information and moving our cases forward. That is one of the biggest gains for us.”

Manske added, “If I need a contact in the U.S., I reach out to CIRFU and they help me immediately. And we do the same for them. Basically we are opening doors for each other.”

When it comes to the global reach of cyber crime, Manske said, “The FBI gets it. They realize that no one organization can succeed by itself. CIRFU started all of this,” he added. “The unit is one of the reasons the FBI is recognized as one of the worldwide leaders in the fight against cyber crime.”

FBI: 56 killed In the Line of Duty

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/october/leoka_102411/image/large-map-of-states-where-officers-were-killed

Fifty-six law enforcement officers in 22 states and Puerto Rico were feloniously killed in 2010, and more than 53,000 officers were assaulted during the same period, according to statistics released by the FBI.

The annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report released today offers the most complete public picture of the fatal circumstances that officers faced in 2010. In chilling detail, the report summarizes most of last year’s fatal confrontations and illustrates a reality that every officer continually trains to recognize: that there are no routine engagements. Among the scenarios:

  • Two West Memphis Police Department officers were killed during a traffic stop when a 16-year-old passenger exited the vehicle and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle.
  • A Chicago Police Department officer at the end of his shift was removing his gear near his car in the department’s parking lot when a man ambushed the 43-year-old officer and shot him with his own weapon.
  • A 62-year-old deputy sheriff in Mississippi was shot and killed by an uncooperative suspect while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

Information in the report, which is collected each year through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is intended to provide law enforcement agencies with detailed descriptions of the circumstances leading up to officer fatalities. The data can then be incorporated into tactical training.

“Only when detectives, use-of-force investigators, supervisors and administrators examine the various components of the deadly mix will a greater understanding of these encounters emerge,” FBI researchers wrote in a study called Violent Encounters, an in-depth look at years of fatal altercations like those in today’s report. “To make an objective assessment of each case, it is necessary to carefully and completely examine all aspects of the incident thus allowing the facts to surface.”

The 56 officers killed is an increase over 2009, when 48 officers were killed. However, significant conclusions may not be drawn from year-to-year comparisons given the nature of the statistics. Ten years ago, for example, 70 officers were killed in the line of duty (excluding the events of 9/11), and five years ago 48 officers were feloniously killed.

The 2010 report also shows 72 officers were accidently killed in the line of duty, almost all of them involving vehicles. Meanwhile, 53,469 officers were assaulted while on duty—a figure that amounts to one in 10 of the sworn officers in more than 11,000 agencies that reported data.

All told, the figures illustrate the inherent dangers of law enforcement. Here’s a look at some of the data contained in the report:

  • Offenders used firearms to kill all but one of the 56 victim officers; one officer was killed by a vehicle used as a weapon.
  • Of the 56 officers feloniously killed, 15 were ambushed, 14 were in arrest situations, seven were performing traffic stops, and six were answering disturbance calls.
  • One in three officer assaults occurred while responding to disturbance calls; 14.7 percent occurred while officers were attempting arrests.
  • The average age of officers killed feloniously and accidentally was, respectively, 38 and 39.

The UCR Program, part of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, has been collecting and publishing law enforcement statistics since 1937, most notably the annual Crime in the United States reports. In 1972, the FBI began producing detailed reports on officer fatalities after the larger law enforcement community sought the Bureau’s involvement in preventing and investigating officer deaths.

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – Going SOLO: Communist Agent Tells All

Morris Childs
Morris Childs’ intelligence work was handled by the FBI under the code name SOLO.

In April 1958, a representative of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) named Morris Childs made important trips to the Soviet Union and China. His purpose: to re-establish formal contact between the CPUSA and these countries.

First, Morris visited with key Communist Party and Soviet leaders in Moscow. He learned of their wider political goals, their concerns and fears, and their deep interest in restoring connections with the CPUSA. Then he went to Beijing, where he made similar inroads and met with Premier Mao Tse Tung.

After three months, Morris returned home and reported all he’d learned to CPUSA leaders. But as a new Freedom of Information Act release in the FBI Vault makes clear, he was also secretly talking to President Dwight Eisenhower, the vice president, the secretary of state, and a select group of other U.S. officials.

Morris, you see, was actually one of the FBI’s greatest Cold War agents.

Born Moishe Chilovsky in the Ukraine, Morris Childs and his family immigrated to the U.S. in 1912. He joined the emerging communist movement in Chicago as a teenager and devoted his life to the cause. In 1947, his work ended after an internal power struggle removed him as editor of the CPUSA’s flagship newspaper and his continuing struggle with heart disease left him sickly and incapacitated. Unable to pursue other work for the movement, Childs was soon forgotten.

Meanwhile, America’s growing realization of the penetration of the U.S. government by the Soviets and the subsequent political debate over the role of communism in society became the focus of the day. By the early 1950s, the FBI began taking a more proactive approach to dealing with Soviet intelligence. That included zeroing in on the CPUSA—in part, by approaching Communist officials who had left the party. One of the first on the list was Morris Childs’ brother Jack.

Jack willingly cooperated and strongly advocated that the Bureau contact his brother, paving the way for a 1952 meeting between Morris and Special Agent Carl Freyman. The two got along quite well, sharing a knowledge of communist philosophy and an interest in wider intellectual and cultural issues.

After several meetings, Childs agreed to return to the CPUSA as an informant for the FBI. With the assistance of Jack, the Bureau helped Morris rehabilitate both his health and his role in the Party. Morris began feeling better after a Bureau-arranged stay at the Mayo Clinic, and within a year he started reaching out to his old comrades. He and Jack were accepted back into the CPUSA and eventually were tasked with deepening contacts with the Canadian Communist Party and through it, the Soviet Union.

Over four decades, Morris made more than 50 visits overseas for the CPUSA, each time reporting with great detail and insight about the issues and concerns of the leadership of the Soviet Union and China. Considering that these two nations were such closed societies, Morris’s intelligence was invaluable—a fact recognized by President Ronald Reagan when he awarded Morris (and posthumously, Jack) with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The intelligence work of the brothers—and later their wives—was handled by the FBI under the code name SOLO. In the coming months, stay tuned as we reveal more details of this long-running operation as additional sections of the SOLO file are released in our Vault.

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – The Continuing Gang Threat Latest Assessment Released

2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends.jpg

Preface

The National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) prepared the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment (NGTA) to examine emerging gang trends and threats posed by criminal gangs to communities throughout the United States. The 2011 NGTA enhances and builds on the gang-related trends and criminal threats identified in the 2009 assessment. It supports US Department of Justice strategic objectives 2.2 (to reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime) and 2.4 (to reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs). The assessment is based on federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and corrections agency intelligence, including information and data provided by the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) and the National Gang Center. Additionally, this assessment is supplemented by information retrieved from open source documents and data collected through April 2011.

Scope and Methodology

In 2009, the NGIC released its second threat assessment on gang activity in the United States. The NGIC and its law enforcement partners documented increases in gang proliferation and migration nationwide and emerging threats. This report attempts to expand on these findings. Reporting and intelligence collected over the past two years have demonstrated increases in the number of gangs and gang members as law enforcement authorities nationwide continue to identify gang members and share information regarding these groups. Better reporting and collection has contributed greatly to the increased documentation and reporting of gang members and gang trends.

Information in the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment-Emerging Trends was derived from law enforcement intelligence, open source information, and data collected from the NDIC, including the 2010 NDIC National Drug Threat Survey (NDTS). NGIC law enforcement partners provided information and guidance regarding new trends and intelligence through an online request for information via the NGIC Law Enforcement Online (LEO) Special Interest Group (SIG), which is now NGIC Online. Law enforcement agencies nationwide continuously report new and emerging gang trends to the NGIC, as the NGIC continues to operate as a repository and dissemination hub for gang intelligence. This information provided by our law enforcement partners was used to identify many of the trends and issues included in this report.

Reporting used to quantify the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gangs and gang members was primarily derived from the 2010 NDIC NDTS data and some supplemental NGIC reporting from our law enforcement partners. NDIC annually conducts the NDTS to collect data on the threat posed by various illicit drugs in the United States. A stratified random sample of nearly 3,500 state and local law enforcement agencies was surveyed to generate national, regional, and state estimates of various aspects of drug trafficking activities including the threat posed by various drugs, the availability and production of illicit drugs, as well as the role of street gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs in drug trafficking activity. Weighted national, regional, and state-level statistical estimates derived from NDTS 2010 data was based on responses received from 2,963 law enforcement agencies out of a sample of 3,465 agencies. In calculating the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gang members, respondents in each region were asked to select from a series of ranges of numbers. The median numbers of each range were aggregated to generate an estimate for the total number of gang members. In calculating the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gangs, the low end of each range was aggregated to generate an estimate for the total number of gangs and gang members. Prison gang member estimates were derived directly from the US Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and state correctional institutions across the country.

About the NGIC

The NGIC was established by Congress in 2005 to support law enforcement agencies through timely and accurate information sharing and strategic/tactical analysis of federal, state, and local law enforcement information focusing on the growth, migration, criminal activity, and association of gangs that pose a significant threat to communities throughout the United States. The NGIC is comprised of representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), US Bureau of Prisons (BOP), United States Marshals Service (USMS), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Department of Defense (DOD), National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This multi-agency fusion center integrates gang intelligence assets to serve as a central intelligence resource for gang information and analytical support.

To assist in the sharing of gang intelligence with law enforcement, the NGIC has established NGIC Online, an information system comprised of a set of web-based tools designed for researching gang-related intelligence and sharing of information with federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. The system’s Request for Information (RFI) portal encourages users to contribute new data as well as conduct gang research through custom threat assessments and/or liaison with NGIC’s network of national subject matter experts. NGIC Online functions include RFI submissions and responses; Gang Encyclopedia WIKI; General Intelligence Library; and a Signs, Symbols, and Tattoos (SST) database with user submissions.

Gang Definitions

Gang Definition
Street Street gangs are criminal organizations formed on the street operating throughout the United States.
Prison Prison gangs are criminal organizations that originated within the penal system and operate within correctional facilities throughout the United States, although released members may be operating on the street. Prison gangs are also self-perpetuating criminal entities that can continue their criminal operations outside the confines of the penal system.
Outlaw Motorcycle (OMGs) OMGs are organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises. Although some law enforcement agencies regard only One Percenters as OMGs, the NGIC, for the purpose of this assessment, covers all OMG criminal organizations, including OMG support and puppet clubs.
One Percenter
OMGs
ATF defines One Percenters as any group of motorcyclists who have voluntarily made a commitment to band together to abide by their organization’s rules enforced by violence and who engage in activities that bring them and their club into repeated and serious conflict with society and the law. The group must be an ongoing organization, association of three (3) or more persons which have a common interest and/or activity characterized by the commission of or involvement in a pattern of criminal or delinquent conduct. ATF estimates there are approximately 300 One Percenter OMGs in the United States.
Neighborhood/Local Neighborhood or Local street gangs are confined to specific neighborhoods and jurisdictions and often imitate larger, more powerful national gangs. The primary purpose for many neighborhood gangs is drug distribution and sales.

Regional Breakdown:

Maps and data in this assessment are presented according to the FBI’s Safe Streets Gang Task Force regions.

Region States
North Central Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia
South Central Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas
Southeast Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia
West Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

Executive Summary

Gangs continue to commit criminal activity, recruit new members in urban, suburban, and rural regions across the United States, and develop criminal associations that expand their influence over criminal enterprises, particularly street-level drug sales. The most notable trends for 2011 have been the overall increase in gang membership, and the expansion of criminal street gangs’ control of street-level drug sales and collaboration with rival gangs and other criminal organizations.a

Key Findings

Gangs are expanding, evolving and posing an increasing threat to US communities nationwide. Many gangs are sophisticated criminal networks with members who are violent, distribute wholesale quantities of drugs, and develop and maintain close working relationships with members and associates of transnational criminal/drug trafficking organizations. Gangs are becoming more violent while engaging in less typical and lower-risk crime, such as prostitution and white-collar crime. Gangs are more adaptable, organized, sophisticated, and opportunistic, exploiting new and advanced technology as a means to recruit, communicate discretely, target their rivals, and perpetuate their criminal activity. Based on state, local, and federal law enforcement reporting, the NGIC concludes that:

  • There are approximately 1.4 million active street, prison, and OMG gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States. Gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and Great Lakes regions boast the highest number of gang members. Neighborhood-based gangs, hybrid gang members, and national-level gangs such as the Sureños are rapidly expanding in many jurisdictions. Many communities are also experiencing an increase in ethnic-based gangs such as African, Asian, Caribbean, and Eurasian gangs.
  • Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.
  • Gangs are increasingly engaging in non-traditional gang-related crime, such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, and prostitution. Gangs are also engaging in white collar crime such as counterfeiting, identity theft, and mortgage fraud, primarily due to the high profitability and much lower visibility and risk of detection and punishment than drug and weapons trafficking.
  • US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central American and MDTOs to perpetrate illicit cross-border activity, as well as with some organized crime groups in some regions of the United States. US-based gangs and MDTOs are establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants along the Southwest Border; and serving as enforcers for MDTO interests on the US side of the border.
  • Many gang members continue to engage in gang activity while incarcerated. Family members play pivotal roles in assisting or facilitating gang activities and recruitment during a gang members’ incarceration. Gang members in some correctional facilities are adopting radical religious views while incarcerated.
  • Gangs encourage members, associates, and relatives to obtain law enforcement, judiciary, or legal employment in order to gather information on rival gangs and law enforcement operations. Gang infiltration of the military continues to pose a significant criminal threat, as members of at least 53 gangs have been identified on both domestic and international military installations. Gang members who learn advanced weaponry and combat techniques in the military are at risk of employing these skills on the street when they return to their communities.
  • Gang members are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons and equipment which poses a significant threat because of the potential to engage in lethal encounters with law enforcement officers and civilians. Typically firearms are acquired through illegal purchases; straw purchases via surrogates or middle-men, and thefts from individuals, vehicles, residences and commercial establishments. Gang members also target military and law enforcement officials, facilities, and vehicles to obtain weapons, ammunition, body armor, police gear, badges, uniforms, and official identification.
  • Gangs on Indian Reservations often emulate national-level gangs and adopt names and identifiers from nationally recognized urban gangs. Gang members on some Indian Reservations are associating with gang members in the community to commit crime.
  • Gangs are becoming increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, employing new and advanced technology to facilitate criminal activity discreetly, enhance their criminal operations, and connect with other gang members, criminal organizations, and potential recruits nationwide and even worldwide.

Current Gang-Related Trends and Crime

Gang membership continues to expand throughout communities nationwide, as gangs evolve, adapt to new threats, and form new associations. Consequently, gang-related crime and violence is increasing as gangs employ violence and intimidation to control their territory and illicit operations. Many gangs have advanced beyond their traditional role as local retail drug distributors in large cities to become more organized, adaptable, and influential in large-scale drug trafficking. Gang members are migrating from urban areas to suburban and rural communities to recruit new members, expand their drug distribution territories, form new alliances, and collaborate with rival gangs and criminal organizations for profit and influence. Local neighborhood, hybrid and female gang membership is on the rise in many communities. Prison gang members, who exert control over many street gang members, often engage in crime and violence upon their return to the community. Gang members returning to the community from prison have an adverse and lasting impact on neighborhoods, which may experience notable increases in crime, violence, and drug trafficking.

Gang Membership and Expansion

Approximately 1.4 million active street, OMG, and prison gang members, comprising more than 33,000 gangs, are criminally active within all 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see Appendix A). This represents a 40 percent increase from an estimated 1 million gang members in 2009. The NGIC attributes this increase in gang membership primarily to improved reporting, more aggressive recruitment efforts by gangs, the formation of new gangs, new opportunities for drug trafficking, and collaboration with rival gangs and drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). Law enforcement in several jurisdictions also attribute the increase in gang membership in their region to the gangster rap culture, the facilitation of communication and recruitment through the Internet and social media, the proliferation of generational gang members, and a shortage of resources to combat gangs.

More than half of NGIC law enforcement partners report an increase in gang-related criminal activity in their jurisdictions over the past two years. Neighborhood-based gangs continue to pose the greatest threat in most jurisdictions nationwide.

  • NGIC and NDIC data indicates that, since 2009, gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and North Central regions—particularly Arizona, California, and Illinois—boast the highest number of gang members.

2011 Estimated Gang Membership

Members

Gangs

Street

1,140,344

30,313

OMG

44,108

2,965

Prison

231,136**

n/a

Total

1,415,578

33,278

*Based on 2010 and 2011 NGIC and NDIC data**Based on reporting from 32 states

2011 Estimated Street and OMG Membership by Region

North Central

260,022

Northeast

159,158

South Central

167,353

Southeast

117,205

West

480,715

Total

1,184,453

*Based on 2010 and 2011 NGIC and NDIC data
  • Sureño gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), 18th Street, and Florencia 13, are expanding faster than other national-level gangs, both in membership and geographically. Twenty states and the District of Columbia report an increase of Sureño migration into their region over the past three years. California has experienced a substantial migration of Sureño gangs into northern California and neighboring states, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.
  • Law enforcement reporting indicates a significant increase in OMGs in a number of jurisdictions, with 44,108 members nationwide comprising approximately 2,965 gangs.b Jurisdictions in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia are experiencing the most significant increase in OMGs, increasing the potential for gang-related turf wars with other local OMGs. The Wheels of Soul (WOS), Mongols, Outlaws, Pagans and Vagos have expanded in several states.

Table 1. Recent Expansion of Major OMGs:

Gang Region
Mongols Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington
Outlaws Arkansas, Montana, Maryland, North Carolina, New York
Pagans Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio
Vagos California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota
Wheels of Soul Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, New York

Source: ATF

Figure 1. Nationwide Gang Presence

ngic-ndic_usgangpresence06_11map
Source: NGIC and NDIC 2010 National Drug Survey Data

Chart 1. Threat Posed by Gangs, According to Law Enforcement.

The NGIC collected intelligence from law enforcement officials nationwide in an attempt to capture the threat posed by national-level street, prison, outlaw motorcycle, and neighborhood-based gangs in their communities.

nationwidethreatofgangs

Source: 2011 NGIC National data

Gang-Related Violent Crime

Gang-related crime and violence continues to rise. NGIC analysis indicates that gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others. Some jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas report that gangs are responsible for at least 90 percent of crime. A comparison of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 2009 violent crime data and 2010 NGIC gang data illustrates that regions experiencing the most violent crime—including southern California, Texas, and Florida—also have a substantial gang presence (see Figure 1 and Map 7). Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking. NDIC reporting indicates that gang control over drug distribution and disputes over drug territory has increased, which may be responsible for the increase in violence in many areas. Conflict between gangs, gang migration into rival gang territory, and the release of incarcerated gang members back into the community has also resulted in an increase in gang-related crime and violence in many jurisdictions, according to NGIC reporting.

Table 2. Percentage of Violent Crime Committed by Gangs as reported by NGIC Law Enforcement Partners

% of violent crime committed by gangs

% of LE Officials

1-25%

34.0%

26-50%

28.4%

51-75%

22.7%

76-100%

14.9%

Chart 2. Threat Posed by Gangs, as Reported by Law Enforcement.

The NGIC collected intelligence from its law enforcement partners nationwide in an effort to capture the criminal threat posed by national-level street, prison, outlaw motorcycle, and neighborhood-based gangs in their communities. The following chart represents the percentage of gang involvement in crime.

nationwideganginvolvement
Source: 2011 NGIC data

According to National Youth Gang Survey reporting, larger cities and suburban counties accounted for the majority of gang-related violence and more than 96 percent of all gang homicides in 2009.1 As previous studies have indicated, neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in these regions.

  • Law enforcement officials in the Washington, DC metropolitan region are concerned about a spate of gang-related violence in their area. In February 2011, ICE officials indicted 11 MS-13 members for a two-year spree of murders, stabbings, assaults, robberies, and drug distribution. Likewise, gangs such as MS-13 and Bloods in Prince George’s County, Maryland, are suspected to be involved in up to 16 homicides since January 2011.2
  • USMS reported 5,705 gang-affiliated felony fugitives in 2010, a 14 percent increase from the number of gang fugitives in 2009. California and Texas report the highest number of gang fugitives, with 1,284 and 542 respectively.

Gang-Related Drug Distribution and Trafficking

Gang involvement and control of the retail drug trade poses a serious threat to public safety and stability in most major cities and in many mid-size cities because such distribution activities are routinely associated with lethal violence. Violent disputes over control of drug territory and enforcement of drug debts frequently occur among gangs in both urban and suburban areas, as gangs expand their control of drug distribution in many jurisdictions, according to NDIC and NGIC reporting. In 2010, law enforcement agencies in 51 major US cities reported moderate to significant levels of gang-related drug activity.

NDIC survey data indicates that 69 percent of US law enforcement agencies report gang involvement in drug distribution.

  • In June 2010, a joint federal-state law enforcement operation led to the arrest of eight people linked to a San Gabriel Valley street gang involved in violent crimes and methamphetamine trafficking in support of the California Mexican Mafia (La Eme).3

NDIC reporting suggests that gangs are advancing beyond their traditional role as local retail drug distributors in large cities and becoming more influential in large-scale drug trafficking, resulting in an increase in violent crime in several regions of the country.4

  • Law enforcement reporting indicates that gang-related drug distribution and trafficking has resulted in an increase of kidnappings, assaults, robberies and homicides along the US Southwest border region.

Gang involvement in drug trafficking has also resulted in the expansion and migration of some gangs into new US communities, according to NDIC reporting.

  • Gang members from the Midwest are migrating to southern states to expand their drug trafficking operations.

Figure 3. Major Cities Reporting Gang-Related Drug Activity in 2010

Major Cities Reporting Gang-Related Drug Activity in 2010
Source: NDIC 2010 National Drug Threat Survey

Juvenile Gangs

Many jurisdictions are experiencing an increase in juvenile gangs and violencec, which is often attributed, in part, to the increased incarceration rates of older members and the aggressive recruitment of juveniles in schools. Gangs have traditionally targeted youths because of their vulnerability and susceptibility to recruitment tactics, as well as their likelihood of avoiding harsh criminal sentencing and willingness to engage in violence.

NGIC reporting indicates that juvenile gangs are responsible for a majority of crime in various jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

  • Juvenile gang members in some communities are hosting parties and organizing special events which develop into opportunities for recruiting, drugs, sexual exploitation, and criminal activity.
  • Gangster Rap gangs, often comprised of juveniles, are forming and are being used to launder drug money through seemingly legitimate businesses, according to NGIC reporting.

Gang Alliances and Collaboration

Collaboration between rival gangs and criminal organizations and increased improvement in communications, transportation, and technology have enabled national-level gangs to expand and secure their criminal networks throughout the United States and in other countries.

  • According to NGIC reporting, gang members in California are collaborating with members of rival gangs to further criminal activities such as drug distribution, prostitution of minors, and money laundering.
  • Gangs in the correctional system are committing crimes for other gangs in an effort to confuse and evade law enforcement.

Gang Sophistication

Gang members are becoming more sophisticated in their structure and operations and are modifying their activity to minimize law enforcement scrutiny and circumvent gang enhancement laws. Gangs in several jurisdictions have modified or ceased traditional or stereotypical gang indicia and no longer display their colors, tattoos, or hand signs. Others are forming hybrid gangs to avoid police attention and make to it more difficult for law enforcement to identify and monitor them, according to NGIC reporting. Many gangs are engaging in more sophisticated criminal schemes, including white collar and cyber crime, targeting and infiltrating sensitive systems to gain access to sensitive areas or information, and targeting and monitoring law enforcement.

Expansion of Ethnic-Based and Non-Traditional Gangs

Law enforcement officials in jurisdictions nationwide report an expansion of African, Asian, Eurasian, Caribbean, and Middle Eastern gangs, according to NGIC reporting. Many communities are also experiencing increases in hybrid and non-traditional gangs.

Asian Gangs

Asian gangs, historically limited to regions with large Asian populations, are expanding throughout communities nationwide. Although often considered street gangs, Asian gangs operate similar to Asian Criminal Enterprises with a more structured organization and hierarchy. They are not turf-oriented like most African-American and Hispanic street gangs and typically maintain a low profile to avoid law enforcement scrutiny. Asian gang members are known to prey on their own race and often develop a relationship with their victims before victimizing them.5 Law enforcement officials have limited knowledge of Asian gangs and often have difficulty penetrating these gangs because of language barriers and gang distrust of non-Asians.6

Law enforcement officials in California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin report a significant increase in Asian gangs in their jurisdictions.

Asian gangs are involved in a host of criminal activities to include violent crime, drug and human trafficking, and white collar crime.

  • Asian gang members in New England and California maintain marijuana cultivation houses specifically for the manufacturing and distribution of high potency marijuana and pay members of the Asian community to reside in them, according to 2010 NDIC and open source reporting.7

Some law enforcement agencies attribute the recent increase in Asian gang membership in their jurisdictions to the recruitment of non-Asian members into the gang in order to compete more effectively with other street gangs for territory and dominance of illicit markets.

East African Gangs

Somali Gangs

Somali gang presence has increased in several cities throughout the United States. Somali gangs are most prevalent in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; San Diego, California; and Seattle, Washington areas, primarily as a result of proximity to the Mexican and Canadian borders, according to ICE, NGIC, and law enforcement reporting. Somali gang activity has also been reported in other cities throughout the United States such as Nashville, Tennessee; Clarkston, Georgia; Columbus, Ohio; East Brunswick, New Jersey; and Tucson, Arizona. Unlike most traditional street gangs, Somali gangs tend to align and adopt gang names based on clan or tribe, although a few have joined national gangs such as the Crips and Bloods.

NGIC reporting indicates that East African gangs are present in at least 30 jurisdictions, including those in California, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

Somalian gangs are involved in drug and weapons trafficking, human trafficking, credit card fraud, prostitution, and violent crime. Homicides involving Somali victims are often the result of clan feuds between gang members. Sex trafficking of females across jurisdictional and state borders for the purpose of prostitution is also a growing trend among Somalian gangs.

Figure 4. Somali Outlaws set in Minneapolis, MN

mali_thug_boyz-under-somali-outlawz-minneapolis-pd-copy
Source: Minneapolis Police Department

  • In November 2010, 29 suspected Somalian gang members were indicted for a prostitution trafficking operation, according to open source reporting. Over a 10 year period, Somalian gang members transported underage females from Minnesota to Ohio and Tennessee for prostitution.8
  • In February 2009, five Somali gang members were arrested for murdering drug dealers in Dexter and Athens, Ohio, during home invasion robberies, according to law enforcement reporting.9

Although some Somali gangs adopt Bloods or Crips gang monikers, they typically do not associate with other African-American gangs. Somali nationals—mostly refugees displaced by the war(s) in Somalia and surrounding countries—tend to migrate to specific low-income communities, which are often heavily controlled by local Bloods and Crips street gangs. The Somali youth may emulate the local gangs, which frequently leads to friction with other gangs, such as Bloods and Crips, as well as with Ethiopian gangs.

Sudanese Gangs

Sudanese gangs in the United States have been expanding since 2003 and have been reported in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Some Sudanese gang members have weapons and tactical knowledge from their involvement in conflicts in their native country.

  • The African Pride (AP) gang is one of the most aggressive and dangerous of the Sudanese street gangs in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota.

Caribbean Gangs

Although largely confined to the East Coast, Caribbean gangs, such as Dominican, Haitian, and Jamaican gangs, are expanding in a number of communities throughout the United States.

Dominican Gangs

The Trinitarios, the most rapidly-expanding Caribbean gang and the largest Dominican gang, are a violent prison gang with members operating on the street. The Trinitarios are involved in homicide, violent assaults, robbery, theft, home invasions, and street-level drug distribution. Although predominate in New York and New Jersey, the Trinitarios have expanded to communities throughout the eastern United States, including Georgia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Dominicans Don’t Play (DDP), the second largest Dominican gang based in Bronx, New York, are known for their violent machete attacks and drug trafficking activities in Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

An increase in the Dominican population in several eastern US jurisdictions has resulted in the expansion and migration of Dominican gangs such as the Trinitarios. This has led to an increase in drug trafficking, robberies, violent assaults in the Tri-state area.

Figure 5. Trinitarios Insignia

trinitarios_picture_-atf_file_photo_www_myspace_com_14_sept_2010-a

Source: ATF

Haitian Gangs

Haitian gangs, such as the Florida-based Zoe Pound, have proliferated in many states primarily along the East Coast in recent years according to NGIC reporting. According to NGIC reporting, Haitian gangs are present in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.

  • The Zoe Pound gang, a street gang founded in Miami, Florida by Haitian immigrants in the United States, is involved in drug trafficking, robbery, and related violent crime. In February 2010, 22 suspected Zoe Pound members in Chicago, Illinois, were charged with possession of and conspiracy to traffic powder and crack cocaine from Illinois to Florida, according to FBI reporting.10
  • The Haitian Boys Posse and Custer Street Gang are involved in a myriad of criminal activities including drug and weapons trafficking, robberies, shootings and homicides along the East Coast.
Trinitario members arrested for drug and firearms violations

In August 2010, the FBI arrested three Rhode Island Trinitario members for conspiracy to distribute MDMA and firearms violations. Seventeen other Trinitario members also allegedly collected money to buy weapons, hire lawyers, and aid members (brothers) in prison.

Source: DOJ: District of Rhode Island, August 26, 2010


Jamaican Gangs

Traditional Jamaican gangs operating in the United States are generally unsophisticated and lack a significant hierarchical structure, unlike gangs in Jamaica. Many active Jamaican gangs operating in the United States maintain ties to larger criminal organizations and gangs in Jamaica, such as the Shower Posse or the Spangler Posse. Jamaican gang members in the United States engage in drug and weapons trafficking.

NGIC reporting indicates that Jamaican gangs are most active in California, Maryland, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Non-Traditional Gangs

Hybrid Gangs

The expansion of hybrid gangs—non-traditional gangs with multiple affiliations—is a continued phenomenon in many jurisdictions nationwide. Because of their multiple affiliations, ethnicities, migratory nature, and nebulous structure, hybrid gangs are difficult to track, identify, and target as they are transient and continuously evolving. Furthermore, these multi-ethnic, mixed-gender gangs pose a unique challenge to law enforcement because they are adopting national symbols and gang members often crossover from gang to gang. Hybrid gangs are of particular concern to law enforcement because members often escalate their criminal activity in order to gain attention and respect.

Hybrid gangs, which are present in at least 25 states, are fluid in size and structure, yet tend to adopt similar characteristics of larger urban gangs, including their own identifiers, rules, and recruiting methods.11 Like most street gangs, hybrid gang members commit a multitude of street and violent crime.12 Law enforcement reporting suggests that hybrid gangs have evolved from neighborhood crews that formed to expand drug trafficking, or from an absence of or loyalty to nationally recognized gangs in their region.

  • Law enforcement officials in many jurisdictions nationwide report an increase in juvenile gang membership and violent crime among hybrid and local gangs, according to 2010 NGIC reporting.
  • NGIC reporting indicates that hybrid gangs are dominating nationally recognized gangs in some jurisdictions and merging with other gangs to expand their membership.

Juggalos

The Juggalos, a loosely-organized hybrid gang, are rapidly expanding into many US communities. Although recognized as a gang in only four states, many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence. Law enforcement officials in at least 21 states have identified criminal Juggalo sub-sets, according to NGIC reporting.d

Hybrid and Almighty Latin King Nation (ALKN) Gang Members Arrested on Drug Charges

In November 2010, hybrid gang members in Pontiac, Michigan, known the “New World Order,” were charged along with members of the ALKN for numerous drug offenses. Several guns, drugs, dozens of cell phones and $10,000 in cash were
seized by FBI, DEA and local police departments. Many of the gang members arrested were juveniles and young adults.

Source: Online article “7 Members of 2 Gangs n Pontiac Face Drug charges” MyFoxdetroit.com; November 14, 2010

  • NGIC reporting indicates that Juggalo gangs are expanding in New Mexico primarily because they are attracted to the tribal and cultural traditions of the Native Americans residing nearby.

Most crimes committed by Juggalos are sporadic, disorganized, individualistic, and often involve simple assault, personal drug use and possession, petty theft, and vandalism. However, open source reporting suggests that a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity, such as felony assaults, thefts, robberies, and drug sales. Social networking websites are a popular conveyance for Juggalo sub-culture to communicate and expand.

  • In January 2011, a suspected Juggalo member shot and wounded a couple in King County, Washington, according to open source reporting.13

Juggalos’ disorganization and lack of structure within their groups, coupled with their transient nature, makes it difficult to classify them and identify their members and migration patterns. Many criminal Juggalo sub-sets are comprised of transient or homeless individuals, according to law enforcement reporting. Most Juggalo criminal groups are not motivated to migrate based upon traditional needs of a gang. However, law enforcement reporting suggests that Juggalo criminal activity has increased over the past several years and has expanded to several other states. Transient, criminal Juggalo groups pose a threat to communities due to the potential for violence, drug use/sales, and their general destructive and violent nature.

Juggalos

Although law enforcement officials in Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington report the most Juggalo gang-related criminal activity, Juggalos are present in Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, according to NGIC reporting.

  • In January 2010, two suspected Juggalo associates were charged with beating and robbing an elderly homeless man.14

Figure 6. Juggalo member

juggalette-with_possible_firearm_-atf_file_photo_www_red-alerts.com_28_sept_2010

Source: ATF

Gangs and Alien Smuggling, Human Trafficking, and Prostitution

Gang involvement in alien smuggling, human trafficking, and prostitution is increasing primarily due to their higher profitability and lower risks of detection and punishment than that of drug and weapons trafficking. Over the past year, federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in at least 35 states and US territories have reported that gangs in their jurisdictions are involved in alien smuggling, human trafficking, or prostitution.e

Alien Smuggling

Many street gangs are becoming involved in alien smuggling as a source of revenue. According to US law enforcement officials, tremendous incentive exists for gangs to diversify their criminal enterprises to include alien smuggling, which can be more lucrative and less risky than the illicit drug trade. Over the past two years numerous federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies nationwide have reported gang involvement in incidents of alien smuggling. In some instances, gang members were among those being smuggled across the border into the United States following deportation. In other cases, gang members facilitated the movement of migrants across the US-Mexico border.f

Increasing Coordination between Mexican Drug Cartels, Alien Smuggling Networks, and US-Based Gangs

Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are observing a growing nexus between the Mexican drug cartels, illegal alien smuggling rings, and US-based gangs. The alien smuggling networks that operate along the Southwest border are unable to move human cargo through drug cartel controlled corridors without paying a fee. The typical Mexican illegal alien now pays approximately $1,200 to $2,500 for entry into the United States. The fee is considerably higher for aliens smuggled from countries other than Mexico, which may even be more alluring for the cartels. It is estimated that criminals earn billions of dollars each year by smuggling aliens through Mexico into the United States.

Source: House Committee on Homeland Security, US Congress

Figure 7. An immigrant is smuggled in a vehicle

human-smuggling-discovered-during-a-vehicle-search-near-the-border-www.fbi.gov
Source: FBI

Human Trafficking Global Statistics
  • 18,000 to 20,000 individuals are trafficked into the United States each year.
  • 12.3 million worldwide victims of forced labor, bonded labor, and prostitution.
  • 1.2 million worldwide victims are children; 1.4 million are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, of which 98% are women and girls.
  • 32% of the victims are used for forced
    economic exploitation, of which 56% are women and girls

Sources: US Dept. of State TIP Report 2010; UN GIFT Global Report on TIP Feb. 2010

The Barrio Azteca, Mexican Mafia, MS-13, 18th Street Gang, and Somali gangs have all reportedly been involved in alien smuggling, according to NGIC and law enforcement reporting.

  • In October 2009, ICE agents in Los Angeles, California, arrested suspects linked to a drug trafficking and alien smuggling ring with close ties to the Drew Street clique of the Avenues (Sureño) street gang in Los Angeles. The ring allegedly smuggled more than 200 illegal aliens per year into the United States from Mexico, concealing them in trucks and hidden compartments of vehicles and then hiding them in a store house in Los Angeles (See Figure 8).15

Human Trafficking

Human trafficking is another source of revenue for some gangs. Victims—typically women and children—are often forced, coerced, or led with fraudulent pretense into prostitution and forced labor.16 The Bloods, MS-13, Sureños, and Somali gangs have been reportedly involved in human trafficking, according to multiple law enforcement and NGIC reporting.

  • Some gangs in the New England area are combining human trafficking and drug trafficking operations, where females are used to courier drugs and participate in prostitution.
  • In November 2010, federal law enforcement officials indicted 29 members of a Somalian gang in Minneapolis for operating an interstate sex trafficking ring that sold and transported underage African-American and Somalian females from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Columbus, Ohio, and Nashville, Tennessee, for prostitution, according to FBI and ICE reporting.17

Prostitution

Prostitution is also a major source of income for many gangs. Gang members often operate as pimps, luring or forcing at-risk, young females into prostitution and controlling them through violence and psychological abuse.g Asian gangs, Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, MS-13, Sureños, Vice Lords, and members of OMGs are involved in prostitution operations, according to FBI, NGIC, and multiple law enforcement reporting.

NGIC law enforcement partners report that gangs in their jurisdiction are involved in prostitution, some of which involves child prostitution.

  • Prostitution is reportedly the second largest source of income for San Diego, California, gangs. According to November 2010 open source reporting, African-American street gangs in San Diego are pimping young females to solicit males.18

Gangs and Criminal Organizations

Gangs & Drug Trafficking Organizations

Many US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central America and Mexico-based DTOs to perpetuate the smuggling of drugs across the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders. MDTOs control most of the cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana trafficked into the United States from Mexico and regularly employ lethal force to protect their drug shipments in Mexico and while crossing the US-Mexico border, according to NGIC and NDIC reporting.h

Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations

MDTOs are among the most prominent DTOs largely because of their control over the production of most drugs consumed in the United States. They are known to regularly collaborate with US-based street and prison gang members and occasionally work with select OMG and White Supremacist groups, purely for financial gain (see Appendix B). The prospect of financial gain is resulting in the suspension of traditional racial and ideological division among US prison gangs, providing MDTOs the means to further expand their influence over drug trafficking in the United States.19 NDIC reporting indicates that Hispanic and African American street gangs are expanding their influence over drug distribution in rural and suburban areas and acquire drugs directly from MDTOs in Mexico or along the Southwest border.20

Many Los Angeles-based Sinaloa cartel members use local gang members to assist in or commit kidnappings, acquire or sell drugs, and collect drug proceeds.

Source: DHS September 2010; DEA November 2010


NGIC law enforcement partners report that gangs in their jurisdiction have ties to Mexican criminal organizations, such as MDTOs.

  • Well-established US prison gangs such as the Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos (HPL), La Eme, the Texas Syndicate, Barrio Azteca and the Tango Blast are reportedly aligned with or connected to MDTOs.
  • NDIC reporting indicates that street gangs such as the Latin Kings, MS-13, Sureños, and Norteños maintain working relationships with MDTOs.21 Sureños in California and South Carolina maintain an association with the Los Zetas Cartel in Mexico, according to 2010 NGIC reporting.
  • According to 2010 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and open source reporting, some Aryan Brotherhood and La Eme prison gang members—bitter rivals inside prison—work together with MDTOs to smuggle drugs into California and prisons, steal vehicles, smuggle illegal weapons into Mexico, and intimidate rivals of the Mexican cartels.22
US-Based Gangs with Ties to MDTOs
Arizona New Mexican
Mafia
Aryan Brotherhood
Avenues
Bandidos
Barrio Azteca
Barrio Westside
Black Guerilla Family
Bloods
California Mexican
Mafia (Eme)
Crips
Hardtimes 13
Happytown Pomona
Hells Angels
Hermanos de
Pistoleros Latinos
(HPL)
La Nuestra Familia
Latin Kings
Lennox 13
Mara Salvatrucha
(MS-13)
Mexican Mafia
Mongols
Norteños
Satins Disciples
Sureños
Tango Blast
Texas Mexican Mafia
(Mexikanemi)
Texas Syndicate
Tri-City Bombers
Vagos
Vatos Locos
Westside Nogalitas
Wetback Power
Wonder Boys
18th Street Gang

Figure 8. Mexican Drug Cartels

5-17-10_mexican-drug-cartels-map
Source: Stratfor Global Intelligence

MDTOs contract with street and prison gangs along the Southwest border to enforce and secure smuggling operations in Mexico and the United States, particularly in California and Texas border communities.23 Gang members who are US citizens are valuable to MDTOs, as they can generally cross the US-Mexico border with less law enforcement scrutiny and are therefore less likely to have illicit drug loads interdicted.24 MDTOs use street and prison gang members in Mexico, Texas, and California to protect smuggling routes, collect debts, transport illicit goods, including drugs and weapons, and execute rival traffickers.25 Many of these crimes are committed in exchange for money and drugs, and as a result, street and prison gangs in the United States have gained greater control over drug distribution in rural and suburban areas. Gang members, including Barrio Azteca, MS-13 and Sureños have been intercepted driving with weapons and currency toward Mexico from such states as California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas according to open source reporting.

Major Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations
Arellano Felix
Beltran Leyva
Vicente Carrillo-
Fuentes
Gulf Cartel
Los Zetas
Sinaloa
La Familia
Michoacana

Gangs’ increased collaboration with MDTOs has altered the dynamics of the drug trade at the wholesale level. US gangs, which traditionally served as the primary organized retail or mid-level distributor of drugs in most major US cities, are now purchasing drugs directly from the cartels, thereby eliminating the mid-level wholesale dealer. Furthermore, advanced technology, such as wireless Internet and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) capabilities, has made the recruitment, collaboration, and coordination of criminal activity more efficient and lucrative, and allows direct contact between the gangs and DTOs.26 To increase their control over drug trafficking in smaller markets, street gangs have acquired large wholesale quantities of drugs at lower prices directly from DTOs in Mexico and along the US Southwest border.27

  • Recent intelligence indicates that the MDTO La Familia Michoacana has established US-based command-and-control groups which report to leaders in Mexico who manage street-level distribution in US cities.28

Gangs and Organized Criminal Groups

January 2010 FBI reporting indicates that some OMGs and street gangs are closely collaborating with African, Asian, Eurasian, and Italian organized criminal groups to facilitate street-level crimes such as extortion, enforcement, debt collection, and money laundering.

  • In May 2010, New Jersey authorities indicted 34 members of the Lucchese crime family on racketeering, weapons offenses, bribery, money laundering, and conspiracy charges. The investigation revealed that members of the Lucchese family in New Jersey were working with the Nine Trey Gangster Bloods to smuggle drugs and cell phones into the East Jersey State Prison for fellow inmates, according to open source reporting.29

NGIC reporting indicates that some gangs are suspected of associating with African, Asian, and Eurasian criminal groups in California and Washington.i

  • Law enforcement officials in Washington suspect that some Asian gangs, including the Oriental Boyz and the Tiny Rascal Gangsters, are involved with Asian organized crime and marijuana cultivating groups.
  • In February 2011, authorities in southern California charged 99 Armenian Power gang members with kidnapping, extortion, bank fraud, and drug trafficking. Armenian Power members reportedly have ties to high-level crime figures in Armenia, Russia, and Georgia.30

Chart 3. Gang Associations with Criminal Organizations.

The NGIC collected intelligence from law enforcement officials nationwide in an effort to identify associations between gangs and criminal organizations. The following figures represent the percentage of law enforcement who report that gangs in their jurisdiction have ties to various criminal organizations.

gang-associations

Gangs and Corrections Issues

Prison gang-related crime and violence in the nation’s corrections system poses a significant threat to facility employees and a growing threat in many communities. Once incarcerated, most street gang members join an established prison gang to ensure their protection. Based on data provided by federal and state correctional agencies, the NGIC estimates that there are approximately 231,136 gang members incarcerated in federal and state prisons nationwide. Their large numbers and dominant presence allows prison gangs to employ bribery, intimidation, and violence to exert influence and control over many correctional facilities. Violent disputes over control of drug territory and enforcement of drug debts frequently occur among incarcerated gang members.

Figure 9. A US prison yard

prison-yard

Prison/Street Gang Connections

Many incarcerated gang members continue to engage in gang activities following incarceration and use their connections inside prison to commit crime in the community. Prison gang members influence and control gang activity on the street, and exploit street gangs for money and other resources.

Figure 10. Incarcerated MS-13 Members

ms13-in-prison

Law enforcement officials report associations between street gang members and incarcerated gang members in their area.

  • MS-13 members send funds not only to gang members on the street and in prison, but also to gang members in El Salvador, according to NGIC reporting.

Prison/Family Connection

A gang member’s incarceration often prompts his or her family to move closer to the correctional facility where the gang member is being housed. In some cases, family members assist or facilitate gang criminal activity and recruiting.

Family members of gangs operate as outside facilitators, serving as messengers, drug couriers, or in any capacity benefiting the gang. Outside facilitators are provided instructions by the incarcerated gang member, often during a social or legal visit, and in turn pass this information to gang members on the streets. Family members have also been used to assist prison escapes and smuggle contraband into correctional facilities, allowing incarcerated gang members to continue their operations inside prison.

Gangs in Contact with Incarcerated
Gang Members
18th Street
415 Kumi
Arizona New Mexican
Mafia
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Brotherhood of
Texas
Aryan Circle
Bandidos
Barrio Azteca
Black Guerilla Family
Black Gangster
Disciples
Black P-Stone Nation
Bloods
California Mexican
Mafia
Colorado Aryan
Brotherhood
Crips
Dead Man Inc.
Dirty White Boys
Gangster Disciples
(GD)
Grupo 25 (G-25)
Grupo 27 (G-27)
Hells Angels (MC)
Hermanos de
Pistoleros Latinos
(HPL)
La Nuestra Familia
Latin Kings
Los Carnales
MS-13
Nazi Low Riders
Ñetas
Norteños
Northern Riders
Northern Structure
Outlaws
Paisas
Raza Unida
Simon City Royals
Skinheads
Sureños
Syndicato De Nuevo
Mexico
Texas Chicano
Brotherhood
Texas Mexican Mafia
(Mexikanemi-EMI)
Texas Syndicate
United Blood Nation
Valluco Tango Blast
Vice Lords
West Texas Tangos


Communication

Incarcerated gang members often rely on family, friends, corrupt lawyers and corrections personnel to transmit their messages to gang members on the street. Incarcerated gang members exploit attorney-client privileges, which include unmonitored visiting and legal mail, to pass coded or concealed communications.j

Contraband Cell Phones

Smuggled cell phones are a continuing problem for prison administrators in correctional facilities throughout the country. Smuggled cell phones and Smart Phones afford incarcerated gang members more influence and control over street gangs through unrestricted access and unmonitored conversations via voice calling, Internet access, text messaging, email, and social networking websites. Instances of violence directed by inmates using mobile devices are also a growing concern for corrections officials. Incarcerated gang members communicate covertly with illegal cell phones to plan or direct criminal activities such as drug distribution, assault, and murder.

Cell phones smuggled into correctional facilities pose the greatest threat to institution safety, according to NGIC and BOP reporting.

  • In 2010 a New Jersey inmate was prosecuted for using a contraband cell phone to order the murder of his former girlfriend in retaliation for her cooperation with police regarding an investigation involving the inmate.31
Illegal Cell Phones in California Prisons

The majority of illegal cell phones in California prisons are smuggled in by visitors or correctional staff. Many cell phones have also been discovered
in legal mail and quarterly packages. In 2010, more than 10,000 illegal cell phones were confiscated from prisoners in California.

Historically, correctional staff who have been caught smuggling phones have been successfully prosecuted only when the phone was connected to a more serious charge such as drug distribution,
and district attorney offices rarely prosecute unless a more serious offense is involved. In March 2011, legislation was approved in the California State Senate to criminalize the use of cell phones in prison, including penalties for both smugglers and inmates.

Sources: US Bureau of Prisons and CDCR; California State Senate Press Release, 22 March 2011

  • In March 2010, an off-duty captain in the South Carolina Department of Corrections was shot in his home by an armed intruder. Although the captain survived, the assault had been ordered by a South Carolina inmate using a smuggled cell phone.32

Leadership

Gang members who have been incarcerated are often more respected on the streets by younger gang members, which makes it easier to establish or re-establish themselves in leadership positions and order younger gang members to commit crimes.k These gang leaders also use connections made in prison to establish contacts and criminal networks in the community, which allows them to more successfully control gang operations. Also, in the wake of leadership disorganization at the street level due to indictments and arrests, a released gang member may find it easy to use his influence and status as an ‘original gangster’ (OG) or Veterano to assume control of the gang.

Law enforcement officials report that released prison gang members in some jurisdictions are establishing or re-establishing leadership roles or active roles in local gangs.

Prison Radicalization

Gang members’ vulnerability to radicalization and recruitment for involvement in international or domestic terrorism organizations is a growing concern to law enforcement. Gang members’ perceptions of disenfranchisement from or rejection of mainstream society and resentment towards authority makes them more susceptible to joining such groups and can be attractive and easy targets for radicalization by extremist groups.

NGIC reporting indicates that incarcerated gang members in some jurisdictions are adopting radical religious views in prison.

Prison gangs that tend to be dedicated to political or social issues are often more susceptible to influence by extremist ideologies. In some instances, prison gang members may even emulate various terrorist movements by embracing their symbolism and ideology to enhance the gang’s own militant image within the prison setting.

Prison and street gang members are also susceptible on an individual basis to radicalization. Various correctional agencies have reported individual members of the Black Peace Stones, Crips, Latin Kings, and Insane Latin Disciples embracing radical ideologies.

Gang Infiltration of Corrections, Law Enforcement, and Government

Gang infiltration of law enforcement, government, and correctional agencies poses a significant security threat due to the access criminals have to sensitive information pertaining to investigations or protected persons. Gang members serving in law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities may compromise security and criminal investigations and operations, while acquiring knowledge and training in police tactics and weapons. Corrupt law enforcement officers and correctional staff have assisted gang members in committing crimes and have impeded investigations.

NGIC reporting indicates that gang members in at least 57 jurisdictions, including California, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia, have applied for or gained employment within judicial, police, or correctional agencies.

  • A Crip gang member applied for a law enforcement position in Oklahoma.
  • OMGs engage in routine and systematic exploitation and infiltration of law enforcement and government infrastructures to protect and perpetrate their criminal activities. OMGs regularly solicit information of intelligence value from government or law enforcement employees.

NGIC reporting indicates that gang members in at least 72 jurisdictions have compromised or corrupted judicial, law enforcement, or correctional staff within the past three years.

  • In November 2010, a parole worker in New York was suspended for relaying confidential information to a Bloods gang member in Albany, according to open source reporting.33
  • In July 2010, a Riverside County, California detention center sheriff deputy was convicted of assisting her incarcerated Eme boyfriend with murdering two witnesses in her boyfriend’s case.34
  • In April 2010, a former Berwyn, Illinois police officer pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit racketeering and to obstruct justice for his part in assisting an OMG member in targeting and burglarizing rival businesses.35

Gangs and Indian Country

Native American gang presence has increased on Indian Reservations and in federal and state prison systems throughout the United States over the past few years, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics reporting.36,l Native American gang members, operating on numerous reservations throughout the United States, are emulating Hispanic gangs such as the Barrio Aztecas, Norteños, and Sureños; African American gangs such as the Bloods and Crips; and predominately Caucasian gangs such as the Juggalos. Some gangs, such as the Native Mob and Native Pride—which primarily operates in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin—formed in the prison system and then expanded to reservations, according to NGIC reporting. Although most gangs in Indian Country are disorganized, lack significant structure and ties to national-level gangs, and are incapable of attaining control over large geographic areas or populations, some are involved in serious crimes and violent activities and utilize Indian Reservations to facilitate and expand their drug operations.

Indian Country and the US Border

The shared international border and geography of some Indian Reservations make it conducive to cross-border drug trafficking activity while also inhibiting interdiction efforts. Increased security at US/Mexican borders has resulted in the discovery of illicit marijuana farms from
California to South Dakota, primarily operated by Mexican gangs. Tighter border security makes it difficult for MDTOs to smuggle marijuana north thus raising the price of marijuana in the United States higher than in Mexico. Marijuana (stems and leaves) grown in Mexico costs $500 to $700 per pound, whereas a pound of marijuana grown in Washington State can cost $2,500 to $6,000 when sold on the East Coast.

Online News Article; The Wall Street Journal; “Mexican Pot Gangs Infiltrate Indian Reservations in US;” 5 November 2009; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125736987377028727.html.

The growth of gangs on Indian Reservations is heavily influenced by the urban gang culture and media attention. Gang members on Indian Reservations often emulate national-level gangs and adopt names and identifiers from nationally recognized urban gangs. However, emulation is most often limited to identifiers—colors, signs, symbols, names—and leadership structure is often loosely organized or absent. NGIC reporting indicates that national-level gangs such as the Barrio Azteca, Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafia, and Norteños are operating on a number of Indian Reservations. Native American gang members on reservations are also involved in gang-related activity with gang members in communities outside of reservations.

NGIC reporting indicates that urban gangs such as the Norteños and Sureños associate and/or influence the gang culture on several Indian Reservations.

In some jurisdictions, Native American gang members are associated with or involved in gang-related criminal activity with gang members off the reservation, including drug distribution, money laundering, assaults, and intimidation. Partnerships are often established for financial gain, drug distribution, and to evade law enforcement.

Figure 12. Graffiti on Ft. Apache-San Carlos Indian Reservation

indian-country-threat-assessment-032-ft-apache-san-carlos

Source: FBI

  • The Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon is becoming an ideal location for illicit marijuana farms because of its fertile grounds and isolated location. Within the past few years authorities have seized at least 12,000 harvested adult marijuana plants with an estimated street value of $10 million.37

Geography, as well as the extent of law enforcement monitoring of the reservations, make some Indian Reservations conducive to cross-border drug trafficking.

  • As much as 20 percent of all high-potency marijuana produced in Canada each year is smuggled through the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation in New York, according to NDIC reporting.
  • Marijuana produced in Mexico is transported by MDTOs through the Tohono O’odham Reservation in Arizona largely due to the 75 miles of lightly patrolled border with Mexico, according to NDIC reporting.

Gangs and the Military

Gang recruitment of active duty military personnel constitutes a significant criminal threat to the US military. Members of nearly every major street gang, as well as some prison gangs and OMGs, have been reported on both domestic and international military installations, according to NGIC analysis and multiple law enforcement reporting. Through transfers and deployments, military-affiliated gang members expand their culture and operations to new regions nationwide and worldwide, undermining security and law enforcement efforts to combat crime. Gang members with military training pose a unique threat to law enforcement personnel because of their distinctive weapons and combat training skills and their ability to transfer these skills to fellow gang members.

NGIC reporting indicates that law enforcement officials in at least 100 jurisdictions have come into contact with, detained, or arrested an active duty or former military gang member within the past three years.

  • Gang members have been reported in every branch of the US militarym, although a large proportion of these gang members and dependent gang members of military personnel are affiliated with the US Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard branches.

Figure 13. ‘Support your local Hells Angels’ graffiti on military vehicle in Iraq

support81iraq

Source: FBI

Figure 14. A soldier in a combat zone throwing gang signs

brianrodriguez_in_baghdad

Source: FBI

Many street gang members join the military to escape the gang lifestyle or as an alternative to incarceration, but often revert back to their gang associations once they encounter other gang members in the military. Other gangs target the US military and defense systems to expand their territory, facilitate criminal activity such as weapons and drug trafficking, or to receive weapons and combat training that they may transfer back to their gang. Incidents of weapons theft and trafficking may have a negative impact on public safety or pose a threat to law enforcement officials.

As of April 2011, the NGIC has identified members of at least 53 gangs whose members have served in or are affiliated with US military. Among the identified gangs with military-trained members are street gangs such as the Asian Boyz, Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, MS-13, Sureños, Tiny Rascal Gangsters, and the Juggalos; the Aryan Brotherhood, Barrio Azteca, and Texas Syndicate prison gangs; and OMGs including the Bandidos, Hells Angels, Mongols, Outlaws, and Vagos. Some gangs, particularly OMGs, actively recruit members with military training or advise members without criminal records to join the military for necessary weapons and combat training.

  • Younger gang members without criminal records are attempting to join the military, as well as concealing tattoos and gang affiliation during the recruitment process, according to NGIC reporting.

Deployments have resulted in integrating gang members with service members and/or dependents on or near overseas military installations, including those in Afghanistan, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. US military officials have reported a rise in gang graffiti both on and off post in Afghanistan and Iraq (see Figure 14).

Table 3. Gangs with Members Who have Served in the US Military

Gang Name Type Military Branch(s)
18th Street Gang Street Army, Marines, Navy
Aryan Brotherhood Prison Army, Marines, Navy
Asian Boyz Street Army
Asian Crips Street Army
Avenues Gang Street Marines
Bandidos OMG Army, Marines
Barrio Azteca Prison Marines
Black Disciples Street Army, Marines, Navy
Black Guerilla Family* Prison Army
Bloods Street Army, Army Reserves, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy
Brotherhood OMG Marines
Crips Street Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy
Devils Disciples OMG Unknown
East Side Longos Street Army, Special Forces
Florencia 13 Street Army, Marines
Fresno Bulldogs Street National Guard, Marines
Gangster Disciples Street Army, Marines, Navy, National Guard
Georgia Boys (Folk Nation) Street Army
Haitian Mob Street Army
Hells Angels OMG All branches
Iron Horsemen OMG Army
Juggalos/ICP Street Army, Air Force
Korean Dragon Family Street Marines
Latin Kings Street Army, Army Reserves, Marines, Navy
Legion of Doom OMG Air Force
Life is War Street Army
Los Zetas Street Army
Maniac Latin Disciples Street Marines
Mexican Posse 13 Street Army
Military Misfits OMG Marines, Navy
Molochs OMG Marines
Mongols OMG Marines, Navy
Moorish Nation Separatist Army
MS-13 Street Army, Marines, Navy
Norteños Street Army, Marines, National Guard, Navy
Outlaws OMG All branches
Peckerwoods Street Marines, Navy, National Guard, Reserves
Red Devils OMG Army/ Coast Guard
Simon City Royals Street Navy
Sons of Hell OMG Marines
Sons of Samoa Street Army
Southside Locos Street Army
Sureños Street Army, Marines, Navy
Tango Blast Prison Army*
Texas Syndicate Prison Army, Marines
Tiny Rascal Gangsters Street Army
United Blood Nation Street Army
Vagos OMG Army, Marines, Navy
Vatos Locos Street Army
Vice Lords Street Army
Wah Ching Gang Street Army
Warlocks OMG Air Force, Marines

* Only gang graffiti was identified

Gangs and the US Border

Figure 15. The Southwest Border Region

swb-map
Source: America.gov

The Southwest Border

The US Southwest Border regionn represents a continuing criminal threat to the United States. The rugged, rural, and porous area along the nearly 2,000 miles of contiguous US-Mexican territory invites widespread criminal activity, including drug and arms trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and public corruption. US-based gangs, MDTOs, and other criminal enterprises in both the United States and Mexico are readily exploiting this fluid region and incur enormous profit by establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling drugs, arms, and illegal immigrants; and serving as enforcers for MDTO interests on the US side of the border.

Violence in Mexico—particularly in its northern border states—has escalated with over 34,000 murders committed in Mexico over the past four years.38 While intensified scrutiny from Mexican law enforcement has forced significant disruptions in several dangerous MDTOs, such disruptions have also served to disrupt the balance of power among these organizations. This has prompted drug cartel rivalries to employ more aggressive tactics as they attempt to assert control over the Southwest border region and its highly lucrative drug trafficking corridors.39 Although the majority of the violence from feuding drug cartels occurs in Mexico,o Mexican drug cartel activity has fueled crime in the porous US Southwest Border region, where easy access to weapons, a high demand for drugs, ample opportunity for law enforcement corruption, and a large Hispanic population ripe for recruitment and exploitation exists.40

Hispanic prison gangs along the Southwest border region are strengthening their ties with MDTOs to acquire wholesale quantities of drugs, according to NDIC reporting.41 In exchange for a consistent drug supply, US-based gangs smuggle and distribute drugs, collect drug proceeds, launder money, smuggle weapons, commit kidnappings, and serve as lookouts and enforcers on behalf of the MDTOs. MDTOs subsequently profit from increased drug circulation in the United States, while US-based gangs have access to a consistent drug supply which expands their influence, power, and ability to recruit.42

According to NDIC reporting, more than 45 percent of law enforcement agencies in the Southwestern United States report that gangs in their jurisdiction are moderately to highly involved in drug activity, while 30 percent indicate that street gang involvement in drug activity increased within the past year.

Gang-related activity and violence has increased along the Southwest border region, as US-based gangs seek to prove their worth to the drug cartels, compete with other gangs for favor, and act as US-based enforcers for cartels which involves home invasions, robbery, kidnapping, and murder.

  • In July 2010, Mexican authorities arrested two members of the Barrio Azteca for the murders of a US Consulate employee and her husband in Juarez, Mexico. The gang, who allegedly committed the murders on behalf of the Juarez Cartel, has also made several threats against law enforcement officials.43,p

Arrangements between gangs operating along the Southwest border and MDTOs are the result of physical proximity and strong familial ties that many US-based Hispanic gang members retain with family and friends in Mexico.

Northern Border

Gangs pose a growing problem for law enforcement along the US-Canada border, particularly the border areas in the New England and Pacific Regions. Gangs smuggle drugs, cigarettes, firearms, and immigrants across the US-Canada borders, according to NDIC reporting.44 Members of several regional- and national-level gangs, including Asian Boyz, Hells Angels, and Outlaws, smuggle large quantities of illicit drugs across the US-Canada border in New England, often conducting their smuggling operations in association with members of transnational criminal and drug trafficking organizations. According to law enforcement officials in the Pacific Region, members of several gangs, including the Hells Angels and Asian gangs, engage in cross-border criminal activity in their jurisdictions.

Los Zetas Drug Trafficking Organization

Los Zetas organization was established in the late 1990s as the enforcement arm of the Gulf Cartel drug trafficking organization to protect and expand the Gulf Cartel’s operations. Consisting of highly trained soldiers who defected from the Mexican Special Air Mobile Force Group (GAFE), the Zetas have evolved from a wing of the Gulf Cartel into their own drug trafficking organization.

  • Hells Angels members have reportedly smuggled MDMA (Ecstasy) from British Columbia, Canada into Bellingham, Washington, according to 2010 open source reporting.
  • Asian DTOs smuggle large quantities of MDMA through and between ports of entry along the US-Canada border, according to 2010 NDIC reporting.45

Figure 16. Los Zetas Commando Medallion

zeta-commando-medallion-atf

Source: ATF

Canadian DTOs smuggle significant amounts of cash generated from the US distribution of Canada-produced drugs into Canada, according to NDIC reporting. The Akwesasne Territory, which straddles the US–Canada border, is one of the most prominent smuggling corridors for Canada-bound bulk cash. The topography of the US-Canada border is conducive to bulk cash smuggling because currency interdiction by law enforcement officials is often hampered by the border’s length and rugged terrain.46

Gangs, Technology, and Communication

Gangs are becoming increasingly savvy and are embracing new and advanced technology to facilitate criminal activity and enhance their criminal operations. Prepaid cell phones, social networking and microblogging websites, VoIP systems, virtual worlds, and gaming systems enable gang members to communicate globally and discreetly. Gangs are also increasingly employing advanced countermeasures to monitor and target law enforcement while engaging in a host of criminal activity.

technology

Internet Use for Propaganda, Intimidation, and Recruitment

According to open sources and law enforcement reporting, since 2005, MDTOs have exploited blogs and popular websites like YouTube and MySpace for propaganda and intimidation. MDTOs have posted hundreds of videos depicting interrogations or executions of rival MDTO members. Other postings include video montages of luxury vehicles, weapons, and money set to the music of songs with lyrics that glorify the drug lifestyle. While some of these postings may offer specific recruitment information, they serve more as tools for propaganda and intimidation.

Gang members routinely utilize the Internet to communicate with one another, recruit, promote their gang, intimidate rivals and police, conduct gang business, showcase illegal exploits, and facilitate criminal activity such as drug trafficking, extortion, identity theft, money laundering, and prostitution. Social networking, microblogging, and video-sharing websites—such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—are now more accessible, versatile, and allow tens of thousands of gang members to easily communicate, recruit, and form new gang alliances nationwide and worldwide.q

NGIC reporting indicates that a majority of gang members use the Internet for recruitment, gang promotion, and cyber-bullying or intimidation. Many also use the Internet for identity theft, computer hacking, and phishing schemes.

  • According to NGIC reporting, gang recruitment and intimidation is heavily facilitated through the Internet. Gangs use social networking sites such as Facebook to promote their gang, post photos of their gang lifestyle, and display their bravado, which ultimately influences other youth to join gangs.
  • NGIC law enforcement partners report that gangs in their jurisdiction are frequently using the Internet to recruit and communicate with gang members throughout the region, nationwide, and in Central and South America. Law enforcement officials in Texas report that incarcerated gang members use Facebook and MySpace to recruit.
  • Police in Missouri report a rise in “promotion teams”—often consisting of gang members—using Internet chat rooms to promote clubs and parties for a fee, according to NGIC reporting.

The proliferation of social networking websites has made gang activity more prevalent and lethal—moving gangs from the streets into cyber space. Gang members, criminals, and drug traffickers are using the Internet not only to recruit and build their social networks, but to expand and operate their criminal networks without the proximity once needed for communication. Likewise, youth in other regions and countries are influenced by what they see online and may be encouraged to connect with or emulate a gang, facilitating the global spread of gang culture.

  • Gang members in Missouri and Nebraska are increasingly using social media to recruit and communicate with other gang members, according to NGIC reporting.
second-life

Second Life Virtual World

Second Life is a computer-based virtual world with a simulated environment where users inhabit and interact via avatars, or graphical representations. The virtual world may depict a real world or a fantasy world. Users communicate through text-chat and real-time voice-based chat. Second Life provides versatility and anonymity and allows for covert communications. Because of its anonymity and versatility, gang members could potentially use Second Life to recruit, spread propaganda, commit other crimes such as drug trafficking, and receive training for real-world criminal operations.

Source: Information available at http://www.secondlife.com

According to information obtained from multiple state and federal law enforcement sources, incarcerated gang members are accessing micro-blogging and social networking web sites such as MocoSpace and Twitter with smuggled prepaid cellular telephones and using the messaging features to coordinate criminal activity.

Street gang members are also involved in cyber attacks, computer hacking, and phishing operations, often to commit identity theft and fraud.

Gangs and Weapons

Gang members are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons and equipment, resulting in potentially lethal encounters with law enforcement officers, rival gang members, and innocent bystanders. Law enforcement officials in several regions nationwide report gang members in their jurisdiction are armed with military-style weapons, such as high-caliber semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic variants of AK-47 assault rifles, grenades, and body armor.

Figure 17. Weapons recovered from Barrio Azteca Members in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

weapons-1

weapons-2

Source: ATF

Law enforcement officials in 34 jurisdictions report that the majority of gang-related crime is committed with firearms.

Gang members acquire firearms through a variety of means, including illegal purchases; straw purchases through surrogates or middle-men; thefts from individuals, vehicles, residences and commercial establishments; theft from law enforcement and military officials, from gang members with connections to military sources of supply, and from other gangs, according to multiple law enforcement and NGIC reporting.

Gang members are becoming more sophisticated and methodical in their methods of acquiring and purchasing firearms. Gang members often acquire their firearms through theft or through a middleman, often making a weapons trace more difficult.

Enlisted military personnel are also being utilized by gang members as a ready source for weapons.

  • In November 2010, three former US Marines were arrested in Los Angeles, California, for selling illegal assault weapons to Florencia 13 gang members, according to open souce reporting.47
  • In November 2010, a US Navy Seal from San Diego and two others were arrested in Colorado for smuggling at least 18 military issued machine guns and 14 other firearms from Iraq and Afghanistan into the United States for sale and shipment to Mexico, according to open source reporting.48

Gang members are employing countermeasures to monitor, intercept, and target law enforcement, sometimes with elaborate weapons and devices.

  • In February 2010, a Riverside County gang task force officer in California was nearly killed when suspected members of a White Supremacist gang rigged a zip gun on a gang task force security fence to discharge if anyone entered their property (see Figure 20). In December 2009, the same group staged a natural gas explosion at their property intended for law enforcement entering the premises.49

Figure 18. Zip gun attached to the fence of a Gang Task Force in Hemet, CA

zip gun attached to fence

Source: ATF

Gangs and White Collar Crime

NGIC reporting indicates that gangs are becoming more involved in white collar crime, including identity theft, bank fraud, credit card fraud, money laundering, fencing stolen goods, counterfeiting, and mortgage fraud, and are recruiting members who possess those skill sets. Law enforcement officials nationwide indicate that many gangs in their jurisdiction are involved in some type of white collar crime.

Gang Members Targeting Law Enforcement Vehicles for Weapons

In 2009, suspected gang members in Broward County and West Palm Beach, Florida burglarized nearly a dozen marked and unmarked law enforcement vehicles stealing firearms, ballistic vests, and police identification.

Source: FBI-NGIC, “Gangs Targeting Law Enforcement for Weapons and Equipment Theft; Intelligence Bulletin; 21 December 2009

  • NGIC reporting indicates that the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sureños, Norteños, La Nuestra Familia, Texas Syndicate, Aryan Brotherhood, various OMG and Asian gangs, and neighborhood-based gangs are engaging in white collar crime.

Many gang members are engaging in counterfeiting because of its low risks and high financial rewards.

  • In July 2010, a Florencia 13 gang member in Los Angeles was arrested for operating a lab from his home that manufactured pirated video games.50
  • In April 2010, a member of the East Coast Crips was arrested in Los Angeles, California, for the sale of counterfeit goods and drug trafficking at a clothing store he co-owned. Police confiscated 824 counterfeit items from the store worth $43,762.51

Gang members are laundering profits from criminal activities such as drug trafficking and prostitution, through front companies such music businesses, beauty shops, auto repair shops, law firms, and medical offices.

  • Members of the Black Guerilla Family in Maryland used pre-paid retail debit cards as virtual currency inside Maryland prisons to purchase drugs and further the gangs’ interests, according to August 2010 open source reporting.52

Some gangs, such as the Bloods and Gangster Disciples, are committing sophisticated mortgage fraud schemes by purchasing properties with the intent to receive seller assistance loans and, ultimately retain the proceeds from the loans, or to comingle illicit funds through mortgage payments. Gang members are also exploiting vulnerabilities in the banking and mortgage industries for profit.

  • According to open source reporting, in April 2009, members of the Bloods in San Diego, California were charged with racketeering and mortgage fraud.53

Law Enforcement Actions and Resources

Gang units and task forces are a vital component in targeting gangs and have played a substantial role in mitigating gang activity in a number of US communities. The majority of NGIC law enforcement partners report that their agency has or participates in a gang task force, and most utilize a gang database to track and monitor gang members in their jurisdictions. There are 168 FBI Violent Gang Task Forces in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. In addition, ATF operates 31 Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) and ICE operates eight Operation Community Shield (OCS) Initiatives nationwide (see Appendix C). The collaboration and coordination of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies has resulted in a number of successes involving gang suppression efforts.

NGIC law enforcement partners in at least 107 jurisdictions report that law enforcement action has resulted in a decrease of gangs or gang activity in their region.

  • In March 2011, officials from DHS, CBP, ICE, ATF, and local San Diego police were involved in the arrest of over 67 gang members and associates for drugs and cross-border crimes in the San Diego, California area. Operation Allied Shield III, a part of a San Diego County initiative to focus on prevention, detection, and suppression of crimes in areas impacted by border-related crime, aimed to seize drugs and weapons and to identify and observe gang members in a proactive way.54
  • In March 2011, 35 leaders, members, and associates of the Barrio Azteca gang in Texas were charged in a federal indictment for various counts of racketeering, murder, drug offenses, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Ten subjects were charged with the March 2010 murders of a US Consulate employee, her husband, and the husband of another consulate employee, in Juarez, Mexico.55
  • In February 2011, FBI, ATF, ICE, and DHS, and numerous state and local officials charged 41 gang members and associates from several different gangs in five districts with multiple offenses, including racketeering conspiracy, murder, drug and gun trafficking. The indictment involved members from the Click Clack gang in Kansas City, Missouri; the Colonias Chiques gang in Los Angeles; the Sureno 13 and San Chucos gangs in Las Vegas; MS-13 in Washington; and 13 Tri-City Bomber members and associates in the McAllen, Texas area.56

Outlook

Street, prison, and motorcycle gang membership and criminal activity continues to flourish in US communities where gangs identify opportunities to control street level drug sales, and other profitable crimes. Gangs will not only continue to defend their territory from rival gangs, but will also increasingly seek to diversify both their membership and their criminal activities in recognition of potential financial gain. New alliances between rival gangs will likely form as gangs suspend their former racial ideologies in pursuit of mutual profit. Gangs will continue to evolve and adapt to current conditions and law enforcement tactics, diversify their criminal activity, and employ new strategies and technology to enhance their criminal operations, while facilitating lower-risk and more profitable schemes, such as white collar crime.

The expansion of communication networks, especially in wireless communications and the Internet, will allow gang members to form associations and alliances with other gangs and criminal organizations—both domestically and internationally—and enable gang members to better facilitate criminal activity and enhance their criminal operations discreetly without the physical interfacing once necessary to conduct these activities.

Changes in immigrant populations, which are susceptible to victimization and recruitment by gangs, may have the most profound effect on street gang membership. Continued drug trafficking-related violence along the US Southwest border could trigger increased migration of Mexicans and Central Americans into the United States and, as such, provide a greater pool of victims, recruits, and criminal opportunities for street gangs as they seek to profit from the illegal drug trade, alien smuggling, and weapons trafficking. Likewise, increased gang recruitment of youths among the immigrant population may result in an increase in gang membership and gang-related violence in a number of regions.

Street gang activity and violence may also increase as more dangerous gang members are released early from prison and re-establish their roles armed with new knowledge and improved techniques. Prison gang members, already an ideal target audience for radicalization, may expand their associations with foreign gang members or radical criminal organizations, both inside correctional institutions and in the community upon their release.

Gang members armed with high-powered weapons and knowledge and expertise acquired from employment in law enforcement, corrections, or the military may pose an increasing nationwide threat, as they employ these tactics and weapons against law enforcement officials, rival gang members, and civilians.

Globalization, socio-political change, technological advances, and immigration will result either in greater gang expansion and gang-related crime or displace gang members as they search for criminal opportunities elsewhere. Stagnant or poor economic conditions in the United States, including budget cuts in law enforcement, may undercut gang dismantlement efforts and encourage gang expansion as police agencies redirect their resources and disband gang units and taskforces, as reported by a large number of law enforcement agencies.

Maps. Gang Presence in the United States

Map 1. US Nationwide Gang Presence

ngic-ndic_usgangpresence06_11map

Map 2. West Region

ngic-ndicgangpresence_west_6-11map

Map 3. South Central Region

ngic-ndicgangpresence_scentral_2011_6-11map

Map 4. North Central Region

ndic-ngicgangpresence_ncentral06-11map

Map 5. Southeast Region

ndic-ngicgangpresence_southeast_6-11

Map 6. Northeast Region

ndic-ngicgangpresence_northeast_6-11map

Map 7. FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Violent Crime, 2009

fbi-ucr-vc_by_county_2009

APPENDIX A. Gangs by State

ALABAMA
31st Street Mob
33rd Street Posse
400 Block
4th Ward Bloods
Alberta City Boys
Alpha Tau Omega
Aryan Brotherhood
Avenue Piru Gangsters Bandaleros
Bandidos MC
Bay Boys
Black Cherry 8 Balls
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Mafia Family
Black Pistons MC
Bloods Boom Squad
Brown Pride
Central Park Bloods
Central Park Boys
Collegeville Posse
Corner Boys Crips
Devils Disciples MC
Eastside Bloods
Ensley Town Killers
Evergreen Bottom Boys
Gad Town Klowns
Gangsta G’s
Gangster Disciples
Ghettie Boyz
Give No Fucks
Green Acres Crips
Hazel Green Boys
Hells Lovers MC
Imperial Gangster Disciples
Insane Gangster Disciples
Juggalos
La Familia
La Quemada
Latin Kings
Latino Bloods Crips
Little Trouble Makers
Los Bolinos
Los Zetas
Lovemans Village Posse
Lynch Mob
Malditos 13
Melos 13
Northside Bloods
Northsiders 62 Po Boys
On Fire Boys
On Fire Girls
Outcast MC
Pistoleros MC
Outlaws MC
Pratt Boys
Riley Boys
Seven Deadly Sins
Sherman Heights Posse
Sin City Disciples MC
Six Deuce Brims
Smithfield Posse
Southern Brotherhood
Southside Cyclones
Southside Locos
Southside Youngsters
Sur-13
T Dub
Tango Blast
Technical Knockout
Titusville Posse
Toney Project Boys
Trap Boys
Trap Girls
Tribe MC
United Together Forever
Vatos Locos
Vice Hill Posse
Vice Lords
View Mob
Westside Crips
Wheels of Soul MC
Wylam Boys  

ALASKA
50150 Crips
88 Street Crips
Almighty Latin King Nation
Almighty Vice Lord Nation
Altadena Crip Gangster
American Front
Aryan Brotherhood
Baby Hamo Tribe
Black Gangster Disciples
Blackwood Mafia
Chaos Drama Family
Combat Crips
Compton Swamp Crips
Deuce
Faceside Bloods
Fam Bam
Franklin Family Piru
Fresno Bulldogs
Full Time Criminals
Gangster Disciples
Goonies For Life
Hamo Tribe
Hells Angels MC
Hmong Nation Society
Hollow Tip Crew
Iceberg Clique
Juvenile Delinquents
Korrupt(ed) Crew
Laos Oriental Soldiers
Laotian Blood Killers
Laotian Thugz
Locc Down Crips
Loco Latin Crips
Los Malditos
MS-13
Member of Blood
Menace of Destruction
Mongolian Boys Society
Mountain View Crips
Murder Mob
Northside Damu
Outlawz
Peckerwoods
Real ‘Bout It Individuals
Royal Samoan Posse
Samoan Dynasty
Sons of Samoa
Soulja Crew
Southside Mesa
Sureños
The Family
The Low Lifes
Tiny Rascals Gang
Tongang Crip Gang
Top Notch Ballers
Uso 4 Life
Uso Squad
Westside City Crips
Westside Inland Empire Projects
Yellow Oriental Troop
Young Gangsta Niggas 

ARIZONA
“A” Mountain Crips
10th Ave JP Crips
12th Ave Crips
29th Street Bloods
36th Street Vista Bloods
36th Street Vista Chicanos
4th Ave Crips
Aryan Brotherhood
Barrio Anita
Barrio Centro
Barrio Chicano Southside
Barrio Hollywood
Barrio Libre
Barrio Loco
Barrio Nuevo Locos
Barrio Savaco
Bilby Street Crips
Black Rags
Duce Nine Crips
Eastside Bloods
Eastside Crips
Eastside Maria Crips
Eastside Torrance
Folk Nation
Gangster Disciples
Grandale
Hells Angels MC
Hollywood Soma
Juggalos
Jollyville Crips
La Tusa
La Victoria Locos
Little Town
Little Town Crips
Locos Bloodline
Manzanita Lynch Mob Crips
Maryvale Gangsta Crips
Mau Mau
Mexican Mafia
Midvale Park Bloods
Mission Manor Park Bloods
Mongols
New Mexican Mafia
Northside Chicanos
Northside White Pride
Okie Town
Old Mexican Mafia
Old Pascua
Peckerwoods
Skinheads
Sons of Hell
South Palo Verde Bloods
South Park Family Gangsters
Southeast Hustler Bloods
Southside Boyz
Southside Brown Pride
Southside Harbor City
Southside Posse Bloods
Sureños
Trekell Park Crips
Varrio Loco
V-12 Bloods
Vagos MC
Vindlanders
West Mesa
West Ross Street Piru
Western Hills Posse Bloods
Westside Brown Pride
Wet Back Power
Warrior Society
Western Hills Bloods
ARKANSAS
Bandidos MC
Blood
Crips
Folk Nation
Outlaws MC
People Nation
Sons of Silence MC
Wheels of Soul MC 

CALIFORNIA
18th St
159th Avenue
17th St
38th Avenue Locos
38th Street
415 Kumi
49 St hustler Crips
5/9 Brims
51st Avenue locos
51st St locos
A Street
AC Acorn
Acre Boys
Al Capone
Aryan Brotherhood
Asian Boyz
Asian Crips
Asian Insane Boys
Asian Street Walkers
Asian Warriors
Atascadero 13
AVE 39
AVE 51
AVE 53
Aztec Tribe Cholos
Azusa 13
B Street
Bahala Na’ Barkada
Bakersfield Bastards MC
Barrio San Juan 13
Barrio Cathedral City
Barrio Eastside
Barrio Pobre
Barrio San Juan
Barrio Small Town
Brown Brotherhood
Brown Crowd Locos
Barrio Central Vallejo
Black Guerilla Family
Block Boys
Blue Team
Blvd Crips
Bolen
Border Brothers
Bratz
Brick Block Crips
Broderick Boys
Brown Brotherhood
Brown Life Familia
Brown Pride Soldiers
Brown Pride Soldiers 13
Brown Pride Sureño
Browns Town
Bulldogs
Burger Team
Calle Ocho (8th street)
Campbell Village Gangsters
Campos Ramos Locos
Canta Ranas 13
Carmelas 13
Carps
Central Vallejo Clicka
Chankla Bulldogs
Chino Sinners
City Heights Trece Juniors
Clairemont Locos
Coachella Tiny Locos
CoCo County Boys
Cold Nigga Mafia
Colonia Bakers
Compton Varrio Tortilla Flats
Corona Varrio Locos
Country Boy Crips
COVINA 13
Crazy Brothers Clan
Crazy Brown Norteños
Crazy Fucking Mexicans
Crazy Krooks
Crazy Royal Kings
Crow Village
Cudahy 13
Cut Throat Mob
Davis Street Locos
Dead End Street
Death Crowd 13
Del Sol
Delhi Alley Boys
Desperados MC
Dirty Thirties
Dog Soldiers
Dreamhomes
Droppin Niggas Instantly
Down To Scrap Krew
East Coast Crips
Eastbound Loco
Eastside Familia
Eastside Longos
Eastside Rivas
Eastside SD El Cajon Locos
El Hoyo Palmas
EL Monte Flores
Elm St Watts
Eastside Montalvo
Exotic Foreign City Crips
Family Affiliated Irish Mafia Fain
Familia Hispana
Farmerside Bulldogs
Florencia 13
Four Corner Block Crips
Fresnecks Ftroop
Fuck My Enemies
Fuck the World
Gardenview Locos
Gas Team
Gateway Posse Crips
Ghetto Assassins
Ghostown
Goleta 13
H Street
Hard Side Clique
Hard Times
Hawaiian Gardens 13
Hells Angels MC
Highly Insane Criminals
Hispanic Kings
Homicidal Family
Hoodlum Family
Hop Sing Boyz
Humboldt
Humboldt County Gangsters
Imperials
Indian Pride
Inglewood Family Gangster
Inglewood Trece
Insane Crips
Insane Viet Thugz
Jackson Terrace
Jamaican Mafia Family
Juggalos
Kansas Street
Kings Of Cali MC
Krazy Ass Samoans
Krazy Assassins
Kumi
La Nuestra Familia
LB Suicidal Punks
Lennox
Lincoln Park Piru
Lincoln Town Sureños
Linda Vista 13
Lo Mob
Logan 30ta
Logan Heights
Logan Red Steps
Loma Bakers
Lomita Village 70’s
Long Beach Locos
Lorenzo Team
Los Marijuanas Smokers
Los Nietos 13
Los Padrinos
Low Profile Kings
Lo Boys
Lunatics On Crack
Lynwood Dukes
Mac Mafia
Manor Dro Boyz
Manor Park Gangsters
Marijuana Locos
Mayfair Santa Rosa Criminals
Mexican Klan Locos
Mexican Mafia
Mexican Pride 13
Midcity Stoners
Midtown Proyectos
Mission Bay Locos
Mitchel Street Norteños
Mob Squad
Mob To Kill
Molochs
Mongols MC
Mountain View Sureños
MS-13
National City Locos
Nazi Low Riders
Neighborhood Crips
Nip Killer Squad
Nipomo 13 Norte
North Town Stoners
Northern Riders
Northern Structure
Northside Hayward
Northside Indio
Northside Longos
Nuestra Raza
Nutty Side Paramount
Oaktown Crips
Oceano 13
O-hood Crips
Okie Bakers
Old Town National City
Olivo Bulldogs
Oriental Boy Soldiers
Oriental Boys
Oriental Killer Boys
Oriental Lazy Boys
Orphans
Otay
Palm City
Paradise Hills Locos
Paso Robles 13
Peckerwoods
Public Enemy Number One (PENI)
Pierpont Rats
Pierpont-Ventura
Playa Larga
Pomona 12th Street
Power of Vietnamese
Puente 13
Pure Mexican Raza
Puro Raza Loco
Puro Varrio Campo
Quiet Assassins
Quiet Village 13
Quince Southside Locos
Red Team
Res Boys
Ridezilla
Rockcreek
Rollin 20 Crips
S. Central Locos
Sacramaniacs
San Dimas Rifa
San Jose Crazy Crips
San Jose Grande
San St Paramount
Santa Monica Gang
Santa Nita
Saticoy- Ventura Eastside
Screamin Demons MC
Shandon Park Locos 13 Shelltown
Shelltown Gamma
Sherman Lomas Market Street
Sidro
Skinheads
Skyline Piru
So Gate Tokers
Sobrante Park
Solano Side
Sons of Samoa
Sotel 13
South Gate Smokers
South Vietnam
Southeast Locos
Southern Locos Gangsters 13
Southside Bakers
Southside Criminals
Southside Huntington Beach
Southside Indio
Southside Playboys
Southside Players
Southside Whittier 13
Spring Valley Locos
Squeeze Team
Sucidals Sunny Block Crips
Sunnyvale Sur Trece
Sur Santos Pride
Sur Town Locos
Sureño Unidos Trece
Sureños Por Vida
Tangas
Tehachapi 13
Tiny Rascal Gang
Tongan For Life
Top Hatters
Underworld Zilla
Untouchables
USO Squad
Ventura Avenue Gangsters
Vagos MC
Valinda Flats
Varrio Concord Norte
Varrio Northside
Varrio Nueva Estrada
Varrio Simi Valley
Varrio Bakers
Varrio Chula Vista
Varrio Coachella Rifa
Varrio Coachella Rifa 52
Varrio Coachella Rifa 53
Varrio Encanto Locos
Varrio Grinfas
Varrio Horseshoe
Varrio Locos
Varrio Meadow Fair
Varrio Mecca Rifa
Varrio Mountain View
Varrio Norwalk 13
Varrio Nuevo Coachella
Varrio Oasis Rifa
Varrio Palmas Gang
Varrio Penn West
Varrio South Garden
Varrio Sur Rifa
Varrio Tamilee Gangsters
Varrio Thermal Rifa
Varrio Xechos Locos
Vatos Locos
Venice 13
Venice Shoreline Crips
Viet Outlaws
Vietnam
Wah Ching
Walnut Creek 13
Warlord Bloods
West Coast Crips
West Covina 13
West Covina Crips
West Covina MOB
West Drive Locos
West Myrtle Townsend Street
Westside Hustlers
Westside Islanders
Westside Locos
Westside Longos
Westside MOB
Westside Stoners
Wheels of Soul MC
White Power
Whittier
Wicked Minded Sureños
Wicked Minded Sureños 13
Willow Street
Young Crazy Thugs
Young Cutties
Zetas 

COLORADO
18th Street
211 Crew
81st Street Crips
American Nazi Party
Bandidos MC
Brown Pride Sureños
Carver Park Crips
Eastside Dukes
Folks
Gallant Knights
Gangster Disciples
GKI 211 Crew Bloods
Hells Angels
Insane Norteños
Juaritos
Kraziest Thugs Around
Los Primer Padres
Mexican Mafia
MS-13
Mongols MC
Murder All Cliques
Norteños
Northside Criminals
Northside Mafia
Oldies 13
Outlaws MC
Paisas
Parkside Varrio
Peckerwoods
Playboys
Sons of Silence MC
Southside Locos
Sureño Desert Empire
Sureños
Two Eleven

CONNECTICUT
Battalion 14
Blake Street Goonies
Bloods
Carmel Street Goons
Charter Oak Crips
Cruel 36 Family
Diablos MC
Eastern Circle Projects 3x
Fairside 2x
G-25
G-27
G-Side Projects
Hells Angels MC
Hill Most Wanted
Hillside 4x
La Familia
Latin Kings and Queens
Manor 5x
MS-13
Netas
Outlaws MC
Solidos
The Ave
Tiny Mami Squad
Tiny Papi Squad
Tre 3x
Tribe 3x
Trinitarios
Ville 2x

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
18th Street
Bloods
Crips
Latin Kings
MS-13

DELAWARE
135 Bloods
9 Trey
9 Triggaz
924 Bloods
Anybody Gets It
Bounty Hunter Bloods
Bush Babies
Cash Hoe Murda
Certified Ballina Killers
Crips
Dawg City Piru
East Coast Bloods
Gangster Disciples
Latin Kings
Netas
Ochos
Pagans
South Los
Sur-13
Street Piru Bloods

FLORIDA
1000 Block
103rd St Buck Wild CA Latin Lingo
10th St Gang
110th St Bloods
1200 Block
12th Court Cowboys
13th Avenue Hotboys
13th Street Gang
170 Boyz
181
187
1887
18th Street
20 Deep
21 Gunz
211 Crips
2150 EAP
22nd Street
23rd Street Trail Blazers
24th Street Gang
25 Mafia
27’s Puerto Rico PG
2nd Line Goons
300 Block
311 Westside KTP
312 Crips
7414 Gangster Disciples
34th Folk Boys
39th Street Boys
3KN
4 Way Boys
45th St FAM
46 Ave Boyz
5 Deuce Hoover Crips
5 Trey Bloods
5% 386
5020 Peckerwood
5150 Piru Bloods
52 Hoover Crips
551 Crips
58th Ave.
59 Hoover Crips
7 Trey Crips
700 Block
74 Gangster Disciples
7414 Gangster Disciples
8 Tre Crips
8 Trey Gangster Crips
800 Bound
813 Black Gangster Disciples
819 Boys
9 Trey Gangsters
9 Trey Murk Squad Blood
9-Tech Bloods
A&E Bird Gang
Ace Boon Goons
All City Certified Gangstas
Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation
American Nazi Party Anarchist
Anarchist
Any Body Killas
APK Boys
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Nation
Barrio Boys
Batchelors
Behind the Plaza Boys
Beruit Snakes
Big Money Posse
Bithlo Bike Crew
Black Angels
Black Flag Mafia
Black Gangster Disciple
Black Mafia
Black MOB
Black P Stone Nation
Black Pines
Black Pistons MC
Black Spade Squad
Black T Mafia
Blue Angel
Blue Devil Gangster Crips
Booker Heights Posse
Border Brothers
Brookhill Hillboys Most Wanted
Brown Pride
Bruise Brothers MC
Buck Block
Camphor Way Boys
Cartel Southside Gansta Crips
Carver Shore Boys
Cash Feenz
CFL Most Wanted
Chicago Bloods
Chico Cracker Klique
Chico’s In Action
Click Tight
Clown Boiz Crips
Cold Side Posse
College Park Thugs
Confederate Hammerskins
Corner Boy Mafia
Crazy Brown Boys
Crazy Gangster Disciple
Crazy Insane Disciples
Crazy Killer Zoes
Criminal Gangsters
Cut Throat Crew/Committee
D-BOYZ
Dirty White Boys
Down 4 Whatever
Dark Angels
Darkside Boyz
Deaths Last Clique
Deland Regulators
DeLeon Springs
Deuce Crips
Deuce Deuce
Dirty Game
Dirty South Mafia
Dirty White Boys
Disciples of Discipline
Doo Doo Creek
Doom Squad
Dover Locos
Down For Life
Down South Florida Boys
Down South Gangster
Downtown Crips
DRAK BOYS
Draks
Dred Mafia
East Orlando Warriors
Eastside 9 Trey Gangster Bloods
Eastside Bloods
Eastside Crips
Eastside Jack Boyz
Eastside Piru
Eastside Rolling 60’s Crips
Elm Street Piru Bloods
Eternal Gangster
Eureka Garden Goons
Every Niggas Nightmare
Family of Hustlers
Flag Street
Flip Star Crips
Florencia 13
Folk
Folk Disciples
Folk Nation
For The Warriors
Front Street Boyz
G Shine Bloods
G Stone Crip
G25
Gangster Killer Bloods
Gangsta Piru
Gangstas For Life
Gangster Disciples
Gangster Imperial Gangsters
Gangster Prophet
Gangsters 4 Life
Get Up Kids
Ghostrider Crips
Golden Gate Goons
Goyams
Grand Park Grape Street Crips
Guardians
Guk-Get Up Kids
Gun Clap N Crips
Hammerskins
Hill Top Boys
Hoover Crip
Hoover Deuce Crips
Hope Circle Bois
Hot Boys
Hustle Harder
Imperial Gangster Disciples
Imperial Gangsters
Imperial Kings Inland Empire
Insane Dragons
Insane Gangster Crips
Insane Gangster Disciple
Insane MOB Boys
Insane Spanish Lords
International Folk Posse
International Posse
International Posse 13th
Island Boys Clique
Jack Boys
Jensen Beach Clique
Juggalos
Knock Out Squad
King Con Sureños
Keep On Spraying
Ken Knight
Krazy Getdown Boys
Kruption Boys
Kuntry Boyz
La Raza
Lady Knock Out Squad
Lakawanna Boys Latin Crew
Latin Disciples
Latin Eagles
Latin Kings
Latin Life
Latin Lingo Legacy Mafia
Latin Syndicates
Legion of Doom
Little Altamonte Goons
Little Haiti Bloods
Livingston Dawgs
Lockhart Boyz
Loco Trece
Los 27
Los Chicanos
Los Salidos
Lost Boys
Lusoanderson Boys
M.A.C. Crip
Mafia Kings
Mafia Street Gangsta Crips
Main Street Posse
Maniac Campbell Disc Ñeta
Maniac Gangster Disciples
Maniac Latin Disciples
Mascotte City Gangster Folk Nation
Mayan Pride
Melbourne Town Soldiers
Mexican Diplomats
Mexican Mafia
Midway Goons
Milla Southside
Miller Gangsta Blood
Miller Set
MOB Folks
Mohawk Boys
Moncrief “MCT”
Money Mafia
Morgan Boys
Most Hated Brothers
Mother Fuckin Goons
Money Power Respect
MS-13
Murda Grove Boys
Murder Set Bloods
Murk
Myrtle Avenue
Nazi Juggalo
Ñeta
New Smyrna Beach Boyz
New York Outlaws
Nuestra Familia
Nine Trey Blood
Nine Trey Gangsters
Nines Techs & Grenades Norte 14
Northlake Boys
Not Fair Ones
Nuccio Boys
Oak Ridge Jungle Boys
Oaktown Niggaz
Oceanway Mafia
OLD Gang
One Love Nation
Orange City Boys
Orange County Gangs 1400 Block
Orange Flag Boys
Out East Outlaws
Out of Control Gangster
Outlaw Crips Outlawz
Outlaw Gangster Crips
Outlaws MC
O.V. BOYS
Oviedo Soldiers
P.O. Boys
Payback Crips
Pagans MC
Paisa Palm River Boys
Palm City Locals
Palmdale
Parramore Snakes
Paxon Boys
Pearl World
People Nation
Phantom MC
Picketville Hustle House
Pine Hills Pimp Boyz
Pine Manor Piru Bloods
Piru Bloods
Platoon 187
Playboy Crew
Polk Street Goons
Port Orange Boys
Power Progress
Project Boys
Projects of Vietnam
P-Town
PYC Raw Dawgz
Renegades MC
Ridge Manor Boys
Rollin 20s Crips
Rollin 30’s
Rolling 60 Crips
Rough Riders
Royal Family Ace Clique
Salerno Boyz
Satan Disciples
Satan Gangster Disciples
Satanist
Savage Squad
Sex Money Murder Bloods
Sherwood
Shores Boys
Sin City Boyz
Six Point Crips
Skinheads
Smooth Fellas
So Bout It Boiz
Solo G
Sons of Silence MC
Southern Pitbulls
Southside
Southside Bloods
Southside Crips
Spanish Lords
St. Lucie Bloods Chicos in Action
Stand and Deliver
Str8drop Gang
Straight Drop
Street Runners
Supreme White Power
Sur-13
Sureños
Swamp Boyz
Tangos
TC Boys
The Fresh Kings
Third World Family
Thunder Cats
Tri-State
Top Shottas
Tre 4
Troop 31 Slum Boys Aryan Nations
Tru Soldiers
Unforgiven
Unforgiven International Posse
United Crip Nation
United King
Unknown Soldiers
Up Top Mafia
Valentine Bloods
Vandalize The Hood
Vagos
Vato Locos
Vice Lord
Victory Boyz
Villa Boyz
Villa Killas
Village Boys
V-Side Gangsters
Warlocks MC
Washington Oaks Goons
Watauga Boys
Watts City Crips
Westside
Westside Chico Boys
Westside Crips
Westside Rolling 60’s Crips
Westside Rolling 90’s Crips
White Aryan Resistance
White Power
White Pride
Wildside Young Boon Goons
Winter Garden
Wolfpack MC
Woodlands Crew
Woods Boyz
Wynwood
Y-B Zoe Pound
Y-Lo-C
Young Godz
Young Guz
Young Latin Organization
Young Outlaw Gangster Crips
Zellwood Boys
Zoe Mafia
Zoe Mafia Family
Zoe Pound
Zone 1
Zulus MC

GEORGIA
30 Deep
4WB Fourth Ward Boys
All About Cash
All About Finesse
All About Money
Atlanta Blood Gang Squad
ATL Riders
Bang Bang Anywhere Gang
Bank First Play Later
Bethel Towers Crew
Black Pistons MC
BMB Blood Money Boys
Bloods
Campbelton Road Gangsters
Certified Street Niggas
Certified Paper Chasers
Check Gang
Crips
Cross the Track Boys
Da Fam
Dem Franchise Boys
Deadly Killer Click
DTS Dogwood Trap Starts
Fuck Being Broke
Gangsta Azz Nicca
Gangster Disciples
GD 74
Gett Money Play Later Click
Guapaholic Hard Times 13
Gwalla Boys
Hard Times
Hot Boy Click
Insane Gangster Disciples
Irwin Street Gorillas
James Gang MC
Merk Squad
Most Dangerous Click
Niggas Bout Action
Niggas for Life
No Mercy/ Trained to Go
Oakland City Posse
Outcast MC
Outlaws MC
Partners of the Struggle
Pittsburgh Jack Boys
RACK Crew
Raised on Cleveland
Rollin 20’s Bloods
Rollin 60’s Crips
Runts
Simpson Road Gangsters
Stealing Everything (SIMPSET)
Sureños
Sur-13
Southside 13
Sur King Locos
Ten Little Niggas
Trained to Go
Vagos
Vatos Locos
Vice Lords
White Boi Gang
Young Block Boys
Young Choppa Fam
Young Committed Partnas
Young Cushman Boys
Young Get Money Gangsters
Young Gunna Click
Young Money Makers
Young Niggas Get Money
Young Paper Chasers
Young Crew
YSet/ Y3/ Sak Takerz

HAWAII
Vagos MC
IDAHO
Bandidos MC
Brothers Speed MC
Mexican Mafia
Northside Big Tyme
Nuestra Familia
Russian Gangs
Vagos MC
Westside 18th Street
Westside Loma Locos
ILLINOIS
12th St Players
Almighty Popes
Ambrose
Black Disciples
Black Gangster Disciples
Black P Stones
Black Pistons MC
Folks Nation
Gangster Disciples
Hells Angels
Hobo’s Imperial Gangsters
Insane Dragons
Jivers Jousters
Krazy Get Down Boys
La Raza
Latin Counts
Latin Kings
Latin Saints
Latin Souls
Leafland Street Boys
Latins Out of Control
Maniac Latin Disciples
Mickey Cobra’s
Outlaws MC
Party People
People Nation
Popes
Satan Disciples
Satin Disciples
Simon City Rollers
Sons of Silence
Spanish Cobras
Sur-13
Two Six
Vice Lords
Wheels of Soul MC

INDIANA
13’s Sureños
14’s Norteños
18th Street
American Mexican Gangster
Aryan Brotherhood
Back Pistons MC
Black Angels
Black Gangster Disciples
Black P Stones
Bloods
BPS 13
Brown Pride Gang
Buffalo Soldiers
Click Clack
Cloven Hoofs MC
Code Red
Code Red
Rollin’s 20’s Crips
Cossacks
D-Boyz
Devil Disciples
Diablos MC
Dirty White Boys
Gangster Disciples
Goons Squad
Grim Reapers MC
Haughville Syndicate
Hells Angels MC
Insane Gangster Disciples
Jimtown Boys
Kentuckiana Gunslingers
Latin Kings
Latino Riders
Locos 18
Luchiana Boyz
Mad Dog MC
Mexican Mafia
Midnight Riders MC
Milwaukee Iron
Mistic Dragons
Money Over Bitches
Mongols MC
MS-13
Murda Squad
Naptown Riders
Norteño
Northside Vatos Locos
Outlaws MC
Peace Stones
Pop It Off Boys
Pussy and Cash
Ratchet Boyz
Rebel Cause
Righteous Riders
Savages and White Boys
Saxon Knights
Sons of Silence MC
Stone Drifters
Straight Edge
Sur-13
The Cool Kids
Vice Lords
Westside Crew
Wheels of Soul MC
Zoe Pound

IOWA
18th Street
319 Crew
7 Deuces
Ambrose
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Nation
Aztec Kings
Black Cross
Black Disciples
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Gangsters
Black Mafia
Black P Stones
Black Panthers
Black P-Stone Nation
Black Soul Block Burners
Blackstone Rangers
Bloods
Bogus Boys
Branded Breed MC
Carney Pride
Chosen Few MC
Church of the Creator
Church of the New Song
Code Red
Custom Riders MC
Crips
Dirty White Boys
Down South Boys
Eagle Riders
Eastside Locos
Eastsiders
El Foresteros MC
El Rukens
Familia Stones
Fathers of Anarchy
Florencia 13
Four Corner Hustlers
Gangster Disciples
Grim Reapers MC
Hang Out Boys
Hells Angels MC
Imperial Gangsters
Insane Deuces
Insane Gangsters
Insane Majestics
Insane Popes
Insane Spanish Cobras
Insane Vikings
Iron Horse MC
Juggalos
La Familia
La Raza
Lao Crip
Lao Family Blood
Latin Counts
Latin King
Latin Pachucos
Lomas13
Lomax XIII
Los Chicos
Los Pelones
Lower Riders
Maniac Latin Disciples
Maple Street Goons
MS-13
Matadors MC
Mexican Mafia
Mickey Cobras
Midnight Riders MC
Ñetas
New Breed
Norteños
Northfront Occult
Outlaws MC
P13 Punte
Paisa
Peckerwoods
Players Club Posse
Posse Comitatus
Really Cocky Asshole Killers
Rebel Knights MC
Saints
San Fernando Mexicans
Satan Disciples
Satin Disciples
SHARP
Sioux City Boys
Skinheads
Sons of Freedom MC
Sons of Liberty
Sons of Silence MC
Southside 21
Spanish Cobras
Spanish Disciples Sureño
The Cool Kids
The Fellows
Two Six Nation
United Metro Front
Vagos MC
Vice Lords
Viet Solo Boys
Westside Knights
Westside Locos
Westside Mafia
Westside Mobsters
Westside Villains
Westsiders
White Aryan Resistance
White Boys Only
White Pride X-Club
Young and Wasted
Young Bloods

KANSAS
13 Folks-GDS
357 Crips
4 Corner Hustlers
Bandidos
Bloods
Eastside Locos Sureños
Eastside Vato Locos
El Foresteros MC
Folks
Hoover Crips
Juggalos
Latin Kings
Lawrence Mob
Northsiders
School Yard Crips
Somos Pocos Para Locos
Sons of Silence MC
Sur-13
Traveling Vice Lords
Tru Valley Crips
Vice Lords
Westside Riders

KENTUCKY
Bloods
Crips
Gangster Disciples
Hells Angels MC
Iron Horsemen MC
Latin Kings
MS-13
Outlaws MC
Pagans
Sons of Silence MC
Vice Lords
Wheels of Soul

LOUISIANA
1100 Block Gang
31 Flava’s
3-Unit Black-Out Boys
5 Nine Bloods
5-Deuce Crips
5/2 Rock Boys
6th Street Boys
700 Block Gang
7th Ward Hard Heads
800 Block Gang
8th Ward Animals
900 Block Gang
Algiers 1.5
Baby Goonies
Bandidos MC
Bienville Boyz
Blackhawks
Byrd Gang
D-BlockHandy Family
Foucha Gang
Frenchman Money Boys
Gangster Disciples
Garden District Crips
Gray Ghosts
Harvey Hustlers
Jerome Group
Josephine Dog Pound
Lower Third Crips
Maffioso
MS-13
Northside Levin Crips
Northside Posse
Old Mill Quarters Crips
Orange Boy’s
Pack of Bastards MC
Prieur & Columbus Boyz
Skull Squad Mafia
Smoke One Click
Sonia Quarter Crips
Sons of Silence MC
Sureños
Tango Blast
Young Cut Boys
Young Gunners
Young Magnolia Melph

MAINE
All Jumpers
Aryan Nation
Crips
Disciples
Exiles
Folk Nation
Fuck Shit Up Gang
Hells Angels MC
Iron Horsemen MC
Latin Kings
L-Town
MS-13
Ñetas
Outlaws MC
P Town Soldiers
Peckerwoods
Saracens
Skinheads
True Somali Bloods
Vice Lords

MARYLAND
18th Street
25 Crew
51 Sandbox
Aryan Brother Hood
Black Guerilla Family
Blitzkrieg MC
Bloods
Crips
Dead Man Incorporated
Folk
Gangster Disciples
Get Money Goons
Go Go Crews
Hells Angels MC
Iron Horsemen MC
Latin Kings
Mara Locos
Mexican Locos
MS-13
Murder Incorporated
Murder Mafia Bloods
New Blood MC
Outlaws MC
Pagan MC
Phantoms MC
Pop Off Mafia
Savage Boys
Street Thug Criminals
Sur-13
Sureños
Thunderguards MC
Trinitarios
Vatos Locos
Warlocks MC
Wheels of Soul MC
Wild Boyz

MASSACHUSETTS
1850 Washington
18th Street
1937 Dorchester Avenue
20 Love
214 Harvard
700 Block
Academy
Academy Homes
Annunciation
Archdale
Aryan Nation Brotherhood
Asian Boyz
Bailey
Barrio Aztecas
Beechland
Bergin Circle Posse
Bicknell
Big Head Boys
Black Gangster Disciples
Black P Stone Nation
Bloods
Bonanno Crime Family
Boylston
Boylston Street
Boyos
Bristol Street Posse
Brunswick / Fayston
Cameron
Carew Block
Castle Square
Castlegate
Cathedral
Cedar Street
Charlame 1
Charlame 2
Cholos
Codman Square
Colombo Crime Family
Colorado / Favre
Columbia Point
Columbia Rd
Crown Path
Crystal Park Fellaz
Cape Verdean Outlaws
Dark Side Niggaz
Dangerous Little Bloods
DC Crew
Dominicans Don’t Play
Deuce Boys
Diablos
Dogg Town Crips
Draper
Dudley Street Posse
Eastern Ave Posse
Eastern Avenue Boys
El Combo que no de deja
Fairmount Family Plan Farve St.
Five Percenters
Forest Hills Pistons
Flatbush
Flatbush Posse
Folks
Forest Park Gangsters
Franklin Field
Franklin Hill
Franklin Street Posse
Gangster Disciples
Gangsters
G-Block
Genovese Crime Family
G-Mob
Greenfield
Greenwood
Greenwood Ave
Greenwood Street
Grey Rag
Grupo 25
Grupo 27
Gunn Square Posse
H-Block
Heath St
Hells Angels MC
Hendry
Highland
Hi-Point
Hit-Fam
Hizbollah
Holworthy
Homes Ave
Hooligans
Humboldt & Harrishof
Indian Orchard Posse
Insane Blood Gang
James Gang MC
Jr Kaos
Juggalos
Kilby Junior
Kilby Minor
Kilby Original
Kilby Young
Knox St Posse
La Familia
La Lowell
Latin Kings
Latin Queens
Lenox
Lenox St
Little Tiger
Long Riders MC
Los Solidos
Lowell St Posse
Lucerne St
Mafilia
Mafilia Mass Mobb
Main Street Goons
Maniac Latin Disciples
Mass Ave
Massassoit Street Posse
Mexikanemi
Mission Hill
Magnolia
Minoritys Up
Mongols MC
Morse / Norfolk
Morse St
Mozart
MS-13
Morton St Bricks
Mulato Mafia
Ñetas
New Born Tigers
Norfolk
Olney / Norton
Orchard Park
Orchard St Boyz
Orchard Street Bouriquas
Outlaws MC
Outlawz
Paisa
Phantom Lords MC
Road Demons MC
Rosewood / Thetford
Ruff Side
Russian Gangs
Russian Mob
Ruthless For Life MC
S.W.A.T.
Satans Disciples
Skinheads
Southern Ave
Southside
Southside Posse
Speedwell
Spencer
St James
St Joseph’s
Stockton
Sycamore St
Sycamore Street Posse
The Crazy Boys
Tiny Rascal Gangsters
Torrey Street
Vice Lords
Vietnam Vets MC
Villa Victoria
Vine & Forest / Mt Pleasant
Wainwright
Walk Hill
Walnut Pk
Warren Gardens
Wendover
Westville
Wheatland
Wilcock
Wolf Pac
Wood Ave
Woodledge
Woodward
Woolson
Worthington Street Posse
Young Chavos

MICHIGAN
300 Block
Aguitas 16
Avengers MC
Bemis Wealthy Street Boys
Black Gangster Disciple
Black Pistons MC
Brave Heart Ruff Riders
BUG Gang
Campau Cream Team
Cash Ave
Crips
Dallas Neland Alexander
D-Block
Devils Brigade
Devils Disciples MC
Dynasty Gorillas
East Ave
Eastern Worden
Eastside Boys
European Latin Kings
Folks
Forbidden Wheels MC
Gangster Disciples
Good Squad/Full Time Grinders
Grandville Gangsters
Highland’s Finest
Highwaymen
Holland Zeeland
Hustle Boys
Insane Unknowns
Ionia Boys
Jefferson Street Gangsters
Jokers MC
Juggalos
Kalamazoo Boys
Kartel of the Streets
La Kilcka
La Raza
Latin Counts
Latin Kings
Leak Boy Mafia
Madison Ave
Maniac Latin Disciples
Mason Street
Mexican Gangster Soldiers
Mexican Mafia
Mexican Mob
New Age Crip
Ñetas
Newman Lane Posse
Nishnob Mob
North North
New World Order
Oakdale Eastern
Outlaws MC
Pine Street
Polo Boyz
Prospect Paper Chasers
Purple Guns
Quimby Boys
Rebels MC
Rikochet Road Knights
Nation Royal Trinity Soldiers
Sheldon Logan
Spanish Cobras
Suicide Locos
Sur-13’s
Sureños
Taliban Team
Thug Life
Tres Manos Gangsters
Wanted Thug Brotherhood Nation
Vatos Locos
Vice Lords
Wood street

MINNESOTA
Almighty Vice Lords
Black P Stones
Black Panthers
Brown Pride for Life
Cash Money Boys
Gangster Disciples
Hells Angels MC
Latin Kings
Los Quientes Locas
Mexican Mafia
Native Mob
Native Vice Lords
Norteños 14
Prison Motorcycle Brotherhood
P-Stones
Rough Tough Somalis
Royal Cambodian Bloods
Shotgun Crips
Somali Gangs
Sons of Silence MC
Sureños 13
Texas Syndicate
Vatos Locos
Vice Lords
White Supremacists

MISSISSIPPI
211 Boys
Aryan Brotherhood
Asgards Pistoleros
Bandidos MC
Black Gangster Disciples Bloods
Crips
Gangster Disciples
Galloping Gooses
Handsboro Veterans
Hellified Drama Click
Latin Kings
Mexican Mafia
Simon City Royals
Sons of Silence
Vagos
Vice Lords
Viet Boys

MISSOURI
13 Lennox Wino
10 9 Folks
10 Street Crips
1019 Southside Folks
107 Hoover Crip
10-9 Gangster Disciples
11th Street
124th Athens Park Blood
12th St – Five Ace Deuce
12th Street
12th Street Blood
12th Street Crips
12th Street Disciples
12th Street Hoover Crips
135th Street Piru
13th Street Kcks
16th Street Crew
18th Street King Familia
18th Street Modesto Clique
2 Hard Posse
21st East Bottom Gangsters
21 Hilltop
21 Street Westside
21st Posse Crips
21st Street
21st Street Blood
22nd Street
22nd Street Crips
22nd Street Trey
23rd Street Blood
23rd Street Crips
23rd Street Hard Cores
23rd Street Hustlers
2400 Mob
24th St – Five Ace Deuce
24th Street
24th Street Bloods
24th Street Chelsea Bloods
24th Street Crips
25th Street
25th Street Bloods
25th Street Crips
25th Street Posse Gang
25th Street Quincy Bloods
26th Street Hoover Crips
27 St Belleview Gangsters
2700 Block
2700 Eastside
27th Street
27th Street Bloods
27th Street Crips
27th Street Mob
27th Street Pros
29th Street
29th Street Bloods
29th Street Crips
29th Street Hustlers
29th Street Pros
30’s
31st Boys
31st Street
31st Street Crips
31st Street Posse
32nd Street
33rd St K.C. Soldiers
33rd Street
33rd Street Bloods
33rd Street Crips
3400 Woodland
34th Street
35th Street
35th Street Bloods
35th Street Crips
36th Street
36th Street Bloods
36th Street Crips
36th Street Kings
37th Street
38th Street
38th Street Crips
3900 Block
39th Street Midwest Gangsters
39th Street
39th Street Tre-Block
39th Street Bloods
39th Street Crips
39th Street Dogs
39th Street Holy Temple Crips
39th Street Posse
3rd Tre Dog Hustler
3rd Wall Bloods
3rd Wall Crips
3rd World Syndicate
3rd World Players
4 Block 4 Trey
43 Hoover Crips
400 Block Player
40th & Wabash Crips
40th Street
40th Street Crips
41st Street Ghost
42nd Street Crips
4300 Block Insane Gangster
4300 Blood
4300 Brim Side Bloods
4300 Gangsters In Black
43rd 4 Trey Crips
43rd Insane Gangster Crips
43rd St Brooklyn Park Mafia
43rd St
43rd Street Thugs
43rd Street/The Dirty Eastside
44th Street
4500 Bloods
45th
45th Street
45th Street Crips
49th Street
49th Street Bloods
49th Street Dawgs
49th Street Gangster Crips
4th Street Crips
4th Street Guinotte Manor Crip
5 Deuce Brims Bloods
5.2 Eu Crips
50’s
50th Crips
5100 Gangsters
51st Bloods
51st Street / 5-Block
51st Street Crips
51st Street Hustlers
5-2 Eastside
52 Pueblo Bloods
52nd Street Gangster Crips
53rd Avalon Gangster Crips
53rd Street
53rd Street Crips
54th Street Blood
54th Street Crips
55th Street Bloods
56th Street Bloods
56th Street Boys
56th Street Crips
56th Street Villains
57 Road Dog Villains
5700 Wc Block Mob
57th Street
57th Street / 5-Block
57th Street Bloods
57th Street Hustler
57th Street Road Dogs
57th Street Rogue Dogs
58th Street / 5-Block
58th Street Hill Dogs
59th Street
59th Street Bloods
59th Street Gangsters
59th Street Hoover Crips
5-Duece Crips
6 Deuce Brims Bloods
60th Blood Hound
60th Street
61st Street
62nd Street
6300 Street
63rd Street Crips
66th Street Blood
67th Street
67th Street Blood
67th Street Crips
68 Mob
6800 Swap Side
68th Street
68th Street Blood
68th Street Crips
68th Street Hustlers
69th Street Bloods
69th Street Crips
69th Street Dawgs
69th Street Niggas
6th Street Crips
7 Duce Crips
7 Miles Blood
7 Oaks Crips
72nd Street Hustlers
73rd Street Crips
74 Folk Crips
74th St Santana Block Crip
74th Street Hoover Crip
75th Street Crips
7th Street Folks
8 Balls
9 Deuce Crips
9-Deuce Bloods
9th Street Dawgs
9th Street Dogs
9th Street Hoover Crips
Ace Block
Aryan Nation
Ashland Park Crips
Asian Boyz
Asian Crips
Asian For Life
Asian Girlz
Athens Park Bloods
Bandits
Banger Squad
Barrio Pobre
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Guerilla Family
Black Mafia Gangster Blood
Blood Game
Blood Lennox
Blood Stone Villains
Bounce Out Boys
Bonner Springs
Blood Border Brothers
Borderland Gang
Bounty Hunter Bloods
Boys From Chihuahua
Broadway Gangsters
Broadway Park Blood
Brown Image Gangsters
Brown Pride Family
Brown Side Locos
Buk
Lao Killers
C-13 Cambridge Crips
Cash Money Boyz
Chain Gang Parolees
Chelsea Bronx
Chelsea Crips
Chestnut Mafia
Circle City Crips
Click Clack Gang
Compton Crips
Corrington Crew
Crazy Ass White Boys
Crimeboyz
Crip Loc Da Gutta Sqaud
Dark Side Posse
Dead Everlasting Gangster
Dead-end Gang
Denver Lane Bloods
Desert Flat Sex Terks
Deuce Blocc
Deuces
Dime Block
Dlb Capone
Double Deuces
Dragon Family
Du Roc Crips
Deuce 4 Gangsters
Deuce 9 Folks
Deuce Deuce Blood
Deuce Deuce Crips
Deuce Lime Brim Bloods
Deuced-Deuce Posse
East Coast Crips
Eastside 15
Eastside Blood
Eastside Click
Eastside Crips
Eastside Folks
Eastside Gangster
Eastside Hathorn Piru Gangster
Eastside Hilltop
Eastside Insane
Eastside Latin Counts
Eastside Locos
Eastside Mexican Locos
Eastside Oceanside Crips
Eastside Posse
Eastside Rollin 20’s Crips
Eastside Wet Back Power
Eight Ball Crips
El Foresteros MC
Englewood Family Bloods
Five Ace Deuce
Florencia 13
Fambino’s
Familia Chueca
Family Locos
Five Trey Crips
Fog 5100 Original Gangsters
Folks
Freaks
Fremont Hustlers
Frostwood Mob
Galloping Goose MC
Gangster Crips
Gangster Disciples
Gangsters Gear
Gangster Crips
Gracemore Boys
Grape Street Watts Crips
Greenfield Village Posse
Guardian Angels
Guardian Disciples
Hardkore Gangsters
Hells Lovers MC
Hillside Crips
Hillside Hustler
Hillside Mafia
Hilltop
Hilltop Blood
Hoodbound 6700
Hoodsquad
Hoover Crip Gang
107 Hoover Gangster Crips
I’ll Rock You Crew
Imperial Gangster Crips
Imperial Valley
Imperial Village
Indian Posse
Indoes Willis Avenue
Inland Empire
Insane Disciples
Insane Family Gangster Blood
Insane Gangster Crips
Insane Gangster Folks
Insane Vato Gangsters
Insane Village Crips
International Gangster Family
Invaders
Jamaican
Jeffrey Manor Gangster Crip
Joplin Honky
Juniper Garden Crips
Knockafella Flame Gang
Kalizion Kansas City Villains
Kingsman Crips
Knocc Out Boyz
Krazy Boyz
La Soul Mafia
La Familia
Langdon Laos Bloods
Laos Boys
Latin Counts
Latin Kings
Latin People
Little Tiny Bitches
Lokitos Gang
Lonely Vets
Lords Of Chaos
Los Madanado
Lynch Mob
Lynwood Mob Bloods
Macken Gangster Crips Malditos
Mexican Disciples
Mexican Boyz
Mexican Kings
Mexican Loco’s
Mexican Mafia
Midwest Drifters MC
Money Over Bitches
Money Over Broke Bitches
Moorish Science Temple
MS-13
Mulvthina Loca
Natoma Boyz
Ne Side Blood
700 Block Neighborhood Crips
Neo Nazi
Nes Niggers On Woodland
Nine Nine Mafia Crip
Norteños
North KC Hustlers Crips
North Oak Posse
North Pole Crips
Northeast Side Bloods
Northeast Side Gangsters
Northside Gorilla
Northside Posse
Northwest Evans Park
Norton Block Gangsters Notorious
Nutty Block Crip
O.G.Crips
Original Agnes Gangster
Outlaw Mafia
Pachucos
Parkwood Bloods
Parvin Crew
People 5
People Nation
Pura Familia Loka
Piru Bloods
Playboy Gangsters
Players Club
Pleasure Time
Playboy
Pueblo Bishop
Puma Boys Crips
Quincy Bloods
Quintos In Mexico
Rebels 13
Raymond Street Hustlers
Rearview Players Crips
Red Mob Gangsters
Riverside Posse Crips
Rogue Dog Villains
Rollin 20’s Crips
Rollin 30’s Crips
Rollin 40’s Crips
Rollin 60’s Blood
Rollin 60’s Crips
Rollin 80’s Bloods
Ready To Kill
Ruskin Way Boys
Saddle Tramps
Saint Disciples
Saint Margaret
Samoan Satans
Spanish Disciples
Scarface School Yard Crips
Six Eight Gang
Southeast Pachucos
Seven Deuce Lime Street Bloods
Shotgun Crips
Six Deep Crips
Six Duce Crips
Six Deuce Brim
Six Tra
Six-Deuce Bloods
Sk7 Skaters
Skinheads
Somali Gangs
Sons Of Samoa
Southside 13
Southside 60’s
Southside Crips
Southside Family Bloods
Southside Posse
Southside Villains
Spanish Disciple
Spanish Gangsters
Sur Por Vida
Sur-13
Sureños
Swampside Taggers
Tas-Dog Crips
Taliban Gang
Terrace Lake Crips
Tra Dog Crips
Tra Side Gangster
Tra-9
Tra-Side
Traside Mobb
Tre Wall Tre-Tre
Tre Block 33
Tre-9
Tre-Deuce Gangster Crips
Tree Top Piru
Tre Side Gangsters
Tra-Side Gorillas
Twampside/1/4 Block
Underground Crips
Uptown Players
Vagos Trece
Vagos MC
Vatos Loco
V-Boys
Varrio Delinquentes
Viet For Life
Vice Lords
Vietnamese Crips
Village Boyz Bloods
Waldo Crip
Westbluff Blood
Western Bloods
Westside 111 Crips
Westside 18 Malandros
Westside 23 Holly Block Gang
Westside 41st Crip
Westside Bloods
Westside Chronicles Blood
Westside El Centro
Westside Hoover Crips
Westside Latin Counts
Westside Locos
Westside Pride Family Loco
Westside Player
Westside Rollin 40’s
Westside Rolling 60’s
Westside Traviesos
Wheels Of Soul MC
Wiggers
Woodland Crips
Young Oriental Gangsters

MONTANA
406 Dedicated Family
Aryan Circle of Texas
Bandidos MC
Bandits
Bloods
Cossacs
Crips
Dirty White Boys
Galloping Goose MC
Gangster City Family
Gangster Disciples
Hombres
Insane Vice Lords
Juggalo
Latin Kings
Modern
Modern Outlaws
Mongols MC
National Socialist Skinheads
Norteños
Outlaws MC
Peckerwoods
Pride Member Bandidos
Soldier of Seven
Suicide Mafia
Supreme White Power
Sureños
Texas Dirty White Boys
White Supremacist

NEBRASKA
18th Street
AM Vets
Bandidos MC
Crips
Eastside Loco 13
Eastside Locos
Gangster Disciples
Goon Squad
Hells Angels
Latin Kings
Lomas
MS-13
MSR137
Must Be Criminal
Norteños
Rebels 13
South Family Bloods
Southside 13
Southside Winos
Sureños
Under Age Kriminal

NEVADA
28th Street
Bandidos
Barrio Naked City
Lil Lokes
Mongols
Nevada Trece
Norteños
San Chucos
Sureños
Skinheads
Vagos

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bay State Skinheads
Bloods
Brothers of the White Warriors
Chinese Mafia
Combatants
Crips
Diamond Kings
Dominions
Folk
Gangster Disciples
Hells Angels MC
Iron Eagles MC
Juggalos
Kaotic Kings of Destruction
Latin Gangster Disciples
Latin Kings
Milford & Company
Mountain Men MC
MS-13
Outlaws MC
Pagans MC
Red Villain Gangstas
Rough Riders
Sureños
Trinitarios

NEW JERSEY
135 Piru
464Piru
793 Bloods
Brick City Brims
Haitian Outlaws
Hoover Crips
Grape Street Crips
G-Shine Bloods
Hells Angels MC
Latin Kings
MS-13
Ñetas
Pagans
Trinitarios
Sex Money Murder

NEW MEXICO
Bandidos
Eastside
Juggalos
Los Padillas Gang
MS-13
San Jose Gang
Southside Loco
Sureños
Thugs Causing Kaos
Vagos
Westside
Westside Locos

NEW YORK
18th Street
Aryan Brotherhood
Bishops
Black Gangster Disciple
Black Panther
Bloods
Crips
El Grupo 27
Haitian Mafia
Hells Angels MC
Juggalos
Latin Kings
Mexikanemi
MS-13
Ñetas
Outlaws
Pagans MC
Paisa
Peoples Nation
Raza Unida
Skinheads
Sureños
Texas Syndicate
Thug Out Players
Trinitarios
Vagos
Vatos Locos
Warlocks MC
Wheels of Soul MC

NORTH CAROLINA
13 Meadow Wood Memphis Bloods
18th Street
174 Valentine Bloods
20’s Neighborhood Piru
21st Crips
318 Crips
4-Trey Gangster Crips
5 Deuce Hoover Crips
5 Line Eastside Bounty Hunters
8 Trey Crips
9 Tek
9 Trey
9 Trey Gangsters
910 MOB
A Squad
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Nation
Ashboro St Bloods
Ashton Forrest Bloods
Asian Boyz
Avalon Gangster Crips
B St Bloods
Beaver Creek South
BL-50 Bloods
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Guerilla Family
Black P Stones
Bonnie Doone Folk
Bounty Hunter Assassins
Bounty Hunter Bloods
Bounty Hunter Villains
Brown Pride
Brown Pride Aztecs
Bunce Road Bloods
Cambridge Arms Bloods
Conservative Vice Lords
D-Block Bloods
DC Bounty Hunters
Dead Man Incorporated
Desperados MC
Deuce 13
Eastside MOB Piru
Eastside Murder Boyz
Eight Trey Crips
Fairlane Acres Crips
Five Percenters
Flame Squad
Folk Nation
Foxfire Bloods
Fruit Town Brims
Gangster Disciples
Get Money Clique
Ghost Gangster Disciples
Gangster Killer Bloods
Grape Street Crips
Graveyard Crips
Hells Angels MC
Hoover 107 Crips
HTO Bloods
IGC 973
Insane Gangster Crips
Insane Gangster Disciples
Jbirds
Juggalos
Kings/Dons
Latin Kings
Loch Boys
Major Grind
Mafia Malditos
Mexican Mafia
Misplaced Souls MC
Money Over Bitches Bloods
Money Money
Hungry Soldiers
Money Maker Squad
MS-13
Murch Mob
Murder Bloods
Nazi Low Riders
Ñetas
New Jersey Mafia
Norte-14
Norteños
NWA Bloods
Outlaws MC
People Nation
P-NOX
Queensmore Bloods
Real Street Niggas
Red Devils MC
Rollin 20’s Crips
Rollin 30’s Crips
Rollin 40’s Crips
Rollin 60’s Crips
Savoy Heights Posse
Seabrook Bloods
Sex Shaw Road Crips
South Central 81st Crips
Sur-13
Tiny Rascals Gang
Trap Squad
United Blood Nation
Valentine’s Day
Vatos Locos
Westside MOB Piru
Westside Piru

NORTH DAKOTA
Folk Nation
Gangster Disciples
Native Mob Crips & Bloods
Sons of Silence

OHIO
1300 Area Rap Gang
187 Boys
33rd Street
4-Block
52/52 Niggas
600 Block/Hill Top Gangsters
614 Boy Foundation
22nd Piru Bloods
9 Kings
A.C. 357
Akron Larceny Boys
Ak-Town / 330/ 440 / 216
All About Money
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Nation
Asian Crips
Avengers MC
Ayers Street Playas
Baller Boy Mafia
Banished Brothers MC
Black Pistons MC
Bloodline
Bottom Hawks
Brick Boys
Brothers MC
Brother’s of the Hammer MC
Buckeye Folks
Chest Block Gangsters
Chestola
Da Kennel
Dayton View Hustlers
D-Block/21st Street Killers
Dem Block Boys
Derelects MC
Diamond Cut
Diamond Dogs MC
Dirt and Grime MC
Dirty South
Down the Way
Down Town Area Rap Gang
Eastside Bloods
Eastside Connection
Folks Gangster Afficial
Gangster Disciple Folks
Gangster Disciples
Gangster Killer Bloods
Get Money Boys
Get Money Goonies
Goonies
Greenwich Village Crew
G-Unit Crips
Hammerskins
Head Bustin Niggas
Heartless Felonies
Heightz Boyz
Hells Angels MC
Hilltop 7714 Crips
Hough Heights Boys/Hough
Harlem Boys
Hunnid Block Gang
Iceberg Bloods
Johnston Block
Kaika Klan Outlaws
King Cobra Boys
Kinsman County/Rollin 40 Crips
K-Town Gangsters
Laffer Block
Laird Block Gangsters
Lake Boys
Lakeshore Boys
Laotian Crips
Latin Kings
Lovers Lane Crips
Laclede Parkview Ave
Madison Madhouse
Middle Avenue Zone
Money Go Gettas
Money Over Bitches
MS-13
New Northside Gangsters
Niggas From Laffer
North Coast MC
North Coast XII MC
Northside Gangstas
Original Killers
Otterbien Blood Mafia
Outlaws MC
Quinn Street Crew
Pagans MC
Rated R
Renegades MC
Rollin 20 Crips
S1W Southwest
Satans MC
Sherwood Ave
Shorb Block
Shorb Block Hustlers
Sin City Disciples MC
Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice
Skinheads Skulls
Soup City Boys
South Block Gangsters
Southwest Akron Thugs
Southwest Boyz
Southwest Gangsters
Southside Gangsters
StarBoyz
Stay Focus Rap Gang
Strays MC
Suffocated Records
Sureños 13
The Breed MC
The Brother’s MC
The Circle
The Notch Boys
The Team /The Squad
The Unit
Tribe
Up the Way
Valley Boys
Valley Niggas On Top
Valley-Lo
Vice Lords
Wages
Wheels of Soul MC
White Supremacists
Young Blooded Thugs
Young Kaika Boys
Young Kaika Girls
Young Kelly Boys
Young Street Goonies
Zone 3 Bloods
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zulus MC

OKLAHOMA
Asian Gang
Bandidos MC
Bloods
Border Brothers
Crips
Hoovers
Indian Brotherhood
Juggalos
Mongols MC
MS-13
Native American Gang
Nazi Low Riders
Norteño
Mexican Mafia
Outlaws MC
Sur Trece
Carnales
Sureños
Unidos en Uno
Universal Aryan Brotherhood
USO Family

OREGON
18th Street
Brother Speed
Brown Pride
Columbia Villa Crips
Gangster Disciples
Hmong Pride
Hoover Criminal
Kerby Blocc Crips
Lincoln Park Bloods
Masters of Destruction
MS-13
Mongols MC
Norteños
Rolling 60’s Crips
Southside Trece
Unthank Park Hustler
Vagos MC
West Coast Mafia Crip
Westside Mob Crips
Woodlawn Park Bloods

PENNSYLVANIA
18th Street
AC Skins
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Circle
Aryan Resistance Militia
Asian Boyz
Barbarians MC
Barrios Aztecas
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Guerilla Family
Black Jack MC
Bloods
Border Brothers
Breed Brick Yard Mafia
DC Crews
Dirty White Boys
G-27
Gangster Disciples
Green Dragons
Hells Angels
HPL Il Morte
Insane Gangster Disciple
Insane Unknowns
Juggalos
Kensington 215
Keystone United
Latin Kings
Low Crips
Mavericks
Mexican Mafia
Mexikanemi
MS-13
Nazi Low Riders
Neo Nazi
Ñetas
New Mexico Syndicate
Norteños
Nuestra Familia
Outlaws MC
Pagans MC
Paisa
Raza Unida
Sin City Disciples MC
Skinheads
Soldiers of Aryan Culture
Street Familia
StrongArm Production
Mexican Mafia
Sureño 13
Sureños
Tangos
Tango Blast
Texas Chicano Brotherhood
Texas Family
Texas Syndicate
Tribe MC
Trinitarios
Vagos
Vice Lords
Wardogs MC
Warlocks MC
Warrior Society
Wheels of Soul MC

PUERTO RICO
Borinquen Street Gang
Brisas De Salinas
Grupo 25
Grupo 27
La Marina
La Montaña Public Housing
Latin Kings
Los Ñetas
Los 31
Los 25
Nuevo Grupo 25
ONU Rompe
San Andres Public Housing

RHODE ISLAND
18 Street
Black Gangster Disciples
Clown Town Crip
Darkside Rascals
Hanover Boyz
Hells Angels MC
Latin Kings
Laos Pride
MS-13
Ñetas
Oriental Rascals
Original Bloods
Original Crip Gang
Providence Street Boyz
South Street Boys
Sur-13
Vagos MC
Young Bloods

SOUTH CAROLINA
031 Piru
1212
10 Mile Boys
18th Street
3rd Pound
3VL
4-4
4 Mile Boys
41 Boys
48 Boys
4G
5 Percenters
58Tres
6 Mile Boys
8 Trey Crips
9 Tre Boys
9th Ward
Adams Run Bottom Boyz
Band of Brothers MC
Bedroc
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Mafia Black “P” Stone
Bloods-031
Bloods MC
Boogie Woogie
Bounty Hunters
Church Hill Boyz
Converse Street Gang
County Boys
Creekside Crips
Cross Cut
Cross The Track
Dem Country Bois
Devils Rejects
Down the Island
Duncan Park Gang
East West Forest/Forest Boys
Eastside
Eastside Crips
Eastside Folk
Farside/West Cash
Ferry Ferry
Folk Nation
G Shine
Gangster Killer Bloods
Gangster Disciples
Gatas Petersfield Jungle Boyz
Geddy’s Ville Boyz
Greenview Thugs
Hells Angels MC
Hilltop-Crips
Hoover Crips
Insane Gangster Disciples
Johns Island Bloods
Kampa Bois
Kampa Style Villa Posse
Kings Court
Laos Crips and Bloods
Latin Kings
Lemon Tree Bois
Misguided Brotherhood
MS-13
Natural Born Assassins
New Black Panthers
Neighborhood Bloods
Norte 14
Northside Bloods
Northside Gang
OB Orleans Garden Boys
Outlaws MC
Paisas
Park Hill Gang
Parkers Pine Hurst Posse
Pineland Slap Boyz
Red Devils MC
Rivaside Goons
Rollin 20’s
Rollin 90 Crips
Souf Santee
Sosik Clik
Southside
Southside 3rd Ward
Straight Shooters MC
Sur-13
Sureños
SWAMP
Texas Community Gangsta
The Doolie Hill Gang
The Sand Hill Gang
The Ville Thunderguards
Tibwin Bois
Trap Star Soldiers
Tree Top Piru
Town Gorillas
Trey 9 Bloods
Tville Bloods
UpTop Soldiers
Urban Warriors
Vatos Locos
Warhorse Brotherhood
Warlocks MC
Westside
Westside Bloods
Wild Bunch

SOUTH DAKOTA
Bandidos
Conservative Vice Lords
Darkside Family
East River Skins
East River Souls
Eastside Thugs
Gangster Disciples
Main Street Crips
Native Latin Kings
Nomadz
Northside Gangster Disciples
Red Iron Players
Sur-13
The Boyz
Thug Line
Tre Tre Gangster Crips
True Villain Bloodz
Vagos
Warlords
West Mafia Crip Family
Westside Piru Bloodz

TENNESSEE
103 Watts Varrio Grape Street Crips
107 Hoover Crips
Five Percenters
52 Hoover Crips
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Circle
Aryan Nation
Asian Pride
Athens Park Bloods
Boone Height Mafia Crips
Bounty Hunter Bloods
Brotherhood Forever
Brown Pride
Confederate Sons MC
Crazy White Boys
E87 Kitchen Crips
Gangster Disciples
Ghost Vice Lords
Imperial Insane Vice Lords
Juggalos
Kempo Drive Posse
Kurdish Pride
Latin Kings
Memphis Mob
Mexican Mafia
MS-13
Outlaws MC
Prison Motorcycle Brotherhood
Renegades MC
Rollin 60’s Crips
Skyline Piru
Sureños
Sureños 13
Tiny Rascal Gangsters
Traveling Vice Lords
TreeTop Piru
Unknown Vice Lords
Vice Lords
White Aryan Resistance
Woodlawn Crips

TEXAS
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas
Aryan Circle
Asian Pride
Bandidos MC
Barrio Azteca
Barrio Azteca Sureños
Black Gangster Disciples
Bloods
Brown Pride
Cliques
Combes Crazy Clique
Crips
Cuchillos
Drop City Thugz
Eastside Homeboys
Eastside Locos
Eastside Pharr
Fair Park
Ghetto Starz
Hermanos Pistoleros Latinos
Highland Hills Posse
Ironriders MC
Kings Loco 8 Bandidos
Krazy Jokers
Las Palmas Indios
Latin Kings
Loco 13
Los Compadres MC
Los Homeboys
Mexican Mafia
Mexikanemi
MS-13
NOR 14
Norteños
North Dallas Vagos
Northside Locos
Notorious Thugs
Orejons Partido Revolucionario Mexicanos
Pharrolitos
Pleasant Grove Vatos
Po’Boys
PRM Valluco
Puro Tango Blast
Raza Unida
Southside Bandidos
Southside Donna
Southside EVW
Southside Folk
Sur-13
Sureño 13
Tango Blast
Texas Chicano Brotherhood
Texas Mafia
Texas Mexican Mafia
Texas Syndicate
Tongo Westside
Tri-City-Bombers
Vagos MC
Vallucos
Varrio Northside
Varrio Northside Vato Locos
West Texas Tangos
Westside Aquas Harlingen
Westside Bowie Town A’s
Westside Filmore A’s
Westside Los Vecinos
White Knights

UTAH
Asian Boyz
Baby Regulators
Bandidos MC
Barons
Black Mafia Gangsters
Brother Speed
Crown Latin Kings
Fourth Reich
Iraqi Taliban
Kerberos
King Mafia Disciples
Mongols MC
MS-13
Murder One Family
Norteños
Oriental Boy Soldiers
Oriental Laotian Gangsters
Samoans in Action
Silent Aryan Warriors
Soldiers of the Aryan Culture
Sons of Samoa
Sons of Silence MC
Sundowners
Tiny Oriental Posse
Tongan Crip Gangsters
Vagos MC
Sudanese Gangs
Sureños
Varrio Loco Town
Vice Lords

VERMONT
No reporting

VIRGINIA
18th Street Gang
36th Street Bang Squad
43/Hollywood Church Boyz
43 MOB
44 MOB
52 Hoover Crips
9 Trey Bloods
9 Trey Gangsters
Aryan Brotherhood
Asian Dragon Family
Bang Squad
Black Gangster Disciples
Black P Stone Nation
Black Pistons MC
Blackout Bloods
Bloods
Bounty Hunter Bloods
Brown Pride
Camp Grove Killas
Ching-A-Lings MC
Cross Roads Crew
Culmore City
Cypress Manor Posse Crips
Cypress Manor Posse Bloods
Devils Grip
Dragon Family
Dump Squad
Fifth Ward
Five Percenters
Florencia 13
Folk Nation
Freeney Boyz
Gangster Killer Bloods
Gangster Disciples
Ghost Riders MC
Hells Angels MC
Hill Street
Hoffler Boyz
Holiday Death Chamber
Holiday Death Crew
Hot Boyz
Illusions MC
Insane Gangster Disciples
Iron Coffins MC
Kings of Richmond County
La Primera
La Privada Riderz
Lake Kennedy Posse Bloods
Latin Homies
Latin Kings
La Clique Original
MS-13
Marauders MC
Merciless Souls
Mexican Mafia
Mexican Pride
Mongols MC
MS-13
Murk Squad
Nine Trey Gangsta
Nomads MC
Norteños 14
OO6 Blitz
Outlaws MC
Pagans MC
People Nation
Piru Pound Property
Renegades MC
Road Dragons
Rolling 90’s
San Diego Eastside Piru
Scorpions MC
Shoot-em Up Boys
South Suffolk Gangsters Crips
Southside/202 SQUAD
Southside Locos
Sureños
Stack Squad
Sur-13
The Good Ones
Titans MC
Tradesmen MC
Tiny Rascal Gangsters
Tribe MC
Tucker Hill
Unknown Fools
Valentines Bloods
Vice Lords
Virginia Raiders MC
Warlocks MC
Warlords
Zetas

WASHINGTON
18th Street
74 Hoover Criminals
74 Hoover Crips
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Family
Bandidos MC
Black Gangster Disciples
Big Dog Norteños
Black Guerilla Family
Chinese Triads
Deuce 8 Black Gangster Disciples
Deuce 8 Gangster Disciples
Deuce-0’s
Deuce-9’s
Down With the Crew Gangster
Disciples
Drama Boyz
East African Gangs
European Kindred
Florencia 13
Green Rags
Hakenkreuz
Hells Angels MC
Hilltop
Holly Park Crips
Hoover Crips
Juggalos
Kitchen Crips
La Fuma Bloods
Lakewood Hustler Crips
Latin Kings
Lil Valley Lokos 13
Lil Valley Lokotes 13
Low Profile Gangsters
Little Valley Locotos
Magic Wheels
MS-13
Mexican Mafia
Mongols
Native Son Bloods
Nine Street Crips
Norteños
Northwest Boot Boys
Oriental Boyz
Oriental Fantasy Boys
Outlaws MC
Paisas
Peckerwoods
Playboy Gangster
Playboys 13
Rancho San Pedro 3rd Street Skinheads
Somali Gangs
Sons of Samoa
South Asian Gangs
South Asian Gangsters
Southside Tokers
Street Mobb
Sur-13
Sureños
Tiny Rascal Gangsters
Union Street Black Gangster Disciples
Varrio Campo Vida
Varrio Locos 13
Vatos Locos
Yesler Terrace Bloods
Young Oriental Troop
Young Seattle Boys

WEST VIRGINIA
Black Guerilla Family
Junk Yard Dogs
Latin Kings
Pagans MC
Warlocks MC

WISCONSIN
10th St Gangster Disciples
12th St Gangster Disciples
16 Gun Clique
2-1’s
25 Vice Lords
26 Vice Lords
29 Hard Heads
6th St Gangster Disciples
Big O Ones
Black Cobras MC
Black Gangster Disciples
Black Mob
Black P Stones
Black Pistons MC
Block 25th
Brothers Of The Struggle
Brown Pride 13
Burleigh Zoo
Chicago Gangster Disciples
Chicago Vice Lords
City Of Clybourne
Clanton 13
Conservative Vice Lords
Dirty South Gangster Disciples
Dukes 13
Eastside Gangsters
Eastside Mafiosos
Everybody Knows
El Rukins
Four Corner Hustler
Gangster Disciples
Gangster Pimpin
Getto Boys
Hot Boys
Imperial Gangsters
Imperial Gangster Disciples
Insane Unknowns
Insane VL
La Familia
Latin Bloods
Latin Kings
Los Primos
Los Veteranos 13
Maniac Latin Disciples
Maple Street
Mexican Posse 13
Mexican Sureños Locos Ochos
Midtown Gangster Disciples
Murda Mobb
Nash Street Boys
Native Mob
Northside Gangster Disciples
Orchestra Alanis
Outlaws MC
Players
Sons Of Loyalty
Sovereign Nation Warriors
Spanish Cobras
Spanish Gangster Disciples
Sureños 13
The 4’s
The Loonies
Tiny Locos 13
Traveling Vice Lords
Tre Eights
Vice Lords
Wild 100’s

WYOMING
307 Southside
Bandidos
Bloods
Brown Pride
Gangster Disciples
Juggalos
Kriniminals Sureños
Lincoln Park
Southside Locos
Sur-13
Wreck Team

APPENDIX B. MDTOs Alliances and Rivals

Cartel Aligned With Rivals
The Sinaloa Cartel (aka Guzman-Loera Organization or Pacific Cartel) Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos

New Mexico Syndicate

Los Carnales

Latin Kings

Mexican Mafia (California)

Sureños

MS-13

Arizona Mexican Mafia (Old & New)

Wet Back Power

Sinaloa Cowboys

West Texas Tangos

Los Negros

Valencia Cartel (Considered a branch of the Sinaloa Cartel)

Sonora Cartel (Considered a branch of the Sinaloa Cartel)

Colima Cartel (Considered a branch of the Sinaloa Cartel)

Border Brothers (California)

Border Brothers (Arizona)Los Zetas

Cardenas-Guillen Cartel (Gulf)

Tijuana Cartel

Beltran-Leyva Cartel

Juarez CartelLa Familia Michoacana Cartel (Formerly part of Los Zetas under the authority of the Gulf Cartel)Sinaloa Cartel

Cardenas-Guillen Cartel (Gulf)

Surenos

MS-13

West Texas TangosLos Zetas

Cardenas-Guillen Cartel (Gulf Cartel)

The Beltran-Leyva Cartel

Vincente Carrillo-Fuentes Cartel

(Juarez Cartel)Los ZetasVincente Carrillo-Fuentes Cartel (Juarez)

Beltran-Leyva Cartel

Barrio Azteca

Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos

Mexikanemi

Texas Syndicate

MS-13Arellano-Felix Cartel (Tijuana)

Cartel de la Sierra (Sierra Cartel)

Sinaloa Cartel

La Familia Michoacana Cartel

Cardenas-Guillen Cartel (Gulf)Cardenas-Guillen Cartel (Gulf Cartel)

Sinaloa Cartel

La Familia Michoacana Cartel

Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos

Partido Revolutionary Mexicano

Raza Unida

Texas Chicano BrotherhoodLos Zetas

La Familia Michoacana Cartel

The Sinaloa CartelVincente Carrillo-Fuentes Cartel (Juarez Cartel)

Los Zetas

Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos

Barrio Azteca

New Mexico Syndicate

Los CarnalesThe Sinaloa Cartel

La Familia Michoacana CartelThe Beltran-Leyva Cartel (expected to soon be taken over by the Sierra Cartel)Los ZetasLos Zetas

La Familia Michoacana CartelArellano-Felix Cartel (Tijuana Cartel)Mexican Mafia (California)

Sureños

Arizona Mexican Mafia (Old & New)

Border Brothers (California)Los Zetas

The Sinaloa Cartel

APPENDIX C. Federal Gang Task Forces
FBI Safe Streets Gang Task Forces

Alabama
Mobile Violent Crime Joint Task Force
Northeast Alabama Safe Streets Task Force

Alaska
Anchorage Safe Street Task Force

Arizona
Northern Arizona Violent Gang Task Force
Southwest Arizona Safe Streets Task Force
Violent Street Gang Task Force

Arkansas
Metro Gang-Joint Task Force

California
Central Coast Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force
Central Valley Gang Impact Team Task Force
East County Regional Gang Task Force
Gang Impact Team (Riverside)
Imperial Valley Safe Streets Task Force
Kern County Violent Crime/Gang Task Force
Los Angeles Metro Task Force On Violent Gangs
North Bay Regional Gang Task Force
North Central Coast Gang Task Force
North County Regional Gang Task Force
Sacramento Valley Gang Suppression Team
Safe Streets East Bay Task Force
San Francisco Safe Streets Violent Crimes Task Force
San Gabriel Valley Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force
Santa Ana Gang Task Force
Santa Clara County Violent Gang Task Force
Solano County Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force
South LA County Violent Crimes Task Force
Stockton Violent Crime Task Force
Ventura County RIACT
Violent Crime Task Force-Gang Group

Colorado
Denver Metro Gang Safe Streets Task Force
Southern Colorado Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force

Connecticut
Bridgeport Safe Streets Gang Violent Crimes Task Force
New Haven Safe Streets Task Force
Northern Connecticut Violent Crimes Gang Task Force

Delaware
Delaware Violent Crime Safe Streets Gang Task Force

Florida
Daytona Beach Safe Streets Task Force
Jacksonville Criminal Enterprise Investigative Task Force
Metro Orlando Safe Streets Gang Task Force
Palm Beach County Gang and Criminal Organization
Task Force
South FL. Gang/Criminal Organization Task Force
Tampa Bay Safe Streets Task Force

Georgia
Atlanta Criminal Enterprise Task Force
Central Savannah River Area Safe Streets Gang Task Force
Conasauga Major Offenders Task Force
Hall County Major Offenders Task Force
Northwest Georgia Criminal Enterprise Task Force
Southwest Georgia Gang Task Force

Idaho
Treasure Valley Metro Gang Task Force

Illinois
Eastern Illinois Safe Streets Task Force
Joint Task Force on Gangs – Tactical
Joint Task Force on Gangs – West
Joint Task Force on Gangs II
Joint Task Force on Gangs-1
Metro East Safe Streets
North Suburban Gang Task Force
Peoria Area Safe Streets Task Force
Quad Cities Fed Gang Task Force
Will County Violent Crimes Task Force

Indiana
Eastern Central Indiana Safe Streets Task Force
Fort Wayne Safe Streets Gang Task Force
Gary Response Investigative Team
Gang Response Investigative Team Tippecanoe
Indianapolis Metro Gang Safe Streets Task Force
Wabash Valley Safe Streets Task Force

Iowa
Cedar Rapids Safe Streets Task Force

Kentucky
Northern Kentucky Safe Streets Task Force

Louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Gang Task Force
Capital Area Gang Task Force
Central Louisiana Gang Task Force
New Orleans Gang Task Force
Northeast Louisiana Gang Task Force
Shreveport Task Force
South Central Louisiana Safe Streets Task Force

Maine
Southern Maine Gang Task Force

Maryland
Prince George’s County Safe Streets Task Force
Violent Crime Safe Streets Initiative

Massachusetts
North Shore Gang Task Force
Southeastern Massachusetts Gang Task Force
Western Massachusetts Gang Task Force

Michigan
Benton Harbor Violent Crime Task Force
Detroit Violent Gang Task Force
Genesee County Safe Streets Task Force
Mid-Michigan Safe Streets Task Force
Oakland County Safe Streets Task Force

Minnesota
Twin Cities Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force

Mississippi
Jackson Safe Streets Task Force
Southeast Mississippi Safe Streets Task Force

Missouri
Kansas City Metropolitan Gang Task Force
St. Louis Safe Streets Gang Task Force

Montana
Big Sky Safe Streets Task Force
Central Montana Gang Task Force

Nebraska
Central Nebraska Drug and Safe Streets Task Force
Greater Omaha Safe Streets Task Force

Nevada
Las Vegas Safe Streets Gang Task Force

New Hampshire
New Hampshire Safe Streets Task Force

New Jersey
Jersey Shore Gang and Criminal Organization Task Force
South Jersey Violent Incident/Gang Task Force
South Jersey Violent Offender and Gang Task Force
Violent Crime Criminal Enterprise Task Force
Violent Crimes Incident Task Force

New Mexico
Albuquerque Safe Streets HIDTA Gang Task Force
Four Corners Safe Streets Task Force
Southern New Mexico Street Gang Task Force

New York
Buffalo Safe Streets Task Force
Capital District Gang Task Force
Hudson Valley Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force
Long Island Gang Task Force
Westchester County Violent Crimes Task Force

North Carolina
Charlotte Safe Streets Task Force
Piedmont Triad Safe Streets Gang Task Force
Raleigh Durham Safe Streets Task Force
Wilmington Safe Streets Task Force

Ohio
Greater Akron Area Safe Streets Task Force
Mahoning Valley Violent Crime Task Force
Miami Valley Safe Streets Task Force
Stark County, Ohio Violent Crime/Fugitive Task Force

Oklahoma
Oklahoma City Metropolitan Gang Task Force

Oregon
Portland Metro Gang Task Force

Pennsylvania
Bucks County Violent Gang Task Force
Capital Cities Safe Streets Task Force
Delaware Valley Violent Crimes Task Force
Erie Area Gang Law Enforcement Task Force
Greater Pittsburgh Safe Streets Task Force
Lehigh Valley Violent Crimes Task Force
Philadelphia Violent Gang Task Force
Safe Streets Violent Crimes Task Force
Safe Streets Violent Drug Gang Task Force
Steamtown Gang Task Force
SW Pennsylvania Safe Streets Task Force

Puerto Rico
Aguadilla Regional Enforcement Team
Fajardo Regional Enforcement Team
Ponce Safe Streets Task Force
Safe Streets Task Force

Rhode Island
Rhode Island Violent Crimes/Gang Task Force

South Carolina
Columbia Violent Gang Task Force
Pee Dee Violent Crime Task Force

Tennessee
Chattanooga Safe Streets Task Force
Knoxville Headquarters Safe Streets Violent Crimes
Task Force
Nashville Violent Crimes Gang Task Force
Safe Streets Task Force HQ City

Texas
Austin Violent Crime Gang/Organized Crime Task Force
Corpus Christi Violent Crimes Task Force
East Texas Area Gang Initiative
El Paso Street and Prison Gang Task Force
Houston Coastal Safe Streets Task Force
Multi-Agency Gang Task Force
Rio Grand Valley Violent Crimes Task Force
San Antonio Safe Streets Violent Crimes Task Force
Southeast Texas Safe Streets Task Force
Tarrant County Safe Streets Task Force
Violent Crimes and Major Offenders and Gang Task Force
West Texas Anti-Gang Team
West Texas Area Major Offender Task Force

Utah
Northern Utah Criminal Apprehension Team
Safe Streets Violent Crime Task Force

Virginia
Richmond Area Violent Enterprise Task Force
South Piedmont Virginia Gang Task Force
The Peninsula Safe Streets Task Force
Tidewater Violent Crimes Task Force

Washington
Seattle Safe Streets and Gang Task Force
South Sound Gang Task Force
Southwest Washington Safe Streets Task Force
Spokane Violent Crime Gang Enforcement Team
Tri-Cities Violent Crime Gang Enforcement Team

Washington, D.C.
WFO/MPD/Safe Streets Gang Task Force

West Virginia
Eastern Panhandle and Potomac Highlands Safe Streets Task Force
Huntington Violent Crimes/Drug Task Force

Wisconsin
Gang-Rock County Task Force
Greater Racine Gang Task Force

ATF Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT)

map_of_vcit_cities_-april_2011-1

Source: ATF

ICE Operation Community Shield (OCS) Initiative Targets

map-of-ice-ocs-cities-april-2011

Source: ICE

APPENDIX D. Acknowledgements

FEDERAL
US Department of Defense
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
US Army
Fort Dix Criminal Investigative Division
Directorate Emergency Services USAG-HI
US Department of Homeland Security
US Border Patrol
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
US Customs and Border Protection
US Homeland Security Investigations
US Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
US Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
National Drug Intelligence Center
National Gang Center
National Gang Intelligence Center
US Marshals Service
US Probation and Parole
US Department of State

LOCAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL

ALABAMA
Alabama Fusion Center
Bessemer Police Department
Birmingham Police Department
Etowah County Drug Task Force
Irondale Police Department
Madison County Sheriff’s Office
Pelham Police Department

ALASKA
Alaska Department of Corrections
Anchorage Police Department

ARIZONA
Arizona Adult Probation
Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Arizona DPS-State Gang Task Force (GIITEM) Central District
Arizona State Prison Kingman / MTC
Cottonwood Police Department
Lake Havasu City Police Department
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Phoenix Police Department
Rocky Mountain Information Network
Scottsdale Police Department
Tempe Police Department
Tucson Police Department

ARKANSAS
13th Judicial District Deputy Prosecutors Office
Scott County Sheriff’s Office

CALIFORNIA
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office
Bakersfield Police Department
Bear Valley Police Department
Berkeley Police Department
Baldwin Park School Police Department
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California Highway Patrol
Chula Vista Police Department
Coachella Valley Gang Task Force
Compton School Police Department
Concord Police Department
Corona Police Department
Delano Community Correctional Facility
Eureka Police Department
Exeter Police Department
Fresno County Sheriff’s Office
Garden Grove Police Department
Gilroy Police Department
Greenfield Police Department
Hollister Police Department
Huntington Beach Police Department
Inglewood Police Department
Kern County Sheriff’s Office
Los Angeles Police Department
Lincoln Police Department
Long Beach Police Department
Los Angeles County District Attorney
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Marina Police Department
Merced Multi-Agency Gang Task Force
Montebello Police Department
Monterey County Probation Department
Monterey Police Department
Morgan Hill Police Department
Mountain View Police Department
Napa County Probation Department
National City Police Department
Oakland Police Department
Office of the Fresno County District Attorney
Oxnard Police Department
Pacific Grove Police Department
Pittsburg Police Department
Placer County District Attorney’s Office
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
Riverside Sheriff’s Department
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
Sacramento Police Department
San Benito County Probation Department
San Benito County Sheriff’s Office
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
San Diego County Probation Department
San Diego Police Department
San Leandro Police Department
San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Sanger Police Department
Santa Ana Police Department
Santa Barbara County Sheriff
Santa Barbara Police Department
Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
Santa Clara County Probation Department
Santa Monica Police Department
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
San Diego Sheriff’s Department
Simi Valley Police Department
Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office
South Gate Police Department
Southern Alameda County Major Crime Task Force
Stockton Police Department
Tehachapi Police Department
Tuolumne County Sheriff
Ukiah Police Department
Vallejo Police Department
Ventura Police Department
West Covina Police Department
West Sacramento Police Department
Whittier Police Department

COLORADO
10th Judicial District Probation Department
Aurora Police Department
Colorado Department of Corrections
Garfield County Sheriff’s Office
Greeley Police Department
Mesa County Sheriff’s Office
Thornton Police Department

CONNECTICUT
Connecticut State Police
Danbury Police Department
Meriden Police Department
New Haven Police Department
South Windsor Police Department
West Hartford Police Department

DELAWARE
Delaware State Police
New Castle County Police
Wilmington Police Department

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
US Attorney’s Office
Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department

FLORIDA
Alachua County Sheriff’s Office
Central Florida Intelligence Exchange
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Fort Myers Police Department
Hernando County Sheriff’s Office
Highlands County Sheriff’s Office
Hillsborough County Sheriff
Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
Lake County Sheriff’s Office
Lee County Sheriff’s Office
Maitland Police Department
Marion County Sheriff’s Office
Martin County Sheriff’s Office
Miami-Dade Corrections & Rehabilitations
Ocala Police Department
Okeechobee County Sheriff’s Office
Orange County Corrections
Orange County Sheriff’s Office
Orlando Police Department
Oviedo Police Department
Polk County Sheriff’s Office
Sanford Police Department
Sarasota Sheriff’s Office
Seminole County Sheriff’s Office
Tallahassee Police Department
Seminole Police Department
Titusville Police Department
Volusia County Sheriff’s Office

GEORGIA
Cobb County Sheriff’s Office
Douglasville Police Department
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Gwinnett County Police Department
LaGrange Police Department
Richmond County Board of Education Public Safety
Spalding County Sheriff’s Office

ILLINOIS
Bensenville Police Department
Bloomington Police Department
Chicago Police Department
Decatur Police Department
Dolton Police Department
DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office
Hanover Park Police Department
Illinois Department of Corrections
Jo Daviess County Sheriff’s Office
Lake County Sheriff Department
Schaumburg Police Department

INDIANA
Anderson Police Department
Boone County Sheriff Department
Cumberland Police Department
Elkhart County Sheriff’s Office
Evansville Police Department
Indiana Department of Corrections
Parke County Sheriff’s Office
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Richmond Police Department
Southwest Indiana Violent Crime Task Force

IOWA
Dubuque Police Department
Iowa Department of Corrections
Jasper County Sheriff’s Office
Storm Lake Police Department
Warren County Sheriff’s Office

KANSAS
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
Lawrence Police Department
Topeka Police Department
Wichita Police Department

KENTUCKY
Henderson Police Department
Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice
Louisville Metro Police Department
McCracken County Regional Jail

LOUISIANA
Alexandria Police Narcotics Division
Creola Police Department
Denham Springs Police Department
Grant Parish Constable
Grant Parish Sheriff’s Office
Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office
Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office
Louisiana Department of Corrections
Louisiana State Police
Metro Narcotics of Ouachita
New Orleans Police Department
Office of Juvenile Justice

MAINE
Lewiston Police Department

MARYLAND
Anne Arundel County Police Department
Calvert County Sheriff’s Office
Charles County Sheriff’s Office
Greenbelt City Police Department
Hagerstown Department of Police
Harford County Sheriff’s Office
Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center
Maryland Department of Corrections
Montgomery County Police
Prince George’s County Police Department
Wicomico County Department of Corrections

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston Police Department
Chicopee Police Department
Fitchburg Police Department
Hampden County Sheriff’s Department
Haverhill Police Department
Holyoke Police Department
Lowell Police Department
Massachusetts State Police
Springfield Police Department
Worcester Police Department

MICHIGAN
Benton Township Police Department
Berrien County Sheriff’s Department
Escanaba Public Safety Department
Grand Rapids Police Department
Holland Police Department
Muskegon Police Department
Oakland County Violent Gang Task Force
Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office
Unadilla Township Police Department
West Michigan Enforcement Team

MINNESOTA
Dakota County Community Corrections
Minneapolis Police Department
Owatonna Police Department
Prairie Island Tribal Police
Saint Peter Police Department
Shakopee Police Department

MISSISSIPPI
Gulf Coast Regional Fugitive Task Force
Gulfport Police Department
Magee Police Department
Narcotics Task Force of Jackson County
US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi

MISSOURI
Berkeley Police Department
Joplin Police Department
Kansas City Missouri Police Department
Missouri Department of Corrections
Monett Police Department
Saint Louis County Police Department
St. Charles Police Department
St. Joseph Missouri Police Department
St. Louis County Police Department
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

MONTANA
Crossroads Correctional Center
Laurel Police Department
Missoula Police Department
Montana Department of Corrections

NEBRASKA
Bellevue Police Department
City of Gering Police Department
Columbus Police Department
Crete Police Department
Grand Island Police Department
Kearney Police Department
Omaha Police Department

NEVADA
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Belknap County Sheriff’s Department
Concord Police Department
Keene Police Department
Manchester Police Department
Manchester Weed and Seed Program
Merrimack County Department of Corrections
Nashua Police Department
Somersworth Police Department

NEW JERSEY
Bound Brook Police Department
Essex County Prosecutor’s Office
Kenilworth Police Department
Linden Police Department
Passaic County Sheriff’s Department

NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque Police Department
Catron County Sheriff’s Department
Eddy County Sheriff’s Office
Pueblo of Acoma Police Department

NEW YORK
Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office
Glens Falls Police Department
Nassau County Police Department

NORTH CAROLINA
Duplin County Sheriff’s Office
Durham Police Department
Fayetteville Police Department
Gastonia Police Department
New Hanover County Sheriff
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Shelby Police Department
Wake Forest Police Department

NORTH DAKOTA
Heart of America Correctional and Treatment Center
North Dakota Department of Corrections

OHIO
Akron Police Department
Canton Police Department
Columbus, Ohio Division of Police
Dayton Police Department
Lake Metroparks Ranger Department
Montpelier Police Department
Springfield Ohio Division of Police

OKLAHOMA
Davis Correctional Facility
Eastern Shawnee Tribal Police
North Fork Correctional facility
Oklahoma City Police Department
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Owasso Police Department

OREGON
Crook County Sheriff’s Office
Portland Police Bureau

PENNSYLVANIA
California University of Pennsylvania Police Department
Cumberland County Prison
Ephrata Police Department
Lackawanna County District Attorney
Lackawanna County Prison
Lancaster County District Attorney
Manheim Borough Police Department
Mifflin County Regional Police Department
Montgomery County Adult Probation & Parole Department
Pennsylvania Capitol Police
Pennsylvania State Police
Philadelphia-Camden HIDTA
Slippery Rock University Police

PUERTO RICO
Metropolitan Detention Center, Guaynabo
Police of Puerto Rico

RHODE ISLAND
Providence Police Department
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

SOUTH CAROLINA
Anderson County Gang Task Force
Bamberg Police Department
Charleston County Sheriff Office
Chester City Police Department
Colleton County Sheriff’s Office
Columbia Police Department
Darlington County Sheriff’s Office
Darlington Police Department
Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office
Florence County Sheriff’s Office
Florence Police Department
Fountain Inn Police Department
Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office
Greenwood Police Department
Greer Police Department
Hampton County Sheriff Office
Hartsville Police Department
Lancaster City Police Department
Lancaster Police Department
Latta Police Department
Lexington Medical Health Services – Public Safety
Palmetto Protection Agency, Inc.
Prosperity Police Department
Rock Hill Police Department
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Spartanburg Public Safety Department
Summerville Police Department
Timmonsville Police Department
West Columbia Police Department

SOUTH DAKOTA
Rapid City Police Department
Tripp County Sheriff’s Office

TENNESSEE
Bradley County Juvenile Detention
Chattanooga Police Department
Coffee County Sheriff’s Department
Columbia Police Department
Cookeville Police Department
Covington Police Department
Fayette County Sheriff’s Department
Franklin Police Department
Hardeman County Correctional Facility
Juvenile Court of Jefferson County
Knoxville Police Department
Metro Nashville Police Department
Oak Ridge Police Department
Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department
Sumner County Sheriff’s Office
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
Tennessee Department of Correction

TEXAS
Amarillo Police Department
Andrews Department of Public Safety
Austin Police Department
Bastrop County Sheriff’s Office
Baytown Police Department
Bexar County Fire Marshal’s Office
Bosque County Sheriff’s Office
Collin County District Attorney’s Office
Dallas ISD Police & Security
Dallas Police Department Gang Unit
Donna ISD Police Department
El Paso County Sheriff’s Office
Harlingen Police Department
Hays County Juvenile Probation
Hidalgo County Constable – Pct 3
Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office
Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office
Hutchinson County Sheriff’s Office
Kenedy County Sheriff Office
Luling Police Department
Maverick County Detention Center
Nacogdoches Police Department
New Caney ISD Police Department
Reagan County Sheriff’s Office
San Antonio Police Department
San Marcos Police Department
Schertz Police Department
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Travis County Sheriff’s Office
Texas Department of Public Safety
University of Texas Health Science Center Police

UTAH
West Valley City Police Department

VERMONT
No reporting

VIRGINIA
Abingdon Police Department
Alexandria Police Department
Alexandria Sheriff’s Office
Arlington County Police Department
Bland Correctional Center
Chesapeake Police Department
Chesterfield County Police Department
Chincoteague Police Department
City of Chesapeake Police Department
City of Harrisonburg Police Department
City of Manassas Police Department
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Department of Juvenile Justice
Fairfax County Police Department
Hampton Police Division
Newport News Police Department
Norfolk Police Division
Prince William County Police Department
Richmond Police Department
Staunton Police Department
Suffolk Police Department
Town of Herndon Police Department
Town of Vienna Police Department
Virginia Department of Corrections
Virginia Correctional Center for Women
Virginia Port Authority Police Department
Virginia State Police
Warsaw Probation and Parole Office

WASHINGTON
Everson Police Department
King County Jail
King County Sheriff’s Office
Lynnwood Police Department
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
Seattle Police Department
Washington State Department of Corrections

WEST VIRGINIA
Eastern Panhandle Potomac Highlands SSTF
Martinsburg Police Department
Philippi Police Department

WISCONSON
Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Police
Milwaukee Police Department
Wisconsin Department of Corrections

WYOMING
Wyoming Highway Patrol

Endnotes

a Title 18 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(A) defines criminal street gangs as ongoing groups, clubs, organizations, or associations of five or more individuals that have as one of their primary purposes the commission of one or more criminal offenses. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 521(c) further defines such criminal offenses as (1) a federal felony involving a controlled substance; (2) a federal felony crime of violence that has as an element the use or attempted use of physical force against the person of another and (3) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2).
b
For the purpose of this assessment, OMGs include One Percenter gangs as well as support and puppet clubs.
c A juvenile refers to an individual under 18 years of age, although in some states, a juvenile refers to an individual under 16 years of age. A juvenile gang refers to a gang that is primarily comprised of individuals under 18 years of age.
d Juggalos are traditionally fans of the musical group the Insane Clown Posse. Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, and Utah are the only US states that recognize Juggalos as a gang.
e Alien smuggling involves facilitating the illegal entry of aliens for financial or other tangible benefits. It can involve an individual or a criminal organization. Business relationships typically cease once the individual has reached their destination. Human trafficking involves recruitment, transportation, and harboring of persons through force, fraud, or coercion for labor or services that result in slavery, involuntary servitude, or debt bondage. The business relationship does not end and often becomes exploitative and violent.
fAccording to the United Nations, over 90 percent of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States are assisted by professional smugglers. Although most of the migrants are smuggled in trucks, many have been smuggled by rail, on foot, and tunnels.
g For years, gang members used Internet websites to advertise the sale of their victims. However, recently several Internet sites including Craigslist have eliminated their erotic services personal advertisement sections.
h MDTOs control up to 80 percent of wholesale cocaine distribution in the United States.
i Eurasian criminal groups include Albanian, Armenian, Eastern European, and Russian criminal enterprises.
j Legal mail refers to any correspondence sent to or received from a legal professional. Gang members may disguise their correspondence to resemble legal mail so that it is exempt from inspection.
k  Gang members leave prison with the knowledge and connections that allow them to identify with a national gang which will garner them greater respect and “street credibility” within their community.
l According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of Native Americans incarcerated in jails and prisons nationwide increased by approximately 2.5 percent from 2007 to 2008.
m US military branches include Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy, Army Reserves, and National Guard.
n The US Southwest Border includes the southern borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
oAlthough some US and local law enforcement officials maintain that violent crime in Southwest Border states has decreased in the past few years, the effects of such violence, including drug trafficking activity and migration patterns of Mexican citizens fleeing the violence in Northern Mexico, are most acutely reflected in the US Southwest Border Region. Furthermore, as the point of entry for the vast majority of illicit drugs that are smuggled into the United States, the Southwest Border Region is most susceptible to any spillover violence.
p The Barrio Azteca works for the Juarez Cartel on both the US and Mexican sides of the border.
q These estimates were derived from the large number of gang members populating social networking Web sites such as the Hoodup.com, Facebook, and MySpace.


1 US Department of Justice (USDOJ); “Highlights of the 2009 National Youth Gang Survey;” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; National Gang Center; May 2011.
2
Open Source News Release; “11 Alleged MS-13 Members Indicted on Racketeering and Other Charges in a Series of Violent Crimes; ICE; 4 May 2011. Open Source Article; “Officials Concerned About Gang Violence in Prince George’s County;” Washington Examiner; available at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com.
3 USDOJ; “Federal Racketeering Indictment Leads to Arrest of 8 Members, Associates of San Gabriel Valley Street Gang;” Press Release; 8 June 2010; available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr/2010/091.html.
4 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
5 NAGIA Quick Guide to Gangs, National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association; April 2010.
6 Open Source News Article; “Tips for dealing with Asian Gangs;” Police One; 21 May 2009; available at http://www.Policeone.com.
7 USDOJ; National Drug Threat Assessment 2010; NDIC; February 2010. Open Source News Article, “Pot houses linked to gangs, marijuana dispensaries;” Whittier Daily News; 6 September 2010; available at http://www.Whittierdailynews.com. Open Source News Article, “Asian Pot Ring Busted, Noted Restaurateur Suspect;” CBS4 Denver; 7 March 2010; available at http://www.CBS4denver.com.
8 Open Source News Article; “Somali Gangs Ran Sex Ring in 3 US States, Authorities Say;” Fox News; 8 November 2010; available at http://www.foxnews.com.
9 Online news article; “Judge sets $2 million bond in alleged murder, robbery;” Ohio Post; 15 April 2009.
10 FBI Indianapolis Division; “Twenty-Two Charged Federally in Evansville Drug Trafficking Case;” Press Release; 4 February 2010; available at http://indianapolis.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/ip020410.htm.
11 NAGIA Quick Guide to Gangs; National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association; April 2010.
12 Open Source News Article; “Hybrid Gangs responsible for rise in North Las Vegas Crime,” 13 Action News Las Vegas; 25 July 2010; available at http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp;13.
13 Open Source News Article; “Man charged with shooting couple on Maple Valley Trail”; The Seattle Times; 3January 2011; available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2013837934_man_charged_with_xx_in_connect.html.
14 Open Source News Article; “Teen gets probation in attacks on homeless;” Gazette-Times; 22 January 2010; available at http://www.gazettetime.com/news/local/article_3b43539a-07ab-11df-b6ae-001cc4c03286.html.
15 US Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE); “8 Arrested as ICE Dismantles Alien Smuggling Ring Linked to Notorious Local Street Gang;” News Release; 14 October 2009; available at http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0910/091014losangeles.htm.
16 Open Source Website; Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC) Charter and Amendments; available at http://www.state.gov/m/ds/hstcenter/41444.htm.
17 DHS; “29 Charged with Sex Trafficking Juveniles;” ICE; News Release; 8 November 2010; available at http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1011/101108nashville.htm.
18 Open News Source Article; “Report Links Street Gangs to Child Prostitution;” KPBS News; 23 November 2010; available at http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/nov/09/report-links-street-gangs-child-prostitution.
19 Open Source News Article; Kevin Johnson; USA Today; “Drug Cartels Unite Rival Gangs to Work for Common Bad;” USA Today; 16 March 2010.
20 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
21 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
22 Open Source News Article; “Drug Cartels Uniting Rival Gangs;” USA Today; 3 March 2010; available at http://www.usatoday.com.
23 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
24 Open Source News Article; “US Mexico Drug Gangs Form Alliances;” Washington Times; 26 March 2010; available at http://www.washingtimes.com.
25 Open Source News Article; Kevin Johnson; “Drug Cartels Unite Rival Gangs to Work for Common Bad;” USA Today; 16 March 2010; available at http://www.usatoday.com.
26 Open Source News Article; “US Mexico Drug Gangs Form Alliances;” Washington Times; 26 March 2010; available at http://www.washingtontimes.com.
27 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010. Open Source News Article; “US Mexico Drug Gangs Form Alliances;” Washington Times; 26 March 2010; available at http://www.washingtontimes.com.
28 Open Source News Article; “La Familia’ North of the Border;” STRATFOR Global Intelligence; 3 December 2009; available at http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091203_la_familia_north_border.
29 Open Source News Article; “New Jersey Authorities Indict 34 Lucchese Crime Family Bust from ‘Operation Heat’;” New Jersey.com; 14 May 2010.
30 Open Source News Article; “Authorities crack down on transnational Armenian Power crime group;” CNN; 17 February 2011; available at http://www.cnn.com.
31 Open Source News Article; “N.J. Inmate’s Ordered Killing Shows Danger of Cell Phones in Prison,” http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/nj_state_prison_inmate_is_char.html; June 11, 2010; Online News Article; “Prosecutor: Trenton prison inmate Anthony Kidd used cell phone to order murder of girlfriend Kendra Degrasse,” http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/06/11/news/doc4c11432d64621687151693.txt; June 12, 2010
32 Open Source News Article; “Prisoner Ordered Hit Outside of Prison With Smuggle Cell Phone;” 13 September 2010; available at http://newsone.com/nation/associatedpress4/prisoner-ordered-hit-outside-of-prison-with-smuggled-cell-phone/.
33 Open Source News Article; “Parole Worker Leaked Information to Gang Member;” Fox News New York; 1 November 2010; available at http://www.myfoxny.com.
34 Open Source News Article; “Former Deputy Headed for Prison;” PE.com; 30 July 2010; available at http://www.pe.com.
35 Open Source News Article; “Ex-Cop, James Formato, Pleads Guilty in Mob Case;” CBS News Chicago; 25 April 2010; available at http://www.thechicagosyndicate.com/2010/04/ex-cop-james-formato-pleads-guilty-in.html.
36 Online publication; Bureau of Justice Statistics; Jails in Indian Country, 2008; December 2009; available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj/index.cfm?ty=pbdetails&iid=1748.
37 Open Source News Article; “Mexican Pot Gangs Infiltrate Indian Reservations in U.S;” The Wall Street Journal; 5 November 2009; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125736987377028727.html.
38 Open Source News Article; “Crunching Numbers in Mexico’s Drug Conflict;” BBC News; 14 January 2011; available at http://www.bbc.com.
39 Stratfor Global Intelligence Center; “Mexican Drug Wars: Bloodiest Year to Date;” 20 December 2010.
40 Open Source News Article; “Napolitano: Border security better than ever;” CBS News; 25 March 2011; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047102-503544.html.
41 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
42 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
43 Open Source News Article; “Barrio Azteca threat targets law officers;” El Paso Times; 25 March 2010; available at http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14753458.
44 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
45 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
46 USDOJ; “National Drug Threat Assessment 2010;” National Drug Intelligence Center; February 2010.
47 Press Release; “Former Marines Arrested on Weapons Charges;” USDOJ; ATF; 8 November 2010.
48 Press Release; “Three men, US Navy Seal, Arrested for Unlawfully Trafficking in Machine Guns;” US DOJ; ATF; 4 November 2010.
49 Open Source News Article; MSNBC.com, “California Gang Officers Again Targeted by Booby-Trap,”1 March 2010; available at http://www.msnbc.com.
50 Investigative Consultants; email correspondence; 29 November 2010.
51 Investigative Consultants; email correspondence; 29 November 2010. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District; First Amended Complaint for Injunction and Civil Penalties; 15 March 2010.
52 Open Source News Article; “Seeing Green;” Baltimore City Paper; 11 August 2010; available at http://www.citypaper.com.
53 Open Source News Article; “Two Dozen Charged in Alleged Gang-led Mortgage Fraud;” Reuters News; 7 April 2009; available at http://www.reuters.com.
54 Open Source News Article; “Border Crime Sweep Nets Drugs, 246 Arrests;” Sign On San Diego; 28 March 2011; available at http://www.signonsandiego.com.
55 FBI; “Violent Border Gang Indicted; Members Charged in Consulate Murders;” News Release; 9 March 2011; available at http://www.fbi.gov.
56 FBI; “Forty-One Gang Members and Associates in Five Districts Charged with Crimes Including Racketeering, Murder, Drug Trafficking, and Firearms Trafficking;” News Release; 9 February 2011; available at http://www.fbi.gov.

FRANCE – Last public execution by Guillotine

Börse-Online berichtet über die Organisierten Kriminellen der “GoMoPa” und wie sie die Finanzbranche bedrohen

BoerseOnline_Nr38_16.09.2010_Wo_gehobelt_wird

Video – Stoning in Iran

STASI-STALKER: Verleumdungskampagne basiert auf “Ermittlungen” des MfS im Wohngebiet

Am 24. August 1961 wird der erst 24 Jahre alte Günter Litfin beim Versuch, schwimmend den Westsektor Berlins zu erreichen, erschossen. Auf West-Berliner Seite werden die Schüsse gehört. Es ist kurz nach 16 Uhr. Eine Menschenansammlung beobachtet, wie der Tote von Ostberliner Feuerwehrleuten aus dem Wasser des Humboldthafens gezogen wird. Günter Litfin ist das erste Gewaltopfer der Mauer: erschossen durch den gezielten Todesschuss eines Transportpolizisten auf den wehrlosen Schwimmer.

Gedenkstein für Günter Litfin am Friedrich-List-UferIn den Akten der Staatssicherheit findet sich zum Fall Günter Litfin auch ein undatiertes Foto: Gedenkstein für Günter Litfin am Friedrich-List-Ufer, aufgestellt am 24.8.1962. Heute befindet sich der Gedenkstein an der Sandkrugbrücke in der Berliner Invalidenstraße. Quelle: BStU, MfS, HA IX, Fo 1673, Bild 88

Zwei Tage zuvor, am 22. August 1961, wird im Sitzungsprotokoll des Politbüros des Zentralkomitees der SED über die “Anwendung der Waffe” an der Grenze festgehalten:

“Auf Grund der verleumderischen Reden Brandts, dass die Angehörigen der Nationalen Volksarmee und der Volkspolizei bei Provokationen an der Grenze von der Schusswaffe keinen Gebrauch machen, hat der Genosse Norden mit den entsprechenden Genossen zu besprechen und zu veranlassen, dass durch Gruppen, Züge oder Kompanien schriftliche Erklärungen abgegeben werden, die beinhalten, dass sie voll verstanden haben, um was es geht, und dass jeder, der die Gesetze unserer Deutschen Demokratischen Republik verletzt – auch wenn erforderlich – durch Anwendung der Waffe zur Ordnung gerufen wird.”

Die tödlichen Schüsse werden am 24. August 1961 zunächst nur in einem Bericht der Transportpolizei vermerkt. Noch am gleichen Tag informiert die Zentrale Informationsgruppe des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheitsdienst den sowjetischen Geheimdienst KGB, den Minister für Staatssicherheit, Erich Mielke, seinen Stellvertreter, Bruno Beater, und die SED-Führung über den “verhinderten Grenzdurchbruch”.

Um die offensichtliche Unmenschlichkeit der Tat zu vertuschen, versucht die Staatssicherheit das Opfer zu verleumden und zu kriminalisieren. Generalmajor Bruno Beater veranlasst eine Ermittlung im Wohngebiet, um Informationen über den Toten zu sammeln, die für die Verleumdungskampagne verwendet werden können. Den Stasi-Unterlagen ist zu entnehmen, dass die Informationen aus dem Ermittlungsbericht vom 25. August 1961 tatsächlich für die nun folgende Verleumdungskampagne verwendet werden.

Die Gerüchte, die über Günter Litfin gesammelt werden, finden Eingang in die ausführliche Information an Erich Honecker und Erich Mielke vom 31. August 1961. Sie landen offenkundig auch beim Autoren einer Meldung zu Günter Litfin in der Tageszeitung der SED “Neues Deutschland” vom 1. September 1961, der die gezielt gesuchten Gerüchte über Günter Litfins Privatleben in der Zeitung ausbreitet.

Ausführliche Informationen auf http://www.chronik-der-mauer.de:

Berichte vom Neuen Deutschland auf http://www.chronik-der-mauer.de:

Weiterführende Literatur:

  • Die DDR im Blick der Stasi 1961: die geheimen Berichte an die SED-Führung
    BStU; Daniela Münkel (Hrsg. u. Bearb.)
  • 13. August 1961: Mauerbau: Fluchtbewegung und Machtsicherung
    BStU; Bernd Eisenfeld, Roger Engelmann, Doris Hubert (Mitarb.)
  • Tod durch fremde Hand: Das erste Maueropfer in Berlin und die Geschichte einer Familie
    Jürgen Litfin; Annette Vogel (Mitarb.)

Violence against women in the Sudan

This Video clip depicts the scene of a Sudanese girl receiving blows whip all over her body at a police station in Khartoum this week, a wave of condemnation by the Sudanese on the Internet and newspapers concluding that, what happened was exceeding the legal punishment and much amounted to physical torture and severe humiliation.
The film shows the police carry out the punishment of flogging with a whip on the Sudanese girl in front of a crowd of people. The Girl received blows whip all over her body from the legs, back, arms and head wildly and violently. The girl was crying and lying on the ground squirming in pain, begging the policeman to stop hitting her, before another officer assisted him and participated in the beating.
It appears through the person who filmed the scene, if not one of the policemen, he should be well known to them.

Hundreds of responses to the sites and electronic forums on the World Wide Web described the incident heinous and barbaric crime, and condemned to be in the name of Islam and Shariah.

Repeated complaints of citizens in the Sudan from the excesses of the police and the power of the public order police to arrest people and bring them to trial on various charges. This confirms what happened recently when public order policemen arrested a group of men involved in the fashion show and bring them to trial and convicted them.

Lubna Ahmed Hussein, a journalist from Sudan in an earlier meeting with the media said that the trials of public order print minimalism, where the accused does not get a chance to defend him/ herself, this is what happened to her also. And that all procedures are performed on the same day of the hearing, trial and execution. Her

Lubna said, “that the painful thing is the silence of women who are subjected to beatings and humiliation by the police for fear of scandal, because the community is always blamed on the woman victim, not the executioner”.

According to many Sudanese surveyed by some newspapers about their opinions of the video, concluded that, the Sudanese government is using Islamic law and public order police to suppress and intimidate people, including ownership of tools such as the General Security Service, who exercise the arrest and torture to intimidate political opponents. They, unanimously, agreed that the next referendum in Southern Sudan and the possibility of separation may be a reason for the government of Sudan trying to tighten its grip on society and the street to block any resistance to the government of Omar al-Bashir, who was charged with genocide by the International Criminal Court.

Islamic law has been applied for the first time in the Sudan under the regime of former dictator Jaafar Nimeiri in 1983, following a popular uprising in Sudan in April 1985 the Sudanese parties failed to agree on the abolition of Islamic laws. Following the coup, the National Islamic Front, led by President Omar al-Bashir has been working on all levels to turn Sudan into an Islamic country

EANS-News: Stellungnahme von Magister Bernd Pulch

EANS-News: Statement of Magister Bernd Pulch

Company Information/bernd pulch

London (euro adhoc) – My name is Bernd Pulch, I have studied and
acquired the title Master (Magister) according to the academic laws.

Link to my Master´s thesis

http://www.kepplinger.de/search/node/pulch

and

http://www.kepplinger.de/node/50

I am the heir of the family bible and can therefore represent our
family based on this authority.

My family, my friends and I have be stalked in the internet and real
life, blackmailed and threatened by the serial criminals of “GoMoPa” which is an anonymous company with no real persons responsable and a fake impressum.

Even the name Goldman, Morgenstern & Partners is a fake. These persons have never existed as members of “GoMoPa”, the criminal organisation. All news of them are fakes.

Therefore we have informed the police. The relevant cases are in
Wiesbaden ( ST/0148943/2011), Hamburg (2100 Js 1108 / 10) and Berlin
(110228-0831-037199)

All activities seem to be in connection with the so called Finance
Agency of “GoMoPa” which has already been sued by many persons and
companies for example by Wirecard and Meridian Capital.

Our family has and had many members who work and worked successfully
as entrepreneurs, secretaries of state, banker, lawyers, farmers,
politicians and also journalists.

We will prevent that our family name is violated.

I will therefore prosecute these criminals with the help of the
police. Magister Bernd Pulch London

end of announcement euro adhoc
——————————————————————————–

Further inquiry note:

Bernd Pulch

General Global Media Ltd

London

office@generalglobalmedia.com

Branche: Economy, Business & Finance
ISIN:
WKN:
Börsen: London Stock Exchange (LSE) / Open Market / Entry Standard

See the press release of me in the media

STATEMENT MAGISTER PULCH 19.4.2011

DAS “KINDERPORTAL” DER “SCHEISSHAUSSFLIEGEN”-FÄKAL-ARTISTEN IM ANAL-WAHN

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=22832

“GoMoPa”-Tipps für den Notfall,wenn der Staatsanwalt plötzlich vor der Tür steht…

ZITAT DES “GoMoPA”-CEO “Klaus Maurischat” aus seiner E-Mail:

News vom GoMoPa-CEO persönlich!

ZITAT-ANFANG

Liebe(r) Helmut,

wenn plötzlich der Staatsanwalt und Beamte der Antikorruptionseinheit mit einem Durchsuchungsbeschluss vor der Tür stehen, machen selbst erfahrene Manager Fehler, die das Unternehmen teuer zu stehen kommen. Für das richtige Verhalten im Notfall bietet die Münchener Kanzlei Noerr LLC seit dem 15. Juni 2011 ein kostenloses App fürs iPhone, iPod touch und iPad an. Der „Dawn Raid Guide“ bietet einen schnellen und einfachen Überblick:

ZITAT-ENDE

FBI-Two Indicted for Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists

WASHINGTON—Ali Charaf Damache, an Algerian man who resided in Ireland, and Mohammad Hassan Khalid, a Pakistani citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident who resided in Maryland, have been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in a superseding indictment returned today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The charges were announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Zane David Memeger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Mark Giuliano, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch.

Damache, aka “Theblackflag,” 46, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and one count of attempted identity theft to facilitate an act of international terrorism. Damache was arrested by authorities in Ireland in March 2010 where he is currently being held on unrelated charges. The United States intends to seek his extradition from Ireland to stand trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charges against him in the superseding indictment, Damache faces a potential sentence of 45 years in prison.

Khalid, aka “Abdul Ba’aree ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hassan Al-Afghani Al-Junoobi W’at-Emiratee,” 18, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Khalid was arrested in Ellicot City, Md., on July 6, 2011, and is currently in custody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charge against him in the superseding indictment, Khalid faces a potential sentence of 15 years in prison.

“Today’s indictment, which alleges a terrorist conspiracy involving individuals around the globe who connected via the Internet—including a teenager and two women living in America—underscores the evolving nature of violent extremism.” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco. “I thank the many agents, analysts, and prosecutors who helped bring about this case.”

“Protecting the citizens of the United States from acts of terrorism is one of the highest priorities of the Department of Justice,” said U.S. Attorney Memeger. “This case demonstrates that we must remain vigilant within our communities to make sure that we bring to justice those terrorists, of any age or background, who seek to do great harm to our citizens.”

“This investigation highlights the diverse threat environment we face today,” said FBI Executive Assistant Director Giuliano. “As revealed in this case, individuals used the Internet to further their radicalization and contribute to the radicalization of others. The FBI is committed to disrupting individual and group plots and doing so in close coordination with our law enforcement, intelligence and private sector partners.”

The indictment alleges that, from about 2008 through July 2011, Damache and Khalid conspired with Colleen R. LaRose, Jamie Paulin Ramirez, and others to provide material support and resources, including logistical support, recruitment services, financial support, identification documents and personnel, to a conspiracy to kill overseas. LaRose, aka “Fatima LaRose,” aka “Jihad Jane,” pleaded guilty in February 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, false statements, and attempted identity theft. Ramirez pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2011 to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.

According to the indictment, Damache, Khalid and others devised and coordinated a violent jihad organization consisting of men and women from Europe and the United States divided into a planning team, a research team, an action team, a recruitment team and a finance team; some of whom would travel to South Asia for explosives training and return to Europe to wage violent jihad.

The indictment alleges that Damache, Khalid, LaRose, and others recruited men online to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe. In addition, Damache, Khalid, LaRose, and others allegedly recruited women who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad. The indictment further alleges that LaRose, Paulin-Ramirez, and others traveled to and around Europe to participate in and support violent jihad; and that Khalid and LaRose and others solicited funds online for terrorists.

For example, the indictment alleges that in July 2009, Damache sent an electronic communication using the username “Theblackflag” to Khalid, asking Khalid to recruit online “some brothers that can travel freely . . . with eu passports . . . .[A]nd I need some sisters too.” Damache also allegedly advised Khalid that “sister fatima will be charge of other sister care . . . . [W]e have already organized every thing for her. . . .” The indictment further alleges that Paulin-Ramirez married Damache on the day she arrived with her minor child in Europe to live and train with jihadists, even though she had never met Damache in person, and that, while living together in Europe, the couple began training Ramirez’s minor child in the ways of violent jihad.

Among other things, the indictment further alleges that, in July 2009, Khalid posted or caused to be posted an online solicitation for funds to support terrorism on behalf of LaRose and later sent electronic communications to multiple online forums requesting the deletion of all posts by LaRose after she was questioned by the FBI. In August 2009, Khalid allegedly sent a questionnaire to LaRose in which he asked another potential female recruit about her beliefs and intentions with regard to violent jihad. In addition, Khalid allegedly received from LaRose and concealed the location of a U.S. passport that she had stolen from another individual. This case was investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Philadelphia, and the FBI Field Divisions in New York, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. Authorities in Ireland also provided assistance in this matter.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Matthew F. Blue, Trial Attorney from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division also provided assistance.

The charges contained in an indictment are mere allegations and defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Questions remain about Gaddafi’s death

FBI-Women Convicted of Providing Material Support to al Shabaab

MINNEAPOLIS—Earlier today in federal court in the District of Minnesota, a jury found two Rochester, Minn., women guilty of providing material support to al Shabaab, a designated terrorist organization.

Following a 10-day trial, the jury convicted Amina Farah Ali, 35, and Hawo Mohamed Hassan, 64, both naturalized U.S. citizens from Somalia, of one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization. In addition, Ali was convicted of 12 counts of providing material support to al Shabaab, while Hassan was also convicted of two counts of making false statements to authorities.

Ali was detained by authorities following today’s verdict. Hassan was also detained but will be shortly transferred to a halfway house.

The evidence admitted at trial established that the defendants provided support to al Shabaab from Sept. 17, 2008, through July 19, 2010. Specifically, the evidence established that Ali communicated by telephone with al Shabaab members in Somalia who requested financial assistance for al Shabaab. Ali, Hassan, and others raised money for al Shabaab by soliciting funds door-to-door in Somali communities in Minneapolis, Rochester, and other cities in the United States and Canada. In addition, the defendants raised money by participating in teleconferences that featured speakers who encouraged donations to support al Shabaab. Ali also raised funds under the false pretense that the funds were for the poor and needy.

Ali and others then transferred funds to al Shabaab through various money remittance companies. Ali and others used false names to identify the recipients of the funds in order to conceal that the funds were being provided to al Shabaab. The indictment lists 12 money transfers directed to al Shabaab by Ali.

The defendants and others committed several overt acts in order to carry out the fund-raising conspiracy. For example, on Oct. 26, 2008, Ali hosted a teleconference during which an unindicted co-conspirator told listeners that it was not the time to help the poor and needy in Somalia; rather, it was time to give to the mujahidin. Ali and Hassan recorded $2,100 in pledges at the conclusion of the teleconference. On Feb. 10, 2009, Ali conducted another fund-raising teleconference during which she told listeners to “forget about the other charities” and focus on “the jihad.”

On July 14, 2009, the day after the FBI executed a search warrant at her home, Ali telephoned her primary al Shabaab contact, saying, “I was questioned by the enemy here . . . . they took all my stuff and are investigating it . . . do not accept calls from anyone.” In addition, when Hassan was questioned by agents in an investigation involving international terrorism, she made false statements.

For their crimes, the defendants face a potential maximum penalty of 15 years in prison for the charge of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization. Ali also faces a potential 15 years for each count of providing material support to a terrorist organization, while Hassan faces a potential eight years for each count of making a false statement. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael J. Davis will determine their sentences at a future hearing, yet to be scheduled.

This case is the result of an investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey S. Paulsen and Steven Ward of the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Communist Chinese Culture Revolution – Public Execution

BÖRSE ONLINE-GRAUMARKT-INFO: BAC zahlte an “GoMoPa” – “FREIWILLIG”

Gomopa

Kreativer Umgang mit Fakten

Von Renate Daum

Berlin, Brandenburger Tor© ddp
Berlin, Brandenburger Tor

Erstaunliches verbreitete der Finanznachrichtendienst Goldman, Morgenstern & Partners (Gomopa) mit Sitz in New York am 6. Oktober 2011. Anlegeranwalt Michael Minderjahn von der Kanzlei Nittel in Heidelberg, „der schärfste Kritiker“ des Emissionshauses BAC Berlin Atlantic Capital, stelle den Händlern mit US-Versicherungspolicen jetzt einen „Persilschein“ aus.

Die Kanzlei Nittel hatte zuvor berichtet, dass sie erste Klagen für BAC-Anleger gegen Banken wegen Falschberatung eingereicht habe. Weder die Kanzlei noch Minderjahn entlasteten jedoch die BAC-Geschäftsführung in irgendeiner Weise. „Die Schlussfolgerungen von Gomopa sind so nah an der Wahrheit wie seinerzeit der Schwarze Kanal“, sagt Minderjahn. Das war eine berüchtigte Propagandasendung im DDR-Fernsehen. Ausschnitte aus westdeutschen Beiträgen wurden dabei so gekürzt und montiert, dass ihr Sinn entstellt wurde.

// <![CDATA[
/* <![CDATA[ */
if ((typeof n_pbt == ‘undefined’) || (typeof n_pbt != ‘string’)) {
var n_pbt = ‘undefined’;
var nuggrid = top.location.href || 0;
document.write(”);
var setnugg = ‘1’;
}
/* ]]> */
// ]]>

// <![CDATA[
document.write(”);
// ]]>

Selten war verzerrte Darstellung so offensichtlich

Minderjahn ist nicht das erste Opfer von Gomopas kreativem Umgang mit Fakten. Selten ist die verzerrte Darstellung aber so offensichtlich. So löste ein Bericht im Frühjahr 2010 einen Kurssturz bei der Aktie des Bezahldienstleisters  Wirecardaus. Die Vorwürfe erwiesen sich als falsch. Dennoch prahlte Gomopa-Chef Klaus Maurischat später gegenüber Teilhabern mit der Wirkung des Berichts.Für BAC legte sich Gomopa dagegen voller Wohlwollen ins Zeug. Probleme mit einer US-Bank schilderte der Dienst im Februar und März 2011 als Kampf eines Fonds-Davids gegen einen Geld-Goliath. Ab 26. August erschienen mehrere Artikel mit Anschuldigungen gegen den Ex-BAC-Finanzvorstand Oliver Schulz – kurz vor Gesellschafterversammlungen, die wegen der Krise der Fonds kontrovers zu werden versprachen.

Vereinbarung zwischen Gomopa und BAC

Dokumente, die der FTD vorliegen, werfen ein interessantes Licht auf die Verbindung von BAC und Gomopa. Ende März schickte die Gomopa-Zweigniederlassung Berlin eine Rechnung „persönlich/vertraulich“ an BAC-Gründer Stefan Beiten. Mit Verweis auf eine Vereinbarung mit BAC forderte sie 5950 Euro „für allgemeine Recherche- und Beratungsleistungen“. Im Sommer berechnete sie mit gleicher Begründung 11900 Euro, die bis 26. August bezahlt werden sollten.„Ja, in der Tat haben wir Gomopa für Beratungsleistungen in der Vergangenheit entgolten“, bestätigt ein BAC-Sprecher und schiebt eine umständlich formulierte Begründung nach: „Aufgrund der Kenntnis und Erfahrungen der Gomopa-Verantwortlichen im Bereich des Vertriebsmarkts für geschlossene Fonds nutzen wir Informationen zu aktuellen Marktentwicklungen, um uns auf eine gezielte Vertriebskommunikation vorzubereiten.“ Wegen „unserer deutlich verschlankten Mannschaft“ mache das „im Bereich PR und Recherche Sinn“.

Anwaltskanzlei Resch war wichtige Finanzierungsquelle

„Journalistische Unabhängigkeit ist oberstes Gebot“ von Gomopa, erklärt Maurischat. Dass die Redaktion Gründe für Recherchen oder Anfragen nicht offenlegen müsse, zähle dazu.Die Verbindung von Unternehmensberatung mit einem Nachrichtenportal sieht Gomopa nicht als Problem. Gründer Mark Vornkahl teilte im Herbst 2010 mit: „Ein Interessenkonflikt zwischen kostenpflichtiger Beratung, Informationsabonnement und öffentlicher Aufklärung ist uns seit Bestehen nicht untergekommen.“ Damals kam die Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Resch aus Berlin häufig positiv in Meldungen von Gomopa vor. Im Juli 2010 berichtete Maurischat seinen Teilhabern über eine Vereinbarung mit der Kanzlei Resch über „7500 Euro im Monat“ – rund 25 Prozent „unserer monatlichen Kosten!“. Die Kanzlei war damit zeitweise eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle. Ihr Chef Jochen Resch sprach damals von einem „einmaligen Rechercheauftrag“, der „im üblichen Rahmen honoriert wird“.

BAC ließ falsches Zitat entfernen

„Zu keinem Zeitpunkt haben wir Gomopa beeinflusst“, betont auch der BAC-Sprecher. Das Emissionshaus stieß sich aber an Fehlern. Per E-Mail wünschte BAC-Gründer Nikolaus Weil kurz nach Erscheinen eines kritischen Berichts über Schulz Änderungen. Der Gomopa-Redakteur antwortete mit der modifizierten Stelle.Bei einem weiteren Artikel ließ BAC ein falsches Zitat von BAC-Chef Franz-Philippe Przybyl entfernen. Gomopa verschickte eine korrigierte Fassung. Einwandfrei war aber nicht einmal die: Behauptet wurde weiterhin, Schulz habe von seinem Ex-Arbeitgeber Vermögen erschlichen, was Schulz vehement von sich weist. BAC selbst hatte schon Monate zuvor eine Strafanzeige gegen ihn wegen Untreue zurückgenommen, weil sich herausgestellt habe, dass kein Schaden für BAC-Gesellschaften eingetreten sei. Die Staatsanwaltschaft stellte das Ermittlungsverfahren ein.Quelle: Financial Times Deutschland, 18.10.2011

Taliban Execution of Two Women in Afghanistan

North Korea – Public Execution in Hoeryong

Public execution video from DPRK

Saddam Hussein’s Execution Video

Saddam was hanged on the first day of Eid ul-Adha, 30 December 2006, despite his wish to be shot (which he felt would be more dignified). The execution was carried out at Camp Justice, an Iraqi army base in Kadhimiya, a neighborhood of northeast Baghdad.

The execution was videotaped on a mobile phone and his captors could be heard insulting Saddam. The video was leaked to electronic media and posted on the Internet within hours, becoming the subject of global controversy. It was later claimed by the head guard at the tomb where his body remains that Saddam’s body was stabbed six times after the execution.

Two Indicted for Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists

WASHINGTON—Ali Charaf Damache, an Algerian man who resided in Ireland, and Mohammad Hassan Khalid, a Pakistani citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident who resided in Maryland, have been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in a superseding indictment returned today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The charges were announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Zane David Memeger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Mark Giuliano, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch.

Damache, aka “Theblackflag,” 46, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and one count of attempted identity theft to facilitate an act of international terrorism. Damache was arrested by authorities in Ireland in March 2010 where he is currently being held on unrelated charges. The United States intends to seek his extradition from Ireland to stand trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charges against him in the superseding indictment, Damache faces a potential sentence of 45 years in prison.

Khalid, aka “Abdul Ba’aree ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hassan Al-Afghani Al-Junoobi W’at-Emiratee,” 18, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Khalid was arrested in Ellicot City, Md., on July 6, 2011, and is currently in custody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charge against him in the superseding indictment, Khalid faces a potential sentence of 15 years in prison.

“Today’s indictment, which alleges a terrorist conspiracy involving individuals around the globe who connected via the Internet—including a teenager and two women living in America—underscores the evolving nature of violent extremism.” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco. “I thank the many agents, analysts, and prosecutors who helped bring about this case.”

“Protecting the citizens of the United States from acts of terrorism is one of the highest priorities of the Department of Justice,” said U.S. Attorney Memeger. “This case demonstrates that we must remain vigilant within our communities to make sure that we bring to justice those terrorists, of any age or background, who seek to do great harm to our citizens.”

“This investigation highlights the diverse threat environment we face today,” said FBI Executive Assistant Director Giuliano. “As revealed in this case, individuals used the Internet to further their radicalization and contribute to the radicalization of others. The FBI is committed to disrupting individual and group plots and doing so in close coordination with our law enforcement, intelligence and private sector partners.”

The indictment alleges that, from about 2008 through July 2011, Damache and Khalid conspired with Colleen R. LaRose, Jamie Paulin Ramirez, and others to provide material support and resources, including logistical support, recruitment services, financial support, identification documents and personnel, to a conspiracy to kill overseas. LaRose, aka “Fatima LaRose,” aka “Jihad Jane,” pleaded guilty in February 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, false statements, and attempted identity theft. Ramirez pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2011 to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.

According to the indictment, Damache, Khalid and others devised and coordinated a violent jihad organization consisting of men and women from Europe and the United States divided into a planning team, a research team, an action team, a recruitment team and a finance team; some of whom would travel to South Asia for explosives training and return to Europe to wage violent jihad.

The indictment alleges that Damache, Khalid, LaRose, and others recruited men online to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe. In addition, Damache, Khalid, LaRose, and others allegedly recruited women who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad. The indictment further alleges that LaRose, Paulin-Ramirez, and others traveled to and around Europe to participate in and support violent jihad; and that Khalid and LaRose and others solicited funds online for terrorists.

For example, the indictment alleges that in July 2009, Damache sent an electronic communication using the username “Theblackflag” to Khalid, asking Khalid to recruit online “some brothers that can travel freely . . . with eu passports . . . .[A]nd I need some sisters too.” Damache also allegedly advised Khalid that “sister fatima will be charge of other sister care . . . . [W]e have already organized every thing for her. . . .” The indictment further alleges that Paulin-Ramirez married Damache on the day she arrived with her minor child in Europe to live and train with jihadists, even though she had never met Damache in person, and that, while living together in Europe, the couple began training Ramirez’s minor child in the ways of violent jihad.

Among other things, the indictment further alleges that, in July 2009, Khalid posted or caused to be posted an online solicitation for funds to support terrorism on behalf of LaRose and later sent electronic communications to multiple online forums requesting the deletion of all posts by LaRose after she was questioned by the FBI. In August 2009, Khalid allegedly sent a questionnaire to LaRose in which he asked another potential female recruit about her beliefs and intentions with regard to violent jihad. In addition, Khalid allegedly received from LaRose and concealed the location of a U.S. passport that she had stolen from another individual. This case was investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Philadelphia, and the FBI Field Divisions in New York, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. Authorities in Ireland also provided assistance in this matter.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Matthew F. Blue, Trial Attorney from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The Office of International Affairs in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division also provided assistance.

The charges contained in an indictment are mere allegations and defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG ÜBER DIE ERPRESSER UND STALKER DER “SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa” (Eigenbezeichnung)

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

Al Jazeera: Muammar Gaddafi dead – video

Muammar Gaddafi killed in Sirte.

TOP-SECRET – Treasury Holds Secret Meeting with 1% Panel

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64992-64993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26422]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Debt Management Advisory Committee; Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec.
10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 16th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on November 1,
2011 at 9:30 a.m. of the following debt management advisory committee:

Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association

    The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary
of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular
issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session,
the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The
meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
Sec.  10(d) and Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B)(31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
    This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the
authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec.  10(d)
and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the
meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented
to the Committee by the

[[Page 64993]]

Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the
Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202,
202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under
that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is
concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings
be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank
and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior
to making its final decisions on major financing operations.
Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory
committees established by the several major segments of the financial
community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an
advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec.  3.
    Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may
not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee,
premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would
be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the
securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption
covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
    Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on
the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a
statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing
will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing
projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release
the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the
meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
    The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining
records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for
providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee
activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public
consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal
Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for
additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Deputy Director for Office
of Debt Management (202) 622-1876.

    Dated: October 5, 2011.
Mary Miller,
Assistant Secretary, Financial Markets.
[FR Doc. 2011-26422 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI-Chinese National Pleads Guilty to Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secrets

WASHINGTON—Kexue Huang, a Chinese national and a former resident of Carmel, Ind., pleaded guilty today to one count of economic espionage to benefit a foreign university tied to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and one count of theft of trade secrets.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Lisa O. Monaco, U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Hogsett of the Southern District of Indiana, U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones of the District of Minnesota, and Robert J. Holley, Special Agent in Charge of the Indianapolis Field Office of the FBI.

This is the first trade secret prosecution in Indiana under a provision of the Economic Espionage Act that prohibits trade secret theft intended to benefit a component of a foreign government. Since its enactment in 1996, there have been a total of eight such cases charged nationwide under the Economic Espionage Act.

Huang, 48, pleaded guilty to the charges before U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence in the Southern District of Indiana. In July 2010, Huang was charged in an indictment filed in the Southern District of Indiana for misappropriating and transporting trade secrets to the PRC while working as a research scientist at Dow AgroSciences LLC. Today, a separate indictment filed in the District of Minnesota was unsealed, charging Huang with stealing a trade secret from a second company, Cargill Inc.

According to court documents, from January 2003 until February 2008, Huang was employed as a research scientist at Dow, a leading international agricultural company based in Indianapolis that provides agrochemical and biotechnology products. In 2005, Huang became a research leader for Dow in strain development related to unique, proprietary organic insecticides marketed worldwide.

As a Dow employee, Huang signed an agreement that outlined his obligations in handling confidential information, including trade secrets, and prohibited him from disclosing any confidential information without Dow’s consent. Dow employed several layers of security to preserve and maintain confidentiality and to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of its trade secrets.

Huang admitted that during his employment at Dow, he misappropriated several Dow trade secrets. According to plea documents, from 2007 to 2010, Huang transferred and delivered the stolen Dow trade secrets to individuals in Germany and the PRC. With the assistance of these individuals, Huang used the stolen materials to conduct unauthorized research with the intent to benefit foreign universities tied to the PRC. Huang also admitted that he pursued steps to develop and produce the misappropriated Dow trade secrets in the PRC, including identifying manufacturing facilities in the PRC that would allow him to compete directly with Dow in the established organic pesticide market.

According to court documents, after Huang left Dow, he was hired in March 2008 by Cargill, an international producer and marketer of food, agricultural, financial and industrial products and services. Huang worked as a biotechnologist for Cargill until July 2009 and signed a confidentiality agreement promising never to disclose any trade secrets or other confidential information of Cargill. Huang admitted that during his employment with Cargill, he stole one of the company’s trade secrets—a key component in the manufacture of a new food product, which he later disseminated to another person, specifically a student at Hunan Normal University in the PRC.

According to the plea agreement, the aggregated loss from Huang’s criminal conduct exceeds $7 million but is less than $20 million.

“Mr. Huang used his insider status at two of America’s largest agricultural companies to steal valuable trade secrets for use in his native China,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “We cannot allow U.S. citizens or foreign nationals to hand sensitive business information over to competitors in other countries, and we will continue our vigorous criminal enforcement of economic espionage and trade secret laws. These crimes present a danger to the U.S. economy and jeopardize our nation’s leadership in innovation.”

“Today’s plea underscores the continuing threat posed by the theft of business secrets for the benefit of China and other nations,” said Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

U.S. Attorney Hogsett noted that it is the first time economic espionage has been charged in the Southern District of Indiana. Hogsett remarked, “As U.S. Attorney, I am committed to working with Hoosier businesses who have been victimized and doing everything within our influence to protect Hoosier companies.” Hogsett praised Dow for its cooperation with the investigation and prosecution, noting that “companies must first report and then work with federal investigators and prosecutors if we are to stem the illicit export of trade secrets vital to the economy not only of Indiana but the United States.” Hogsett also stated, “The dual prosecutions from Indiana and Minnesota should serve as a warning to anyone who is considering robbing American companies of their information and weaken the American economy by selling that information to foreign governments or others that he will face severe consequences. The federal agents and prosecutors who worked tirelessly in these two cases are to be commended for their hard work and dedication.”

FBI Special Agent in Charge Holley stated, “Among the various economic espionage and theft of trade secret cases that the FBI has investigated in Indiana, the vast majority involve an inside employee with legitimate access who is stealing in order to benefit another organization or country. This type of threat, which the FBI refers to as the insider threat, often causes the most damage. In order to maintain our competitive advantage in these sectors, industry must identify their most important equities, realize that they are a target, implement internal protection mechanisms to protect their intellectual property, and communicate issues of concern immediately to the FBI.”

At sentencing, Huang faces a maximum prison sentence of 15 years on the economic espionage charge and 10 years on the theft of trade secrets charge.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Cynthia J. Ridgeway of the Southern District of Indiana, Trial Attorneys Mark L. Krotoski and Evan C. Williams of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Paulsen of the District of Minnesota, with assistance from the National Security Division’s Counterespionage Section.

FBI Releases Images in David Parker Ray Case

Gallery

FBI Releases Images in David Parker Ray Case

The Albuquerque FBI has released hundreds of images of items that were collected during the investigation of David Parker Ray. The New Mexico man died in state prison in 2002 while serving a sentence of more than 223 years in connection with kidnapping and other charges involving two women who said he sexually tortured them at his residence near Elephant Butte Lake. Numerous searches have been conducted over the years based on suspicions Ray may have killed several unidentified victims. Ray claimed to have abducted about 40 victims from several states. No bodies have been found.

The FBI believes some of the items, which include jewelry and clothes, may have been taken from victims and is asking the public to see if they recognize any of the items.

“The FBI, along with its law enforcement partners in New Mexico, is aggressively pursuing several leads in the search for remains of any possible victims of David Parker Ray,” said Frank Fisher of the Albuquerque Field Office. “We are asking family and friends of missing people to look over these photographs and contact us if they recognize any of these items.”

Anyone with any information in the case is asked to contact Albuquerque Police Detective Richard Lewis at rlewis@cabq.gov.

FBI -FDA Chemist Pleads Guilty to Using Insider Information to Trade on Pharmaceutical Stocks Resulting in Almost $4 Million in Profits

WASHINGTON—A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chemist pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Court Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in the District of Maryland to one count of securities fraud and one count of making false statements, related to a $3.7 million insider trading scheme that spanned nearly five years.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; and Elton Malone, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Office of Investigations, Special Investigations Branch.

According to court documents and statements made during court proceedings, Cheng Yi Liang, 57, of Gaithersburg, Md., has been employed as a chemist since 1996 at the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (NDQA). Through his work at NDQA, Liang had access to the FDA’s password-protected internal tracking system for new drug applications, known as the Document Archiving, Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System (DARRTS), which is used to manage, track, receive and report on new drug applications. Liang reviewed DARRTS for information relating to the progression of experimental drugs through the FDA approval process. Much of the information accessible on the DARRTS system constituted material, non-public information regarding pharmaceutical companies that had submitted their experimental drugs to the FDA for review.

“Mr. Liang used inside information about pharmaceutical companies—information he had access to solely because of his position at the FDA—to pocket millions in illicit profits,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “In a shocking abuse of trust, Mr. Liang exploited his position as a chemist in the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment to cash in, using the accounts of relatives and acquaintances to hide his illegal trading. Now, like many others on Wall Street and elsewhere, he is facing the significant consequences of trading stocks on inside information.”

“Those who use privileged and valuable information for personal gain, break the trust placed in them as a government employee and the integrity of the research they conduct on behalf of the U.S. government,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “This case is the result of long hours and hard work by the FBI and HHS-OIG special agents who are tasked with enforcing laws and regulations designed to ensure the fair operation of our financial markets.”

“Profiting based on sensitive, insider information is not only illegal, but taints the image of thousands of hard-working government employees,” said Special Agent in Charge Malone of the HHS-OIG Special Investigations Branch. “We will continue to insist that federal government employee conduct be held to the highest of standards.”

Liang admitted that from approximately July 2006 through March 2011, he used the inside information he learned from DARRTS and other sources to trade in the securities of pharmaceutical companies. Liang used accounts of relatives, including his son, and acquaintances to execute the trades (referred to as the controlled accounts). When the inside information was positive about a company’s product, Liang used the controlled accounts to purchase securities. When the inside information was negative, Liang would make trades in anticipation of the stocks’ downward movement. Liang admitted that he used these controlled accounts to execute trades to profit from the change in the company’s share price after the FDA’s action was made public, resulting in total profits and losses avoided of more than $3.7 million.

For example, on May 21, 2010, the FDA accepted Clinical Data Inc.’s application for Viibryd, an anti-depressant. According to court documents, on Jan. 6, 2011, HHS-OIG installed software on Liang’s work computer, allowing it to collect screen shots from that computer, which revealed Liang regularly accessed the DARRTS system and reviewed information regarding Clinical Data’s drug Viibryd. Between Jan. 6, 2011, and Jan. 20, 2011, Liang purchased a total of 46,875 shares of Clinical Data stock using the controlled accounts. After the markets closed on Friday, Jan. 21, 2011, news of the FDA’s approval of Viibryd was reported. Clinical Data’s stock, which had closed that day at approximately $15.03 per share opened the following Monday, Jan. 24, 2011, at approximately $24.76 per share. Liang then sold all 46,875 shares of Clinical Data stock in the controlled accounts, netting a total profit of approximately $384,300.

During the time he was employed by the FDA, Mr. Liang was required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure form disclosing, among other things, investment assets with a value greater than $1,000 and sources of income greater than $200. During the time period of his insider trading scheme, Liang annually filed these forms and failed to disclose using the controlled accounts or his income from the illicit securities trading.

Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2012, at 12:30 p.m. The maximum penalty for the securities fraud count is 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million, or twice the gross gain from the offense. The maximum penalty for the false statement count is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

As part of his plea agreement, Liang has agreed to forfeit $3,776,152, including a home and condominium in Montgomery County, Md., along with funds held in 10 bank or investment accounts.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently pursuing civil charges against Liang and several accounts he controlled. That action is still pending.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Kevin Muhlendorf and Thomas Hall of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Salem for the District of Maryland and Senior Trial Attorney Pamela J. Hicks of the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the HHS-OIG.

This case is an example of the close coordination between the Department of Justice and the SEC. The department recognizes the substantial assistance of the SEC, specifically the Market Abuse Unit of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, which conducted its own investigation and referred the conduct to the department.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force visit: www.stopfraud.gov.

DIE STASI-METHODEN DER “GoMoPa”-“SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN (EIGENBEZEICHUNG)

Liebe Leser,

Internet-Stalking, Bespitzelung, Telefon-Stalking, Kunden-Stalking, Fälschungen, Hetze, anonyme Anzeigen, fingierte Strafanzeigen, Mord-Drohungen, Unterwanderung, Zersetzung, Korruption, Computer-Hacking, Webseiten-Angriffe mit Denial of Service Attacken und wenn es sein muss – ein Auto-Unfall, Bestrahlung, Intrigen zur Einweisung in die Psychiatrie oder Dioxin-Anschläge

etc pp das Repertoire der STASI-Scheisshausfliegen ist vielseitig.

Ich weiss, wovon ich rede…

Kein Wunder, denn sie sind hierfür ausgebildet worden – nocht unter Mielke und ziehen ihren Hacker-Nachwuchs nach den gleichen Grundsätzen gross.

Nachfolgend analysiert  Leitsätze und praktische Beispiele der “Operativen Psychologie” der anonymen STASI-Schergen – noch aus der Mielke Zeit, die auch heute noch von der STASI-“GoMoPa” technisch verfeinert umgesetzt werden:

„Der Plan sah vor, während der Arbeits- bzw. Schulzeit in die Wohnung einzudringen und Wertsachen (bestenfalls Geld) in der persönlichen Habe der Eltern zu finden, deren Abhandenkommen auffällig war. Diese sollten dann an geeigneter Stelle im Kinderzimmer so versteckt werden, dass sie für die Eltern auffindbar waren und das Kind in den Verdacht brachten, seine Eltern bestohlen zu haben. Der operative Vorgang hatte die Entfremdung der Eltern von ihrem Kind zum Ziel.“

Dieses Vorhaben, das hier in komprimierter Form dargestellt wurde, ist tatsächlich ein Plan des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit in der DDR (MfS) gewesen. Es stellt eine der unzähligen makaberen Szenarien dar, die der Staatssicherheit zur „Zersetzung“ feindlich-negativer Personen praktikabel erschienen. Glücklicherweise blieb es in diesem Fall beim Plan; in vielen Situationen aber bereite das MfS den Zersetzungsvorgang nicht nur vor, sondern führte ihn auch durch.

Als Grundlage für diesen „Angriff auf die Seele“ (Jürgen Fuchs) diente die so genannte „Operative Psychologie“. Mit Hilfe dieser teilweise an die akademische Psychologie angelehnten „Wissenschaft“ wollte die Staatssicherheit verstehen, wie Menschen funktionieren, um sie danach manipulieren und bestenfalls lenken zu können. So sollten oppositionelle „Persönlichkeitseigenschaften“ ausgemerzt werden zur Schaffung eines durch und durch sozialistischen Bewusstseins.

Zur Verwirklichung dieses Zieles wurde an der Juristischen Hochschule Potsdam (JHS), der Schule des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit, ein eigener Lehrstuhl für das Fach geschaffen. Trotz seines vergleichsweise geringen Anteils an der gesamten Ausbildung schulte er die Absolventen darin, Menschen zu durchschauen, ihr Verhalten zu steuern und sogar die Persönlichkeit zu verändern. Es wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit darum gehen, was genau die Inhalte der „Operativen Psychologie“ waren und mit welchen Kenntnissen und Fähigkeiten die späteren Mitarbeiter des MfS ihre Tätigkeit aufnahmen.

In jedem Fall zählte die Arbeit mit den IM ebenso wie die eigentliche Zersetzungsarbeit zum täglichen Geschäft der operativen Kräfte. Eine sehr große Rolle spielte dabei das Vertrauen, das als Dreh- und Angelpunkt der konspirativen Bearbeitung missbraucht wurde. Wie es gelang, IM zu gewinnen und dauerhaft an sich zu binden und durch welche Methoden und Vorgehensweise die Seele von Menschen, insbesondere auch von politischen Häftlingen, angegriffen wurde, wird genauso eine Fragestellung sein, wie die theoretischen Grundlagen und Vorüberlegungen hierzu. Auch die grundsätzliche Überlegung, wer eigentlich ein Feind ist und woran man ihn erkennt, spielte in die Operative Psychologie mit hinein und wird untersucht werden.

Heute, 18 Jahre nach der Friedlichen Revolution, sind diese Praktiken des MfS für viele Deutsche bereits in Vergessenheit geraten – wenn sie denn überhaupt jemals Gegenstand von Betrachtungen gewesen sind. Die Öffentlichkeit nimmt es höchstens noch wahr, wenn ehemalige Inhaftierte sich mit Behörden um Gelder und Entschädigungen streiten oder ehemalige MfS-Mitarbeiter in hochrangigen gesellschaftlichen Positionen entlarvt werden. Doch es gibt auch eine große Zahl von Menschen, deren Leben nie wieder so sein wird wie früher. Sie leiden an psychischen oder physischen Folgeschäden, ihr Leben ist zerstört und ohne eine therapeutische Behandlung haben sie keine Chance, jemals ein Leben wie vor der „operativen Bearbeitung“ zu führen. Die wichtigsten Studien hierzu aus den neunziger Jahren sowie in Abrissen auch spätere werden den Schlusspunkt der Ausarbeitung markieren.”
So schreibt es Maik Bieleke in seiner Studie “Operative Psychologie”.

http://www.operative-psychologie.de/

All das unter möglicher Beihilfe alter STASI-Seilschaften, Spitzel und Spionen in Gesellschaft, Firmen, Ämtern, Justiz, Polizei und Vereinen  in GANZ Deutschland.

Ja sogar in der STASI-Unterlganebehörsen sind fast 50 STASI-Spitzel, die sogar die Dreistigkeit haben jetzt per Sammelklage gegen ihren Rausschmiss klagen zu wollen.

Eine Ent-STASIFIZIERUNG gab es ja nie

Warum wohl, lautet die spannende Frage ?

Herzlichst Ihr

Bernd Pulch, Magister der Publizistik, Germanistik und Komparatistik

FBI-FDA Chemist Pleads Guilty to Using Insider Information to Trade on Pharmaceutical Stocks Resulting in Almost $4 Million in Profits

U.S. Department of Justice October 18, 2011
  • Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/ (202) 514-1888

WASHINGTON—A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chemist pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Court Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in the District of Maryland to one count of securities fraud and one count of making false statements, related to a $3.7 million insider trading scheme that spanned nearly five years.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; and Elton Malone, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Office of Investigations, Special Investigations Branch.

According to court documents and statements made during court proceedings, Cheng Yi Liang, 57, of Gaithersburg, Md., has been employed as a chemist since 1996 at the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (NDQA). Through his work at NDQA, Liang had access to the FDA’s password-protected internal tracking system for new drug applications, known as the Document Archiving, Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System (DARRTS), which is used to manage, track, receive and report on new drug applications. Liang reviewed DARRTS for information relating to the progression of experimental drugs through the FDA approval process. Much of the information accessible on the DARRTS system constituted material, non-public information regarding pharmaceutical companies that had submitted their experimental drugs to the FDA for review.

“Mr. Liang used inside information about pharmaceutical companies—information he had access to solely because of his position at the FDA—to pocket millions in illicit profits,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “In a shocking abuse of trust, Mr. Liang exploited his position as a chemist in the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment to cash in, using the accounts of relatives and acquaintances to hide his illegal trading. Now, like many others on Wall Street and elsewhere, he is facing the significant consequences of trading stocks on inside information.”

“Those who use privileged and valuable information for personal gain, break the trust placed in them as a government employee and the integrity of the research they conduct on behalf of the U.S. government,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “This case is the result of long hours and hard work by the FBI and HHS-OIG special agents who are tasked with enforcing laws and regulations designed to ensure the fair operation of our financial markets.”

“Profiting based on sensitive, insider information is not only illegal, but taints the image of thousands of hard-working government employees,” said Special Agent in Charge Malone of the HHS-OIG Special Investigations Branch. “We will continue to insist that federal government employee conduct be held to the highest of standards.”

Liang admitted that from approximately July 2006 through March 2011, he used the inside information he learned from DARRTS and other sources to trade in the securities of pharmaceutical companies. Liang used accounts of relatives, including his son, and acquaintances to execute the trades (referred to as the controlled accounts). When the inside information was positive about a company’s product, Liang used the controlled accounts to purchase securities. When the inside information was negative, Liang would make trades in anticipation of the stocks’ downward movement. Liang admitted that he used these controlled accounts to execute trades to profit from the change in the company’s share price after the FDA’s action was made public, resulting in total profits and losses avoided of more than $3.7 million.

For example, on May 21, 2010, the FDA accepted Clinical Data Inc.’s application for Viibryd, an anti-depressant. According to court documents, on Jan. 6, 2011, HHS-OIG installed software on Liang’s work computer, allowing it to collect screen shots from that computer, which revealed Liang regularly accessed the DARRTS system and reviewed information regarding Clinical Data’s drug Viibryd. Between Jan. 6, 2011, and Jan. 20, 2011, Liang purchased a total of 46,875 shares of Clinical Data stock using the controlled accounts. After the markets closed on Friday, Jan. 21, 2011, news of the FDA’s approval of Viibryd was reported. Clinical Data’s stock, which had closed that day at approximately $15.03 per share opened the following Monday, Jan. 24, 2011, at approximately $24.76 per share. Liang then sold all 46,875 shares of Clinical Data stock in the controlled accounts, netting a total profit of approximately $384,300.

During the time he was employed by the FDA, Mr. Liang was required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure form disclosing, among other things, investment assets with a value greater than $1,000 and sources of income greater than $200. During the time period of his insider trading scheme, Liang annually filed these forms and failed to disclose using the controlled accounts or his income from the illicit securities trading.

Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2012, at 12:30 p.m. The maximum penalty for the securities fraud count is 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million, or twice the gross gain from the offense. The maximum penalty for the false statement count is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

As part of his plea agreement, Liang has agreed to forfeit $3,776,152, including a home and condominium in Montgomery County, Md., along with funds held in 10 bank or investment accounts.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently pursuing civil charges against Liang and several accounts he controlled. That action is still pending.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Kevin Muhlendorf and Thomas Hall of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Salem for the District of Maryland and Senior Trial Attorney Pamela J. Hicks of the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the HHS-OIG.

This case is an example of the close coordination between the Department of Justice and the SEC. The department recognizes the substantial assistance of the SEC, specifically the Market Abuse Unit of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, which conducted its own investigation and referred the conduct to the department.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force visit: www.stopfraud.gov.

TOD FÜR DEN AUFDECKER – ANGEBLICHER TOD DER STASI”GoMoPa”

Liebe Leser,

Mord und Rufmord der Neo-STASI FINDET AUCH HEUTE NOCH STATT…

Man kann über den leider verstorbenen Heinz Gerlach verschieden urteilen.

Ich hatte einen Rechtsstreit mit ihm bereits in 1996, den meine damaligen Arbeitgeber vom Norman Rentrop Verlag und ich zu 2/3 gewonnen haben.

Das Urteil liegt vor. Der Artikel hiess “Der Anlegerwolf im Schafspelz”

Aber: Eines ist klar: Heinz Gerlach starb unter äusserst mysteriösen Umständen nach der Enthüllung des “freiwilligen Beratungsvertrages” der STASI “GoMoPa” mit “Estavis” unter der Ägide von RA “Resch”.

Zudem deckte seine Tochter das “Virtual Office” der fingierten “Goldman, Morgenstern und Partner” -einer STASI-Erfindung in New York auf…

Das war wohl zuviel für Oberst Stelzer und Konsorten.

Heinz Gerlach starb mysteriös. Und als erstes Medium wusste dies “GoMoPa” und auch dass er an “Blutvergiftung” angeblich starb…

Ebenso mysteriös wie Gerlach starben unter anderem Uwe Barschel, Rudolf Bahro, Jürgen Fuchs und Bärbel Bohley und natürlich Lutz Eigendorf.

All diesen mysteriösen Todesfällen ging ein jahrelanger Rufmord voraus. Dann starben die STASI-Gegner überraschend und unter myteriösen Umständen.

All das versuchen diese Noe-STASI-Seilschaften auch bei mir seit 2 Jahren. Mich hat die Recherche in der Vergangenheit über diese Methoden der STASI und Neo-STASI schockiert und doch aufgeklärt.

Ich kann Ihnen Bände voller Bücher senden, wie die Neo-STASI versucht, mich geschäftlich und privat auszuschalten. Einige Zitate habe ich bereits veröffentlicht.

Eine weitere Tatsache:

Zur selben Zeit  wie Heinz Gerlach stirbt, verschwindet angeblich auch “GoMoPa”-Gründer Ehrenfied Stelzer, von dem es kein Photo und keine weitere Unterlagen gibt….

Ebenso wie “GoMoPa”-“CEO” Klaus Maurischat alias Dioxin-Giftpanscher “Siegfied Sievert” verschwindet…

Natürlich gibt es auch von ihm und von Ehrenfried Stelzer und auch nicht von seinem Tode Spuren verwertbare Fingerabdrücke, dem “Ersten Krimonolgen der DDR”, Gründer der “GoMoPa”, verantwortlich für die Killerbibel TOXDAT  etc…

Ebensowenig wie von “Gerd Bennewirtz” und “Peter Ehlers”vor 1989 in der BRD…

Gerne bin ich bereit, bei verifizieerbaren Tatsachen mich eines Besseren belehren zu lassen…”

Aufgrund der Zersetzung der deutschen Justiz durch die STASI wird auch dies  durch die Justiz nicht geklärt, ebensowenig wie der Mord an Ministerpräsident Uwe Barschel. Ganz im Gegenteil, ebenso wie von den Nazis sind und werden wesentliche Teile der Justiz und der Polizei vor allem im Osten durch die STASI kontrolliert oder von eigenen pekuniären Interessen geleitet.

Die Beweise hierfür liegen uns vor.

Ich stehe für eine bessere Welt mit einer fairen Justiz, fairen Medien und einem fairen Wirtschaftsssytem.

Dafür kämpfe ich.

Herzlichst Ihr

Bernd Pulch

Magister Artium der Publizsitik, Germanistik und Komparatistik

PROVEN: THE DDR GESTAPO-STASI MURDER GANG responsable for the murder of Lutz Eigendorf

T

The talented Eigendorf played for East German side Dynamo Berlin.
He made his debut for the GDR in an August 1978 match against Bulgaria, immediately scoring his first two goals in a 2–2 draw. He went on to collect six caps, scoring three goals.[1] His final international was a February 1979 friendly match against Iraq.
On 20 March 1979, after a friendship match between Dynamo and West German club 1. FC Kaiserslautern in Gießen he fled to the west hoping to play for that team. But because of his defection he was banned from play for one year by UEFA and instead spent that time as a youth coach with the club.
This was not the first time an East German athlete had fled to the west, but it was a particularly embarrassing defection. Eigendorf’s club Dynamo was under the patronage of the Stasi, East Germany’s secretive state police, and subject to the personal attentions of the organisation’s head, Erich Mielke. He ensured that the club’s roster was made up of the country’s best players, as well as arranging for the manipulation of matches in Dynamo’s favour. After his defection Eigendorf openly criticised the DDR in the western media.
His wife Gabriele remained behind in Berlin with their daughter and was placed under constant police surveillance. Lawyers working for the Stasi quickly arranged a divorce and the former Frau Eigendorf re-married. Her new husband was eventually revealed as a Lothario – an agent of the state police whose role it was to spy on a suspect while romancing them.
In 1983 Eigendorf moved from Kaiserslautern to join Eintracht Braunschweig, all the while under the scrutiny of the Stasi who employed a number of West Germans as informants. On 5 March that year he was badly injured in a suspicious traffic accident and died within two days. An autopsy indicated a high blood alcohol level despite the testimony of people he had met with that evening indicating that Eigendorf had only a small amount of beer to drink.
After German re-unification and the subsequent opening of the files of the former East Germany’s state security service it was revealed that the traffic accident had been an assassination attempt orchestrated by the Stasi, confirming the longtime suspicions held by many. A summary report of the events surrounding Eigendorf’s death was made on German television on 22 March 2000 which detailed an investigation by Heribert Schwan in the documentary “Tod dem Verräter” (“Death to the Traitor”).
On 10 February 2010, a former East German spy revealed the Stasi ordered him to kill Eigendorf, which he claimed not to have done

MfS has been accused of a number of assassinations against political dissidents and other people both inside and outside the country. Examples include the East German football player Lutz Eigendorf and the Swedish journalist Cats Falck.
The terrorists who killed Alfred Herrhausen were professionals. They dressed as construction workers to lay a wire under the pavement of the road along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work. They planted a sack of armor-piercing explosives on a parked bicycle by the roadside. An infrared beam shining across the road triggered the explosion just when the limousine, one of three cars in a convoy, sped by.
The operation, from the terrorists’ point of view, was flawless: Mr. Herrhausen, the chairman of one of Europe’s most powerful companies, Deutsche Bank, was killed in the explosion along that suburban Frankfurt road on Nov. 30, 1989.
But was everything what it seemed?
Within days, the Red Army Faction — a leftist terrorist group that had traumatized West Germany since 1970 with a series of high-profile crimes and brazen killings of bankers and industrialists — claimed responsibility for the assassination. An intense manhunt followed. In June 1990, police arrested 10 Red Army Faction members who had fled to East Germany to avoid arrest for other crimes. To the police’s surprise, they were willing to talk. Equally confounding to authorities: All had solid alibis. None was charged in the Herrhausen attack.
Now, almost two decades later, German police, prosecutors and other security officials have focused on a new suspect: the East German secret police, known as the Stasi. Long fodder for spy novelists like John le Carré, the shadowy Stasi controlled every aspect of East German life through imprisonment, intimidation and the use of informants — even placing a spy at one point in the office of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.
According to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the murders of Mr. Herrhausen and others attributed to the Red Army Faction bear striking resemblance to methods and tactics pioneered by a special unit of the Stasi. The unit reported to Stasi boss Erich Mielke and actively sought in the waning years of the communist regime to imitate the Red Army Faction to mask their own attacks against prominent people in Western Germany and destabilize the country.
“The investigation has intensified in recent months,” said Frank Wallenta, a spokesman for the Federal Prosecutor. “And we are investigating everything, including leads to the Stasi.”
If those leads turn out to be true, it would mean not only rewriting some of the most dramatic episodes of the Cold War, but would likely accelerate a broader soul-searching now under way in Germany about the communist past.
In building a reunified country, many Germans have ignored discussion of the brutal realities of its former communist half. When the former East Germany is discussed, it’s often with nostalgia or empathy for brothers hostage to Soviet influence.

Stasi boss Erich Mielke, middle, with unnamed associates
That taboo is slowly being broken. Last year’s Oscar-winning movie, “The Lives of Others,” chronicled in dark detail a Stasi agent’s efforts to subvert the lives of ordinary people. Material in the Stasi archives shows that senior leaders had a shoot-to-kill order against those fleeing from East to West — a controversial order that contradicts East German leaders’ claims that they never ordered any shootings.
This story is based on more than a dozen interviews with police, prosecutors and other security officials. Several policemen and prosecutors confirmed that the allegation of extensive Stasi involvement with the Red Army Faction is a key part of the current investigation.
Court cases in West Germany in the 1990s established that members of the Red Army Faction were granted free passage to other countries in the 1970s and refuge in East Germany in the 1980s. But the current investigation and documents from Stasi archives suggest far deeper involvement — that members of the Red Army Faction were not only harbored by the Stasi but methodically trained in sophisticated techniques of bombing and murder.
Traudl Herrhausen, Mr. Herrhausen’s widow, is one of those pushing for further investigation. She says she long suspected involvement by the Stasi or other intelligence service such as the KGB, but never spoke publicly because she didn’t have evidence and didn’t want to interfere in the investigation. She says she is now breaking an 18-year silence in her desire to see justice done. “Now I want to look my husband’s killers in the eye,” she said in an interview.
The Red Army Faction was founded about 1970 by a band of leftists who justified their terrorism based on opposition to West Germany’s ruling elite. Killing members of this elite would provoke the West German state to take repressive measures that would show its true fascist face, Red Army Faction leaders believed.
In its early years, the group, also known as the Baader-Meinhof band, made headlines with prison breaks, bank robberies, bomb attacks and deadly shootouts. Four gang members led by Ulrike Meinhof freed Red Army Faction leader Andreas Baader from a Berlin jail a month after his arrest.
Red Army Faction violence in West Germany intensified in 1977 when Jürgen Ponto, then head of Dresdner Bank, was shot and killed at his home. Five weeks later, the group killed four people and abducted the chairman of the German employer association, Hans-Martin Schleyer, one of West Germany’s most prominent businessmen. It was the start of a six-week ordeal in which neither government nor terrorists would compromise. To support the Red Army Faction cause, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa jet in Spain, forcing it to land in Mogadishu, Somalia. After the plane was rushed by West German commandos, top Red Army Faction leaders in West Germany committed suicide and Mr. Schleyer was executed by his captors.
Red Army Faction violence began to abate in the late 1970s after the Lufthansa incident. Many in Germany thought the group — whose attacks were often crude — lost its will to kill after the arrest of its senior leaders in 1982. So when the group appeared to renew its terror campaign with a series of high-profile attacks in 1985, police were stunned by the level of their sophistication and determination.
This time, the group dazzled police with its ability to hit targets and leave little substantial evidence behind. They used high-tech devices no one thought they possessed. Their marksmen killed with military precision.

Weapons used by terrorists during the 1977 kidnapping of German industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer.
Surprisingly, members of the Red Army Faction so-called third generation had a policeman’s understanding of forensic science. From 1985 onward, the Red Army Faction rarely left a fingerprint or other useful piece of evidence at a crime scene, according to court records. The murder cases from this era are still open. Some suspected Stasi involvement, but no one could ever prove it, according to a senior police official.
The 1989 car-bomb murder of Mr. Herrhausen particularly stunned police with its audacity and sophistication. Mr. Herrhausen was the head of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank. He was part of the political-business elite that helped turn West Germany from a war-ravaged rump state into an economic powerhouse — all while East Germany languished in frustration. Mr. Herrhausen was a vocal proponent of a united Germany.
In November 1989, Mr. Herrhausen was following the fall of the Berlin wall and events in the Soviet Union closely, conferring frequently with Mikhail Gorbachev, according to his wife and friends. Then on Nov. 27, Mr. Herrhausen announced a plan to acquire the investment banking firm Morgan Grenfell — at the time a record-breaking bank acquisition.
Also during November, a spot along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work was closed because of construction. Terrorists, dressed as construction workers, laid an electric wire under the road’s pavement. On Nov. 29, the stretch reopened.
On the morning of Nov. 30, like every workday morning, Mr. Herrhausen stepped into his limousine at about 8:30. Mr. Herrhausen’s driver waited about one minute to allow the first of the three-car entourage to drive ahead and survey the road.
“It was the route they hadn’t used in weeks,” Mrs. Herrhausen said.
As Mr. Herrhausen sped down the road, a team of terrorists waited. Beside the road, a parked bicycle held a sack of armor-piercing explosives. The detonator was connected by the electric wire under the road to a trigger activated by an interruption in an infrared beam shining across the road.
A terrorist activated the detonator after the first car of bodyguards drove past the bomb. Mr. Herrhausen died at the scene.
As they had during previous attacks, police set up dragnets to round up Red Army Faction cadre. But the June 1990 arrests of 10 members of the group who had earlier been granted political asylum in East Germany produced no leads. All the seized Red Army Faction members had solid alibis.
In July 1991, prosecutors believed they had a breakthrough when an informant claimed he had allowed two members of the Red Army Faction to stay at his home near the Herrhausen residence. Prosecutors followed that trail 13 years before dropping charges in 2004.
Frustrated with the inability of prosecutors to solve the Herrhausen case and believing that prosecutors were ignoring other leads including possible Stasi involvement, German officials replaced the prosecutor overseeing the case.
Police acknowledge that part of the reason for their focus on possible Stasi involvement was that all other leads had dried up. But they say they also knew that over the years the Stasi had worked with and given explosives to other terrorists, including “Carlos the Jackal” and the Basque group ETA in Spain. And in 2001 to 2003, an undercover police officer met with a man who claimed he had been a killer for the Stasi operating in Western Germany, although police were never able to tie him to specific murders.
German investigators turned their attention to Wartin, a small eastern German village nestled in yellow-brown fields of grain near the Polish border. Today, sheep graze in a field spotted with wooden posts.
In the 1980s, however, Wartin was home to the Stasi’s AGM/S — “Minister Working Group/Special Operations.” It got its name because it reported to Mr. Mielke, the minister who headed the Stasi for almost all of East Germany’s 40-year history.
The Wartin unit’s peacetime duties included the kidnapping and murder of influential people in the West, according to Stasi records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal in the Stasi archives in Berlin.
The documents say the unit’s activities included “intimidating anti-communist opinion leaders” by “liquidation,” and “kidnapping or hostage taking, connected with the demand that political messages be read,” according to a description of the unit’s activities written by a senior Wartin official in 1982.
Based on these documents, German investigators increasingly believe that the Stasi played a more active role than previously believed in Red Army Faction terrorism. After years of not being able to draw parallels between the Stasi unit in Wartin and the Red Army Faction killings, police are now focusing closely on such a link. Joachim Lampe, who assisted the successful prosecution of the first wave of Red Army Faction terrorists up until 1982 and was then assigned to prosecute Stasi-related crimes in West Germany, says it’s time to compare the activities of Wartin with the activities of the Red Army Faction to see where they overlap. “It is an important line of investigation,” he said.
A year after the Red Army Faction’s first generation collapsed in 1972, an internal Wartin report said cooperation with terrorists is possible if the individuals could be trusted to maintain secrecy and obey orders. Initial contacts, however, may not have taken place until later in the decade. Disillusionment gripped many of the terrorists living on the lam, according to court records citing witness statements by accused terrorists. Beginning about 1980, the Stasi granted refuge to 10 members of the Red Army Faction in East Germany and gave them assumed identities.
The Stasi sympathized with the anti-capitalist ideals of the Red Army Faction, but Stasi leaders were concerned about placing their trust in a group of uncontrollable leftist militants, a review of Stasi records shows. Stasi officials did not want to tarnish East Germany’s international reputation, so they toyed with different concepts for cooperation with terrorist groups, according to a prosecutor who has investigated Stasi involvement with terrorism.
One suggestion, contained in a document prepared for new officers assigned to the unit, was to emulate Romanian intelligence, which successfully worked with the terrorist “Carlos” to bomb the Radio Free Europe office in Munich, Germany, in 1981. To assist in such operations, the Wartin unit developed highly specialized explosives, poisons and miniature firearms.
About 1980 the Stasi also proposed a second strategy: instead of using a terrorist group directly — such cooperation always contained risk of discovery — they could simply execute attacks so similar to those of known terrorists that police would never look for a second set of suspects, according to Wartin records. The Wartin leadership called this strategy the “perpetrator principle,” according to Stasi records. The unit’s progress in implementing the steps to imitate terrorist attacks is described in a series of progress reports by Wartin officials between 1980 and 1987.
In September 1981, Red Army Faction terrorists attempted to kill U.S. Gen. James Kroesen in Heidelberg, Germany, shooting a bazooka at his car. About the same time, members of the same Red Army Faction team visited East Germany, where they were asked by the Stasi to shoot a bazooka at a car containing a dog. The dog died, according to court records.
In Wartin, officials wrote up a detailed description of the Red Army Faction members’ re-enactment of the Kroesen attack. “It is important to collect all accessible information about the terrorist scene in imperialist countries, to study and analyze their equipment, methods and tactics, so we can do it ourselves,” a senior Wartin official wrote in February 1982, according to the report.
In 1982, West German police discovered two troves of Red Army Faction weapons and documents buried in German forests. Three terrorists, including Red Army Faction leader Christian Klar, were arrested when they approached the sites. The troves were buried in locations easy to find at night, a tactic used by Wartin’s own agents to store operational equipment in West Germany, according to an investigator who viewed the troves and Stasi records.
That same year, a Wartin official described the staged bombing of a moving vehicle. According to the report, several Stasi officers shed “tears of joy” when electronic sensors detected the approaching car and ignited the detonator.
A spokesman at Germany’s federal police investigative agency, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, declined to comment on the close similarity between the detonator used in the demonstration and the device that killed Mr. Herrhausen, saying this is part of their investigation.
Wartin officers continued their preparations for imitating terrorist attacks in West Germany, according to a 1985 internal Wartin report. They created a special archive profiling the characteristics of known terrorists and terrorist groups, and taught staff members to execute nearly identical attacks, according to Stasi records. Each year, the unit’s officers detailed the unit’s success in teaching these techniques in their annual reports, according to the reports.
Then, in 1987, the AGM/S stopped offensive operations. The unit was disbanded.
Werner Grossmann, a former three-star Stasi General and former head of foreign intelligence operations, says the AGM/S was responsible for planning attacks in West Germany, but was dissolved “because it didn’t produce results.” Mr. Grossmann assumed control of part of the AGM/S after most of the unit was dissolved.
Mr. Grossmann says he took control of part of the AGM/S because he wanted to run intelligence operations against West Germany’s civil defense infrastructure.
“I refused to have anything to do with terrorism and terrorists,” Mr. Grossmann said in an interview. He said he didn’t have any influence over the AGM/S activities before 1987 and wasn’t informed about the unit’s activities before it came under his control.
Olaf Barnickel, a career Stasi officer who served at Wartin, says his unit planned murders in West Germany, but never committed one. “It was all theory and no practice,” Mr. Barnickel said in an interview.
But some German police are unpersuaded. They believe the seeds may have been planted for future violent attacks.
In November 1989, as East Germany disintegrated, groups of citizens forced their way into Stasi installations, seizing control. In Wartin, a local church minister led a group of demonstrators to the main entrance of the Stasi base. The base closed.
Within the Stasi as a whole, the chain of command began to disintegrate. Links to organizations in West Germany, including the Red Army Faction, were broken.
Sixteen months after Mr. Herrhausen’s murder, the Red Army Faction claimed its last victim, killing Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, the head of the Treuhandanstalt, the powerful trust that controlled most state-owned assets in the former East Germany and was overseeing their privatization. Mr. Rohwedder was killed while he was standing by the window of his house in Düsseldorf.
The murder was performed by a trained sharpshooter, according to a police official familiar with the investigation. The Stasi trained members of the Red Army Faction in sharpshooting skills and had its own teams of sharpshooters, according to witness statements by Stasi officials to a Berlin prosecutor and Stasi records.
In 1998, the Red Army Faction issued the last of its communiques, announcing it was disbanding. German police attribute the group’s disappearance to changing times, which made the group seem a relic of the past. Indeed, the Red Army Faction today is largely seen by the German public as part of the social upheaval that plagued West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. More than one in four Germans consider former Red Army Faction members to have been misguided idealists. More than half now think the investigations should be closed for good in the coming decade when the current group of Red Army Faction prisoners finish serving their prison sentences.
German prosecutors say their investigation of the Stasi’s role is continuing.
Since last month, Mrs. Herrhausen has been in contact with the next of kin of victims in the other unsolved Red Army Faction murder cases, looking for support to push the investigation. The bomb that killed her husband nearly 18 years ago exploded soon after he left for work, within earshot of their home in suburban Frankfurt.
“I still hear that bomb every day,” she says.

Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution.
The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.
Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.
The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.
This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.
Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.
Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment.

The name of Benno Ohnesorg became a rallying cry for the West German left after he was shot dead by police in 1967. Newly discovered documents indicate that the cop who shot him may have been a spy for the East German secret police.
It was one of the most important events leading up to the wave of radical left-wing violence which washed over West Germany in the 1970s. On the evening of June 2, 1967, the literature student Benno Ohnesorg took part in a demonstration at West Berlin’s opera house. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, was to attend and the gathered students wanted to call attention to his brutal regime.
The protests, though, got out of hand. Pro-shah demonstrators, some of them flown in from Iran for the occasion, battled with the student protestors. West Berlin police also did their part, brutally beating back the crowd. At 8:30 p.m., a shot was fired, and a short time later the 26-year-old Ohnesorg, having been hit in the back of the head, became the left wing’s first martyr.
Now, though, the history of the event may have to be re-written. New documents discovered in the Stasi archive — the vast collection of files left behind by the East German secret police — reveal that the policeman who shot Ohnesorg, Karl-Heinz Kurras, could in fact have been a spy for East Germany’s communist regime.
In an article that will appear in late May in Deutschlandarchiv, a periodical dedicated to the ongoing project of German reunification, Helmut Müller-Enbergs and Cornelia Jabs reveal that documents they found in the Stasi papers show that Kurras began working together with the Stasi in 1955. He had wanted to move to East Berlin to work for the East German police. Instead, he signed an agreement with the Stasi to remain with the West Berlin police force and spy for the communist state.
As a result of the new information, criminal charges have once again been filed against Kurras, who was acquitted twice, once in 1967 and again in 1970, of negligent homicide charges related to Ohnesorg’s death. Kurras told the Berlin paper Tagesspiegel on Friday that he had never worked together with the Stasi.
But in addition to finding the agreement between Kurras and the Stasi, the two researchers also discovered numerous documents indicating that the East Germans were pleased with the information Kurras passed along — particularly given that he was posted to a division responsible for rooting out moles within the West German police force.
Immediately after Ohnesorg’s death, Kurras received a Stasi communication ordering him to destroy his records and to “cease activities for the moment.” Kurras responded with his acquiescence and wrote “I need money for an attorney.”
The exact circumstances surrounding the death of Ohnesorg have never been completely clarified. Kurras himself, now 81, gave conflicting versions of the story during the investigation but the official version has long been that Kurras fired in self defense. Many others point to witness accounts whereby the police were beating Ohnesorg when the shot was fired.
It is still unclear how the new evidence might play into history’s understanding of the tragic event. The day was one full of violence, with demonstrators and police battling each other with pipes, wooden clubs and stones. Police were further incited by rumors that an officer had been stabbed earlier in the evening. Ohnesorg himself, however, was not directly involved in the violence.
West Berlin in the 1960s and 70s became a focal point of German left wing radicalism. The city had long been left-leaning, and the fact that Berliners were exempt from military service meant that it became a magnate for pacifists and anti-state activists.
Ohnesorg’s death gave them an immediate rallying cry. As the left-wing movement became more radical, many justified their violent activities by pointing to the police brutality that led to the student’s death. A letter written by Ulrike Meinhof announcing the founding of the Red Army Faction, which appeared in SPIEGEL in the fall of 1967, explicitly mentioned the Ohnesorg incident. The RAF went on to terrorize Germany for decades, ultimately killing over 30 people across the country. The radical “June 2 Movement” used the date of the incident in its name.
Kurras, for his part, seems to have been a highly valued Stasi agent. In his files, it is noted that “he is prepared to complete any task assigned to him.” It also mentions that he is notable for having the “courage and temerity necessary to accomplish difficult missions.”

Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention ofGoogle Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011

In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)

Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelznr, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror

The Stasi murder:
„GoMoPa“ & Backers: Blackmailing, Extortion, Racketeering, Internet Murder and Murder. These are the weapons of the East-German “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”, a renegate confesses.
Deep Throat, Berlin; confesses: „Since months the „GoMoPa“ keyfigures like Klaus-Dieter Maurischat< are in hide-aways because the German police is hunting them for the wirecard fraud and a lot of other criminal actions. I left the group when I noticed that. The found and former Stasi-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer died under strange circumstances in Berlin. This has been told to us. But it is also possible that his death was staged. In any case the criminal organization of “GoMoPa” is responsible for the murder of Heinz Gerlach by dioxin. Now my life is also in danger that is why I hide myself.”
According to Deep Throat, Hans J. the murder was done with the help of the old Stasi-connections of the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”.
The renegate says that computer hacker Thomas Promny and Sven Schmidt are responsible for the computer crimes and he states that the crime organization of “GoMoPa” has also helpers inside internet companies like Go-Daddy, Media-on and even in Google, Hamburg..

THE “NACHRICHTENDIENST”:New criminal police action against “GoMoPa”:

German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the
Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.

Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.

The case number is

ST/0148943/2011

Stasi-Dioxin: The “NACHRICHTENDIENST”  searching for the perfect murder:

Viktor Yushchenko was running against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych was a political ally of outgoing president Leonid Kuchma. Kuchma’s administration depended upon corruption and dishonesty for its power. Government officials ruled with a sense of terror rather than justice. For the powerful and wealthy few, having Yanukovych elected president was important. Should Yushchenko win, Ukraine’s government was sure to topple. Yushchenko’s campaign promises included a better quality of life for Ukrainians through democracy. His wife, Katherine, told CBS in a 2005 interview, “He was a great threat to the old system, where there was a great deal of corruption, where people were making millions, if not billions.”
On September 6, 2004, Yushchenko became ill after dining with leaders of the Ukrainian secret police. Unlike other social or political engagements, this dinner did not include anyone else on Yushchenko’s team. No precautions were taken regarding the food. Within hours after the dinner, Yushchenko began vomiting violently. His face became paralyzed; he could not speak or read. He developed a severe stomachache and backache as well as gastrointestinal pain. Outwardly, Yushchenko developed what is known as chloracne, a serious skin condition that leaves the face scarred and disfigured.
By December 2004, doctors had determined that Yushchenko had been the victim of dioxin poisoning. Dioxin is a name given to a group of related toxins that can cause cancer and even death. Dioxin was used in the biochemical weapon called Agent Orange during the Vietnam War controversial war in which the United States aidedSouth Vietnam in its fight against a takeover by Communist North Vietnam). Yushchenko had a dioxin level six thousand times greater than that normally found in the bloodstream. His is the second-highest level ever recorded.
Yushchenko immediately suspected he had been poisoned, though Kuchma’s camp passionately denied such allegations. Instead, when Yushchenko showed up at a parliamentary meeting shortly after the poisoning incident, Kuchma’s men teased him, saying he must have had too much to drink or was out too late the night before.
Dioxin can stay in the body for up to thirty-five years. Experts predict that his swelling and scars will fade but never completely disappear. John Henry, a toxicologist at London’s Imperial Hospital, told RedNova.com, “It’ll be a couple of years, and he will always be a bit pockmarked. After damage as heavy as that, I think he will not return to his film star looks.” And Yushchenko will live with the constant threat of cancer.
At first it was believed the poison must have come from a Russian laboratory. Russia was a strong supporter of Kuchma and lobbied against Yushchenko in the 2004 election. But by July 2005, Yushchenko’s security forces were able to trace the poison to a lab in Ukraine. Though not entirely ruling out Russia’s involvement, Yushchenko is quoted on his Web site as saying “I’m sure that even though some people are running from the investigation, we will get them. I am not afraid of anything or anybody.”

Evidence shows that such a perfect murder plotted by former Stasi agents is the cause of the death of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (IPA: [ˈʃtaziː]) (abbreviation German: Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was “Schild und Schwert der Partei” (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).

According to the confessions of an informer, Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch writes most of the “articles” of the communist “STASI” agency “GoMoPa” himself or it is done by lawyers of his firm. The whistleblower states that lawyer Resch is the mastermind behind the “CYBER-STASI” called “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”. Bizarre enough they use Jewish names of non-existing Jewish lawyers by the name of “Goldman, Morgenstern and Partner” to stage their bogus “firm”.  Further involved in their complots are a “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber and “STASI”-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer, “the first crime expert” in the former communist East-Germany.
According to London based Meridian Capital hundreds and thousands of wealthy people and companies have paid to the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” to avoid their cyberstalking (see article below).
Finally the German criminal police started their investigations (case number ST/0148943/2011).
The “NACHRICHTENDIENST” is also involved in the death of the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach who died under strange circumstances in July 2010.
Only hours after his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” was spreading the news that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution and set the stage for a fairy tale. Months before his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” started a campaign to ruin his reputation and presumably was also responsable for cyberattacks to bring his website down. In fact they presumably used the same tactics also against our servers. Therefore we investigated all internet details of them and handed the facts to the FBI and international authorities.

Story background:
Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and  cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.
On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders  say they  have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica
The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of  “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions,  individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011
In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.

Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment section.

-“Worse than the Gestapo.” —Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter said about the notorious “Stasi”.

Less than a month after German demonstrators began to tear down the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, irate East German citizens stormed the Leipzig district office of the Ministry for State Security (MfS)—the Stasi, as it was more commonly called. Not a shot was fired, and there was no evidence of “street justice” as Stasi officers surrendered meekly and were peacefully led away. The following month, on January 15, hundreds of citizens sacked Stasi headquarters in Berlin. Again there was no bloodshed. The last bit of unfinished business was accomplished on May 31 when the Stasi radioed its agents in West Germany to fold their tents and come home.
The intelligence department of the Nationale Volksarmee (NVA), the People’s Army, had done the same almost a week earlier, but with what its members thought was better style. Instead of sending the five-digit code groups that it had used for decades to message its spies in West Germany, the army group broadcast a male choir singing a children’s ditty about a duck swimming on a lake. There was no doubt that the singing spymasters had been drowning their sorrow over losing the Cold War in schnapps. The giggling, word-slurring songsters repeated the refrain three times: “Dunk your little head in the water and lift your little tail.” This was the signal to agents under deep cover that it was time to come home.
With extraordinary speed and political resolve, the divided nation was reunified a year later. The collapse of the despotic regime was total. It was a euphoric time for Germans, but reunification also produced a new national dilemma. Nazi war crimes were still being tried in West Germany, forty-six years after World War II. Suddenly the German government was faced with demands that the communist officials who had ordered, executed, and abetted crimes against their own people—crimes that were as brutal as those perpetrated by their Nazi predecessors—also be prosecuted.
The people of the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), the German Democratic Republic, as the state had called itself for forty years, were clamoring for instant revenge. Their wrath was directed primarily against the country’s communist rulers—the upper echelon of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei (SED), the Socialist Unity Party. The tens of thousands of second-echelon party functionaries who had enriched themselves at the expense of their cocitizens were also prime targets for retribution.
Particularly singled out were the former members of the Stasi, the East German secret police, who previously had considered themselves the “shield and sword” of the party. When the regime collapsed, the Stasi had 102,000 full-time officers and noncommissioned personnel on its rolls, including 11,000 members of the ministry’s own special guards regiment. Between 1950 and 1989, a total of 274,000 persons served in the Stasi.
The people’s ire was running equally strong against the regular Stasi informers, the inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs). By 1995, 174,000 had been identified as IMs, or 2.5 percent of the total population between the ages of 18 and 60. Researchers were aghast when they found that about 10,000 IMs, or roughly 6 percent of the total, had not yet reached the age of 18. Since many records were destroyed, the exact number of IMs probably will never be determined; but 500,000 was cited as a realistic figure. Former Colonel Rainer Wiegand, who served in the Stasi counterintelligence directorate, estimated that the figure could go as high as 2 million, if occasional stool pigeons were included.
“The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people,” according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. “The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million.” One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.
To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union’s KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal’s figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi’s case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests.

THE STASI OCTOPUS

Like a giant octopus, the Stasi’s tentacles probed every aspect of life. Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants. Without exception, one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo), the People’s Police. In turn, the police officer was the Stasi’s man. If a relative or friend came to stay overnight, it was reported. Schools, universities, and hospitals were infiltrated from top to bottom. German academe was shocked to learn that Heinrich Fink, professor of theology and vice chancellor at East Berlin’s Humboldt University, had been a Stasi informer since 1968. After Fink’s Stasi connections came to light, he was summarily fired. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, writers, actors, and sports figures were co-opted by Stasi officers, as were waiters and hotel personnel. Tapping about 100,000 telephone lines in West Germany and West Berlin around the clock was the job of 2,000 officers.
Stasi officers knew no limits and had no shame when it came to “protecting the party and the state.” Churchmen, including high officials of both Protestant and Catholic denominations, were recruited en masse as secret informers. Their offices and confessionals were infested with eavesdropping devices. Even the director of Leipzig’s famous Thomas Church choir, Hans-Joachim Rotch, was forced to resign when he was unmasked as a Spitzel, the people’s pejorative for a Stasi informant.
Absolutely nothing was sacred to the secret police. Tiny holes were bored in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed their “suspects” with special video cameras. Even bathrooms were penetrated by the communist voyeurs.8 Like the Nazi Gestapo, the Stasi was the sinister side of deutsche Gründlichkeit (German thoroughness).
After the Berlin wall came down, the victims of the DDR regime demanded immediate retribution. Ironically, their demands were countered by their fellow Germans in the West who, living in freedom, had diligently built einen demokratischen Rechtsstaat, a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The challenge of protecting the rights of both the victims and the accused was immense, given the emotions surrounding the issue. Government leaders and democratic politicians recognized that there could be no “quick fix” of communist injustices without jeopardizing the entire system of democratic jurisprudence. Moving too rapidly merely to satisfy the popular thirst for revenge might well have resulted in acquittals or mistrials. Intricate jurisdictional questions needed to be resolved with both alacrity and meticulousness. No German government could afford to allow a perpetrator to go free because of a judicial error. The political fallout from any such occurrence, especially in the East, could prove fatal to whatever political party occupied the chancellor’s office in Bonn at the time.
Politicians and legal scholars of the “old federal states,” or West Germany, counseled patience, pointing out that even the prosecution of Nazi criminals had not yet been completed. Before unification, Germans would speak of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“coming to grips with the past”) when they discussed dealing with Nazi crimes. In the reunited Germany, this word came to imply the communist past as well. The two were considered comparable especially in the area of human rights violations. Dealing with major Nazi crimes, however, was far less complicated for the Germans: Adolf Hitler and his Gestapo and Schutzstaffel (SS) chief, Heinrich Himmler, killed themselves, as did Luftwaffe chief and Vice Chancellor Hermann Göring, who also had been the first chief of the Gestapo. The victorious Allies prosecuted the rest of the top leadership at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nürnberg. Twelve were hanged, three received life terms, four were sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment (up to twenty years), and three were acquitted.
The cases of communist judges and prosecutors accused of Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice) are more problematic. According to Franco Werkenthin, a Berlin legal expert charged with analyzing communist crimes for the German parliament, those sitting in judgment of many of the accused face a difficult task because of the general failure of German justice after World War II. Not a single judge or prosecutor who served the Nazi regime was brought to account for having perverted justice—even those who had handed down death sentences for infringements that in a democracy would have been considered relatively minor offenses. Werkenthin called this phenomenon die Jauche der Justiz, the cesspool of justice.
Of course, the crimes committed by the communists were not nearly as heinous as the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, or the mass murders in Nazi-occupied territories. However, the communists’ brutal oppression of the nation by means including murder alongside legal execution put the SED leadership on a par with Hitler’s gang. In that sense, Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker (Ulbricht’s successor as the party’s secretary-general and head of state) and secret police chief Erich Mielke can justifiably be compared to Hitler and Himmler, respectively.
Arrest warrants were issued for Honecker and Mielke. The Soviet government engineered Honecker’s escape to Moscow, where he became the ward of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev. When the Soviet Union crumbled, the new Russian President Boris Yeltsin expelled Honecker. He was arrested on his return to Germany, but a court decided against a trial when he was diagnosed with liver cancer. Honecker flew to Chile with his wife Margot to live with their daughter, a Chilean citizen by marriage. His exile was short, and he died in 1994. Mielke was not so fortunate: His KGB friends turned their backs on him. He was tried in Germany for the 1931 murder of two police officers, found guilty, and sentenced to six years in prison. Other charges, including manslaughter, were dismissed because of his advanced age and poor health.
Three other members of the twenty-one-member ruling Politburo also have been tried. Former Defense Minister Heinz Kessler was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the order to kill people who were trying to escape to the West. He received a seven-and-a-half-year term. Two others, members of the Central Committee and the National Defense Council, were tried with Kessler and sentenced to seven and a half years and five years, respectively. Politburo member Harry Tisch, who was also head of the communist trade union, was found guilty of embezzlement and served eighteen months. Six others, including Egon Krenz (Honecker’s successor as party chief), were charged with manslaughter. Krenz was found guilty, and on August 25, 1997, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.
However, eight years after reunification, many of the 165 members of the Central Committee have not yet been put under investigation. In 1945, Nazis holding comparable or lesser positions were subject to automatic arrest by the Allies. They spent months or even years in camps while their cases were adjudicated. Moreover, the Nürnberg Tribunal branded the Reich and its Corps of Political Leaders, SS, Security Service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo), SA (Storm Troopers), and Armed Forces High Command criminal organizations. Similarly sweeping actions against communist leaders and functionaries such as Stasi officers were never contemplated, even though tens of thousands of political trials and human rights abuses have been documented. After the East German regime fell, German judicial authorities scrupulously avoided the appearance of waging witch-hunts or using the law as a weapon of vengeance. Prosecutors and judges made great efforts to be fair, often suspending legal action while requesting rulings from the supreme court on possible constitutional conflicts.
The victims of oppression clamored for revenge and demanded speedy prosecution of the erstwhile tyrants. They had little patience for a judicial system that was handicapped by a lack of unblemished and experienced criminal investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Despite these handicaps, the Berlin Central Police Investigations Group for Government Criminality, mindful that the statute of limitations for most communist crimes would expire at the end of 1999, made significant progress under its director Manfred Kittlaus, the able former director of the West Berlin state police. Kittlaus’s major task in 1998 was to investigate wrongful deaths, including 73 murders, 30 attempted murders, 583 cases of manslaughter, 2,938 instances of attempted manslaughter, and 425 other suspicious deaths. Of the 73 murders, 22 were classified as contract murders.
One of those tried and convicted for attempted contract murder was former Stasi collaborator Peter Haak, who was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. The fifty-two-year-old Haak took part in the Stasi’s 1981 Operation Scorpion, which was designed to pursue people who helped East Germans escape to the West. Proceedings against former General Gerhard Neiber, whose Stasi directorate was responsible for preventing escapes and for wreaking vengeance, were still pending in 1998.
Peter Haak’s murder plot was hatched after he befriended Wolfgang Welsch and his family. Welsch was a thorn in the side of the Stasi because of his success in smuggling people out of the DDR. Haak joined Welsch and the latter’s wife and seven-year-old daughter on a vacation in Israel, where he mixed a gram of thallium, a highly poisonous metallic chemical element used in rat poison, into the hamburgers he was preparing for a meal. Welsch’s wife and daughter vomited immediately after ingesting the poison and recovered quickly. Welsch suffered severe aftereffects, but eventually recovered: He had consumed a large amount of beer with the meal, and an expert testified that the alcohol had probably flushed the poison from his system.
Berlin Prosecutor General Christoph Schäfgen revealed that after the DDR’s demise 15,200 investigations had been launched, of which more than 9,000 were still active at the beginning of 1995. Indictments were handed down in 153 cases, and 73 perpetrators were convicted. Among those convicted were the aforementioned Politburo members as well as a number of border guards who had killed people who were trying to escape to the West.
Despite widespread misgivings about the judicial failures in connection with some Nazi crimes, a number of judges and prosecutors were convicted and jailed for up to three years for perversion of justice. In collusion with the Stasi, they had requested or handed down more severe sentences in political cases so that the state could collect greater amounts when the “convicts” were ransomed by the West German government. {The amount of ransom paid was governed by the time a prisoner had been sentenced to serve.)
The enormity of the task facing judicial authorities in reunified Germany becomes starkly evident when one examines the actions they have taken in all five former East German provinces and in East Berlin. From the end of 1990 to July 1996, 52,050 probes were launched into charges of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, election fraud, and perversion of justice. A total of 29,557 investigations were halted for various reasons including death, severe illness, old age, or insufficient evidence. In those five and a half years, there were only 139 convictions.
The problem is even more staggering when cases of espionage are included. Between 1990 and 1996, the office of the federal prosecutor general launched 6,641 probes, of which 2,431 were terminated before trial—most due to the statute of limitations. Of 175 indictments on charges of espionage, 95 resulted in convictions. In addition to the cases handled at the federal level, the prosecutor general referred 3,926 investigations to state authorities, who terminated 3,344 without trial. State courts conducted 356 trials, resulting in 248 convictions. Because the statute of limitations for espionage is five years, the prosecutor general’s office told me in 1997 it was unlikely that more espionage trials would be conducted.
It is important to emphasize the difference between the statute’s application to so-called government crimes committed in East Germany before the collapse and to crimes, such as espionage, committed in West Germany. The Unification Treaty specifically permits the belated prosecution of individuals who committed acts that were punishable under the East German criminal code and who due to official connivance were not prosecuted earlier. There is no statute of limitations for murder. For most other crimes the limit is five years; however, due to the obstacles created by previous government connivance, the German parliament in 1993 doubled this time limit for prosecution of the more serious crimes. At the same time, the parliament decreed that all cases must be adjudicated by the end of 2002. For less serious offenses, the statute would have run out on December 31, 1997, but the parliament extended it to 2000.
A number of politicians, jurists, and liberal journalists pleaded for a general amnesty for crimes committed by former DDR leaders and Communist Party functionaries. A former West German supreme court judge, Ernst Mahrenholz, said the “sharp sword of justice prevents reconciliation.” Schäfgen, the Berlin prosecutor general, had this answer for the former high court judge and other amnesty advocates:

I cannot agree. We are raising no special, sharp sword against East Germans. We must pursue state-sponsored injustice in exactly the same manner as we do when a thief steals or when one human being kills another. If one wants to change that, then we would have to do away with the entire criminal justice system, because punishment always hurts. We are not criminalizing an entire people but only an ever shrinking, small portion.

German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, who was West Germany’s minister of justice when the nation was unified, said this at a session of parliament in September 1991: “We must punish the perpetrators. This is not a matter of a victor’s justice. We owe it to the ideal of justice and to the victims. All of those who ordered injustices and those who executed the orders must be punished; the top men of the SED as well as the ones who shot [people] at the wall.” Aware that the feelings against communists were running high among their victims, Kinkel pointed to past revolutions after which the representatives of the old system were collectively liquidated. In the same speech before parliament, he said:

Such methods are alien to a state ruled by law. Violence and vengeance are incompatible with the law in any case. At the same time, we cannot tolerate that the problems are swept under the rug as a way of dealing with a horrible past, because the results will later be disastrous for society. We Germans know from our own experience where this leads. Jewish philosophy formulates it in this way: “The secret of redemption is called remembering.”

Defense attorneys for communist officials have maintained that the difficulty lies in the fact that hundreds of thousands of political opponents were tried under laws of the DDR. Although these laws were designed to smother political dissent and grossly violated basic human rights and democratic norms, they were nonetheless laws promulgated by a sovereign state. How could one justly try individual Stasi officers, prosecutors, and judges who had simply been fulfilling their legal responsibility to pursue and punish violators of the law?
Opinions varied widely on whether and how the Stasi and other perpetrators of state-sponsored crimes should be tried. Did the laws of the DDR, as they existed before reunification, still apply in the east? Or was the criminal code of the western part of the country the proper instrument of justice in reunified Germany? However, these questions were moot: As Rupert Scholz, professor of law at the University of Munich and a Christian Democratic member of parliament, pointed out, the Unification Treaty specifies that the penal code of the DDR and not that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) shall be applied to offenses committed in East Germany. Scholz’s view was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the supreme court. Most offenses committed by party functionaries and Stasi officers—murder, kidnapping, torture, illegal wiretapping, mail robbery, and fraud—were subject to prosecution in reunified Germany under the DDR’s penal code. But this would not satisfy the tens of thousands of citizens who had been sent to prison under East German laws covering purely political offenses for which there was no West German equivalent.
Nevertheless, said Scholz, judicial authorities were by no means hamstrung, because West Germany had never recognized the East German state according to international law. “We have always said that we are one nation; that the division of Germany led neither to full recognition under international law nor, concomitantly, to a recognition of the legal system of the DDR,” Scholz said. Accordingly, West German courts have consistently maintained that West German law protects all Germans equally, including those living in the East. Therefore, no matter where the crimes were committed, whether in the East or the West, all Germans have always been subject to West German laws. Applying this logic, East German border guards who had either killed or wounded persons trying to escape to the West could be tried under the jurisdiction of West Germany.
The “one nation” principle was not upheld by the German supreme court. Prior to the court’s decision, however, Colonel General Markus Wolf, chief of the Stasi’s foreign espionage directorate, and some of his officers who personally controlled agents from East Berlin had been tried for treason and convicted. Wolf had been sentenced to six years in prison. The supreme court ruling overturned that verdict and those imposed on Wolf’s cohorts, even though they had obtained the most closely held West German secrets and handed them over to the KGB. The maximum penalty for Landesverrat, or treason, is life imprisonment. In vacating Wolf’s sentence, the court said he could not be convicted because he operated only from East German territory and under East German law.
However, Wolf was reindicted on charges of kidnapping and causing bodily harm, crimes also punishable under East German law. The former Stasi three-star general, on March 24, 1955, had approved in writing a plan to kidnap a woman who worked for the U.S. mission in West Berlin. The woman and her mother were tricked by a Stasi agent whom the woman had been teaching English, and voluntarily got into his car. He drove them into the Soviet sector of the divided city, where they were seized by Stasi officers. The woman was subjected to psychological torture and threatened with imprisonment unless she signed an agreement to spy for the Stasi. She agreed. On her return to the American sector, however, the woman reported the incident to security officials. Wolf had committed a felony punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment in West Germany. He was found guilty in March 1977 and sentenced to two years’ probation.
Those who have challenged the application of the statute of limitations to communist crimes, especially to the executions of citizens fleeing to the West, have drawn parallels to the notorious executive orders of Adolf Hitler. Hitler issued orders mandating the summary execution of Soviet Army political commissars upon their capture and initiating the extermination of Jews. An early postwar judicial decision held that these orders were equivalent to law. When that law was declared illegal and retroactively repealed by the West German Bundestag, the statute of limitations was suspended—that is, it never took effect. Many of those convicted in subsequent trials of carrying out the Führer’s orders were executed by the Allies. The German supreme court has ruled the same way as the Bundestag on the order to shoot people trying to escape to West Germany, making the statute of limitations inapplicable to such cases. The ruling made possible the trial of members of the National Defense Council who took part in formulating or promulgating the order. A number of border guards who had shot would-be escapees also have been tried and convicted.
Chief Prosecutor Heiner Sauer, former head of the West German Central Registration Office for Political Crimes, was particularly concerned with the border shootings. His office, located in Salzgitter, West Germany, was established in 1961 as a direct consequence of the Berlin Wall, which was erected on August 13 of that year. Willy Brandt, at the time the city’s mayor (later federal chancellor) had decided that crimes committed by East German border guards should be recorded. At his behest, a central registry of all shootings and other serious border incidents was instituted. Between August 13, 1961 and the opening of the borders on November 9, 1989, 186 border killings were registered. But when the Stasi archives were opened, investigators found that at least 825 people had paid with their lives for trying to escape to the West. This figure was reported to the court that was trying former members of the National Defense Council. In addition to these border incidents, the registry also had recorded a number of similar political offenses committed in the interior of the DDR: By fall 1991, Sauer’s office had registered 4,444 cases of actual or attempted killings and about 40,000 sentences handed down by DDR courts for “political offenses.”
During the early years of Sauer’s operation, the details of political prosecutions became known only when victims were ransomed by West Germany or were expelled. Between 1963 and 1989, West Germany paid DM5 billion (nearly US$3 billion) to the communist regime for the release of 34,000 political prisoners. The price per head varied according to the importance of the person or the length of the sentence. In some cases the ransom amounted to more than US$56,000. The highest sum ever paid to the East Germans appears to have been DM450,000 (US$264,705 using an exchange rate of US$1.70 to the mark). The ransom “object” in this case was Count Benedikt von Hoensbroech. A student in his early twenties, von Hoensbroech was attending a West Berlin university when the wall went up. He was caught by the Stasi while trying to help people escape and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor. The case attracted international attention because his family was related to Queen Fabiola of Belgium, who interceded with the East Germans. Smelling money, the East German government first demanded the equivalent of more than US$1 million from the young man’s father as ransom. In the end, the parties settled on the figure of DM450,000, of which the West German government paid DM40,000 (about $23,529). Such ransom operations were fully controlled by the Stasi.
Political prisoners released in the DDR could not be registered by the West Germans because their cases remained secret. The victims were admonished to keep quiet or face another prison term. Nonetheless, in the first year after reunification, Sauer’s office added another 20,000 documented cases, for a total of 60,000. Sauer said he believed the final figure of all political prosecutions would be somewhere around 300,000. In every case, the Stasi was involved either in the initial arrest or in pretrial interrogations during which “confessions” were usually extracted by physical or psychological torture, particularly between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s.
Until 1987, the DDR imposed the death penalty for a number of capital crimes, including murder, espionage, and economic offenses. But after the mid-1950s, nearly all death sentences were kept quiet and executions were carried out in the strictest secrecy, initially by guillotine and in later years by a single pistol shot to the neck. In most instances, the relatives of those killed were not informed either of the sentence or of the execution. The corpses were cremated and the ashes buried secretly, sometimes at construction sites. In reporting about one executioner who shot more than twenty persons to death, the Berlin newspaper Bildzeitung said that a total of 170 civilians had been executed in East Germany. However, Franco Werkenthin, the Berlin official investigating DDR crimes, said he had documented at least three hundred executions. He declined to say how many were for political offenses, because he had not yet submitted his report to parliament. “But it was substantial,” he told me. The true number of executions may never be known because no complete record of death sentences meted out by civil courts could be found. Other death sentences were handed down by military courts, and many records of those are also missing. In addition, German historian Günther Buch believes that about two hundred members of the Stasi itself were executed for various crimes, including attempts to escape to the West.

SAFEGUARDING HUMAN DIGNITY?

The preamble to the East German criminal code stated that the purpose of the code was to “safeguard the dignity of humankind, its freedom and rights under the aegis of the criminal code of the socialist state,” and that “a person can be prosecuted under the criminal code only in strictest concurrence with the law.” However, many of the codified offenses for which East German citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned were unique to totalitarian regimes, both fascist and communist.
Moreover, certain sections of the code, such as those on “Treasonable Relaying of Information” and “Treasonable Agent Activity,” were perversely applied, landing countless East Germans in maximum security penitentiaries. The victims of this perversion of justice usually were persons who had requested legal exit permits from the DDR authorities and had been turned down. In many cases, their “crime” was having contacted a Western consulate to inquire about immigration procedures. Sentences of up to two and a half years’ hard labor were not unusual as punishment for such inquiries.
Engaging in “propaganda hostile to the state” was another punishable offense. In one such case, a young man was arrested and prosecuted for saying that it was not necessary to station tanks at the border and for referring to border fortifications as “nonsense.” During his trial, he “admitted” to owning a television set on which he watched West German programs and later told friends what he saw. One of those “friends” had denounced him to the Stasi. The judge considered the accused’s actions especially egregious and sentenced him to a year and a half at hard labor.
Ironically, another part of this section of the criminal code decreed that “glorifying militarism” also was a punishable offense, although the DDR itself “glorified” its People’s Army beyond any Western norm. That army was clad in uniforms and insignia identical to those of the Nazi Wehrmacht, albeit without eagles and swastikas. The helmets, too, were differently shaped, but the Prussian goose step was regulation during parades.
A nineteen-year-old who had placed a sign in an apartment window reading “When justice is turned into injustice, resistance becomes an obligation!” was rewarded with twenty-two months in the penitentiary. Earlier, the youth had applied for an exit visa and had been turned down. A thirty-four-year-old father of two who also had been denied permission to leave the “workers’ and peasants’ state” with his family similarly advertised that fact with a poster reading “We want to leave, but they won’t let us.” The man went to prison for sixteen months. The “crimes” of both men were covered by a law on “Interference in Activities of the State or Society.”
Two letters—one to a friend in West Germany, seeking assistance to legally emigrate to the West, and another containing a similar appeal to Chief of State Honecker—brought a four-year sentence to their writer, who was convicted under two laws: those on “establishing illegal contacts” (writing to his friend) and on “public denigration” (writing to Honecker). The Stasi had illegally intercepted both letters.
The East German party chiefs were not content to rely only on the Stasi’s millions of informers to ferret out antistate sentiments. Leaving nothing to chance, they created a law that made the failure to denounce fellow citizens a crime punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. One man was sentenced to twenty-three months for failing to report that a friend of his was preparing to escape to the West. The mandatory denunciation law had its roots in the statutes of the Socialist Unity Party, which were published in the form of a little red booklet. I picked up a copy of this booklet that had been discarded by its previous owner, a Stasi chauffeur, who had written “Ha, Ha” next to the mandate to “report any misdeeds, regardless of the person responsible, to leading party organs, all the way up to the Central Committee.”
Rupert Scholz, member of parliament and professor of law at the University of Munich, said many East Germans feel there is little determination among their Western brethren to bring the Stasi criminals to trial. “In fact, we already have heard many of them say that the peaceful revolution should have been a bloody one instead so they could have done away with their tormentors by hanging them posthaste,” Scholz told me.
The Reverend Joachim Gauck, minister to a Lutheran parish in East Germany, shared the people’s pessimism that justice would be done. Following reunification, Gauck was appointed by the Bonn government as its special representative for safeguarding and maintaining the Stasi archives. “We must at least establish a legal basis for finding the culprits in our files,” Gauck told me. “But it will not be easy. If you stood the millions of files upright in one line, they would stretch for 202 kilometers [about 121 miles]. In those files you can find an unbelievable number of Stasi victims and their tormentors.”
Gauck was given the mandate he needed in November 1991, when the German parliament passed a law authorizing file searches to uncover Stasi perpetrators and their informants. He viewed this legislation as first step in the right direction. With the evidence from Stasi files, the perpetrators could be removed from their public service jobs without any formal legal proceedings. Said Gauck: “We needed this law badly. It is not reasonable that persons who served this apparatus of oppression remain in positions of trust. We need to win our people over to accepting that they are now free and governed by the rule of law. To achieve that, we must build up their confidence and trust in the public service.”
Searching the roughly six million files will take years. A significant number of the dossiers are located in repositories of the Stasi regional offices, sprinkled throughout eastern Germany. To put the files at the Berlin central repository in archival order would take one person 128 years. The job might have been made easier had the last DDR government not ordered the burning of thousands of Stasi computer tapes, ostensibly to forestall a witch-hunt. Thousands of files dealing with espionage were shredded and packed into 17,200 paper sacks. These were discovered when the Stasi headquarters was stormed on January 15, 1990. The contents of all of these bags now have been inspected. It took two workers between six and eight weeks to go through one bag. Then began the work of the puzzlers, putting the shredded pieces together. By the middle of 1997, fewer than 500 bags of shredded papers had been reconstructed—into about 200,000 pages. Further complicating matters was the lack of trained archivists and experts capable of organizing these files—to say nothing of the 37.5 million index cards bearing the names of informers as well as persons under Stasi surveillance—and interpreting their contents. Initially, funding for a staff of about 550 individuals was planned, at a total of about DM24.5 million annually (about US$15 million using an exchange rate of US$1.60). By 1997, the budget had grown to US$137 million and the staff to 3,100.
Stasi victims and citizens who had been under surveillance were allowed to examine their Stasi files. Within four years of reunification, about 860,000 persons had asked to inspect their case files, with 17,626 of those requests being received in December 1994 alone. By 1997, 3.4 million people had asked to see their files. Countless civil suits were launched when victims found the names of those who had denounced and betrayed them, and many family relationships and friendships were destroyed.
The rehabilitation of Stasi victims and financial restitution to them was well under way; but Gauck believed that criminal prosecution of the perpetrators would continue to be extremely difficult. “We can already see that leading SED functionaries who bear responsibility for the inhumane policies, for which they should be tried, are instead accused of lesser offenses such as corruption. It is actually an insult to democracy that a man like Harry Tisch is tried for embezzlement and not for being a member of the Politburo, where the criminal policies originated.”
The “Stasi files law,” as it is popularly known, also made it possible to vet parliamentarians for Stasi connections. Hundreds were fired or resigned—and a few committed suicide—when it was discovered that they had been Stasi informants. Among those who resigned was Lothar de Maiziere, the last premier of the DDR, who signed the unification agreement with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. He was a member of the East German version of the Christian Democratic Union, which like all noncommunist parties in the Eastern bloc had been totally co-opted by the regime. After reunification, he moved into parliament and was awarded the vice chairmanship of Kohl’s Christian Democratic Union. A lawyer, De Maiziere had functioned for years as an IM, an informer, under the cover name Cerny. De Maiziere at first denied he was Cerny, but the evidence was overwhelming. It was De Maiziere’s government that had ordered the destruction of the Stasi computer tapes.

THE COMMUNISTS’ POLITICAL SURVIVAL

De Maiziere, who had been a driving force behind prompt reunification, soon passed into oblivion; but twenty members of the old Communist Party, the SED, are still members of parliament. The SED changed its name in late 1989, when the DDR was collapsing, to the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). Its new leadership arrogantly dismissed their bloody past as irrelevant now that the word democratic had been adopted as part of their party’s name. If the elections of summer 1990 had taken place just a few months later and thus had been conducted under the law of reunified Germany, these individuals would not have won parliamentary seats. The West German electoral rules governing the proportional representation system require that a party garner at least 5 percent of the vote before it may enter parliament. In addition to choosing a party, voters cast a second ballot for a specific person. This is called a direct mandate. If any party falls below 5 percent but gets at least three direct mandates, that party is seated in parliament. As a one-time compromise in consideration of East Germany’s smaller population, the Bonn government accepted a 3-percent margin of party votes. Even so, the PDS barely made it into parliament.
In the 1994 general election, the first after reunification, the party polled 4.4 percent. Had it not been for the votes electing four persons by direct mandate, the PDS would have been excluded. The direct mandates all came from East Berlin districts heavily populated by unemployed, former Communist Party and government officials. One of the men elected directly was Gregor Gysi, a communist lawyer who had been accused of informing on his clients to the Stasi. Gysi denied the allegations and had obtained a temporary injunction barring a former East German dissident from making the assertion. However, a Hamburg court lifted the injunction in December 1994 on the basis of Stasi documents that indicated Gysi had no case.
Another candidate directly elected to parliament was Stefan Heym, a German-born writer who had emigrated to the United States after Hitler came to power, had changed his name from Helmut Flieg, and had become a U.S. citizen. He served in the U.S. Army as an officer during World War II, but switched sides in 1952 to live in East Germany, forfeiting his U.S. citizenship in order to become an East German citizen and a member of the Communist Party. A year later, on June 17, 1953, the East German people rose up in a revolt that was crushed by the Red Army. Had it not been for the intervention of the Soviets, Heym wrote afterward in the communist daily newspaper Berliner Zeitung, “the American bombing would have already begun. The shots against the rebels were fired to prevent war, rather than to begin one.” And when Stalin died, just four months earlier, Heym used the same newspaper to mourn the butcher of an estimated twenty million people as the “most loved man of our times.” Finally, in a speech on January 31, 1995, at a demonstration marking the 62nd anniversary of the Nazi takeover, the unrepentant Heym, now eighty-two years old, had the gall to say that the present climate in Germany was “very similar to that in 1933, and this frightens me.” It was a grotesque spectacle when Heym was accorded the “honor” of delivering the opening address of the 1965 parliamentary session traditionally reserved for the body’s oldest member. Despite vehement protests, parliamentary president Rita Süssmuth ruled to uphold the tradition.
One of the PDS members also retaining his seat was Hans Modrow. Modrow, a veteran communist, was SED district secretary in Dresden. It was a most powerful communal political position. Modrow was a vital cog in the apparatus of state repression. The local Stasi chief, Major General Horst Böhm, reported directly to him. Modrow was the one who ordered the Vopo, the People’s Police, to resort to violence in putting down massive protests during the turbulent days in fall 1989, just before the Berlin Wall fell. Hundreds of protesters were severely beaten and jailed. Böhm, the Dresden Stasi boss, was found shot dead in his office in early 1990, just before he was to appear before a commission that had been convened to settle the future of the communist state. His death was listed as a suicide. However, an unsubstantiated rumor has it that he was murdered to prevent him from testifying about Modrow’s despotic rule. Modrow was found guilty of election fraud in May 1993. The DDR hierarchy, according to the evidence, had ordered that the number of votes opposing the official slate in the 1989 election had to be fewer than in 1985. Modrow reported that only 2.5 percent of the ballots in his district were cast in opposition; but the true number was at least four times higher. The judge issued him a mere rebuke, refusing to imprison or fine him. The federal high court, which reviews sentences, ordered in November 1994 that Modrow stand trial again because the sentence “was too mild.” After a new trial in 1996 on charges of perjury, Modrow was sentenced to six months’ probation. A year later, parliament was still considering whether he should be deprived of his seat.
Unlike the Nazi Party’s finances and property, which were confiscated by the victorious Allies and turned over to the first West German government in 1949, the SED’s millions were inherited by the PDS, which spirited part of those funds out of the country when the East German government collapsed. The PDS also became custodian of the archives of the SED and refused anyone outside the party access to them. Shortly after reunification, in 1990, the courts ruled that the archives were state property. Judicial authorities as well as scholars were permitted to research them. Nevertheless, the SED archives were almost lost. In 1994, the German news magazine Focus discovered a letter dated March 1991, sent by Gregor Gysi in the capacity of PDS party chief to Vladimir A. Ivashko, assistant secretary-general of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. In this letter, Gysi pleaded with Soviet leaders either to put pressure on German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to return the archive to the PDS, or if Kohl felt this was politically impossible, to destroy it. The opening of the archive, Gysi wrote, was a “genuine catastrophe,” because it contained many secret documents. Publication of the documents would have “extremely unpleasant results not only for the PDS but for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well,” Gysi wrote. But his Soviet friends were no longer able to help him. The archive holds documents on Politburo decisions and directives that might prove crucial in prosecuting the former East German party hierarchy. In the end, the PDS offered to settle for 20 percent of the SED’s ill-gotten funds, forfeiting the rest as a gesture of goodwill toward the new state.
Not all observers were impressed by this compromise. Peter Gauweiler, Bavaria’s minister for development and ecological affairs at the time of reunification, and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, demanded that the PDS and the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP, the West German Communist Party), be outlawed: “Every month we learn of new crimes committed by the SED—terrible things, gruesome things,” Gauweiler said. “We cannot tolerate a successor organization to such an extremely criminal gang.”

THE FBI FILE-Solving Scarface How the Law Finally Caught Up With Al Capone

Al Capone mug shot photos

In the “roaring twenties,” he ruled an empire of crime in the Windy City: gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, bribery, narcotics trafficking, robbery, “protection” rackets, and murder. And it seemed that law enforcement couldn’t touch him.

The early Bureau would have been happy to join the fight to take Capone down. But we needed a federal crime to hang our case on—and the evidence to back it up.

In those days, racketeering laws weren’t what they are today. We didn’t have jurisdiction over prohibition violations; that fell to the Bureau of Prohibition. Even when it was widely rumored that Capone had ordered the brutal murders of seven gangland rivals in the infamous “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre,” we couldn’t get involved. Why? The killings weren’t a federal offense.

Then, in 1929, we got a break.

On February 27, Capone was subpoenaed at his winter home near Miami, Florida, to appear as a witness before a federal grand jury in Chicago on March 12 for a case involving a violation of prohibition laws.

Capone said he couldn’t make it. His excuse? He claimed he’d been laid up with broncho-pneumonia for six weeks and was in no shape to travel.

That’s when we got involved. We were asked by U.S. Attorneys to find out whether Capone was on the level. Our agents went to Florida and quickly found that Capone’s story didn’t hold water. When he was supposedly bedridden, Capone was out and about—going to the race tracks, taking trips to the Bahamas, even being questioned by local prosecutors. And by all accounts, his health was just fine.

On March 27—76 years ago Sunday—Capone was cited for contempt of court in Chicago and arrested in Florida. He was released on bond, but from there on, it was downhill for the notorious gangster:

  • Less than two months later, Capone was arrested in Philadelphia by local police for carrying concealed weapons and was sent to jail for a year.
  • When he was released in 1931, Capone was tried and convicted for the original contempt of court charge. A federal judge sentenced him to six months in prison.
  • In the meantime, federal Treasury agents had been gathering evidence that Capone had failed to pay his income taxes. Capone was convicted, and on October 24, 1931, was sentenced to 11 years in prison. When he finally got out of Alcatraz, Capone was too sick to carry on his life of crime. He died in 1947.

In the end, it took a team of federal, state, and local authorities to end Capone’s reign as underworld boss. Precisely the kind of partnerships that are needed today as well to defeat dangerous criminals and terrorists.

The Secret FBI files about Al Capone


Al Capone

Photo of AlPhonse CaponeBorn of an immigrant family in Brooklyn, New York in 1899, Al Capone quit school after the sixth grade and associated with a notorious street gang, becoming accepted as a member. Johnny Torrio was the street gang leader and among the other members was Lucky Luciano, who would later attain his own notoriety.

About 1920, at Torrio’s invitation, Capone joined Torrio in Chicago where he had become an influential lieutenant in the Colosimo mob. The rackets spawned by enactment of the Prohibition Amendment, illegal brewing, distilling and distribution of beer and liquor, were viewed as “growth industries.” Torrio, abetted by Al Capone, intended to take full advantage of opportunities. The mob also developed interests in legitimate businesses in the cleaning and dyeing field and cultivated influence with receptive public officials, labor unions, and employees’ associations.

Torrio soon succeeded to full leadership of the gang with the violent demise of Big Jim Colosimo, and Capone gained experience and expertise as his strong right arm.

In 1925, Capone became boss when Torrio, seriously wounded in an assassination attempt, surrendered control and retired to Brooklyn. Capone had built a fearsome reputation in the ruthless gang rivalries of the period, struggling to acquire and retain “racketeering rights” to several areas of Chicago. That reputation grew as rival gangs were eliminated or nullified, and the suburb of Cicero became, in effect, a fiefdom of the Capone mob.

The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on February 14, 1929, might be regarded as the culminating violence of the Chicago gang era, as seven members or associates of the “Bugs” Moran mob were machine-gunned against a garage wall by rivals posing as police. The massacre was generally ascribed to the Capone mob, although Al himself was in Florida.

The investigative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Investigation during the 1920s and early 1930s was more limited than it is now, and the gang warfare and depredations of the period were not within the Bureau’s investigative authority.

The Bureau’s investigation of Al Capone arose from his reluctance to appear before a federal grand jury on March 12, 1929 in response to a subpoena. On March 11, his lawyers formally filed for postponement of his appearance, submitting a physician’s affidavit dated March 5, which attested that Capone had been suffering from bronchial pneumonia in Miami, had been confined to bed from January 13 to February 23, and that it would be dangerous to Capone’s health to travel to Chicago. His appearance date before the grand jury was re-set for March 20.

On request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Bureau of Investigation agents obtained statements to the effect that Capone had attended race tracks in the Miami area, that he had made a plane trip to Bimini and a cruise to Nassau, that he had been interviewed at the office of the Dade County Solicitor, and that he had appeared in good health on each of those occasions.

Capone appeared before the federal grand jury in Chicago on March 20, 1929 and completed his testimony on March 27. As he left the courtroom, he was arrested by agents for contempt of court, an offense for which the penalty could be one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. He posted $5,000 bond and was released.

On May 17, 1929, Al Capone and his bodyguard were arrested in Philadelphia for carrying concealed deadly weapons. Within 16 hours they had been sentenced to terms of one year each. Capone served his time and was released in nine months for good behavior on March 17, 1930.

Al Capone’s criminal record and fingerprint card

On February 28, 1931, Capone was found guilty in federal court on the contempt of court charge and was sentenced to six months in Cook County Jail. His appeal on that charge was subsequently dismissed.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department had been developing evidence on tax evasion charges—in addition to Al Capone, his brother Ralph “Bottles” Capone, Jake “Greasy Thumb” Guzik, Frank Nitti, and other mobsters were subjects of tax evasion charges.

On June 16, 1931, Al Capone pled guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges. He then boasted to the press that he had struck a deal for a two-and-a-half year sentence, but the presiding judge informed him he, the judge, was not bound by any deal. Capone then changed his plea to not guilty.

On October 18, 1931, Capone was convicted after trial and on November 24, was sentenced to eleven years in federal prison, fined $50,000 and charged $7,692 for court costs, in addition to $215,000 plus interest due on back taxes. The six-month contempt of court sentence was to be served concurrently.

While awaiting the results of appeals, Capone was confined to the Cook County Jail. Upon denial of appeals, he entered the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, serving his sentence there and at Alcatraz.

On November 16, 1939, Al Capone was released after having served seven years, six months and fifteen days, and having paid all fines and back taxes.

Suffering from paresis derived from syphilis, he had deteriorated greatly during his confinement. Immediately on release he entered a Baltimore hospital for brain treatment and then went on to his Florida home, an estate on Palm Island in Biscayne Bay near Miami, which he had purchased in 1928.

Following his release, he never publicly returned to Chicago. He had become mentally incapable of returning to gangland politics. In 1946, his physician and a Baltimore psychiatrist, after examination, both concluded Capone then had the mentality of a 12-year-old child. Capone resided on Palm Island with his wife and immediate family, in a secluded atmosphere, until his death due to a stroke and pneumonia on January 25, 1947.

Bibliography on Al Capone1. “Farewell, Mr. Gangster!” Herbert Corey, D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1936
2. “The FBI Story,” Don Whitehead, Random House, New York, New York, 1956
3. “Organized Crime In America,” Gus Tyler, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962
4. “The Dillinger Days,” John Toland, Random House, New York, New York, 1963
5. “The Devil’s Emissaries,” Myron J. Quimby, A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, 1969
6. “Capone,” John Kobler, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, New York, 1971
7. “Mafia, USA,” Nicholas Gage, Dell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1972
8. “The Mobs And The Mafia,” Hank Messick and Burt Goldblatt, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, New York, 1972
9. “Bloodletters and Badmen,” Jay Robert Nash, M. Evans and Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1973
10. “G-Men: Hoover’s FBI in American Popular Culture,” Richard Gid Powers, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois, 1983

TOP-SECRET- FBI — Tracking a Web of Criminals – Federal Bureau of Investigation

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could see where that scam e-mail came from? If you could plot a scammer’s location on a map, along with their victims? And then go after them?

The FBI Cyber Division’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, a partnership with the nonprofit National White Collar Crime Center, is doing just that. In any given month IC3’s website gets about 20,000 complaints. Agents and analysts wade through them to find patterns and trends, and then go after the scammers by sending the investigative leads to law enforcement agencies or FBI field offices.

Supervisory Special Agent Charles Pavelites, IC3: Anyone who’s been a victim of crime on the Internet can file a complaint with us. We don’t have thresholds for individual complaints. We like to get as much information as possible, and get as much information as possible out to law enforcement in hopes of spurring investigations.

Narrator: The FBI Cyber Division investigates the whole spectrum of Internet crimes, from auction fraud to international threats targeting the U.S. infrastructure.

Assistant Director Shawn Henry, FBI Cyber Division: It’s really important for people to understand how significant the threat is from the cyber attack vector to the U.S. economy and the U.S. infrastructure. There are many foreigners, organized crime groups, that are looking to target the U.S. financial infrastructure, because the business of the United States is done on the Internet.

Narrator: The Internet Crime Complaint Center’s database holds more than 1.3 million complaints. They can sift through the complaints to target specific frauds, or get an overall picture of current online crime trends.

Pavelites: This would be all kinds of cyber fraud, all kinds of schemes. And, these are just dots, but they represent the information that go with them that we can use to determine trends, determine loss amounts, to determine where we should be focusing our efforts in the fight against cyber crime.

Narrator: To avoid scammers’ traps, follow your instincts: don’t click on links or open attachments in unsolicited e-mail, and guard your personal information.

Henry: So the consumer really has to ensure that they’ve got active virus scanning in place, the most recent virus signatures up to date. They’ve got to have a firewall that monitors the connections between their computer and other computers. And they really have to monitor that and be on top of what the threats are and ensure that they’re protecting themselves to the greatest extent possible.

Jason Derulo Talks Stalkers and ‘Future History’

DIE SCHEISSHAAUSFLIEGEN DER “GoMoPA” UND IHR “KINDERPORTAL” IN DER PRESSE

http://berndpulch.org/2011/10/05/gomopa-und-ihr-kinderportal-die-gesamte-deutsche-presse-verabscheut-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D/

TOP-SECRET FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE-PINOCHET: A Declassified Documentary Obit

Archive Posts Records on former Dictator’s Repression, Acts of Terrorism, U.S. Support

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 212

The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability
By Peter Kornbluh
A Los Angeles Times
Best Nonfiction Book of 2003

Washington D.C., October 18, 2011 – As Chile prepared to bury General Augusto Pinochet, the National Security Archive today posted a selection of declassified U.S. documents that illuminate the former dictator’s record of repression. The documents include CIA records on Pinochet’s role in the Washington D.C. car bombing that killed former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his American colleague Ronni Moffitt, Defense Intelligence Agency biographic reports on Pinochet, and transcripts of meetings in which Secretary of State Henry Kissinger resisted bringing pressure on the Chilean military for its human rights atrocities.

“Pinochet’s death has denied his victims a final judicial reckoning,” said Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive’s Chile Documentation Project. “But the declassified documents do contribute to the ultimate verdict of history on his atrocities.”

Most of the documents posted today are drawn from a collection of 24,000 declassified records that were released by the Clinton administration after Pinochet’s October, 1998, arrest in London. Many of them are reproduced in Kornbluh’s book, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability.

Pinochet died of complications from a heart attack on December 10, which was, by coincidence, International Human Rights Day.


Read the Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
Initial Reports on Pinochet’s Repression

Department of State, SECRET Memorandum, “Chilean Executions,” includes “Fact Sheet-Human Rights in Chile,” November 27, 1973

Updated “Fact Sheet-Human Rights in Chile,” January 15, 1974

This memo, sent to the Secretary of State by Jack Kubisch, states that summary executions in the nineteen days following the coup totaled 320–more than three times the publicly acknowledged figure. At the same time, Kubisch reports on new economic assistance just authorized by the Nixon administration. The memo provides information about the Chilean military’s justification for the continued executions. It also includes a situation report and human rights fact sheet on Chile. An updated fact sheet showing the situation two months later is also included.

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Report, [Executions in Chile since the Coup], October 27, 1973

This Intelligence Report states that between September 11, 1973 and October 10, 1973 a total of 13,500 prisoners had been registered as detained by the Chilean armed forces. During that same time period, an estimated 1,600 civilian deaths occurred as a result of the coup. The report also notes that eighty civilians were either executed on the spot or killed by firing squads after military trials.

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Report, “Chile: Violations of Human Rights,” May 24, 1977

This secret CIA report acknowledges that Chile’s National Intelligence Directorate is behind the recent increase in torture, illegal detentions, and unexplained “disappearances.” The report notes that the increase in gross violations of human rights in Chile comes at a particularly bad time for the country.

Defense Intelligence Agency, CONFIDENTIAL Report, “Directorate of National Intelligence (DINA) Expands Operations and Facilities,” April 15, 1975

This DIA report on Chile’s Directorate of National Intelligence (DINA) discusses the organization’s structure and its relationship with the Chilean Armed Forces and the country’s governing Junta. DINA is identified as the sole agency responsible handling internal subversive matters. The report warns that the possibility of DINA becoming a modern day Gestapo may be coming to fruition. It concludes that any advantages gained by humanitarian practices in Chile could easily be offset by DINA’s terror tactics.
U.S. Support for the Pinochet Regime

Department of State, SENSITIVE Cable, “USG Attitude Toward Junta,” September 13, 1973

This DOS cable sent two days after the coup states that the “US government wishes to make clear its desire to cooperate with the military Junta and to assist in any appropriate way.” This official welcome agreed that it was best to avoid too much public identification between the Junta and the United States government.

Department of State, SENSITIVE Cable, “Continuation of Relations with GOC and Request for Flares and Helmets,” September 18, 1973

This DOS cable was sent in response to a note from the Junta regarding the continuation of relations. It stress the US government’s “strongest desire to cooperate closely with the Chilean Junta.”

Department of State, Memorandum, “Ambassador Popper’s Policy Paper,” July 11, 1975

ARA analyst Richard Bloomfield’s memo notes that “in the eyes of the world at large, we are closely associated with this Junta, ergo with fascists and torturers.” In this memo he makes clear his disagreement with Kissinger’s position and argues that the human rights problem in Chile should be of primary interest to the U.S. government.

Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation, Secretary’s Meeting with Foreign Minister Carvajal, September 29, 1975

This transcript records a meeting between Secretary Kissinger and Pinochet’s foreign minister, Patricio Carvajal, following Chile’s decision to cancel a visit by the United Nations Human Rights Commission investigating human rights crimes. Kissinger begins the meeting by disparaging his staff “who have a vocation for the ministry” for focusing on human rights in the briefing papers prepared for the meeting. He tells Carvajal that condemnation of the Pinochet regime’s human rights record is “a total injustice,” but that “somewhat visible” efforts by the regime to alleviate the situation would be useful in changing Congressional attitudes. “Our point of view is if you do something, let us know so we can use it with Congress.” Kissinger, Carvajal, and Assistant Secretary Rogers then discuss U.S. efforts to expedite Ex-Im Bank credits and multilateral loans to Chile as well as cash sales of military equipment. At the end of the meeting, Kissinger voices support for the regime’s idea to host the June 1976 OAS meeting in Santiago as a way of increasing Pinochet’s prestige and improving Chile’s negative image.

Department of State, SECRET, “The Secretary’s 8:00 a.m. Regional Staff Meeting,” December 5, 1974

At this staff meeting, Secretary Kissinger spends considerable time discussing Congressional efforts, led by Senator Edward Kennedy, to restrict U.S. military assistance to the Pinochet regime. The transcript records Kissinger’s vehement opposition to such legislative initiatives, on the grounds that they are unfair to the Chilean military government, could lead to its collapse, and set a dangerous precedent for cutting assistance to other unsavory governments the Ford Administration is supporting. “Well, am I wrong that this sort of thing is likely to finish off that government?” he demands to know. Later he asks: “Is this government worse than the Allende government? Is human rights more severely threatened by this government than Allende?” According to Kissinger, “the worse crime of this government is that it is pro-American.” In response, Assistant Secretary for Latin America, William Rogers informs the Secretary, “in terms of freedom of association, Allende didn’t close down the opposition party. In terms of freedom of the press, Allende didn’t close down all the newspapers.”

Department of State, SECRET Memorandum of Conversation between Henry Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet, “U.S.-Chilean Relations,” June 8, 1976

In this secret memorandum of conversation, Kissinger briefs Pinochet in advance of his speech to the Organization of American States (OAS) in Santiago in June 1976. He lets Pinochet know that he will treat the issue of human rights in general terms only. He stresses that his speech is not aimed at Chile but that it is intended to appease the U.S. Congress. But, he notes, “we have a practical problem we have to take into account, without bringing about pressures incompatible with your dignity, and at the same time which does not lead to U.S. laws which will undermine our relationship.”
Pinochet and the Letelier-Moffitt Assassination

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Information Cable, [Assassination of Orlando Letelier], October 6, 1976

Two weeks after the car bombing assassination of Orlando Letelier this CIA field report states that its source “believes that the Chilean government is directly involved in Letelier’s death and feels that investigation into the incident will so indicate.”

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Assessment, “Chile: Implications of the Letelier Case,” May 1978

This CIA intelligence assessment alludes to the strain placed on U.S.-Chilean relations in light of recent findings in the investigation of the murder of Orlando Letelier that firmly linked the former Foreign Minister to the highest levels of the Chilean government. CIA analysts write, “The sensational developments have evoked speculation about President Pinochet’s survival.”

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Report, “[Deleted] Strategy of Chilean Government with Respect to Letelier Case, and Impact of Case on Stability of President Pinochet,” June 23, 1978

This secret intelligence report outlines Pinochet’s strategy to cover up his regime’s complicity in the Letelier assassination. The four-point strategy would protect General Contreras from successful prosecution in the murder, stonewall requests from the U.S. government that would help them build a case against Chileans involved in the terrorist act, prevent the Supreme Court from honoring U.S. extradition requests, and convince the Chilean people that the investigation into the Letelier assassination is a politically motivated tool to destabilize the Pinochet regime.

Pinochet Biographic Reports

Defense Intelligence Agency, SECRET, “Biographic Data on Augusto Pinochet,” January 1975 (unredacted version)

Two versions of DIA’s biographic profile on Pinochet – one fully uncensored, the other curiously redacted. Please see the Archive’s prior posting regarding the two different versions of the document.

Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET, “Biographic Handbook [on] Chile,” November 1974

This CIA bio describes Pinochet as an intelligent, disciplined, and professional military officer who is known for his toughness. The document states that Pinochet is dedicated to the national reconstruction of his country and will not tolerate any opposition to that goal.

ZDF:”GoMoPa”-GLÜCKSPIEL-MAFIA – EIN AUSSTEIGER PACKT AUS

Betr&uuml;ger: Ein Aussteiger packt aus

Stephan Pergrin war Geschäftsführer eines Unternehmens, das zur Firmengruppe einer Gewinnspielmafia gehörte. Im Fronatl21-Interview erklärt er, mit welchen Tricks Kundenkonten geplündert wurden.

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus#/beitrag/video/1210400/Betrueger-Ein-Aussteiger-packt-aus

Zeugen der Meridian Capital: INTERPOL, DAS BKA UND “GoMoPa”

http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com/

STASI OBERST “OFFIZIER IM BESONDEREN EINSATZ” STELZER UND DIE GRÜNDUNG DER “GoMoPa”-Zelle

Heribert Hellenbroich, 53, Ex-Chef des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) und zuvor Leiter des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz, begibt sich in ungewohnte Gesellschaft. Gemeinsam mit dem ehemaligen Stasi-Oberst und Offizier im besonderen Einsatz (OibE) Ehrenfried Stelzer, 58, hat Hellenbroich einen Verein gegründet. Das “Internationale Institut für Wirtschaftssicherheit zu Berlin” soll, so versichern der ehemalige Top-Nachrichtendienstler (West) und sein Kompagnon (Ost) unisono, aus “ideellen Motiven” Industriebetriebe in Fragen der Wirtschaftssicherheit beraten. “Selbstlos” (Satzung) wollen Hellenbroich und Stelzer für “störungsfreie wirtschaftliche” Ost-West-Beziehungen eintreten und zum Wohl der Unternehmer wirken: Wirtschaftskriminalität abwehren helfen, über Daten- und Banksicherheit aufklären.

Berührungsängste mit dem Ex-Stasi-Offizier hat Hellenbroich nicht. Dessen Vergangenheit sei für die künftige Arbeit “nicht weiter von Interesse”, sagt der ehemalige BND-Chef, der 1985 über den Spionagefall Tiedge stolperte. Die rein nachrichtendienstliche Tätigkeit der Stasi sehe er ohnehin neutral: “Was haben wir, der BND, denn anderes gemacht?” Ehemalige Kollegen, die unter Stelzers Leitung in der Sektion Kriminalistik an der Ost-Berliner Humboldt-Universität gearbeitet haben, wundern sich über soviel Vertrauensseligkeit. Stelzer, seit 1961 Mitarbeiter der Stasi, sei ein Hardliner gewesen – einer, der “nach dem Motto ,Nichts geht über den geliebten Genossen Erich Honecker'” verfahren sei, sagt Horst Howorka, stellvertretender Leiter der Sektion Kriminalistik.

Die Humboldt-Universität hat Stelzer beurlaubt und gegen ihn ein Disziplinarverfahren eingeleitet. Der Ehrenausschuß der Uni hält es für “unzumutbar”, den Hellenbroich-Kompagnon weiter zu beschäftigen.

siehe

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13502488.html

Zum Vergleich: Die “GoMoPa”-Satzung des Financial INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (heisst Finanz-Geheimdienst auf gut Deutsch )

Zitat:

GoMoPa® wurde mit dem Ziel gegründet, durch aktive Aufklärung und permanente Transparenz nachhaltig zur Betrugsprävention in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft beizutragen.

Die wirtschaftliche Beratung, insbesondere des Mittelstandes, in der europäischen Gemeinschaft unter der Wortmarke GoMoPa.

PASST DOCH WIE DIE FAUST AUFS AUGE

UND WENN JEMAND WIE STASI-OBERST STELZER DEN BND-CHEF HELLENBROICH VOR SEINEN KARREN SPANNEN KANN – SCHAFFTER DAS MIT KLEINEREN KALIBERN MIT LINKS (SIEHE AUCH DIE “GoMoPa” HOMEPAGE”

ÜBRIGEN WAS SIND EIGENTLICH “OFFIZIERE IM BESONDEREN EINSATZ” ?

Offiziere im besonderen Einsatz, auch OibE abgekürzt, waren seit den 1960er Jahren hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit der DDR (MfS) in den Bereichen Abwehr und Aufklärung, die meist in für die Auslandsaufklärung nutzbaren oder für sicherheitsrelevant erachteten Positionen im Staatsapparat (z. B. Außen – und Außenhandelsministerium, Apparat des Ministerrats, Ministerium des Innern), in Institutionen, Betrieben (z. B. Außenhandelsbetrieben)und Organisationen eingesetzt wurden.

Der größte Teil der durch veröffentlichte Listen bekannt gewordenen OibE ist der HVA zuzurechnen (hierzu sind auch die OibE der Abt. XI – Chiffreure – und der Abt. N – Funker – zu zählen, die bei ihren Auslandseinsätzen den Residenten der HVA unterstellt waren). Ihre Anzahl wird auf ca. 3000 geschätzt. Das Dienstverhältnis wurde dabei strikt in der Form eines Doppeldienstverhältnisses legendiert. Dabei war jedem OibE bewusst, dass sein eigentlicher Dienstherr das MfS blieb, während die offizielle Funktion nur zur Abdeckung der operativen Arbeit diente. Interessenkonflikte z. B. mit dem Vorgesetzten in der offiziellen Funktion und dessen Erwartungen an offizielle Arbeitsergebnisse waren deshalb an der Tagesordnung, wie auch innere Konflikte beim OiBE selbst, wenn die Abdecktätigkeit interessant und mit öffentlich anerkanntem Prestige verbunden war, z. B. im diplomatischen Dienst. Zum regulären Gehalt aus ihrer offiziellen Abdecktätigkeit, das dem Führungsoffzier durch Beleg nachzuweisen war, erhielten Offiziere im besonderen Einsatz einen Gehaltsausgleich von ihrer MfS-Dienststelle, so dass in der Summe ein Gehalt zur Auszahlung kam, das ihrem Dienstgrad und ihrer Dienststellung im MfS entsprach. Überzahlungen über dieses Gehalt hinaus waren entgegen anderslautenden Publikationen zu dieser Frage nicht zulässig. Ohnehin war das MfS-Gehalt in jedem Fall höher als das Gehalt in der Abdeckfunktion, selbst wenn diese mit leitender bzw. verantwortlicher Tätigkeit verbunden war. Es kam durchaus vor, dass der tatsächliche Rang des Mitarbeiters nicht dem der legendierten Position entsprach (soweit ein solcher Vergleich möglich ist, z. B. bei Gegenüberstellung des diplomatischen Rangs oder einer anderen zivilen offiziellen Abdeckfunktion mit dem militärischen Dienstgrad bzw. der Dienststellung). Dennoch war auch in solchen Fällen das MfS-Gehalt stets höher.

Einer der prominentesten bekannt gewordenen OibE war der Devisenbeschaffer Oberst Alexander Schalck-Golodkowski als Staatssekretär, stellvertretender Minister und Leiter des Bereichs Kommerzielle Koordinierung im Ministerium für Außenhandel. Dieser Fall war andererseits für die übliche Praxis untypisch, wie auch der des Staatssekretärs Harry Möbis, der als Leiter der Inspektion beim Ministerrat einen Bereich leitete, welcher als abgedecktes Funktionalorgan des MfS auch Außenstehenden weitgehend bekannt war. Ihm waren die offiziell dem MfS zuarbeitenden Sicherheitsbeauftragten in Ministerien und Betrieben (zum großen Teil OibE) nachgeordnet. Üblicherweise vermied es das MfS, OibE in exponierten offiziellen Funktionen zu installieren, die mit hoher Verantwortung und direkter Rechenschaftspflicht gegenüber den zuständigen Partei – und Staatsorganen verbunden waren, und platzierte sie auf nachgeordneten Ebenen.

MANAGER MAGAZIN ZU “GoMoPa” STASI OBERST STELZER UND RA RESCH

http://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/artikel/0,2828,630325,00.html

BILD: Studie zum Tatort Internet :Jeder Dritte wurde schon gemobbt

http://www.bild.de/digital/internet/mobbing/jeder-dritte-jugendliche-wird-gemobbt-18298774.bild.html

TOP-SECRET -DOCUMENTS IMPLICATE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT IN CHIQUITA TERROR SCANDAL

Company’s Paramilitary Payoffs made through Military’s ‘Convivir’

U.S. Embassy told of “potential” for groups “to devolve into full-fledged paramilitaries”

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 217

U.S. intelligence assessments like this 1997 CIA report were consistently pessimistic about the prospects that the Colombian military would take on illegal paramilitary groups.

Washington D.C., October 18, 2011 – New documents published today by the National Security Archive shed light on recent revelations about the links between bananas and terror in Colombia and the Colombian government’s own ties to the country’s illegal paramilitary forces.

The scandal is further detailed in an article by National Security Archive Colombia analyst Michael Evans published today on the Web site of The Nation magazine.

The March 9, 2007, indictment against Chiquita Brands International sheds light on both corporate and state ties to Colombia’s illegal paramilitary forces.

Earlier this month, Chiquita, the international fruit corporation, admitted to funding a Colombian terrorist group and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. The Justice Department indictment, filed March 13 in D.C. Federal Court, states that Chiquita gave more than $1.7 million to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia – AUC), an illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country’s most notorious civilian massacres.

Key documents from the Chiquita case, along with a collection of newly-available declassified documents, are posted here today.

The payments were made over seven years from 1997-2004. At least $825,000 in payments came after the AUC was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department in 2001.

Many of these payments were made through “intermediaries” in a Colombian government-sponsored program known as Convivir, a network of rural security cooperatives established by the military to police rural areas and provide intelligence on leftist insurgents. Declassified documents suggest that Convivir members often collaborated with paramilitary operations.

The Convivir connection is especially important now, as current President Álvaro Uribe was a key sponsor of the program while governor of Anitoquia department. Antioquia’s banana-growing Urabá region is also the locus of Chiquita’s Colombia operations. As president, Uribe has implemented similar programs involving the use of civilian informants and soldiers.

The article published today, along with additional documents included here, describes a pattern of increasingly-strong links between military and paramilitary forces in Urabá over the period of Chiquita’s payments to the AUC. Chiquita’s relationship with the group coincided with a massive projection of paramilitary power thoughout Colombia. U.S. officials strongly suspected that these operations were at least tolerated by–and at times coordinated with–Colombian security forces.

The Chiquita-Convivir scandal comes as the Los Angeles Times has published a report that the CIA has new information connecting Colombia’s Army chief, Gen. Mario Montoya, one of President Uribe’s top advisers, to a paramilitary group. The new allegation adds fuel to the “para-politics” scandal, which has already taken down several top government officials and implicated many others in connection to the AUC.

Today’s posting is the first in a series of new Archive postings on the U.S. government’s perception of Colombia’s paramiltary movement and its links to Colombian security forces. Under a program developed by the Uribe government to disarm and demobilize the AUC, paramilitary leaders are eligible for reduced prison sentences in exchange for voluntary confessions and the payment of reparations to their victims. However, the commission established to adjudicate this process is not authorized to investigate state crimes or the history of the government’s links to paramilitary forces.

Documents made available on the Archive Web site today include:

  • the Justice Department’s indictment in the Chiquita case, detailing the company’s relationship with AUC chief Carlos Castaño, the fugitive (and now deceased) paramilitary leader;
  • a U.S. Embassy cable in which Colombia’s police intelligence chief “sheepishly” admitted that his forces “do not act” in parts of the country under AUC control;
  • another Embassy cable in which Ambassador Myles Frechette warned that the government’s Convivir program was liable to “degenerate into uncontrolled paramilitary groups”;
  • a U.S. military intelligence report on a Colombian Army colonel who told of the “potential” for the Convivir “to devolve into full-fledged paramilitaries”;
  • and CIA reports on the Colombian Army’s paramilitary ties, one of which found that armed forces commanders had “little inclination to combat paramilitary groups.”

The full article is available on the Web site of The Nation.


Documents
The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
NOTE: With the exception of the Justice Department indictment, all documents published here were obtained by the Archive’s Colombia Documentation Project through Freedom of Information Act requests.

THE INDICTMENT

United States of America v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Defendant, March 13, 2007

The indictment details Chiquita’s seven-year relationship with Carlos Castaño’s AUC. The paramilitary chief arranged the payments in 1997 with Banadex, a wholly-owned Chiquita subsidiary. Castaño “informed the [Banadex] General Manager that the AUC was about to drive the FARC [guerrillas] out of Urabá,” and also that “failure to make the payments could result in physical harm to Banadex personnel and property.”

The company was to “make payments to an intermediary known as a ‘convivir,'” groups used by the AUC “as fronts to collect money from businesses for use to support its illegal activities.” The Convivir were rural security cooperatives established by the military to police rural areas and provide intelligence on leftist insurgents.

The Justice Department lists some 50 payments made by Chiquita after the State Deparment designated the AUC a terrorist organization in September 2001. The company made at least 19 of these payments after the company voluntarily disclosed the payments to the Justice Department in April 2003, and despite strong warnings from its lawyers to terminate the relationship.

Must stop payments,” read one note quoted in the indictment.

Bottom Line: CANNOT MAKE THE PAYMENT
“Advised NOT TO MAKE ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT throught CONVIVIR.”
“General Rule: Cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.”

“You voluntarily put yourself in this position. Duress defense can wear out through repetition. Buz [business] decision to stay in harm’s way. Chiquita should leave Colombia.”

DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS

Document 1: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Botero Human Rights Letter to A/S Shattuck, December 9, 1994

The U.S. Embassy was skeptical when first confronted with the Colombian defense ministry’s plan to create the network of “rural security cooperatives” that would ultimately come to be known as Convivir. In a cable that covered an array of human rights issues, Ambassador Myles Frechette was emphatic about the proposal’s inherent dangers:

“We believe that the point that needs to be made to the minister is that Colombia’s protracted, vaguely ideological internal conflict is quite sui generis and that there has never been an example in Colombia of a para-statal security group that has not ultimately operated with wanton disregard for human rights or been corrupted by local economic interests.”

Document 2: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, Colar 17th Brigade Responsible for the Uraba Antioquia Region, April 29, 1996

This report from the U.S. military attaché in Colombia describes the security situation in Urabá, the region where much of Chiquita’s operations are located. The document describes a tense situation involving ongoing struggles between EPL and FARC guerrillas, “fighting each other for control of unions and politics in the banana area.” According to the indictment, from 1989 until the AUC payments began in 1997, Chiquita had been making similar payments to Colombian guerilla groups. The commander of the Army’s local 17th Brigade, Gen. Rito Alejo del Río, told the attaché “that paramilitaries are the only individuals that subversive elements fear.”

Document 3: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Samper Hosts Governors’ Meeting on Crime, October 9, 1996

Following a meeting with Colombian President Ernesto Samper and other government officials, the U.S. Embassy reported that Antioquia Governor Álvaro Uribe (the current president of Colombia) had called for “the proliferation of the controversial civilian rural security cooperatives known collectively as ‘Convivir.'” Uribe said that the Convivir had “led to the capture of guerrilla leaders in the region,” and called on the government to arm some of the groups. The Embassy adds the comment that “most human rights observers believe the Convivir groups pose a serious danger of becoming little more that vigilante organizations.” The government’s human rights ombudsman had “begun to receive complaints against these groups for exceeding their mandate,” according to the Embassy report.

Document 4: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, 40,000 Colombians March to Protest Wave of Kidnappings; Paramilitary Group Releases Two Guerrilla Relatives, December 2, 1996

In a testament to the AUC’s growing influence among Colombian security forces, Colombia’s police intelligence chief “sheepishly” told U.S. Embassy officers that “the police ‘do not act’ in the part of Urabá under [Carlos] Castano’s control.” The statement came in response to an Embassy query as to why Colombian police had not arrested Castaño, “who had openly admitted to kidnapping guerrilla relatives.”

Document 5: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, Colombian Prosecutor Comments on Paramilitaries in Uraba, December 7, 1996

Paramilitaries had become “a law unto themselves” in Urabá constituting “a potentially greater threat to the government than … the guerrillas,” according to this military intelligence report, based on comments from a Colombian prosecutor. The document describes the violence there as “basically a turf war to determine which group [paramilitaries or guerrillas] will control the rich banana-growing region (and the lucrative illicit narcotics operations within it).” The report adds that, “The military’s influence and control over paramilitaries that we so often logically assume to exist may, in fact, be tenuous at best and non-existent in some cases.”

Document 6: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Retired Army Colonel Lambastes Military for Inaction Against Paramilitaries, January 11, 1997

In January 1997, retired Army Colonel Carlos Alfonso Velásquez publicly criticized the Colombian Army, particularly 17th Brigade Commander Gen. Rito Alejo del Río, for tolerance of paramilitary forces in Urabá. In this cable, the U.S. Embassy characterizes Velásquez as a man of “unquestionable integrity,” adding that his statements “bring extra pressure to bear on the Colombian military” and “add credibility” to the State Department’s critical human rights report on Colombia.

Document 7: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, Guerrillas Launch New Wave of Bombings in Uraba and Cordoba — Paramilitaries Respond with Murder and Kidnappings (Laser Strike), March 14, 1997

U.S. military intelligence reports ongoing violence in Urabá, noting that, “Recent events contrast sharply with earlier 17th Brigade reports claiming that Uraba had largely been pacified.” The report says it remains unclear whether a recent shift by FARC guerillas to “terrorist-style bombings” represents “a long-term FARC strategy, or a temporary tactic for retaliating against the paramilitaries for driving them out of certain conflictive zones and discouraging the civilian population from assisting paramilitary organizations.” The document adds that the Colombian government had only recently “acknowledged that paramilitaries are a valid threat to public order that requires attention.”

Document 8: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, The Convivir in Antioquia — Becoming Institutionalized and Spreading Its Reach, April 7, 1997

In this document, an undisclosed source describes how the Convivir operate in Antioquia. The interlocutor was “insistent that there are striking differences between the legal … sanctioned Convivirs and the illegal paramilitaries that are declared enemies of the state.” The Convivir are merely “one more ‘legal tool’ for integrating counterguerrilla-oriented elements into society.”

Document 9: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, MoD Alleged to have Authorized Illegal Arms Sales to Convivirs and Narcotraffickers, April 9, 1997

In April 1997, a Colombian magazine published allegations that officials in Colombia’s Ministry of Defense had illegally sold weapons to Convivir linked to narcotraffickers and paramilitaries. This highly-excised document indicates that U.S. Embassy military and diplomatic contacts had “lent a significant degree of credibility to the allegations.”

Document 10: U.S. State Department, cable, Bedoya Call for Militia, April 11, 1997

In this cable, the State Department’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Latin America, Peter Romero, criticizes a new plan by Gen. Harold Bedoya, the armed forces commander, to create “national militias.” Romero mentions problems the government has had with the Convivir program, adding that “establishing yet another set of armed combatants would, if experience is any guide, bring a host of more flagrant human rights abuses.”

Document 11: CIA, Intelligence Report, Colombia: Paramilitaries Gaining Strength, June 13, 1997

This CIA report finds “scant indication that the [Colombian] military leadership is making an effort to directly confront the paramilitary groups or to devote men or resources to stop their activities in an amount commensurate with the dimensions of the problem.” Logistical problems and the “popular perception that the military is ‘losing the war’ against the guerrillas” has had a profound effect on military forces. As a result of these frustrations, “informational links and instances of active coordination between military and paramilitaries are likely to continue,” according the the CIA.

The following month–in an operation that signalled the beginning of a major expansion of paramilitary power throughout Colombia–Urabá-based paramilitaries under the direction of Carlos Castaño would massacre some 30 civilians at Mapiripán, an act later shown to have been facilitated by local military forces.

Document 12: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, Senior Colombian Army Officer Biding His Time During Remainder of Samper Regime, July 15, 1997

A “senior Colombian Army officer” told U.S. offiicials in July 1997 that there were “serious problems with the legal ‘Convivir’ movement,” according to this military intelligence report. The unnamed officer compared the Convivir to the “Rondas Campesinas” in Peru, calling them “very difficult to control.” According to the colonel, the Ministry of Defense was aware of the “potential for Convivir’s to devolve into full-fledged paramilitaries,” but was “reluctant to admit it publicly.”

Document 13: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Scandal Over Army Request to Convivir in Antioquia, October 8, 1997

This cable reports on the October 1997 revelation by Colombian Senator Fabio Valencia that a high-ranking Colombian Army officer had circulated a memo asking local Convivir organizations to “to send the Army lists of local candidates, including their political affiliations, degree of acceptance among the people, their sympathies toward democratic institutions, government and military forces, and what degree of local influence they wield.”

Document 14: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Paramilitary Massacres Leave 21 Dead, November 24, 1997

After Mapiripán, one of the next major projections of paramilitary power in Colombia was the November 21, 1997, La Horqueta massacre, in which paramilitaries killed 14 people in a village outside the Colombian capital. Eyewitnesses believed the attackers came from Colombia’s northern coast, which the Embassy notes is “home of Carlos Castaño‘s paramilitary group.” A prominent Colombian expert told the Embassy that the massacre “sent a message to the FARC that the paramilitaries can go anywhere and do anything.” “The fact that no trace of the killers has turned up yet despite the presence of hundreds of police and soldiers in the wake of the killings is not encouraging,” according to the cable.

Document 15: CIA, Intelligence Report, Colombia: Update on Links Between Military, Paramilitary Forces, December 2, 1997

This highly-excised CIA report states that “prospects for a concerted effort by the military high command to crack down on paramilitaries–and the officers that cooperate with them–appear dim.” Both the current and former armed forces chiefs–Gens. Manuel Bonett and Harold Bedoya–had shown “little inclination to combat paramilitary groups.” Tacit acceptance of paramilitary operations by some officers “are longstanding and will not be easily reversed,” according to the report.

The CIA calls the recent paramilitary expansion into traditionally guerrilla-controlled territory “the most significant change we have seen in recent months and one which has further degraded Colombia’s already poor security and human rights situation.” The Mapiripán massacre was one notable example. One intelligence source told the CIA “that Castano would not have flown forces and weapons into a civilian airport known to have a large police presence if he had not received prior assurances that they would be allowed to pass through.”

Document 16: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report, Cashiered Colonel Talks Freely about the Army He Left Behind (Laser Strike), December 24, 1997

There is a “body count syndrome” in the Colombian Army’s counterinsurgency strategy that “tends to fuel human rights abuses by otherwise well-meaning soldiers trying to get their quota to impress superiors,” according to a recently-retired Colombian Army colonel whose comments form the basis of this intelligence report. According to the officer, the obsession with body counts is in part responsible for commanders “allowing the paramilitaries to serve as proxies for the [Colombian army] in contributing to the guerrilla body count.” The 17th Brigade in Urabá had been cooperating with paramilitaries “for a number of years,” he said, but it “had gotten much worse” under the command of Gen. Rito Alejo del Río. Gen. Del Río was later indicted but ultimately acquitted of collusion with paramilitaries by the Prosecutor General’s office in May 2003.

The officer was critical of several other high-level military commanders, including Gen. Jorge Enrique Mora, who would later serve as armed forces commander. Mora had a clean public reputation, according to the officer, but was “probably was one of those who looked the other way” with respect to collaboration with paramilitaries. Former armed forces commander Gen. Harold Bedoya “fell into the same category,” in that both officers “never allowed themselves to become directly involved in encouraging or supporting paramilitary activities, but they turned their backs to what was happening and felt the [Colombian army] should in no way be blamed for any resulting human rights atrocities committed.”

Document 17: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, Narcos Arrested for La Horqueta Paramilitary Massacre, January 28, 1998

One of the perpetrators of the November 1997 La Horqueta massacre (see Document 14) was identified as the president of an Urabá-based Convivir, according to this U.S. Embassy cable. The Convivir member was “imported to the region” by a “local landowner and presumed narcotrafficker who had hired … Uraba-based paramilitaries to execute the massacre.”

The local Army 13th Brigade was “strangely non-reactive” to the killings, according to the cable. The brigade, the Embassy adds, “recently came under the command of BG Rito Alejo del Rio, who earned considerable attention as the commander of the 17th Brigade covering the heartland of Carlos Castano’s paramilitaries in Cordoba and Uraba.”

Document 18: CIA, Intelligence Report, Colombia: Paramilitaries Assuming a Higher Profile, August 31, 1998

Similar to a previous document on the matter, this CIA report finds that “some senior military officers–already suspicious of the peace process and frustrated with the military’s dismal performance on the battlefield–may increasingly view turning a blind eye–and perhaps even offering tacit support to–the paramilitaries as their best option for striking back at the guerrillas.” Like the previous report, this one also predicts that “informational links and instances of active coordination between the military and the paramilitaries” were “likely to continue and perhaps even increase.”

Document 19: U.S. Embassy Bogotá, cable, A Closer Look at Uribe’s Auxiliary Forces, September 11, 2002

Soon after taking office in 2002, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe announced that a key aspect of his national security strategy would involve the use of civilian soldiers organized into local militias. Key portions of this U.S. Embassy cable on the use of “auxiliary forces” were deleted before release by the State Department, suggesting that the Embassy may have harbored reservations about the program based on the government’s previous experience with the Convivir.

FBI – Federal, State, and Local Authorities Arrest Six San Antonio-Based Texas Mexican Mafia Members

United States Attorney Robert Pitman, FBI Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson, and Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw announced today that six San Antonio-based members and associates of the Texas Mexican Mafia (TMM) have been arrested based on two federal drug indictments.

Those arrested include:

  • 45-year-old Robert Carreno, Jr, (aka “Lil Bit”);
  • 39-year-old Tony Berlanga (aka “Tony”);
  • 46-year-old Gabriel Quiroz (aka “Biker”);
  • 48-year-old Guadalupe Ramos (aka “Lupio”);
  • 56-year-old Julio Villanueva (aka “Shorty Hawk”); and,
  • 63-year-old Teresa Alonzo (aka “Tia”).

Manuel Gonzales (aka “Speedy”), age 36, and Alexander Garza (aka “Animal”), age 35, were already in federal custody for a supervised release violation. Joseph Sanchez (aka “Cowboy”), age 41, and 20-year-old Santos Trevino (aka “Dedos,” “Beatles”) are currently in state custody on unrelated charges.

The first indictment, returned on October 5, 2011, and unsealed today, charges all of the defendants, with the exception of Teresa Alonso, with one count of conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. Upon conviction, the defendants face a minimum mandatory 10-year term of imprisonment, and a maximum of life in federal prison.

Officials allege that from December 1, 2009, to July 20, 2011, the defendants were responsible for the distribution of at least 48 kilograms of heroin, which the TMM sold for $750,000. Authorities believe Carreno holds the rank of “Free World General” of the TMM. Also, Carreno and Berlanga allegedly oversaw the transportation of the heroin from Laredo to San Antonio, for further distribution by TMM members.

The second indictment, also returned on October 5, 2011, charges Teresa Alonzo (aka “Tia”) with a conspiracy to distribute heroin, between December 1, 2009 and July 20, 2011. Upon conviction, she faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

In June 2011, Alonzo allegedly attempted to smuggle an ounce of heroin to TMM Vice President Benito Alonzo, while he was incarcerated in the Texas Department of Corrections. Also as part of the distribution conspiracy, Alonzo is accused of having accepted thousands of dollars as repayment to Benito Alonzo for monies loaned to purchase heroin. A federal search warrant executed at her residence in August 2011 resulted in the seizure of notebooks containing names and telephone numbers of TMM members, and correspondence from Benito Alonzo.

This investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Safe Streets Task Force together with the Texas Department of Public Safety – Criminal Investigations Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), San Antonio Police Department, Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, New Braunfels Police Department, and the 81st Judicial District Attorney’s Office. The U.S. Marshals Service also assisted in making the arrests.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

NYPD Officer Charged with Criminal Civil Rights Violation for False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution

Charges Include Attempted Violent Extortion and Attempted Insurance Fraud

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 17, 2011

Eastern District of New York (718) 254-7000

A criminal complaint was unsealed this morning in federal court in Brooklyn charging New York City Police Department Officer Michael Daragjati, an eight-year veteran of the NYPD, with violating the civil rights of an African-American victim by willfully arresting him and charging him with a crime without probable cause and on false pretenses, and for doing so based on racial animus. Daragjati is also charged with attempting and conspiring to commit violent extortion and committing wire fraud by making false statements to an auto insurance company.* Daragjati was arrested this morning and has an initial appearance scheduled later this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack at the U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York.

The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Janice K. Fedarcyk, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office; and Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police Department.

Willful Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law

According to the complaint, during the evening of April 15, 2011, Daragjati stopped and frisked an individual in the Stapleton neighborhood of Staten Island. The stop and frisk revealed that the victim was not carrying a firearm or contraband. After the victim complained about his treatment during the stop and frisk, Daragjati arrested him. The complaint alleges that although the victim did not resist arrest, Daragjati falsely wrote in a police report that the victim had flailed his arms and kicked his legs during the arrest, purportedly justifying a resisting arrest charge. The following day, Daragjati swore out a complaint containing similar false statements, which was filed in Richmond County Criminal Court. As a result, the victim was held in custody for approximately 36 hours.

The day he swore out the complaint, the government intercepted a telephone call between Daragjati and a friend. As detailed in the complaint, while referring to the victim’s arrest and prosecution, Daragjati told the friend that he had “fried another nigger.” The government subsequently intercepted several additional calls during which Daragjati allegedly used the word “nigger” to refer to African-Americans. In other intercepted calls Daragjati stated that he risked getting fired if he was caught “throw[ing] somebody a beating” and complained that it was too easy for police officers to get in trouble. He then admitted that he had been “skating it for a long time.”

Extortion

Daragjati operated a construction and snow removal business while off-duty. In March 2011, snowplow equipment which belonged to Daragjati was stolen from a truck parked near Daragjati’s residence. According to the complaint, a short time later Daragjati identified a person he believed was the thief and arranged to have him lured to a location in Staten Island. There, Daragjati and a group of other men allegedly attacked the suspected thief, punching him and threatening him with a handgun. Daragjati and the others told the suspected thief that he had to either return the snowplow equipment or pay $5,000 to the equipment’s owner.

Wire Fraud

The complaint alleges that Daragjati directed a snowplow driver to intentionally damage a truck Daragjati owned, and then falsely represent to the driver’s auto insurer that the damage resulted from an accident while plowing snow. Daragjati also provided a false account to individuals he believed were employed by the driver’s auto insurer in an effort to receive payment from the insurer.

“The power to arrest—to deprive a citizen of liberty—must be used fairly, responsibly, and without bias. Motivated by base racial animus, the defendant allegedly abused this power and responsibility. Our system of justice depends on the public’s confidence that those who enforce the law also obey the law,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “This office will vigorously prosecute those who would betray the trust placed in them to uphold the law honestly and without bias.” Ms. Lynch expressed her appreciation to the FBI and the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau, the agencies responsible for leading the government’s investigation, and thanked the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office for its assistance.

FBI Assistant Director in-Charge Fedarcyk stated, “As charged in the complaint, this defendant’s egregious conduct caused both direct and indirect harm. He allegedly abused his position as a police officer to arrest someone under false pretenses, and committed fraud and violence. There were direct victims of these crimes. But the charged conduct also threatened to undermine public trust and respect for law enforcement. We who enforce the law are not above the law; in fact, we should be held to a higher standard.”

NYPD Commissioner Kelly stated, “I want to commend U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch and her staff for bringing this case forward promptly and professionally, and NYPD Internal Affairs Chief Charles Campisi and his detectives who initiated this investigation and in doing so helped pave the way for prosecuting it.”

If convicted of the civil rights charge, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. If convicted of attempt to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion or wire fraud, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on each charge.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Paul Tuchmann, Amy Busa and Cristina Posa.

The Defendant:

MICHAEL DARAGJATI

Age: 32

* The charges in the complaint are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Video Occupy Wall Street-NYC, 14 October 2011, Day 28

Occupy Wall Street-London-Chicago-NYC Photos, 17 October 2011, Day 31

Frankfurt

[Image]Demonstrators chat while warming their hands on a makeshift fire in the park near the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, central Germany, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Thousands of people demonstrated against corporate greed in cities across Europe on Saturday, along with much smaller protests in cities across the U.S. Banners on tent read right: ‘WTF where is freedom?’ and at left : ‘A good life instead of profit’. (Thomas Lohnes)

Toronto

[Image]A protester stands outside the Toronto Stock Exchange in the city’s financial district on Monday Oct. 17, 2011 as the Occupy Bay Street protest continues into it’s third day. (Chris Young)

New York City

[Image]A participant who asked not to identified and a dog begin the day along with others at the Occupy Wall Street protests at Zuccotti Park in New York Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 as the protest enters it’s 30th day. (Craig Ruttle)

Occupy Wall Street – Diversity

[Image][Published October 17, 2011.] In this Oct. 14, 2011 photo, demonstrators affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protests stand in line to be served lunch at Zuccotti Park in New York. The outcry against the nation’s financial institutions that has swept the country in recent weeks has crossed many boundaries, including class, gender and age. But a stubborn hurdle in many cities has been a lack of racial inclusion, something noted by organizers and participants alike. (Mary Altaffer)
[Image][Published October 17, 2011.] In this Oct. 14, 2011 photo, Nicole Carty, 23, from Atlanta, confers with fellow organizing colleagues as she prepares to conduct a general assembly meeting for participants of Zuccotti Park’s Occupy Wall Street encampment, in New York. She is considered a core facilitator who organizes activities at the encampment. The outcry against the nation’s financial institutions that has swept the country in recent weeks has crossed many boundaries, including class, gender and age. But a stubborn hurdle But a stubborn hurdle in many cities has been a lack of racial inclusion, something noted by organizers and participants alike.
[Image][Published October 17, 2011.] In this Oct. 15, 2011 photo, a woman participates in an Occupy Atlanta protest at the state Capitol, in Atlanta. The outcry against the nation’s financial institutions that has swept the country in recent weeks has crossed many boundaries, including class, gender and age. But a stubborn hurdle in many cities has been a lack of racial inclusion, something noted by organizers and participants alike. (Erik S. Lesser)

Amsterdam

[Image]Two security guards stand at the entrance to the NYSE Euronext stock exchange in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Monday Oct. 17, 2011, plastered with slogans in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated against corporate greed in cities across Europe on Saturday, along with much smaller protests in cities across the U.S. (Peter Dejong)

London

[Image]A protest banner put up by protesters from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group hangs besides tents pitched outside St Paul’s Cathedral before sunrise, as they continue their demonstration that started there on Saturday near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]A protester from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group puts up a notice on an information point on the side of St Paul’s Cathedral as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]A masked protester from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group offers passing business people ‘Free Hugs’ as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]A protester from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group puts the finishing touches to a placard stating “London Hug Exchange”, as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]Police officers chat to protesters beside tents put up by supporters of the Occupy London Stock Exchange group as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]Protesters begin to rise from sleep before sunrise beside tents put up by supporters of the Occupy London Stock Exchange group, as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]Business people walk past tents put up by protesters from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham)
[Image]A businessman walks past tents put up by protesters from the Occupy London Stock Exchange group as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul’s Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe have taken part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Matt Dunham) [Note “Fire Access Point” and safety corridors, a sign of capable oversight.]

Chicago

[Image]In this photo taken Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011, protesters take part in a march and rally at Michigan and Congress in Chicago for the Global Day of Occupation. About 2,000 people participated Saturday in an Occupy Chicago demonstration, and about 500 pitched tents in Congress Plaza that evening. Chicago police say the protesters were told to remove their tents and leave the park when it closed at 11 p.m. When they didn’t, police began cutting down the tents and making arrests. (Chicago Sun Times)

New York City

[Image]Hip Hop Mogul Russell Simmons, right, listens to a protester at the camp for the Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York, Sunday, Oct. 16, 2011. (David Karp) [The cardboard, twine and rain-sheet shelter deftly by-passes Brookfield Properties’ forbidden tents and tarps.]
[Image]A group of activists hold a strategy meeting in a storage space for supplies supporting the camp of Occupy Wall Street protesters, Sunday, Oct. 16, 2011, in New York. The goods are housed in an unused space donated by the United Federation of Teachers. (David Karp) [From a base in Liberty Park there are thousands of spaces available for sharing openly and not so openly in New York City and worldwide cities as “Wall Street” is widely dispersed openly and secretly.]

Professor Murder’s “GoMoPa”Killer Bible for the Cyber-Stasi Murderers

The study of 900 pages named Toxdat by Ehrenfried Stelzer is the “Stasi Killer Bible”. It lists all kind of murder methods and concentrates on the most effective and untraceable.
“The toxdat study was ordered by Stasi Vice-President Gerhard Neiber, the second man in rank after boss Erich Mielke. The toxdat study was also the theoretical “story book” for the murder of the famous German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach by former Stasi member under the guidance of “GoMoPa”,” an informer stated. “Ehrenfried stelzer” was nicknamed “Professor Murder” by his victims. Even close co-worker now compare him with the German SS”doctor” Mengele, “Dr. Death” from Auschwitz.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution.

For more Information the victims have launched a new site: http://www.victims-opfer.com

The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.
Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.
The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.
This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.
Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.
Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment.

German authorities are under growing pressure to reopen investigations into at least a dozen suspicious deaths after the arrest of an alleged East German assassin cast new light on the communist regime. Stasi victims quoted a source saying “isolated units” had conducted operations that were “extremely well organised” and had “100 per cent logistical support” from the East German state.
A statement from prosecutors read: “The accused [Jurgen G] is suspected, as a member of a commando of the former DDR, of killing a number of people between 1976 and 1987 who from the point of view of the DDR regime had committed treason or were threatening to do so.”
Details of his Jurgen G’s arrest have been described in suitably florid terms, with the mass circulation tabloid Bild saying he was working at the Wolfsbruch marina near Rheinsberg in north-eastern Germany when a woman approached him. “Excuse me, is that your yellow Trabant in the car park? I just ran into it with my car,” she is said to have asked.
When he followed her to the car park, masked officers jumped out of vans and bushes and overpowered him in an operation worthy of the Stasi itself.
An eyewitness told Bild: “They blindfolded him and raced off in an unmarked car.”
Police across Germany are reported to be sifting through files to see who the victims may have been, and some intelligence officers are greeting the arrest of Jurgen G as a breakthrough.
Thomas Auerbach, who works for the Stasi file authority in Berlin and has written a book based on the death squad files, said: “These people were trained to make such murders look like accidents or suicides, even as ‘ordinary’ crimes such as robberies. They were real terror experts.”
The cases said to be linked to Jurgen G or his unit include many people involved with the commercial arm of the East German ruling socialist party, the SED (Socialist Unity Party).
Uwe Harms, the head of a Hamburg-based haulage firm which was part of a network of companies secretly owned by the SED, disappeared in March 1987 after conversations with various DDR functionaries. Six weeks later, his body was found in a plastic bag.
Weeks before his death he told friends that he felt he was being followed. After reunification, one of the other SED company heads said Mr Harms had been liquidated for refusing to allow his firm to be used to transport arms into East Germany.
Dieter Vogel, a businessman who had been jailed for life for spying for the CIA, was found suffocated in his cell in the East German prison Bautzen on March 9, 1982. The fact that he was due to be taken to the West in a spy swap arrangement just a few weeks later cast doubt on the suicide theory.
He had passed the names of several Stasi moles to the BND, West Germany’s heavily penetrated counter-intelligence service.
The Christian Democrat Union politician Uwe Barschel, 43, was found dead by magazine reporters in his bathtub in a hotel room in Geneva in October, 1987. He died of poisoning, but rumours that he was involved somehow in arms deals and the Stasi have clung to the case.
One of the more high-profile and enduring mysteries is that of Lutz Eigendorf, an East German footballer from the Stasi-backed Dynamo Berlin.
He fled to the West in 1979 amid great publicity. Four years later, he died after crashing his car into a tree on a straight stretch of road with blood alcohol levels way over the limit. Witnesses who had seen him earlier in the evening said he had not been drinking.
Most controversial though is the suggestion that the assassination squad was linked to the murder of a Swedish television reporter and her friend in 1984.
Cats Falk and her friend Lena Graens went missing on Nov 19, 1984. Their bodies were fished out of a Stockholm canal six months later.
Reports suggested a three-man assassination squad killed them, spiking their drinks with drugs, putting them into their car and pushing it into the Hammarby canal.
Shortly before her death, Cats Falk had reportedly uncovered a deal between an arms dealer and an East German firm.
Germany has recently undergone a wave of nostalgia for all things East German, dubbed Ostalgie, with colourful television shows featuring former DDR stars such as the ice skater Katerina Witt talking wistfully about socialist pop music.
A reassessment may be coming in the wake of the revelations.

Victims: The DDR-STASI MURDER GANG “GoMOPa” in murderoplot against Joerg Berger

The Stasi Murder Gang of „GoMoPa“ was involved in many trials to kill the popular East German soccer trainer Joerg Berger, Stasi victims tell in postings on their hompage http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com. Berger stated before his early death in his biography that they tried to pollute him with arsenic.
Arsenic and many of its compounds are especially potent poisons. Many water supplies close to mines are contaminated by these poisons. Arsenic disrupts ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits lipoic acid which is a cofactor for pyruvate dehydrogenase; and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis. A post mortem reveals brick red coloured mucosa, owing to severe haemorrhage. Although arsenic causes toxicity, it can also play a protective role.[
Elemental arsenic and arsenic compounds are classified as “toxic” and “dangerous for the environment” in the European Union under directive 67/548/EEC. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recognizes arsenic and arsenic compounds as group 1 carcinogens, and the EU lists arsenic trioxide, arsenic pentoxide and arsenate salts as category 1 carcinogens.
Arsenic is known to cause arsenicosis owing to its manifestation in drinking water, “the most common species being arsenate [HAsO42- ; As(V)] and arsenite [H3AsO3 ; As(III)]”. The ability of arsenic to undergo redox conversion between As(III) and As(V) makes its availability in the environment more abundant. According to Croal, Gralnick, Malasarn and Newman, “[the] understanding [of] what stimulates As(III) oxidation and/or limits As(V) reduction is relevant for bioremediation of contaminated sites (Croal). The study of chemolithoautotrophic As(III) oxidizers and the heterotrophic As(V) reducers can help the understanding of the oxidation and/or reduction of arsenic.
Treatment of chronic arsenic poisoning is easily accomplished. British anti-lewisite (dimercaprol) is prescribed in dosages of 5 mg/kg up to 300 mg each 4 hours for the first day. Then administer the same dosage each 6 hours for the second day. Then prescribe this dosage each 8 hours for eight additional days. However the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that the long term effects of arsenic exposure cannot be predicted. Blood, urine, hair and nails may be tested for arsenic, however these tests cannot foresee possible health outcomes due to the exposure. Excretion occurs in the urine and long term exposure to arsenic has been linked to bladder and kidney cancer in addition to cancer of the liver, prostate, skin, lungs and nasal cavity.[
Occupational exposure and arsenic poisoning may occur in persons working in industries involving the use of inorganic arsenic and its compounds, such as wood preservation, glass production, nonferrous metal alloys and electronic semiconductor manufacturing. Inorganic arsenic is also found in coke oven emissions associated with the smelter industry.

THE DDR GESTAPO-STASI MURDER GANG responsable for the murder of Lutz Eigendorf

The talented Eigendorf played for East German side Dynamo Berlin.
He made his debut for the GDR in an August 1978 match against Bulgaria, immediately scoring his first two goals in a 2–2 draw. He went on to collect six caps, scoring three goals.[1] His final international was a February 1979 friendly match against Iraq.
On 20 March 1979, after a friendship match between Dynamo and West German club 1. FC Kaiserslautern in Gießen he fled to the west hoping to play for that team. But because of his defection he was banned from play for one year by UEFA and instead spent that time as a youth coach with the club.
This was not the first time an East German athlete had fled to the west, but it was a particularly embarrassing defection. Eigendorf’s club Dynamo was under the patronage of the Stasi, East Germany’s secretive state police, and subject to the personal attentions of the organisation’s head, Erich Mielke. He ensured that the club’s roster was made up of the country’s best players, as well as arranging for the manipulation of matches in Dynamo’s favour. After his defection Eigendorf openly criticised the DDR in the western media.
His wife Gabriele remained behind in Berlin with their daughter and was placed under constant police surveillance. Lawyers working for the Stasi quickly arranged a divorce and the former Frau Eigendorf re-married. Her new husband was eventually revealed as a Lothario – an agent of the state police whose role it was to spy on a suspect while romancing them.
In 1983 Eigendorf moved from Kaiserslautern to join Eintracht Braunschweig, all the while under the scrutiny of the Stasi who employed a number of West Germans as informants. On 5 March that year he was badly injured in a suspicious traffic accident and died within two days. An autopsy indicated a high blood alcohol level despite the testimony of people he had met with that evening indicating that Eigendorf had only a small amount of beer to drink.
After German re-unification and the subsequent opening of the files of the former East Germany’s state security service it was revealed that the traffic accident had been an assassination attempt orchestrated by the Stasi, confirming the longtime suspicions held by many. A summary report of the events surrounding Eigendorf’s death was made on German television on 22 March 2000 which detailed an investigation by Heribert Schwan in the documentary “Tod dem Verräter” (“Death to the Traitor”).
On 10 February 2010, a former East German spy revealed the Stasi ordered him to kill Eigendorf, which he claimed not to have done

MfS has been accused of a number of assassinations against political dissidents and other people both inside and outside the country. Examples include the East German football player Lutz Eigendorf and the Swedish journalist Cats Falck.
The terrorists who killed Alfred Herrhausen were professionals. They dressed as construction workers to lay a wire under the pavement of the road along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work. They planted a sack of armor-piercing explosives on a parked bicycle by the roadside. An infrared beam shining across the road triggered the explosion just when the limousine, one of three cars in a convoy, sped by.
The operation, from the terrorists’ point of view, was flawless: Mr. Herrhausen, the chairman of one of Europe’s most powerful companies, Deutsche Bank, was killed in the explosion along that suburban Frankfurt road on Nov. 30, 1989.
But was everything what it seemed?
Within days, the Red Army Faction — a leftist terrorist group that had traumatized West Germany since 1970 with a series of high-profile crimes and brazen killings of bankers and industrialists — claimed responsibility for the assassination. An intense manhunt followed. In June 1990, police arrested 10 Red Army Faction members who had fled to East Germany to avoid arrest for other crimes. To the police’s surprise, they were willing to talk. Equally confounding to authorities: All had solid alibis. None was charged in the Herrhausen attack.
Now, almost two decades later, German police, prosecutors and other security officials have focused on a new suspect: the East German secret police, known as the Stasi. Long fodder for spy novelists like John le Carré, the shadowy Stasi controlled every aspect of East German life through imprisonment, intimidation and the use of informants — even placing a spy at one point in the office of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.
According to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the murders of Mr. Herrhausen and others attributed to the Red Army Faction bear striking resemblance to methods and tactics pioneered by a special unit of the Stasi. The unit reported to Stasi boss Erich Mielke and actively sought in the waning years of the communist regime to imitate the Red Army Faction to mask their own attacks against prominent people in Western Germany and destabilize the country.
“The investigation has intensified in recent months,” said Frank Wallenta, a spokesman for the Federal Prosecutor. “And we are investigating everything, including leads to the Stasi.”
If those leads turn out to be true, it would mean not only rewriting some of the most dramatic episodes of the Cold War, but would likely accelerate a broader soul-searching now under way in Germany about the communist past.
In building a reunified country, many Germans have ignored discussion of the brutal realities of its former communist half. When the former East Germany is discussed, it’s often with nostalgia or empathy for brothers hostage to Soviet influence.

Stasi boss Erich Mielke, middle, with unnamed associates
That taboo is slowly being broken. Last year’s Oscar-winning movie, “The Lives of Others,” chronicled in dark detail a Stasi agent’s efforts to subvert the lives of ordinary people. Material in the Stasi archives shows that senior leaders had a shoot-to-kill order against those fleeing from East to West — a controversial order that contradicts East German leaders’ claims that they never ordered any shootings.
This story is based on more than a dozen interviews with police, prosecutors and other security officials. Several policemen and prosecutors confirmed that the allegation of extensive Stasi involvement with the Red Army Faction is a key part of the current investigation.
Court cases in West Germany in the 1990s established that members of the Red Army Faction were granted free passage to other countries in the 1970s and refuge in East Germany in the 1980s. But the current investigation and documents from Stasi archives suggest far deeper involvement — that members of the Red Army Faction were not only harbored by the Stasi but methodically trained in sophisticated techniques of bombing and murder.
Traudl Herrhausen, Mr. Herrhausen’s widow, is one of those pushing for further investigation. She says she long suspected involvement by the Stasi or other intelligence service such as the KGB, but never spoke publicly because she didn’t have evidence and didn’t want to interfere in the investigation. She says she is now breaking an 18-year silence in her desire to see justice done. “Now I want to look my husband’s killers in the eye,” she said in an interview.
The Red Army Faction was founded about 1970 by a band of leftists who justified their terrorism based on opposition to West Germany’s ruling elite. Killing members of this elite would provoke the West German state to take repressive measures that would show its true fascist face, Red Army Faction leaders believed.
In its early years, the group, also known as the Baader-Meinhof band, made headlines with prison breaks, bank robberies, bomb attacks and deadly shootouts. Four gang members led by Ulrike Meinhof freed Red Army Faction leader Andreas Baader from a Berlin jail a month after his arrest.
Red Army Faction violence in West Germany intensified in 1977 when Jürgen Ponto, then head of Dresdner Bank, was shot and killed at his home. Five weeks later, the group killed four people and abducted the chairman of the German employer association, Hans-Martin Schleyer, one of West Germany’s most prominent businessmen. It was the start of a six-week ordeal in which neither government nor terrorists would compromise. To support the Red Army Faction cause, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa jet in Spain, forcing it to land in Mogadishu, Somalia. After the plane was rushed by West German commandos, top Red Army Faction leaders in West Germany committed suicide and Mr. Schleyer was executed by his captors.
Red Army Faction violence began to abate in the late 1970s after the Lufthansa incident. Many in Germany thought the group — whose attacks were often crude — lost its will to kill after the arrest of its senior leaders in 1982. So when the group appeared to renew its terror campaign with a series of high-profile attacks in 1985, police were stunned by the level of their sophistication and determination.
This time, the group dazzled police with its ability to hit targets and leave little substantial evidence behind. They used high-tech devices no one thought they possessed. Their marksmen killed with military precision.

Weapons used by terrorists during the 1977 kidnapping of German industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer.
Surprisingly, members of the Red Army Faction so-called third generation had a policeman’s understanding of forensic science. From 1985 onward, the Red Army Faction rarely left a fingerprint or other useful piece of evidence at a crime scene, according to court records. The murder cases from this era are still open. Some suspected Stasi involvement, but no one could ever prove it, according to a senior police official.
The 1989 car-bomb murder of Mr. Herrhausen particularly stunned police with its audacity and sophistication. Mr. Herrhausen was the head of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank. He was part of the political-business elite that helped turn West Germany from a war-ravaged rump state into an economic powerhouse — all while East Germany languished in frustration. Mr. Herrhausen was a vocal proponent of a united Germany.
In November 1989, Mr. Herrhausen was following the fall of the Berlin wall and events in the Soviet Union closely, conferring frequently with Mikhail Gorbachev, according to his wife and friends. Then on Nov. 27, Mr. Herrhausen announced a plan to acquire the investment banking firm Morgan Grenfell — at the time a record-breaking bank acquisition.
Also during November, a spot along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work was closed because of construction. Terrorists, dressed as construction workers, laid an electric wire under the road’s pavement. On Nov. 29, the stretch reopened.
On the morning of Nov. 30, like every workday morning, Mr. Herrhausen stepped into his limousine at about 8:30. Mr. Herrhausen’s driver waited about one minute to allow the first of the three-car entourage to drive ahead and survey the road.
“It was the route they hadn’t used in weeks,” Mrs. Herrhausen said.
As Mr. Herrhausen sped down the road, a team of terrorists waited. Beside the road, a parked bicycle held a sack of armor-piercing explosives. The detonator was connected by the electric wire under the road to a trigger activated by an interruption in an infrared beam shining across the road.
A terrorist activated the detonator after the first car of bodyguards drove past the bomb. Mr. Herrhausen died at the scene.
As they had during previous attacks, police set up dragnets to round up Red Army Faction cadre. But the June 1990 arrests of 10 members of the group who had earlier been granted political asylum in East Germany produced no leads. All the seized Red Army Faction members had solid alibis.
In July 1991, prosecutors believed they had a breakthrough when an informant claimed he had allowed two members of the Red Army Faction to stay at his home near the Herrhausen residence. Prosecutors followed that trail 13 years before dropping charges in 2004.
Frustrated with the inability of prosecutors to solve the Herrhausen case and believing that prosecutors were ignoring other leads including possible Stasi involvement, German officials replaced the prosecutor overseeing the case.
Police acknowledge that part of the reason for their focus on possible Stasi involvement was that all other leads had dried up. But they say they also knew that over the years the Stasi had worked with and given explosives to other terrorists, including “Carlos the Jackal” and the Basque group ETA in Spain. And in 2001 to 2003, an undercover police officer met with a man who claimed he had been a killer for the Stasi operating in Western Germany, although police were never able to tie him to specific murders.
German investigators turned their attention to Wartin, a small eastern German village nestled in yellow-brown fields of grain near the Polish border. Today, sheep graze in a field spotted with wooden posts.
In the 1980s, however, Wartin was home to the Stasi’s AGM/S — “Minister Working Group/Special Operations.” It got its name because it reported to Mr. Mielke, the minister who headed the Stasi for almost all of East Germany’s 40-year history.
The Wartin unit’s peacetime duties included the kidnapping and murder of influential people in the West, according to Stasi records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal in the Stasi archives in Berlin.
The documents say the unit’s activities included “intimidating anti-communist opinion leaders” by “liquidation,” and “kidnapping or hostage taking, connected with the demand that political messages be read,” according to a description of the unit’s activities written by a senior Wartin official in 1982.
Based on these documents, German investigators increasingly believe that the Stasi played a more active role than previously believed in Red Army Faction terrorism. After years of not being able to draw parallels between the Stasi unit in Wartin and the Red Army Faction killings, police are now focusing closely on such a link. Joachim Lampe, who assisted the successful prosecution of the first wave of Red Army Faction terrorists up until 1982 and was then assigned to prosecute Stasi-related crimes in West Germany, says it’s time to compare the activities of Wartin with the activities of the Red Army Faction to see where they overlap. “It is an important line of investigation,” he said.
A year after the Red Army Faction’s first generation collapsed in 1972, an internal Wartin report said cooperation with terrorists is possible if the individuals could be trusted to maintain secrecy and obey orders. Initial contacts, however, may not have taken place until later in the decade. Disillusionment gripped many of the terrorists living on the lam, according to court records citing witness statements by accused terrorists. Beginning about 1980, the Stasi granted refuge to 10 members of the Red Army Faction in East Germany and gave them assumed identities.
The Stasi sympathized with the anti-capitalist ideals of the Red Army Faction, but Stasi leaders were concerned about placing their trust in a group of uncontrollable leftist militants, a review of Stasi records shows. Stasi officials did not want to tarnish East Germany’s international reputation, so they toyed with different concepts for cooperation with terrorist groups, according to a prosecutor who has investigated Stasi involvement with terrorism.
One suggestion, contained in a document prepared for new officers assigned to the unit, was to emulate Romanian intelligence, which successfully worked with the terrorist “Carlos” to bomb the Radio Free Europe office in Munich, Germany, in 1981. To assist in such operations, the Wartin unit developed highly specialized explosives, poisons and miniature firearms.
About 1980 the Stasi also proposed a second strategy: instead of using a terrorist group directly — such cooperation always contained risk of discovery — they could simply execute attacks so similar to those of known terrorists that police would never look for a second set of suspects, according to Wartin records. The Wartin leadership called this strategy the “perpetrator principle,” according to Stasi records. The unit’s progress in implementing the steps to imitate terrorist attacks is described in a series of progress reports by Wartin officials between 1980 and 1987.
In September 1981, Red Army Faction terrorists attempted to kill U.S. Gen. James Kroesen in Heidelberg, Germany, shooting a bazooka at his car. About the same time, members of the same Red Army Faction team visited East Germany, where they were asked by the Stasi to shoot a bazooka at a car containing a dog. The dog died, according to court records.
In Wartin, officials wrote up a detailed description of the Red Army Faction members’ re-enactment of the Kroesen attack. “It is important to collect all accessible information about the terrorist scene in imperialist countries, to study and analyze their equipment, methods and tactics, so we can do it ourselves,” a senior Wartin official wrote in February 1982, according to the report.
In 1982, West German police discovered two troves of Red Army Faction weapons and documents buried in German forests. Three terrorists, including Red Army Faction leader Christian Klar, were arrested when they approached the sites. The troves were buried in locations easy to find at night, a tactic used by Wartin’s own agents to store operational equipment in West Germany, according to an investigator who viewed the troves and Stasi records.
That same year, a Wartin official described the staged bombing of a moving vehicle. According to the report, several Stasi officers shed “tears of joy” when electronic sensors detected the approaching car and ignited the detonator.
A spokesman at Germany’s federal police investigative agency, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, declined to comment on the close similarity between the detonator used in the demonstration and the device that killed Mr. Herrhausen, saying this is part of their investigation.
Wartin officers continued their preparations for imitating terrorist attacks in West Germany, according to a 1985 internal Wartin report. They created a special archive profiling the characteristics of known terrorists and terrorist groups, and taught staff members to execute nearly identical attacks, according to Stasi records. Each year, the unit’s officers detailed the unit’s success in teaching these techniques in their annual reports, according to the reports.
Then, in 1987, the AGM/S stopped offensive operations. The unit was disbanded.
Werner Grossmann, a former three-star Stasi General and former head of foreign intelligence operations, says the AGM/S was responsible for planning attacks in West Germany, but was dissolved “because it didn’t produce results.” Mr. Grossmann assumed control of part of the AGM/S after most of the unit was dissolved.
Mr. Grossmann says he took control of part of the AGM/S because he wanted to run intelligence operations against West Germany’s civil defense infrastructure.
“I refused to have anything to do with terrorism and terrorists,” Mr. Grossmann said in an interview. He said he didn’t have any influence over the AGM/S activities before 1987 and wasn’t informed about the unit’s activities before it came under his control.
Olaf Barnickel, a career Stasi officer who served at Wartin, says his unit planned murders in West Germany, but never committed one. “It was all theory and no practice,” Mr. Barnickel said in an interview.
But some German police are unpersuaded. They believe the seeds may have been planted for future violent attacks.
In November 1989, as East Germany disintegrated, groups of citizens forced their way into Stasi installations, seizing control. In Wartin, a local church minister led a group of demonstrators to the main entrance of the Stasi base. The base closed.
Within the Stasi as a whole, the chain of command began to disintegrate. Links to organizations in West Germany, including the Red Army Faction, were broken.
Sixteen months after Mr. Herrhausen’s murder, the Red Army Faction claimed its last victim, killing Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, the head of the Treuhandanstalt, the powerful trust that controlled most state-owned assets in the former East Germany and was overseeing their privatization. Mr. Rohwedder was killed while he was standing by the window of his house in Düsseldorf.
The murder was performed by a trained sharpshooter, according to a police official familiar with the investigation. The Stasi trained members of the Red Army Faction in sharpshooting skills and had its own teams of sharpshooters, according to witness statements by Stasi officials to a Berlin prosecutor and Stasi records.
In 1998, the Red Army Faction issued the last of its communiques, announcing it was disbanding. German police attribute the group’s disappearance to changing times, which made the group seem a relic of the past. Indeed, the Red Army Faction today is largely seen by the German public as part of the social upheaval that plagued West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. More than one in four Germans consider former Red Army Faction members to have been misguided idealists. More than half now think the investigations should be closed for good in the coming decade when the current group of Red Army Faction prisoners finish serving their prison sentences.
German prosecutors say their investigation of the Stasi’s role is continuing.
Since last month, Mrs. Herrhausen has been in contact with the next of kin of victims in the other unsolved Red Army Faction murder cases, looking for support to push the investigation. The bomb that killed her husband nearly 18 years ago exploded soon after he left for work, within earshot of their home in suburban Frankfurt.
“I still hear that bomb every day,” she says.

Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution.
The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.
Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.
The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.
This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.
Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.
Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment.

The name of Benno Ohnesorg became a rallying cry for the West German left after he was shot dead by police in 1967. Newly discovered documents indicate that the cop who shot him may have been a spy for the East German secret police.
It was one of the most important events leading up to the wave of radical left-wing violence which washed over West Germany in the 1970s. On the evening of June 2, 1967, the literature student Benno Ohnesorg took part in a demonstration at West Berlin’s opera house. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, was to attend and the gathered students wanted to call attention to his brutal regime.
The protests, though, got out of hand. Pro-shah demonstrators, some of them flown in from Iran for the occasion, battled with the student protestors. West Berlin police also did their part, brutally beating back the crowd. At 8:30 p.m., a shot was fired, and a short time later the 26-year-old Ohnesorg, having been hit in the back of the head, became the left wing’s first martyr.
Now, though, the history of the event may have to be re-written. New documents discovered in the Stasi archive — the vast collection of files left behind by the East German secret police — reveal that the policeman who shot Ohnesorg, Karl-Heinz Kurras, could in fact have been a spy for East Germany’s communist regime.
In an article that will appear in late May in Deutschlandarchiv, a periodical dedicated to the ongoing project of German reunification, Helmut Müller-Enbergs and Cornelia Jabs reveal that documents they found in the Stasi papers show that Kurras began working together with the Stasi in 1955. He had wanted to move to East Berlin to work for the East German police. Instead, he signed an agreement with the Stasi to remain with the West Berlin police force and spy for the communist state.
As a result of the new information, criminal charges have once again been filed against Kurras, who was acquitted twice, once in 1967 and again in 1970, of negligent homicide charges related to Ohnesorg’s death. Kurras told the Berlin paper Tagesspiegel on Friday that he had never worked together with the Stasi.
But in addition to finding the agreement between Kurras and the Stasi, the two researchers also discovered numerous documents indicating that the East Germans were pleased with the information Kurras passed along — particularly given that he was posted to a division responsible for rooting out moles within the West German police force.
Immediately after Ohnesorg’s death, Kurras received a Stasi communication ordering him to destroy his records and to “cease activities for the moment.” Kurras responded with his acquiescence and wrote “I need money for an attorney.”
The exact circumstances surrounding the death of Ohnesorg have never been completely clarified. Kurras himself, now 81, gave conflicting versions of the story during the investigation but the official version has long been that Kurras fired in self defense. Many others point to witness accounts whereby the police were beating Ohnesorg when the shot was fired.
It is still unclear how the new evidence might play into history’s understanding of the tragic event. The day was one full of violence, with demonstrators and police battling each other with pipes, wooden clubs and stones. Police were further incited by rumors that an officer had been stabbed earlier in the evening. Ohnesorg himself, however, was not directly involved in the violence.
West Berlin in the 1960s and 70s became a focal point of German left wing radicalism. The city had long been left-leaning, and the fact that Berliners were exempt from military service meant that it became a magnate for pacifists and anti-state activists.
Ohnesorg’s death gave them an immediate rallying cry. As the left-wing movement became more radical, many justified their violent activities by pointing to the police brutality that led to the student’s death. A letter written by Ulrike Meinhof announcing the founding of the Red Army Faction, which appeared in SPIEGEL in the fall of 1967, explicitly mentioned the Ohnesorg incident. The RAF went on to terrorize Germany for decades, ultimately killing over 30 people across the country. The radical “June 2 Movement” used the date of the incident in its name.
Kurras, for his part, seems to have been a highly valued Stasi agent. In his files, it is noted that “he is prepared to complete any task assigned to him.” It also mentions that he is notable for having the “courage and temerity necessary to accomplish difficult missions.”

Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention ofGoogle Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011

In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)

Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelznr, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror

The Stasi murder:
„GoMoPa“ & Backers: Blackmailing, Extortion, Racketeering, Internet Murder and Murder. These are the weapons of the East-German “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”, a renegate confesses.
Deep Throat, Berlin; confesses: „Since months the „GoMoPa“ keyfigures like Klaus-Dieter Maurischat< are in hide-aways because the German police is hunting them for the wirecard fraud and a lot of other criminal actions. I left the group when I noticed that. The found and former Stasi-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer died under strange circumstances in Berlin. This has been told to us. But it is also possible that his death was staged. In any case the criminal organization of “GoMoPa” is responsible for the murder of Heinz Gerlach by dioxin. Now my life is also in danger that is why I hide myself.”
According to Deep Throat, Hans J. the murder was done with the help of the old Stasi-connections of the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”.
The renegate says that computer hacker Thomas Promny and Sven Schmidt are responsible for the computer crimes and he states that the crime organization of “GoMoPa” has also helpers inside internet companies like Go-Daddy, Media-on and even in Google, Hamburg..

THE “NACHRICHTENDIENST”:New criminal police action against “GoMoPa”:

German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the
Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.

Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.

The case number is

ST/0148943/2011

Stasi-Dioxin: The “NACHRICHTENDIENST”  searching for the perfect murder:

Viktor Yushchenko was running against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych was a political ally of outgoing president Leonid Kuchma. Kuchma’s administration depended upon corruption and dishonesty for its power. Government officials ruled with a sense of terror rather than justice. For the powerful and wealthy few, having Yanukovych elected president was important. Should Yushchenko win, Ukraine’s government was sure to topple. Yushchenko’s campaign promises included a better quality of life for Ukrainians through democracy. His wife, Katherine, told CBS in a 2005 interview, “He was a great threat to the old system, where there was a great deal of corruption, where people were making millions, if not billions.”
On September 6, 2004, Yushchenko became ill after dining with leaders of the Ukrainian secret police. Unlike other social or political engagements, this dinner did not include anyone else on Yushchenko’s team. No precautions were taken regarding the food. Within hours after the dinner, Yushchenko began vomiting violently. His face became paralyzed; he could not speak or read. He developed a severe stomachache and backache as well as gastrointestinal pain. Outwardly, Yushchenko developed what is known as chloracne, a serious skin condition that leaves the face scarred and disfigured.
By December 2004, doctors had determined that Yushchenko had been the victim of dioxin poisoning. Dioxin is a name given to a group of related toxins that can cause cancer and even death. Dioxin was used in the biochemical weapon called Agent Orange during the Vietnam War controversial war in which the United States aidedSouth Vietnam in its fight against a takeover by Communist North Vietnam). Yushchenko had a dioxin level six thousand times greater than that normally found in the bloodstream. His is the second-highest level ever recorded.
Yushchenko immediately suspected he had been poisoned, though Kuchma’s camp passionately denied such allegations. Instead, when Yushchenko showed up at a parliamentary meeting shortly after the poisoning incident, Kuchma’s men teased him, saying he must have had too much to drink or was out too late the night before.
Dioxin can stay in the body for up to thirty-five years. Experts predict that his swelling and scars will fade but never completely disappear. John Henry, a toxicologist at London’s Imperial Hospital, told RedNova.com, “It’ll be a couple of years, and he will always be a bit pockmarked. After damage as heavy as that, I think he will not return to his film star looks.” And Yushchenko will live with the constant threat of cancer.
At first it was believed the poison must have come from a Russian laboratory. Russia was a strong supporter of Kuchma and lobbied against Yushchenko in the 2004 election. But by July 2005, Yushchenko’s security forces were able to trace the poison to a lab in Ukraine. Though not entirely ruling out Russia’s involvement, Yushchenko is quoted on his Web site as saying “I’m sure that even though some people are running from the investigation, we will get them. I am not afraid of anything or anybody.”

Evidence shows that such a perfect murder plotted by former Stasi agents is the cause of the death of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (IPA: [‘?tazi?]) (abbreviation German: Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was “Schild und Schwert der Partei” (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).

According to the confessions of an informer, Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch writes most of the “articles” of the communist “STASI” agency “GoMoPa” himself or it is done by lawyers of his firm. The whistleblower states that lawyer Resch is the mastermind behind the “CYBER-STASI” called “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”. Bizarre enough they use Jewish names of non-existing Jewish lawyers by the name of “Goldman, Morgenstern and Partner” to stage their bogus “firm”.  Further involved in their complots are a “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber and “STASI”-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer, “the first crime expert” in the former communist East-Germany.
According to London based Meridian Capital hundreds and thousands of wealthy people and companies have paid to the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” to avoid their cyberstalking (see article below).
Finally the German criminal police started their investigations (case number ST/0148943/2011).
The “NACHRICHTENDIENST” is also involved in the death of the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach who died under strange circumstances in July 2010.
Only hours after his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” was spreading the news that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution and set the stage for a fairy tale. Months before his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” started a campaign to ruin his reputation and presumably was also responsable for cyberattacks to bring his website down. In fact they presumably used the same tactics also against our servers. Therefore we investigated all internet details of them and handed the facts to the FBI and international authorities.

Story background:
Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and  cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.
On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders  say they  have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica
The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of  “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions,  individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011
In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.

Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment section.

-“Worse than the Gestapo.” —Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter said about the notorious “Stasi”.

Less than a month after German demonstrators began to tear down the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, irate East German citizens stormed the Leipzig district office of the Ministry for State Security (MfS)—the Stasi, as it was more commonly called. Not a shot was fired, and there was no evidence of “street justice” as Stasi officers surrendered meekly and were peacefully led away. The following month, on January 15, hundreds of citizens sacked Stasi headquarters in Berlin. Again there was no bloodshed. The last bit of unfinished business was accomplished on May 31 when the Stasi radioed its agents in West Germany to fold their tents and come home.
The intelligence department of the Nationale Volksarmee (NVA), the People’s Army, had done the same almost a week earlier, but with what its members thought was better style. Instead of sending the five-digit code groups that it had used for decades to message its spies in West Germany, the army group broadcast a male choir singing a children’s ditty about a duck swimming on a lake. There was no doubt that the singing spymasters had been drowning their sorrow over losing the Cold War in schnapps. The giggling, word-slurring songsters repeated the refrain three times: “Dunk your little head in the water and lift your little tail.” This was the signal to agents under deep cover that it was time to come home.
With extraordinary speed and political resolve, the divided nation was reunified a year later. The collapse of the despotic regime was total. It was a euphoric time for Germans, but reunification also produced a new national dilemma. Nazi war crimes were still being tried in West Germany, forty-six years after World War II. Suddenly the German government was faced with demands that the communist officials who had ordered, executed, and abetted crimes against their own people—crimes that were as brutal as those perpetrated by their Nazi predecessors—also be prosecuted.
The people of the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), the German Democratic Republic, as the state had called itself for forty years, were clamoring for instant revenge. Their wrath was directed primarily against the country’s communist rulers—the upper echelon of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei (SED), the Socialist Unity Party. The tens of thousands of second-echelon party functionaries who had enriched themselves at the expense of their cocitizens were also prime targets for retribution.
Particularly singled out were the former members of the Stasi, the East German secret police, who previously had considered themselves the “shield and sword” of the party. When the regime collapsed, the Stasi had 102,000 full-time officers and noncommissioned personnel on its rolls, including 11,000 members of the ministry’s own special guards regiment. Between 1950 and 1989, a total of 274,000 persons served in the Stasi.
The people’s ire was running equally strong against the regular Stasi informers, the inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs). By 1995, 174,000 had been identified as IMs, or 2.5 percent of the total population between the ages of 18 and 60. Researchers were aghast when they found that about 10,000 IMs, or roughly 6 percent of the total, had not yet reached the age of 18. Since many records were destroyed, the exact number of IMs probably will never be determined; but 500,000 was cited as a realistic figure. Former Colonel Rainer Wiegand, who served in the Stasi counterintelligence directorate, estimated that the figure could go as high as 2 million, if occasional stool pigeons were included.
“The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people,” according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. “The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million.” One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.
To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union’s KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal’s figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi’s case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests.

THE STASI OCTOPUS

Like a giant octopus, the Stasi’s tentacles probed every aspect of life. Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants. Without exception, one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo), the People’s Police. In turn, the police officer was the Stasi’s man. If a relative or friend came to stay overnight, it was reported. Schools, universities, and hospitals were infiltrated from top to bottom. German academe was shocked to learn that Heinrich Fink, professor of theology and vice chancellor at East Berlin’s Humboldt University, had been a Stasi informer since 1968. After Fink’s Stasi connections came to light, he was summarily fired. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, writers, actors, and sports figures were co-opted by Stasi officers, as were waiters and hotel personnel. Tapping about 100,000 telephone lines in West Germany and West Berlin around the clock was the job of 2,000 officers.
Stasi officers knew no limits and had no shame when it came to “protecting the party and the state.” Churchmen, including high officials of both Protestant and Catholic denominations, were recruited en masse as secret informers. Their offices and confessionals were infested with eavesdropping devices. Even the director of Leipzig’s famous Thomas Church choir, Hans-Joachim Rotch, was forced to resign when he was unmasked as a Spitzel, the people’s pejorative for a Stasi informant.
Absolutely nothing was sacred to the secret police. Tiny holes were bored in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed their “suspects” with special video cameras. Even bathrooms were penetrated by the communist voyeurs.8 Like the Nazi Gestapo, the Stasi was the sinister side of deutsche Gründlichkeit (German thoroughness).
After the Berlin wall came down, the victims of the DDR regime demanded immediate retribution. Ironically, their demands were countered by their fellow Germans in the West who, living in freedom, had diligently built einen demokratischen Rechtsstaat, a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The challenge of protecting the rights of both the victims and the accused was immense, given the emotions surrounding the issue. Government leaders and democratic politicians recognized that there could be no “quick fix” of communist injustices without jeopardizing the entire system of democratic jurisprudence. Moving too rapidly merely to satisfy the popular thirst for revenge might well have resulted in acquittals or mistrials. Intricate jurisdictional questions needed to be resolved with both alacrity and meticulousness. No German government could afford to allow a perpetrator to go free because of a judicial error. The political fallout from any such occurrence, especially in the East, could prove fatal to whatever political party occupied the chancellor’s office in Bonn at the time.
Politicians and legal scholars of the “old federal states,” or West Germany, counseled patience, pointing out that even the prosecution of Nazi criminals had not yet been completed. Before unification, Germans would speak of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“coming to grips with the past”) when they discussed dealing with Nazi crimes. In the reunited Germany, this word came to imply the communist past as well. The two were considered comparable especially in the area of human rights violations. Dealing with major Nazi crimes, however, was far less complicated for the Germans: Adolf Hitler and his Gestapo and Schutzstaffel (SS) chief, Heinrich Himmler, killed themselves, as did Luftwaffe chief and Vice Chancellor Hermann Göring, who also had been the first chief of the Gestapo. The victorious Allies prosecuted the rest of the top leadership at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nürnberg. Twelve were hanged, three received life terms, four were sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment (up to twenty years), and three were acquitted.
The cases of communist judges and prosecutors accused of Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice) are more problematic. According to Franco Werkenthin, a Berlin legal expert charged with analyzing communist crimes for the German parliament, those sitting in judgment of many of the accused face a difficult task because of the general failure of German justice after World War II. Not a single judge or prosecutor who served the Nazi regime was brought to account for having perverted justice—even those who had handed down death sentences for infringements that in a democracy would have been considered relatively minor offenses. Werkenthin called this phenomenon die Jauche der Justiz, the cesspool of justice.
Of course, the crimes committed by the communists were not nearly as heinous as the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, or the mass murders in Nazi-occupied territories. However, the communists’ brutal oppression of the nation by means including murder alongside legal execution put the SED leadership on a par with Hitler’s gang. In that sense, Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker (Ulbricht’s successor as the party’s secretary-general and head of state) and secret police chief Erich Mielke can justifiably be compared to Hitler and Himmler, respectively.
Arrest warrants were issued for Honecker and Mielke. The Soviet government engineered Honecker’s escape to Moscow, where he became the ward of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev. When the Soviet Union crumbled, the new Russian President Boris Yeltsin expelled Honecker. He was arrested on his return to Germany, but a court decided against a trial when he was diagnosed with liver cancer. Honecker flew to Chile with his wife Margot to live with their daughter, a Chilean citizen by marriage. His exile was short, and he died in 1994. Mielke was not so fortunate: His KGB friends turned their backs on him. He was tried in Germany for the 1931 murder of two police officers, found guilty, and sentenced to six years in prison. Other charges, including manslaughter, were dismissed because of his advanced age and poor health.
Three other members of the twenty-one-member ruling Politburo also have been tried. Former Defense Minister Heinz Kessler was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the order to kill people who were trying to escape to the West. He received a seven-and-a-half-year term. Two others, members of the Central Committee and the National Defense Council, were tried with Kessler and sentenced to seven and a half years and five years, respectively. Politburo member Harry Tisch, who was also head of the communist trade union, was found guilty of embezzlement and served eighteen months. Six others, including Egon Krenz (Honecker’s successor as party chief), were charged with manslaughter. Krenz was found guilty, and on August 25, 1997, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.
However, eight years after reunification, many of the 165 members of the Central Committee have not yet been put under investigation. In 1945, Nazis holding comparable or lesser positions were subject to automatic arrest by the Allies. They spent months or even years in camps while their cases were adjudicated. Moreover, the Nürnberg Tribunal branded the Reich and its Corps of Political Leaders, SS, Security Service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo), SA (Storm Troopers), and Armed Forces High Command criminal organizations. Similarly sweeping actions against communist leaders and functionaries such as Stasi officers were never contemplated, even though tens of thousands of political trials and human rights abuses have been documented. After the East German regime fell, German judicial authorities scrupulously avoided the appearance of waging witch-hunts or using the law as a weapon of vengeance. Prosecutors and judges made great efforts to be fair, often suspending legal action while requesting rulings from the supreme court on possible constitutional conflicts.
The victims of oppression clamored for revenge and demanded speedy prosecution of the erstwhile tyrants. They had little patience for a judicial system that was handicapped by a lack of unblemished and experienced criminal investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Despite these handicaps, the Berlin Central Police Investigations Group for Government Criminality, mindful that the statute of limitations for most communist crimes would expire at the end of 1999, made significant progress under its director Manfred Kittlaus, the able former director of the West Berlin state police. Kittlaus’s major task in 1998 was to investigate wrongful deaths, including 73 murders, 30 attempted murders, 583 cases of manslaughter, 2,938 instances of attempted manslaughter, and 425 other suspicious deaths. Of the 73 murders, 22 were classified as contract murders.
One of those tried and convicted for attempted contract murder was former Stasi collaborator Peter Haak, who was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. The fifty-two-year-old Haak took part in the Stasi’s 1981 Operation Scorpion, which was designed to pursue people who helped East Germans escape to the West. Proceedings against former General Gerhard Neiber, whose Stasi directorate was responsible for preventing escapes and for wreaking vengeance, were still pending in 1998.
Peter Haak’s murder plot was hatched after he befriended Wolfgang Welsch and his family. Welsch was a thorn in the side of the Stasi because of his success in smuggling people out of the DDR. Haak joined Welsch and the latter’s wife and seven-year-old daughter on a vacation in Israel, where he mixed a gram of thallium, a highly poisonous metallic chemical element used in rat poison, into the hamburgers he was preparing for a meal. Welsch’s wife and daughter vomited immediately after ingesting the poison and recovered quickly. Welsch suffered severe aftereffects, but eventually recovered: He had consumed a large amount of beer with the meal, and an expert testified that the alcohol had probably flushed the poison from his system.
Berlin Prosecutor General Christoph Schäfgen revealed that after the DDR’s demise 15,200 investigations had been launched, of which more than 9,000 were still active at the beginning of 1995. Indictments were handed down in 153 cases, and 73 perpetrators were convicted. Among those convicted were the aforementioned Politburo members as well as a number of border guards who had killed people who were trying to escape to the West.
Despite widespread misgivings about the judicial failures in connection with some Nazi crimes, a number of judges and prosecutors were convicted and jailed for up to three years for perversion of justice. In collusion with the Stasi, they had requested or handed down more severe sentences in political cases so that the state could collect greater amounts when the “convicts” were ransomed by the West German government. {The amount of ransom paid was governed by the time a prisoner had been sentenced to serve.)
The enormity of the task facing judicial authorities in reunified Germany becomes starkly evident when one examines the actions they have taken in all five former East German provinces and in East Berlin. From the end of 1990 to July 1996, 52,050 probes were launched into charges of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, election fraud, and perversion of justice. A total of 29,557 investigations were halted for various reasons including death, severe illness, old age, or insufficient evidence. In those five and a half years, there were only 139 convictions.
The problem is even more staggering when cases of espionage are included. Between 1990 and 1996, the office of the federal prosecutor general launched 6,641 probes, of which 2,431 were terminated before trial—most due to the statute of limitations. Of 175 indictments on charges of espionage, 95 resulted in convictions. In addition to the cases handled at the federal level, the prosecutor general referred 3,926 investigations to state authorities, who terminated 3,344 without trial. State courts conducted 356 trials, resulting in 248 convictions. Because the statute of limitations for espionage is five years, the prosecutor general’s office told me in 1997 it was unlikely that more espionage trials would be conducted.
It is important to emphasize the difference between the statute’s application to so-called government crimes committed in East Germany before the collapse and to crimes, such as espionage, committed in West Germany. The Unification Treaty specifically permits the belated prosecution of individuals who committed acts that were punishable under the East German criminal code and who due to official connivance were not prosecuted earlier. There is no statute of limitations for murder. For most other crimes the limit is five years; however, due to the obstacles created by previous government connivance, the German parliament in 1993 doubled this time limit for prosecution of the more serious crimes. At the same time, the parliament decreed that all cases must be adjudicated by the end of 2002. For less serious offenses, the statute would have run out on December 31, 1997, but the parliament extended it to 2000.
A number of politicians, jurists, and liberal journalists pleaded for a general amnesty for crimes committed by former DDR leaders and Communist Party functionaries. A former West German supreme court judge, Ernst Mahrenholz, said the “sharp sword of justice prevents reconciliation.” Schäfgen, the Berlin prosecutor general, had this answer for the former high court judge and other amnesty advocates:

I cannot agree. We are raising no special, sharp sword against East Germans. We must pursue state-sponsored injustice in exactly the same manner as we do when a thief steals or when one human being kills another. If one wants to change that, then we would have to do away with the entire criminal justice system, because punishment always hurts. We are not criminalizing an entire people but only an ever shrinking, small portion.

German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, who was West Germany’s minister of justice when the nation was unified, said this at a session of parliament in September 1991: “We must punish the perpetrators. This is not a matter of a victor’s justice. We owe it to the ideal of justice and to the victims. All of those who ordered injustices and those who executed the orders must be punished; the top men of the SED as well as the ones who shot [people] at the wall.” Aware that the feelings against communists were running high among their victims, Kinkel pointed to past revolutions after which the representatives of the old system were collectively liquidated. In the same speech before parliament, he said:

Such methods are alien to a state ruled by law. Violence and vengeance are incompatible with the law in any case. At the same time, we cannot tolerate that the problems are swept under the rug as a way of dealing with a horrible past, because the results will later be disastrous for society. We Germans know from our own experience where this leads. Jewish philosophy formulates it in this way: “The secret of redemption is called remembering.”

Defense attorneys for communist officials have maintained that the difficulty lies in the fact that hundreds of thousands of political opponents were tried under laws of the DDR. Although these laws were designed to smother political dissent and grossly violated basic human rights and democratic norms, they were nonetheless laws promulgated by a sovereign state. How could one justly try individual Stasi officers, prosecutors, and judges who had simply been fulfilling their legal responsibility to pursue and punish violators of the law?
Opinions varied widely on whether and how the Stasi and other perpetrators of state-sponsored crimes should be tried. Did the laws of the DDR, as they existed before reunification, still apply in the east? Or was the criminal code of the western part of the country the proper instrument of justice in reunified Germany? However, these questions were moot: As Rupert Scholz, professor of law at the University of Munich and a Christian Democratic member of parliament, pointed out, the Unification Treaty specifies that the penal code of the DDR and not that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) shall be applied to offenses committed in East Germany. Scholz’s view was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the supreme court. Most offenses committed by party functionaries and Stasi officers—murder, kidnapping, torture, illegal wiretapping, mail robbery, and fraud—were subject to prosecution in reunified Germany under the DDR’s penal code. But this would not satisfy the tens of thousands of citizens who had been sent to prison under East German laws covering purely political offenses for which there was no West German equivalent.
Nevertheless, said Scholz, judicial authorities were by no means hamstrung, because West Germany had never recognized the East German state according to international law. “We have always said that we are one nation; that the division of Germany led neither to full recognition under international law nor, concomitantly, to a recognition of the legal system of the DDR,” Scholz said. Accordingly, West German courts have consistently maintained that West German law protects all Germans equally, including those living in the East. Therefore, no matter where the crimes were committed, whether in the East or the West, all Germans have always been subject to West German laws. Applying this logic, East German border guards who had either killed or wounded persons trying to escape to the West could be tried under the jurisdiction of West Germany.
The “one nation” principle was not upheld by the German supreme court. Prior to the court’s decision, however, Colonel General Markus Wolf, chief of the Stasi’s foreign espionage directorate, and some of his officers who personally controlled agents from East Berlin had been tried for treason and convicted. Wolf had been sentenced to six years in prison. The supreme court ruling overturned that verdict and those imposed on Wolf’s cohorts, even though they had obtained the most closely held West German secrets and handed them over to the KGB. The maximum penalty for Landesverrat, or treason, is life imprisonment. In vacating Wolf’s sentence, the court said he could not be convicted because he operated only from East German territory and under East German law.
However, Wolf was reindicted on charges of kidnapping and causing bodily harm, crimes also punishable under East German law. The former Stasi three-star general, on March 24, 1955, had approved in writing a plan to kidnap a woman who worked for the U.S. mission in West Berlin. The woman and her mother were tricked by a Stasi agent whom the woman had been teaching English, and voluntarily got into his car. He drove them into the Soviet sector of the divided city, where they were seized by Stasi officers. The woman was subjected to psychological torture and threatened with imprisonment unless she signed an agreement to spy for the Stasi. She agreed. On her return to the American sector, however, the woman reported the incident to security officials. Wolf had committed a felony punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment in West Germany. He was found guilty in March 1977 and sentenced to two years’ probation.
Those who have challenged the application of the statute of limitations to communist crimes, especially to the executions of citizens fleeing to the West, have drawn parallels to the notorious executive orders of Adolf Hitler. Hitler issued orders mandating the summary execution of Soviet Army political commissars upon their capture and initiating the extermination of Jews. An early postwar judicial decision held that these orders were equivalent to law. When that law was declared illegal and retroactively repealed by the West German Bundestag, the statute of limitations was suspended—that is, it never took effect. Many of those convicted in subsequent trials of carrying out the Führer’s orders were executed by the Allies. The German supreme court has ruled the same way as the Bundestag on the order to shoot people trying to escape to West Germany, making the statute of limitations inapplicable to such cases. The ruling made possible the trial of members of the National Defense Council who took part in formulating or promulgating the order. A number of border guards who had shot would-be escapees also have been tried and convicted.
Chief Prosecutor Heiner Sauer, former head of the West German Central Registration Office for Political Crimes, was particularly concerned with the border shootings. His office, located in Salzgitter, West Germany, was established in 1961 as a direct consequence of the Berlin Wall, which was erected on August 13 of that year. Willy Brandt, at the time the city’s mayor (later federal chancellor) had decided that crimes committed by East German border guards should be recorded. At his behest, a central registry of all shootings and other serious border incidents was instituted. Between August 13, 1961 and the opening of the borders on November 9, 1989, 186 border killings were registered. But when the Stasi archives were opened, investigators found that at least 825 people had paid with their lives for trying to escape to the West. This figure was reported to the court that was trying former members of the National Defense Council. In addition to these border incidents, the registry also had recorded a number of similar political offenses committed in the interior of the DDR: By fall 1991, Sauer’s office had registered 4,444 cases of actual or attempted killings and about 40,000 sentences handed down by DDR courts for “political offenses.”
During the early years of Sauer’s operation, the details of political prosecutions became known only when victims were ransomed by West Germany or were expelled. Between 1963 and 1989, West Germany paid DM5 billion (nearly US$3 billion) to the communist regime for the release of 34,000 political prisoners. The price per head varied according to the importance of the person or the length of the sentence. In some cases the ransom amounted to more than US$56,000. The highest sum ever paid to the East Germans appears to have been DM450,000 (US$264,705 using an exchange rate of US$1.70 to the mark). The ransom “object” in this case was Count Benedikt von Hoensbroech. A student in his early twenties, von Hoensbroech was attending a West Berlin university when the wall went up. He was caught by the Stasi while trying to help people escape and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor. The case attracted international attention because his family was related to Queen Fabiola of Belgium, who interceded with the East Germans. Smelling money, the East German government first demanded the equivalent of more than US$1 million from the young man’s father as ransom. In the end, the parties settled on the figure of DM450,000, of which the West German government paid DM40,000 (about $23,529). Such ransom operations were fully controlled by the Stasi.
Political prisoners released in the DDR could not be registered by the West Germans because their cases remained secret. The victims were admonished to keep quiet or face another prison term. Nonetheless, in the first year after reunification, Sauer’s office added another 20,000 documented cases, for a total of 60,000. Sauer said he believed the final figure of all political prosecutions would be somewhere around 300,000. In every case, the Stasi was involved either in the initial arrest or in pretrial interrogations during which “confessions” were usually extracted by physical or psychological torture, particularly between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s.
Until 1987, the DDR imposed the death penalty for a number of capital crimes, including murder, espionage, and economic offenses. But after the mid-1950s, nearly all death sentences were kept quiet and executions were carried out in the strictest secrecy, initially by guillotine and in later years by a single pistol shot to the neck. In most instances, the relatives of those killed were not informed either of the sentence or of the execution. The corpses were cremated and the ashes buried secretly, sometimes at construction sites. In reporting about one executioner who shot more than twenty persons to death, the Berlin newspaper Bildzeitung said that a total of 170 civilians had been executed in East Germany. However, Franco Werkenthin, the Berlin official investigating DDR crimes, said he had documented at least three hundred executions. He declined to say how many were for political offenses, because he had not yet submitted his report to parliament. “But it was substantial,” he told me. The true number of executions may never be known because no complete record of death sentences meted out by civil courts could be found. Other death sentences were handed down by military courts, and many records of those are also missing. In addition, German historian Günther Buch believes that about two hundred members of the Stasi itself were executed for various crimes, including attempts to escape to the West.

SAFEGUARDING HUMAN DIGNITY?

The preamble to the East German criminal code stated that the purpose of the code was to “safeguard the dignity of humankind, its freedom and rights under the aegis of the criminal code of the socialist state,” and that “a person can be prosecuted under the criminal code only in strictest concurrence with the law.” However, many of the codified offenses for which East German citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned were unique to totalitarian regimes, both fascist and communist.
Moreover, certain sections of the code, such as those on “Treasonable Relaying of Information” and “Treasonable Agent Activity,” were perversely applied, landing countless East Germans in maximum security penitentiaries. The victims of this perversion of justice usually were persons who had requested legal exit permits from the DDR authorities and had been turned down. In many cases, their “crime” was having contacted a Western consulate to inquire about immigration procedures. Sentences of up to two and a half years’ hard labor were not unusual as punishment for such inquiries.
Engaging in “propaganda hostile to the state” was another punishable offense. In one such case, a young man was arrested and prosecuted for saying that it was not necessary to station tanks at the border and for referring to border fortifications as “nonsense.” During his trial, he “admitted” to owning a television set on which he watched West German programs and later told friends what he saw. One of those “friends” had denounced him to the Stasi. The judge considered the accused’s actions especially egregious and sentenced him to a year and a half at hard labor.
Ironically, another part of this section of the criminal code decreed that “glorifying militarism” also was a punishable offense, although the DDR itself “glorified” its People’s Army beyond any Western norm. That army was clad in uniforms and insignia identical to those of the Nazi Wehrmacht, albeit without eagles and swastikas. The helmets, too, were differently shaped, but the Prussian goose step was regulation during parades.
A nineteen-year-old who had placed a sign in an apartment window reading “When justice is turned into injustice, resistance becomes an obligation!” was rewarded with twenty-two months in the penitentiary. Earlier, the youth had applied for an exit visa and had been turned down. A thirty-four-year-old father of two who also had been denied permission to leave the “workers’ and peasants’ state” with his family similarly advertised that fact with a poster reading “We want to leave, but they won’t let us.” The man went to prison for sixteen months. The “crimes” of both men were covered by a law on “Interference in Activities of the State or Society.”
Two letters—one to a friend in West Germany, seeking assistance to legally emigrate to the West, and another containing a similar appeal to Chief of State Honecker—brought a four-year sentence to their writer, who was convicted under two laws: those on “establishing illegal contacts” (writing to his friend) and on “public denigration” (writing to Honecker). The Stasi had illegally intercepted both letters.
The East German party chiefs were not content to rely only on the Stasi’s millions of informers to ferret out antistate sentiments. Leaving nothing to chance, they created a law that made the failure to denounce fellow citizens a crime punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. One man was sentenced to twenty-three months for failing to report that a friend of his was preparing to escape to the West. The mandatory denunciation law had its roots in the statutes of the Socialist Unity Party, which were published in the form of a little red booklet. I picked up a copy of this booklet that had been discarded by its previous owner, a Stasi chauffeur, who had written “Ha, Ha” next to the mandate to “report any misdeeds, regardless of the person responsible, to leading party organs, all the way up to the Central Committee.”
Rupert Scholz, member of parliament and professor of law at the University of Munich, said many East Germans feel there is little determination among their Western brethren to bring the Stasi criminals to trial. “In fact, we already have heard many of them say that the peaceful revolution should have been a bloody one instead so they could have done away with their tormentors by hanging them posthaste,” Scholz told me.
The Reverend Joachim Gauck, minister to a Lutheran parish in East Germany, shared the people’s pessimism that justice would be done. Following reunification, Gauck was appointed by the Bonn government as its special representative for safeguarding and maintaining the Stasi archives. “We must at least establish a legal basis for finding the culprits in our files,” Gauck told me. “But it will not be easy. If you stood the millions of files upright in one line, they would stretch for 202 kilometers [about 121 miles]. In those files you can find an unbelievable number of Stasi victims and their tormentors.”
Gauck was given the mandate he needed in November 1991, when the German parliament passed a law authorizing file searches to uncover Stasi perpetrators and their informants. He viewed this legislation as first step in the right direction. With the evidence from Stasi files, the perpetrators could be removed from their public service jobs without any formal legal proceedings. Said Gauck: “We needed this law badly. It is not reasonable that persons who served this apparatus of oppression remain in positions of trust. We need to win our people over to accepting that they are now free and governed by the rule of law. To achieve that, we must build up their confidence and trust in the public service.”
Searching the roughly six million files will take years. A significant number of the dossiers are located in repositories of the Stasi regional offices, sprinkled throughout eastern Germany. To put the files at the Berlin central repository in archival order would take one person 128 years. The job might have been made easier had the last DDR government not ordered the burning of thousands of Stasi computer tapes, ostensibly to forestall a witch-hunt. Thousands of files dealing with espionage were shredded and packed into 17,200 paper sacks. These were discovered when the Stasi headquarters was stormed on January 15, 1990. The contents of all of these bags now have been inspected. It took two workers between six and eight weeks to go through one bag. Then began the work of the puzzlers, putting the shredded pieces together. By the middle of 1997, fewer than 500 bags of shredded papers had been reconstructed—into about 200,000 pages. Further complicating matters was the lack of trained archivists and experts capable of organizing these files—to say nothing of the 37.5 million index cards bearing the names of informers as well as persons under Stasi surveillance—and interpreting their contents. Initially, funding for a staff of about 550 individuals was planned, at a total of about DM24.5 million annually (about US$15 million using an exchange rate of US$1.60). By 1997, the budget had grown to US$137 million and the staff to 3,100.
Stasi victims and citizens who had been under surveillance were allowed to examine their Stasi files. Within four years of reunification, about 860,000 persons had asked to inspect their case files, with 17,626 of those requests being received in December 1994 alone. By 1997, 3.4 million people had asked to see their files. Countless civil suits were launched when victims found the names of those who had denounced and betrayed them, and many family relationships and friendships were destroyed.
The rehabilitation of Stasi victims and financial restitution to them was well under way; but Gauck believed that criminal prosecution of the perpetrators would continue to be extremely difficult. “We can already see that leading SED functionaries who bear responsibility for the inhumane policies, for which they should be tried, are instead accused of lesser offenses such as corruption. It is actually an insult to democracy that a man like Harry Tisch is tried for embezzlement and not for being a member of the Politburo, where the criminal policies originated.”
The “Stasi files law,” as it is popularly known, also made it possible to vet parliamentarians for Stasi connections. Hundreds were fired or resigned—and a few committed suicide—when it was discovered that they had been Stasi informants. Among those who resigned was Lothar de Maiziere, the last premier of the DDR, who signed the unification agreement with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. He was a member of the East German version of the Christian Democratic Union, which like all noncommunist parties in the Eastern bloc had been totally co-opted by the regime. After reunification, he moved into parliament and was awarded the vice chairmanship of Kohl’s Christian Democratic Union. A lawyer, De Maiziere had functioned for years as an IM, an informer, under the cover name Cerny. De Maiziere at first denied he was Cerny, but the evidence was overwhelming. It was De Maiziere’s government that had ordered the destruction of the Stasi computer tapes.

THE COMMUNISTS’ POLITICAL SURVIVAL

De Maiziere, who had been a driving force behind prompt reunification, soon passed into oblivion; but twenty members of the old Communist Party, the SED, are still members of parliament. The SED changed its name in late 1989, when the DDR was collapsing, to the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). Its new leadership arrogantly dismissed their bloody past as irrelevant now that the word democratic had been adopted as part of their party’s name. If the elections of summer 1990 had taken place just a few months later and thus had been conducted under the law of reunified Germany, these individuals would not have won parliamentary seats. The West German electoral rules governing the proportional representation system require that a party garner at least 5 percent of the vote before it may enter parliament. In addition to choosing a party, voters cast a second ballot for a specific person. This is called a direct mandate. If any party falls below 5 percent but gets at least three direct mandates, that party is seated in parliament. As a one-time compromise in consideration of East Germany’s smaller population, the Bonn government accepted a 3-percent margin of party votes. Even so, the PDS barely made it into parliament.
In the 1994 general election, the first after reunification, the party polled 4.4 percent. Had it not been for the votes electing four persons by direct mandate, the PDS would have been excluded. The direct mandates all came from East Berlin districts heavily populated by unemployed, former Communist Party and government officials. One of the men elected directly was Gregor Gysi, a communist lawyer who had been accused of informing on his clients to the Stasi. Gysi denied the allegations and had obtained a temporary injunction barring a former East German dissident from making the assertion. However, a Hamburg court lifted the injunction in December 1994 on the basis of Stasi documents that indicated Gysi had no case.
Another candidate directly elected to parliament was Stefan Heym, a German-born writer who had emigrated to the United States after Hitler came to power, had changed his name from Helmut Flieg, and had become a U.S. citizen. He served in the U.S. Army as an officer during World War II, but switched sides in 1952 to live in East Germany, forfeiting his U.S. citizenship in order to become an East German citizen and a member of the Communist Party. A year later, on June 17, 1953, the East German people rose up in a revolt that was crushed by the Red Army. Had it not been for the intervention of the Soviets, Heym wrote afterward in the communist daily newspaper Berliner Zeitung, “the American bombing would have already begun. The shots against the rebels were fired to prevent war, rather than to begin one.” And when Stalin died, just four months earlier, Heym used the same newspaper to mourn the butcher of an estimated twenty million people as the “most loved man of our times.” Finally, in a speech on January 31, 1995, at a demonstration marking the 62nd anniversary of the Nazi takeover, the unrepentant Heym, now eighty-two years old, had the gall to say that the present climate in Germany was “very similar to that in 1933, and this frightens me.” It was a grotesque spectacle when Heym was accorded the “honor” of delivering the opening address of the 1965 parliamentary session traditionally reserved for the body’s oldest member. Despite vehement protests, parliamentary president Rita Süssmuth ruled to uphold the tradition.
One of the PDS members also retaining his seat was Hans Modrow. Modrow, a veteran communist, was SED district secretary in Dresden. It was a most powerful communal political position. Modrow was a vital cog in the apparatus of state repression. The local Stasi chief, Major General Horst Böhm, reported directly to him. Modrow was the one who ordered the Vopo, the People’s Police, to resort to violence in putting down massive protests during the turbulent days in fall 1989, just before the Berlin Wall fell. Hundreds of protesters were severely beaten and jailed. Böhm, the Dresden Stasi boss, was found shot dead in his office in early 1990, just before he was to appear before a commission that had been convened to settle the future of the communist state. His death was listed as a suicide. However, an unsubstantiated rumor has it that he was murdered to prevent him from testifying about Modrow’s despotic rule. Modrow was found guilty of election fraud in May 1993. The DDR hierarchy, according to the evidence, had ordered that the number of votes opposing the official slate in the 1989 election had to be fewer than in 1985. Modrow reported that only 2.5 percent of the ballots in his district were cast in opposition; but the true number was at least four times higher. The judge issued him a mere rebuke, refusing to imprison or fine him. The federal high court, which reviews sentences, ordered in November 1994 that Modrow stand trial again because the sentence “was too mild.” After a new trial in 1996 on charges of perjury, Modrow was sentenced to six months’ probation. A year later, parliament was still considering whether he should be deprived of his seat.
Unlike the Nazi Party’s finances and property, which were confiscated by the victorious Allies and turned over to the first West German government in 1949, the SED’s millions were inherited by the PDS, which spirited part of those funds out of the country when the East German government collapsed. The PDS also became custodian of the archives of the SED and refused anyone outside the party access to them. Shortly after reunification, in 1990, the courts ruled that the archives were state property. Judicial authorities as well as scholars were permitted to research them. Nevertheless, the SED archives were almost lost. In 1994, the German news magazine Focus discovered a letter dated March 1991, sent by Gregor Gysi in the capacity of PDS party chief to Vladimir A. Ivashko, assistant secretary-general of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. In this letter, Gysi pleaded with Soviet leaders either to put pressure on German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to return the archive to the PDS, or if Kohl felt this was politically impossible, to destroy it. The opening of the archive, Gysi wrote, was a “genuine catastrophe,” because it contained many secret documents. Publication of the documents would have “extremely unpleasant results not only for the PDS but for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well,” Gysi wrote. But his Soviet friends were no longer able to help him. The archive holds documents on Politburo decisions and directives that might prove crucial in prosecuting the former East German party hierarchy. In the end, the PDS offered to settle for 20 percent of the SED’s ill-gotten funds, forfeiting the rest as a gesture of goodwill toward the new state.
Not all observers were impressed by this compromise. Peter Gauweiler, Bavaria’s minister for development and ecological affairs at the time of reunification, and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, demanded that the PDS and the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP, the West German Communist Party), be outlawed: “Every month we learn of new crimes committed by the SED—terrible things, gruesome things,” Gauweiler said. “We cannot tolerate a successor organization to such an extremely criminal gang.”

For more Information the victims have launched a new site: http://www.victims-opfer.com

DIE FREI ERFUNDENEN LÜGEN DER MUTMASSLICHEN PETER EHLERS SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN-“GoMoPa” – Fall Professor Stelter

http://berndpulch.org/2011/05/14/rufmorddie-frei-erfundenen-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-lugen-fall-professor-minister-stelter/

Leider ist es nicht möglich gegen die mutmasslichen Peter-Ehlers – Scheisshausfliegen vorzugehen.

Kein Impressum und alles ist anonym….STASI-Methoden….

Tarik Erich Knapp about the Toxdat study

There was, and was now only known here in connection with the mysterious death of the GDR dissidents R. Bahro and J. Fuchs, one of the East Berlin Humboldt University study about the alleged practice of western intelligence methods for rendering harmless as East West German disturbers of the official policies of the GDR and the countries with which the GDR just cooperated, by “shooting, stabbing, burning, burst, strangulation, beating, poisoning, suffocation … with the highest sequence and concealment of lethal potential.”

The “Fall Cairo” in 1975, and poisoning: There was then at the embassies of the two German states and the Goethe-Institut a small group of young people who in most naive way, but with knowledge by the Security Officer of the Federal Republic Embassy, ​​Dr. BCW, in the just officially incomplete time German- German contacts at administrative and political level, in turn, had business contacts on Juso kind. It also appears to be too intimate contacts of the West German consulate officials PL with the wife of the press attachés came the East German embassy. To what extent intelligence agencies have used these contacts or seen in Stalinist paranoia in them a threat to the lucrative Eastern policy could, in spite of detailed written instructions from the Bonn Security Group of the Federal Criminal Police Office and the Office of the Attorney General not to be elucidated. Even after the dissolution of the GDR, the documents of the Gauck Authority has revealed so no clues. The fact remains, however, that a) consular officers of the FRG L. “verselbstmordet” by excessive intake of sleeping pills was, therefore, by poisoning, while b) the East German consulate officials, the wife of the press attachés, unenlightened by a traffic accident on the streets of Cairo died shortly afterwards, whereupon her husband was recalled along with children in the GDR; c) the coffin with the corpse of L. – the then Foreign Minister had visited him at G. hospital bed! – Could be opened after the repatriation of the body was not yet examined forensically; d) documentary records the destruction of entire boxes of any evidence by officials of the West German Embassy to the Federal Criminal Police Office; e) the entire political background – the publication of secret papers in West Berlin ED, contacts of L. in the Bundestag, the SPD-hut – as little as the clique of brown AA diplomats and FDP and SPD officials and politicians ever has been discussed, not even by the CDU / CSU opposition, even from the later ruling party CDU / CSU. All have experience long before the events of Bahro and Fuchs demonstrated that the state FRG has no interest in the investigation of crime in the GDR Stasi, because crucial parts of their own political class was matted to work closely with their own brown German Past, as a consequence blackmail the world with the Soviet past. The Bonner Minister of Justice Schmidt-Jortzig (FDP) rejected the suggestion of the Stasi victim J. Fox, in the Toxdat study these methods at least provide later to avoid a future evil to German-German unity under threat of punishment, 1996 on the grounds, Such that after reunification “no fear” is. As if the continuity of criminal brown West German official in the continuity of services would in future criminal can remove red! Whoever wanted to press charges in such cases as “Cairo” or Fox would have reason to fear that he would be vilified as “paranoid case” or a particularly clever schemer of the KGB. It is therefore strongly recommended that you retain the documentation of such crimes there and work up (work up to leave), where the necessary distance and objectivity are higher than German in Lund and Europe: in the USA. http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/rebird/2001/june/09/20010601.html

Tarik Erich Knapp zur Toxdat-Studie

Es gab, und wurde jetzt erst hier bekannt im Zusammenhang mit dem rätselhaften Tod der DDR-Dissidenten R. Bahro und J. Fuchs, eine von der Ostberliner Humboldt-Universität erstellte Studie über die angeblich von westlichen Geheimdiensten praktizierten Methoden zur Unschädlichmachung ost- wie westdeutscher Störer der offiziellen Politiken der DDR sowie der Staaten, mit denen die DDR gerade kooperierte, durch “Erschießen, Erstechen, Verbrennen, Zersprengen, Strangulieren, Erschlagen, Vergiften, Ersticken… mit letaler Folge und höchstem Verschleierungspotential”.

Der “Fall Kairo” 1975 und das Vergiften:

Es gab damals an den Botschaften der BRD und DDR sowie im Goethe-Institut einen kleinen Kreis junger Leute, die in wohl naiver Weise, aber bei Kenntnis durch den Geheimschutzbeauftragten der BRD-Botschaft, Dr. B. C. W., in der gerade offiziell angebrochenen Zeit deutsch-deutscher Kontakte auf administrativer und politischer Ebene ihrerseits Gesprächskontakte auf Juso-Art hatten. Dabei scheint es auch zu intimen Kontakten des westdeutschen Konsulatsbeamten P. L. mit der Ehefrau des Presseattachés der DDR-Botschaft gekommen zu sein. Inwieweit Geheimdienste diese Kontakte benutzt oder in stalinistischem Verfolgungswahn in ihnen eine Gefahr für die lukrative Ostpolitik gesehen haben, konnte trotz detaillierter schriftlicher Hinweise von der Sicherungsgruppe Bonn des BKA und von der Generalbundesanwaltschaft nicht aufgeklärt werden. Auch nach der Auflösung der DDR ergaben die Dokumente der Gauck-Behörde hierzu keine Aufschlüsse. Fakt bleibt jedoch, daß

a) der BRD-Konsulatsbeamte L. durch exzessive Einnahme von Schlafmitteln “verselbstmordet” wurde, also durch Vergiftung, während

b) die DDR-Konsulatsbedienstete, die Ehefrau des Presseattachés, durch einen unaufgeklärten Verkehrsunfall auf den Straßen Kairos kurz danach umkam, worauf ihr Ehemann samt Kindern in die DDR zurückgerufen wurde;

c) der Sarg mit der Leiche des L. – der damalige Außenminister G. hatte ihn noch am Krankenhausbett besucht! – nach der Heimsendung weder geöffnet werden durfte noch die Leiche forensisch untersucht wurde;

d) die Vernichtung ganzer Kartons mit evtl. Beweismitteln durch Beamte der westdeutschen Botschaft beim BKA aktenvermerkt ist;

e) der gesamte politische Hintergrund – die Publikation von Geheimpapieren im Westberliner ED, Kontakte des L. in den Bundestag sowie in die SPD-Baracke – so wenig wie der Klüngel aus braunen AA-Diplomaten sowie FDP- und SPD-Beamten und -Politikern jemals thematisiert worden ist, auch nicht von der CDU/CSU-Opposition, auch nicht von der späteren Regierungspartei CDU/CSU.

Alle Erfahrung lange vor den Fällen Bahro und Fuchs haben bewiesen, daß der Staat BRD keinerlei Interesse an der Aufklärung der Kriminalität der DDR-Stasi hat, weil ausschlaggebende Teile der eigenen politischen Klasse zu eng verfilzt waren mit der eigenen braunen deutschen Vorvergangenheit, wie in Konsequenz der Erpreßbarkeiten mit der vergangenen Sowjetwelt. Der Bonner Justizminister Schmidt-Jortzig (FDP) wies die Anregung des Stasi-Opfers J. Fuchs, die in der Toxdat-Studie genannten Methoden wenigstens nachträglich zur Vermeidung einer künftigen üblen deutsch-deutschen Gemeinsamkeit unter Strafandrohung zu stellen, 1996 mit der Begründung zurück, daß Derartiges nach der Wiedervereinigung “nicht zu befürchten” sei. Als ob die Kontinuität krimineller brauner Beamter in bundesdeutschen Diensten die Kontinuität roter Krimineller zukünftig würde aufheben können! Wer auch immer Anzeige in derartigen Fällen wie “Kairo” oder Fuchs erstatten wollte, hätte zu befürchten, daß er als “paranoider Fall” diffamiert würde oder als besonders raffinierter Intrigant des KGB.

Es empfiehlt sich deshalb dringend, die Dokumentation derartiger Kriminalfälle dort aufzubewahren und aufzuarbeiten (aufarbeiten zu lassen), wo die gebotene Distanz und Objektivität größer sind als in Deutschlund und Europa: in den USA.

http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/rebird/2001/june/09/20010601.html

In Dokumenten – DIE MORDSTUDIE “TOXDAT” VON “GoMoPa”-STASI OBERST-STELZER, “1. DDR-Kriminologe”

Insider nennen ES die „Killer-Bibel“ – im Auftrag von Stasi Vizechef Gerhard Neiber verfasste „GoMoPa“-Mastermind, Ehrenfried Stelzer („Professor Mord“) eine präzise Studie, wie man am Besten den perfekten Mord begeht.

http://www.ddrgestapo.de/
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13395385.html

Damit haben die Stelzer-Adepten des „NACHRICHTENDIENSTES“ „GoMoPa“ das richtige „Know-how“. Insider verdächtigen „GoMoPa“ des Mordes an Heinz Gerlach (siehe unten). Stasi-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer ist ein guter Bekannter, ja sogar „Oberster Anlegerschützer“ bei der DIAS,  des „Anlegerschutz-Anwaltes“ Jochen Resch.
ES, die über 900 Seiten starke Studie der Humboldt-Universität unter dem Titel “Toxdat” führt jede erdenkliche Art auf, wie Menschen mit Gift umgebracht werden können. Die für die Stasi entstandene Ausarbeitung aus dem Jahr 1988 nennt mehr als 200 toxische und strahlende Substanzen und beschreibt detailliert, wie diese eingesetzt werden könnten. Im Kapitel “Schädigung durch Beibringung radioaktiver Stoffe” werden besonders gefährliche Radionuklide genannt: von Strontium-90 bis Plutonium-238, aber auch Mikromengen abgebrannter Brennstäbe aus Kernkraftwerken.
Aus den Papieren erfuhren die Geheimdienstler, welche Wirkung ein Einsatz dieser Stoffe beim Menschen hätte. Von einer kombinierten Schädigung war die Rede. Der biologische Effekt resultiere aus einem chemischen Gift und einer physikalischen Wirkung. Beigebracht in Speisen und Getränken könnten sie zu Siechtum führende Blut-/Knochenmarkschäden und Krebs bewirken. Das sei natürlich abhängig gewesen von der psycho-physischen Reaktion der Einzelperson, sagte Fuchs in einem Interview, in dem er die Möglichkeit einschloß, daß durch Strahlung gesundheitliche Schäden verursacht werden können, nicht bei allen Gefangenen, aber bei denen, von denen man glaubt, es machen zu müssen, zu sollen, zu dürfen, auf Befehl. Die Wissenschaftler der Humboldt-Uni nannten das eine Liquidationsmethode mit hohem Verschleierungspotential durch spät einsetzende unspezifische Initialsymptomatik.
Die Existenz von Kritikern vernichten, das war eine Aufgabe der Stasi. Der Rechtsmediziner Prof. Thomas Daldrup von der Universität Düsseldorf hat die sogenannte .Toxdat.-Studie der DDR untersucht . eine 900 Seiten starke Datenbank über Giftmordmöglichkeiten. Hier ist detailliert beschrieben wie sich selbst Laien Gifte beschaffen können und wie man einen Mord am besten verschleiert.
Prof. Thomas Daldrup, Präsident Gesellschaft für Toxikologische und Forensische Chemie:
.Hier ist so ein Beispiel für einen Stoff, den will ich nicht erwähnen. .Dieser Stoff erfüllt in hohem Maße Kriterien für ein zum perfekten Mord geeignetes Gift.. Also, das kann man doch gar nicht anders lesen, als dass hier eine Anleitung zum perfektem Mord mit Gift gegeben wird. Hier ist es mal ganz klar ausgedrückt, aber das ganze Buch ist gefüllt mit solchen Informationen..
Hinweise auf die Verschleierung provozierter Unfälle finden sich ebenfalls in Toxdat: .Vortäuschung von Verkehrsunfällen durch Auslösung von sekundenschneller Bewusstlosigkeit mittels Minigasgenerator in Belüftungsschächten von PKW..
Da ist zum Beispiel der rätselhafte Verkehrsunfall des ehemaligen DDR-Fußballspielers Lutz Eigendorf im Jahr 1983. Vier Jahre zuvor war er nach einem Spiel in der Bundesrepublik nicht in die DDR zurückgekehrt. Er war ein leidenschaftlicher Autofahrer, seine Fahrweise risikovoll, das notierten die Spitzel der Stasi im Westen. Kurz vor seinem Verkehrsunfall stoppt die Stasi seine Fahrtzeit und die genaue Streckenführung seines täglichen Wegs vom Stadion nach Hause.
Zum Unfallhergang tauchen vor zwei Jahren neue Hinweise auf. Wurde Eigendorf gezielt geblendet? In den Giftakten der Stasi heißt es: .verblitzen, Eigendorf.. Hatte man Eigendorf heimlich ein pupillenerweiterndes Mittel verabreicht?
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin kann Fragen dazu nicht beantworten, da eine Obduktion nicht angeordnet wurde, auch nach Auftauchen der neuen Stasidokumente nicht.
Jörg Berger, Fußballtrainer Alemannia Aachen:
.Hier ist alles gesagt!.
Die Stasi wusste, dass Berger Angst hatte vor einem möglichen Auftragsmord, um weitere Fußballer vor einer Flucht abzuhalten:
.BERGER bekundete angeblich (…), daß es ihm nicht so ergehen soll wie EIGENDORF..
Die Stasi glaubte, dass Berger der Drahtzieher war für die Republikflucht mehrerer Fußballer. Als Berger dann Mitte der 80er Jahre als Trainer auf dem Sprung in die 1. Bundesliga war und sich die DDR-Sportler Falko Götz und Dirk Schlegel nach Westdeutschland absetzten, schien Berger für die DDR unerträglich zu werden.
.Im operativen Vorgang .Ball. wurde operativ herausgearbeitet, daß BERGER wesentlichen Anteil am Verrat von GÖTZ und SCHLEGEL hatte..
Jörg Berger, Fußballtrainer:
.Es ist auch in diesen Aussagen zu erkennen, dass man mich berufsunfähig machen wollte oder dass man mich kaltstellen wollte in der Richtung, dass ich nicht mehr als Trainer arbeite, um da vielleicht auch nicht mehr die Einflüsse auf Spieler oder vielleicht sogar auf Trainer zu haben..
1986 litt Berger unter rätselhaften Lähmungserscheinungen. Der Erklärungsversuch damals: eine Virusinfektion. Im Auftrag von report AUS MÜNCHEN hat der Rechtsmediziner Prof. Wolfgang Eisenmenger vor dem Hintergrund von Toxdat Bergers Krankenakten analysiert. Jetzt scheint festzustehen: Berger wurde vergiftet.
Prof. Wolfgang Eisenmenger, Klinikum Innenstadt der Universität München, Institut für Rechtsmedizin:
.Wenn man die laborchemischen Befunde aus dem Krankenhaus kritisch würdigt, muss man sagen, es spricht in Nachhinein nichts für eine durchgemachte Virusentzündung. Da die Schwermetallvergiftungen nicht gezielt untersucht worden sind, kann man sie aufgrund der Laborbefunde nicht ausschließen. (…) Es kommen . wenn man das Krankheitsbild würdigt . vor allem Schwermetalle aus der Gruppe der Bleiverbindungen und der Arsenverbindungen in Betracht..
Die Anleitung, eine Arsenikvergiftung zu verschleiern . liefert ebenfalls wieder die DDR-Giftstudie Toxdat.
Frühere Stasi-Mitarbeiter wollten auch ihn ausschalten, das glaubt der Bundestagsabgeordnete Hartmut Büttner aus Hannover. 1995 hatte er einen mysteriösen Autounfall, der ihn beinahe das Leben kostete. Nach der Wiedervereinigung hatte der Abgeordnete zu den Hintermännern der .Toxdat.-Studie recherchiert und sich sehr für die Offenlegung der Stasi-Akten durch die Gauck-Behörde eingesetzt.
Hartmut Büttner, CDU-Bundestagsabgeordneter 1991:
.Ich halte es für skandalös, dass der mit dem Sektglas parlierende Altsozialist den Insassen von Bautzen völlig verdrängt hat..
Als Büttner ´95 auf gerader, staubtrockener Straße verunglückte, findet keine Filigranuntersuchung des Wagens statt. Während er im Koma liegt, gibt die Polizei das Schrottauto frei. Eine Speditionsfirma zahlt dafür eilig das Sechsfache seines Werts. Büttner wurde mitgeteilt:
Hartmut Büttner, CDU-Bundestagsabgeordneter:
“Dieses Auto ist in der Tat ins .solvente Ausland. . in diesem Fall nach Polen – geschickt worden. Und in Polen wurde dieser Wagen nach einer Woche als gestohlen gemeldet..
Viele Unfälle und Erkrankungen von ehemaligen DDR-Systemkritikern scheinen noch lange nicht geklärt.
„Die Unterwanderung durch die Cyber-STASI bekommt eine neue Qualität. Die laut Bürgel seit mehr als 2 Jahren insolvente “GoMoPa” GmbH will Unternehmerberatung machen.Was sich wie ein letzter Scherz der Pleite-STASI-Leute anhört, ist tatsächlich ernst gemeint, todernst“, schreiben die SJB-GoMoPa-Opfer auf ihrer Homepage.
“Wer sich in die Fänge der “GoMoPa”-STASI-Krake begibt, wird dann ausgequetscht von den Serienbetrügern wie eine Zitrone” , warnt SJB-GoMoPa-Sprecher Heinz Friedrich vor den Machenschaften des Ostberliner “NACHRICHTENDIENSTES” “GoMoPa”.
Hein Friedrich: „Grospurig verkündet der dubiose „NACHRICHTENDIENST“  „GoMoPa“ auf seiner Webpage: Wir beschaffen Informationen und Verbindungen, werten sie aus, kanalisieren die Quintessenz und transferieren diese an unsere Klientel, die mit den Erkenntnissen geldwerte Vorteile erwirtschaftet, welche nicht selten im sechsstelligen Bereich liegen. Ganz einfach also. Diese Art von Dienstleistung ist im deutschsprachigen Raum neu.“
„Diese Dienstleistung ist so neu denn doch nicht, denn im Geheimen arbeitet der „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“ bereits seit Jahren als Cyber-Stasi“, sagt „GoMoPa“-Experte Thomas Wilhelm.
„Schon der Gründer von „GoMoPa“, Stasi-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer“, versuchte so die deutsche Wirtschaft zu unterwandern, berichtet Wilhelm.“
„Das “Internationale Institut für Wirtschaftssicherheit zu Berlin” soll, so versichern der ehemalige Top-Nachrichtendienstler (West) und sein Kompagnon (Ost) unisono, aus “ideellen Motiven” Industriebetriebe in Fragen der Wirtschaftssicherheit beraten. “Selbstlos” (Satzung) wollen Hellenbroich und Stelzer für “störungsfreie wirtschaftliche” Ost-West-Beziehungen eintreten und zum Wohl der Unternehmer wirken: Wirtschaftskriminalität abwehren helfen, über Daten- und Banksicherheit aufklären“,s chreibt der „Spiegele“ bereits 1990 über die damals geplante Zusammenarbeit zwischen Stelzer und Ex-Verfasungschef Hellenbroich („Spiegel“ Nr.51/1990).
Deep Throat, ein „GoMoPa“-Insider, berichtet: „Das Konzept stammt noch von Stasi-Oberst Stelzer. Neu daran ist nur, wie viel krimineller Energie das jetzt im Cyberspace umgesetzt wird.“
ZDF-Doku: „Sonderauftrag Mord. Die Geheimnisse der Stasi-Der tödliche Arm der DDR“

In der ZDF-Dokumention „Sonderauftrag Mord. Die Geheimnisse der Stasi“Der tödliche Arm der DDR werden die tödlichen Taten der Stasi um den „Ersten Kriminologen der DDR“, Ehrenfried Stelzer, enthüllt.
„Focus“ schreibt : „In der Reportage „Sonderauftrag Mord“ beleuchten ZDF-Filmemacher die geheimnisvollsten Missionen der geheimnisvollsten Behörde der ehemaligen DDR: die Tötungseinsätze des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit. Genauer gesagt: die vermeintlichen Tötungseinsätze. Denn Genaues weiß man (fast) nicht. Zum tödlichen Treiben der Stasi gibt es vor allem Mutmaßungen und selten wirklich belastbare Beweise. Was die Sache nur umso mysteriöser und noch spannender macht… Dass dies nicht alles nur Hirngespinste sind, dokumentiert mindestens ein Fall, in dem ein Mordauftrag der Stasi gerichtsfest belegt ist. Wolfgang Welsch war in der DDR Schauspieler und Regimegegner. Sieben Jahre verbrachte er in Gefängnissen, bevor die BRD ihn freikaufte. Im Westen baute Welsch eine Fluchthilfeorganisation auf, die vielen DDR-Bürgern ein Entkommen aus dem real existierenden Drangsalismus ermöglichte – ihn selbst aber erst recht zum Feind der Stasi stempelte.

Die Ost-Geheimen setzten falsche Freunde auf ihn an. Peter H. einer von ihnen, begleitete Welsch mit Frau und Kind im Urlaub nach Israel. Dort mischte der Agent Rattengift ins Essen, was Welsch beinahe das Leben kostete. Im sogenannten Bulettenprozess wurde dieser Fall konkret juristisch aufgearbeitet. Und weil dies so ist, entspringt das Thema dieser guten und eindrucksvoll inszenierten ZDF-Dokumentation leider nicht einer blühenden Phantasie. Sondern gehört ins gesamtdeutsche Geschichtsbuch.“
Das Gift hat Methode bei den Stasi-Mördern.

Zuerst nahm der aus der DDR geflohene Fußballlehrer Jörg Berger nur ein Kribbeln in den Zehen wahr, dann in den ganzen Füßen und Händen. Hinzu kamen Fieber, Übelkeit und ein allgemeines Schwächegefühl. Hatte die Stasi ihn vergiftet?
Als er seine Gliedmaßen kaum noch spürte und nicht mehr laufen konnte, musste Jörg Berger für lange Zeit seinen Beruf aufgeben. Eine Erklärung für seine schwere Krankheit im Jahr 1986 hatte der populäre Trainer Berger viele Jahre lang nicht, genauso wenig konnte er sich erklären, warum sich an seinem neuen Auto plötzlich ein Rad löste.

“Frisierte” Akten
Erst als er nach der Wende seine Stasi-Akten sichtete, kam ihm ein schrecklicher Verdacht: Steckte der DDR-Geheimdienst hinter seiner Krankheit und dem mysteriösen Autounfall? Wollte man ihn “nur” einschüchtern? Oder gab es gar einen “offiziellen” Tötungsplan?

Wie weit ist die Stasi gegangen? Führende Stasi-Offiziere bestreiten bis heute Morde im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit, der Nachweis ist schwierig. Viele Akten wurden kurz vor der Wende “frisiert”, brisantes Material hektisch vernichtet. Doch die Indizienkette, die Mordabsichten plausibel erscheinen lässt, wird immer dichter. Jörg Berger wird die Wahrheit nie erfahren. Im Juni dieses Jahres ist er an Krebs gestorben.

In den Osten entführt
Die bisherigen Erkenntnisse führen in die 1950er Jahre zurück, als die Stasi “Verräter” aus dem Westen in den Osten entführen ließ. Manche wurden nach Schauprozessen hingerichtet, andere blieben für immer verschwunden. Nach dem Bau der Mauer bildete die Stasi dann “Kämpfer” aus, die auf einem geheimen Truppenübungsplatz das Liquidieren von Menschen übten.

Die Stasi experimentierte auch mit Sprengstoff. Für Übungszwecke wird ein Wartburg in die Luft gejagt (nachgestellte Spielszene). Wurde diese Erfahrungen auch bei Anschlägen im Westen “angewandt?”

In der Stasiunterlagenbehörde in Berlin finden sich konkrete Mordplanungen: Der geflohene Grenzoffizier Rudi Thurow sollte 1963 mit einem 1.000 Gramm schweren Hammer erschlagen werden, bei einem anderen Fahnenflüchtigen plante die Stasi, einen Sprengsatz unter dem Sattel seines Mopeds zu montieren.
Zitat
„Das Liquidieren beinhaltet die physische Vernichtung von Einzelpersonen oder von Personengruppen. Erreichbar durch: Das Erschießen, Erstechen, Verbrennen, Zersprengen, Strangulieren, Erschlagen, Vergiften, Ersticken.“
BStU: Ausbildungsbuch des MfS, 1974
Ex-Stasimitarbeiter berichten
Ab den 1970er Jahren wurden Mordplanungen nicht mehr aufgeschrieben – es gab sie aber dennoch. Gegenüber dem ZDF berichtet ein ehemaliger MfS-Mitarbeiter von Plänen, den geflohenen Geheimdienstagenten Werner Stiller zu ermorden, und in einem anderen Fall gibt es ein Geständnis eines ehemaligen MfS-Offiziers, der den Auftrag hatte, einen Fluchthelfer zu vergiften.
Noch immer kommen Neuigkeiten ans Licht: So hat ein Stasi-Spitzel Anfang dieses Jahres bestätigt, dass es tatsächlich Mordpläne gegen den geflohenen Fußballspieler Lutz Eigendorf gab.
Die ZDF-Dokumentation “Sonderauftrag Mord” widerlegt die Legende der Stasiführung, das MfS hätte mit Auftragsmorden nichts zu tun. Zeugenaussagen, Archivfunde und investigative Recherchen beweisen, mit welch tödlicher Energie die Stasi gegen “Feinde” des DDR-Regimes vorgegangen ist. Der verstorbene Fußballtrainer Jörg Berger gab für diese ZDF-Produktion sein letztes großes Interview.

Auch heute noch gehen die alten Seilschaften der Stasi, wie der „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“ mit Stasi-Methoen vor. Das beweisen auch ihre Droh-Emails gegen unsere Journalisten (siehe berndpulch.org).
Bei der gezielten Unterwanderung der westdeutschen Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft wird auch heute noch mit der „Operativen Psychologie“ der Stasi gearbeitet. Die alten Stasi-Schergen sind immer noch aktiv, wie das Beispiel des millionenfachen Dioxin-Vergifters und Stasi-Mannes Siegfried Siewert zeigt. Sein Namensvetter Stasi-Mann „Siegfried Sievert“ ist in Wirklichkeit der vorbestrafte Serienbetrüger Klaus Maurischat.
Deep Throat, Berlin: „Für“GoMoPa“ und deren alte Stasi-Kader wie dem psychotischen Peter Ehlers ist jedes Mittel recht, das in ihrem Stasi-Arsenal lagert, um Gegner auszuschalten und die macht im Finanzmarkt zu übernehmen.“
Wie die millionenfache DiOXIN-Vergiftung zeigt schrecken die Stasi-Seilschaften vor nichts zurück, wenn sie glauben, es sei ihren dubiosen Zielen nützlich. Ein erschütterndes Beispiel hierfür ist auch das Schicksal des Stasi-Opfers Joerg Berger.
Joerg Berger wurde von der Stasi mit Arsen und Blei vergiftet. In seiner Biographie schildert, der wohl auch deswegen  viel zu früh verstorbenen Fussball-Trainer Jörg Berger die Tatumstände.
„Meine zwei Halbzeiten“ – so heißt seine Biographie.
Zu seiner Biographie sagt Berger: „Es ist genau der richtige Zeitpunkt, meine deutsch-deutsche Geschichte aufzuschreiben. Weil ich jetzt die Hälfte meines Lebens im Osten und die andere Hälfte im Westen gelebt habe.“
Es geht um seine spektakuläre Flucht 1979 aus der DDR, seine Krebs-Erkrankung, sein Leben als Fußball-Retter.
Wie die Stasi ihn im Westen jagte.
Seit ich 1979 in den Westen geflohen war, verfolgte ich aufmerksam wie Lutz Eigendorf sich verhielt, der eine Woche vor mir Republikflucht begangen hatte. Er trat sehr provokativ auf, besonders im Fernsehen, kritisierte den Staat drüben massiv, so dass ich mich fragte, wie lange sich die Stasi das gefallen lassen würde.
Ich hatte ihn gewarnt: „Mensch, Lutz, hör auf mit diesem Quatsch. Wenn deine alte Mannschaft Dynamo in Hamburg spielt, dann geh nicht zu deinen ehemaligen Kollegen ins Hotel oder an die Bar, nur um ihnen zu zeigen, wie gut es dir im Westen geht.“
Eigendorf, der sicher einer der talentiertesten von den geflüchteten DDR-Spielern war, zeigte keine Einsicht, wollte keinen Rat annehmen.
Als er am 5. März 1983 einen Autounfall hatte, bei dem er lebensgefährlich verletzt wurde und zwei Tage später starb, konnte ich das nur in einem Zusammenhang mit seinem provokanten Verhalten sehen. Die Obduktion ergab, dass er einen hohen Alkoholgehalt im Blut hatte (2,2 Promille/ d.Red.), am Abend vorher soll er aber laut Aussagen von Vereinskollegen nur wenig getrunken haben.
Eigendorf wurde von der Stasi verblitzt.
Heute, nach über 25 Jahren, spricht vieles für einen Stasi-Mord. Einen absoluten Beweis gibt es jedoch nicht. Neue Untersuchungen legen nahe, dass die Stasi Lutz möglicherweise heimlich ein pupillenerweiterndes Mittel verabreicht hat, um ihn gezielt zu blenden. In seinen Stasiakten steht „Eigendorf verblitzt“.
Von seinem Unfall-Tag an ließ ich regelmäßig mein Auto bei verschiedenen Werkstätten überprüfen. Plötzlich fielen mir auch einige merkwürdige Vorfälle wieder ein. Einmal hatte sich bei Tempo 160 ein Rad gelöst, mehrmals waren meine Reifen zerstochen worden. Jetzt konnte ich mir einen Reim darauf machen. Ich hatte eine Ahnung davon bekommen, wie weit das MfS (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, die Red.) gehen konnte.
Nur mit Gewalt und Drogen hätte man mich in die DDR zurückgekriegt
Am 11. Oktober 1984 rief mich völlig überraschend Bernd Stange von einem Hotel in Luxemburg an. Dort bereitete er als Fußball-Nationaltrainer der DDR seine Mannschaft auf ein WM-Quali-Spiel vor. (…) Eigentlich hätte mich diese Kontaktaufnahme nachdenklich stimmen können, doch mir kam dergleichen nicht in den Sinn.
Was ich erst durch das Buch „Trainer zwischen den Welten“ von Heiko Mallwitz erfuhr: die Staatssicherheit hatte die Absicht, mich mit Stanges Hilfe in die DDR zurückzuführen, besser gesagt, zu entführen. Ich frage mich das auch noch heute, wie man das bewerkstellige wollte. Rhetorisch war Stange gut, aber so gut, dass er mich mit Worten dazu hätte bringen können, freiwillig nach drüben zurückzugehen – nein, das war nicht vorstellbar. Also blieben, in meiner Schlussfolgerung nur Gewalt und Drogen.
Jörg Berger wurde am 13. Oktober 1944 in Gotenhafen bei Danzig geboren. Seine Mutter floh mit ihm im Januar 1945 vor der herannahenden Roten Armee, verzichtete im letzten Moment auf die Reise mit der „Wilhelm Gustloff“. Ihr Glück. Das Schiff wurde versenkt (9000 Tote).
Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge Jörg Berger wurde am 13. Oktober 1944 in Gotenhafen bei Danzig geboren. Seine Mutter floh mit ihm im Januar 1945 vor der herannahenden Roten Armee, verzichtete im letzten Moment auf die Reise mit der „Wilhelm Gustloff“. Ihr Glück. Das Schiff wurde versenkt (9000 Tote).Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge Er wuchs in Leipzig auf, wurde Jugend-Nationalspieler der DDR, spielte für Lok Leipzig.Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge 1972 erster Trainer-Job bei Carl Zeiss Jena (mit Hans Meyer), später der B-Jugendauswahl der DDR.Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge 1979 Flucht bei einem Länderspiel in Jugoslawien.Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge 12 Klubs als Trainer (Düsseldorf, Kassel, Hannover, SC Freiburg, Frankfurt, Köln, Schalke, Basel/Schweiz, Karlsruhe, noch mal Frankfurt, Bursaspor/Türkei, Aachen, Rostock).Seine Flucht, seine Klubs, seine Erfolge Größte Erfolge: Last-Minute-Rettung mit Frankfurt (1999), Pokalfinale mit Aachen (2004).
1 von 6
Meine Gliedmaßen waren wie tot.
1986 war ich vom Zweitligisten Hessen Kassel zum Erstligisten Hannover gewechselt. Das war etwas, was die Stasi kaum gewollt haben konnte. Seitdem stand ich noch mehr in den Schlagzeilen.
Zu diesem Zeitpunkt nahm ich ein Kribbeln wahr, zuerst in der linken Großzehe, dann insgesamt in den Füßen und Händen. Hinzu kam Fieber, Übelkeit und ein allgemeines Schwächegefühl. Ich dachte, ich hätte mir einen Virus eingefangen oder vielleicht zu viel Stress.
Das Kribbeln hörte nicht auf, wurde von Tag zu Tag schlimmer. Meine Gliedmaßen spürte ich schließlich kaum noch, alles war taub, wie tot. Erst als ich nicht mehr laufen konnte, suchte ich einen Spezialisten auf.
Eine Untersuchung nach der anderen wurde unternommen – doch eine zufriedenstellende Erklärung fand sich nicht.
Trotzdem ließ mich fortan das diffuse Gefühl nicht mehr los, dass hinter dieser Krankheit vielleicht doch etwas anderes steckte als eine körperliche oder seelische Ursache.
Blei- und Arsenverbindungen wurden mir ins Essen oder Trinken getan.
Nach der Wende forderte man mich auf, meine Krankenakten an Professor Dr. Wolfgang Eisenmenger zu schicken, tätig am Institut für Rechtsmedizin der Münchner Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität. Er kam zu dem Ergebnis, dass es sich aufgrund der darin beschriebenen Symptome wahrscheinlich nicht um eine Viruserkrankung, sondern um eine Vergiftung gehandelt habe. Er konkretisierte dies auch noch in Hinsicht auf eine Schwermetallvergiftung aus der Gruppe der Blei- und Arsenverbindungen.
Die Stasi-Akten geben darüber keine klaren Auskünfte. Das einzige, was aus den Akten selber hervorgeht, ist, dass in der Zeit „agressives Verhalten gegenüber dem Feindbild Berger“ angesagt war. In meiner Lesart: Es ging ihnen bei mir nicht gerade um Mord, sondern darum, mich beruflich außer Gefecht zu setzen. Nicht umsonst hatte man mir wohl ein Gift gegeben, das Lähmungserscheinungen auslöst. Dennoch: In zu hoher Dosierung hätte es meine Gliedmaßen absterben lassen, aber auch zum Tode führen können. Dann wäre es doch ein Auftragsmord gewesen. Mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit hat mir jemand das Mittel in ein Getränk oder ins Essen getan. Ich kann von Glück sagen, dass ich nicht Lutz Eigendorfs Schicksal teilte.
Ich kann Stange nicht verzeihen.
Ein Einblick in meine Stasiakten konnte Aufschluss darüber geben, wer Freund und wer Feind war. Insgesamt zählte ich 21 regelmäßig auftretende offizielle Informelle Mitarbeiter, die man auf mich angesetzt hatte. Davon neun im Osten. Erschreckend war, schwarz auf weiß zu lesen, wie nah die Stasi im Westen an mir dran war. Das Schlimmste jedoch war folgende Gewissheit: Zwei mir nahestehende Menschen hatten mich verraten. Rolf G. (ein Freund, mit dem Berger Ski gefahren ist und zeltete, die Red.) und Bernd Stange.
Stange hat denunziert und verraten, Menschen, die ihm nahestanden, möglicherweise in Gefahr gebracht, um daraus persönliche Vorteile zu ziehen. Dadurch war er wohl auch DDR-Nationaltrainer geworden.
Beiden kann ich nicht verzeihen. Denn die Enttäuschung, von zwei Freunden verraten worden zu sein, belastet mich noch heute.“

Informant: Wie die Stasi die Rentenkasse des „Klassenfeindes“ platt machen will

Ein Informant der SJB-GoMoPa-Opfer spielte brisantes Material zu: „Wie die Stasi ihre eigene Republikflucht plante und durchführte oder Wie machen wir dem Klassenfeind seine Rentenkasse “platt”.
Auf über 30 Seiten wir die Unterwanderung der BRD durch die Stasi in diesem internen Bericht aus dem Jahre 1989 detailliert darlegt. Den Originalbericht finden Sie unter http://sjb-fonds-opfer.com/?p=12919
Vor allem die deutschen Rentenkassen, Stiftungen, Vermögensverwalter sollten so unterwandert werden. Im selben Jahr 1989 gründet Gerd-Wilhelm Bennewirtz SJB.
Zitat: „„Wir saßen unter einem Apfelbaum und beschlossen, es für ein Jahr zu versuchen. Mehr als schief gehen konnte es nicht“, erinnert sich Bennewirtz.“ 1989 ist auch das erste Jahr in Peter Ehlers Xin-Biographie.
1989 war auch der Startpunkt für viel Stasi-Agenten „rüberzumachen – 1989 das Jahr der Wende.
Der „Spiegel“ schreibt: „Die Inoffiziellen Mitarbeiter (IM) wurden noch 1989 aus der DDR in den Westen geschickt.“
Zitat in Focus“: „Der Historiker Hubertus Knabe glaubt, dass die Gesellschaft im Westen intensiver als bisher angenommen von der Stasi beeinflusst war
FOCUS: In Ihrem Buch behaupten Sie, der Westen sei von der Stasi gelenkt und unterwandert gewesen. Muss die Geschichte der Bundesrepublik neu geschrieben werden?

Knabe: Sie muss neu geschrieben werden in Hinblick auf die Aktivitäten des DDR-Staatssicherheitsdienstes. Die Zeitgeschichtsforschung hat diese konspirative Dimension westdeutscher Vergangenheit bisher mit Schweigen übergangen. Doch egal, ob es um Politiker von FDP oder Grünen, die Friedensbewegung oder die 68er- Studentenrevolte geht – die Stasi hatte immer einen Fuß in der Tür.

FOCUS: War die Arbeit des MfS tatsächlich so effektiv? Ihr Kollege Helmut Müller-Enbergs konstatiert, Aufwand und Ergebnis der Stasi-Spionage hätten nicht selten in krassem Missverhältnis gestanden.

Knabe: Sicher hat es seitens der Stasi auch Wunschdenken über ihren Einfluss im Westen gegeben. Aber die Intensität der Unterwanderung ist erschreckend. Acht Bundestagsabgeordnete hatten MfS-Kontakte. Die Liste der als Informanten geführten Politiker reicht vom Berliner SDS-Sekretär Walter Barthel bis zum deutschlandpolitischen Sprecher der Grünen, Dirk Schneider. Mit ihrer Hilfe hatte es die DDR-Führung bis 1989 geschafft, im demokratischen Nachbarstaat zunehmend Akzeptanz zu finden bis hin zur Quasi-Anerkennung durch die Regierung.“

Zitatende
Der Niedergang der entkräfteten SED zog auch den Niedergang des MfS nach sich. Nicht zuletzt deshalb vermochte sich die Staatssicherheit gegenüber dem drohenden Zusammenbruch nicht zu wehren. Während des Umbruchs in der DDR richtete sich der Zorn weiter Kreise in der Bevölkerung maßgeblich gegen das MfS, das den Unterdrückungsapparat symbolisierte. Bei Demonstrationen wurde die Auflösung des MfS gefordert. E. Krenz, der Nachfolger Honeckers, wollte noch im November 1989 ein Gesetz über die Befugnisse des MfS erarbeiten lassen. Ministerpräsident H. Modrow ersetzte im November 1989 das MfS durch ein “Amt für Nationale Sicherheit”. Diese Nachfolgeorganisation wurde auf Druck des “Runden Tisches” durch einen Beschluss des Ministerrates im Dezember 1989 aufgelöst, wenngleich einzelne Strukturen fortbestanden – etwa bei der Beseitigung von Unterlagen. Die geplante Einrichtung eines “Verfassungsschutzes der DDR” und eines “Nachrichtendienstes der DDR” unterblieb nicht zuletzt aufgrund der Standhaftigkeit der Bürgerbewegungen und Bürgerkomitees. Der Sturm auf die Zentrale des MfS in der Normannenstraße am 15.1.1990 dürfte maßgeblich durch die Staatssicherheit inszeniert gewesen sein. Unter der Regierung de Maizière erfolgten weitere Maßnahmen zur Auflösung der Organe der Staatssicherheit. Als die DDR der BRD beitrat, war das MfS aufgelöst – ungeachtet des Fortwirkens entsprechender “Seilschaften”.
Diese Seilschaften benutzen und benutzen ihre alten Stasi-Methoden weiter zur Unterwanderung der deutschen Wirtschaft. Dies wird besonders deutlich an dem Versuch des Stasi-Obersten Ehrenfried Stelzer mit Ex-Verfassungsschutz Chef Hellenroich ein gemeinsames „Sicherheits-Unternehmen“ zu gründen sowie in den Aktivitäten der „GoMoPa“.
Deep Throat, Berlin: „Aus diesem Stasi-Umfeld“ der alten Seilschaften kommen die „GoMoPa“-Leute, aber auch der Ex-Stasi-Kader mit dem Tarnnamne „Peter Exxxx“ (anonymisiert), der heute noch mit Stasi-Methoden der „Operativen Psychologie“ arbeitet
Stasi-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer, „GoMoPa“-Mastermind und seine tödlichen Methoden
(Investment Magazin, Investment, Das Investment) DAS ORIGINAL – Deep Throat packt aus: „Der grosse Mann im Hintergrund, der „GoMoPa“ erfand, war Ehrenfried Stelzer, der „Erste Kriminologe der DDR“. Stasi-Insider nannten ihn auch „Professor Mord“.  Angeblich verstarb er am 10.2.2010 in Berlin im Alter von 78 Jahren.“
Der hochdekorierte Stasi-Oberst schrieb unter anderem „Kriminalistik und forensische Wissenschaften. Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis der sozialistischen Kriminalistik und der forensischen Wissenschaften“. Dabei kannte sich Stelzer vor allem in der Praxis richtig gut aus. In der Praxis des Stasi-Auftragsmordes. Denn seine Stelle als Professor für Kriminologie an der kommunistischen Humbold-Universität war nur tarnung für den „Ersten Kriminologen der DDR“.
Für seine Arbeit wurde Stelzer mehrmals durch das MfS ausgezeichnet (Vgl. HA KuSch: Beurteilung des Genossen Dr. Ehrenfried. Stelzer vom 22.4.1965).
Die wissenschaftliche Erforschung mörderischer Todesarten wurde bei der Stasi gelehrt und gelernt (siehe Titelbild) – auch und gerade mit Dioxin.
Zur Tötung von Staatsfeinden gab es in der DDR viele Möglichkeiten; versuchen wir hier eine Systematisierung, wie sie sich aus Dokumenten – auch bisher nur uns vorliegenden (so u.a. die Fälle Eylert, Geißler, Höppner, Hübner, Krüger, Seum) – ableiten läßt.
1. Erschießen oder durch Minen töten
Die DDR-Grenztruppen dürften bis 1989 weit mehr als 200 Personen umgebracht haben (vgl. Filmer/Schwan 1991, Sauer/Plumeyer 1991). Die Zentrale Erfassungsstelle Salzgitter – die die SPD dem Druck der SED nachkommend schließen wollte! – ermittelte bis 1990 4.444 Fälle „von versuchten und vollendeten Tötungshandlungen“, um DDR-Flucht zu verhindern; etwa 700 Verletzte wurden registriert (Sauer/Plumeyer 1991, S. 79; vgl. Föhrig 1996).
2. Terrorurteile
Bis 1989 dürfte es in der DDR weit mehr als 200.000 politische Urteile und 10.000 Hinrichtungen gegeben haben.
3. Ermordung nach Verschleppung aus dem Operationsgebiet
(in der Regel Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
Fricke (pers. Ausk. 9/1996) schätzt die Zahl der vom SED-Sicherheitsdienst aus dem Bundesgebiet in die DDR Entführten auf 120 Überläufer aus dem MfS und 700 andere „Staatsfeinde“. Von den Überläufern dürften etwa ein Dutzend hingerichtet worden sein; zu den „Staatsfeinden“, die ihre Verschleppung nicht überlebt haben, gibt es noch keine Zahlen.
4. Direkte Liquidierung im Operationsgebiet und in der DDR
Z.B. durch Erschießen, Erdrosseln, Ertränken etc. (unter Vortäuschung eines Unfalls, eines Suizids oder eines „normalen“ Verbrechens).
5. Töten in Haftanstalten
6. Ermordung in Krankenhäusern
In der DDR wurden nicht nur frühgeborene Kinder in Kliniken passiv und aktiv getötet, sondern auch Staatsfeinde in Krankenanstalten umgebracht (z.B. bei Operationen und mittels anderer Methoden).
7. Tötung im Arbeitsprozeß
Z.B. durch Strahlenexposition, gesundheitsschädigende Tätigkeit u.a. bei Zwangsarbeit, Arbeitsunfälle.
8. Beauftragung westlicher Terroristen sowie anderer Schwerverbrecher
Z.B. mit Mord, Attentaten, Sabotage- und Terrorakten sowie Verschleppungen.
Erich Mielke – er war Mitglied des Politbüros der SED und oberster MfS-Führer – wiederholte in einer Kollegiumssitzung am 19. Februar 1982 warnend, was schon seit den 50er Jahren in der DDR gültige Praxis war (Tonbandprotokoll; zit. in Stasi intern, 1991, S. 213):
„Wir sind nicht davor gefeit, daß wir mal einen Schuft unter uns haben. Wenn ich das schon jetzt wüßte, würde er ab morgen nicht mehr leben. Kurzen Prozeß. Weil ich Humanist bin. Deshalb hab ich solche Auffassung. […] Das ganze Geschwafel, von wegen nicht hinrichten und nicht Todesurteil – alles Käse, Genossen. Hinrichten, wenn notwendig auch ohne Gerichtsurteil“ (Hervorhebung D.V.).
Politbüromitglied Mielke sagt hier nichts Neues; selten wurde jedoch das „Über-allen-Gesetzen-Stehen“, wurden die Brutalität und die Skrupellosigkeit dieser kriminellen Organisation von ihrem Chef selbst so treffend und offen gekennzeichnet. Mielke wollte abschrecken, weshalb auch die Verschleppungen und Tötungen von „Verrätern“ im MfS stets bekanntgegeben und „zum Gegenstand einer eingehenden Belehrung“ gemacht wurden (Befehl Nr. 78/54 des Staatssekretärs für Staatssicherheit, Ernst Wollweber, vom 5. März 1954; zit. bei Fricke 1994, S. 260). Schon 1954/55 hatte Wollweber deutlich gemacht (alles zit. bei Fricke 1994, S. 260):
Szenenwechsel:
Dann nach der Wende versucht Stelzer mit Ex-Verfassungschutz-Chef Hellenbroich ein gemeinsames „Security“-Unternehmen für deutsche Firmen aufzuziehen. Nachdem der „Spiegel“ darüber berichtet, zieht sich Hellenbroich zurück.
„Das herausragendste Beispiel für eine “friedliche Koexistenz” ist die Firma IHS in Berlin.Inhaber:Heribert Hellenbroich, ehemaliger Präsident des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz, gestolpert über den Fall TIEDGE und Professor Ehrenfried STELZER, besser Oberst Stelzer,ehemals Leiter der Sektion Kriminalistik der Humboldt-Universität Berlin.Professor Stelzer erstellte für Stasi-Oberst Stelzer JEDES von der Stasi gewünschte Gutachten“, bezeugt Rainer Schubert, Berlin.

Stattdessen gründet Stelzer den „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“, so der Insider Deep Throat. Jahrelang halten die Ermittler wie auch die Opfer die Gruppe um das „Aushängeschild“, den tatsächlich verurteilten Serienstraftäter nur für eine „normale“ Kriminellen-Bande. Die jüngsten Aufdeckungen zeigen indes, dass hier eine organisierte Gruppe die Wirtschaft unterwanderte. So traute sich in 2009 auch „GoMoPa“-Mastermind, Stasi-Obrist Ehrenfried Stelzer wieder in die Öffentlichkeit.
Das nächste öffentliche Auftreten von Stasi-Oberst Stelzer ist dann wieder im „Spiegel“ ein Thema:
„Das Deutsche Institut für Anlegerschutz (DIAS) hat als neuen geschäftsführenden Vorstand Ehrenfried Stelzer berufen. Das berichtet der “Spiegel” in seiner am Montag erscheinenden Ausgabe. Bis zur Wende war Stelzer Leiter der Sektion Kriminalistik an der Ost-Berliner Humboldt-Universität. Die Sektion galt als Stasi-Hochburg, Stelzer selbst diente der Stasi Jahrzehnte als “Offizier im besonderen Einsatz”, schreibt der Spiegel. Im April war Stelzers Vorgänger Volker Pietsch, der als Finanzspezialist von der Verbraucherzentrale Berlin gekommen war, zurückgetreten. Die Hintergründe von Pietschs Abgang sind unklar, hängen aber möglicherweise mit der unsoliden Finanzsituation des DIAS zusammen. Seit der Gründung vor fünf Jahren ist der Verein wesentlich von Zuwendungen der Berliner Anlegerschutz-Kanzlei Resch abhängig. Deren geschäftsführender Gesellschafter Jochen Resch ist nicht nur DIAS-Mitglied, sondern auch Vorstand der Verbraucherzentrale Brandenburg – eine
Doppelfunktion, die Resch dem Vorwurf aussetzt, sich über das DIAS Mandanten zu beschaffen. Resch bestreitet das. Das DIAS sei unabhängig konzipiert “und nie eine Mandantenschaufel” gewesen. Auch der neue DIAS-Vorstand Stelzer gilt als Resch-Mann. Man kenne sich “lange Jahre”, so Resch. Eine von Stelzers ersten Amtshandlungen war es, den gesamten zehnköpfigen Beirat, die meisten darin Juristen, abzuberufen.“
(13.6.2009)
Rechtsanwalt Jochen Resch kennt Stelzer „seit vielen Jahren“, wie er selber angibt.
Die Unterwanderung der Stasi hält auch heute noch an:
Der frühere
Innenminister Jörg Schönbohm weist darauf hin, dass Brandenburg eine andere
Überprüfungspraxis der Stasi-Angehörigen hatte als andere Länder, und deswegen
prozentual mehr belastete Bedienstete übernommen hat.34 „Allein in den Reihen der
Polizei sind 2009 noch rund 240 ehemalig hauptamtliche und mehr als 1.200 inoffizielle
Stasi-Mitarbeiter tätig“.35 Bei einer Gesamtstärke der Polizei in Brandenburg von rund
7.000 Mitarbeitern sind das 20 Prozent.

Unser Rechtsstaat lässt es sogar zu, dass Stasi-Angehörige zur Desinformation siegessicher
ein sich offiziös gebendes Buch mit dem Titel „Hauptverwaltung A. Geschichte,
Aufgaben, Einsichten“, herausgeben. Der Historiker Thomas Wegener-Friis, erklärt
dazu: „Die Beiträge belegen, dass die Autoren zur Aufarbeitung der Geschichte nicht
fähig und nicht willens sind und dass sich die geistige Verfassung der alten Stasi-Elite
nicht geändert hat“.
Diese Stasi-Leute leben öffentlich in dem Stolz und brüsten sich, dass es ihnen gelungen
sei, alle westlichen Geheimdienste zu unterwandern und nicht umgekehrt. Ein zweifelhafter
Stolz auf das eigene Können, der sich schnell als ein typisch sozialistischer
entlarvt. Klammert man die ethische Dimension aus, so wird das richtige Maß dieses
Könnens durch einen Vergleich und die Beantwortung der Frage deutlich: Wo können
leichter Autoradios gestohlen werden, auf dem Parkplatz einer Universität oder in der
Tiefgarage der Polizei?
Es stellt sich auch die Frage, warum war der Staatssicherheitsdienst mit seiner uneingeschränkten
Machtfülle und Allzuständigkeit nicht in der Lage, die DDR zu „retten“?
Die Stasi wurde schließlich nicht von Panzern überrollt, sondern vom eigenen Volk
verjagt.

Siegfried Sievert oder Siegfried Siewert – das ist frei nach Hamlett hier die Dioxin-Frage. Ersterer ist der ehemalige Stasi-Agent und Dioxin-Nahrungsketten-Vergifter – letzterer Name das „Pseudonym“ von Klaus-Dieter Maurischat, dem serienmässig vorbestraften „NACHTRICHTENDIENST“-„GoMoPa“-Betrüge und Erpresser.
Im Netzwerk von „ „GoMoPa“ an prominenter Stelle sind RA Jochen Resch sowie der unter mysteriösen Umständen angeblich verstorbene bzw. verschwundene Stasi-Obrist Ehrenfried Stelzer und „Detektiv“ Medard Fuchsgruber.

Das Stasi-Problem war mit dem Zusammenbruch der DDR keineswegs beendet. Ehemalige Stasi-Mitarbeiter gelangten nach der Wende in höchste Positionen. In Brandenburg hatten es sogar mehrere ehemalige Stasi-Mitarbeiter bis in die aktuelle rot-rote Landesregierung geschafft, um dort die Regierung zu übernehmen. Auch in Sachsen-Anhalt könnten nach der Landtagswahl ehemalige Stasi-Mitarbeiter in die Regierung gelangen. Und auch in der Wirtschaft sind viele Stasi-Mitarbeiter in hohe Positionen gelangt. So auch der Herr Sievert. Doch was bezweckte dieser tatsächlich mit der Dioxinvergiftung? Handelte er wirklich aus Profitgier, oder war die bundesweite Vergiftung eine verspätete Rache der Stasi gegen den ehemaligen Klassenfeind?
Ebenso wie andere osteuropäischen Geheimdienste, z.B. der Geheimdienst der Ukraine beim Mordanschlag auf Präsident Viktor Juschtschenko -, benutzte die Stasi Dioxin und Dioxin-Experten:
Die Akte trägt die Registriernummer II 153/71, ist mehrere
Hundert Seiten dick. Auf dem Deckel ein Name: “Pluto“. Unter
diesem Decknamen spionierte Siegfried Sievert (58), der als Geschäftsführer
des Futtermittel-Herstellers Harles und Jentzsch mutmaßlich für
den Dioxin-Skandal verantwortlich ist, 18 Jahre lang für die
Staatssicherheit der DDR. Das berichtet die BILD-Zeitung (Freitagausgabe).

Auf Antrag von BILD gab die zuständige Birthler-Behörde die Unterlagen
jetzt heraus. Die Akten, so BILD, verraten: 1971 wurde die Stasi
auf den damals 18-jährigen Sievert aufmerksam. Sie beobachtete
sein “dekadentes Aussehen“, seine hohe Intelligenz und seine
“guten Verbindungen zu anderen jugendlichen Personenkreisen“.
Sievert wurde angeworben. Aus einem Bericht vom 16. März 1971:
“Der Kandidat kann zur Absicherung der Jugend (…) eingesetzt
werden.“
Sievert wählte laut BILD seinen Decknamen selbst, kassierte fortan
Prämien für seine “inoffizielle Mitarbeit“. In den Unterlagen
finden sich zahlreiche Quittungen, eine vom 6. November 1987:

“Hiermit bescheinige ich den Erhalt von 100 Mark für geleistete
Arbeit.“
Nach dem Abitur studierte Sievert in Greifswald Physik. Er machte
Karriere, spitzelte weiter, berichtete über intime Verhältnisse
seiner Kollegen. So notierte “IM-Pluto“ am 25. September 1986
über zwei Kollegen: “Die beiden beabsichtigen, gemeinsam die
BRD zu besuchen. Fakt ist jedoch, daß zwischen dem Kollegen und
der Kollegin seit langer Zeit Intimbeziehungen bestehen. (…)
Aus dieser Tatsache ist abzuleiten, daß eine gemeinsame Reise
in die BRD mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine Flucht benutzt
wird.“

Skrupel zeigte Sievert laut Stasi-Akte keine. Ein Führungsoffizier
notierte: “Der IM hatte keinerlei Vorbehalte bei der Belastung
von Personen aus seinem Umgangskreis.“
1993 stieg Sievert beim Futtermittelhersteller “Harles & Jentzsch“
ein. 2005 wurde er alleiniger Geschäftsführer, steigert in nur
fünf Jahren den Umsatz von 4,3 auf rund 20 Millionen Euro, vervierfachte
den Gewinn.

In der BRD ermitteln Staatsanwälte in 21 Fällen gegen Stasi-Offiziere wegen versuchten Mordes oder Verabredung zum Mord. Heinrich S. ist der einzige West-IM (“Rennfahrer”), der in diesem Zusammenhang verurteilt wird. Viereinhalb Jahre Haft kassiert er für die Beteiligung an den Stasi-Operationen “Fürst” und “Parasit”.

Bei denen gibt Ost-Berlin die Aufträge, Grenzprovokateur Siegfried Sch. und Fluchthelfer Julius L. zu “liquidieren”. Beide Opfer überleben. Siegfried Sch., weil beim Überfall auf ihn (nach Karateschlägen) den Attentätern das Magazin aus der Pistole fällt. Er kann flüchten, gilt danach als verschwunden.

Julius L. kommt davon, weil alle 19 Versuche eines angeheuerten Verbrechers (IM “Karate”) scheitern, eine Bombe an seinem Auto anzubringen. Mal findet er den Wagen nicht, mal gibt es zu viele Zeugen, mal fährt das Auto zu schnell weg. Der Sprengstoff stammt aus Ost-Berlin. Nach dem Verfahren gegen ihn verlässt IM “Karate” den Gerichtssaal als unschuldiger und freier Mann. Die Hauptangeklagten bleiben dem Prozessbeginn gleich fern. Mielke-Stellvertreter Gerhard Neiber hat es am Herzen. Stasi-General Albert Schubert leidet unter Bluthochdruck. Die Atteste sind unterschrieben von Ärzten aus Wandlitz.

Bis heute wird darüber gestritten, wie der Begriff “Liquidierung” im Stasi-Jargon zu verstehen ist. Vor Gerichten behaupten fast alle MfS-Mitarbeiter, es habe in ihrem Sprachgebrauch generell nichts mit “töten” zu tun. Eher mit “unschädlich” machen. Der Führungsoffizier von “Rennfahrer” dagegen räumt ein, dass Siegfried Sch. und Julius L. “beseitigt” werden sollten. So sieht es auch der West-IM, dem Ost-Berlin insgesamt 374 000 Mark zahlt. Er habe die Weisung eindeutig als “Mord-Auftrag” verstanden. Ihn aber nie ausführen wollen. Angeblich will er die Opfer nur erschrecken…
Erich Mielke (geboren im Wedding) ist ab 1957 bis zum Rücktritt zwei Tage vorm Mauerfall Minister für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) in der DDR. Er sitzt zudem im Politbüro, ist Armeegeneral. Der Stasi-Chef ist einer der Hauptverantwortlichen für den Ausbau des flächendeckenden Überwachungssystems. Als er den in viele Abteilungen verzweigten Apparat übernimmt, hat die Behörde 14 000 hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter. 1989 sind es rund 91 000. Sie spionieren, instruieren und verwalten weitere 173 000 inoffizielle Spitzel. Am 13. November 1989 spricht Mielke erstmals vor der DDR-Volkskammer. Er sagt: “Ich liebe – Ich liebe doch alle – alle Menschen – Na, ich liebe doch – Ich setzte mich doch dafür ein.” Und erntet lautes Gelächter. Mielke wird 1993 wegen eines Doppelmordes im Jahr 1931 zu sechs Jahren verurteilt. Zwischenzeitlich brummt er im ehemaligen Stasi-Gefängnis Hohenschönhausen. Wegen der schlechten Haftbedingungen verlegt ihn die Justiz später nach Moabit. 1995 kommt er wegen Erkrankungen auf Bewährung frei. Mielke stirbt am 21. Mai 2000 im Alter von 92 Jahren in einem Altenpflegeheim in Hohenschönhausen. Viele bezeichnen Mielke als “Herr der Angst”.

„Das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit hatte über 100 Spitzel auf die Unterwanderung westdeutscher Menschenrechtsorganisationen angesetzt. Ihre Akten liegen fast vollständig im Archiv der Gauck-Behörde. Die Inoffiziellen Mitarbeiter (IM) wurden noch 1989 aus der DDR in den Westen geschickt.
Sie hatten den Auftrag, etwa die West-Berliner Arbeitsgemeinschaft 13. August und die Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte zu unterwandern. Einige der Stasi-Spitzel stiegen sogar in Führungspositionen auf oder gründeten eigene Ortsgruppen. In den IM-Akten finden sich Schriftwechsel, Hilfeersuchen von DDR-Bürgern und detaillierte Berichte über geplante Betreuungsmaßnahmen. Auf die früher in West-Berlin obligatorischen Vernehmungen durch westliche Geheimdienste waren die Agenten gut vorbereitet. So erzählte ein Spitzel namens “Axel” den Staatsschützern auftragsgemäß, er sei von der Stasi bei Vernehmungen geschlagen worden.
Andere Mielke-Spitzel wurden Mitglieder von Fluchthilfeorganisationen und verrieten ihre Schützlinge an die Stasi. So lieferte einer der Fluchthelfer der “gerichtsbekannten kriminellen Bande Fürch” (Neues Deutschland) fast jeden seiner Schützlinge nicht im Westen, sondern bei der Stasi ab. Auch die Aufnahmelager für DDR-Bürger in Gießen und in West-Berlin wurden mit Hilfe von Stasi-Spähern kontrolliert. Einigen gelang es, enge Kontakte zu konservativen West-Politikern zu knüpfen und sie auszuspähen. Der IM “Karl Diener” verschaffte der Stasi “operativ bedeutsame Informationen” zur Deutschlandpolitik. Quelle laut Stasi-Maßnahmeplan: “ein Repräsentant der Regierungskoalition der BRD”“, schribt der „Spiegel“ 1992.
Ab 1989 beginnt auch SJB Fonds Skyline zu arbeiten. 1989 macht Peter Ehlers sein erstes Praktikum. Was zuvor bei diesen Akteuren geschah bleibt im Dunkeln der Geschichte
Im Schlüsseljahr 1989 sandte die Stasi ihre Mannen in den Westen um dort ihre Unterwanderung weiter zu führen. Wer der Stasi in die Quere kommt wird als feindlich-negative Person eingestuft:
Der Ausdruck feindlich-negative Person bezeichnete im internen Sprachgebrauch des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit der DDR einen Menschen, der als politischer Gegner des DDR-Systems oder generell des Sozialismus eingestuft war.
Dazu konnte es bereits ausreichen, sich als normaler DDR-Bürger mehrfach kritisch im privaten Kreis geäußert zu haben, und dass dies von einem Spitzel des MfS (Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter) berichtet wurde. Regelmäßig wurden so Personen bezeichnet, die in der Öffentlichkeit wiederholt negativ über das politische System oder seine Repräsentanten gesprochen hatten. Dazu gehörten etwa Dissidenten und kritische Intellektuelle wie Rudolf Bahro und Robert Havemann sowie generell Mitglieder der verschiedenen politischen und kirchlichen Widerstandsgruppen in der DDR.
Entsprechend seinem Selbstverständnis als Schwert und Schild der Partei bekämpfte das MfS solche Gegner – wenn ihre „feindliche“ Einstellung bzw. ihre regimekritischen Aktivitäten eine bestimmte Schwelle überschritten – mit einer Reihe von offenen und verdeckten Maßnahmen. Dazu zählten Inhaftierungen, das Organisieren beruflicher Misserfolge, Rufmord, die Zerstörung von privaten Beziehungen durch organisierte Intrigen, und die psychische Zerstörung der Zielperson, teilweise mit bewusstem Treiben des Opfers in den Suizid. Diese Maßnahmen wurden beim MfS unter dem Sammelbegriff Zersetzung geführt. Deren theoretische Grundlage war die Operative Psychologie, die ein eigenes Studienfach an der ministeriumseigenen Hochschule war.
Genau diese Methoden wendet der „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“ auch gegen Kritiker ein.
Deep Throat: „Die „GoMoPa“-Chefs vor allem Stasi-Obrist Ehrenfried Stelzer, der „erste Kriminologe der „DDR“,  haben die Stasi-Methoden mit der Muttermilch eingesaugt. Damit wird im engen Kreis sogar geprahlt und wie leicht es ist, den Westen zu unterwandern.“
Dabei legte die Stasi die Grundlagen mit der sogenannten „Operativen Psychologie“, wie Sie „NACHRICHTENDIENST“ „GoMoPa“ und der Hamburger Ableger heute noch einsetzen:
Die „Operative Psychologie“ war ein Forschungs- und Lehrfach an der Juristischen Hochschule (JHS) des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit (MfS) der DDR. Diese beschäftigte sich mit „den Erscheinungen, Bedingungen, Gesetzmäßigkeiten und des psychischen Erlebens und der psychischen Steuerung des Verhaltens und der Handlungen der Menschen in der politisch-operativen Arbeit des MfS“. Die auf diese Weise gewonnenen Erkenntnisse wurden zur „Zersetzung“ politischer Gegner des SED-Regimes genutzt.
Anfangs spielte psychologisches Wissen während der Ausbildung an der Juristischen Hochschule keine Rolle. Die erste Schrift zur Operativen Psychologie stammt aus dem Jahr 1960. Erst 1965 richtete das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit ein „Institut für Psychologie“ ein, welches später als Lehrstuhl umgewandelt in die Sektion „Politisch-operative Spezialdisziplin“ eingegliedert wurde. Spätestens mit Inkrafttreten der „Richtlinie 1/76“ gewannen Faktoren zur Beeinflussung der Persönlichkeitsentwicklung von Menschen an Bedeutung. Forschung und Lehre in der „operativen Psychologie“ waren praxisnah und anwendungsorientiert. Die „Operative Psychologie“ förderte hierbei weniger grundlegend neue psychologische Erkenntnisse zu Tage, sondern beschäftigte sich vorrangig analytisch mit dem Einsatz bekannter Methoden. Den Studenten wurden hierbei vor allem Grundkenntnisse der Psychologie vermittelt. So sollten Untersuchungsergebnisse zu Gefühlen, Bedürfnissen und Beziehungen von Menschen, aber auch Erkenntnisse der Gruppenanalyse und zwischenmenschlicher Phänomene wie Vertrauen, Bindungen und Leitung für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen nutzbar gemacht werden. „Operative Psychologie“ war Pflichtfach an der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit. Der Anteil am Gesamtanteil am Studium betrug 131 von 2.615 Unterrichtsstunden. Insgesamt haben rund 10.000 MfS-Offiziere an der JHS Kurse in Psychologie gehört.[11] Es bestand die Möglichkeit, mit Studien zur „operativen Psychologie“ einen Doktorgrad zu erwerben.[
Die während der Ausbildung zum MfS-Diplomjuristen vermittelten Wissensbestände dienten unmittelbar als praktisches Mittel zur Feindbekämpfung. Ziel war es, mit psychologischen Mitteln Einfluss auf Personen in der Form zu nehmen, dass „diese erschüttert und allmählich verändert werden beziehungsweise Widersprüche sowie Differenzen zwischen feindlich-negativen Kräften hervorgerufen, ausgenutzt oder verstärkt werden“ um eine „Zersplitterung, Lähmung, Desorganisierung und Isolierung feindlich-negativer Kräfte“ zu bewirken. Der „operativen Psychologie“ kam hierbei die Aufgabe zu, das „Selbstvertrauen und Selbstwertgefühl eines Menschen [zu] untergraben, Angst, Panik, Verwirrung [zu] erzeugen, einen Verlust an Liebe und Geborgenheit [hervorzurufen] sowie Enttäuschung schüren“. Bei politischen Gegnern sollten Lebenskrisen hervorgerufen werden, die diese so stark verunsicherten und psychisch belasteten, dass diesen die Zeit und Energie für staatsfeindliche Aktivitäten genommen wurde. Das MfS als Drahtzieher der Maßnahmen sollte hierbei für die Opfer nicht erkennbar sein. Psychologische Mittel sollten hierbei helfen, „die Psyche des Feindes genauer zu erkennen und zu beeinflussen“, um „Erkenntnisse über Gedanken oder Gefühle, typische Verhaltensweisen und psychische Eigenschaften des Gegners, die wertvolle Hinweise für seine Entlarvung und Liquidierung, Beeinflussung, Zersetzung und Überwachung“ zu erhalten.
Auch während Verhören fanden Methoden der „operativen Psychologie“ zur „Stimulierung der Aussagebereitschaft von Personen in der Untersuchungsarbeit“ Anwendung. Hierbei kamen auch Geräusche und Lichteffekte zur Erzeugung von Schlaflosigkeit, Angstzuständen oder Desorientierungen hinzu. Zudem wurde die „operative Psychologie“ seitens der Führungsoffiziere bei der Zusammenarbeit mit inoffiziellen Mitarbeitern (IM) eingesetzt, um neue Mitarbeiter anzuwerben sowie Vertrauensverhältnisse aufzubauen.
Bei den Opfern von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen auf Grundlage „operativer Psychologie“ lassen sich häufig bis heute Psychosomatische Erkrankungen und posttraumatische Belastungsstörungen feststellen. Der Schriftsteller Jürgen Fuchs sprach deshalb auch von „psychosozialen Verbrechen“ und einem „Angriff auf die Seele des Menschen“, der Psychotherapeut Klaus Behnke bezeichnete diese Methoden als “psychische Folter”.

Weite Bereiche der bundesdeutschen Gesellschaft wurden von der Stasi unterwandert. Ihre “Quellen” in Politik, Militär, Wirtschaft, Medien oder Wissenschaft …
Wie die Financial Times Deutschland berichtet, arbeiten noch immer rund 17.000 ehemalige Mitarbeiter des DDR-Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit im Öffentlichen Dienst der Bundesrepublik. Die Überprüfungen nach der Wende seien zu standardisiert und oberflächlich gewesen, so Klaus Schroeder, Leiter des Forschungsverbunds SED-Staat der Freien Universität Berlin.
Gleichgültigkeit oder Verdrängen? Diese Eindrücke drängen sich auf, wenn man den bisherigen Tatendrang der Berliner Polizei bei der Aufarbeitung möglicher Stasi-Verstrickungen im Westteil sieht. 18 Jahre und acht Monate nach der Wiedervereinigung machtee Innensenator Ehrhart Körting (SPD) die Stasi-Aufarbeitung 2009 zur Chefsache. Im Abgeordnetenhaus erklärte er, dass Polizeipräsident Dieter Glietsch jetzt ein entsprechendes Forschungsvorhaben anschieben wird. Damit soll eine externe Forschungseinrichtung beauftragt werden. Selbst als Ex-Polizist Karl-Heinz Kurras (81) als GM “Otto Bohl” enttarnt wurde, reagierte der Senator nicht sofort mit einem Forschungsauftrag. Seit dem Jahr 2000 gab es nur vier Forschungsanträge zu Stasi-Verstrickungen. Sie wurden von ehemaligen und jungen Polizeibeamten gestellt, die aber nicht im Auftrag des Polizeipräsidenten gehandelt hatten.

Süddeutsche Zeitung über die kriminellen Machenschaften der “GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/2011/09/27/suddeutsche-zeitung-uber-die-kriminellen-machenschaften-der-gomopa-3/

fbi – Seventy Defendants in Helena-West Helena and Marianna Indicted in Operation Delta Blues

LITTLE ROCK—Christopher R. Thyer, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, along Valerie Parlave, Special Agent in Charge of the Little Rock Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); William J. Bryant, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Little Rock District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Grover C. Crossland, Resident Agent in Charge of the Little Rock Field Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Christopher A. Henry, Special Agent in Charge of the Nashville Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigations Division; and Colonel JR Howard, Director of the Arkansas State Police (ASP), announced today that a federal grand jury returned seven indictments charging 70 individuals, including five law enforcement officers, in the Phillips and Lee County areas. The charges include public corruption, drug trafficking, money laundering, and firearms offenses. The indictments were handed down on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, and were unsealed today following a massive roundup of the charged defendants.

The charges stem from multiple Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigations spanning more than a two-year period. The investigations, collectively referred to as “Operation Delta Blues,” primarily focused on public corruption and drug trafficking activities in the Helena-West Helena and Marianna, Arkansas areas. The United States Attorney’s Office utilized 16 court-authorized wiretaps over the course of Operation Delta Blues. Approximately 700 federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel from the FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, ASP, Arkansas National Guard, and the Little Rock Police Department and West Memphis Police Department participated in the arrests today.

“Our commitment to eradicating drug trafficking and violent crime has never been stronger,” stated United States Attorney Christopher R. Thyer. “When these two elements are mixed with law enforcement corruption, it can make for the perfect storm in a community. It can paralyze honest law enforcement action, silence witnesses, and erode public confidence in our system of justice.” Thyer added, “These indictments and arrests signify a substantial development in what can only be classified as an ongoing investigation into public corruption, drug trafficking, and violent crime in the eastern part of our district.”

FBI Special Agent in Charge Parlave followed by saying, “I am confident that today’s takedown in Operation Delta Blues will send a clear message that we are committed to rooting out public corruption, disrupting violent gang activities, and dismantling illegal drug organizations. I am honored to work alongside the Arkansas State Police, ATF, DEA, and IRS, who pulled together in an unprecedented way to execute this operation today. Our investigation remains ongoing and I encourage anyone with information to call our public corruption hotline at 501-221-8200, or e-mail: Little.Rock@ic.fbi.gov.”

DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge Bryant concurred, saying, “This type of investigation shows the great teamwork and commitment of the federal agencies—FBI, DEA, ATF, and IRS—and the Arkansas State Police in combating drug trafficking and public corruption in the State of Arkansas. All of these agencies combined their assets and resources to disrupt and dismantle these drug trafficking organizations and corrupt public officials.”

“Some of the best police work I’ve ever been a part of occurred when law enforcement agencies came together to share resources for a common good. As disappointing as it may be that public corruption of the worst kind was the target in this Operation, the public would expect nothing less of us than to ensure we worked together to eliminate the threat,” stated ASP Colonel Howard.

IRS Special Agent in Charge Henry added, “The role of IRS Criminal Investigations in narcotics investigations is to follow the money so we can financially disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations. Working alongside our law enforcement partners, IRS-CI is proud to provide our financial expertise to help make our communities safer places to live.”

The defendants who were arrested today will appear before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph J. Volpe for Plea and Arraignment on October 13, 2011, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The cases are as follows:

  • United States v. Trice, et al., Case No. 4:11CR209 JLH, pending before U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes.
  • United States v. Colbert, et al., Case No. 4:11CR210 JMM, pending before U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody.
  • United States v. Turner, et al., Case No. 4:11CR211 JMM, pending before U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody.
  • United States v. Hughes, et al., Case No. 4:11CR212 JLH, pending before U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes.
  • United States v. Eaton, Case No. 4:11CR213 JLH, pending before U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes.
  • United States v. Rogers, et al., Case No. 4:11CR214 BSM, pending before U.S. District Court Judge Brian S. Miller.
  • United States v. Wahls, Case No. 4:11CR215 BRW, pending before U.S. District Court Judge Bill Wilson.

The investigation was conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office, FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS-CID, and ASP, with operational assistance from the Arkansas National Guard, the Little Rock Police Department, and the West Memphis Police Department. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Julie Peters, Benecia B. Moore, and Michael Gordon.

An indictment contains only allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

DAS URTEIL ZU DEN TATSÄCHLICH WG ANLAGEBETRUGES VERURTEILTEN “GoMoPa”

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7273-der-beweis-betrugs-urteil-gegengomopa-maurischat-betrug-am-eigenen-anleger-wg–10000-.html

CONFIDENTIAL – Twelve Alleged Members of Mexican-Based Cocaine Trafficking Ring Indicted

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 16, 2011
  • Eastern District of Virginia (703) 299-3700

ALEXANDRIA, VA—Twelve individuals have been indicted as members of a Virginia-based international drug trafficking organization that has utilized a distribution network to smuggle cocaine from Mexico to northern Virginia. This indictment was the latest in an ongoing investigation that has previously led to the conviction of 41 individuals.

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Ava A. Cooper-Davis, Special Agent in Charge for Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s Washington Division; and James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge (ADIC) of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; made the announcement after the indictment was unsealed.

“We’ve now charged 53 people as a result of this investigation into extensive Mexican-based cocaine trafficking operations in northern Virginia,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride. “This alleged ring not only endangers the community through this deadly narcotic, but also puts the lives of their couriers at risk each time they smuggle the cocaine into our community. We’re committed to pursuing this investigation and to putting this distribution network out of business.”

“Our local communities are not immune from the poison the Mexican drug cartels bring to the streets of the United States,” said DEA SAC Cooper-Davis. “This case illustrates the far reach of the cartels, but it also highlights the hard work that our agents and law enforcement partners do every day to stop them.”

“This indictment is the result of the concentrated efforts by agents and detectives from the FBI, DEA, ICE, Alexandria Police Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service who partner together to disrupt and dismantle these alleged international drug networks who threaten our neighborhoods,” said FBI ADIC McJunkin.

According to court documents, the regional leader of the alleged international drug trafficking organization is Gregorio Delgado-Salinas, a/k/a “Goyo,” 27, of Alexandria, Va., who was arrested on May 25, 2011, along with four of his lieutenants and another co-conspirator. Court documents allege the distribution ring smuggled the cocaine into northern Virginia and delivered the cocaine to Delgado-Salinas or his agents. Delgado-Salinas allegedly received multi-kilogram shipments of cocaine each month from Mexico through numerous couriers.

Court documents allege that following the distribution of narcotics, local members of the network collect drug debts from those who have not paid for the cocaine they received. Members of the conspiracy are accused of wiring drug proceeds to the drug trafficking organization leaders in Mexico, distributing the cocaine, and collecting drug proceeds in northern Virginia.

Each alleged member of the international drug trafficking organization was charged with conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more grams of cocaine, which carries a minimum-mandatory penalty of 10 years in prison and maximum penalty of life in prison. Delgado-Salinas is additionally charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, which carries a consecutive five-year minimum mandatory penalty.

At an arraignment hearing today, United States District Judge James C. Cacheris scheduled a jury trial for Feb. 7, 2012.

This case is part of an Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (“OCDETF”) investigation titled “Operation Springfield Snow,” which began in November 2008 targeting Virginia-based cells of a cocaine drug trafficking organization based in Mexico. To date, in addition to the 12 subjects recently indicted, 41 individuals have been previously convicted as a result of the investigation.

This particular investigation was jointly led by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Alexandria Police Department, Fairfax County Police Department, Prince William County Police Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Special Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Nussbum and Sam Kaplan are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

A criminal indictment is only a charge and not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia at http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov or on https://pcl.uscourts.gov.

TOP-SECRET -US and Kazakhstan Set First Megadeath Control VPN

The following statement was issued today by the United States, and Kazakhstan in Astana.

BEGIN TEXT:

For twenty years the United States and Kazakhstan have been partners in the struggle against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That partnership continues to flourish, as our nations work together to create the conditions for the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

December will mark ten years since former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then Foreign Minister Yerlan Idrissov signed the agreement which provided a legal basis for the existence and continued operation of the Government-to-Government Communications Link (GGCL) between the United States and Kazakhstan for the exchange of arms control treaty notifications.

The GGCL is an instrument of mutual trust and cooperation that provides a reliable and easy way for our two countries share information. It also serves as a back-up capability through which our senior officials can communicate.

These secure, direct links between our two nations are operated in the United States by the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center at the Department of State and in Kazakhstan by the Arms Control and Inspection Activity Support Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Across these links, our Centers have exchanged thousands of notifications required by the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty (START) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Today, the United States and Kazakhstan are inaugurating a new phase in our Government to Government Communication Link.

The United States and Kazakhstan are modernizing the GGCLs to operate as a cost-effective, internet-based, secure Virtual Private Network (VPN), a first for our bilateral GGCLs.

This new digital connection simplifies the current GGCL network. It employs internet-based connectivity which will provide further communication capabilities, flexibility and enhanced reliability. Modernization will also permit the system to accommodate new responsibilities, as needed.

The commitment of the United States and Kazakhstan to maintaining and upgrading the GGCL is symbolic of the importance both nations attach to that partnership in arms control and non-proliferation, and to the enduring nature of that partnership.

PRN: 2011/1702

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – Houston Cold Case Solved

Latent printA latent print removed from the victim’s car was determined to be a match to the suspect’s
fingerprint (inset) contained in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS.

Houston Cold Case Solved
Forensics Personnel Honored by FBI

On December 14, 1969, a young single mother named Diane Maxwell Jackson arrived for her shift as a Southwestern Bell telephone operator in Houston. After parking her car in the company lot, she was forced into a nearby shack by an unknown individual and brutally raped, strangled, and stabbed to death. After a thorough investigation by the Houston Police Department (PD), no suspects were identified, and the latent prints lifted from the outside of the victim’s car were filed away.

What’s a Latent Print?

It’s an impression—usually invisible to the naked eye—left on crime scene evidence that’s produced by the ridged skin on human fingers, palms, or soles of the feet. A variety of techniques, including using chemicals, powders, lasers, and alternate light sources, are employed in the detection and development of latent prints. These prints are then routinely searched through local and state fingerprint databases to find a match. If those searches aren’t successful, the prints can also be submitted to the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).

Decades later, assisted by advances in technology and interest from the victim’s brother, the case was reopened and ultimately solved. And most recently, the Houston PD detective and Texas Department of Public Safety latent print technician so instrumental in the outcome were honored by the FBI with the 2011 “Latent Hit of the Year” Award.

This award is given out annually for a latent print identification made after a search of our Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) that results in a conviction for a major violent crime. IAFIS is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to requests from our partners and our own investigators to help solve and prevent crimes and terrorism. It currently houses the fingerprints of more than 70 million criminal subjects.

Houston case background: Years passed after Jackson’s murder, and with no new leads, the case went cold. But in 1989, David Maxwell, the victim’s brother, began reviewing the file on his sister’s death. Maxwell reconsidered his plan to become a lawyer after his sister died and instead joined the Texas State Highway Patrol and later the Texas Rangers. He asked the Houston PD to review the original evidence and witness reports for any new leads. A Houston newspaper ran an article publicizing the murder and requesting assistance from the public. At the same time, the Houston PD began a search for the latent prints lifted from the victim’s car.

      Videos
Overview: Latent Print of the Year Award
General details about the program
Transcript | Download (217 MB)
2010 Hit of the Year
1972 San Diego murder case solved
Transcript | Download (273 MB)
2009 Hit of the Year
30-year-old Florida murder case solved
Transcript | Download (239 MB)
2008 Hit of the Year
Suspect ID’d in San Diego cold case murder
Transcript | Download (267MB)
2007 Hit of the Year
Justice in 1980 Michigan murder case
Transcript | Download (312 MB)

Once located, the prints were searched against the Houston PD’s local fingerprint database and the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Neither searched yielded a positive ID

On July 23, 2003, Texas Department of Public Safety Latent Print Technician Jill Kinkade prepared the prints for a search of the FBI’s IAFIS. In less than five hours, the system returned a response containing 20 potential matches, and Kinkade determined that the latent print evidence was a match to the number one candidate—James Ray Davis.

Honing in on a suspect. Investigators discovered that Davis had been arrested for various crimes before and after Diane Maxwell Jackson’s murder—in fact, he had just finished a prison term nine days before the murder.

Learning about the latent print identification of Davis, Houston PD Sergeant James Ramsey—the case’s lead investigator—quickly located the suspect living along the Texas-Arkansas border. Investigators knew that because his fingerprints were recovered from the outside of the victim’s car, they would likely need a confession in order to get a conviction, After being presented with the forensic evidence and photographs of the crime scene, Davis admitted to the crimes.

He pled guilty in court, and on November 24, 2003, 34 years after the homicide, James Ray Davis was sentenced to life in prison for the rape and murder of Diane Maxwell Jackson.

FBI: Former Agape World, Inc. Owner and President Sentenced to 25 Years’ Imprisonment for Multi-Million-Dollar Ponzi Scheme

Long Island-Based Defendant Caused Thousands of Investors to Lose $195 Million

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 14, 2011
  • Eastern District of New York (718) 254-7000

Nicholas Cosmo, the former owner and president of Hauppauge-based companies Agape World, Inc. (Agape) and Agape Merchant Advance (AMA), was sentenced today to 25 years of imprisonment by United States District Court Judge Denis R. Hurley in federal court in Central Islip. On October 29, 2010, Cosmo pled guilty to committing mail and wire fraud in connection with his operation of a massive Ponzi scheme involving the theft of more than $195 million of investor money that was supposed to be used to fund short-term commercial loans. Cosmo was ordered to pay $179 million in restitution to more than 4,000 victims and agreed to an asset forfeiture judgment in the amount of $409,305,000 as part of his sentence.

The sentence was announced today by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Cosmo, and others working at his direction, fraudulently obtained in excess of $400 million from investors over a five-year period by representing that the funds would be used by Agape either to fund short-term secured bridge loans to commercial borrowers, or used by AMA to make short-term loans to small businesses. Investors were told that the loans generated high interest rates which would result in payment of high rates of return on their investments. Cosmo often failed to make the short-term loans, admittedly using approximately $80 million of investor money to trade futures and commodities unbeknownst to investors, and paid false profits to early investors in the scheme using new investors’ money.

At the sentencing proceeding several victims, many of whom stated that they lost their family’s life savings, described the devastating effect of their losses as a result of Cosmo’s criminal actions.

“As recounted today in court by several of his victims, the defendant’s actions crushed the hopes and dreams of everyday citizens. We stand committed to ensuring that our markets operate fairly and honestly, and we will aggressively investigate and prosecute those who fraudulently enrich themselves at the expense of investors,”stated United States Attorney Lynch. “Those who lie and steal from the investing public are on notice that they face severe penalties,” Ms. Lynch expressed her grateful appreciation to the United States Postal Inspection Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agencies responsible for leading the government’s investigation.

The government’s case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Demetri M. Jones, Grace M. Cucchissi and Vincent Lipari.

The Defendant:

NICHOLAS COSMO
Age: 40

Unveiled – Occupy Wall Street-Global Photos, 15 October 2011, Day 29

Part 2


Italy

[Image]Protesters hurl objects at police in Rome, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. Protesters in Rome smashed shop windows and torched cars as violence broke out during a demonstration in the Italian capital, part of worldwide protests against corporate greed and austerity measures. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests, that began in Canada and spread to cities across the U.S., moved Saturday to Asia and Europe, linking up with anti-austerity demonstrations that have raged across the debt-ridden continent for months.

Belgium

[Image]Two protesters spray graffiti at a bank, during a march in Brussels, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The protest in the Belgian capital was part of Occupy Wall Street demonstrations against capitalism and austerity measures that went global Saturday, leading to dozens of marches and protests worldwide. (Yves Logghe)

France

[Image]A protestor holds a placard during an anti-capitalist demonstration, in Paris, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe took part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. The placard reads: “Financial market dictatorship, enough”(Thibault Camus)

Romania

[Image]A man wears an anti-establishment mask during the “Occupy Bucharest” protest in Bucharest, Romania, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The protest, meant as a part of worldwide protests “Occupy Wall Street” against corporate greed and austerity measures, was joined by few people who at times fought among themselves, trying to clarify their vague requests, aimed at linking up with anti-austerity demonstrations that have raged across the debt-ridden continent for months.(Vadim Ghirda)

Great Britain

[Image]Julian Assange, center, takes part in the Occupy London Stock Exchange demonstration in London Saturday Oct, 15, 2011. Protesters in cities across Europe take part in rallies inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the United States, expressing their frustration at social inequality and corporate greed. (Elizabeth Dalziel)

Canada

Montreal[Image]Frederic Carmel sits next to his tent in Montreal’s financial district on Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The demonstration is one of many being held across the country recently in support of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York. (Graham Hughes)
Toronto[Image]Protestors gather in Toronto’s financial district for the Occupy Bay Street demonstration on Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011 in Toronto. The demonstration is one of many being held across the country recently in support of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York. (Chris Young)

Columbia, SC

[Image]Diane Kuhn, of West Columbia, S.C. holds a protest sign calling for the prosecution of financial criminals during the Occupy Columbia demonstration at the South Carolina Statehouse in Columbia, S.C., Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. (Brett Flashnick)

Washington, DC

[Image]Demonstrators hold banners during the Jobs at Justice rally at Washington Monument in Washington on Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. (Jose Luis Magana)

Part 1


Germany

[Image]Protestors march through the streets of Berlin during a demonstration to support the ‘ Occupy Wall Street’ -movement Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. Protestors gathered at many major European cities Saturday to join in demonstrations against corruption, capitalism and austerity measures. (Maja Hitij)

Australia

[Image]Protesters gather in front of the Reserve Bank of Australia in central Sydney, Australia, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The organizer of the Occupy Wall Street announced on their website that protesters will demonstrate in concert over 951 cities in 82 countries. (Rick Rycroft)

Bosnia

[Image]Bosnian people carrying banners with the text “For a class war against dictatorship of capitalism”, top, and “What did bank do? The bank bankrupted!”, bottom banner, during a protest march, in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. Hundreds marched down the main streets of Bosnian cities carrying banners that call for the end of alleged worldwide “Capitalistic Dictatorship”. (Amel Emric)

Harrisburg, PA

[Image]Protesters gather at the Pennsylvania Capitol Saturday, Oct 15, 2011 in Harrisburg, Pa. The demonstration is one of many being held across the country recently in support of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York. (Bradley C Bower)

Japan

[Image]Participants march through Tokyo’s Kasumigaseki administrative district during “Occupy Tokyo” protest Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The demonstration was held in support of the Occupy Wall Street protest against corporate power. (Itsuo Inouye)

Netherlands

[Image]Children watch as protestors prepare placards outside the NYSE Euronext stock exchange in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Saturday Oct. 15, 2011, during a demonstration in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Demonstrators in hundreds of cities all over the world protested against corporate power and the banking system. (Peter Dejong)

Philippines

[Image]Protesters shout slogans as they march towards the U.S. embassy in solidarity action for the U.S. protest dubbed “Occupy Wall Street” Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011 in Manila, Philippines. (Pat Roque)

South Korea

[Image]South Korean protesters stage an “Occupy Seoul” rally in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The demonstration was held in support of the “Occupy Wall Street” protest against corporate power. The Korean letters read: “Tax the Rich 1%, Welfare for the 99%.” (Ahn Young-joon)

Sweden

[Image]Protesters take part in the “Occupy central” protest in Stockholm, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011, as protesters worldwide demonstrated against bankers and politicians they accuse of ruining global economies through greed. (Maja Suslin)

Switzerland

[Image]People demonstrate on the Place des Nations in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. Protestors gathered at many major European cities Saturday to join in demonstrations against corporate greed and inequality. (Martial Trezzini)
[Image]Young people demonstrate in the financial district of Zurich, Switzerland, Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. The organizer of the Occupy Wall Street movement announced on their website that protesters will demonstrate in over 951 cities in 82 countries. (Ennio Leanza)

Taiwan

[Image]Activists hold magazines titled “Socialist” during a protest named “Occupy Taipei” organized by Taiwanese net friends in front of the Taipei 101 building in Taipei, Taiwan, Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The rally was a part of Saturday’s worldwide activities held in support of the Occupy Wall Street protest against corporate power. (Chiang Ying-ying)

DOCUMENTS LINKED TO CUBAN EXILE LUIS POSADA HIGHLIGHTED TARGETS FOR TERRORISM

Bomber’s Confessions Point to Explosives Hidden in Toothpaste Tube that Brought Down Civilian Airliner in 1976

Judge Dismisses Immigration Fraud Charges on May 8; Indictment for terrorism crimes still possible

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 218

Luis Posada Carriles, original Cuban passport

Washington D.C., October 15, 20011 – A Venezuelan employee of Cuban exile and indicted terrorist Luis Posada Carriles conducted surveillance on targets “with a link to Cuba” for potential terrorist attacks throughout the Caribbean region in 1976, including Cubana Aviación flights in and out of Barbados, according to documents posted today by the National Security Archive. At least four targets identified in the surveillance report — including the Guyanese Embassy in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad — were subsequently bombed during the bloody summer of anti-Castro violence in 1976, and a Cubana jet was blown up in mid-air on October 6, 1976, after taking off from Seawell airport in Barbados.

Posada faced charges in Venezuela for the airplane bombing, but escaped from prison there in 1985, participated in the White House- and CIA-sponsored Iran-contra covert operations in Central America in the 1980s, and illegally entered the U.S. in March 2005. On May 8, a federal judge dismissed all immigration related charges against him citing prosecutorial misconduct and incompetence and allowed Posada to return to Miami a free man. The Department of Homeland Security, however, has placed him on the “no-fly” list.

The Archive also posted additional investigative records generated by police authorities in Trinidad following the bombing, including drawings by Posada’s employee, Hernán Ricardo Lozano, and handwritten confessions by a second Venezuelan, Freddy Lugo, that describe how Ricardo molded plastic explosive into a toothpaste tube to destroy the plane, as well as Ricardo’s attempts to reach Posada via telephone after the plane went down.

“These documents provide the true historical backdrop for the legal proceedings against Luis Posada Carriles,” said Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive’s Cuba Documentation Project. “They record the unforgettable violence of Posada’s lengthy career as one of the world’s most prolific terrorists.”

The surveillance document, handwritten by Ricardo, recorded the addresses of Cuban embassies, travel offices, news agencies, and consulates in Trinidad, Panama, Barbados and Colombia. It also contained detailed observations about the security systems at those buildings, and even the cars driven by Cuban diplomats. At the Cuban embassy in Bogota, Ricardo noted, “the Ambassador’s vehicle is a 1976 steel grey Cadillac, with a black vinyl roof and diplomatic plates CD-0046.”

Ricardo’s intelligence report identified the office of British West Indian Airways (BWIA) as “the one place with a link to Cuba” in Barbados; on July 14, 1976, the BWIA office in Bridgetown was struck by a bomb. Six weeks later on September 1, the Guyanese Embassy in the capital of Trinidad was also bombed. According to declassified FBI records, the FBI attaché in Caracas who subsequently gave Ricardo a visa to travel to the U.S. noted that Ricardo’s passport showed that he had traveled to Port-of-Spain on August 29 and returned on the day of the bombing “and wondered in view of Ricardo’s association with Luis Posada, if his presence there during that period was coincidence.”

Ricardo was an employee at Posada’s security firm in Caracas, Investigaciones Comerciales y Industriales (ICA). According to the then police commissioner of Barbados, Orville Durant, who traveled to Caracas after the bombing, this surveillance report was found during searches of Posada’s home and office. (Venezuelan authorities matched the handwriting to notes Ricardo had penned to a girlfriend at that time.) Ricardo and another Venezuelan, Freddy Lugo, were subsequently tried and convicted in Caracas for placing bombs on the flight before they deplaned in Barbados. Posada and another Cuban exile, Orlando Bosch, were also detained in Caracas as the masterminds of the crime. Posada escaped from a Venezuelan jail in September 1985; Bosch was released after twelve years in prison in 1988.

In a confession to deputy police commissioner Dennis Ramdwar on October 19, 1976, Ricardo drew a diagram of the pencil detonator and its various timing positions and explained how “a plastic bomb was detonated.” He also wrote out a list of necessities for blowing up a plane which included “false documentation,” and “explosivo C-4.” On a separate piece of paper, Ricardo drew a crude organizational chart of CORU, the violent anti-Castro exile coalition led by Orlando Bosch which took credit for the terrorist wave of bombings and assassination efforts in the summer of 1976.

Like Posada who illicitly returned to the Miami area in March of 2005, Bosch entered the U.S. illegally in 1988 and was detained at an immigration detention center for over a year. In July 17, 1990, he was freed by the administration of George H.W. Bush, over the objections of Justice Department officials who had determined he remained a threat to the security of U.S. citizens.

In a handwritten and signed confession dated October 21, 1976, Lugo told police authorities in Trinidad that Ricardo had repeatedly tried to call a “Sr. Pan y Agua”-Mr. Bread and Water-in Caracas after the plane went down. “I asked him who Mr. Pan y Agua was because I found it amusing that someone would have that name,” Lugo wrote, “and he told me that it was a dear friend of his named Orlando Bosch.” Lugo also recounted how Ricardo had called his mother and told her “to give the telephone number of the Village Beach Hotel in Barbados to Mr. Luis Posada so that he could call and to tell him that there was a problem.”

In a separate statement dated October 16, Lugo told authorities in Trinidad that before Lugo and Ricardo boarded Cubana Flight 455 in Trinidad, he had seen Ricardo “playing with something that looked like dough of a whitish or beige color; he was softening it. He also had a tube of toothpaste, Colgate, on the table and it was full as if new.”

Bosch has lived freely in the Miami area for seventeen years; in various interviews he has all but admitted a role in the bombing of flight 455. Posada was freed on bail on April 18; on May 8, a federal judge tossed out charges of lying to immigration authorities regarding how he arrived in the United States. A grand jury in New Jersey is weighing evidence of Posada’s role in orchestrating a series of hotel bombings in Havana in 1997, using plastic explosives hidden in Prell shampoo bottles and shoes.


Documents
The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
Document 1: Hernán Ricardo Lozano, [Handwritten Intelligence Report on Targets with “a link to Cuba” in Barbados, Colombia, Panama, and Trinidad]

These are the scouting notes of Hernán Ricardo Lozano, which Venezuelan authorities reportedly found in the office of Luis Posada Carriles in Caracas shortly after the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 on October 6, 1976. Ricardo’s report covers Barbados, Colombia, Panama and Trinidad, and details the location and security of offices belonging to Cubana Airlines, Prensa Latina, as well as Cuban Embassies and consulates and the Guyanese Consulate in Trinidad. The report also tracked the flight schedules of Cubana planes in and out of the Barbados and other Caribbean nations. The intelligence provided by Hernán Ricardo Lozano became a roadmap for at least four terrorist attacks in these countries between July and October 1976, as well as the mid air bombing of Cubana Flight 455. [English translation]

Document 2: Graphology Division of the Venezuelan Judicial Police, October 20, 1976 [Handwriting analysis report on documents collected in Caracas, Venezuela]

In the course of their investigations, Venezuelan authorities conducted a handwriting analysis of the surveillance report on Colombia, Panama, Trinidad, and Barbados [see document 1] uncovered during a raid in Caracas. They compared this document to a letter signed “Hernan” to Ricardo’s girlfriend Marines Vega, and to writing samples collected from prominent Caracas figures connected to Cuban exile terrorism, including Celsa Toledo Alemán, Gueton Oleg Rodríguez de la Sierra Tretiacooff, Luis Posada Carriles, and Orlando Bosch Avila. The report concludes that the script of the letter and the report belonged to the same individual, but that none of the writing samples matched the other names.

Document 3: Hernán Ricardo Lozano, “D.R. 12” [Diagram of the detonator device], October 19, 1976
Document 4: Hernán Ricardo Lozano, “D.R. 13” [Organizational diagram of CORU], October 19, 1976

Trinidad and Tobago Deputy Commissioner of Police Dennis Ramdwar directed the inquiries into the crash of Cubana Airline Flight 455. In a sworn statement on October 28, 1976, he recounts the progression of interviews with Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo Lozano. On October 19, 1976, at 8:30 in the evening, Hernán Ricardo Lozano requested to see Commissioner Ramdwar and during the course of the conversation, Ricardo confessed to Ramdwar:

“He hesitated for a while and then told me, saying that it was in the greatest confidence, that LUGO and himself bombed the plane. He asked me for a sheet of paper and in his own handwriting recorded the steps to be taken before a bomb was placed in an aircraft and how a plastic bomb is detonated. This document is marked ‘D.R. 12’ for identification. On the obverse side of the document, he drew a sketch of the bomb and detonator and described the detonator as a pencil-type with chemicals which could be timed for 8 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 8 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours. He said that these pencil-type detonators were of various colors depending on the time at which the bomb was to be detonated. He took a pencil from my desk and told me that that pencil resembled one of the detonators he had described. He said that a certain chemical is filled in a tube of Colgate toothpaste after the toothpaste is extracted. This pencil is in my possession. He went on to tell me that he knew everything about the Organization ‘COROU’ [Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU)]. He requested another sheet of paper and on this sheet of paper he drew the organizational chart […] This document is marked ‘D.R. 13’ for identification.”

Document 5: Freddy Lugo, “D.R. 11” [Lugo describes Ricardo with toothpaste and plastic explosives], October 16, 1976

In a sworn statement before Trinidad and Tobago Deputy Commissioner of Police Dennis Ramdwar, Venezuelan bombing suspect Freddy Lugo described how he witnessed fellow suspect Hernan Ricardo playing with a whitish dough and a full tube of Colgate toothpaste, which Ricardo then hid in his shirt. Shortly thereafter, the two men boarded Flight 455 as it took off from Trinidad. After the men disembarked in Barbados, “Hernan told the taxi driver to stop in front of a side-street near the wharf. He got out of the taxi, went up to the edge of the wharf and threw something in the sea.”

Document 6: Freddy Lugo, “D.R. 15” [Lugo Confession of Calls Placed to Posada and Bosch by Hernan Ricardo], October 21, 1976

Lugo recounts how an agitated Hernan Ricardo Lozano placed several calls to Caracas shortly after arriving in Barbados. He called his mother, asking her to call Luis Posada Carriles and give him the number of the Village Beach of Hotel in Barbados “so that he could call and to tell him that there was a problem.” He also placed a call to his girlfriend and requested that she give their hotel number to “Sr. Pan y Agua,” the code name for Orlando Bosch. [English translation]

Document 7: Freddy Lugo, “D.R. 9” [Lugo Confession to Trinidadian Police], October 16, 1976

In this confession-one of several that Freddy Lugo made to Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Ramdwar in Trinidad following the bombing of Flight 455-Lugo recounts that Hernan Ricardo Lozano “told me that he had a false passport and also that he was going to blow up a Cubana airplane. I laughed because I thought that he was joking.” On the Pan-Am flight from Caracas to Trinidad, Ricardo also commented that “Messers. Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada must have been worrying about him.” Once in Trinidad, Lugo said he wanted to take the next available flight to the Barbados, but Ricardo replied they would wait for the Cubana flight: “Él me dijo que quería viajar en Cubana porque iba a volar ese avión” [“he told me that he wanted to travel on Cubana because he was going to blow up that airplane”]. When a Trinidadian police officer or a translator present asked Lugo to clarify, “What do you mean by the word ‘volar’?” Lugo replied, “By ‘volar’ I mean ‘to make disappear.'”

Lugo also describes a “very nervous” Ricardo going to the bathroom twenty minutes after Flight 455 took off from Trinidad to Barbados. He took such “a long time” that an airline stewardess and a pilot had to knock on the door. When the plane landed, Hernan Ricardo “jumped from his seat and hurried to the door” to be one of first passengers to disembark. Once in Barbados, the two men checked into the Village Beach Hotel and left their luggage there. They then boarded a plane for Trinidad, where they spent the night in the Holiday Inn. On the morning of October 7, 1976, Ricardo gave Lugo U.S. $300 “to spend in Barbados and told me that if anyone asked me about that money to say it was mine.” They were arrested shortly thereafter by Trinidadian police. Ricardo instructed Lugo to tell the police that he had given 2,500 bolivares to Ricardo to purchase his tickets and that the $300 in Lugo’s possession was the rest of his money.

TOP-SECRET – The Truth about Operation Triple-A

U.S. Document Implicates Current, Former Colombian Army Commanders in Terror Operation

Army Commander Montoya Assigned to Intelligence Unit Behind ‘American Anticommunist Alliance,’ Responsible for Bombings and other Violence

Then-Army Commander Robledo Authorized Covert Plan

First Declassified Record to Tie Colombian Army to Creation of Paramilitary Group

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 223

The Colombian army’s ties to Triple-A were first disclosed in 1980 in an open letter by five former intelligence officials published in the Mexican newspaper El Día.

Washington D.C., October 15, 20011 – As a growing number of Colombian government officials are investigated for ties to illegal paramilitary terrorists, a 1979 report from the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá raises new questions about the paramilitary past of the current army commander, Gen. Mario Montoya Uribe.

Colombian army commander Gen. Mario Montoya Uribe.
(Source: http://www.ejercito.mil.co)

The declassified cable, the focus of a new article being published today on the Web site of Colombia’s Semana magazine, answers long-simmering questions about a shadowy Colombian terror ogranization responsible for a number of violent acts in the late-1970s and early-80s. Long suspected of ties to the Colombian military, the cable confirms that the American Anticommunist Alliance (Triple-A) was secretly created and staffed by members of Colombian military intelligence in a plan authorized by then-army commander Gen. Jorge Robledo Pulido.

Gen. Montoya was first tied to Triple-A by five former military intelligence operatives who detailed the group’s operations in the Mexican newspaper El Día. The new evidence tying the Army’s ‘Charry Solano’ intelligence battalion to the terror group is likely to refocus attention on Montoya’s role in that unit. The new information follows the publication in March of a secret CIA report linking Montoya to a paramilitary terror operation in 2002-03 while commander of an army brigade in Medellín.

Along with previous Archive postings, the article, also published in English on the Archive’s Web site, is part of an effort by the Colombia documentation project to uncover declassified sources on Colombia’s armed conflict, particularly the illegal paramilitary terror groups now engaged in a controversial demobilization and reparations process with the government.

Read the article in Spanish at Semana.com or in English below.


The Truth about Triple-A
By Michael Evans, Director, Colombia Documentation Project
[Published in Spanish at Semana.com, July 1, 2007]

Colombia’s rapidly unfolding ‘para-politics’ scandal has renewed focus on official links to the country’s illegal right-wing terror groups, especially among the armed forces. The flood of recent revelations, stemming in part from the government’s paramilitary demobilization program, has also gravely impacted relations with Washington, holding up a trade agreement and jeopardizing millions in U.S. assistance.

Now, a 1979 diplomatic report from the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá raises additional questions about the paramilitary ties of embattled Colombian army commander Gen. Mario Montoya Uribe. Montoya came under scrutiny in March after the Los Angeles Times published information from a classified CIA report linking him to a paramilitary group in 2002.

The 1979 Embassy cable, released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive, reveals that a Colombian army intelligence battalion linked to Montoya secretly created and staffed a clandestine terror unit in 1978-79 under the guise of the American Anti-communist Alliance (AAA or Triple-A). The group was responsible for a number of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations against leftist targets during that period.

The formerly ‘Secret’ cable, a review of Colombia’s human rights record from U.S. Ambassador Diego Asencio, is also the first declassified evidence that a top Colombian military official directly authorized a paramilitary terror operation.

According to the report, then-army commander Gen. Jorge Robledo Pulido approved the plan by the ‘Charry Solano’ Intelligence and Counterintelligence Battalion (BINCI) “to create the impression that the American Anti-communist Alliance has established itself in Colombia and is preparing to take violent action against local communists.”

Previously declassified U.S. intelligence reports have revealed that Colombian officers often turned a blind eye to the rightist militias, which are blamed for a large number of massacres and forced displacements in Colombia over the last decade. The Colombian government has long denied official links to paramilitaries, explaining that instances of direct collaboration were isolated and not the result of an explicit strategy. The country’s largest paramilitary umbrella organization, the United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), was added to the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2001.

The Asencio cable confirms that Gen. Robledo was more than simply acquiescent to paramilitarism and actively promoted the military’s direct involvement in rightist terror operations even as the modern paramilitary movement was still taking shape. The document also suggests that many of the young officers involved in those operations like Montoya have risen to influential positions in the Colombian armed forces at a time when the institution is supposedly severing ties with paramilitary groups.

Gen. Montoya, now a top military adviser to President Álvaro Uribe, was assigned to BINCI at the time of the Triple-A operation, according to five former members of the battalion who in 1980 detailed the unit’s terror operations in the pages of the Mexican newspaper El Día. The officers named then-Lt. Mario Montoya as the mastermind behind the bombing of the Communist Party newspaper Voz Proletaria.

The U.S. has examined Gen. Montoya’s alleged ties to Triple-A on several occasions as part of a human rights vetting process for recipients of U.S military assistance. In each case, the U.S. found no evidence to support the charges and dismissed them as leftist slander.

In a 2000 evaluation, the Embassy’s only reference on Montoya’s Triple-A connection was the mostly-unsourced 1992 publication, El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia (State Terrorism in Colombia), prepared by a coalition of international human rights groups including Pax Christi International. Terrorismo largely repeats the charges made in El Día, citing “the confessions of three former military intelligence agents” who said that “Montoya Uribe was part of the Triple A and took part in some of the dynamite attacks.”

Likewise, a September 1999 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report found “no corroborating evidence” to support Pax Christi’s charges about Montoya, then a leading candidate to be named the next armed forces intelligence director. The report characterizes the accusations-including the “dynamiting of communications centers,” death threats, assassinations, and other actions against political opponents and perceived guerrilla sympathizers-as “a NGO smear campaign dating back 20 years.”

In fact, it was 20 years earlier that the U.S. Embassy directly linked army intelligence to the terror operation, and specifically identified the December 1978 bombing of the Colombian Communist Party headquarters as an act carried out by BINCI disguised as Triple-A.

Mounting allegations

The new revelation comes in the wake of a bombshell disclosure by the Los Angeles Times in March of a CIA report that Gen. Montoya engaged in a joint operation with a Medellín-based paramilitary group. ‘Operation Orion’ was part of a larger military offensive in the city during 2002-03 to attack urban guerrilla networks. The sweep resulted in at least 14 deaths and dozens of disappearances. The classified intelligence report confirmed “information provided by a proven source,” according to comments from the U.S. defense attaché included in the document.

That report provoked a strong response from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate subcommittee that overseas Colombia aid, who in April blocked the release of $55 million in U.S. assistance to Colombian security forces. Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives further increased the pressure, dramatically reducing the proportion of U.S. aid going to the Colombian military. U.S. law requires the Colombian government to take steps to sever links to the illegal terror groups.

“[T]he new Congress is not going to be a rubber stamp the way the last Congress was,” Leahy said in a statement May 2, in which he announced that assistance would be suspended pending an investigation of the Montoya allegations. “We do not want our aid to go to anyone with links to paramilitaries.”

Allegations of paramilitary collusion have dogged Montoya throughout his career.

The discovery of a mass grave in the southern department of Putumayo in March 2007 has raised questions about Gen. Montoya’s actions as commander of Joint Task Force South, the US-funded unit charged with coordinating counternarcotics and counterguerrilla operations in that region from 1999-2001. Investigators estimate that the more than 100 victims of paramilitary violence found in the grave were killed over the same two-year period that Montoya led the Task Force.

Declassified documents previously unearthed by the National Security Archive also detail State Department concern that one of the units under Montoya’s command at the Task Force, the 24th Brigade, had ties with paramilitaries based in La Hormiga, the location of the recently discovered gravesite. One State Department cable noted persistent allegations that a 24th Brigade unit based at La Hormiga had “been cooperating with illegal paramilitary groups that have been increasingly active in Putumayo.”

Another allegation charges that Montoya and two other officers allowed paramilitary forces to pass through army roadblocks unhindered before a May 2002 guerrilla-paramilitary clash at Bojoya that left more than 100 people dead. Although officially cleared of wrongdoing, the substantive portions of declassified documents pertaining to Montoya’s actions in this case were redacted by State Department censors.

‘Unexpected consequences’

The revelation of the army’s Triple-A operation also underscores the explosive recent testimony of two former AUC paramilitary commanders who said that the Colombian government fomented paramilitary groups in the 1990’s, a time when the rightist militias dramatically increased their numbers and influence in the country. The statements are required under the Justice and Peace law, a controversial government program through which many senior paramilitary leaders have demobilized their forces, agreeing to confess their crimes and pay reparations to their victims in exchange for reduced criminal penalties.

So far, the testimony suggests that ties between paramilitaries and the government were even deeper than previously imagined, turning the process into a de facto investigation of the state. “Paramilitarism was state policy,” said former AUC chief Salvatore Mancuso before a judicial panel last month. Mancuso’s statement was an unambiguous indictment of senior government officials-many close to President Álvaro Uribe-in fomenting paramilitarism.

The Asencio cable is an important artifact of this hidden history, shedding light not only on a key episode of Colombia’s dirty war, but also on how the U.S. confronted the problem of military-paramilitary links during that critical period. The Ambassador’s acquiescent approach in 1979 contrasts sharply with the tough line now endorsed by influential members of the U.S. Congress.

For his part, Asencio called the Triple-A terror operation a “disturbing development,” but felt that the use of tough tactics was a regrettable but inevitable exigency of counterguerrilla warfare. “In the government’s war on subversion the military forces are a blunt instrument,” he wrote to Washington, “and military operations may have unexpected consequences.”

Now, the recent revelations about state-paramilitary collusion has produced some ‘unexpected consequences’ of its own, and as this process continues, the secret archives of the U.S. Embassy will remain a valuable source on Colombia’s paramilitary past.


Documents
The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
Document 1
1979 February 6
U.S. Embassy Colombia, cable
Human Rights: Estimate of the Present Situation in Colombia
Source: Freedom of Information Act request

U.S. Ambassador Diego Asencio reports on the worsening human rights situation in Colombia as the government continues “a massive operation against the M-19 terrorist group” under a state of siege decreed by President Julio Turbay Ayala.

Among other activities associated with the anti-guerrilla crackdown, the Ambassador notes “the delineation of a plan” by the Army’s intelligence battalion, and approved by Army Commander Gen. Jorge Robledo Pulido, “to create the impression that the American Anti-Communist Alliance (AAA) has established itself in Colombia and is preparing to take violent action against Colombian Communists.” AAA, or Triple-A, was a shadowy, anti-communist terrorist organization responsible for a number of bombings, killings and other violent acts in the late-1970s.

The document attributes the operation to the Army’s Battalion of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (BINCI), also known as the “Charry Solano” battalion. BINCI was the Army’s primary counterintelligence unit, with agents attached to Army elements throughout Colombia and under the operational control of the E-2 Army intelligence directorate in Bogotá. Several young officers reportedly assigned to BINCI at this time, including current Army Commander Gen. Mario Montoya Uribe, have since risen to senior positions in the Colombian Armed Forces. (see Document 2)

Asencio calls the Triple-A operation “a disturbing development,” but does not believe that the group’s actions constitute human rights violations. Terrorist acts like the December 12, 1978, bombing of Colombian Communist Party headquarters were “more appropriately characterized as dirty tricks,” according to the ambassador’s report.

“The plan was born of the frustration the military felt last fall when little headway was being made in combating terrorist activities and is likely to remain inoperative so long as the armed forces are successful in dealing with the problem by other means.”

The ambassador further reports that some M-19 detainees were “roughed up” and that security forces threatened one woman “with becoming a missing person if she did not cooperate with the authorities.” But Asencio adds that the human rights violations that have occurred are the “result of harsh interrogations performed by individuals acting on their own, rather than as torture or the application of a conscious policy to extract information by torture.” “[M]ilitary forces are a “blunt instrument,” the ambassador adds, “and military operations may have unexpected consequences.”

Document 2
1980 November 29
[Open letter to the President of Colombia, et al.]

Source: “Militares colombianos presos denuncian crímenes de colegas,” El Día (Mexico), November 29, 1980. Obtained at the Library of Congress (microfilm)

Five imprisoned members of the Army’s Intelligence and Counterintelligence Battalion (BINCI) describe actions carried out by the unit under the guise of the American Anticommunist Alliance in an open letter published in the pages of the Mexican newspaper El Día. The officials name then-lieutenant Mario Montoya Uribe among many other Colombian Army officers implicated in terrorist actions directed against leftist political targets.

Document 3
Circa 1992
Pax Christi International, et al.
El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia [Excerpt]

This 1992 publication states that “Montoya Uribe was part of the Triple A and took part in some of the dynamite attacks” attributed to the group, citing “the confessions of three former military intelligence agents.” U.S. officials evaluating Montoya’s human rights record have frequently cited and dismissed the allegations contained in Terrorismo–apparently their sole source on the Triple-A allegations–as leftist propaganda.

Document 4
1998 July 01
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report
Biographic Report – Colombia, Colonel Mario ((Montoya)) Uribe, Colombian Army, Director of Intelligence

Source: Freedom of Information Act request

According to the DIA’s biographic report, Gen. Montoya received training at several U.S. military institutions, including the U.S. Army School of the Americas (where he was also a guest instructor), the U.S. Army Armor Advanced Course at Fr. Knox, and other “unspecified” training. His early posts included several stints in Bogotá, Antioquia and in the field of military intelligence. The 1998 report only covers career postings after Montoya attained the rank of major, and thus says nothing about Montoya’s assignment to the BINCI battalion as a relatively young army lieutenant.

Document 5
1999 September 14
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Information Report
Three Leading Candidates to Become Next Military Intelligence Chief

Source: Freedom of Information Act request

This 1999 report from the U.S. defense attaché in Colombia states that Montoya, then the “top candidate” to become director of military intelligence, “has been the target of a baseless NGO smear campaign.”

Calling Montoya “the most highly decorated” and “most widely respected” candidate for the job, the attaché says that that the then-colonel had been subject to a “smear campaign by the Belgium-based ‘Pax Crist'” human rights group.” Their 1992 book, Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia, lists Montoya as a “member, from 1978-79, of a so-called ‘paramilitary structure known as the American Anticommunist Alliance (Alianza Americana Anticomunista)-otherwise known as the ‘Triple A.”

Contained in its six sentences of uncorroborated allegations, Pax Cristi accuses the Triple-A of ‘dynamiting communications centers, death threats against members of political opponents and assassinating members and sympathizers of insurgent groups.’ Furthermore, the report charges that three ex-military intelligence agents who were former members of the “Charry Solano” intelligence and counterintelligence battalion, indicated that Montoya was a member of the Triple A, and took part in the dynamiting. The report provided no corroborating evidence to support these allegations.

Document 6
2000 February 04
U.S. Embassy Colombia, cable
Human Rights: Review of Unit Proposed Under End-Use Monitoring Agreement: Colombian Army JTF-S (“Joint Task Force South”) Command Element
Source: Freedom of Information Act request

Under a 1997 agreement, the U.S. required units and individuals slated for U.S. assistance to be vetted for human rights violations. In this cable, the U.S. Embassy requests that State Department officials in Washington undertake a review of the human rights records of the “command element” of Joint Task Force South, a U.S.-funded military unit with “operational command” of several important counternarcotics and counterinsurgency brigades in southern Colombia. The document dismisses the charges made against Gen. Montoya in Terrorismo de Estado, calling them “unsupported” and “baseless.”

Document 7
2000 June 26
U.S. Embassy Colombia, cable
Part of the 1st CN Battalion Deployed to Southern Putumayo; Logistical Support from 24th Brigade
Source: Freedom of Information Act request

On May 11, 2000, the first company of soldiers from the U.S.-supported First Counternarcotics Battalion was deployed to southern Colombia and was under the operational control of Joint Task Force South (JTF-S), then under the command of Gen. Montoya. The unit was then spearheading the military’s counternarcotics campaign in Putumayo and other areas. In this cable, U.S. Ambassador Curtis Kamman feels compelled to flag for the State Department that the battalion is operating alongside and with the support of the army’s 24th Brigade, a unit denied U.S. security assistance in 1999 due to human rights concerns.

The counternarcotics battalion’s “Bravo Company” “has been operating in the 24th Brigade’s area of operations since May 11,” the cable reports, “and will remain there indefinitely.” The company is “bedding down” with the brigade’s 31st Battalion “which has been tasked to provide Bravo Company with logistical support.” While operational control rests with the vetted commanders of JTF-S, “the 24th Brigade would provide any quick reaction force needed to reinforce Bravo Company should the need arise.” Because of the 24th Brigade’s “questioned vetting status” Kamman wants to “note this deployment for the record.”

Document 8
2000 July 05
U.S. State Department, cable
Approach to MOD [Minister of Defense] on 24th Brigade

Source: Freedom of Information Act Release to the National Security Archive

In this cable, the State Department forwards talking points to U.S. Ambassador Curtis Kamman detailing how he should approach the Colombian Minister of Defense about U.S. concerns over allegations of human rights violations by members of the Army’s 24th Brigade, then a component unit of Joint Task Force South, the U.S.-funded unit led by Gen. Montoya.

The Brigade, considered a vital component of U.S. counternarcotics strategy in southern Colombia, had recently been accused of several human rights crimes, including the execution of three campesinos detained at a roadblock near San Miguel, Putumayo. The 24th Brigade was denied U.S. assistance in September 2000, but continued to act as an integral part of Joint Task Force South, the command spearheading the first phase of “Plan Colombia,” and which would eventually include all three U.S.-supported counternarcotics battalions.

Kamman is to stress that “the participation of the 24th Brigade is critical for counternarcotics operations and the success of Plan Colombia,” but that the U.S. “cannot provide assistance to the 24th Brigade” until the Colombians finish their investigation of the incident, and only then if the investigation is “thorough and either disproves the allegations or recommends appropriate sanctions for those involved.”

In his talking points, the ambassador is told to stress “persistent reports that the 24th Brigade, and the 31st Counterguerrilla Battalion in particular, has been cooperating with illegal paramilitary groups that have been increasingly active in Putumayo.” As noted in the previous document, the Bravo Company of the U.S.-backed First Counternarcotics Battalion had been bunking with, and receiving logistical and other support from, the 31st Counterguerrilla Battalion and the 24th Brigade since it arrived in Putumayo on May 11, 2000.

BÖRSE ONLINE über DIE SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN DER “GoMoPa”- (Eigenbezeichnung)

http://www.graumarktinfo.de/gm/aktuell/diskussion/:Gomopa–Anwaelte-als-Finanzierungsquelle/616477.html

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – Houston Cold Case Solved

Latent printA latent print removed from the victim’s car was determined to be a match to the suspect’s
fingerprint (inset) contained in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS.

Houston Cold Case Solved
Forensics Personnel Honored by FBI

On December 14, 1969, a young single mother named Diane Maxwell Jackson arrived for her shift as a Southwestern Bell telephone operator in Houston. After parking her car in the company lot, she was forced into a nearby shack by an unknown individual and brutally raped, strangled, and stabbed to death. After a thorough investigation by the Houston Police Department (PD), no suspects were identified, and the latent prints lifted from the outside of the victim’s car were filed away.

What’s a Latent Print?

It’s an impression—usually invisible to the naked eye—left on crime scene evidence that’s produced by the ridged skin on human fingers, palms, or soles of the feet. A variety of techniques, including using chemicals, powders, lasers, and alternate light sources, are employed in the detection and development of latent prints. These prints are then routinely searched through local and state fingerprint databases to find a match. If those searches aren’t successful, the prints can also be submitted to the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).

Decades later, assisted by advances in technology and interest from the victim’s brother, the case was reopened and ultimately solved. And most recently, the Houston PD detective and Texas Department of Public Safety latent print technician so instrumental in the outcome were honored by the FBI with the 2011 “Latent Hit of the Year” Award.

This award is given out annually for a latent print identification made after a search of our Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) that results in a conviction for a major violent crime. IAFIS is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to requests from our partners and our own investigators to help solve and prevent crimes and terrorism. It currently houses the fingerprints of more than 70 million criminal subjects.

Houston case background: Years passed after Jackson’s murder, and with no new leads, the case went cold. But in 1989, David Maxwell, the victim’s brother, began reviewing the file on his sister’s death. Maxwell reconsidered his plan to become a lawyer after his sister died and instead joined the Texas State Highway Patrol and later the Texas Rangers. He asked the Houston PD to review the original evidence and witness reports for any new leads. A Houston newspaper ran an article publicizing the murder and requesting assistance from the public. At the same time, the Houston PD began a search for the latent prints lifted from the victim’s car.

Once located, the prints were searched against the Houston PD’s local fingerprint database and the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Neither searched yielded a positive ID

On July 23, 2003, Texas Department of Public Safety Latent Print Technician Jill Kinkade prepared the prints for a search of the FBI’s IAFIS. In less than five hours, the system returned a response containing 20 potential matches, and Kinkade determined that the latent print evidence was a match to the number one candidate—James Ray Davis.

Honing in on a suspect. Investigators discovered that Davis had been arrested for various crimes before and after Diane Maxwell Jackson’s murder—in fact, he had just finished a prison term nine days before the murder.

Learning about the latent print identification of Davis, Houston PD Sergeant James Ramsey—the case’s lead investigator—quickly located the suspect living along the Texas-Arkansas border. Investigators knew that because his fingerprints were recovered from the outside of the victim’s car, they would likely need a confession in order to get a conviction, After being presented with the forensic evidence and photographs of the crime scene, Davis admitted to the crimes.

He pled guilty in court, and on November 24, 2003, 34 years after the homicide, James Ray Davis was sentenced to life in prison for the rape and murder of Diane Maxwell Jackson.

DIE FINGIERTE “GoMoPa” IM TYPISCHEN STASI-TÄUSCHUNGSSTIL

http://pressemitteilung.ws/node/323848

 

UND HIER DIE SERIÖSE PRESSE ZUR MUTMASSLICHEN NEO-STASI DER “GoMoPa”

 

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?page_id=11764

TOP-SECRET – US and Kazakhstan Set First Megadeath Control VPN

Joint Statement on the Continuation of the Bilateral Government to Government Communication Link

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
October 12, 2011

The following statement was issued today by the United States, and Kazakhstan in Astana.

BEGIN TEXT:

For twenty years the United States and Kazakhstan have been partners in the struggle against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That partnership continues to flourish, as our nations work together to create the conditions for the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

December will mark ten years since former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then Foreign Minister Yerlan Idrissov signed the agreement which provided a legal basis for the existence and continued operation of the Government-to-Government Communications Link (GGCL) between the United States and Kazakhstan for the exchange of arms control treaty notifications.

The GGCL is an instrument of mutual trust and cooperation that provides a reliable and easy way for our two countries share information. It also serves as a back-up capability through which our senior officials can communicate.

These secure, direct links between our two nations are operated in the United States by the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center at the Department of State and in Kazakhstan by the Arms Control and Inspection Activity Support Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Across these links, our Centers have exchanged thousands of notifications required by the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty (START) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Today, the United States and Kazakhstan are inaugurating a new phase in our Government to Government Communication Link.

The United States and Kazakhstan are modernizing the GGCLs to operate as a cost-effective, internet-based, secure Virtual Private Network (VPN), a first for our bilateral GGCLs.

This new digital connection simplifies the current GGCL network. It employs internet-based connectivity which will provide further communication capabilities, flexibility and enhanced reliability. Modernization will also permit the system to accommodate new responsibilities, as needed.

The commitment of the United States and Kazakhstan to maintaining and upgrading the GGCL is symbolic of the importance both nations attach to that partnership in arms control and non-proliferation, and to the enduring nature of that partnership.

PRN: 2011/1702

GESUCHT- STASI -Oberst Stelzer, Autor der STASI-Mord-Studie-“Toxdat”

Professor Mord alias STASI -Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer (nachempfunden, da es keine Photos von “GoMoPa”-Gründer Stelzer gibt). Er ist der mutmassliche Chef des Neo-STASI-Netzwerkes “GoMoPa” undzahlreicher Verbrecher verdächtig.

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=22835

HANDELSBLATT ÜBER PETER EHLERS , GERD BENNEWIRTZ’ KUMPANE VON “GoMoPa-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGENBLOG”

http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/boerse-maerkte/boerse-inside/finanzaufsicht-untersucht-kursachterbahn-bei-wirecard/3406252.html

TOP-SECRET FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE – Who Killed Jaime Garzón?

Jaime Garzón (Photo – Semana.com)

Who Killed Jaime Garzón?

Document Points to Military/Paramilitary Nexus in Murder of Popular Colombian Comedian

Garzón Had Been “Deeply Troubled” by Meeting with Senior Army Officer

Ongoing Impunity in 12-year-old Case Spurs Inter-American Commission Complaint

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 360

Washington, D.C., October 13, 2011 – Twelve years after the assassination of beloved Colombian journalist and political satirist Jaime Garzón, a newly-declassified State Department cable, published on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org), supports longstanding allegations that Colombian military officials ordered the killing. Written just days after the murder, the cable from the U.S. Embassy in Colombia says that Garzón “had been killed by paramilitaries in league with ‘loose cannon’ active or retired members of the security forces.”

One of Colombia’s most popular television personalities, Garzón was also a high-profile advocate for government talks with leftist rebel groups when he was gunned down on August 13, 1999. Carlos Castaño, top leader of an illegal right-wing militia known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), was convicted in absentia of masterminding the plot in 2001 but was never brought to justice and is now presumed dead. Castaño remains the only individual ever sentenced in the case, though the involvement of Colombian security forces has long been suspected.

The document published today is among key evidence cited by lawyers representing Garzón’s family who are seeking to hold the Colombian state responsible for his murder. Last month, human rights attorneys from the Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo” and the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas jointly requested a hearing on the Garzón case before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR).

Of particular interest in the newly-declassified cable is the revelation that retired general Rito Alejo del Río Rojas may have lied in a 2001 declaration before Colombian prosecutors when he denied that he had ever met Garzón. Quite the contrary, the embassy report says that Del Río “upbraided” Garzón when the two met to discuss his efforts to restart peace negotiations with the ELN guerrilla group. The embassy’s confidential source said that Garzón “came away from the meeting very troubled by the depths of the anger that Del Río vented.”

“The general lied to the Prosecutor General’s office, and the question is why,” said Rafael Barrios, a lawyer from the Colectivo de Abogados.

Forced out of the military in 1999, Gen. Del Río is currently on trial for a separate murder charge and for collaboration with paramilitary death squads while he was commander of the Army’s 17th Brigade in Urabá. Former President Álvaro Uribe (who worked closely with Gen. Del Río while governor of Antioquia from 1995-1997) has been one of the general’s staunchest supporters and was the keynote speaker at the general’s retirement ceremony.

The newly-released embassy cable on the Garzón killing adds to a growing body of declassified evidence pointing to Del Río’s “systematic” use of illegal paramilitary forces.

  • A U.S. embassy “biographic note” from 1998 said that Del Río’s “systematic arming and equipping of aggressive regional paramilitaries” had been “pivotal” to the brigade’s success against guerrilla groups in the mid-1990s.
  • One of the general’s deputies told U.S. military officials that paramilitary collaboration at the 17th Brigade “had gotten much worse under Del Río.”
  • Another retired Colombian military officer told the embassy that Del Río was one of “the two most corrupt army officers in Colombia” and said that the general “told 17th Brigade personnel to cooperate with paramilitaries whenever Del Río was physically absent from the area.”

The cable backs up the testimony of former AUC paramilitary leaders who have also linked top military officials to the Garzón murder. Freddy Rendón Herrera (“El Alemán”) told a judicial panel that Castaño had authorized the Garzón slaying “at the specific request of a senior military leader of the time.” Another top paramilitary leader, Ever Veloza García (“HH”), told Colombian authorities that Castaño ordered the killing “as a favor to some friends in the National Army.”

Additional details linking Rendón’s “Elmer Cárdenas” bloc to the 17th Brigade were uncovered earlier this year in the Wikileaks material and published by El Espectador. The leaked embassy cable said that the 17th Brigade had illegally incorporated former members of Rendón’s paramilitary gang into a network of civilian informants (Red de Cooperantes) promoted by President Uribe. The official said his unit had been secretly authorized by the government to work with ex-members of the Elmer Cárdenas bloc and that they were “providing good information” on illegal armed groups in the conflictive Urabá region.

Urabá was the wellspring of the paramilitary AUC, which was responsible for thousands of killings and many of the country’s most egregious human rights atrocities. The U.S. State Department added the AUC to its official list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2001, in part due to its suspected role in the Garzón assassination.

Colombian prosecutors have also opened an investigation into charges that the country’s former top intelligence chief, José Miguel Narváez, was behind the killing.

The cable published today provides a chilling description of the killing, which occurred just a few blocks from the U.S. Embassy compound in Bogotá:

FBI – TOP -S ECRET -“Underwear Bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Pleads Guilty

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “underwear bomber,” pleaded guilty today in federal court to all eight counts of the indictment, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced today. McQuade was joined in the announcement by Andrew G. Arena, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI and Brian Moskowitz, Special Agent in Charge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 25, of Kaduna, Nigeria, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries; attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; willfully placing a destructive device on an aircraft, which was likely to have endangered the safety of the aircraft; attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction; willfully attempting to destroy and wreck a civil aircraft; and three counts of possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence. Abdulmutallab faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

According to the indictment filed in this case, in August 2009, the defendant traveled to Yemen for the purpose of becoming involved in violent “jihad” on behalf of al Qaeda. There, the defendant conspired with other al Qaeda members to bomb a U.S. aircraft over U.S. soil and received an explosive device for that purpose. Abdulmutallab traveled with the bomb concealed in his underwear from Yemen to Africa and then to Amsterdam, The Netherlands, where he boarded Flight 253 on Christmas day, 2009. The bomb contained PETN and TATP, two high explosives, and was designed to be detonated with a syringe containing other chemicals. Abdulmutallab’s purpose in taking the bomb on board Flight 253 was to detonate it during flight, causing the plane to crash and killing the 290 passengers and crew members on board. As Flight 253 was on descent into Detroit Metropolitan Airport, the defendant detonated the bomb, which resulted in a fire, but otherwise did not fully explode. Passengers and flight attendants tackled the defendant and extinguished the fire.

“This case demonstrates that civilian courts are an appropriate tool for bringing terrorists to justice,” McQuade said. “Thanks to the hard work and professionalism of the law enforcement personnel and prosecutors who worked on this case, the defendant will spend the rest of his life in prison.”

“The case against Abdulmutallab was a combination of the hard work and dedication of FBI personnel as well as multiple federal, state, and local agencies. Those individuals who experienced Christmas Day 2009 first hand can be rest assured that justice has and will be done,” said Andrew G. Arena, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office.

The defendant’s sentencing is scheduled for January 12, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. where he faces a mandatory life sentence.

The investigation of this case has been conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Tukel, Cathleen M. Corken, and Michael C. Martin.

DIE WELT ÜBER DIE DIFFAMIERUNGSMETHODEN DER STASI – VORBILD FÜR “GoMoPa”

http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article145822/Wie_die_Stasi_Strauss_diffamierte.html

DIE SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN DER “GoMoPa” (EIGENBEZEICHNUNG) UND IHRE PARTNER IM SPIEGEL DER PRESSE

http://berndpulch.org/die-gesamte-deutsche-presse-verabscheut-die-tatsachlich-vorbestraften-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-tater-und-ihr-%E2%80%9Ckinderportal%E2%80%9D/

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – 18 Child Porn Websites Shut Down

Locked laptop

In another example of the increasingly international nature of crime, a man was recently indicted on federal charges of running 18 Chinese-language child pornography websites out of his apartment in Flushing, New York. The websites were being advertised to Chinese-speaking individuals in China, in the U.S., and other countries.

This case serves as an example of something else as well: the increasingly international nature of law enforcement. While the FBI investigated this case in the U.S., we received what U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York called “extensive cooperation and assistance” from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security.

How it all started. In late 2010, the FBI—through our legal attaché office in Beijing—received information from Chinese officials about their investigation of a large-scale child pornography website housed on U.S. servers. And one of their main suspects, a Chinese-born man, was living in New York. So our New York office opened an investigation under our Innocent Images National Initiative and instituted an undercover operation.

The investigation. While the main webpage advertised the various categories of pornographic pictures that were available, our undercover agents—with the help of an FBI Chinese language specialist—discovered that in order to actually view, post, or download the pornography, you had to pay a membership fee ($25 quarterly, $50 annually, and $100 for a “lifetime” membership). The website conveniently accepted all payment types—credit cards, wire and bank transfers, online payments, and even cash that could be mailed to what turned out to be a money transfer office in New York. After becoming “members,” the agents saw hundreds of disturbing pictures and videos of children of all different nationalities engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Through our investigative efforts, we were able to determine that the site—and its related online payment system—resided on the servers of a web hosting company in Dallas and that the subscriber of the website domain lived in Flushing. We also traced two e-mail accounts—one featured on the site and the other affiliated with the website domain—back to the same individual. Through billing information, we learned that the man had made about $20,000 per month from his subscribers. We believe he had been operating the site since at least 2007.

After the arrest, we identified 17 additional Chinese-language child pornography websites he allegedly maintained and operated. We also seized two servers in Dallas where those sites were hosted. All 18 websites have been shut down.

During the course of the operation, FBI and Chinese investigators and prosecutors met to discuss the case and to talk about future cooperation on similar cases.

One concrete outcome of this partnership? The Ministry of Public Security sent its first Chinese officer to join the FBI’s Innocent Images International Task Force and receive specialized training on such topics as legal principals, emerging trends and technologies, and investigative techniques. Once the fall 2011 training session is completed, the task force will number 100 officers in 43 countries. Since its launch in 2004, the task force has built an international network of Internet child sexual exploitation investigators who share intelligence and work joint operations across national borders. Exactly what’s needed to combat the many child pornographers using the Internet to extend their nefarious reach around the globe.

FBI-TOP-SECRET-Virginia Man Accused of Acting as Unregistered Agent of Syrian Government and Spying on Syrian Protestors in America

WASHINGTON—Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid, 47, a resident of Leesburg, Va., has been charged for his alleged role in a conspiracy to collect video and audio recordings and other information about individuals in the United States and Syria who were protesting the government of Syria and to provide these materials to Syrian intelligence agencies in order to silence, intimidate, and potentially harm the protestors.

The charges were announced by Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and James McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office.

Soueid, aka “Alex Soueid” or “Anas Alswaid,” a Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was charged by a federal grand jury on Oct. 5, 2011, in a six-count indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia. Soueid is charged with conspiring to act and acting as an agent of the Syrian government in the United States without notifying the Attorney General as required by law; two counts of providing false statements on a firearms purchase form; and two counts of providing false statements to federal law enforcement.

Soueid was arrested on Oct. 11, 2011, and will make an initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchanan today at 2:00 p.m. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison on the conspiracy and foreign agent charges, 15 years in prison on the firearms purchase charges and 10 years in prison on the false statement charges.

“Today’s indictment alleges that the defendant acted as an unregistered agent of the Syrian government as part of an effort to collect information on people in this country protesting the Syrian government crack-down. I applaud the many agents, analysts and prosecutors who helped bring about today’s case,” said Assistant Attorney General Monaco.

“The ability to assemble and protest is a cherished right in the United States, and it’s troubling that a U.S. citizen from Leesburg is accused of working with the Syrian government to identify and intimidate those who exercise that right,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride. “Spying for another country is a serious threat to our national security, especially when it threatens the ability of U.S. citizens to engage in political speech within our own borders.”

“Our national security is threatened when foreign governments use unregistered agents in an attempt to influence and intimidate those who live here lawfully,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin. “Their alleged acts desecrate the values cherished in our fair and open society. The FBI will be counted on to detect and deter unregistered agents who attempt clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign political power and work to bring them swiftly to justice.”

According to the indictment, since March 2011, Soueid has acted in the United States as an agent of the Syrian Mukhabarat, which refers to the intelligence agencies for the Government of Syria, including the Syrian Military Intelligence and General Intelligence Directorate. At no time while acting as an agent of the government of Syria in this country did Soueid provide prior notification to the Attorney General as required by law, the indictment alleges.

Under the direction and control of Syrian officials, Soueid is accused of recruiting individuals living in the United States to collect information on and make audio and video recordings of protests against the Syrian regime—including recordings of conversations with individual protestors—in the United States and Syria. He is also charged with providing the recordings and other information to individuals working for the Mukhabarat. According to the indictment, Soueid and others conspired to use this information to undermine, silence, intimidate and potentially harm those in the United States and Syria who engaged in the protests.

The indictment states that in late June 2011, the Syrian government paid for Soueid to travel to Syria, where he met with intelligence officials and spoke with President Bashar al-Assad in private.

He returned to the United States in early July 2011, and he was searched and questioned at Dulles International Airport upon his arrival. The indictment states that Soueid communicated with his “boss,” an unindicted co-conspirator (or UCC-1) who was working for the Mukhabarat, soon after to alert him of the search and questioning and to assure the individual that the airport encounter would not “stop the project.”

In addition to the recordings, Soueid is accused of providing the Mukhabarat contact information, including phone numbers and e-mail addresses, for protestors in the United States. In a handwritten letter sent to UCC-1, Soueid allegedly expressed his belief that violence against protestors—including raiding their homes—was justified and that any method should be used to deal with the protestors. The indictment also alleges that Soueid provided information regarding U.S. protestors against the Syrian regime to an individual who worked at the Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C.

On Aug. 3, 2011, FBI agents interviewed Soueid, and the indictment accuses him of lying to the agents when he denied that he had collected information on U.S. persons and transmitted that information to the government of Syria. In addition, Soueid allegedly made further false statements when he denied to FBI agents that he had directed someone to audio or videotape a conversation, meeting, rally or protest, or that he was aware of any individual taking photographs or videotaping people. He also allegedly made false statements when he denied that he had ever been an agent of the Syrian government or a foreign intelligence officer.

The indictment states that the day following the interview, Soueid asked UCC-1 to inform the Mukhabarat about his FBI interview.

In addition, the indictment alleges that, when purchasing a Beretta pistol on July 11, 2011, Soueid listed a false current residence address on a firearms purchase application and in records that were kept by a licensed firearms dealer.

This investigation is being conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office with assistance from the Loudon County, Va., Sheriff’s Office. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dennis Fitzpatrick and Neil Hammerstrom of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Brandon L. Van Grack of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains mere allegations and that a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

FAZ ÜBER DIE WIRTSCHAFTSKRIMINELLEN UND PARTNER VON GERD BENNEWIRTZ UND PETER EHLERS “GoMoPa”

FAZ – FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG ÜBER “GoMoPa”

 

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/cyberstalking-im-netz-11084803.html

TOP-SECRET – Morgan Stanley Rigs NYC Electricity Bids

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Morgan Stanley; Proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment,
Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
United States of America v. Morgan Stanley, Civil Action No. 11-Civ-
6875. On September 30, 2011, the United States filed a

[[Page 62844]]

Complaint alleging that a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley entered into an
agreement with KeySpan Corporation, the likely effect of which was to
increase prices in the New York City (NYISO Zone J) Capacity Market, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The proposed
Final Judgment, submitted at the same time as the Complaint, requires
Morgan Stanley to pay the government $4.8 million dollars.
    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive
Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth
Street NW., DC 20530 Suite 1010 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the
Department of Justice's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at
the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Copies of these materials may be
obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the
copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.
    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this
notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the
Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed
to William H. Stallings, Chief, Transportation Energy and Agriculture
Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20530, (telephone: 202-514-9323).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

United States of America, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 450 5th Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,
Plaintiff,

    v.

Morgan Stanley, 1585 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036, Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 11-civ-6875.

Complaint

    The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust
action under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, to
obtain equitable and other relief from Defendant's violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1.
    On January 18, 2006, KeySpan Corporation (``KeySpan'') and Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc. (``MSGC''), a subsidiary of defendant Morgan
Stanley,\1\ executed an agreement (the ``Morgan/KeySpan Swap'') that
ensured that KeySpan would withhold substantial output from the New
York City electricity generating capacity market, a market that was
created to ensure the supply of sufficient generation capacity for New
York City consumers of electricity. The likely effect of the Morgan/
KeySpan Swap was to increase capacity prices for the retail electricity
suppliers who must purchase capacity, and, in turn, to increase the
prices consumers pay for electricity. For its part, Morgan enjoyed
profits arising from revenues earned in connection with the Morgan/
KeySpan Swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MSCG and Morgan Stanley are collectively referred to
hereinafter as ``Morgan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    1. Between 2003 and 2006, KeySpan, the largest seller of
electricity generating capacity (``installed capacity'') in the New
York City market, earned substantial revenues due to tight supply
conditions. Because purchasers of capacity required almost all of
KeySpan's output to meet expected demand, KeySpan's ability to set
price levels was limited only by a regulatory ceiling (called a ``bid
cap''). Indeed, the market price for capacity was consistently at or
near KeySpan's bid cap, with KeySpan sacrificing sales on only a small
fraction of its capacity.
    2. But market conditions were about to change. Two large, new
electricity generation plants were slated to come on line in 2006 (with
no exit expected until at least 2009), breaking the capacity shortage
that had kept prices at the capped levels.
    3. KeySpan could prevent the new capacity from lowering prices by
withholding a substantial amount of its own capacity from the market.
This ``bid the cap'' strategy would keep market prices high, but at a
significant cost--the sacrificed sales would reduce KeySpan's revenues
by as much as $90 million per year. Alternatively, KeySpan could
compete with its rivals for sales by bidding more capacity at lower
prices. This ``competitive strategy'' could earn KeySpan more than
bidding its cap, but it carried a risk--KeySpan's competitors could
undercut its price and take sales away, making the strategy less
profitable than ``bidding the cap.''
    4. KeySpan searched for a way to avoid both the revenue decline
from bidding its cap and the revenue risks of competitive bidding. It
decided to enter into an agreement that gave it a financial interest in
the capacity of Astoria--KeySpan's largest competitor. By providing
KeySpan revenues on a larger base of sales, such an agreement would
make KeySpan's ``bid the cap'' strategy more profitable than a
successful competitive bid strategy. Rather than directly approach its
competitor, KeySpan turned to Morgan to act as the counterparty to the
agreement--the Morgan/KeySpan Swap--recognizing that Morgan would, and
in fact did, enter into an offsetting agreement with Astoria (the
``Morgan/Astoria Hedge'').
    5. Morgan recognized that it could profit from combining the
economic interests of KeySpan and Astoria. Morgan extracted revenues by
entering into the financial instruments and thereby stepping into the
middle of the two companies. With KeySpan deriving revenues from both
its own and Astoria's capacity, the Morgan/KeySpan Swap removed any
incentive for KeySpan to bid competitively, locking it into bidding its
cap. Capacity prices remained as high as if no entry had occurred.

II. Defendant

    6. Morgan Stanley is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in New York City. Morgan Stanley provides diversified
financial services, operating a global asset management business,
investment banking services, and a global securities business,
including a commodities trading division. Morgan Stanley Capital Group,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, functions as and is
publicly referred to as the commodities trading division for the parent
company Morgan Stanley. In 2010, Morgan Stanley had revenues of $31.6
billion.

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

    7. The United States files this complaint under Section 4 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, seeking equitable relief from Defendant's
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
    8. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 4 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337.
    9. Defendant waives any objection to venue and personal
jurisdiction in this judicial district for the purpose of this
Complaint.
    10. Defendant engaged in interstate commerce during the relevant
period of the allegations in this Complaint; Morgan is a worldwide
company that regularly engages in financial transactions across the
country and throughout the world.

IV. The New York City Installed Capacity Market

    11. Sellers of retail electricity must purchase a product from
generators

[[Page 62845]]

known as ``installed capacity.'' Installed capacity is a product
created by the New York Independent System Operator (``NYISO'') to
ensure that sufficient generation capacity exists to meet expected
electricity needs. Companies selling electricity to consumers in New
York City are required to make installed capacity payments that relate
to their expected peak demand plus a share of reserve capacity (to
cover extra facilities needed in case a generating facility breaks
down). These payments assure that retail electric companies do not sell
more electricity than the system can deliver and also encourage
electric generating companies to build new facilities as needed.
    12. The price for installed capacity has been set through auctions
administered by the NYISO. The rules under which these auctions are
conducted have changed from time to time. Unless otherwise noted, the
description of the installed capacity market in the following
paragraphs relates to the period May 2003 through March 2008.
    13. Because transmission constraints limit the amount of energy
that can be imported into the New York City area from the power grid,
the NYISO requires retail providers of electricity to customers in New
York City to purchase 80% of their capacity from generators in that
region. The NYISO operates separate capacity auctions for the New York
City region (also known as ``In-City'' and ``Zone J''). The NYISO
organizes the auctions to serve two distinct seasonal periods, summer
(May through October) and winter (November through April). For each
season, the NYISO conducts seasonal, monthly and spot auctions in which
capacity can be acquired for all or some of the seasonal period.
    14. In each of the types of auctions, capacity suppliers offer
price and quantity bids. Supplier bids are ``stacked'' from lowest-
priced to highest, and compared to the total amount of demand being
satisfied in the auction. The offering price of the last bid in the
``stack'' needed to meet requisite demand establishes the market price
for all capacity bid into that auction. Capacity bid at higher than
this price is unsold, as is any excess capacity bid at what becomes the
market price.
    15. The New York City Installed Capacity (``NYC Capacity'') Market
constitutes a relevant geographic and product market.
    16. The NYC Capacity Market is highly concentrated, with three
firms--KeySpan, NRG Energy, Inc. (``NRG'') and Astoria Generating
Company Acquisitions, L.L.C. (a joint venture of Madison Dearborn
Partners, LLC and US Power Generating Company, which purchased the
Astoria generating assets from Reliant Energy, Inc. in February 2006)--
controlling a substantial portion of generating capacity in the market.
Because purchasers of capacity require at least some of each of these
three suppliers' output to meet expected demand, the firms are subject
to a bid and price cap for nearly all of their generating capacity in
New York City and are not allowed to sell that capacity outside of the
NYISO auction process. The NYISO-set bid cap for KeySpan is the highest
of the three firms, followed by NRG and Astoria.
    17. KeySpan possessed market power in the NYC Capacity Market.
    18. It is difficult and time-consuming to build or expand
generating facilities within the NYC Capacity Market given limited
undeveloped space for building or expanding generating facilities and
extensive regulatory obligations.

V. Keyspan's Plan To Avoid Competition

    19. From June 2003 through December 2005, KeySpan set the market
price in the New York City spot auction by bidding its capacity at its
cap. Given extremely tight supply and demand conditions, KeySpan needed
to withhold only a small amount of capacity to ensure that the market
cleared at its cap.
    20. KeySpan anticipated that the tight supply and demand conditions
in the NYC Capacity Market would change in 2006, due to the entry of
approximately 1000 MW of new generation. Because of the addition of
this new capacity, KeySpan would have to withhold significantly more
capacity from the market and would earn substantially lower revenues if
it continued to bid all of its capacity at its bid cap. KeySpan
anticipated that demand growth and retirement of old generation units
would restore tight supply and demand conditions in 2009.
    21. KeySpan could no longer be confident that ``bidding the cap''
would remain its best strategy during the 2006-2009 period. It
considered various competitive bidding strategies under which KeySpan
would compete with its rivals for sales by bidding more capacity at
lower prices. These strategies could potentially produce much higher
returns for KeySpan but carried the risk that competitors would
undercut its price and take sales away, making the strategy less
profitable than ``bidding the cap.''
    22. KeySpan also considered acquiring Astoria's generating assets,
which were for sale. This would have solved the problem that new entry
posed for KeySpan's revenue stream, as Astoria's capacity would have
provided KeySpan with sufficient additional revenues to make continuing
to ``bid the cap'' its best strategy. KeySpan consulted with Morgan
about acquiring the assets. But KeySpan soon concluded that its
acquisition of its largest competitor would raise serious market power
issues and communicated that conclusion to Morgan.
    23. Instead of purchasing the Astoria assets, KeySpan decided to
acquire a financial interest in substantially all of Astoria's
capacity. KeySpan would pay Astoria's owner a fixed revenue stream in
return for the revenues generated from Astoria's capacity sales in the
auctions.
    24. KeySpan did not approach Astoria directly, instead approaching
Morgan to arrange a financial agreement providing KeySpan with payments
derived from the market clearing price for an amount of capacity
essentially equivalent to what Astoria owned. KeySpan recognized that
Morgan would need simultaneously to enter into an off-setting financial
agreement with another capacity supplier. Morgan agreed to such a Swap
but, as expected, informed KeySpan that the agreement was contingent on
Morgan entering into an offsetting agreement with the owner of the
Astoria assets.

VI. Morgan's Agreements With Keyspan and Astoria

    25. Over the course of late 2005, Morgan negotiated the terms of
the derivative agreements with Astoria and KeySpan. Those negotiations
illustrate that Morgan recognized its role as a principal in
effectively combining the capacity of the two companies. Under the
terms initially discussed with Astoria, Morgan would have controlled
the bidding of Astoria's capacity. Morgan also proposed that the
financial derivative with Astoria be converted into a physical
contract, transferring the rights to Astoria's capacity to Morgan in
exchange for fixed payments, in the event that the structure of the
auction market was disrupted; and, at the same time, Morgan proposed in
its negotiations with KeySpan to transfer this physical capacity to
KeySpan should a market disruption occur.
    26. On or about January 9, 2006, KeySpan and Morgan finalized the
terms of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap. Under the agreement, if the market
price for capacity was above $7.57 per kW-month, Morgan would pay
KeySpan the difference between the market price and $7.57 times 1800
MW; if the market price was below $7.57, KeySpan would

[[Page 62846]]

pay Morgan the difference times 1800 MW.
    27. The Morgan/KeySpan Swap was executed on January 18, 2006. The
term of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap ran from May 2006 through April 2009.
    28. On or about January 9, 2006, Morgan and Astoria finalized the
terms of the Morgan/Astoria Hedge. Under that agreement, if the market
price for capacity was above $7.07 per kW-month, Astoria would pay
Morgan the difference times 1800 MW; if the market price was below
$7.07, Astoria would be paid the difference times 1800 MW.
    29. The Morgan/Astoria Hedge was executed on January 11, 2006. The
term of the Morgan/Astoria Hedge ran from May 2006 through April 2009,
matching the duration of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap.

VII. The Competitive Effect of the Morgan/Keyspan Swap

    30. The clear tendency of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap was to alter
KeySpan's bidding in the NYC Capacity Market auctions.
    31. Without the Morgan/KeySpan Swap, KeySpan likely would have
chosen from a range of potentially profitable competitive strategies in
response to the entry of new capacity. Had it done so, the price of
capacity would have declined. By transferring a financial interest in
Astoria's capacity to KeySpan, however, the Morgan/KeySpan Swap
effectively eliminated KeySpan's incentive to compete for sales in the
same way a purchase of Astoria or a direct agreement between KeySpan
and Astoria would have done. By providing KeySpan revenues from
Astoria's capacity, in addition to KeySpan's own revenues, the Morgan/
KeySpan Swap made bidding the cap KeySpan's most profitable strategy
regardless of its rivals' bids.
    32. After the Morgan/KeySpan Swap went into effect in May 2006,
KeySpan paid and received revenues under the agreement with Morgan and
consistently bid its capacity at its cap even though a significant
portion of its capacity went unsold. Despite the addition of
significant new generating capacity in New York City, the market price
of capacity did not decline.
    33. In August 2007, the State of New York conditioned the sale of
KeySpan to a new owner on the divestiture of KeySpan's Ravenswood
generating assets and required KeySpan to bid its New York City
capacity at zero from March 2008 until the divestiture was completed.
Since March 2008, the market price for capacity has declined.
    34. But for the Morgan/KeySpan Swap, installed capacity likely
would have been procured at a lower price in New York City from May
2006 through February 2008.
    35. From May 2006 to April 2008, Morgan earned approximately $21.6
million in net revenues from the Morgan/KeySpan Swap and the Morgan/
Astoria Hedge.
    36. The Morgan/KeySpan Swap produced no countervailing
efficiencies.

VIII. Violation Alleged

    37. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
36 above.
    38. Morgan entered into an agreement the likely effect of which has
been to increase prices in the NYC Capacity Market, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.

IX. Prayer for Relief

    Wherefore, Plaintiff prays:
    39. That the Court adjudge and decree that the Morgan/KeySpan Swap
constitutes an illegal restraint in the sale of installed capacity in
the New York City market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;
    40. That Plaintiff shall have such other relief, including
equitable monetary relief, as the nature of this case may require and
as is just and proper to prevent the recurrence of the alleged
violation and to dissipate the anticompetitive effects of the
violation; and
    41. That Plaintiff recover the costs of this action.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.

    Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff United States.

Sharis A. Pozen,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust.

Joseph F. Wayland,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.

Wlliam H. Stallings,
Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section.

Jade Eaton,
Attorney, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite
8000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 353-1560, Facsimile:
(202) 616-2441, e-mail: jade.eaton@usdoj.gov.

J. Richard Doidge,
John W. Elias, Attorneys for the United States.

United States of America, Plaintiff,

    v.

Morgan Stanley, Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 11-civ-6875.

Competitive Impact Statement

    Plaintiff United States of America (``United States''), pursuant to
Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (``APPA'' or
``Tunney Act''), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact
Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry
in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceedings

    The United States brought this lawsuit against Defendant Morgan
Stanley (``Morgan'') on September 30, 2011, to remedy a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. In January 2006, Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc. (``MSGC''), a subsidiary of defendant Morgan
Stanley,\2\executed agreements with KeySpan Corporation (``KeySpan'')
and Astoria Generating Company Acquisitions, L.L.C. (``Astoria'') that
would effectively combine the economic interests of the two largest
competitors in the New York City electric capacity market. By creating
this combination, the likely effect of the agreements was to increase
capacity prices for the retail electricity suppliers who must purchase
capacity, and, in turn, to increase the prices consumers pay for
electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MSCG and Morgan Stanley are collectively referred to
hereinafter as ``Morgan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Final Judgment remedies this violation by requiring
Morgan to disgorge profits obtained through the anticompetitive
agreement. Under the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, Morgan will
surrender $4.8 million to the Treasury of the United States.
Disgorgement will deter Morgan and others from future violations of the
antitrust laws.
    The United States and Morgan have stipulated that the proposed
Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless
the United States withdraws its consent. Entry of the proposed Final
Judgment would terminate this action, except that this Court would
retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, and enforce the proposed Final
Judgment and to punish violations thereof.

II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violation of
the Antitrust Laws

A. The Defendant
    Morgan Stanley is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in New York City. Morgan Stanley provides diversified
financial services, operating a global asset

[[Page 62847]]

management business, investment banking services, and a global
securities business, including a commodities trading division. In 2010,
Morgan Stanley had revenues of $31.6 billion. Morgan Stanley Capital
Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, functions as
and is publicly referred to as the commodities trading division for the
parent company Morgan Stanley.
B. The Market
    In the state of New York, sellers of retail electricity must
purchase a product from generators known as installed capacity
(``capacity'').\3\ Electricity retailers are required to purchase
capacity in an amount equal to their expected peak energy demand plus a
share of reserve capacity. These payments assure that retail electric
companies do not use more electricity than the system can deliver and
encourage electric generating companies to build new facilities as
needed. Because transmission constraints limit the amount of energy
that can be imported into the New York City area from the power grid,
the New York Independent System Operator (``NYISO'') requires retail
providers of electricity to customers in New York City to purchase 80%
of their capacity from generators in that region. Thus, the New York
City Installed Capacity (``NYC Capacity'') Market constitutes a
relevant geographic and product market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Except where noted otherwise, this description pertains to
the market conditions that existed from May 2003 through March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The price for installed capacity has been set through auctions
administered by the NYISO. The NYISO organizes the auctions to serve
two distinct seasonal periods, summer (May though October) and winter
(November through April). For each season, the NYISO conducts seasonal,
monthly, and spot auctions in which capacity can be acquired for all or
some of the seasonal period. Capacity suppliers offer price and
quantity bids in each of these three auctions. Supplier bids are
``stacked'' from lowest-priced to highest. The stack is then compared
to the amount of demand. The offering price of the last bid in the
``stack'' needed to meet requisite demand establishes the market price
for all capacity sold into that auction. Any capacity bid at higher
than this price is unsold, as is any excess capacity bid at what
becomes the market price.
    The NYC Capacity Market was highly concentrated during the relevant
period, with three firms--Astoria, NRG Energy, Inc., and KeySpan--
controlling a substantial portion of the market's generating capacity.
These three were designated as pivotal suppliers by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, meaning that at least some of each of these
three suppliers' output was required to satisfy demand. The three firms
were subject to bid and price caps--KeySpan's being the highest--for
nearly all of their generating capacity in New York City and were not
allowed to sell their capacity outside of the NYISO auction process.
C. The Alleged Violation
    1. KeySpan Assesses Plans for Changed Market Conditions
    From June 2003 through December 2005, almost all installed capacity
in the market was needed to meet demand. With these tight market
conditions, KeySpan could sell almost all of its capacity into the
market, even while bidding at its cap. KeySpan did so, and the market
cleared at the price established by the cap, with only a small fraction
of KeySpan's capacity remaining unsold.
    KeySpan anticipated that the tight supply and demand conditions in
the NYC Capacity Market would end in 2006 due to the entry into the
market of approximately 1000 MW of generation capacity, and would not
return until 2009 with the retirement of old generation units and
demand growth.
    KeySpan could no longer be confident that ``bid the cap'' would
remain its best strategy during the 2006-2009 period. The ``bid the
cap'' strategy would keep market prices high, but at a significant
cost. KeySpan would have to withhold a significant additional amount of
capacity to account for the new entry. The additional withholding would
reduce KeySpan's revenues by as much as $90 million per year.
Alternatively, KeySpan could compete with its rivals for sales by
bidding more capacity at lower prices. KeySpan considered various
competitive bidding strategies. These could potentially produce much
higher returns for KeySpan than bidding the cap but carried the risk
that competitors would undercut its price and take sales away, making
the strategy potentially less profitable than bidding the cap.
    KeySpan also considered acquiring Astoria's generating assets from
Reliant Energy, Inc., which was putting them up for sale. This would
have solved the problem that new entry posed for KeySpan's revenue
stream, as Astoria's capacity would have provided KeySpan with
sufficient additional revenues to make continuing to ``bid the cap''
its best strategy. Simultaneously, Morgan was interested in buying the
same assets and seeking a strategic partner with whom to bid. Morgan
and KeySpan discussed such a partnership and the market power issues of
a bid involving KeySpan. KeySpan soon concluded that its acquisition of
its largest competitor would raise serious market power issues and
communicated that conclusion to Morgan.
2. Morgan Facilitates the Anticompetitive and Unlawful Agreement
    Instead of purchasing the Astoria assets, KeySpan decided to
acquire a financial interest in substantially all of Astoria's
capacity. KeySpan would pay Astoria's owner a fixed revenue stream in
return for the revenues generated from Astoria's capacity sales in the
auctions.
    KeySpan realized that it could not approach the owner of Astoria
assets directly, so it turned to Morgan to act as a counter-party.
Morgan agreed to serve as the counter-party but informed KeySpan that
the agreement was contingent on it entering into an offsetting
agreement with the owner of the Astoria generating assets.
    On or about January 9, 2006, KeySpan and Morgan finalized the terms
of a financial derivative arrangement between the two companies, ``the
Morgan/KeySpan Swap.'' Under the agreement, if the market price for
capacity was above $7.57 per kW-month, Morgan would pay KeySpan the
difference between the market price and $7.57 times 1800 MW; if the
market price was below $7.57, KeySpan would pay Morgan the difference
times 1800 MW. The Morgan/KeySpan Swap was executed on January 18,
2006. The term of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap ran from May 2006 through
April 2009.
    On or about January 9, 2006, Morgan and Astoria finalized the terms
of the offsetting agreement (``Morgan/Astoria Hedge''). Under that
agreement, if the market price for capacity was above $7.07 per kW-
month, Astoria would pay Morgan the difference times 1800 MW; if the
market price was below $7.07, Astoria would be paid the difference
times 1800 MW. The Morgan/Astoria Hedge was executed on January 11,
2006. The term of the Morgan/Astoria Hedge ran from May 2006 through
April 2009, matching the duration of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap.
    Morgan earned approximately $21.6 million in net revenues from the
Morgan/KeySpan Swap and the Morgan/Astoria Hedge.
3. The Effect of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap
    After the Morgan/KeySpan Swap went into effect in May 2006, KeySpan

[[Page 62848]]

consistently bid its capacity into the capacity auctions at its cap
even though a significant portion of its capacity went unsold. Despite
the addition of significant new generating capacity in New York City,
the market price of capacity did not decline.
    The clear tendency of the Morgan/KeySpan Swap was to alter
KeySpan's bidding in the NYC Capacity Market auctions. The swap
effectively eliminated KeySpan's incentive to compete for sales in the
same way a purchase of Astoria or a direct agreement between KeySpan
and Astoria would have done. By adding revenues from Astoria's capacity
to KeySpan's own, the Morgan/KeySpan Swap made bidding the cap
KeySpan's most profitable strategy regardless of its rivals' bids.
Without the swap, KeySpan likely would have chosen from a range of
potentially profitable competitive strategies in response to the entry
of new capacity and, had it done so, the price of capacity would have
declined. The swap produced no countervailing efficiencies.

III. United States v. Keyspan Corporation

    On February 22, 2010, the United States filed suit against KeySpan
for its role in the Morgan/KeySpan Swap. Simultaneous with the filing
of its Complaint, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment
requiring KeySpan to pay to the United States $12 million as
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. See Complaint, United States v.
KeySpan Corp., No. 10-1415 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2010). After completion
of the procedures set forth in the Tunney Act, including public notice
and comment, the United States moved for entry of the proposed Final
Judgment. In the course of making its public interest determination,
the Court found that disgorgement is available to remedy violations of
the Sherman Act. See United States v. KeySpan Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d
633, 638-641. The KeySpan Final Judgment was entered on February 2,
2011.

IV. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The proposed Final Judgment requires Morgan to disgorge profits
gained as a result of its unlawful agreement restraining trade. Morgan
is to surrender $4.8 million to the Treasury of the United States.
    KeySpan, pursuant to a Final Judgment sought by the United States,
has surrendered $12 million as a result of its role in the Morgan/
KeySpan Swap.\4\ See United States v. KeySpan Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d
633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Securing similar disgorgement from the
other responsible party to the anticompetitive agreement will protect
the public interest by depriving Morgan of a substantial portion of the
fruits of the agreement. The effect of the swap agreement was to
effectively combine the economic interests of KeySpan and Astoria,
thereby permitting KeySpan to increase prices above competitive rates,
and this result could not have been achieved without Morgan's
participation in the swap agreement. Requiring disgorgement in these
circumstances will thus protect the public interest by deterring Morgan
and other parties from entering into similar financial agreements that
result in anticompetitive effects in the underlying markets, or from
otherwise engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Had the KeySpan case proceeded to trial, the United States
would have sought disgorgement of the approximately $49 million in
net revenues that KeySpan received under the Swap, contending that
these net revenues reflected the value that KeySpan received from
trading the uncertainty of competing for the certainty of the bid-
the-cap strategy. See Plaintiff United States's Response to Public
Comments at 14-18, United States v. KeySpan Corp., No. 10-1415
(S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The $4.8 million disgorgement amount is the product of settlement
and accounts for litigation risks and costs. While the disgorged sum
represents less than all of Morgan's net transaction revenues under the
two agreements,\5\ disgorgement will effectively fulfill the remedial
goals of the Sherman Act to ``prevent and restrain'' antitrust
violations as it will send a message of deterrence to those in the
financial services community considering the use of derivatives for
anticompetitive ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Had the case against Morgan proceeded to trial, the United
States would have sought disgorgement of the $21.6 million in net
transaction revenues Morgan earned under both the Morgan/KeySpan
Swap and the Morgan/Astoria Hedge. At trial, Morgan--in addition to
raising arguments as to its lack of liability in general--would have
disputed that the entire $21.6 million earned under both agreements
would be cognizable as ill-gotten gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any
person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the
antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times
the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither
impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action.
Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any
subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Morgan.

VI. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final
Judgment

    The United States and the Defendant have stipulated that the
proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance
with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has
not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's
determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public
interest.
    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding
the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any
person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the
proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so
within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive
Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last date of
publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact
Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period
will be considered by the United States, which remains free to withdraw
its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the
Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United
States will be filed with the Court and published in the Federal
Register.
    Written comments should be submitted to: William H. Stallings,
Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust
Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, NW.;
Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530.
    The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains
jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court
for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification,
interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

VII. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment

    The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed
Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against the Defendant. The
United States is satisfied, however, that the disgorgement of profits
is an appropriate remedy in this matter. A disgorgement remedy should
deter Morgan and others from engaging in similar conduct and thus
achieves a significant portion of the relief the United States would
have

[[Page 62849]]

obtained through litigation but avoids the time, expense, and
uncertainty of discovery and a full trial on the merits of the
Complaint.

VIII. Standard of Review Under the APPA for Proposed Final Judgment

    The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed
consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be
subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall
determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the
public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination,
the court is directed to consider:
    (A) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination
of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification,
duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies
actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other
competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment
that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the
consent judgment is in the public interest; and
    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the
relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals
alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint
including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived
from a determination of the issues at trial.

15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B); see generally United States v. KeySpan
Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (WHP) (discussing
Tunney Act standards); United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F.
Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing standards for public interest
determination). In considering these statutory factors, the court's
inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the United States is entitled
to ``broad discretion to settle with the Defendant within the reaches
of the public interest.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d
1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    Under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the
relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations
set forth in the United States' complaint, whether the decree is
sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and
whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by
the decree, the court's function is ``not to determine whether the
proposed [d]ecree results in the balance of rights and liabilities that
is the one that will best serve society, but only to ensure that the
resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.''
KeySpan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637 (quoting United States v. Alex Brown &
Sons, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 235, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal quotations
omitted). In making this determination, ``[t]he [c]ourt is not
permitted to reject the proposed remedies merely because the court
believes other remedies are preferable. [Rather], the relevant inquiry
is whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decision
such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are
reasonable.'' Id. at 637-38 (quoting United States v. Abitibi-
Consolidated Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 162, 165 (D.D.C. 2008).\6\ The
government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies are
entitled to deference.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir.
1981) (``The balancing of competing social and political interests
affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the
first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General.''). See
generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ``the
remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the
allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public
interest' '').
    \7\ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be
``deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of
the proposed remedies''); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court
should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the
effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure,
and its views of the nature of the case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent
decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of
liability in a litigated matter. ``[A] proposed decree must be approved
even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own,
as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the
reaches of public interest.' '' United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd
sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also
United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky.
1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have
imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States
``need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements
are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.'' SBC Commc'ns,
489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.
    Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing
the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has
alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to
``construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree
against that case.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; KeySpan, 763 F. Supp.
2d at 638 (``A court must limit its review to the issues in the
complaint * * *.''). Because the ``court's authority to review the
decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its
prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,'' it
follows that ``the court is only authorized to review the decree
itself,'' and not to ``effectively redraft the complaint'' to inquire
into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1459-60.
    In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve
the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust
enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that ``[n]othing in
this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to
intervene.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). This language effectuates what
Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator
Tunney explained: ``[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or
to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of
vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the
consent decree process.'' 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of
Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest
determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the
recognition that the court's ``scope of review remains sharply
proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.'' SBC
Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17
(D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ``Tunney Act expressly allows the
court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the
competitive impact statement and response to comments alone'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Determinative Documents

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the
meaning of the APPA that the United States considered in formulating
the proposed Final Judgment.

Dated: September 30, 2011.

    Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff
the United States of America.
Jade Alice Eaton,
Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, 450 5th
Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,

[[Page 62850]]

Telephone: (202) 307-6316, jade.eaton@usdoj.gov.

United States of America, Plaintiff,

    v.
Morgan Stanley, Defendant.

Civil Action No.

Final Judgment

    Whereas Plaintiff United States of America filed its Complaint
alleging that Defendant Morgan Stanley (``Morgan'') violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Plaintiff and Morgan, through
their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final
Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, for
settlement purposes only, and without this Final Judgment constituting
any evidence against or an admission by Morgan for any purpose with
respect to any claim or allegation contained in the Complaint:
    Now, Therefore, before the taking of any testimony and without
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and upon the
consent of the parties hereto, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and
Decreed:

I. Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of
each of the parties consenting hereto. The Complaint states a claim
upon which relief may be granted to the United States against Morgan
under Sections 1 and 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 4.

II. Applicability

    This Final Judgment applies to Morgan and each of its successors,
assigns, and to all other persons in active concert or participation
with it who shall have received actual notice of the Settlement
Agreement and Order by personal service or otherwise.

III. Relief

    A. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Final Judgment,
Morgan shall pay to the United States the sum of four million eight
hundred thousand dollars ($4,800,000.00).
    B. The payment specified above shall be made by wire transfer.
Before making the transfer, Morgan shall contact Janie Ingalls, of the
Antitrust Division's Antitrust Documents Group, at (202) 514-2481 for
wire transfer instructions.
    C. In the event of a default in payment, interest at the rate of
eighteen (18) percent per annum shall accrue thereon from the date of
default to the date of payment.

IV. Retention of Jurisdiction

    This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final
Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and
directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe
this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce
compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions. Upon
notification by the United States to the Court of Morgan's payment of
the funds required by Section III above, this Section IV will have no
further force or effect.

V. Public Interest Determination

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties
have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the
public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and
any comments thereon and Plaintiff's responses to comments. Based upon
the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact
Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the
Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

Dated:-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge.

[FR Doc. 2011-26161 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P

DIE BEWEISE: VERURTEILTE ANLAGEVERBRECHER DER “GoMoPa-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN” -VERHAFTET VOM BKA

DIE BEWEISE VERURTEILTE ANLAGEVERBRECHER DER “GoMoPa-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN” -VERHAFTET VOM BKA – VERURTEILT WEGEN BETRUGES AM EIGENEN ANLEGER ETC PP

http://berndpulch.org/2011/02/26/presse-erklarung-der-beweis-verhaftung-von-%E2%80%9Egomopa%E2%80%9C_maurischat-durch-das-bka-betrug-am-eigenen-anleger-wg-e-10-000/

http://berndpulch.org/das-betrugsurteil-gegen-bennewirtz-und-peter-ehlers-gomopa-partner-maurischat-und-vornkahl-wg-betruges-am-eigen-anleger/

DER “FREWILLIGE BERATUNGSVERTRAGUNG” DER “GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/der-freiwillige-beratungsvertrag-zwischen-gomopa-und-estavis/

DIE ERPRESSUNGEN DER “GoMoPa”-SCHEISSHAUSFLIEGEN IN DER SZ – SDÜDDEUTSCHEN ZEITUNG

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

DIE FINANCIAL TIMES über die erfundenen “Goldman, Morgenstern und Partner” alias “GoMoPa”

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?page_id=11764

FBI – Moving Money Illegally A $172 Million Case Example

Hands holding U.S. currency

An Oregon man recently pled guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmittal business that illegally moved more than $172 million in and out of the United States.

As you’ll read in a moment, the case is a good example of why it’s important to crack down on these shady practices.

The man behind this complex global scheme was Victor Kaganov, a former Russian military officer who emigrated to the U.S. in 1998 and eventually became a naturalized citizen. He created five “shell” corporations—businesses that only existed on paper—in Oregon and began moving money through these bogus companies for his overseas business associates.

Money transmittal businesses in the U.S. are required by federal law to obtain a license from the state where they operate. They are also required to register with the U.S. Treasury. Kaganov did neither.

Instead, he set up accounts under the names of his shell corporations at several Oregon banks. His overseas “clients” would generally wire transfer a substantial amount of money into one of these accounts. Then the clients—through fax or phone—would provide Kaganov with instructions on where to further transmit the funds.

From 2002 to 2009, Kaganov facilitated more than 4,200 wire transactions. A significant portion of the funds transferred into his accounts came from Russia, but the money was transferred out to 50 other countries, mostly in Asia and Europe.

Cooperation was key in this case—we were greatly assisted by the U.S. Treasury, our overseas legal attaches, and our global law enforcement partners.

The Kaganov investigation was a spinoff of a broader FBI case investigating the use of Oregon shell corporations by overseas businesses and individuals to move illicit funds.

Another spinoff of the broader FBI investigation is a brand new hybrid investigative squad in our Portland office focused on any and all threats from Eurasian criminals—one of the FBI’s top organized crime priorities. We call it a “hybrid” squad because it includes agents and analysts from Bureau programs across the board—organized crime, counterterrorism, intelligence, cyber, and counterintelligence.

Why are licensing and registration laws so important? Several years ago, the U.S. government issued a money-laundering assessment that identified money services businesses—especially wire remitters—as a chief conduit for the illicit transmission of money, including funds used to finance all sorts of criminal activity and terrorism. Requirements to register these businesses enable state and federal regulatory agencies to keep a closer eye on what they’re doing.

And whether or not the funds moved through these businesses came from or funded illegal activity, there is other fallout from these businesses. For example, the bank accounts used to facilitate the transfer of money see an awful lot of activity—in Kaganov’s case, there were daily and sometimes even hourly transactions—and that has the potential to destabilize banks. Also, creators of shell corporations often don’t file any tax returns, so they remain unknown to taxing authorities. Or, they keep two sets of financial books—one that they show to taxing authorities and the real one that never sees the light of day.

By thwarting laws and regulations that govern the U.S. financial system, criminals can undermine its integrity. The FBI and its partners are working hard to make sure that doesn’t happen.

SZ-SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG ÜBER DIE VERBRECHEN DER STASI-“GoMoPa”

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

Zu den verurteilten Berufsverbrechern der Neo-STASI “GoMoPa”, geegründet von STASI-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer gehören noch folgende Blogs:

– die Bewertung

– Extremnews

– Schei**hausfliegenblog”

Sonst ergreift  niemand offen Partei für die fingierte “GoMoPa” – noch nicht einmal deren mutmassliche Hintermänner…

TOP-SECRET – FBI – Mafia Takedown Philadelphia Boss Charged

Philadelphia Special Agent in Charge George Venizelos
Philadelphia Special Agent in Charge George Venizelos, at podium, announces indictments.

On Monday, a superseding federal grand jury indictment was announced charging 13 members and associates of the Philadelphia La Cosa Nostra (LCN) family with racketeering, extortion, loan sharking, illegal gambling, and witness tampering.

Eleven of the 13—including the reputed boss and underboss of the criminal enterprise—were arrested earlier that day in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Two of the subjects were already serving time in federal prison for previous convictions but managed to continue their racketeering activities from behind bars.

Alleged mob boss Joseph Ligambi rose through the ranks of the Philadelphia LCN crime family and took over at the helm after the 2001 incarceration of previous boss Joseph “Skinny Joey” Merlino on racketeering charges.

The indictment alleges that for more than a decade, Ligambi, underboss Joseph Massimino, and the others conspired to generate money through various crimes. For example, they reportedly operated illegal gambling businesses involving sports bookmaking and electronic gambling devices in places like bars, restaurants, convenience stories, and coffee shops…and pocketed the proceeds. Mafia families like the one in Philadelphia often make millions of dollars and traditionally use gambling proceeds as seed money for other crimes.

The defendants also offered “loans”—at exorbitant interest rates—to victims who knew there would be dire consequences if they failed to repay them within a certain time frame.

To carry out their crimes, the defendants often used actual or implied threats of violence against their victims. According to the indictment, some of the defendants used phrases like, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” and, “Chop him up,” to threaten victims who weren’t repaying their loans. The defendants used their reputation for violence to intimidate and prevent victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement.

The defendants also actively worked to conceal their illegal operations from law enforcement. For example, they used coded language over the phone, such as calling the electronic gambling devices “coffee machines.” They often took “walk and talks” where they would conduct covert conversations with each other while walking to and from a particular destination because they thought they couldn’t be intercepted. They also established companies that appeared to be legitimate but were actually created to launder money and conceal the illegal nature of their activities.

To collect the evidence needed for these indictments, this long-term investigation included undercover scenarios, court-authorized electronic surveillances, consensual recordings, and many hours of physical surveillance.

This particular case was a good example of law enforcement cooperation at its best—the Philadelphia Police Department, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey State Police, the Criminal Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Labor all worked alongside the Philadelphia FBI, with additional assistance from the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.  Prosecutors from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section are assisting the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as well.

This arrest of the reputed leadership of the Philadelphia LCN comes on the heels of the large mafia takedown in New York  earlier this year. And law enforcement efforts against the LCN, as well as other types of organized crime—international and domestic—will continue unabated.

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI -Taking a Trip to the ATM? Beware of ‘Skimmers’

Last fall, two brothers from Bulgaria were charged in U.S. federal court in New York with using stolen bank account information to defraud two banks of more than $1 million.

Their scheme involved installing surreptitious surveillance equipment on New York City ATMs that allowed them to record customers’ account information and PINs, create their own bank cards, and steal from customer accounts.

ATM composite
Skimming typically involves the use of a hidden cameras (top) to record customers’ PINs,
and phony keypads (right) placed over real keypads to record keystrokes.

What these two did is called “ATM skimming”—basically placing an electronic device on an ATM that scoops information from a bank card’s magnetic strip whenever a customer uses the machine. ATM skimming is a growing criminal activity that some experts believe costs U.S. banks hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

ATM graphic 250How to Avoid being Skimmed

– Inspect the ATM, gas pump, or credit card reader before using it…be suspicious if you see anything loose, crooked, or damaged, or if you notice scratches or adhesive/tape residue.

– When entering your PIN, block the keypad with your other hand to prevent possible hidden cameras from recording your number.

– If possible, use an ATM at an inside location (less access for criminals to install skimmers).

– Be careful of ATMs in tourist areas…they are a popular target of skimmers.

– If your card isn’t returned after the transaction or after hitting “cancel,” immediately contact the financial institution that issued the card.

How skimming works

The devices planted on ATMs are usually undetectable by users—the makers of this equipment have become very adept at creating them, often from plastic or plaster, so that they blend right into the ATM’s façade. The specific device used is often a realistic-looking card reader placed over the factory-installed card reader. Customers insert their ATM card into the phony reader, and their account info is swiped and stored on a small attached laptop or cell phone or sent wirelessly to the criminals waiting nearby.

In addition, skimming typically involves the use of a hidden camera, installed on or near an ATM, to record customers’ entry of their PINs into the ATM’s keypad. We have also seen instances where, instead of a hidden camera, criminals attach a phony keypad on top of the real keypad … which records every keystroke as customers punch in their PINs.

Skimming devices are installed for short periods of time—usually just a few hours—so they’re often attached to an ATM by nothing more than double-sided tape. They are then removed by the criminals, who download the stolen account information and encode it onto blank cards. The cards are used to make withdrawals from victims’ accounts at other ATMs.

Skimming investigations

Because of its financial jurisdiction, a large number of ATM skimming cases are investigated by the U.S. Secret Service. But through FBI investigative experience, we have learned that ATM skimming is a favorite activity of Eurasian crime groups, so we sometimes investigate skimming—often partnering with the Secret Service—as part of larger organized crime cases.

Some recent case examples:

  • In Miami, four Romanians were charged with fraud and identity theft after they made and placed skimming devices on ATMs throughout four Florida counties … all four men eventually pled guilty.
  • In Atlanta, two Romanians were charged and pled guilty to being part of a criminal crew that stole account information from nearly 400 bank customers through the use of skimming equipment they installed on ATMs in the Atlanta metro area.
  • In Chicago, a Serbian national was arrested—and eventually pled guilty—for attempting to purchase an ATM skimming device, hoping to steal information from ATM users and loot their bank accounts.
  • In New York, a Bulgarian national referenced at the top of this story was sentenced yesterday to 21 months in prison for his role in a scheme that used sophisticated skimming devices on ATMs to steal over $1.8 million from at least 1,400 customer accounts at New York City area banks.

One last note: ATMs aren’t the only target of skimmers—we’ve also seen it at gas pumps and other point-of-sale locations where customers swipe their cards and enter their PIN. (See sidebar for tips on how to avoid being victimized by skimming.)

FBI – Foreclosure Fraud

 

Foreclosure sign in front of house

He was their last hope—about 250 Southern California homeowners facing foreclosure and eviction believed him when he said he said could save their homes.

But in reality, he was their worst nightmare—he ended up fleecing the homeowners for approximately $1 million…and not a single home was saved in the process.

Last week, Jeff McGrue, owner of a Los Angeles-area foreclosure relief business, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding people who were at the end of their rope. Even the federal judge who sentenced him called him “heartless.”

It all started in late 2007, when McGrue—and several other conspirators who have pled guilty—orchestrated the scheme primarily through his company Gateway International. He paid unwitting real estate agents and others to serve as “consultants” to recruit customers who were facing foreclosure or were “upside-down” on their mortgages—meaning they owed more than their homes were worth. Many of the customers didn’t understand English or the contracts they were signing.

How the scam worked. McGrue and associates told the homeowners that “bonded promissory notes” drawn on a U.S. Treasury Department account would be sent to lenders to pay off mortgage loans and stop foreclosure proceedings; that lenders were required by law to accept the notes; and that homeowners could buy their homes back from Gateway and receive $25,000, regardless of whether they decided to re-purchase.

The payback for McGrue? The homeowners had to fork over an upfront fee ranging from $1,500 to $2,000…sign over the titles of their homes to Gateway…and pay Gateway half of their previous mortgage amount as rent for as long as they lived in the house.

Of course, nothing that McGrue told his victims was true: he didn’t own any bonds or have a U.S. Treasury account, plus the Treasury doesn’t even maintain accounts that can be used to make third-party payments. Lenders weren’t legally obligated to accept bonded promissory notes, which were worthless anyway. And Gateway International had no intention of selling back the properties to the homeowners. Evidence shown at McGrue’s trial revealed that it was his intent to re-sell the homes, once they were titled in Gateway’s name, to unsuspecting buyers.

The FBI began its investigation in 2008, after receiving a complaint from one of the victims.

During these uncertain economic times, there are many unscrupulous people looking to line their pockets at the expense of others’ misfortunes. One of the most effective ways to defend yourself against foreclosure fraud is awareness. According to the Federal Trade Commission, if you or someone you know is looking for a loan modification or other help to save a home, avoid any business that:

  • Offers a guarantee to get you a loan modification or stop the foreclosure process;
  • Tells you not to contact your lender, lawyer, or a housing counselor;
  • Requests upfront fees before providing you with any services;
  • Encourages you to transfer your property deed to title to them;
  • Accepts payment only by cashier’s check or wire transfer; or
  • Pressures you to sign papers you haven’t had the chance to read thoroughly or that you don’t understand.

Contact your local authorities or your state’s attorney general if you think you’ve been a victim of foreclosure fraud.

 

FBI – Fraud in the Family The Case of the Cheating Foster Parents

The Case of the Cheating Foster Parents

Fraud in the Family

It’s almost unthinkable—parents stealing from their own foster child. But here’s a story about a couple who did exactly that.

It’s also a case that Tampa FBI Agent Dan Kelly, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Agent Terry Corn, and Acting U.S. Attorney Robert O’Neill (now U.S. Attorney) won’t soon forget. Said Kelly, “For financial crime investigations, we often don’t get to know the victims, but in this instance, it was hard not to be absorbed into this boy’s situation.”

It started back in 2000, when 13-year-old Markus Kim suffered an unimaginable loss—his father murdered his mother. Markus was eventually placed with foster parents Radhames and Asia Oropeza in Flushing, New York.

About six months later, Markus learned he was entitled to a $500,000 life insurance policy that his mother had taken out. He couldn’t access the money until he turned 18…in the interim it would be managed by the life insurance company. Not long after, Radhames and Asia Oropeza began suggesting that Markus consider real estate investing when he became of age.

Around the time Markus turned 18, his foster parents left New York without a word to him. Turns out they had moved to Florida, and about a year later, he was invited down to visit them. The Oropezas convinced their foster son to buy two $200,000 certificates of deposit (CDs) from a local bank…to better protect his money, they said. Because Markus trusted them, he followed their advice, and even allowed Asia Oropeza to co-sign bank documents.

The bank told Markus he’d receive monthly $1,000 checks—interest earned by the CDs. But after two checks, they stopped coming. He discovered that the CD accounts had been emptied and closed by Asia Oropeza.

So how did the FBI become involved? Markus, becoming exceedingly frustrated, contacted a legal aid attorney in New York, who in turn sought the help of an attorney in Florida. The attorney, who worked the case pro bono, contacted Acting U.S. Attorney O’Neill in Tampa. And O’Neill got in touch with the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Our investigation revealed that the couple used the CDs—which were also in Asia Oropeza’s name—as collateral when applying for two separate mortgage loans, and then once the CDs matured, they used the funds to pay off those loans.

Outcome. Asia Oropeza pled guilty to fraud, while her husband was later convicted at trial. They were ordered to pay Markus restitution, had their real estate holdings seized, and received prison terms.

And last month in Tampa, during a press conference attended by investigators and prosecutors who worked the case, the 25-year-old Markus, who works as a concert stage hand in New York, received full restitution—a check for $409,662.07. He told the press that receiving the money gave him “a new lease on life.”

Special Agent Kelly says that the investigation brought him and everyone else involved a great deal of satisfaction. “Cases like this,” he explained, “show us what kind of impact our work actually has, and that’s what keeps us out there doing it every day.”

FBI – FBI in Montana Bozeman Fraud Case Shows ‘It’s Not a Small World’

Bozeman sign
An Internet fraud scam uncovered in Bozeman in 2009 reached victims as far afield as Florida and Texas.


FBI in Montana

Bozeman
Fraud Case Shows ‘It’s Not a Small World’

Special Agent Greg Rice asked questions and scribbled notes as the woman on the phone detailed why she thought she was being scammed.

Did she have records, receipts, account numbers? Was she still on good terms with the suspected scammer? From the moment he picked up the phone in the Bozeman Resident Agency, Rice was laying the groundwork for a potential case. A day earlier, he took two similar calls.

map of field officesField Offices and Resident Agencies

The FBI has 56 field offices centrally located in major metropolitan areas across the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

Each field office is overseen by a special agent in charge, except our offices in Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C., which are headed by an assistant director in charge due to their large sizes. Within these field offices are a total of about 400 resident agencies located in smaller cities and towns. Resident agencies are managed by supervisory special agents.

 

“A lot of my time is dedicated to working fraud,” says Rice, who was an agent in Las Vegas for eight years before moving to Bozeman six years ago. “We don’t take everything that comes in the door. But there’s a lot to choose from.”

In resident agencies, which are slimmed-down satellites of the Bureau’s 56 field offices, case agents are the face of the FBI for local police departments, community leaders, and the public. In the smaller offices like Rice’s in Bozeman—an affluent college town surrounded by farms, ranches, and retired millionaires—agents field complaints of all stripes and vet which ones cross the threshold for federal involvement. One such case, an Internet fraud scam in 2009 that reached victims as far afield as Florida and Texas, illustrates how complaints like the phone calls Rice picked up in early July can bloom into full-blown investigations.

In that case, a woman in Florida called Rice to report that she sent $225,000 to a Bozeman man who claimed he had a stockpile of unrefined gold and was looking for investors to finance refineries. He promised big returns. When that didn’t materialize, the investor got suspicious.

“She became angry over the investment and called us,” Rice says. When he followed the money and confirmed their suspect, Carl Estep, wasn’t putting his investors’ money where he’d promised, Rice set up a sting. Only this time, he would play the patsy. Working with a female FBI agent from the Billings resident agency, Rice staged a ruse to pose as husband-and-wife investors who wanted a piece of Estep’s venture. They set up a meeting at the airport in Bozeman to make it seem as though they had just arrived from Chicago.

Epilogue When investors didn’t see their promised returns, Carl Estep made elaborate excuses as to why they could not be paid.

In reality, Estep did not own any refineries. He did not own the barrels of rock and sand. He did not make any expenditures to develop refineries, and he did not invest money overseas. He simply used the money for numerous personal expenditures, including cars, overseas travel, daily expenses, and unreasonably large expenses on his hunting dogs.

In speaking with FBI agents, Estep acknowledged that he spent investor money on personal items and his that statements to investors were not 100 percent true since they did not know their money was used for his personal gain.

Press release

“We came off the plane, we met him, and we sat down in the coffee shop,” Rice says. “I wore a camera and a wire—and he pitched the whole deal to me, the exact same deal that he pitched to the victim.”

It didn’t end there, though. Estep then escorted the would-be investors to a warehouse where he showed them stacks of barrels that he claimed each contained about 1,200 ounces of unrefined gold.

“It was the exact same pattern as what he did with these other people,” Rice says. “He flew them out here. He took them to the warehouse. He showed them the barrels stacked up. All he’d done was get his hands on a bunch of barrels with gravel in them. The rest was easy for him.”

The FBI tested samples from the barrels—which didn’t contain gold—and identified more victims, including the provider of the warehouse. Confronted with the evidence, Estep pleaded guilty in January and is now serving a four-year sentence.

“It’s not a small world for us anymore,” says Rice, an Idaho native, describing how even this once-remote area is no longer so, due in part to the Internet.

Occupy Wall Street-USA Photos, 8 October 2011, Day 22

Washington DC

[Image]Demonstrators who camped out at Freedom Plaza wake up for the third day of demonstrations Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]One demonstrator helps another flush her eyes with water after after police pepper-sprayed a group of protestors, who were trying to get into the National Air and Space Museum in Washington Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]Pepper-sprayed demonstrators sit and lie on the ground outside the entrance to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington after a group of protestors tryed to get into the museum Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]Demonstrators react at the entrance of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington after police pepper-sprayed a group of protestors trying to get into the museum Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]A demonstrator lies on the ground at an entrance to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington after police pepper-sprayed a group of protestors trying to get into the museum Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]Demonstrators march through the streets of Washington Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of the Occupy DC activities in the nation’s capital. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]Demonstrators protest at Freedom Plaza in Washington on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, on day three of demonstrations in Washington as part of Occupy DC activities. (Jose Luis Magana)
[Image]Demonstrators carrying a variety of signs march through the streets of Washington Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, as part of Occupy DC activities in the nation’s capital. (Jose Luis Magana)

Boston

[Image]Matthew Gember, of Chicago, makes a point as Occupy Boston demonstrators protest on the plaza in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. (Michael Dwyer)
[Image]Occupy Boston protesters demonstrate on the plaza in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. (Michael Dwyer)
[Image]Courtney Haskell, lower left, of North Reading, Mass., demonstrates on the plaza in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston as police reflected in a motorcycle mirror look on, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. (Michael Dwyer)

Casper

[Image]Marilyn Mullen stands in support for the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement during the Casper, Wyo. rally on Center Street Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 Over 50 people held signs and American flags in support of the demonstration which is trying to achieve change in government tax law, asking the wealthy to pay an equal percentage of taxes that the working class pays. (Tim Kupsick)

Cincinnati

[Image]With a statue of Abraham Lincoln at center right, protesters begin their march through downtown Cincinnati during the Occupy Cincinnati protest, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (David Kohl)
[Image]Protesters march through downtown Cincinnati for the Occupy Cincinnati protest on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (David Kohl)

Indianapolis

[Image]Tamra Bell 52, back right, and her four children Stephanie Stayton, 28, left front, Robert 21, left back, and Courtney 23, attend the Occupy Indy protest in Indianapolis on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. Tamra’s husband has been unemployed for two years and suffers from health problems. His unemployment will soon run out and Bell is on the verge of losing the home. The small income her son Robert brings in has helped the family to stay in their home so far. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Michelle Pemberton)
[Image]More than a thousand demonstrators gather in Veteran’s Plaza in Indianapolis on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 for Occupy Indy, a protest against everything from bank foreclosures and corporate influence in politics to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unemployment. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Michelle Pemberton)
[Image]A demonstrator holds a sign as more than a thousand gather in Veteran’s Plaza in Indianapolis on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 for Occupy Indy, a protest against everything from bank foreclosures and corporate influence in politics to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unemployment. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Michelle Pemberton)
[Image]More than a thousand protesters march through Indianapolis on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 for Occupy Indy, a protest against everything from bank foreclosures and corporate influence in politics to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unemployment. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Michelle Pemberton)

New York

[Image]Occupy Wall Street protesters gather in Washington Square Park, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 in New York. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Henny Ray Abrams)
[Image]Demonstrators holding signs gather at the Occupy Wall Street rally in New York on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. (Caleb Jones)
[Image]Protesters with Occupy Wall Street march from Zuccotti Park to Washington Square Park in New York on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. (Henny Ray Abrams)
[Image]Hundreds of skateboarders heading down Broadway toward OWS from West 89th Street and Broadway, October 8, 2011. (Cryptome)
[Image]In this Friday, Oct. 7, 2011 photo, Cherie Walters, 58, from Mount Clemens, Mich., poses for a photograph, in New York. Walters, who has participated in Occupy Wall Street protests, is wearing the shirt she wore to two of the protests. (Tina Fineberg)

Philadelphia

[Image]People hold signs and are reflected in a bus stop pane, as they walk in the street during their march from City Hall to the Independence National Historical Park Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011, in Philadelphia. Organizers of what is being called Occupy Philadelphia say the demonstration is meant to be a stand against corporate greed. (Alex Brandon)
[Image]People hold signs as they walk in the street during their march from City Hall to the Independence National Historical Park Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011 in Philadelphia. Organizers of what is being called Occupy Philadelphia say the demonstration is meant to be a stand against corporate greed. (Alex Brandon)

	

FBI – Suspect Arrested in Connection with Montana Shootings

FBI Salt Lake City October 09, 2011
  • Debbie Dujanovic Bertram (801) 579-4735

The FBI Salt Lake City Division announces the arrest of 22-year-old Sheldon Bernard Chase. Chase is wanted for questioning in the shooting deaths of three people on the Crow Reservation in Montana on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. Law enforcement authorities took Chase into custody tonight, without incident, in Spokane, Washington. The vehicle he was believed to be driving was also recovered.

The FBI would like to thank the public for calling in tips and information regarding this ongoing investigation. Chase is wanted for questioning in the murders of his grandmother, his cousin, and an adult male. All three were killed yesterday about noon at a residence outside of the community of Lodge Grass, Montana.

There are no further details that can be released at this time due to the pending investigation. The FBI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office continue to work together on this case. The FBI would also like to thank our law enforcement partners in Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming for their assistance in the search for Chase.

FBI – Suspect Arrested in Connection with Montana Shootings

FBI Salt Lake City October 09, 2011
  • Debbie Dujanovic Bertram (801) 579-4735

The FBI Salt Lake City Division announces the arrest of 22-year-old Sheldon Bernard Chase. Chase is wanted for questioning in the shooting deaths of three people on the Crow Reservation in Montana on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. Law enforcement authorities took Chase into custody tonight, without incident, in Spokane, Washington. The vehicle he was believed to be driving was also recovered.

The FBI would like to thank the public for calling in tips and information regarding this ongoing investigation. Chase is wanted for questioning in the murders of his grandmother, his cousin, and an adult male. All three were killed yesterday about noon at a residence outside of the community of Lodge Grass, Montana.

There are no further details that can be released at this time due to the pending investigation. The FBI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office continue to work together on this case. The FBI would also like to thank our law enforcement partners in Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming for their assistance in the search for Chase.

Opfer zeigen: Wie Auch Sie “GoMoPa”-STASI-Rufmordopfer werden können

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=15282

FBI – Suspect Arrested in Connection with Montana Shootings

FBI Salt Lake City October 08, 2011
  • Debbie Dujanovic Bertram (801) 579-4735

The FBI Salt Lake City Division announces the arrest of 22-year-old Sheldon Bernard Chase. Chase is wanted for questioning in the shooting deaths of three people on the Crow Reservation in Montana on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. Law enforcement authorities took Chase into custody tonight, without incident, in Spokane, Washington. The vehicle he was believed to be driving was also recovered.

The FBI would like to thank the public for calling in tips and information regarding this ongoing investigation. Chase is wanted for questioning in the murders of his grandmother, his cousin, and an adult male. All three were killed yesterday about noon at a residence outside of the community of Lodge Grass, Montana.

There are no further details that can be released at this time due to the pending investigation. The FBI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office continue to work together on this case. The FBI would also like to thank our law enforcement partners in Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming for their assistance in the search for Chase.

TOP-SECRET-Fukushima Daiichi NPS 8 October 2011 Photos

Fukushima Daiichi NPS 8 October 2011 Photos

[Image]Overview of reactor building of Unit 3 from western hilltop between Unit 2 and 3, Sep 29, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Overview of reactor building of Unit 3 from a crane above Unit 3, Sep 24, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Overview of a reactor building of Unit 4 from western hilltop between Unit 2 and 3. Sep 29, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Overview of reactor building of Unit 2 from western hilltop between Unit 2 and 3, Sep 29, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Installation Work of Roof Panels for Reactor Building Covers at Unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, October 8, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Overview of reactor building of Unit 1 -From south direction of Main Anti-Earthquake Building, Oct 8, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Overview of reactor building of Unit 1 -From a crane above Unit 1, Sep 9, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
[Image]Main control room of Unit 1 and 2, Sep 22, 2011. (Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
Related video:Situation of Upper Part of Unit 3 Reactor Building, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (61.9MB) (video on October 6, 2011)[Image]
Related video:Situation of Upper Part of Unit 2 Reactor Building, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (39.6MB) (video on October 5, 2011)[Image]
Related video:Situation of Upper Part of Unit 1 Reactor Building, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (54.1MB) (video on October 3, 2011)[Image]

New Mexico Man to Receive Life Prison Sentence After Conviction on Kidnapping Charge Related to Death of 16-Year-Old

Teenaged Victim was Kidnapped, Tortured, Murdered, and Left in Irrigation Ditch for Failing to Pay $600 “Drug Tax”

U.S. Department of Justice October 08, 2011
  • Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888

WASHINGTON—Larry Lujan, 33, will receive a life prison sentence for a kidnapping that resulted in the death of a 16-year-old, after a federal jury today announced it could not reach a unanimous decision on whether to impose the death penalty, announced U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales for the District of New Mexico and Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Lujan, originally from Chamberino, N.M., was charged with the capital offense of kidnapping resulting in death. The guilt or innocence phase of the capital trial began on July 18, 2011, and concluded on Aug. 9, 2011, when the jury found Lujan guilty of kidnapping and fatally stabbing Dana Joseph “Joe” Grauke Jr., after deliberating two-and-a-half hours. The “eligibility” stage of the penalty phase of the trial was conducted on Aug. 11, 2011, and the jury found Lujan eligible for a death sentence in less than two hours. The “selection” stage of the penalty phase began on Aug. 29, 2011, and concluded today when the jury said it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Lujan should be sentenced to death. Because the jury did not unanimously reach a decision on the death penalty, Lujan will receive a sentence of life of prison. The court has not yet scheduled a date for the imposition of the sentence.

According to the evidence and testimony presented at trial, Lujan targeted 16-year-old Grauke for attack because he failed to pay a $600 “tax” to Lujan for selling marijuana in a neighborhood in San Antonio that Lujan considered his “turf.” The evidence established that on March 7, 2005, Lujan led a group of teenagers in breaking into Grauke’s home in San Antonio, where they ransacked the residence, beat and tortured Grauke for several hours;,and then transported Grauke, who was bound, gagged, and blindfolded, in the luggage compartment of a sport utility vehicle to Anthony, N.M. Approximately 36 hours after kidnapping Grauke, Lujan stabbed the teenager nine times in the back and cut his throat so deeply that his head was almost severed from his body. Grauke’s body was found on March 20, 2005, in an irrigation ditch.

During the penalty phase of the trial, the jury heard testimony about Lujan’s role in the stabbing deaths of a Chamberino couple in 1998. The double homicides also were related to a drug dealing dispute. Lujan faces first-degree murder charges for that double homicide in a separate state case.

The case was investigated by the FBI, the Dona Ana County, N.M., Sheriff’s Office, and the San Antonio Police Department. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maria Y. Armijo and Mark A. Saltman for the District of New Mexico, and Trial Attorney Michael S. Warbel of the Criminal Division’s Capital Case Unit.

FBI – Two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Employees and Two Others Indicted in $20 Million Bribery and Kickback Scheme

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 08, 2011
  • District of Columbia (202) 514-7566

WASHINGTON—Four Virginia men, including two longtime employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were arrested today on charges stemming from an indictment that accuses them of taking part in a conspiracy involving more than $20 million in bribes and kickback payments and the planned steering of a $780 million government contract to a favored contractor.

The arrests were announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr.; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General for the Small Business Administration (SBA); Robert E. Craig, Special Agent in Charge of the Mid-Atlantic Field Office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); Jeannine A. Hammett, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); and James K. Podolak, Director of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s (CID) Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

The defendants include Kerry F. Khan, 53, of Alexandria, Va.; his son, Lee A. Khan, 30, of Fairfax, Va.; Michael A. Alexander, 55, of Woodbridge, Va.; and Harold F. Babb, 60, of Sterling, Va. Kerry Khan and Alexander are employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Babb is director of contracts for a company that did business with the government.

All four men were taken into custody on charges contained in an indictment that was returned by a grand jury, under seal, on Sept. 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The arrests took place as authorities executed search warrants at seven locations in Virginia and one in the District of Columbia. The indictment was unsealed today.

According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and Alexander helped funnel more than $45 million in payments to a favored company through a federal government contract they oversaw, with plans to steer hundreds of millions more to the business. Approximately $20 million in fraudulent expenses were built into the invoices, and proceeds went to all four defendants.

All four defendants were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud and aiding and abetting and causing an illlegal act to be done, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Kerry Khan and Alexander also were indicted on one count of receipt of a bribe by a public official, and Babb was indicted on one count of unlawful kickbacks.

If convicted of the charges, Kerry Khan and Alexander face a maximum of 40 years in prison. Babb faces up to 35 years, and Lee Khan faces a sentence of up to 25 years.

The United States has obtained warrants to seize funds in 29 bank accounts and to seize three luxury vehicles and seven high-end watches. In addition, the indictment includes a forfeiture allegation against 16 real properties financed in whole or in part with proceeds of the crimes. The United States has begun the process of securing forfeiture of those 16 properties, which include 14 properties in Virginia, one in West Virginia, and one in Florida.

The indictment also provides the defendants notice that, if convicted, the United States will seek forfeiture of all proceeds of the charged offenses.

“This indictment alleges one of the most brazen corruption schemes in the history of federal contracting,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “As alleged by the indictment, corrupt public officials and crooked contractors devised a plan to funnel more than $20 million in taxpayer funds to themselves in an elaborate scheme of bribes and kickbacks. These charges are only the beginning of a far-reaching, steadfast effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Department of Justice, and our federal law enforcement partners to root out and hold accountable shameless government officials and those who entice them—through bribes and other personal benefits—to violate the public’s trust.”

“Abusing one’s position for personal gain blatantly disregards the oath that every government employee takes and everything that it represents,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin. “It’s offensive to citizens who trust the government and its contractors to use taxpayer money wisely.”

“The alleged actions of these individuals grossly undermine the honest work being done every day by federal employees and government contractors,” said Inspector General Gustafson of the SBA. “These individuals conspired to steal from the American people by perpetuating a fraud to siphon vital resources away from an organization that supports our military and reduces risks from disasters. The SBA OIG will relentlessly pursue such violations of public trust and seek justice on behalf of the taxpayers.”

“At a time when government and taxpayer resources are being stretched thin and our service members continue to make sacrifices to protect our national security across the globe, it is abhorrent that officials trusted with the oversight of Department of Defense resources and programs blatantly conspired with contractors to defraud the Government and, eventually, the American warfighter,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig of DCIS. “The Defense Criminal Investigative Service takes aggressive action to identify and investigate, alongside our federal investigative partners, those that endeavor to take advantage of the Department of Defense and the men and women of the Uniformed Services.”

“IRS Criminal Investigation often works jointly with other law enforcement agencies to provide financial investigative expertise. The charges brought in this case demonstrate our collective efforts to enforce the law and ensure public trust,” said Acting IRS Special Agent in Charge Hammett. “U.S. government employees hold positions of public trust, and they are responsible for managing public funds. The public has the right to know that those who work for them are doing so honestly. When we discover bribery schemes like the one alleged here, we will do everything in our power to hold both the bribe payer and the person accepting the bribe accountable.”

“Today’s arrests are a prime example of the teamwork among the special agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU), our fellow federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice attorneys,” said Director Podolak. “U.S. Army CID will continue to see to it that anyone suspected of contract fraud and corruption is brought to justice.”

**

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a branch of the U.S. Army with a stated mission to “provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen our Nation’s security, energize the economy, and reduce risks from disasters.”

The indictment details schemes to defraud two major federal contracts:

The TIGER Contract. The Technology for Instrastructure, Geospatial, and Environmental Requirements (TIGER) contract is what is known as an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract. Authorized agencies and departments are not required to obtain three separate bids or to compare the TIGER contract to another contract before submitting an invoice for products and services through the TIGER contract. The current TIGER contract is a five-year contract running from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2014. Over the term, the total award of orders placed against the TIGER contract is authorized to exceed $1 billion.

The CORES Contract. The Contingency Operations Readiness Engineering & Support (CORES) contract is a planned contract that is envisioned as an alternative or potential replacement to the TIGER contract. As planned, the CORES contract would be a five-year contract with an award potential for all contracts placed under it of up to $780 million.

The Defendants

 

Kerry Khan, who joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1994, is a program manager with the Directorate of Contingency Operations, based in Washington, D.C., which administers the TIGER contract. In that position, Kerry Khan had authority, among other things, to place orders for products and services through the TIGER contract, as well as other federal government contracts. He also had authority to certify that the work on the orders had been completed. In addition, Kerry Khan had the responsibility to prepare the CORES contract for solicitation to potential bidders and to approve the solicitation prior to its issuance to potential bidders.

Michael Alexander, who joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1985, is a program director with the Directorate of Contingency Operations. In that position, he had authority, among other things, to obtain funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects, including funding for orders placed through the TIGER contract and other federal government contracts. Alexander produced and actively managed a $54 million budget.

Harold Babb is the director of contracts at EyakTek, an Alaska Native-owned small business. EyakTek, based in Dulles, Va., was the prime contractor for the TIGER contract and subcontracted many of the orders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to other businesses.

Lee Khan controlled a consulting company with his father and took part in numerous activities involving the bribery and kickback scheme.

All four defendants are accused of conspiring to hide the proceeds of their bribery and fraud scheme through a series of financial transactions, including payments to shell companies that were controlled by Kerry Khan and others.

An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws and is not evidence of guilt. Every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.

Allegations involving the TIGER Contract

According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and Alexander used their official positions at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Babb used his official position at EyakTek, to direct orders through the TIGER contract to a Virginia-based company identified in the indictment as “Company A.” With Kerry Khan’s knowledge and direction, that company’s chief technology officer, an unidentified co-conspirator, submitted fraudulently inflated quotes for work.

Kerry Khan then caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve and remit payment to EyakTek for these fraudulently inflated invoices. After subtracting its profit margin, EyakTek paid the remainder to “Company A.” The chief technology officer then caused “Company A” to pay part of this money for the benefit of Kerry Khan, his son, and Alexander and Babb.

In addition, Kerry Khan and Alexander caused the Army Corps of Engineers to award contracts directly to “Company A.” Once again, the chief technology officer submitted fraudulent paperwork for inflated costs. Kerry Khan then caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to pay “Company A,” and the chief technology officer in turn caused “Company A” to pay a portion of the money for the benefit of Kerry Khan, his son, and Alexander.

In this manner, from 2007 to the present, the chief technology officer caused invoices to be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, directly and through EyakTek, for total costs of more than $45 million. As directed by Khan, Alexander and Babb, the chief technology officer caused “Company A” to fraudulently inflate its quotes and invoices by about $20 million. The chief technology officer promised and paid the inflated amounts directly and indirectly to Khan, his son, Alexander and Babb.

The indictment alleges that the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Kerry Khan in excess of $18 million. Among other things, Khan received cash, checks and wire transfers in excess of $5 million; home improvements and renovations for multiple properties; luxury cars for himself, his son and other family members; furnishings, including flat-screen televisions and computer equipment, highend liquor, and other items. Some of this money also went to Lee Khan and a second family member for employment with “Company A.” The promised payments for Kerry Khan included, among others, future payments of $2 million each to three shell companies controlled by him.

The payments to Kerry Khan came in large amounts, including a $1.2 million wire transfer from “Company A” to a Khan-controlled entity in August 2008 and a check for $3.3 million from “Company A” to a Khan controlled entity in February 2010. According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and his son together channeled $383,000 on Sept. 1, 2011 to another family member who had threatened to alert law enforcement authorities to the existence of the scheme.

The indictment alleges that the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Alexander in excess of $1 million. Among other things, Alexander received more than $185,000 in cash and checks, a $21,000 Cartier watch, first-class airline tickets, and other items. The promises called for Alexander to secure future employment at “Company A.” In addition, the chief technology officer of “Company A” provided about $1 million for the purchase of a coffee shop for an associate of Alexander’s in South Korea.

According to the indictment, the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Babb in excess of $700,000. Among other things, he received cash and checks, first-class airline tickets and promised future employment at the firm.

Allegations involving the CORES Contract

The indictment alleges that Kerry Khan, Alexander and Babb worked with the chief technology officer and others at “Company A” to devise a scheme to steer the award of the CORES contract to “Company A.” The intent was to use this contract as a way for “Company A” to funnel money and other things of value directly and indirectly to Khan, Alexander, Babb and others. Kerry Khan, Babb, the chief technology officer, and others at “Company A” worked on a statement of objectives and work for the CORES contract with the intent of tailoring it to fit “Company A” and interfere with the fairness of the bidding process. Kerry Khan, Alexander and Babb also planned to install certain employees from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to serve on the selection board to insure that “Company A” was awarded the valuable CORES contract.

**

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office; the Office of the Inspector General for the Small Business Administration; the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, and the Army Criminal Investigation Command.

It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Atkinson and Bryan Seeley of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Saler and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Dana of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, with assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mary Chris Dobbie and Jonathan Hooks. Assistance also was provided by Forensic Accountant Maria Boodoo; Legal Assistants Jared Forney, Krishawn Graham, Jessica McCormick, and Nicole Wattelet; and Paralegal Specialists Tasha Harris, Shanna Hays, Taryn McLaughlin, and Sarah Reis.

MORD-DROHUNG WG PUBLIKATION DER STASI-LISTEN MIT KLARNAMEN

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=22649

FBI – Health Care Fraud Takedown Targets $295 Million in False Medicare Claims

ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE SIGNIFICANT MEDICARE FRAUD STRIKE FORCE ACTIONS
FBI Executive Assistant Director Shawn Henry, left, is joined by Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in announcing a nationwide Medicare fraud takedown operation.


Health Care Fraud Takedown

Targets $295 Million in False Medicare Claims

In Houston, two individuals were charged today with Medicare fraud schemes involving $62 million in false claims for home health care and durable medical equipment. According to the indictment, one of the defendants sold Medicare beneficiary information to 100 different Houston-area home health care agencies, and the agencies used that information to bill Medicare for services that were unnecessary or not even provided.

Health care fraud arrestNational Medicare Fraud Takedowns

– February 2011: 111 Charged for More Than $125 Million in False Billings

– July 2010: 94 Doctors and Providers Charged With $251 Million in False Billings

– December 2009:Operations Lead to 30 Indictments in Miami, Detroit, and Brooklyn

More HEAT Task Force news

But that’s just the tip of today’s enforcement iceberg: this afternoon, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Executive Assistant Director Shawn Henry, and other officials announced a nationwide takedown that took place over the past week involving Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in seven other cities as well—Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Miami. A total of 91 individuals were charged with various Medicare fraud-related offenses, including fraudulent billings of approximately $295 million, the largest amount in phony claims involved in a single takedown in Strike Force history.

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force, coordinated jointly by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is a multi-agency team of federal, state, and local investigators who combat Medicare fraud by analyzing data about the problem and putting an increased focus on community policing. The strike force is part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), another joint DOJ-HHS initiative that works to prevent and deter fraud…and enforce current anti-fraud laws. The strike force currently operates in nine U.S. cities (the eight cities mentioned previously, plus Tampa) in areas victimized by high levels of health care fraud.

Other cases announced today include:

Has anyone approached you in a public area and offered FREE services, groceries, or other items in exchange for your Medicare number?

JUST WALK AWAY!

Has someone called you for a “health survey,” then asked you to provide your Medicare number over the phone?

SIMPLY HANG UP THE PHONE!

Have you found suspicious charges such as high-priced medical services or diagnostic tests on your medical bills? These could be fraudulent charges.

Call 1-800-MEDICARE AND REPORT IT!

Have doctors, health care providers, or suppliers told you that the equipment or service is free, it won’t cost you anything, and they only need your Medicare number for their records?

JUST SAY NO THANKS!

Guard your Medicare and Social Security Numbers. Report Fraud to the Office of the Inspector General.

1-800-HHS-TIPS
(1-800-447-8477)

HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov

More Info >

This is a common fraud schemeButton - Report it Now
stopmedicarefraud.gov
  • In Miami, 45 individuals—including a doctor and a nurse—were charged for their participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $159 million in fraudulent Medicare billings in the areas of home health care, mental health services, occupational and physical therapy, durable medical equipment, and HIV infusion.
  • In Los Angeles, six defendants—including one doctor—were charged for their roles in schemes to defraud Medicare of more than $10.7 million.
  • In Brooklyn, three defendants—including two doctors—were charged in a fraud scheme involving more than $3.4 million in false claims for medically unnecessary physical therapy.
  • In Detroit, 18 additional defendants—including doctors, nurses, clinic operators, and other health care professionals—were charged for schemes involving an additional $28 million in false billing.

In addition to our role on the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, the FBI also operates health care fraud task forces or working groups in all 56 of our field offices. Hundreds of agents and analysts—using intelligence to identify emerging schemes and tactics—are currently working more than 2,600 health care fraud investigations.

Nearly 70 percent of these cases involve government-sponsored programs, like Medicare, since the Bureau is the primary investigative agency with jurisdiction over federal insurance programs. But we also have primary investigative jurisdiction over private insurance programs, and we work closely with private insurers to address threats and fraud directed towards these programs.

Taking part in this takedown were more than 400 law enforcement personnel from the FBI, HHS-Office of Inspector General, multiple Medicare fraud control units, and state and local law enforcement agencies.

Die “GoMoPa” – Wirecard Lüge – Das LKA Bayern ermittelt

http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/boerse-maerkte/boerse-inside/finanzaufsicht-untersucht-kursachterbahn-bei-wirecard/3406252.html

http://www.usag24-betrug.com/index.php/gomopas-wirecard-behauptungen-zweifelhaft-schuett-hat-keinerlei-behauptungen-zu-wirecard-gemacht/

TOP-SECRET FROM THE FBI – The Chicago Mafia Down But Not Out

Chicago mafiaA

Roman Catholic priest and former prison chaplain who ministered to Chicago mob boss Frank Calabrese, Sr., was indicted earlier this month for illegally passing jailhouse messages from Calabrese and plotting with his associates on the outside—a sobering reminder of how deeply organized crime can reach into the community, even from behind bars.

“Members of the mob will go to almost any lengths to carry out their criminal activity,” said Special Agent Ted McNamara, a veteran investigator who supervises the La Cosa Nostra (LCN) organized crime squad in our Chicago Field Office.

Calabrese, Sr., was sentenced to life in prison in 2009 for his role in 18 gangland slayings in the Chicago area dating back to 1970. His arrest—along with 13 others—was part of one of the most successful organized crime cases in FBI history, an eight-year investigation called Operation Family Secrets.

Because of the Family Secrets case—in which Calabrese’s son testified against him—“the Chicago mob does not have the power and influence it once had,” McNamara said. “But the mob still operates, and its members still represent a potentially serious criminal threat.”

Unlike New York’s infamous Five Families, the Chicago mob consists of only one family, often referred to as the “Outfit.” It is organized under a variety of crews that engage in various criminal activities. A portion of the crews’ illegal gains goes to the Outfit’s top bosses.

“New York gets most of the attention regarding LCN,” McNamara said, “but historically, going back to the days of Al Capone, Chicago LCN has always been a player, particularly in places like Las Vegas.”

Unlike their New York counterparts, the Outfit has traditionally stayed away from drug trafficking, preferring instead crimes such as loan-sharking and online gambling operations, and capitalizing on other profitable vices. One of the reasons it is so difficult to completely stamp out mob activity, McNamara said, is that over time the crews have insinuated themselves into unions and legitimate businesses.

“Typically they get into running restaurants and other legal businesses that they can use to hide money gained from their illicit activities,” McNamara explained. “Over the years the Outfit has learned that killing people brings too much heat from law enforcement. Today they might not even beat up a businessman who doesn’t pay back a debt,” he added. Instead, they take a piece of his business, and then, over time, exercise more and more control over the company.

The Family Secrets case, which began in 1999 and resulted in the indictment of 14 subjects in 2005 for racketeering and murder, dealt a crushing blow to the Chicago mob. “Our goal now,” McNamara said, “is to keep them from gaining strength again. We’ve got them down and we’ve got to keep them down.”

He noted that some of the mobsters currently in jail as a result of numerous prosecutions will be getting out in the next few years, and they will be under pressure to start making money again for the Outfit’s top bosses.

“As long as there is money to be made from criminal activity,” McNamara said, “these guys will never stop. So we need to continue to be vigilant and take the long view. The work we do on the LCN squad requires a lot of patience.”

Top-Secret: Previously Unnamed Co-Conspirator Pleads Guilty in $135 Million Phony Lease Scheme

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 06, 2011
  • District of New Jersey (973) 645-2700

NEWARK, NJ—The owner of a purported medical equipment company based in New Jersey pleaded guilty today in connection with his role in a $135 million phony lease scheme, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Bruce Donner, 52, of Berkeley Heights, N.J., owner of Donner Medical Marketing Inc., a New Jersey corporation that purported to be a medical equipment vendor, admitted his role in assisting Charles Schwartz, 58, of Sparta, N.J., owner and president of Allied Health Care Services Inc., execute a $135 million phony lease scheme that caused losses of more than $80 million and victimized more than 50 financial institutions.

Donner pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton in Newark federal court. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 11, 2012.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in Newark federal court:

From at least 2002 through July 2010, Schwartz requested medical equipment invoices from Donner. Donner would, in turn, provide invoices that falsely stated Donner Medical was providing medical equipment to Allied when no such medical equipment was ever provided by Donner Medical to Allied.

Schwartz, through Allied, then convinced financial institutions to pay more than $135 million by telling them the money would be used to lease valuable medical equipment. Schwartz used Donner Medical’s phony supplier invoices to convince the financial institutions to enter into leasing arrangements. The financial institutions purchased the medical equipment—which they immediately leased to Schwartz and Allied—and sent payment for the medical equipment to Donner Medical. Throughout the scheme, Donner and Schwartz undertook efforts to deceive bank examiners who sought at various times to inspect the non-existent medical equipment, which had been purchased by the financial institutions.

Donner admitted today that after receiving the money from the financial institutions, he forwarded 95 to 97 percent of the money to an entity created by Schwartz to facilitate the fraud. The remainder of the funds Donner kept for himself as a commission. Donner also admitted today that more than 50 victim financial institutions were harmed as a result of the scheme.

The mail fraud charge to which Donner pleaded guilty carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael B. Ward, for the investigation that resulted in today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph Mack and Jacob T. Elberg of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Health Care and Government Fraud Unit in Newark.

Defense Counsel: Keith N. Biebelberg Esq., Millburn, N.J.

FAZ – FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG -Cyberstalking: Im Netz

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/cyberstalking-im-netz-11084803.html

Former Loan Officer Pleads Guilty in $2.8 Million Mortgage Fraud Scheme

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 06, 2011
  • District of Minnesota (612) 664-5600

MINNEAPOLIS—Earlier today in federal court, a former loan officer from Minneapolis pleaded guilty in connection to a $2.8 million mortgage fraud scheme that involved five properties. Hannah Noel Perlich, age 29, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. Perlich, who was indicted on June 21, 2011, entered her plea before United States District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle. Perlich worked as a loan officer for two mortgage brokerage companies–St. Joseph’s Financial and Legacy Lending.

In her plea agreement, Perlich admitted that from November of 2005 through September of 2006, she, aided and abetted by others, obtained mortgage loan proceeds through fraud. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain mortgage loans in substantially higher amounts than the purchase price of the properties involved. This was accomplished through the use of inflated appraisals and fraudulent underwriting and loan documentation. Perlich admittedly caused the false loan applications to be provided to potential lenders through wire transfers. In addition, Perlich admitted concealing payments to herself from the loan proceeds by diverting them to buyers and other co-conspirators. At least $350,000 in concealed payments were made.

Several co-conspirators already have been sentenced for their roles in the scheme, while others have been charged, and criminal proceedings against them are ongoing. For her crime, Perlich faces a potential maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Judge Kyle will determine her sentence at a future hearing, yet to be scheduled. This case is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian S. Wilton.

This law enforcement action is in part sponsored by the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. It includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch and, with state and local partners, investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

FBI Releases Mortgage Fraud Report

Scope Note

The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the breadth and depth of mortgage fraud crimes perpetrated against the United States and its citizens during 2010. This report updates the 2009 Mortgage Fraud Report and addresses current mortgage fraud projections, issues, and the identification of mortgage fraud “hot spots.” The objective of this study is to provide FBI program managers and the general public with relevant data to better understand the threat posed by mortgage fraud. The report was requested by the Financial Crimes Section, Criminal Investigative Division (CID), and prepared by the Financial Crimes Intelligence Unit (FCIU), Directorate of Intelligence (DI).

This report is based on FBI; federal, state, and local law enforcement; mortgage industry; and open-source reporting. Information was also provided by other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Industry reporting was obtained from LexisNexis, Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI), RealtyTrac, Inc., Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), Interthinx, and CoreLogic. Some industry reporting was acquired through open sources.

While the FBI has high confidence in all of these sources, some inconsistencies relative to the cataloging of statistics by some organizations are noted. For example, suspicious activity reports (SARs) are cataloged according to the year in which they are submitted, but the information contained within them may describe activity that occurred in previous months or years. The geographic specificity of industry reporting varies, as some companies report at the ZIP code level and others by city, region, or state. Many of the statistics provided by the external sources, including FinCEN, FHA, and HUD-OIG, are captured by fiscal year (FY); however, this report focuses on the calendar year findings as reported by mortgage industry and economic data sources. Additionally, there are also variances in the reporting of fraud depending on who the victim is (either a financial institution or a homeowner). While these discrepancies have minimal impact on the overall findings stated in this report, we have noted specific instances in the text where they may affect conclusions.

See Appendix A for additional information for these sources.

Geospatial maps were provided by the Crime Analysis Research and Development Unit, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

Key Findings 

  • Mortgage fraud continued at elevated levels in 2010, consistent with levels seen in 2009. Mortgage fraud schemes are particularly resilient, and they readily adapt to economic changes and modifications in lending practices.
  • Mortgage fraud perpetrators include licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives.
  • Total dollar losses directly attributed to mortgage fraud are unknown.
  • A continued decrease in loan originations from 2009 to 2010 (and expected through 2012), high levels of unemployment and housing inventory, lower housing prices, and an increase in defaults and foreclosures dominated the housing market in 2010. RealtyTrac reported 2.9 million foreclosures in 2010, representing a 2 percent increase in foreclosures since 2009 and a 23 percent increase since 2008.
  • Analysis of available law enforcement and industry data indicates the top states for known or suspected mortgage fraud activity during 2010 were California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and New Jersey; reflecting the same demographic market affected by mortgage fraud in 2009.
  • Prevalent mortgage fraud schemes reported by law enforcement and industry in FY 2010 included loan origination, foreclosure rescue, real estate investment, equity skimming, short sale, illegal property flipping, title/escrow/settlement, commercial loan, and builder bailout schemes. Home equity line of credit (HELOC), reverse mortgage fraud, and fraud involving loan modifications are still a concern for law enforcement and industry.
  • With elevated levels of mortgage fraud, the FBI has continued to dedicate significant resources to the threat. In June 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ), to include the FBI, announced a mortgage fraud takedown referred to as Operation Stolen Dreams. The takedown targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and was the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in combating mortgage fraud.
  • The current and continuing depressed housing market will likely remain an attractive environment for mortgage fraud perpetrators who will continue to seek new methods to circumvent loopholes and gaps in the mortgage lending market. These methods will likely remain effective in the near term, as the housing market is anticipated to remain stagnant through 2011.

Introduction

Mortgage FraudMortgage fraud is a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission relied on by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan. This type of fraud is usually defined as loan origination fraud.  Mortgage fraud also includes schemes targeting consumers, such as foreclosure rescue, short sale, and loan modification.

Mortgage fraud remained elevated in 2010 despite modest improvements in various economic sectors and increased vigilance by financial institutions to mitigate it. Although recent economic indicators report improvements in various sectors, overall indicators associated with mortgage fraud––such as foreclosures, housing prices, contracting financial markets, and tighter lending practices by financial institutions––indicate that the housing market is still in distress and provide ample opportunities for fraud. National unemployment remains high, and housing inventory is at the same level it was in 2008 in the midst of the housing crisis.1 Mortgage delinquency rates and new foreclosures continued to increase in prime and subprime markets.

Mortgage Fraud Perpetrators

Mortgage fraud enables perpetrators to earn high profits through illicit activity that poses a relative low risk for discovery. Mortgage fraud perpetrators include licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives. There have been numerous instances in which various organized criminal groups were involved in mortgage fraud activity. Asian, Balkan, Armenian, La Cosa Nostra,2 Russian, and Eurasian3 organized crime groups have been linked to various mortgage fraud schemes, such as short sale fraud and loan origination schemes.

Mortgage fraud perpetrators using their experience in the banking and mortgage-related industries—including construction, finance, appraisal, brokerage, sales, law, and business—exploit vulnerabilities in the mortgage and banking sectors to conduct multifaceted mortgage fraud schemes. Mortgage fraud perpetrators have a high level of access to financial documents, systems, mortgage origination software, notary seals, and professional licensure information necessary to commit mortgage fraud and have demonstrated their ability to adapt to changes in legislation and mortgage lending regulations to modify existing schemes or create new ones.

Mortgage fraud perpetrators target victims from across a demographic range, with perpetrators identifying common characteristics such as ethnicity, nationality, age, and socioeconomic variables, to include occupation, education, and income. They recruit people who have access to tools that enable them to falsify bank statements, produce deposit verifications on bank letterhead, originate loans by falsifying income levels, engage in the illegal transfer of property, produce fraudulent tax return documents, and engage in various other forms of fraudulent activities. Mortgage fraud perpetrators have been known to recruit ethnic community members as co-conspirators and victims to participate in mortgage loan origination fraud.

image011Financial Impact of Mortgage Frauda

Losses

Total dollar losses attributed to mortgage fraud are unknown; however, law enforcement and mortgage industry participants have attempted to quantify them in recent years. According to CoreLogic (see Appendix A for source description) more than $10 billion in loans originated with fraudulent application data in 2010 (see Figure 1).4

Economic & Mortgage Market Conditions

Mortgage fraud both impacts and is impacted by various economic conditions such as mortgage loan originations; unemployment; mortgage loan delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures; negative equity; loan modifications; housing prices and inventory; real estate sales; housing construction; and bank failures. As of December 2010, activity in the housing market remained very weak as new construction and permits declined, demand for housing remained depressed, home sales declined, and home prices decreased.

  • According to the Federal Reserve Board, as of December 2010, real estate markets remained weak, sales declined, obtaining credit was reported as a constraint on demand for homes, existing home inventories remained at high levels, and home prices generally declined across most Federal Reserve Districts.5
  • The National League of Cities reported that the fiscal condition of U.S. cities continued to weaken in 2010 as cities were confronted by the economic downturn.6
  • A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that low-income households still struggle to access credit.7 Organizations providing services to these households have seen an increase in demand for their services while trying to meet those demands with cuts in funding. The top three factors contributing to a lack of access to credit include lack of financial knowledge, underwriting standards/credit ratings, and lack of cash flow.

Mortgage Loan Originations

According to the MBA, mortgage loan originations for one to four units exceeded $1.6 trillion in 2010; however, this is a decrease from 2009, which reported $2 trillion in originations.8, 9

Unemployment

Unemployment is a factor that is expected to influence the number of foreclosures in the years to come.10 The unemployment rate as of December 2010 was 9.4 percent, an improvement from 9.9 percent as of December 2009.11 The Federal Reserve Board indicates that the jobless rate is anticipated to remain elevated at the end of 2012.12 According to the most recent report by the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling program established by Congress, 58 percent of homeowners receiving foreclosure counseling listed unemployment as the main reason for default.13

Mortgage Loan Delinquencies, Defaults, & Foreclosures

Delinquencies

In addition to unemployment, mortgage loan delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures are also contributing factors to an increasing pool of homeowners vulnerable to mortgage fraud. The MBA National Delinquency Survey (NDS)b reported 43.6 million first-lien mortgages on one- to four-unit residential properties in 2010.

  • According to the MBA NDS, 8.2 percent (or 3.6 million) of all residential mortgage loans (seasonally adjusted) in 2010 were past due, excluding those already in the foreclosure process.14 In 2010, 8.8 percent of mortgage loans were seriously delinquent (more than 90 days past due per MBA NDS, to include those in the process of foreclosure).15 The NDS continues to report an increase in foreclosure rates for all loan types (prime, subprime, FHA, and Veteran’s Administration (VA)) from 2008 to 2010. States with the highest overall delinquency rates were Mississippi (13.3 percent), Nevada (12 percent), and Georgia (11.9 percent).
  • The number of commercial mortgage loan delinquencies increased 79 percent in 2010, from 4.9 percent in December 2009 to 8.79 percent in December 2010.16 Nevada (28.2 percent) and Alabama (16 percent) have the highest delinquency rates in the United States.
  • The MBA NDS 2010 data indicate that while the seriously delinquent rate for subprime loans was 28.5 percent in 2010, the rate was 38.9 for subprime Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs). States with the most seriously delinquent subprime ARMs in 2010 were Florida (56.8 percent), New Jersey (52.7 percent), New York (51 percent), Nevada (46.2 percent), and Hawaii (43.3 percent) (see Figure 2).

Defaults

Fitch rating agency anticipates a re-default rate on loan modifications between 60 and 70 percent for subprime and Alt-A loans, and 50 to 60 percent for prime loans.17 Defects in servicer foreclosure procedures have stalled the process throughout the country thereby lengthening the process further. Fitch states that it will take four years to remove the backlog of properties and return the market to balance.18

Foreclosures

According to RealtyTrac, a record 2.9 million homes received foreclosure filings in 2010 (up from 2.8 million in 2009) as the problem became more widespread due to high unemployment.19  The number of foreclosures continues to outpace the number of loan modifications (see Figure 3).20

  • The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) report that completed foreclosures in the fourth quarter of 2010 decreased by nearly 50 percent and newly initiated foreclosures decreased by almost 8 percent as a result of the moratorium on foreclosure actions by the largest mortgage service providers brought on by the robo-signing issue.21  
  • According to the MBA, foreclosure inventory is highly concentrated geographically, with more than 50 percent of foreclosed properties located in five states: Florida, California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.22 

Negative Equity/Underwater Mortgages

According to CoreLogic, homeowners in negative equity positions add to the number of homeowners vulnerable to short sale fraud schemes. CoreLogic reported that negative equity was concentrated in five states at the close of 2010. Nevada had the highest percentage of mortgages with negative equity at 65 percent, followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent), Michigan (36 percent), and California (32 percent).23

  • CoreLogic reporting indicates that 11.1 million, or 23.1 percent, of all residential properties with a mortgage were in negative equity ($750 billion) at the end of the fourth quarter 2010, up from 10.8 million, or 22.5 percent, in the previous quarter.24

Loan Modifications

Historic increases in delinquencies and foreclosures continue to burden the mortgage servicing system.25 According to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), of the 2.9 million eligible delinquent loans (60 or more days delinquent as reported by servicers through December 2010, but excluding FHA and VA loans), only 521,630 have been granted permanent modifications, while 1.5 million are in trial modifications.26

The OCC/OTS reported that 25.5 percent of loan modifications were re-defaulting in 2010, falling 60 or more days past due nine months after modification.27

While their position in rankings may change slightly, the top 10 states reporting active trial and permanent mortgage loan modifications in 2009 were also the top 10 states in 2010 and through March 2011 (see Figure 3).28

State

Total Active Trial and Permanent Mortgage Loan Modifications as of 31 Dec. 2009

Total Active Trial and Permanent Mortgage Loan Modifications as of 31 Dec. 2010

Total Active Trial and Permanent Mortgage Loan Modifications as of March 2011

CA

172,288

158,021

172,728

FL

105,108

80,732

87,060

IL

44,942

36,246

38,915

AZ

43,126

31,947

33,083

NY

38,282

30,435

32,988

GA

33,774

24,563

26,483

MI

29,103

22,481

23,817

NJ

28,517

21,782

23,348

MD

28,117

21,702

23,118

TX

28,577

17,757

19,075

Figure 3: Top 10 States Reporting Active Trial and Permanent Mortgage Loan Modifications, 2009 to March 2011.
Source: U.S. Treasury Making Home Affordable Program: Servicer Performance Reports, 31 December 2009 through March 2011.
  • Interthinx reports that property owners are fraudulently decreasing their income and property values to get their debt reduced for their loan modifications.29 They are fabricating hardships and filing false tax returns to this end. Also, individuals who first perpetrated fraud in loan origination are now attempting to defraud again during their loan modification.
  • Freddie Mac reports that 2010 loan modification fraud trends include strategic defaults, which are accompanied by false statements about income, assets, or the homeowner’s inability to pay.30  Loan modification perpetrators are misrepresenting occupancy and income (by stating it is lower), altering pay stubs, and seeking modifications without an actual financial hardship.31
  •  HUD reported 2010 loan modification scams in the form of principal reduction scams, rent-to-own-leaseback, bankruptcy fraud, and false reconveyance.32 In addition, HUD reported that fraudsters are trolling unemployment offices, churches, and public foreclosure rescue fairs targeting vulnerable homeowners.

City

% Change 2009-2010

% Change 2004-2010

U.S.

-1.4

-18.5

Phoenix, AZ

-8.3

-32.3

Atlanta, GA

-7.9

-19.0

Portland, OR

-7.8

2.4

Chicago, IL

-7.4

-20.8

Detroit, MI

-6.4

-44.9

Seattle, WA

-6.0

0.1

Tampa, FL

-5.9

-24.9

Minneapolis, MN

-5.1

-26.9

Las Vegas, NV

-4.7

-52.1

Charlotte, NC

-4.3

-1.3

Figure 4: Top 10 Cities by Percent Change in Home Prices, through December 2010
Source: S & P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index & FiServe Data

Housing Prices & Inventory

Housing prices continued to weaken and trends in sales continued to decrease in 2010 (see Figure 4). The economic downturn has resulted in home prices 1.6 percent lower than a year ago, slightly worse than industry predictions of 1.5 percent.33  Metropolitan statistical areas of Detroit, Atlanta, Cleveland, and Las Vegas each have home prices below their 2000 levels.

Housing inventory was reported to be at levels witnessed in 2008 during the financial crisis. Home values are expected to fall in 2011.

According to the National Association of Realtors, pending home sales decreased 6 percent from 2009 to 2010, and existing home sales decreased 5.7 percent for the same period.34

Top Geographical Areas for Mortgage Fraud

Methodology

Data from law enforcement and industry sources were compared and mapped to determine those areas of the country most affected by mortgage fraud during 2010. This was accomplished by compiling the state rankings by each data source, collating by state, and then mapping the information.

Combining information from states reporting fraud with those reporting significant vulnerability for fraud indicate the top states in 2010 were Florida, California, Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Georgia, New Jersey, and Maryland (see Figure 5 on page 11).   

image015

Detailed Look at Fraud Indicators by Source Entity

Various data sources, to include the FBI, HUD-OIG, FinCEN, MARI, Interthinx, Fannie Mae, Radian Guaranty, CoreLogic, the U.S. Census, and the U.S. Department of Labor were used in this report to identify geographic fraud trends. This report also takes a more detailed look at information reported by law enforcement and industry to identify additional fraud patterns and trends. 

FBI

FBI mortgage fraud pending investigations totaled 3,129 in FY 2010, a 12 percent increase from FY 2009 and a 90 percent increase from FY 2008 (see Figure 6). According to FBI data, 71 percent (2,222) of all pending FBI mortgage fraud investigations during FY 2010 (3,129) involved dollar losses totaling more than $1 million.

image017.png

FBI field divisions that ranked in the top 10 for pending investigations during FY 2010 were Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, Tampa, Detroit, Washington Field, Miami, San Francisco, Chicago, and Salt Lake City, respectively (see Figure 7).

image019

The FBI assesses that the majority of mortgage fraud cases opened in FY 2010 involved criminal activity that occurred in either 2009 or 2010 (see Figure 8).

image021

Financial Institution Reporting of Suspicious Mortgage Fraud Related Activity Increases – FinCEN  

SARs filed by financial institutions indicate that there were 70,533 mortgage fraud-related SARs filed with FinCEN in FY 2010a 5 percent increase from FY 2009 and an 11 percent increase from FY 2008 filings (see Figure 9).c

image023

SARs reported in FY 2010 revealed $3.2 billion in losses, a 16 percent increase from FY 2009 and a 117 percent increase from FY 2008 (see Figure 10). Only 25 percent of SARs in FY 2010 reported a loss, compared with 22 percent reporting a loss ($2.8 billion) in FY 2009 and also compared with 11 percent reporting a loss ($1.5 billion) in FY 2008.

image025

The Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Tampa, San Francisco, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, Atlanta, and Las Vegas FBI Field Offices reported the largest number of SARs filed in FY 2010 (see Figure 11). Eight of the top 10 (Los Angeles, Miami, Tampa, San Francisco, Chicago, Sacramento, New York, and Atlanta) were consistently ranked in the top 10 for the last three years.

image023

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentOffice of Inspector General

In FY 2010, HUD-OIG had 765 pending single-family residential loan investigations, a 29 percent increase from the 591 pending during FY 2009.35  This also represented a 70 percent increase from the 451 pending during FY 2008 (see Figure 12 on page 15). Fraud schemes reported by HUD in ongoing investigations include flopping, reverse mortgages, builder bailout schemes, short sales, and robo-signing.36

image029

According to HUD, the preventloanscams.org website has received more than 11,416 complaints as of December 31, 2010, with associated losses of more than $23 million.37

LexisNexis – Mortgage Asset Research Institute

During 2010, Florida, New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Illinois were MARI’s top 10 states for reports of mortgage fraud across all originations.38 While half of the states in the top 10 are located in the Northeast, Florida has continued to rank first in fraud reporting since 2006, and its fraud rate was more than three times the expected amount of reported mortgage fraud for its origination volume in 2010.39 Additionally, MARI reports that 27 percent of all reported loans with fraud investigated (post-funding) in 2010 were for Florida properties.

MARI reports that misrepresentation on loan applications and verifications of deposit along with appraisal and valuation issues, presented the most egregious problems in 2010 originations.40

Interthinx

The top 10 states for possible fraudulent activity based on 2010 loan application submissions to Interthinx were Nevada, Arizona, California, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.41 According to Interthinx’s 2010 Annual Mortgage Fraud Risk Report, the states with the highest overall levels of mortgage fraud risk correlate closely to the states with the highest levels of foreclosure activity and underwater borrowers. Additionally, they report a strong correlation between mortgage fraud risk and foreclosure activity that is consistent with fraud schemes such as flopping and foreclosure-rescue-related schemes.

Fannie Mae

Fannie Mae’s top 10 mortgage fraud states based on significant misrepresentations discovered by the loan review process through the end of December 2010 were California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, and Michigan.

According to Fannie Mae, short sale, foreclosure rescue, and real estate owned (REO) sales fraud continue to thrive as a result of the opportunities created by defaulting markets. For example, Fannie Mae is investigating fraud schemes perpetrated by real estate agents who manipulate Multiple Listing Services (MLS) data to bolster sagging sales prices. Fannie Mae continues to investigate REO flipping involving real estate agents who withhold competitive offers on REO properties so that they can control the acquisition and subsequent flip.

In 2010 Fannie Mae reported the occurrence of loan origination fraud in the form of affinity fraud, reverse mortgages, condo conversion, and multi-family fraud schemes and stated that Fannie Mae is witnessing a shift in loan origination fraud from the Southeast to the Northeast.42Servicing fraud reported by Fannie Mae includes short sale fraud, fraud involving REOs, and loan modifications. Current reverse mortgage fraud schemes reported by Fannie Mae include the use of asset misrepresentation, occupancy fraud, and identity theft. Condo conversions currently represent 14 percent of Fannie Mae’s mortgage fraud investigations. Fraudsters are using payment abatements to delay defaults, inflated property values, and failure to disclose debt. In a majority of these schemes, the fraudsters made 15-18 payments before defaulting. Fraud involving multi-family properties includes valuation fraud, in which fraudsters misrepresent the condition of the rehabilitated units or factor in incomplete renovations—perpetrators divert funds to their own companies but do not complete the renovations. Perpetrators are also falsifying occupancy rates on their rent rolls and flipping properties to non-arms-length purchasers.

CoreLogic

image032

CoreLogic reported a 20 percent increase in mortgage fraud and approximately $12 billion in originated fraud loan amounts in 2010 (which is flat due to declining origination volumes).43 While the majority of fraud reported by lenders involves income misrepresentation, there has been an 8 percent decrease in this fraud type from 2009 to 2010,44 while there were increased occurrences of occupancy, employment, and undisclosed debt for the same period.

CoreLogic also reports that mortgage fraud is becoming increasingly well-hidden and that lenders are reporting increases in hidden frauds such as short sale fraud, REO flipping fraud, and closing agent embezzlement. They are also seeing an increased frequency of flipping and straw buyer schemes in FHA loans.

RealtyTrac

According to RealtyTrac, a record 2.9 million homes received foreclosure filings in 2010 (up from 2.8 million in 2009) as the problem became more widespread due to high unemployment (see Figure 13).45 As in previous years, California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona top the list of states with the highest rates of foreclosure.

Current Schemes & Techniques

An analysis of FBI reporting revealed that the most prevalent mortgage fraud schemes identified in FY 2010 included loan origination schemes (to include property flipping), followed by settlement-related schemes (to include kickbacks), real estate investment schemes, short sale schemes, commercial real estate loan frauds, foreclosure rescue schemes, advance fee schemes, builder bailout schemes, equity skimming schemes, and bankruptcy fraud (see Figure 14).

image036.png

Loan Origination Schemes

Mortgage loan origination fraud is divided into two categories: fraud for property/housing and fraud for profit. Fraud for property/housing entails misrepresentations by the applicant for the purpose of purchasing a property for a primary residence. This scheme usually involves a single loan. Although applicants may embellish income and conceal debt, their intent is to repay the loan. Fraud for profit, however, often involves multiple loans and elaborate schemes perpetrated to gain illicit proceeds from property sales. Gross misrepresentations concerning appraisals and loan documents are common in fraud for profit schemes, and participants are frequently paid for their participation.

Loan origination fraud schemes remain a constant fraud scheme. These schemes involve falsifying a borrower’s financial information––such as income, assets, liabilities, employment, rent, and occupancy status––to qualify the buyer, who otherwise would be ineligible, for a mortgage loan. This is done by supplying fictitious bank statements, W-2 forms, and tax return documents to the borrower’s favor. Perpetrators may also employ the use of stolen identities. Specific schemes used to falsify information include asset rental, backwards application, and credit enhancement schemes.

Freddie Mac is reporting that the loan origination frauds they are witnessing include false documents, property flips with phantom rehabilitation, fictitious assets, and fabricated payroll documents.46 Fraudsters are also using phantom rehabilitations to increase the property values. However, Freddie Mac has been interviewing borrowers and their neighbors to determine if the rehabilitations are actually occurring. Also, Freddie Mac is reporting that fraudsters continue to use transactional “lenders” such as the “dough for a day” businesses that “loan” potential borrowers money so that underwriters will see they have assets when conducting their “proof of funds” due diligence risk assessment on the loan application.

Backwards Application Scheme

In a backwards application scheme, the mortgage fraud perpetrator fabricates the unqualified borrower’s income and assets to meet the loan’s minimum application requirements. Incomes are inflated or falsified, assets are created, credit reports are altered, and previous residences are altered to qualify the borrower for the loan.

Fraudulently Inflated Appraisals

Mortgage fraud perpetrators fraudulently inflate property appraisals during the mortgage loan origination process to generate false equity that they will later abscond. Perpetrators will either falsify the appraisal document or employ a rogue appraiser as a conspirator in the scheme who will create and attest to the inflated value of the property. Fraudulent appraisals often include overstated comparable properties to increase the value of the subject property. 

Illegal Property Flipping

Illegal property flipping is a complex fraud that involves the purchase and subsequent resale of property at greatly inflated prices. The key to this scheme is the fraudulent appraisal, which occurs prior to selling the property. The artificially inflated property value enables the purchaser to obtain a greater loan than would otherwise be possible. Subsequently, a buyer purchases the property at the inflated rate. The difference between what the perpetrator paid for the property and the final purchase price of the home is the perpetrator’s profit.

Traditionally, any exchange of property occurring twice on the same day is considered highly suspect for illegal property flipping and often is accompanied by back-to-back closings where there is a purchase contract and a sales contract that are both presented to the same title company. FBI combined intelligence and case reporting for FY 2010 indicates that property flipping is occurring in 47 out of 56 field office territories. The fraud continues to involve the use of fraudulent bank statements, W-2s, and pay stubs; the use of straw buyer investors to purchase distressed properties for alleged rehabilitation; perpetrators receiving cash-back at closing; and the failure to make the first mortgage payment. This type of fraud often results in foreclosure. FBI information indicates the top 10 states reporting same-day property flips (as recorded by county clerk’s offices throughout the United States) in 2010 were Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Minnesota, Hawaii, Michigan, Tennessee, New York, Maryland, and Washington.

Among other industry sources reporting significant property flipping, Interthinx reports that it is still prevalent and trending upward.47 Current property flipping schemes reported by Interthinx involve fraud against servicers; piggybacking on bank accounts to qualify for mortgages; and forgeries. HUD reporting indicates the use of limited liability companies (LLCs) to perpetrate fraudulent property flipping.48

Title/Escrow/Settlement Fraud/Non-Satisfaction of Mortgage

A review of FBI cases opened in 2010 indicates that 38 percent of FBI field offices are reporting some form of title/escrow/settlement fraud. The majority of these frauds involve the diversion or embezzlement of funds for uses other than those specified in the lender’s closing instructions. Associated schemes include the failure to satisfy/pay off mortgage loans after closings for refinances; the reconveyance or transfer of property without the homeowner’s knowledge or consent; the failure to record closing documents such as property deeds; the recording of deeds without title insurance but charging the homeowner and absconding with the money; the use of settlement funds intended to pay subcontractors by general contractors to pay debts on previous projects; the use of dry closings; the delayed recording of loans; the filing of fraudulent liens to receive cash at closing; and the distribution of settlement funds among co-conspirators.

According to a review of FBI investigations opened in FY 2010, title agents and settlement attorneys in at least 21 investigations in 14 field office territories are involved in non-satisfaction of mortgage schemes. They are engaged in misappropriating and embezzling more than $27 million in settlement funds for their own personal use rather than using those escrowed funds to satisfy/pay off mortgages as directed per lender instructions provided at closing. Perpetrators diverted escrow monies intended for lenders to themselves or to entities that they controlled. In addition to embezzling escrow funds, perpetrators are also falsifying deeds, recording deeds without title insurance, and failing to record deeds and taxes.

Real Estate Investment Schemes

In a real estate investment scheme, mortgage fraud perpetrators persuade investors or borrowers to purchase investment properties generally at fraudulently inflated values. Borrowers are persuaded to purchase rental properties or land under the guise of quick appreciation. Victim borrowers pay artificially inflated prices for these investment properties and, as a result, experience a personal financial loss when the true value is later discovered. Analysis of FBI cases opened in FY 2010 revealed that 43 percent of FBI field offices are reporting this activity with losses exceeding $76 million.

Short Sale Schemes

A real estate short sale is a type of pre-foreclosure sale in which the lender agrees to sell a property for less than the mortgage owed. Short sale fraud consists of false statements made to loan servicers or lenders that take the form of buyer or seller affirmations of no hidden relationships or agreements in place to resell the property, typically for a period of 90 days. One of the most common forms of a short sale scheme occurs when the subject is alleged to be purchasing foreclosed properties via short sale, but not submitting the “best offer” to the lender and subsequently selling the property in a dual closing the same day or within a short time frame for a significant profit. Reverse staging and comparable shopping techniques are currently being used by fraud perpetrators in the commission of short sale frauds. The fraud primarily occurs in areas of the country that are experiencing high rates of foreclosure or homeowner distress.

Industry participants are reporting that short sale fraud schemes continue to be an increasing threat to the mortgage industry. A recent CoreLogic study indicated that short sale volume has tripled from 2009 to 2010.49 In June 2010, Freddie Mac reported that short sale transactions were up 700 percent compared to 2008.

Industry sources report that in the process of committing short sale fraud, fraudsters are manipulating the Broker Price Opinions (BPOs) and MLS; engaging in non-arms-length transactions;50 using LLCs to hide their involvement in short sale transactions;51 failing to record short sale deeds of trust; using back-to-back and multiple real estate agent closings; selling properties to an LLC or trust months before the sale;52 selling the property to a family member or other party the fraudsters control and deeding the property back to themselves; engaging in escrow thefts, simultaneous double sales to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and failing to pay off the original loan in a refinance transaction; property flopping;53 bribing brokers and appraisers; refusing to allow the broker or appraiser access to the property unless the fraudster is present; providing their own comparables to the appraiser; taking unflattering photographs of the property and pointing out defects in the property to the appraiser;54 providing false estimates of repair, rebuttal of appraisal, and selection of poor comparable properties;55 and facilitating the partnership of attorneys with non-attorneys to split fees acquired during short sale negotiations.56

Commercial Real Estate Loan Fraud

Commercial real estate loan fraud continues to mirror fraud in the residential mortgage loan market. Law enforcement investigations indicate that perpetrators such as real estate agents, attorneys, appraisers, loan officers, builders, developers, straw buyer investors, title companies,and others are engaged in same-day property flips; the falsification of financial documents, performance data, invoices, tax returns, and zoning letters during origination; the diversion of loan proceeds to personal use; the misrepresentation of assets and employment; the use of inflated appraisals; and money laundering.

FBI reporting indicates that some commercial real estate-driven bank failures may expose insider and accounting fraud in regional and community banks.57 According to FBI analysis, these frauds are emerging in addition to the residential mortgage frauds still being found in roughly half of all bank failures investigated by the FBI.58 FBI case information and open source financial reporting indicates some executives and loan officers may resort to issuing fraudulent loans, dishonest accounting, or other criminal activity to disguise the poor financial conditions of their institutions. A review of banks that failed due to overexposure to commercial real estate debt during the boom years revealed that a small percentage showed fraudulent commercial real estate activity, attempts to hide bank financial conditions, and insider loan schemes through which executives and other insiders benefited by controlling lending decisions.

The Congressional Oversight Panel examined commercial real estate losses and financial stability in February 2010 and found that poor-performing loans and defaults would affect banks into 2011 and beyond.59 Some banks are also extending the terms of some poor-performing commercial real estate loans, pushing the potential loan default dates past 2011.60

Foreclosure Rescue

Foreclosure rescue schemes are often used in association with advance fee/loan modification program schemes. The perpetrators convince homeowners that they can save their homes from foreclosure through deed transfers and the payment of up-front fees. This “foreclosure rescue” often involves a manipulated deed process that results in the preparation of forged deeds. In extreme instances, perpetrators may sell the home or secure a second loan without the homeowners’ knowledge, stripping the property’s equity for personal enrichment. For example, the perpetrator transfers the property to his name via quit claim deed and promises to make mortgage payments while allowing the former home owner to remain in the home paying rent.  The perpetrator profits from the scheme by re-mortgaging the property or pocketing fees paid by desperate homeowners. Often, the original mortgage is not paid off by the perpetrator and foreclosure is only delayed.

Financial industry reporting indicates that foreclosure rescue schemes remain a current threat.61 Analysis of FBI intelligence reporting indicates that foreclosure rescue schemes were the sixth-highest reported mortgage fraud scheme in FY 2010. According to FBI case analysis, mortgage fraud foreclosure rescue investigations comprised 2 percent of all mortgage fraud cases opened in FY 2010.

Advance Fee Schemes

Mortgage fraud perpetrators such as rogue loan modification companies, foreclosure rescue operators, and debt elimination companies use advance fee schemes, which involve victims paying up-front fees for services that are never rendered, to acquire thousands of dollars from victim homeowners and straw buyers.

Builder Bailout Schemes

Builders are employing builder bailout schemes to offset losses and circumvent excessive debt and potential bankruptcy as home sales suffer from escalating foreclosures, rising inventory, and declining demand. Builder bailout schemes are common in any distressed real estate market and typically consist of builders offering excessive incentives to buyers, which are not disclosed on the mortgage loan documents. In a common scenario, the builder has difficulty selling the property and offers an incentive of a mortgage with no down payment. For example, a builder wishes to sell a property for $200,000. He inflates the value of the property to $240,000 and finds a buyer. The lender funds a mortgage loan of $200,000 believing that $40,000 was paid to the builder, thus creating home equity. However, the lender is actually funding 100 percent of the home’s value. The builder acquires $200,000 from the sale of the home, pays off his building costs, forgives the buyer’s $40,000 down payment, and keeps any profits.

Equity Skimming Schemes

Equity skimming schemes occur when mortgage fraud perpetrators drain all of the equity out of a property. For example, perpetrators charge inflated fees to “help” homeowners profit by refinancing their homes multiple times and thus skimming the equity from their property. A perpetrator will also help a homeowner establish a home equity line on a property. The perpetrator then encourages the homeowner to access these funds for investment in various scams.

Debt Elimination/Reduction Schemes

FBI reporting indicates a continued effort by sovereign citizen domestic extremists throughout the United States to perpetrate and train others in the use of debt elimination schemes.  Victims pay advance fees to perpetrators espousing themselves as “sovereign citizens” or “tax deniers” who promise to train them in methods to reduce or eliminate their debts.  While they also target credit card debt, they are primarily targeting mortgages and commercial loans, unsecured debts, and automobile loans. They are involved in coaching people on how to file fraudulent liens, proof of claim, entitlement orders, and other documents to prevent foreclosure and forfeiture of property.

Legislative Issues

Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd Frank Act (DFA) was created to address various issues that occurred during the financial crisis. According to MBA, the DFA will establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and set strict standards and regulations for processing mortgage loans.62 To protect consumers from fraud, the CFPB will: (1) regulate strict guidelines for appraisers and licensing to appraisal management companies; (2) oversee and have total responsibility for consumer financial protection laws;d (3) add more layers to disclosures, licensing, and process regulation with loan originators, reverse mortgages, mortgage companies, and advertising practices; and (4) harmonize the TILA and RESPA disclosure.63, 64

The new act will prohibit the use of BPOs as the primary benchmark for the value of a property being purchased.65 Additionally, the CFPB will oversee consumer protection laws, including TILA and RESPA.66 The DFA will require lenders to be accountable for the cost it provides to borrowers during the loan application process.67 The legislation will modernize the real estate appraisal regulation by enforcing actions against states and appraisers that do not abide by the new regulation.68 Also, there will be a new appraisal standard board and appraisers should follow the new regulations.69 The DFA is set to better regulate consumer protection laws and help reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.70

Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule

The FTC rule on MARS prohibits charging advance fees for loan modification services, but states that attorneys are the exception to the rule and are therefore permitted to charge an advance fee provided some stipulations are met.71

According to the FTC’s MARS, a company cannot charge an up-front fee for a loan modification until it provides the homeowner a written offer for the modification or other relief from their lender and the homeowner accepts the offer.72 The company must also provide the homeowner with a document from its lender showing the changes to the homeowner’s loan if the homeowner decides to move forward with the modification. In addition, the company must clearly disclose the total fee charged for its services. MARS also requires that companies spell out important information in their advertisements and telemarketing calls, such as disclaimers and consequences for securing their services.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement Act

The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) for Mortgage Licensing Act—enacted in July 2008— required states to have a licensing and registration system in place for all loan originators by July 31, 2010, to reduce mortgage fraud and enhance consumer protection.  

FBI Response

With elevated levels of mortgage fraud, the FBI has continued to dedicate significant resources to the threat. In June 2010, the DOJ, to include the FBI, announced a mortgage fraud takedown referred to as Operation Stolen Dreams. The takedown targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and was the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in combating mortgage fraud. Operation Stolen Dreams involved 1,215 criminal defendants and included 485 arrests, 673 informations and indictments, and 336 convictions. The defendants were allegedly responsible for more than $2.3 billion in losses.

The FBI continues to enhance liaison partnerships within the mortgage industry and law enforcement. As part of the effort to address mortgage fraud, the FBI continues to support 25 mortgage fraud task forces and 67 working groups. The FBI also participates in the DOJ National Mortgage Fraud and National Bank Fraud Working Groups, as well as the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). The FFETF’s mission is to enhance the government’s effectiveness in sharing information to help prevent and combat financial fraud.

The FBI continues to foster relationships with representatives of the mortgage industry to promote mortgage fraud awareness and share intelligence. FBI personnel routinely participate in various mortgage industry conferences and seminars, including those sponsored by the MBA. Collaborative educational efforts are ongoing to raise public awareness of mortgage fraud schemes through the publication of the annual Mortgage Fraud Report and the Financial Crimes Report to the Public, and through the dissemination of information jointly or between various industry and consumer organizations. Analytic products are routinely distributed to a wide audience, including public and private sector industry partners, the intelligence community, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement partners.

The FBI employs sophisticated investigative techniques, such as undercover operations and wiretaps, which result in the collection of valuable evidence and provide an opportunity to apprehend criminals in the commission of their crimes. This ultimately reduces the losses to individuals and financial institutions. The FBI has also instituted several intelligence initiatives to support mortgage fraud investigations and has improved law enforcement and industry relationships. The FBI has established methodology to proactively identify potential mortgage fraud targets using tactical analysis coupled with advanced statistical correlations and computer technologies.

Outlook

In a thriving economy, loan originations for both new purchases and refinances are plentiful. Schemes which thrive in such an economy include loan origination fraud, property flips, and equity conversion schemes. In a sluggish economy, delinquency and foreclosure rates soar, and loan originations slow dramatically. In this economy, the most prevalent schemes are those which target distressed homeowners, including foreclosure rescue, loan modification, and short sales.

The FBI assesses that the current and continuing depressed housing market will likely remain an attractive environment for mortgage fraud perpetrators who will continue to seek new methods to circumvent loopholes and gaps in the mortgage lending market. These methods will likely remain effective in the near term, as the housing market is anticipated to remain stagnant through 2011. Market participants are expected to continue employing and modifying old schemes and are likely to increasingly adopt new schemes in response to tighter lending practices.

Appendix – Sources

CoreLogic – CoreLogic is the nation’s largest provider of advanced property and ownership information, analytics, and solutions. The company’s database covers more than 3,000 counties, representing 97 percent of U.S. real estate transactions. CoreLogic obtains property records, tax assessments, property characteristics, and parcel maps from tax assessors and county recorder offices across the nation and combines this data with flood, demographic, crime, site inspection, neighborhood, document image, and other information from proprietary sources.  

Fannie Mae Fannie Mae is the nation’s largest mortgage investor. To aid in mortgage fraud prevention and detection, the company publishes mortgage fraud statistics and mortgage fraud news articles and provides recorded training modules and fraud reference tools on their eFannieMae.com website.  

FinCEN Established by the U.S. Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s mission is to enhance U.S. national security, deter and detect criminal activity, and safeguard financial systems from abuse by promoting transparency in the U.S. and international financial systems. In accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act, SARs filed by various financial entities are collected and managed by FinCEN and used in this report.

Interthinx Interthinx, Inc. is a provider of risk mitigation and regulatory compliance tools for the financial services industry. The Interthinx Fraud Risk Indices consist of the Mortgage Fraud Risk Index and the Property Valuation, Identity, Occupancy, and Employment/Income Indices, which measure the risk of these specific types of fraudulent activity. The Interthinx Fraud Risk Report represents an in-depth analysis of residential mortgage fraud risk throughout the United States as indicated by the Interthinx Fraud Risk Indices. 

LexisNexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute MARI maintains the Mortgage Industry Data Exchange (MIDEX) database, which contains information submitted by mortgage lenders, agencies, and insurers describing incidents of alleged fraud and material misrepresentations. MARI releases a report highlighting the geographical distribution of mortgage fraud based on these submissions.MARI ranks the states based on the MARI Fraud Index (MFI), which is an indication of the amount of mortgage fraud discovered through MIDEX.

Mortgage Bankers Association The Mortgage Bankers Association is the national association representing the real estate finance industry. The MBA is a good source of information for regulatory, legislative, market, and industry data.

RealtyTrac RealtyTrac is the leading real estate marketplace for foreclosure properties and publishes the country’s largest and most comprehensive foreclosure database with more than 1.5 million default, auction, and bank-owned homes from across the country.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General HUD-OIG is charged with detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse in relation to various HUD programs, such as single and multi-family housing. As part of this mission, HUD-OIG investigates mortgage fraudrelated waste, fraud, and abuse of HUD programs and operations.


a The discovery of mortgage fraud via the mortgage industry loan review processes, quality control measures, regulatory and industry referrals, and consumer complaints lags behind economic indicatorsoften up to two years or more, with the impacts felt far beyond these years.

b The MBA NDS is estimated to cover 88 percent of the outstanding first-lien mortgages in the mortgage market.

c Mortgage Loan Fraud (MLF) SAR time lag versus fraud reporting for calendar year 2009: SAR filers reported suspicious activities that were more than a year old in 77 percent of MLF SARs; fourth quarter mortgage loan fraud SAR filings indicated that 65 percent of reported activities occurred more than two years prior to the filing compared with 43 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Source: FinCEN, April 2010.

d Including Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).


1 Online Article; S & P Indices, A Year in Review, January 2011 URL: http://www.indices.standardandpoors.com, accessed on 3 May 2011; Source is for background.

2 FBI; Electronic Communication dated 7 October 2010; UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source has good access, but reliability cannot be determined.

3 FBI; Electronic Communication dated 29 April 2010; UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is reliable with good access.

4 Online Report; Mortgage Fraud is Rising, With a Twist, 23 August 2010, Wall Street Journal, available at http://online.wsj.com/atricle/SB10001424052748703824304575435383161436658.html, accessed 13 December 2010.

5 Online Report; Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for the Federal Reserve Board, The Beige Book – Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions, January 2011; URL:http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2011/20110112/fullreport2010112.pdf, accessed on 14 June 2011.

6 Online Article; Christpher W. Hoene & Michael A. Pagano; National League of Cities Research Brief of America’s Cities, City Fiscal Conditions in 2010; October 2010, URL:http://www.nlc.org/news-center/press-room, accessed on 4 April 2011.

7 Online Article; Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 1st Quarter 2011 Community Outlook Survey, May 2011; URL:http://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/community-outlook-survey/2011/2011q1.cfm, accessed on 19 May 2011; Online Article; Jon Prior for Housingwire, Low-Income Households Struggle to Access Credit, 17 May 2011, URL:http://www.housingwire.com/2011/05/17/low-income-households-struggle-to-access-credit, accessed 19 May 2011.

8 Online PowerPoint; Mortgage Banker’s Association, Economic Outlook, 28 March 2011; URL:http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/Conferences/2011/Tech/Tech11RegulatoryOverviewMFratantoniMar28.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2011.

9 Online Data; Mortgage Banker’s Assocation, Mortgage Origination Estimates, March 2011; URL:http://www.mortgagebankers.org/ResearchandForecastsandCommentary, accessed on 3 May 2011.

10 Online Report; US Government Accountability Office, Loan Performance and Negative Home Equity in the Nonprime Mortgage Market, 16 December 2009, URL: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-146R, accessed on 18 March 2010.

11 Online Report; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release-Table A-1. Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex and Age, data from January 2001 through May 2011, URL: http://www.data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet, accessed on 14 June 2011.

12 Online Report; Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta for the Federal Reserve Board, The Beige Book – Summary, 2 March 2011; URL:http://www.federalreserve.gov/foomc/beigebook/2011/20110302/default.htm, accessed on 19 May 2011.

13 Online Report; NeighborWorks America, National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program Congressional Update, 31 January 2010, URL:http://www.nw.org/network/nfmcp/documents/ExecutiveSummary_001.pdf, accessed on 25 March 2011.

14 Report; Mortgage Banker’s Association, National Delinquency Survey, February 2011.

15 Report; Mortgage Banker’s Association, National Delinquency Survey, February 2011.

16 Online Article; Jason Philyaw for Housingwire, CMBS Delinquencies Rose 79% in 2010: Moody’s, 12 January 2011, URL:http://www.housingwire.com/2011/01/12/moodys-cmbs-delinquencies-rose-79-in-2010,  accessed on 19 May 2011.

17 Online Article; DSNews.com, Fitch:Subpar Loan Mod Results Making US Foreclosures a Reality, 7 February 2011; URL:http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fitch-subpar-loan-mod-results-making-us-foreclosures-reality-2011-02-07?ref=nf, accessed on 3 May 2011.

18 Online Article; DSNews.com, Fitch:Subpar Loan Mod Results Making US Foreclosures a Reality, 7 February 2011; URL:http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fitch-subpar-loan-mod-results-making-us-foreclosures-reality-2011-02-07?ref=nf, accessed on 3 May 2011.

19 Online Report; RealtyTrac, Record 2.9 Million U.S. Properties Receive Foreclosure Filings in 2010 Despite 30-Month Low in December, 12 January 2011, URL: http://www.realtytrac.com/content/press-releases/record-29-million-us-properties-receive-foreclosure-filings-in-2010-despite-30-month-low-in-december-6309, accessed on 15 February 2011.

20 Online Report; Congressional Testimony of Julia Gordon, Center for Responsible Lending, “Robo-signing, Chain of Title, Loss Mitigation and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing,” 18 November 2010, URL:http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/policy-legislation/congress/Gordon-Waters-testimony-final.pdf, accessed on 25 March 2011.

21 Online Report; The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, OCC and OTS Mortgage Metrics Report: Fourth Quarter 2010, March 2011; URL:http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications/mortgage-metrics-q4-2010/mortgage-metrics-q4-2010.pdf, accessed on 17 May 2011.

22 Online PowerPoint; Mortgage Banker’s Association, Economic Outlook, 28 March 2011; URL:http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/Conferences/2011/Tech/Tech11RegulatoryOverviewMFratantoniMar28.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2011.

23 Online Report; CoreLogic, New CoreLogic Data Shows 23 Percent of Borrowers Underwater with $750 Billion Dollars of Negative Equity, 8 March 2011, URL: http://www.corelogic.com/uploadedFiles/Pages/About_Us/ResearchTrends/CL_Q4_2010_Negative_Equity_FINAL.pdf, accessed on 25 April 2011.

24 Online Report; CoreLogic, New CoreLogic Data Shows 23 Percent of Borrowers Underwater with $750 Billion Dollars of Negative Equity, 8 March 2011, URL: http://www.corelogic.com/uploadedFiles/Pages/About_Us/ResearchTrends/CL_Q4_2010_Negative_Equity_FINAL.pdf, accessed on 25 April 2011.

25 Presentation; Elizabeth DeSilva and Robert Maddox, Fraud in Loss Mitigation and Loan Modification, April 27, 2010, Mortgage Banker’s Association’s National Fraud Issues Conference, Chicago, IL; Source is for background.

26 Online Report; Making Home Affordable, Servicer Performance Report Through December 2010, URL: http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/results/MHA-Reports/Documents/Dec%202010%20MHA%20Report%20Final.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2011; Source is for background.

27 Online Report; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, OCC and OTS Release Mortgage Metrics Report for Fourth Quarter of 2009, 25 March 2010, URL: http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/printview/2010-36.htm, accessed on 7 May 2010; Source is for background.

28 Online Report; Making Home Affordable, Servicer Performance Report Through December 2010, URL: http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/results/MHA-Reports/Documents/Dec%202010%20MHA%20Report%20Final.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2011; Source is for background.

29 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Full Fraud Solution;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

30 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

31 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

32 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

33 Online Article; CNNMoney, Home Prices Slump Deepens, 25 January 2011; URL:http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/25/real_estate/november_home_prices/index.htm, accessed on 19 May 2011; Source is for housing prices.

34 Online Report; National Association of Realtors, Pending and Existing Home Sales Data, March 2011; URL:http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/11ba7d00468defab88eccf60f51ebbfd/REL1103SF.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=11ba7d00468defab88eccf60f51ebbfd, accessed on 17 May 2011; Source is for pending and existing home sales data.

35 Data; US Department of Housing and Urban Development, provided on 3 March 2010.

36 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Real Estate Owned, FHA, Home Affordable Refinance Program and Short Sales-the Latest Mortgage Fraud Schemes and Trends for 2011;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

37 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

38 Online Report; Lexis Nexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute, Thirteenth Periodic Mortgage  Fraud Case Report, p.6, 10 May 2011; URL:http://img.en25.com/Web/LexiNexis?mortgageFraudReport-13thEdition.pdf, accessed on 10 May 2011; Source is for background.

39 Online Report; Lexis Nexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute, Thirteenth Periodic Mortgage Fraud Case Report, p.6, 10 May 2011; URL:http://img.en25.com/Web/LexiNexis?mortgageFraudReport-13thEdition.pdf, accessed on 10 May 2011; Source is for background.

40 Online Report; Lexis Nexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute, Thirteenth Periodic Mortgage Fraud Case Report, p.1, 10 May 2011; URL:http://img.en25.com/Web/LexiNexis?mortgageFraudReport-13thEdition.pdf, accessed on 10 May 2011; Source is for background.

41 Online Report; Interthinx, 2010 Annual Mortgage Fraud Risk Report, January 2011, URL:http://www.interthinx.com/overview/fraud_reports.php, accessed on 25 April 2011; Source is for fraud information.

42 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

43 Internet site; CoreLogic, 2010 Mortgage Fraud Trends Report, July 2010, URL: http://www.corelogic.com/uploadedFiles/Pages/About_Us/ResearchTrends/17-MFTR-0710-00%202010%20Mortgage%20Fraud%20Trends%20Report%20Screen%20071310.pdf, accessed on 22 September 2010; Source is for mortgage fraud trends.

44 Presentation document; CoreLogic, Fraud Trends and Patterns 2010, March 2011; Source is Powerpoint document provided to the FBI from CoreLogic.

45 Internet site; RealtyTrac, Record 2.9 Million U.S. Properties Receive Foreclosure Filings in 2010 Despite 30-Month Low in December, 12 January 2011, URL: http://www.realtytrac.com/content/press-releases/record-29-million-us-properties-receive-foreclosure-filings-in-2010-despite-30-month-low-in-december-6309, accessed on 15 February 2011; Source is for foreclosure data.

46 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

47 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Full Fraud Solution;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

48 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

49 CoreLogic, “2011 Short Sale Research Study,” May 2011,

50 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

51 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Full Fraud Solution;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

52 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Full Fraud Solution;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

53 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

54 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Full Fraud Solution;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

55 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “Hot Topics and Emerging Issues in Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

56 FBI; Electronic Communication;19 April 2011; 28 March 2011; “The Shoe is on the Other Foot-Fraud Investigations Against Lenders for Document Fraud;” UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Source is presentation at the 28 March 2011 Mortgage Banker’s Association National Fraud Issues Conference.

57 FBI: Intelligence Bulletin,  2 September 2010; Commercial Real Estate-Driven Bank Failures May Expose Insider or Accounting Frauds in Regional and Community Banks,2 September 2010; UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED.

58 FBI e-mail and attachment: ”Operational Assessment of Intelligence Bulletin Email;” 20 August 2010; DOI 17 August 2010; UNCLASSIFIED; UNCLASSIFIED; Financial Institution Fraud Unit critique of Intelligence Bulletin draft. The critique is based on an agent review of FDIC and FBI bank failure case information.

59 Online Report; Congressional Oversight Panel, Commercial Real Estate Losses and the Risk to Financial Stability, 11 February 2010; URL: http://www.cop.senate.gov/reports/library/report-021110-copo.cfm; accessed on 7 December 2010; Source is for background.

60 Internet site; Carrick Mollenkamp and Lingling Wei; “To Fix Sour Property Deals, Lenders ‘Extend and Pretend,’ The Wall Street Journal; 7 July 2010; URL; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704764404515286882690834088.html; accessed on 25 April 2011; Source is for background.

61 Internet site; CoreLogic, 2010 Mortgage Fraud Trends Report, July 2010, URL: http://www.corelogic.com/uploadedFiles/Pages/About_Us/ResearchTrends/17-MFTR-0710-00%202010%20Mortgage%20Fraud%20Trends%20Report%20Screen%20071310.pdf, accessed on 22 September 2010; Source is for fraud trends.

62 Online Report; Mortgage Bankers Association, Summary of Mortgage Related Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; 2010; available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/MIRA/MBASummaryofDF.pdf; accessed 2 May 2011; Source is a reliable mortgage industry source for analysis of national mortgage fraud risk.

63 Ibid

64 Online Report; Appraisal Institute, Frequently Asked Questions- Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill (HR4173); 2010; available at http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/newsadvocacy/downloads/key_document/Dodd-Frank_FAQs.pdf; accessed 28 April 2011; Source is a research reporting industry that is deemed reliable.

65 Ibid

66 Online Report; Mortgage Banker Association, Mortgage Disclosures under RESPA and TILA Should Be Combined and Simplified While coordinating with Industry;2011; available at http://www.mbaa.org/files/IssueBriefs/2011RESPATILAIssueBriefs.pdf;ack; accessed 12 April 201; Source is a reliable mortgage industry source for analysis of national mortgage fraud risk.

67 Online Report; Mortgage Bankers Association, Summary of Mortgage Related Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; 2010; available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/MIRA/MBASummaryofDF.pdf; accessed 2 May 2011; Source is a reliable mortgage industry source for analysis of national mortgage fraud risk.

68 FBI; Electronic Communication; 25 March 2011; 3 May 2011; Mortgage Fraud Liaison Contact – Conversation with Appraisal Subcommittee Contact; UNCLASSIFEIED; Source information is from private industry who is reliable for mortgage industry analysis.

69 Ibid

70 Ibid

71 Online Article; Federal Trade Commission, FTC Issues Final Rule to Protect Struggling Homeowners from Mortgage Relief Scams, 19 November 2010; URL:http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/11/mars.shtm; accessed on 25 April 2011; Source is for background.

72 Online Article; Federal Trade Commission, FTC Issues Final Rule to Protect Struggling Homeowners from Mortgage Relief Scams, 19 November 2010; URL:http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/11/mars.shtm; accessed on 25 April 2011; Source is for backgroung

FBI Seeks Public Assistance in Solving a 1981 Domestic Terrorism Case

The FBI is asking for the public’s assistance in locating Donna Joan Borup. Borup is wanted for her alleged participation in the violent disruption of an anti-apartheid demonstration at JFK International Airport in Queens, New York, on September 26, 1981.

Borup allegedly tossed an acidic substance into the eyes of Port Authority Police Officer Evan Goodstein. As a result, Goodstein was partially blinded. At the time, Borup was a member of the 19th Communist Organization, a Marxist-Leninist Organization that advocated the armed revolution and violent overthrow of the United States government. Borup was arrested and released on bail pending a trail in May 1982.

On May 20, 1982, an arrest warrant was issued for Borup after she failed to appear for trial. On September 29, 1982, an unlawful flight to avoid ptosecution (UFAP) warrant was issued by the Eastern District of New York.

Borup is a white female between 5’4’’ and 5’6’’ tall and approximately 160-170 pounds. She has brown or blue eyes and uses multiple dates of birth that would put her between 59-64 years of age. Borup has used Rebecca Ann Morgan, Donna Borup, and Donna Austopchuk as aliases. She has family ties to New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

“Borup has been on the run for too long and deserves to be brought to justice for her alleged attack against a law enforcement officer. We’re asking the public to look at these photos and to contact the FBI if they recognize Borup, “said Supervisory Special Agent Tim Flannelly.

Borup’s wanted poster is currently on the Clear Channel billboard in Times Square. The slide flashes between her old photo and an age progressed photo.

Anyone with information is asked to call the FBI immediately at 212-384-1000. Tipsters may remain anonymous.

borup.jpg

FBI – Be Aware of Recent Cyber Crime Scams

Internet Crime Complaint Center’s (IC3)

Scam Alerts

This report, which is based upon information from law enforcement and complaints
submitted to the IC3, details recent cyber crime trends and new twists to previously-existing
cyber scams.

“Mass Joinder Lawsuits” Promising Home Mortgage Relief

The IC3 has received several complaints from individuals who reported they received
a letter stating they were a potential plaintiff in a “Mass Joinder” lawsuit being
filed by a law firm located in California, against their mortgage companies. Consumers
stated they were requested to pay non-refundable, upfront fees of $2,000 to $5,000.
The law firm made a wide variety of claims and sales pitches and offered legal and
litigation services, with the goal of taking money from the victim.

Lawyers seeking plaintiffs to join a class for a class action lawsuit do not seek
up front commission from their class clients. Class action lawyers are typically
paid on a contingency basis. In a contingency fee arrangement, an attorney receives
approximately 40% of any judgment or settlement amount obtained on the client’s
behalf.

Warnings have been posted on-line regarding “Mass Joinder” by the California Department
of Real Estate; the Better Business Bureau; as well as consumers who have been scammed
and posted their experiences, insights, and warnings.

On-line Auction Site PlayStation Bundle Ad Scam

The IC3 has received several complaints from individuals who reported they received
an unsolicited e-mail stating their ad for a Sony Playstation 3 Metal Gear Solid
4 PS3 80 GB Bundle has been posted and a confirmation number was enclosed for the posting.
In each instance the victim claimed they did not place an ad on an on-line auction
site for the Sony Playstation Bundle. Some victims stated they did not even have
an on-line auction account.

Warnings have been posted on-line to beware of auction site phishing e-mail scams
and specifically mention the above-mentioned scam. One warning indicated the scam
was first reported in January 2009.

Fraud Trends Affecting The eCommerce Community

Ethoca recently provided the IC3 information pertaining to the increase in fraud
attempts incurred by on-line merchants. Ethoca was founded under the concept of
safely sharing transaction data to fight on-line credit card fraud. The company
serves as a data sharing platform for merchants to stop on-line fraud and is partnered
with the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA).
The data received by Ethoca remains private and is only used for fraud prevention.
The following information is based on Ethoca’s data collection and information sharing
process.

Advisory On Military Addresses

On 07/11/2011, the hacker group Anonymous posted 90,000 e-mail addresses and passwords.
As a result of this posting, merchants have reported some orders containing military
e-mail addresses have been identified as fraudulent. Until this time, military e-mail
addresses typically meant an order was less likely to be fraudulent. The increase
in fraud orders has happened within the last 30 days.

E-mail Address Tumbling

E-mail address tumbling has been around for awhile and fraudsters have used it for
many years. On the other side, good consumers utilize address tagging to identify
orders.

The purpose of e-mail tagging is to allow consumers to have one e-mail address for
every purpose. The attractive feature of e-mail tagging is it allows the consumer
to vary their e-mail address to help differentiate when placing orders, shopping,
working, schooling, etc., but automatically forwards to the primary e-mail address.
This feature on Gmail works in two ways, either with a period or a plus sign. The
period works by allowing the consumer to take an e-mail address, JohnDoe@gmail.com,
and add as many periods as the consumer wants to the e-mail address, JohnDoe…..@gmail.com,
J.o.h.n.D.o.e@gmail.com, etc.

The feature most often used is the + feature, which allows a user to add additional
tags to their e-mail address to easily identify how someone obtained their name.
Using the above example, when shopping on-line, a consumer can tag their e-mail
as JohnDoe+081811OnlineRetailerName@gmail.com. This allows the user to know they
shopped on-line with a merchant on that specific day.

These features can be used in combination with rules to route e-mails into different
boxes, keeping inbox e-mail volume down, and helping users be more efficient.

Fraudsters have figured out this tip and use what has been termed e-mail address
tumbling, so the fraudster does not have to create unique user accounts for their
many fraud attempts. So far these features have only been found to work with Gmail
accounts.

BÖRSE ONLINE – GRÖSSTE GEFAHR DURCH FINGIERTE “GoMoPa” –

http://www.immovation-ag.de/medienpool/meldungen/BoerseOnline_Nr38_16.09.2010_Wo_gehobelt_wird.pdf

So wollte “GoMoPa” mich erpressen und stoppen

http://berndpulch.org/bernd-pulch-der-beweis-%E2%80%93-so-wollte-der-serienbetruger-klaus-maurischat-uns-zwingen-die-berichterstattung-uber-den-%E2%80%9Cnachrichtendienst%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-einzustellen/

Von rufMÖRDERN u. Serienbetrügern erfundene “GoMoPa-SJB” beschreiben ihre ruf-MORDE höchstselbst

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=16359

FREI ERFUNDENE LÜGEN DER FINGIERTEN “GoMoPa” – z.B.: MERIDIAN CAPITAL/PRESS RELEASER, PROFESSOR STELZER, WIRECARD

1) Meridian Capital – “GoMoPa”-Fälschung auf Pressreleaser.org (einer von “GoMoPa”‘s eigenen Tarnseiten ohne Impressum)

http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com/

http://berndpulch.org/2011/08/13/beweis-wie-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-meridian-capital-erpresst-hat-und-maurischat-von-interpol-und-bka-festgenommen-wurde-%E2%80%93-verwirrspiele-nach-stasi-muster/

2) Professor Minister Stelter

http://berndpulch.org/die-frei-erfundenen-gomopa-lugen-fall-professor-minister-stelter/

3) Wirecard

http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/boerse-maerkte/boerse-inside/finanzaufsicht-untersucht-kursachterbahn-bei-wirecard/3406252.html

http://berndpulch.org/2011/04/29/die-wirecard-luge-und-der-kursbetrug-der-erfundenen-goldman-morgenstern-u-partner-alias-gomopa/

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=15261

FAZ:

Wirtschaftskriminalität Großrazzia wegen Verdachts auf Insiderhandel

Schlag gegen mutmaßliche Anlagebetrüger: Die Staatsanwaltschaft München hat in einer Großrazzia Dutzende Büros und Wohnungen nach Beweisen für Insiderhandel durchsucht. Drei Verdächtige wurden verhaftet. Durchsucht wurde auch die Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger.

Von Henning Peitsmeier

24.09.2010 2010-09-24T08:31:05+0200

//

© Wolfgang Eilmes / F.A.Z.

Betrugsverdacht: An der Börse sollen fast wertlose Papiere gekauft, die Kurse durch gezielt positive Nachrichten nach oben getrieben und dann wieder verkauft worden sein

Die Münchner Staatsanwaltschaft hat in einer Großrazzia umfangreiches Beweismaterial gegen mutmaßliche Anlagebetrüger sichergestellt. Ermittelt wird gegen ein Netzwerk von Investoren, Zockern und Gerüchtestreuern, die seit Jahren gemeinsame Sache gemacht haben sollen. Die Vorwürfe lauten auf Marktmanipulation und Insiderhandel mit Aktien, sagte die Sprecherin der Anklagebehörde, Barbara Stockinger. „Wir ermitteln gegen 31 Beschuldigte, und es besteht erheblicher Tatverdacht.“ Dabei laufen die Ermittlungen bereits seit 2007, und sie reichen bis hin zur Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK), deren Redner gern auf den Hauptversammlungen von Dax-Konzernen auftreten.

Nach Informationen der F.A.Z. sitzen die früheren SdK-Sprecher Markus Straub und Tobias Bosler in Untersuchungshaft. Sie gehören zum Kreis der Verdächtigen, die in windigen Börsenbriefen und Internetportalen Gerüchte über Aktien von Unternehmen wie Wirecard oder Nascacell verbreitet haben sollen. Erschwert würden die Untersuchungen, weil die Beschuldigten oft Namen und Firmenadressen wechselten und internationale Durchsuchungsbeschlüsse notwendig gewesen seien, sagte eine mit der Angelegenheit befasste Person dieser Zeitung. Die Masche selbst ist nach ihren Angaben leicht durchschaubar, aber schwer nachzuweisen. Vermutlich haben sämtliche Verdächtige Gerüchte über mindestens 20 kleine Aktiengesellschaften gestreut und an den Kursausschlägen der jeweiligen Aktien kräftig verdient. Gegenstand dieser Geschäfte waren bevorzugt im unregulierten Freihandel notierte und meist wertlose Aktien, sogenannte Pennystocks. Die Kurse dieser Werte sind wegen ihres hohen Streubesitzes leicht zu manipulieren.

Gezielt Gerüchte gestreut

Nach Informationen der F.A.Z. sollen unter anderem gezielt über den Finanznachrichtendienst Gomopa im Internet Gerüchte über Pennystocks gestreut worden sein. Gomopa steht für Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting LLC. Auf ihrer Internetseite hat Gomopa „Transparenz in Sachen Finanzen, Vorsorge und Geldanlage“ versprochen, doch ihr Chef Klaus Maurischat saß als mutmaßlicher Betrüger schon in Untersuchungshaft.

Seit einigen Tagen ist die Internetseite http://www.gomopa.net offline, und es kursieren Gerüchte über finanzielle Unregelmäßigkeiten. Immer wieder ist Gomopa in juristische Streitigkeiten verwickelt. In einer einstweiligen Verfügung des Landgerichts Berlin vom 31. August (Az.: 27 O 658/10) ist das Unternehmen aufgefordert worden, nicht länger Falschinformationen über den Kasseler Immobilienhändler Immovation AG und seinen Finanzvorstand Lars Bergmann zu verbreiten. „Gomopa hat seinen Firmensitz bewusst in New York, weil die Firma dort presserechtlich nicht belangt werden kann“, sagte ein Kenner des Unternehmens der F.A.Z.

Die SdK räumte am Freitag ein, dass auch ihre Geschäftsräume durchsucht wurden. Es gebe jedoch „aus der Sicht der SdK keinerlei neue Vorwürfe gegen den Verein“. Die alten Vorwürfe gegen die SdK stehen im Zusammenhang mit Kursmanipulationen bei Aktien der Unternehmen Thielert und Wirecard. Staatsanwaltschaft und Allfinanzaufsicht Bafin ermittelten seinerzeit gegen den damaligen stellvertretenden SdK-Vorsitzenden Straub. Dieser hatte eingeräumt, Verkaufsoptionen auf das Zahlungsunternehmen Wirecard zu halten, dessen Kurs durch heftige Kritik der SdK unter Druck geraten war. Später trat Straub, der offenbar in kurzer Zeit ein Vermögen verdient hatte, zurück. Wirecard hatte Anzeige wegen Insiderhandels und Kursmanipulation gegen sechs Personen erstattet, darunter auch aktuelle und frühere SdK-Vorstände.

FBI Director Testifies on FBI Efforts Since 9/11

  • Robert S. Mueller, III
  • Director
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Statement Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • Washington, D.C.
  • September 13, 2011

Good morning, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss the threats facing our nation and the efforts of the FBI to protect the United States over the past 10 years.

Introduction

The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, tribal, and international agencies and partners. The FBI’s number one priority in this mission continues to be the prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States. To improve its ability to detect and disrupt those with the intent and capability to conduct attacks in the United States, the FBI has undergone a paradigm shift in the way we collect and use intelligence.

The FBI significantly increased its intelligence capacity after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the FBI elevated counterterrorism to its highest priority. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the FBI’s operations were heavily weighted towards its law enforcement mission; intelligence tools and authorities were primarily used for the counterintelligence mission. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the FBI quickly identified the need to enhance intelligence programs with improved analytical and information sharing capacities to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks.

Protecting the United States against terrorism demanded a new framework for the way the FBI carries out its mission: a threat-based, intelligence-led approach. Rather than collecting information to solve a particular case, the new approach prioritizes the collection and utilization of intelligence to develop a comprehensive threat picture, enabling strategic disruptions of terrorist networks before they act. This focus on the overall threat picture also elevates the need for information sharing, thereby changing the FBI’s role in and relationships with both the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Under this new model, intelligence drives how we understand threats, how we prioritize and investigate these threats, and how we target our resources to address these threats.

This new approach has driven significant changes in the Bureau’s structure and management, resource allocation, hiring, training, recruitment, information technology systems, interagency collaboration, and information sharing, as well as a paradigm shift in the FBI’s cultural mindset. These changes have transformed the Bureau into a national security organization that fuses traditional law enforcement and intelligence missions. At the same time, the FBI remains vigilant in upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and protecting privacy rights and civil liberties.

Today’s FBI: A National Security Organization

In the years since 9/11, the FBI has integrated its intelligence mission with its traditional law enforcement mission, enhancing its ability as a national security organization. Like other intelligence agencies, the FBI collects, exploits, disseminates, and analyzes intelligence. The FBI combines these functions to collect and act on intelligence as a national security organization. As a result, the FBI is not solely an intelligence or law enforcement agency. The FBI’s actions are not limited to arrests and prosecutions; they take many forms—including recruiting potential intelligence sources; developing new collection requirements (pieces of information sought to complete a particular threat picture); and supporting our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to exercise their distinct authorities to disrupt plots before they cause harm.

The FBI has a long history of collecting intelligence to be used as evidence to dismantle criminal networks or to identify and prosecute spies. Historically, information was collected with a goal of using it to drive traditional law enforcement action: arrest and prosecution. However, being driven by threat rather than arrest and prosecution means prioritizing intelligence collection. Under the FBI’s new paradigm, intelligence enables a broader picture of the threat. Intelligence is not collected simply to further a particular case. This shift required the integration of intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. Intelligence is analyzed and disseminated to better understand the threat, to identify intelligence gaps, and to develop new collection requirements, which drive additional action in the field, leading to either additional collection or disruption. It is this continuous intelligence cycle that drives investigative strategies to ensure resources are targeting the most pressing threats.

Another key element of the FBI’s evolution into an effective national security organization has been augmenting relationships and information sharing with the United States intelligence community (the intelligence community), as well as federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement partners. The Bureau has accomplished this interconnectivity through the development of and participation in joint operational programs and task forces, expansion of our presence overseas, and the development of information technology systems that support information sharing. Meeting the requirements of the intelligence cycle necessitated a significant enhancement of the Bureau’s intelligence capacity and expertise.

Building the Structure and Management Capability for a National Security Organization

The Initial Steps of the Transformation

To meet the immediate demands of the post-9/11 threat environment, the Bureau shifted resources from criminal investigations to national security matters, adding almost 2,000 agents to its national security programs within one year. Soon thereafter, the FBI began the process of creating a national security focus and aligning the organization to address this priority. One of the first steps was to centralize control and management of counterterrorism operations at Headquarters to avoid the “stove-piping” of information on terrorism cases in the 56 individual field offices across the country. Another was building the critical intelligence infrastructure to meet the needs of production and dissemination of intelligence products. The building blocks of this infrastructure included: establishing an intelligence office at Headquarters; creating a Field Intelligence Group (FIG) for each field office across the country; augmenting counterterrorism resources at Headquarters; hiring more intelligence and language analysts; creating systems to enable more efficient search and analysis capability; and developing new training.

As the various elements of the national security architecture grew both at Headquarters and in the field, a need to focus on and centralize not only counterterrorism operations but also the Bureau’s overall national security mission emerged. This led to the creation of the National Security Branch (NSB) in 2005, which combined the missions, capabilities, and resources of all of the national security components of the Bureau—counterterrorism, counterintelligence, intelligence, and weapons of mass destruction. In addition to managing the NSB’s internal components, the executive assistant director for NSB (EAD/NSB) serves as the Bureau’s lead intelligence official and representative to the intelligence community. With centralized management, the FBI’s national security functions have matured internally and the NSB has further integrated itself into the intelligence community. To accelerate this integration, NSB created an associate executive assistant director position that is filled by a senior official from the intelligence community. The NSB also has administrative responsibility for two interagency groups: the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) (formally chartered in 2010) and the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) (formally chartered in 2003).

Management Approach to Lead the Transformation: Strategy Management System (SMS)

While identifying the objective for and building the components of an intelligence-led organization were key steps in the FBI’s transformation, transitioning this new threat-based, intelligence-led model into practice required additional focus and attention from management. The challenge was to get the network of offices and personnel across the country and around the globe to accept a new mindset and approach to day-to-day operations. The Bureau developed a tool—the Strategy Management System (SMS)—based on the well-regarded balanced scorecard methodology, to measure the execution of its strategy and the progress of its transformation. The SMS is a method to communicate the FBI’s strategy, prioritize initiatives, identify each component’s role in pursuing the strategy, and measure progress. The core of the strategy is the intelligence cycle. The SMS lays out objectives in each of four categories: the expectations of the American public, internal processes, talent and technology, and resources against which objectives, measures, and initiatives are balanced. Through this structure, the SMS has helped to integrate intelligence into all aspects of the FBI’s mission. The SMS used at the Headquarters level cascades down to SMS at the branch and division level, thereby creating a cohesive plan under which every component of the Bureau, down to each employee, has a defined role in achieving the goals of the organization. Moreover, to ensure that the FBI’s national security mission is aligned with the greater intelligence community’s mission, NSB’s strategy is linked to both the FBI enterprise-wide strategy as well as the national intelligence strategy.

SMS reviews are conducted quarterly at the executive management level to review progress against the FBI’s strategy and at the branch and division levels to monitor the execution of the strategy, establish accountability for performance, and ensure alignment with the FBI corporate strategy. The SMS is also linked to and guides the core business processes within the FBI, including: the inspections process, the risk-based management process, spend plan reviews, major resource decisions, and executive performance plans.

Accelerating the Transformation: Strategic Execution Team (SET)

In 2007, recognizing that intelligence had not yet become central in FBI operations and to accelerate the growth of the Bureau’s intelligence cycle capabilities, the FBI formed a Strategic Execution Team (SET) initially comprised of almost 100 special agents, intelligence analysts, and other skilled professionals from field offices and FBI Headquarters. The SET examined the intelligence activities in each of the 56 field offices and identified two overarching impediments to transformation: integrating intelligence into operations in the field and building human capital for enhanced intelligence capabilities. For example, the SET found that while each field office had a FIG, many of the intelligence analysts were being utilized to support the tactical needs of individual cases, rather than being the engine driving strategic collection requirements and, in turn, operations. Following the recommendations of the SET, the FBI standardized the structure and responsibilities of the FIGs to increase collaboration between intelligence and operations and to provide accountability for intelligence collection, analysis, use, and production. In response to the need to build human capital, the FBI also devoted resources to recruiting and training an analytical workforce that could fulfill the critical functions of the intelligence cycle.

The SET also identified the need for a standardized intelligence role for the operational divisions at Headquarters, similar to the FIGs. SET designed Central Strategic Coordinating Components (CSCCs), where teams of intelligence personnel are embedded in each of the operational divisions to fulfill the primary functions of the intelligence cycle and to improve coordination between the field offices and Headquarters components.

Tracking the Progress of the Transformation: Strategy Performance Sessions (SPS)

To better track and measure the field offices’ progress towards a truly threat-based, intelligence-led approach, in 2008, management at Headquarters began conducting Strategy Performance Sessions (SPS) with field offices to review the field offices’ intelligence and operational performance. The sessions, conducted on a bi-annual basis1 by secure video teleconference with executives from Headquarters and the management team from two to four field offices, focus on the top threats by operational program facing each field office’s area of responsibility, or domain; the gaps in intelligence against those top threats; and the strategy to fill those intelligence gaps. The purpose of the SPS is to provide a forum for strategic dialogue, which enables informed decision-making, enhances intelligence and investigative program performance, and instills a culture of accountability. Through SPS sessions, Headquarters divisions gain better insight into the challenges field offices are facing in their areas of responsibility and use this knowledge to allocate resources strategically and assist the field offices to focus on the cases with the potential to neutralize the greatest threats while recruiting sources who have answers to the most pressing questions. Utilizing the SPS sessions, management has systematically led the cultural transition from a Bureau focused on cases and successful prosecutions to an intelligence-driven organization focused on comprehensive domain awareness and network disruptions.

Human Capital Development

The FBI’s current intelligence-led operational model relies in large part on analysts and language specialists who can quickly and effectively review, analyze, and disseminate the intelligence collected in the field. Post 9/11, the FBI’s challenge was to develop an intelligence analyst and language specialist cadre that could match the collection capabilities of the special agents. The creation of a workforce with the intelligence expertise necessary for today’s threats and those of the future required the Bureau to recruit beyond law enforcement and the military communities in order to attract individuals with a broader range of skill sets and advanced degrees in relevant fields. Furthermore, the traditional operational approach created a culture that emphasized the value of special agents. This necessitated a strategy that would elevate the stature of analysts. The FBI is meeting this two-part challenge by developing a targeted recruitment strategy, creating rewarding career paths for intelligence analysts, enhancing training programs, and establishing a Leadership Development Program.

Developing an Intelligence Analyst Cadre

Soon after 9/11, the FBI recruited experienced intelligence analysts from other agencies and students with critical skill sets from universities around the country. The FBI also created opportunities for entry-level positions with career paths that often lead to FBI intelligence analyst or special agent positions. Since 2001, the FBI has nearly tripled the number of intelligence analysts to 3,118, increased the supervisory intelligence analyst cadre to 285, and increased the number of GS-15 level analysts to 80. This increase in the quantity has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the capabilities and expertise of the analyst corps. Today, almost half of the FBI’s special agents were hired post-9/11, and have “grown up” in the intelligence-led culture of today’s FBI working side-by-side with analysts.

The FBI has instituted programs to enhance the stature of and career options for analysts. In 2010, the NSB created three analyst career paths—tactical, collection/reporting, and strategic. By defining specific analyst functions, the FBI is creating a specialized, analytic workforce with the appropriate training, experiences, and opportunities for career development. Since 2005, 133 FBI agents and analysts have been certified as intelligence officers through the FBI Intelligence Officer Certification Program.

Analysts now also hold senior executive service (SES)-level leadership positions at Headquarters to manage a range of programs, including the CSCCs and the newly established Intelligence Watch. Starting in 2009, the Bureau began establishing senior supervisory intelligence analyst (SSIA) positions, which are the equivalent of assistant special agents in charge. SSIAs also perform a full range of managerial and liaison responsibilities with authority over strategic planning activities and personnel matters.

Training is another key element of cultivating a professional analyst workforce. In 2009, the FBI produced a five-year training strategy for intelligence analysts, which identified the need for new courses, instructors, and funding. Since then, the FBI’s Training Division has been working directly with training units in the NSB to drive training requirements for intelligence analysts.

Leadership Development Program

The FBI has a long history of hiring individuals with strong leadership skills, but the fast-paced and continuous changes in the organization created the need for an accelerated and enhanced leadership development program for all employees. In response, in 2009, the FBI established the Leadership Development Program (LDP), the first comprehensive, coordinated approach to leadership in the Bureau’s history. LDP’s primary goal is to ensure that FBI employees are fully prepared to lead before they assume leadership positions. The LDP’s programs, which are at various stages of development and piloting, will deliver a range of programs designed around a leadership doctrine that emphasizes character, courage, competence, and collaboration. LDP’s programs will be available to all employees in all locations across the Bureau from the day they are hired to the day they retire. Initially, programs are being offered to new employees, employees interested in becoming supervisors, and current supervisors and senior managers. Through its commitment to building the infrastructure to fully implement and sustain the LDP, the FBI will ensure that its employees are prepared to confront current and future challenges and threats.

Supporting the Core Functions of the Intelligence Cycle

The priority of staying ahead of the threat has changed the demand for intelligence as its utility expanded from supporting a particular case to identifying and understanding a broader picture of the threat. This shift required the integration of intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. Intelligence is analyzed and disseminated to better understand the threat, to identify intelligence gaps, and to develop new collection requirements, which drive additional action in the field, leading to either additional collection or disruption. It is this continuous intelligence cycle of collection, integration and dissemination, analysis, and action that drives investigative strategies to ensure resources are targeting the most pressing threats.

Intelligence Collection

Collection of intelligence is conducted by the FBI’s greatest asset: its people. Since 9/11, the FBI has more than doubled the number of agents and analysts assigned to its national security mission from 3,537 (2,514 agents/1,023 analysts) to 7,933 (4,815 agents/3,118 analysts). The FBI has a network of personnel spread around the globe, with 56 field offices and 399 resident agencies domestically and 62 international legal attaché offices around the world which support the collection of raw intelligence.

The Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are interagency squads dedicated to investigating terrorism matters and coordinating counterterrorism efforts across the United States. The FBI has increased the number of JTTFs from 35 in 2001 to 104 today—one in each of the 56 field offices and 48 of the resident agencies across the country. In addition to FBI agents, the JTTFs are comprised of task force officers from 32 federal and 671 state, local, and tribal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A single National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) was created at Headquarters to manage the JTTFs around the country and to provide a venue for collaboration with intelligence community personnel to exchange information, analyze data, and plan counterterrorism strategies.

Each of the FBI’s 56 field offices has a FIG composed of intelligence analysts, special agents, and staff operations specialists. FIGs, which did not exist prior to 2001, now have 1,662 intelligence analysts, 451 special agents, and 415 staff operations specialists. The mission of the FIGs is to identify the threats in their respective territories and develop “domain awareness” through collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence.

Intelligence-driven investigations require a unity of effort with partners overseas, especially as global cooperation becomes increasingly necessary to combat terrorism. Through the 62 legal attaché offices around the world (an increase of 18 since 2001), the FBI has strengthened relationships with international partners. This expanded global reach not only benefits FBI’s foreign partners, but also aids FBI collection efforts and investigations.

The FBI has a leading role in human intelligence (HUMINT) collection in the United States. Simply defined, HUMINT is information learned from individuals. People are an invaluable source of intelligence and FBI special agents have a long history of developing human sources to uncover criminal conduct and foreign intelligence activities. With the expanded national security mission, the need for and value of HUMINT in understanding our adversaries and developing the threat picture has increased significantly. FBI Headquarters develops policies, training, and oversight to ensure adherence to policy directives and to ensure that information collected is accurate, authentic, reliable, free of undisclosed influence, and consistent with mission objectives across all FBI programs.

Collecting intelligence through physical surveillance is also critical for monitoring threats to our national security. The FBI’s physical surveillance program, which was consolidated into one division in 2010, consists of both armed and unarmed mobile surveillance teams and the field aviation program. The armed teams conduct surveillance of armed and dangerous counterterrorism and criminal targets with a propensity for violence. To meet the growing demand for surveillance, the Bureau has increased the number of unarmed surveillance teams by 127 percent since 2001.

Forensics is another critical source of intelligence. The FBI has earned a global reputation of having premier forensic examiners. Working with interagency partners, the FBI is applying and expanding upon traditional forensic capabilities in support of the counterterrorism mission. The FBI also leads an interagency group based at the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, that supports Department of Defense operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC). Established in 2003 and funded primarily by the Department of Defense’s Joint IED Defeat Organization, TEDAC is staffed by approximately 230 full time government and contract personnel who coordinate and manage a unified intelligence, military, and law enforcement effort to examine improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that are of interest to the United States.

The FBI’s use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities is an important component of intelligence collection which is subject to a comprehensive oversight and compliance regime in which all three branches of government play a role. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ensures that constitutional and statutory requirements are met related both to authorization and implementation of the use of the authorities. The Department of Justice’s National Security Division, in conjunction with the FBI’s Office of the General Counsel, conducts oversight of the FBI’s use of FISA authorities to ensure compliance both with the statute and minimization procedures. And, on a semi-annual basis, the government must report to Congress on its use of FISA electronic surveillance, physical search, and pen register and trap and trace authorities and submit a detailed annual report on its use of the business record authority.

Publicly available information is also an invaluable source of intelligence that is often overlooked by intelligence analysts in favor of classified or law enforcement sensitive information. Recognizing a need to include open source information in intelligence analysis, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) created an Open Source Center (OSC) in 2005. As part of its efforts to strengthen the open source community, the OSC has detailed an open source officer to the FBI for a year to help the Bureau build its own open source program.

Intelligence Analysis and Dissemination

Intelligence collection is only valuable if it is integrated, analyzed, and disseminated effectively and efficiently. As the Bureau has increased its intelligence collection, it has simultaneously developed the capability to exploit and share it. This function resides with the FIGs. The analysts and agents in the FIGs collect raw intelligence from various sources, including agents in the field and intelligence disseminated by other agencies. Analysts then disseminate the raw intelligence and/or create finished intelligence products for dissemination. Developing an analyst corps was only part of the solution to the Bureau’s need to increase intelligence dissemination and production. The analysts also needed the necessary information technology and analytic tools to succeed.

To streamline the dissemination of intelligence contained in intelligence information reports (IIRs), the FBI developed an information technology solution, the Collection Operations and Requirements Environment (CORE). CORE standardizes intelligence reporting across the FBI while integrating field intelligence operations with intelligence community requirements. An additional web-based software application, the IIR Dissemination System, streamlines, standardizes, and tracks the production of IIRs, and has improved the Bureau’s ability to effectively support our intelligence community partners. Since 2004, FBI dissemination of IIRs has increased dramatically, providing critical information to the intelligence community, law enforcement community, and policymakers.

The FBI continues to develop information technology solutions to minimize the time that intelligence analysts spend searching for relevant information, allowing them to focus on connecting the dots and analyzing the available information. The Data Integration and Visualization System (DIVS) is the FBI’s consolidated enterprise platform that further enhances both the search capabilities and the breadth of information that can be accessed through a single sign-on. DIVS will unify all data accessible to the FBI—intelligence, criminal investigative, and other mission data—through one user-friendly search interface, consistent with all applicable legal requirements pertaining to the data. Currently, DIVS houses records from the 11 FBI and other government agency data sources identified by users as most critical to the FBI’s counterterrorism mission. The FBI continues to roll-out this system across the FBI and to add datasets and user tools to provide additional functionality. DIVS is built on a modern platform that will easily expand to integrate tools developed internally, by private industry, or by intelligence community partners.

Integration into the United States Intelligence Community and Partnerships with Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

Another key element of the FBI’s evolution into an effective national security organization has been augmenting relationships and information sharing with the United States intelligence community, as well as federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement partners. The Bureau has accomplished this interconnectivity through the development of and participation in joint operational programs and task forces, expansion of our presence overseas, and through the development of information technology systems that support information sharing.

As mentioned previously, JTTFs are the primary vehicle by which the intelligence community and federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement are integrated with domestic counterterrorism operations. The JTTFs currently have almost 2,000 non-FBI employees (approximately 44 percent of all JTTF members). The FBI’s integration with the intelligence community is further enhanced by joint duty detailee programs through which law enforcement and intelligence professionals from other agencies are embedded in FBI units and FBI employees are embedded in other agencies. Having professionals from different agencies performing their missions side-by-side has broken down communication barriers and enhanced the mutual understanding of each agency’s unique contributions to the community.

Currently, the FBI has more than 200 employees working at other intelligence community agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Counterterrorism Center, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and the Department of State. NSB employees also fill intelligence-related positions at the National Security Staff at the White House. Similarly, many of the detailees from other agencies work at joint operational entities administratively located within the FBI, such as the TSC, the HIG, the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. These joint operational components along with other joint duty assignments and the EAD/NSB’s sustained interaction with the Director of National Intelligence ensure that the FBI is a full partner in the Intelligence Community.

In support of the DNI’s effort to create a single intelligence community enterprise that is coordinated, integrated, agile, and effective, the FBI and the ODNI piloted, and are in the process of institutionalizing, a domestic DNI representative program. Domestic DNI representatives are senior field FBI officials at designated offices across the United States who serve as the DNI’s principal domestic representative to the intelligence community within their respective areas of responsibility. This program supports the DNI’s mission of integrating foreign, military, and domestic intelligence in defense of the homeland and in support of United States national security interests at home and abroad.

Since 9/11, the FBI has evolved to respond to the complex and far-ranging threats we face today. The FBI collects, exploits, and disseminates more intelligence to a greater and more useful extent than ever before. This focus on intelligence has helped prioritize our top threats and increased our understanding of our vulnerability to those threats. As the FBI has undergone this transformation, it has remained vigilant in upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and protecting privacy rights and civil liberties.

Conclusion

Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, I would like to conclude by thanking you and this committee for your service and support. I look forward to working with the committee to improve the FBI as our transformation continues in the future.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

1SPS were originally conducted on a quarterly basis. In 2009, in an effort to reduce the administrative workload on the field offices, the frequency was reduced to twice yearly.

TOP-SECRET – FBI Counterterrorism Chief Discusses Efforts to Fight Terrorist Financing

  • Ralph S. Boelter
  • Acting Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Statement Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
  • Washington, D.C.
  • September 21, 2011

Good morning Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Kyl, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat terrorist financing.

Introduction

As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we are reminded that the FBI’s number one priority in its mission to protect and defend the United States continues to be the prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States. The mission of the Terrorism Financing Operations Section (TFOS) is twofold. First, to manage the FBI’s investigative efforts in relation to individuals who provide funding to terrorists; and second, to ensure financial investigative techniques are used, where appropriate, in all counterterrorism investigations to enhance the investigations.

In coordination with our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, TFOS carries out this mission through the application of financial investigative techniques and the exploitation of financial intelligence. To improve its ability to detect and disrupt those with the intent and capability to conduct attacks against the United States, TFOS has undergone a significant shift in the way we address the threat of terrorism financing.

Inception of TFOS

Immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11, the FBI established the Terrorism Financing Operations Section within the Counterterrorism Division. In recognition of the importance of tracking the financial underpinnings of terrorist activity, TFOS was established to serve as a comprehensive, centralized unit to provide broad support for counterterrorism investigations by analyzing and exploiting all available financial intelligence (FININT).

TFOS Organization

Consistent with the FBI’s continuing transformation into an intelligence-led national security organization, in early 2011, the Counterterrorism Division implemented changes to TFOS. These changes enhance TFOS’ ability to carry out its mission through a threat-based, intelligence-led approach. Rather than collecting information to solve a particular case, this new approach prioritizes the collection and utilization of intelligence to develop a comprehensive threat picture, enabling strategic disruptions of terrorist financing operations.

Targeting Unit

The TFOS Targeting Unit utilizes all source intelligence from the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities to identify currently unknown fundraisers and their associates. This unit focuses on identifying unknown or previously unidentified financiers within terrorist networks. As our targeting efforts identify these individuals, TFOS works directly with each of the FBI’s 56 field offices to open assessments or investigations and lead those investigations through TFOS’s two operational units.

Strategic Intelligence Units

The TFOS Strategic Intelligence Unit monitors threats and financial trends to identify trends and methodologies which are key to identifying possible terrorist financing transactions at their earliest point. This intelligence is disseminated to the U.S. intelligence community, as well as federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement partners, as appropriate. In addition, TFOS has been successful in augmenting relationships and establishing channels for sharing information with elements of the financial industry which routinely report on suspicious financial activity occurring in the private sector.

In addition to carrying out targeting and strategic intelligence functions, TFOS personnel are embedded within the Counterterrorism Division’s International Terrorism Operations Section and threat cells, which manage the priority threats and investigations. This cadre of special agents, intelligence analysts, and forensic accountants ensure the FININT in priority threat investigations is fully exploited to support those investigations. FININT is critical in these investigations as the FBI does not just focus on the total dollar amount of a financial transaction, but also gleans valuable intelligence from the financial activity. Further, TFOS conducts analysis of other critical intelligence collected during transactions. Thus, the TFOS exploitation of FININT not only seeks to identify the scope and breadth of terrorist financing, but also the members of the terrorist network to enhance indicators and tripwires and create actionable intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks.

Outreach, Training and Education

In partnership with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the FBI conducts ongoing outreach and education with our financial industry counterparts. The financial industry’s efforts and resources dedicated to detecting and reporting suspicious financial activities through suspicious activity reports (SARs) have been important components in our efforts to identify terrorist financing. SAR reporting is a critical tripwire to detect possible terrorist financiers as well as to identify associates of known terrorists. The analysis of SAR information aids in the development of an overall terrorist financing threat picture and can assist TFOS in identifying trends or patterns of suspicious activity around the country. This information can also identify previously unknown associates of terrorism subjects.

In conjunction with the Treasury Department, TFOS conducts an annual training session with the New York Federal Reserve to provide the financial industry with updated trend information regarding terrorist financing. This year’s conference included over 300 attendees from the financial sector interested in learning how to maximize their resources to more effectively identify and report suspicious financial activity. These outreach efforts provide an opportunity for the financial sector to receive the latest terrorist financing threat and trend information, as well as share in best practices for the rapid identification and reporting of suspicious financial activity.

International Efforts

Coordinated efforts with our foreign intelligence and law enforcement partners are key elements to the FBI’s success in counterterrorism investigations. Through the FBI’s 62 legal attaché offices TFOS jointly investigates terrorist financing matters with our foreign counterparts. In addition, TFOS personnel are embedded within key legal attaché offices to provide expertise and resources dedicated to terrorist financing. These relationships and global efforts in the sharing of intelligence are key to the FBI’s efforts to stem the flow of financial support to terrorists and protect the United States from terrorist attacks. TFOS also participates jointly with the Treasury Department and other United States government agencies in international forums to support international efforts in relation to terrorist financing.

TFOS conducts international training to convey the latest financial exploitation techniques and share best practices and investigative strategies to support the joint investigation of terrorist financing matters. In coordination with the Department of State, over the past two years, TFOS has conducted over 20 international training courses in 17 different countries. This training enhances our foreign counterparts’ awareness and capabilities and promotes financial exploitation in all counterterrorism investigations.

Recent Successes

The FBI’s terrorist financing efforts have resulted in numerous successes which have resulted in the disruption and arrest of terrorist financiers.

In August 2011, Mohammad Younis pled guilty in New York to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, received money from Younis, which he used to fund his preparations for the attempted bombing. Younis received the money through his unlicensed money transmitting business from a co-conspirator in Pakistan. Shahzad advised that the funding was arranged in Pakistan by associates of the Tehrik-e-Taliban.

In May, 2011, Hor and Amera Akl pled guilty in Ohio to conspiracy to provide material support to Hizballa. Hor and Amera Akl told an FBI informant they would be willing to send money to Hizballah for him. The informant gave them $200,000 to send to Hizballah, and they were arrested as they attempted to conceal the money in a vehicle that would be shipped overseas.

In September, 2009, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pled guilty in New York to charges of terrorism financing. Alishtari facilitated the transfer of $152,000, with the understanding that the money would be used to fund training for terrorists.

In the last year, the FBI has conducted terrorist financing investigations which led to the indictment of individuals for providing funding to the Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al Shabaab. The al Shabaab indictments involved a network which used teleconferences to raise funds and then remitted the money to al Shabaab terrorists in Somalia.

Conclusion

The efforts of TFOS—in close coordination with our federal, state, and local partners; the financial industry; and our international partners—have established an increasingly difficult environment within which terrorist financiers can operate undetected. We believe that these efforts have reduced the funding available for terrorist operations and have made the concealment and transfer of terrorism related funds more difficult.

As the terrorists adapt their methods to raise and transfer funds, the FBI has also adapted its efforts to detect and disrupt these financial networks. The FBI TFOS is better able to systematically track intelligence, identify networks and currently unknown subjects, and oversee the FBI’s terrorist financing investigations related to those networks. TFOS’ cooperative efforts with our government and private sector partners ensures an ongoing and coordinated approach to terrorist financing to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States.

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Kyl, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and share the work that the FBI is doing to address terrorist financing and counterterrorism in this country and around the globe. I am happy to answer any questions.

TOP-SECRET- $2.1 Million Reward Paid for Information on Bulger

FBI Boston September 23, 2011
  • Special Agent Greg Comcowich (617) 223-6110

BOSTON—the Boston Division of the FBI received final authorization from the United States Department of Justice to pay the $2.1 million reward to those responsible for providing information which directly led to the arrest of former Top Ten Fugitive James “Whitey” Bulger and his companion, Catherine Greig. This information was generated as a direct result of the FBI’s public service announcement campaign, which was initiated on June 20, 2011.

The FBI offered $2 million for information leading to the arrest of Mr. Bulger, and $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of Ms. Greig. As of Friday, September 23, 2011, the FBI has paid this reward money to more than one individual.

To protect the anonymity and privacy of those responsible for providing information which directly led to the arrests of Mr. Bulger and Ms. Greig, the FBI will not comment further regarding this matter. Any further inquiries relating to Mr. Bulger and Ms. Greig should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, at 617.748.3100.

TOP-SECRET – FBI Arrest 23 Hondo and Uvalde-Based Texas Syndicate Members and Associates

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 04, 2011
  • Western District of Texas (210) 384-7100
— filed under: ,

United States Attorney Robert Pitman, FBI Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson, and Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw announced that 23 Hondo and Uvalde, Texas-based members and associates of the Texas Syndicate (TS), including a Bandera County Sheriff’s Deputy, have been arrested based on two federal grand jury indictments returned on Wednesday and unsealed late yesterday.

RICO Indictment

Those arrested on Thursday and charged in a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) conspiracy indictment include:

  • Cristobal Velasquez (a.k.a. “Little Cris”), age 33, of Uvalde;
  • Sotero Rodriguez Martinez (a.k.a. “June”), age 41, of Uvalde;
  • Chuco Mario Martinez (a.k.a. “Mariachi”), age 35, of Uvalde;
  • Larry Munoz, Jr. (a.k.a. “Little Larry”), age 36, of Uvalde;
  • Brian Esparza (a.k.a. “Tata”), age 31, of Uvalde;
  • Charles Esparza (a.k.a. “Horse”), age 32, of Uvalde;
  • Ervey Sanchez (a.k.a. “Mad Max”), age 31, of Uvalde;
  • Mark Anthony Vela, age 35, of Hondo;
  • Charles Olan Quintanilla, age 32, of Hondo;
  • George Sanchez (a.k.a. “Curious”), age 36, of Uvalde; and
  • Inez Mata (a.k.a. “Bebito”), age 41, of Uvalde.

The seven-count RICO indictment charges the defendants with participating in a criminal organization whose members engage in acts of violence, including murder, extortion, robbery, and drug distribution. According to the indictment, from January 2002 to the date of the indictment, the defendants conspired to commit four murders, commit robbery, and distribute cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine.

The RICO indictment specifically alleges that: an indicted co-conspirator, whose identity will be revealed at his initial appearance, shot and killed 43-year-old Rogelio Mata on October 13, 2002; Velasquez and Chuco Martinez were responsible for the shooting death of 34-year-old Jose Guadalupe De La Garza on December 25, 2005; Ervey Sanchez shot and killed 36-year-old Jesse James Polanco on November 9 2009; and, on August 14, 2010, Sotero Rodriguez, Munoz, Torres, Brian Esparza, Charles Esparza, Ervey Sanchez, and George Sanchez conspired to kill 45-year-old Ramon Rodriguez.

During the conspiracy, the defendants were allegedly responsible for trafficking in the Hondo and Uvalde areas in excess of five kilograms of cocaine, 100 kilograms of marijuana, and three ounces of methamphetamine.

Each defendant faces up to life in federal prison upon conviction.

Non-RICO Indictment

Those arrested yesterday and charged in the non-RICO indictment include:

  • Jose Alberto Ruiz (a.k.a. “Spike”), age 42, of Uvalde;
  • Calletano Nira (a.k.a. “Cat), age 46, of Hondo;
  • Joshua Leonard Benavides, age 20, of Hondo;
  • Alfredo Tapia, III (a.k.a. “Nacho”), age 63, of Hondo;
  • Ted Benavides (a.k.a. “TJ”), age 19, of Hondo;
  • Jessica Escareno, age 40, of Hondo;
  • Ruben Dominguez, age 35, of Hondo;
  • Sandra Torres, age 33, of Uvalde;
  • Jaime Corona, Jr., age 28, of Hondo;
  • John Khosravi, age 31, of San Antonio;
  • Eli Torres, age 35, of Uvalde; and,
  • Thomas Cuellar, age 41, of Hondo.

The 12 defendants named in this indictment, all of whom are members or associates of the Texas Syndicate, are charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Ruiz, Nira, Joshua Benavides, Tapia, Ted Benavides, and Escareno are also charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Cuellar is also charged with one count of unlawful use of a government computer.

From August 1, 2009 to the present, the defendants have allegedly conspired to distribute controlled substances in the Uvalde and Hondo areas. The indictment also alleges that on August 31, 2010, Cuellar, a Bandera County Sheriff’s Deputy, unlawfully accessed a department computer in order to obtain law enforcement information regarding co-conspirators.

Each drug charge calls for a sentence of between five and 40 years in federal prison upon conviction. Cuellar also faces up to five years in federal prison upon conviction of the unlawful use charge.

While executing the federal warrants on Thursday, authorities also arrested 22-year-old Diana Lizett Hernandez, of Bracketville, Texas. Hernandez is charged by a criminal complaint with possession with intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility. The complaint alleges that at the time of her arrest, Hernandez was in possession of 3.5 grams of cocaine and a digital scale. Upon conviction, Hernandez faces not less than one year and up to 40 years in federal prison.

This investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Safe Streets Task Force together with the Texas Department of Public Safety – Criminal Investigations Division, San Antonio Police Department, Medina County Sheriff’s Office, and the Bandera County Sheriff’s Office. Also assisting in the investigation was the 38th Judicial District Adult Probation Gang Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Customs and Border Protection, and the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Department assisted in making the arrests. This case will be prosecuted in the Del Rio Division of the Western District of Texas.

An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

TOP-SECRET – Edward P. May Sentenced for Orchestrating $350 Million Ponzi Scheme

Edward P. May Sentenced for Orchestrating $350 Million Ponzi Scheme
Largest-Ever in Michigan

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 04, 2011
  • Eastern District of Michigan (313) 226-9100

Edward P. May, age 75, was sentenced today to 16 years in federal prison for orchestrating the largest Ponzi scheme in the Eastern District of Michigan history, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced. McQuade was joined in the announcement by Andrew G. Arena, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Detroit Field Division. May was sentenced by the Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow.

On April 29, 2011, May pleaded guilty to all 59 counts of mail fraud alleged in a federal indictment charging him with orchestrating a decade-long investment fraud scheme. Specifically, the 59-count indictment alleged, in part, the following:

In 1997, EDWARD P. MAY formed E-M Management Co. LLC, which was located in rented office space in Lake Orion, Michigan. After forming E-M Management, MAY then formed more than 150 limited liability corporations (“LLCs”). MAY told hundreds of individuals in the Detroit metropolitan area and elsewhere across the country that the LLCs acquired telecommunications equipment and then provided telecommunications services to various hotels in Nevada, New York, New Jersey, California, elsewhere in the United States, and in foreign countries. MAY induced numerous people to invest large amounts of money in the LLCs, for what proved to be ficticious investments in “contracts” or “agreements” providing telecommunications equipment and services to various hotels.

MAY also caused fraudulent “private offering memoranda,” “subscription agreements,” and “investment recaps” for the LLCs to be drafted and distributed to potential investors. The offering memoranda fraudulently stated that E-M Management Co. had entered into agreements with various hotel corporations to “provide all of the telecommunication services to the hotel properties” and to “install new equipment where needed, to purchase existing equipment where practicable and to cut over the services from present providers,” and fraudulently promised investors that the funds raised “will be used solely for the purpose of purchasing telephone, high-speed Internet, low-speed Internet, [and] DVD equipment.”

The offering memorandums guaranteed a minimum monthly income to each investment LLC ranging from $30,000 to more than $100,000 per month. MAY deceived victim investors into believing that their funds were being invested as represented, and concealed from victim investors and others the fact that these “investments” were actually being used to support a pyramid or “Ponzi” scheme. May operated the pyramid scheme by paying purported investment returns to some investors with funds actually obtained from other investors.

MAY diverted and misappropriated the funds invested in the LLCs to his own personal use and to the benefit of his company, E-M Management. MAY spent some of the funds on travel to Las Vegas and gambling. Over the course of the scheme, MAY induced over 1,200 individuals to invest more than $350,000,000 in over 250 LLCs.

MAY’s scheme resulted in a total loss of over $49 million to the individuals who invested in the fraudulent LLCs.

United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade stated, “Complex fraud schemes like this one rob investors of their savings and erode public confidence in legitimate investments. This loss of public confidence in investment opportunities, in turn, depresses our economy. By prosecuting those who commit fraud, we hope to deter others from committing similar crimes.”

Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena stated, “The public should be aware that even though the FBI continues to vigilantly pursue these types of criminal violations, we live in a ’buyer beware’ investment environment. Investors should vigorously investigate the background information of all investment vehicles, and stick to the old adage that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

U.S. Attorney McQuade congratulated the hard work of the FBI for its efforts in pursuing this case. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Resnick Cohen, Craig Weier, and Stephen Hiyama.

TOP-SECRET FROM THE DESK OF THE FBI – Four arrests in $20 million bribery scheme involving government contracts

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 04, 2011
  • District of Columbia (202) 514-7566

WASHINGTON—Four Virginia men, including two longtime employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were arrested today on charges stemming from an indictment that accuses them of taking part in a conspiracy involving more than $20 million in bribes and kickback payments and the planned steering of a $780 million government contract to a favored contractor.

The arrests were announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr.; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General for the Small Business Administration (SBA); Robert E. Craig, Special Agent in Charge of the Mid-Atlantic Field Office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); Jeannine A. Hammett, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); and James K. Podolak, Director of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s (CID) Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

The defendants include Kerry F. Khan, 53, of Alexandria, Va.; his son, Lee A. Khan, 30, of Fairfax, Va.; Michael A. Alexander, 55, of Woodbridge, Va.; and Harold F. Babb, 60, of Sterling, Va. Kerry Khan and Alexander are employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Babb is director of contracts for a company that did business with the government.

All four men were taken into custody on charges contained in an indictment that was returned by a grand jury, under seal, on Sept. 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The arrests took place as authorities executed search warrants at seven locations in Virginia and one in the District of Columbia. The indictment was unsealed today.

According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and Alexander helped funnel more than $45 million in payments to a favored company through a federal government contract they oversaw, with plans to steer hundreds of millions more to the business. Approximately $20 million in fraudulent expenses were built into the invoices, and proceeds went to all four defendants.

All four defendants were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud and aiding and abetting and causing an illlegal act to be done, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Kerry Khan and Alexander also were indicted on one count of receipt of a bribe by a public official, and Babb was indicted on one count of unlawful kickbacks.

If convicted of the charges, Kerry Khan and Alexander face a maximum of 40 years in prison. Babb faces up to 35 years, and Lee Khan faces a sentence of up to 25 years.

The United States has obtained warrants to seize funds in 29 bank accounts and to seize three luxury vehicles and seven high-end watches. In addition, the indictment includes a forfeiture allegation against 16 real properties financed in whole or in part with proceeds of the crimes. The United States has begun the process of securing forfeiture of those 16 properties, which include 14 properties in Virginia, one in West Virginia, and one in Florida.

The indictment also provides the defendants notice that, if convicted, the United States will seek forfeiture of all proceeds of the charged offenses.

“This indictment alleges one of the most brazen corruption schemes in the history of federal contracting,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “As alleged by the indictment, corrupt public officials and crooked contractors devised a plan to funnel more than $20 million in taxpayer funds to themselves in an elaborate scheme of bribes and kickbacks. These charges are only the beginning of a far-reaching, steadfast effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Department of Justice, and our federal law enforcement partners to root out and hold accountable shameless government officials and those who entice them—through bribes and other personal benefits—to violate the public’s trust.”

“Abusing one’s position for personal gain blatantly disregards the oath that every government employee takes and everything that it represents,” said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin. “It’s offensive to citizens who trust the government and its contractors to use taxpayer money wisely.”

“The alleged actions of these individuals grossly undermine the honest work being done every day by federal employees and government contractors,” said Inspector General Gustafson of the SBA. “These individuals conspired to steal from the American people by perpetuating a fraud to siphon vital resources away from an organization that supports our military and reduces risks from disasters. The SBA OIG will relentlessly pursue such violations of public trust and seek justice on behalf of the taxpayers.”

“At a time when government and taxpayer resources are being stretched thin and our service members continue to make sacrifices to protect our national security across the globe, it is abhorrent that officials trusted with the oversight of Department of Defense resources and programs blatantly conspired with contractors to defraud the Government and, eventually, the American warfighter,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig of DCIS. “The Defense Criminal Investigative Service takes aggressive action to identify and investigate, alongside our federal investigative partners, those that endeavor to take advantage of the Department of Defense and the men and women of the Uniformed Services.”

“IRS Criminal Investigation often works jointly with other law enforcement agencies to provide financial investigative expertise. The charges brought in this case demonstrate our collective efforts to enforce the law and ensure public trust,” said Acting IRS Special Agent in Charge Hammett. “U.S. government employees hold positions of public trust, and they are responsible for managing public funds. The public has the right to know that those who work for them are doing so honestly. When we discover bribery schemes like the one alleged here, we will do everything in our power to hold both the bribe payer and the person accepting the bribe accountable.”

“Today’s arrests are a prime example of the teamwork among the special agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU), our fellow federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice attorneys,” said Director Podolak. “U.S. Army CID will continue to see to it that anyone suspected of contract fraud and corruption is brought to justice.”

**

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a branch of the U.S. Army with a stated mission to “provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen our Nation’s security, energize the economy, and reduce risks from disasters.”

The indictment details schemes to defraud two major federal contracts:

The TIGER Contract. The Technology for Instrastructure, Geospatial, and Environmental Requirements (TIGER) contract is what is known as an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract. Authorized agencies and departments are not required to obtain three separate bids or to compare the TIGER contract to another contract before submitting an invoice for products and services through the TIGER contract. The current TIGER contract is a five-year contract running from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2014. Over the term, the total award of orders placed against the TIGER contract is authorized to exceed $1 billion.

The CORES Contract. The Contingency Operations Readiness Engineering & Support (CORES) contract is a planned contract that is envisioned as an alternative or potential replacement to the TIGER contract. As planned, the CORES contract would be a five-year contract with an award potential for all contracts placed under it of up to $780 million.

The Defendants

 

Kerry Khan, who joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1994, is a program manager with the Directorate of Contingency Operations, based in Washington, D.C., which administers the TIGER contract. In that position, Kerry Khan had authority, among other things, to place orders for products and services through the TIGER contract, as well as other federal government contracts. He also had authority to certify that the work on the orders had been completed. In addition, Kerry Khan had the responsibility to prepare the CORES contract for solicitation to potential bidders and to approve the solicitation prior to its issuance to potential bidders.

Michael Alexander, who joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1985, is a program director with the Directorate of Contingency Operations. In that position, he had authority, among other things, to obtain funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects, including funding for orders placed through the TIGER contract and other federal government contracts. Alexander produced and actively managed a $54 million budget.

Harold Babb is the director of contracts at EyakTek, an Alaska Native-owned small business. EyakTek, based in Dulles, Va., was the prime contractor for the TIGER contract and subcontracted many of the orders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to other businesses.

Lee Khan controlled a consulting company with his father and took part in numerous activities involving the bribery and kickback scheme.

All four defendants are accused of conspiring to hide the proceeds of their bribery and fraud scheme through a series of financial transactions, including payments to shell companies that were controlled by Kerry Khan and others.

An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws and is not evidence of guilt. Every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.

Allegations involving the TIGER Contract

According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and Alexander used their official positions at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Babb used his official position at EyakTek, to direct orders through the TIGER contract to a Virginia-based company identified in the indictment as “Company A.” With Kerry Khan’s knowledge and direction, that company’s chief technology officer, an unidentified co-conspirator, submitted fraudulently inflated quotes for work.

Kerry Khan then caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to approve and remit payment to EyakTek for these fraudulently inflated invoices. After subtracting its profit margin, EyakTek paid the remainder to “Company A.” The chief technology officer then caused “Company A” to pay part of this money for the benefit of Kerry Khan, his son, and Alexander and Babb.

In addition, Kerry Khan and Alexander caused the Army Corps of Engineers to award contracts directly to “Company A.” Once again, the chief technology officer submitted fraudulent paperwork for inflated costs. Kerry Khan then caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to pay “Company A,” and the chief technology officer in turn caused “Company A” to pay a portion of the money for the benefit of Kerry Khan, his son, and Alexander.

In this manner, from 2007 to the present, the chief technology officer caused invoices to be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, directly and through EyakTek, for total costs of more than $45 million. As directed by Khan, Alexander and Babb, the chief technology officer caused “Company A” to fraudulently inflate its quotes and invoices by about $20 million. The chief technology officer promised and paid the inflated amounts directly and indirectly to Khan, his son, Alexander and Babb.

The indictment alleges that the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Kerry Khan in excess of $18 million. Among other things, Khan received cash, checks and wire transfers in excess of $5 million; home improvements and renovations for multiple properties; luxury cars for himself, his son and other family members; furnishings, including flat-screen televisions and computer equipment, highend liquor, and other items. Some of this money also went to Lee Khan and a second family member for employment with “Company A.” The promised payments for Kerry Khan included, among others, future payments of $2 million each to three shell companies controlled by him.

The payments to Kerry Khan came in large amounts, including a $1.2 million wire transfer from “Company A” to a Khan-controlled entity in August 2008 and a check for $3.3 million from “Company A” to a Khan controlled entity in February 2010. According to the indictment, Kerry Khan and his son together channeled $383,000 on Sept. 1, 2011 to another family member who had threatened to alert law enforcement authorities to the existence of the scheme.

The indictment alleges that the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Alexander in excess of $1 million. Among other things, Alexander received more than $185,000 in cash and checks, a $21,000 Cartier watch, first-class airline tickets, and other items. The promises called for Alexander to secure future employment at “Company A.” In addition, the chief technology officer of “Company A” provided about $1 million for the purchase of a coffee shop for an associate of Alexander’s in South Korea.

According to the indictment, the chief technology officer of “Company A” promised and made payments directly and indirectly to Babb in excess of $700,000. Among other things, he received cash and checks, first-class airline tickets and promised future employment at the firm.

Allegations involving the CORES Contract

The indictment alleges that Kerry Khan, Alexander and Babb worked with the chief technology officer and others at “Company A” to devise a scheme to steer the award of the CORES contract to “Company A.” The intent was to use this contract as a way for “Company A” to funnel money and other things of value directly and indirectly to Khan, Alexander, Babb and others. Kerry Khan, Babb, the chief technology officer, and others at “Company A” worked on a statement of objectives and work for the CORES contract with the intent of tailoring it to fit “Company A” and interfere with the fairness of the bidding process. Kerry Khan, Alexander and Babb also planned to install certain employees from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to serve on the selection board to insure that “Company A” was awarded the valuable CORES contract.

**

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office; the Office of the Inspector General for the Small Business Administration; the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, and the Army Criminal Investigation Command.

It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Atkinson and Bryan Seeley of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Saler and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Dana of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, with assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mary Chris Dobbie and Jonathan Hooks. Assistance also was provided by Forensic Accountant Maria Boodoo; Legal Assistants Jared Forney, Krishawn Graham, Jessica McCormick, and Nicole Wattelet; and Paralegal Specialists Tasha Harris, Shanna Hays, Taryn McLaughlin, and Sarah Reis.

DIE WELT ÜBER DIE DIFFAMIERUNGSMETHODEN DER STASI – VORBILD FÜR “GoMoPa”

http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article145822/Wie_die_Stasi_Strauss_diffamierte.html

“GoMoPa” und ihr Kinderportal: Die gesamte deutsche Presse verabscheut “GoMoPa”

http://berndpulch.org/die-gesamte-deutsche-presse-verabscheut-die-tatsachlich-vorbestraften-%E2%80%9Cgomopa%E2%80%9D-tater-und-ihr-%E2%80%9Ckinderportal%E2%80%9D/

TOP-SECRET – US Foreign Bribery Qualifications

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61386-61391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25540]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 11-10]

Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2011

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This report to Congress is provided in accordance with Section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C.
7707(b) (the ``Act'').

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.

Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility
of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in
Fiscal Year 2012

Summary

    This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C.
7707(b) (the ``Act'').
    The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
(``MCA'') assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium
Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and
programs that advance the prospects of such countries achieving lasting
economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (``MCC'') to take a number of steps in
determining what countries will be selected as eligible for MCA compact
assistance for fiscal year 2012 (``FY12'') based on the countries'
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic
freedom, and investing in their people, as well as MCC's opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country. These steps
include the submission of reports to the congressional committees
specified in the Act and publication of notices in the Federal Register
that identify:
    The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA assistance
for FY12 based on their per-capita income levels and their eligibility
to receive assistance under U.S. law. This report also identifies
countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal
prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. Sec.
7707(a));
    The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (``the
Board'') will use to measure and evaluate the policy performance of the
candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of
the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine ``MCA eligible
countries'' from among the ``candidate countries'' (section 608(b) of
the Act); and
    The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA eligible
countries'' for FY12, with justification for eligibility determination
and selection for compact negotiation, including which of the MCA
eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into MCA compacts
(section 608(d) of the Act).
    This report sets out the criteria and methodology to be applied in
determining eligibility for FY12 MCA assistance.

Criteria and Methodology for FY12

    The Board will base its selection of eligible countries on several
factors including the country's overall performance in three broad
policy categories--Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and
Investing in People; MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth in a country; and the availability of funds to MCC.
    Section 607 of the Act requires that the Board's determination of
eligibility be based ``to the maximum extent possible, upon objective
and quantifiable indicators of a country's

[[Page 61387]]

demonstrated commitment'' to the criteria set out in the Act.
    For FY12, there will be two groups of candidate countries--low
income countries (``LIC'') and lower-middle income countries
(``LMIC''). As outlined in the Report on Countries that are Candidates
for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Countries that would be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions (August
2011), LIC candidates refer to those countries that have a per capita
income equal to or less than $1,915 and are not ineligible to receive
United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the application of any provision of
the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law. LMIC
candidates are those countries that have a per capita income between
$1,916 and $3,975 and are not ineligible to receive United States
economic assistance under the same stipulations.

Changes to the Criteria and Methodology for FY12

    MCC reviews all of its indicators annually to ensure the best
measures are being used and, from time to time, recommends changes or
refinements if MCC identifies better indicators or improved sources of
data. MCC takes into account public comments received on the previous
year's criteria and methodology and consults with a broad range of
experts in the development community and within the U.S. Government. In
assessing new indicators, MCC favors those that: (1) Are developed by
an independent third party; (2) utilize objective and high quality data
that rely upon an analytically rigorous methodology; (3) are publicly
available; (4) have broad country coverage; (5) are comparable across
countries; (6) have a clear theoretical or empirical link to economic
growth and poverty reduction; (7) are policy linked (i.e., measure
factors that governments can influence within a two to three year
horizon); and (8) have broad consistency in results from year to year.
There have been numerous noteworthy improvements to data quality and
availability as a result of MCC's application of the indicators and the
regular dialogue MCC has established with the indicator institutions.
    MCC also annually reviews the methodology used to evaluate country
performance. Since FY04, the methodology has been that the Board
considers whether a country performs above the median \1\ in relation
to its peers on at least half of the indicators in each of the three
policy categories and above the median on the Control of Corruption
indicator. The Board may exercise discretion in evaluating and
translating the indicators into a final list of eligible countries and,
in this respect, the Board may also consider whether any adjustments
should be made for data gaps, lags, trends or other weaknesses in
particular indicators. Where necessary, the Board may also take into
account other data and quantitative and qualitative information to
determine whether a country performed satisfactorily in relation to its
peers in a given category (``supplemental information''). Through this
report, the Board publically affirms that it remains strongly committed
to identifying countries for MCC eligibility that have demonstrated
sound policies in each of the three policy categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The only exception is the Inflation indicator, which uses an
absolute threshold of 15% as opposed to the median as its
performance standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FY12, MCC will implement a number of changes that modify the
overall evaluation of candidate country performance. While improvements
to the selection criteria and methodology are critical, MCC is also
mindful of the need to provide countries with a fairly stable set of
policy criteria to meet, if MCC is to create significant incentives for
reform. Therefore, for this year of transition, the Board of Directions
will consider countries' performance based on two sets of criteria and
methodologies in FY12: the status quo set of indicators and decisions
rules, and a revised set. Both of these are outlined below. By
encouraging the Board to consider how countries would have performed
under the previous system, as well as how countries perform under the
new system, MCC will provide a transition year that allows countries to
learn how they are being measured, engage in dialogue with MCC about
performance, and solicit feedback from the institutions that produce
these indicators.
    It is important to recognize that all of MCC's indicators have
limitations, including these revised indicators. Over the next year,
MCC intends to continue working with the indicator institutions to
ensure the data and methodology are the best available.

Indicators

    In FY12 the Board will use two sets of indicators to assess the
policy performance of individual countries. These indicators are
grouped under the three policy categories listed below. The changes to
the revised indicators include one substitution in Ruling Justly; two
additions in Economic Freedom; and three substitutions/additions in
Investing in People. Specific definitions of the indicators and their
sources are set out in the attached Annex A.

Status Quo

Civil Liberties
Political Rights
Voice and Accountability
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Inflation
Fiscal Policy
Business Start-Up
Trade Policy
Regulatory Quality
Land Rights and Access
Public Expenditure on Health
Public Expenditure on Primary Education
Immunization Rates
Girls' Primary Education Completion
Natural Resource Management

Revised

Civil Liberties
Political Rights
Freedom of Information
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Inflation
Fiscal Policy
Business Start-Up
Trade Policy
Regulatory Quality
Land Rights and Access
Access to Credit
Gender in the Economy
Public Expenditure on Health
Public Expenditure on Primary Education
Immunization Rates
Girls' Education:
Primary Education Completion (LICs)
Secondary Education Enrolment (LMICs)
Child Health
Natural Resource Protection

Methodology

    Similarly, in FY12 the Board will apply a status quo methodology,
and a revised methodology to the respective indicator groupings. These
are described below.

Status Quo

    In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the median in relation to its income level peers (LIC or
LMIC) on at

[[Page 61388]]

least three of the indicators in each of the Ruling Justly, Encouraging
Economic Freedom, and Investing in People categories, and above the
median on the Control of Corruption indicator. One exception to this
methodology is that the median is not used for the Inflation indicator.
Instead, to pass the Inflation indicator a country's inflation rate
must be under an absolute threshold of 15 percent. The Board may also
take into consideration whether a country performs substantially below
the median on any indicator (i.e., below the 25th percentile) and has
not taken appropriate measures to address this shortcoming.

Revised

    In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the median or absolute threshold on at least half of the
indicators and at least one indicator per category, above the median on
the Control of Corruption indicator, and above the absolute threshold
on either the Civil Liberties or Political Rights indicators.
Indicators with absolute thresholds in lieu of a median include a)
Inflation, on which a country's inflation rate must be under a fixed
ceiling of 15 percent; b) Immunization Rates (LMICs only), on which an
LMIC must have immunization coverage above 90%; c) Political Rights, on
which countries must score above 17 and d) Civil Liberties, on which
countries must score above 25. The Board will also take into
consideration whether a country performs substantially worse in any
category (Ruling Justly, Investing in People, or Economic Freedoms)
than they do on the overall scorecard. Further details on how this
methodology differs from the status quo can be found in Annex B.

Other Considerations for the Board of Directors

    Approach to Income Classification Transition
    Each year a number of countries shift income groups, and some
countries formerly classified as LICs suddenly face new, higher
performance standards in the LMIC group. As a result, they typically
perform worse relative to LMIC countries, than they did compared to
other LIC countries, even if in absolute terms they maintained or
improved their performance over the previous year. To address the
challenges associated with sudden changes in performance standards for
these countries, MCC has adopted an approach to income category
transition whereby the Board may consider the indicator performance of
countries that transitioned from the LIC to the LMIC category both
relative to their LMIC peers as well as in comparison to the current
fiscal year's LIC pool for a period of three years.

Supplementary Information

    Consistent with the Act, the indicators will be the predominant
basis for determining which countries will be eligible for MCA
assistance. However, the Board may exercise discretion when evaluating
performance on the indicators and determining a final list of eligible
countries. Where necessary, the Board also may take into account other
quantitative and qualitative information (supplemental information) to
determine whether a country performed satisfactorily in relation to its
peers in a given income category. There are elements of the criteria
set out in the Act for which there is either limited quantitative
information (e.g., the rights of people with disabilities) or no well-
developed performance indicator. Until such data and/or indicators are
developed, the Board may rely on additional data and qualitative
information to assess policy performance. For example, the State
Department Human Rights Report contains qualitative information to make
an assessment on a variety of criteria outlined by Congress, such as
the rights of people with disabilities, the treatment of women and
children, workers rights, and human rights. Similarly, MCC may consult
a variety of third party sources to better understand the domestic
potential for private sector led investment and growth.
    The Board may also consider whether supplemental information should
be considered to make up for data gaps, lags, trends, or other
weaknesses in particular indicators. As additional information in the
area of corruption, the Board may consider how a country is evaluated
by supplemental sources like Transparency International's Corruption
Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity Report, and the Extractive
Industry Transparency Initiative among others, as well as on the
defined indicator.

Consideration for Subsequent Compacts

    Countries nearing the end of compact implementation may be
considered for eligibility for a subsequent compact. In determining
eligibility for subsequent compacts, MCC recommends that the Board
consider, among other factors, the country's policy performance using
the methodology and criteria described above, the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth in the country, the funds
available to MCC to carry out compact assistance, and the country's
track record of performance implementing its prior compact. To assess
implementation of a prior compact, MCC recommends that the Board
consider the nature of the country partnership with MCC, the degree to
which the country has demonstrated a commitment and capacity to achieve
program results, and the degree to which the country has implemented
the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards.

Continuing Policy Performance

    Country partners that are developing or implementing a compact are
expected to seek to maintain and improve policy performance. MCC
recognizes that country partners may not meet the eligibility criteria
from time to time due to a number of factors, such as changes in the
peer-group median; transition into a new income category (e.g., from
LIC to LMIC); numerical declines in score that are within the
statistical margin of error; slight declines in policy performance;
revisions or corrections of data; the introduction of new sub-data
sources; or changes in the indicators used to measure performance. None
of these factors alone signifies a significant policy reversal nor
warrants suspension or termination of eligibility and/or assistance.
    However, countries that demonstrate a significant policy reversal
may be issued a warning, suspension, or termination of eligibility and/
or assistance. According to MCC's authorizing legislation, ``[a]fter
consultation with the Board, the Chief Executive Officer may suspend or
terminate assistance in whole or in part for a country or entity * * *
if * * * the country or entity has engaged in a pattern of actions
inconsistent with the criteria used to determine the eligibility of the
country or entity. * * *'' This pattern of actions need not be captured
in the indicators for MCC to take action.

Potential Future Changes

    MCC will continue to explore potential changes to the indicators
for future years. There are important areas of policy performance in
which indicators have not yet been developed, or expanded, to the
degree needed for inclusion in the MCC selection system. MCC would not
envision expanding the number of indicators beyond the current twenty
indicators. However, MCC remains interested in indicators that measure
policy performance related to educational quality, maternal health,
environmental degradation, budget

[[Page 61389]]

transparency, and more actionable indicators of corruption, which could
be used to substitute for existing indicators in the future or as
supplemental information. While we have reviewed some indicators with
promise--including education policy and quality indicators piloted by
the World Bank's Education for All, measures of maternal health from
the World Health Organization or the United Nations (including skilled
birth attendants or process indicators regarding access to emergency
obstetric care), preliminary data on air pollution provided by NASA
satellites, assessments of budget transparency by Open Budget Index,
and corruption assessments published by Global Integrity--none of these
indicators have sufficient periodicity and country coverage to be
incorporated into MCC's scorecard at this time.
    It should be noted that the new Freedom of Information indicator
adopted as part of the revised methodology draws on independent, third
party data, but is compiled by MCC, similar to how MCC compiles third
party data for the Land Rights and Access indicator. MCC welcomes the
efforts of third party institutions to improve and publish similar and
improved indicators.

Relationship to Legislative Criteria

    Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific
selection criteria. As indicated above, a set of objective and
quantifiable policy indicators is used to determine eligibility for MCA
assistance and measure the relative performance by candidate countries
against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility
ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by
at least one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by
multiple indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next
to the corresponding criterion set out in the Act.
    Section 607(b)(1): Just and democratic governance, including a
demonstrated commitment to --promote political pluralism, equality and
the rule of law (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Rule of Law,
Gender in the Economy); respect human and civil rights, including the
rights of people with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties,
and Freedom of Information); protect private property rights (Civil
Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and
Access); encourage transparency and accountability of government
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Freedom of Information, Control of
Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and combat
corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, Freedom of
Information, and Control of Corruption);
    Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated
commitment to economic policies that--encourage citizens and firms to
participate in global trade and international capital markets (Fiscal
Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, and Regulatory Quality); promote
private sector growth (Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal Policy,
Land Rights and Access, Access to Credit, Gender in the Economy, and
Regulatory Quality); strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal
Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and
Access, Access to Credit, and Regulatory Quality); and respect worker
rights, including the right to form labor unions (Civil Liberties and
Gender in the Economy);
    Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country,
particularly women and children, including programs that--promote
broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary Education Completion,
Girls' Secondary Education, and Public Expenditure on Primary
Education); strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public
health and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public
Expenditure on Health, and Child Health); and promote the protection of
biodiversity and the transparent and sustainable management and use of
natural resources (Natural Resource Protection).

Annex A: Indicator Definitions

    MCC is incorporating six new measures into the selection criteria
and dropping two previous measures. MCC's Board of Directors approved
these changes for the FY12 selection process, though the Board will
also consider how countries perform on the previous set of indicators.
This gradual integration of the indicators was designed to provide
adequate notice to compact, threshold and candidate countries of the
new measures and their performance before the new indicators fully
replaced the previous indicators. A brief summary of the indicators
follows; a detailed rationale for the adoption of these indicators can
be found in the Public Guide to the Indicators (available at http://www.mcc.gov).
    The following indicators will be used to measure candidate
countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section
607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to
which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to
promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of
poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCA funds.
The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather they are proxy
measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable
economic growth. The indicators were selected based on their (i)
relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction, (ii) the number
of countries they cover, (iii) transparency and availability, and (iv)
relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are
developed by independent sources.

Ruling Justly

    Civil Liberties: Independent experts rate countries on: freedom of
expression; association and organizational rights; rule of law and
human rights; and personal autonomy and economic rights, among other
things. Source: Freedom House
    Political Rights: Independent experts rate countries on: the
prevalence of free and fair elections of officials with real power; the
ability of citizens to form political parties that may compete fairly
in elections; freedom from domination by the military, foreign powers,
totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and economic oligarchies;
and the political rights of minority groups, among other things.
Source: Freedom House
    Voice and Accountability (status quo indicators only): An index of
surveys and expert assessments that rate countries on: the ability of
institutions to protect civil liberties; the extent to which citizens
of a country are able to participate in the selection of governments;
and the independence of the media, among other things. Source:
Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
    Freedom of Information (revised indicators only): Measures the
legal and practical steps taken by a government to enable or allow
information to move freely through society; this includes measures of
press freedom, national freedom of information laws, and the extent to
which a county is filtering internet content or tools. Source: Freedom
House/FRINGE Special/Open Net Initiative
    Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys and expert
assessments that rate countries on: the quality of public service
provision; civil servants' competency and independence from political
pressures; and the government's ability to plan and implement sound
policies, among other things. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings)

[[Page 61390]]

    Rule of Law: An index of surveys and expert assessments that rate
countries on: the extent to which the public has confidence in and
abides by the rules of society; the incidence and impact of violent and
nonviolent crime; the effectiveness, independence, and predictability
of the judiciary; the protection of property rights; and the
enforceability of contracts, among other things. Source: Worldwide
Governance Indicators (World Bank/Brookings)
    Control of Corruption: An index of surveys and expert assessments
that rate countries on: ``grand corruption'' in the political arena;
the frequency of petty corruption; the effects of corruption on the
business environment; and the tendency of elites to engage in ``state
capture'', among other things. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank/Brookings)

Encouraging Economic Freedom

    Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer
prices. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic
Outlook Database
    Fiscal Policy: The overall budget balance divided by GDP, averaged
over a three-year period. The data for this measure come primarily from
IMF country reports or, where public IMF data are outdated or
unavailable, are provided directly by the recipient government with
input from U.S. missions in host countries. All data are cross-checked
with the IMF's World Economic Outlook database to try to ensure
consistency across countries and made publicly available. Source:
International Monetary Fund Country Reports, National Governments, and
the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database
    Business Start-Up: An index that rates countries on the time and
cost of complying with all procedures officially required for an
entrepreneur to start up and formally operate an industrial or
commercial business. Source: International Finance Corporation
    Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to
trade. Source: The Heritage Foundation
    Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys and expert assessments that
rate countries on: the burden of regulations on business; price
controls; the government's role in the economy; and foreign investment
regulation, among other areas. Source: Worldwide Governance Indicators
(World Bank)
    Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on the extent
to which the institutional, legal, and market framework provide secure
land tenure and equitable access to land in rural areas and the time
and cost of property registration in urban and peri-urban areas.
Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the
International Finance Corporation
    Access to Credit (revised indicators only): An index that rates
countries on rules and practices affecting the coverage, scope and
accessibility of credit information available through either a public
credit registry or a private credit bureau; as well as legal rights in
collateral laws and bankruptcy laws. Source: International Finance
Corporation
    Gender in the Economy (revised indicators only): An index that
measures the extent to which laws provide men and women equal capacity
to generate income or participate in the economy, including the
capacity to access institutions, get a job, register a business, sign a
contract, open a bank account, choose where to live, and travel freely.
Source: International Finance Corporation

Investing in People

    Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by GDP. Source: The World Health
Organization
    Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization
coverage rates for the most recent year available. Source: The World
Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund
    Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total expenditures
on primary education by government at all levels divided by GDP.
Source: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and National Governments
    Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students
enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters divided
by the population in the relevant age cohort (gross intake ratio in the
last grade of primary). Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization
    Girls Secondary Education (revised indicators only): The number of
female pupils enrolled in lower secondary school, regardless of age,
expressed as a percentage of the population of females in the
theoretical age group for lower secondary education. Lower middle
income counties (LMICs) will be assessed on this indicator instead of
Girls Primary Completion Rates. Source: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Natural Resource Management (status quo indicators only): An index
made up of four indicators: eco-region protection, access to improved
water, access to improved sanitation, and child (ages 1-4) mortality.
Source: The Center for International Earth Science Information Network
and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
    Natural Resource Protection (revised indicators only): Assesses
whether countries are protecting up to 10 percent of all their biomes
(e.g., deserts, tropical rainforests, grasslands, savannas and tundra).
Source: The Center for International Earth Science Information Network
and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
    Child Health (revised indicators only): An index made up of three
indicators: access to improved water, access to improved sanitation,
and child (ages 1-4) mortality. Source: The Center for International
Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center for Environmental
Law and Policy

Annex B: Changes to the Methodology

New Absolute Thresholds

    Political Rights: Countries that receive a score above 17 will be
considered as passing this indicator. The median will no longer be
calculated or utilized.
    Civil Liberties: Countries that receive a score above 25 will be
considered as passing this indicator. The median will no longer be
calculated or utilized.
    Immunization Rates: Lower middle income countries (LMICs) that
exceed an immunization coverage rate of 90% will be considered as
passing this indicator. The median will no longer be calculated or
utilized for countries classified as LMICs.

New Democratic Rights Hard Hurdle

    In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the thresholds described above on either Political
Rights or Civil Liberties.

Require Countries to Pass Half of the Indicators Overall

    In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the median or absolute threshold on at least half of the
indicators and at least one indicator per category. In order to
maintain a focus on the breadth of sound policy performance, the Board
will also take into consideration whether a country performs
substantially worse on any category (Ruling Justly, Investing in
People, or Economic Freedoms).

[[Page 61391]]

    As with the current selection system, the Board may exercise
discretion in evaluating and translating the indicators into a final
list of eligible countries and, in this respect, the Board may also
consider whether any adjustments should be made for data gaps, lags,
trends or other weaknesses in particular indicators. Where necessary,
the Board may also take into account other data and quantitative and
qualitative information to determine whether a country performed
satisfactorily in relation to its peers in a given category
(``supplemental information'').

[FR Doc. 2011-25540 Filed 9-29-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P

TOP-SECRET – FROM THE DESK OF THE FBI -Commodity Pool Operator Admits to Fraud Schemes and Tax Evasion in New Jersey

TRENTON, NJ—A commodity pool operator and day trader based in Hackensack, N.J., admitted today to directing two schemes to defraud individual investors and a financial institution of approximately $2 million and to evading more than $150,000 in tax payments, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Paul J. Fishman announced.

Victor E. Cilli, 46, pleaded guilty to an information charging him with one count of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and one count of tax evasion. Cilli entered his guilty plea before U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown in Trenton, N.J., federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made during Cilli’s guilty plea proceeding:

Beginning in August 2006, Cilli was the sole owner and president of Progressive Investment Funds LLC (PIF), a commodity pool operator (CPO) engaged in an investment trust that solicited funds for the purpose of trading commodity futures. PIF was registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA), and was the CPO of Progressive Managed Futures Fund LP (PMFF), a commodity pool operated for the purpose of trading commodity futures. Cilli had sole trading authority over PMFF, which remained open until approximately February 2009.

Beginning as early as January 2007 and through September 2007, Cilli engaged in a Ponzi scheme to defraud at least four commodity pool participants of approximately $506,000. Though Cilli returned some funds to the investors, the payments were not from actual trading profits but from funds of existing pool participants. Cilli made false and misleading statements to the pool participants claiming he had made money for them when, in fact, most of his trading resulted in losses. Of the $506,000 invested, Cilli traded approximately $263,000, losing approximately $200,168. Cilli never disclosed to the pool participants that he had traded less than half of their money or that most of his trading had resulted in significant losses.

Cilli also misappropriated thousands of dollars in pool funds for personal expenses—including hair salon visits, skin care treatments, payments on his Harley Davidson motorcycle, and other personal entertainment, meals, and travel expenses.

In an unrelated scheme, from 2002 through September 2006, Cilli and approximately 16 others conspired to defraud KeyBank, a financial institution based in Cleveland of more than $1.5 million in student loans by falsely representing to KeyBank that they would use the funds to attend Tab Express International Inc., a pilot and flight crew training school in DeLand, Fla., and use the proceeds of student loans for educational expenses at Tab.

Based upon prior agreements between Cilli and his co-conspirators, they never intended to enroll at Tab, nor repay principal or interest on the student loans to KeyBank. After KeyBank disbursed the loan proceeds to the school, approximately $600,000 of the loan proceeds were deposited into bank accounts solely owned and operated by Cilli. Cilli then made kickback payments totaling approximately $130,000 to his co-conspirators for signing up for the loans. Tab retained approximately $900,000 of the total loan proceeds. KeyBank was never repaid any of the principal or accrued interest on the loans.

To conceal his fraudulent conduct, Cilli maintained bank accounts in the names of Northeast Flight Training Inc., which was not a flight training school, and United Charities of America Inc., which was not a charitable organization. Both accounts were maintained by Cilli solely to perpetuate his frauds and fund his personal expenditures.

Finally, for calendar years 2003 and 2004, Cilli intentionally failed to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with any information regarding the proceeds that he received in connection with his conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in the aggregate amount of approximately $547,705, resulting in a tax loss to the United States of approximately $158,674.

The securities fraud charge carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine; the conspiracy to commit bank fraud charge carries a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine; and the tax evasion charge carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Sentencing is currently scheduled for Jan. 11, 2012.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael B. Ward; and IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Victor W. Lessoff, for the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the CFTC, Eastern Regional Office in New York, under the direction of Regional Counsel Stephen J. Obie. U.S. Attorney Fishman also credited the NFA, New York Office, under the direction of Director Cheryl Tulino, for its assistance.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Mendelsohn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Economic Crimes Unit in Newark, N.J.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

ENTTARNT – A-Z- 2.000 STASI OFFIZIERE IM BESONDEREN EINSATZ OibE – “SCHLÄFERLISTE DER STASI IN WESTDEUTSCHLAND”- STASI-SLEEPER LIST A-Z

Become a Patron!
True Information is the most valuable resource and we ask you to give back.

Stasi Offiziere im besonderen Einsatz (abgekürzt OibE)

Stasi Schläfer Liste

Technische Hinweise:

Diese Daten stammen aus der OibE-Liste. Die Tabellen wurden von H.T. per OCR usw. in HTML gewandelt.

Die Datensätze sind – anders geordnet – auch Teilmenge der (‘HAMSTER’-Liste/MA_Stasi.txt). Dort sind die mit Adressen versehenen und meist gedoppelten Datensätze diejenigen der OibE.

OibE dürfen nicht mit Inoffiziellen Mitarbeitern (IM) verwechselt werden. Sie hatten im Gegensatz zu den IM [Ausnahme: HIM] ein Dienstverhältnis mit der Stasi und einen Kampfauftrag.

Die OibE sollten unter allen Umständen zum MfS stehen und mussten sich vor der “Abordnung” ins Zivilleben durch besondere ideologische Zuverlässigkeit auszeichnen. Deshalb fühlen sich viele dieser Überzeugungstäter wahrscheinlich heute noch der Stasi verpflichtet, leben aber ganz unauffällig. Man könnte sie auch als “Schläfer” bezeichnen.

Offiziere im besonderen Einsatz (abgekürzt OibE) waren hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit

Zudem kommen weitere STASI-Agenten in Westdeutschland, die noch besser getarnt wurden und deren Legenden sorgfältig aufbereitet wurden.

Viel schufen sich in den Wirren um 1989 eine neue Identität mit neuem Namen auch in Westdeutschland. Somit sind hier nur deren ALTE und RICHTIGE Namen erfasst.

Name, Vorname; Geb.-datum; DE: Zentrale, BV, KD; DE-Code; PLZ; Az. / Reg.-Nr.
Ackermann, Frank; 29.04.55; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4288/81, F
Ackermann, Kerstin; 22.02.58; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4288/81/1, F
Adelmeier, Lutz; 18.11.53; HVA; 961500; 1590; 650/75/12,
Ahrendt, Hans; 17.11.50; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 2382/74,
Amthor, Jürgen; 25.01.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 7263/75,
Anschütz, Günter; 07.04.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 6110; 3454/86,
Antoni, Detlef; 02.06.59; HVA; 961500; 1162; 2110/84, F
Arlt, Frank; 12.03.58; HVA; 961500; 1140; 650/75/54,
Auerbach, Christel; 01.04.36; HVA; 961500; 1020; 79/74, B
Auerbach, Hans- Dieter; 25.03.37; HVA; 961500; 1020; 80/74, J
Aul, Claus; 28.09.62; HVA; 961500; 1150; 3776/85, F
Autenrieb, Eckbert; 02.06.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 5785/82,
Badelt, Dieter; 17.01.37; Rostock VII; 010700; 2520; 4909/75,
Bahl, Reinhard; 10.03.48; HVA; 961500; 2800; 527/88, M
Baltruschat, Klaus; 27.07.34; HVA; 961500; 1170; 13222/60, X
Balzer, Christian; 28.10.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1115; 1690/76,
Bandermann, Hans-Rainer; 12.05.45; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 4378/77,
Barnowsky, Wolfgang; 24.08.38; HVA; 961500; 1017; 962/83, M
Bartels, Klaus; 06.04.39; KD Stendal; 070054; 3500; BARTELS, KLAUS
Bartels, Uwe; 23.02.64; HVA; 961500; 1093; 5764/81/4, D
Barten, Günter; 27.11.38; Abt. XI; 941100; 1291; 179/78,
Barzik, Hans-Joachim; 30.08.46; HVA; 961500; 1190; 592/86, F
Barzik, Renate; 05.08.49; HVA; 961500; 1190; 592/86/1, F
Bassin, Dietrich; 28.04.34; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1058; 1911/78,
Bauer, Gerhard; 29.08.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 4254/77,
Bauer, Ralf; 04.06.64; HVA; 961500; 1144; 2858/84, F
Baumann, Manfred; 25.04.39; OD TU/H Dresden; 120058; 8045; XII/1353/87,
Baumann, Reinhard; 25.05.40; KD Pirna; 120052; 8300; XII/1359/87,
Bauschmann, Rolf-Jürgen; 19.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 7575/80,
Bazyli, Dieter; 10.08.35; Frankfurt/O. IX; 050900; 1200; V/425/88,
Bäumler, Hans; 29.06.33; HVA; 961500; 1144; 21/77, F
Becker, Günter; 24.02.38; HVA; 961500; 1120; 2649/80, F
Becker, Heidrun; 30.03.52; HVA; 961500; 1090; 2850/78, J
Becker, Ralf-Ekkehard; 16.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5040/76,
Becke, Ronald; 07.03.57; HVA; 961500; 5062; 650/75/27,
Beier, Peter; 02.08.42; OD KKW Nord; 010050; 2200; 5678/84,
Beitz, Hans-Joachim; 07.10.37; Abt. XI; 941100; 1100; 2233/66,
Benjowski, Klaus; 22.08.35; HVA; 961500; 1162; 364/77, U
Benndorf, Roland; 11.03.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1787/81,
Berger, Andreas; 16.11.62; Abt. XI; 941100; 7065; 1713/89,
Bergmann, Holger; 23.04.60; HVA; 961500; 8291; 650/75/25,
Bergmann, Thomas; 04.04.54; HVA; 961500; 1144; 1439/89, F
Berliner, Kurt; 16.12.35; HVA; 961500; 1080; 1858/89, F
Berndt, Walter; 03.01.31; Abt. XI; 941100; 1017; 246/77,
Bernhardt, Hans; 30.05.28; HVA; 961500; 1195; 9831/61, F
Bernhardt, Hans-Joachim; 15.02.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 4370; 1709/89,
Bertholf, Manfred; 02.02.37; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1055; 867/80,
Bertsch-Herzog, Herbert; 21.07.29; HVA; 961500; 1080; 3665/60/1, U
Betsch, Brigitt; 16.01.55; HVA; 961500; 1055; 5010/87, U
Betsch, Michael; 30.11.46; HVA; 961500; 1140; 2259/73,
Bettzieche, Frank; 21.10.54; HVA; 961500; 1093; 904/84, F
Bettzüge, Eberhard; 22.01.35; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 1807/72
Beuster, Gerhard; 03.07.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1292; 7270/75,
Bevermann, Jürgen; 14.10.43; HVA; 961500; 1142; 209/81, F
Bewersdorf, Wolfram; 20.05.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 3022/84,
Beyer, Alfred; 30.05.38; HVA; 961500; 1190; 528/88, M
Beyer, Andreas; 23.01.61; HVA; 961500; 1580; 650/75/55,
Bezdicek, Rolf-Dieter; 20.09.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 1120; 844/83,
Bienert, Peter; 10.08.42; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 4110/79,
Bilke, Paul; 02.06.28; HVA; 961500; 1020; 9/76, X
Birgel, Artur; 25.01.35; HVA; 961500; 1020; 4207/84, 0
Birnbach, Steffen; 23.10.53; Karl-Marx-Stadt XX; 142000; 9081; K/3505/89,
Blank, Gerhard; 16.12.31; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3156/89, E
Blank, Monika; 12.10.39; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3156/89/1, E
Blaudzun,Alfred; 26.10.38; Rostock VI; 010600; 2500; 5011/86,
Blei, Holger; 08.05.57; HVA; 961500; 1055; 4644/80, J
Block, Gerhard; 04.11.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 3530; 5125/85,
Bloß, Rolf; 08.04.33; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8019; XII/1344/87,
Blumenberg, Igor; 27.06.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 311/80,
Blum, Ines; 02.04.62; HVA; 961500; 1199; 2410/79, J
Blutnick, Harry; 27.01.36; HVA; 961500; 1020; 1653/87, F
Bock, Andre; 01.11.67; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 5546/88,
Bogacz, Carsten; 10.11.58; HVA; 961500; 7513; 650/75/56,
Bohm, Peter; 24.10.45; HVA; 961500; 1144; 1671/87, F
Bohn, Detlef; 12.05.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 4070; 492/87,
Bohn, Steffi; 14.10.59; HVA; 961500; 4070; 492/87/1, F
Bohn, Wolfgang; 16.05.51; HVA; 961500; 1092; 2112/72, F
Bollmann, Lutz; 16.12.68; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 5189/88,
Borchert, Detlef; 09.12.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1100; 255/73,
Borchert, Hans-Joachim; 19.11.54; HVA; 961500; 1142; 398/76, F
Bornschein, Horst; 20.04.30; Abt. XI; 941100; 1156; 3597/81,
Born, Joachim; 25.04.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 4325/87,
Böhm, Jürgen; 22.11.44; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2660/79, M
Börnchen, Peter; 20.07.39; HVA; 961500; 1250; 30/70, A
Brada, Wolfgang; 15.11.50; HVA; 961500; 1130; 650/75/11,
Brade, Rolf; 21.07.42; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 271/68,
Brate, Andreas; 11.12.54; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3039/82, M
Brändel, Lothar; 19.04.35; KD Leipzig/Land; 130041; 4090; K, 4232/86,
Brendtner, Werner; 23.03.42; Rostock VII; 010700; 2520; 4733/88,
Bretschneider, Jens; 29.08.67; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9271; 182,
Bruhn, Siegfried; 28.11.50; HVA; 961500; 2520; 650/75/39,
Brunner, Manfred; 26.04.29; HVA; 961500; 1144; 1920/75, J
Bruns, Beate; 05.06.62; HVA; 961500; 1140; 6555/82, J
Brüning, Falk; 11.06.63; HVA; 961500; 1095; 4361/84, M
Burckhardt, Dietmar; 03.08.44; HVA; 961500; 1020; 3467/86, L
Burde, Hans-Joachim; 18.05.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 2010/67,
Burkhardt, Marco; 12.10.59; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3887/83, E
Buschendorf, Lutz; 21.11.41; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3478/65, A
Bussin, Günter; 26.07.54; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3328/86, A
Büchner, Eckhard; 23.09.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1153; 3619/77,
Bürger, Heiderose; 05.05.50; Abt. N; 961500; 1140; 5764/81/3, D
Cantow, Hans-Gerhard; 11.01.44; HVA; 961500; 1143; 360/68, L
Christoph, Martin; 30.03.58; HVA; 961500; 9900; 650/75/26,
Claus, Werner; 29.03.26; HVA; 961500; 1017; 401/73, P
Cotte, Wolfgang; 16.11.51; HVA; 961500; 1600; 619/83, L
Czieselsky, Frank; 05.05.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 2960/79,
Daum, Heinz; 09.09.35; BV Berlin VI; 150600; 1020; 4101/77,
Dau, Holger; 20.01.58; HVA; 961500; 1143; 7701/81, F
Dähn, Bernd; 23.07.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1035; 97/75,
Degenhardt, Dieter; 12.07.31; HA VII; 970700; 1140; DEGENHARDT, DIETER
Dehmel, Wolfgang; 12.07.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 7401/81,
Derlath, Bettina; 08.02.56; HVA; 961500; 1090; 5182/84, M
Deters, Frank; 10.11.67; Abt. N; 906540; 1950; 4649/87,
Deutscher, Peter; 16.07.47; HVA; 961500; 8019; 1382/89, M
Deysing, Gerd; 04.10.53; HVA; 961500; 1142; 650/75/58,
Diettrich, Günter; 06.05.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 1794/80,
Dietrich, Matthias; 30.07.66; HVA; 961500; 1156; 4383/86, F
Dietrich, Reinhilde; 25.07.37; Abt. N; 906540; 1110; 5004/80,
Diettrich, Heidi; 14.11.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 2002/87,
Dittrich, Michael; 09.11.46; Abt. XI; 941100; 1141; 99/75,
Dittrich, Wolfgang; 08.07.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1675/78,
Doegelsack, Uta; 20.01.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 5808/84,
Donath, Martin; 03.04.51; HVA; 961500; 2520; 671/89, A
Dorgwarth, Reinhard; 10.11.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 4379/77,
Dott, Bernd; 01.07.41; BV Berlin VII; 150700; 1180; 241/78,
Döbel, Holger; 07.04.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1143; 4865/81,
Döbereiner, Rene; 02.08.67; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9072; 175,
Drechsler, Peter; 06.06.57; HVA; 961500; 1136; 3594/74, F
Dreger, Uwe; 25.12.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 7271/75,
Drexler, Andreas; 03.12.50; HVA; 961500; 1120; 4675/85, A
Dumke, Bodo; 21.03.51; BV Berlin VI; 150600; 1080; 1299/85,
Dybiona, Detlef; 21.05.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 3090; 494/87,
Dylla, Bernd; 07.03.57; Abt. XI; 941100; 6902; 767/86,
Ebedus, Dieter; 17.01.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 4350; 1819/87,
Eckert, Gerhard; 24.09.31; KD Eisenhüttenstadt; 050045; 1220; V/481/88,
Effenberger, Helga; 10.07.38; HVA; 961500; 1017; 19666/60/1, E
Effenberger, Rudolf; 13.01.33; HVA; 961500; 1017; 19666/60, E
Eggert, Asmus; 17.12.47; HVA; 961500; 1130; 2394/85, J
Eggestein, Dieter; 20.12.38; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2520; 3862/81,
Ehrke, Hans-Jürgen; 17.01.42; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 4025/79,
Ehrenberg, Rolland; 25.09.47; Frankfurt/O. IX; 050900; 1200; V/447/88,
Eichentopf, Marlis; 27.06.61; HVA; 961500; 5080; 5362/89, F
Eichhorn, Hans; 14.10.38; HVA; 961500; 1054; 1305/68, P
Eichner, Ulla; 02.04.42; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4218/84, F
Eisenhardt, Joachim; 05.09.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 3413/78,
Elfert, Wolfgang; 08.05.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 1250; 448/80,
Elliger, Gabriele; 06.12.61; HVA; 961500; 1142; 650/75/59/1,
Elliger, Uwe; 08.05.58; HVA; 961500; 1142; 650/75/59,
Ende, Michael; 30.06.52; BV Berlin VII; 150700; 1092; 4977/79,
Engelmann, Frank; 03.08.42; HVA; 961500; 1140; 5681/86, M
Engelmann, Gabriele; 15.08.46; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3876/86, M
Englberger, Wolfgang; 24.06.43; HVA; 961500; 1020; 3760/87, U
Enke, Brigitte; 04.08.44; HVA; 961500; 1280; 650/75/50/1,
Enke, Dieter; 02.07.45; HVA; 961500; 1280; 650/75/50,
Escherich, Rolf; 18.01.40; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3039/62, F
Euen, Wolf; 19.02.44; KD Riesa; 120053; 8400; XlI/2673/87,
Ewald, Peter; 28.01.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3622/77,
Faber, Kurt; 30.07.27; Abt. XI; 941100; 1170; 8348/60,
Falkehagen, Bärbel; 10.04.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3412/78,
Falkenhagen, Ingo; 29.07.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 2403/78,
Fauck, Alexa; 04.12.51; HVA; 961500; 1095; 3820/85/1, F
Fauck, Wolfgang; 21.01.50; HVA; 961500; 1095; 3820/85, F
Fähnrich, Alfred; 01.07.32; HA I; 970100; 1602; K, 4271/80
Fähnrich, Manfred; 29.03.33; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2500; 549/60,
Fedtke, Simone; 02.03.66; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4462/81, A
Feige, Brigitte; 07.03.48; HVA; 961500; 1143; 592/88 F
Fell, Klaus; 30.05.35; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 7259/75,
Fichtmüller, Jens; 06.03.67; HVA; 961500; 4850; 3641/88, O
Fickel, Michael; 30.01.61; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4276/83, J
Fiedler, Gunter; 16.09.51; HVA; 961500; 1034; 2113/72, F
Finsterbusch, Werner; 08.07.56; HVA; 961500; 1093; 5693/81, A
Fischer, Gerd; 21.02.61; HA VI; 970600; 1144; K, 3435/89
Fischer, Hans; 11.10.50; HVA; 961500; 1142; 505/83, O
Fischer, Hartmut; 25.04.52; HVA; 961500; 1250; 2256/73, F
Fischer, Horst; 03.02.32; HVA; 961500; 1600; 1573/85, K
Fischer, Horst; 03.05.46; KD Berlin-Köpenick; 150041; 1170; 2562/80,
Fischer, Karl-Heinz; 19.08.28; HVA; 961500; 1136; 2110/73, Z
Fischer, Klaus-Dieter; 06.12.44; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2551; 3875/80,
Fischer, Marion; 02.08.52; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2779/84, O
Flister, Magrit; 20.02.56; HVA; 961500; 1020; 4561/87, U
Fox, Erhard; 04.12.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 2355; 5313/88,
Fraatz, Helmut; 06.07.31; HVA; 961500; 1156; 221/75, M
Franke, Lothar; 04.11.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 5074/77,
Franke, Wilfried; 25.08.53; Rostock; 014300; 2500; 5952/84,
Franz, Bodo; 13.01.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 1549/80,
Franz, Jürgen; 09.04.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 2112/66,
Franz, Jürgen; 30.06.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 3250; 6588/81,
Frauenstein, Rolf; 14.07.52; HVA; 961500; 1143; 3166/78, J
Fränkler, Sabine; 10.02.61; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2264/86, U
Freese, Frank; 25.03.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 2567/87,
Freitag, Ilona; 02.10.52; Dresden XIX; 121900; 8060; XII/2747/87,
Freund, Mario; 10.01.64; Abt. XI; 941100; 3038; 2759/89,
Freyberg, Rudolf; 23.09.35; Abt. N; 906540; 1055; 7260/75,
Freyer, Ingolf; 10.07.30; HVA; 961500; 1120; 1347/85, F
Freyer, Thorsten; 10.11.60; HVA; 961500; 1136; 650/75/40,
Frey, Rainer; 02.06.42; HVA; 961500; 7500; 1586/87, F
Frick, Dieter; 28.06.58; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4054/81, F
Friebe, Günter; 28.09.43; HVA; 961500; 1090; 1640/88, F
Friedel, Hartmut; 12.02.49; HVA; 961500; 1093; 231/78, J
Friedrich, Gerhard; 21.12.29; HA VI; 970600; 1034; K, 862/80
Friedrich, Joachim; 06.07.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1141; 67/78,
Friedrich, Jörg; 30.06.64; HVA; 961500; 1193; 3925/86, F
Fritzsche, Harald; 14.08.57; Abt. XI; 941100; 1054;
Fruck, Gerhard; 13.05.35; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 3706/73,
Fuchs, Eberhard; 04.10.50; HVA; 961500; 1153; 2879/78, J
Fuchs, Wolfgang; 18.11.53; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3547/82, M
Fungk, Torsten; 03.11.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 2956/79,
Funke, Dieter; 20.01.38; HVA; 961500; 1080; 2929/61, F
Funk, Lutz; 22.09.57; HVA; 961500; 1095; 650/75/60,
Funk, Margret; 22.05.55; HVA; 961500; 1095; 650/75/60/1,
Füßler, Hubertus ; 10.01.56; HVA; 961500; 5080; 529/88, M
Füßl, Boris; 06.06.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 1018; 2417/88,
Fydrich, Erhard; 15.05.42; HVA; 961500; 1250; 593/86, F
Gableske, Gunther; 08.04.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 7517/81,
Gallandt, Ronald; 16.08.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1788/78,
Gander, Jürgen; 31.08.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1156; 7275/75,
Gawlitza, Peter-Michael ; 07.12.46; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2505/65, G
Gäbler, Eveline; 23.08.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 5155/88,
Gäbler, Ralf-Detlef ; 01.11.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 3324/76,
Gehrt, Wolf-Rüdiger ; 26.01.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 1840/79,
Geißenhöner, Bernd; 26.08.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 377/69,
Gerber, Jürgen; 05.05.49; Dresden XIX; 121900; 8020; XII/2666/87,
Gerber, Lutz; 19.01.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 7472/80,
Gerhard, Henry; 23.02.32; KD Berlin-Köpenick; 150041; 1199; 1041/70,
Gerlach, Rainer; 25.02.53; HVA; 961500; 5080; 1477/87, F
Gerlach, Roland; 20.01.51; HVA; 961500; 1280; 4006/76, F
Gerstner, Christine; 01.07.43; HVA; 961500; 1136; 5255/85, D
Gerth, Peter; 21.05.54; Rostock XIX; 011900; 2540; 666/87,
Gielow, Hubert; 11.03.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 2028/79,
Giesen, Gisela; 23.02.30; Abt. XI; 941100; 1197; 1866/69/2,
Gietl, Gottfried; 24.05.34; HVA; 961500; 1055; 18554/60, T
Gladitz, Dieter; 19.02.37; HVA; 961500; 1020; 3323/86, J
Gladitz, Edgar; 02.12.34; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2806/78, F
Gläßer, Axel; 18.07.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 3100/80,
Glöckner, Hermann; 07.04.28; Dresden VI; 120600; 8060; XII/2657/87,
Goersch, Bärbel; 29.05.54; HVA; 961500; 1093; 5764/81/2, D
Golombek, Bernd; 30.07.62; Abt. XI; 941100; 1560; 5310/88,
Gompert, Dieter; 26.11.33; KD Strausberg; 050049; 1260; V/426/88,
Gorldt, Peter; 20.12.42; HVA; 961500; 9005; 530/88, M
Goutrie, Peter; 27.11.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 3557/78,
Görke, Peter; 26.06.61; HVA; 961500; 1150; 921/83, F
Göthel, Jürgen ; 20.07.53; HVA; 961500; 1142; 8164/81, L
Grahmann, Dieter; 25.06.41; HVA; 961500; 1106; 5602/86, L
Gramß, Werner; 03.06.29; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2859/68, M
Grandel, Winfried; 12.03.43; KD Berlin-Köpenick; 150041; 1144; 3047/80,
Graßmann, Walter; 28.02.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 2009/67,
Gräser, Rolf; 14.07.42; HVA; 961500; 1140; 662/88, M
Gräser, Ute; 24.02.63; HVA; 961500; 1140; 609/88, M
Greve, Bernd; 25.09.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 5075/77,
Grieger, Angela; 11.05.63; HVA; 961500; 1185; 3973/81, O
Grigat, Alfred; 26.05.39; HVA; 961500; 2850; 3317/84, M
Grimmek, Norbert; 24.05.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 4711/78,
Grimm, Peter; 03.11.41; HVA; 961500; 1156; 200/66, F
Grohmann, Achim; 15.02.54; HVA; 961500; 1100; 2518/88, F
Grohs, Michael; 19.10.53; HVA; 961500; 1143; 327/81, M
Gromes, Wilfried; 29.09.51; HVA; 961500; 1170; 1679/88, E
Großer, Jürgen; 27.01.59; HVA; 961500; 1607; 650/75/37,
Große, Hans-Peter ; 02.03.38; HVA; 961500; 1136; 2677/82, J
Großmann, Dietrich ; 24.09.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 2260/66,
Großmann, Gerald; 23.03.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1775/78,
Groß, Andreas; 29.11.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 9050; 6933/88,
Grotelüschen, Claus; 27.02.36; HVA; 961500; 1603; 2295/70, U
Grote, Konrad; 15.02.41; HVA; 961500; 1093; 1967/64, A
Groth, Rudi; 26.07.43; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 1991/69,
Grotsch, Olaf; 21.05.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 5152/88,
Gröpler, Peter; 12.06.44; HVA; 961500; 1020; 1643/68, O
Grötschel, Andrea; 28.09.57; HVA; 961500; 1540; 4463/84/1, F
Grötschel, Uwe; 28.12.58; HVA; 961500; 1540; 4463/84, F
Grube, Gerhard; 12.06.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 4565/77,
Grunert, Joachim; 10.08.33; HVA; 961500; 1017; 3121/64, L
Gruner, Andreas; 22.03.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 479/83,
Gruner, Heidi; 09.09.59; HVA; 961500; 1156; 650/75/33/1,
Gruner, Michael; 28.07.55; HVA; 961500; 1156; 650/75/33,
Grünherz, Hans-Joachim; 07.04.45; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 3046/66,
Grütze, Regina; 18.07.55; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1140; 763/86,
Gubsch, Volkmar; 19.08.52; KD Dresden/Stadt; 120040; 8038; XII/1357/87,
Gundermann, Dieter; 02.12.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 2957/79,
Güntherodt, Ulrich; 28.04.46; HVA; 961500; 4090; 4273/89, M
Günther, Klaus; 06.08.55; HVA; 961500; 1130; 960/89, F
Günther, Norman; 19.11.65; HVA; 961500; 9900; 3734/88, Y
Haack, Jörg-Dieter; 06.09.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1110; 3718/76,
Haaser, Jutta; 23.11.33; Dresden VI; 120600; 8020; XII/2658/87,
Haase, Dieter; 27.06.31; Dresden IX; 120900; 8023; XII/2663/87,
Haberland, Lutz; 26.04.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 3038; 1894/87,
Hagenfeld, Wilfried; 18.02.40; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2990/76, M
Hagen, Rudolf; 24.02.39; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 2075/76,
Hallfarth, Günter; 01.10.44; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 499/70/1,
Hallfarth, Renate; 20.01.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 499/70/2,
Hampel, Bärbel; 03.04.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 1280; 2563/86,
Hampel, Bernd; 23.03.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 3388/76,
Hanke, Lutz; 04.02.56; HVA; 961500; 1195; 2378/88, F
Hanke, Peter; 21.10.53; HVA; 961500; 1143; 4174/88, A
Hantke, Gisela; 05.05.32; HVA; 961500; 1093; 3599/82, H
Hantke, Willi; 23.04.31; HVA; 961500; 1093; 6100/82, H
Harder, Dieter; 21.01.43; KD Riesa; 120053; 8400; XII/2674/87,
Hartmann, Andreas; 08.05.58; HVA; 961500; 1142; 650/75/52,
Hartmann, Gerd; 15.03.39; HVA; 961500; 1020; 647/87, A
Hartmann, Günter; 11.11.40; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 1769/71,
Hasterok, Günter; 16.05.44; HVA; 961500; 1092; 1391/86, M
Hasterok, Hannelore; 07.05.50; HVA; 961500; 1092; 1737/87, F
Haude, Klaus-Dieter; 27.04.39; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1020; 2978/81,
Hauschild, Dieter; 04.06.39; Rostock, Abt. Hafen; 011969; 2500; 5293/88,
Havlik, Lutz; 30.11.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 5015/85,
Häber, Hermann; 02.04.48; HVA; 961500; 1143; 139/74, F
Hähn, Doris; 01.01.63; HVA; 961500; 1200; 5352/88, F
Hähn, Harald; 27.01.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 1200; 3455/86,
Härdrich, Horst; 03.07.38; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 3704/73,
Härtig, Uwe; 08.09.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1143; 3621/77,
Heckel, Reiner; 24.04.51; HVA; 961500; 1280; 2163/73, F
Heene, Edgar; 02.12.58; HVA; 961500; 2000; 1738/87, F
Heene, Elke; 12.02.60; HVA; 961500; 2000; 1738/87/1, F
Heerling, Frank; 01.09.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5017/85,
Heer, Carsten; 15.12.36; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 454/73,
Heiliger, Ullrich; 20.05.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1120; 1856/86,
Heinicke, Frank; 26.05.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 2564/86,
Heinrich, Guido; 26.06.66; Abt. N; 906540; 1590; 1159/89,
Heinrich, Peter; 29.04.40; HA XX; 982000; 1092; K, 3971/71
Hein, Jürgen; 20.12.54; HVA; 961500; 1152; 372/73, F
Hein, Winfried; 10.08.50; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3855/85, F
Heitfeld, Michael; 23.06.53; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4198/81, L
Hellmich, Kurt; 22.08.30; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2520; 171/70,
Hellwig, Frank; 25.02.56; HVA; 961500; 1144; 650/75/41,
Helm, Michael; 19.04.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 9438; 589/88,
Hempel, Günter; 25.04.34; KD Eisenhüttenstadt; 050045; 1220; V/1001/88,
Hempel, Reinhard; 28.06.51; HVA; 961500; 1153; 1746/89, E
Hempel, Wolfgang; 02.07.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 5015/77,
Henckel, Peter; 04.05.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1144; 3891/77,
Henke, Frank; 25.12.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1071; 3891/76,
Hennemann, Lutz; 29.09.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1100; 7269/75,
Hennig, Dietmar; 07.01.52; HVA; 961500; 1090; 1226/70, F
Henning, Friedrich; 11.05.35; HVA; 961500; 1017; 440/87, U
Henrion, Lothar; 07.01.41; KD Plauen; 140054; 9900; 1435/89,
Hentschke, Angelika; 19.07.51; HVA; 961500; 1153; 4189/89/1, F
Hentschke, Günther ; 08.01.51; HVA; 961500; 1153; 4189/89, F
Herbert, Roland; 10.10.43; HVA; 961500; 1020; 494/69, F
Herbst, Manfred; 09.10.33; HVA; 961500; 1156; 1087/84, U
Herder, Edeltraut; 27.07.31; HVA; 961500; 1020; 867/61, O
Herer, Erhard; 18.06.40; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4010/70, E
Herkendell, Karl-Heinz; 31.01.43; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 3894/77,
Herkendell, Martha; 01.03.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 4053/85,
Herold, Gerhard; 29.05.53; HVA; 961500; 1250; 4484/84, F
Herold, Monika; 28.08.52; HA VI; 970600; 1040; K, 3315/86
Herrmann, Alexander; 08.03.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3077/71,
Herrmann, Dietmar; 30.08.38; HA I; 970100; 8060; K, 5235/86
Herrmann, Günther; 28.01.30; HVA; 961500; 1020; 3627/74, A
Herschel, Steffen; 14.11.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 1607/76,
Hertel, Ralf; 12.04.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1040; 2958/79,
Hertzsch, Wilfried; 10.07.43; HVA; 961500; 2591; 3906/83, M
Herzog, Peter; 08.04.47; HVA; 961500; 8600; 2872/87, M
Herz, Rudolf; 16.05.35; HVA; 961500; 1136; 4391/83, M
Hesse, Christina; 25.12.50; HVA; 961500; 1560; 4040/88, F
Hesse, Klaus; 09.09.47; HVA; 961500; 1136; 2032/72, J
Hesse, Rainer; 24.04.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1560; 4484/87,
Hexamer, Rene; 10.04.57; HVA; 961500; 1197; 8082/81, F
Hielscher, Dirk; 26.01.56; HVA; 961500; 1092; 417/86, O
Hiersche, Eveline; 16.06.36; HVA; 961500; 1110; 3073/89, K
Hildebrandt, Fred; 23.12.57; HVA; 961500; 6060; 650/75/31,
Hildebrandt, Marion; 28.09.51; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3721/88/1, F
Hildebrandt, Michael; 03.08.52; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3721/88, F
Hildebrandt, Sonja; 07.02.54; HVA; 961500; 1165; 3020/76/26, M
Hildebrand, Hans-Jürgen ; 09.05.39; Frankfurt/O. VI; 050600; 1200; V/427/88,
Hildebrand, Norbert; 23.05.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 5600; 480/83,
Hille, Thomas; 27.04.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1055; 1356/84,
Hinterthan, Bernd; 25.11.41; Rostock VI; 010600; 2551; 1748/89,
Hinz, Hans-Jürgen; 18.01.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 1115; 410/70,
Hirsch, Jürgen; 31.07.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 1195; 2740/77,
Hirt, Sigurd; 05.07.42; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 1601/68,
Hitschler, Helmut; 22.07.58; ZAIG; 995300; 8010; K/4402/88,
Hofert, Michael; 02.09.59; HVA; 961500; 1093; 947/84, F
Hoffmann, Frank; 28.02.44; HVA; 961500; 1120; 1587/87, F
Hoffmann, Gunter; 03.11.54; HVA; 961500; 1140; 650/75/17,
Hoffmann, Hartmut; 06.08.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1095; 6732/80,
Hoffmann, Ines; 03.11.61; HVA; 961500; 1140; 650/75/17/1,
Hofmann, Dieter; 18.04.39; HVA; 961500; 1162; 2607/84, F
Hofmann, Ellen; 03.10.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1680/81,
Hofmann, Udo; 20.02.41; HVA; 961500; 6019; 1492/86, F
Hohlfeld, Hartmut; 14.05.55; HVA; 961500; 1141; 2596/79, J
Hohnhold, Ulrich; 02.05.52; KD Fürstenwalde; 050047; 1240; V/453/88,
Hommel, Klaus; 14.09.52; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2503/77, F
Hoppe, Werner-Michael; 18.06.44; Abt. N; 906540; 1055; 2900/66,
Hornauer, Uwe; 16.08.46; HVA; 961500; 1092; 65/76, A
Hornemann, Rainer; 29.01.47; HVA; 961500; 1156; 1529/87, M
Hornig, Udo; 04.06.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 5850/84,
Horn, Jochen; 22.06.59; HVA; 961500; 1297; 2613/84, E
Höhl, Volker; 15.10.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 1153/86,
Höhne, Siegfried; 10.10.39; KD Eisenhüttenstadt; 050045; 1220; V/1013/88,
Höhn, Marina; 22.03.60; HVA; 961500; 1150; 3022/89, A
Hölzel, Manfred; 29.05.39; Dresden VI; 120600; 8060; XII/1339/87,
Höppner, Matthias; 03.01.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 1143; 1710/89,
Hörnig, Klaus; 21.01.45; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 1903/72
Hösel, Karl; 08.11.35; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 434/68,
Hubatsch, Klaus; 02.12.55; HVA; 961500; 1143; 668/72, F
Hugel, Hans-Georg; 26.05.54; HVA; 961500; 1152; 4055/88, O
Huhn, Bernd; 02.12.52; HVA; 961500; 1142; 1565/86, M
Hundt, Thomas; 20.03.61; HVA; 961500; 1142; 650/75/62,
Hunger, Werner; 23.02.40; HVA; 961500; 1017; 415/81, F
Husung, Peter; 28.11.37; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2111/73, A
Huth, Andreas; 20.04.59; Dresden XIX; 121900; 8036; XII/2748/87,
Hübner, Henri; 18.11.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1034; 3892/79,
Hübner, Ina; 23.10.64; BV Berlin VI; 150600; 1090; K/4166/88,
Hübsch, Bernd; 20.09.43; HVA; 961500; 1080; 47/73, F
Hückel, Tino; 20.03.64; Abt. N; 906540; 1195; 3507/86,
Hühr, Bruno; 02.06.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3558/78,
Hüter, Rolf; 01.01.37; HVA; 961500; 1144; 2148/74, F
Ibold, Manfred; 10.08.51; HVA; 961500; 1100; 1904/73, F
Ickert, Winfried; 23.07.56; HVA; 961500; 1153; 650/75/8,
Ide, Hans-Heinrich; 27.09.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1156; 1611/76,
Illig, Gerald; 22.02.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 2959/79,
Immermann, Gunter; 15.11.53; HVA; 961500; 1071; 959/89, F
Irmscher, Frank; 20.07.59; HVA; 961500; 1034; 2912/78, F
Jaenicke, Uwe; 23.06.53; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3057/89, F
Jahn, Heinz; 04.11.35; Rostock XIX; 011900; 2300; 3335/75,
Jahn, Klaus; 04.11.50; Abt. XI; 941100; 1120; 1515/75,
Jakowlow, Manfred; 29.03.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 1058/86,
Janietz, Eberhard; 04.08.51; HVA; 961500; 1120; 2570/79, O
Janke, Erwin; 22.06.43; HVA; 961500; 7500; 3972/86, M
Jarchow, Hans-Jürgen; 06.04.44; HVA; 961500; 4850; 2355/88, M
Jasmann, Hans-Peter; 25.06.38; Rostock XIX; 011900; 2355; 4081/86,
Jautze, Stephan; 19.08.53; HVA; 961500; 1054; 2164/73, F
Jäger, Bernd; 04.11.47; Abt. XI; 941100; 1142; 245/77,
Jäger, Monika; 13.04.44; HVA; 961500; 1147; 618/86, M
Jäger, Siegfried; 10.01.43; HVA; 961500; 1147; 619/86, M
Jähne, Karsten; 24.06.57; HVA; 961500; 8060; 650/75/42,
Jähn, Rolf; 01.04.32; HVA; 961500; 1183; 187/61, J
Jedicke, Jürgen; 16.10.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 5060; 2415/88,
Jesse, Jan; 18.11.63; HVA; 961500; 1150; 503/82, M
John, Werner; 12.01.45; HVA; 961500; 9005; 2124/89, F
Jost, Rainer; 22.03.55; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 167,
Jung, Herbert; 04.10.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 69/76,
Junkereit, Dieter; 14.05.62; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 172,
Junkereit, Monika; 01.12.64; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 173,
Jurisch, Hans; 11.08.32; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3730/66, K
Jürgens, Karl; 30.01.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1141; 1692/76,
Jürgens, Monika; 16.06.41; HVA; 961500; 3580; 2969/87, M
Jürgens, Peter; 13.03.41; HVA; 961500; 3580; 2968/87, M
Kaden, Horst; 13.01.35; Frankfurt/O. VI; 050600; 1200; V/430/88,
Kahl, Frank; 19.02.50; HVA; 961500; 8017; 2224/86, O
Kaiser, Karl; 16.12.36; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 4568/77,
Kalbaß, Herbert; 21.10.34; Abt. XI; 941100; 1071; 8569/60,
Kappelmann, Jens; 08.07.53; HVA; 961500; 1160; 2972/76, F
Kappis, Peter; 14.12.49; KD Berlin-Treptow; 150046; 1093; 5320/88,
Karasch, Klaus-Dieter; 02.10.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 5044/76,
Karlstedt, Manfred; 27.09.51; HVA; 961500; 1150; 1635/84, O
Kasper, Hans-Hendrik; 03.05.51; HVA; 961500; 1150; 2784/72, U
Kasper, Reiner; 16.01.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3472/76,
Kathert, Klaus; 03.06.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1292; 1354/71,
Keindorf, Thomas; 09.05.66; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3732/87, O
Kellermann, Harald; 26.04.51; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4691/89, L
Keller, Hans-Joachim; 22.10.38; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2245/73, M
Keller, Klaus; 25.01.36; HVA; 961500; 1600; 2332/73, M
Keller, Rolf; 25.10.57; HVA; 961500; 2000; 5743/84, M
Kellner, Axel; 05.01.40; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 759/66,
Kerlisch, Werner; 23.04.36; OD KKW Nord; 010050; 2200; 3477/73,
Kernchen, Eckehardt; 01.10.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 5041/76,
Kettner, Bernd; 28.05.47; Rostock, Abt. Hafen; 011969; 2520; 4080/86,
Keyselt, Klaus; 30.04.51; HVA; 961500; 1142; 1938/75, F
Kießig, Horst; 02.05.37; HVA; 961500; 1156; 307/82, J
Kießling, Dirk; 11.03.69; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 5156/88,
Kirchbach, Rene; 05.04.64; HVA; 961500; 8010; 5865/84, F
Kirchhof, Jens; 04.12.61; HVA; 961500; 1020; 650/75/72,
Kirchner, Marianne; 18.10.43; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4718/88/1, F
Kirchner, Wolfgang; 23.08.39; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4718/88, F
Kirmse, Udo; 24.02.39; HVA; 961500; 1136; 2824/84, X
Kirsten, Falko; 11.02.50; HVA; 961500; 1600; 2511/77, M
Kirst, Alfred; 08.03.34; HA VI; 970600; 1080; K/4428/87,
Kißig, Jochen; 11.05.53; KD Löbau; 120049; 8700; KISSIG, JOCHEN
Kittler, Manfred; 13.03.33; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8251; XII/1346/87,
Kittler, Roland; 25.01.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 4020; 5311/88,
Klarner, Volkmar; 23.03.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 9900; 2305/85,
Kleiber, Thomas; 02.01.55; HVA; 961500; 1020; 4365/86, U
Kleinhempel, Heinz; 04.07.57; Leipzig XVIII; 131800; 7050; K/5409/88,
Klemcke, Hermann; 15.11.51; KD Schwedt; 050050; 1330; V/446/88,
Klemens, Leo; 25.03.27; HVA; 961500; 1532; 19522/60, X
Klemme, Jan; 03.02.67; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 2976/86,
Klenz, Henry; 03.12.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 409/81,
Klingsieck, Ralf; 10.10.47; HVA; 961500; 1092; 1644/69, F
Klotzke, Jürgen; 05.07.48; HVA; 961500; 6908; 3914/85, A
Klutznik, Axel; 11.07.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 1580; :
Kluwe, Frank; 11.10.49; HVA; 961500; 1142; 465/74, F
Knackstedt, Hans-Jürgen; 02.03.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1162; 40/69,
Knaupe, Henk; 14.10.65; HVA; 961500; 1090; 423/88, M
Knieling, Annelie; 09.11.50; HVA; 961500; 1115; 3167/78, U
Knobloch, Angelika; 11.07.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 1997/77,
Knobloch, Hans-Uwe; 23.10.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 2487/77,
Knorr, Hans-Joachim; 25.04.38; HVA; 961500; 1615; 304/80, M
Knoth, Uwe; 08.04.57; Abt. XI; 941100; 1100; 6461/82,
Knöller, Sergej; 24.10.63; HVA; 961500; 1095; 5000/87, F
Knötel, Ronald; 14.10.63; BV Magdeburg, Abt. XV; 071500; 3080; :
Kobel, Werner; 07.03.38; HVA; 961500; 1600; 4710/80, L
Kobuch, Norbert; 22.12.51; HVA; 961500; 1058; 4980/88, O
Kochanek, Wolfgang; 14.09.41; HVA; 961500; 1055; 389/74, A
Kochsiek, Jürgen; 15.03.41; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 178,
Koch, Arno; 18.02.37; KD Görlitz; 120047; 8903; XII/2406/88,
Koch, Bernhard; 12.02.44; HVA; 961500; 1142; 1566/86, M
Koch, Helmut; 20.12.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1153; 5340/84,
Koch, Jutta; 16.06.32; Abt. XI; 941100; 1162; 2390/70,
Koch, Paul; 09.05.44; HVA; 961500; 1910; 4651/85, M
Koch, Wilhelm; 22.08.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1115; 416/70,
Koderhold, Dieter; 25.06.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 447/74,
Koglin, Mario; 11.08.66; HVA; 961500; 1110; 3900/85, M
Kohoutek, Sepp; 10.03.54; HVA; 961500; 1090; 4998/87, F
Kokscht, Thomas; 10.07.58; HVA; 961500; 1035; 836/77, F
Kolasinski, Helge; 04.04.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1054; 2220/83,
Kolleßer, Klaus; 11.03.51; HVA; 961500; 7072; 612/89, F
Kolleßer, Regina; 11.11.48; HVA; 961500; 7072; 6763/88, F
Kolletzky, Olaf; 08.07.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 9900; 862/83,
Konieczny, Frank; 04.09.44; HVA; 961500; 1600; 1762/89, N
Konnopka, Frank; 11.04.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 5003/80,
Konnopka, Gudrun; 27.12.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 4038/79,
Konschel, Peter; 30.03.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 4054/85,
Kopius, Elke; 24.04.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 1885/81,
Korn, Robert; 11.09.37; HVA; 961500; 1195; 43/63, L
Kosch, Bärbel; 07.08.60; HVA; 961500; 6500; 3153/89, F
Kosch, Gunter; 31.01.53; Abt. XI; 941100; 6500; 2414/88,
Kosin, Heinz; 07.03.26; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2148/72, U
Kowatzkl, Fred; 15.05.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 4712/78,
Köhler, Erwin; 06.10.40; Frankfurt/O. XVIII; 051800; 1200; V/442/88,
Köhler, Klaus; 20.02.52; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2565/88, O
Köhler, Petra; 20.03.51; HVA; 961500; 1017; 318/78, E
Köhler, Wolfgang; 29.06.51; HVA; 961500; 1017; 3254/84, E
König, Hans; 23.05.36; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 7261/75,
Körner, Manfred; 26.01.43; Dresden VI; 120600; 8019; XII/414/89,
Köster, Sven; 18.04.66; Abt. N; 906500; 1150; 4732/87,
Köster, Ulrich; 20.11.42; Abt. N; 906540; 1292; 1687/76,
Kraatz, Jens-Peter; 27.09.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 7603/81,
Krahl, Frank-Michael; 03.03.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 1614/75,
Krahmüller, Uwe; 14.12.65; HVA; 961500; 6018; 5265/85, Q
Krahn, Charlotte; 22.04.30; HVA; 961500; 1020; 46/72, U
Kramer, Bernd; 20.10.41; Karl-Marx-Stadt, BKG; 142900; 9005; K/6104/88
Krannich, Matthias; 20.03.57; Abt. XI; 941100; 1144; 5798/84,
Kranz, Herbert; 17.12.39; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 9805/61,
Kranz, Rosmarie; 21.12.40; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 4354/77,
Krause, Johannes; 24.10.49; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 3702/73,
Krauße, Günter; 25.05.37; HVA; 961500; 8360; 1498/87, F
Kraus, Bert; 03.03.61; HVA; 961500; 1143; 813/83, P
Kraus, Rudolf; 23.07.37; HVA; 961500; 1140; 340/81, F
Kreher, Ralf; 28.02.67; Abt. N; 906540; 9300; 1160/89,
Kreinberger, Rolf; 25.05.29; HVA; 961500; 1121; 2637/77, S
Krenz, Bianca; 23.12.62; HVA; 961500; 1120; 3899/86, U
Kresse, Lutz; 12.10.54; HVA; 961500; 2090; 2354/88, M
Krietsch, Sabine; 10.11.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1922/76,
Kringler, Paul; 02.07.28; KD Stralsund; 010047; 2300; 1110/73,
Krohn, Heinz Günter; 28.01.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 7033; 493/87,
Krone, Reinhard; 23.07.48; HVA; 961500; 4090; 3823/86, M
Kröpelin, Detlef; 01.11.56; HVA; 961500; 1142; 51/80, F
Krumpfert, Joachim; 15.02.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1034; 1763/76,
Kruse, Gerlinde; 02.10.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 1142; 4701/89,
Kruse, Peter; 07.01.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1989/76,
Krüger, Andreas; 11.04.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 7148/81,
Krüger, Brigitte; 11.02.37; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3419/84/1, O
Krüger, Hans; 15.06.37; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3419/84, O
Krüger, Holger; 26.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 3389/76,
Krüger, Horst; 05.10.43; Abt. N; 906540; 1034; 1622/76,
Krüger, Reinhard; 26.04.33; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 7257/75,
Krüger, Uwe; 22.08.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 7513; 3385/84,
Krzebeck, Siegfried; 05.02.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1035; 1689/76,
Krzyzanowski, Claus; 28.11.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 1926/76,
Kudernatsch, Matthias; 18.03.65; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 5032/89,
Kulitzscher, Manfred; 30.05.32; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2555; 1530/70,
Kunisch, Frank; 20.02.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 4107/79,
Kunze, Alfred; 30.03.32; KD Eberswalde; 050044; 1298; V/429/88,
Kunze, Heinz; 08.05.37; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8101; XII/1345/87,
Kunze, Wilfried; 01.04.45; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1145; 2809/88,
Kunzmann, Frank; 08.06.53; HVA; 961500; 9050; 650/75/64,
Kupferschmidt, Erich; 23.07.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 2808/79,
Kupferschmidt, Gudrun; 03.05.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; :
Kupsch, Michael; 28.04.58; HVA; 961500; 1090; 2686/79, F
Kurjuweit, Karlheinz; 27.03.50; KD Angermünde; 050041; 1330; V/439/88,
Küchenmeister, Hartmut; 31.03.54; HVA; 961500; 1144; 5042/86, N
Kücken, Werner; 31.08.28; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1421; 1143/70,
Kynast, Klaus; 29.04.55; HVA; 961500; 1150; 1043/84, A
Ladebeck, Bernd; 22.05.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 4952/77,
Lagemann, Jürgen; 22.08.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 7/76,
Lamberz, Ulrich; 02.07.52; HVA; 961500; 1092; 234/73, F
Lamm, Hans-Joachim; 03.01.42; Dresden VI; 120600; 8020; XII/2655/87,
Langer, Achim; 09.03.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 1864/78,
Langer, Karl; 06.10.34; Abt. N; 906540; 1297; 1796/80,
Lange, Frank; 31.12.50; Abt. XI; 941100; 1143; 2745/79,
Lange, Gerd; 15.12.60; HVA; 961500; 4300; 650/75/19,
Lange, Harald; 03.01.34; HVA; 961500; 1147; 2367/73, U
Lange, Karl-Heinz; 31.12.52; HVA; 961500; 1058; 107/75, F
Lange, Kathlen; 23.05.62; HVA; 961500; 4300; 1763/88, E
Lange, Matthias; 07.10.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1141; 3503/87,
Lange, Ralf; 15.08.60; HVA; 961500; 1100; 1433/85, J
Lange, Reiner; 12.06.36; HVA; 961500; 1017; 1046/67, M
Lauenroth, Hans-Peter; 08.08.61; HVA; 961500; 1136; 1078/81, F
Laue, Lutz; 25.02.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1143; 2528/82,
Laupert, Andrea; 16.09.61; HVA; 961500; 1140; 2816/80, O
Lätzer, Eberhard; 03.12.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 3700/73,
Lechelt, Arno; 24.06.44; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 8511/81,
Lehmann, Frank; 11.07.66; HVA; 961500; 7580; 3170/89, Q
Lehmann, Holger; 14.10.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1144; 6082/82,
Lehmann, Rainer; 08.03.49; HVA; 961500; 1150; 2987/77, J
Leibscher, Axel; 26.03.54; HVA; 961500; 7301; 650/75/65/,
Leinweber, Manfred; 04.03.42; HVA; 961500; 1136; 166/77, M
Leirich, Bernd; 02.06.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 2500; 2796/87,
Leistner, Dieter; 23.05.42; HVA; 961500; 1250; 3478/84, J
Lemke, Frank; 09.11.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1071; 3021/84,
Lemke, Sabine; 15.09.65; Abt. N; 906540; 1071; 969/86,
Lenhard, Peter; 27.09.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 1906/71,
Leonhardt, Heiko; 12.01.66; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5391/86,
Lerche, Ruth; 12.03.33; HVA; 961500; 1092; 3899/63, U
Leuschner, Harald; 01.10.39; HVA; 961500; 1020; 3713/87, F
Leymann, Jan; 30.03.61; HVA; 961500; 1092; 3020/76/9, M
Liebholz, Gisela; 09.01.30; HVA; 961500; 1055; 225/78, U
Liedke, Peter; 04.12.50; HVA; 961500; 1140; 1476/87, F
Lieniger, Bruno; 01.11.31; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 4167/83,
Ließneck, Walter; 12.10.37; HVA; 961500; 1115; 1990/72, M
Lietz, Peter; 13.02.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1990/76,
Linck, Joachim; 27.02.48; HVA; 961500; 2330; 1528/87, M
Linck, Rita; 27.11.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 2330; 1533/87, M
Lindig, Hans-Dieter; 11.01.30; Rostock VI; 010600; 2540; 1397/86,
Lindner, Dietmar; 09.06.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 1988/76,
Lindner, Steffen; 18.04.68; HVA; 961500; 1035; 3948/86, M
Linke, Gerald; 29.06.39; HVA; 961500; 6504; 3871/87, F
Linke, Marga; 01.09.39; HVA; 961500; 6504; 3871/87/1, F
Linke, Reinhard; 18.07.30; HVA; 961500; 1199; 153/72, J
Lippert, Bodo; 04.01.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1071; 7402/81,
Lißke, Birgit; 13.03.55; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 177,
Lißke, Gerhard; 17.01.51; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 176,
Lobedan, Gerd; 21.05.54; HVA; 961500; 1143; 3961/83, M
Lode, Harald; 06.10.53; HVA; 961500; 8036; 2429/88, M
Lohse, Gerd; 24.07.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1144; 2007/67,
Loos, Siegfried; 30.06.40; HVA; 961500; 9061; 1750/72, M
Lorenz, Jörg; 21.05.62; HVA; 961500; 1017; 5026/84, F
Lorenz, Werner; 01.01.34; HVA; 961500; 1595; 4626/79, F
Lorenz, Wolfgang; 03.05.54; HVA; 961500; 1143; 95/76, F
Loudovici, Armin; 12.10.39; HVA; 961500; 1190; 4331/86, F
Löbnitz, Wolfram; 26.08.57; HVA; 961500; 1195; 1371/77, F
Löwa, Werner; 30.05.54; HVA; 961500; 1093; 425/79, F
Lubs, Bodo; 14.03.53; Abt. XI; 941100; 2103; 2026/86,
Lucas, Karl-Heinz; 27.02.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 3705/77,
Ludwig, Horst; 27.08.31; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2588/77, P
Ludwig, Lutz; 15.10.53; HVA; 961500; 1143; 2113/89, E
Lux, Klaus; 19.08.43; KD Wolgast; 010049; 2220; 5577/81,
Lübke, Brigitte; 22.04.41; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2500; 1119/79,
Lübke, Klaus; 27.03.52; HVA; 961500; 1220; 650/75/22,
Lücke, Karl-Ernst; 17.10.37; Abt. XI; 941100; 1035; 769/86,
Lück, Michael; 16.07.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 7260; 3814/85,
Lüdecke, Olaf; 15.06.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 2747/79,
Lüneburg, Karsten; 31.07.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 3079/83,
Maaske, Gudrun; 11.11.42; HVA; 961500; 1162; 1351/89, N
Maaske, Klaus; 26.07.39; HVA; 961500; 1162; 3997/85, N
Maaß, Uwe; 20.07.61; HVA; 961500; 1100; 1680/88, F
Maget, Gerhard; 18.12.51; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2576/77, F
Maigatter, Tino; 21.02.62; HVA; 961500; 1054; 2766/84, F
Malchow, Dieter; 19.07.54; HVA; 961500; 1110; 2730/89, F
Manikowski, Jürgen; 30.07.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 2540; 1607/88,
Maretzki, Peter; 27.03.57; HVA; 961500; 1093; 235/79, M
Marks, Stefan; 20.09.52; HVA; 961500; 1250; 2501/77, F
Marnitz, Andreas; 01.10.56; HVA; 961500; 1150; 3498/86, F
Marr, Donald; 10.04.37; Abt. XI; 941100; 1250; 8/74,
Masula, Jens; 23.08.64; HVA; 961500; 1152; 5863/84, F
Matros, Jürgen; 04.06.53; HVA; 961500; 1160; 4049/88, O
Mattner, Susanne; 02.12.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3966/82,
Matusch, Klaus-Dieter; 20.09.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 3685/82,
Maudrich, Peter; 10.02.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 6502; 4705/85,
Maune, Monika; 16.06.59; Dresden VI; 120600; 8023; XII/1334/89,
May, Jürgen; 19.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1156; 1508/80,
Märkel, Günter; 01.06.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3325/76,
Märkel, Sigrid; 02.06.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5272/76,
Mehlhorn, Lutz-Rainer; 15.11.40; HVA; 961500; 1020; 1029/67, J
Meichsner, Matthias; 03.09.58; HVA; 961500; 1090; 4416/80, F
Meier, Bernd; 08.08.54; Dresden XIX; 121900; 8020; XII/2749/87,
Meier, Detlef; 23.09.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 448/74,
Meilick, Bernd; 11.06.47; HVA; 961500; 1092; 419/81, M
Mekelburg, Michaela; 21.03.61; HVA; 961500; 1140; 1346/85/1, F
Menzel, Harri; 27.01.35; Rostock VII; 010700; 2520; 5951/84,
Menz, Harry; 27.05.38; HVA; 961500; 1136; 12487/60, A
Merkel, Thomas; 19.01.59; HVA; 961500; 1055; 424/82, M
Messerle, Peter; 05.06.53; HVA; 961500; 1195; 2784/73, F
Metelmann, Bernd; 16.05.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3390/76,
Meyer, Detlef; 09.08.52; KD Rostock; 010040; 2540; 379/88,
Meyer, Horst; 23.08.33; HVA; 961500; 1100; 1348/85, F
Meyer, Jürgen; 04.01.42; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 2587/65,
Michaelis, Holger; 20.10.58; HVA; 961500; 1152; 2611/84, F
Michel, Günther; 07.06.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 2407/77,
Mieley, Siegfried; 30.07.36; Frankfurt/O. VII; 050700; 1200; V/431/88,
Mielke, Klaus; 11.07.39; Abt. XI; 941100; 1055; 2899/68,
Miersch, Harald; 26.11.51; HVA; 961500; 1142; 174/79, M
Mihm, Guido; 11.07.70; HVA; 961500; 1035; 4666/89,
Milde, Jörg; 16.11.54; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1136; 4199/80,
Mirtschink, Jürgen; 09.01.48; HVA; 961500; 1034; 1902/72, F
Mischner, Jörg; 24.11.64; HVA; 961500; 1150; 1716/89, I
Mittelberger, Andreas; 15.02.65; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 5221/84,
Mitzscherling, Peter; 27.02.36; Abt. XI; 941100; 1136; 410/81,
Monatsch, Jörg; 17.12.67; Schwerin II; 020200; 2755; :
Montwill, Frank; 25.04.54; HVA; 961500; 1144; 5630/86, A
Möckel, Joachim; 12.02.45; HVA; 961500; 9050; 3757/87, F
Mrosk, Dieter; 01.11.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 211/74,
Muth, Rolf; 31.01.29; HVA; 961500; 1017; 269/68, P
Mutscher, Monika; 01.12.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3684/82,
Mühlbauer, Dietmar; 02.06.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 374/75,
Mühle, Dieter; 07.03.40; KD Dresden/Stadt; 120040; 8010; XII/2671/87,
Müller, Bärbel; 12.03.41; HVA; 961500; 1170; 1675/84/1, C
Müller, Barbara; 22.09.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 2356; 1608/88/1,
Müller, Detlef; 04.02.58; HVA; 961500; 1020; 650/75/43,
Müller, Ernst-Peter; 24.07.40; HVA; 961500; 1170; 1675/84, C
Müller, Erwin; 19.07.44; Abt. N; 906540; 2081; 2626/65,
Müller, Hannelore; 22.06.46; Abt. N; 906540; 2081; 3339/78,
Müller, Heinz-Jürgen; 24.09.48; HVA; 961500; 2520; 499/87, F
Müller, Helga; 15.11.37; HVA; 961500; 1144; 5009/87, D
Müller, Helmut; 07.01.40; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1080; 608/83,
Müller, Irina; 19.09.62; HVA; 961500; 1020; 650/75/43/1,
Müller, Johannes; 09.08.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 2006/67,
Müller, Jürgen; 07.08.59; HVA; 961500; 7930; 650/75/23,
Müller, Jürgen; 25.07.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 3490/83,
Müller, Matthias; 03.06.53; HVA; 961500; 7840; 4729/89, M
Müller, Peter; 06.06.37; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8023; XII/1348/87,
Müller, Uwe; 02.12.63; HVA; 961500; 1136; 3791/85, F
Müller, Uwe; 07.10.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 2356; 1608/88,
Münchow, Frank; 19.02.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 2830;
Münzel, Heinz; 20.07.47; HVA; 961500; 1020; 167/78, K
Mütschard, Peter; 28.01.52; HVA; 961500; 7060; 650/75/35,
Nareike, Kurt; 28.09.37; Rostock VI; 010600; 2520; 5283/78,
Nathe, Rolf; 27.09.30; HVA; 961500; 1170; 8/75, J
Naue, Rainer; 14.03.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3077/83,
Naumann, Gerhard; 25.02.49; Cottbus XIX; 061900; 7500; K3504/89,
Naumann, Uwe; 15.07.56; HVA; 961500; 8321; 650/75/36,
Näther, Frank; 08.09.50; HVA; 961500; 1140; 2257/70, F
Neff, Gertrud; 25.04.31; Abt. XI; 941100; 1156; 8510/81,
Nehls, Jörg; 08.07.58; HVA; 961500; 1143; 2592/80, F
Nennhaus, Detlef; 30.06.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 7264/75,
Nestler, Olaf; 26.05.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1040; 2080/82,
Neumann, Klaus-Dieter; 24.07.47; Abt. XI; 941100; 1400; 3386/71,
Nicicky, Stephan; 23.04.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 1999/77,
Nier, Herbert; 28.08.54; HVA; 961500; 1100; 2477/75, F
Noculak, Johannes; 27.05.41; HVA; 961500; 1162; 113/74, L
Noetzel, Peter; 27.02.40; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 1608/76,
Noffke, Bernd; 11.10.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1197; 5016/85,
Nöbel, Manfred; 29.11.32; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1020; 1341/83,
Nölte, Joachim; 11.11.48; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2553/80, P
Nücklich, Horst; 03.06.35; Dresden, BKG; 122900; 8010; XII/2753/87,
Oelschlaeger, Wolfgang; 06.03.39; Abt. XI; 941100; 1162; 9802/61,
Oertel, Hans-Joachim; 07.12.54; HVA; 961500; 1120; 3561/88, E
Oertel, Ulrich; 12.01.51; HVA; 961500; 1156; 19/76, F
Ola, Heinz; 25.06.34; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 3705/73,
Ondrej, Detlev; 31.01.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 1136; 3763/88,
Ondrej, Ilona ; 24.07.54; HVA; 961500; 1136; 3763/88/1, F
Ondrusch, Aribert; 11.06.52; HVA; 961500; 7063; 6372/81, U
Ostoike, Harry; 14.05.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 6979/80,
Otto, Hans; 03.06.50; HVA; 961500; 1144; 4692/89, L
Paasch, Uwe; 26.02.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 7280; 2794/87,
Pach, Detlef; 08.03.44; Dresden VII; 120700; 8101; XII/1342/87,
Pahlke, Lothar; 30.07.42; HVA; 961500; 6850; 650/75/18,
Pahlke, Gudrun; 15.08.49; HVA; 961500; 6850; 650/75/18/1,
Pangsy, Reiner; 12.11.40; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 2437/60,
Parke, Kerstin; 26.01.62; Abt. XI; 941100; 3018; 1894/87/1,
Paulick, Gunter; 30.06.57; HVA; 961500; 7513; 650/75/44,
Paul, Gerhard; 11.08.53; HVA; 961500; 1100; 2639/79, J
Paul, Werner; 28.04.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 3893/77,
Pawlak, Norbert; 01.10.47; BV Berlin XX; 152000; 1140; 3005/84,
Päsler, Knut; 15.07.65; HVA; 961500; 2000; 5196/84, F
Pecher, Rudolf; 27.09.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 7272/75,
Perschon, Andreas; 01.11.58; HVA; 961500; 1055; 1233/80, F
Petermann, Walter; 28.01.50; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4216/84, F
Peters, Joachim; 15.02.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 1580; 2797/87,
Petzold, Frank; 24.04.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 7840; 1711/89,
Pfarr, Wilfried; 04.09.38; HVA; 961500; 1080; 180/73, M
Philipp, Siegfried; 19.10.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 3078/83,
Pieritz, Reiner; 10.06.49; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 3701/73,
Pierschel, Bernd; 25.02.40; HVA; 961500; 1280; 128/68, F
Pietschmann, Hans; 26.05.40; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8010; XII/2665/87,
Piletzki, Doris; 20.04.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1120; 1603/76,
Pingel, Jürgen; 14.04.34; HVA; 961500; 1020; 250/81, M
Plogas, Lutz-Ulrich; 14.04.50; HVA; 961500; 1092; 3974/87, J
Plomann, Michael; 31.03.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1100; 3501/85,
Ploner, Ekhard; 08.06.30; HVA; 961500; 1020; 1041/67, M
Plumbohm, Ilona; 26.02.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 1092; 1844/88,
Pohl, Bernd; 07.11.52; Cottbus, Abt. KuSch; 064000; 7500; 1587/87,
Pohl, Heinrich; 05.10.53; ZAIG; 995300; 8036; K, 4401/88
Polcuch, Konrad; 03.12.53; HVA; 961500; 1055; 3671/88, M
Polcuch, Marion; 06.11.53; HVA; 961500; 1055; 3670/88, F
Polster, Claus; 07.07.50; HVA; 961500; 7034; 1530/87, M
Popp, Rudolf; 21.09.36; HVA; 961500; 1136; 4283/88, F
Porges, Brigitte; 09.06.49; HVA; 961500; 1280; 3137/89, F
Porges, Manfred; 18.12.45; HVA; 961500; 1280; 3136/89, F
Pötsch, Hans; 03.11.41; HVA; 961500; 1197; 112/76, M
Prade, Reiner; 19.09.56; HVA; 961500; 1145; 4527/87, A
Pratsch, Klaus; 21.07.39; HVA; 961500; 1017; 1331/63, T
Preißler, Steffen; 05.06.66; Abt. N; 906540; 8017; 1161/89,
Prestin, Uwe; 03.11.40; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 7399/81,
Preusche, Dieter; 07.12.43; HVA; 961500; 1142; 6977/75, A
Proft, Andre; 09.10.63; HVA; 961500; 1017; 760/88, D
Prokop, Adolf; 02.02.39; AGM, Arbeitsgebiet R; 956024; 5066; K, 187/71
Propf, Ulrich; 12.06.57; HVA; 961500; 4350; 650/75/4,
Puchner, Albrecht; 05.07.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1200; 2319/84,
Puchta, Gerdt; 09.01.51; HVA; 961500; 2540; 1864/89, M
Pufe, Rainer; 21.02.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 1514/75,
Püstel, Brigitte; 27.04.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 1100; 239/85,
Püwick, Heinz; 01.08.28; HVA; 961500; 1280; 330/85, T
Pyritz, Frank; 08.10.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 2128/78,
Radke, Bernd; 29.09.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1604/76,
Radke, Gudrun; 24.06.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 2286/74,
Radtke, Peter; 27.08.62; HVA; 961500; 1140; 2637/84, M
Radünz, Christine; 26.09.53; HVA; 961500; 1136; 2758/78, J
Rahn, Winfried; 25.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 4142/79,
Ramme, Alwin; 12.03.32; HVA; 961500; 1017; 3321/71, U
Ramminger, Uwe; 04.01.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 8245; 3256/84,
Rasel, Klaus; 30.05.42; HVA; 961500; 1532; 650/75/45,
Rasmus, Hartmut; 04.02.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 5500; 702/86,
Ratschke, Lutz-Dieter; 04.12.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1034; 5042/76,
Ratzmann, Ingrid; 18.04.37; HVA; 961500; 1035; 1672/84, A
Rauch, Benno; 25.09.53; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 4146/79,
Rauch, Hannelore; 24.12.50; HVA; 961500; 2794; 650/75/30/1,
Rauch, Helmut; 09.01.53; HVA; 961500; 1092; 574/72, F
Rauch, Lothar; 04.11.53; HVA; 961500; 2794; 650/75/30,
Redlich, Hans-Joachim; 27.09.41; BV Berlin XIX; 151900; 1150; 1091/79,
Redlinghöfer, Ilse; 28.07.37; HA III; 940300; 1162; K, 1858/88,
Regner, Karsten; 19.03.63; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4311/84, M
Reichelt, Werner; 10.12.35; Abt. XI; 941100; 1020; 2046/64,
Reichelt, Wolfgang; 24.04.38; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2520; 189/71,
Reichel, Joachim; 06.07.44; HVA; 961500; 2500; 1863/89, M
Reichel, Manfred; 14.04.59; HVA; 961500; 1093; 3062/78, F
Reichel, Reinhard; 20.09.45; Abt. XI; 941100; 1080; 17/71,
Reichert, Bernd; 11.06.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 2094/72,
Reif, Frank; 05.10.58; HVA; 961500; 6016; 650/75/20,
Reiß, Alfred; 06.10.34; HVA; 961500; 1020; 4242/60, J
Reiter, Hermann; 11.10.37; HVA; 961500; 1100; 186/77, J
Renner, Andreas; 16.04.59; HVA; 961500; 1153; 19/81, F
Renner, Lothar; 05.06.45; HVA; 961500; 1054; 136/71, J
Rennhack, Lutz-Peter; 12.11.54; HVA; 961500; 4730; 650/75/46,
Retzlaff, Gerd; 06.07.39; HVA; 961500; 1142; 2756/84, G
Reuter, Simone; 19.06.67; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4274/89, M
Ribbecke, Horst; 19.04.25; HA XVIII; 981800; 1017; RIBBECKE, HORST
Richter, Andre; 21.09.61; Abt. N; 906540; 1143; 5786/82,
Richter, Detlef; 02.05.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 7135/80,
Richter, Norbert; 24.09.47; KD Freiberg; 140047; 9200; K/1724/89,
Richter, Reinhard; 27.02.52; HVA; 961500; 1035; 4349/84, O
Richter, Willi; 21.06.32; HVA; 961500; 1130; 3776/87, F
Riedel, Dieter; 24.11.52; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3848/81, M
Riedel, Dietmar; 19.02.52; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2970/87, M
Riedel, Erhard; 26.03.46; HA III; 940300; 1136; K, 2963/89
Riedel, Winfried; 27.05.40; HVA; 961500; 1017; 777/65, M
Riemer, Rudi; 04.03.32; Frankfurt/O. XVIII; 051800; 1200; V/443/88,
Riesner, Wolfgang; 12.06.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 2279/74/1,
Riewe, Hartmut; 16.08.42; KD Wismar; 010048; 2402; 4910/75,
Ritzmann, Hartmut; 23.01.56; HVA; 961500; 1140; 1715/89, M
Roeßler, Jochen; 13.03.41; KD Dresden/Stadt; 120040; 8060; XII/2670/87,
Rolfs, Raimund; 16.10.57; HVA; 961500; 1136; 3891/83, F
Roll, Gerd; 05.09.55; HVA; 961500; 2200; 650/75/28,
Roloff, Herbert; 16.02.36; HVA; 961500; 1144; 1611/69, Q
Rosenkranz, Rudolf; 23.11.30; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2565; 680/70,
Rosenthal, Ralf; 19.12.64; HVA; 961500; 1140; 5423/88, S
Rostek, Horst; 26.05.29; HVA; 961500; 1156; 18500/60, F
Rost, Andrea; 23.11.57; HVA; 961500; 1150; 4298/89, F
Rost, Dieter; 31.05.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 7214/81,
Rothbauer, Edmund; 04.08.30; Frankfurt/O., SED-PO-Ltg.; 054100; 1200; V/432/88,
Roth, Andreas; 31.03.52; HVA; 961500; 1140; 121/69/35, AB
Roth, Hans-Jochen; 12.07.43; HVA; 961500; 1800; 1381/89, M
Rödel, Johannes; 05.07.33; HVA; 961500; 1614; 650/88, D
Röder, Detlev; 12.06.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 744/88, N
Röder, Siegmar; 03.05.37; HVA; 961500; 1156; 18/67, S
Röhling, Thomas; 30.04.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 1035; 1649/82,
Röhl, Gerhard; 26.07.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1883/81,
Röhner, Bernd; 07.01.57; HVA; 961500; 1040; 4700/89, F
Römer, Heinz; 11.02.32; HVA; 961500; 1250; 5192/86, M
Römer, Lutz; 09.08.59; HVA; 961500; 1055; 3400/89, F
Rörster, Hans; 29.05.30; HVA; 961500; 1147; 1593/86, U
Rösch, Klaus; 28.04.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1100; 9797/61,
Rösner, Andreas; 16.06.51; ZAIG; 995300; 8020; K, 2964/89
Rudolph, Peter; 05.10.29; HVA; 961500; 2520; 7095/60, A
Ruschel, Dietger; 15.08.43; HVA; 961500; 1140; 2111/72, F
Russ, Wolfgang; 08.01.48; HVA; 961500; 1153; 6983/75, M
Ruthenberg, Gerd-Wolfram; 08.11.53; HVA; 961500; 1093; 5714/81, L
Rücker, Frank; 20.01.63; HVA; 961500; 1130; 5361/89, F
Rücker, Ricarda; 21.05.66; HVA; 961500; 1130; 5361/89/1, F
Sacher, Hans; 06.11.26; HVA; 961500; 1162; 252/74, U
Sachse, Ingrid; 15.12.40; HVA; 961500; 1020; 580/89, F
Sachse, Manfred; 15.04.34; BV Berlin XX; 152000; 1193; 219/76,
Sahling, Frank; 12.07.50; HVA; 961500; 1136; 6908/82, F
Salm, Rainer; 11.05.58; HVA; 961500; 1143; 44/81, F
Salomon, Walter; 12.11.29; HVA; 961500; 1273; 2142/73, L
Salomo, Gerhard; 08.01.30; Dresden XX; 122000; 8023; XII/2667/87,
Salomo, Günther; 21.05.41; Dresden VI; 120600; 8060; XII/1885/89,
Sander, Gerhard; 25.05.52; HVA; 961500; 1093; 157/85, M
Sander, Rudolf; 14.11.33; HVA; 961500; 1188; 790/88, F
Sasse, Klaus-Jürgen; 01.12.42; Abteilung XI; 941100; 1092; 1339/68,
Sauer, Uwe; 09.05.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 4551/77,
Sawatzki, Paul-Eckhard; 06.03.56; HVA; 961500; 1054; 2963/78, F
Schaarschmidt, Steffen; 06.10.58; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9001; 181,
Schade, Detlef; 10.11.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 2195/82,
Schaffrath, Hans-Martin; 26.03.44; BV Berlin VI; 150600; 1156; 1352/75,
Scharfenberg, Anette; 02.12.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 5559/83,
Schellenberger, Gerd; 11.11.50; BV Berlin XX; 152000; 1080; 3003/84,
Schemmel, Manfred; 18.02.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 7270; 2795/87,
Schering, Norbert; 24.03.55; HVA; 961500; 1195; 2729/89, A
Schiecke, Dieter; 12.10.54; HVA; 961500; 1153; 1960/75, M
Schiemann, Peter; 04.01.43; HVA; 961500; 1017; 693/86, E
Schiemann, Renate; 09.04.45; HVA; 961500; 1017; 693/86/1, E
Schierz, Rolf-Jörg; 13.02.61; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 180,
Schilling, Aribert; 07.04.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 3618/77,
Schilling, Klaus; 29.09.41; Leipzig VI; 130600; 7060; K, 1043/87
Schink, Peter; 30.12.55; HVA; 961500; 1130; 6659/80, M
Schlauß, Hannelore; 17.10.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1298; 5153/88,
Schleicher, Gerhard; 22.06.43; HVA; 961500; 1250; 36/77, M
Schlenkrich, Dieter; 07.05.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 1253/65,
Schlesinger, Harald; 10.10.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 5558/83,
Schliebe, Edda; 25.07.39; Abt. XI; 941100; 1130; 2758/89,
Schliesch, Erhard; 30.03.28; Dresden VII; 120700; 8060; XII/2660/87,
Schlinsog, Helfried; 16.06.44; HVA; 961500; 7022; 544/88, F
Schlinsog, Regina; 05.02.47; HVA; 961500; 7022; 544/88/02, F
Schlögl, Thomas; 01.08.64; Abt. N; 906540; 1141; 3020/84,
Schmidt-Bock, Peter; 04.05.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 2962/79,
Schmidt, Andreas; 16.01.63; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 5787/82,
Schmidt, Dietmar; 12.06.44; Abt. XI; 941100; 1093; 1276/73,
Schmidt, Eberhard; 22.09.47; HVA; 961500; 1280; 231/75, M
Schmidt, Gerd; 29.07.39; HVA; 961500; 5900; 551/86, F
Schmidt, Gudrun; 08.12.44; HVA; 961500; 4050; 1532/87, M
Schmidt, Hans-Dieter; 03.01.32; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8019; XII/2664/87,
Schmidt, Hans-Dieter; 30.07.36; Frankfurt/O. XIX; 051900; 1200; V/449/88,
Schmidt, Hartmut; 10.02.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 4050/82,
Schmidt, Joachim; 19.12.43; HVA; 961500; 4050; 1531/87, M
Schmidt, Klaus-Peter; 28.03.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 407/78,
Schmidt, Kuno; 10.01.37; Abt. XI; 941100; 1020; 1868/69,
Schmidt, Manfred; 04.08.54; HVA; 961500; 1100; 2616/80, U
Schmidt, Werner; 18.07.36; Kreisdienststelle [KD] Bautzen; 120042; 8609; XII/1355/87,
Schmidt, Wilfried; 14.10.52; HVA; 961500; 1093; 237/73, F
Schmiedke, Günter; 04.10.33; Frankfurt/O., BKG; 052900; 1200; V/436/88,
Schneider, Astrid; 24.03.51; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3353/86, F
Schneider, Günter; 08.10.54; HVA; 961500; 5800; 3470/85, M
Schneider, Günter; 26.07.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 9806/61,
Schneider, Harald; 26.01.48; HVA; 961500; 1140; 4128/83, M
Schneider, Karl-Heinz; 24.12.34; HVA; 961500; 9900; 6857/82, M
Schneider, Lothar; 16.11.56; HVA; 961500; 1280; 1525/75, F
Schneider, Siegfried; 06.09.33; Frankfurt/O. XVIII; 051800; 1136; V/450/88,
Scholz, Gisela; 15.03.39; HVA; 961500; 1093; 5478/88, F
Schömann, Bodo; 12.12.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 1200; 5312/88,
Schönau, Lothar; 07.08.34; HVA; 961500; 1095; 3127/78, H
Schönau, Ruth; 23.02.33; HVA; 961500; 1095; 3127/78/1, H
Schönberg, Klaus; 27.12.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 9931; 3457/86,
Schönfeld, Dieter; 15.12.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 7570; 2806/89,
Schönfeld, Klaus; 14.09.41; HVA; 961500; 1136; 596/86, F
Schreyer, Harry; 16.01.38; HA I; 970100; 1185; K, 741/89
Schröder, Horst; 12.06.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 4090; 3458/86,
Schröter, Helmut; 14.08.35; KD Rostock; 010040; 2520; 552/75,
Schubert, Harry; 05.07.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 3693/78,
Schubert, Thomas; 10.05.57; HVA; 961500; 1090; 4848/80, F
Schulke, Klaus-Peter; 06.12.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 3953/76,
Schultze, Ralf; 30.04.56; HVA; 961500; 1150; 2306/74, F
Schulze, Alfred; 07.07.37; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 4324/87,
Schulze, Frank; 09.07.60; HVA; 961500; 1197; 650/75/69,
Schulz, Dorelies; 11.03.49; HVA; 961500; 1136; 4640/89, M
Schulz, Michael; 03.03.65; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 4909/86,
Schulz, Ronald; 22.08.61; HVA; 961500; 7700; 650/75/68,
Schulz, Udo; 30.03.58; HVA; 961500; 1143; 113/75, F
Schulz, Werner; 09.02.35; Frankfurt/O. XIX; 051900; 1200; V/437/88,
Schumacher, Michael; 13.04.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1090; 3819/79,
Schurz, Günter; 25.03.33; KD Dresden/Stadt; 120040; 8060; XII/2669/87,
Schuster, Bernd; 29.01.42; HVA; 961500; 1140; 61/67, M
Schußmann, Heike; 18.05.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 2000; 1712/89/1,
Schußmann, Klaus; 10.01.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 2000; 1712/89,
Schübel, Andreas; 03.10.61; HVA; 961500; 6301; 650/75/67,
Schütz, Harald; 19.09.32; HVA; 961500; 1153; 2580/65, K
Schwabe, Karl Heinz; 01.07.54; HVA; 961500; 1150; 234/79, J
Schwalbe, Manfred; 04.08.33; Frankfurt/O. XVIII; 051800; 1200; V/454/88,
Schwarzbach, Walter; 01.04.44; HVA; 961500; 1092; 5018/87, F
Schwarze, Lothar; 19.09.35; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8020; XII/1352/87,
Schwarz, Frank; 19.01.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 5327/80,
Schwarz, Stefan; 26.02.65; HVA; 961500; 1152; 1656/69/2, P
Schwenk, Wilfried; 03.02.55; HVA; 961500; 2620; 650/75/48,
Schwoch, Gerth; 28.06.51; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 7274/75,
Schwunteck, Harald; 26.08.57; Abt. N; 906540; 8010; 2966/79,
Seckel, Peter; 11.09.60; HVA; 961500; 1143; 3543/81, F
Seckel, Wolfgang; 01.02.39; Karl-Marx-Stadt XX; 142000; 9005; K/3430/89,
Seeger, Regina; 22.03.51; HVA; 961500; 1140; 109/78, J
Seelig, Werner; 11.04.14; HVA; 961500; 1140; 1472/87, F
Seel, Ingolf; 31.07.57; HVA; 961500; 1035; 368/78, F
Seel, Uwe; 06.09.57; HVA; 961500; 1143; 3962/83, N
Seel, Werner; 28.12.32; HVA; 961500; 1142; 3502/61, T
Seibt, Eberhard; 31.08.36; Dresden VII; 120700; 8060; XII/1340/87,
Seibt, Rudolf; 15.09.30; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 350/73,
Seibt, Siegfried; 24.04.34; Dresden II; 120200; 8021; XII/1338/87,
Seidel, Knut; 02.10.66; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 174,
Seidel, Marga; 07.07.36; HVA; 961500; 1092; 2310/88/1, E
Seidel, Matthias; 15.08.59; HVA; 961500; 1017; 491/80, F
Seidel, Michael; 21.07.52; HVA; 961500; 1092; 581/89, U
Seidel, Wolfgang; 24.05.31; HVA; 961500; 1092; 2310/88, E
Seiffert,Reimar; 12.11.29; KD Eisenhüttenstadt; 050045; 1220; V/433/88,
Sellig, Dieter; 11.07.34; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 7258/75,
Sell, Andreas; 28.06.54; HVA; 961500; 1095; 2311/88, O
Sendsitzky, Peter; 10.09.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 3723/80,
Seyfarth, Stephan; 22.12.60; HVA; 961500; 1040; 4609/80, J
Siegert, Gerhard; 31.05.48; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3883/76,
Siegler, Werner; 01.11.52; HVA; 961500; 1400; 1485/87, O
Sievers, Reinhard; 14.10.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 3822/77,
Siggelkow, Wolfgang; 03.11.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 2823; 590/88,
Sikorski, Joachim; 16.01.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5261/82,
Sikorski, Wolfgang; 27.11.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1156; 2309/73,
Simbrick, Joachim; 21.12.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1153; 6462/82,
Sitte, Jutta; 06.08.38; HVA; 961500; 1055; 4139/88, M
Sitte, Kurt; 08.09.38; HVA; 961500; 1055; 3009/89, M
Skibinski, Udo; 24.11.42; HVA; 961500; 1020; 326/73, F
Skirde, Udo; 18.01.38; HVA; 961500; 1130; 890/82, T
Smetana, Rüdiger; 18.02.39; BV Berlin XVIII; 151800; 1136; 417/79,
Smiejczak, Jan-Peter; 16.04.64; HVA; 961500; 1156; 2833/87, M
Smolinski, Hans-Joachim; 21.05.53; Abt. N; 906540; 9300; 4070/79,
Sodann, Peter; 23.09.39; HVA; 961500; 7060; 3932/87, M
Sommerfeld, Dirk; 20.06.50; HVA; 961500; 1280; 1555/87, F
Sonnenfeld, Kurt; 25.04.44; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 2262/87,
Sonntag, Peter; 18.03.55; HVA; 961500; 1092; 2817/80, M
Spangenberg, Heinz; 09.10.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 6550; 6665/82,
Spenke, Günter; 24.01.32; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 4550/77,
Sperling, Achim; 29.10.56; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4681/79, F
Sprenger, Gisela; 01.06.54; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2633/88, J
Springer, Dieter; 23.06.34; KD Schwedt; 050050; 1330; V/435/88,
Staigies, Artur; 26.10.30; OD KKW Nord; 010050; 2220; 1022/84,
Standke, Michael; 04.11.54; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9023; 179,
Stange, Detlef; 20.02.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1115; 5547/88,
Stapff, Dirk; 08.03.63; HVA; 961500; 1090; 2612/84, F
Starick, Hartmuth; 02.08.52; Abt. XI; 941100; 1080; 8509/81,
Städtke, Hartmut; 20.05.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 4029/79,
Steffin, Peter; 09.08.41; Rostock IX; 010900; 2520; 3762/82,
Steger, Ralph; 28.08.65; HVA; 961500; 1180; 2778/76/1, T
Stehr, Gerd; 29.03.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 1200; 3957/83,
Steinert, Joachim; 27.11.36; KD Rügen; 010046; 2355; 4028/86,
Steinmetz, Gerhard; 08.04.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1017; 1904/72,
Steinmüller, Peter; 07.03.56; HVA; 961500; 1142; 1881/88, A
Stein, Peter; 05.02.61; Dresden XX; 122000; 8019; XII/2405/88,
Stein, Werner; 01.08.37; KD Berlin-Friedrichshain; 150040; 1197; 5579/88,
Stephan, Wolfgang; 29.06.37; KD Dresden/Stadt; 120040; 8060; XII/1358/87,
Sternberger, Dieter; 02.12.34; Abt. N; 906540; 1195; 1474/65/1,
Sternberger, Erika; 08.02.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1195; 4586/85,
Steuding, Werner; 24.07.42; HA VI; 970600; 1190; K, 1042/87
Steyskal, Richard; 12.11.45; HVA; 961500; 1806; 650/75/53,
Stichler, Christian; 15.06.57; HVA; 961500; 1040; 3462/79, F
Stirzel, Werner; 10.06.34; KD Bautzen; 120042; 8600; XII/1354/87,
Stollmayer, Sabine; 10.03.51; HVA; 961500; 1293; 338/81, J
Stoll, Dietrich; 10.06.36; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2551; 417/71,
Stopp, Helmar; 01.07.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1123; 5218/84,
Storbeck, Lutz; 30.09.59; HVA; 961500; 1095; 2769/84, F
Stoye, Andre; 28.11.60; HVA; 961500; 1152; 3261/84, F
Straube, Jost; 18.09.58; HVA; 961500; 1058; 3573/82, F
Strauhs, Rüdiger; 05.03.55; Abt. XI; 941100; 1017; 6370/81,
Strähler, Gisela; 28.02.42; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 5150/88,
Strähler, Siegbert; 05.05.39; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 5151/88,
Streda, Sylvia; 06.10.54; KD Schwedt; 050050; 1330; V/440/88,
Striegler, Ralf; 14.07.64; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1642/85,
Strischek, Erika; 11.11.49; HVA; 961500; 1035; 4270/78/1, N
Strischek, Rudolf; 23.08.45; HVA; 961500; 1035; 4270/78, N
Strobel, Günter; 02.04.36; HA I; 970100; 8312; K, 5809/82,
Stroth, Elke; 28.06.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 2760; 498/86/1,
Stroth, Heiko; 15.06.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 2760; 498/86,
Strutz, Reiner; 01.06.52; HVA; 961500; 2861; 309/76, F
Stuhl, Diethard; 02.03.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 6018; 591/88,
Stüdemann, Robert; 14.11.50; HVA; 961500; 1071; 1870/87, L
Stümer, Hans; 18.03.31; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3032/82, J
Stürmer, Gerlinde; 24.01.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 2015/80,
Suhm, Rüdiger; 24.02.60; Abt. XI; 941100; 2831; 5346/85,
Swienty, Gerald; 25.03.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 2093/72,
Switalla, Heinz-Joachim; 12.01.46; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2105/73, O
Taubert, Gerald; 05.07.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5326/80,
Tausend, Klaus; 06.04.47; Abt. XI; 941100; 1142; 6987/75/1,
Teichmeyer, Lutz; 28.10.50; HVA; 961500; 1144; 1603/75, M
Tellbrun, Wolfgang; 09.07.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 5133/76,
Telschow, Lieselotte; 24.03.35; HVA; 961500; 1136; 5181/84, U
Teuter, Maik; 21.12.64; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 2729/86,
Thale, Klaus; 06.04.44; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 666/66,
Thäter, Wolfgang; 23.02.45; KD Berlin-Weißensee; 150047; 1140; 1484/82,
Thiele, Horst; 26.09.34; HVA; 961500; 1093; 2481/88, F
Thiele, Ingrid; 04.08.38; HVA; 961500; 1093; 2481/88/1, F
Thiel, Manfred; 12.04.39; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 9804/61,
Thomas, Heinz; 07.06.42; HVA; 961500; 6902; 3672/88, M
Thomas, Karsten; 18.02.62; HVA; 961500; 1153; 3407/84, F
Thomas, Manfred; 23.03.57; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 3475/76,
Thomas, Nikita; 18.06.51; HVA; 961500; 1092; 650/75/32,
Thümmel, Elke; 25.12.56; HVA; 961500; 8060; 2528/88/1, F
Thümmel, Volker; 16.01.59; Abt. XI; 941100; 8060; 2528/88,
Thürasch, Carola; 01.11.59; HVA; 961500; 1597; 3849/86, F
Thürasch, Werner; 06.06.50; Abt. XI; 941100; 1597; 4417/84,
Tiede, Lars; 16.02.67; HVA; 961500; 2560; 2767/89, F
Tietsche, Frank; 25.06.55; HVA; 961500; 1141; 361/74, F
Tietz, Gisa; 14.03.47; HVA; 961500; 1092; 2428/79, O.
Tietz, Hans-Joachim; 27.01.47; HVA; 961500; 2000; 514/87, F
Tippmann, Falk; 12.06.53; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9050; 169,
Tkatsch, Ingo; 06.11.66; HVA; 961500; 1150; 2143/86, A
Tondock, Heinz; 08.02.30; HVA; 961500; 1156; 1601/75, M
Tornau, Andre; 15.10.65; Schwerin II; 020200; 2755; :
Treder, Gerd; 30.06.40; Rostock , Abt. Hafen; 011969; 2520; 3062/85,
Trenkmann, Ute; 20.09.52; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3904/86/1, F
Trenkmann, Wolfgang; 10.07.51; HVA; 961500; 1156; 3904/86, F
Triegel, Rainer; 17.01.62; Abt. N; 906540; 1034; 5788/82,
Trinks, Hartmut; 24.07.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1150; 3474/76,
Troisch, Andreas; 15.11.57; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2691/80, F
Trommler, Werner; 28.02.51; HVA; 961500; 1156; 957/89, F
Tschiharz, Ute; 03.05.58; HVA; 961500; 3540; 650/75/49/1,
Tschiharz, Wolfgang; 12.06.51; HVA; 961500; 3540; 650/75/49,
Tusche, Hans-Jürgen; 11.07.43; Abt. XI; 941100; 1020; 288/67,
Uher, Edgar; 09.11.52; HVA; 961500; 1142; 175/75, F
Uhlig, Andrea; 01.05.57; HVA; 961500; 1250; 2664/84, J
Uhlig, Gerd; 16.11.46; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 2114/66,
Uhlig, Gunter; 17.10.52; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9044; 163,
Ulbrich, Fritz; 11.12.36; Abt. XI; 941100; 1095; 922/82,
Ullmann, Klaus; 16.10.51; Karl-Marx-Stadt VIII; 140800; 9001; 168,
Unger, Dieter; 29.12.52; HVA; 961500; 1156; 2427/74, F
Unger, Peter; 18.06.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 5095/77,
Unmack, Franz; 01.08.48; HVA; 961500; 1055; 177/79, M
Unseld, Werner; 26.05.28; HVA; 961500; 4500; 18264/60, Y
Unterlauf, Diethard; 05.04.46; HVA; 961500; 9999; 337/77, O
Urban, Hartmut; 08.04.45; Abt. N; 906540; 1162; 1346/68,
Van Rossum, Ralf; 20.03.43; HVA; 961500; 9999; 2856/80, M
Vieweg, Jens-Uwe; 27.12.58; Abt. XI; 941100; 1200; 4706/85,
Vogel, Michael; 25.10.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 1551/80,
Vogler, Reinhard; 15.07.49; HVA; 961500; 5820; 650/75/70,
Vogl, Hansjochen; 09.07.37; HVA; 961500; 1100; 6183/82/1, L
Vogt, Ditmar; 02.05.38; Abt. N; 906540; 1199; 5073/77,
Voigtländer, Christian; 03.12.47; HVA; 961500; 4090; 476/88, A
Voigtländer, Gunter; 25.06.52; HVA; 961500; 1055; 2769/87, F
Voigt, Armin; 22.10.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 412/77,
Voigt, Helmut; 15.02.50; HVA; 961500; 1017; 2482/88, F
Voigt, Knut; 01.08.48; HVA; 961500; 1156; 1430/85, M
Vollmeyer, Wolfgang; 10.10.50; HA VI; 970600; 1054; K, 4427/87
Vopel, Dieter; 03.01.35; HVA; 961500; 1090; 4083/81, M
Vopel, Elke; 26.03.47; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 417/70/2,
Vopel, Hans; 11.08.45; Abt. XI; 941100; 1600; 417/70/1,
Vorberg, Horst; 10.04.53; KD Zwickau; 140061; 9561; K/1436/89,
Voßwinkel, Hartmut; 29.04.50; HVA; 961500; 1140; 353/77, A
Völkel, Alfred; 20.06.31; HVA; 961500; 1113; 18556/60, E
Völkel, Heiko; 23.03.62; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2859/84, U
Völz, Andreas; 29.12.56; Abt. XI; 941100; 9900; 4170/83,
Vtelensky, Rainer; 04.11.44; OD KKW Nord; 010050; 2200; 2678/70,
Wadewitz, Volker; 04.08.57; HVA; 961500; 1034; 2472/79, F
Wagenknecht, Bernd; 20.12.40; HA IX; 990900; 1020; K, 5799/82
Wagner, Michael; 28.08.61; Abt. XI; 941100; 7065; 6932/88,
Wagner, Silke; 28.12.64; HVA; 961500; 7065; 6932/88/1, F
Walter, Isolde; 27.02.48; Rostock VIII; 010800; 1153; 2832/85,
Warncke, Claus-Dieter; 06.04.44; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 2496/74,
Warnecke, Siegfried; 27.12.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 1985/79,
Warzel, Franz; 14.05.28; HVA; 961500; 1020; 181/73, M
Wächter, Wolfgang; 28.09.49; HVA; 961500; 9270; 650/75/16,
Wäckerle, Andrej; 03.04.50; HVA; 961500; 1092; 4683/79, M
Wähner, Jürgen; 28.04.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1093; 3473/76,
Weber, Dieter; 16.06.49; HVA; 961500; 1120; 1779/71, F
Weber, Frank; 06.10.50; KD Dresden/Land; 120041; 8270; XII/2668/87,
Weber, Gerd; 02.07.65; HVA; 961500; 1090; 3383/85, Q
Weber, Hans; 11.07.43; HVA; 961500; 1130; 192/73, X
Weber, Rainer; 06.11.45; HVA; 961500; 1110; 6794/82, O
Weber, Ulrich; 09.03.45; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 1990/69,
Wedel, Kay; 07.03.64; Abt. N; 906540; 1144; 4933/86,
Weichman, Jürgen; 22.02.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1156; 3212/77,
Weidehase, Jörg; 25.10.54; Abt. N; 906540; 1142; 3392/76,
Weigand, Andre; 09.04.68; HVA; 961500; 7024; 3118/89, S
Weigelt, Lutz; 22.01.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 3391/76,
Weigel, Jens-Friedrich; 28.06.50; Abt. N; 906540; 1291; 7268/75,
Weigold, Dieter; 13.02.41; Abt. N; 906540; 1058; 2901/66,
Weihrauch, Heike; 11.07.59; HVA; 961500; 2050; 650/75/71/1,
Weinert, Gerhard; 06.10.39; KD Grimmen; 010044; 2300; 1608/70,
Weirich, Manfred; 11.06.38; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 9798/61,
Weller, Jörg; 11.01.63; HVA; 961500; 1092; 1047/82, M
Welzel, Herbert; 30.04.44; Abt. N; 906540; 1281; 7265/75,
Welzel, Jürgen; 12.05.54; KD Greifswald; 010042; 2200; 617/83,
Wenzel, Joachim; 04.01.53; HVA; 961500; 1142; 5693/83, F
Wenzel, Joachim; 10.12.41; Abt. XI; 941100; 1400; 182/70,
Wenzel, Rolf; 13.05.47; Abt. XI; 941100; 1144; 1748/75,
Werner, Dietmar; 12.04.47; Abt. N; 906540; 1017; 376/69,
Werner, Günter; 31.01.37; HVA; 961500; 1160; 4553/85, H
Werner, Hartmut; 19.01.45; Abt. XI; 941100; 1156; 176/72,
Werner, Uwe; 04.08.61; HVA; 961500; 1143; 1577/86, F
Werner, Wolfgang; 17.11.35; HA VI; 970600; 1140; K, 505/87
Werner, Wolfgang; 24.08.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1020; 3884/76,
Wernicke, Günter; 10.07.49; Abt. XI; 941100; 1157; 98/75,
Wessendorf, Volker; 09.12.51; HVA; 961500; 1190; 1478/87, F
Wesser, Andrea; 20.04.64; HVA; 961500; 1100; 661/86, J
Westland, Jürgen; 08.01.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1156; 2895/77,
Wetzel, Katrin; 29.03.60; HVA; 961500; 1145; 475/78, J
Wiedemann, Günther; 12.07.56; Abt. N; 906540; 1280; 5219/84,
Wiertelorz, Horst; 05.07.49; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 3892/77,
Wiesel, Bernd; 20.04.58; Abt. N; 906540; 1143; 2129/78,
Wiesner, Erhard; 31.07.36; HVA; 961500; 1140; 3659/64, M
Wilde, Dirk; 24.12.63; Abt. XI; 941100; 2300; :
Wilde, Hans-Heinz; 27.07.32; Rostock XVIII; 011800; 2300; 5749/79,
Wilhelm, Ralf; 15.07.51; HVA; 961500; 1142; 23/77, F
Wilke, Hartmut; 09.05.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1092; 5019/85,
Winderlich, Jens; 10.10.67; HVA; 961500; 1093; 3453/86, O
Winkler, Anton; 22.03.42; HVA; 961500; 1156; 4674/89, M
Winkler, Georg; 07.08.30; Dresden XVIII; 121800; 8250; XII/1347/87,
Winkler, Günter; 30.04.45; HVA; 961500; 1142; 1996/73, A
Winter, Marina; 26.11.60; HVA; 961500; 1130; 4293/84, J
Witte, Dieter; 23.11.37; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 5039/76,
Wittstock, Manfred; 31.03.32; Rostock VII; 010700; 2500; 936/64,
Witzel, Rainer; 19.04.64; HVA; 961500; 1090; 3581/88, M
Witzmann, Helmar; 06.08.54; Abt. XI; 941100; 1142; 3959/83,
Wokurka, Ulf; 31.10.62; HVA; 961500; 1055; 4228/83, F
Wolfsteller, Roland; 11.11.59; Abt. N; 906540; 2080; 1598/81,
Wolf, Barbara; 11.02.45; HVA; 961500; 1595; 804/83/1, F
Wolf, Jürgen; 15.10.51; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 2741/77,
Wolf, Klaus; 30.03.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1095; 2012/78,
Wolf, Matthias; 24.11.60; HVA; 961500; 1090; 3051/89, E
Wolf, Rainer; 22.02.59; Abt. N; 906540; 1130; 1548/80,
Wolf, Ulrich; 13.03.43; HVA; 961500; 1595; 804/83, F
Wolkenstein, Dietrich; 09.03.35; HVA; 961500; 1281; 962/64, M
Wolkenstein, Hubertus; 25.12.63; HVA; 961500; 1142; 6480/82, M
Wolkenstein, Renate; 23.08.33; HVA; 961500; 1281; 962/64/1, M
Worsch, Jürgen; 28.09.48; Abt. XI; 941100; 1140; 339/73,
Worsch, Ursula; 04.02.49; HVA; 961500; 1140; 339/73/2, E
Wotzka, Jörg-Michael; 27.07.47; KD Rostock; 010040; 2520; 3391/89,
Wöller, Klaus; 31.12.30; HVA; 961500; 1020; 2953/77, J
Wunderlich, Uwe; 06.05.60; Abt. N; 906540; 1140; 4037/79,
Würzburg, Gerd; 10.06.57; HVA; 961500; 1157; 421/79, F
Zapke, Helge-Jens; 01.10.67; Abt. N; 906540; 1156; 953/87,
Zech, Jürgen; 16.07.51; HVA; 961500; 1055; 4598/87, F
Zehl, Klaus; 07.01.38; Rostock VI; 010600; 2510; 553/75,
Zeiseweis, Ralf; 11.11.62; BV Berlin XX; 152000; 1140; 3299/88,
Zeiske, Tino; 27.07.61; HVA; 961500; 1143; 2614/84, F
Zellmer, Bernd; 04.12.55; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 3620/77,
Zentsch, Peter; 28.08.41; Rostock, BKG; 012900; 2500; 2254/84,
Zetzsche, Jürgen; 16.10.52; Abt. N; 906540; 1144; 1753/80,
Ziegler, Frank; 15.11.63; HVA; 961500; 7010; 3341/86, S
Ziesche, Hans-Dieter; 16.01.60; HVA; 961500; 1017; 205/84, F
Ziese, Elvira; 09.10.54; Frankfurt/O. VI; 050600; 1200; V/441/88,
Zilm, Klaus; 03.03.51; HVA; 961500; 1601; 422/87, F
Zimmermann, Bernd; 07.08.39; HVA; 961500; 1080; 458/63, A
Zimmermann, Peter; 09.11.38; Frankfurt/O. XVIII; 051800; 1203; V/445/88,
Zimmermann, Werner; 05.03.46; Dresden VI; 120600; 8080; XII/1165/88,
Zobel, Frank; 03.04.67; HVA; 961500; 2003; 2842/89, J
Zobler, Günter; 06.09.36; HVA; 961500; 1120; 1826/88, A
Zurflüh, Joachim; 24.12.35; Abt. XI; 941100; 1150; 237/70,
Zwetz, Axel; 13.05.38; Abt. N; 906540; 1136; 958/65,

INVESTIGATING “GoMoPa4KIDS” – Protecting Children: Technology and partnerships help an FBI initiative ID sex abuse victims and criminals.

Man at computer silhouette

Protecting our Children
Technology, Partnerships Work Hand in Hand

10/03/11

Investigators dedicated to rescuing child victims of sexual abuse and arresting those who traffic in child pornography are often faced with the difficult and time-consuming task of analyzing hundreds of thousands of illicit images traded online.

Cyber month bannerFor the eighth year in a row, October has been designated National Cyber Security Awareness Month. The goal: to reinforce the importance of protecting the cyber networks that are so much a part of our daily lives. The theme of the observance, which is sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security, is “Our Shared Responsibility.” Over the course of the month we will be posting additional stories and information about cyber crimes and security.

That painstaking work is critical to identifying victims and their abusers, however, and members of our Digital Analysis and Research Center (DARC)—part of the FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative—use a mix of sophisticated computer tools and domestic and international partnerships to get the job done.

DARC personnel, who analyze digital evidence in the most significant online child exploitation cases, are currently testing a software tool called the Child Exploitation Tracking System (CETS). The CETS program—already in use in several locations around the world—is designed to streamline investigations and integrate with other CETS operations so that law enforcement agencies can enhance their cooperation and efficiently move their cases forward.

“CETS has tremendous potential for the FBI,” said Special Agent Barbara Cordero, a veteran cyber investigator who manages research, development, and training for the Innocent Images National Initiative. “Eventually, when everyone is plugged into CETS, it will allow law enforcement everywhere to share key information.”

“If I’m in a small police department in Iowa, I might not know that another department in Maryland is investigating the same subject I am investigating,” Cordero explained. “CETS will tell me that, along with other important information.”

Innocent Images
The FBI established the Innocent Images National Initiative in 1995 to address the proliferation of child pornography and child exploitation facilitated by the Internet. A component of the Bureau’s cyber crimes program, the Innocent Images initiative takes a proactive, multi-agency, investigative approach that relies on strong domestic and international law enforcement partnerships.

The initiative prioritizes several investigative areas, including:

– Online organizations and enterprises that exploit children for profit or personal gain;

– Major distributors and producers of child pornography;

– Individuals who travel—or are willing to travel—for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a minor; and

– Possessors of child pornography.

 

Essentially, CETS is a repository that can be filled with records pertaining to child pornography and child exploitation cases. The system can contain images, case information, identities of known offenders along with information about their Internet addresses, and other related material. The program can analyze millions of pornographic images, helping law enforcement personnel avoid duplication of effort. The program can also perform in-depth analyses, establishing links in cases that investigators might not have seen by themselves.

“CETS has the ability to put the same information in one place and make it available in a unified standard for everyone,” said Special Agent Charles Wilder, who heads DARC. “That’s important because the Internet has removed all geographic boundaries in these types of crimes.”

The CETS program was created by Microsoft at the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police National Child Exploitation Coordination Center—investigators there wanted a system designed specifically for child exploitation cases. The program is now being used in Canada and Australia—and Interpol, the international police organization, is working with several of its member countries to integrate CETS into its existing systems.

The ultimate goal is to expand the number of CETS users and to one day integrate all the operations so investigators can share information in a truly global way. “Right now,” Cordero said, “the immediate benefit for the FBI is that CETS saves us a tremendous amount of time in the image review process. Bad guys who trade pornographic images have massive collections,” she said. “We regularly seize hundreds of thousands of images. CETS makes the review process extremely efficient.”

She added, “The FBI has terrific partnerships with cyber investigators in the U.S. and around the world. As we move forward, CETS will allow us to strengthen those partnerships by sharing more and more critical information. This type of technology is a model for the future.”

STALINISTISCHE FÄLSCHUNGEN DER NEO-STASI “GoMoPa” – BEISPIEL MERIDIAN CAPITAL

http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com/

TOP-SECRET – CHE GUEVARA’S HAIR AUCTIONED OFF

CHE GUEVARA’S HAIR AUCTIONED OFF

Scrapbook of memorabilia kept by CIA operative who buried Che renews attention to Guevara’s execution, U.S. Role

Selling of history, including captured Cuban records,
intercepts and communications, raises questions about future access

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 232


Washington, DC, October 3, 2011 – As a lock of Che Guevara’s hair along with photos, captured documents, intelligence intercepts, and original fingerprints relating to the capture, execution and secret burial of the Argentine-born revolutionary sold at auction for $100,000, the National Security Archive posted declassified U.S. documents relating to his death 40 years ago this month. (Censored versions of some of the documents were first posted on the 30th anniversary of Guevara’s execution, which took place on October 9, 1967 in Bolivia.)

The macabre collection of memorabilia purchased yesterday by a lone bidder was compiled by a Cuban exile CIA operative named Gustavo Villoldo, who was tasked to help capture Guevara and, after his execution by the Bolivian military, secretly bury him in the middle of the night. Before Guevara’s hands were cut off, Villoldo helped fingerprint his corpse, and a “death mask”–a plaster cast of his face–was made as proof that the real Che had been captured and killed. The covert operative also clipped a portion of Che’s beard as a memento of the CIA’s triumph over Latin America’s most famous revolutionary.

“This collection of memorabilia records one of the most dramatic episodes in the history of revolution and counterrevolution during the Cold War,” said Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive’s Cuba Documentation Project. “The documents and photos are of high value to current and future students of Latin America and U.S. policy toward the region.”

The documents posted today by the Archive include secret memos to President Lyndon Johnson on Che’s capture and death and a declassified debriefing with another CIA operative, Félix Rodríguez, who was present when Che was executed.

The government of Venezuela had reportedly expressed interest in bidding on the collection, but the hair and original documents and photos were purchased by a Houston boosktore owner, Bill Butler. Kornbluh said he hoped the new owner would make the documents and scrapbook available for public study or donate them to a museum.


Read the Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

CIA Debriefing of Félix Rodríguez [aka Benton Mizones], June 3, 1975
When Che Guevara was executed in La Higuera, one CIA operative was present–a Cuban-American operative named Félix Rodríguez. Rodríguez, who used the codename “Félix Ramos” in Bolivia and posed as a Bolivian military officer, was secretly debriefed on his role by the CIA’s office of the Inspector General in June, 1975. (At the time, he was identified as Benton H. Mizones; the name of the second operative, Gustavo Villoldo, is deleted in the document in the spaces marked [ 06 ].)  Rodríguez recounts the details of his mission to Bolivia, where the CIA sent him and Villoldo to assist in the capture of Guevara and destruction of his guerrilla band. Rodríguez and Villoldo became part of a CIA task force in Bolivia that included the case officer for the operation, “Jim”, another Cuban American, Mario Osiris Riveron, and two agents in charge of communications in Santa Clara. Rodríguez emerged as the most important member of the group; after a lengthy interrogation of one captured guerrilla, he was instrumental in focusing the efforts of the 2nd Ranger Battalion on the Vallegrande region, where he believed Guevara’s rebels were operating. Although he apparently was under CIA instructions to “do everything possible to keep him alive,” Rodríguez claims to have transmitted the order to execute Guevara from the Bolivian High Command to the soldiers at La Higueras–he also directed them not to shoot Guevara in the face so that his wounds would appear to be combat-related–and personally informed Che that he would be killed. After the execution, Rodríguez took Che’s Rolex watch. He accompanied Guevara’s body back to Vallegrande, where Villoldo “took charge of the remains.”

State Department Cable, Official Confirmation of Death of Che Guevara, October 18, 1967
Ten days after his capture, U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia Douglas Henderson transmitted confirmation of Guevara’s death to Washington. The evidence included autopsy reports and fingerprint analysis conducted by Argentine police officials on Che’s amputated hands. (Che’s hands were cut off to provide proof that he was actually dead; under the supervision of CIA agent Gustavo Villoldo, his body was then secretly buried  at a desolate airstrip at Vallegrande, where it was discovered only in June 1997.) The various death documents, notes Ambassador Henderson, leave “unsaid the time of death”–“an attempt to bridge the difference between a series of earlier divergent statements from Armed Forces sources, ranging from assertions that he died during or shortly after battle to those suggesting he survived at least twenty-four hours.”

White House Memorandum, October 14, 1967
In a final update, Walt Rostow informs Lyndon Johnson that the CIA has intercepted messages between Havana and Che from earlier in 1967 regarding the intent of the Bolivian operation to create a “continental movement.” CIA intelligence, originally redacted from the document but released in 2003, noted attempts by then Chilean Senator Salvador Allende to recover Guevara’s remains and the efforts by the Bolivian military to cover up his execution.

White House Memorandum, October 11, 1967
In another update for President Johnson, Walt Rostow reports to President Johnson that “we are 99% sure that ‘Che’ Guevara is dead.” Rostow believes the decision to execute Guevara “is stupid,” but he also points out that his death “shows the soundness of our ‘preventive medicine’ assistance to countries facing incipient insurgency–it was the Bolivian 2nd Ranger Battalion, trained by our Green Berets from June-September of this year, that cornered him and got him.”

CIA, Intelligence Information Cable, October 9, 1967
The CIA sends its first intelligence report on the capture of Che Guevara. The cable states that the Bolivian army is dispatching an interrogator to confirm Che’s identity. The CIA also dispatched its own operative, Félix Rodríguez, who interrogated Guevara, gathered intelligence on his operation, and took photos of his documents and supervised his execution.

White House Memorandum, October 9, 1967
Walt Rostow reports in this memorandum to President Johnson that unconfirmed information suggests that the Bolivian battalion–“the one we have been training”–“got Che Guevara.”

White House Memorandum, June 23, 1967
In a secret-sensitive memo to President Johnson, his aide Walt Rostow passes on the first evidence that Che Guevara may be leading a small band of insurgents in Bolivia. The memo outlines the rapid U.S. military assistance to Bolivia and notes CIA is “following developments closely.” It is around this time that Gustavo Villoldo and Félix Rodríguez are sent to Bolivia to assist the training of a special battalion, and to track the rebel forces.

TOP-SECRET – Fujimori on Trial

FUJIMORI ON TRIAL
SECRET DIA INTELLIGENCE CABLE TIES
FORMER PRESIDENT TO SUMMARY EXECUTIONS

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 237

Washington, DC, October 3, 2011:  As disgraced former president Alberto Fujimori goes on trial in Lima, Peru, for human rights atrocities, the National Security Archive posted a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency cable tying him directly to the executions of unarmed rebels who had surrendered after the seizure of the residence of Japanese ambassador in 1997. “President Fujimori issued the order to ‘take no prisoners,’” states the secret “roger channel” intelligence cable. “Because of this even MRTA [Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement members] who were taken alive did not survive the rescue operation.”

The new DIA cable was released on the Archive Web site along with other declassified documents that shed light on human rights crimes under Fujimori’s government, his close ties to his intelligence chieftain, Vladimiro Montecinos, and the two cases for which the imprisoned former president is now being prosecuted: the death squad kidnapping and disappearance of nine students and one professor at La Cantuta University in July 1992, and the massacre of a group of 15 leftists and an eight-year-old child during a neighborhood community barbeque in Barrios Altos in November 1991.

The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by analysts at the Archive’s Peru Documentation Project. The project has provided declassified evidence drawn from U.S. records to Peruvian human rights advocates and officials for over a decade.

“The prosecution of Alberto Fujimori is nothing less than a historic event in the history of the human rights movement in Latin America,” according to Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst on Latin America at the Archive.  “It is a major step toward truth and justice in Peru and the Western Hemisphere.”

READ THE DOCUMENTS

l) Defense Intelligence Agency, Cable, [Deleted] Commando Execution of Two MRTA Hostage Takers and “Take No Prisoners” Order, June 10, 1997, Secret, 2 pp.

This DIA cable, classified SECRET and sent from Lima through a special “roger channel” to the Pentagon, ties President Alberto Fujimori to a specific human rights atrocity committed at the end of the siege of the Japanese Ambassador’s residence by MRTA guerrillas.  An intelligence source who appeared to have participated in the assault to retake the residence, stated that two rebels surrendered and were then summarily executed. According to the source, “The order to take no MRTA alive was given by President Alberto Fujimori. …because of this, even MRTA who were taken alive did not survive the rescue operation.” The document also describes the way Peruvian paramilitary commandos attempted to cover up the execution of the guerrillas. (Another source later reported that three rebels, two men and a woman, were executed after surrendering.)

2) State Department, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, “Peru, Freefall,” July 31, 1997. Top Secret/Codeword, 2 pp.

In a classified report, State Department intelligence analysts summarize the dramatic decline of President Fujimori’s popular support in Peru.  The report describes Fujimori’s “murky” relationship to his top military and intelligence aides and states that they have “alienated most Peruvians with strong-arm measures.”

3) U.S. Embassy Cable, [Excised] Comments on Fujimori, Montesinos, but not on Barrios Altos, January 22, 1993, Secret, 10 pp. (previously posted)

An undisclosed source describes the close and complicated relationship between President Fujimori and his top intelligence aide, Vladimiro Montesinos. The source notes that while Fujimori understands the importance of human rights, in practice he “is prepared to sacrifice principles to achieve a quick victory over terrorism.”  He is “absolutely committed to destroying Sendero Luminoso and the MRTA within his five year term and is prepared to countenance any methods that achieve that goal.”

4) US Embassy Cable, Systematic Human Rights Violations Under Fujimori: Ex-Army Officer Describes his Role in Assassinations, Letter Bombs, Rape and Torture, June 30, 1994, Secret, 29pp. (previously posted)

In one of the most “detailed accounts” of human rights violations ever transmitted by the U.S. Embassy, this cable describes the history of state-sponsored abuses from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s in Peru, covering both the Garcia and Fujimori eras of power.  The source, an ex-Army officer, outlines the structure of the army and intelligence units who participated in atrocities such as torture, rape, and terrorism, as well as his personal involvement in human rights abuses. The summary includes detailed descriptions of the types of torture used by the military; their assassination targets; and the use of anti-bomb training assistance from the U.S. to create better bombs for assassination attempts.  “None of the source’s statements on methods are new,” the Embassy political officer reports. “What was striking, not to say chilling, about his allegations – apart from his total lack of remorse – was his insistence that such violations were the norm, rather than excesses.”

5) U.S. Embassy, Cable, Claimed Member of ‘Colina’ Describes Barrios Altos Executions, March 15, 1994, Secret, 11 pp. (previously posted)

The Embassy cables a highly classified summary of a report allegedly drafted by a member of the feared Peruvian death squad known as “La Colina.” The report details the creation, organization, leadership, training and atrocities committed by the death squad.  It includes some of its nick names such as “Special Intelligence Annihilation Group.” The cable contains a graphic account of how death squad members prepared for the Barrios Altos operation, which was authorized by President Fujimori’s top advisor, Vladimiro Montesinos.  The victims were lined up against a wall. “Using submachine guns with silencers, the shooting took 20 seconds,” according to the report. An eight-year old boy who witnessed the executions was then also shot.

6) U.S. Embassy Cable, Military Watcher on Army Attitudes to La Cantuta Disappearances, June 3, 1993. confidential. 2 pp.

An embassy contact discusses with US officials the feeling among the Peruvian military that the Army Commander and President of the Joint Armed Force Command, General Nicolas Hermoza, should “take responsibility” for the La Cantuta massacre. The source claims that “senior and mid-grade officers acknowledge the existence of military hit squads” and believe that the operation at La Cantuta University, was “terribly planned and the details too widely known.” But the military reportedly feels that the death squad who carried out the attack should not be punished “just for killing terrorists.”

7. U.S.  Embassy Cable, Reported Secret Annex to National Pacification/Human Rights Plan, August 23, 1990. Secret, 4 pp.

Following the Fujimori government’s announcement of a “National Pacification/Human Rights Plan” in 1990, the US embassy reports that there is “an alleged secret” annex to the public plan. The secret plan calls for the military to take a greater role in security operations, and allows for the National Intelligence Service (SIN) to form new sub-committees to direct the “pacification” plan. The plan also alters the SIN’s charter to expand the power of the secret police. The cable goes on to question if the plan was actually put into effect by Fujimori, or whether it was just the product of a group of retired military officers close to Montesinos. They refer to reports that Fujimori may be trying to distance himself from Montesinos because of public exposure of his links to drug traffickers. Embassy officials conclude, however, that even if the secret plan did not receive Fujimori’s endorsement, it does in fact exist, and is held by a group of men who “at least one time had considerable influence and access to decision-making circles.”

SPIEGEL -“GELIEBTER GENOSSE”-WIE STASI-OBERST STELZER BND-CHEF HELLENBROICH FÜR “GoMoPa” ANWARB

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13502488.html

FAZ ÜBER DIE NEO-STASI “GoMoPa” UND DEREN EINSCHLÄGIG BEKANNTE “PARTNER” “GERD BENNEWIRTZ” UND “PETER EHLERS”

http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30350/wirtschaftskriminalitaet-grossrazzia-wegen-verdachts-auf-insiderhandel-30309286.html

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY – FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending September 30, 2011

Washington, D.C. September 30, 2011
  • FBI National Press Office (202) 324-3691
— filed under: ,
  1. Newark: International Fugitive Captured After More than 40 YearsGeorge Wright, a fugitive for over 41 years, was arrested by Portuguese authorities, pursuant to a provisional arrest request from the United States. The United States is seeking his extradition from Portugal to serve the remainder of a 15- to 30-year sentence for a New Jersey state murder conviction. Full Story
  2. Boston: Man Charged with Plotting Attack on Pentagon and U.S. Capitol and Attempting to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist OrganizationRezwan Ferdaus was arrested and charged in connection with his plot to damage or destroy the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol using large remote controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives. Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen, was also charged with attempting to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda in order to carry out attacks on U.S. soldiers stationed overseas. Full Story
  3. Washington Field: Former Guard Charged with Attempting to Communicate National Defense Information to People’s Republic of ChinaBryan Underwood, a former contract guard working at a U.S. Consulate in China, was charged in a superseding indictment with one count of attempting to communicate national defense information to a foreign government. Full Story
  4. Philadelphia: More than Two Dozen Boeing Employees Arrested in Prescription Drug StingAgents from the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration arrested employees and former employees of Boeing’s Ridley Park, Pennsylvania plant and one non-employee in an effort aimed at prescription drug abuse at the manufacturing plant. Full Story
  5. San Diego: Thirty-Six Defendants with Ties to Hells Angels Motorcycle Club Charged in Federal Drug Conspiracy InvestigationTwenty-six individuals with ties to the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club were arrested this week. Six defendants were already in custody and four are considered fugitives at this time. Full Story
  6. San Juan: Twenty-Seven Individuals Indicted for Drug TraffickingTwenty-seven individuals were indicted on drug-related charges as a result of a joint investigation into a drug distribution conspiracy at the Brisas del Mar Public Housing Project and other areas located in the Municipality of Salinas, Puerto Rico. Full Story
  7. Seattle: Public Awareness Campaign Launched to Seek New Information in the Murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney

    Attorney General Eric Holder joined the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, the Wales family, and the FBI in Seattle to announce a new media and social media effort to seek information related to the 2001 slaying of Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas C. Wales. Full Story
  8. Detroit: Furukawa, Three Execs Guilty in Price-Fixing and Bid-Rigging ConspiracyFurukawa Electric Co. Ltd., headquartered in Tokyo, agreed to plead guilty and pay a $200 million fine for its role in a criminal price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy involving the sale of parts to automobile manufacturers. Three executives, who are Japanese nationals, have also agreed to plead guilty and to serve prison time in the United States ranging from a year and a day to 18 months. Full Story
  9. El Paso: New Mexico Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Murder of a ChildThelton Andres Riley was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for the death of a 7-month-old child on August 10, 2009, on Fort Bliss. Full Story
  10. Springfield: Man Sentenced for Making False Threat to Detonate ExplosivesA Fairview Heights man was sentenced for making a false threat to detonate an explosive device and for influencing a federal officer by threat. Full Story

TOP-SECRET – Trial by Jury: Judging the NYPD Ring of Steel

+ +

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

After 9/11, the NYPD surrounded Lower Manhattan’s civic center with enhanced security architecture commonly referred to as the ‘Ring of Steel’.

With its local and global reach, the zone is a signature public space of our time: encrypted, hardened.

Our exposition subjects the Ring of Steel to its own trial by jury. We propose new pathways to interrogate the bias against civic-mindedness revealed by command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance procedures and technologies.

This is critical for those called to the civic center for jury duty — especially from communities underrepresented in the jury pool, who might be intimidated by security theater even before they face examination about their impartiality during a jury trial.

TOP-SECRET – Net Worth by John Galt OWS

ia: http://twitter.com/#!/WeRallJohnGalt John Galt (“John Galt” is an Ayn Rand fictional hero.)

These appeared as Occupy Wall Street dissent, most at Twitter #ows. Repetition of entries deliberate.

Cryptome Occupy Wall Street photo and video series: http://cryptome.org/ows-series.htm

Cryptome Protest Photos Series: http://cryptome.org/protest-series.htm


Bill Maher, defender of poor, atheist, net worth $23M #p2

5 hours ago


Mark Ruffalo, avenger to poor, speaker at #OWS today, net worth $10M #p2 #ows

6 hours ago


Tim Robbins, boy toy to Susan Sarandon, net worth $45M. #p2 #ows

6 hours ago


Susan Sarandon, warrior against Rich, friend to #OWS, net worth $50M #p2 #ows

6 hours ago


John Goodman, Roseannes’s TV hubby, portraying a “normal guy”, built a net worth of $65M. He owns four homes over 5,000 SF each. #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


CNN’s Anderson Cooper. 360. Investigating corruption & greed. Net worth $110M. Makes $11M per year. #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Harry “jobs” Reid, union friend, defender of poor, net worth $5M #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Nancy Pelosi, Joan D’Arc of working class, net worth $36M #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Jimmy Carter, friend to Castro, champion of global poor, net worth $5M #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Etta James net worth $16M #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Lady Gaga, champion of the oppressed, net worth $110M. In process of buying castle in Scotland. Born that way. #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Jane Fonda, left heroine, net worth $120M. Owns 5 homes over 4,000 square feet each. How big’s your house? #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Linda Rondstat, main squeeze of Gov Brown, net worth $115M. #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


CA Gov Jerry Brown net worth $4M #p2 #ows

7 hours ago


Jimmy Buffet, palm tree sage of working class, net worth $400M. Are we seeing a trend here progs? Good 4 Jimmy. #p2 #ows

8 hours ago


Bob Marley net worth $130M. Good for him. Love Marley. #p21 #ows

8 hours ago


Chelsea Clinton net worth $5M #p2 #ows

8 hours ago


Hillary Clinton net worth $22M #p2 #ows

8 hours ago


Bill Clinton net worth $80M #p2 #ows

8 hours ago


Alec Baldwin net worth $65M. Gets $300K per episode. Learning yet progs? #p2 #ows #tcot

8 hours ago


Al Gore net worth $100M. No carbon offset profits included. #p2 #owl

8 hours ago


Michael Moore net worth $80M. Hero of the poor. #OWS #p2

8 hours ago


Ron Paul net worth $5M #OWS

8 hours ago


John Lennon net worth $800M. Getting the picture progs? You’re pawns. GOP wants YOU to succeed. #OWS #p2 #tcot

9 hours ago


George W Bush, greatest American President, scourge of poor, worth $54M LESS than Roseanne, 3M less than Maher #p2 #ows #tcot

9 hours ago


Warren Buffet, Prog darling, worth $39 Billion. #p2 #ows

9 hours ago


Maxine Waters. Lotta Wall Street dividends. #ows #p2 pfds.opensecrets.org/N00006690_2010…

9 hours ago


Arrianna Hufington (Huffington Post) net worth is $35M. And she was born in Greece LOL. #p2 #ows #tcot

9 hours ago


Figured out why @billmaher is so angry. He’s only worth $23M. Roseanne’s worth $80M. Even I think THAT’s unfair #ows #p2 #tcot

9 hours ago


Fidel Castro, socialist hero, net worth $900M. Good money in being King. Understand Obama’s motives now. #OWS #p2

10 hours ago


Hugo Chavez net worth is $1Billion #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Finally figured out why Maher is angry all the time. He’s only worth $23M while Roseanne’s worth $80M. Even I think that’s unfair #ows

10 hours ago


Jesse Jackson net worth is $10M #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Al Sharpton is only worth $5M #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Morgan Freeman has a net worth of $90M #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Richard Trumka made $265K in 2010, 3 times the median wage of rank & file. His net worth is not available (shock). #OWS #p2

10 hours ago


Democrat Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin net worth $243M #OWS #p2

10 hours ago


Champions of the Poor: Stewart, Maher, Barr, Olbermann, Maddow, Sanders, Schultz, Penn. Combined net worth: $1.2 Billion. #ows #p2

10 hours ago


Bill Maher’s net worth is $23M. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Jon Stewart’s net worth is also $80M. Yearly salary is $15M #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Roseanne Barr’s net worth is $80M. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Alan Colmes net worth is only $12M. Salary just $2M per year. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Barack Obama’s net worth is $10.5M. He makes $400K per year. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Keith Olbermann net worth is $35M. Yearly salary was $10M. Now probably $50K. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Senator Bernie Sanders net worth $750M. One of richest in Congress. #ows #p2

10 hours ago


Rachel Maddow’s net worth is $12.5M #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Michael Moore net worth is $50M #OWS #p2 Moore personally reaped $80M from Fahrenheit 911

10 hours ago


MSNBC’s Ed Schultz net worth is $11.5M. #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Howard Schultz (CEO Starbucks) net worth $1.3 Billion (no typo). Enjoy your coffee #ows #p2

10 hours ago


Domino’s pizza CEO Patrick Doyle made $5.5M in 2010. 164 times the median salary of his workers. Enjoy your pizza #p2 #ows

10 hours ago


Bob Marley. Worth $137M. Sweet fruit indeed #ows

14 hours ago


Sean Penn net worth is $150M. Now I know why he loves Chavez. Envy. #p2 #ows

15 hours ago


Finally figured out why Maher is angry all the time. He’s only worth $23M while Roseanne’s worth $80M. Even I think that’s unfair #OWS

15 hours ago


Fidel Castro net worth $900M #OWS #p2

15 hours ago


Hugo Chavez net worth is $1Billion #p2 #OWS

15 hours ago


Roseanne, $80M superwoman, condemns the rich at #OWS #p2

15 hours ago


Keith Olbermann, $35M man, protests the rich on #OWS #p2

15 hours ago


Richard Trumka made $265K in 2010, 3 times the median wage of rank & file. His net worth is not available (shock). #OWS #p2

15 hours ago


Democrat Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin net worth $243M #OWS #p2

16 hours ago


Senator Bernie Sanders net worth $750M. One of richest in Congress. #ows p2

16 hours ago


Matt Damon net worth is $65M. Earns about $24M per year now. #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Domino’s pizza CEO Patrick Doyle made $5.5M in 2010. 164 times the median salary of his workers. Enjoy your pizza #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Howard Schultz (CEO Starbucks) net worth $1.3 Billion (no typo). Enjoy your coffee #ows #p2

16 hours ago


MSNBC’s Ed Schultz net worth is $11.5M. #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Obama rails against millionaires (defined as $250K) while holding $15M in worth. Shouldn’t he be giving up $14.1M to keep face? #p2

16 hours ago


Nelson Mandela net worth is $15M #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Bob Marley estate estimated net worth is $130M #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Jimi Hendrix estate net worth of $175M #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Morgan Freeman has a net worth of $90M #p2 #ows

16 hours ago


Michael Moore net worth is $50M #OWS #p2 Moore personally reaped #80M from Fahrenheit 911

16 hours ago


Louis Farrakhan net worth is $3M #OWS #p2

16 hours ago


Joe Biden net worth is $500K. Really? sad. I’m worth more than Joe, in many ways. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Keith Olbermann net worth is $35M. Yearly salary was $10M. Now probably $50K. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Al Sharpton is only worth $5M #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Jesse Jackson net worth is $10M #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Rachel Maddow’s net worth is $12.5M #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Barack Obama’s net worth is $10.5M. He makes $400K per year. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Alan Colmes net worth is only $12M. Salary just $2M per year. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Jon Stewart’s net worth is also $80M. Yearly salary is $15M #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Roseanne Barr’s net worth is $80M. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


Bill Maher’s net worth is $23M. #p2 #ows

17 hours ago


“@iowahawkblog: Hey #OccupyWallStreet: Michael Moore’s net worth is $50 million. And it was taken directly from people like you.” #p2

17 hours ago



	

Süddeutsche Zeitung über die kriminellen Machenschaften der “GoMoPa”

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

zu “GoMoPa” gehören weitere “Websites” wie z.B.

– die Bewertung

– Extremnews

– Schei**hausfliegenblog

die regelmässig für ihre “Freunde und Kollegen der “GoMoPa” Partei ergreifen, weil es sonst niemand tut…

STALKING STUDIE DES WEISSEN RING

https://www.weisser-ring.de/internet/verwaltung/news/details/article/15290/59/neste/11/index.html?tx_ttnews%5BpS%5D=1277299889&cHash=a7e6028b0d

Opfer fordern Entzug der Anwaltszulassung für mutmassliche “GoMoPa”-Paten

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=14675

TOP-SECRET – Hitachi-LG Data Storage Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty

Hitachi-LG Data Storage Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Participating in Bid-Rigging and Price-Fixing Conspiracies Involving Optical Disk Drives
Company Agrees to Pay $21.1 Million Criminal Fine

U.S. Department of Justice September 30, 2011
  • Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/TDD (202) 514-1888

WASHINGTON—Hitachi-LG Data Storage Inc. has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $21.1 million criminal fine for its participation in a series of conspiracies to rig bids and fix prices for the sale of optical disk drives, the Department of Justice announced today. This is the department’s first charge resulting from its ongoing investigation into the optical disk drive industry.

A 15-count felony charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against Hitachi-LG Data Storage, a joint venture between Hitachi Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and LG Electronics Inc., a Republic of Korea corporation. Of the 14 counts, seven charge Hitachi-LG Data Storage with conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids on optical disk drives sold to Dell Inc.; six counts charge Hitachi-LG Data Storage with rigging bids on optical disk drives sold to Hewlett-Packard Company (HP); and one count charges Hitachi-LG Data Storage with conspiring with others to fix the prices of optical disk drives sold to Microsoft Corporation. The final count charges Hitachi-LG Data Storage for its participation in a scheme to defraud HP in an April 2009 optical disk drive procurement event.

“The bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracies involving optical disk drives undermined competition and innovation in the high tech industry,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division is committed to prosecuting those who harm competition in the optical disk drive industry.”

Under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Hitachi-LG Data Storage has agreed to assist the department in its ongoing investigation into the optical disk drive industry.

Optical disk drives are devices such as CD-ROM, CD-RW (ReWritable), DVD-ROM and DVD-RW (ReWritable) that use laser light or electromagnetic waves to read and/or write data and are often incorporated into personal computers and gaming consoles.

According to the court document, Dell hosted optical disk drive procurement events in which bidders would be awarded varying amounts of optical disk drive supply depending on where their pricing ranked. From approximately June 2004 to approximately September 2009, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and co-conspirators participated in a series of conspiracies involving meetings and conversations to discuss bidding strategies and the prices of optical disk drives. As part of the conspiracies, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and co-conspirators bid on optical disk drives at collusive and noncompetitive prices and exchanged information on sales, market share and the pricing of optical disk drives to monitor and enforce adherence to the agreements.

The department said that from approximately June 2007 to approximately March 2008, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and co-conspirators participated in meetings and conversations in Taiwan and the Republic of Korea to discuss and fix the prices of optical disk drives sold to Microsoft. As part of the conspiracy, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and co-conspirators issued price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached and exchanged information on the sales of optical disk drives to monitor and enforce adherence to the agreed-upon prices.

According to the court document, HP also hosted optical disk drive procurement events in which participants would be awarded varying amounts of optical disk drive supply depending on where their pricing ranked. The department said that from approximately November 2005 to approximately March 2009, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and co-conspirators participated in a series of conspiracies involving meetings and discussions to predetermine pricing and rank order, and submitted collusive and noncompetitive bids for the procurement event.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage is also charged with one count of wire fraud for devising a scheme to subvert HP’s competitive bidding process for an April 2009 procurement event. According to the charge, Hitachi-LG Data Storage executed the scheme through interstate communications, including an email sent by one of its employees to co-conspirators in San Jose, Calif., and the Republic of Korea, that contained first round bidding results and non-public, competitively sensitive information relating to the April 2009 event.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage is charged with multiple violations of the Sherman Act and one violation of the wire fraud statute. Sherman Act violations carry a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. The wire fraud violation carries a maximum penalty of the greatest of a $500,000 fine, twice the gain a person derived from the offense or twice the loss suffered by the victims.

The ongoing joint investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI in San Francisco and Houston. Anyone with information concerning illegal or anticompetitive conduct in the optical disk drive industry is urged to call the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Field Office at 415-436-6660 or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

BREAKING NEWS – CIA drone kills U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric in Yemen

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda's Yemen-based wing, gives a religious lecture in an unknown location in this still image taken from video released by Intelwire.com on September 30, 2011. Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed, Yemen's Defence Ministry said on Friday. A Yemeni security official said Awlaki, who is of Yemeni descent, was hit in a Friday morning air raid in the northern al-Jawf province that borders oil giant Saudi Arabia. REUTERS-Intelwire.com.
Police troopers stand guard on a police patrol vehicle outside a state security court during the trial in absentia of the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Sanaa November 6, 2010. REUTERS-Khaled Abdullah

1 of 2. Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda’s Yemen-based wing, gives a religious lecture in an unknown location in this still image taken from video released by Intelwire.com on September 30, 2011. Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed, Yemen’s Defence Ministry said on Friday. A Yemeni security official said Awlaki, who is of Yemeni descent, was hit in a Friday morning air raid in the northern al-Jawf province that borders oil giant Saudi Arabia.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda, was killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen on Friday, U.S. officials said, removing a “global terrorist” high on a U.S. wanted list.

Awlaki’s killing deprives the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) of an eloquent propagandist in English and Arabic who was implicated in attacks on the United States.

“He planned and directed attacks against the United States,” one U.S. official said. “In addition, Awlaki publicly urged attacks against U.S. persons and interests worldwide and called for violence against Arab governments he judged to be working against al Qaeda.”

Earlier in his career, Awlaki preached at mosques in the United States attended by some of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda, whose leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed in a U.S. raid on his hideout in Pakistan in May.

Awlaki’s death could be a boon for U.S. President Barack Obama and for his Yemeni counterpart, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is clinging to power despite months of popular protests, factional violence and international pressure.

A Yemeni government statement said Samir Khan, an American of Pakistani origin, and two others were killed with Awlaki. Khan, from North Carolina, was an editor of AQAP’s English-language online magazine Inspire, which often published Awlaki’s writings.

A Yemeni official said Awlaki had been located based on information obtained from a detained AQAP militant.

U.S. drone aircraft targeted but missed Awlaki in May. The United States has stepped up drone strikes in Yemen to try and keep al Qaeda off balance and prevent it from capitalizing on the strife and chaos gripping the nation that borders oil giant Saudi Arabia and lies near vital shipping routes.

“CHIEF OF EXTERNAL OPERATIONS”

A senior U.S. official said Awlaki had orchestrated attacks on U.S. interests as “chief of external operations” for AQAP.

“Awlaki played a significant operational role in the attempted attack on a U.S. airliner in December 2009 (and) helped oversee the October 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices aboard U.S. cargo aircraft,” the official said.

Washington also learned that Awlaki sought to use poisons including cyanide and ricin to attack Westerners and exchanged e-mails with a U.S. military psychiatrist later accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood army base in Texas in 2009.

AQAP, which established itself in Yemen after Saudi Arabia defeated a violent al Qaeda campaign from 2003-6, has emerged as one of the network’s most ambitious wings, attempting daring, if unsuccessful, attacks on U.S. and Saudi targets.

Bin Laden’s al Qaeda made its first mark in Yemen with an attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors on the warship Cole in Aden harbor in 2000.

The Yemen embassy in Washington said Awlaki had been killed 8 km (five miles) from the town of Khashef in the northern province of Jawf, adjacent to Saudi Arabia, about 140 km east of Sanaa, at about 9:55 a.m. (0655 GMT).

AQAP has not acknowledged Awlaki’s death. It usually takes a few days to post an Internet response to such killings.

A tribal sheikh in Jawf said Awlaki and three other people had been killed. “We have retrieved their bodies. There was another car that had al Qaeda members inside it, but they were able to escape,” he said, asking not to be named.

A Yemeni official said more details would be announced once the surviving al Qaeda group had been tracked down.

HARD TO REPLACE

“If he is dead, Awlaki will be difficult to replace,” said Jeremy Binnie, a terrorism and insurgency analyst at IHS Jane’s in London. “It’s a blow for AQAP’s international operations. Awlaki has helped the group build its international profile.”

U.S. authorities have branded Awlaki a “global terrorist” and last year authorized his capture or killing, but Sanaa had previously appeared reluctant to act against him.

Awlaki was not a senior Islamic cleric, nor a commander of AQAP, which is led by a Yemeni named Nasser al-Wuhayshi, but he played a key role in the group’s global outreach.

“Awlaki’s death won’t hurt al Qaeda’s operations because he didn’t have a leadership role. But the organization has lost an important figure for recruiting people from afar,” said Said Obeid, a Yemeni analyst on al Qaeda.

Henry Wilkinson, head analyst at risk consultancy Janusian in London, said Awlaki’s demise would have little impact on AQAP’s local operations, but added: “He was a rare talent who could reach out and recruit and mobilize. If the U.S. have killed Awlaki, then they have achieved a major target.”

Yemen has been mired in turmoil after eight months of mass protests demanding that Saleh step down, something he has reiterated he will do only if his main rivals do not take over.

“Because if we transfer power and they are there, this will mean that we have given into a coup,” Saleh told The Washington Post and Time magazine in an interview published on Friday, a week after he made a surprise return from Saudi Arabia.

He had been recuperating in Riyadh from a June bomb attack on his Sanaa compound that badly burned and wounded him.

STALLED TALKS

His return halted talks over a Gulf-brokered transition plan that had been revived despite violence that has killed more than 100 people in Sanaa in the past two weeks.

Saleh’s troops have been fighting the forces of rebel General Ali Mohsen and those of tribal leader Sadeq al-Ahmar.

Saleh who has repeatedly shied away from signing a Gulf-brokered transition plan at the last minute, urged outside powers to have more patience in concluding the deal, saying:

“We are pressed by America and the international community to speed up the process of handing over power. And we know where power is going to go. It is going to al Qaeda, which is directly and completely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Opposition groups accuse Saleh of giving militants more leeway in a ploy to frighten Western powers and convince them that he is the best defense against al Qaeda.

“Awlaki serves the government as a way to scare the West,” said protest organizer Manea al-Mattari. “They want to improve their image in the West after all the killing they have done.”

Thousands of pro- and anti-Saleh demonstrators took to the streets of Sanaa again on Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.

Protesters carried 13 bodies, wrapped in Yemeni flags, of people killed in fighting in the capital this week. Asked about Awlaki’s death, one demonstrator said it was irrelevant.

“Nobody cared about his death today and we wonder why the government announced it now. We have much bigger problems than Anwar al-Awlaki,” said Fayza al-Suleimani, 29.

Gefälschter Lebenslauf von Klaus Maurischat-Pseudoym Siegfried Siewert – Partner von “Bennewirtz und Ehlers” – “CEO” DER STASI-“GoMoPa”

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=19616

 

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=19611

 

 

DIE WAHRHEIT – DAS SIND DIE ERPRESSER : “GoMoPa”-ERPRESST MERIDIAN CAPITAL “GoMoPa”-CEO MAURISCHAT WIRD VOM BKA VERHAFTET

DER BEWEIS: “GoMoPa”-ERPRESST MERIDIAN CAPITAL “GoMoPa”-CEO MAURISCHAT WIRD VOM BKA VERHAFTET

Millionen Finanzierungen mit Widersprüchen / Die Werbemethoden der Meridian Capital Enterprises

ORIGINAL ARTIKEL GOMOPA

ORIGINAL ARTIKEL GOMOPA 2

ZUM DOWNLOAD OBEN CLICKEN

Berlin (ots) – Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. bietet auf ihren Webseiten weltweite Finanzierungen an. GoMoPa hat die dort gemachten Angaben analysiert und starke Widersprüche entdeckt.

Die Unternehmensstruktur

Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. behauptet “ein Finanzinstitut” zu sein, “das zu einer internationalen Finanzgruppe gehört.” Diese Gruppe setze sich aus 11 verschiedenen Mitgliedern zusammen. GoMoPa fragte alle zuständigen Handelsregister ab. Ergebnis: 5 der 11 angegebenen Finanzinstitute sind nicht eingetragen.

Mitarbeiter der KLP Group Emirates, GoMoPa-Partner und Management-Gruppe in Dubai, machten sich die Mühe, drei weitere Geschäftsadressen der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. zu überprüfen. Martin Kraeter, Prinzipal der KLP Group: “Alle 3 genannten Firmen existieren hier nicht, auch nicht in abgewandelter Form.”

Das Unternehmen will weltweit über zahlreiche Standorte verfügen. Bei denen handelt es sich allerdings lediglich um “Virtual Offices” eines Büroservice-Anbieters.

Laut Firmenhomepage hat das Unternehmen seinen “rechtlichen Geschäftssitz” in Dubai. In einem GoMoPa vorliegenden Schreiben der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. heißt es jedoch, der Firmensitz sei in London. Auf der Homepage selbst tauchen zwei Londoner Adressen auf, die das Unternehmen als “Kundenabteilung für deutschsprachige Kunden” und “Abteilung der Zusammenarbeit mit Investoren” bezeichnet.

Die Meridian Capital Enterprises ist tatsächlich als “Limited” (Ltd.) mit Sitz in England und Wales eingetragen. Eine Abfrage beim Gewerbeamt Dubais (DED) zur Firmierung jedoch bleibt ergebnislos. Bemerkenswert ist auch der vermeintliche Sitz in Israel. Auf der Webseite von Meridian Capital Enterprises heißt es: “Die Firma Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist im Register des israelischen Justizministeriums unter der Nummer 514108471 (…) angemeldet.” Martin Kraeter hierzu: ” Ein ‘britisch-arabisch-israelisches bankfremdes Finanzinstitut sein zu wollen, wie die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. es darstellt, ist mehr als zweifelhaft. Es würde keinem einzigen Emirati, geschweige denn einem ‘Scheich’, auch nur im Traum einfallen Geschäfte mit Personen oder Firmen aus Israel zu machen. “

Eigenartig ist auch: Zwei angebliche Großinvestitionen der Meridian Capital Enterprises in Dubai sind Investmentruinen bzw. erst gar nicht realisierte Projekte.

Der Aktivitätsstatus der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist laut englischem Handelsregister als “dormant” gemeldet. Auf der Grundlage des britischen Gesellschaftsrechts können sich eingetragene Unternehmen selbst “dormant” (schlafend) melden, wenn sie keine oder nur unwesentliche buchhalterisch zu erfassende Transaktionen vorgenommen haben. Angesichts der angeblichen globalen Investitionstätigkeit der Meridian Capital Ltd. ist dieses jedoch sehr erstaunlich.

Auf ihrer Webseite gibt die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. einen Überblick über ihre größten Investitionen in Deutschland: “Dithmarschen Wind Powerplant, Waldpolenz Solar Park, AIDAdiva, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Sony Center”. Die Eigentümer des Sony Centers am Potsdamer Platz teilten GoMoPA mit, dass ihnen sei ein solcher Investor unbekannt sei. Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. will übrigens angeblich auch in die Erweiterung des Panama-Kanals sowie in das Olympiastadion in Peking investiert haben.

Der Webauftritt

Die Internetseite der MCE ist aufwendig gestaltet. Bei näherer Betrachtung fällt jedoch auf, dass es sich bei zahlreichen Fotos der Veranstaltungen der Meridian Capital Enterprises in den meisten Fällen um Bildmaterial von Online-Zeitungen oder frei zugänglichen Medienfotos einzelner Institutionen handelt.

Auf der Homepage befinden sich Videofilme, die eine verblüffende Ähnlichkeit mit dem Werbematerial von NAKHEEL aufweisen, dem größten Bauträger der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate. Den schillernden Videos über die berühmten drei Dubai Palmen wurden offensichtlich selbstproduzierte Trailersequenzen der Meridian Capital Enterprises vorangestellt.

Ab einem Volumen von 10 Millionen Euro oder höher präsentiert sich so die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. als der passende Investitionspartner. Auf der Internetseite sind diverse Fotos mit Scheichs an Konferenztischen zu sehen. Doch diese großen Tagungen und großen Kongresse der Meridian Capital Enterprises werden in den Pressearchiven der lokalen Presse Dubais mit keinem Wort erwähnt.

Vertiefende Information unter:

http://www.presseportal.de/go2/mehr_zu_MCE_ltd

Originaltext: GoMoPa GmbH Digitale Pressemappe: http://www.presseportal.de/pm/72697 Pressemappe via RSS : http://www.presseportal.de/rss/pm_72697.rss2

Pressekontakt: Herr Friedrich Wasserburg Telefon: +49 (30) 51060992 Fax: +49 (30) 51060994 Zuständigkeitsbereich: Presse

Firmeninfo Goldman Morgenstern & Partners LLC 575 Madison Avenue USA-10022 – 2511 New York http://www.gomopa.net

Über Goldman Morgenstern & Partners LLC: Ein Zusammenschluss aus Unternehmens-, Steuer-, Anlageberatern und Rechtsanwälten.
© 2008 news aktuell

DANN GING DIe ERPRESSUNG LOS UND MERIDIAN CAPITAL REAGIERTE – STATT DIES ABER ZUZUGEBEN SETZEN DIE STASI-VERBRECHER EINE GEFÄLSCHTE PRESSE-MITTEILUNG IN NETZ, DIE MICH BELASTEN SOLL

BITTE KONTAKTIEREN SIE AUCH MERIDIAN CAPITAL

sales@meridiancapital.com

1 Battery Park Plaza
New York, NY 10004
TEL: 212-972-3600
FAX: 212-612-0100

Hierzu  weitere Infos unter

Original Stellungnahme Meridian Capital gegen “GoMoPa” auf http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com/

Original Stellungnahme Meridian Capital gegen “GoMoPa” auf http://meridiancapital.wordpress.com

Skip navigation

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

die Betrüger und durch uns inhaftierten Erpresser der GoMoPa versuchen mit einer gefälschten Presse-Mitteilung von usich abzulenken und einen investigativen Journalisten, Bernd Pulch, zu belasten.

Die Presse-Mitteilung auf pressreleaser.org ist eine Fälschung und die gesamte webseite ist der GoMoPa zu zuordnen.

Hier noch einmal die tatäschlichen Geschehnisse:

Hier der Artikel von “GoMoPa” über Meridian Capital.


Der Beweis: Erpressungsversuch des „NACHRICHTENDIENSTES“ GoMoPa“ an Meridian Capital „GoMopa“ schreibt:08.09.2008
Weltweite Finanzierungen mit WidersprüchenDie Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. gibt an, weltweite Finanzierungen anbieten zu können und präsentiert sich hierbei auf aufwendig kreierten Webseiten. GOMOPA hat die dort gemachten Angaben analysiert und Widersprüche entdeckt.Der FirmensitzDer Firmensitz befindet sich laut eigener Aussage in Dubai, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate. In einem GOMOPA vorliegenden Schreiben der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. heißt es jedoch, der Firmensitz sei in London. Auf der Homepage des Unternehmens taucht die Geschäftsadresse in der Londoner Old Broad Street nur als „Kundenabteilung für deutschsprachige Kunden“ auf. Eine weitere Adresse in der englischen Hauptstadt, diesmal in der Windsor Avenue, sei die „Abteilung der Zusammenarbeit mit Investoren“.Die Meridian Capital Enterprises ist tatsächlich als „Limited“ (Ltd.) mit Sitz in England und Wales eingetragen. Aber laut Firmenhomepage hat das Unternehmen seinen „rechtlichen Geschäftssitz“ in Dubai. Eine Abfrage beim Gewerbeamt Dubais (DED) zu dieser Firmierung bleibt ergebnislos.

Bemerkenswert ist auch der vermeintliche Sitz in Israel. Auf der Webseite von Meridian Capital Enterprises heißt es: „Die Firma Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist im Register des israelischen Justizministeriums unter der Nummer 514108471, gemäß dem Gesellschaftsrecht von 1999, angemeldet.“ Hierzu Martin Kraeter, Gomopa-Partner und Prinzipal der KLP Group Emirates in Dubai: „Es würde keinem einzigen Emirati – geschweige denn einem Scheich auch nur im Traum einfallen, direkte Geschäfte mit Personen oder Firmen aus Israel zu tätigen. Und schon gar nicht würde er zustimmen, dass sein Konterfei auch noch mit vollem Namen auf der Webseite eines Israelischen Unternehmens prangt.“

Auf der Internetseite sind diverse Fotos mit Scheichs an Konferenztischen zu sehen. Doch diese großen Tagungen und großen Kongresse der Meridian Capital Enterprises werden in den Pressearchiven der lokalen Presse Dubais mit keinem Wort erwähnt.
Martin Kraeter: „ Ein ‚britisch-arabisch-israelisches bankfremdes Finanzinstitut sein zu wollen, wie die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. es darstellt, ist mehr als zweifelhaft. So etwas gibt es schlicht und ergreifend nicht! Der Nahostkonflikt schwelt schon seit mehr als 50 Jahren. Hier in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten (VAE) werden Israelis erst gar nicht ins Land gelassen. Israelische Produkte sind gebannt. Es gibt nicht einmal direkte Telefonverbindungen. Die VAE haben fast 70% der Wiederaufbaukosten des Libanon geschultert, nachdem Israel dort einmarschiert ist.“

Zwei angebliche Großinvestitionen der Meridian Capital Enterprises in Dubai sind Investmentruinen bzw. erst gar nicht realisierte Projekte. Das Unternehmen wirbt mit ihrer finanziellen Beteiligung an dem Dubai Hydropolis Hotel und dem Dubai Snowdome.

Der Aktivitätsstatus der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. ist laut englischen Handelsregister (UK Companies House) „dormant“ gemeldet. Auf der Grundlage des englischen Gesellschaftsrechts können sich eingetragene Unternehmen selbst „dormant“ (schlafend) melden, wenn sie keine oder nur unwesentliche buchhalterisch zu erfassende Transaktionen vorgenommen haben. Dies ist angesichts der angeblichen globalen Investitionstätigkeit der Meridian Capital Ltd. sehr erstaunlich.

Der Webauftritt

Die Internetseite der MCE ist sehr aufwendig gestaltet, die Investitionen angeblich in Millionen- und Milliardenhöhe. Bei näherer Betrachtung der Präsentationselemente fällt jedoch auf, dass es sich bei zahlreichen veröffentlichen Fotos, die Veranstaltungen der Meridian Capital Enterprises dokumentieren sollen, meist um Fotos von Online-Zeitungen oder frei zugänglichen Medienfotos einzelner Institutionen handelt wie z.B. der Börse Dubai.

Auf der Internetpräsenz befinden sich Videofilmchen, die eine frappierende Ähnlichkeit mit dem Werbematerial von NAKHEEL aufweisen, dem größten Bauträger der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate. Doch den schillernden Videos über die berühmten drei Dubai Palmen „Jumeirah, Jebel Ali und Deira“ oder das Archipel „The World“ wurden offensichtlich selbstproduzierte Trailersequenzen der Meridian Capital Enterprises vorangestellt. Doch könnte es sich bei den Werbevideos um Fremdmaterial handeln.

Auch die auf der Webseite wahllos platzierten Fotos von bekannten Sehenswürdigkeiten Dubais fungieren als Augenfang für den interessierten Surfer mit eigenem Finanzierungswunsch. Bei einem Volumen von 10 Millionen Euro oder höher präsentiert sich die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. als der passende Investitionspartner. Das Unternehmen verfügt weltweit über zahlreiche Standorte: Berlin, London, Barcelona, Warschau, Moskau, Dubai, Riad, Tel Aviv, Hong Kong und New York. Aber nahezu alle Standorte sind lediglich Virtual Offices eines global arbeitenden Büroservice-Anbieters. „Virtual Office“ heißt im Deutschen schlicht „Briefkastenfirma“. Unter solchen Büroadressen sollen laut Meridian Capital Enterprises ganze Kommissionen ansässig sein, alles zum Wohle des Kunden.“

Zitatende

Hier die Hintergründe der Erpressung:

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7154-opfer-nach-immovation-und-estavis-versucht-gomopa-nun-dkb-zu-erpressen-gomopa-hintermann-ra-resch.html

Hier unsere Original-Stellungnahme:

Anfang Oktober 2008 erhielt einer der Arbeiter der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. eine Meldung von einem anonymen Sender, dass in naher Zukunft – zuerst im Internet, dann im Fernsehen, im Radio und in der deutschen Presse – Informationen erscheinen, die die Funktionsweise und Tätigkeiten der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. in einem äußerst negativen Licht darstellen. Der Mitarbeiter der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. wurde also informiert, dass diese Meldungen/Nachrichten zweifelsohne deutlich das Aussehen und den guten Ruf der Firma Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. beeinträchtigen.
Der an dieser Stelle erwähnte „Gesprächspartner” hat den Arbeiter der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. informiert, dass die Möglichkeit besteht die peinliche Situation zu vermeiden, indem die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. auf das von der Person gezeigte Konto die Summe von 100.000,00 EUR überweist. Wie sich aber später zeigte, war der Herr Klaus Maurischat – dieser anonyme Gesprächspartner – „Gehirn“ und „Lider des GOMOPA“. Die Ermittlungen wurden angestellt durch die Bundeskriminalpolizei (Verfolgungs- und Ermittlungsorgan auf der Bundesebene) während des Ermittlungsverfahrens wegen einer finanziellen Erpressung, Betrügereien auch wegen der Bedrohungen, welche von Herrn Maurischat und seine Mitarbeiter praktiziert wurden sowie wegen Teilnahme anderer (Leiter der Internetservices und Moderatoren der Blogs) an diesem Prozedere. Diese Straftaten wurden begangen zu Schaden vieler Berufs- und Justizpersonen, darunter auch der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. Die Opfer dieses Verbrechens sind in Deutschland, Österreich, der Schweiz, Spanien, Portugal, Großbritannien, den USA und Kanada sichtbar.
In diesem Moment taucht folgende Frage auf: Wie war die Reaktion der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. auf die Forderungen seitens GOMOPA? Entsprach die Reaktion den Erwartungen von GOMOPA? Hat die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. die geforderte Summe 100.000,00 EUR überwiesen?
Seites der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. gab es überhaupt keine Reaktion auf den Erpressungsversuch von GOMOPA. Ende August 2008 auf dem Service http://www.gompa.net sind zahlreiche Artikel/Meldungen erscheinen, welche die Tätigkeit der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. in einem sehr negativen Licht dargestellt haben. Nachdem die auf http://www.gomopa.net enthaltenen Informationen ausführlich und vollständig analysiert worden waren, ergab es sich, dass sie der Wahrheit nicht einmal in einem Punkt entsprechen und potenzielle und bereits bestehende Kunden der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. in Bezug auf die von diesem Finanzinstitut geführten Geschäftstätigkeit irreführen. Infolge der kriminellen Handlugen von GOMOPA und der mit ihm kooperierenden Services und Blogs im Netz hat die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. beachtliche und messbare geschäftliche Verluste erlitten. Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. hat nämlich in erster Linie eine wichtige Gruppe von potenziellen Kund verloren. Was sich aber als wichtiger ergab, haben sich die bisherigen Kunden von der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. kaum abgewandt. Diejenigen Kunden haben unsere Dienstleitungen weiterhin genutzt und nutzen die immer noch. In Hinblick auf die bisherige Zusammenarbeit mit der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd., werden ihrerseits dem entsprechend keine Einwände erhoben .
GOMOPA hat so einen Verlauf der Ereignisse genau prognostiziert, dessen Ziel beachtliche und messbare geschäftliche durch die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. erlittene Verluste waren. Der Verlauf der Ereignisse hat das Service GOMOPA mit Sicherheit gefreut. GOMOPA hat nämlich darauf gerechnet, dass die Stellung der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. nachlässt und das Finanzinstitut die geforderte Summe (100.000,00 EUR) bereitstellt. Im Laufe der Zeit, als das ganze Prozedere im Netz immer populärer war, versuchte GOMOPA noch vier mal zu der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. Kontakte aufzunehmen, indem es jedes mal das Einstellen dieser kriminellen „Kompanie” versprochen hat, wobei es jedes mal seine finanziellen Forderungen heraufsetzte. Die letzte für das Einstellen der „Kompanie“ gegen die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. vorgesehene Quote betrug sogar 5.000.000,00 EUR (in Worten: fünfmilionen EURO). Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. konnte sich aber vor den ständig erhöhenden Forderungen seitens des Services GOMOPA behaupten.
Im Oktober 2008 traf die Leitung der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. Entscheidung über die Benachrichtigung der Internationalen Polizei INTERPOL sowie entsprechender Strafverfolgungsorgane der BRD (die Polizei und die Staatsanwaltschaft) über den bestehenden Sachverhalt. In der Zwischenzeit meldeten sich bei der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. zahlreiche Firmen und Korporationen, sogar Berufsperson wie Ärzte, Richter, Priester, Schauspieler und anderen Personen aus unterschiedlichen Ländern der Welt, die der Erpressung von GOMOPA nachgegeben und die geforderten Geldsummen überwiesen haben. Diese Personen gaben bereits Erklärungen ab, dass sie dies getan haben, damit man sie bloß endlich „in Ruhe lässt” und um unnötige Probleme, Schwierigkeiten und einen kaum begründbaren Ausklang vermeiden zu können. Die Opfer dieses kriminellen Vorgehens haben die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. über unterschiedliche Geldsummen, welche verlangt wurden, informiert.
In einem Fall gab es verhältnismäßig kleine (um ein paar tausend EURO), in einem anderen Fall handelte es schon um beachtliche Summen (rund um paar Millionen EURO).
Zusätzlich wendeten sich an die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. Firmen, welche dem GOMOPA noch keine „Gebühr” überweisen haben und bereits überlegen, ob sie dies tun sollen, oder nicht. Diese Firmen erwarteten von der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. eine klare Stellungnahme sowie eine professionelle praktische Beratung, wie man sich in solch einer Lage verhalten soll und wie man diese Geldforderungen umgehen kann. Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. hat ausnahmslos allen Verbrechensopfern, welche sich bei unserer Firma gemeldet haben, eine Zusammenarbeit vorgeschlagen. Als oberste Aufgabe stellt sich diese Kooperation, gemeinsam entschlossene und wirksame Maßnahmen gegen GOMOPA, gegen andere Services im Netz sowie gegen alle Bloggers zu treffen, die an dem hier beschriebenen internationalen kriminellen Vorgehen mit GOMOPA-Führung teilnehmen.Auf unsere Bitte benachrichtigten alle mitbeteiligten Firmen die Internationale Polizei INTERPOL sowie ihre heimischen Verfolgungsorgane, u. a. die zuständige Staatsanwaltschaft und die Polizeibehörden über den bestehenden Sachverhalt.
In Hinblick auf die Tatsache, dass das verbrecherische Handeln von GOMOPA sich über viele Staaten erstreckte und dass die Anzahl der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland erstatteten Anzeigen wegen der durch GOMOPA, Internetservices und Bloggers begangenen Straftaten, rasant wuchs – was zweifelsohne von einer weit gehenden kriminellen Wirkungskraft des GOMOPA zeugt – schlug die Internationale Wirtschaftspolizei INTERPOL der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. vor, dass sich ihr Vertreter in Berlin mit dem Vertreter von GOMOPA trifft, um die „Zahlungsmodalitäten“ und Überweisung der Summe von 5.000.000,00 EUR zu besprechen. Dieser Schritt meinte, eine gut durchdachte und durch die Bundeskriminalpolizei organisierte Falle durchzuführen, deren Ziel die Festnahme der unter GOMOPA wirkenden internationalen Straftäter war.
Die koordinierten Schritte und Maßnahmen der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. und anderer Beschädigter, geleitet von der Internationalen Wirtschaftspolizei INTERPOL, dem Bundeskriminalamt und der Staatsanwaltschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben zur Aus-, Einarbeitung und Durchführung der oben beschriebenen Falle beigetragen. Im November 2008 führte die in Berlin vorbereitete Falle zur Festnahme und Verhaftung des Vertreters des GOMOPA, der nach der Festnahme auf Herrn Klaus Maurichat – als den Hauptverantwortlichen und Anführer der internationalen kriminellen Gruppe GOMOPA verwies. Der Festgenommene benannte und zeigte der Bundeskriminalpolizei zugleich den aktuellen Aufenthaltsort des Herrn Klaus Maurischat. „Gehirn“ und Gründer dieser internationalen kriminellen Gruppe GOMOPA, Herr Klaus Maurischat wurde am selben Tag auch festgenommen und auf Frist verhaftet, wird bald in Anklagezustand gestellt, wird die Verantwortung für eigene Straftaten und die des Forums GOMOPA vor einem zuständigen Bundesgericht tragen. Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. unternahm bereits alle möglichen Schritte, damit Herr Klaus Maurischat auch auf der Anklagebank des zuständigen Gerichts des Vereinigten Königsreiches Großbritannien erscheint. Unter den beschädigten Berufs- und Justizpersonen aus Großbritannien, neben der Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd. gibt es noch viele Opfer von GOMOPA…

Die dreisten Verbrecher wagen es unter http://www.pressreleaser.org, einer eigenen “GoMoPa”-Seite unsere Pressemitteilung oben zu verfälschen und unschuldige Personen zu belasten.

Dear Readers,

after a thorough research we are sure that the real “GoMoPa” boss is Jochen Resch, lawyer in Berlin, Germany. He is the brain behind “GoMoPa” and responsable for blackmailing, extortion, racketeering, cybermurder and murder – in the tradition of the East German “Inteeligence” STASI that is why he called “GoMoPa” – Financial “Intelligence” Service .

Webmaster

Meridian Capital about GoMoPa

Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. unveils new criminal phenomena in network. In recently appeared on the net more often at the same time a new a very worrying phenomenon of criminal nature. Professional criminals groups in the network are taking part, to extortion, fraud, Erschwindeln relating to certain specifically selected companies and businesses are capable of. These criminals developed new methods and means, simply and in a short time to bereichern.Strategien and manifestations, which underlie this process are fairly simple. A criminal is looking to “carefully” on the Internet specific companies and corporations (victims of crime) and informed them in the next step, that of the business activities of such companies and corporations in the near future – first on the Internet then in other available mass media – numerous and very unfavorable information appears. At the same time, the criminals beat their future victims an effective means of reducing unnecessary difficulties and problems to escape the loss of good name and image of the company and corporate sector. These offenders are aware of that reputation, name and appearance of each company is a value in itself. It was therefore a value of what each company is prepared to pay any price. But the reason for difficulties and problems arising from the loss of good name and reputation result. The criminals and their victims are already aware that this loss is devastating consequences might have been the closing down of a particular business can enforce. It takes both to No as well as at large companies regard. The company is concerned that in virtually every industry in each country and cross-border activities sind.Das criminal procedure in the form of a blackmail on money, a fraud is becoming rapidly and globally, ie led cross-border and internationally. Among the victims of extortion, fraud is now looking both at home (domestic) and international corporations, the major emphasis on conservation, keeping and maintaining their reputation in the business according to their credibility lay. The criminals in the network have understood that maintaining an unassailable reputation and name of a company the unique ability to provide fast and easy enrichment forms. The above-mentioned criminal procedure is difficult to track because it is international in nature, and by overlapping or even nonexistent (fictional) professional and judicial persons in various countries and operated company wird.Diese offenders in the network publish it and disseminate false information about your victims on remote servers, which are not uncommon in many exotic countries. There are those countries in which serious gaps in the legal system, investigative and prosecution procedures are visible. As an example, at this point mention India werden. Mit criminals working in the network grid portals known leader of blogs with your seat-consciously or unconsciously, even in highly developed countries. For example, at this point, countries such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United States, Britain, Spain or Portugal are mentioned. The below listed criminals were able to act unpunished today. As a symptom of such action appears here the activity and “effectiveness” of the company GOMOPA, which is on countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the United States, Britain, Spain and India. A good example of such an action is Mr. Klaus Mauri Chat – the leader and “brain” of the company GOMOPA with many already in force and criminal judgments “on his account”, which in this way for years and funded its maintenance in the industry almost unlimited activity. This status will change dramatically, however, including far and wide thanks to discontinued operations of the firm Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. who would oppose such offenses addressed in the network. Other companies and corporations, in which the crime network and outside of this medium have fallen victim to contribute to combating such crimes bei.Die situation is changing, thanks to effective steps and the successful cooperation of the firm Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. with the international police Interpol, with the federal agency (FBI) in the U.S., the Federal Criminal Police in Germany, with Scotland Yard in Britain, as well as with the Russian secret service FSB.Die Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. – Together with other companies and cooperations, the victim of criminal activities of the network of crime have fallen – has undeniably already started to yield results. The fact that in recent weeks (November 2008) on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany of the above-mentioned leaders and “brain” of the company GOMOPA, Mr Klaus Maurishat was arrested should not be ignored. The Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. information available results clearly show that the next arrests of persons participating in this process in such countries as: Austria, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Spain, Mexico, Portugal, Brazil, the USA, Canada, UK, Ireland , Australia, New Zealand and made in a.. The ultimate goal of Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. and the other victims of crime in the network is to provide all participants in this criminal procedure before the competent court to lead. All professional and judicial persons, regardless of the seat and out of the business, which the above-described criminal action (fraud, extortion) to have fallen victim can of Meridian Capital Enterprises Ltd.. led company to join the goal set at all at this point the procedure described those associated in the public and the economic life out. II blacklist blackmail and with international fraudsters and their methods (opus operandi) in the following countries: 1 The Federal Republic Deutschland2. Dubai 3rd Russia 1st The Federal Republic of Germany GmbH GOMOPA, Goldman Morgenstern & Partners LLC., Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting LLC, Wottle collection. In these firms are quite active following persons: – Klaus Mauri Chat ( “Father” and “brain” of the criminal organization responsible for countless final judgments have been achieved (arrested in Germany in November 2008) – Josef Rudolf Heckel ( “right hand “when Mr Klaus Mauri chat, denounced former banker who is excessive in many Bankschmuggeleien was involved.
The study of 900 pages named Toxdat by Ehrenfried Stelzer is the “Stasi Killer Bible”. It lists all kind of murder methods and concentrates on the most effective and untraceable.
“The toxdat study was ordered by Stasi Vice-President Gerhard Neiber, the second man in rank after boss Erich Mielke. The toxdat study was also the theoretical “story book” for the murder of the famous German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach by former Stasi member under the guidance of “GoMoPa”,” an informer stated. “Ehrenfried stelzer” was nicknamed “Professor Murder” by his victims. Even close co-worker now compare him with the German SS”doctor” Mengele, “Dr. Death” from Auschwitz.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution.

For more Information the victims have launched a new site: http://www.victims-opfer.com

The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.
Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.
The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.
This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.
Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.
Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment.

German authorities are under growing pressure to reopen investigations into at least a dozen suspicious deaths after the arrest of an alleged East German assassin cast new light on the communist regime. Stasi victims quoted a source saying “isolated units” had conducted operations that were “extremely well organised” and had “100 per cent logistical support” from the East German state.
A statement from prosecutors read: “The accused [Jurgen G] is suspected, as a member of a commando of the former DDR, of killing a number of people between 1976 and 1987 who from the point of view of the DDR regime had committed treason or were threatening to do so.”
Details of his Jurgen G’s arrest have been described in suitably florid terms, with the mass circulation tabloid Bild saying he was working at the Wolfsbruch marina near Rheinsberg in north-eastern Germany when a woman approached him. “Excuse me, is that your yellow Trabant in the car park? I just ran into it with my car,” she is said to have asked.
When he followed her to the car park, masked officers jumped out of vans and bushes and overpowered him in an operation worthy of the Stasi itself.
An eyewitness told Bild: “They blindfolded him and raced off in an unmarked car.”
Police across Germany are reported to be sifting through files to see who the victims may have been, and some intelligence officers are greeting the arrest of Jurgen G as a breakthrough.
Thomas Auerbach, who works for the Stasi file authority in Berlin and has written a book based on the death squad files, said: “These people were trained to make such murders look like accidents or suicides, even as ‘ordinary’ crimes such as robberies. They were real terror experts.”
The cases said to be linked to Jurgen G or his unit include many people involved with the commercial arm of the East German ruling socialist party, the SED (Socialist Unity Party).
Uwe Harms, the head of a Hamburg-based haulage firm which was part of a network of companies secretly owned by the SED, disappeared in March 1987 after conversations with various DDR functionaries. Six weeks later, his body was found in a plastic bag.
Weeks before his death he told friends that he felt he was being followed. After reunification, one of the other SED company heads said Mr Harms had been liquidated for refusing to allow his firm to be used to transport arms into East Germany.
Dieter Vogel, a businessman who had been jailed for life for spying for the CIA, was found suffocated in his cell in the East German prison Bautzen on March 9, 1982. The fact that he was due to be taken to the West in a spy swap arrangement just a few weeks later cast doubt on the suicide theory.
He had passed the names of several Stasi moles to the BND, West Germany’s heavily penetrated counter-intelligence service.
The Christian Democrat Union politician Uwe Barschel, 43, was found dead by magazine reporters in his bathtub in a hotel room in Geneva in October, 1987. He died of poisoning, but rumours that he was involved somehow in arms deals and the Stasi have clung to the case.
One of the more high-profile and enduring mysteries is that of Lutz Eigendorf, an East German footballer from the Stasi-backed Dynamo Berlin.
He fled to the West in 1979 amid great publicity. Four years later, he died after crashing his car into a tree on a straight stretch of road with blood alcohol levels way over the limit. Witnesses who had seen him earlier in the evening said he had not been drinking.
Most controversial though is the suggestion that the assassination squad was linked to the murder of a Swedish television reporter and her friend in 1984.
Cats Falk and her friend Lena Graens went missing on Nov 19, 1984. Their bodies were fished out of a Stockholm canal six months later.
Reports suggested a three-man assassination squad killed them, spiking their drinks with drugs, putting them into their car and pushing it into the Hammarby canal.
Shortly before her death, Cats Falk had reportedly uncovered a deal between an arms dealer and an East German firm.
Germany has recently undergone a wave of nostalgia for all things East German, dubbed Ostalgie, with colourful television shows featuring former DDR stars such as the ice skater Katerina Witt talking wistfully about socialist pop music.
A reassessment may be coming in the wake of the revelations.

Victims: The DDR-STASI MURDER GANG “GoMOPa” in murderoplot against Joerg Berger

The Stasi Murder Gang of „GoMoPa“ was involved in many trials to kill the popular East German soccer trainer Joerg Berger, Stasi victims tell in postings on their hompage http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com. Berger stated before his early death in his biography that they tried to pollute him with arsenic.
Arsenic and many of its compounds are especially potent poisons. Many water supplies close to mines are contaminated by these poisons. Arsenic disrupts ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits lipoic acid which is a cofactor for pyruvate dehydrogenase; and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis. A post mortem reveals brick red coloured mucosa, owing to severe haemorrhage. Although arsenic causes toxicity, it can also play a protective role.[
Elemental arsenic and arsenic compounds are classified as “toxic” and “dangerous for the environment” in the European Union under directive 67/548/EEC. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recognizes arsenic and arsenic compounds as group 1 carcinogens, and the EU lists arsenic trioxide, arsenic pentoxide and arsenate salts as category 1 carcinogens.
Arsenic is known to cause arsenicosis owing to its manifestation in drinking water, “the most common species being arsenate [HAsO42- ; As(V)] and arsenite [H3AsO3 ; As(III)]”. The ability of arsenic to undergo redox conversion between As(III) and As(V) makes its availability in the environment more abundant. According to Croal, Gralnick, Malasarn and Newman, “[the] understanding [of] what stimulates As(III) oxidation and/or limits As(V) reduction is relevant for bioremediation of contaminated sites (Croal). The study of chemolithoautotrophic As(III) oxidizers and the heterotrophic As(V) reducers can help the understanding of the oxidation and/or reduction of arsenic.
Treatment of chronic arsenic poisoning is easily accomplished. British anti-lewisite (dimercaprol) is prescribed in dosages of 5 mg/kg up to 300 mg each 4 hours for the first day. Then administer the same dosage each 6 hours for the second day. Then prescribe this dosage each 8 hours for eight additional days. However the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that the long term effects of arsenic exposure cannot be predicted. Blood, urine, hair and nails may be tested for arsenic, however these tests cannot foresee possible health outcomes due to the exposure. Excretion occurs in the urine and long term exposure to arsenic has been linked to bladder and kidney cancer in addition to cancer of the liver, prostate, skin, lungs and nasal cavity.[
Occupational exposure and arsenic poisoning may occur in persons working in industries involving the use of inorganic arsenic and its compounds, such as wood preservation, glass production, nonferrous metal alloys and electronic semiconductor manufacturing. Inorganic arsenic is also found in coke oven emissions associated with the smelter industry.

THE DDR GESTAPO-STASI MURDER GANG responsable for the murder of Lutz Eigendorf

The talented Eigendorf played for East German side Dynamo Berlin.
He made his debut for the GDR in an August 1978 match against Bulgaria, immediately scoring his first two goals in a 2–2 draw. He went on to collect six caps, scoring three goals.[1] His final international was a February 1979 friendly match against Iraq.
On 20 March 1979, after a friendship match between Dynamo and West German club 1. FC Kaiserslautern in Gießen he fled to the west hoping to play for that team. But because of his defection he was banned from play for one year by UEFA and instead spent that time as a youth coach with the club.
This was not the first time an East German athlete had fled to the west, but it was a particularly embarrassing defection. Eigendorf’s club Dynamo was under the patronage of the Stasi, East Germany’s secretive state police, and subject to the personal attentions of the organisation’s head, Erich Mielke. He ensured that the club’s roster was made up of the country’s best players, as well as arranging for the manipulation of matches in Dynamo’s favour. After his defection Eigendorf openly criticised the DDR in the western media.
His wife Gabriele remained behind in Berlin with their daughter and was placed under constant police surveillance. Lawyers working for the Stasi quickly arranged a divorce and the former Frau Eigendorf re-married. Her new husband was eventually revealed as a Lothario – an agent of the state police whose role it was to spy on a suspect while romancing them.
In 1983 Eigendorf moved from Kaiserslautern to join Eintracht Braunschweig, all the while under the scrutiny of the Stasi who employed a number of West Germans as informants. On 5 March that year he was badly injured in a suspicious traffic accident and died within two days. An autopsy indicated a high blood alcohol level despite the testimony of people he had met with that evening indicating that Eigendorf had only a small amount of beer to drink.
After German re-unification and the subsequent opening of the files of the former East Germany’s state security service it was revealed that the traffic accident had been an assassination attempt orchestrated by the Stasi, confirming the longtime suspicions held by many. A summary report of the events surrounding Eigendorf’s death was made on German television on 22 March 2000 which detailed an investigation by Heribert Schwan in the documentary “Tod dem Verräter” (“Death to the Traitor”).
On 10 February 2010, a former East German spy revealed the Stasi ordered him to kill Eigendorf, which he claimed not to have done

MfS has been accused of a number of assassinations against political dissidents and other people both inside and outside the country. Examples include the East German football player Lutz Eigendorf and the Swedish journalist Cats Falck.
The terrorists who killed Alfred Herrhausen were professionals. They dressed as construction workers to lay a wire under the pavement of the road along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work. They planted a sack of armor-piercing explosives on a parked bicycle by the roadside. An infrared beam shining across the road triggered the explosion just when the limousine, one of three cars in a convoy, sped by.
The operation, from the terrorists’ point of view, was flawless: Mr. Herrhausen, the chairman of one of Europe’s most powerful companies, Deutsche Bank, was killed in the explosion along that suburban Frankfurt road on Nov. 30, 1989.
But was everything what it seemed?
Within days, the Red Army Faction — a leftist terrorist group that had traumatized West Germany since 1970 with a series of high-profile crimes and brazen killings of bankers and industrialists — claimed responsibility for the assassination. An intense manhunt followed. In June 1990, police arrested 10 Red Army Faction members who had fled to East Germany to avoid arrest for other crimes. To the police’s surprise, they were willing to talk. Equally confounding to authorities: All had solid alibis. None was charged in the Herrhausen attack.
Now, almost two decades later, German police, prosecutors and other security officials have focused on a new suspect: the East German secret police, known as the Stasi. Long fodder for spy novelists like John le Carré, the shadowy Stasi controlled every aspect of East German life through imprisonment, intimidation and the use of informants — even placing a spy at one point in the office of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.
According to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the murders of Mr. Herrhausen and others attributed to the Red Army Faction bear striking resemblance to methods and tactics pioneered by a special unit of the Stasi. The unit reported to Stasi boss Erich Mielke and actively sought in the waning years of the communist regime to imitate the Red Army Faction to mask their own attacks against prominent people in Western Germany and destabilize the country.
“The investigation has intensified in recent months,” said Frank Wallenta, a spokesman for the Federal Prosecutor. “And we are investigating everything, including leads to the Stasi.”
If those leads turn out to be true, it would mean not only rewriting some of the most dramatic episodes of the Cold War, but would likely accelerate a broader soul-searching now under way in Germany about the communist past.
In building a reunified country, many Germans have ignored discussion of the brutal realities of its former communist half. When the former East Germany is discussed, it’s often with nostalgia or empathy for brothers hostage to Soviet influence.

Stasi boss Erich Mielke, middle, with unnamed associates
That taboo is slowly being broken. Last year’s Oscar-winning movie, “The Lives of Others,” chronicled in dark detail a Stasi agent’s efforts to subvert the lives of ordinary people. Material in the Stasi archives shows that senior leaders had a shoot-to-kill order against those fleeing from East to West — a controversial order that contradicts East German leaders’ claims that they never ordered any shootings.
This story is based on more than a dozen interviews with police, prosecutors and other security officials. Several policemen and prosecutors confirmed that the allegation of extensive Stasi involvement with the Red Army Faction is a key part of the current investigation.
Court cases in West Germany in the 1990s established that members of the Red Army Faction were granted free passage to other countries in the 1970s and refuge in East Germany in the 1980s. But the current investigation and documents from Stasi archives suggest far deeper involvement — that members of the Red Army Faction were not only harbored by the Stasi but methodically trained in sophisticated techniques of bombing and murder.
Traudl Herrhausen, Mr. Herrhausen’s widow, is one of those pushing for further investigation. She says she long suspected involvement by the Stasi or other intelligence service such as the KGB, but never spoke publicly because she didn’t have evidence and didn’t want to interfere in the investigation. She says she is now breaking an 18-year silence in her desire to see justice done. “Now I want to look my husband’s killers in the eye,” she said in an interview.
The Red Army Faction was founded about 1970 by a band of leftists who justified their terrorism based on opposition to West Germany’s ruling elite. Killing members of this elite would provoke the West German state to take repressive measures that would show its true fascist face, Red Army Faction leaders believed.
In its early years, the group, also known as the Baader-Meinhof band, made headlines with prison breaks, bank robberies, bomb attacks and deadly shootouts. Four gang members led by Ulrike Meinhof freed Red Army Faction leader Andreas Baader from a Berlin jail a month after his arrest.
Red Army Faction violence in West Germany intensified in 1977 when Jürgen Ponto, then head of Dresdner Bank, was shot and killed at his home. Five weeks later, the group killed four people and abducted the chairman of the German employer association, Hans-Martin Schleyer, one of West Germany’s most prominent businessmen. It was the start of a six-week ordeal in which neither government nor terrorists would compromise. To support the Red Army Faction cause, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa jet in Spain, forcing it to land in Mogadishu, Somalia. After the plane was rushed by West German commandos, top Red Army Faction leaders in West Germany committed suicide and Mr. Schleyer was executed by his captors.
Red Army Faction violence began to abate in the late 1970s after the Lufthansa incident. Many in Germany thought the group — whose attacks were often crude — lost its will to kill after the arrest of its senior leaders in 1982. So when the group appeared to renew its terror campaign with a series of high-profile attacks in 1985, police were stunned by the level of their sophistication and determination.
This time, the group dazzled police with its ability to hit targets and leave little substantial evidence behind. They used high-tech devices no one thought they possessed. Their marksmen killed with military precision.

Weapons used by terrorists during the 1977 kidnapping of German industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer.
Surprisingly, members of the Red Army Faction so-called third generation had a policeman’s understanding of forensic science. From 1985 onward, the Red Army Faction rarely left a fingerprint or other useful piece of evidence at a crime scene, according to court records. The murder cases from this era are still open. Some suspected Stasi involvement, but no one could ever prove it, according to a senior police official.
The 1989 car-bomb murder of Mr. Herrhausen particularly stunned police with its audacity and sophistication. Mr. Herrhausen was the head of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank. He was part of the political-business elite that helped turn West Germany from a war-ravaged rump state into an economic powerhouse — all while East Germany languished in frustration. Mr. Herrhausen was a vocal proponent of a united Germany.
In November 1989, Mr. Herrhausen was following the fall of the Berlin wall and events in the Soviet Union closely, conferring frequently with Mikhail Gorbachev, according to his wife and friends. Then on Nov. 27, Mr. Herrhausen announced a plan to acquire the investment banking firm Morgan Grenfell — at the time a record-breaking bank acquisition.
Also during November, a spot along Mr. Herrhausen’s usual route to work was closed because of construction. Terrorists, dressed as construction workers, laid an electric wire under the road’s pavement. On Nov. 29, the stretch reopened.
On the morning of Nov. 30, like every workday morning, Mr. Herrhausen stepped into his limousine at about 8:30. Mr. Herrhausen’s driver waited about one minute to allow the first of the three-car entourage to drive ahead and survey the road.
“It was the route they hadn’t used in weeks,” Mrs. Herrhausen said.
As Mr. Herrhausen sped down the road, a team of terrorists waited. Beside the road, a parked bicycle held a sack of armor-piercing explosives. The detonator was connected by the electric wire under the road to a trigger activated by an interruption in an infrared beam shining across the road.
A terrorist activated the detonator after the first car of bodyguards drove past the bomb. Mr. Herrhausen died at the scene.
As they had during previous attacks, police set up dragnets to round up Red Army Faction cadre. But the June 1990 arrests of 10 members of the group who had earlier been granted political asylum in East Germany produced no leads. All the seized Red Army Faction members had solid alibis.
In July 1991, prosecutors believed they had a breakthrough when an informant claimed he had allowed two members of the Red Army Faction to stay at his home near the Herrhausen residence. Prosecutors followed that trail 13 years before dropping charges in 2004.
Frustrated with the inability of prosecutors to solve the Herrhausen case and believing that prosecutors were ignoring other leads including possible Stasi involvement, German officials replaced the prosecutor overseeing the case.
Police acknowledge that part of the reason for their focus on possible Stasi involvement was that all other leads had dried up. But they say they also knew that over the years the Stasi had worked with and given explosives to other terrorists, including “Carlos the Jackal” and the Basque group ETA in Spain. And in 2001 to 2003, an undercover police officer met with a man who claimed he had been a killer for the Stasi operating in Western Germany, although police were never able to tie him to specific murders.
German investigators turned their attention to Wartin, a small eastern German village nestled in yellow-brown fields of grain near the Polish border. Today, sheep graze in a field spotted with wooden posts.
In the 1980s, however, Wartin was home to the Stasi’s AGM/S — “Minister Working Group/Special Operations.” It got its name because it reported to Mr. Mielke, the minister who headed the Stasi for almost all of East Germany’s 40-year history.
The Wartin unit’s peacetime duties included the kidnapping and murder of influential people in the West, according to Stasi records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal in the Stasi archives in Berlin.
The documents say the unit’s activities included “intimidating anti-communist opinion leaders” by “liquidation,” and “kidnapping or hostage taking, connected with the demand that political messages be read,” according to a description of the unit’s activities written by a senior Wartin official in 1982.
Based on these documents, German investigators increasingly believe that the Stasi played a more active role than previously believed in Red Army Faction terrorism. After years of not being able to draw parallels between the Stasi unit in Wartin and the Red Army Faction killings, police are now focusing closely on such a link. Joachim Lampe, who assisted the successful prosecution of the first wave of Red Army Faction terrorists up until 1982 and was then assigned to prosecute Stasi-related crimes in West Germany, says it’s time to compare the activities of Wartin with the activities of the Red Army Faction to see where they overlap. “It is an important line of investigation,” he said.
A year after the Red Army Faction’s first generation collapsed in 1972, an internal Wartin report said cooperation with terrorists is possible if the individuals could be trusted to maintain secrecy and obey orders. Initial contacts, however, may not have taken place until later in the decade. Disillusionment gripped many of the terrorists living on the lam, according to court records citing witness statements by accused terrorists. Beginning about 1980, the Stasi granted refuge to 10 members of the Red Army Faction in East Germany and gave them assumed identities.
The Stasi sympathized with the anti-capitalist ideals of the Red Army Faction, but Stasi leaders were concerned about placing their trust in a group of uncontrollable leftist militants, a review of Stasi records shows. Stasi officials did not want to tarnish East Germany’s international reputation, so they toyed with different concepts for cooperation with terrorist groups, according to a prosecutor who has investigated Stasi involvement with terrorism.
One suggestion, contained in a document prepared for new officers assigned to the unit, was to emulate Romanian intelligence, which successfully worked with the terrorist “Carlos” to bomb the Radio Free Europe office in Munich, Germany, in 1981. To assist in such operations, the Wartin unit developed highly specialized explosives, poisons and miniature firearms.
About 1980 the Stasi also proposed a second strategy: instead of using a terrorist group directly — such cooperation always contained risk of discovery — they could simply execute attacks so similar to those of known terrorists that police would never look for a second set of suspects, according to Wartin records. The Wartin leadership called this strategy the “perpetrator principle,” according to Stasi records. The unit’s progress in implementing the steps to imitate terrorist attacks is described in a series of progress reports by Wartin officials between 1980 and 1987.
In September 1981, Red Army Faction terrorists attempted to kill U.S. Gen. James Kroesen in Heidelberg, Germany, shooting a bazooka at his car. About the same time, members of the same Red Army Faction team visited East Germany, where they were asked by the Stasi to shoot a bazooka at a car containing a dog. The dog died, according to court records.
In Wartin, officials wrote up a detailed description of the Red Army Faction members’ re-enactment of the Kroesen attack. “It is important to collect all accessible information about the terrorist scene in imperialist countries, to study and analyze their equipment, methods and tactics, so we can do it ourselves,” a senior Wartin official wrote in February 1982, according to the report.
In 1982, West German police discovered two troves of Red Army Faction weapons and documents buried in German forests. Three terrorists, including Red Army Faction leader Christian Klar, were arrested when they approached the sites. The troves were buried in locations easy to find at night, a tactic used by Wartin’s own agents to store operational equipment in West Germany, according to an investigator who viewed the troves and Stasi records.
That same year, a Wartin official described the staged bombing of a moving vehicle. According to the report, several Stasi officers shed “tears of joy” when electronic sensors detected the approaching car and ignited the detonator.
A spokesman at Germany’s federal police investigative agency, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, declined to comment on the close similarity between the detonator used in the demonstration and the device that killed Mr. Herrhausen, saying this is part of their investigation.
Wartin officers continued their preparations for imitating terrorist attacks in West Germany, according to a 1985 internal Wartin report. They created a special archive profiling the characteristics of known terrorists and terrorist groups, and taught staff members to execute nearly identical attacks, according to Stasi records. Each year, the unit’s officers detailed the unit’s success in teaching these techniques in their annual reports, according to the reports.
Then, in 1987, the AGM/S stopped offensive operations. The unit was disbanded.
Werner Grossmann, a former three-star Stasi General and former head of foreign intelligence operations, says the AGM/S was responsible for planning attacks in West Germany, but was dissolved “because it didn’t produce results.” Mr. Grossmann assumed control of part of the AGM/S after most of the unit was dissolved.
Mr. Grossmann says he took control of part of the AGM/S because he wanted to run intelligence operations against West Germany’s civil defense infrastructure.
“I refused to have anything to do with terrorism and terrorists,” Mr. Grossmann said in an interview. He said he didn’t have any influence over the AGM/S activities before 1987 and wasn’t informed about the unit’s activities before it came under his control.
Olaf Barnickel, a career Stasi officer who served at Wartin, says his unit planned murders in West Germany, but never committed one. “It was all theory and no practice,” Mr. Barnickel said in an interview.
But some German police are unpersuaded. They believe the seeds may have been planted for future violent attacks.
In November 1989, as East Germany disintegrated, groups of citizens forced their way into Stasi installations, seizing control. In Wartin, a local church minister led a group of demonstrators to the main entrance of the Stasi base. The base closed.
Within the Stasi as a whole, the chain of command began to disintegrate. Links to organizations in West Germany, including the Red Army Faction, were broken.
Sixteen months after Mr. Herrhausen’s murder, the Red Army Faction claimed its last victim, killing Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, the head of the Treuhandanstalt, the powerful trust that controlled most state-owned assets in the former East Germany and was overseeing their privatization. Mr. Rohwedder was killed while he was standing by the window of his house in Düsseldorf.
The murder was performed by a trained sharpshooter, according to a police official familiar with the investigation. The Stasi trained members of the Red Army Faction in sharpshooting skills and had its own teams of sharpshooters, according to witness statements by Stasi officials to a Berlin prosecutor and Stasi records.
In 1998, the Red Army Faction issued the last of its communiques, announcing it was disbanding. German police attribute the group’s disappearance to changing times, which made the group seem a relic of the past. Indeed, the Red Army Faction today is largely seen by the German public as part of the social upheaval that plagued West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. More than one in four Germans consider former Red Army Faction members to have been misguided idealists. More than half now think the investigations should be closed for good in the coming decade when the current group of Red Army Faction prisoners finish serving their prison sentences.
German prosecutors say their investigation of the Stasi’s role is continuing.
Since last month, Mrs. Herrhausen has been in contact with the next of kin of victims in the other unsolved Red Army Faction murder cases, looking for support to push the investigation. The bomb that killed her husband nearly 18 years ago exploded soon after he left for work, within earshot of their home in suburban Frankfurt.
“I still hear that bomb every day,” she says.

Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution.
The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.
Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.
The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.
This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.
Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.
Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment.

The name of Benno Ohnesorg became a rallying cry for the West German left after he was shot dead by police in 1967. Newly discovered documents indicate that the cop who shot him may have been a spy for the East German secret police.
It was one of the most important events leading up to the wave of radical left-wing violence which washed over West Germany in the 1970s. On the evening of June 2, 1967, the literature student Benno Ohnesorg took part in a demonstration at West Berlin’s opera house. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, was to attend and the gathered students wanted to call attention to his brutal regime.
The protests, though, got out of hand. Pro-shah demonstrators, some of them flown in from Iran for the occasion, battled with the student protestors. West Berlin police also did their part, brutally beating back the crowd. At 8:30 p.m., a shot was fired, and a short time later the 26-year-old Ohnesorg, having been hit in the back of the head, became the left wing’s first martyr.
Now, though, the history of the event may have to be re-written. New documents discovered in the Stasi archive — the vast collection of files left behind by the East German secret police — reveal that the policeman who shot Ohnesorg, Karl-Heinz Kurras, could in fact have been a spy for East Germany’s communist regime.
In an article that will appear in late May in Deutschlandarchiv, a periodical dedicated to the ongoing project of German reunification, Helmut Müller-Enbergs and Cornelia Jabs reveal that documents they found in the Stasi papers show that Kurras began working together with the Stasi in 1955. He had wanted to move to East Berlin to work for the East German police. Instead, he signed an agreement with the Stasi to remain with the West Berlin police force and spy for the communist state.
As a result of the new information, criminal charges have once again been filed against Kurras, who was acquitted twice, once in 1967 and again in 1970, of negligent homicide charges related to Ohnesorg’s death. Kurras told the Berlin paper Tagesspiegel on Friday that he had never worked together with the Stasi.
But in addition to finding the agreement between Kurras and the Stasi, the two researchers also discovered numerous documents indicating that the East Germans were pleased with the information Kurras passed along — particularly given that he was posted to a division responsible for rooting out moles within the West German police force.
Immediately after Ohnesorg’s death, Kurras received a Stasi communication ordering him to destroy his records and to “cease activities for the moment.” Kurras responded with his acquiescence and wrote “I need money for an attorney.”
The exact circumstances surrounding the death of Ohnesorg have never been completely clarified. Kurras himself, now 81, gave conflicting versions of the story during the investigation but the official version has long been that Kurras fired in self defense. Many others point to witness accounts whereby the police were beating Ohnesorg when the shot was fired.
It is still unclear how the new evidence might play into history’s understanding of the tragic event. The day was one full of violence, with demonstrators and police battling each other with pipes, wooden clubs and stones. Police were further incited by rumors that an officer had been stabbed earlier in the evening. Ohnesorg himself, however, was not directly involved in the violence.
West Berlin in the 1960s and 70s became a focal point of German left wing radicalism. The city had long been left-leaning, and the fact that Berliners were exempt from military service meant that it became a magnate for pacifists and anti-state activists.
Ohnesorg’s death gave them an immediate rallying cry. As the left-wing movement became more radical, many justified their violent activities by pointing to the police brutality that led to the student’s death. A letter written by Ulrike Meinhof announcing the founding of the Red Army Faction, which appeared in SPIEGEL in the fall of 1967, explicitly mentioned the Ohnesorg incident. The RAF went on to terrorize Germany for decades, ultimately killing over 30 people across the country. The radical “June 2 Movement” used the date of the incident in its name.
Kurras, for his part, seems to have been a highly valued Stasi agent. In his files, it is noted that “he is prepared to complete any task assigned to him.” It also mentions that he is notable for having the “courage and temerity necessary to accomplish difficult missions.”

Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention ofGoogle Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011

In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)

Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelznr, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror

The Stasi murder:
„GoMoPa“ & Backers: Blackmailing, Extortion, Racketeering, Internet Murder and Murder. These are the weapons of the East-German “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”, a renegate confesses.
Deep Throat, Berlin; confesses: „Since months the „GoMoPa“ keyfigures like Klaus-Dieter Maurischat< are in hide-aways because the German police is hunting them for the wirecard fraud and a lot of other criminal actions. I left the group when I noticed that. The found and former Stasi-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer died under strange circumstances in Berlin. This has been told to us. But it is also possible that his death was staged. In any case the criminal organization of “GoMoPa” is responsible for the murder of Heinz Gerlach by dioxin. Now my life is also in danger that is why I hide myself.”
According to Deep Throat, Hans J. the murder was done with the help of the old Stasi-connections of the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”.
The renegate says that computer hacker Thomas Promny and Sven Schmidt are responsible for the computer crimes and he states that the crime organization of “GoMoPa” has also helpers inside internet companies like Go-Daddy, Media-on and even in Google, Hamburg..

THE “NACHRICHTENDIENST”:New criminal police action against “GoMoPa”:

German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground.

On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders say they have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the
Encyclopedia – Britannica

The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.

Besides that many legal institutions, individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.

The case number is

ST/0148943/2011

Stasi-Dioxin: The “NACHRICHTENDIENST”  searching for the perfect murder:

Viktor Yushchenko was running against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych was a political ally of outgoing president Leonid Kuchma. Kuchma’s administration depended upon corruption and dishonesty for its power. Government officials ruled with a sense of terror rather than justice. For the powerful and wealthy few, having Yanukovych elected president was important. Should Yushchenko win, Ukraine’s government was sure to topple. Yushchenko’s campaign promises included a better quality of life for Ukrainians through democracy. His wife, Katherine, told CBS in a 2005 interview, “He was a great threat to the old system, where there was a great deal of corruption, where people were making millions, if not billions.”
On September 6, 2004, Yushchenko became ill after dining with leaders of the Ukrainian secret police. Unlike other social or political engagements, this dinner did not include anyone else on Yushchenko’s team. No precautions were taken regarding the food. Within hours after the dinner, Yushchenko began vomiting violently. His face became paralyzed; he could not speak or read. He developed a severe stomachache and backache as well as gastrointestinal pain. Outwardly, Yushchenko developed what is known as chloracne, a serious skin condition that leaves the face scarred and disfigured.
By December 2004, doctors had determined that Yushchenko had been the victim of dioxin poisoning. Dioxin is a name given to a group of related toxins that can cause cancer and even death. Dioxin was used in the biochemical weapon called Agent Orange during the Vietnam War controversial war in which the United States aidedSouth Vietnam in its fight against a takeover by Communist North Vietnam). Yushchenko had a dioxin level six thousand times greater than that normally found in the bloodstream. His is the second-highest level ever recorded.
Yushchenko immediately suspected he had been poisoned, though Kuchma’s camp passionately denied such allegations. Instead, when Yushchenko showed up at a parliamentary meeting shortly after the poisoning incident, Kuchma’s men teased him, saying he must have had too much to drink or was out too late the night before.
Dioxin can stay in the body for up to thirty-five years. Experts predict that his swelling and scars will fade but never completely disappear. John Henry, a toxicologist at London’s Imperial Hospital, told RedNova.com, “It’ll be a couple of years, and he will always be a bit pockmarked. After damage as heavy as that, I think he will not return to his film star looks.” And Yushchenko will live with the constant threat of cancer.
At first it was believed the poison must have come from a Russian laboratory. Russia was a strong supporter of Kuchma and lobbied against Yushchenko in the 2004 election. But by July 2005, Yushchenko’s security forces were able to trace the poison to a lab in Ukraine. Though not entirely ruling out Russia’s involvement, Yushchenko is quoted on his Web site as saying “I’m sure that even though some people are running from the investigation, we will get them. I am not afraid of anything or anybody.”

Evidence shows that such a perfect murder plotted by former Stasi agents is the cause of the death of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (IPA: [‘?tazi?]) (abbreviation German: Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was “Schild und Schwert der Partei” (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).

According to the confessions of an informer, Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch writes most of the “articles” of the communist “STASI” agency “GoMoPa” himself or it is done by lawyers of his firm. The whistleblower states that lawyer Resch is the mastermind behind the “CYBER-STASI” called “NACHRICHTENDIENST” “GoMoPa”. Bizarre enough they use Jewish names of non-existing Jewish lawyers by the name of “Goldman, Morgenstern and Partner” to stage their bogus “firm”.  Further involved in their complots are a “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber and “STASI”-Colonel Ehrenfried Stelzer, “the first crime expert” in the former communist East-Germany.
According to London based Meridian Capital hundreds and thousands of wealthy people and companies have paid to the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” to avoid their cyberstalking (see article below).
Finally the German criminal police started their investigations (case number ST/0148943/2011).
The “NACHRICHTENDIENST” is also involved in the death of the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach who died under strange circumstances in July 2010.
Only hours after his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” was spreading the news that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution and set the stage for a fairy tale. Months before his death the “NACHRICHTENDIENST” started a campaign to ruin his reputation and presumably was also responsable for cyberattacks to bring his website down. In fact they presumably used the same tactics also against our servers. Therefore we investigated all internet details of them and handed the facts to the FBI and international authorities.

Story background:
Now it seems the STASI is back again in business after transforming it in to the CYBER-STASI of the 21st Century.

The serial betrayer and  cyberstalker Klaus Maurischat is on the run again. The latest action against him (see below) cause him to react in a series of fake statements and “press releases” – one more absurd than the other. Insider analyze that his criminal organisation “GoMoPa” is about to fade away.
On our request the German criminal police (Kriminalpolizei) has opened new cases against the notorious “GoMoPa” organisation which already fled in the underground. Insiders  say they  have killed German journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach and their criminal record is bigger than the Encyclopedia – Britannica
The case is also directed against Google, Germany, whilst supporting criminal action of  “GoMoPa” for years and therefore give them the chance to blackmail successfull businessman. This case is therefore an example and will be followed by many others as far as we can project. Furthermore we will bring the case to the attention of the German lawyers community which will not tolerate such misconduct by Googles German legal representative Dr. Arndt Haller and we will bring the case to the attention of Google Inc in Mountain View, USA, and the American ministry of Justice to stop the Cyberstalkers once and for all.
Besides that many legal institutions,  individuals and firms have already contacted us to help to clarify the death of Mr. Heinz Gerlach and to prosecute his murderers and their backers.
The case number is ST/0148943/2011
In a series of interviews beginning 11 months before the sudden death of German watchdog Heinz Gerlach Berlin lawyer Joschen Resch unveilved secrets of Gerlach, insiders say. Secret documents from Mr Gerlachs computer were published on two dubious hostile German websites. Both have a lot of similarities in their internet registration. One the notorious “GoMoPa” website belongs to a n Eastern German organization which calls itself “
Numerous attempts have been made to stop our research and the publication of the stories by “GoMoPa” members in camouflage thus confirming the truth and the substance of it in a superior way.
Only two articles let the German audience believe that the famous journalist and watchdog Heinz Gerlach died on natural courses by blood pollution. The first one, published only hours after the death of Mr Heinz Gerlach by the notorious “GoMoPa” (see article below) and a second 3 days later by a small German local newspaper, Weserbergland Nachrichten.

Many people including the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” doubted that this man who had so many enemies and friends would die of natural causes without any previous warning. Rumours occured that Mr. Gerlach’s doctor doubted natural courses at all. After many critical voices discussed the issue a small website of a small German local newspaper – which never before had reported about Mr. Heinz Gerlach and which is not even in the region of Mr Gerlachs home – published that Mr Gerlach died of blood pollution. Weserbergland-Nachrichten published a long article about the deadly consequences of blood pollution and did not even name the source of such an important statement. It claimed only that somebody of Gerlachs inner circle had said this. It is a proven fact that after the collpase of the Eastern German Communist Regime many former Communist propaganda agents went to regional newspapers – often in Western Germany like Günther Schabowski did the man who opened the “Mauer”.

The theatre stage was set: One day later the hostile Gerlach website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” took the agenda publishing that Mr Gerlach had died for natural causes without any further research at all.

This was done by a website which for months and months and months reported everything about Mr. Gerlach.
Furthermore a research proves that the technical details regarding the website hosting of this hostile website “Akte Heinz Gerlach” proves that there are common details with the hosting of “GoMoPa” and their affiliates as proven by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims (see http://www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com)
Insiders believe that the murderers of Mr. Heinz Gerlach are former members of the Eastern German Terror Organisation “Stasi” with dioxins. They also believe that “GoMoPa” was part of the plot. At “GoMoPa”’ a person named Siegfried Siewers was officialy responsible for the press but never appeared in public. “GoMoPa”-victims say that this name was a cameo for “GoMoPa” frontrunner Klaus Maurischat who is controlled by the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzner, Berlin.

Siegfried Sievers, a former Stasi member is responsible for the pollution of millions Germanys for many years with dioxins. This was unveiled at 5th of January 2011 by German prosecutors.
The victims say that Maurischat (probably also a Stasi cameo) and Sievers were in contact as Sievers acted as Stasi Agent and was in fact already a specialist in dioxins under the Communist Terror Regime in Eastern Germany.
Furthermore the Stasi Top Agent Ehrenfried Stelzer disguised as Professor for Criminal studies during the Communist Regime at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University.

Background:
The man behind the Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch and his activities is Ehrenfried Stelzer, former Stasi Top officer in Berlin and “Professor for Criminal Studies” at the Eastern Berlin Humboldt University during the Communist regime, the SJB-GoMoPa-victims say (www.sjb-fonds-opfer.com) is responsable for the killing of German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach.
These informations stem from various sources who were close to the criminal organization of GoMoPa in the last years. The SJB-GoMoPa say that the well-known German watchdog and journalist Heinz Gerlach was killed by former Stasi members with dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins build up primarily in fatty tissues over time (bioaccumulate), so even small exposures may eventually reach dangerous levels. In 1994, the US EPA reported that dioxins are a probable carcinogen, but noted that non-cancer effects (reproduction and sexual development, immune system) may pose an even greater threat to human health. TCDD, the most toxic of the dibenzodioxins, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
In 2004, a notable individual case of dioxin poisoning, Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko was exposed to the second-largest measured dose of dioxins, according to the reports of the physicians responsible for diagnosing him. This is the first known case of a single high dose of TCDD dioxin poisoning, and was diagnosed only after a toxicologist recognized the symptoms of chloracne while viewing television news coverage of his condition.
German dioxin scandal: In January 2011 about 4700 German farms were banned from making deliveries after tests at the Harles und Jentzsch plant in the state of Schleswig-Holstein showed high levels of dioxin. Again this incident appears to involve PCBs and not PCDDs at all. Dioxin were found in animal feed and eggs in many farms. The person who is responsible for this, Siegfried Sievert is also a former Stasi Agent. At “GoMoPa” the notorious Eastern-Berlin press agency (see article below) one of the henchmen acted under the name of “Siegfried Siewert”.
Further evidence for the killing of Mr.Heinz Gerlach is provided by the SJB-GoMoPa-victims by analyzing the dubious role of former Stasi-Top-agent Ehrenfried Stelzer, also a former “Professor for Crime Studies” under the Communist regime in Eastern Germany and the dubious role of “detective” Medard Fuchsgruber. Both are closely tied to the dubious “GoMoPa” and Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch.
According to the SJB-GoMoPa-victims is Berlin lawyer Jochen Resch the mastermind of the criminal organization “GoMoPa2. The victims state that they have a source inside “GoMoPa” who helped them discover  the shocking truth. The so-called “Deep Throat from Berlin” has information that Resch had the idea to found the criminal organization “GoMoPa” and use non-existing Jewish lawyers  named Goldman, Morgenstern & Partner as camouflage. Their “office” in Madison Avenue, New York, is a mailbox. This is witnessed by a German Ex-Patriot, a lawyer, whose father, Heinz Gerlach, died under strange circumstances.
Resch seems to use “GoMoPa” as an instrument to blackmail parts of the German Property and Investment section.

-”Worse than the Gestapo.” —Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter said about the notorious “Stasi”.

Less than a month after German demonstrators began to tear down the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, irate East German citizens stormed the Leipzig district office of the Ministry for State Security (MfS)—the Stasi, as it was more commonly called. Not a shot was fired, and there was no evidence of “street justice” as Stasi officers surrendered meekly and were peacefully led away. The following month, on January 15, hundreds of citizens sacked Stasi headquarters in Berlin. Again there was no bloodshed. The last bit of unfinished business was accomplished on May 31 when the Stasi radioed its agents in West Germany to fold their tents and come home.
The intelligence department of the Nationale Volksarmee (NVA), the People’s Army, had done the same almost a week earlier, but with what its members thought was better style. Instead of sending the five-digit code groups that it had used for decades to message its spies in West Germany, the army group broadcast a male choir singing a children’s ditty about a duck swimming on a lake. There was no doubt that the singing spymasters had been drowning their sorrow over losing the Cold War in schnapps. The giggling, word-slurring songsters repeated the refrain three times: “Dunk your little head in the water and lift your little tail.” This was the signal to agents under deep cover that it was time to come home.
With extraordinary speed and political resolve, the divided nation was reunified a year later. The collapse of the despotic regime was total. It was a euphoric time for Germans, but reunification also produced a new national dilemma. Nazi war crimes were still being tried in West Germany, forty-six years after World War II. Suddenly the German government was faced with demands that the communist officials who had ordered, executed, and abetted crimes against their own people—crimes that were as brutal as those perpetrated by their Nazi predecessors—also be prosecuted.
The people of the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), the German Democratic Republic, as the state had called itself for forty years, were clamoring for instant revenge. Their wrath was directed primarily against the country’s communist rulers—the upper echelon of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei (SED), the Socialist Unity Party. The tens of thousands of second-echelon party functionaries who had enriched themselves at the expense of their cocitizens were also prime targets for retribution.
Particularly singled out were the former members of the Stasi, the East German secret police, who previously had considered themselves the “shield and sword” of the party. When the regime collapsed, the Stasi had 102,000 full-time officers and noncommissioned personnel on its rolls, including 11,000 members of the ministry’s own special guards regiment. Between 1950 and 1989, a total of 274,000 persons served in the Stasi.
The people’s ire was running equally strong against the regular Stasi informers, the inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs). By 1995, 174,000 had been identified as IMs, or 2.5 percent of the total population between the ages of 18 and 60. Researchers were aghast when they found that about 10,000 IMs, or roughly 6 percent of the total, had not yet reached the age of 18. Since many records were destroyed, the exact number of IMs probably will never be determined; but 500,000 was cited as a realistic figure. Former Colonel Rainer Wiegand, who served in the Stasi counterintelligence directorate, estimated that the figure could go as high as 2 million, if occasional stool pigeons were included.
“The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people,” according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. “The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million.” One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.
To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union’s KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal’s figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi’s case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests.

THE STASI OCTOPUS

Like a giant octopus, the Stasi’s tentacles probed every aspect of life. Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants. Without exception, one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo), the People’s Police. In turn, the police officer was the Stasi’s man. If a relative or friend came to stay overnight, it was reported. Schools, universities, and hospitals were infiltrated from top to bottom. German academe was shocked to learn that Heinrich Fink, professor of theology and vice chancellor at East Berlin’s Humboldt University, had been a Stasi informer since 1968. After Fink’s Stasi connections came to light, he was summarily fired. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, writers, actors, and sports figures were co-opted by Stasi officers, as were waiters and hotel personnel. Tapping about 100,000 telephone lines in West Germany and West Berlin around the clock was the job of 2,000 officers.
Stasi officers knew no limits and had no shame when it came to “protecting the party and the state.” Churchmen, including high officials of both Protestant and Catholic denominations, were recruited en masse as secret informers. Their offices and confessionals were infested with eavesdropping devices. Even the director of Leipzig’s famous Thomas Church choir, Hans-Joachim Rotch, was forced to resign when he was unmasked as a Spitzel, the people’s pejorative for a Stasi informant.
Absolutely nothing was sacred to the secret police. Tiny holes were bored in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed their “suspects” with special video cameras. Even bathrooms were penetrated by the communist voyeurs.8 Like the Nazi Gestapo, the Stasi was the sinister side of deutsche Gründlichkeit (German thoroughness).
After the Berlin wall came down, the victims of the DDR regime demanded immediate retribution. Ironically, their demands were countered by their fellow Germans in the West who, living in freedom, had diligently built einen demokratischen Rechtsstaat, a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The challenge of protecting the rights of both the victims and the accused was immense, given the emotions surrounding the issue. Government leaders and democratic politicians recognized that there could be no “quick fix” of communist injustices without jeopardizing the entire system of democratic jurisprudence. Moving too rapidly merely to satisfy the popular thirst for revenge might well have resulted in acquittals or mistrials. Intricate jurisdictional questions needed to be resolved with both alacrity and meticulousness. No German government could afford to allow a perpetrator to go free because of a judicial error. The political fallout from any such occurrence, especially in the East, could prove fatal to whatever political party occupied the chancellor’s office in Bonn at the time.
Politicians and legal scholars of the “old federal states,” or West Germany, counseled patience, pointing out that even the prosecution of Nazi criminals had not yet been completed. Before unification, Germans would speak of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“coming to grips with the past”) when they discussed dealing with Nazi crimes. In the reunited Germany, this word came to imply the communist past as well. The two were considered comparable especially in the area of human rights violations. Dealing with major Nazi crimes, however, was far less complicated for the Germans: Adolf Hitler and his Gestapo and Schutzstaffel (SS) chief, Heinrich Himmler, killed themselves, as did Luftwaffe chief and Vice Chancellor Hermann Göring, who also had been the first chief of the Gestapo. The victorious Allies prosecuted the rest of the top leadership at the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nürnberg. Twelve were hanged, three received life terms, four were sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment (up to twenty years), and three were acquitted.
The cases of communist judges and prosecutors accused of Rechtsbeugung (perversion of justice) are more problematic. According to Franco Werkenthin, a Berlin legal expert charged with analyzing communist crimes for the German parliament, those sitting in judgment of many of the accused face a difficult task because of the general failure of German justice after World War II. Not a single judge or prosecutor who served the Nazi regime was brought to account for having perverted justice—even those who had handed down death sentences for infringements that in a democracy would have been considered relatively minor offenses. Werkenthin called this phenomenon die Jauche der Justiz, the cesspool of justice.
Of course, the crimes committed by the communists were not nearly as heinous as the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, or the mass murders in Nazi-occupied territories. However, the communists’ brutal oppression of the nation by means including murder alongside legal execution put the SED leadership on a par with Hitler’s gang. In that sense, Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker (Ulbricht’s successor as the party’s secretary-general and head of state) and secret police chief Erich Mielke can justifiably be compared to Hitler and Himmler, respectively.
Arrest warrants were issued for Honecker and Mielke. The Soviet government engineered Honecker’s escape to Moscow, where he became the ward of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev. When the Soviet Union crumbled, the new Russian President Boris Yeltsin expelled Honecker. He was arrested on his return to Germany, but a court decided against a trial when he was diagnosed with liver cancer. Honecker flew to Chile with his wife Margot to live with their daughter, a Chilean citizen by marriage. His exile was short, and he died in 1994. Mielke was not so fortunate: His KGB friends turned their backs on him. He was tried in Germany for the 1931 murder of two police officers, found guilty, and sentenced to six years in prison. Other charges, including manslaughter, were dismissed because of his advanced age and poor health.
Three other members of the twenty-one-member ruling Politburo also have been tried. Former Defense Minister Heinz Kessler was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the order to kill people who were trying to escape to the West. He received a seven-and-a-half-year term. Two others, members of the Central Committee and the National Defense Council, were tried with Kessler and sentenced to seven and a half years and five years, respectively. Politburo member Harry Tisch, who was also head of the communist trade union, was found guilty of embezzlement and served eighteen months. Six others, including Egon Krenz (Honecker’s successor as party chief), were charged with manslaughter. Krenz was found guilty, and on August 25, 1997, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.
However, eight years after reunification, many of the 165 members of the Central Committee have not yet been put under investigation. In 1945, Nazis holding comparable or lesser positions were subject to automatic arrest by the Allies. They spent months or even years in camps while their cases were adjudicated. Moreover, the Nürnberg Tribunal branded the Reich and its Corps of Political Leaders, SS, Security Service (SD), Secret State Police (Gestapo), SA (Storm Troopers), and Armed Forces High Command criminal organizations. Similarly sweeping actions against communist leaders and functionaries such as Stasi officers were never contemplated, even though tens of thousands of political trials and human rights abuses have been documented. After the East German regime fell, German judicial authorities scrupulously avoided the appearance of waging witch-hunts or using the law as a weapon of vengeance. Prosecutors and judges made great efforts to be fair, often suspending legal action while requesting rulings from the supreme court on possible constitutional conflicts.
The victims of oppression clamored for revenge and demanded speedy prosecution of the erstwhile tyrants. They had little patience for a judicial system that was handicapped by a lack of unblemished and experienced criminal investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Despite these handicaps, the Berlin Central Police Investigations Group for Government Criminality, mindful that the statute of limitations for most communist crimes would expire at the end of 1999, made significant progress under its director Manfred Kittlaus, the able former director of the West Berlin state police. Kittlaus’s major task in 1998 was to investigate wrongful deaths, including 73 murders, 30 attempted murders, 583 cases of manslaughter, 2,938 instances of attempted manslaughter, and 425 other suspicious deaths. Of the 73 murders, 22 were classified as contract murders.
One of those tried and convicted for attempted contract murder was former Stasi collaborator Peter Haak, who was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. The fifty-two-year-old Haak took part in the Stasi’s 1981 Operation Scorpion, which was designed to pursue people who helped East Germans escape to the West. Proceedings against former General Gerhard Neiber, whose Stasi directorate was responsible for preventing escapes and for wreaking vengeance, were still pending in 1998.
Peter Haak’s murder plot was hatched after he befriended Wolfgang Welsch and his family. Welsch was a thorn in the side of the Stasi because of his success in smuggling people out of the DDR. Haak joined Welsch and the latter’s wife and seven-year-old daughter on a vacation in Israel, where he mixed a gram of thallium, a highly poisonous metallic chemical element used in rat poison, into the hamburgers he was preparing for a meal. Welsch’s wife and daughter vomited immediately after ingesting the poison and recovered quickly. Welsch suffered severe aftereffects, but eventually recovered: He had consumed a large amount of beer with the meal, and an expert testified that the alcohol had probably flushed the poison from his system.
Berlin Prosecutor General Christoph Schäfgen revealed that after the DDR’s demise 15,200 investigations had been launched, of which more than 9,000 were still active at the beginning of 1995. Indictments were handed down in 153 cases, and 73 perpetrators were convicted. Among those convicted were the aforementioned Politburo members as well as a number of border guards who had killed people who were trying to escape to the West.
Despite widespread misgivings about the judicial failures in connection with some Nazi crimes, a number of judges and prosecutors were convicted and jailed for up to three years for perversion of justice. In collusion with the Stasi, they had requested or handed down more severe sentences in political cases so that the state could collect greater amounts when the “convicts” were ransomed by the West German government. {The amount of ransom paid was governed by the time a prisoner had been sentenced to serve.)
The enormity of the task facing judicial authorities in reunified Germany becomes starkly evident when one examines the actions they have taken in all five former East German provinces and in East Berlin. From the end of 1990 to July 1996, 52,050 probes were launched into charges of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, election fraud, and perversion of justice. A total of 29,557 investigations were halted for various reasons including death, severe illness, old age, or insufficient evidence. In those five and a half years, there were only 139 convictions.
The problem is even more staggering when cases of espionage are included. Between 1990 and 1996, the office of the federal prosecutor general launched 6,641 probes, of which 2,431 were terminated before trial—most due to the statute of limitations. Of 175 indictments on charges of espionage, 95 resulted in convictions. In addition to the cases handled at the federal level, the prosecutor general referred 3,926 investigations to state authorities, who terminated 3,344 without trial. State courts conducted 356 trials, resulting in 248 convictions. Because the statute of limitations for espionage is five years, the prosecutor general’s office told me in 1997 it was unlikely that more espionage trials would be conducted.
It is important to emphasize the difference between the statute’s application to so-called government crimes committed in East Germany before the collapse and to crimes, such as espionage, committed in West Germany. The Unification Treaty specifically permits the belated prosecution of individuals who committed acts that were punishable under the East German criminal code and who due to official connivance were not prosecuted earlier. There is no statute of limitations for murder. For most other crimes the limit is five years; however, due to the obstacles created by previous government connivance, the German parliament in 1993 doubled this time limit for prosecution of the more serious crimes. At the same time, the parliament decreed that all cases must be adjudicated by the end of 2002. For less serious offenses, the statute would have run out on December 31, 1997, but the parliament extended it to 2000.
A number of politicians, jurists, and liberal journalists pleaded for a general amnesty for crimes committed by former DDR leaders and Communist Party functionaries. A former West German supreme court judge, Ernst Mahrenholz, said the “sharp sword of justice prevents reconciliation.” Schäfgen, the Berlin prosecutor general, had this answer for the former high court judge and other amnesty advocates:

I cannot agree. We are raising no special, sharp sword against East Germans. We must pursue state-sponsored injustice in exactly the same manner as we do when a thief steals or when one human being kills another. If one wants to change that, then we would have to do away with the entire criminal justice system, because punishment always hurts. We are not criminalizing an entire people but only an ever shrinking, small portion.

German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, who was West Germany’s minister of justice when the nation was unified, said this at a session of parliament in September 1991: “We must punish the perpetrators. This is not a matter of a victor’s justice. We owe it to the ideal of justice and to the victims. All of those who ordered injustices and those who executed the orders must be punished; the top men of the SED as well as the ones who shot [people] at the wall.” Aware that the feelings against communists were running high among their victims, Kinkel pointed to past revolutions after which the representatives of the old system were collectively liquidated. In the same speech before parliament, he said:

Such methods are alien to a state ruled by law. Violence and vengeance are incompatible with the law in any case. At the same time, we cannot tolerate that the problems are swept under the rug as a way of dealing with a horrible past, because the results will later be disastrous for society. We Germans know from our own experience where this leads. Jewish philosophy formulates it in this way: “The secret of redemption is called remembering.”

Defense attorneys for communist officials have maintained that the difficulty lies in the fact that hundreds of thousands of political opponents were tried under laws of the DDR. Although these laws were designed to smother political dissent and grossly violated basic human rights and democratic norms, they were nonetheless laws promulgated by a sovereign state. How could one justly try individual Stasi officers, prosecutors, and judges who had simply been fulfilling their legal responsibility to pursue and punish violators of the law?
Opinions varied widely on whether and how the Stasi and other perpetrators of state-sponsored crimes should be tried. Did the laws of the DDR, as they existed before reunification, still apply in the east? Or was the criminal code of the western part of the country the proper instrument of justice in reunified Germany? However, these questions were moot: As Rupert Scholz, professor of law at the University of Munich and a Christian Democratic member of parliament, pointed out, the Unification Treaty specifies that the penal code of the DDR and not that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) shall be applied to offenses committed in East Germany. Scholz’s view was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the supreme court. Most offenses committed by party functionaries and Stasi officers—murder, kidnapping, torture, illegal wiretapping, mail robbery, and fraud—were subject to prosecution in reunified Germany under the DDR’s penal code. But this would not satisfy the tens of thousands of citizens who had been sent to prison under East German laws covering purely political offenses for which there was no West German equivalent.
Nevertheless, said Scholz, judicial authorities were by no means hamstrung, because West Germany had never recognized the East German state according to international law. “We have always said that we are one nation; that the division of Germany led neither to full recognition under international law nor, concomitantly, to a recognition of the legal system of the DDR,” Scholz said. Accordingly, West German courts have consistently maintained that West German law protects all Germans equally, including those living in the East. Therefore, no matter where the crimes were committed, whether in the East or the West, all Germans have always been subject to West German laws. Applying this logic, East German border guards who had either killed or wounded persons trying to escape to the West could be tried under the jurisdiction of West Germany.
The “one nation” principle was not upheld by the German supreme court. Prior to the court’s decision, however, Colonel General Markus Wolf, chief of the Stasi’s foreign espionage directorate, and some of his officers who personally controlled agents from East Berlin had been tried for treason and convicted. Wolf had been sentenced to six years in prison. The supreme court ruling overturned that verdict and those imposed on Wolf’s cohorts, even though they had obtained the most closely held West German secrets and handed them over to the KGB. The maximum penalty for Landesverrat, or treason, is life imprisonment. In vacating Wolf’s sentence, the court said he could not be convicted because he operated only from East German territory and under East German law.
However, Wolf was reindicted on charges of kidnapping and causing bodily harm, crimes also punishable under East German law. The former Stasi three-star general, on March 24, 1955, had approved in writing a plan to kidnap a woman who worked for the U.S. mission in West Berlin. The woman and her mother were tricked by a Stasi agent whom the woman had been teaching English, and voluntarily got into his car. He drove them into the Soviet sector of the divided city, where they were seized by Stasi officers. The woman was subjected to psychological torture and threatened with imprisonment unless she signed an agreement to spy for the Stasi. She agreed. On her return to the American sector, however, the woman reported the incident to security officials. Wolf had committed a felony punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment in West Germany. He was found guilty in March 1977 and sentenced to two years’ probation.
Those who have challenged the application of the statute of limitations to communist crimes, especially to the executions of citizens fleeing to the West, have drawn parallels to the notorious executive orders of Adolf Hitler. Hitler issued orders mandating the summary execution of Soviet Army political commissars upon their capture and initiating the extermination of Jews. An early postwar judicial decision held that these orders were equivalent to law. When that law was declared illegal and retroactively repealed by the West German Bundestag, the statute of limitations was suspended—that is, it never took effect. Many of those convicted in subsequent trials of carrying out the Führer’s orders were executed by the Allies. The German supreme court has ruled the same way as the Bundestag on the order to shoot people trying to escape to West Germany, making the statute of limitations inapplicable to such cases. The ruling made possible the trial of members of the National Defense Council who took part in formulating or promulgating the order. A number of border guards who had shot would-be escapees also have been tried and convicted.
Chief Prosecutor Heiner Sauer, former head of the West German Central Registration Office for Political Crimes, was particularly concerned with the border shootings. His office, located in Salzgitter, West Germany, was established in 1961 as a direct consequence of the Berlin Wall, which was erected on August 13 of that year. Willy Brandt, at the time the city’s mayor (later federal chancellor) had decided that crimes committed by East German border guards should be recorded. At his behest, a central registry of all shootings and other serious border incidents was instituted. Between August 13, 1961 and the opening of the borders on November 9, 1989, 186 border killings were registered. But when the Stasi archives were opened, investigators found that at least 825 people had paid with their lives for trying to escape to the West. This figure was reported to the court that was trying former members of the National Defense Council. In addition to these border incidents, the registry also had recorded a number of similar political offenses committed in the interior of the DDR: By fall 1991, Sauer’s office had registered 4,444 cases of actual or attempted killings and about 40,000 sentences handed down by DDR courts for “political offenses.”
During the early years of Sauer’s operation, the details of political prosecutions became known only when victims were ransomed by West Germany or were expelled. Between 1963 and 1989, West Germany paid DM5 billion (nearly US$3 billion) to the communist regime for the release of 34,000 political prisoners. The price per head varied according to the importance of the person or the length of the sentence. In some cases the ransom amounted to more than US$56,000. The highest sum ever paid to the East Germans appears to have been DM450,000 (US$264,705 using an exchange rate of US$1.70 to the mark). The ransom “object” in this case was Count Benedikt von Hoensbroech. A student in his early twenties, von Hoensbroech was attending a West Berlin university when the wall went up. He was caught by the Stasi while trying to help people escape and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor. The case attracted international attention because his family was related to Queen Fabiola of Belgium, who interceded with the East Germans. Smelling money, the East German government first demanded the equivalent of more than US$1 million from the young man’s father as ransom. In the end, the parties settled on the figure of DM450,000, of which the West German government paid DM40,000 (about $23,529). Such ransom operations were fully controlled by the Stasi.
Political prisoners released in the DDR could not be registered by the West Germans because their cases remained secret. The victims were admonished to keep quiet or face another prison term. Nonetheless, in the first year after reunification, Sauer’s office added another 20,000 documented cases, for a total of 60,000. Sauer said he believed the final figure of all political prosecutions would be somewhere around 300,000. In every case, the Stasi was involved either in the initial arrest or in pretrial interrogations during which “confessions” were usually extracted by physical or psychological torture, particularly between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s.
Until 1987, the DDR imposed the death penalty for a number of capital crimes, including murder, espionage, and economic offenses. But after the mid-1950s, nearly all death sentences were kept quiet and executions were carried out in the strictest secrecy, initially by guillotine and in later years by a single pistol shot to the neck. In most instances, the relatives of those killed were not informed either of the sentence or of the execution. The corpses were cremated and the ashes buried secretly, sometimes at construction sites. In reporting about one executioner who shot more than twenty persons to death, the Berlin newspaper Bildzeitung said that a total of 170 civilians had been executed in East Germany. However, Franco Werkenthin, the Berlin official investigating DDR crimes, said he had documented at least three hundred executions. He declined to say how many were for political offenses, because he had not yet submitted his report to parliament. “But it was substantial,” he told me. The true number of executions may never be known because no complete record of death sentences meted out by civil courts could be found. Other death sentences were handed down by military courts, and many records of those are also missing. In addition, German historian Günther Buch believes that about two hundred members of the Stasi itself were executed for various crimes, including attempts to escape to the West.

SAFEGUARDING HUMAN DIGNITY?

The preamble to the East German criminal code stated that the purpose of the code was to “safeguard the dignity of humankind, its freedom and rights under the aegis of the criminal code of the socialist state,” and that “a person can be prosecuted under the criminal code only in strictest concurrence with the law.” However, many of the codified offenses for which East German citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned were unique to totalitarian regimes, both fascist and communist.
Moreover, certain sections of the code, such as those on “Treasonable Relaying of Information” and “Treasonable Agent Activity,” were perversely applied, landing countless East Germans in maximum security penitentiaries. The victims of this perversion of justice usually were persons who had requested legal exit permits from the DDR authorities and had been turned down. In many cases, their “crime” was having contacted a Western consulate to inquire about immigration procedures. Sentences of up to two and a half years’ hard labor were not unusual as punishment for such inquiries.
Engaging in “propaganda hostile to the state” was another punishable offense. In one such case, a young man was arrested and prosecuted for saying that it was not necessary to station tanks at the border and for referring to border fortifications as “nonsense.” During his trial, he “admitted” to owning a television set on which he watched West German programs and later told friends what he saw. One of those “friends” had denounced him to the Stasi. The judge considered the accused’s actions especially egregious and sentenced him to a year and a half at hard labor.
Ironically, another part of this section of the criminal code decreed that “glorifying militarism” also was a punishable offense, although the DDR itself “glorified” its People’s Army beyond any Western norm. That army was clad in uniforms and insignia identical to those of the Nazi Wehrmacht, albeit without eagles and swastikas. The helmets, too, were differently shaped, but the Prussian goose step was regulation during parades.
A nineteen-year-old who had placed a sign in an apartment window reading “When justice is turned into injustice, resistance becomes an obligation!” was rewarded with twenty-two months in the penitentiary. Earlier, the youth had applied for an exit visa and had been turned down. A thirty-four-year-old father of two who also had been denied permission to leave the “workers’ and peasants’ state” with his family similarly advertised that fact with a poster reading “We want to leave, but they won’t let us.” The man went to prison for sixteen months. The “crimes” of both men were covered by a law on “Interference in Activities of the State or Society.”
Two letters—one to a friend in West Germany, seeking assistance to legally emigrate to the West, and another containing a similar appeal to Chief of State Honecker—brought a four-year sentence to their writer, who was convicted under two laws: those on “establishing illegal contacts” (writing to his friend) and on “public denigration” (writing to Honecker). The Stasi had illegally intercepted both letters.
The East German party chiefs were not content to rely only on the Stasi’s millions of informers to ferret out antistate sentiments. Leaving nothing to chance, they created a law that made the failure to denounce fellow citizens a crime punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. One man was sentenced to twenty-three months for failing to report that a friend of his was preparing to escape to the West. The mandatory denunciation law had its roots in the statutes of the Socialist Unity Party, which were published in the form of a little red booklet. I picked up a copy of this booklet that had been discarded by its previous owner, a Stasi chauffeur, who had written “Ha, Ha” next to the mandate to “report any misdeeds, regardless of the person responsible, to leading party organs, all the way up to the Central Committee.”
Rupert Scholz, member of parliament and professor of law at the University of Munich, said many East Germans feel there is little determination among their Western brethren to bring the Stasi criminals to trial. “In fact, we already have heard many of them say that the peaceful revolution should have been a bloody one instead so they could have done away with their tormentors by hanging them posthaste,” Scholz told me.
The Reverend Joachim Gauck, minister to a Lutheran parish in East Germany, shared the people’s pessimism that justice would be done. Following reunification, Gauck was appointed by the Bonn government as its special representative for safeguarding and maintaining the Stasi archives. “We must at least establish a legal basis for finding the culprits in our files,” Gauck told me. “But it will not be easy. If you stood the millions of files upright in one line, they would stretch for 202 kilometers [about 121 miles]. In those files you can find an unbelievable number of Stasi victims and their tormentors.”
Gauck was given the mandate he needed in November 1991, when the German parliament passed a law authorizing file searches to uncover Stasi perpetrators and their informants. He viewed this legislation as first step in the right direction. With the evidence from Stasi files, the perpetrators could be removed from their public service jobs without any formal legal proceedings. Said Gauck: “We needed this law badly. It is not reasonable that persons who served this apparatus of oppression remain in positions of trust.

TOP-SECRET – FBI UNVEILS THE FACTS ABOUT THE PENTAGON ATTACK

Massachusetts Man Charged with Plotting Attack on Pentagon and U.S. Capitol and Attempting to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization

BOSTON—A 26-year-old Ashland man was arrested and charged today in connection with his plot to damage or destroy the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, using large remote controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives. Rezwan Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen, was also charged with attempting to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization, specifically to al Qaeda, in order to carry out attacks on U.S. soldiers stationed overseas.

“Our top priority is to protect our nation from terrorism and national security threats. The conduct alleged today shows that Mr. Ferdaus had long planned to commit violent acts against our country, including attacks on the Pentagon and our nation’s Capitol. Thanks to the diligence of the FBI and our many other law enforcement partners, that plan was thwarted,” said U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz. “I want the public to understand that Mr. Ferdaus’ conduct, as alleged in the complaint, is not reflective of a particular culture, community, or religion,” she added. “In addition to protecting our citizens from the threats and violence alleged today, we also have an obligation to protect members of every community, race, and religion against violence and other unlawful conduct.”

The public was never in danger from the explosive devices, which were controlled by undercover FBI employees (UCs). The defendant was closely monitored as his alleged plot developed and the UCs were in frequent contact with him.

Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Boston Division said, “Today’s arrest was the culmination of an investigation forged through strong relationships among various Massachusetts law enforcement agencies to detect, deter, and prevent terrorism. Each of the more than 30 federal, state, and local agencies on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) worked together to protect the community from this threat. In this particular investigation, the Worcester, Ashland, and Framingham Police Departments and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, played particularly critical roles. The communities of Worcester, Ashland, and Framingham should be proud of the unwavering commitment and professionalism the agencies demonstrated in ensuring that their towns and region were safe from harm. The Massachusetts State Police and the Commonwealth Fusion Center also contributed significantly to this investigation.”

“The FBI used an undercover operation to conduct this investigation. Undercover operations are used to combat all types of crimes and criminals, including in the counterterrorism arena.”

“The JTTF initiated this investigation because we have an obligation to take action to protect the public whenever an individual expresses a desire to commit violence. A committed individual, even one with no direct connections to, or formal training from, an international terrorist organization, can pose a serious danger to the community,” added DesLauriers. “It is important to remember that our system of justice is based on the notion of individual responsibility. Therefore, no one should cite Mr. Ferdaus’ actions as an excuse or reason to engage in any unlawful behavior against others in the community. We will work diligently to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

The affidavit alleges the following: Ferdaus, a Northeastern University graduate with a degree in physics, began planning to commit a violent “jihad” against the U.S. in early 2010. He obtained mobile phones, each of which he modified to act as an electrical switch for an IED. He then supplied the phones to FBI UCs, who he believed to be members of, or recruiters for, al Qaeda. According to the affidavit, Ferdaus believed that the devices would be used to kill American soldiers overseas. During a June 2011 meeting, he appeared gratified when he was told that his first phone detonation device had killed three U.S. soldiers and injured four or five others in Iraq. Ferdaus responded, “That was exactly what I wanted.”

According to the affidavit, after each subsequent delivery, Ferdaus was anxious to know how well each of his detonation devices had worked and how many Americans they had killed. During recorded conversations, Ferdaus stated that he devised the idea of attacking the Pentagon long before he met with the government’s cooperating witness (CW) and UC, and that his jihad had, “started last year.”

In recorded conversations with the CW that began in January 2011, Ferdaus stated that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to “small drone airplanes” filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment. According to the affidavit, in April 2011, Ferdaus expanded his plan to include an attack on the U.S. Capitol. In May and June 2011, Ferdaus delivered two thumb drives to the UCs, which contained detailed attack plans with step-by-step instructions as to how he planned to attack the Pentagon and Capitol. The plans included using three remote controlled aircraft and six people, including himself, whom he described as an “amir,” i.e., an Arabic term meaning leader.

During various recorded meetings, Ferdaus envisioned causing a large “psychological” impact by killing Americans, including women and children, who he referred to as “enemies of Allah.” According to the affidavit, Ferdaus’ desire to attack the United States is so strong that he confided, “I just can’t stop; there is no other choice for me.”

In May 2011, Ferdaus traveled from Boston to Washington, D.C., conducted surveillance and took photographs of his targets (Pentagon and Capitol), and identified and photographed sites at the East Potomac Park from which he planned to launch his aircraft filled with explosives. Upon his return, Ferdaus told the UC that “more stuff ha[d] to be done,” that his plan needed to be expanded, and that he had decided to couple his “aerial assault” plan with a “ground directive.” Ferdaus indicated that his ground assault plan would involve the use of six people, armed with automatic firearms and divided into two teams. Ferdaus described his expanded attack as follows:

…with this aerial assault, we can effectively eliminate key locations of the P-building then we can add to it in order to take out everything else and leave one area only as a squeeze where the individuals will be isolated, they’ll be vulnerable and we can dominate.

Once isolated, Ferdaus planned to “open up on them” and “keep firing” to create “chaos” and “take out” everyone. He also provided the expanded plan to the UC on a thumb drive.

Between May and September 2011, Ferdaus researched, ordered and acquired the necessary components for his attack plans, including one remote controlled aircraft (F-86 Sabre). This morning prior to his arrest, Ferdaus received from the UCs 25 pounds of (what he believed to be) C-4 explosives, six fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifles (machine guns) and grenades. In June 2011, Ferdaus rented a storage facility in Framingham, Mass., under a false name, to use to build his attack planes and maintain all his equipment.

According to the affidavit, in August 2011, the F-86 remote controlled aircraft was delivered to the Framingham storage facility. Ferdaus delivered a total of eight detonation devices to the UCs over the course of the investigation, which he built with the intention that they be used by al Qaeda operatives overseas to kill U.S. soldiers. On September 20, 2011 Ferdaus made a training video, which he provided to the UCs, demonstrating how to make “cell phone detonators.”

According to the affidavit, at today’s meeting the UCs allowed Ferdaus to inspect the explosives and firearms (a quantity of C-4 explosives, three grenades, and six fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifles) that the UCs delivered, and that Ferdaus had requested for his attack plan. After inspecting the components, Ferdaus brought them to his storage unit, took possession of the explosives and firearms, and locked them in his storage unit. Ferdaus was then immediately arrested.

Although Ferdaus was presented with multiple opportunities to back out of his plan, including, being told that his attack would likely kill women and children, the affidavit alleges that Ferdaus never wavered in his desire to carry out the attacks.

If convicted, Ferdaus faces up to 15 years in prison on the material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization charge; up to 20 years in prison on the charge of attempting to destroy national defense premises; and a five-year minimum mandatory in prison and up to 20 years on the charge of attempting to damage and destroy buildings that are owned by the United States, by using an explosive. On each charge Ferdaus also faces up to three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine.

The case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the Worcester, Ashland and Framingham Police Departments and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms ,and Explosives.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys B. Stephanie Siegmann and Donald L. Cabell of Ortiz’s Anti-Terrorism and National Security Unit.

The details contained in the complaint are allegations. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Neo Stalin Show Case – Tymoshenko denounces court case ‘lynching’

Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Ukrainian prime minister, has denounced as a “lynching” and a “show” the trial that could see her jailed as early as Friday.

Making her closing statement on Thursday with hundreds of her supporters outside the Kiev courtroom, she accused Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine’s president, of orchestrating the case to crush someone he saw as a “dangerous political rival”.
“This has been a classic lynching trial,” said the 50-year-old political firebrand, seemingly energised despite already spending 57 days in detention on contempt of court charges.

“You should have already brought in an acquittal and ended this humiliation of Ukraine. But the show goes on,” she told the judge.

In an unexpected twist, the verdict could now come during a summit of European Union leaders and former Soviet republics in Warsaw on Friday meant to celebrate Kiev’s progress towards a crucial political and trade deal with the EU.

EU leaders have warned that a guilty verdict and jail term for Ukraine’s leading opposition politician could be a major setback for hopes professed by Mr Yanukovich’s administration for closer integration with Europe.

Ms Tymoshenko faces up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of exceeding her authority when brokering a 2009 natural gas agreement with Russia while prime minister.

Prosecutors say the deal damaged Ukraine’s economy and have called for a seven-year sentence.

“Today I understand well what it felt like to be crushed during the Soviet regime, thrown into Soviet jails without proper courts and due process,” she told the courtroom as she read from a 60-page statement.

Mr Yanukovich, who narrowly beat his arch-rival in elections last year, has come under intensifying pressure from EU states and the US in recent weeks to drop the case, widely seen in Ukraine and beyond as politically motivated.

He has denied being behind the case, saying it was instigated by his predecessor and Ms Tymoshenko’s one-time Orange Revolution ally, Viktor Yushchenko.

Stefan Füle, EU enlargement commissioner, told a conference in Warsaw on Thursday that talks would continue aimed at concluding a political “association” and wide-ranging free trade deal with Kiev by the end of the year.

But he said a guilty court verdict could jeopardise chances of winning the necessary ratification by the EU’s 27 states and the European parliament.

“There is no doubt that if the former prime minister was put in prison, the relationship between Ukraine and the EU should not be the same,” he warned.

As well as bringing rival camps of pro- and anti-Tymoshenko demonstrators to Khreshchatyk, Kiev’s main street, the case is being closely watched in neighbouring countries. It featured prominently on Thursday in newspapers in Poland, which is keen to see its eastern neighbour more closely integrated with the EU and wrested out of Moscow’s orbit.

Civic groups in Ukraine warn the Tymoshenko case is symbolic of a broader rollback of democratic gains achieved after the Orange Revolution.

But they urged the EU to continue talks with Kiev as the best way of securing future reforms and avoiding the country again falling under Russian influence.

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin – now almost certain to return as president next year – has repeatedly tried to pull Ukraine into a customs union he has formed with other ex-Soviet republics.

Mr Yanukovich had hinted in recent weeks that Kiev might seek a face-saving exit from the Tymoshenko trial by “decriminalising” the article under which she was charged.

But motions to do so now seem unlikely to pass through parliament in time, although the judge could still adjourn the case.

Ms Tymoshenko warned she would “under no circumstances” seek amnesty from Mr Yanukovich if the law changed after her trial ended. Doing so would be “recognition of a dictatorship”, she said.

Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, head of the EU delegation to Ukraine talks, warned this week: “It seems our messages were not heard well by the Ukrainian side.”

TOP-SECRET – Costly Database of Terrorism Racket Porn Video

IntelCenter Database (ICD)Comprehensive Online Database Covering
Terrorist/Rebel Incidents, Threats & Videos

A sends:

—–Original Message—–

From: BenV <benv[at]intelcenter.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:57:27
To: <DailyBrief[at]yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [DailyBrief] IntelCenter Dubbed Netflix of Terrorism – Feedback on Searching Terrorist Video

We just rolled out a new terrorist/rebel online database that allows full searching and streaming of up to HD quality video and full screen viewing. It’s part of our existing IntelCenter Database (ICD) and is called the Video Component. The database is accessible from anywhere with a Net connection and will support optimized versions for phone and tablet devices. The library goes back 20 years and once fully migrated will be in excess of 15,000 videos. You can see more details at

http://www.intelcenter.com/icd/

Fast Company just released an article on the database dubbing us the NetFlix of terrorism. You can see the piece here: http://www.fastcompany.com/1783435/netflix-for-terrorists and I put the full text below.

Here’s my question. How would you like to search for terrorist/rebel video that you need to review?

As it stands now the database allows search by group, video production group, speaker, release date, runtime, video type (i.e. hostage, statement, documentary style), language, primary country, main themes, contains (i.e. vehicular bombing, IED construction, shooting, statement), addressed to, transcript and many more technical metadata areas to support exploitation that cannot be posted here. All the group and individual names are on standardized lists so you don’t have to go guessing as to how we spelled it. You just review the list and pick the match.

Is there something else that you’ve wanted or found incredibly helpful in the past?

If anyone here wants the dog and pony show over WebEx or otherwise, just shoot me a note directly at

benv[at]intelcenter.com.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. We can have the greatest resource in the world but if we don’t understand how each different community needs to find and work with the video then it does nothing to forward the mission and at the end of the day that’s what our singular goal is, impact.

– Ben

Fast Company – 28 Sep. 2011

The Netflix Of Terrorism

http://www.fastcompany.com/1783435/netflix-for-terrorists

BY Neal Ungerleider

Terrorist organizations are nothing if not telegenic. Web video tends to be the preferred way they get messages across and recruit sympathizers. Now private company IntelCenter, has assembled one of the world’s largest collections of streaming terrorist videos for viewing on demand.

Terrorist organizations love making videos and uploading them to the internet. It’s a quick and effective way of getting their message across–and not just for potential recruits and sympathizers. A private company, IntelCenter, has assembled one of the world’s largest collections of streaming terrorist videos for viewing by the military, intelligence and academic communities.

The video archive, called IntelCenter Database: Video Component, contains approximately 15,000 terrorist and rebel-produced propaganda videos. According to IntelCenter’s Ben Venzke, the archive mainly contains video from “non-nation state actors, be they small or large, that are actively involved in bombings, kidnappings, shootings, insurgencies, and the like.” In other words: More FARC and al-Qaeda and fewer creepy, angry teenagers in their bedrooms. Users who subscribe to the service can instantly watch the videos and search by keywords and (terrorist) content creators, just as they could on Netflix or YouTube.

Homeland Security–the sprawling conglomeration of counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering, surveillance, and fearmongering that arose after the September 11 attacks–is big business. According to the left-leaning National Priorities Project, a staggering $69 billion dollars was allocated by the federal government for homeland security during fiscal year 2011. This is a massive source of revenue for the many private firms creating services and products used by federal and local governments. Access to IntelCenter’s video archive doesn’t come cheap; individual accounts for government users go for $9,995/year a piece or $65,000 for group licenses of 6-10 users. Substantially more affordable packages are available for private security and academic subscribers that begin at $2,320 annually. The cheaper levels give the user access to the same content but limit the number of search fields that can be used.

Subscribers to IntelCenter’s services are not limited to the United States; according to the company, their products are also designed to servvice intelligence analysts and military in Canada, Australia, Europe and other regions worldwide.

IntelCenter’s Venzke tells Fast Company that his company offers intelligence service-level video archives to researchers, private security professionals, corporate securities, universities, and the media. The archive grew out of the previously existing IntelCenter Database, which offers text-based background  information and reference materials on militant groups.

Users can search terrorist videos on the site by release date, the militant organization that created it, video producer (ironically enough, jihadists have formed their own media organizations such as as-Sahab Media), speaker, language, main themes, and regional focus. Although thousands of terrorist and militant-produced videos are currently available on the internet–ironically mainly through mainstream content archivers such as YouTube–the considerable time spent searching video archives in both English and foreign languages for a particular video does present a difficulty. One of IntelCenter’s strongest selling points is that they reduce the manpower hours needed to retrieve older propaganda videos.

Videos viewed through the site stream up to HD quality and can be watched either in a window or full-screen. Users can also view videos on their smartphones or tablets; the service is compatible with Android devices as well as the iPhone or iPad and offers both HTML5 and Flash video. According to Venzke, the archive “grows at a rate of about 3-20 new videos a day.”

Thankfully for intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism investigators, militant organizations love producing video clips and internet propaganda. Hezbollah has their own satellite television network with a huge internet presence and terrorist groups worldwide use YouTube to reach sympathizers before their videos are (sometimes) pulled down. Just this week, al-Qaeda in Yemen released the latest issue of their English-language propaganda magazine online–the PDF-format magazine encouraged readers to target “the populations of countries that are at war with the Muslims.”

The growth market in Homeland Security means that a streaming video site aimed at intelligence and corporate security is smart business. Police departments and regional law enforcement around the country generally have generous funds to spend on Homeland Security; the New York Police Department’s counter-terrorism unit is currently dealing with fallout from an Associated Press expose. Those big budgets translate into money to spend on all sorts of tools developed by private firms. More importantly, there are relatively few public-access databases archiving videos from militant organizations  that can be easily searched without bouncing between English, Arabic, Spanish, Urdu and other foreign-language queries. Promoting that capability, for IntelCenter and the many other small companies serving the Homeland Security industry, can be very profitable.

[Story images: IntelCenter]

For more stories like this, follow [at]fastcompany on Twitter. Email Neal Ungerleider, the author of this article, here or find him on Twitter and Google+.

SPIEGEL -“GELIEBTER GENOSSE”-WIE STASI-OBERST STELZER BND-CHEF HELLENBROICH FÜR “GoMoPa” ANWARBT

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13502488.html

TOP-SECRET – Megadeath Weapons Tritium Production to Increase

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60017-60020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24947]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security Administration

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light
Water Reactor

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact
statement and conduct public scoping meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality's implementing
regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DOE's
NEPA implementing regulations require the preparation of a supplement
to an environmental impact statement (EIS) when there are substantial
changes to a proposal or when there are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns. DOE may also prepare
a SEIS at any time to further the purposes of NEPA. Pursuant to these
provisions, the NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency within DOE, intends to
prepare a SEIS to update the environmental analyses in DOE's 1999 EIS
for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR
EIS; DOE/EIS-0288). The CLWR EIS addressed the production of tritium in
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors using tritium-producing
burnable absorber rods (TPBARs). In the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the CLWR EIS, NNSA selected TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1 and Sequoyah Units 1
and 2, located in Spring City and Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, respectively,
for tritium production. TVA has been producing tritium for NNSA at
Watts Bar Unit 1 since 2004.
    After several years of tritium production experience at TVA's Watts
Bar Unit 1, NNSA has determined that tritium permeation through TPBAR
cladding into the reactor cooling water occurs at a higher rate than
previously projected. The proposed SEIS will analyze the potential
environmental impacts associated with increased tritium permeation
levels observed since 2004; DOE's revised estimate of the maximum
number of TPBARs required to support the current Nuclear Posture Review
tritium supply requirements; and proposed changes to TVA facilities
that may be used for future tritium production. TVA will be
participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS.
Any other agency that would like to be a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the SEIS is requested to contact the SEIS Document
Manager as noted in this Notice under ADDRESSES.

DATES: NNSA invites comments on the scope of the SEIS. The public
scoping period starts with the publication of this Notice in the
Federal Register and will continue until November 14, 2011. NNSA will
consider all comments received or postmarked by that date in defining
the scope of the SEIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable. A public scoping meeting
is scheduled to be held on October 20, 2011, from 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

[[Page 60018]]

ADDRESSES: The public scoping meeting will be held at the Southeast
Tennessee Trade and Conference Center, Athens, TN. NNSA will publish
additional notices on the date, time, and location of the scoping
meeting in local newspapers in advance of the scheduled meeting. Any
necessary changes will be announced in the local media. The scoping
meeting will provide the public with an opportunity to present
comments, ask questions, and discuss issues with NNSA officials
regarding the SEIS.
    Written comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the SEIS or
requests for more information on the SEIS and public scoping process
should be directed to: Mr. Curtis Chambellan, Document Manager for the
SEIS, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Box 5400, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5400; facsimile
at 505-845-5754; or e-mail at: tritium.readiness.seis@doeal.gov. Mr.
Chambellan may also be reached by telephone at 505-845-5073.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the NNSA
NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Mary Martin, NNSA NEPA Compliance
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20585, or telephone 202-586-9438. For general
information about the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20585, or telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
Additional information about the DOE NEPA process, an electronic
archive of DOE NEPA documents, and other NEPA resources are provided at
http://energy.gov/nepa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NNSA is responsible for supplying nuclear
materials for national security needs and ensuring that the nuclear
weapons stockpile remains safe and reliable. Tritium, a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of every weapon in the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Unlike other nuclear materials used in
nuclear weapons, tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent per year.
Accordingly, as long as the Nation relies on a nuclear deterrent, the
tritium in each nuclear weapon must be replenished periodically. The
last reactor used for tritium production during the Cold War was shut
down in 1988. Since then, tritium requirements for the stockpile have
largely been met from the existing original inventory through the
harvest and recycle of tritium gas during the dismantlement of weapon
systems, and the replacement of tritium-containing weapons components
as part of Limited Life Component Exchange programs. In December 1999,
a new tritium production capability was established through an
Interagency Agreement with TVA in which TPBARs are irradiated in the
Watts Bar Unit 1 commercial nuclear power reactor and undergo
extraction at the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) located at DOE's
Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In order to continue to
provide the required supply, irradiation will increase from today's 544
TPBARs per fuel cycle to a projected steady state rate of approximately
1,700 TPBARs per fuel cycle, i.e., approximately every 18 months.
    To provide sufficient capacity to ensure the ability to meet
projected future stockpile requirements, NNSA and TVA anticipate
requesting authorization for TPBAR irradiation to be increased in
fiscal year 2016 to a level that is beyond currently licensed rates for
one reactor. Meeting the increased demand will require a license
amendment from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to permit the
irradiation of a greater number of TPBARs per reactor than can
currently be irradiated at either the Watts Bar or Sequoyah site.
License amendments are reactor specific. NNSA and TVA will supplement
the 1999 CLWR EIS with analyses supporting the anticipated license
amendment requests that also evaluate a higher level of tritium
permeation through TPBAR cladding into the reactor cooling water than
was previously analyzed. The tritium releases associated with the
proposed increase in the number of TPBARs that could be irradiated at
Watts Bar, Sequoyah, or both sites (compared to the number currently
authorized by the NRC) would remain below Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and NRC regulatory limits. Subsequently, TVA plans to
adopt the SEIS for use in obtaining the necessary NRC license
amendment(s).
    The production of tritium in a CLWR is technically straightforward.
All of the Nation's supply of tritium has been produced in reactors.
Most commercial pressurized water reactors were designed to utilize 12-
foot-long rods containing an isotope of boron (boron-10) in ceramic
form. These rods are sometimes called burnable absorber rods. The rods
are inserted in the reactor fuel assemblies to absorb excess neutrons
produced by the uranium fuel in the fission process for the purpose of
controlling power in the core at the beginning of an operating cycle.
DOE's tritium program developed TPBARs in which neutrons are absorbed
by a lithium aluminate ceramic rather than boron ceramic. While the two
types of rods function in a very similar manner to absorb excess
neutrons in the reactor core, there is one notable difference: When
neutrons strike the lithium aluminate ceramic material in a TPBAR,
tritium is produced inside the TPBAR. These TPBARs are placed in the
same locations in the reactor core as the standard boron burnable
absorber rods. There is no fissile material (uranium or plutonium) in
the TPBARs. Tritium produced in TPBARs is captured almost
instantaneously in a solid zirconium material in the rod, called a
``getter.'' The getter material that captures the tritium is very
effective. During each reactor refueling cycle, the TPBARs are removed
from the reactor and transported to SRS. At SRS, the TPBARs are heated
in a vacuum at the TEF to extract the tritium from the getter material.
    DOE's May 1999 Consolidated Record of Decision for Tritium Supply
and Recycling (64 FR 26369) announced the selection of TVA's Watts Bar
Unit 1, Sequoyah Unit 1 and Sequoyah Unit 2 for use in irradiating
TPBARs and stated that a maximum of approximately 3,400 TPBARs would be
irradiated per reactor during each 18-month fuel cycle. Since then, the
projected need for tritium has decreased significantly. NNSA has
determined that tritium demand to supply the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
could be satisfied using a maximum of approximately 2,500 TPBARs per
fuel cycle, with a projected steady state number of approximately 1,700
TPBARs per fuel cycle.

Purpose and Need

    Although NNSA's projected need for tritium to support the nuclear
weapons stockpile today is less than originally planned, a higher than
expected rate of permeation of tritium from TPBARs into reactor coolant
water and subsequent release to the environment has restricted the
number of TPBARs irradiated at TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1. Before TVA
increases tritium production rates to meet expected national security
requirements, the environmental analyses in the CLWR EIS are being
updated to analyze and evaluate the effects of the higher tritium
permeation, as well as any potential effects related to other changes
in the regulatory and operating environment since publication of the
original CLWR EIS.
    As a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS, TVA plans
to use the SEIS in pursuing NRC licensing amendments to increase TPBAR

[[Page 60019]]

irradiation at TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) at Spring City,
Tennessee, and/or the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant at Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee,
beyond levels set in 2002. Four alternatives are expected to be
analyzed in the SEIS: The No Action Alternative and three action
alternatives, one using only the Watts Bar site, one using only the
Sequoyah site, and one using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites. As
a matter of note, in a separate proceeding, DOE and TVA are also
analyzing the potential use of mixed oxide fuel during some fuel cycles
at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as part of the U.S. program for surplus
plutonium disposition (75 FR 41850. July 19, 2010).

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The CLWR EIS assessed the potential impacts of irradiating up to
3,400 TPBARs per reactor unit operating on 18 month fuel cycles. It
included TPBAR irradiation scenarios using multiple reactor units to
achieve a maximum level of 6,000 TPBARs every 18 months. Subsequently,
tritium production requirements have been reduced such that irradiation
of approximately 1,700 TPBARs every reactor fuel cycle is expected to
be sufficient to fulfill current requirements, consistent with the 2010
Nuclear Posture Review. To provide flexibility in future tritium supply
decisions, the revised environmental analysis is expected to consider
irradiation of up to a total of 2,500 TPBARs every 18 months. This
approach would provide sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate
potential future changes in requirements and to allow for production
above currently expected annual requirement levels for short durations
(i.e., several years) to recover from potential future shortfalls
should that become necessary.
    In the CLWR EIS, the permeation of tritium through the TPBAR
cladding into the reactor coolant systems of potential tritium
production reactors was estimated to be less than or equal to one
tritium curie/TPBAR/year. After several years of tritium production
experience at Watts Bar Unit 1, NNSA has determined that tritium
permeation through TPBAR cladding is approximately three to four times
higher than this estimate; nevertheless, tritium releases have been
below regulatory limits. To conservatively bound the potential
environmental impacts, the SEIS will assess the impacts associated with
tritium production in CLWRs based on a permeation rate of approximately
five tritium curies/TPBAR/year.
    An assessment of tritium mitigation and management measures will be
included as part of the environmental analyses in the SEIS. Mitigation
and management measures include an assessment of technologies
commercially available to treat tritiated effluents, transportation of
tritiated effluents and/or low level radioactive waste streams, and
other applicable effluent management actions.
    The SEIS, which will supplement the 1999 CLWR EIS, will support
agency deliberations regarding potential changes in the tritium
production at NRC licensed TVA facilities in order to meet the
requirements of TVA's agreement with NNSA. These changes also require
TVA to pursue an NRC license amendment request for these facilities.
Accordingly, the SEIS is expected to substantially meet NRC
requirements for an environmental report necessary to support TVA's
license amendment request(s) for tritium production at the Watts Bar
and/or Sequoyah Nuclear Plants.
    No Action Alternative: Produce tritium at currently approved TVA
facilities (Watts Bar Unit 1 and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2) at appropriate
levels to keep permeation levels within currently approved NRC license
and regulatory limits.
    Alternative 1: Utilize TVA's Watts Bar site only to a maximum level
of 2,500 TPBARs every reactor fuel cycle (18 months).
    Alternative 2: Utilize TVA's Sequoyah site only to a maximum level
of 2,500 TPBARs every 18 months.
    Alternative 3: Utilize both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites to a
maximum total level of 2,500 TPBARS every 18 months. The level of
production per site would be determined by TVA. This alternative would
provide the ability to supply stockpile requirements at either site
independently, or using both sites with each supplying a portion of the
supply.

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues

    NNSA has tentatively identified the issues for analysis in the
SEIS. Additional issues may be identified as a result of the scoping
comment process. The SEIS will analyze the potential impacts on:
    1. Air, water, soil, and visual resources.
    2. Plants and animals, and their habitats, including state and
Federally-listed threatened or endangered species and their critical
habitats.
    3. Irretrievable and irreversible consumption of natural resources
and energy, including transportation issues.
    4. Cultural resources, including historical and pre-historical
resources and traditional cultural properties.
    5. Infrastructure and utilities.
    6. Socioeconomic conditions.
    7. Human health under routine operations and accident conditions,
including potential impacts from seismic events.
    8. Minority and low-income populations (Environmental Justice).
    9. Intentional Destructive Acts, including terrorist acts.
    10. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
(cumulative impacts).
    SEIS Process and Invitation to Comment. The SEIS scoping process
provides an opportunity for the public to assist the NNSA in
determining issues and alternatives to be addressed in the SEIS. One
public scoping meeting will be held as noted under DATES in this
Notice. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to provide attendees with
an opportunity to present comments, ask questions, and discuss issues
regarding the SEIS with NNSA officials. Comments can also be mailed to
Mr. Chambellan as noted in this Notice under ADDRESSES. The SEIS
scoping meeting will include an informal open house from 6:30-7 p.m. to
facilitate dialogue between NNSA and the public. Once the formal
scoping meeting begins at 7:00 pm, NNSA will present a brief overview
of the SEIS process and provide individuals the opportunity to give
written or oral statements. NNSA welcomes specific scoping comments or
suggestions on the SEIS. Copies of written comments and transcripts of
oral comments provided to NNSA during the scoping period will be
available on the Internet at http://nnsa.energy.gov/nepa/clwrseis.
    After the close of the public scoping period, NNSA will begin
preparing the Draft SEIS. NNSA expects to issue the Draft SEIS for
public review in 2012. A Federal Register Notice of Availability, along
with notices placed in local newspapers, will provide dates and
locations for public hearings on the Draft SEIS and the deadline for
comments on the draft document. Persons who submit comments with a
mailing address during the scoping process will receive a copy of or
link to the Draft SEIS. Other persons who would like to receive a copy
of or link to the Draft SEIS for review should notify Mr. Chambellan at
the address noted under ADDRESSES. NNSA will include all comments
received on the Draft SEIS, and responses to those comments in the
Final SEIS.
    Issuance of the Final SEIS is currently anticipated to take place
in 2013. NNSA

[[Page 60020]]

will issue a ROD no sooner than 30 days after publication of EPA's
Notice of Availability of the Final SEIS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September 2011.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-24947 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DIE WELT ÜBER DIE ZUSAMMENARBEIT ZWISCHEN STASI UND RAF BEI DEN RAF-MORDEN

http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/debatte/article13627702/Mauer-aus-Schweigen.html

STASIOPFER FRAGEN – VON Ruf-MÖRDERN u. Serienbetrügern erfundene “GoMoPa-SJB”: “Wer stoppt Google-Rufmorde ?”

http://www.victims-opfer.com/?p=16359

State Department’s search for a WikiLeaks scapegoat

Hillary Clinton at the state department

Hillary Clinton at the State Department condemned the WikiLeaks release of US embassy cables, but has not commented on the department’s lax security. Photograph: Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

On the same day that more than 250,000 unredacted State Department cables hemorrhaged out onto the internet, I was interrogated for the first time in my 23-year State Department career by State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) and told I was under investigation for allegedly disclosing classified information. The evidence of my crime? A posting on my blog from the previous month that included a link to a WikiLeaks document already available elsewhere on the web.

As we sat in a small, gray, windowless room, resplendent with a two-way mirror, multiple ceiling-mounted cameras, and iron rungs on the table to which handcuffs could be attached, the two DS agents stated that the inclusion of that link amounted to disclosing classified material. In other words, a link to a document posted by who-knows-who on a public website available at this moment to anyone in the world was the legal equivalent of me stealing a top secret report, hiding it under my coat and passing it to a Chinese spy in a dark alley.

The agents demanded to know who might be helping me with my blog (“Name names!”), if I had donated any money from my upcoming book on my wacky, year-long State Department assignment to a forward military base in Iraq, and if so, to which charities, the details of my contract with my publisher, how much money (if any) I had been paid, and – by the way – whether I had otherwise “transferred” classified information.

Had I, they asked, looked at the WikiLeaks site at home on my own time on my own computer? Every blog post, every Facebook post and every tweet by every State Department employee, they told me, must be pre-cleared by the department prior to “publication”. Then they called me back for a second 90-minute interview, stating that my refusal to answer questions would lead to my being fired, never mind the fifth (or the first) amendments.

Why me? It’s not like the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has the staff or the interest to monitor the hundreds of blogs, thousands of posts and millions of tweets by Foreign Service personnel. The answer, undoubtedly, is my new book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. Its unvarnished portrait of State’s efforts and the US at work in Iraq has clearly angered someone, even though one part of State signed off on the book under internal clearance procedures some 13 months ago. I spent a year in Iraq leading a State Department Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and, sadly, know exactly what I am talking about. DS monitoring my blog is like a small-town cop pulling over every African American driver: vindictive, selective prosecution. “Ya’ll be careful in these parts, ‘hear, ’cause we’re gonna set an example for your kind of people.”

Silly as it seems, such accusations carry a lot of weight if you work for the government. DS can unilaterally, and without any right of appeal or oversight, suspend your security clearance and for all intents and purposes end your career. The agents questioning me reminded me of just that, as well as of the potential for criminal prosecution – and all because of a link to a website, nothing more.

It was implied as well that even writing about the interrogation I underwent, as I am doing now, might morph into charges of “interfering with a government investigation”. They labelled routine documents in use in my interrogation as “law enforcement sensitive” to penalise me should I post them online. Who knew such small things actually threatened the security of the United States? Are these words so dangerous, or is our nation so fragile that legitimate criticism becomes a firing offense?

Let’s think through this disclosure of classified info thing, even if State won’t. Every website on the internet includes links to other websites. It’s how the web works. If you include a link to say, a CNN article about Libya, you are not “disclosing” that information – it’s already there. You’re just saying: “Have a look at this.” It’s like pointing out a newspaper article of interest to a guy next to you on the bus. (Careful, though, if it’s an article from the New York Times or the Washington Post: it might quote stuff from WikiLeaks and then you could be endangering national security.)

Security at State: hamburgers and mud

Security and the State Department go together like hamburgers and mud. Over the years, State has leaked like an old boot. One of its most hilarious security breaches took place when an unknown person walked into the secretary of State’s outer office and grabbed a pile of classified documents. From the vast trove of missing classified laptops to bugging devices found in its secure conference rooms, from high-ranking officials trading secrets in Vienna to top diplomats dallying with spies in Taiwan, even the publicly available list is long and ugly.

Of course, nothing compares to what history will, no doubt, record as the most significant outpouring of classified material ever: the dump of hundreds of thousands of cables that are now on display on WikiLeaks and its mushroom-like mirror sites. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is supposed to protect our American diplomats by securing State’s secrets, and over time, they just haven’t done very well at that.

Bradley Manning, left, is accused of stealing classified files released by Julian Assange, rightUS soldier Bradley Manning, left, who is accused of stealing the huge database of classified files released by the WikiLeaks website of Julian Assange, right. Photograph: Associated Press/AFP/Getty ImagesThe State Department and its Bureau of Diplomatic Security never took responsibility for their part in the loss of all those cables, never acknowledged their own mistakes or porous security measures. No one will ever be fired at State because of WikiLeaks – except, at some point, possibly me. Instead, State joined in the federal mugging of army Private Bradley Manning, the person alleged to have copied the cables onto a Lady Gaga CD while sitting in the Iraqi desert.

That all those cables were available electronically to everyone from the secretary of State to a lowly army private was the result of a clumsy post-9/11 decision at the highest levels of the State Department to quickly make up for information-sharing shortcomings. Trying to please an angry Bush White House, State went from sharing almost nothing to sharing almost everything overnight. They flung their whole library onto the government’s classified intranet, SIPRnet, making it available to hundreds of thousands of federal employees worldwide. It is usually not a good idea to make classified information that broadly available when you cannot control who gets access to it outside your own organisation. The intelligence agencies and the military certainly did no such thing on SIPRnet, before or after 9/11.

State did not restrict access. If you were in, you could see it all. There was no safeguard to ask why someone in the army in Iraq in 2010 needed to see reporting from 1980s Iceland. Even inside their own organisation, State requires its employees to “subscribe” to classified cables by topic, creating a record of what you see and limiting access by justifiable need. A guy who works on trade issues for Morocco might need to explain why he asked for political-military reports from Chile.

Most for-pay porn sites limit the amount of data that can be downloaded. Not State. Once those cables were available on SIPRnet, no alarms or restrictions were implemented so that low-level users couldn’t just download terabytes of classified data. If any activity logs were kept, it does not look like anyone checked them.

A few classified State Department cables will include sourcing, details on from whom or how information was collected. This source data allows an informed reader to judge the veracity of the information – was the source on a country’s nuclear plans a street vendor or a high military officer? Despite the sometimes life-or-death nature of protecting sources (though some argue this is overstated), State simply dumped its hundreds of thousands of cables online unredacted, leaving source names there, all pink and naked in the sun.

Then again, history shows that technical security is just not State’s game, which means the WikiLeaks uproar is less of a surprise in context. For example, in 2006, news reports indicated that State’s computer systems were massively hacked by Chinese computer geeks. In 2008, State data disclosures led to an identity theft scheme only uncovered through a fluke arrest by the Washington, DC cops. Before it was closed down in 2009, snooping on private passport records was a popular intramural activity at the State Department, widely known and casually accepted. In 2011, contractors using fake identities appear to have downloaded 250,000 internal medical of State Department employees, including mine.

Wishing isn’t a strategy, hope isn’t a plan

Despite their own shortcomings, State and its Bureau of Diplomatic Security take this position: if we shut our eyes tightly enough, there is no WikiLeaks. (The morning news summary at State includes this message: “Due to the security classification of many documents, the daily addendum will not include news clips that are generated by leaked cables by the website WikiLeaks.”) The corollary to such a position evidently goes something like this: since we won’t punish our own technical security people or the big shots who approved the whole flawed scheme in the first place, and the damned first amendment doesn’t allow us to punish the New York Times, let’s just punish one of our own employees for looking at, creating links to and discussing stuff on the web – and while he was at it, writing an accurate, first-hand and critical account of the disastrous, if often farcical, American project in Iraq.

That’s what frustrated bullies do – they pick on the ones they think they can get away with beating up. The advantage of all this? It gets rid of a “troublemaker”, and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security people can claim that they are “doing something” about the WikiLeaks drip that continues even while they fiddle. Of course, it also chills free speech, sending a message to other employees about the price of speaking plainly.

Now does that make sense? Only inside the world of Diplomatic Security, where historically, it always has.

For example, Diplomatic Security famously took into custody the color slides reproduced in the Foreign Service Journal showing an open copy of one of the government’s most sensitive intelligence documents, albeit only after the photos were published and distributed in the thousands. Similarly, DS made it a crime to take photos of the giant US Embassy compound in Baghdad, but only after the architecture firm building it posted sketches of the embassy online; a Google search will still reveal many of those images; others who served in Iraq have posted them on their unsecured Facebook pages.

Imagine this: State’s employees are still blocked by a firewall from looking at websites that carry, or simply write about and refer to, WikiLeaks documents, including TomDispatch.com, which is publishing this piece. (That, in turn, means my colleagues at State won’t be able to read this – except on the sly.)

In the belly of the beast

Back in that windowless room for a second time, I faced the two DS agents clumsily trying to play semi-bad cop and altogether-bad cop. They once again reminded me of my obligation to protect classified information, and studiously ignored my response – that I indeed do take that obligation seriously; enough, in fact, to distinguish between actual disclosure and a witch-hunt.

As they raised their voices and made uncomfortable eye contact just like it says to do in any Interrogation 101 manual, you could almost imagine the hundreds of thousands of unredacted cables physically spinning through the air around us, heading – splat, splot, splat – for the web. Despite the Hollywood-style theatrics and the grim surroundings, the interrogation was less police state or 1984-style nightmare than a Brazil-like dark comedy.

In the end, though, it’s no joke. I’ve been a blogger since April, but my meeting with the DS agents somehow took place only a week before the publication date of my book. Days after my second interrogation, the principal deputy secretary of State wrote my publisher demanding small redactions in my book – already shipped to the bookstores – to avoid “harm to US security”. One demand: to cut a vignette based on a scene from the movie version of Black Hawk Down.

The link to WikiLeaks is still on my blog. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security declined my written offer to remove it, certainly an indication that however much my punishment mattered to them, the actual link mattered little. I may lose my job in State’s attempt to turn us all into mini-Bradley Mannings and so make America safe.

These are not people steeped in, or particularly appreciative of, the finer points of irony. Still, would anyone claim that there isn’t irony in the way the State Department regularly crusades for the rights of bloggers abroad in the face of all kinds of government oppression, crediting their voices for the Arab Spring, while going after one of its own bloggers at home for saying nothing that wasn’t truthful?

Here’s the best advice my friends in Diplomatic Security have to offer, as far as I can tell: slam the door after the cow has left the barn, then beat your wife as punishment. She didn’t do anything wrong, but she deserved it, and don’t you feel better now?

Süddeutsche Zeitung über die kriminellen Machenschaften der “GoMoPa”

SZ_03.09.2010_Am_virtuellen_Pranger

SPIEGEL über die Giftstudie des “GoMoPa”-Masterminds und Resch-Protege´s STASI-Oberst Ehrenfried Stelzer

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13395385.html

DIE GIFTSTUDIE “TOXDAT” DES RESCH-PROTEGE´S STASI-OBERST EHRENFRIED STELZER

http://www.immobilien-vertraulich.com/law/7279-die-killer-bibel-toxdat–die-900-seiten-stasi-mordstudie-von-gomopa-mastermind-ehrenfried-stelzer.html

SPIEGEL über die STASI-Connection des mutmasslichen “GoMoPa”-Chefs Jochen Resch

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-65717414.html

Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography – review

Julian Assange outside the High Court in July

‘It vexes me when the world won’t listen’: Assange arrives at the High Court in July to appeal against his extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Marsupials are pouched animals, mostly from Australia, that give birth to their young in an unfinished state. What we have here is a weird marsupial hybrid. It’s part Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and part Scottish novelist and ghostwriter Andrew O’Hagan. This mixed-up creature has given birth to an unfinished draft, dragged out of its pouch and published before its maturity under the wacky title The Unauthorised Autobiography. Assange hasn’t really been well-served by his publisher’s behaviour. It’s the result of what seems to be a characteristic Assange imbroglio in which he will neither give back his £412,000 publisher’s advance, nor deliver a finally approved manuscript. But the decision by Canongate’s Jamie Byng to publish regardless, although understandable, has produced an unsatisfactory book.

The ghostwriter and his subject hadn’t yet really gelled by the time of this draft. It’s easy to see the fictionalising hand of O’Hagan in an early chapter about Assange’s hippy boyhood in northern Queensland. It begins, soulfully: “For most people, childhood is a climate. In my case, it is perfectly hot and humid with nothing above us but blue sky …” But a later section on the Aussie hacker’s souring partnership with the journalists who were to print his leaked US secrets is much more raw. The opening reads like Assange sounding off verbatim on a bad day, in a sentence full of bile and misogyny: “Vanity in a newspaper man is like perfume on a whore: they use it to fend off a dark whiff of themselves.” For by the time we reach this second half of the book, O’Hagan’s mediating intelligence seems to have retreated, and the digital recorder is doing much of the work. Perhaps the ghost got weary, locked up in a chilly East Anglian winter with his monologuing subject, who is currently confined there on bail, fighting extradition on Swedish sex allegations.

The lack of a final edit does other disservices to Assange’s story. The narrative stops too abruptly, before publication in the Guardian and the New York Times of the third and most important set of leaks he had acquired (the state department cables), and the subsequent legal pursuit of Assange on the sex complaints. It’s padded out instead with unnecessary chunks of the cables themselves, which can be read elsewhere. The unresolved criminal allegations, inevitably, make him censor a defensive account of sex with two Swedish fans. It’s all very well calling a woman “neurotic”, but did he deliberately tear a condom as she alleged?

Furthermore, a nervous Canongate libel lawyer, no longer able presumably to rely on Assange as a future witness, appears to have simply chopped out chunks of detail when Assange abuses those he doesn’t like. This censorship muddies what could have been a lively, if defamatory, narrative, and pointlessly withholds many of the names. I myself, for example, who clashed with Assange during the Guardian saga, and co-authored a book he didn’t care for, am anonymised throughout, transparently enough, as “the news reporter”. Yet Bill Keller, then editor of the New York Times and considered presumably to be libel-proof under US free-speech laws, remains relentlessly vituperated against under his own name.

A final fact-check would have removed a crop of stupid errors. It must have been a transcription mistake that turned Heather Brooke into “the ‘Independent’ journalist” rather than the independent journalist she is. And Oscar Wilde with his rent-boys was not “sleeping with panthers”, he was feasting with panthers.

For all its drawbacks, the memoir does add some good detail to the increasingly well-trodden field of Assange studies (it’s the fifth book so far). The passage in which he meets his biological father, a bohemian Sydney actor, for the first time in his 20s, is genuinely poignant: “I found myself getting sort of angry … There on shelf after shelf were the exact same books as those I had bought and read myself … If I had only known him, I might just have picked his books down from the shelf … I was forced to make myself up as I went along.”

And there’s a telling section in which Assange, perhaps unwittingly, reveals why he seeks out unquestioning disciples, and quarrels with so many others: “Opponents past and present have the same essential weakness about them – first they want to use you, then they want to be you, then they want to snuff you out. It’s a pattern that stretches in my life from toytown feds to hacks at the Guardian … Usually it ends with these people enumerating one’s personal faults, a shocking, ungrateful, unmanly effort, to be filed under despicable in my book … I’ve been meeting [these people] all my life.”

This seems to be a cry coming from a truly threatened personality, in fear of being overwhelmed and extinguished. People have criticised Assange for being preposterously grandiose and lashing out at imagined “enemies”. Perhaps they should have been kinder, for there is clearly something else at work here.

It’s a shame Assange couldn’t get on with the Guardian. As he has the grace occasionally to recognise in this book, people there share some of his beliefs – free speech, investigative journalism, standing up to big corporations and murderous governments, the potentially liberating quality of the internet. And his idea for WikiLeaks provided an exhilarating addition to the world’s journalistic possibilities. It was a neat tool – as an uncensorable global publisher of last resort, and as an electronic outlet for leaking the new kinds of huge database the computer age is bringing into existence. But unmediated leaking on a random basis, even of gigabits of purloined documents, cannot ever revolutionise all the world’s power relationships. There Assange shows, regrettably, that he is living in a fantasy world.

Behind his high-sounding talk of quantum mechanics and global conspiracies, there lies a more familiar and heartfelt cry: “If only people knew what was really going on, they’d do something about it!” One sympathises. But these very memoirs demonstrate the opposite. Nothing much happened after Assange threw back the curtain to reveal his sensationally leaked Baghdad helicopter gunship video, with US pilots mowing down Reuters employees and young children in a burst of incompetent cannon-fire. As Assange (or O’Hagan) concedes: “It vexes me when the world won’t listen.”

That was what forced him to accept an offer from some of the world’s major newspapers to make sense of the rest of his material, publish it under the authority of their own names and grant him a share of the credibility slowly built up over 190 years of reputable reporting. Thanks to that imaginative transaction, he rocketed briefly to worldwide fame. These marsupial memoirs of his seem unlikely to increase his prospects of becoming the messiah of the information age. Maybe, sadly, even the reverse.

David Leigh is the co-author of WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (Guardian Books).

Meridian Capital zu “GoMoPa”

http://meridiancapital.blogspot.com/2011/04/meridian-capital-klaus-dieter.html

TOP-SECRET – CIA Alec Station Memo of 9/11 Commission 02

alec-station-02