Category: WTOP Blog

  • Intel Report: George Webb

    fullsizeoutput_19f5” Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”—Thomas Paine

    ~~~~~~~

    Navigate George Webb Reporting! He is on target digging the swamp from Washington DC. Thank you George for your patriotic hard work. Love. Love.

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb/= this posting = the bomb

    More about George Webb outstanding journalism: http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-the-uranium-1-trial-with-george-webb/

    Continuing coverage: http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-uranium-1-trial-and-more/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-red-pill-with-george-webb-and-mcduff/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-expose-the-mobs/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-getting-to-the-bottom-of-corruption/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-on-the-road-exposing-the-facts-concerning-the-deep-state/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webbdeep-state-impeachment-actors/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-where-russian-club-k-meets-spy-satellites-with-uae-nukes/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-the-saudi-invasion-in-venice-florida/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-live-from-fbi-informants-perch-near-the-diplomat-hotel-on-hallandale-beach/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-ultimate-disclosure/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-live-from-port-canaveral-of-uae-fame-home-of-the-club-k-container-missile/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-trumps-defense-begins-with-bidens-dia-blackberries/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webbs-and-john-ultimate-disclosure-about-corruption/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/george-webb-january-8-2020-who-configured-solemanis-blackberry-he-talked-to-5-nato-teams-for-nuke-deal/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb-on-the-impeachment-scandal/

    Share
  • The Communist Purple Revolution Rages Inside the Beltway

    The Communist Purple Revolution Rages Inside the Beltway

    housegop-1024x768The U.S. House of Representatives has never seen anything this.

    SPEAKER PELOSI’S TREACHEROUS LEADERSHIP TEARS APART THE HOUSE AS SCHIFF’S SUBTERFUGE REARS ITS UGLY HEAD YET AGAIN

    State of the Nation

    Never in the history of the U.S. Congress has there been such a revolt in the halls of the Capitol.

    These kind of cataclysmic events just don’t happen … not anywhere inside the Beltway.

    That a large group of normally restrained Republican lawmakers felt compelled to crash the secret impeachment hearings being improperly staged by Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff speaks volumes.

    Such an unprecedented disruption of proceedings within the House of Representatives especially foreshadows ever bigger events to come, as in HUGE political earthquakes.

    Now that the fuse has been lit by Schiff et al., there’s simply no stopping the tectonic shifts that are soon to shake Washington, D.C. to its rotten core.

    In reality, there’s no stopping the war that’s about to break out in the open. Too many thresholds have already been crossed to prevent what is about to transpire across the USA.

    Patriots everywhere — know in their bones — that the time has come to take back the country before closet communist traitors like Schiff, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Comey, Mueller, Lynch, Schumer, Harris, Waters, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Booker, O’Rourke, Swalwell, McCabe, Stzrok, etc., etc., etc. transform the nation into the USSA where “A” ominously stands for Amerika.

    For the uninitiated, the following highly radioactive video provides just a glimpse into this global conspiracy to stealthily collapse the American Republic. This exceptionally prophetic presentation is as serious as it gets and therefore a MUST VIEW.

    How Cultural Marxism Is Implementing this Original Communist Takeover Scheme in the USA (Video)

    Adam Schiff: Deep State’s Primo Drama Queen & Cultural Marxist

    Although it may appear that this whole melodrama is being directed by Adam Schiff, the Kalifornia congressman is merely a pliant pawn doing the bidding of his NWO globalist masters. See: ADAM SCHIFF: Deep State Agent, Serial Leaker and Traitor to the Republic

    Nevertheless, there is perhaps no better demonstration of treason in the House than the nakedly seditious conduct of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff.

    That he’s even still sitting in that extremely powerful chair clearly indicates that “Shifty Schiff” is a key Deep State operative who was strategically placed to overthrow the POTUS.

    While such a conspiracy of outright treason has happened before, the day-to-day mutinous workings of Congress have never been so transparent (thanks to the Internet).

    Which is what makes this soft coup so surreal: the whole nation is watching this stealthy communist rebellion unfold in real time.

    As the frontman for this subversive enterprise, Schiff was specifically chosen because of how profoundly compromised he has been by Pedogate criminal activity.

    P E D O G A T E: A Global Child Trafficking and Exploitation Crime Syndicate

    Hence, it should come as no surprise that the district Rep. Schiff represents includes Hollywood—the Western Hemisphere capital of the Pedogate criminal enterprise.

    Really, could the globalists have found a better “Drama Queen” than Adam Schiff?

    Every single word the “Grand Inquisitor” utters has been scripted by the CIA’s Mockingbird Media to have maximum effect.

    In this regard, Schiff is merely a covert CIA-contracted inside man and virtual “news anchor” providing the daily talking points for mainstream media to disseminate, which those MSM organs of propaganda dutifully do daily.

    However, there’s a critical back story to Adam Bennett Schiff, which is of paramount importance to understand if investigators are to grasp the true depth and breadth of the global communist conspiracy driving his unparalleled crime spree. As follows:

    The Secret Back Story Behind the Outright Treason of Adam Schiff

    On a purely personal level, it’s also significant that Schiff has been utterly humiliated by his woefully failed attempt to legitimize the patently fake “Russian collusion” narrative.

    No representative in U.S. Congressional history has been so politically devastated as Schiff was when he was exposed as a serial liar, pathological prevaricator and coup co-conspirator.

    And, yet, he not only maintains a seat in the House, he’s still the Intel Chair—WOW!

    How does that happen except according to a blueprint undergirding a highly organized conspiracy to overthrow President Trump. See IMPEACHMENTgate: The Scandal Is Much Worse & Plot Much Thicker Than Anyone Knows

    That complex and convoluted conspiracy, by the way, has been fastidiously engineered by foreign powers, as it has been executed by traitors throughout the U.S. Federal Government who are in the pay of Deep State paymasters. What follows is just one piece of the communist takeover plot, but an exceedingly pivotal piece at that.

    COUP-IN-PROGRESS: Pelosi, the Mafia and the Black Nobility

    Revolt in the House

    Also known as the Purple Revolution, which was inaugurated by Comrade Clinton and her Pedogate partner-in-crime and husband Bill during her extremely provocative concession speech on November 9, 2019, this evolving soft coup to depose Trump proceeds at breakneck speed.

    Soros’s “Purple Revolution” brewing for Trump presidency

    Because of the dramatic uptick of covert operations being undertaken to topple Trump at all costs, GOP members of the House know their own asses are on the line. Should Trump be overthrown, the Republican Party will be effectively dissolved by a soon-to-be engineered Democrat majority in all three branches of government.

    *Just like the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, should these violent marxists ever seize power again, they will first concentrate it, and then consolidate it, in such a way that the US government will morph into a totalitarian form of communist tyranny practically overnight.


    The Republican House and Senate leadership surely see the writing on the wall. They have witnessed despotic conduct on an order never experienced before within the once-hallowed halls of the United States Capitol. See: Grand Inquisitor Adam Schiff Throws the House Into Chaos

    In light of the kangaroo court proceedings being conducted by Schiff and his many Democrat and RINO accomplices, the conservative Republicans understand that there’s only one way out of the mess. And, as this predicament worsens by the day, the vital window to take the Democrats to task for their unmitigated coup d’état is rapidly closing.


    KEY POINT: For the conservative caucus to take such an extraordinary initiative as crashing Schiff’s secret inquisition means the party is over for the Democrats. Their unbridled arrogance and chutzpah will eventually be met with overwhelming force, if need be. The exact time and the place are yet to be determined so as to take them down with the element of surprise.


    Conclusion

    The Democrats have already shown that they are going all out to remove Trump.

    If they’re successful, everything changes in a day and a night.

    While Deep State has executed this soft coup with amazing precision, they are prepared to pull out all the stops at any time. All of their henchmen are disposable in this winner-takes-all endeavor.

    If and when the other shoe drops, the violent bolsheviks will most certainly be let loose according to a scenario not too unlike this: Mass Casualty Event Planned by the Left as a Provocation to Violently Attack the Right.

    The bottom line here is that the President must quell this communist-incited rebellion before it gets totally out of hand. Truly, The time has come for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and put down the lawless, left-wing insurrection against America.

    Should Trump not act pre-emptively, a decisive moment will have passed to avert a Second American Civil War. And, there will be much unnecessary pain and suffering throughout the Republic.

    Therefore, the single most effective move that Trump can make at this defining moment is this: Soros Must Be Arrested, Prosecuted and Imprisoned to Prevent Civil War.

    Along with the incarceration of Soros, Schiff, Pelosi, Clinton & Company, measures can also be taken to swiftly form MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Why They Are Absolutely Necessary.

    Lastly, the quicker that the Attorney General prosecutes those responsible for CROWDSTRIKEgate, the faster the Democrat house of cards will fall—FOR GOOD. [1]

    State of the Nation
    October 24, 2019

    Source [1] CROWDSTRIKEgate: A Massive Deep State Scandal that Will Collapse the Democrat Party

    Navigate reading related topics for ultimate knowing: http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-george-webb/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-the-4-interlocking-california-crime-families/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/the-communist-purple-revolution-rages-inside-the-beltway/= this posting

    Share
  • South Korean National and Hundreds of Others Charged Worldwide in the Takedown of the Largest Darknet Child Pornography Website, Which was Funded by Bitcoin

    DOJ-NSD-150x150FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Wednesday, October 16, 2019

    Dozens of Minor Victims Who Were Being Actively Abused by the Users of the Site Rescued

    Jong Woo Son, 23, a South Korean national, was indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia for his operation of Welcome To Video, the largest child sexual exploitation market by volume of content. The nine-count indictment was unsealed today along with a parallel civil forfeiture action. Son has also been charged and convicted in South Korea and is currently in custody serving his sentence in South Korea. An additional 337 site users residing in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington State and Washington, D.C. as well as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, Canada, Ireland, Spain, Brazil and Australia have been arrested and charged.

    Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, Chief Don Fort of IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and Acting Executive Associate Director Alysa Erichs of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), made the announcement.

    “Darknet sites that profit from the sexual exploitation of children are among the most vile and reprehensible forms of criminal behavior,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “This Administration will not allow child predators to use lawless online spaces as a shield. Today’s announcement demonstrates that the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to working closely with our partners in South Korea and around the world to rescue child victims and bring to justice the perpetrators of these abhorrent crimes.”

    “Children around the world are safer because of the actions taken by U.S. and foreign law enforcement to prosecute this case and recover funds for victims,” said U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu. “We will continue to pursue such criminals on and off the darknet in the United States and abroad, to ensure they receive the punishment their terrible crimes deserve.”

    “Through the sophisticated tracing of bitcoin transactions, IRS-CI special agents were able to determine the location of the Darknet server, identify the administrator of the website and ultimately track down the website server’s physical location in South Korea,” said IRS-CI Chief Don Fort. “This largescale criminal enterprise that endangered the safety of children around the world is no more. Regardless of the illicit scheme, and whether the proceeds are virtual or tangible, we will continue to work with our federal and international partners to track down these disgusting organizations and bring them to justice.”

    “Children are our most vulnerable population, and crimes such as these are unthinkable,” said HSI Acting Executive Associate Director Alysa Erichs. “Sadly, advances in technology have enabled child predators to hide behind the dark web and cryptocurrency to further their criminal activity. However, today’s indictment sends a strong message to criminals that no matter how sophisticated the technology or how widespread the network, child exploitation will not be tolerated in the United States. Our entire justice system will stop at nothing to prevent these heinous crimes, safeguard our children, and bring justice to all.”

    According to the indictment, on March 5, 2018, agents from the IRS-CI, HSI, National Crime Agency in the United Kingdom, and Korean National Police in South Korea arrested Son and seized the server that he used to operate a Darknet market that exclusively advertised child sexual exploitation videos available for download by members of the site. The operation resulted in the seizure of approximately eight terabytes of child sexual exploitation videos, which is one of the largest seizures of its kind. The images, which are currently being analyzed by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), contained over 250,000 unique videos, and 45 percent of the videos currently analyzed contain new images that have not been previously known to exist.

    Welcome To Video offered these videos for sale using the cryptocurrency bitcoin. Typically, sites of this kind give users a forum to trade in these depictions. This Darknet website is among the first of its kind to monetize child exploitation videos using bitcoin. In fact, the site itself boasted over one million downloads of child exploitation videos by users. Each user received a unique bitcoin address when the user created an account on the website. An analysis of the server revealed that the website had more than one million bitcoin addresses, signifying that the website had capacity for at least one million users.

    The agencies have shared data from the seized server with law enforcement around the world to assist in identifying and prosecuting customers of the site. This has resulted in leads sent to 38 countries and yielded arrests of 337 subjects around the world. The operation has resulted in searches of residences and businesses of approximately 92 individuals in the United States. Notably, the operation is responsible for the rescue of at least 23 minor victims residing in the United States, Spain and the United Kingdom, who were being actively abused by the users of the site.

    In the Washington, D.C.-metropolitan area, the operation has led to the execution of five search warrants and eight arrests of individuals who both conspired with the administrator of the site and were themselves, users of the website. Two users of the Darknet market committed suicide subsequent to the execution of search warrants.

    Amongst the sites users charged are:

    Charles Wunderlich, 34, of Hot Springs, California, was charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to distribute child pornography;

    Brian James LaPrath, 34, of San Diego, California, was arrested in the District of Columbia, for international money laundering; and was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release;

    Ernest Wagner, 70, of Federal Way, Washington, was arrested and charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to distribute child pornography;

    Vincent Galarzo, 28, of Glendale, New York, was arrested and charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to distribute child pornography;

    Michael Ezeagbor, 22, of Pflugerville, Texas, was arrested and charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to distribute child pornography;

    Nicholas Stengel, 45, of Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography and money laundering and was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release;

    Eryk Mark Chamberlin, 25, of Worcester, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and is pending sentencing;

    Jairo Flores, 30, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty in the District of Massachusetts to receipt and possession of child pornography and was sentenced to serve five years in prison followed by five years of supervised release;

    Billy Penaloza, 29, of Dorchester, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty in the District of Massachusetts to possession and receipt of child pornography. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019;

    Michael Armstrong, 35, of Randolph, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty in the District of Massachusetts, to receipt and possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to serve five years in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Restitution will be determined at a future date;

    Al Ramadhanu Soedomo, 28, of Lynn, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced in the District of Massachusetts (Boston), to serve 12 months and one day followed by five years of supervised release;

    Phillip Sungmin Hong, 24, of Sharon, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty in the District of Massachusetts (Boston), to receipt and possession of child pornography and is pending sentencing;

    Eliseo Arteaga Jr., 28, of Mesquite, Texas, pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Texas to possession of prepubescent child pornography. He is pending sentencing;

    Richard Nikolai Gratkowski, 40, of San Antonio, Texas, a former HSI special agent, was arrested in the Western District of Texas. Gratkowski pleaded guilty to the indictment charging one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of access with intent to view child pornography. Gratkowski was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $35,000 in restitution to seven victims and a $10,000 assessment;

    Paul Casey Whipple, 35, of Hondo, Texas, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, was arrested in the Western District of Texas, on charges of sexual exploitation of children/minors, production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. Whipple remains in custody awaiting trial in San Antonio;

    Michael Lawson, 36, of Midland, Georgia, was arrested in the Middle District of Georgia on charges of attempted sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to serve 121 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release following his plea to a superseding information charging him with one count of receipt of child pornography;

    Kevin Christopher Eagan, 39, of Brookhaven, Georgia, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in the Northern District of Georgia;

    Casey Santioius Head, 37, of Griffin, Georgia, was indicted in the Northern District of Georgia for distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography;

    Andrew C. Chu, 28, of Garwood, New Jersey, was arrested and charged with receipt of child pornography. Those charges remain pending;

    Nader Hamdi Ahmed, 29 of Jersey City, New Jersey, was arrested in the District of New Jersey, for sexual exploitation or other abuse of children. Ahmed pleaded guilty to an information charging him with one count of distribution of child pornography. He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 1, 2019;

    Jeffrey Lee Harris, 32, of Pickens, South Carolina, pleaded guilty in the District of South Carolina for producing, distributing, and possessing child pornography;

    Laine Ormand Clark Jr., 27, of Conway, South Carolina, was arrested and charged in U.S. District Court in South Carolina Division for sexual possession of child pornography;

    Jack R. Dove III, 38, of Lakeland, Florida, was arrested in the Middle District of Florida for knowingly receiving and possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct;

    Michael Matthew White, 39, of Miami Beach, Florida, was arrested in the Southern District of Florida for coercion and enticement;

    Nikolas Bennion Bradshaw, 24, of Bountiful, Utah, was arrested in the State of Utah, and charged with five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, and was sentenced to time served with 91 days in jail followed by probation;

    Michael Don Gibbs, 37, of Holladay, Utah, was charged in the District of Utah with receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography;

    Ammar Atef H. Alahdali, 22, of Arlington, Virginia, pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to serve five years in prison and ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution;

    Mark Lindsay Rohrer, 38, of West Hartford, Connecticut, pleaded guilty in the District of Connecticut to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to serve 60 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release;

    Eugene Edward Jung, 47, of San Francisco, California, was indicted in the Northern District of California on possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography;

    James Daosaeng, 25, of Springdale, Arkansas, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced in the Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville) to serve 97 months in prison followed by 20 years of supervised release;

    Alex Daniel Paxton, 30, of Columbus, Ohio, was arrested and indicted in Franklin County Ohio Court of Common Pleas for pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor;

    Don Edward Pannell, 32, of Harvey, Louisiana, pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Louisiana for receipt of child pornography. He is pending sentencing;

    Ryan Thomas Carver, 29, of Huntsville, Alabama, was arrested and charged under Alabama State Law. He was charged federally in the Northern District of Alabama with possession of child pornography. His case is pending in Huntsville, Alabama;

    Alexander Buckley, 28, of the United Kingdom, pleaded guilty to 10 offences in the UK of possession and distribution of indecent images of children, possession of extreme and prohibited images and possession of a class A drug. He was sentenced to serve 40 months in prison for the distribution of indecent images and possession of class A drugs. Buckley is also subject to an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order;

    Kyle Fox, 26, of the United Kingdom, pleaded guilty to 22 counts including rape, sexual assault, and sharing indecent images, and was sentenced to serve 22 years in prison; and

    Mohammed Almaker, 26, of Fort Collins, Colorado, was arrested in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), charged with KSA Law involving the endangerment of children. He is awaiting judicial proceedings in furtherance of criminal charges.

    A forfeiture complaint was also unsealed today. The complaint alleges that law enforcement was able to trace payments of bitcoin to the Darknet site by following the flow of funds on the blockchain. The virtual currency accounts identified in the complaint were allegedly used by 24 individuals in five countries to fund the website and promote the exploitation of children. The forfeiture complaint seeks to recover these funds and, ultimately through the restoration process, return the illicit funds to victims of the crime.

    The charges in the indictment are merely allegations, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    The international investigations were led by the IRS-CI, HSI and the NCA. The Korean National Police of the Republic of Korea, the National Crime Agency of the United Kingdom and the German Federal Criminal Police (the Bundeskriminalamt), provided assistance and coordinated with their parallel investigations. The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division provided significant assistance.

    The cases are being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Zia M. Faruqui, Lindsay Suttenberg, and Youli Lee, Paralegal Specialists Brian Rickers and Diane Brashears, Legal Assistant Jessica McCormick, and Records Examiner Chad Byron of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney C. Alden Pelker of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. Additional assistance has been provided by Deputy Chief Keith Becker and Trial Attorney James E. Burke IV of the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and former U.S. Attorney’s Office Paralegal Specialists Toni Anne Donato and Ty Eaton.

    ~ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/south-korean-national-and-hundreds-others-charged-worldwide-takedown-largest-darknet-child

    http://wetheonepeople.com/south-korean-national-and-hundreds-of-others-charged-worldwide-in-the-takedown-of-the-largest-darknet-child-pornography-website-which-was-funded-by-bitcoin/= this posting

    Share
  • HATJ: Money was a Tool to Serve Lack of Consciousness

    HATJ: Money was a Tool to Serve Lack of Consciousness

     

    COSCO_Long_Beach_1280_800_84_s_c1-640x400

    From: Terran
    To: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: 10/10/2019 7:21 AM

    OCTOBER 08, 2019

    JUDICIAL WATCH

    https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/trump-rids-major-u-s-container-port-of-chinese-communist-control/

    TRUMP RIDS MAJOR U.S. CONTAINER PORT OF CHINESE COMMUNIST CONTROL

    Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

    It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

    The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually.

    It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers,??62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than??8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

    Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.”??The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.”

    Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

    In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing   leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”

    –//–

    From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: Oct 10, 2019 at 11:22 AM

    Yes, “China” and China were very aggressive about taking ports…from Panama Canal to the seemingly littlest port authority…in 2012, I was presented an offer from “China”, via China, for 100% cash trade for the 440+ Million (gold currency/USD equiv) in receivables created from the mortgage fraud and judicial corruption investigations 2010-12, Washington State.  Selling to China was never even a consideration.  Claire Petrich, a close friend of mine at the time and a long-time family friend of the Tucci family, was one of the Tacoma Port Commissioners…and she would tell me about the security issues they faced in general, geopolitical bullshit with harmful ramifications on humanity reminiscent of her time at the US embassy in Libya when it was shut down decades ago…plus, the stories from my friend Troy, multi-generational longshoreman at Port of Tacoma that was permanently injured in a non-reported terrorist event…

    …“China”/China’s “ways” are well known, completely predictable (my love and awareness to Mark Lindquist and Judge Jack Nevin)…and even in 2012, despite the seeming comfort such a bribe would provide, to even consider selling and putting Washington State and those in Washington State further in the hands of China/“China”, ET AL, than they already were, in my mind and heart, WAS/WOULD BE treason… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to Freedom… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to Creation… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to ALL I AM …and it would have put me, my family, and all of humanity in even more of a dangerous situation….. money/commerce as it was previously designed was a tool to serve lack of consciousness, the energy disguised as said receivables sat untouched and protected, now coming out of/emerging from CONVERSION (similar to the caterpillar emerging as a butterfly) for the benefit of All…

    –//–

    From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: Oct 10, 2019 at 11:22 AM

    Lol… discovered with the Renaud family in Australia (constructed phase 1 and phase 2 of china’s “twin towers” equiv… plus numerous other construction projects around the world), it is important to know who is who… for Australia was former “China”/China and HSBC Board of Director Patrick Wang’s playground and “fishing pool”… it was because of Patrick Wang, apparently in conjunction with Sir Peter, Sir John Bond, Sir Green, other HSBC, UBS, CIA, United Nation’s unnumbered accounts, et al’s dirty money dealings that Obama got his so-called “contentious”/”strong-arm” deal put on Switzerland…

    …who constitutes Macquarie Infrastructure Partners??? …who is Macquarie Infrastructure Partners?…

    …and while one is at it, off with the “Blackrock” and the “Vanguard”!, lol

    ~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-money-was-a-tool-to-serve-lack-of-consciousness/= this posting

    Share
  • HATJ: Jump!! QE4 “Not a QE” Begins (Heart;)

    HATJ: Jump!! QE4 “Not a QE” Begins (Heart;)

    JEROME-POWELL-300x216

     

    From: HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF (86748007)

    To: BZ Riger

    Date: 10/11/2019 11:34:50 PM

    Subject: RE: JUMP!! QE4 “Not A QE” Begins (heart

    lol…”beating a dead horse” has turned into “beating a dead fed (reserve)”…and in regards to the repo contractors/facilitators/peddlers/dealers/pimps, my complete compassion, love, gratitude, and heartitude to you all, specifically and particularly including and not limited to Jonathan D. Betts, Karl Langenstein, Evergreen, Brenda “Steely” and the Geneva gang, et al…may your “jumps” be as quick and graceful as possible

    hugs, love, gratitude, and heartitude to all, by all, with all!
    —–Riger, Bz on 10/11/2019 3:06 PM wrote:

    >

    QE4 “Not A QE” Begins: Fed Starts Buying $60BN In Bills Per Month Beginning Next Week
    by Tyler Durden Fri, 10/11/2019 – 13:05
    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/not-qe-begins-fed-start-buying-60bn-bills-month-starting-oct-15

    Just one day after we laid out what Goldman’s revised forecast for the Fed’s “NOT A QE” will look like, which for those who missed it predicted that the Fed would announce “monthly purchases of about $60BN for four months, split across Treasury bills and short maturity coupon Treasuries, in order to replenish the roughly $200bn reserve shortfall and support the pace of growth in non-reserve liabilities”, the Fed has done just that and moments ago – well ahead of consensus expectations which saw the Fed making this announcement some time in November – the US central bank announced it would start purchasing $60BN in Bills per month starting October 15. This will be in addition to rolling over “all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities and the continued reinvestment all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities received during each calendar month.”

    In short, the proposed schedule is virtually identical to the one Goldman “proposed” yesterday, one which sees the Fed purchase a grand total of $100BN or so in TSYs the near term, and one which is meant to “engineer a one-off level shift of roughly $200bn over the course of four months.”

    But wait there’s more, because just as today’s surprising spike in repo use suggested, mere “NOT A QE” may not cut it, and just in case, in order to provide an “ample supply of reserves”, the Fed will continue with $75BN in overnight repos and $35 billion in term repos twice per week, “at least through January of next year.”
    Powell Says ‘Time Is Now’ for Fed to Grow Balance Sheet, But It’s Not QE

    Where the Fed’s announcement differs from Goldman’s proposed POMO schedule, is that this appears to be a far more aggressive form of “NOT A QE” because as the Fed notes it will continue well into the second quarter of 2020, meaning it will last beyond the 4 months proposed by Goldman, to wit: “in light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities, the Federal Reserve will purchase Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of next year in order to maintain over time ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September 2019.”

    The Fed’s proposal indicates that between the continuation of repo operations, and the net $60BN balance sheet expansion, the Fed’s balance sheet will reach roughly $4.2-$4.3 trillion some time in Q2 2020.

    Here is the full statement from the Fed explaining all of the above:
    Reclusive Millionaire Warns: “Get Out Of Cash” Here’s Why

    PhD Millionaire who called Dotcom crash, housing bust, and market’s surge since ’09 is now predicting a ‘cash panic’ in 2019. Find out why here.
    Sponsored By Stansberry Research

    In light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) directed the Desk, effective October 15, 2019, to purchase Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of next year to maintain over time ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September 2019. The Committee also directed the Desk to conduct term and overnight repurchase agreement operations (repos) at least through January of next year to ensure that the supply of reserves remains ample even during periods of sharp increases in non-reserve liabilities, and to mitigate the risk of money market pressures that could adversely affect policy implementation.

    In accordance with this directive, the Desk plans to purchase Treasury bills at an initial pace of approximately $60 billion per month, starting with the period from mid-October to mid-November. These reserve management purchases of Treasury bills will be in addition to the Desk’s ongoing purchases of Treasury securities related to the reinvestment of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities. Detailed information on the schedule for reserve management purchases of Treasury bills will be announced on or around the 9th business day of each month on the Treasury Securities Operational Details site.

    Consistent with this directive, the Desk will roll over at auction all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities. As Treasury bill holdings mature, the principal payments will be rolled into new Treasury bill securities.

    In addition, at least through January of next year, the Desk will conduct overnight and term repo operations to ensure that the supply of reserves remains ample and to mitigate the risk of money market pressures. Term repo operations will generally be conducted twice per week, initially in an offering amount of at least $35 billion per operation. Overnight repo operations will be conducted daily, initially in an offering amount of at least $75 billion per operation. Detailed information on the schedule of term and overnight repurchase agreement operations will be announced on or around the 9th business day of each month on the Repurchase Agreement Operational Details site.

    So with a combined firepower between POMO and Repo in the $100s of billions per month, someone will still have the gall not to call this QE 4 “NOT A QE”?

    Why yes: the Fed itself, because the last thing the Fed needs is for pundits to start asking question why Powell is launching QE when the economy is supposedly stable (and just weeks after Trump said the Fed should do “some QE”), to wit:

    These actions are purely technical measures to support the effective implementation of the FOMC’s monetary policy, and do not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy.

    Sure, Jerome, whatever you say: A $60BN Bill POMO + $75BN in weekly O/N Repo + $70BN (2x$35BN) in weekly Term Repo is clearly “NOT A QE”.

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-jump-qe4-not-a-qe-begins-heart/= this posting

    Share
  • EO 13892 Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  The rule of law requires transparency.  Regulated parties must know in advance the rules by which the Federal Government will judge their actions.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., was enacted to provide that “administrative policies affecting individual rights and obligations be promulgated pursuant to certain stated procedures so as to avoid the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations.”  Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974). The Freedom of Information Act, America’s landmark transparency law, amended the APA to further advance this goal.  The Freedom of Information Act, as amended, now generally requires that agencies publish in the Federal Register their substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of law that are generally applicable and both formulated and adopted by the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(D)).  The Freedom of Information Act also generally prohibits an agency from adversely affecting a person with a rule or policy that is not so published, except to the extent that the person has actual and timely notice of the terms of the rule or policy (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)).

    Unfortunately, departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch have not always complied with these requirements. In addition, some agency practices with respect to enforcement actions and adjudications undermine the APA’s goals of promoting accountability and ensuring fairness.

    Agencies shall act transparently and fairly with respect to all affected parties, as outlined in this order, when engaged in civil administrative enforcement or adjudication.  No person should be subjected to a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agency’s jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct.  Moreover, the Federal Government should, where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement, promote information sharing with the private sector, and establish predictable outcomes for private conduct.  Agencies shall afford regulated parties the safeguards described in this order, above and beyond those that the courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to impose.

    Sec. 2.  Definitions For the purposes of this order:

    (a)  “Agency” has the meaning given to “Executive agency” in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but excludes the Government Accountability Office.

    (b)  “Collection of information” includes any conduct that would qualify as a “collection of information” as defined in section 3502(3)(A) of title 44, United States Code, or section 1320.3(c) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and also includes any request for information, regardless of the number of persons to whom it is addressed, that is:

    (i)   addressed to all or a substantial majority of an industry; or

    (ii)  designed to obtain information from a representative sample of individual persons in an industry.

    (c)  “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:

    (i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;

    (iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

    (iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or

    (vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.

    (d)  “Legal consequence” means the result of an action that directly or indirectly affects substantive legal rights or obligations.  The meaning of this term should be informed by the Supreme Court’s discussion in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807, 1813–16 (2016), and includes, for example, agency orders specifying which commodities are subject to or exempt from regulation under a statute, Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 44–45 (1956), as well as agency letters or orders establishing greater liability for regulated parties in a subsequent enforcement action, Rhea Lana, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 824 F.3d 1023, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2016).  In particular, “legal consequence” includes subjecting a regulated party to potential liability.

    (e)  “Unfair surprise” means a lack of reasonable certainty or fair warning of what a legal standard administered by an agency requires.  The meaning of this term should be informed by the examples of lack of fair notice discussed by the Supreme Court in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 156 & n.15 (2012).

    (f)  “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication from an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person.  The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended (SBREFA), letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no action letters.

    (g)  “Regulation” means a legislative rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions.

    Sec. 3.  Proper Reliance on Guidance Documents.  Guidance documents may not be used to impose new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch except as expressly authorized by law or as expressly incorporated into a contract.  When an agency takes an administrative enforcement action, engages in adjudication, or otherwise makes a determination that has legal consequence for a person, it must establish a violation of law by applying statutes or regulations.  The agency may not treat noncompliance with a standard of conduct announced solely in a guidance document as itself a violation of applicable statutes or regulations.  When an agency uses a guidance document to state the legal applicability of a statute or regulation, that document can do no more, with respect to prohibition of conduct, than articulate the agency’s understanding of how a statute or regulation applies to particular circumstances.  An agency may cite a guidance document to convey that understanding in an administrative enforcement action or adjudication only if it has notified the public of such document in advance through publication, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect).

    Sec. 4.  Fairness and Notice in Administrative Enforcement Actions and Adjudications.  When an agency takes an administrative enforcement action, engages in adjudication, or otherwise makes a determination that has legal consequence for a person, it may apply only standards of conduct that have been publicly stated in a manner that would not cause unfair surprise.  An agency must avoid unfair surprise not only when it imposes penalties but also whenever it adjudges past conduct to have violated the law.

    Sec. 5.  Fairness and Notice in Jurisdictional Determinations.  Any decision in an agency adjudication, administrative order, or agency document on which an agency relies to assert a new or expanded claim of jurisdiction — such as a claim to regulate a new subject matter or an explanation of a new basis for liability — must be published, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect) before the conduct over which jurisdiction is sought occurs.  If an agency intends to rely on a document arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator), such as a brief, a consent decree, or a settlement agreement, to establish jurisdiction in future administrative enforcement actions or adjudications involving persons who were not parties to the litigation, it must publish that document, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect) and provide an explanation of its jurisdictional implications.  An agency may not seek judicial deference to its interpretation of a document arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator) in order to establish a new or expanded claim or jurisdiction unless it has published the document or a notice of availability in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect).

    Sec. 6.  Opportunity to Contest Agency Determination.  (a)  Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, before an agency takes any action with respect to a particular person that has legal consequence for that person, including by issuing to such a person a no-action letter, notice of noncompliance, or other similar notice, the agency must afford that person an opportunity to be heard, in person or in writing, regarding the agency’s proposed legal and factual determinations.  The agency must respond in writing and articulate the basis for its action.

    (b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to settlement negotiations between agencies and regulated parties, to notices of a prospective legal action, or to litigation before courts.

    (c)  An agency may proceed without regard to subsection (a) of this section where necessary because of a serious threat to health, safety, or other emergency or where a statute specifically authorizes proceeding without a prior opportunity to be heard.  Where an agency proceeds under this subsection, it nevertheless must afford any person an opportunity to be heard, in person or in writing, regarding the agency’s legal determinations and respond in writing as soon as practicable.

    Sec. 7.  Ensuring Reasonable Administrative Inspections. Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency that conducts civil administrative inspections shall publish a rule of agency procedure governing such inspections, if such a rule does not already exist.  Once published, an agency must conduct inspections of regulated parties in compliance with the rule.

    Sec. 8.  Appropriate Procedures for Information Collections. (a)  Any agency seeking to collect information from a person about the compliance of that person or of any other person with legal requirements must ensure that such collections of information comply with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, section 3512 of title 44, United States Code, and section 1320.6(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, applicable to collections of information (other than those excepted under section 3518 of title 44, United States Code).

    (b)  To advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, any collection of information during the conduct of an investigation (other than those investigations excepted under section 3518 of title 44, United States Code, and section 1320.4 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or civil investigative demands under 18 U.S.C. 1968) must either:

    (i)   display a valid control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; or

    (ii)  inform the recipient through prominently displayed plain language that no response is legally required.

    Sec. 9.  Cooperative Information Sharing and Enforcement.  (a)  Within 270 days of the date of this order, each agency, as appropriate, shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, propose procedures:

    (i)    to encourage voluntary self-reporting of regulatory violations by regulated parties in exchange for reductions or waivers of civil penalties;

    (ii)   to encourage voluntary information sharing by regulated parties; and

    (iii)  to provide pre-enforcement rulings to regulated parties.

    (b)  Any agency that believes additional procedures are not practicable — because, for example, the agency believes it already has adequate procedures in place or because it believes it lacks the resources to institute additional procedures — shall, within 270 days of the date of this order, submit a report to the President describing, as appropriate, its existing procedures, its need for more resources, or any other basis for its conclusion.

    Sec. 10.  SBREFA Compliance.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, each agency shall submit a report to the President demonstrating that its civil administrative enforcement activities, investigations, and other actions comply with SBREFA, including section 223 of that Act.  A copy of this report, subject to redactions for any applicable privileges, shall be posted on the agency’s website.

    Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  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.

    (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:

    (i)    to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than procurement actions and actions involving the import or export of non-defense articles and services);

    (ii)   to any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;

    (iii)  to any action related to detention, seizure, or destruction of counterfeit goods, pirated goods, or other goods that infringe intellectual property rights;

    (iv)   to any investigation of misconduct by an agency employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against an agency employee; or

    (v)    in any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this order, or any part of this order, would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, undermine the national security.

    ~~~~~~~

    Related: http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/eo-13892-executive-order-on-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and-adjudication/= this posting

     

    Share
  • POTUS: Trump Signs Executive Orders at the White House, Oct 9, 2019

    trump-signs-executive-orders-10.9.19-300x158POTUS signs Executive Orders on transparency in federal guidance and enforcement

    ~ Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    ~ Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication

    Read EO here: http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/potus-trump-signs-executive-orders-at-the-white-house-oct-9-2019/= this posting

    Share
  • Executive Order Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    Executive Order Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    Section1.  Policy.  Departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch adopt regulations that impose legally binding requirements on the public even though, in our constitutional democracy, only Congress is vested with the legislative power.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies, in exercising that solemn responsibility, to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to provide public notice of proposed regulations under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, allow interested parties an opportunity to comment, consider and respond to significant comments, and publish final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Agencies may clarify existing obligations through non binding guidance documents, which the APA exempts from notice-and-comment requirements.  Yet agencies have sometimes used this authority inappropriately in attempts to regulate the public without following the rulemaking procedures of the APA.  Even when accompanied by a disclaimer that it is non-binding, a guidance document issued by an agency may carry the implicit threat of enforcement action if the regulated public does not comply.  Moreover, the public frequently has insufficient notice of guidance documents, which are not always published in the Federal Register or distributed to all regulated parties.

    Americans deserve an open and fair regulatory process that imposes new obligations on the public only when consistent with applicable law and after an agency follows appropriate procedures.  Therefore, it is the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to require that agencies treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, except as incorporated into a contract, take public input into account when appropriate in formulating guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public.  Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    Sec. 2.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

    (a)  “Agency” has the meaning given in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.

    (b)  “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:

    (i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;

    (iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

    (iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or

    (vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.

    (c)  “Significant guidance document” means a guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated to:

    (i)    lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

    (ii)   create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (iii)  materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (iv)   raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles of Executive Order 12866.

    (d)  “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication by an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person.  The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended, letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no-action letters.

    Sec. 3.  Ensuring Transparent Use of Guidance Documents.  (a) Within 120 days of the date on which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency or agency component, as appropriate, shall establish or maintain on its website a single, searchable, indexed database that contains or links to all guidance documents in effect from such agency or component.  The website shall note that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    (b)  Within 120 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall review its guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect.  No agency shall retain in effect any guidance document without including it in the relevant database referred to in subsection (a) of this section, nor shall any agency, in the future, issue a guidance document without including it in the relevant database.  No agency may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical facts.  Within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum, an agency may reinstate a guidance document rescinded under this subsection without complying with any procedures adopted or imposed pursuant to section 4 of this order, to the extent consistent with applicable law, and shall include the guidance document in the relevant database.

    (c)  The Director of OMB (Director), or the Director’s designee, may waive compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section for particular guidance documents or categories of guidance documents, or extend the deadlines set forth in those subsections.

    (d)  As requested by the Director, within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, an agency head shall submit a report to the Director with the reasons for maintaining in effect any guidance documents identified by the Director.  The Director shall provide such reports to the President.  This subsection shall apply only to guidance documents existing as of the date of this order.

    Sec. 4.  Promulgation of Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents.  (a)  Within 300 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall, consistent with applicable law, finalize regulations, or amend existing regulations as necessary, to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.  The process set forth in each regulation shall be consistent with this order and shall include:

    (i)    a requirement that each guidance document clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract;

    (ii)   procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document, including a designation of the officials to which petitions should be directed; and

    (iii)  for a significant guidance document, as determined by the Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Administrator), unless the agency and the Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exemption from some or all requirements, provisions requiring:

    (A)  a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;

    (B)  approval on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or by an agency component head appointed by the President, before issuance;

    (C)  review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Order 12866, before issuance; and

    (D)  compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda).

    (b)  The Administrator shall issue memoranda establishing exceptions from this order for categories of guidance documents, and categorical presumptions regarding whether guidance documents are significant, as appropriate, and may require submission of significant guidance documents to OIRA for review before the finalization of agency regulations under subsection (a) of this section.  In light of the Memorandum of Agreement of April 11, 2018, this section and section 5 of this order shall not apply to the review relationship (including significance determinations) between OIRA and any component of the Department of the Treasury, or to compliance by the latter with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.  Section 4(a)(iii) and section 5 of this order shall not apply to pre-enforcement rulings.

    Sec. 5.  Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609.  The requirements and procedures of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 shall apply to guidance documents, consistent with section 4 of this order.

    Sec. 6.  Implementation.  The Director shall issue memoranda and, as appropriate, regulations pursuant to sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, and other appropriate authority, to provide guidance regarding or otherwise implement this order.

    Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  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.

    (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:

    (i)    to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than guidance documents involving procurement or the import or export of non-defense articles and services);

    (ii)   to any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;

    (iii)  to any investigation of misconduct by an agency employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against an agency employee;

    (iv)   to any document or information that is exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act); or

    (v)    in any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this order, or any part of this order, would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, undermine the national security.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 9, 2019.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Related: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-combating-bureaucratic-abuse-holding-federal-agencies-accountable/

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/acting-omb-director-vought-trump-keeps-promise-tame-bureaucracy-runs-roughshod-americans/

    Video from EO: http://wetheonepeople.com/potus-trump-signs-executive-orders-at-the-white-house-oct-9-2019/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/= this posting

    Share
  • Excerpts from the White House’s Letter to House Democrats Regarding their Unconstitutional Inquiry

    fullsizeoutput_19ac

    LAW & JUSTICE: 

    REJECTING HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY

    • “Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.”
    • “Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.”
    • “Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.”
    • “If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.”
    • “We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.”

    THEIR ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

    • “President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process.”
    • “Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen.”
    • “As one member of Congress explained, he is ‘concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.’”
    • “The effort to impeach President Trump…is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before.
    • “In fact, yours transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported ‘impeachment inquiry.’”
    • “Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic.”

    UNPRECEDENTED, CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

    • In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.”
    • “To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include – at a minimum – the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.”
    • “[T]he Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry.”
    • “In addition, the House has not provided the Committees’ Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas.”

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ OUTRAGEOUS ACTIONS

    • “Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing.”
    • “The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiff’s office, and perhaps others – despite initial denials – were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.”
    • “Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower’s complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter – particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.”

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ THREATS AND INTIMIDATION

    • “Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process.”
    • “In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened – without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena – that ‘[a]ny failure to appear’ in response to a mere letter request for a deposition ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction.’”
    • “[T]he Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests – or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all – these officials will have their salaries withheld.”
    • “The Committees’ assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.”
    READ THE FULL LETTER

    ~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/excerpts-from-the-white-houses-letter-to-house-democrats-regarding-their-unconstitutional-inquiry/= this posting

     

    Share
  • HATJ: Thirteen and a tones of GoldOLWorth up to £520 Million is Found in a Corrupt Chinese Official’s Home

    HATJ: Thirteen and a tones of GoldOLWorth up to £520 Million is Found in a Corrupt Chinese Official’s Home

    19191868-7528217-image-m-9_1570005424274From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Man found with 13 tonnes of gold
    Date: Oct 4, 2019 at 1:50 PM

    Karl Langstein’s “buddy”, or at least his “top dog”, lol… I wonder if they found the purported 700 Million USD cash in Lance’s basement yet…or any of the other “cash stash” in the other million or so basements around China…oh my! <3

    Forbes hasn’t nailed the so-called wealthiest people since its inception…but misdirection is Forbes, et al’s job, lol

    complete love, compassion, gratitude, and heartitude as the termination/jump is completed <3

    —-
    —–Ferguson, William on 10/4/2019 10:06 AM wrote:

    Thirteen and a half tonnes of gold worth up to £520million is found in a corrupt Chinese official’s home and £30BILLION in suspected bribe money in his bank account

    by Billie Thomson, for Daily Mail, published on October 2, 2019 

    * Thirteen and a half tonnes of gold worth up to ??520million is found in a corrupt Chinese official’s home and ??30BILLION in suspected bribe money in his bank account

    * Thousands of golden bars and bricks were discovered in a room during a raid?? Inspectors also discovered ??30 billion in suspected bribes on his account

    * The 58-year-old official in Haikou has been sacked and is under investigation

    * He would have been richer than China’s richest man if charges turn out to be true

    A powerful Communist official in China is suspected to have received 13.5 tonnes of gold and????30 billion cash in bribes.

    Thousands of??golden bars and bricks were discovered at the leader’s home during a raid by corruption inspectors earlier this month.

    Their value could be worth up to ??520 million, according to international trading prices.

    Thousands of golden bars and bricks were discovered by corruption inspectors at the man’s home in Hainan Province, China, earlier this month. The official is being investigated

    Zhang Qi, 58, who was a top official in the province of Hainan has been sacked.??
    In addition to the gold, inspectors discovered 268 billion yuan (??30 billion) in suspected bribes on the man’s account, according to reports.??

    He was also thought to have received multiple luxurious villas as perks.??

    If Mr Zhang’s alleged corruption turns out to be true, he would have been richer than Jack Ma, the wealthiest man in China worth??$37 billion??(??30 billion) according to Forbes.??

    Mr Zhang (left) was the secretary of the Communist Party Committee of Haikou. Apart from gold, inspectors also discovered ??30 billion in suspected bribes on the man’s account

    Mr Zhang was the secretary of the Communist Party Committee of Haikou, the provincial capital city of Hainan with a population around nine million people.??

    He had equal power as the city’s mayor, according to the ranking of Chinese Communist party officials.??

    He was also a member of the??Standing Committee of Hainan Province.

    He has been stripped of both titles by the??Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

    Mr Zhang was a highly powerful man in Haikou (pictured), the provincial capital of Hainan

    Footage circulating on Twitter shows one person counting lumps of gold in a room believed to be in Mr Zhang’s lavish home.??

    The clip and related news have been censored in mainland China.??

    In a statement on September 6, the country’s corruption watchdog said Mr Zhang was suspected to have seriously violated the law and??discipline.??

    He is currently under inspection and investigation from the authority.??

    Chinese President Xi??has launched a tough anti-corruption campaign since taking office. The Communist leader is seen??delivering a speech on the country’s National Day on October 1

    Mr Zhang was born in eastern China’s Anhui Province and joined the Communist Party in 1983.??

    Before ascending to power in Haikou, he served as the deputy mayor of Sanya city and the mayor of Danzhou. Both cities are in Hainan Province.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has launched a tough anti-corruption campaign since he took office in 2012.??

    Statistics show at least 53 officials have been caught receiving more than 100 million yuan (??11 million) in bribes in the past seven years in the nation. ??

    Mr Zhang is the 17th senior official to have been investigated for corruption in China since the beginning of the year, according to Chinese media.

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-thirteen-and-a-tones-of-goldolworth-up-to-520-million-is-found-in-a-corrupt-chinese-officials-home/= this posting

    Share
  • HATJ: at Least 130 State Dept. Official Notified of Possible ‘Culpability’ in ‘Security Incident’ Related to Hillary Private Email Server

    fullsizeoutput_19cdHATJ:

    From: HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF

    To: BZ Riger

    Date: 10/4/2019 5:50:26 PM

    Subject: RE: At least 130 State Dept. officials notified ofv

    “…orgy of scandals…”…lol, who writes this stuff????…no one is afforded any more “time” to play any scandals out…

    *termination/jump completing*

    hugs, love, and celebrations for All, by All, with All!

    __ _
    —–Riger, Bz on 10/4/2019 2:21 PM wrote:

    At least 130 State Dept. officials notified of possible ‘culpability’ in ‘security incidents’ related to Hillary’s private email server

    By Thomas Lifson, published on American Thinker, on September 29, 2019

    The wheels of federal bureaucratic responsibility, like the wheels of justice, grind very slowly, so only now are we learning that the scandal of Hillary Clinton’s private email server used for official business is still being scrutinized. And while the Big Fish, Hillary Clinton, is out there shooting off her mouth accusing President Trump of the corrupt practices she undertook, the smaller fish in the State Department are learning of their own culpability in corresponding with her on a private server.

    Just the kind of leverage a determined prosecutor could use to obtain plea deals implicating higher ups. Ask General Flynn or Paul Manafort what that sort of pressure could mean. The Washington Post reports:

    As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.

    State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago, after President Trump’s election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in August, officials said.Senior State Department officials said that they are following standard protocol in an investigation that began during the latter days of the Obama administration and is nearing completion.

    “This has nothing to do with who is in the White House,” said a senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing probe. “This is about the time it took to go through millions of emails, which is about 3 1/2 years.”

    To many of those under scrutiny, including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts, the recent flurry of activity surrounding the Clinton email case represents a new front on which the Trump administration could be accused of employing the powers of the executive branch against perceived political adversaries.

    The WaPo and other Democrats are anxious to discredit the probe by blaming Trump for pushing it, but the officials in question deny any pressure and claim that the probe began before he took office.

    State Department officials vigorously denied there was any political motivation behind their actions, and said that the reviews of retroactively classified emails were conducted by career bureaucrats who did not know the names of the subjects being investigated.

    “The process is set up in a manner to completely avoid any appearance of political bias,” said a second senior State Department official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the mechanics of an internal probe.

    My own suspicion is that we are headed for an orgy of scandals between now and Election Day next year. The rush of House Democrats toward impeachment reflects their own understanding and fear of what is going to be made public. In the meantime, about 130 State Department officials — “including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts” — are going to need the services of some very expensive DC lawyers, the kind of help that can force a person to sell his house. Or else, tell all to prosecutors and make a deal.

    ~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-at-least-130-state-dept-official-notified-of-possible-culpability-in-security-incident-related-to-hillary-private-email-server/= this posting

    Share