Welcome
Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

"Fintan," Hertzberg, Kos, DU, Brad, Bev, and the Raw Story

manufactured grassroots, disinfo, and insidious marketing

Unread postby socrates » Thu May 01, 2008 9:55 pm

bradblog.com/?p=5943#comment-353614

I have to agree with Dredd. Most of the bloggers on the internet don't get paid one cent for their efforts. I don't want to throw Brad under the bus. I am grateful he allows everyone to post as long as they don't break the rules.

I have uncovered information which helps put into perspective how the election integrity movement got hijacked. I have taken time out for no compensation to figure out Mark Lindeman and his connections to Damschoeder and others who like the electronic voting machines. I uncovered things on ESI's director months ago and have yet to see one comment.

I deal with facts. Lindeman has been in Brad's face. I uncovered a lot of info concerning Hertzberg and Fintan Dunne. I have come up with enlightening info on Lindeman, who Brad didn't even know was his troll at Democratic Underground.

I don't understand why BradBlog doesn't see all this as an opportunity to expose the connection between astroturfers and pseudo/fake election integrity movements. Brad is all about paper ballots. Well, here is the proof that the loudest voices discrediting him are tied in with folks who promote the use of electronic machines.

Some things I have found were already discovered but haven't been blogged about too much. Professor Freeman has already questioned why Hertzberg and Liddle were ever hired. Kathy Dopp, I saw how she is fully aware of the connection between pseudo activists with psuedo auditors.

I am not saying I am a bag of chips or whatever. But I do find it curious why my findings which are FACTUAL are not being looked into.

MARK LINDEMAN IS ON THE ROPES.

But I guess it's best to just let the "crazy" Dopp and the "crazy" chemmie be the messengers. It's pretty strange how the obvious isn't being explained. But hey, how 'bout that Michael Gibbons? Yeehaw, check out Dent's phone go off during her lying speech.

I refuse to throw Brad under the bus, but I am curious why he hasn't even made one comment about Dredd's interest or with any of the stuff I have looked into. It wouldn't take more than a minute to post that he is very busy, but that he appreciates the efforts, and that he will look into these things when he can. That would be nice.

Verified Voting Foundation reeks bad. Same as Lindeman. Same as a lot of things that amateur bloggers are posting about which get buried because we have no name power or because we are seen as "conspiracy nutters." This is your chance Mr. Friedman to knock it out of the park. I don't begrudge you making a living off of your work. But I wish you wouldn't take the facts that us amateur internet sleuths uncover for granted.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby may41970 » Fri May 02, 2008 12:24 am

Good questions, soc. I don't know if this really relates, but here's some thoughts I'm having.

I'm wondering more and more about the connection between bloggers and the moderators they appoint.

I was a moderator here for a long time, and the way I became a moderator has never been a secret. Nor why I'm no longer a mod here. (don't worry, I'm not bitter at all about that, nor do I want the job back. It's a lot of pressure of my back)

But what about other forums? How did Brad end up hiring "Agent 99," Does he know her personally, or was she just some odd poster he came across? What kind of power does she wield over the posts and forum? Seems to be a lot. Why does Brad keep her there?

Sometimes it seems like a cop-out. A blogger comes across like some kind of "Knight of Truth," and then they have moderators that don't play fairly. The "Knights" have a perfect excuse...."I left my moderator in charge- I'm sorry she bla bla bla, but I've been busy and I don't know a thing about it."

Is Brad really a good guy, and he just naively hired Agent99? Or is he really aware that she sometimes behaves more like a gov't troll then a "progressive?" Is it possible she's employed by an enemy of Brad's cause?

How many sites have moderators that are enemies of the bloggers that hired them?

On the flip side, how many sites have bloggers that hide their duplicity by blaming the faults of their posts/forums on their corrupt moderators?
may41970
 

Unread postby socrates » Fri May 02, 2008 7:54 pm

may41970 wrote:But what about other forums? How did Brad end up hiring "Agent 99," Does he know her personally, or was she just some odd poster he came across? What kind of power does she wield over the posts and forum? Seems to be a lot. Why does Brad keep her there?


Precisely. If I had to guess, she has been a poster at other forums and ended up also at BradBlog. There was someone signing off at Randi Rhodes as Agent99. Maybe that was where she built up her internet resume, but I'm not sure. It does not seem like they knew each other. MightyMike and Basher, members here- I know them in real life. Everyone else I have gotten to know through the internet. There is a big difference. If we had known each other before the internet, we wouldn't have had any of the trust issues exacerbated by the organised troll gangs.

She has a lot of power. She started deleting my posts. Then she changed words in my post. I would have forgiven her, but you saw how she let the cyberstalkers break the rules. Rules are fine, in fact necessary. But they need to be applied evenly across the board.

That guy is a one-man operation. He needs her. That is why she is still there, imho.

Sometimes it seems like a cop-out. A blogger comes across like some kind of "Knight of Truth," and then they have moderators that don't play fairly. The "Knights" have a perfect excuse...."I left my moderator in charge- I'm sorry she bla bla bla, but I've been busy and I don't know a thing about it."


Mark Steadham of Chemtrail Central fits that model. It is very unclear how his moderators came into power.

Is Brad really a good guy, and he just naively hired Agent99? Or is he really aware that she sometimes behaves more like a gov't troll then a "progressive?" Is it possible she's employed by an enemy of Brad's cause?


Brad's a great guy. I do think he is naive, though, when it comes to the internet fakery. He is aware that she can make moderator mistakes. If he is aware of a problem, he will get involved. But the guy is really stretched for free time.

I think she has enabled the tinfoil element. Her allowing of the cyberstalkers to attack me was a big mistake. If I hadn't fought back for my rights, I think she would have tried to drive me off of that venue.

There are many similarities to the attacks on the election integrity movement as on the chemtrail aware. But the dark side goes too far, and then it becomes clear there is no oomph to their attacks. She could definitely be a plant. Not sure if you saw her defending someone who put up a crap link, but she looked like a naive tinfoiler. This is tinfoil by association 101. Like with Jay Reynolds all over chemtrail boards, there is even a much more immense movement to astroturf that there is no election fraud deciding who wins political office. There's no way Bush won in 2000 or 2004. Anyone trying to show that is attacked as a "nutter."

Here are a few examples of how fake progressives are generating noise so the elections aren't cleaned up.

DU vote fraud hero Andy Stepheson is on HBO!!! "Hacking Democracy" documentary

No links are given. Just a lot of noise. The screenshot doesn't show it, but with the second screenshot, the emoticon was regurgitating. It's as if this thread was started for the sole purpose of restarting the same old, same old attacks.




Here are a few examples of how fake progressives are generating noise so the elections aren't cleaned up.

DU vote fraud hero Andy Stepheson is on HBO!!! "Hacking Democracy" documentary

No links are given. Just a lot of noise. The screenshot doesn't show it, but with the second screenshot, the emoticon was regurgitating. It's as if this thread was started for the sole purpose of restarting the same old, same old attacks.

ImageImage


Do You Believe in Secret Vote Counting?

A couple jackasses show up evoking authority. The debunkers can be as rude as they want and never get banned. OnTheOtherHand is that Mark Lindeman tool. Sure, he was right to ask for a link, but anyone can check out his posting history and who he really is and realise that he is in fact a tool for the status quo.

I never posted in a mean way but still got banned from that place. You know that thread. Big forums that don't apply rules evenly cannot be trusted. Forums that ban while scrubbing and deleting have no credibility. How is one supposed to figure out if the bannings were fair? Where is the proof that myself as SocraticTruths broke any rules? There's none. And that's why what Agent99 did to me at BradBlog makes me wonder if she is a paid tool herself whose role is to make real election integrity advocates look like conspiracy theorists. This Lindeman guy makes me very mad. I simply do not like him. He has no right to call himself an election integrity person. He is a Republican in Democratic clothes.


ImageImageImageImage



One more example. Again, debunkers can be assholes and never get banned, while the real truth seekers better watch their step. This is why I believe Democratic Underground is no better than DailyCIAKos. The sincere people are very careful to attack messages and not messengers. The plants, however, can throw out ad hominems as much as they want, while being protected by the moderators.

The same thing was going on at Randi Rhodes. This Bushwa creep was protected by a WhoseMarie. But since the Randi Rhodes forum has been scrubbed, it is much harder to look into that now.


Clear paper ballot counter, transporter and storage box


Image


The major forums are jokes. Skinner of DU and DailyKos Zuniga are tools. Those are the two biggest progressive forums. The Randi Rhodes forum was severely compromised too. Brad's a good guy, but I don't think he realises how corrupt these places are. He has gone after Kos, but I don't think he sees the big picture about internet convolution. Or maybe he does, but as a journalist blogger, he simply can't be as outspoken about it as us nobodies. Maybe he is starting to catch on more but is too busy doing other types of research. Troll busters like us are a rare breed. Or maybe we are not so rare, but we rarely get a fair shake on the internet.







How many sites have moderators that are enemies of the bloggers that hired them?

On the flip side, how many sites have bloggers that hide their duplicity by blaming the faults of their posts/forums on their corrupt moderators?



The only way we'll ever know for sure is if paid trolls start whistleblowing. Otherwise, all we can do is keep pouring through the noise, documenting it, and try to make some sense of it for the greater good.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:57 pm

I found an old entry concerning Bev Harris through the wayback machine. I think this person named ~A might be Steven Hertzberg. He can also be found on this BradBlog thread also from many years ago.


Notice how he uses the fake phrase "voter fraud" instead of election fraud.



Image
Image
Image



Then came a strange comment-

"I'm doing the fifty states voting irregularity research, not with her"


Image


That sounds like Hertzberg's Votewatch thing. :o



Image



It's funny how ~A didn't use his real name, while one of his fellow bloggers at WatchingTheWatchers turned out to be Ron Brynaert, now the executive editor of Raw Story. I wrote to Brynaert inquiring about ~A but got no response.


pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec04/election1_12-02.html


{excerpt}
SPENCER MICHELS: Now, a few fledgling efforts are underway, including early steps by Soaries' agency to contact states for voting information the federal government has not previously collected. In addition, the commission will look into machine malfunctions and hold hearings. Until now, scientific studies of election procedures, including registration, have been rare. For the 2004 election, the non-profit, nonpartisan organization VoteWatch, began a nationwide study it hopes will answer some questions about the reliability of the voting process.

SPOKESMAN: How confident are you that your vote is going to be counted accurately?

SPOKESMAN: I am very confident.

SPENCER MICHELS: Steve Hertzberg, an aeronautical engineer and founder of VoteWatch, says that data must be gathered as a first step in solving potentially serious voting snafus.

STEVE HERTZBERG: No one has done this in a large, systematic way before, and really this is what's necessary in this country to understand how our election system works.





One more name folks might remember from the old days of electoral reform forums was DubyaSux from the Democratic Underground. He portrayed the Curtis story as a hoax. He was an apologist for Diebold.



screenshot

screenshot



From the last paragraph:
Dubyasux- "I'm a programmer that develops smartcard technology.for a security business."


That's funny. Hertzberg.org is affiliated with Graeme V. Jones, a company dealing with security.


Image




I am fairly sure people can connect the dots. I admit this is all circumstantial evidence. But sometimes that is enough to tip the balance when there are so many other oddities. Robert Hertzberg was one of the first politicians to sponsor a bill to fund electronic machines? Hertzberg astroturfed at Fintan Dunne's? He endorsed Damschroder. The Election Science Institute scrubbed its whole website. Wtf? Why? What was that all really about?
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:20 pm

I am officially disassociating myself with the BradBlog. I finally looked deeper into the Clint Curtis story, and it doesn't add up. I believe many of us have fallen for this image of Brad Friedman as an intrepid reporter who checks his facts. We are so desperate for social justice, that we are vulnerable to believing in the wrong people, that we end up taking their word as gold.

There are many problems with the BradBlog. The most glaring is that the moderator, Agent99, doesn't play fair. The other glaring problem is the amount of regular posters today and all over the archives who reek of tinfoil. Brad acts like this is all about freedom of speech. To me, it is about hypocrisy. People should check out the Clint Curtis story. They should make up their own mind about it. I think it has to be one of the most outrageous strawman ever created.

I've been posting at Democratic Underground on this thread. I have been taking screenshots of my posts just in case they get deleted.

I am tired of getting lip service from gatekeepers who throw stones out of glass houses. I am deeply disappointed that Brad has taken no interest in the Hertzberg story. I find it incredulous that he sides with a Ben Burch. I find it ridiculous how he has not stood up for Bev Harris over the years. I am troubled by his propensity to saying things in email, that he never would post in public. Emailing is fine, imho, when we are trying to work out things in advance. But I also think emailing can hurt the organic building of consensus. We need sunshine. We don't need cover-ups.

The last straw for me was finding out that Brad has added robots.txt to the wayback machine. I found this out because I wanted to go back in time and figure out the Curtis story. Brad never wrote too much about electoral integrity issues until the Curtis story emerged in late 2004. From that point on, Brad's blog took the direction that we see today. What is Brad trying to hide? Why did he delete AnonymousArmy posts from around that time?

I am no fan of AnonymousArmy. In fact, I think he was a disinfo tool, part of the overall script to smear Bev Harris.

I have decided to coin a new term. Previously I have come up with stuff like the troll linguistic manual and the reverse-troll. Now I would like to offer a new phrase, and apologies if this one has ever been said before. The new phrase is the double strawman. Simply put, it concerns the idea of controlled opposition. We are given two sides of a story. Naturally we end up with an affinity to one of them. We are so desperate for true leadership, that we place great trust in individuals such as Brad Friedman. We think if Brad believes in Clint Curtis, then surely that dude must be on the up and up. Because of the problem of information overload, we end up taking his word for these things. Brad has the image of someone who always crosses t's and dots i's. Yet, with regard to the Curtis story, he did no such thing and continues to promote the life-long Republican who suddenly switched parties.

One can go back in time and see that Brad is a conservative. He used to link to Lew Rockwell, Drudge, some guy named Jeff Tucker {from memory}, and others. There is no way Clint Curtis is a Democrat. There is no way his story about Feeney holds up. I believe the whole thing was scripted. Yeah, Feeney is a bad guy, but people need to check out Curtis. The life-long Republican used to work for NASA and oil companies.

I am also once and for all washing my hands of John Dean {SluggoJD}. He is another person I had admired and believed was a sincere individual. I now think he is yet another gatekeeper. In emails, he has questioned my mental state. he did the same thing at this forum in one thread. So whoop de doo, he outed Rob Pelletier of Diebold. To me, that now looks to have been so very convenient. I have known John since 2005 when both of us were posting on the CitizenSpook message board. CitizenSpook was a right woos left astroturfer who has seemed to vanish. John helped me to see the light as regards to that one. He also was the first to warn me about "Fintan Dunne."

But John has also been ignoring the many findings. He has been encouraging me to stop being a trollbuster. That is a head scratcher. This is not about me. This is about getting out the word to we the people that the internet is being gamed. I have been trying to develop an outlet for everyone to get to the bottom of this. For him to encourage me to give up, while not interacting with my findings, has the appearance of gatekeeping. One reason I reconciled with John a while back was because he wrote to me that he was starting to see that the chemtrails might be real. He didn't use those exact words. He spoke of the chemjets thread, where it does seem that stuff was coming directly out of the tails rather than being formed from engine exhaust. If John is a fake, then this is an example of what they do. They say what we want to hear. That way we are unable to see any contradictions in their own work. We become susceptible to being "handled."

So Brad totally ignores the info I have accumulated on Hertzberg. He has now started to scrub his archives. He continues to allow the Agent99 to continue to ruin his comments section. I am not saying that Brad is a spook, no way at all. He could very well just be another self-serving poser from Hollywood. If he was legit, he wouldn't disregard the quality amateur sleuthing that others like myself and Dredd come up with. He wouldn't email me with putdowns of various election integrity people without addressing such things in public. He would not have let the smear campaign at Democratic Underground against Bev Harris go on and on and on without getting involved.

Ben Burch can easily be shown to be part of the tinfoil crowd. Andy Stephenson too was tied up in such nonsense. My trust in Brad Friedman is now completely gone. It's fairly obvious that electronic voting machines are no good. And yes, Brad did a good job circulating that knowledge. But these other things give me pause.

One last point about this. I submitted a guest blog piece on weather modification quite a while back. He told me he had concerns with it and would get those comments to me. He never did. He's been yanking my chain as regards to that.

I also showed him that I knew that one of the posters at his place, one of the cyber stalkers that Agent99 did not defend me against, was "Louis Aubuchont." Brad confirmed this. I have let Brad know about the cybersmears against me. He has shown no interest at all in my story or in any other things I have uncovered.

There is also something very fishy about Ron Brynaert, now executive editor of Raw Story. That guy used to post at BradBlog. That guy used to blog side by side with someone named ~A, who was part of the BashBev crowd and spoke of his work on studying the fifty state voting irregularities. That sounds very much like Hertzberg's VoteWatch group. I am not saying that ~A is Hertzberg. I am just saying this all seems very suspicious.

I am definitely not calling Brad out as a spook, though it is possible. One does need to consider it, based on the dodgy background of Clint Curtis. Yes, Feeney is a dirtbag. But that doesn't mean Curtis isn't too. I simply am fed up with Brad on the many fronts I have written about.

Anyway, here are some related links people might be interested in looking at.


BradBlog needs to get his facts straight or dump this Dog of a Curtis story

If I can comment here, what’s not credible about Clinton Curtis's story?
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:24 pm

Per order of this thread, Brad Friedman wants me to link to my posts. He doesn't want me hijacking threads.

We'll see if my latest post gets to remain.

You go to the wayback machine and try to get to the comments, a message says the links are blocked by robots.txt by the website owner. You can delete anything you want to from this place, and no one would be aware of it.

I hijack your threads? You hijacked the electoral integrity movement.

And you say you are good at programming? This has to be the slowest loading website in history with no pop ups for new links.

Where are the AnonymousArmy posts that you deleted?

The Clint Curtis story doesn't add up, and you know it. That's the gorilla in this room I finally got to. That story flies in the face of your image of crossing t's and dotting i's. But even if there weren't questions about your "journalism," it's quite clear that you like to have a tinfoil comments section. You're a rightwinger Brad. People can see a bit from your early days and see all the crap rightwing sources you used to link to.

The Progressive Independent says they are on a collaborative basis with Velvet Revolution. That means you are now officially tied in with Mike Rivero and subsequently with neonazi fakes.

Carry on gatekeeper.



Things are kinda coming to a head on this thread. The whole gang is there, including Bev Harris, LarisaRawStory, and John "SluggoJD" Dean.

JD is back to his typical over the top accusations. He is saying perhaps I am someone named Jeremy Lowe. The problem with John Dean is that he covers up the overall structure of a rigged internet. He was good at uncovering Rob Pelletier of Diebold. He was good exposing that bunch of people pimping for the Tom Flocco disinformation network. What else. He was good at going after the fakes running around at the Democratic Underground Electoral Integrity forum.

I've just uncovered he started a group with Leo Lincourt {Salvorhardin at DU- I think he may be one of the prolific "debunkers"} called whoaretheyreally.org.

2 1/2 years ago, myself and a small group of folks formed a site known as whoaretheyreally.org. The purpose was to investigate the entire right wing...yea I know, too large a project for a group of 1000 people, let alone a small group. But it was our intention, and even though we've all gone our separate ways and the site no longer exists, several of the members continue to contribute in various ways to the battle against fascism in this nation.



Dean has this habit of compiling data, making a big stink of it, and then deleting it. He did the same thing with The Kelvin Mace blog he had.

Dean represents himself as a trollbuster, but he appears to be more like a gatekeeper. I don't see anything out of him on the more dangerous disinformation dispensers such as Michael Rivero and Willis Carto. To put it bluntly, no where in John Dean's trollbusting does he ever deliver as regards to the big picture. There's a chance he is the real mole, that he was gift-wrapped the Rob Pelletier story in order to ingratiate himself with Bev Harris.

Here's my response to his post at BradBlog.

Divide and conquer?

Socrates, Jeremy Lowe, or whatever your name is, Brad is well aware that both Bev and I have always had serious misgivings about the Clint Curtis story.


Then where is the lively debate in the archives? This is why people need to demand answers rather than private messages. Why can't people just spit it out and work out the truth? Larissa RawStory, by the way, has exposed herself in that BradBlog thread that she is part of the smear Bev Harris campaign.

I am not that rabbit hole Jeremy Lowe that John Dean got into. Yeehaw, he busted someone linking to Tom Flocco. Anyone who ever took Flocco or Henneghan or any of those obvious plants, then they are in Tinfoil-tainment City to begin with. A lot of the things I've found out, such as people like Andy Stephenson and Ben Burch, those aren't easily figured out. Seeing that Brad Friedman's Velvet Revolution is affiliated with The Progressive Independent is not easy to figure out. I had high speed connection and flew through the "zeitgeist." That Brad is tied into this Clint Curtis story is disturbing! But no thanks to John Dean do we have much more clarity on it.

What about Brad's co-founder of the Velvet Revolution? His name is Brett Kimberlin. He's the guy who said he sold pot to Dan Quayle. He's the same guy who was found guilty of setting off bombs in Indiana. Yikes. I think the Velvet Revolution is offering a half million for whistleblowers to provide proof of election fraud.


As for Robert Hertzberg, have you displayed any proof that he is related to Steven Hertzberg? Because that's where you are going with that line. I remember when Jeremy Lowe used to link all sorts of people together, simply because their last name was the same. Produce proof that Robert and Steven are related, otherwise what have you got?



This to me is a mistake made by John Dean. He is basically saying that it does mean something if Robert and Steven are related. I find it curious how he is discounting all the data collected on this story. Brad did this before too. The gatekeeping can be seen in what is ignored. "John" should engine search for pictures of them. If they aren't related, then wow, that is a fluke how much they resemble each other.

They are covering up the Hertzberg story, just like they do with the widespread weather modification, just with the Carto/Rivero materials, on and on these places are ignoring important facts and ratcheting up the noise to signal ratio.


Connell is the story here. Sorry you were left out of the loop...but then of course, if you had been in the loop, all sorts of radioactive mutations would have been posted at your chemtrails site.

Time for work. A real job.

John



I would not be surprised if this person is a paid troll. It's all about the bait and switch with the sluggos of the world. They never deliver. They ignore flagrant evidence.

And Brad chugs along continuing to promote Clint Curtis and Brett Kimberlin and Tinoire. These people either can't handle the truth being discussed or they are the smoke and mirrors of the election integrity movement on the internet.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

It's Like Those Nesting Boxes -- Disinfo ad infinitum

Unread postby BlueSkyHope » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:00 am

I was not aware of (before reading herein at AAANI), nor ever read, any of the websites that are discussed at times in this forum, in terms of astroturfing and so on; however, I have been a big fan of The New Yorker for over 25 years. Until recently, that is, when the delusional shackles have finally fallen from my eyes about them.

I think it was Mr. Hersh one too many times saying that the Pentagon was against bombing Iran back to the Stone Age, perhaps. (Gee, all it takes is for the neolibs to SAY this, time and time again -- is it 3 or 4 years straight now -- to put the wheels in motion for oil to rise in price yet again, for generals to get "retired" who block neocon agendas, etc.)

Something finally clicked, at any rate, and now I see a whole lot of what that magazine says as disinfo. Things had gotten really a lot worse when Tina Brown took over.

I am mentioning all this because I just read the Public Forum piece about Brett Kimberlin. I recall reading about it at the time, of course: where else, my only source of info, The New Yorker. I just went out to Google, put in "Brett Kimberlin" and happened straightaway (first thing that came up, hmmm...) on this article, which is interesting in that it ties together Mr. Kimberlin, New Yorker writer Mr. Singer, and oddly enough, Doonesbury comic strip artist Mr. Trudeau! It is a book review of Mr. Singer's book ABOUT his "mea culpa" of mistakenly (supposedly) believing that Mr. K. was a put-upon, victimized "political prisoner."

Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday, 1997 wrote:
Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, by Mark Singer, Alfred A. Knopf, 381 pp., $25.

In the October 7, 1996, issue of The New Yorker, in a piece that could have run under the magazine's "Department of Further Amplification" heading, Mark Singer, a staff writer since 1974, confessed that he had allowed himself to be conned.

Specifically, he acknowledged that a 22,000-word story that he had written shortly before the 1992 presidential election was based in large part on what he now considers a lie.

The essence of that 1992 piece was that a drug dealer named Brett Kimberlin had been deprived of his constitutional rights by federal prison officials. They had prevented him from holding a press conference on the eve of the 1988 presidential election to discuss his claims that, for a period of time in the '70s, he had sold small amounts of marijuana to an Indiana University law student, Dan Quayle.

True, Kimberlin was silenced by prison officials. But Singer no longer believes that he ever sold any drugs to Quayle. "I spent four years asking questions about Kimberlin," Singer says, "and along the way I never met a soul who could offer genuine corroboration of the fable that brought him to my attention in the first place."

By itself, the New Yorker piece was both important and necessary. The book-length version is another matter. Citizen K -- The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin adds little to the New Yorker piece, and has the unhappy smell of something that was completed mainly because the advance money already had been spent.

Spent not only by Singer but also by Kimberlin, since Singer followed up on his original article by entering into a partnership with Kimberlin in which the convict would cooperate in the writing of the book and would be given a chunk of the royalties for his efforts. Singer now says in looking back that "I think we both assumed we had the same story in mind -- an assumption that now strikes me as both conspiratorial and naive." The partnership also will likely strike many as ethically questionable and not very smart.

It's hard to sympathize much with Singer in any of this, both because his original piece can now be seen as politically motivated as well as badly done (at one point he even fantasized about being invited to the Clinton inaugural for helping torpedo Quayle), and because his book, at bottom, is also a bit of a con. One has to slog through 320 of its 381 pages before discovering that Singer now considers Kimberlin's claims of persecution to be largely a fraud, and some readers are likely to consider this a waste of their time.

What Singer calls the "deeply weird American journey" is merely the story of a minor criminal, convicted of drug dealing and a series of bombings, who claimed that because he had sold pot to Dan Quayle and was willing to talk about it he had been tossed into semi-solitary confinement and then denied a parole, thus becoming -- a term used by others but embraced by Singer in his 1992 article -- a "political prisoner."

(The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.)

Whether Kimberlin did what he said he did (sold pot to Dan Quayle) and didn't do what he insisted he didn't do (planted bombs) was of course central to the notion that he was a political prisoner, and Singer's 1992 piece was crafted to suggest strongly that Kimberlin was being honest about both.

Now, four years later, Singer has a different view. The pot-selling to Quayle, he now sees as a "fable," and Kimberlin's denial of any involvement in the bombings no longer rings true. Singer writes, "I spent months wandering through his disclaimers and prevarications before deciding, finally, that this was a case of homework, along with truth, being eaten by the dog, pissed on by the cat, and buried in the backyard."

It's tempting to say that the real value of the book is not in the story of Kimberlin, who now is free and was last seen brokering business deals in the Ukraine, but in the lessons that are here for other reporters and editors. But those lessons are pretty basic and obvious:

¥ Political bias is poison to journalism.

¥ Economic partnerships with sources can be both dangerous and corrupting, and are likely to end up as painful as any other bad marriage.

¥ The fact that the government treats someone badly doesn't mean that the person was a true innocent to begin with; Murray Kempton has noted often that in the case of one prominent New York heroin dealer, the government "framed him for something that he did."

¥ Information that can't be verified shouldn't be used.

Singer says that he had set out in 1992 to figure out and convey to readers just how it was that the fact that Kimberlin was a convict made him "not credible" to certain members of the press, while the simple fact that Quayle was who he was made him credible. But even if a person seems credible, most journalists have problems with information that's not verifiable. And early on it became clear that Kimberlin's wasn't. The person who supposedly introduced him to Quayle was conveniently dead, and Kimberlin could produce no one else who had ever been witness to a purchase or use of marijuana by Quayle.

And when Singer finally got around to doing the sort of reporting he should have done at the start, he found one Kimberlin story after another to have been exaggerated or twisted or made up completely. He also tracked down the polygraph expert who had been hired by Kimberlin's lawyer at his trial, and was told that -- despite Kimberlin's contention that he had passed with flying colors -- Kimberlin had "flunked the test every way in the world" on the things that most mattered.

Much of this could have been learned back in 1992 had Singer and his editors not been so anxious to get the story into print before the election -- and into what, not coincidentally, was Tina Brown's first issue, which Singer notes was "launched with unbridled hoopla." And if they had taken the time to back up and think calmly it might have occurred to them then -- as Singer now concedes -- that it simply wasn't very likely that someone who claimed to have been importing marijuana by the ton would have taken time out every few weeks to head off to a Burger Chef in Indianapolis to sell one-ounce bags of pot to a law student.

Singer got around all his lack of corroboration by focusing the 1992 piece on the gagging of Kimberlin by prison officials, and then citing the supposed drug sales to Quayle as the information they desperately wanted to gag. He insists to this day that this was the real and legitimate point of his story, but this seems disingenuous at best. Absent the Quayle angle, it's not likely that he would have spent several months of his time, a thick slab of Tina Brown's money, and 22,000 words worth of New Yorker paperstock to write about a short-term silencing of a quick-witted convict. Indeed, he now admits that he "ardently, inordinately" wanted the Democrats to win the election, and hoped his reporting would help defeat Quayle and George Bush.

He also had others holding his coat and prodding him along, including Garry Trudeau, a friend and classmate at Yale, who earlier had devoted three weeks' worth of Doonesbury strips to Kimberlin and his allegations about Quayle.

What the coat-holders and editors, and for that matter Kimberlin, now think of all this is not known. Singer's own "mea culpa" in the October 7 New Yorker may have set a record for both candor and length. It might have been wiser to have left it at that. Absent proof that he was turned into a political prisoner by his government, the story of Kimberlin is neither important nor even very interesting. The book itself provides little in the way of new and useful insights into the drug culture, the courts, or the penal system. The journalism issues -- the failures and pressures that caused one of the most prestigious magazines in America to buy Kimberlin's bridge -- are acknowledged but neither carefully nor fully explored. This is not likely to become a major motion picture. Yet the Knopf company ordered up a first printing of 50,000 copies, many of which seem certain to show up remaindered at a bookstore near you. Which is just one more thing about this whole matter that some will find deeply weird.


I'd bet that this part (which we'll probably never find out about, but you never know), resembles the real "info" kernel in the entire rotten "nut" of why Mr. Kimberlin (who sounds grandiose, at least, if not sociopathic or delusional at worst) did it all, in the first place. Then with his given personality traits, whatever those may be, and the political situation(s) at the time, the rest followed accordingly.

Mr. Marro wrote:(The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.)


All this can probably be assumed to be working at numerous levels. Bottom line, New Yorker sells mags, Trudeau sells newspapers, both sell advertising, advertisers sell products, various political factions prey on it all to gain credence or sling mud or whatever (power grabs and deflections, etc.), and who knows, some darker force decides to make further use of this individual (Mr. K.) in future as need be.

Now, can we trust Newsday to tell us the straight story at last? Or is all this just another nested box? <sings> "Money Makes the World Go Round!" (Liza and Joel's version, see below)

BlueSkyHope
 

Unread postby socrates » Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:23 pm

Mr. Marro wrote:

The eight bombings in question took place in an Indianapolis suburb within a period of six days. It's still not clear what the bombings were intended to accomplish. One theory held that they were intended to divert the attention of the tiny local police force from its investigation of a murder in which Kimberlin was thought by some to be involved, though he was never charged.


Thanks BlueSkyHope for hitting on one of the nuggets.

There seems to be scant info on details, but her name was Julia Scyphers. Maybe we can find more info? But it was a long time ago. This looks like a job for microfiche ansd inter-library loans, yikes. This review of the Singer book by Kristin Elisaberg touches on many important aspects of this story.


cache link

This is the html version of the file emdashes.com/files/2006/12/mydarkplaces/9611207881.pdf



CITIZEN R:
The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimherlin
By Mark Singer. Knopf.
381 pp. $25.


In October 1992, five weeks and a day before the election that would bring Bill Clinton, notorious non-inhaler of pot, to the presidency, The New Yorker published a story by Mark Singer about a prisoner named Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin claimed he had sold marijuana to Dan Quayle on a number of occasions in the early seventies, and further claimed that in 1988, when he tried to speak to the press about his dealings with Quayle, he was prevented from doing so by officials in the Bureau of Prisons and was thereby deprived of his First and Fifth Amendment rights. On these occasions, either just after talking to a reporter or just before a planned meeting with reporters, he was placed in a holding cell where he was unable to contact the outside world. There was no ostensible reason for the confinements except to silence the prisoner, and it also seemed possible that the Justice Department had knowledge of these actions. It was even within the realm of possibility that the White House, in the form of James Baker, had exerted its influence.

Singer wrote an impassioned article on Kimberlin’s story, then devoted four years to delving deeper into the subject. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin is a fascinating unraveling of Kimberlin’s “life,” which turns out to be a complicated fabrication, fueled by his narcissistic ego and overactive imagination. Kimberlin’s bluster and utter self-confidence persuaded many others-from Kimberlin’s mother to the cartoonist Garry Trudeau to Erwin Griswold, former Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, and, in part, to Singer himself-to play supporting roles in bolstering his fiction. Singer had found the ideal subject: Kimberlin was an immensely successful drug smuggler with juicy tales of his outlaw adventures; since his incarceration he’d become a jailhouse lawyer whose appetite for litigation was limitless; and,’besides claiming to be a political prisoner because of his confinements in 1988, he also claimed that he was in prison in‘the first place only because he was the victim of a sophisticated government frame-up.

Kimberlin was convicted in 1979 of a rash of bombings in Speedway, Indiana, that had resulted in the maiming of a man who subsequently committed suicide. Government investigators had found timers and traces of the explosive used in making the bombs in Kimberlin’s car. How they came to be searching the car is, as everything involving Kihberlin would turn out to be, a long story. He was illegally in possession of various items with government insignia, clothing patches, fake ID cards, copies of the presidential seal. These had been used in a multi-ton marijuana deal that had gone awry, one result of which was mqijuana raining down out of the south Texas sky as a scared pilot ditched his load, and another result of which-was the Feds tailing Kimberlin. His drug-dealing had long aggravated law enforcement agencies, and he was also a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers, who disapproved of the bizarre relationship Kimberlin had with her teenage grand-daughter. (Kimberlin’s female interests tend toward the adolescent.) The prosecution claimed Kimberlin had contracted for the killing, and that the bombings had been perpetrated to distract attention from the murder investigation.

To write Citizen K, Singer began pulling at the threads of all three stories (the Scyphers murder, the Speedway bombings and the Dan Quayle allegations), talking to investigators in Indiana-and witnesses from the trial, contacting Kimberlin’s associates in the drug trade, interviewing family members, friends, enemies. What he found out was by turns baffling, startling and dismaying.

The three cases reside on ever more elusive and unprovable notions, all put forth by Kimberlin himself. He reports being told of Scyphers’s murder at about 1 in the afternoon, yet she was not murdered till 3. He purports to have been meeting Quayle to sell him piddling ounce-size bags of grass, yet by his own admission, at the time these insignificant transactions were supposedly taking place he was already involved with multi-ton marijuana deals. It seems safe to assume that Kimberlin, a very savvy businessman, wouldn’t have bothered selling ounces to a young law student at the Burger Chef when his business had grown to the point of unloading bales of marijuana at secret airstrips. Singer initially imagines he can separate fabrication from fact, but eventually he is reduced to’simply trying to find something that even resembles fact, as he realizes that he has been “sucked whole and cast adrift inside Kimberlin’s narcissistic universe, a black-and-white realm of dreams and schemes and factoids, a galaxy far beyond the gravity-bound realities of politics and logic and justice.”

As the extent of Kimberlin’s duplicity dawns on him, Singer invokes Janet Malcolm’s The Journalist and the Murderer, and the comparison is apt. Singer refers to Malcolm’s “famously devastating thesis.. that journalism is a confidence game in which the reporter holds a stacked deck,” and he also cites Malcolm’s comparison of the journalist-subject relationship to a love affair: “Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns-when the article or book appears-his hard lesson.” Malcolm also wrote, though Singer doesn’t refer to it, that “the metaphor of the love affair applies to both sides of the journalist-subject equation, and the journalist is no less susceptible than the subject to its pleasures and excitements.”

Kristin Eliasberg, a writer, lives in New York City




This is a pretty nutty story. Did Larissa from RawStory lie about Brett Kimberlin being exonerated for the bombings that stole that man's spirit? I didn't see any evidence whatsoever provided by Larissa that he won a fair sum for being wrongly incarcerated for the bombings.

I just see that he got paroled around 1994. I think he got a grandfather clause for parole, so it got bumped up while George the First was President.

So Kimberlin is in some interview I linked to on the other thread. They too seemed to say he was wrongly convicted. But without any evidence, this seems like blatant disinformation.

I think Kimberlin may have got a large inheritance, or he may have won a large sum for the undue detainment during the Danny Quale WeedGate controversy.

I find this all fascinating, yet shocking.

Check out Raw Story and BradBlog. They are in a tier of websites that do some decent volume and have some definite pull. Their comments sections, however, seem totally gamed by astroturfers. It's still sinking in on me that the Superway bomber funds Raw Story and BradBlog. This is a bizarre development, imho.

The name of one of Kimberlin's bands is Op-Critical. Maybe he should rename it Psy-Op Critical.

Anyway, that place he did an interview with, I see they have also done one with a John Birch Society member. This is bullshit. It's like with New York SkyWatch linking to RumorMillNews. How can people link to such places without any kind of disclaimer or explanation for linking to them?


The internet feels very rigged. It's just tough to put into words. This story kind of crystalizes my angst about a lot of these websites and their links to shadiness.

Larissa needs to cough up proof that Kimberlin was exonerated and won a large sum for wrongful imprisonment for the bombings, or I think she is full of it. She is supposed to be a journalist. He's a free man now. Why not just tell the truth and nothing but the truth. There are some crazy details in the article by Kristin.

And oh yeah, Tina Brown definitely tanked the New Yorker. It's a one good article a month kind of magazine, imho. They did crack some good stories like with the CIA torturing.

Yay, I done good finding out about this Kimberlin convolution.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Intriguing Bev Harris Quote Found

Unread postby socrates » Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:47 pm

"Kelvin Mace" mirrored a thread of Bev's at the following link.

thoughtcrimes.org/bbv/quixote.htm

Her ex-publisher called her paranoid with delusions. I think what she wrote could be the truth.


First, let's end the secret society business. Then we'll cooperate with you, when your group is showing the public face and the accountability that is expected of the election reform community.

Joe, you, John Gideon, and selected others are a member of the private "Quixote Group," which has been operating for nearly three years now, and has attempted to wrest the diverse "swarm" of leaders in the U.S. into one set of individuals who are compliant with a private agenda. Those who aren't on the right page are marginalized, discredited, shunned, or blackballed.

Please provide a written description of the secret society called the Quixote Group -- the set of individuals who are funded by the Quixote Foundation who have been working on a specific agenda that they do not reveal.

Is it true that the Quixote Group private club will soon be going by the name "EVN" (The Electronic Voting Network)?

Is that a nonprofit entity?

Wbo are its directors?

What is its mission?

Please provide a description of the agenda and strategy of the private club called the Quixote Group / EVN of which you are a part.

Who are its members?

Why is it a secret?

Is it true that in order to get into this secret society one must be "nominated" by the other secret members, then voted on?

Is it true that one of the criteria for becoming nominated into the secret club is that the person will not bring in an opposing point of view?

Is there a nondisclosure agreement in relation to your activities?

Why can't the election reform community debate the merits of your master plan in public?

It appears to me that this entity is designed to put forth an agenda that is not properly vetted among the election reform community.

You come here and harvest our materials -- that's basically what you do. Well, they are available to the public.

But how do you explain the existence of a private club, with no one who can be held accountable, accessible only through invitations and a secret handshake, which is amassing financial support and cherry-picking leaders in election reform with no public accountability whatsoever?

The Quixote Foundation is invested in things like Halliburton, Eli Lilly, and -- yes -- Diebold. I assume that they are a plaintiff in the Diebold stockholder suits.

Is this part of the secret and private think tank set that the Washington Post recently reported on?

What role has the Quixote organization had in the swiftboat campaigns against those in election reform who represent a threat to the private agenda?

Am I correct in my understanding that this secret and never publicly vetted strategy is heavy on keeping technology in the mix, heavy on legislation like Rush Holt, relies on certain types of litigation (but only when it keeps technology in the solution), and works privately with a few candidates?

That any activist organization or individual which favors hand counted paper ballots is a target?

That the Quixote organization was involved in attempting to sabotage the original Votergate film, preventing it from ever coming out unless it capitulated to the Quixote "solutions"?

How much interaction has your group had with the vendor lobbying group, the ITAA?

Is it true that a member of your group obtained and leaked the information Hursti II report without authorization, BEFORE we released it, to all the members of the Quixote List?

Please provide any and all connections, communications, strategy, planning, or support of David Allen, Roxanne Jekot, or Democratic Underground.

Please describe whether Jim Adler or Votehere has ever played any role in the Quixote endeavors.

Provide the accountability of this group at this time, including its governance, its solution agenda, its financials and its key members.

You have not been forthcoming with us. You have never described your role in the Quixote organization, or what it is, or what it is using our materials for.

We are not interested in assisting any secret society, private club, or secret agenda, particularly when we have learned that it has been involved in attempts to control and manipulate the message, and/or "swiftboat" campaigns.

Is it true that there are two levels of planning and information sharing -- one which invited members know about and another at a more senior level, which most participants of the Quixote list are not aware of?

Is Quixote involved in blackballing actions to prevent the hand counted paper ballots people from being invited to or participating in national conferences?

I'm sure some of what's being said about the secret Quixote Group think tank is misinformation. It's hard to know when the whole thing relies on a secret handshake, though, isn't it?

Now is a good time to go public or expect more intensive examination of the agenda and people behind this group.



John Gideon blogs at BradBlog. My personal leanings by the end were that the Verified Voting Foundation was a status quo, corporate front, let's coin it as a hertzberg. :lol: They act as if they are progressives in the forefront of electoral integrity reform, but they are really probably pimping for electronic receipts for electronic machines. These are the people I tied into Lindeman, the person evoking authority at DailyKos and DU.

I think all those forums are rigged. I like a few people like ModMom. There are a few others, but DU won't let me post there because I got tombstoned for no good reason while posting on chemtrails. Whatever. The fakes over there are not fooling anyone.

Brad Friedman was an apologist for Verified Voting Foundation when I asked him about it. It turns out that Velvet Revolution is affiliated with Verified Voting Foundation. I don't think I am the only one who has connected dots like this, but I do think it is unfortunately rare. The fakes with their agendas overshadow the truth.

There is a Quixote Group or Foundation or whatever, and they are dishing out money on "election reform" activities.

Maybe Brett Kimberlin and Clint Curtis are somehow connected to Quixote?



I found this other post by Bev Harris that didn't make it to the Kelvin Mace mirrored page.

link

Where can you read up on this? As John Gideon has informed us, "You can't."

As he informed us, "You won't find it in Google." I now have multiple sources on the Quixote Group and the Quixote Foundation. It may be trying to do something it believes is virtuous, but there are two components of the activities that should automatically disqualify it from leadership in the election reform movement:

1) Secret society approach. We need to know the governance and financials and other public disclosure information about the group. Just saying "I don't know" and "It's an e-mail list" is not sufficient. The 990 for the Quixote Foundation clearly shows hundreds of thousands of dollars funneling into a project involving election reform. Quixote flies selected individuals to private summits (the more public part of the agenda).

It's not sufficient to say, when people ask about the agenda and who's involved, "You can't find out" and "I don't know."

2) The swiftboating actions for those who don't capitulate to the agenda. These are carried out through proxies, one step removed, but recent actions have shown that the agenda is being handled, in part, through sabotage and infiltration.

Start by looking at the Quixote Foundation 990 and then make inquiries into the 2005 form as well.

Having been one of their targets, I'm not eager to go this alone, but I have enough solid information now that I believe the organization behind this network needs to be fully vetted.




Having been one of their targets? Wow. That's fascinating. A lot of this is simply incredible to read.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

So They Have a Nice FACE It Seems

Unread postby BlueSkyHope » Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:37 pm

I went to CUIL the new search engine to see what would come up, and got

quixotefoundation.org/areas/index/u_s__election_integrity

relating to Election Verification Network (EVN).

Is this the group being questioned about its integrity?

This "Joe Hall" that "Bev" is questioning has apparently got a background ranging from expertise in Titan (a moon of Saturn) to e-voting.

from Joseph Lorenzo Hall's Resume [seen in my search results in Cuil search engine]

Plenary Session: "Excellence in Election Verification".. Tova Wang (chair), Toby Moore, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Ion Sancho, 2nd Annual Election Verification Network Conference; EVN/Quixote Foundation (2007). Joseph Lorenzo Hall, "Standards for e-Voting: The Work of the Eleciton & Services Technical Committee".

josephhall.org/HallJosephResume.html

I do see Quixote Foundation person (related to founder Arthur Stuart Hanisch in some way I presume) Lenore Hanisch, as an attendee at a wkkf (Kellogg) meeting of some kind, apparently food related (FAS, meaning Food and Society Initiative of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation):

ola.wkkf.org/FAS/Attendee_List_byName_Alphabetical.pdf

I think we have to come to the realization that all kinds of things are going on, and those things relate to what we are going to be eating, breathing, told to believe, and so on, and these plans are always going on somewhere continually.

For example, in just now searching on the exact name FAS stands for, I saw a Kellogg newsletter dated 2003 which talked about LOCALLY GROWN / ORGANIC / SUSTAINABLE foods. Fast forward to 4 or 5 years later, we are suddenly led to believe (by infotainment media sources) that this is a hot new "fad" and Hollywood stars are into it, it is a "green" thing, and so on.

Well, guess what, it's being brought to you, through careful stage management, by MULTINATIONAL MEGACORPORATIONS. And, by the way, I recently had discovered that Kellogg now owns KASHI, since 2000, so how much of that 7-grains-on-a-mission is genmod now? Will we ever know what all is going on? Not at the time, probably, just much later, in hindsight and retrospect.

Bottom line, PAY ATTENTION NOW.
BlueSkyHope
 

PreviousNext

Return to Astroturfing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred