Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

Judge Amit Mehta ruling FBI Steele Dossier, James Madison Project v Department of Justice, Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute public acknowledgement of existence of records

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ))
Plaintiffs, ))
v. ) Case No. 17-cv-00144 (APM)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ))
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
INDICATIVE RULING AND ORDER AS TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Once more, this court is called upon to opine on the legal consequences of President Donald J. Trump’s declassification of information concerning the “Dossier”—the 35-page compilation of memoranda prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele concerning Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and alleged ties between Russia and then
candidate Trump. Cf. BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-mc-02429-APM, 2018 WL 3719231 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2018). In this case, the court must decide whether the February 2018 public release of two congressionally drafted memoranda—popularly known as the “Nunes Memo” and the “Schiff Memo”—vitiates Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ demand for
records concerning a “two-page synopsis” of the Dossier.

The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See generally James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice (“James Madison I”), 302 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2018), appeal docketed, No. 18-5014 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). It held that neither the President’s tweets and other public statements, nor the public statements of other high-ranking government officials,
constituted a public acknowledgment that the documents sought by Plaintiffs James Madison Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of
2
Project and Josh Gerstein in fact exist and are possessed by Defendant agencies. See id. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, but shortly after moved for reconsideration in light of the Nunes Memo’s release. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal, however, divested the court of jurisdiction over this matter. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (“The
filing of a notice of appeal . . . ‘confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs now ask the court to indicate, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, that it would grant their Motion upon remand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3). Defendants assert that reconsideration is not warranted
and urge the court to deny the Motion.

For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos do constitute a public acknowledgement of the existence of the records sought by Plaintiffs from Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and that the FBI therefore may no longer maintain its Glomar responses. Accordingly, the court indicates that, upon remand, the
court would grant Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Reconsideration as to the FBI. Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the remaining agency Defendants, however, is denied.

I.
The court already has written extensively about this matter, and so only will summarize the relevant facts and procedural history here.
A.
In January 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to four federal agencies—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 13
3
Agency, the National Security Agency (collectively, “Intelligence Community Defendants”), and the FBI—for the following information:
(1) The two-page “synopsis” provided by the U.S. Government to
President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian
Government operatives had compromising personal and financial
information about President-Elect Trump (“Item One”);
(2) Final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of
any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis
(“Item Two”); and
(3) Investigative files relied upon in reaching the final
determinations referenced in [Item Two] (“Item Three”).
James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17. These responses remained unanswered at the time Plaintiffs filed this action. See id. 17–18.

Thereafter, within the context of this litigation, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ FOIA demands. All Defendants asserted Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three—that is, they refused to admit or deny whether any responsive records even exist. See id. at 18. As to Item One, only the FBI advanced a Glomar response, while the Intelligence Community Defendants admitted the existence and their possession of the “two-page ‘synopsis’” but invoked FOIA Exemptions 1
and 3 to justify withholding the document in its entirety. See id. Defendants then moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in full on January 4, 2018. See id. at 17. The court held that: (1) Defendants’ Glomar responses to Items Two and Three were proper, see id. at 31–35; (2) the FBI’s Glomar response to Item One was appropriate, see id. at 29–31; and (3) the
Intelligence Community Defendants’ withholding of the two-page synopsis was justified, see id. at 35–36. Plaintiffs then noticed an appeal from the court’s ruling. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 38.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 13

B.
But then the ground shifted. On February 2, 2018, President Trump authorized release of a memorandum prepared by the majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, commonly referred to as the Nunes Memo. See Pls.’ Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 40
[hereinafter Pls.’ Mot.], Ex. 1, ECF No. 40-1 [hereinafter Nunes Memo]. Among other things, the Nunes Memo revealed that former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele drafted the Dossier; that, in October 2016, the FBI relied in part on portions of the Dossier’s contents to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) warrant as to Carter Page, a former campaign
advisor to then-candidate Trump; that, in parallel with pursuing the Page FISA warrant, the FBI was undertaking efforts to corroborate the allegations contained within the Dossier; and, critically for this case, that “in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier.” See id. at 4–6.1

A few weeks later, the President authorized the declassification and release of even more information about the Dossier’s origin and use. On February 24, 2018, a rebuttal to the Nunes Memo, written by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, became public. See Pls.’ Notice of Suppl. Info., ECF No. 41, Ex. 1, ECF No. 41-1 [hereinafter Schiff Memo]. The rebuttal, better known as the “Schiff Memo,” revealed, among other things,
that Steele shared his “reporting . . . with an FBI agent . . . through the end of October 2016”; and, importantly for this case, that “[t]he FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting.” Id. at 5, 8. As a result of the release of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, there is now in the public domain meaningful information about how the FBI acquired the Dossier and
how the agency used it to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
1 Citations to both the Nunes and Schiff Memos are to the page numbers electronically generated by CM/ECF.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 13

Not surprisingly, after the release of the Nunes Memo, Plaintiffs asked this court to reconsider the validity of Defendants’ Glomar responses. See generally Pls.’ Mot. Moving under Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs argued that the information contained in the Memos “undoubtedly would have conclusively and substantively changed the outcome of the present case if it had been available prior to this Court’s” summary judgment ruling.
Id. at 6. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that “nothing to which [Plaintiffs] refer in the Nunes Memo or in the Schiff Memo addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ request.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 43 [hereinafter Defs.’ Opp’n], at 2. As Defendants put it: “The Schiff Memo, like the Nunes Memo, is devoid, in fact, of any reference
to the two-page synopsis” and thus “[n]o waiver of the Glomar responses . . . results[.]” Id. at 3.

In view of the parties’ positions, the issue before the court is: Does the President’s approved release of the information contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute an official acknowledgement of the existence of records requested by Plaintiffs, such that Defendants’ Glomar responses are now invalid? The court turns now to answer that question.

II.
A.
Rule 60(b)(2) allows for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). In order for evidence to meet the requirements of Rule 60(b)(2), the following criteria must be met:
(1) the newly discovered evidence is of facts that existed at the time
of trial or other dispositive proceeding; (2) the party seeking relief
was justifiably ignorant of the evidence despite due diligence;
(3) the evidence is admissible and is of such importance that it
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 13

probably would have changed the outcome; and (4) the evidence is
not merely cumulative or impeaching.
West v. Holder, 309 F.R.D. 54, 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (citation omitted).
There is no dispute here that both the Nunes and Schiff Memos satisfy the first, second, and fourth prongs for purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). See Bain v. MJJ Prods., Inc., 751 F.3d 642, 647 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (defining “newly discovered evidence”). Thus, the sole question for the court is whether those Memos are “of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome” of the court’s summary judgment ruling. West, 309 F.R.D. at 57; see also In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 156 F.R.D. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 1994) (noting that evidence is “newly discovered” under Rule 60(b)(2) if it is “of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome” (citing Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 371 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
B.
It is helpful to start with a recap of the principles that govern how to evaluate a Glomar response. To overcome a Glomar response, the plaintiff can either challenge the agency’s position that disclosing the existence of a record will cause harm under the FOIA exemption asserted by the agency, or the plaintiff can show that the agency has “officially acknowledged” the existence
of records that are the subject of the request. See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 20. If the requester takes the second route—as Plaintiffs do here—she “must pinpoint an agency record that both matches the plaintiff’s request and has been publicly and officially acknowledged by the agency.” Id. at 21 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Moore v. CIA, 666 F.3d 1330, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).2
2 Although drafted by Legislative Branch staff, Defendants here do not dispute that the Nunes and Schiff Memos constitute official public statements of the President that could give rise to a Glomar waiver. Cf. James Madison I,
302 F. Supp. 3d at 24 (The D.C. Circuit has recognized that ‘[a] disclosure made by the President, or by [an] advisor acting as “instructed” by the President,’ is attributable to executive branch agencies for purposes of the official
acknowledgement doctrine.” (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 429 n.7 (D.C. Cir. Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 13

Generally speaking, there are two ways in which a plaintiff can establish that a public statement officially acknowledges the existence of a document. The plaintiff can either (1) identify a statement that “on [its] face” constitutes an official acknowledgement of a document’s existence, or (2) point to a statement that, when combined with the “context in which it is made,” leads to an
“inescapable inference that the requested record[ ] in fact exist[s].” See James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 22. Under either approach, the “official acknowledgement” doctrine must be construed “strictly.” Id. at 23 (quoting Moore, 666 F.3d at 1333). And, “whether expressly or by inference, the official statement must render it ‘neither logical nor plausible’ for the agency to
justify its position that disclosure would reveal anything not already in the public domain.” Id. at 24 (quoting Am. Civ. Liberties Union (ACLU) v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 430 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).

III.
Plaintiffs argue that the Nunes and Schiff Memos, both directly and by way of inference, “pinpoint” the existence of agency records that “match” their FOIA requests. They contend that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to verify or refute the accuracy of the Dossier’s allegations, and note that the Nunes Memo expressly mentions “a source validation report conducted by an
independent unit within [the] FBI [that] assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added); see Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3. The referenced “source validation report,” they assert, “matches” their requests for “final determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the allegations summarized in the two-page synopsis, as well as 2013)). In fact, the Nunes Memo’s release caused the Department of Justice to withdraw its Glomar response in a different FOIA case before this court, involving a demand for records relating to the Carter Page FISA warrant application. See James Madison Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 17-cv-00597-APM (D.D.C.), Def.’s Resp. to Order, ECF No. 32, at 1 (“Defendant withdraws the Glomar response as to the existence of the Page FISA applications and orders identified in the Nunes Memo.”). Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 13

investigative files (if any) relied upon in rendering those final determinations.” Pls.’ Mot. at 2–3 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 17.

Defendants’ response is straightforward. Distinguishing the Dossier from the two-page synopsis, they concede that both Memos disclose the FBI’s efforts to corroborate the Dossier’s allegations, but assert that nothing in the Memos “addresses the two-page synopsis that is the subject of plaintiffs’ requests.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 2. In other words, they argue, neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo contains reference to any document that matches the “final
determinations” or “investigative files” about the synopsis that Plaintiffs seek, so their Glomar responses remain on firm ground.

Plaintiffs have the better of the argument.
A.
Item One: The Two-Page Synopsis. Recall, only the FBI asserted a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for a copy of the two-page synopsis presented to President-elect Trump. James Madison I, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 18. The Nunes Memo makes the FBI’s position no longer tenable because it expressly refers to the document Plaintiffs seek. Specifically, the Nunes Memo states:
“[I]n early January 2017, [FBI] Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—‘salacious and unverified.’” Nunes Memo at 6 (emphasis added). Read in context, the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Steele dossier” presented to President-elect Trump in “early January 2017”
matches Plaintiffs’ first demand: a “two-page ‘synopsis’ provided by the U.S. Government to President-Elect Trump with respect to allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising personal and financial information about President-Elect Trump.”
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 13

To begin with, the phrase “a summary of the Steele dossier” clearly refers to a written summary. Interpreting that phrase to refer to an oral summary would be grammatically unnatural.

The Nunes Memo uses the past tense of the verb “brief,” the preposition “on,” and the article “a” before “summary” to describe what Director Comey did with respect to “a summary of the Steele Dossier.” Reading those terms together conveys that Director Comey dispensed information as to some tangible object—a briefing “on” “a summary.” To say that the Director “briefed” the
President-elect “on” “an” oral summary would make little sense. If the briefing concerned only an oral summation, then the phrase “a summary of” to modify “the Steele Dossier” would be entirely unnecessary (“Director Comey briefed President Trump on . . . the Steele Dossier”). Thus, understanding “summary” to refer to a “written summary” is the natural reading.

Context supplies other evidence of a match between Plaintiffs’ Item One request and the Nunes Memo’s reference to “a summary of the Dossier.” The terms “synopsis”—used by Plaintiffs—and “summary”—used by the Nunes Memo—are, of course, synonyms. The interchangeability of those words points to the same document. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ demand for a document pertaining to “allegations that Russian Government operatives had compromising
and personal financial information about President-Elect Trump” is an unmistakable reference to what the Nunes and Schiff Memos identify as the Dossier. See Nunes Memo at 5 (stating that the “‘dossier’ [was] compiled by Christopher Steele” who was tasked with “obtain[ing] derogatory
information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia”); cf. Schiff Memo at 3–4 (“DOJ’s applications did not otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any ‘salacious’ allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting.”). And the Nunes Memo’s description of what Director Comey did with the “summary” is consistent with a January 10, 2017, CNN article that
Plaintiffs incorporated in their FOIA request to the agencies “for context.” See Answer, ECF No.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 13

8, Ex. A, ECF No. 8-1 [hereinafter FOIA Request], at 2; Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 14, Ex. G, ECF No. 14-14 [hereinafter CNN Article]. The CNN article reported that allegations regarding Russian possession of “compromising personal and financial information” about the President-elect were “presented” in a two-page synopsis to President-elect Trump during the first
week of January 2017 by “four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs,” including FBI Director Comey. CNN Article at 1–2; see also FOIA Request at 3 (stating the “two page synopsis included allegations derived from a 35 page ‘dossier’ allegedly compiled by a former British intelligence
operative” and published by BuzzFeed). The Nunes Memo confirms this description of events.

It places Director Comey in a briefing of President-elect Trump regarding a summary of the Dossier in January 2017. These parallels lead the court to conclude that the “synopsis” sought by Plaintiffs is in fact the “summary” acknowledged by the Nunes Memo.

It is true that the Nunes Memo does not use the word “synopsis.” But that is not fatal. The context in which the official acknowledgement was made leads to the obvious inference that the FBI possesses the two-page synopsis Plaintiffs seek. Is it reasonable to conclude that the synopsis does not exist or that the FBI does not possess it, even though the FBI has, in the words of the Nunes Memo, undertaken a “rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting”? Of
course not. No reasonable person would accept as plausible that the nation’s top law enforcement agency does not have the two-page synopsis in light of these officially acknowledged facts of its actions. As the D.C. Circuit observed in ACLU, “[t]he Glomar doctrine is in large measure a judicial construct, an interpretation of FOIA exemptions that flows from their purpose rather than their express language.” 710 F.3d at 431. To accept the FBI’s Glomar response as to Item One in this case would “stretch that doctrine too far.” Id.
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 13

By authorizing the release of the Nunes Memo to make known the existence of the “summary” of the Dossier on which he was briefed, the President has publicly acknowledged the existence of the two-page synopsis in Director Comey’s possession. The FBI therefore can no longer assert a Glomar response to Plaintiffs’ demand for that record.
B.
Items Two and Three: Final Determinations and Investigative Files. For much the same reasons already discussed, it remains no longer logical nor plausible for the FBI to maintain that it cannot confirm nor deny the existence of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ second and third requests: (1) “[f]inal determinations regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims listed in the two page synopsis” and (2) the “[i]nvestigative files relied
upon in reaching [such] final determinations.”

The Memos reveal that the FBI has undertaken substantial efforts to confirm the accuracy of the Dossier’s reporting. The Nunes Memo expressly acknowledges the existence of “a source validation report,” conducted by an “independent unit within [the] FBI,” which “assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.” Nunes Memo at 6. The Schiff Memo takes a more
favorable view of a portion of Steele’s reporting, and provides even more information about the FBI’s efforts. It explains that “Steele’s information about [Carter] Page was consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest,” Schiff Memo at 6, and that the FBI had reached a sufficient level of confidence
in Steele’s reporting about Carter Page’s alleged coordination with Russian officials to include that information in a FISA warrant application, id. at 8. Additionally, the Schiff Memo states:
“The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting, including with regard to Page.” Id. at 8. Unless the court is to believe that the FBI undertook these efforts Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 13

without creating any memoranda or other papers containing assessments about Steele’s reporting and did not gather files for that purpose—a wholly implausible proposition—the Nunes and Schiff Memos are “tantamount to an acknowledgment that the [FBI] has documents on [those] subject[s].” ACLU, 710 F.3d at 431.
Defendants counter that the absence of any express reference in the Memos to efforts to validate the synopsis, as opposed to the Dossier, allows them to stand on Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three. But that position defies logic. As a “summary” of the Dossier, Nunes Memo at 6, the synopsis undeniably contains some subset of the Dossier’s allegations. It is simply not plausible to believe that, to whatever extent the FBI has made efforts to verify Steele’s
reporting, some portion of that work has not been devoted to allegations that made their way into the synopsis. After all, if the reporting was important enough to brief the President-elect, then surely the FBI thought enough of those key charges to attempt to verify their accuracy. It will be up to the FBI to determine which of the records in its possession relating to the reliability of the
Dossier concerns Steele’s reporting as discussed in the synopsis. Accordingly, the FBI has waived its Glomar responses as to Items Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

The same cannot be said, however, about the Intelligence Community Defendants. Neither the Nunes Memo nor the Schiff Memo makes any reference to any effort by the Intelligence Community Defendants to determine the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any of the individual factual claims contained in the synopsis. Although an official presidential statement can vitiate a Glomar
response for an executive branch agency, see ACLU, 710 F.3d at 429 n.7, the court does not read Circuit precedent to go so far as to say that the President’s acknowledgment of the existence of records by one agency categorically precludes every part of the Executive Branch from asserting a Glomar response. Rather, if an official presidential acknowledgement is limited to a single
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 13

component of the Executive Branch, as is the case here, other unrelated components may still invoke Glomar. The court’s conclusion is consistent with the principle that, when the President makes an official acknowledgment as to a particular agency, in that capacity he acts solely as the “parent” of that agency and that agency alone—not the entire Executive Branch. Cf. id. (explaining
that the rule that one agency’s waiver of a Glomar response does not bind another, unrelated agency “does not apply . . . where the disclosures are made by an authorized representative of the agency’s parent. A disclosure made by the President, or by his counterterrorism advisor acting as ‘instructed’ by the President, falls on the ‘parent agency’ side of that line.” (internal citations
omitted)). To adopt the contrary rule would have far-reaching consequences that this court is not prepared to accept, in the absence of clear guidance from the Circuit. Accordingly, the court finds that disclosures contained in the Nunes and Schiff Memos are not official acknowledgements that preclude the Intelligence Community Defendants from maintaining Glomar responses as to Items
Two and Three of Plaintiffs’ request.

IV.
For the foregoing reasons, consistent with Rule 62.1, the court states that, on remand, the court would grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as to all of the FBI’s Glomar responses.
The court, however, denies the Motion for Reconsideration as to the Intelligence Community Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ second and third FOIA requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2).

Dated: August 16, 2018 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 13

https://www.scribd.com/document/386451281/FBI-Foia-Ruling#download&from_embed

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

John Brennan Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser Analysis Corp. employee cauterized Obama passport data, Article “scrubbed”, Fake news defends Brennan attacks Trump

John Brennan Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser Analysis Corp. employee cauterized Obama passport data, Article “scrubbed”, Fake news defends Brennan attacks Trump

“Why has Obama employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Vivek Kundra, who was tapped as the White House technology czar
March 5, oversaw technology projects and budgets for 86 D.C.
government agencies as head of the District’s Office of the Chief
Technology Officer.”
“Yusuf Acar, 40, who has worked in the technology office since
2004, was charged with bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and
conflict of interest.”
“Acar also told the informant that he could use computers to
create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.”…Citizen Wells from pre rectified Washington Post article dated March 13, 2009

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Citizen Wells the anti Orwellian Fake News alternative.

Citizen Wells and other sites such as Info Wars, linked to a January 12, 2009 NewsMax article about the John Brennan’s Analysis Corp. employee who cauterized Obama’s passport data.

John Brennan, like Robert Bauer, former Perkins Coie employee and Tony West, were rewarded in Chicago pay to play style for helping Obama keep his records hidden.

The NewsMax article apparently was “scrubbed”, i.e., the former link does not work and there is no indication of the article on the NewsMax site or via a internet search.

My niche is fighting Orwellian efforts to rewrite history so I resurrected the article.

“Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach”

“Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”

At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

“This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,” Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

The passport files include “personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,” according to the inspector general report.

The files may contain additional information including “original copies of the associated documents,” the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

The Obama campaign acknowledged at its “Fight the Smears” Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his father’s British then Kenyan citizenship.

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982,” the Web site stated.

“Fight the Smears” attempted to debunk rumors that Obama was not a U.S. citizen by producing a 2007 computer-generated copy of his certification of live birth.

“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America,” the Web site states.

However, “native citizen” is a colloquialism, not a legal term. It is not the same as “natural-born citizen,” the requirement to be president set out in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts has scheduled a Supreme Court conference on Jan. 23 on Lightfoot v. Bowen, one of several cases alleging that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen because of his birthright British citizenship.

The State Department chalked up the passport file snooping discovered in March 2008 to “imprudent curiosity” by contract employees hired to help process passport applications.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2018/08/16/obamas-intelligence-adviser-involved-in-security-breach-john-brennan-analysis-corp-employee-cauterized-obama-file-newsmax-january-12-2009/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

Justice Dept. enema required, Strzok firing not enough, J Christian Adams warning, Attorney Ty Clevenger FOIA requests and Transparency Project, DOJ blocking Set Rich info release

“Why was Tony West, who helped Obama keep his records hidden at taxpayer expense, promoted to Acting Associate Attorney General, the third highest official at the Justice Department?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has the Department of Justice not been cleansed (given an enema)?”…Citizen Wells

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

 

J. Christian Adams, former Justice Department attorney, warned us in 2010.

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”

https://citizenwells.com/2014/06/09/j-christian-adams-explains-obama-use-of-alinsky-rules-for-radicals-challengers-to-obama-labeled-marginalized-compartmentalized-birthers-impeachment-proponents-made-to-look-crazy/

I have probably spent the greatest amount of time researching relative to reporting on the Seth Rich murder.

I vowed I would not forget it.

We deserve the truth.

There have been a number of FOIA requests for release of information regarding the Seth Rich murder and “investigations.”

I kept looking for a followup on the Judicial Watch request.

Attorney Ty Clevenger has made a number of FOIA requests as well as filing lawsuits and provided updates.

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

“Federal lawsuit seeks records about Seth Rich murder”

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.

I also asked the court to order the National Security Administration to release all of its communications with members of Congress regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, and Kim Dotcom, among others.

As you are probably aware, Mr. Rich’s parents filed suit this week against Fox News, producer Malia Zimmerman, and frequent guest Ed Butowsky.  I think that was a serious tactical error.  All of the defendants now have the legal right to subpoena documents and witnesses, and you can be sure they will use that power aggressively.

THE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT

With help from several supporters, I’ve organized The Transparency Project, a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Texas. If you want to support the Seth Rich litigation, you can find out how at Tproject.org. The website is a little primitive, but I plan to update it soon.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

The Transparency Project

“The Transparency Project is a nonprofit organization that fights political corruption, particularly in the judiciary and the legal profession. TTP was organized by Ty Clevenger, an attorney who grew tired of watching judges and lawyers get away with things that would send most people to prison.  Ty has forced two federal judges into retirement, triggered a grand jury investigation of the Texas Attorney General (who was subsequently indicted), prompted the indictment and conviction of a corrupt district attorney, and sued bar prosecutors to force them to investigate Hillary Clinton’s lawyers for their roles in destroying email evidence.  TTP intends to purse similar cases.”

Read more:

http://tproject.org/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Christians in Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Protestants, The “German Christians”, How good people allowed evil to spread, No excuse for mass approval of Nazism by German Protestants or other German groups

Christians in Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Protestants, The “German Christians”, How good people allowed evil to spread, No excuse for mass approval of Nazism by German Protestants or other German groups

“Through God’s intercession, our beloved German Fatherland has experienced a mighty exaltation. In this turning point in history we hear, as faithful evangelical Christians, the call of God to a closing of ranks and a return, the call also for a single German Evangelical Church …. The Confessions are its unalterable basis …. A national bishop of the Lutheran confession stands at its head …. Christ comes again and brings an eternal completion in the majesty of His Kingdom.”…”Hitler and the Protestants”, SpindleWorks

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”… Edmund Burke

“What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.”…Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

In ordnung is a German expression that means in order.

The Amish have their ordnung and if you listen closely, you will hear it often used in German World War II movies.

Ordnung is important to Germans and one of the reasons otherwise good “Christians” in Nazi Germany looked the other way.

How good people allowed evil to spread.

From Spindle Works.

“The Protestant churches in Nazi Germany”

“The rise of Hitler

Hitler and his Nazis had been agitating throughout the twenties, but they did not become influential until the stock market crash of 1929 had introduced the great depression. That depression hit Germany hard and caused many to look for a strong man to pull them out of the morass. Hitler grasped the opportunities offered by the depression and the general feeling of malaise. He not only promised jobs and renewed prosperity, but also all the other things the majority of Germans wanted: a restoraton of Germany’s greatness, revenge on the allies for the Versailles treaty, a war to the death on socialists and communists, law and order, strict discipline, and strict public morality. A revival of the old, conservative, paternalistic and imperial Germany was beckoning – and it would be a Christian Germany once more. At least, so Hitler promised.

In fact, Hitler hated Christianity and was convinced that it was incompatible with National Socialism. He was enough of an opportunist, however, to realize that the Christian tradition was still strong in Germany, and that he would be wise to begin by courting the churches’ favour. If they trusted him, they could be excellent supporters in his rise to power; if he alienated them, they could be formidable enemies. But although he courted them, he never intended to allow them any independent power in the totalitarian Nazi state: they were to be merely his tools, to be discarded when no longer needed.

In January 1933 Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In March of that year he addressed the churches as follows:

The national Government sees in the two Christian Confessions (Protestant and Roman Catholic) the most important factors for the preservation of our nationality. It will respect the agreements that have been drawn up between them and the provincial states.

. . . The national Government will provide and guarantee to the Christian Confessions the influence due them in the schools and education. It is concerned for genuine harmony between Church and State .

. . . The rights of the churches will not be curtailed; their position in relation to the State will not be changed.[1]

Hitler dealt first with the Roman Catholics. After discussions with the archbishops, who conferred with the pope, a concordat or agreement was signed in June 1933. The concordat assured the church (on paper) of its privileges and was intended to guarantee either its neutrality or its support for the Nazi regime. The Roman Catholic Centre Party was disbanded.

Hitler and the Protestants

When Hitler turned his attention to the Protestants, he faced a different situation. How does one deal with at least twenty-eight different church federations? The national assembly of these churches had no real authority, and the Protestants had neither archbishop nor pope. Hitler therefore decided to create such a figure. He suggested that the Protestant churches elect or appoint a national bishop who would sit in the religious affairs department (the Ministry of Cults) of the national government.

The reaction of some German church leaders was ecstatic, witness this message:

Through God’s intercession, our beloved German Fatherland has experienced a mighty exaltation. In this turning point in history we hear, as faithful evangelical Christians, the call of God to a closing of ranks and a return, the call also for a single German Evangelical Church …. The Confessions are its unalterable basis …. A national bishop of the Lutheran confession stands at its head …. Christ comes again and brings an eternal completion in the majesty of His Kingdom. [2]

Although not all Protestants voiced these sentiments, a general feeling of elation grew in the Protestant churches. Miracles seemed to be happening. The Protestants were asked once again to play a role in the affairs of the nation. They were even offered a chance to form a national, unified church. Could all this simply be coincidence? It seemed to be the hand of God at work in Germany. He was calling the churches back to their old place and task in the midst of the nation.

The Fuehrer was popular. He was giving work to the millions of unemployed. The country was picking up rapidly. Nationalism was growing. Leftists were being suppressed, Surely the Lord was with such a man as Adolf Hitler! Provincial churches united and synod after synod voiced its approval of a national church under one bishop. Few, very few people realized that all was not well. Fewer still issued warnings.

The “German Christians”

There was no excuse for this mass approval of Nazism by the German Protestants or, for that matter, by any other German group. They could have been aware of Hitler’s ideology and aims: he had revealed much of them in his autobiography Mein Kampf, published in the twenties. They could also have an inkling of what was likely to happen to the German churches if the Nazis gained power. Long before January 1933, when Hitler became chancellor, groups had arisen in Germany which attempted to combine Christianity with the type of paganism that the Nazis also espoused or would espouse. In 1932, that is, before Hitler became chancellor, a number of these groups had united in what came to be known as the movement of the “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen).

This movement espoused the Nazi party’s “positive Christianity,” which is meant, among other things, that it denied sin and depravity, as well as humility, and that it stressed nationalism and the saving character of the state. The church, as part of the state, was to march along-side the people to bring it to its earthly paradise. As Karl Barth described it, “The state is eternal, equal to the Bible in expressing God’s will. The Fuehrer is equal to the commands of God, rather, he is above them.” [3] With Hegel, Nietzsche, Rosenberg, and Wagner as their prophets, the “German Christians” preached their perverted gospel.

Their movement consisted of various streams. There were conservative Lutherans, who merely wanted a political voice in the new state, were against war debts, democracy, and the exclusion of the churches under the Weimar regime. Another stream propagated the religion of the “Volk,” an old, nineteenth-century idea. According to this group, Christ came to help Germans fulfil their potential as a separate folk and nation, with its own law: that of struggle. Germans were born for struggle: they would fulfil their folkishness by that means. The call to arms and slogan for the Christian life was “struggle, cross, and sacrifice” over against “false and weak freedom.” Christian ethics, such as those of the Sermon on the Mount, belonged to the kingdom of heaven, not to the earthly German one. Weaklings and non-Aryans were not to be allowed. Euthanasia was good; it would help keep the folk pure and strong. War also was good: it would bring the highest religion of all (Christianity) to other peoples, and it would bring the greatest folk of all, the Germans, to full fruition as rulers of lesser peoples and churches and religions. The Germans were the super race, the Herrenvolk.

Needless to say, Marxism, socialism, pacifism, as well as Jews and blacks and other non-Aryans, were to be rejected. Church confessions were declared outdated, and race and people, blood and soil, became the standards. Hitler stood next to Christ as the leader of all Germany, the manifestation of the divine in history. Hitler as Fuehrer was infallible, and revealed God’s will to men better than any Bible or confession, History had given Germany its messiah.”

Read more:

http://spindleworks.com/library/peet/german.htm#2r

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich murder lawsuits filed by parents and Rod Wheeler dismissed, Claimed Fox News caused them emotional distress and engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct”

Seth Rich murder lawsuits filed by parents and Rod Wheeler dismissed, Claimed Fox News caused them emotional distress and engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct”

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,”
“And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…Attorney David Schippers, Clinton investigator

“I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.”…Kim Dotcom

“Burkman said in an interview that he considered Selig like a brother and was badly shaken by his friend’s death.”
“The tragically ironic part is Glenn’s last words to me were, ‘Be careful,’” Burkman said. “It’s just a tragedy — terrible.””…Politico Jan. 24, 2018

 

From the NY Times.

“A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit Thursday that was brought against Fox News by the parents of Seth Rich, the young Democratic aide whose unsolved murder was turned into fodder for a lingering right-wing conspiracy theory.

In his dismissal of the lawsuit, Judge George B. Daniels said he sympathized with Mr. Rich’s parents, but added that they had not been personally defamed by the story — despite the fact that it included “false statements or misrepresentations.”

Mr. Rich’s parents, Joel and Mary, filed the suit in Federal District Court in Manhattan in March, arguing that Fox News had caused them emotional distress and engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct” by publishing a fabricated article claiming that their son had leaked thousands of internal emails from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks. Those emails were then released to the public in an act that proved damaging to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The story, published on the Fox News website on May 16, 2017, implied that Mr. Rich’s death on the streets on Washington in July 2016 had occurred in retaliation for the leaks, even though no evidence supported that conclusion. Mr. Rich’s parents held that Mr. Rich — then 27 — had been killed during an attempted robbery.

Within a week, Fox News retracted the story, saying that it had not met its standards, but the conspiracy theory has persisted, fueled by prominent conservatives like Newt Gingrich, the Fox News pundit Sean Hannity and the right-wing broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones of Infowars. The rumors about Mr. Rich’s death were embraced by some supporters of President Trump, who used them to undercut the notion that Russian operatives had been responsible for the leak.

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” Judge Daniels wrote. But he added that he had no choice but to dismiss the suit, because Fox’s conduct did not amount to the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The judge also noted that Mr. Rich could not have been defamed by the story under New York law, because he was dead.”

“In a related decision, Judge Daniels also dismissed a separate lawsuitbrought against Fox News, Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Butowsky by a private detective who had played a central role in the retracted story.

The detective, Rod Wheeler, was hired by the Rich family on Mr. Butowsky’s recommendation to help them investigate their son’s death. Mr. Wheeler — who was himself a Fox News contributor — was quoted in the story as saying there was “information” linking Mr. Rich to WikiLeaks. But he later accused Fox News and Ms. Zimmerman of misrepresenting what he had said, calling that action part of a coordinated effort with the White House to smear Mr. Rich and “shift the blame from Russia.””

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/nyregion/seth-rich-fox-news-lawsuits.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Decline of middle class? Increase of stupidity and bad habits, Plenty of jobs in “education” restaurants breweries tattoo parlors, Common sense and time tested frugality out the window

Decline of middle class? Increase of stupidity and bad habits, Plenty of jobs in “education” restaurants breweries tattoo parlors, Common sense and time tested frugality out the window

“Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure. Ideally, neither children nor adults should have any mercury in their bodies because it provides no physiological benefit.”…National Institute of Health

“U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, investigating the issue”
“What he learned was astonishing. In 2013 and 2014 alone, ICE set loose more than 66,000 illegal immigrant criminals who had over 166,000 convictions (30,000 for drunk or drug driving, 414 kidnapping, over 11,000 rapes or other sexual assaults and 395 homicides). Already thousands of those have already been convicted of new crimes in the U.S., including felonies, since their release.”…WND October 25, 2015

“There is an epidemic of stupid in this country.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Zero Hedge.

“The Number Of Americans Living In Their Vehicles “Explodes” As The Middle Class Collapses

As the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase, the middle class is steadily eroding.  In fact, I recently gave my readers 15 signs that the middle class in America is being systematically destroyed.  More Americans are falling out of the middle class and into poverty with each passing day, and this is one of the big reasons why the number of homeless is surging.  For example, the number of people living on the street in L.A. has shot up 75 percent over the last 6 years.  But of course L.A. is far from alone.  Other major cities on the west coast are facing similar problems, and that includes Seattle.  It turns out that the Emerald City has seen a 46 percent rise in the number of people sleeping in their vehicles in just the past year

The number of people who live in their vehicles because they can’t find affordable housing is on the rise, even though the practice is illegal in many U.S. cities.

The number of people residing in campers and other vehicles surged 46 percent over the past year, a recent homeless census in Seattle’s King County, Washington found. The problem is “exploding” in cities with expensive housing markets, including Los Angeles, Portland and San Francisco, according to Governing magazine.

Amazon, Microsoft and other big tech companies are in the Seattle area.  It is a region that is supposedly “prospering”, and yet this is going on.

Sadly, it isn’t just major urban areas that are seeing more people sleeping in their vehicles.  Over in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, many of the homeless sleep in their vehicles even in the middle of winter…”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-01/number-americans-living-their-vehicles-explodes-middle-class-collapses

People in the US during the Great Depression had to resort to desperate measures.

Though times now can be challenging, the situation now is far better than then.

So why are so many homeless? Living in cars.

Part of the answer is the epidemic of stupid which I believe began in the sixties.

Growing up, I not only had a good education in school, I had one at home.

My parents were depression era survivors and also survivors of the hard times of settling this country. What used to be status quo.

They shared their stories of growing up in rural NC and what they and their families did to survive. This has stayed with me.

Part of my life and training was my duties (luxurious compared to theirs):

  • I was the oldest of 4. I babysat my siblings.
  • I was given a tiny allowance. If I wanted more, I had to work for it in addition to my chores.
  • I had a paper route, cut grass, babysat for others, picked blackberries, collected returnable bottles, etc.
  • I knew how to use a hammer & tools and liked it. We collected used nails & lumber scraps for our treehouses. Recycling.

By example we learned reality 101.

Starting with we ate out infrequently. Drank our own coffee. Used hand me down clothing. Had a garden. Paid with cash. My mom made some of our clothing and repaired much. And of course, my mom’s sayings for every occasion such as “You’re not too old for your wants to hurt you.”

I am frugal to this day.

I made really good money most of my life, lived beneath my means and this served me well when my disability hit.

I am a strong believer in education, real education, not just receiving a piece of paper and piling up debt.

There are many fine institutions of higher learning training medical professionals, engineers, accountants, etc.

However, we have created a myth, perpetuated by an unholy alliance between institutions and politicians that a diploma will cure practically everything.

We are not educating our young folks. And older folks.

I am around a lot of young people near the university and I have advised many of them to buy a house in an area that is conducive to high rent demand and perhaps with a layout that facilitates having renters who will help pay the mortgage. I knew an attorney couple years ago who did just that.

Many of them are sharing houses and that is another good way to save money.

We are not sacrificing enough, as our Greatest Generation did, to get started or managing our spending habits.

Just examine what is thriving in the economy. Restaurants, breweries, coffee shops, tattoo parlors, etc. None of which are essential for survival or condusive to saving and prospering.

We are not prepared for marriage and having kids and we are not being educated about the costs or responsibilities.

Too many people are having kids too soon without having the necessary funds or skills.

What more important skill to be educated about?

Our understanding of survival skills, cost versus benefit and common sense must increase, not attendance at college, restaurants, breweries, coffee shops, tattoo parlors, etc.

Wells

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

“For members who have found themselves in disputes with Thrivent, the retroactive change rankles. “You’re wondering how Lutheran organizations can treat their own customers that way,” says Mr. Tiedemann, an 83-year-old retiree who navigated the dispute-resolution process for more than two years before giving up.”...WSJ May 30, 2006

“The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claim,”…ABC News Good Morning America April 25, 2008

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

How Do Insurance Companies Use Intimidation Tactics?

“One of the ways an insurance company may try to manipulate the situation is by choosing what information is relevant. If they discover some key information that wasn’t previously communicated to them, they might choose to punish you for not telling them, instead of simply assuming you had made a mistake and asking you to supply the missing information.”

“Unsubstantiated Fraud Allegations: Many insurance providers will allege that their policyholder is engaged in fraud by inflating the value of items in their claim, fabricating events resulting in loss or claiming loss of items that do not exist or were not lost or damaged. Sometimes these allegations will be loosely based on mistakes on a proof of loss form or be completely without any factual support. The objective is to intimidate a policyholder into accepting a lowball offer because of fears that the insured will face potential civil or criminal liability as well as having his or her claim completely denied.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/06/30/fraud-accusation-insurance-company-intimidation-tactic-common-intimidation-techniques-tactics-by-insurance-companies-are-unethical-illegal-obligation-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing-toward-policyh/

From AcomHealth.

“It is a very common device for claims adjusters to allege “fraud” as a means to drive a minimal financial settlement with a provider. The claim by some insurance company employee that “overutilization” has taken place and that somehow, based on self-serving and unreal “guidelines” they are exploring legal action against the provider is, indeed, sobering and probably as intimidating as it is intended to be. As absurd and unethical as this behavior is, it is frequent and it is effective in driving low-dollar settlements by providers even for the most legitimate of claims.”

“While the exact language in the law regarding fraud may vary from state to state, the common elements necessary to prove fraud might be summarized as follows:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

  1. A false statement of a material fact,
  2. Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
  3. Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
  4. Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
  5. Injury to the alleged victim as a result. Source:  Farlex Internet Free Dictionary”

Read more:

https://acomhealth.com/steps-prevent-defend-claims-insurance-fraud/

NC Statutes.

“§ 58-24-165. Unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Every society authorized to do business in this State shall be subject to the provisions of Article 63 of this Chapter relating to unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices”

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_58/GS_58-24-165.pdf

“(11) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. – Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice of any of the following: Provided, however, that no violation of this subsection shall of itself create any cause of action in favor of any person other than the Commissioner:
a. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;
 b. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;
c. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
d. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;
e. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements have been completed;
 f. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;
g. Compelling [the] insured to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insured;
h. Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled;
 i. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured;
 j. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by [a] statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made;
k. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;
 l. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured claimant, or the physician, of [or] either, to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof-of-loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;
 m. Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage; and

n. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.”

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/