Showing posts with label NDA. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2020

DOJ: Former CIA Officer Arrested and Charged with Espionage

Non Disclosure Agreements...

I like the bearing false witness direction.

#maytheheavensfall

Alexander Yuk Ching Ma, 67, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, was arrested on Aug. 14, 2020, on a charge that he conspired with a relative of his who also was a former CIA officer to communicate classified information up to the Top Secret level to intelligence officials of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Criminal Complaint containing the charge was unsealed this morning.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Kenji M. Price, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Alan E. Kohler Jr., and Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Honolulu Field Office Eli S. Miranda made the announcement.

“The trail of Chinese espionage is long and, sadly, strewn with former American intelligence officers who betrayed their colleagues, their country and its liberal democratic values to support an authoritarian communist regime,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “This betrayal is never worth it. Whether immediately, or many years after they thought they got away with it, we will find these traitors and we will bring them to justice. To the Chinese intelligence services, these individuals are expendable. To us, they are sad but urgent reminders of the need to stay vigilant.”

“The charges announced today are a sobering reminder to our communities in Hawaii of the constant threat posed by those who seek to jeopardize our nation’s security through acts of espionage,” said U.S. Attorney Price. “Of particular concern are the criminal acts of those who served in our nation’s intelligence community, but then choose to betray their former colleagues and the nation-at large by divulging classified national defense information to China. My office will continue to tenaciously pursue espionage cases.”

“This serious act of espionage is another example in a long string of illicit activities that thePeople's Republic of China is conducting within and against the United States,” said Alan E. Kohler Jr., Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. “This case demonstrates that no matter the length or difficulty of the investigation, the men and women of the FBI will work tirelessly to protect our national security from the threat posed by Chinese intelligence services. Let it be known that anyone who violates a position of trust to betray the United States will face justice, no matter how many years it takes to bring their crimes to light.”

“These cases are very complicated and take years if not decades to bring to a conclusion,” said Eli Miranda, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Honolulu Division. “I could not be more proud of the work done by the men and women of the FBI's Honolulu Division in pursuing this case. Their dedication is a reminder that the FBI will never waiver when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of our nation.”

Ma is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Hong Kong. According to court documents, Ma began working for the CIA in 1982, maintained a Top Secret clearance, and signed numerous non-disclosure agreements in which he acknowledged his responsibility and ongoing duty to protect U.S. government secrets during his tenure at CIA. Ma left the CIA in 1989 and lived and worked in Shanghai, China before arriving in Hawaii in 2001.

According to court documents, Ma and his relative (identified as co-conspirator #1) conspired with each other and multiple PRC intelligence officials to communicate classified national defense information over the course of a decade. The scheme began with three days of meetings in Hong Kong in March 2001 during which the two former CIA officers provided information to the foreign intelligence service about the CIA’s personnel, operations, and methods of concealing communications. Part of the meeting was captured on videotape, including a portion where Ma can be seen receiving and counting $50,000 in cash for the secrets they provided.

The court documents further allege that after Ma moved to Hawaii, he sought employment with the FBI in order to once again gain access to classified U.S. government information which he could in turn provide to his PRC handlers. In 2004, the FBI’s Honolulu Field Office hired Ma as a contract linguist tasked with reviewing and translating Chinese language documents. Over the following six years, Ma regularly copied, photographed and stole documents that displayed U.S. classification markings such as “SECRET.” Ma took some of the stolen documents and images with him on his frequent trips to China with the intent to provide them to his handlers. Ma often returned from China with thousands of dollars in cash and expensive gifts, such as a new set of golf clubs.

According to court documents, in spring 2019, over the course of two in-person meetings, Ma confirmed his espionage activities to an FBI undercover employee Ma believed was a representative of the PRC intelligence service, and accepted $2,000 in cash from the FBI undercover as “small token” of appreciation for Ma’s assistance to China. Ma also offered to once again work for the PRC intelligence service. On August 12, 2020, during a meeting with an FBI undercover employee before arrest, Ma again accepted money for his past espionage activities, expressed his willingness to continue to help the Chinese government, and stated that he wanted “the motherland” to succeed.

Ma will make his initial appearance before a federal judge tomorrow in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. He is charged with conspiracy to communicate national defense information to aid a foreign government and faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if convicted. The maximum sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. In the event Ma is convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Honolulu and Los Angeles Field Offices. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Sorenson and Trial Attorneys Scott Claffee and Steve Marzen of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case.

Attachment(s):

Download ma_complaint_.pdf

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, October 31, 2019

JUDICIARY: Gerrymandering, Children's Trusts & Non Disclosure Agreements - What Was Not Discussed In The Hearing

U.S. President Benjamin Harrison
Coat of Arms
Sherman Antitrust Act

The following were situations ignored in this antitrust and economic opportunity in trafficking tiny humans:

Are States child welfare licenses transportable across state lines? (i.e. foster care, social worker, adoption specialist);
How come there is no competition in the States child welfare contracts?
How come there is no licensing revocation, sanctions, contractual debarment, prosecution and recovery in child welfare?
How come no one will talk about the Interstate Compact on the Placement of the Children, which is not a law, but a hot mess of a pseudo-policy for trafficking tiny humans?

Michigan Interstate Compact... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Gerry's (sala)mander stealin' the children, land & votes map

In 1887, largely as a result of the Democratic gerrymandering of Indiana's legislative districts, Harrison was defeated in his bid for reelection.^[24]

Gerry's (sala)mander stealin' the children, land & votes
map of the Michigan13th Congressional District

In 2010, largely as a result of the Democratic gerrymandering of Michigan's legislative districts, Conyers was not defeated in his bid for reelection because the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed beared witness to the stealin' the children, land & votes by "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

The following is the history of gerrymandering:

Gerrymandering was named after Elbridge Gerry, former Vice President and grand father of Eldridge Gerry founded the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, where what we know today as Child Protective Services was known as the Gerry Society.

"First, we steal the children, the land, then
the votes!" said Gerry ordering his
Secret Society (now known as CPS)
for the next round of redistricting.

The Response 1874-1875

SPCC Founding 1874
Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, aware that the hour for children had finally come, recruited respected philanthropist John D. Wright and formally pledged themselves to the establishment of organized child protection.
Children's Protective Society
The undersigned, desirous of rescuing the unprotected children
of this city and State
from the cruelty and demoralization which
neglect and abandonment engender'
hereby engage to aid, with their sympathy and support,
the organization and working of a Children's Protective Society,
having in view the realization of so important a purpose.
On December 15, 1874, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded and organized. Gerry annunciated its unique purpose:
"to rescue little children from the cruelty and demoralization which neglect, abandonment and improper treatment engender; to aid by all lawful means in the enforcement of the laws intended for their protection and benefit; to secure by like means the prompt conviction and punishment of all persons violating such laws and especially such persons as cruelly ill treat and shamefully neglect such little children of whom they claim the care, custody or control."
NYSPCC Incorporation 1875
On Tuesday, April 27, 1875, the SPCC was incorporated as The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the first child protection agency in the world. John D. Wright became its first president, Gerry and Bergh vice-presidents.

But this is what they were really doing:

Humanitarian reformers had expressed concern for children before the 1870s, organizing efforts to end the corporal punishment of school children, creating institutions to care for ORPHANS, and even sending orphans by train to foster families in the West. But reformers were reluctant to interfere in families, which had a recognized right to privacy. By the 1870s, the relative weights of the concern for children and the concern for family privacy had shifted. Mary Ellen's residence with foster parents (her biological parents were dead) may have eased her protectors' willingness to cross that boundary. Differences in class and culture also facilitated the creation of the SPCCs. The organizations were directed by wealthy, conservative, Protestant white men, whereas their clientele were mostly poor, Catholic immigrant families or poor black families. These were powerful distinctions during the late nineteenth century.
Their founders conceived of the SPCCs as law enforcement agencies. Agents were to find abused children–on the street or through tips made by concerned neighbors, relatives, and even the abused children themselves–investigate their families, and prosecute abusers. Many states gave the societies police powers, such as the right to issue warrants, or allowed the police to aid them. Most importantly, "the cruelty" (as SPCC agents were sometimes known in poor neighborhoods) could remove children from their homes.

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Search results for gerrymandering http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=gerrymandering#ixzz63wpAzeav
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare

On a lighter note, the Committee briefly discussed Non Disclosure Agreements, but failed to mention Omarosa.

Omaros deserves due process, too.

Where is Omarosa?

Witnesses

Panel One:

The Honorable Noah Phillips
Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

Ms. Doha Mekki
Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice

Doha Mekki Statement

Mr. Rahul Rao
Assistant Attorney General, Washington State Office of the Attorney General

Panel Two:

Ms. Sanjukta Paul
Assistant Professor of Law, Wayne State University

Dr. Ioana Marinescu
Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice

Dr. Evan Starr
Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations, University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business

Mr. Richard Masters
Special Counsel, National Center for Interstate Compacts

Dr. Kate Bahn
Director of Labor and Market Policy and Economist, Washington Center for Equitable Growth

Dr. Robert Topel
Isidore & Gladys Brown Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business

Documents

116th Congress

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump v. Omarosa -The Great Whistleblower Election Collusion

Image result for omarosa and trump detroit

"Go do your thang, gurl."

Trump and Omarosa have a long history together.

I like to call Omarosa Trump's "Ride or Die".

This is why I am calling this public fallout "The Great Whistleblower Collusion".

Trump & Omarosa in Detroit

Omarosa was presented a Non Disclosure Agreement.

Omarosa was kicked out the White House for recording conversations with staff, John Kelly, going back and telling Trump.

Interesting to note that former Secretary Clinton did the same exact thing of recording in the SCIF and nothing has come of it....to date, that is.

Omarosa claims John Kelly played her a recording of Trump saying some "negative terms" and Lara Trump blasts the tape.

John Kelly secretly recorded POTUS and Omarosa has the evidence.

When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2018

Then, she put out a "tell all" book about what staff told her about Trump.

So, now we await Avenatti.

It is a near certainty that Michael Avenatti is going to end up representing Omarosa and all of our absurd timelines are going to collapse on one another
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) August 14, 2018

Omarosa is going to make a boat load of money, but I believe it will be in the form of a whistleblower lawsuit, setting up all those attorneys and people around Trump, who like to cover up nasty things that make them a whole lot of money from their public offices.

Stay tuned and watch Omarosa "do her thang" because I will be focused to see if the other players in this reality show drama are going to be held to the same standards, like John Kelly.

Before the reading of the follow article, claiming to be "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), you must first be aware that Omarosa was correct in calling that agreement illegal for the simple fact that there are found to be 11 corporations in the name of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. registered in various states across the country as foreign non-profits, where, I am betting, Trump was not even aware that people were opening up these other domestic and foreign corporations, which, by the way, are not even registered with the FEC as campaign committees and, more than likely, had Trump's electronic signature, that he did not sign.

Timothy Jost, Corporate Shape
Shifter of the Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc.,
foreign non-profit money
laundering operations

It seems the gentleman who set up all these foreign corporations named Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., goes by the name of Timothy Jost, the treasurer in some listing, who used private corporation filing services, to launder money.

I will go so far and assert that the foreign incorporated Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., is not even registered under FARA.

How much do you want to bet money laundering was going on to Russia, Ukraine or even Germany, hence, another layer of that Mueller collusion?

So, how is it this campaign NDA was presented to Omarosa when the agreement itself does not even state which Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. it is?

This truly reminds me of the work of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) who go by the name of Perkins Coie.

I can smell the political fraud schemes of #perkinscoiesucks from any county in the world because they ran the same game on my Sweetie.

I wonder what John Roberts is doing right now?

OMAROSA SAID A HUSH MONEY AGREEMENT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFERED HER WAS ‘UNLAWFUL’ – WAS IT?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, said that a contract she was allegedly offered by the Trump campaign after being fired from the White House was an attempt to buy off her silence. She called the offer “unlawful.”

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

Legal experts disagree about whether such an agreement could have prevented Manigault Newman from discussing her time in the White House. Precedent says that the government cannot keep former employees from discussing non-classified information, and that principle might apply to the proposed campaign agreement.

Other parts of the agreement could have been enforceable, though, and “hush money” contracts are not unlawful in principle.

Fact Check:

Manigault Newman, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” served as the director of communications for the White House Public Liaison Office before her departure in December 2017. Her recently released book about her time in the White House, “Unhinged,” alleges that Trump campaign adviser Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House.

She discussed the agreement on “Meet The Press” on Aug. 12. “I worked my butt off to make a difference in this country and they were looking for ways to frame me, and then, they tried to buy off my silence, which is also unlawful,” Manigault Newman said.

“Hush money” agreements, in which one person agrees to stay silent about a topic in exchange for money, are often valid and enforceable if both parties willingly enter into the contract. But legal experts disagree about whether the contract that Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman could keep her from discussing her time in public service.

The contract included a broadly-worded provision that prohibited her from disclosing any “confidential information,” including “appointments, meetings, conversations, notes and other communications” about Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or either of their families, even after the campaign ends. It did not specifically mention her time in public service, but it could be interpreted to apply to Manigault Newman’s time in the White House. She says that she did not sign the agreement.

Trump has reportedly required employees to sign other broad nondisclosure agreements. A Washington Post column from March said that senior White House staff members were asked to sign agreements prohibiting them from revealing information about their time in the White House, even after Trump’s presidency. A different nondisclosure agreement from the 2016 campaign included a provision to not “demean or disparage” Trump during the term of employment and “at all times thereafter.”

The alleged agreement that Manigault Newman declined to sign included a non-disparagement clause as well.

Legal precedent says that ex-federal employees cannot be required to promise silence on non-classified matters. For that reason, some experts say that the nondisclosure provisions in the White House contracts could violate the First Amendment.

“The government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials,” the 1983 District of Columbia Circuit Court case McGehee v. Casey explained.

The agreement offered to Manigault Newman after her time in the White House is different, though. The contract, along with its nondisclosure clause, would have been with the Trump campaign, not the federal government.

Which "campaign"? There are 11 foreign non profit filings.

But Bradley Moss, a partner at the Mark S. Zaid, PC law firm and contributor to Lawfare, thinks that the $15,000 per month agreement would still not be enforceable because he says it is a poor attempt to get around legal precedent.

“They were effectively trying to circumvent the existing case law on the subject by having the campaign, not the Government, impose the retroactive NDA,” Moss told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “I would argue that such a contract is constitutionally unenforceable no matter if coming from the campaign or the government itself. To permit the former to pull that off would be contrary to public policy.”

Ken White, a partner at Brown White & Osborn LLP who blogs as Popehat, also argued on the “All The President’s Lawyers” podcast that this type of agreement would fail the test of “unconscionability” – a legal doctrine that makes a contract unenforceable if it violates public policy or is otherwise inappropriate.

“A nondisclosure agreement may well be enforceable by a private entity, but it’s extremely dubious that you could enforce one to get people to stop talking about their public service, their paid work as a government employee,” White said on Aug. 15. “The idea is that restricting a public employee or a former public employee from talking about public service like that is unconscionable.”

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster told TheDCNF that he was not as convinced that a court would find the agreement unconscionable, however.

“If an arbitrator proves sympathetic to her argument, then I can see that if she wants to speak publicly about an issue of great public importance, it might be deemed against public policy to enforce the agreement. Might,” Fenster told TheDCNF in an email.

He said that even if a court found that the agreement could not stop her from speaking about her time in the White House, other parts of the agreement would be enforceable.

“She was clearly wrong to state that it was unlawful to present her with the agreement, especially as it clearly would be ok to have her agree to be silent and non-disparaging during her employment by the campaign regarding issues that arise during the campaign,” Fenster said. “In that regard, it would clearly be enforceable, just perhaps not as broadly as the campaign and President might wish. It’s therefore clearly not unlawful.”

The experts noted that even broad nondisclosure agreements that are not fully enforceable are often still effective at intimidating employees into silence when they lack the resources to defend themselves or seek legal advice.

There is a lack of consensus about whether a private agreement could prevent individuals from talking about their public service in part because it is a new legal question. “There is – to my knowledge – no precedent for a campaign seeking to contractually silence a former federal employee with respect to the work that person did while serving in the government,” Moss said.

While Manigault Newman says she did not sign the “hush money” agreement, whether the Trump campaign can prevent former public servants from discussing their time in the White House remains a relevant legal question. The Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against her last week for allegedly breaking a 2016 campaign agreement.

A representative for Manigault Newman did not respond to a request for comment.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

BEVERLY TRAN ®

Pages