Bob Collins and Exempt from Disclosure

[ryguy]

Our #1 source is a current official in the intelligence community; has appeared in the New York Times as part of an investigation before the Senate Intelligence Committee; continues to tap dance around issues of methods and sources.

I didn't realize you'd actually assigned them permanent numbers...sorry...lol. In that case switch #1 and #2 in my post above and we're golden.

The second source would risk high-value government contracts and clearances if he was to provide false information to the first source; unless authorized to do so on an official level.

That is not at all true. Please elaborate on why there would be any such risk for him to exaggerate/fill-in-the-blanks (or simply forget the accurate details - or mix up two meetings in memory) on matters that are not at all classified - or on matters of which both men have the same level of clearance.

I would like you to respond to the "classified code words" claims then...which I'm sure you've heard a number of times yourself. Source #2 informed source #1 of the same "classified code word" claim recently. Source #1 explained in great detail why that claim - sent to both he, I (and I assume maybe others) is not at all accurate.

Maybe you're confusing the difference between lying and retelling an event inaccurately, even if only from faulty memory?

I'm not trying to imply that Source #2 is "lying", there could be a number of reasons for innacuracies - but I am implying that quoting statements like that, plucked out of a much larger email exchange that provides context, and without secondary corroboration is highly speculative and not at all factual.

-Ry

[caryn]

Our #1 source is a current official in the intelligence community; has appeared in the New York Times as part of an investigation before the Senate Intelligence Committee; continues to tap dance around issues of methods and sources.

I didn't realize you'd actually assigned them permanent numbers...sorry...lol. In that case switch #1 and #2 in my post above and we're golden.

Source #1 explained in great detail why that claim - sent to both he, I (and I assume maybe others) is not at all accurate.

Maybe you're confusing the difference between lying and retelling an event inaccurately, even if only from faulty memory?

I'm not trying to imply that Source #2 is "lying", there could be a number of reasons for innacuracies - but I am implying that quoting statements like that, plucked out of a much larger email exchange that provides context, and without secondary corroboration is highly speculative and not at all factual.

-Ry

You're implying that source #1 is telling the truth - or doesn't suffer from a faulty memory. Those who have dealt with him over the years might not agree. One man's word against one other man's word - you take your choice as to who's yanking chains. But if you honestly believe that source #1 isn't capable of messing with you, Ryan, ask yourself what he's been doing with Dan Smith and Gordon Novel for the past 15 odd years.

[ryguy]

You're implying that source #1 is telling the truth - or doesn't suffer from a faulty memory. Those who have dealt with him over the years might not agree. One man's word against one other man's word - you take your choice as to who's yanking chains. But if you honestly believe that source #1 isn't capable of messing with you, Ryan, ask yourself what he's been doing with Dan Smith and Gordon Novel for the past 15 odd years.

Excellent point Caryn....so maybe the only "quoting" any of us should be doing should be the data that we've been able to corroborate. Or if we do quote - follow it up stating that it has yet to be verified, so may not be true.

Otherwise - both of us will be guilty of picking and choosing which source we would like to believe is more accurate.

P.S. - my opinion is that both sources are messing with all of us, btw. Therefore....no evidence - no fact.

But if you honestly believe that source #1 isn't capable of messing with you, Ryan, ask yourself what he's been doing with Dan Smith and Gordon Novel for the past 15 odd years.

By the way...we finally do understand why he's been doing that for the past 15+ years. Came to that realization around about the same time we realized what the scam was.

-Ry

[murnut]

By the way...we finally do understand why he's been doing that for the past 15+ years. Came to that realization around about the same time we realized what the scam was.

How much longer?

My wife misses me

[caryn]

Yes...you hit it square on the head, Ry :-)

[Gary]

The second source would risk high-value government contracts and clearances if he was to provide false information to the first source; unless authorized to do so on an official level.

That is not at all true. Please elaborate on why there would be any such risk for him to exaggerate/fill-in-the-blanks (or simply forget the accurate details - or mix up two meetings in memory) on matters that are not at all classified - or on matters of which both men have the same level of clearance.
-Ry

This is a complex area; consider the following:

"Violation" means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 25-11.html

(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the infor-mation shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. If it is not clear which agency has classification responsibility for this information, it shall be sent to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. The Director shall determine the agency having primary subject matter interest and forward the information, with appropriate recommendations, to that agency for a classification determination.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or pro-tection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

(h) weapons of mass destruction.

[Access Denied]

Doty cannot be acting alone, otherwise he would be in jail.

Exactly yes....the reason he would be in jail is if the documents he distributes (or sells to people like Firmage through Collins) actually had anything that was classified in them - he would most certainly be in jail. Steve wrote a great blog entry a while back on that topic.

Is he and whoever he works for just trying to kick the door down, or is his mission to cast the bait while others go trolling , fishing for ideas to problems they can't solve, as alluded to by Kit....Uncle is quite clueless.

Great hypothesis... I really like where you're headed with that. Only I would change it to "Is he and whoever he works with". The only org that there's proof/evidence he works for is the New Mexico State Police...and they certainly aren't driving his activities...

I’m not a lawyer but this may be relevant to the discussion…

[emphasis added]

921 False Claims
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_re ... m00921.htm

Title 18, United States Code, section 287--the false claims statute--provides in part:

Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years . . . .

And…

923 18 U.S.C. § 371 -- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_re ... m00923.htm

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

[snip]

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions.

[snip]

In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

e.g…

926 Government Instrumentality
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_re ... m00926.htm

The fraud of wrongful use of a government instrumentality is characterized by the lack of threatened or real pecuniary or proprietary loss, or obstruction of governmental activity. An example of such a scheme might be the use of false United States Internal Revenue Service receipts to defraud private persons of money. Furthermore, the United States has the right to ensure that funds be administered in accordance with law and honesty without corrupt influence or bribery.

Thus, a scheme to defraud the United States can range from directly cheating or swindling money or property from the government to simply using the government in a wrongful fashion with the only injury being to the pride and integrity of the government. The case law demonstrates, moreover, that any injury to the integrity of the government is sufficient.

etc. etc…

See also “impersonating a government official” e.g…

EL PASO WOMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2003 ... las.gp.pdf

United States Attorney Johnny Sutton, Special Agent in Charge Dan Parfitt of the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Special Agent in Charge Enrique Fasci of the Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation and Special Agent in Charge Hardrick Crawford of the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced today the guilty plea of 35-year-old NORMA PATRICIA BANUELAS on charges of conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to claims and conspiracy to falsely assume the identity of an employee of the United States.

Banuelas admitted that between 1997 and 2000, she and others conspired together to defraud the Government by preparing and filing fraudulent and false income tax returns seeking refunds totaling more than $130,000.

[snip]

“Falsely impersonating a Government official undermines the public’s trust and the federal Government’s ability to effectively enforce the laws of this country,” stated United States Attorney Johnny Sutton.

Banuelas remains in custody pending formal sentencing. She faces up to ten years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine on the conspiracy to defraud the government charge and up to five years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine on the impersonating an IRS employee charge.

AD

[murnut]

Just thinking out loud here.

Doty figures heavily in EfD

Half the book maybe?

I personally loved the book.

However, with this person's credibility in question and his contribution to the book so crucial, doesn't it taint the whole book?

So the book is more of a "ways to a means" similar to Serpo.

So Mr. Doty is a hero, or a villain, or both.

Do the ends justify the means?

[Access Denied]

Do the ends justify the means?

Hi murnut, if you’re thinking any of this ACTUALLY has anything to do with aliens from outer space then I would suggest you’re not thinking far enough “outside the box” others would rather you stay in yet.

That’s my $0.02 anyway…

Stay tuned… hopefully Ry and Zep’s report will shed some more light on this once it’s completed.

AD

[murnut]

Every time I fight my way out of one box, I find myself in a bigger box.

[ryguy]

Every time I fight my way out of one box, I find myself in a bigger box.

Cool quote...I like that.

[ryguy]

This is a complex area; consider the following:

"Violation" means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

Gary....with all due respect, we aren't talking about classified information nor is this about unauthorized disclosure of classified information. This is about two guys with certain clearances talking in very general terms about a meeting they attended in reference to polygraph results of a known habitual liar.

They even disagree that it was the same meeting.

Complexity leads to speculation - so maybe if we avoid trying to make the situation fit a preconceived idea (if source #2 is lying then it must be authorized...) we might better be able to extract what's really being discussed - Source #2 can tell Source #1 that Weaver was wearing a purple headband and pink sunglasses at the meeting...there is absolutely no reason why adding inaccurate elements to the story would get Source #2 in trouble. Your examples are in reference to if Source #2 releases details or transcripts of the classified meeting (disclosing the classified data) to someone like you or I - and he would never do that.

So let's consider what adding the details Source #2 adds to this particular story does for Serpo.

The polygraph test allegedly showed that the habitual liar lied...at least as far as a couple of people present at the meeting were concerned. Source #2 comes in and defends his friend, the habitual liar, by claiming the polygraph does not show that the person lied. (Protecting his friend from trouble....sound familiar?)

Now...what's at the heart of our disagreement here? Let's keep it simple and have a look...the quote you extracted - with additional text to provide context and the motivation behind the statement:

Source #2 to Source #1:

I need you to know that Col. Weaver has contacted me and said he is Gene
Loscowski. Her referred in detail to the meeting you and I had with
xxxxx xxxxxxxx about xxxx's polygraph records....where I made a fool of
myself. He quoted what I SAID, WHAT YOU DID, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MEETING TO CONVINCE ME OF WHO HE WAS. He also told me the essence of the SERPO story was true.

Ahh...direct reference to Serpo, yes? So what's the motivation? To imply that "the essence of the Serpo story is true." Why? Because allegedly Gene is Weaver and was able to refer in detail to a classified meeting!!! **shock and awe**

Now...wait. Let's take a better look at what's really going on here.

Source #1 to Source #2:

Concerning your follow-on discussion with Col. xxxxxxxx after I left the
room, was the CIA CI Director still present? He was a close friend of Col.
xxxxxxxxx and leaned on me pretty hard after Col. xxxxxxxxx complained.

XXX

Source #2 replied:

I have a picture of him. It looks like Weaver to me. In the communication
he described where I sat, where xxxxx sat, where you sat, and something
about the polygraph specific questions xxxxx and I discussed. What is on the
net, thus...as it turns out...is not a fabrication but an abbreviation. It
seemed all this time like a fabrication to you because you were not
apparently in the room at the end. We ended the meeting right after the
argument.

[snip]

...The polygraph report was inexplicably unclassified...because it had been done by a non-Agency team/person.

[snip]

That said: 100% of all communications have been by email. I have no actual human contact whatsoever...they didn't show up, ever, for the pre-arranged meetings...not one person: Gene, Paul, Herb, xxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx.

[snip]

I have erased all the emails...every one. However, I suspect there must be a
way to retrieve them from my hard drive or the University Server. if someone
knows how to do that, with proper identification, they are welcome to sit in
my office and get them. The FBI wasn't the least bit interested...but then,
they never are.

Erased the emails... Now why would he erase evidence of contact from the very SOURCE of Serpo materials...evidence that could be used to identify where the information is coming from? Either because the emails do not really exist (never did) ....or.....um.....because they never existed. lol

Here's more context...can you feel the intrigue just draining away? I can. You've known about all of this for how long Gary? And yet you only provide the juicy parts and leave out the parts that pop the bubble of intrigue...why?

Source #1 to Source #2 - emphasis mine...very important, please read and then re-read, and then read again:

xxx,

I was not with you during the meeting you had with xxxxx xxxxxxxx about
xxxx's polygraph records. The meeting you and I participated in included
xxxxx xxxxxxxx, Col. Weaver, and the CIA CI Director and did not involve
any discussion of xxxx's polygraph records. So the quote from Ms. Loscowski regarding what I did and the circumstances of the meeting could not have been correct. More likely the person who claimed to be Ms. Loscowski described what she had read on the Internet concerning the fabricated story that you and I had met with xxxxx xxxxxxxx to discuss xxxx's polygraph records. Therefore the lady who contacted you most likely was not Col. Weaver.

Your expansion of the story of the two DIA employees visiting LANL and being
known to others has me concerned. The names you provided do not correspond to any DIA employees. There are no people with those names that have TS//SCI clearances. If the story of the sources/visitors is true, they are falsely representing themselves as DIA employees, possibly to access
sensitive facilities and acquire classified information for a foreign service.

I am nearly certain that xxxx fabricated this entire story, and that he is
Mr. Anonymous, Ms. Loscowski, and the two DIA sources/visitors. If so, xxxx
may just be having a good time, and we need not be concerned for national
security. If not, there may actually be a network of foreign agents
[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] under the false flag of a
DIA operation. Therefore please be very clear in describing the form of
communications you had with Ms. Loscowski (e.g. phone, e-mail, etc.); how
you acquired the additional background concerning the DIA sources visitors;
and what you know of about the many people who know them.

xxxxxxx

The information about the polygraph meeting was available, in general terms, on the internet already. The scammers only needed to use that story, either to fool Source #2 into thinking he/she was the "real deal"....and/or source #2's elaboration that Gene, through email, knew anything specific about the meeting that he "shouldn't have known" was an exaggeration. Rhetorical Question - Have you ever known Source #2 to exaggerate just a little? lol

I'll share one difference I've noticed between Source #2 and Source #1

#2 will make certain claims, and when asked for real names or emails or any sort of evidence to support those claims, he refuses saying either the emails have been deleted already, they contain private information, or they contain medical data. OR he will say that it is classified.

#1 will make certain claims, and when asked for real names or emails or any sort of evidence to support those claims, he has rarely, if ever, hesitated to provide real names, or supporting emails, or supporting evidence to back his claims. Names provided by this particular source have led to far more progress and real corroboration and the ability to verify than anything Source #2 has ever provided. With Source #2 I find myself spending weeks counting angels on the head of a pin...and being none the wiser for it.

If you're going to leak emails Gary - then leak all relevant parts, not only the parts that support your belief that there were official meetings or emails from fictitious people claiming knowledge of classified information - when in reality you also have other emails discrediting that claim. Quote both, or don't quote any - if you're going to be intellectually honest.

I'm done debating this with you....Steve and I are devoting most of our time to working on this albatross of a Report. Maybe afterwards we'll have less to debate about.

-Ry

[Gary]

This is a complex area; consider the following:

"Violation" means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

Gary....with all due respect, we aren't talking about classified information nor is this about unauthorized disclosure of classified information. This is about two guys with certain clearances talking in very general terms about a meeting they attended in reference to polygraph results of a known habitual liar.

-Ry

Ryan,

The discussion is about the investigation of IMPERSONATION of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT FACILITIES.

Both parties involved discuss the involvement of FBI; you seem to have missed that CLASSIFIED INFORMATION need not be involved.

Suppose the SUBJECT of the polygraph had supplied government officials and consultants with faked information suggesting that a nuclear weapon was about to be detonated in Washington, D.C.

Does the fact that information provided is false mean that no laws have been violated?

For example:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2001

SESSION LAW 2001-470 HOUSE BILL 1468
...

TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THE FALSE REPORTING OF A NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, OR CHEMICAL WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THE PERPETRATION OF A HOAX BY THE USE OF A FALSE NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, OR CHEMICAL WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT MURDER BY MEANS OF A NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, OR CHEMICAL WEAPON IS FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

[Gary]

If you're going to leak emails Gary - then leak all relevant parts, not only the parts that support your belief that there were official meetings or emails from fictitious people claiming knowledge of classified information - when in reality you also have other emails discrediting that claim. Quote both, or don't quote any - if you're going to be intellectually honest.

I'm done debating this with you....Steve and I are devoting most of our time to working on this albatross of a Report. Maybe afterwards we'll have less to debate about.

-Ry

Ryan,

You seem to have neglected to post the messages where source #1 and #2 both discuss FBI involvement, Justice Department and Internal Affairs.

Your quote re: FBI was about the previous meeting involving an interview as part of a clearance review of source #2.

Or perhaps you don't have those messages in your archive?

I wish I had more time that the few minutes a day available to respond properly to the issues you have raised here. Perhaps we can continue this after the holidays?

Gary

[Gary]

Gary....with all due respect, we aren't talking about classified information nor is this about unauthorized disclosure of classified information. This is about two guys with certain clearances talking in very general terms about a meeting they attended in reference to polygraph results of a known habitual liar.

-Ry

BTW I should also add that Source #1 has back peddled on numerous occasions re: information provided by Source #2, later confirming his errors in private emails sent directly to me.

Gary