Vatic Note: This author of this article, is direct and not politically correct, but then truth is like that. It makes us face realities that we would prefer to have go away and disappear forever....so it doesn't disrupt the controlled world we inhabit. I don't see how anyone can watch this video and not feel complete shame for what was done in our name, even though the Rothschilds coordinated all this with the khazar leaders of the western nations, its still the peoples responsibility to disavow any such behavior and to refuse to do what these soldiers were told to do.
This is one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. What bothers me about it, how could we be part of such animal perversion? It was one thing to think that someone Else is doing these things, but to find out it is us, was a real shocker. Then I discovered and posted a blog proving that Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other western leaders were, in fact, KHAZARS and in on the scam of WW II.
What they did after WW II to the German people, deserves a late revisit and nuremberg trials and punishment based on international law. I believe the announcer, who said that they wanted the spiritual decimation of Germany and its people. But also, I personally believe it was to rid the planet of the pure blood RH negatives, which are blonde haired and blue eyed and RH neg blood. Did the powers they have truly create fear in the drago hybrids? It appears so.
Reminds me of the massacred millions of Russians after the Russian revolution, who were in fact, Christians. Why the massive hatred of Christ and his followers??? Was it because he was AB negative? Blonde haired and blue eyed? It should be the khazars that should be paying reparations to Germany instead of the other way around.
This below is so barbaric and inhuman, that is what has lead me to start to believe I maybe right about that. These lizards, are definitely not human. History is being completely rewritten and re-exposed for the barbaric animalistic perversion that it has proved to be and the khazar Zionist bankers are and were a big part of it. Its time to stop it all now. Someone needs to do as Iceland did and take these bankers down internationally, individually in each country.
HELLSTORM! EXPOSING THE REAL GENOCIDE OF NAZI GERMANY
https://icenirising.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/hellstorm-exposing-the-real-genocide-of-nazi-germany/
By Admin, Icenrising, May 3, 2015 (Luke Fraudkowski)
I am Me, Myself, without the State of England, I removed my consent to be governed in 2010, I will not pay income tax, road tax or council tax to fund traitors inside the gates, illegal wars, state sponsored false flags, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, I am white, indigenous to British shores, with celtic blood in my vains and proud.
I am not proud of Britain, England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland in their part in said crimes; historically or contemporarily. However, once the wakening spreads from a ripple to a tsunami, the pathetic little scum from Churchill to the Camerons and MIlibands of today, inclusive of their puppets like Russell Brand et al, will be washed out to see, and be seen by all.
If you’re not outraged, you’re either a psychopath or you’re not paying attention.
Brilliant, Brilliant film by Kyle Hunt at Renegade Broadcasting, truth fears no investigation, only the Jews fear it, tough shit. (VN: khazars....)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMCOKNCwHmQ
The traitors and war criminals of yesterday are no different to the traitors and war criminals of today, they are unequivocally Zionist Jews, (VN: khazars) intent on the genocide of the indigenous peoples of Europe, and the world, to destroy our way of life, our customs, laws and ancestry; get on board and fight, or shut up and step aside.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
StingRay cell phone spying device (US Patent photo)
The new surveillance technology is the
StingRay (also marketed as Triggerfish, IMSI Catcher, Cell-site
Simulator or Digital Analyzer), a sophisticated, portable spy device
able to track cell phone signals inside vehicles, homes and insulated
buildings. StingRay trackers act as fake cell towers, allowing police
investigators to pinpoint location of a targeted wireless mobile by
sucking up phone data such as text messages, emails and cell-site
information.
Although manufactured by a Germany and Britain-based firm, the StingRay devices are sold in the US by the Harris Corporation, an international telecommunications equipment company. It gets between $60,000 and $175,000 for each Stingray it sells to US law enforcement agencies.
[While the US courts are only beginning to grapple with StingRay, the high tech cat-and-mouse game between cops and criminals continues afoot. Foreign hackers reportedly sell an underground IMSI tracker to counter the Stingray to anyone who asks for $1000. And in December 2011, noted German security expert Karsten Nohl released "Catcher Catcher," powerful software that monitors a network's traffic to seek out the StingRay in use.]
Originally intended for terrorism investigations, the feds and local law enforcement agencies are now using the James Bond-type surveillance to track cell phones in drug war cases across the nation without a warrant. Federal officials say that is fine — responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) and the First Amendment Coalition, the Justice Department argued that no warrant was needed to use StingRay technology.
“If a device is not capturing the contents of a particular dialogue call, the device does not require a warrant, but only a court order under the Pen Register Statute showing the material obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation,” the department wrote.
The FBI claims that it is adhering to lawful standards in using StingRay. “The bureau advises field officers to work closely with the US Attorney’s Office in their districts to comply with legal requirements,” FBI spokesman Chris Allen told the Washington Post last week, but the agency has refused to fully disclose whether or not its agents obtain probable cause warrants to track phones using the controversial device.
And the federal government’s response to the EFF’s FOIA about Stingray wasn’t exactly responsive. While the FOIA request generated over 20,000 records related to StingRay, the Justice Department released only a pair of court orders and a handful of heavily redacted documents that didn’t explain when and how the technology was used.
The LA Weekly reported in January that the StingRay “intended to fight terrorism was used in far more routine Los Angeles Police criminal investigations,” apparently without the courts’ knowledge that it probes the lives of non-suspects living in the same neighborhood with a suspect. (VN: Oh, ho, so that is why they don't want this out there, just another ding in our Right to privacy so they can spy on resisters. Nice. Our forefathers were indeed, geniuses. They knew who we were dealing with even generations before they came along during our time, since these perverts are of the same bloodlines and of course they would do this. )
Critics say the technology wrongfully invades technology and that its uncontrolled use by law enforcement raised constitutional questions. “It is the biggest threat to cell phone privacy you don’t know about,” EFF said in a statement.
ACLU privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian told a Yale Law School Location Tracking and Biometrics Conference panel last month that “the government uses the device either when a target is routinely and quickly changing phones to thwart a wiretap or when police don’t have sufficient cause for a warrant.”
“The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in a legal brief in the first pending federal StingRay case (see below). “By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants, and that’s not how the Constitution works.”
Lye further expressed concern over the StingRay’s ability to interfere with cell phone signals in violation of Federal Communication Act. “We haven’t seen documents suggesting the LAPD or any other agency have sought or obtained FCC authorization,” she wrote.
“If the government shows up in your
neighborhood, essentially every phone is going to check in with the
government,” said the ACLU’s Soghoian.“The government is sending
signals through people’s walls and clothes and capturing information
about innocent people. That’s not much different than using invasive
technology to search every house on a block,” Soghoian said during interviews with reporters covering the StingRay story.
Advocates also raised alarms over another troubling issue: Using the
StingRay allows investigators to bypass the routine process of obtaining
fee-based location data from cell service providers like Sprint,
AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast. Unlike buying location data from
service providers, using StingRay leaves no paper trail for defense
attorneys.Crack defense attorney Stephen Leckar who scored a victory in a landmark Supreme Court decision over the feds’ warrantless use of a GPS tracker in US v. Jones, a cocaine trafficking case where the government tracked Jones’ vehicle for weeks without a warrant, also has concerns.
“Anytime the government refuses to disclose the ambit of its investigatory device, one has to wonder, what’s really happening,” he told the Chronicle. ”If without a warrant the feds use this sophisticated device for entry into people’s homes, accessing private information, they may run afoul of a concurring opinion by Justice Alito, who ruled in US v Jones whether people would view unwarranted monitoring of their home or property as Constitutionally repugnant.”Leckar cited Supreme Court precedent in Katz v. US (privacy) and US v. Kyllo (thermal imaging), where the Supreme Court prohibited searches conducted by police from outside the home to obtain information behind closed doors. Similar legal thinking marked February’s Supreme Court decision in a case where it prohibited the warrantless use of drug dogs to sniff a residence, Florida v. Jardines.
The EFF FOIA lawsuit shed light on how the US government sold StingRay devices to state and local law enforcement agencies for use specifically in drug cases. The Los Angeles and Fort Worth police departments have publicly acknowledged buying the devices, and records show that they are using them for drug investigations.
“Out of 155 cell phone investigations conducted by LAPD between June and September 2012, none of these cases involved terrorism, but primarily involved drugs and other felonies,” said Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment Center.
The StingRay technology is so new and so powerful that it not only raises Fourth Amendment concerns, it also raises questions about whether police and federal agents are withholding information about it from judges to win approval to monitor suspects without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth. At least one federal judge thinks they are.
Magistrate Judge Brian Owsley of the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi told the Yale conference federal prosecutors are using clever techniques to fool judges into allowing use of StingRay. They will draft surveillance requests to appear as Pen Register applications, which don’t need to meet the probable cause standards.
“After receiving a second StingRay request,” Owsley told the panel, “I emailed every magistrate judge in the country telling them about the device. And hardly anyone understood them.”
In a earlier decision related to a Cell-site Simulator, Judge Owsley denied a DEA request to obtain data information to identify where the cell phone belonging to a drug trafficker was located. DEA wanted to use the suspect’s E911 emergency tracking system that is operated by the wireless carrier.
E911 trackers reads signals sent to satellites from a cell phone’s GPS chip or by triangulation of radio transmitted signal. Owsley told the panel that federal agents and US attorneys often apply for a court order to show that any information obtained with a StingRay falls under the Stored Communication Act and the Pen Register statute.
DEA later petitioned Judge Owsley to issue an order allowing the agent to track a known drug dealer with the StingRay. DEA emphasized to Owsley how urgently they needed approval because the dealer had repeatedly changed cell phones while they spied on him. Owsley flatly denied the request, indicating the StingRay was not covered under federal statute and that DEA and prosecutors had failed to disclose what they expected to obtain through the use of the stored data inside the drug dealer’s phone, protected by the Fourth Amendment.
“There was no affidavit attached to demonstrate probable cause as required by law under rule 41 of federal criminal procedures,” Owsley pointed out. The swiping of data off wireless phones is “cell tower dumps on steroids,” Owsley concluded.
But judges in other districts have ruled favorably for the government. A federal magistrate judge in Houston approved DEA request for cell tower data without probable cause. More recently, New York Southern District Federal Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein approved warrantless cell-site data.
“The government did not install the tracking device — and the cell user chose to carry the phone that permitted transmission of its information to a carrier,” Gorenstein held in that opinion. “Therefore no warrant is needed.”
In a related case, US District Court Judge Liam O’Grady of the Northern District of Virginia ruled that the government could obtain data from Twitter accounts of three Wikileakers without a warrant. Because they had turned over their IP addresses when they opened their Twitter accounts, they had no expectation of privacy, he ruled.
“Petitioners knew or should have known that their IP information was subject to examination by Twitter, so they had a lessened expectation of privacy in that information, particularly in light of their apparent consent to the Twitter terms of service and privacy policy,” Judge O’Grady wrote.
A federal judge in Arizona is now set to render a decision in the nation’s first StingRay case. After a hearing last week, the court in US v. Rigmaiden is expected to issue a ruling that could set privacy limits on how law enforcement uses the new technology. Just as the issue of GPS tracking technology eventually ended up before the Supreme Court, this latest iteration of the ongoing balancing act between enabling law enforcement to do its job and protecting the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of citizens could well be headed there, too.