Peace, Safety, and Security

The pacified population accepts it readily enough believing that a world government establishing world peace and preventing a nuclear holocaust could not be considered evil.

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:3

The Price of Security
In a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, David Rockefeller said, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order."

By the time George W. Bush came into power, the next incremental step necessary to accomplish the global transformation Rockefeller referred to was to convice the American people that it was necessary they abandon the freedoms they were accustomed to in exchange for security.

To accomplish this goal, Bush needed the right major crisis, or what the Project for the New American Century called, "a new Pearl Harbor."

Thanks to a group of CIA funded and trained operatives, Mr. Bush got his New Pearl Harbor ushering in a period of de facto martial law where the American Constitution was shredded and Americans were told resistance was futile. Before leaving office, the Bush Administration introduced another major crisis when the central banks of the world looted the national treasuries of their assets and left a legacy of slavery to debt for generations not yet born.

a ceramic figurine in the backseat

a ceramic figurine in the backseat

Join the Army. Become an Unpaid Lab Rat

(May 23, 2009) Their stories are a staple of conspiracy culture: broken men, suffering hallucinations and near-total amnesia, who say they are victims of secret government mind-control experiments.

Think Liev Schreiber in The Manchurian Candidate or Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.

Journalists are a favorite target for the paranoid delusions of this population. So is Gordon Erspamer—and the San Francisco lawyer's latest case isn't helping him to fend off the tinfoil-hat crowd. He has filed suit against the CIA and the US Army on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans of America and six former American soldiers who claim they are the real thing: survivors of classified government tests conducted at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland between 1950 and 1975.

"I get a lot of calls," he says. "There are a lot of crazy people out there who think that somebody from Mars is controlling their behavior via radio waves." But when it comes to Edgewood, "I'm finding that more and more of those stories are true!"

That government scientists conducted human experiments at Edgewood is not in question.
"The program involved testing of nerve agents, nerve agent antidotes, psychochemicals, and irritants," according to a 1994 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report (PDF).

At least 7,800 US servicemen served "as laboratory rats or guinea pigs" at Edgewood, alleges Erspamer's complaint, filed in January in a federal district court in California. The Department of Veterans Affairs has reported that military scientists tested hundreds of chemical and biological substances on them, including VX, tabun, soman, sarin, cyanide, LSD, PCP, and World War I-era blister agents like phosgene and mustard.

The full scope of the tests, however, may never be known. As a CIA official explained to the GAO, referring to the agency's infamous MKULTRA mind-control experiments, "The names of those involved in the tests are not available because names were not recorded or the records were subsequently destroyed."

Besides, said the official, some of the tests involving LSD and other psychochemical drugs "were administered to an undetermined number of people without their knowledge."

Erspamer's plaintiffs claim that, although they volunteered for the Edgewood program, they were never adequately informed of the potential risks and continue to suffer debilitating health effects as a result of the experiments. They hope to force the CIA and the Army to admit wrongdoing, inform them of the specific substances they were exposed to, and provide access to subsidized health care to treat their Edgewood-related ailments. Despite what they describe as decades of suffering resulting from their Edgewood experiences, the former soldiers are not seeking monetary damages; a 1950 Supreme Court decision, the Feres case, precludes military personnel from suing the federal government for personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The CIA's decision to use military personnel as test subjects followed the court's decision and is an issue Erspamer plans to raise at trial. "Suddenly, they stopped using civilian subjects and said, 'Oh, we can get these military guys for free,'" he says. "The government could do whatever it wanted to them without liability. We want to bring that to the attention of the public, because I don't think most people understand that." (Asked about Erspamer's suit, CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf would say only that the agency's human testing program has "been thoroughly investigated, and the CIA fully cooperated with each of the investigations.")

Erspamer's involvement in the case is deeply personal. His father was a government scientist during Operation Crossroads, a series of nuclear tests conducted at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific in the summer of 1946; he was present aboard a research vessel for the "Baker" test, during which a 21-kiloton thermonuclear bomb was detonated 90 feet below water. The blast resulted in massive radioactive contamination. Erspamer's father and the rest of the ship's crew, he says, all died in middle age from radiogenic diseases. Erspamer makes his living in the field of energy litigation, but has twice before argued class action suitsfor veterans—one for soldiers who, like his father, were exposed to radiation during nuclear tests (a case he ultimately lost in a 1992 appellate decision) and more recently one on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans denied treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. The case is on appeal in California's 9th Circuit. "Nobody out there is doing these types of cases," he says. "It's really sad because the veterans are left holding the bag, and it's not a very pretty bag."

One of those vets is Frank Rochelle. Unlike those of other test veterans, portions of his heavily redacted medical recordshave survived, providing a rare, if incomplete, account of his experiences. In 1968, while posted at Virginia's Fort Lee as a 20-year-old Army draftee, he saw a notice calling for volunteers for the Edgewood program. Among the promised incentives were relief from guard duty, the freedom to wear civilian clothes, three-day weekends, and, upon completion, a medal of commendation—all for participation in experiments that, according to the notice, would help the military test a new generation of equipment, clothing, and gas masks. Upon his arrival at the testing facility in Maryland, he says he was asked to sign a series of documents, including a release form and a secrecy agreement. The tests would be risk free, he says he was told, and any drugs given would not exceed normal dosage. Over the next two months, however, he was subjected to three rounds of experiments that, Rochelle says, left him permanently damaged. His medical recordsindicate that he was exposed to nonlethal incapacitating agents like DHMP and glycolate, both of which act as sedatives that produce hallucinations. In the latter case, Rochelle says he was taken into a gas chamber and strapped to a chair by two men in white lab coats, who affixed a mask to his face and told him to breathe normally. He quickly lost consciousness. According to Erspamer's complaint, "Over the next two to three days, Frank was hallucinating and high: he thought he was three feet tall, saw animals on the walls, thought he was being pursued by a 6-foot-tall white rabbit, heard people calling his name, thought that all his freckles were bugs under his skin, and used a razor to try to cut these bugs out. No one from the clinical staff intervened on his behalf…"

Medical records indicate that Rochelle went through a third round of testing, but he has no memory of it. For years he's been having nightmares about the Edgewood tests and now suffers from anxiety, memory loss, sleep apnea, tinnitus, and loss of vision, all of which he claims are direct results of the experiments. Still, he didn't inform his doctor of the tests until 2006, believing that he was still bound by the oath of secrecy he swore in 1968. (The government finally released human test subjects to speak to their physicians about the tests in June 2006, under the condition that they not "discuss anything that relates to operational information that might reveal chemical or biological warfare vulnerabilities or capabilities.")

Rochelle's story is similar to those of Erspamer's other plaintiffs, all of whom claim to be suffering debilitating health effects stemming from the experiments. Of course, substantiating these claims is a challenge, given that most of the medical records were destroyed upon completion of the program. Rochelle's records remain intact, but for "others we have less information," says Erspamer. "We spent a great deal of time on that topic, and we are confident that the plaintiffs are who they say they are, were where they said they were, and got what they said they got," in terms of exposure to experimental chemicals. "Who bears the burden on that issue when the defendants destroyed the evidence?" Erspamer asks. "They've put all that stuff through the shredder."

Compensation for injuries sustained during human testing of chemical and biological agents is not unprecedented. Last year, more than 350 servicemen who served as test subjects at Porton Down, a secret military research facility where the British government conducted its own series of mind-control experiments, were granted nearly $6 million in compensation in an out-of-court settlement with the UK's Ministry of Defence. Likewise, in 2004, the Canadian government began offering $18,000 payments to eligible veterans of experiments at its testing facilities. Nevertheless, says Erspamer, "No American soldiers have ever been compensated." The CIA and the Army "just hope they're all gonna die off, and they will unless somebody does something."


ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.alternet.org/story/140206

Riconosciuto Warns of Missile Attacks

I am just an artist, yet I have found myself handling information which may be crucial to the survival of all of us.

I have received documents dated from February which prove that attempts were made to alert authorities to terrorist attacks. This is an extremely urgent matter. Authorities have bungled the handling of this, now it is up to the people to do something. There are 37 Russian made missiles which have found a way into the US via Canada. I have posted copies of letters at http://mindgallery.com/hiddenroom/wizard.

The man who gave me this information was involved in negotiations with the Mujahadeen on behalf of the US government in the early 1980s. He was encouraged to make his own contacts and has maintained those contacts through the years. He has informants well positioned within the terrorist cells. So why won't the government listen to him?

Michael Riconosciuto is a brilliant genius, off the scale! He is well-known in certain government circles for his involvement in the installation of a back door into a software program called Promis.
The US Justice Department had obtained a copy of Promis illegally and the resulting lawsuit from Inslaw, the proprietor, created a huge scandal which continues to surface as the years go by.

Recently, FOX News reported that Osama Bin Laden has the Promis software. This means he can move funds and keep track of his enemies without being hindered.

Michael Riconosciuto was asked by Bill Hamilton, the proprietor of Promis, to sign an affidavit about his alterations to the software. A week before he signed, Michael was threatened. There had already been deaths around him and Michael informed his family (which happens to be my family) that he was about to be murdered or jailed and that whatever the family was going to be told about him, it wasn't true, he was being framed for telling the truth.

A week after signing the affidavit, Michael ended up in jail on charges of running a drug lab. As a scientist, Michael was working on some amazing new mining technology for which there is a paper trail. We have a photo of the lab which was taken shortly before the raid - the mining equipment intact. This equipment was subsequently destroyed by the DEA.

Michael never got a fair trial. Two of his lawyers have been murdered, as well as friends and journalist Danny Casolaro. Because the US government doesn't want to admit anything about Promis, Michael has been relegated as a nut case and serious efforts to isolate him have been ongoing for more than ten years. It is very difficult for his family to communicate with him because his letters are intercepted and don't get through.

As the years go by, more and more evidence is brought to light, Canada has investigated their own breach of national security because of Promis and it is obvious that Promis is not an imaginary problem.

A genius like Michael's cannot be contained by prison bars. His friends have been working to bring some of his amazing technology to light... including new breakthroughs in energy and communication.

Michael may never live to see his wonders put into action. He has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and many delays in diagnosis and treatment have occurred. Prostate cancer is treatable with a high rate of success, but we cannot delay. We are now being told that it will be up to three months before a surgical bed is available.

Considering his contacts in the Mujahadeen and the immediate terrorist missile threat, it is an urgent matter of global security that Michael be treated in a secure facility at once. The safest place for him to be treated is the Federal Medical Clinic in Rochester, MN.

Please help! By contacting the Bureau of Prisons Health Center at 202-307-3055, you can express your concerns for Michael's well being and the immediate need to treat him. Also, by contacting his congressman, Brian Baird, at 360-352-9768 and telling his office of the urgent need to treat Michael, people would be able to pressure him into action. Congressman Baird is one of the people who received letters from Michael warning of the imminent attacks.

I am an artist, a musician, and I also host an internet radio program. My husband is the keyboard player for Mind Gallery, he and Michael are cousins. If you wish to know more about us, please check our web pages below. I have attempted to make waves through proper channels and have met with little success. I am asking you to take the time to make a phone call or, if nothing else, please pass this message along. All of our lives may depend upon how quickly we act!

I am sitting on far more information that I can publish. I don't want to endanger informants or compromise any chance of stopping the next wave of attacks. I wish to hand it over to the proper authorities but I am starting to think maybe they just want a war. The RCMP seemed to take it very seriously when I called but they still have not come to my home to actually investigate. They, along with the FBI and CIA were warned prior to the September 11 attacks.

I have written a song dedicated to the effort to free Michael. What else can an artist do? Please help us. The song is posted at http://mindgallery.com/hidde nroom/anita.html

Sincerely,

Anita Langley
http://mindgallery.com/hiddenroom/wizard
www.blackopradio.com
http://mindgallery.com

Michael Riconosciuto
Warns of Missile Attacks
From Anita Langley

CFR Shill Walter Isaacson Names Media 'Enemies'

On September 29, 2010, CFR Shill Walter Isaacson, who is also the head of the notorious AspenInstitute, CNN News Group CEO & Chairman of the Board, as well as Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the organization overseeing U.S. media directed at foreign audiences, says his organization needs to fight its "enemies."

Among those are Iran's Press TV, China's CCTV and RT.

Political commentator Peter Lavelle says the chairman's statement puts him beyond real journalism.

"You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's Telesur, and of course, China is launching an international broadcasting 24 hour news channel with correspondents around the world," Isaacson said.

According to Russia Today, the budgets of RT, Telesur and Press TV combined do not match the BBG's Congressional-funded annual $757 million operating budget.

Julian Robertson Refuses Mental Exam

Julian Robertson, who managed his Tiger hedge fund from $23 billion down to $6 billion in 2000, has refused court ordered discovery for a mental exam regarding his frivolous lawsuit against Al Martin Raw.com, Conspiracy Planet.com et al.

His attorney Richard Marooney of King & Spalding has responded by stonewalling the request for "All documents authenticating Julian Robertson's most recent medical/physical exam records, as well as mental health exam (mental component) certifying his ability to understand the lawsuit undertaken against defendants, as well as a list of all prescribed medications attributable to plaintiff during the last 3 years".

Marooney writes "In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designedto harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claimor defense of any party."

Defendants maintain that the mental status of 73-year old Julian "We Are in a Market I Don't Understand" Robertson is not irrelevant.
It should be noted that the Wall Street Journal wrote that "[Robertson's] friends and colleagues had been kidding him: 'What kind of medication are you on?'"

Robertson's non-response is telling.

The complete text of the non-response (with no signature by plaintiff Julian Robertons) follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,


-against-
Index No. 05CV7046(LAP)

JOHN DOE a/k/a AL MARTIN,
URIDOWBENKO,
CONSPIRACY DIGEST L.L.C. and NATIONAL
LIBERTY PRESS L.L.C.,
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR. TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 33.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr. hereby objects and responds to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories dated April 24, 2006 (the "Interrogatories") as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that Defendants continue to disregard the Court's Orders compelling them to respond to Plaintiff's document requests and interrogatories served on October 14, 2005. It is highly inappropriate for Defendants to serve their own discovery in light of their willful refusal to respond to Plaintiff's discovery that has been outstanding for over seven months.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to be propounded on behalf of all defendants instead of only Mr. Downbenko. Defendant Al Martin has defaulted
and no one has appeared in this action on his behalf. Defendants Conspiracy Digest L.L.C. and National Liberty Press L.L.C. may only appear in this action through counsel, and no counsel has appeared on their behalf. Thus, the Interrogatories may only be propounded on behalf of individual defendant Uri Dowbenko.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are designed to harass Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require plaintiff to disclose any information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require the disclosure of information not in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Plaintiff to disclose any information that is confidential trade, business or personal data, or other nonpublic, confidential or proprietary information.
8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek cumulative or duplicative information.
9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose obligations greater than those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
10. Plaintiff's responses to the Interrogatories are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, all objections as to the relevance, materiality and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses, or the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules and all applicable laws. Plaintiffs responses to the Interrogatories are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, Plaintiff's right to rely upon other facts, witnesses and documents at any trial or pre-trial proceeding in this action.
11. The objections and responses set forth below are based upon information now available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement or clarify the objections or responses set forth herein.
12. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing objections into each and every response and/or objection, and into each and every amendment, supplement or modification to these responses hereinafter provided. Plaintiff does not intend to waive any general objection response to any specific interrogatory propounded.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
13. Plaintiff objects to the "Definitions and Instructions" section of the Interrogatories to the extent that any definition is beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
14. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 3 in the "Instructions" section as overbroad to the extent that it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this lawsuit.

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1

How and when did plaintiff Julian Robertson become aware of the subscriber-only satirical column written by Al Martin and published on Al Martin Raw.com subscriber-only website on May 30, 2005? Who or what was the source for plaintiff's receipt of Al Martin's column parodying plaintiff's CNBC interview with Ron Insana?

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it grossly mischaracterizes the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit (the "Article"). As is plain from the face of the Article, the Article was neither "satirical" nor a "parody." Nor was access to the Article limited only to subscribers of www.almartinraw.com. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds that the Article and/or the content of the Article was republished by dozens of websites immediately following the publication of the Article by Defendants on www.almartinraw.com and www.conspiracyplanet.com. The content of the Article and the Article itself was rapidly and widely disseminated through the New York financial community via electronic and verbal communications. The Article was brought to the attention of Plaintiff and/or his representatives by multiple sources in the New York financial services community shortly after the initial publication of the Article by defendants.

Interrogatory No. 2
How many lawsuits has plaintiff Julian Robertson filed against other publications for alleged "defamation" and/or other reasons? Please state case number and court order and/ or resolutions of case(s).

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 3
Regarding the years 2000-2005, what sources of income did plaintiff Julian Robertson have and where were they derived from?

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 4
Please identify the investors of Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Asset Management, Julian Robertson and any other companies controlled by plaintiff, and state the amount of revenue or income received by plaintiff from such investments. Also please include the time when investors entered into plaintiff's investment program and when the investors left the program.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 5
Please identify the total revenues and income derived by plaintiff from Tiger Management and Morgan Creek Management, as well as his business in New Zealand, but not limited to wineries, golf courses, real estate development as well as other investments, showing income allegedly lost due to Al Martin's column of May 30, 2005.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 6
Over the past 2 years, how much time has plaintiff devoted to financial management and how much time was devoted to other endeavors?

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 7
Please list all real properties owned by plaintiff Julian Robertson, singularly and by entirety (wife and children) inside and outside of the United States, as well as all real properties held in trust by plaintiff as donor, grantor, trustee and/ or beneficiary.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 8
Please list plaintiff's fee management structure with Tiger Management and Morgan Creek Management, and any and all fee structure changes for plaintiff's management of Tiger, Morgan Creek, et al., including the dates of the changes.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.

Interrogatory No. 9
With respect to each and every one of the foregoing Interrogatories and the subparts thereof, please:
(a) identify each person from whom information was obtained to answer each Interrogatory;
(b) identify each person(s) who gathered the information used in preparing your answer to these Interrogatories;
(c) identify the person who prepared and/or participated in the preparation of the answer to each Interrogatory;
(d) identify the person(s) having responsibility for verifying the accuracy of your answers to these Interrogatories;
(e) identify the documents and records consulted to obtain such information; and
(f) where no information or only partial information is given in such an answer, a description of the efforts made to locate information needed for such an answer.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party, and calls for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.

Dated: New York, New York May 30, 2006

KING & SPALDING LLP
By:.
Richard T. Marooney 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr.




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR.,

Plaintiff


-against-
Index No. 05CV7046(LAP)

JOHN DOE a/k/a AL MARTIN,
URIDOWBENKO,
CONSPIRACY DIGEST L.L.C. and NATIONAL
LIBERTY PRESS L.L.C.,
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR. TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr. hereby objects and responds to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and Things dated April 24, 2006 (the "Document Request") as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
The following General Objections and Responses apply to each individual Request in the Document Request, whether or not such Objections and Responses are repeated below in response to each individual Request.

1. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request on the grounds that Defendants continue to disregard the Court's Order compelling them to respond to Plaintiff's document requests and interrogatories served on October 14, 2005. It is highly inappropriate for Defendants to serve their own discovery in light of their willful refusal to respond to Plaintiff's discovery that has been outstanding for over seven months.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to be propounded on behalf of all defendants instead of only Mr. Downbenko. Defendant Al Martin has defaulted and no one has appeared in this action on his behalf. Defendants Conspiracy Digest L.L.C. and National Liberty Press L.L.C. may only appear in this action through counsel, and no counsel has appeared on their behalf. Thus, the Interrogatories may only be propounded on behalf of individual defendant Uri Dowbenko.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Document Requests to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or not relevant to the claim and defense of any party.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it is designed to harass Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it purports to call for the production of documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity. In the event that material subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity is produced inadvertently, such inadvertent production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, law, rule or immunity with respect to such document (or the contents thereof) and such documents shall be returned promptly to Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that the Document Request, and the Definitions and Instructions contained therein, purport to impose obligations greater than those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential trade, business or personal data, or other nonpublic, confidential or proprietary information.
8. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it contains individual Requests that are cumulative or duplicative of other Requests, or seeks information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive.
9. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it calls for the production of publicly available information on the ground that compliance would be unduly burdensome and that Defendants have no reason for requiring Plaintiff to assume the burden of producing such documents.
10. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks the production of multiple identical copies of the same document.
11. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents that are not in the custody, possession, or control of Plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff's responses to the Document Request are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, all objections as to the competence, relevance, materiality and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the documents, or the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation.
13. A response or objection to an individual Request does not necessarily mean that any documents exist or are in the possession of Plaintiff that are responsive to that specific individual Request.
14. The objections and responses set forth below are based upon information now available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement or clarify the objections or responses set forth herein.
15. Plaintiff incorporates the forgoing objections into each and every response and/or objection to requests, and into each and every amendment, supplement or modification to these responses hereinafter provided to Plaintiff's specific requests. Plaintiff does not intend to waive any general objection response to any specific request propounded.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
16. Plaintiff objects to the "Definitions and Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that any definition is beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
17. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 1 of the "Definitions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to include any entities that are not parties to this action and not within the control or agency of the Plaintiff.
18. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 3 of the "Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to request documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
19. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 9 of the "Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to request documents outside of the relevant time frame for this litigation.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Request No. 1
All documents sufficient to show affirmative proof of residency, citizenship and other information asserting the true residence of Julian H. Robertson including, but not limited to, documents reflecting Julian Robertson's birth certificate, home address, place of employment, bank accounts, ownership of real property and social security number, as well as certified photocopies of driver's license(s) and all pages of last issued passport(s), voter registration card, tax returns from any and all countries wherein he pays taxes, including applicable employment forms and documents authenticating plaintiff's residence.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.

Request No. 2
All documents showing real estate property taxes from 2000 till present in the United States and New Zealand.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.

Request No. 3
All documents authenticating Julian Robertson's most recent medical/ physical exam records, as well as mental health exam (mental component) certifying his ability to understand the lawsuit undertaken against defendants, as well as a list of all prescribed medications attributable to plaintiff during the last 3 years.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.

Request No. 4
All email and other correspondence between Julian Robertson and his investors in which they ridiculed him or threatened to pull their investments out of his investment scheme(s) and hedge funds because of Al Martin's satirical column, as well as a list of all investors who removed their investments from Robertson's management due to the Al Martin parody interview column of May 30, 2005, in which said investors reference Al Martin's column as a reason for removing their investments from Robertson's management.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 4 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, grossly mischaracterizes the May 30, 2005 article as a "satirical column" when, in fact, it was not, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection,
Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiff's damages.

Request No. 5
All pay stubs, IRS 1099 forms for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and other documents relating to subscribers and/or investors to Julian Robertson's hedge funds and other investments managed by Julian Robertson, to show decrease in income due to Al Martin's satirical column of May 30, 2005.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 5 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiffs damages.

Request No. 6
All corporate filings, including annual reports, articles of incorporation, secretary of state filings financial statements and financial information relating to Julian Robertson, Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Management and any other companies that plaintiff controlled, including, but not limited to, documents reflecting the revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, and capital structure of the plaintiff, as well as other investment corporations plaintiff has a position of director, corporate officer, senior management and or advisor in companies inside and/or outside of the United States.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 6 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.

Request No. 7
Subscription and/or customer lists showing the identities and residences of investors of Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Asset Management and any other companies plaintiff has controlled, who pulled their assets out of Julian Robertson managed asset pools, investment companies and/or hedge funds.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiff's damages.

Request No. 8
Photocopies in your possession of all articles and interviews of and by plaintiff Julian Robertson, as published by newspapers, financial business journals, etc., as well as copies of all speeches, lectures, seminars given by plaintiff.

Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 8 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will produce at the appropriate time during discovery a copy of Plaintiff's interview with Ron Insana that is the subject of the May 30, 2005 defamatory article published by defendants.

Dated: New York, New York May 30, 2006
KING & SPALDING
By:.
Richard T. Marooney 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr.

Aubrey Chernick Funds Conspiracy of Hate Sites

(September 8, 2010) Much has been said about the disproportionate Zionist presence in the world of organized Islamophobia. Now we learn that there is more to that claim than unfounded conspiracy theories.

It turns out the main funder of anti-Muslim blogger/anti-Park51 organizer Robert Spencer and his hate site JihadWatch are husband and wife duo Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, the same couple who are ardent supporters of Zionist causes and major funders of pro-Israel groups across the country.

Aubrey Chernick according to Politico -- "A onetime trustee of the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capitalto start Pajamas Media, a conservativeblog network that made its name partly with hawkish pro-Israel commentary and of late has kept up a steady stream of anti-mosque postings, including one rebutting attacks by CAIR against Spencer - who Pajamas CEO Roger Simon called 'one of the ideological point men in the global war on terror.
Politico lists some of the Zionist propaganda organizations and pro-occupation front organizations that Aubrey and Joyce Chernick have funded over the years:

* The Zionist Organization of America

* MEMRI, a group that distributes translations of inflammatory Arabic language material

* The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), a group that tracks what it depicts as the threat of radical Islam, run by notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson

* CAMERA, a group that tracks what it says is anti-Israel bias in the media and that is associated with Daniel Pipes

* The Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups

* A number of conservative think tanks that are aligned with the Likud.

The Chernicks are also major funders of Jewish groups including: The American Jewish Congress, The Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, and The Anti-Defamation League.

Lauren Rozen goes into more depth as far as the contributions and think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, Defense of Democracies, Central Fund of Israel, etc. (via. Richard Silverstein), including some well-known anti-Muslim and Islamophobic initiatives (in bold below).

Laura Rozen has discovered that Chernick's charity-giving is done through the Fairbrook Foundation ($66-million in assets). According to its 2008 IRS 990 report, among the far-right pro-Israel groups he's funding are:

* Ateret Cohanim ($30,000), involved in the Judaization of East Jerusalem through 'appropriation' of Arab homes

* Muslim-basher Bridgette Gabriel's American Congress for Truth ($50,000)

* Aish HaTorah, funders of the anti-Muslim films Obsessed and Third Jihad ($14,000)

* Anti-Palestinian media advocacy group MEMRI ($100,000)

* American Freedom Alliance, another Muslim-bashing group, founded by Avi Davis, which defends western civilization from the unwashed hordes ($120,000)

* Gary Bauer's American Values ($80,000)

* Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture ($160,000)

* The anti-Arab media advocacy group CAMERA ($25,000)

* The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an Arab-bashing group established by a Pakistani neocon ($160,000)

* Defend the West, yet another Muslim-turncoat group founded by Ibn Warraq ($130,000)

* Hudson Institute ($50,000); Heritage Foundation ($50,000)

* The Jewish neo-con security think tank JINSA ($15,000)

* The anti-Arab media advocacy group Second Draft ($40,000)

* Stand With Us ($20,000); and Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum ($180,000).

* In 2005, Chernick gave $60,000 to the Central Fund of Israel, one of the largest pro-settler 'philanthropic' advocacy groups.

This information is quite disturbing on a number of levels, foremost amongst them being the scant media attention being given to it as opposed to hyped-up stories such as the most recent attempt to sabotage the Park51 project with ten degrees of separation/ guilt-by-association smears against one of the investors in Park51, Hisham El-Zanaty.

The non-news story smears Zanaty by claiming that his one time donation to the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) of $6,050 in 1999 indicts him as a terror supporter. HLF was accused of giving aid to Hamas in the guise of charitable work.

So Zanaty was supposed to have foreknowledge about the HLF that even the US government didn't have?

Is it reasonable then to assume that everyone who gave money to the HLF in 1999 knew that the HLF was giving money to Hamas?

This AP news story sums it up quite nicely,

"Many other donors to the foundation gave thinking their donations would fund humanitarian programs.

"Other people and companies who donated money, equipment or services to the foundation the year Elzanaty gave included NBA star Hakeem Olajuwon, the Microsoft Corp., and a medical equipment company owned by General Electric, according to tax records.

"When the foundation's leaders were indicted, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, the case was not 'a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation.'"

Even the Attorney General under George Bush, the one who was instrumental in the implementation of the Patriot Act affirmed what is obvious common sense, the case was not "a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation."

However, for some reason this non-story about Zanaty eclipses the very real story about the implications surrounding the funding of leading Jewish and Zionist organizations, JihadWatch, and Conservative groups many of which are the chief proponents behind the anti-Mosque drive.

How comfortable do the leaders of the ADL, AJC and others feel about receiving money from a couple who at the same time are the chief funders of an organization and a group of anti-Muslim bigots who are leading the charge in fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment across the United States?

Will they be couragous enough to return the money they have received from the Chernicks and say that they do not want to be tainted by people such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who as we have documented are thoroughly anti-Islam and anti-Muslim?

Will the media drop its willful ignorance and double standards and begin to look into the glaring data out there?



ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/the-connection-between-zionism-and-organized-islamophobia-the-facts/