« "Dear Hearts Across the Seas" by W. Patrick Lang | Main | Comments on Official Response by OPCW to the Engineering Assessment on Douma »

28 May 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Habakkuk


The ‘Zero Hedge’ link to the complaint still allows one to read it, if one scrolls through the document. However, attempting to download it, I found a notice explaining ‘This document has been removed from Scribd.’

It seems that Lokhova has not posted it on her blog, which is however very well worth a visit – see https://www.russiagate.co.uk.

If anyone can find a link to a downloadable copy, that would help, as this whole history is clearly central to the conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and the document clearly will repay close study.

The fellows of Pembroke College Cambridge, who elected Sir Richard Dearlove Master in August 2004, thus providing a base from which he could use Cambridge to continue corrupting the British – and it now seems American – intelligence and law enforcement apparatuses, have a great deal to answer for.


What are the implications in practical terms of Trump's declassification order authorizing AG Barr unfettered access to all the intelligence documents and communications?

Will DNI Coats attempt to obstruct and obfuscate? Will Barr really investigate and allow sunshine on this sordid episode?

The Beaver

Mr Habakkuk


Barbara Ann

A searchable copy of the complaint is here. I wish her luck.




A million dollars over six years. Finally an Obama stimulus package that worked. To hell with auditing the FED, let's audit the DOD and FBI spying over the past decade.
BTW the link changed.

blue peacock

All good questions, Jack.

My own view is that the law enforcement & intelligence institutions are just not capable of investigating themselves. There are too many institutional prerogatives, malfeasance, corruption and even criminality that many up & down these organizations will feel a necessity to protect.

I will be pleasantly surprised if Barr, Durham, Huber, Horowitz actually get to the bottom of this wide ranging conspiracy & indict and prosecute anyone. And I'll also be very surprised if any of these documents & communications actually get unredacted and published for the public to review.

Of course the Democrats & the media will make this all about Trump going after the patriots doing their jobs.



I see this as a criminal case before it is a civil case. The penalties under the Fraud Act 2006, which came into force on 15 January, 2007, introduce a new general offense of fraud in section 1, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. I have what I assume is a reckless idea that it ought to have been turned over to the Serious Fraud office of the Metropolitan Police by now. That would have gotten the show on the road. There are surely legal reasons why this has not yet happened, but I would like to know what they are...

The way British law has changed regarding fraud under the new act is this: Success in the deception is irrelevant to guilt. Under the old rules of the game, the defendant had actually to get something, to obtain something, achieve something, as a result of what he or she did--which would have to have been proven to have been perpetuating , promulgating, representing something that was dishonest, crooked-- the DECEPTION.

Now, no more. Fraud in Britain is now a CONDUCT as opposed to a RESULT crime. Under the old rules the defendant had to gain and the victim had to lose. Lose what? Well, why not control or ownership of property? (But what about reputation; career; career earnings?) Suppose the defendant had it all neatly set up but didn't go through with the fraud. You can prove that. What then?
Probably the only charge a prosecutor could bring would be attempted fraud. This is inchoate crime, and a less decisive corrective to cyber crime in a world where phishing alone takes millions from British citizens.

Now you don't even need a victim. The issue is did the defendant "dishonestly make a representation which he knows or suspects may be untrue or misleading with the intention to cause a loss to another or a gain to himself (or another.)"

How do you make a "representation"? Well, one way a representation can be made is, to put it simply, "electronic." That's not how the lawyers put it. The fraud can be regarded as having been represented, or a representation having been made (I think real lawyers are more succinct than this but I am having fun) if the fraud has been er set in motion by any system or device designed to receive, convey, or respond to communications (with or without human intervention.) Hmmmm. That must cover computer phishing programs...

What the new law means is that a person sending by electronic means a padded resume or a thirty year younger photo of him or herself had better watch out. That email could be well within the parameters of Section 2 of the act. Gotta watch them emails.

Halper and his colleagues sent out a lot of emails. I think they could come back to haunt them. The attempt is now the thing.

I have gotten some of my information on this from "The Fraud Act 2006: The E-Crime Prosecutor's champion or the creator of a new inchoate offence?" by Maureen Johnson and Kevin M. Rogers, both lecturers at the University of Hertfordshire, School of Law. Also: "United Kingdom: Fraud Act 2006 Covers False Representation and Phishing." INTA. February 1, 2007. Contributor: Andrew Mills.

One aspect of this case that I find actually a bit angering is how what these guys are doing is directly hostile to the very idea of a university and to the very idea of being a teacher, an instructor, a 'mentor', as they now say, or a prof. It's supposed to be a calling. I've known some very fine teachers and professors. You are supposed to look out for your students, for heaven's sake!
You are supposed to safeguard them and get them to that point where, as at Hollins College graduation, they once sang that poignant old song about the Freshmen. "Where oh where are the pea-green freshmenen?" And ends: "Safe now in the wide-wide world."

This whole thing is evil in a very special way.


There is a great interview with Joe DiGenova about how this may play out today at https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/27/joe-digenova-discusses-declassification-and-origin-of-obama-political-surveillance-operation/

This is well worth listening to! DiGenova is not predicting the outcome, but it sounds like his sources suggest Barr is taking his charge very seriously.

David Habakkuk


If you think you can trust any British law enforcement agency to produce an objective investigation into matters of this kind you are living in lalaland.

What finally did for the late Boris Berezovsky was hubris encouraged by his success in manipulating the British legal system caused him to bring a civil suit against Roman Abramovich, and as a result he was effectively destroyed by Jonathan Sumption and Mrs Justice Gloster.

I see that Steven S. Biss, who filed the suit, has also acted, together with Ty Clevenger, on behalf of Ed Butowsky, as well as acting for Devin Nunes. What we may be seeing is a – sensible – attempt to short circuit the problems of getting law enforcement agencies to do their job, by making maximum use of the civil law.

Diana C

We can hope Barr is serious.

Of course the Democratic noise makers are already labeling Barr as a Republican hack who is prejudiced.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad