Major Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP's Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury

Published: Thursday, 25 Oct 2012 | 2:09 PM ETText Size

NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ – Spire Law Group, LLP's national home owners' lawsuit, pending in the venue where the "Banksters" control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) - known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the "Banksters" and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers - now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the "Banksters" located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) - involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver - Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former "communications director" for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the "Banksters" themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

SOMEBODY CROSSED THE RED LINE

Cabal slaves are bound to keep the secrets of the Cabal.

When CNBC Digital Media published the above article, Kevin Krim, the General Manager incurred a debt that had to be paid. Remember that punishment for crossing the red line is to your family, specifically to your descendants, your legacy. That line of descent had to beCUT OFFand it was, 4 hours after publishing. A nanny who was a Monarch slave was already in place as insurance. She was triggered, and as programmed, she went crazy and killedthe kids.

Too bad, so sad…

http://archive.fo/pWXzD

Code Review of Ferguson’s Model

https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

Conclusions.

All papers based on this code should be retracted immediately. Imperial’s modelling efforts should be reset with a new team that isn’t under Professor Ferguson, and which has a commitment to replicable results with published code from day one.

On a personal level, I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people, and the results speak for themselves.

Comments:

The problem is the nature of government and politics. Politics is a systematic way of transferring the consequences of inadequate or even reckless decision-making to others without the consent or often even the knowledge of those others. Politics and science are inherently antithetical. Science is about discovering the truth, no matter how inconvenient or unwelcome it may be to particular interested parties. Politics is about accomplishing the goal of interested parties and hiding any truth that would tend to impede that goal. The problem is not that “government has being doing it wrong;” the problem is that government has been doing it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

After all, only 7 lives depended directly on the Space Shuttle software. The Imperial College program seems likely to have cost many thousands of extra deaths, and to have seriously damaged the economies and societies of scores of countries, affecting possibly billions of lives.

So why should the resources invested in the two efforts have been so vastly different?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is isn’t a piece of poor software for a computer game, it is, apparently, the useless software that has shut down the entire western economy. Not only will it have wasted staggeringly vast sums of money but every day we are hearing of the lives that will be lost as a result.

We are today learning of 1.4 million avoidable deaths from TB but that is nothing compared to the UN’s own forecast of “famine on a biblical scale”. Does one think that the odious, inept, morally bankrupt hypocrite, Ferguson will feel any shame, sorrow or remorse if, heaven forbid, the news in a couple of months time is dominated by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children from starvation in the 3rd World or will his hubris protect him?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Remember that Ferguson has a track record of failure:

in 2002 he predicted 50,000 people would die of BSE. Actual number: 178 (national CJD research and survellance team)

In 2005 he predicted 200 million people would die of avian flu H5N1. Actual number according to the WHO: 78

In 2009 he predicted that swine flu H1N1 would kill 65,000 people. Actual number 457.

In 2020 he predicted 500,000 Britons would die from Covid-19.

Still employed by the government. Maybe 5th time lucky?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Michael Mann pointedly refused to share his modelling code for climate change when he was sued for libel in a Canadian court. Ended up losing that will cost him millions. Now why would an academic rather lose millions of dollars than show their working.

Lets hope this “workings not required” doesn’t get picked up by schoolkids taking their exams 🙂

>>9065293

They Write the Right Stuff

As the 120-ton space shuttle sits surrounded by almost 4 million pounds of rocket fuel, exhaling noxious fumes, visibly impatient to defy gravity, its on-board computers take command.

https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

In 1996 we already knew how to avoid the Imperial College Ferguson problem

As the 120-ton space shuttle sits surrounded by almost 4 million pounds of rocket fuel, exhaling noxious fumes, visibly impatient to defy gravity, its on-board computers take command. Four identical machines, running identical software, pull information from thousands of sensors, make hundreds of milli-second decisions, vote on every decision, check with each other 250 times a second. A fifth computer, with different software, stands by to take control should the other four malfunction.

At T-minus 6.6 seconds, if the pressures, pumps, and temperatures are nominal, the computers give the order to light the shuttle main engines — each of the three engines firing off precisely 160 milliseconds apart, tons of super-cooled liquid fuel pouring into combustion chambers, the ship rocking on its launch pad, held to the ground only by bolts. As the main engines come to one million pounds of thrust, their exhausts tighten into blue diamonds of flame.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program — each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.

This software is the work of 260 women and men based in an anonymous office building across the street from the Johnson Space Center in Clear Lake, Texas, southeast of Houston. They work for the “on-board shuttle group,” a branch of Lockheed Martin Corps space mission systems division, and their prowess is world renowned: the shuttle software group is one of just four outfits in the world to win the coveted Level 5 ranking of the federal governments Software Engineering Institute (SEI) a measure of the sophistication and reliability of the way they do their work. In fact, the SEI based it standards in part from watching the on-board shuttle group do its work.

>>9065293

More Comments

This is scary stuff. I’ve been a professional developer and researcher in the finance sector for 12 years. My background is Physics PhD. I have seen this sort of single file code structure a lot and it is a minefield for bugs. This can be mitigated to some extent by regression tests but it’s only as good as the number of test scenarios that have been written. Randomness cannot just be dismissed like this. It is difficult to nail down non-determinism but it can be done and requires the developer to adopt some standard practices to lock down the computation path. It sounds like the team have lost control of their codebase and have their heads in the sand. I wouldn’t invest money in a fund that was so shoddily run. The fact that the future of the country depends on such code is a scandal

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am also a Software Engineer with over 35 years of experience, so I understand what you are saying as far as 30 year old code, however if the software is not fit for purpose because it is riddled with bugs, then it should not be used for making policy decisions. And frankly I don’t care how old the code is, if it is poorly written and documented, then it should be thrown out and rewritten, otherwise it is useless.

As a side note, I currently work on a code base that is pure C and close to 30 years old. It is properly composed of manageable sized units and reasonably organized. It also has up to date function specifications and decent regression tests. When this was written, these were probably cutting-edge ideas, but clearly wasn’t unknown. Since then we’ve upgraded to using current tech compilers, source code repositories, and critical peer review of all changes.

So there really is no excuse for using software models that are so deficient. The problem is these academics are ignorant of professional standards in software development and frankly don’t care. I’ve worked with a few over the course of my career and that has been my experience every time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The fact it wasn’t refactored in 30 years is a sin plain and simple.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I was coding on a large multi-language and multi-machine project 40 years ago. This was before Jsckson Structured Programming, but we were still required to document, to modularise, and to perform regression testing as well as test for new functionality. These were not new ideas when this model was originally created.

The point of key importance is that code must be useful to the user. This is normally ensured by managers providing feedback from the business and specifying user requirements in better detail as the product develops. And this stage was, of course , missing here.

Instead we had the politicians deferring to the ‘scientists’, who were trying out a predictive model untested against real life. That seems to have worked out about as well as if you had sacked the sales team of a company and let the IT manager run sales simulations on his own according to a theory which had been developed by his mates…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I would not be surprised at a large number of initial deaths with a new disease when the medical staff have no protocol for dealing with it. In fact, I understand that their treatment was sub-optimal and could have made things worse.

When we have a treatment for it we will see how dangerous it is compared to flu. Which can certainly kill you if not treated properly…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Peak deaths in NHS hospitals in England were 874 on 08/04. A week earlier, on 01/04, there were 607 deaths. Crude Rt = 874/607 = 1.4. On average, a patient dying on 08/04 would have been infected c. 17 days earlier on 22/03. So, by 22/03 (before the full lockdown), Rt was (only) approx 1.4.

Ok, so that doesn’t tell us too much, but if we repeat the calculation and go back a further week to 15/03, Rt was approx 2.3. Another week back to 08/03 and it was approximately 4.0.

Propagating forward a week from 22/03, Rt then fell to 0.8 on 29/03

So you can see that Rt fell from 4.0 to 1.4 over the two weeks preceding the full lockdown and then from 1.4 to 0.8 over the following week, pretty much following the same trend regardless.

So, using the data we can see that we could have predicted the peak before the lockdown occurred, simply using the trend of Rt.

In my hypothesis, this was a consequence of limited social distancing (but not full lockdown) and the virus beginning to burn itself out naturally, with very large numbers of asymptomatic infections and a degree of prior immunity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>9065293

Some more comments:

It seems to me that most of your comments are excuses for practices that were poor at the time, let alone now. Most of them simply reinforce the view that the code should have been ditched and rewritten top to bottom years ago as being no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was. Opportunities or signals to do so: move from single to multi-thread machines; publication of new/revised libraries with different flavours; discovery of absence of comments (!); discovery that same input does not yield same output (when it’s intended to); etc

Incidentally, “… [no] reason to think these bugs existed in the original code or that they were material.” which is precisely why we need to see the actual code that produced the key reports leading to the trashing of our economy and the lockdown with its consequential deaths.

Personally, I don’t think programmers necessarily criticise old code so long as it does what it claims to do. They may not like or understand the style but they can accept that it works. But here’s the thing: if it doesn’t do what it claims, then the gloves are off and they will come gunning not only for the errors but the evident development mistakes that led to and compounded them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ferguson said his code was written 13 years ago, not 30. Even so, 30 years ago undocumented code was still bad practice even if that’s how some programmers worked. Unless Ferguson can provide evidence that his original code underwent stringent testing then there’s little reason to trust it. But if it was tested properly the question still remains whether the model it implements is a reliable reflection of what would happen in reality.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sorry, but this is an absurd criticism. We have all seen old legacy code that needs refactoring and modernization. Anything that is mission critical for a business, in medicine, in aviation, etc., will often have far more testing and scrutiny applied to it than the actual act of writing the code because either huge amounts of money are at stake, or even more importantly, lives are at stake. For this kind of modeling to be taken seriously, a serious effort should have been made to EARN credibility.

There is simply no excuse for Ferguson, his team, and Imperial College for peddling such garbage. I COMPLETELY agree with the author here that “all academic epidemiology be defunded.” There are far superior organizations that can do this work. And even better, those organizations will generate predictions that will be questioned by others because they are not hiding behind the faux credibility of academia.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

While we can debate the reviewer’s understanding of stochasticity used in this model, there doesn’t appear to be much debate about the quality of program/model itself. Put another way, it does not matter if the correct ideas were used in the attempt to create a model if the execution was so poor that the results cannot be trusted.

As an academic, I would expect you to be appalled that the program wasn’t peer reviewed. I can only hope that your omission here does not represent a tacit understanding that such practice is customary. But I suspect such hope is misplaced.

All of the modern standards (modularization, documentation, code review, modularization, unit and regression testing, etc.) are standards because they are necessary to create a trustworthy and reliable program. This is standard practice in the private sector because when their programs don’t work, the business fails. Another difference here is that when that business fails, the program either dies with it or is reconstituted in a corrected form by another business. In an academic setting, it’s far more likely that the failure will be blamed on insufficient funding, or that more research is required, or some other excuse that escapes blame being correctly applied.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 years ago I was developing the Mach operating system (the thing that runs Apple computers today). Written in ‘C” I can assure you that it was multi-threaded, modularized, structured and documented. Multi-cpu computers were already commonplace if not on the desktop. Dining philosophers dates from 1965 and every computer scientist should have come across that at university for the last 50 years. Multithreading has been available to coders since at least the days of Java (1995) if not before (it doesn’t require a cpu with more than 1 core just language and/or OS support).

>>9065293

Here is a proof that E. really is someone high up in the Trump Administration with Q clearance, dropping crumbs. And E. has stated multiple times that he is NOT Q, just a public servant who knows things and has permission to drop some crumbs.

>>9065757

The end game is underway…