“Financial data can tell a person’s story, including one’s “religion, ideology, opinions, and interests” as well as one’s “political leanings, locations, and more,”’ the report begins. This investigation began after a whistleblower who happens to be a retired FBI agent alerted Congress that the Bank of America (BoA) voluntarily provided the Biden Administration information on customers who used a credit or debit card in Washington, D.C., around the January 6 protests. The new report has revealed that federal agencies have been working “hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens.”
As I’ve said countless times, “money laundering” is ALWAYS the excuse for why the government must track and monitor our financial transactions. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) E-Filing System is a system for financial institutions to file reports required by the BSA electronically. By law, the BSA requires businesses to keep records and file reports to help prevent and detect money laundering. This is how the Biden Administration is attempting to disregard privacy and weaponize financial institutions.
US intelligence agencies searched through records for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA” to target Americans who they believed may hold “extremist” views. The agencies searched for Americans who purchased religious texts, such as the Bible, and also labeled them extremists. Anyone expressing disdain for the COVID lockdowns, vaccines, open borders, or the deep state were placed on a watchlist. Again, the BSA was used as a premise to pull transactions placed by the individuals on this list.
As explained by the investigative committee:
“With narrow exception, federal law does not permit law enforcement to inquire into financial institutions’ customer information without some form of legal process.9 The FBI circumvents this process by tipping off financial institutions to “suspicious” individuals and encouraging these institutions to file a SAR—which does not require any legal process—and thereby provide federal law enforcement with access to confidential and highly sensitive information.10 In doing so, the FBI gets around the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which, per the Treasury Department, specifies that “it is . . . a bank’s responsibility” to “file a SAR whenever it identifies ‘a suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation’”11 While at least one financial institution requested legal process from the FBI for information it was seeking,12 all too often the FBI appeared to receive no pushback. In sum, by providing financial institutions with lists of people that it views as generally “suspicious” on the front end, the FBI has turned this framework on its head and contravened the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.”
Under this premise, anyone who held a viewpoint that opposed the Biden Administration was considered a “suspicious” individual who required monitoring. The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network created a database to carefully watch potential dissenters. Over 14,000 government employees accessed the FinCEN database last year and conducted over 3 million searches without a warrant. In fact, over 15% of FBI investigations during 2023 has some link to this database. It is estimated that 4.6 million SARs and 20.8 million Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) were filed in the last year.
The committee noted that the government is incorporating AI to quickly search the web for “suspicious” Americans:
“As the Committee and Select Subcommittee have discussed in other reports, the growth and expansion of AI present major risks to Americans’ civil liberties.211 For example, the Committee and Select Subcommittee uncovered AI being used to censor “alleged misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election . . . .”212 Those concerns are not hypothetical. Some AI systems developed by Big Tech companies have been programmed with biases; for example, Google’s Gemini AI program praised liberal views while refusing to do the same for conservative views, despite claiming to be “objective” and “neutral.” With financial institutions seemingly adopting AI solutions to monitor Americans’ transactions, a similarly biased AI program could result in the systematic flagging or censoring of transactions that the AI is trained to view as “suspicious.”
This is extremely troubling and goes beyond government overreach and violated numerous Constitutional protections. The government effectively transformed banking institutions into spy agencies, and anyone who could potentially hold a view that did not fit the Biden-Harris agenda has been treated as potential terrorist. It is completely insane that someone could be seen as an extremist for purchasing a religious text or purchasing a firearm. This is discriminatory, predatory behavior that puts millions of lives at risk. Think of governments in the past who have rounded up names of dissenters based on religion or ideology. They claim they are merely observing us, but the goal is to silence us.
The committee said their investigation has just begun as they will not allow the government’s abuse of financial data to go unchecked. Furthermore, they are concerned that these warrantless searches can lead to widespread debanking practices where the government can easily block any dissenter from participating in society by crippling them financially. This is yet another reason why governments want to push banks to create CBDC so that they can punish citizens with a simple click of a button.
Posted originally on Dec 6, 2024 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Why have you not commented on the killing of Thompson in NYC?
DD
ANSWER: I don’t know what you want me to say. I think this was inevitable, as insurance companies are the #1 consumer fraud rip-off of Americans every day of their existence, and they grease the palms of politicians to be exempt from consumer fraud. I have NEVER had any insurance company EVER honor what they pretend. I was self-insured here for the storm. A guy a couple of doors from me was paying $40,000 yearly for insurance, and they denied all his claims. He will no longer buy insurance. One of my staff had her car parked, and a drunk guy slammed into it, totaling the parked car. Her insurance company said he had to be paid by the other one, over a year and no payment. My mother’s house had a pipe freeze. They sent investigators asking neighbors if she was there because she went to stay at my sister’s. They have a clause that if you are not there, they will not pay. That cost me $50,000 to fix her home. In a storm, the top of the tree broke and lunged into a brand new Porsche, maybe 2 weeks old. I sent it to the Porsche dealer, who sent it to Bordentown Autobody, which burned down with my car inside. Allstate said it was two deductibles.
They charge your car insurance on the value you pay for brand new. Put in a claim, and it is suddenly depreciated, yet they continue to charge you on the original price. They NEVER reduce your car insurance in proportion to the depreciation. That is consumer fraud, and our politicians do NOTHING!
Insurance companies kill people all the time. This was inevitable. The shell casings found at the scene where the UnitedHealthcare CEO was shot dead by a masked gunman in front of a busy New York City hotel had “deny,” “defend” and “depose” written on them. This was retribution. It is a shame that it will not change the culture of insurance, and the police and politicians will love to hunt down this guy and kill him in a blaze of glory. Nobody will ever look at the corruption that sent this guy over the edge. I am very concerned that we may see others start to do the same, for those in the insurance industry will always worship the penny over the lives they pretend to care about. Our politicians line their pockets at the expense of We the People.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 6, 2024 | Sundance
The jurors in the trial of Daniel Penny have been in deliberations since Tuesday. Today the jury informed the judge they are deadlocked and unable to come to a verdict.
The 12-person jury sent a note Friday morning saying they are having trouble reaching a consensus on whether to convict Penny, 26, of “recklessly” causing Neely’s death by placing him in a six-minute chokehold back in May 2023. If the jury continues to be unable to reach a verdict, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley would be required to give them what’s known as an “Allen” charge, urging them to reach a unanimous verdict.
NEW YORK – Jurors are deadlocked in the case of marine veteran Daniel Penny, 24, who pled not guilty to manslaughter charges brought on after he held street performer Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold on a New York City subway train last year.
Jurors began deliberations on Tuesday in the trial of a military veteran accused of causing the death of a man with a chokehold on a New York subway, and ended with uncertainty this morning as the jury failed to come to a decision.
The judge emphasized the jurors’ duty to reach a verdict, stating that “deliberations were not intended to be easy,” but they should “harmonize” their views and make a decision.
“It would be a crazy result to have a hung jury because they can’t move onto the second count,” prosecutor Dafna Yoran was overheard telling the judge. Judge Wiley is now contemplating whether to issue an Allen charge to encourage a unanimous decision.
An Allen charge is a court order given to a deadlocked jury to motivate them to reach a unanimous verdict. A deadlocked jury may also lead to a retrial of the case. It can also lead to a hung jury, causing a retrial or a mistrial. A hung jury is unable to reach a verdict by the required voting margin and will often result in a retrial. In some cases, the judge may instruct the jury to continue deliberation, but this is not a common practice. (read more)
Penny’s lawyers have said the Marine veteran and aspiring architect was justified in protecting passengers from a man who witnesses said yelled, “Someone’s going to die today!” and said he was ready to go to jail after boarding the uptown F train. But Manhattan prosecutors have stressed that no witness testified that Neely threatened anyone specifically, touched anyone, or brandished a weapon.
This trial has the potential to change the way people respond to crisis events and threats of danger.
I hope, for a myriad of reasons, Mr Penny is able to walk out of the courtroom a free man.
Posted originally on Dec 6, 2024 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I just had to write in to say thank you for explaining that Bitcoin was just a trading asset, not some new currency that would replace the dollar. I understand that money must be elastic to grow with society in economic booms and population. I just read a quote reported by Bloomberg: “After four years of political purgatory, Bitcoin and the entire digital-asset ecosystem are on the brink of entering the financial mainstream.” I know a programmer who said you were correct that the Deep State created blockchain. Has this recent rise been orchestrated to get us to surrender paper money and rejoice so they can track us all?
KS
ANSWER: There is no question that the blockchain code was developed in the intelligence community. We all know that in the programming world. In 1996, the US government released a white paper entitled “How to make a mint: the cryptography of anonymous electronic cash.” Released by the National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology, this document basically explains how a government agency could create something like Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency. (SEE BELOW).
Has Bitcoin been manipulated more to make people think digital currencies are better than paper? There is a strong probability of that. This is clearly a dream of tyrants. If I give you $100 bill they do not know where I got it from. If I pay you in Bitcoin, they can trace it to everyone who has ever handled it. This is a control system. This is the END OF MONEY! A new documentary film will be coming out soon on this topic.
Here is Lagarde on digital currency. She states this object is “control” everything you do. Europe is a Marxist Paradise. Everyone is an economic slave and whatever they earn belongs to the state – not them. The state will decide how much you are allowed to keep. I really do not understand these Bitcoin people if they deliberately try to convince us to surrender all liberty. With digital currency, they can block even a donation to a political opponent like Trump.
Even when creating the Euro, the commission took the entire back row of our conference held in London in 1997. I do not understand why it is so hard to understand what a currency is. They were selling the Euro, which would defeat the dollar. That, too, never took place. They were preaching that everyone would pay the same interest rate as in the USA. I warned them that would only take place if they consolidated all the debts as Hamilton did following the American Revolution.
Kohl took Germany into the Euro as a dictator because if the German people were allowed to vote, he admitted he would have lost 7 to 3. We do not live in a democracy. That is sheer propaganda. They make the decisions, and when they know the people will not accept that, even like war, they do it anyway. We mean nothing at the end of the day.
They sold Bitcoin as it would be free of central banks, a store of wealth, and eliminate inflation, all absolute total BS that was impossible in the real world. I have warned that this has been a fantastic sales job, and pushing the price up creates the image that it is somehow worth more than paper money, so surrender everything and go digital.
People have been braindead when it comes to comprehending what money is and love to cling to stupid theories that will only lead to a major depression. They do not even understand that because the Fed was fearful of inflation during the Great Depression, to support the dollar, they failed to expand the money supply, fearing that the dollar would crash. Over 200 cities issued their own money because there was such a shortage of cash that businesses could not function. It was impossible to pay employees, and people had no cash to spend. This was called depression script.
Whenever there is a recession or depression, people reduce their spending and hoard their wealth, contracting both spending and investment. This is a fact proven by the hoards of ancient Roman coins during the turmoil of the 3rd century. The money supply peaked in 1929 and contracted into 1933. This is why there was such a shortage of money that it led to over 200 cities issuing their own depression script just so they could function.
We find the very same human response during the financial Panic of 33AD. There was such a shortage of money that private tokens appeared, similar to what took place during the American Civil War and the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The firm Seuthes and Son, of Alexandria, was a firm facing difficulties because of the loss of three richly laden ships in a Red Sea storm, followed by a fall in the value of ostrich feathers and ivory. Nearly at the same time, there was the house of Malchus and Co. of Tyre with branches at Antioch and Ephesus. They suddenly became bankrupt as a result of a strike among their Phoenician workmen and the embezzlement of a freedman manager. These two failures also affected the Roman banking house, Quintus Maximus and Lucious Vibo, operating in the Roman forum. We saw the same reaction: people hoarding their wealth, and the severe shortage of money led to the appearance of private coinage.
You see the shortage of coinage during the American Civil War prompted a host of civil war tokens that circulated also as money. The same took place in Germany after World War I, and during the 1840s with the Sovereign Defaults of several US states that are known as the Hard Times Tokens.
Bitcoin can NEVER become the reserve currency for the entire political system. It would be impossible. All social programs would come to an end, and there would be massive deflation and civil unrest. The money supply always contracts during a recession and depression. We blame the central banks and the dollar when that is like blaming the gun for a murder rather than the guy who pulled the trigger.
This is all about CONTROL. The computer has warned that between 2020 and 2032, we will witness the rise of authoritarianism. Governments are on the cusp of an international sovereign default. They are pushing for war as a distraction. The Digital ID and Digital Currency are no different from the paranoia of Joseph Stalin and his great purge to eliminate people he feared by revolting against him.
Bitcoin is a trading vehicle as people buy into the propaganda. In the end, the truth always prevails.
In 1996, the US government released a white paper entitled, “How to make a mint: the cryptography of anonymous electronic cash.” Released by the National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology, this document basically explains how a government agency could create something like Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency.
I encourage those interested to read the contents of the link above. This document was released during the dawn of the dot.com bubble before the technology existed to create such a currency. The NSA quickly realized that it could weaponize this technology to create a cashless society.
As explained in the introduction:
“Among the most important uses of this technology is electronic commerce: performing financial transactions via electronic information exchanged over telecommunications lines. A key requirement for electronic commerce is the development of secure and efficient electronic payment systems. The need for security is highlighted by the rise of the Internet, which promises to be a leading medium for future electronic commerce.
Electronic payment systems come in many forms including digital checks, debit cards, credit cards, and stored value cards. The usual security features for such systems are privacy (protection from eavesdropping), authenticity (provides user identification and message integrity), and nonrepudiation (prevention of later denying having performed a transaction) .
The type of electronic payment system focused on in this paper is electronic cash. As the name implies, electronic cash is an attempt to construct an electronic payment system modelled after our paper cash system. Paper cash has such features as being: portable (easily carried), recognizable (as legal tender) hence readily acceptable, transferable (without involvement of the financial network), untraceable (no record of where money is spent), anonymous (no record of who spent the money) and has the ability to make "change." The designers of electronic cash focused on preserving the features of untraceability and anonymity. Thus, electronic cash is defined to be an electronic payment system that provides, in addition to the above security features, the properties of user anonymity and payment untraceability..
In general, electronic cash schemes achieve these security goals via digital signatures. They can be considered the digital analog to a handwritten signature. Digital signatures are based on public key cryptography. In such a cryptosystem, each user has a secret key and a public key. The secret key is used to create a digital signature and the public key is needed to verify the digital signature. To tell who has signed the information (also called the message), one must be certain one knows who owns a given public key. This is the problem of key management, and its solution requires some kind of authentication infrastructure. In addition, the system must have adequate network and physical security to safeguard the secrecy of the secret keys.”
The introduction goes on to discuss the reasons they could present to the public to switch to a cashless society, including money laundering, convenience, and security. “The term electronic commerce refers to any financial transaction involving the electronic transmission of information. The packets of information being transmitted are commonly called electronic tokens,” the paper continues.
The NSA states that it would like to use “user identification” and “message integrity” to protect privacy in “nonrepudiation” transactions. “Eavesdropping” concerns appear numerous times throughout the document, which could be prevented by “not just privacy but anonymity” in the form of “payer anonymity” and “payment untraceability.” The government clearly states that hard currency, cash, provided these luxuries but could not be traced by the banks and, therefore, the government.
Again, this was released in 1996 before basic online banking. The document outlines basic online banking but takes it a step further by explaining how they could seemingly make payments seem “untraceable” to the public using “blind signatures” that allegedly cannot be seen by the bank. “This step is called “blinding” the coin, and the random quantity is called the blinding factor. The Bank signs this random-looking text, and the user removes the blinding factor.”
Alice sends the blinded coin to the Bank with a withdrawal request.
Bank digitally signs the blinded coin.
Bank sends the signed blinded coin to Alice and debits her account.
Alice unblinds the signed coin.
Payment/Deposit:
Alice gives Bob the coin.
Bob contacts Bank and sends coin.
Bank verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
Bank verifies that coin has not already been spent.
Bank enters coin in spent-coin database.
Bank credits Bob’s account and informs Bob.
Bob gives Alice the merchandise.
“This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her.” Full “payment anonymity” would be “too much to ask”, thus, “we are forced to settle for payer anonymity.” In other words, the illusion that no one knows who is making the transaction.
PROTOCOL 5:Off-line cash.
Withdrawal:
Alice creates an electronic coin, including identifying information.
Alice blinds the coin.
Alice sends the blinded coin to the Bank with a withdrawal request.
Bank verifies that the identifying information is present.
Bank digitally signs the blinded coin.
Bank sends the signed blinded coin to Alice and debits her account.
Alice unblinds the signed coin.
Payment:
Alice gives Bob the coin.
Bob verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
Bob sends Alice a challenge.
Alice sends Bob a response (revealing one piece of identifying info).
Bob verifies the response.
Bob gives Alice the merchandise.
Deposit:
Bob sends coin, challenge, and response to the Bank.
Bank verifies the Bank’s digital signature.
Bank verifies that coin has not already been spent.
Bank enters coin, challenge, and response in spent-coin database.
Bank credits Bob’s account.
Note that, in this protocol, Bob must verify the Bank’s signature before giving Alice the merchandise. In this way, Bob can be sure that either he will be paid or he will learn Alice’s identity as a multiple spender.
The government begins to explain basic blockchain concepts, or at least how they’d like them to occur.
“When Alice spends her coins with Bob, his challenge to her is a string of K random bits. For each bit, Alice sends the appropriate piece of the corresponding pair. For example, if the bit string starts 0110. . ., then Alice sends the first piece of the first pair, the second piece of the second pair, the second piece of the third pair, the first piece of the fourth pair, etc. When Bob deposits the coin at the Bank, he sends on these K pieces.
If Alice re-spends her coin, she is challenged a second time. Since each challenge is a random bit string, the new challenge is bound to disagree with the old one in at least one bit. Thus Alice will have to reveal the other piece of the corresponding pair. When the Bank receives the coin a second time, it takes the two pieces and combines them to reveal Alice's identity…
Zero-Knowledge Proofs. The term zero-knowledge proof refers to any protocol in public-key cryptography that proves knowledge of some quantity without revealing it (or making it any easier to find it). In this case, Alice creates a key pair such that the secret key points to her identity. (This is done in such a way the Bank can check via the public key that the secret key in fact reveals her identity, despite the blinding.) In the payment protocol, she gives Bob the public key as part of the electronic coin. She then proves to Bob via a zero-knowledge proof that she possesses the corresponding secret key. If she responds to two distinct challenges, the identifying information can be put together to reveal the secret key and so her identity.”
The document then discusses ways to blind the signature, so that the payee may remain anonymous. Now, why would the government allow that to occur? “Even in anonymous, untraceable payment schemes, the identity of the multiple-spender can be revealed when the abuse is detected. Detection after the fact may be enough to discourage multiple spending in most cases, but it will not solve the problem. If someone were able to obtain an account under a false identity, or were willing to disappear after re-spending a large sum of money, they could successfully cheat the system.”
The document even discusses what we now would refer to as a crypto wallet. A seemingly safe offline method to store these electronic coins. They explain that at least one party must always reveal their hand. “When a coin is spent, the spender uses his secret to create a valid response to a challenge from the payee. The payee will verify the response before accepting the payment. In Brands’ scheme with wallet observers, this user secret is shared between the user and his observer. The combined secret is a modular sum of the two shares, so one share of the secret reveals no information about the combined secret.”
Who is the “observer” in this scenario? “An observer could also be used to trace the user’s transactions at a later time, since it can keep a record of all transactions in which it participates. However, this requires that the Bank (or whoever is doing the tracing) must be able to obtain the observer and analyze it. Also, not all types of observers can be used to trace transactions.”
In the event that a transaction was compromised, the bank would have to change its secret key and “INVALIDATE ALL COINS.”
The authors explain that tax evasion, per usual, is the key concern. They mention money laundering and “old crimes such as kidnapping and blackmail” as reasons to allow backdoor entry. Restoring traceability was a proposed solution, and if they could restore traceability in the first place, one must question if the payments were ever truly anonymous. Using Alice as their example, they explain that they could simply issue a warrant and track all her payment history. “Back~ard traceability is the ability to identify a withdrawal record (and hence the payer), given a deposit record (and hence the identity of the payee). Backward tracing will reveal who Alice has been receiving payments from.”
So, while the bank only sees the deposit in encrypted form, the public key must be used for withdrawal. “The ability to trace transactions in either direction can help law enforcement officials catch tax evaders and money launderers by revealing who has paid or has been paid by the suspected criminal. Electronic blackmailers can be caught because the deposit numbers of the victim’s ill-gotten coins could be decrypted, identifying the blackmailer when the money is deposited.”
“In conclusion, the potential risks in electronic commerce are magnified when anonymity is present. Anonymity creates the potential for large sums of counterfeit money to go undetected by preventing the identification of forged coins. Anonymity also provides an avenue for laundering money and evading taxes that is difficult to combat without resorting to escrow mechanisms. Anonymity can be provided at varying levels, but increasing the level of anonymity also increases the potential damages. It is necessary to weigh the need for anonymity with these concerns. It may well be concluded that these problems are best avoided by using a secure electronic payment system that provides privacy, but not anonymity.”
The US government released this document in 1996, 27 years ago. Bitcoin was allegedly anonymously created in 2009, and numerous other blockchain-based payment coins have followed. This, paired with the push for CBDC, where the government simply does not need to pretend payments are anonymous, should make one question the security and longevity of cryptocurrencies.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 