0 vídeos 0 photographs 0 memory available.
The Robertson Panel, 1952-53
For years rumors have circulated to the effect that the Central Intelligence
Agency has been deeply implicated in the UFO mystery and in the crashed
UFO controversy in particular. These assertions are further bolstered
by the contents of the Majestic 12 documents. Nevertheless, at an official
level at least, the CIA has only confirmed its direct involvement in
one UFO study – the so-called Robertson Panel. To fully understand the
official story of the Robertson Panel, take note of the following from
the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) historian, Gerald Raines:
In January 1953, H. Marshall Chadwell [CIA Director of Scientific Intelligence]
and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute
of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists
to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as chairman; Samuel
A. Goudsmit, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories;
Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist; Thornton Page, the deputy director
of the Johns Hopkins Operations Research Office and an expert on radar
and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National
Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics.
The charge to the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs
and to consider the possible dangers of the phenomena to US national
security. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. It reviewed Air
Force data on UFO case histories and, after spending 12 hours studying
the phenomena, declared that reasonable explanations could be suggested
for most, if not all, sightings. For example, after reviewing motion-picture
film taken of a UFO sighting near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952
and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 August 1950, the panel concluded
that the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sunlight reflecting
off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sunlight reflecting
off the surface of two Air Force interceptors.
The panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct
threat to national security in the UFO sightings. Nor could the panel
find any evidence that the objects sighted might be extraterrestrials.
It did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten
“the orderly functioning” of the government by clogging the channels
of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing “hysterical
mass behavior” harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried
that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States
might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt US air defenses.
To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security
Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education
to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested
using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even
the Disney corporation to get the message across. Reporting at the
height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private
UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles
and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored
for subversive activitiesThe Robertson panel’s conclusions were strikingly
similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN
and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA’s own OSI Study Group. All investigative
groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national
security and no evidence of visits by extra-terrestrials.
Following the Robertson panel findings, the Agency abandoned efforts
to draft an NSCID on UFOs. The Scientific Advisory Panel on UFOs (the
Robertson panel) submitted its report to the IAC, the Secretary of
Defense, the Director of the Federal Civil Defense Administration,
and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. CIA officials
said no further consideration of the subject appeared warranted, although
they continued to monitor sightings in the interest of national security.
Philip Strong and Fred Durant from OSI also briefed the Office of
National Estimates on the findings. CIA officials wanted knowledge
of any Agency interest in the subject of flying saucers carefully
restricted, noting not only that the Robertson panel report was classified
but also that any mention of CIA sponsorship of the panel was forbidden.
This attitude would later cause the Agency major problems relating
to its credibility.
Despite the history of the CIA’s involvement in the UFO controversy as presented
by Haines and the Agency itself, suspicions abound that the full story
has yet to be told. Victor Marchetti, formerly of the CIA, has stated
that he heard from within “high-levels” of the Agency accounts of the
bodies of “little gray men” recovered from a crashed UFO held at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. Similarly, the late UFO investigator Major
Donald Keyhoe learned from insider sources that the purpose of the Robertson
Panel was to debunk and demystify the UFO subject and to allow the CIA
to continue its UFO investigations at a far more covert level – something
that ties in with the material presented in the Majestic documents.
Racial Profiling, Killings of Arrestees by Local Police Increase:
U.S. Department of Justice to step in to curb police misconduct
Los Angeles, CA (April 17, 2012) Deadly police shootings, racial profiling and discriminatory law enforcement are once again in the forefront of national debate. Police killings of unarmed civilians in New Orleans and Seattle have generated local protests and national controversies. Accusations of racial profiling have been lodged against police departments in those and other cities as well as the Maricopa County sheriff’s office in Arizona. In addition, the recent shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch coordinator has forced a close examination of authorities’ initial investigation of the killing. But what are the real facts about these issues and what is the federal government doing to curb local police misconduct? These important questions are discussed in the April 6, 2012, issue of CQ Researcher, published by CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE.
According to author Kenneth Jost, the federal government’s police accountability unit has been reinvigorated after a period of dormancy under President George W. Bush. From 2003 to 2009, killings of arrestees by police rose from 376 in 2003 to 497 in 2009. Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Justice has been aggressively using its power to monitor local police departments and pressuring them to limit the use of excessive force in civilian encounters, eliminate racial profiling and strengthen disciplinary and accountability procedures.
“The Justice Department’s oversight of local law enforcement lagged under President Bush,” writes Jost. “Obama’s selection of civil rights-minded officials for key posts at the Justice Department signaled a likely change in priorities.”
The April 6 issue of CQ Researcher discusses the Justice department’s new policies in an attempt to answer some important questions:
- Should police do more to control excessive force?
- Should police do more to prevent racial and ethnic profiling?
- Should police adopt stronger disciplinary measures for misconduct?
With careful attention to detail and interviews with a range of experts, the issue also provides a timeline and discussion of the history of police misconduct, a bibliography of major sources on the topic, and the outlook for possible reforms in police department practices and policies.
To read more about the April 6 issue of CQ Researcher, titled “Police Misconduct: Will Excessive Force, Racial Profiling be Curbed?” visit http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
For a full PDF copy of the issue, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
18 USC 1027 – False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Legal Research Home > US Code > Crimes and Criminal Procedure > 18 USC 1027 – False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Sec. 1027. False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Whoever, in any document required by title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as amended from time to time) to be published, or kept as part of the records of any employee welfare benefit plan or employee pension benefit plan, or certified to the administrator of any such plan, makes any false statement or representation of fact, knowing it to be false, or knowingly conceals, covers up, or fails to disclose any fact the disclosure of which is required by such title or is necessary to verify, explain, clarify or check for accuracy and completeness any report required by such title to be published or any information required by such title to be certified, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
For anyone who would like to know why I feel so strongly that any reform that does not address the issue of regulation, oversight and enforcement… perhaps my experience will serve as an example of how the judicial system fails to protect those who so desperately need help to fight injustice, inequity and corruption in the United States of America.
Despite having four individual insurance policies including a major plan with Blue Cross Blue Shield for $1,000,000; I still wound up on Medicaid, and eventually welfare and social security with a total income of under $6,000 / year.
The insurance investigators ultimately ruled in my favor, however I was unable to collect any damages for two reasons: Although mandatory federal fines in the amount of $560,000 would require legal assistance and complicated civil litigation that would be timely, costly, and emotionally traumatic. Second, under federal law, grants immunity to ERISA plans: a type of group insurance that is totally untouchable due to federal preemption of state law that leaves the beneficiary without recourse or the ability to collect punitive damages under federal law,
Unfortunately, this was a very complicated case that involved unscrupulous attorneys that involved tax and insurance fraud, and has yet to be resolved despite the overwhelming evidence of fraud and the favorable ruling from the insurance department. It should also be notes that no criminal charges were ever brought against any of the participants, which s even more disturbing if you knew the history of the parties involved, some were arrested for RICO conspiracy, Tax Evasion, Embezzlement, Extortion, and wire fraud. One man actually shot himself in the head one month after the Insurance Dept. opened the investigation.
So one is dead, one got off on a technicality, one was acquitted, and several others were never prosecuted. I however, pay a price for their crimes every day of my life, I now live in a prison of sorts: a prison of poverty, and despair with no real expectation of change on the horizon.
So here are the facts
I recently learned that for the last 14 years, my parents have been using my social security number to claim as (1) an employee — thus covered under an ERISA beneficiary plan that I have never been able to access and (2) was claimed as a dependent on my mother’s NY State tax return for many years making impossible for me to file taxes or obtain insurance, disability benefits, or student financial aid since neither parent is willing to release a copy of their return.
I filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department in 1995, and received response six months after the policy had expired. Despite the considerable evidence I provided to the Insurance Dept. and Pennsylvania Blue Shield, I was told that despite the overwhelming evidence that I provided, the Insurance Dept. did not have the authority to override the terms of the contract.
Since ERISA mandates that all beneficiaries (including insured dependents) be given a copy of the policy (among other forms of insurance identification, e.g., EOBs, Insurance ID C, and a copy of the policy, my requests for ERISA mandated materials were repeatedly denied until the Jason Manne from the Dept. of Public Welfare sent a letter to my insurance carrier to inform them that they in accordance with federal law, they must honor my request for a copy of the insurance policy.
The insurance Department came to the same conclusion: that my rights under federal law had been violated, but because this situation was unprecedented in the state of Pennsylvania, it took approximately 9 months before BCBS decided to send me the necessary documentation. In addition, my plan had expired, and BCBS refused to honor my request for COBRA continuation (which would have been extended from 18 months to 36 since I was disabled at the time of the qualifying event plan supporting my initial request for federally mandated information in accordance with ERISA 4236.
Blue Shield refused to honor my request for COBRA continuation and / or a reassignment of benefits so those providers could be reimbursed directly. According to their attorney, Tija Hilton-Phillips, they had no obligation to provide me with any information about COBRA continuation and shifted the burden of responsibility onto the plan administrator and/or fiduciary. In addition to having the terms of my policy falsified in writing, I was unable to identify the plan administrator of fiduciary. Since federal law requires that all plans be filed with the Dept. of Labor, I contacted them on multiple occasions and wrote several letters requesting a copy of claims made under the policy, the plan fiduciary, administrator, and the specific type of ERISA plan (e.g., self-insured) that was on filed in accordance with federal law. Again, my verbal requests were denied. I then sent a written request to the regional office in Philadelphia but again, received no response.
Washington requests in Washington in accordance with federal law. , e.g., self-insured, their assistance in (with information Furthermore, the Dept. of Labor requesting this information were never answered. I never found out the name of the plan administrator or the fiduciary, and was never offered COBRA continuation, and then BCBS refused to let me continue under COBRA, claiming they were not obligated to offer it to… so who is ultimately held accountable in these situations.
When I first filed this complaint against BCBS, each agency denied responsibility despite the overwhelming evidence that I had provided. Although I was only 22 at the time, I spent my days and nights reading up on insurance, labor and employment law, and subsequently came to believe that aside from violating my natural rights, I had been denied due process protections and requested legal assistance from advocacy organizations in New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. I was unable to find anyone who would take my claims seriously, and could not find anyone to take my case pro-bono or on contingency. Eventually, I moved to Nashville, TN and tried to recover from the physical injuries and the new emotional scars that left me cynical and bitter about a judicial system that consistently fails to enforce natural and human rights.
Everyone I spoken to thus far reiterates the same statement– practically verbatim, “I sympathize with your dilemma, yet, as you know, our office does not have the jurisdiction to assist you in this matter.”
I sought the assistance of an attorney at Shnaeder Harrison years ago (regarding Pennsylvania Act 62) and Jason Manne in the Dept. of Public Welfare.
Although I may be biased, I believe this case has substantial social merit and long standing implications for children in the state of Pennsylvania. I am a reputable witness, and have 5 years of doctoral studies under my belt in the field of social policy.
I have been unsuccessful in my search for a competent litigator (unfortunately, this is an unprecedented case that touches on all the hot issues before the 3rd circuit including ERISA and the State’s interest in Equal Educational Opportunity and due process protections for children (and adults) who are “victimized twice… first by their parents, and then, again by a judicial system who fails to protect them” (it’s been a while, but I believe that is a paraphrase of the dissenting opinion from Justice Montemuro in Curtis v. Klein.
In many ways, I feel it is too late for me to recover what I lost due to a snag in the law and a few loopholes in the system. I have collected evidence for over 14 years because I used to believe that justice might prevail.
If she has an interest in looking bold into the face of police corruption, I would like to share my story (and the documents) to be sure no other child in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania falls victim to such heinous crimes due to legal technicalities from an outdated piece of legislation. It has been 14 years since my case was “abandoned” by the state judicial system in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. It is time to have these loop holes closed for good and ensure equal protection under the law for all children—not just those who are lucky enough to have a fair hearing or be heard before they reach the age of majority.
With the support and inspiration, I received from some very kind and brilliant professors in sociology and social policy, plan to submit a book proposal to document the sequence of events that still astound me and curious onlookers who take a quick peek as they casually pass in and out of my life. You see, it is much like a traffic accident– people like to take comfort in seeing the tragedy of a broken man and his family demonstrating the social injustices and inequity resulting from a stratified society where only “violent” criminals or those who commit acts that violate or impede the natural rights of others are not taken seriously by the judicial system or the public at large. Unaware of the consequences that arise from dual standards in the worst of academic snobbery and intellectual elitism — living a lifestyle they might otherwise envy.
I would appreciate assistance in restoring my social security number and account so that I do not have live in constant fear. If that means either relocating to another country and/or having my name and social security number changed or restored, it is probably well worth the inconvenience if it means there is still hope for living a peaceful existence.
COINTELPRO, Remote Viewing, Mind Control
by Doc Hambone