All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2013 - Project Camelot
01:58:34
PROJECT CAMELOT: AN INTERVIEW WITH MARK NOVITSKY - WHISTLEBLOWER
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
This is Mary Cassidy from Project Camelot and we are going to be doing a live interview tonight with Mark Novitski, the national security whistleblower.
And so I hope everyone is ready for this.
It should be a lot of fun and very, very interesting.
I do have Mark on the line right now.
Mark, can you say hello?
Hi, Carrie, and thanks for the opportunity, and I appreciate the insightful people that are following your program.
Excellent.
Well, I'm really happy to have you on the show, and it's a lot of fun to kind of do this with you.
We won't have any interruptions, at least by any formal commercials, although I'm not sure what the livestream does.
We do use a free part of their app, just so you know.
But eventually this is going out over YouTube, as I mentioned to you, behind the scenes, and so everyone will know that If they miss any part of this, it will stay on livestream as well and be streamed constantly at your request, but for free, and then also go onto YouTube.
So that's what we have going on with this interview tonight.
So we interviewed Karen Hudis actually a few times, and we did a live stream with her as well a while back, as you know.
And I know you work closely with her.
So what I want to do, I know you've got a subject you want to go right into, but before you do that, I do want you to introduce yourself.
I've written a few things on the introduction, the article on my site.
about you, linking over to that very good article by Preston James over at Veterans Today, but I'd like you to kind of give your background kind of briefly, and we will go back in more depth into your background, so just say what you want at this point, and I'm glad to go into the topic that you want to discuss right from the get-go after that.
Sure.
Well, I kind of, you know, backed into being a national security whistleblower.
And as everybody can now imagine, this is beyond national security.
This is international security.
And we are not any safer as a result of spying on every single American in the country, let alone literally every person in the world.
We have been exponentially been made much more in harm's way Our allies no longer are our friends.
We have alienated and isolated ourselves.
And our companies like Yahoo and Google and Facebook and Twitter, our hardcore companies like Hewlett Packard are complaining that nobody wants to do business with us because they're afraid of back doors in our hardware, in our equipment.
And they're afraid of, you know, just opening Pandora's box and giving every information from a country to the United States government for purposes unknown, friend and foe.
But I started out in how I ended up being a national security whistleblower.
I worked for a company called Teletech Holdings in Denver, Colorado.
Teletech Holdings is a multi-billion dollar international holding company that works in the industry of electronic customer relations management, customer service, international call centers.
So basically they interact at the customer service level for a variety of industries and services from telecommunications to retail to financial to healthcare.
They also have a special subsidiary called Teletech Government Solutions.
That's involved with the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, with FEMA, and with the State Department.
I worked for a subsidiary called Nugent Results at the time.
And again, I don't know how in-depth you want to go into this, but Nugent Results served the retail automobile industry.
And what we did for manufacturers and retail dealers throughout the country was have access to the individual dealers' database and then market promotional materials to their customers.
But very soon, as a senior management level responsible for customer retention, customer satisfaction, I ascertained that the company was actually stealing from our customer base by using algorithms that were developed intentionally to deceive and defraud our customer base.
And the company By my estimation, it was dealing between 30% and 40% in overbilling and fraudulent overcharges per month.
Now, this represents significant revenue, and so the fact that they were aware of this and then, you know, disclosing, failing to disclose this information to the shareholders actually is securities fraud.
The other concern I had was that the company Was barely sharing information based on information and belief from the dealerships to third parties, certainly without the knowledge or consent of the individual dealers.
So what the company was doing and what I had seen was that the company was sharing private, confidential, proprietary customer information with a third party without the individual dealer's knowledge or consent, which is a crime.
And ultimately, I ended up getting sued by Teletech and Federal Court in Denver.
The lawsuit against me was completely without merit, was not based on evidence, you know, and it was, you know, a circumstance.
It was a kangaroo court.
My attorneys, my first attorneys actually ended up quitting on me because they, you It's my belief that they knew what was going on and they knew that they were going to be outspent.
I received a new set of attorneys and we ended up actually basically pro se on my part forced a dismissal with prejudice against this multi-billion dollar corporation and I thought that my life would be fine and good.
What ended up happening as well in the Very beginning of the lawsuit and this happened in March of 2002.
I received a warning from two former CIOs of the company saying that Teletech had the capacity to wiretap my phone lines and read my ISP and that I was going to be under attack.
That they considered me to be their number one priority and that they were going to litigate me to death and I would never work again.
Now, this was in 2002, and people were starting to talk then about domestic surveillance and the necessity for domestic surveillance.
And after the dismissal of the lawsuit, I had received numerous threats.
I won the dismissal, and I thought, well, great, I can resume my life.
But what I found out was that I was literally Unemployable.
It appeared that I was put on some type of a list.
And I had foreknowledge that Teletech was involved in things like the establishment of the terrorist watch list.
Now, when people think of the NSA, the National Security Agency, it should really be called the PSA for the private security agency because 70% of the budget for the NSA goes to private contractors.
And this is for the purpose of evading scrutiny by Congress and oversight and nasty things like Freedom of Information Act requests.
And from there, I did everything that a whistleblower could do, but I found myself unemployable.
And when you are a national security whistleblower, let me tell you, the hurdles and boundaries put up against you, for one thing, It appeared as if my prospective employers were being contacted and warning them not to employ me.
So I had circumstances where I had companies that I had interviewed with and I was in demand.
I had hunters when I was working at Teletech and Nugent that were calling me basically on a weekly basis asking me about different opportunities.
And so I disclosed to these prospective employers that, you know, I was in the process of being sued by my former employer, that the allegations were without merit.
So I had full disclosure at the front end.
And, you know, after that, I told them that, you know, the case was dismissed with prejudice in my favor, meaning that Teletech could never come back after me making the same allegations.
Because again, you know, the Allegations in the lawsuit was completely without merit.
It never should have seen the light of day in the judicial system.
And I had things like a federal judge that was overseeing the case came up to me at a settlement conference and put his arm around me and started to cry.
And he said, Mark, if you were my son, I would tell you just drop this.
You can't win.
Just, you know, take it.
You know, let this go.
Get on with your life.
And I looked at him and I said, I don't understand what you're telling me.
I mean, you're telling me that I don't have rights of due process or equal access to the courts.
And I said, how do you come to work every day?
You take an oath to God to protect the rights of the defenseless and the oppressed.
And you're telling me that I can't compete, even though that I've done nothing wrong and the other side doesn't have any evidence to back up their claims.
And, you know, this is, you know, by everybody's account, a hostile and malicious attack.
But it became then that I understood the power of domestic surveillance and how domestic surveillance was not being used in our national interest.
It was being used as a weapon.
It was being used against whistleblowers.
It was being used against government employees.
It was being used against journalists.
It was being used against lawyers.
It was being used against judges.
It was being used for commercial purposes.
Domestic surveillance was all about opposition research and control.
So recently, when things like the fusion centers were actually forced to concede that, you know, they, despite, I forget when it was, $600 million in monies that were spent in developing these fusion centers, how many actual terrorist events that they had negated or stopped or prevented, and they had to admit it was zero.
And recently, the head of the NSA General Keith Alexander and James Clapper, the head of the Department of National Intelligence, were asked earlier how many terrorist events they had negated or prevented.
And I think they said 54.
Now they had to come back because I've never seen two people with the ability to lie and mislead and perjure themselves in front of Congress When they recently had to admit that, well, we think it's like one.
We stopped one event, and that was a taxi driver, I think, in New York that I believe was Somali, and he ended up sending back $1,000 to some Somali organization that was perhaps affiliated with a group.
Right.
Crazy.
Okay.
So, you know, when we're being told that, you know, domestic surveillance is our friend, That it's protecting us.
There's no evidence of that, and the evidence is all to the contrary.
And, you know, that can be clearly exhibited by...
I have to...
Your...
Senator Feinstein.
And I'd just like to talk to your audience about how completely clueless and incompetent and inept and dangerous she is.
She's head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and she was the biggest cheerleader for the NSA, and she was the biggest protectorate of the NSA, and there wasn't a citizen she didn't feel that could not be spied upon.
So, ten years ago, when people like myself were trying to warn Congress, trying to warn the media, Trying to warn the judiciary that pretty much all of our communications are being monitored and recorded and being held in a database.
You didn't have to be a terrorist or you didn't have to be on a terrorist watch list to have this happen.
Ten years ago, people would have looked at us like, you know, we're absolutely crazy and now we all know that it's happening all over the world.
But Dianne Feinstein, and it was very interesting because, again, if you look at, you know, she referred to Edward Snowden as a traitor, and what he did was treason.
And she attacked anybody that would, you know, go after the NSA and what they were doing.
But something happened in the past week, and I was kind of curious.
And it was reported that apparently the NSA has been spying on our allies, And our allied diplomats up to the president level.
So we're spying on countries like Germany and Mexico and Spain and France.
And apparently that was where the straw that broke the camel's back as far as Dianne Feinstein, because apparently it was okay with her if the common people were spied upon.
But she drew the line when the NSA was spying on politicians.
So suddenly, after all of this cheerleading, And going after and attacking whistleblowers like Ed Snowden.
When she found out that the NSA was spying on politicians, she released a scathing statement.
And she said, unlike the NSA's collection of phone records under court order, which is a lie, because they don't need a court order.
It is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade, and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed.
Therefore, our oversight needs to be strengthened and increased.
She said, with respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of U.S. allies, including France, Spain, Mexico, Germany.
She left out Brazil, by the way, Dilma Rousseff.
Let me state unequivocally, I am totally opposed.
And she said, unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and crime ministers.
The president should be required to approve any collection of this sort.
In closing, she said, Congress needs to know exactly what our intelligence community is doing.
To that end, the committee will initiate a major review of all intelligence collection programs.
Right.
Okay.
Well, I mean, how do you actually look at her reversal, though?
Do you see it as superficial, or do you see it that she realized on some sort of deep...
Hello?
Hi, everyone.
We just had an interruption.
Hopefully, you're going to be seeing us shortly, even now.
I think you can see us now.
Sorry about this.
It's just one of those things.
We're used to this kind of stuff.
Okay, Mark, so I just asked you about how you viewed the Dianne Feinstein kind of reversal, and you were explaining that she should really be...
Of course, and obviously, she's more than aware of the surveillance, all levels of the surveillance.
Nothing is a surprise.
But why the politicking?
What do you think she thinks she's going to achieve by that reversal?
She's trying to save her own what?
She's realized now that the lights are on that this is completely out of the protectorate and more and more information is coming out.
And again, I would like to applaud Edward Snowden for what he's done.
It took a tremendous amount of courage and actually anybody that's going to be critical of him, I think what he did was he took a critical analysis of the way Whistleblowers were treated that were speaking out about domestic surveillance.
And who I'm talking about are, you know, people like Michael Hastings, who was recently killed.
Absolutely.
How about Aaron Swartz?
How about Bradley Chelsea Manning?
And how about, you know, President Obama going after whistleblowers with the bloodlust?
So he looked at what happened to Thomas Drake.
He looked at what happened to William Binney.
And he said, you know, this is information that has to get out.
And anybody that would be critical of that's noted, who said, I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom, and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building.
Boy, what a horrible guy.
Okay, so I appreciate that, although I've got some mixed reviews in the background as far as, you know, the fact that he had help and the fact that there is some kind of game playing going on with the Russians in this regard.
And I know you were on Russia today, and there is a whole dynamic that I do want to kind of talk to you about.
It's a more subtle level, but it has to do with kind of one-upmanship, if you will, between Russia and the U.S. In other words, one surveillance committee calling, it's kind of like what they say, the pot calling the The pot black or whatever it is.
You know what I'm saying?
Calling the kettle black.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, come on.
Let's get real.
I mean, didn't Russia basically invent the surveillance society and suddenly they're holier than thou.
They're above all this.
Yeah, right.
I don't believe that's how they conduct their business in their own country.
And I also don't believe that they're not also reciprocally spying on us.
So this is a very key thing to keep in mind and to balance the scales a little bit.
Yes, the NSA is this incredible nefarious sort of intelligence agency.
But we've got that across the board.
People are spying on people all around the world, agencies upon agencies.
I think of it like the Keystone Cops, to be honest.
They're stumbling over each other to watch and listen to each other.
It's craziness.
Okay.
Well, what we need to talk about is legitimate versus illegitimate spying.
I served in the United States military.
MOS was 95 Bravo, 95 Charlie Combat Military Police and Corrections.
I had some experience in psychological operations, and I understand that, you know, we need to direct our energies towards national security.
But as has just been admitted publicly by the head of the NSA, by the Director of National Intelligence, and by the head of the fusion centers, they haven't been effective at doing that.
And so, uh, apparently, um, UPS guy could have figured out with, um, uh, oh, geez, what was his name?
In Aurora, Colorado.
Why can't I think of his name?
Uh, not Adam.
Was it Adam?
No, that was the, uh, Sandy Hook.
Yeah, well, um, the, uh, the shooter in, in, the suspect in Aurora, Colorado.
Right.
James Holmes.
James Holmes.
Yeah.
Um, That the UPS guy could have figured out that, you know, he's delivering boxes of ammunition and boxes of ballistic protective gear.
And, you know, he was on the Internet ordering all of this stuff.
The Sennar brothers, I mean, the Russians tipped us off to those guys.
And we failed to take action, failed to respond.
We had Hassan at Fort Hood.
He was all over the Internet.
You know, We didn't prevent that.
If we had something that we could hang our hat onto, but what I'm saying is, if they're spending all of their time listening to Mark Nowitzki and Kerry Cassidy and Karen Hudis and Aaron Swartz and basically everybody and everybody else, you're not talking about trying to find a needle in the haystack.
You know, it's impossible.
So yes, I am all for protection of our national security interests and preventing terrorism by going after people that, you know, seek to do us harm.
And there's a lot of things that we can do to prevent that from happening that don't involve spying on journalists or going after employees of the FDA that are trying to prevent hazardous medical products and devices from getting promoted.
Right.
Okay, well, let me ask you, and we haven't actually turned down that road that you wanted to go to first, so I'm going to remind you of that here, but I also want to ask you, because it appears that as a result of your whistleblowing, you became a subject or subjected to harassment and surveillance that was overzealous.
And I was hoping that you don't necessarily have to answer now, but I'd like to hear you explain how that manifested for you.
Sure.
You mean what it's like to be on the resinking end of illegal government domestic surveillance?
Yeah, as much as I, you know, I'm going to pretend that I've not myself experienced that, but for the purposes of the interview here.
Sure.
No, you know, yes, absolutely.
That, you know, I think that, you know, it would be good for people to hear your direct experience.
Sure.
And what I like to do is I like to use history as a guide because history is simple.
It's self-explanatory.
It's irrefutable.
And it's, you know, best used as a determining factor of future events.
But if you want to get to the point that I just want to quickly make, because this just came out today, and it deals with the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement.
They actually changed the name because Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement didn't sell well and wasn't trending properly, so they changed the name to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But what this is, if people remember under the Clinton administration where we had NAFTA-CAT, WTO, these free trade agreements where a very intelligent person by the name of Ross Perot in a presidential debate with H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton said a very stunning and articulate and well thought out premise that if we get involved in these free trade agreements, the jobs are going to be sucked out of the United States.
And we are going to reduce the cost of labor in our country, and we are going to increase our rate of unemployment.
So it's not like people didn't see this coming.
But if you thought that NAFTA, CAPTA, GAT, WT, as if we didn't outsource enough jobs, I think it's 70,000 factories.
There was a notice sent out today by The Hill and by Politico That the Senate Finance Panel are trying to get pathogen fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
So what your listeners need to do, if they're not familiar with this, is simply Google or search Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, in fast-track.
Now, what fast-track is, is it allows for legislation to go through very quickly with an up or down vote in Congress.
So there's very little investigation, you know, so this is a very covert and secret way.
And I believe that they're using the cover of the Obamacare debacle to get this through without, you know, having a lot of the public, you know, be aware of this.
And essentially what you're looking with the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement Whatever jobs are left are going to be offshored.
It's going to free up banksters from even less oversight.
It's going to ban buy American provisions.
It's going to decrease our access to medication and generic drugs.
It's going to eliminate things like EPA regulations and FEA regulations with regards to unsafe food and products.
It's going to override the US Health It's going to free up genetically modified organisms.
And basically what it's going to call for, it's basically an elimination of American sovereignty.
And what it's going to do is there's going to be corporate international tribunals made up of corporate lawyers that are going to have the necessary oversight over all of these things like financial regulations or banking provisions, international You know, food safety, drug safety.
And that's all in part to joining this Trans-Pacific Partnership.
And so people need to get informed about this.
Now, the initial countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership are the United States, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.
But it's open-ended.
So, once they established this, countries like China or, you know, anybody else would be able to jump into this thing.
And basically, it is an elimination of American sovereignty on all of these issues.
It's NAPTA-CAPTA-GAT, WTO, on steroids.
And we cannot allow the disinformation and the diversion of the Obamacare debacle preclude us from having stopped the Senate for giving fast-track authority to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Okay, okay, very good.
I hope that made sense to people.
Yeah, very interesting.
And this brings to mind also Obamacare in general and what that's really about, which I do want to drill down with you.
But before we do that, Let's just go back one step and have you answer how directly you were affected by domestic surveillance of yourself after your whistleblowing or right even during the whistleblowing and what you experienced in terms of harassment and perhaps what you're also experiencing to this day.
Well, let me do that by first saying this.
There's a national security whistleblower coalition and the senior academic advisor's name is William Weaver.
And this is what the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition Senior Academic Advisor has to say about National Security Whistleblowers.
When I get calls from people thinking of blowing the whistle, I tell them don't do it.
Most of the time they go ahead and do it anyway and end up with their lives destroyed.
Those who come forward often face harassment, investigation, character assassination, and firing, not to mention the toll that whistleblowing takes on their families.
If you do it, you will be destroyed.
Sometimes people ask me, should I do this?
And my answer is no.
If they're married, they'll lose their family.
They'll lose their jobs.
They will lose everything.
And the Project on Government Oversight had this to say, the only way we can find out what's going on is for someone to come forward and let us know.
But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them.
The message is, don't blow the whistle or we'll make your life hell.
Now, these are the advocates for national security whistleblowers.
Okay, well, I mean, you know, I appreciate that, although because I'm a website that France or whatever exposes brings to the light whistleblowers in their testimony from Above Top Secret, I can appreciate all of that.
I'm not sure it actually works.
In other words, they're perhaps trying to discuss something that...
That they should have balanced it a bit because on the one side, yes, there are some sacrifices that can be made, not always have to be made, but can be made in terms of a spouse perhaps not understanding what's going on and the surveillance intensifying, etc.
But I can guarantee you that if a person continues with a certain amount of knowledge anyway, their days are numbered regardless.
So that whether they go public It becomes the difference between being targeted and killed and just going into obscurity or actually possibly becoming so well-known that they don't want to make you a martyr and they won't then kill you.
So there are aspects to that discussion.
But I appreciate the point you're making that it's a hard road and that they are making, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Not sure who they're really working for.
Excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical of everything.
Can you talk about what did happen on a personal level?
Are you willing to talk about that?
Well, yes.
I basically found myself unemployable.
It was almost as if I was on some type of a list.
That's when the terrorist watch list came up.
I understood that there were companies that were private contractors That we're overseeing that for the government.
Now, Teletech has a subsidiary called Teletech Government Solutions.
Teletech also has a direct link to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. Teletech seems to have a proclivity of, and I was warned that Teletech had friends in high places.
And again, I was warned that I would never work again.
Now, when I heard that, You know, I thought, you know, how can they make that happen?
You know, trust me, they can.
And here's what happens to a whistleblower, as I'm certain that you know.
For one thing, employers are scared of bringing you on because, you know, they look at the fact that, you know, maybe here's somebody who has to think that everything has to be absolutely right or perfect and that, you know, That we are willing to question their challenge authority.
If they're judging two people, and if they have somebody that was a whistleblower to the point where their company initiated a federal legal action against them, even though it was dismissed with prejudice, if I've got somebody that I think I can trust or intimidate, I'm not going to take the whistleblower.
What happened with me was that immediately after receiving these warnings, I had companies coming to me.
I interviewed with them over the phone.
The first company was out of California.
It was within the same industry that I came from, which was electronic customer relations management for the retail automobile industry.
We hit it off.
It was great.
We had a couple of phone interviews.
I did some Psychological testing over the phone, and they were extremely happy and pleased with that.
And they said, we're going to send you, you know, plane tickets, hotel confirmation, car rental confirmation.
We need to get you out here as quickly as possible.
So the next day, I received a priority FedEx, came, and then later that afternoon, I got a phone call.
And they said, well, we're going to go another way.
And I said, well, I don't understand.
You know, everything, you know, And they said, well, you know, something has come up and we're not able to do this.
And I'm thinking, you know, you just spent three grand on plane tickets and on everything else.
And they said, well, you know, we'll give you a call back in six months or so.
And I thought that that was very odd.
But, you know, there was nothing I could do.
Then I was interviewing with a company out of Florida and it went the same way.
And actually, very much the same way.
They sent me a FedEx pack and...
And the next day, he called me back.
And that's when I said, something's up.
I mean, it's like somebody tipped him off.
They got a phone call.
The other thing is that, you know, they got a phone call.
There's a program called InfraGuard that many major corporations are involved with.
It's part of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA and the military.
And basically it has to do with Cog or continuity and government operations.
And in the event of national security, they have to have an affiliate within a lot of these corporations.
And it was reported that somebody involved with InfraGard said, well, listen, if you have a problem employee, just let us know and we'll take care of it.
And as Preston James said, In the Veterans Today articles has pointed out and has been my experience in understanding that typically what happens is this.
A prospective employer or an employer will make a visit to your, you know, a prospective employer in their place of business and say, well, listen, you know, we just need to talk to you about Mark Nowitzki.
We need to get some background information.
He's, you know, currently under investigation.
We don't think it's a real serious issue, but, you know, we just think that perhaps you would, you know, choose another person for that position or, you know, we don't think that guy, he should no longer be in your employ.
And by the way, here's a national security letter.
Why don't you read this?
And it says it's illegal for the employer to Make a reference to having seen this information or be aware of this visit.
And I think the penalty is 10 years in prison and a $10 million fine or something along those lines.
And then they pull the national security letter back.
And so those types of things.
Now, the longer this goes forward, the longer you're unemployed or underemployed or unemployable.
And again, I mean, I went through the same thing that William Weaver described.
I've went through the same thing that many national security or just whistleblowers have survived, is that they do lose their family.
They do lose their children through divorce.
They become virtually unemployable.
The longer you are unemployed, the worse it is for you.
I'm 50 years old now at this point.
When I started it, I was in my early 40s.
You know, so you've got that against, then you're bankrupt, and then you have that credit.
And, you know, all of these things pile on top of you.
Right, and I mean, I appreciate that.
What I would actually call that is breaking from the matrix.
In other words, real indication that you are stepping out and taking a stand against this thing we call the matrix, which is...
A false reality for all intents and purposes.
In other words, that is the price of becoming a truth teller, going on that path.
It is a mission.
It's something that you guys and people like us, and I include myself in that, sort of set ourselves up for coming in on this incarnation.
And so I wouldn't want to put it down.
I do want to say, though, that in terms of your own experience, were you surveilled?
And if so, how?
Can you describe that?
Well, see, there in fact lies the problem, because it's against the law for anybody to tell you.
So in 2006, it is.
My senator right now is Al Franken, and he is the...
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman for Privacy Technology and the Law.
Now, there aren't too many people that have more knowledge of domestic surveillance specifically through government contractors than I do.
And what somebody like Ed Snowden, when he was talking about Prism and Upstream, that was pretty much, you know, the discussion of the social media context.
Where Prism was involved with Microsoft and Yahoo and Google and Facebook and PayPal and YouTube and Skype and Hotmail and Apple.
Where I was involved and where I believe Teletech is involved.
And again, I'm saying these things in public and I've been saying them for years and Teletech hasn't come back and sued me.
So the fact that they're not able to come back and sue me when I say That Teletech Holdings is likely sharing private confidential proprietary customer information with third parties without the acknowledgement of consent of the customer.
SUNY. Let's get this out in the open.
Prove to me that that's not true.
Now, their customers are like Verizon.
Let's say, how about Sprint and Excel?
Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Best Buy Corporation.
You know, massive major corporations.
They're involved with the financial industry.
They're involved with the healthcare industry.
And so what I would say is that based on my experiences with Teletech, based on my experience with the fact that Teletech is a corporation that basically the business model was stealing from the customers, stealing from their employees, lying and misleading their shareholders,
and lying and misleading the SEC. Okay, well, yeah, and I understand that part of it, but what I don't understand, or what I'm hoping to hear, if you just bear with me, Mark, I'm going to wait for this to show up and hope that we are going to be able to get back.
Yes, okay.
We are now back online, so go right ahead, and I assume you'll remember just refreshing your memory.
about the question in terms of what exactly about talking about what is domestic surveillance of the American people or worldwide people experiencing harassment etc.
although we don't have a proof oftentimes there's no exact way to prove this but people are talking about it I'm interviewing people about it and so your answer go right ahead Well, I'm going to answer with what was an op-ed from Senator Franken recently on CNN. So there's an op-ed, and I've got to paraphrase because I don't have it directly in front of me.
But he said that if he told the American people what the NSA was doing, that he could be put under arrest and would be in violation of federal charges.
Okay, but that's someone who actually knows what the NSA... I mean, the average person out there who's experiencing the other end of surveillance, and I'm assuming that these things happen to you.
In other words, maybe, I don't know, clicks on your phone, hang-ups, these things that are happening tonight where we get...
Disconnected because they don't like what we're talking about or whatever.
This kind of thing.
We don't know.
We can't prove what the NSA is doing.
Are you saying that Franken is somebody who has at their disposal inside information?
Oh, absolutely.
And both he and my Congressman Keith Ellison, who I started telling this to in 2007, Keith Ellison was just on national television telling people that Congress really wasn't aware of any of this, when in fact I've been, you know, giving him all of this information since he came in the office in 2007.
In 2006, I went to my then-Senator Mark Dayton, who's now the governor of Minnesota, and I told him and described what was happening to me and what I thought was happening to me, and I convinced his office to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. Basically,
I told them that, you know, I am under the impression that I am on some type of a watch list and do not, you know, so there are do not fly lists, there are terrorist watch lists, there are do not work lists, there's the main core database.
And I told them that, you know, describe the situation that I work for a company that's a government contractor affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security.
They sent a FOIA request to the FBI and Asking if my name was on a watch list or had been affiliated to putting on some type of a do not work list.
And we got a FOIA response back from the FBI basically telling the Senator that it was against the law to disclose that information to him.
And I said, well, you know, wouldn't it have been easier for them to say that I wasn't on the end of a watch list or harassment?
And I said, you know, does this not prove in fact that, you know, you're not assuming at this point that my name is potential analyst because it would have been easier for them to say no.
And he said, well, his senior staff, they said, well, yes, but there's nothing we can do.
We can't go forward this.
So it's actually against the law to find out if your name is on the list.
These national security letters are held in secret.
And so...
Okay, so is...
Okay, I appreciate that.
But is your answer, in essence, that you have been surveilled, but you can't reveal how?
Yes.
It's against the law, under the Patriot Act, for them to disclose it's against the law.
But for you, as a victim of this?
Right.
Recently, the...
I believe it was that the CEO of Yahoo, boy, I wish I could remember her name, it'll come to me, admitted basically the same thing, that she would like to tell the American people what the NSA was doing, but if she told the NSA, or if she told the people what the NSA was doing, she would be arrested.
Mark Zuckerberg came out and said along the same things about How his business was being impacted because, you know, fewer and fewer people wanted to do business with Facebook.
And so that domestic surveillance was actually bad for their business.
And now we find out that there's an Intelligence Community Directive that's called Intelligence Community Directive number 204.
And it's the National Intelligence Priorities Framework.
Because, you know, President Obama, along with Senator Feinstein, apparently just admitted that they didn't know anything about spying on foreign press.
But President Obama was the same person that came out and said, this isn't about spying on the American people.
And we know how that ended up.
And one of the things that, I don't know if people remember this, but Senator Obama's privacy was attacked when...
He was running for president when apparently somebody broke into the office where they housed the U.S. passports, and his passport records were stolen, apparently along then with John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
And here's what he said then.
He said, one of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they disclose information Personal information, that it's going to stay personal and private.
And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people's personal records, that's a problem.
Not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.
So that was Senator Obama, presidential candidate Obama, talking about what it's like to be on the receiving end of domestic surveillance.
Which indeed he was, although he certainly had to be complicit in it.
From day one, and that goes back to his knowing that he was going to be president, if you follow that story.
I'd just like to make an addendum to that story about a whistleblower.
One of the investigators was named Lieutenant Quarles Harris, and he was investigating the use and the purpose of the theft of the passport information, and he ended up getting shot to death.
Right.
Okay.
Very interesting.
Well, I mean, of course, that would be a whole very interesting investigation to start doing is in terms of domestic surveillance, people that become aware of it, like yourself, on a very upfront and personal basis.
Investigating what happens to them, especially the ones that actually don't start whistleblowing because, you know, but maybe leave their jobs later explaining about it or whatever.
You know, I think there's some kind of gray area going on here because, again, people are doing it all over the Internet.
Where that loophole exists, or if it even does exist, You know, and what the difference is between like a CEO of a company such as Facebook, who it maybe doesn't have, is not at liberty to say how they're being surveilled by their own government.
I mean, we're really talking about something that a place like Russia has been involved in doing as a matter of course.
It's simply that the US is now getting up to speed on all that, apparently, and actually has been, really, for the last, I would say, a good ten years, probably much longer than ten years.
I remember even hearing that televisions, even before the digital, you know, television and all that, were used to spy on people.
In other words, the camera in a television can look into your rooms and watch you and be used to watch you.
And we certainly know that that's going on now with our computers.
People that don't cover their cameras, just for those listening, are fools, in my opinion, simply because the camera on the computer can easily be accessed and be viewing whatever you're doing.
Or even your smartphone.
People don't have an idea that even when the smartphone is turned off, that it's listening.
Now, we're talking about going to a retail store and giving up your thumbprint.
We've got facial recognition systems.
We've got trap wire.
We've got game systems that are, you know, voice activated.
So you don't have to turn them off or turn them on.
You just talk to your TV. Well, you know what?
That means it's on 24-7, and it's connected to the Internet.
Yes.
So, you know, basically what you've invited into your house is a microphone and a camera that's on 24-7 that you can't turn on.
I was on a radio program, and I had somebody call in And we were talking about these things and he said that he was a computer repair person and that recently he's seen a lot of PCs and laptops coming in and the cameras are locked into the on position, even when the computers turn off.
And what he did was he went and he found a virus and then the virus was linked back to the FBI. Yeah, there you go.
And he said that he was, you know, and I said, well, wait, you better be careful because it's against the law for you, you know.
I asked him, I said, did you tell the people what the source of the virus was?
He says, well, no, I can't do that.
And so, you know, people walking around with a smartphone, you know, they put it in their pocket, and basically that's a, you know, a GPS system, and it, you know, constantly monitors your, you Not only your location, but the content of your conversation.
Now, like I said, I like to use a historical context in all of this.
And so when we look back, we can look back to things like the Church Commission.
And in 1976, it was the investigation of basically Watergate and overreaches of The government when it came to domestic surveillance.
And this is what Senator Frank Church talked about in 1976.
The National Security Agency's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no one would have any privacy left, such as the capability to monitor everything.
Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter.
There would be no place to hide.
If a dictator ever took over the NSA, it could enable it to impose total security, and there would be no way to fight back.
Now, that was 1976 technology.
Yes.
But I want to give you a quote here as well.
And this is from a President Obama senior advisor.
And tell me if you can try to tell me who said this.
He said, at the same time, the capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase.
As I have already noted, it will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen, in addition to more customary data.
These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authority.
And he went on to say, another track, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy, more directly linked to the impact of technology.
It involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society.
Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how, unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, This elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.
You know who said that?
No, I don't, but it certainly sounds like Eisenhower many, many years before.
Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1968.
Figures.
Right, so he's the puppet master, for all intents and purposes.
Right.
He wrote a book called Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technetronic Era, and that was in 1970.
The first reference I gave, you know, talking about having these files subject to instantaneous retrieval, having update complete files with even the most personal information, the health and the personal behavior, That was from a magazine called Encounter in January of 1968.
Incredible, yes.
What's that?
I say incredible, yes, we're there.
That was 1968.
I don't even know if VCRs were around at that time.
So imagine if there were cell phones, it was the size of a briefcase.
And we were listening to 8-track tapes.
Imagine what type of technology we have now.
Now, he went on to say even more scary things than that, but again, you know, it would seem that if there's a Republican in the executive office, if there's a Republican president, there seems to be Henry Kissinger in the background, and if there's a Democrat president, it seems to be Zbigniew Brzezinski.
But those two quotes I gave you were from 1976, Right.
I mean, there's no doubt whatsoever, and Camelot has numerous people talking about the level of surveillance and the capability, and Jake Simpson, one of our whistleblowers, is someone who talks about it probably In excess of where we are even going at this point, really talking about being 10,000 years in advance.
We're talking about the secret space program.
We're talking about technology and abilities that are simply not in the public domain at all.
Or then they are not referred to either.
Even back then, we had a secret government going on.
Let me give you one more quote.
If you're into that, this quote also comes from Between Two Ages.
When you introduce people to this, this is a lot of information for people to try to process.
For most people, it's too much.
But if what we're talking about, and I understand what you're talking about, but this is also a quote from the book Between Two Ages.
Accurately timed, artificially excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth.
One could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of a very large population in selected regions over an extended period.
Sure.
Is he writing science fiction or is he writing science facts?
Exactly.
And that should scare the hell out of people.
Absolutely.
We used to make jokes, okay?
Carrie, we used to make jokes about, you know, the KGB and show me your papers and wiretapping your phones.
We used to make fun of the Stasi and the East Germans.
We used to make fun of, you know, now, I mean, we're carrying around a device in our pocket.
That is monitoring, you know, every single thing we do, every person we talk to, and that information is going to Bluffdale, Utah, and, you know, the biggest, you know, data repository in the history of mankind.
Sure.
And what are they using it for?
You know, so people like us, Carrie, I think you'll agree, they listen to us all the time.
Absolutely.
I mean, the conversations I had, because these cutoffs, these happen, you know, when I'm talking with Karen or when I'm talking with other senior highlight all the time.
Yeah, but, you know, I have to say that I get a kick out of television shows because, you know, I watch from time to time some of the newer stuff that comes out just to see where they're going with things and what they're planting in there for people to be aware of because you need to really know your enemy well.
And so I see them, and even a recent show called Betrayal, that you have a guy who's working for a head of the Illuminati type, and he actually reaches behind a picture and pulls out, you know, one of those old-fashioned kind of listening devices, you know, and smashes it with the hammer on the guy's desk.
I mean, that is so old-fashioned.
You know, they have to lie to us.
I mean, even in the television shows, then this is brand new.
In other words, this is how stupid...
I'm hearing this odd sound.
Are you picking it up?
Hello?
Not at my end.
Hi, are you there?
Hello?
Yeah, can you hear me?
I got you now.
We're back.
We're back.
Okay, well, so we had interference right there.
I think we're still live.
I'm going to ask the people in the chat if...
Hold on one second.
I'm just going to see what they've got to say.
We do have a chat room here.
Yes, we're still live.
Okay, great.
All right.
So you were about to say something, I think, before you kind of lost contact.
Well, what we have to know, so all of these TV shows, like, you know, Person of Interest or, you know, all of these are psyops, okay?
Right.
This is media.
My acronym for the word media is making everyone dumber in America.
Okay.
And for the D, you can substitute dead or destitute because it's the same thing.
Now, the same corporations that own 90% of our media, so what, five or six international corporations all typically affiliated to military-industry complex, they also own the newspapers.
Yes.
And they own the production companies for films.
So, you know, when you see suddenly every movie is either a zombie or a vampire or...
Exactly.
The other thing that I find interesting is that basically...
Remember in the 70s when, you know, the commies were the bad guys and then in the 80s it was the, you know, the Middle Eastern people were the bad guys?
Now...
Even in the comedy movies, like the movie Red or these Bruce Willis movies, the bad guys are always the CIA. I mean, it's true.
In the 70s, it was the commies.
It was the Russians.
They were the bad guys.
In the 80s, it was the Middle Eastern people.
And now, basically, every movie...
Well, I actually have a friend who says that a lot of the bad guys are also Englishmen, which is really interesting.
There's like a subtle understanding that the English are trying to run the world.
And we've got, you know, of course, the Rothschild City of London and that whole nine yards.
So that's kind of an interesting twist on that story.
But what I'd like to ask you, because you did mention to me Promise Software, and I was wondering, what is it you think you know, or what is it do you know about Promise?
Because I've investigated that quite a bit.
Okay.
Well, before that, just quickly, there was a movie, I think it was from 2002 or 2003, called Enemy of the State.
Oh, yeah.
Do you remember that movie, Will Smith?
I love that movie.
Excellent.
And Gene Hackman.
Yes.
Okay.
Now, why are the producers of this film in jail?
Are they?
I mean, no.
No, but basically, if you look at this, everything that Ed Snowden was talking about is in here.
Oh, yeah.
Absolutely.
Now, if you look closely, and what I saw this, it blew me away.
You know the group of CIA Or NSA, you know, the people that are conducting the surveillance.
The company that they use as a cover is called Teletech.
Now, I don't think that that's a coincidence.
But, you know, so, you know, people can go watch the movie Enemy of the State.
There's also a book, and it was published in 2005, and it's called No Place to Hide.
And I recommend it.
It's written by Robert O'Hara, who wrote for the Washington Post.
Alright, very good.
The title of the book is, this is the total title of the book.
You are being watched.
Government agencies and private corporations know where you live, how much you earn, what you buy, and sometimes even what you read.
And increasingly, this information is being leaked or sold to identity thieves.
In a surveillance society out of control, there is no place to hide.
So that's, you know, so why isn't this guy in jail?
You know, he's basically disclosing the same thing that, you know, Ed Snowden was talking about, but he was talking about it in 2005.
So, you know, the types of things that Ed Snowden disclosed were the types of things that, you know, people like Russell Tice and William Binney and Thomas Drake and Mark Klein from AT&T. Now, you're talking about Russell Tice and William Binney and Thomas Drake.
You know, those were actual senior employees at the NSA. You know, somebody like Chris Pine.
But if somebody's going to tell me, well, wait a minute, you know, we didn't know about, you know, this fine.
Now, if anything happens to me, it wasn't an accident, okay?
I just want to say that.
Yeah, and I second the notion, absolutely.
If you've done an investigation into Promise, you know that there's about 40 people that are dead that are affiliated with this.
Including Danny Casalero, who was the journalist.
But if you look at it in actuality, a number of lawyers, a number of investigators, a number of CIA employees, a number of witnesses, and I'll give you their names.
But basically, and again, what I'm telling you now is not top secret or above top secret.
So I'm telling you information that is in the congressional record, in the federal court record, is in the public access record, so that I'm not telling you anything that isn't available to anybody that has access to the internet.
Well, it's also in a book by Sherry Seymour.
Search the word MainCorp, database.
You're going to find some information.
Now, you know what?
That's going to put a red flag next to your name.
Yes.
I sent you an article from Wired Magazine.
Wired is a trade journal for information technology.
The article was called The Inslaw Octopus.
What this talks about is a software program that was developed through a government grant to a private company called Promise.
And PROMIS stands for the Prosecutor's Case Management System.
And what it ended up being was a very sophisticated way to track people through computer databases.
And where PROMIS was able to actually turn the key and turn the whole form of intelligence collection on its head, Was that Promise could turn blind data into information.
So Promise actually was, in a way, artificial intelligence.
Yep.
And again, if people would read this article, and maybe you could put a link to the article on your website.
Okay, no problem.
So people can look for this.
Right.
For them to read this, because this is the screenplay for what would have been a great movie.
Yes.
And so, this individual named Bill Hamilton had this company called Inslaw, and he developed this system called Promise, which was developed for attorneys as a case management software system that would allow lawyers to track individual people throughout the legal system.
But then the Justice Department saw it and said, huh, that's kind of cool.
That would, you know, make a neat tool.
And so they essentially turned Promise into Google for spies.
And so what it, you know, what it was allowed to do or what it did was using Promise as a way of tracking people.
And the real power of Promise was that it could associate itself to disparate databases.
And so, it became kind of a Google for...
Yeah, go right ahead.
Go right ahead.
It became kind of a Google for Spine.
And Promise had the capacity to turn this blind data into information.
It became a real powerful tracking system or device for intelligence operations.
And so, you know, if you were able to put somebody's name into the system with, you know, under Promise, You know, it would pick up your movements and, you know, bank accounts or stock market or your portfolio or traffic tickets or social security number.
And when the Department of Justice figured out that, you know, this was really significant, that's when Bill Hamilton tried to take it to the next level.
And he upgraded some enhancements basically on his own and allowed the Justice Department to take a look at it.
And so with the enhancements, he cut a deal with the government saying that the enhancements weren't part of the original government funding that helped create the initial version of Promise.
And so there was two.
There was, you know, the initial promise and let's say call it Promise 2.0.
And so Promise 2.0 became what everybody wanted.
And if you read this article, the Department of Justice established a protocol for taking out Bill Hamilton and his law.
And through deceit, through deception, through trickery, and, you know, they ended up being able to do that.
They had a—the Department of Justice, not—I don't call it, you know, very little justice to be funded in the Department of Justice— had a type of a premeditated plan to destroy Bill Hamilton and Islam and steal this technology.
Sure.
And, you know, so if you look back, it was linked to things like AdWords Contra.
It was linked back to things like Oliver North.
It was given to other governments.
That's right.
Apparently, it was installed with a back door.
And when Bill Hamilton decided that he was going to try to mount a legal defense, Against the theft of his company and his technology, he went up against the legal system and the justice system that completely found in favor of the government.
He went to a bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy judge actually ruled in his interest and that ended up getting overturned.
Then the IRS got involved and then the initial bankruptcy judge was replaced The lawyer for the IRS replaced him, you know, but this became a huge problem.
And the House Judiciary Committee looked into it, the chairman, Jack Brooks, looked into it and basically reported that high government officials were involved.
Several individuals testified under oath that Insula's promise software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain and to further intelligence in foreign policy objectives.
Again, I'm not telling you anything that is top secret.
That's right.
This is in the public domain.
Okay, but let me ask you, Mark, because you seem to have a great sort of grasp of the story.
And I don't know if you read The Last Circle by Sherry Seymour.
I, I, I did, but it was a while back.
The reason I looked into Promise, Terry, was I was trying to build my own case.
So I took all of this information that I'm reading you.
I took this to Congress.
And I was building the case to say, you know, these weapons are being used against American citizens by the American government.
And, you know, so I am a person in no way, shape, or form associated in any way to terrorism, except for being on the receiving end of it.
Now, it's against the law for me to prove it.
I'm incapable of proving it, and it's against the law for, apparently, my congresspeople to prove it.
So, you know, other than that, you know, what are we to do?
Well, yeah, that's the good question.
I mean, no, I mean, you're working with Karen Hudis, and let's bring this back home here for a moment and ask you, and I don't know what part of the country you're in or anything, whether you're in Washington, D.C., the way she is, or at least near there, but, you know...
In other words, the rule of law is something that they establish for their own purposes and then they do whatever they want behind the scenes when it suits their purposes.
But I don't know what your recourse is or going to be.
In other words, are you working with Karen in hopes of doing something about this?
You're certainly hitting the airwaves now.
You're getting some notice.
But where is it going for you?
What do you suggest even for yourself?
Well, first let me tell you this.
I went to...
I did everything that a whistleblower is supposed to do.
So even when I was at Teletech, what I did is I went up the chain of command, and I went to the senior executives, and I went to the CEO. And I told them that what we're doing is not sustainable.
And, you know, eventually, Teletech lost the subsidiary Nugent, and the shareholders lost, by my estimation, plus or minus in the realm of $250 million.
In San Diego, where Nugent was headquartered, I'm thinking perhaps as many as 800, 900 jobs were lost.
And this was all preventable.
And again, Teletech has a Yahoo Financial Message Board page.
And anybody can just go to Yahoo Financial Message Board.
the stock ticker is TTEC.
I am FPVSFF.
It's an inside joke between myself and the CEO, chairman of the board, Ken Duckman of Talent Tech Holdings.
It stands for fire prevention versus firefighting because I tried to convince them that it was cheaper to prevent fires than to constantly put them out or try to put them out.
Well, when you say that, I mean, what were you trying to get them to do?
I mean, it sounds like, at least to me, on the outside, that they were in very deep.
They weren't about to try to prevent anything.
Hello?
Hello.
I hear something like a cymbal gong or something.
I keep hearing the sound.
Wow.
Are you picking that up on your end?
No.
No, I'm hearing this.
It's like an electronic explosion.
Wow.
So every time I ask a good question, the gong goes off?
No, just joking.
There it was again.
One moment.
And hello?
Okay, everyone, I'm hoping that we're coming live again.
Are we live?
Okay, it looks like we've gone live.
Okay.
Sorry for that.
There was a, as you said, there was some kind of gong that you heard at your end every time I spoke, and it seemed to want to take us down.
So...
Here we are again.
What we're going to do, and we've been going for an hour and a half, I'm going to take about a half hour worth of questions from the listeners, and they can type their questions into the chat.
There may be some there.
I will try to go through there.
And see if I can find them.
And, you know, so bear with me when I do that.
But basically, Mark, we were talking, if you want to wrap this whole thing up, you were going to use some of the sort of, I don't know, the storyline or some tips that you were finding within the Promise Software saga to basically mount your own defense.
Is that correct?
Yes.
You know, to me, the information that I was providing to Congress about all of this.
Now, it proves that what I'm saying is true and that these weapons are being used against the American people.
Now, in March, I just want to read this quickly before we go to questions.
In March of 2011, now again, my congressman is Keith Ellison, and he, in association with about 20 other congressmen, wrote a letter to the chairman of the congressional office Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Armed Services Committee.
And this was in response to three, and I'm reading directly from the group of Congress people.
There's a federal defense and intelligence agency data security contractors and a leading law firm planned a dirty tricks campaign that included possible illegal actions against citizens engaged in free speech.
It went on to name the companies being Defense Data Security Contractors, H.B. Gary Federal, Palantir Technologies, Berco Technologies, listed as Team Themis, and the law firm of Hunting Williams.
And what they said in this letter was that the possibility that any one of these crimes was committed warrants investigation.
It's deeply troubling to think that tactics developed for use against terrorists may have been unleashed against American citizens.
And then ask the question, did the government contractors violate federal laws?
Are there adequate laws in place to protect American citizens from intrusive and or unethical electronic surveillance tactics?
Were government resources inappropriately used to target American citizens?
All of these things happened to me, and I was telling Congressman Ellison and Senator Franken about them in 2007.
And, you know, by no coincidence.
So what I was using, I was using Operation Chaos from 1968.
The CIA, with assistance from numerous government agencies, conducted a massive illegal domestic covert operation called Operation Chaos, the largest and most pervasive domestic surveillance program in the history of the country.
That was 1968.
So what I'm telling them is that I'm giving the prima facie evidence, as much as I can prove, That I'm on the receiving end of illegal government domestic surveillance and I'm just a citizen.
And I'm assuming or presuming that others are being targeted.
And the people that are being targeted are other whistleblowers.
The people that are being targeted are journalists, are lawyers defending whistleblowers, are government employees that are trying to forewarn of crises.
And so, you know, by showing the case, you know, proving that and sitting down with their senior staffers and showing them The information about Promise, talking about the Church Committee.
And I've implored both of them, and all members of Congress, that what we need is another Church Committee.
We need to really get to the bottom of this.
Instead, President Obama wants to put apart Kat Sunstein, who wanted to ban conspiracy theorizing.
I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And there was also a Brookings Institute study that, you know, talked about these things that maybe if we can get some time in addition to the questions we can go into.
But that's what I did.
So I worked in Congress not just with my problems, but with solutions.
And I told them that starting in 2007 and 2009, you've got contractors out there that are, you know, attacking the private citizens and we need to investigate this.
So in 2011, they put this letter together and said, you know, if these tactics are being used against American citizens, we need to get to the bottom of this.
And I told them, I told Keith Ellison exactly, this is exactly what I told you has been happening to me.
And I can prove it if you help me.
But then Senator Franken ends up saying, you know, a month ago, that there's, you know, in fact, if he told the American people what the NSA was really doing, that he, as a senator, could get thrown in jail.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
And this is unbelievable.
So crazy.
So we do have at least one question here.
And you said you wanted to get into...
Some kind of Project Blue Book, and you're welcome to do that.
I will ask you, I don't see a lot of questions here at the moment.
Looks like we even have some kind of hacker in the chat, which is a first.
But at any rate, or a spammer, however you look at that.
I'm associated with a lot of people's first when it comes to talking about this.
Okay, how can we get the status quo to care about this and tweet links?
How do we get them to care?
You know, I guess you're doing it, in essence, as far as I'm concerned.
I mean, you are doing radio shows, this show with Camelot, and I've seen you on Rush It Today and other YouTube videos.
I know you were in Mike Harris' radio show a few times.
What would you suggest, based on the question?
Let me top all of that, okay?
I went to Gretchen Morton, the New York Times, years ago.
Pulitzer Prize winner.
I went to the Washington Post with Dana Priest.
She ended up writing a series called Top Secret America, and I gave her a lot of information associated with what she wrote about Top Secret America, and I think she won an award for that.
I went to Marcy Gordon at AP. I went to Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg.
What happens is, there's another list out there.
It's called the No Publish List.
Now, I went and I was, you know, had lengthy, numerous conversations with 60 Minutes, a senior executive producer, Bob Anderson.
And we got into details with this five or six years ago.
So, you know, completely negated the need for anybody like Ed Snowden to do what he had done.
And after these, you know, communications, I sent, you know, Bob information that corroborated everything I said.
He ended up, you know, I thought it was a go.
I thought we were Greenland.
And he called me up and said, Mark, we're going to spike the story.
It's just too complicated for 60 minutes.
How can this...
He says, well, we wouldn't be able to fit this into a 60-minute segment.
And so, I did get a call back from a journalist that won a Pulitzer.
And actually, she...
She called me up and she said, Mark, listen, I apologize.
My editor's pulling the story.
There's nothing I can do.
Good luck.
It hung up on me.
Wow.
So the mainstream media is unwilling.
You know, so you have somebody like Amber Lyon for CNN that wanted to tell the truth.
She got fired.
Okay.
Yeah.
Anybody, you know, so the journalists, well, we don't have journalists.
We have reporters.
Okay.
You know, we've got, you know, some people like...
Chris Hedge is out there that are action journalists.
But, well, we have our reporters.
When I tell people, you know what?
CNN doesn't even have an investigative journalism division anymore.
I believe it.
Absolutely.
They fired Amber Lyon, who did an investigation into atrocities committed in Bahrain.
And seeing that Bahrain was a friend of the United States government, they didn't want to produce it.
And so Amber Lyon ended up getting fired, and now CNN outsources all their investigative journalism.
Incredible.
So CNN, the world's supposed leader in journalism, doesn't have an investigative journalism department.
In fact, Jon Stewart in The Daily Show did a story on it.
It's hilarious.
So go to YouTube, And look at the story about CNN outsourcing their investigative journalism.
The other thing I just want to read.
Pardon me?
I would like to read that.
Go right ahead.
Yeah.
What I'd like to read.
Now, again, the people.
We the people.
You know, Dianne Feinstein represents this.
Al Franken, he represents us.
We don't have representatives.
We have two people from two parties, the stupid party and the evil party, and they change sides.
We end up with the same thing.
We don't have media protecting us.
If a journalist wants to tell somebody the truth, they end up fired, and they're not able to get a job.
They're blacklisted, so they know what the score is.
And what they do is they fire somebody like Amber Lyon, and that sends a message across the body, everybody else, to get with the program.
We're going to do the story about the King of the Tree.
The people don't have think tanks.
We don't have lobbyists.
My Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered 11 years ago last Friday, October 25th.
He was a person, and we did a memorial on an The honor tribute last year to him at the Wellstone Center recognizes the 10th anniversary of his death, his assassination, the death of his wife, his daughter, three staffers, and the two pilots.
And nobody would cover that.
Wow.
You know, that was a joke.
Everybody who had everything to gain by his death were the ones that investigated it.
And I'm talking about the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board, and George Bush and That the news media was telling us.
And the eyewitness accounts were contrary to everything the FBI. Now, what happened was the NDSB and the FBI failed to hold a public hearing on the death of one of the most significant senators.
They said that he wasn't high profile enough to warrant a public hearing.
Yeah.
Now, what I would recommend to your listeners is to go to the website www.WellstoneTheyKilledHim.com and take a look at a documentary film that backs up everything I've said.
Now, one of the things, www.WellstoneTheyKilledHim.com.
Now, one of the things Paul Wellstone said was, we all do better when we all do better.
I'd like to modify that.
We all do better And this is the type of information that I shared with Congress and that I shared with the media that they were free to write.
And this is a 2011 report from December 14th from the Brookings Institute for Technology and Innovation.
And the title of the report is Recording Everything, Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Government.
And I just want to read to your audience the conclusion segment.
And it says, "The ability to report everything will tilt the playing field back in favor of repressive governments by laying the foundation for a plethora of new approaches to targeting dissent."
When all the telephone calls in an entire country can be captioned and provided to voice recognition software program to extract key phrases, when video footage from public spaces can be correlated in real time to the conversations, text messages, and social media traffic associated with people occupying those spaces, The arsenal of responses available to a regime facing dissent will expand.
This will provide the greater capability to shape or quell dissent.
Declining storage costs will soon make it practical for authoritarian governments to create permanent digital archives of the data gathered from pervasive surveillance systems.
In countries where there is no meaningful public debate on privacy, There's no reason to expect governments not to fully exploit the ability to build databases containing every phone conversation, location data for almost every person and vehicle, and video from every public space in an entire country.
This will greatly expand the ability of repressive regimes to perform surveillance of opponents and to anticipate and react to unrest.
In addition, the awareness among the populace of pervasive surveillance will The coming era of ubiquitous surveillance in an authoritarian country has important implications for American foreign policy.
Strategies for engaging with these countries will benefit from specific consideration of the presence, growth, and increasing impact of these enormous digital databases.
This will impact human rights, trade, export control, intellectual property security, and the operation of multinational businesses with in-country facilities, subsidiaries, and contractors.
Finally, the use by authoritarian governments of systems that record everything that in complete absence of privacy considerations will lead to a long list of other unforeseen and generally negative consequences.
Unfortunately, the residents of those countries, as well as the rest of us, will soon start to find out just what those consequences are.
Absolutely.
All right.
Well, that was from the Brookings Institute.
Okay.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay, so what they're warning us is how this information is going to be used to suppress and quell dissent and to find out, you know, and uncover truth.
So, you know, I would suggest that Congress start with the Brookings Institute study from December 24, 2011, called Recording Everything Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Government.
Yeah, okay, and well said.
But at the moment, we've got several questions, so I'd like to be able to go to those questions, and then we could perhaps circle back to talking, just asking you a few last-minute questions.
Okay, so we've got somebody here who is asking, and I'm trying to find, would you go to somebody like Glenn Greenwald?
I tried that.
At the time, I believe that I tried to contact Glenn Greenwald and I contacted other investigative journalists and what they told me was this, that they were fascinated and intrigued by my story.
Again, the mainstream journalists said they couldn't believe what I was telling them and what I was able to demonstrate and prove to them.
But even the investigative journalists said, I'm not going to be able to sell this.
And so, you know, this is going to take two or three months of work, and, you know, I'm not going to be able to sell it.
Now, somebody like Matthew Rothschild from the Progressive magazine wrote a very interesting article not too long ago about how the government was using surveillance to spy on Occupy activists.
So here's, you know, the progressive magazine out there, and I contacted Matt Rothschild and I told him about my story, but there's only so much truth that they're allowed to leak out.
And so I did everything I was supposed to do.
I went to the legal community.
They said, you know, this is a massive undertaking and, you know, there's nothing we can do.
These people are protected by the Patriot Act.
They're being protected by the government.
Right.
Protected by the fact that they have billions of dollars and they'll just not spend you.
Right, okay.
Unless you have $250,000.
Okay, I appreciate that.
Can you hear me?
Because we seem to be breaking up.
Hello?
Hi, can you hear me?
I can hear you now.
Okay, I think we're still live, and I'm going to hope the chat will give us feedback if we do go off the air as quickly as possible.
There you go.
Are you there?
You're breaking up.
Okay.
Hello?
Because your story came out before Snowden, several years before Snowden, are you hearing me?
I can hear you.
Yes?
Okay.
Are we live?
I'm asking the chat to please respond so I can be sure that we're live because I can't really tell.
You're gone.
You're breaking up.
Okay.
Hold on one second because I'm not getting an answer.
Hold on one second here.
Sorry.
That's okay.
Okay, somebody's feeding back.
I'm sorry for the delay here.
Can you hear me again, Mark?
Hello?
Mark?
Hello?
Hi.
Mark, are you there?
Can you hear me?
Carrie?
Carrie?
Yes.
Okay, I can hear you.
Okay, and at this moment, let me say that I don't have the chat up.
I'm actually having some issues.
I don't know what the problem is, so I have to close down a couple things here to make sure.
I just heard the gong and you're gone.
We're gone?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
I can hear you fine.
Okay, you're breaking up.
I get about every third word.
Okay, hold on one second.
I'm going to stop this and start it again.
Hold on.
Up again.
Okay.
We are back, I'm being told.
Okay, great.
So, at this moment, what I wanted to say was...
I actually forgot my question.
I'm sorry.
It's getting a little bit confusing here, being interrupted so many times.
You were actually responding to the question that was in the chat, if I recall.
And then we did kind of go off.
Yeah, I did try to contact...
Glenn Greenwald.
I've spoken to mainstream.
I've spoken to my local journalists.
Okay, but Greenwald...
Actually, in association to this as well.
You weren't allowed...
I never heard back from Glenn Greenwald.
I never got any response.
Okay, fine.
And I am curious if you know anything about the death of Michael Hastings.
Well, he was somebody that I was in the process of contacting. he was somebody that I was in the process of And the death of Michael Hastings is highly suspect.
I don't think that we've been given the answers to what happened.
I think it's deplorable that the mainstream media and the news service would allow one of their best and brightest to die in such a fashion and have it be completely ignored by the mainstream media.
And their failure to protect one of their own shows, a level of cowardice and incompetence to me.
Now, again, when you deal with somebody in government service like a congressperson, they put their hand on a Bible, and in the military, they take an oath to God to protect the rights of the defenseless and oppressed, protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, so help them God.
Journalists and reporters don't take it off to God to do their job, but when you see one of your own and one of the best and the brightest taken out in such a fashion, or a guy like Gary Webb, who was...
Yes.
An award-winning journalist wrote about Iran-Contra.
He ended up dying a very suspicious death.
A guy like Danny Casalero that was writing on Insula, an octopus.
Yes.
A guy like Aaron Swartz who, in fact, you know, upon news that the case against it was being dropped by MIT and, you know, that this malicious attack Yeah, exactly.
So, you know what?
Do people commit suicide?
Yes, but they don't shoot themselves in the back of the head twice.
That's right.
How about Michael Hastings?
Were people aware of the email he sent out the day of his death, you know, saying that he was under investigation and the death that he was on, that he needed to go underneath the radar, you know, and then die a suspicious death with, you know, circumstances that are still inexplicable?
But, you know, the attention span of the average American is the equivalent of a third grader eating Captain Crunch, drinking Red Bull, and watching cartoons.
And that's got to stop.
Yes, absolutely.
Well, I'm with you there and I've done some investigation on the death of Michael Mason.
in order to do that too, you know, again.
Hello?
Hi.
I guess we've got a slight delay here as well as a difficulty with it being interrupted.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you, though.
Okay.
Well, I was just saying that the death of Michael Hastings, I've been investigating it, highly suspicious, no doubt about it, as well as all of those other journalists, which is appalling.
And then, you know, you get into other areas where people are being knocked off right and left for various reasons.
Very suspicious circumstances.
And framed also.
But going down this road, when you're helping, because we haven't really talked about anything you're doing with Karen Hudes, can you talk a little bit about what you're doing with her?
Right.
Well, when I was first contacted by Karen about a year ago, I was highly suspect.
Because here was somebody from the World Bank I knew to be a completely corrupt organization and why would this person be contacting me?
The first thing somebody like us has to figure out is when these people contact us who they really work for and what their true motivation is.
Personally, I don't have a computer in my home anymore.
I had three that were destroyed Through viruses, but my bigger concern was that somebody was going to reverse download some very awful pictures on my hard drive and the FBI was going to kick in my door.
I was going to be thrown in jail and two days later get killed because, you know, I was a suspected pedophile.
Those things happened.
I could read the list of the deaths associated to Promise.
And so, you know, people ridicule Ed Snowden for going to Hong Kong to release this information.
But what he did was he looked at Michael Hastings.
He looked at Eric Swartz.
He looked at William Biddy.
He looked at Thomas Drake.
He looked at the way whistleblowers were treated.
And, you know, he thought that, you know, he looked at Bradley Manning.
Bradley Manning wasn't in any way, shape, or form associated with work rights.
He was just, you know, making them well-known.
If you're in the military, you live by a thing called the Universal Code of Military Justice.
It's against a law for you to take and fulfill an illegal order.
And so, you know, the people that committed atrocities were free and clear.
The guy who ended up reporting them got thrown in jail, essentially.
No doubt about it.
For 30 years of the rest of his life.
Right.
And we don't have a recourse.
We don't have a legal system that protects whistleblowers.
We don't have government officials that respect him.
In fact, under the Obama administration, we're told all these happy thoughts after the extreme debacle of the Bush-Cheney administration, and we had these high expectations.
But then we saw the same hacks coming back like Tim Teichner and Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and Mary Shapiro, and especially Eric Holder.
If anybody wanted to look into the background of Eric Holder, You know, hell, even Bush prosecuted a couple of bankers.
And here, you know, this was the guy that is more interested in defending bankers.
We've got banks like Standard Chartered, like UBS, like J.P. Morgan, that are laundering money for foreign terrorist organizations and drug cartels and walk away with a slap on the wrist.
You know, they're not allowing us to have a free and open discussion on Information that's within the congressional record, that's in the federal court record, that's within the public record tonight.
What's the problem with that?
I'm directing people to information that they can find on their own so that they can make an informed decision.
I'm talking about congressmen that need to go to jail for misprison of felony.
And misprison of treason.
When you alert a congressperson or government official of a federal crime taking place and they fail to take action, that in itself is a federal crime.
What about our civil rights protections?
What about the Fourth Amendment, right to privacy in our own house?
How do we have that?
What about the conspiracy against our civil rights?
What about the deprivation of rights under the color of law?
What about federally protected activities?
Most people don't Why?
You know, we had hearings from the 9-11 Commission.
Okay, let's talk to the 9-11 Commissioners.
Let's talk to the Chairman.
They said, we were set up to fail.
The only people that testified under oath of the 9-11 Commission were Senator Bob Graham, who was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, and Senator Bob Kerry, who said that Saudi Arabia was involved with this.
Well, other than the fact that 19 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.
We had an investigation called the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, headed by Chairman Philip Angelides.
So, you know, we wanted to get to the end of the bottom of the financial crisis.
Now, I am also a financial securities whistleblower, and I blew the whistle in 2007 and 2009 about a hotline that existed between the SEC and CEOs for stop or stall investigations that was proven to be inexistent And the House Financial Services Committee made up investigations, yet nothing has been done.
So, in addition to being a domestic surveillance whistleblower, I was also a financial security whistleblower.
Now, how I got in contact with Karen Hudis was through somebody she was working for in the United Kingdom that was familiar and had seen the information I was providing on the blog.
I called Karen, just out of curiosity, to find out why this person from the World Bank would, you know, try to align forces with me.
And through the process of elimination, I determined that she, in fact, was the real deal, in that she was a very honest and informed, educated whistleblower.
Now, we share, you know, whistleblowers share a psychographic profile.
You know, we're dedicated to justice.
And we don't do this, you know, for fun or for profit.
This would be the last thing.
thing I would recommend to anybody.
But somebody's got to do it.
And you know, so we're people that don't have a respect for the natural law of fear.
And, but, so Karen and I are in contact almost pretty much on a daily basis.
Okay, well, with that in mind, let me ask you if you have any thoughts about the Chinese or the UN coming in to take over the United States.
Okay.
Well, I think what's happening, and I called this years ago, because The way we were going was unsustainable.
And the ability for a government or a country to hold the international reserve currency status or fiat currency has always been temporary.
And they go through peculiar cycles.
And, you know, we're going through what I call a process of de-Americanization.
And you were very astute earlier to say that Ed Snowden, I think Ed Snowden was, you know, noble and courageous and had all the right intentions.
I think that he's being controlled and manipulated.
Yes.
What people don't know is that the leaks of Ed Snowden came from The Guardian in the UK. Now, I believe he also attempted to contact The Washington Post and they turned him down and he went to The Guardian.
What people don't know is The Guardian is actually owned by the Scott Trust It is affiliated with...
The Scotchrist is run by the Rothschild family.
Correct.
I don't know if you were aware of that.
Well, yes.
But do you know...
Okay, go ahead.
But I want to follow this down, so continue.
Okay.
So what I'm thinking is that what's going on now with...
Ed Snowden is that his information is being controlled and manipulated in association to this de-Americanization process.
So right now we're in the process of all of our allies turning against us.
Because when you've got a program or a product like Promise, that allows you to do a lot of things.
It allows you to manipulate the stock market.
It allows you to engage in money laundering and extortion.
And again, I mean, if we could talk back, you know, we can go back to the Bank of Credit Commerce International.
That's another one we could talk about maybe at a later date.
But if the Department of Justice and the CIA and the NSA has the opportunity to monitor stock trading and financial transactions in real time, why is it that we haven't been able to prevent any of these financial crises?
And what a tool and weapon, you know, for front-running Stock trades or having inside information would be having, you know, access to this sophisticated SPY software.
So, what I'm saying is this, is that...
Yeah, hello?
Go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
And I'm going to tie in domestic surveillance in the Fed, because in September of 2011, the Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor has a reserve, put which is neither federal nor has a reserve, put out a request for a And what this, it's called an RFP.
And what they put out was looking for vendors to establish a social listening platform to monitor billions of conversations and generate text analytics based on predefined criteria.
The capability to determine the sentiment of the speaker or writer with respect to the sub-topic or document.
Gather data from primary social media platforms.
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums, YouTube, to collect aggregate data from various media outlets such as CNN and identify and reach out to key bloggers and influencers.
So what the Fed did with this RFP was they acknowledged the fact that these companies have the ability to monitor billions of conversations Predicated on text analytics and predefined criteria, what that means is that they're looking for keywords and phrases, which means they're reading what you're saying in billions of conversations.
And they're talking about how to handle crisis situations and that they would continuously monitor these conversations and identify and reach out to key bloggers and influencers.
What does that mean to identify and reach out to key bloggers and influencers.
Is that somebody that has an alternate opinion to what they're hearing from the government?
is this a way for the Fed to go after people that are being critical of the Fed?
It is.
Um, so what we can do is try to find people that are like-minded and, and, um, You know, with Karen and myself, You know, after I cleared...
Now, Karen had a high level of intelligence and a high level of understanding, but there were places that I was able to take her to that, you know, she was unaware of, you know, and now she's just become, you know...
You know, people...
You know, we don't have a recourse.
We don't have a legal system that protects whistleblowers.
So we need a system in place.
To provide legal protection for whistleblowers that are looking to prevent...
Mark?
Yes?
And I appreciate that and thank you, but I still want to steer back to the question I asked you because we kind of got off topic slightly.
Okay.
And I know we're having some starting and stopping here going on as well, so it's not probably your fault even.
I was asking you about the UN. In other words, the US is being set up to be taken down.
And I'm sure you're aware of that, right?
Yes.
Okay.
And so what happens next?
Because if you're in a situation where you are evaluating the financial takedown, and if you are close to that or have special knowledge about that, is there anything that you can share with my audience that relates to, for example, what...
I can't hear you.
Can you hear me?
Is there anything you can share about the financial takedown?
Well, it's a question of math.
The first thing you do when you're in the bottom of the hole is stop digging.
We told the world today that we're going to continue to spend $85 billion a month propping up the stock market.
And so when we do that...
So we have, you know, What can we do?
No, what I'm asking you is not what can we do.
What I'm asking you is what do you know?
In other words, are you close enough to the situation to where you can anticipate their next move?
Well, you know, I think their next move will be a false flag at Hello?
Hello?
Okay, you broke off at false flag attack.
So you think there's going to be a false flag where and how?
I'm not a mind reader.
I mean, I think...
It would appear to me that financial collapse is inevitable, that the smart money knows this, and that they've been stealing that the smart money knows this, and that they've been stealing as much money as they can from as many people as they can, as fast as they
And that we're going to have some type of an event and that will result in the implementation of martial law.
Okay.
Okay.
At this moment, Mark, can you hear me?
Hello?
Mark.
Hello?
Hello?
Thank you.
Mark?
Okay, everyone...
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
Can you hear me now?
Hello?
Gary?
Yes.
Hello?
Hello?
Gary?
Hello?
I'm here.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you now.
That's a bad joke.
Okay.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Okay.
I think we need to wind this up because it's just getting ridiculous to try to stay on the air with you any further.
We have managed to get quite a bit of information and I do appreciate your time.
I hope that you can hear me.
I hope the audience can hear me right now.
Well, the last time I had a program like this, I had a splitting migraine for about three days.
I don't know if you heard, when I heard through this whole thing, it sounded like an electronic symbol.
No, I wasn't able to hear.
I don't know if other people were able to hear you.
It's been a pleasure talking to you.
Hopefully we can, you know, take us forward in the future.
Karen and I are working on some things.
We need all the help we can get.
And, you know, the people themselves, information is not knowledge.
Knowledge, information is something they give you.
Knowledge is something you acquire.
And so I want to thank people for taking the time to cater that they don't want the truth to get out.
And if they're going to these levels to, you know, silence truth-tellers, you know, maybe this is something you should pay attention to.
Absolutely.
Listen to the whistleblowers.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Mark Nowitzki, and we really do appreciate your time.
Thank you, everyone, for listening.
Sorry we can't get to your questions.
We are having too much interference at this time.
Mark, are you able to hear me saying this?
And you're gone.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, everyone.
And good night.
Okay.
Crazy.
▲
Export Selection