I understand Goldman Sachs may take legal action against the site GoldmanSachs666.com. If so, please ask them the following questions.
1) Does Goldman Sachs have any knowledge of the Russian government keeping track of plagiarism by profs at universities or employees at investment banks or government agencies?
2) Does Goldman Sachs know of any case that a person, whether connected with GS or not, has submitted immigration benefit requests, e.g. a visa, whose work contained material of another that was not cited?
3) Does GS know if the Russian government knows of such a case? Any such case involving current or past GS employees?
4) Does GS know of any case where people have gone along with plagiarism by citing the plagiarizer, out of fear or some other reason?
5) Has GS or companies linked to it done that?
6) Does GS know of any case where an individual or business has been harmed by this?
7) Does GS know of any case where there is systematic harm to a person or business from many entities participating in such a scheme?
8) Does GS know of profs with high government office as appointees in the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations connected to universities engaged in this?
9) Does GS know if Russia has tried to use pressure on them?
10) Does GS know if Harvard withheld information from the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard from 1997 to 2005 by Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom?
11) Is the effect of GS in taking action against this website to subject witnesses in these other matters to fear? Can GS’s law firm ask the employees of GS to account for this? Does GS know of a person who is a victim or witness who is afraid to come forward?
None of the above is to imply that these are true of GS or others. These are just questions that may be useful to the public interest.
Has GS obtained benefits from high level appointees in the US govt whom GS knows are involved or linked to institutions involved in these issues?
In particular, have profs from Harvard or Princeton or other schools linked to these matters given benefits to Goldman Sachs while GS knew of these issues?
This is not to assert any wrong doing by GS in this place, but just meant to help the process of finding information of use to the public interest. Russia gathering information about plagiarism by profs and using that knowledge when those profs or others from the same university have high level government jobs is an important public issue. Search Russia plagiarism files to see links on this.
American Institute of Physics has linked to my blog on this topic.
American Institute of Physics has this link on this subject:
“One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see http://www.oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs.) During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.”
China also may be using these methods, both with physics profs and with econ, business and law profs. Agencies of the US government that may be impacted are US Treasury, Federal Reserve, Council of Economic Advisers, White House, and profs appointed to the DOJ. This is true under Clinton, Bush and Obama. The law firm itself may know about this in the law and econ area and itself may be able to provide information on this topic of public interest.
AIP has shown its a topic of public interest by linking to it and by indicating in its publication that China is engaged in activities harmful to the US. That makes it public interest. US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay is of the public interest. Does GS know if info was not disclosed by Harvard to USAO Mass from 1997 to 2005 or afterwards? Are witnesses afraid to come forward? Do any GS employees have knowledge that GS could provide to USAO Mass on this case or on the topic of plagiarism or Russia keeping track of plagiarism at US schools? Has GS received benefits from profs in the US government from the schools that may be involved? This is not an assertion that it does or is involved, but GS could lend its best efforts to assist in this area.
Also more specifically, during the period of 1997 to 2005, did a Goldman Sachs employee publish the work of another or gain an immigration benefit?
Did that employee have a link to Harvard?
Was that information withheld from the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard by Goldman Sachs?
Did Goldman Sachs get an immigration benefit for that employee?
Did Russia know of it?
Did Goldman Sachs and Harvard together withhold that information?
Did former Goldman Sachs employees who were appointed to high level US government office know of this? Did Governor Corzine?
Did Goldman Sachs know of this and not tell the FBI in background checks for Robert Rubin, Corzine, or other GS employees hired by the US government?
Does Goldman Sachs know that Harvard also did not disclose this information to the FBI in background checks of Harvard profs hired by the US government? Or Princeton profs?
Is GS engaged in an agreement with Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and others to withhold information on this topic from the FBI in background checks?
Does Russia know that?
Does Russia use that to exert influence or attempt to do so on the US government?
This is not an assertion, just questions. I thank GS for any assistance it may provide on these matters of public interest.
Does Goldman Sachs know of profs appointed as Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals who may be linked to universities involved in these matters?
Does Goldman Sachs know if China has knowledge of these matters?
Has China used these methods?
Does China have a network of Ph.D.’s in the US involved in this? Are some at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford or other schools?
Do some work in investment banks?
Have any employees of Goldman Sachs from Russia, China, India, or any other country had knowledge of this activity at Goldman Sachs, or at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford or some other school?
Russia may have used these methods to obtain atomic know-how and to get Klaus Fuchs hired at Los Alamos without a proper background check and despite his boss, Hans Bethe, having knowledge of issues in Fuchs’s background that should have been raised. From that time to now the universities may have been engaged in a common single unitary conspiracy to cover up this information about this case and later cases including those active now.
Thus the entire legal matter of Klaus Fuchs as a spy, other Chinese as spies, information withheld from the FBI by the universities when Fuchs was arrested, information withheld in the Rosenberg spy case, and the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Case, pressure by Russia for Nobel Prize nominations in physics and economics, building their network in the US at universities, investment banks, and electric companies, US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay, and FBI background checks on profs and investment bank employees hired to high level US government or IMF and World Bank positions, and harm and damages to plagiarism victims and their employers may constitute one unitary common cause.
What role does Goldman Sachs or other investment banks play? Are these banks or universities acting together as accessories after the fact to the original spying of Klaus Fuchs and a coverup of the methods Russia used to get Fuchs in his position including pressure related to plagiarism by profs and all the use by Russia, China, India, and other countries since then part of one single common matter?
Does Goldman Sachs have information on this that it can provide to the FBI? That it should have provided to the FBI during background checks? That it gained benefits from profs or others in US government high level appointed positions who were linked to the same universities as Goldman Sachs is linked to or to GS or to other banks or beneficiaries of TARP, Fed aid, lax regulation, immigration benefits, or other benefits GS has received? Should GS have shared in the fines against Harvard and Shleifer? Did GS pay George Bush Sr 100,000 to speak in Russia in 1997/98 during the IMF loans to Russia and during the Shleifer episode in Russia while GS knew of any of this? Did GS subsequently withhold info from the FBI on this in background checks on Corzine or other appointees to the US government? Is this ongoing?
For the record, whether irrational or not, or well founded or not, whether intended or not, I feel subjected to fear by Goldman Sachs action against the other website. I feel subjected to fear by Goldman Sachs and its law firm if I provide information on these subjects to the US government, USAO Mass or FBI. I feel that GS is delaying, impeding or obstructing any investigation into these matters. I fear retaliation by Goldman Sachs. I feel that Goldman Sachs in acting against the other website is subjecting me to fear with these consequences, whether it intends them or not. This acts to the benefit of Russia and China whether Goldman Sachs intends it or not.
Of special and particular importance. Reed and Stillman at American Institute of Physics assert that China is intentionally spreading nuclear know-how for the purpose of nuclear weapons being used in the United States and United Kingdom. China was involved with Russia from the start in the Klaus Fuchs case and that is linked to the Russia plagiarism files as shown at this website. Thus any use of a nuclear weapon by any terrorist group that gets the weapon or know-how from China, Russia or any state helped by China or Russia including Pakistan and Iran is a benefit derived from this ongoing matter.
Abdus Salam received the Nobel Prize in physics and was on Pakistan’s nuclear commission. He got his Ph.D. in physics in the area of quantum field theory where he would know of the Fock Letter, Dirac’s plagiarism of Born and Russia’s use of these methods. Pakistan has known of Russia’s use of these methods probably since the 1960′s or 1950′s. Goldman Sachs is thus requested to provide what information it has promptly to the US government and the UK government. GS employees in the UK may have knowledge of these matters and they should provide them to the UK authorities, since this started in the UK with plagiarism by Dirac at Cambridge of Max Born. Klaus Fuchs was an assistant to Max Born as were many Chinese since named by China as major contributors to their nuclear or missile programs.
Goldman Sachs coming forward with its information would have a substantial impact. Far more so than a single blogger, even though the American Institute of Physics has linked to my blog on this subject. Goldman Sachs should weigh carefully whether it has contributed to or benefited from these methods of Russia, China, and Pakistan and whether it has a special obligation to come forward.
GS has furnished high level employees to the US government and has participated in FBI background checks for them. The FBI and USAO Mass might have reasonably relied on Goldman Sachs because of this and because of its importance.
Thus the FBI and USAO Mass and DOJ HQ may have disregarded this blog or any communications precisely because they chose to rely on what GS told them, or didn’t tell them in FBI background checks for GS employees taking high level US government positions. Because the FBI, USAO MASS and DOJ HQ chose to rely on GS and not on this blog, only GS can rectify that mistaken reliance on GS and notify the FBI, USAO Mass and DOJ HQ of these matters.
Moreover, this goes not just to court cases in the US, but to the Reed Stillman paper and book that say that China is deliberately spreading nuclear know-how to Pakistan and other rogue states for the precise intention of it getting to terrorist groups to use in bombs in the United Kingdom and United States. Stillman went to China and China told him they gave a bomb to Pakistan and let Pakistan test it in China prior to Pakistan’s own 1998 nuclear test that resulted in US sanctions on Pakistan that were only lifted by the US after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in the US. The UK likely also put on and lifted sanctions with the US on Pakistan over its nuclear test and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There is substantial evidence linking those attacks and others to the Pakistan ISI. Pakistan ISI may have been told by Abdus Salam in the 1960′s or 1950′s of Russia’s use of these methods of plagiarism kompromat and of Chinese involvement. The FBI, USAO Mass, DOJ HQ may have chosen to rely on GS statements or non-statements in FBI background checks instead of this blog or other communications because of its decision to rely on GS instead of this blog or other communications.
GS furthermore has a special obligation because of its close ties to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, University of Chicago, NYU and other schools to come forward with what information it has. This gives it sophisticated knowledge not possessed by employees at FBI, DOJ HQ or USAO Mass of the scientific, mathematical, and economics papers that are involved in this method by Russia and subsequently China and Pakistan.
Moreover, GS has power within at least two branches of government. It has power within academia and investment banking. It has power within technology companies using physics. Thus when GS does not come forward with its information but pushes the other side and denies this record or acting on it, it may subject federal employees to fear or university employees to fear or universities to fear of GS recruitment or delay or impede the investigation of action of the US government to stop Russia, China, Pakistan or others using these methods and the possible spread or use of a nuclear device by terrorists or others in the UK or US.
Goldman Sachs knows it has power within the government, universities, other banks, and technology companies. It knows it has unique power because it has furnished more high level government employees than any other company. It contributes huge amounts to both parties at all levels of government. It also bundles the donations of its clients, profs at universities, and others.
Goldman Sachs knows it inspires fear in and out of government by those with special knowledge in this case. Goldman Sachs knows in FBI background checks for high level appointees that it has not disclosed any information on this to the FBI. GS knows that the USAO Mass, FBI and DOJ HQ have chosen to rely on GS and not on this blog or other communications.
GS knows its legal pressure on the other blogger will cause this blog and profs and employees of investment banks and federal government employees at low levels compared to GS appointees to not act or to be delayed or impeded or prevented from acting. GS thus has a unique obligation to act to stop these ongoing methods by Russia, China, Pakistan and terrorist groups that may benefit from information from them ultimately derived by these methods and which continue to benefit that entire supply chain. GS may have become part of that supply chain and a key part of it that impedes the UK and US governments from stopping nuclear attacks in the UK or US.
If GS had come forward in the 1990′s at the time of US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay and the FBI background checks of GS employees, Pakistan may not have been able to try to use the 9/11 attacks to get sanctions lifted on it because of its nuclear program. Instead GS paid Bush Sr 100k to go to Moscow in 1997 to 1998.
Instead GS traded Russian government bonds while it may have known Russia was using kompromat on profs in the US government and IMF to get low interest rate loans that in turn paid principal and interest on Russian bonds traded by GS in 1997 and 1998. Instead GS participated in the LTCM bailout by profs linked to this history of Russia’s plagiarism files and Harvard. Instead GS kept LTCM out of bankruptcy court where this information might have come out. Instead GS kept quiet about what it knew about US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.
Instead Pakistan had every motive to believe it could support a terrorist attack on the US to get “unjust” sanctions removed from it following its nuclear test. Instead the head of Pakistan ISI came to the US and was here on 9/11. Instead, the US lifted sanctions on Pakistan in the weeks after 9/11. Instead, Pakistan has provided a safe haven for terrorist groups and continued to be linked to terrorist incidents in the UK and India. Instead this goes on. Instead people die including Americans and British in the Mumbai attack.
GS knows that the FBI, USAO Mass and DOJ HQ have come to rely on what GS and GS former employees have told them because GS knows what questions are asked in FBI background checks or otherwise of GS on an ongoing basis. Thus GS knows that this blog and other communications have been disregarded and instead the information provided by GS has been relied on instead in all these matters with all these consequences. GS knows the benefits it has derived from former GS employees or from profs appointed to high level government posts from Harvard, Princeton or other universities linked to these issues.
GS has knowingly and intentionally decided to let the FBI, USAO Mass and DOJ HQ rely on its statements to the FBI instead of this blog or other communications while it continues to receive numerous benefits from former employees or profs from the universities involved and linked to GS including Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and others. GS has chosen to have the FBI, USAO Mass, and DOJ HQ rely on what GS has told them or the US government and not on this blog or other communications.
GS continues to have communications with the FBI on background checks or other matters. GS continues to have communications with the DOJ on background checks or other matters. GS continues to have interaction with profs from Harvard, Princeton, or other schools linked to this at high level positions at the Fed or Treasury or White House. Its thus a continual demonstration of GS’s intention not to disclose this information or what it has but instead to continue to get benefits from the profs at Fed, US Treasury or White House or other high level positions in the government that have power to give benefits to GS or laxly enforce the laws with respect to GS in a variety of actions.
These benefits or laxness in enforcement have given Goldman Sachs billions in the AIG bailout in payment for swap transactions and in other ways since. GS also benefits from M and A profits from lax enforcement of the antitrust laws in mergers by profs as DAAGs in charge of the Economic Analysis Group of the Antitrust Division and the 50 Ph.D.’s there from the same schools as are involved in the Russia plagiarism files case and the US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay case and other matters.
The large bonuses of GS employees or the stock price of GS which employees own have been benefited from these actions by profs and former GS employees at high level positions in the US government. This is an ongoing benefit to GS, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, University of Chicago and other schools involved or other institutions involved or linked to this.
GS, Harvard and all these schools together provide information to the FBI, USAO Mass, DOJ HQ, Fed, Treasury, White House, Congress and other agencies. GS, Harvard and the others know that the FBI, USAO Mass, DOJ HQ and others have chosen to rely on these communications and not this blog or other communications because they are not having to answer questions on these matters from the FBI, USAO Mass or DOJ HQ in their ongoing, frequent and many interactions on a routine basis in a variety of matters.
GS, Harvard, and the others know of the many links of these matters between Russia, China, Pakistan and terrorist groups and their link to many matters connected to these countries, the IMF, Russia, the US government and UK governments on a variety of levels and matters over the past 10 and past 70+ years.
The continual pattern by GS, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and others in FBI background checks and other communications not to disclose this information constitute an agreement among them to keep this information from the FBI, USAO Mass, DOJ HQ and other agencies. Moreover, this was true during the period 1997 to 2005 that the USAO Mass had an open case against Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.
Moreover, GS, Harvard, and the others know that this agreement has created fear and subject witnesses and victims to fear. GS, Harvard and the others know that the witnesses and victims are not coming forward with information on these matters because the FBI doesn’t ask them about them. Thus GS, Harvard, et al know they are creating this fear or benefiting from it and that it harms the victims and the public. They know that Russia, China, India, Pakistan and others have taken advantage of this situation, continue to do so, continue to spread nuclear know-how and continue to support or enable terrorist attacks in India, the UK, France, and at a lower level still in the US and Canada even if not officially linked to organized groups based in Pakistan.
GS, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton et al are part of the global supply chain of know-how of a technical and kompromat nature that flows to Russia, China, India, Pakistan and other entities hostile to the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Italy, etc. They know they have frustrated investigations in all these countries. They know they have enabled the spread of nuclear know-how by China, Pakistan, Russia, Korea and others to those most hostile to the US. They know they have put the US and UK at risk. They know that this is linked to Pakistan’s ISI and Pakistan’s nuclear program and that Pakistan’s ISI support of terrorism and terrorist groups is intended to prevent a reimposition of the sanctions imposed on Pakistan in 1998 by the US after Pakistan’s nuclear test.
The above are questions not assertions. This is speculation or hypotheses. Statements in the positive should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply. This is draft and preliminary. Corrections are welcome including from Goldman Sachs. GS, Harvard and others can post them below in the comments and on their own webpages with a link there or here.