Archive for the 'Russia’s Plagiarism Files' Category

Russia’s comments on plagiarism and their possible uses

February 26, 2014
  1. Luzin Affair 1936.  Enhance the pressure from their leverage on Dirac and protect the Max Born spy ring. “(iii) claiming his pupils’ results as his own (in particular, those of Suslin and Novikov)” Novikov’s son is at UMD and also comments on priority and plagiarism writings of Logunov, see below.
  2. Kapitsa 1937 obit Rutherford.   Same.  See Collected Papers volume 3, page 20, 22, 73. “Fairness in acknowledging the originality of the work and ideas of his pupils kept a very healthy spirit in the laboratory” p 20.  Page 34: “When any of his disciples manifested even the slightest lack of conscience in anything — be it an incorrect representation of their results or by not quoting the source of their ideas and so by attempting to represent their work as an original whereas in fact the idea of the work was taken from elsewhere,–Rutherford lost interest in such men.” “Rutherford himself was extremely accurate in giving credit where credit was due.  When any of his disciples carried out their work on their own ideas, he noted in particular that the work was performed on the idea of the disciplie.”  Heisenberg likely sent the Born Jordan preprint to Fowler, son in law of Rutherford, who gave it to Dirac to copy in 1925.  In 1926, Rutherford as President of the Royal Society made Niels Bohr and Arnold Sommerfeld Fellows of the Royal Society.  Kapitza likely told him what happened and suggested this.  The Rockefeller Foundation sent a man round to fund the Germans and Danes in physics and this was a signal to Rockefeller Foundation to give their money to these men.  Born wrote to Bohr to give Jordan a Rockefeller stipend to work at the Bohr Institute in 1926.
  3. Kapitsa letter to Bohr in 1944 asking him to come to Moscow did not mention it explicitly but he knew about it. Same with 1946 Terletsky Meeting.
  4. Fock Letter 1947. “A Note on the paper Second Quantization and Representation Theory”. “In a recent number of this journal, Dr. Corson published a paper with the above title. On examination this paper bears a close resemblance to a paper of mine entitled Konfigurationsraum und Zweite Quantelung which was published in 1932.” “Without exception all of the results found by Dr. Corson are contained in my paper. There is a close parallelism not only between the formulas but the texts of the two papers.”  Maintain discipline in their spy ring, get Nobel Prize nominations for Vladimir Fock, and confuse issues.  [Similar remarks could be made in part about the Paul Samuelson 1969 paper and Hakansson’s 1966 thesis at MIT since 1966 and the thesis of Stanley Fischer at MIT in 1969.] Corson Reply: “The author (Corson) sincerely hopes that his work far from detracting from the credit which is due Fock, will rather serve to direct attention to the very important contribution Fock has made in this field.”  Corson may have been acting for Russia with just this intention.  See here.
  5. Tamm 60th birthday 1955.  Veiled remarks and refusal to cite Dancoff as an implied message to Americans.  Also meant to get Nobel Prize nominations for Tamm.  Tamm got the Nobel Prize in 1958.
  6. Vladimirov in his book on several complex variables in 1960s calls it Bogolyubov Edge of the Wedge Theorem.  English translation 1966.  Vladimirov and Boygolyubov were both heads of the Steklov Institute of Math.
  7. Another talk by Kapitsa in the 1960s. Vol III page 225 Collected Papers.  Proc Roy Soc A 1966 September 20, 1966 294 1437 123-137;  Page 232 collected papers: “Rutherford was very particular to give credit for the exact authorship of any idea. He always did this in his lectures as well as in his published work. If anybody in the laboratory forgot to mention the author of the idea Rutherford always corrected him.” This was meant to push Kapitsa’s own nominations for the Nobel Prize which worked. He got it in 1978.  This was linked to the Kantorovich econ prize in 1975.  Pressure on MIT in physics and econ were linked in effect.
  8. Vainshtein 1970 that Leontief was not first on input output but Soviets were. English translation in  Matekon c. 1970.  This was to help get nominations for Kantorovich to win the Nobel Prize in economics.  Martin Weitzman of MIT (now Harvard) was part of Matekon and would see this and pass it on presumably.
  9. Two conferences in Poland in 1970s before the 1975 Nobel Prize for Kantorovich had attendants from the West and Russia who were involved.  Martin Weitzmann of Harvard was at one.  Eugene Dynkin from Russia now at Cornell was at one.  Valery Makarov was at one. Makarov was head of Central Economics Mathematical Institute (CEMI) and later the New Economic School Moscow.
  10. Sudoplatov book Special Tasks 1994 was not about plagiarism but it was meant to provoke the physics professors into a huge response to frighten the econ profs, Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer, to give IMF loans to Russia.
  11. Albert Shiryaev  Essentials of Stochastic Finance book in 1999 contained sly references.
  12. Putin offers Stanley Fischer a job to imply he had seen his file and that Fischer might need to leave the West.
  13. A. A. Logunov 2004. On the Hilbert Einstein priority contest. Logunov was a coauthor with Bogolyubov.
  14. Sergei Novikov made critical remarks Logunov and possibly the Logunov paper on Einstein Hilbert and the current version of the Logunov paper may be revised? Sergei Novikov is the son of the Novikov mentioned in the Luzin affair. He has a joint appointment at Univ of Maryland and also as head of a department at the Steklov Institute in Russia. The same institute awarded Jonathan Hay a Ph.D. in math in 2003 while he was, a codefendant in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay. Stanislav Ivanovich Pohozaev  was adviser.
  15. Dec 2005. Russia and later China post a document that can be used to show misconduct by Darrell Duffie of Stanford.  This links to the earlier 1969 events at MIT.  Darrell duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript”
  16. A.A. Logunov 2006.  Poincare and Relativity.  Tends to emphasize Poincare getting credit. “It is also shown that the special theory of relativity has been created not by A. Einstein only but even to a greater extent by H. Poincare.”
  17. Todorov another co-author with Bogolyubov.  On the  Bohr Heisenberg Copenhagen meeting.  Heisenberg and Bohr may have discussed Max Born being a Communist and Oppenheimer a Communist. This is not in the paper, but this may be another subtle pressure act.
  18. In July 2008, Oehme gave his version of his discovery of Edge of the Wedge in Wiki.  In September 2008 a former Sec of Air Force and nuclear weapons physicist Thomas C Reed in Physics Today cited this blog on Russia’s use of plagiarism to get atomic secrets. In December 2008, Tamtamar rewrote the Wiki page on Edge of the Wedge to give credit to Bogolyubov in the manner of Vladimirov.
  19. Igor Fedyukin investigation starting 2013 in Russia of wide spread plagiarism.  Abandoned in 2014 from pressure.

The above are speculation and hypotheses.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.


Evidence in relation to whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his MIT PhD

February 25, 2014

This post is draft and preliminary on the topic of whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis “Essays on assets and contingent commodities.” at MIT in 1969.  Paul Samuelson, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were his committee.  Miguel Sidrauski was chairman until he died in 1968, then Foley and then Fisher.

Stanley Fischer in his 1969 thesis claims that he did not see the Hakansson 1966 thesis until after he wrote the parts of his thesis relevant to the issue of copying.

Paul Samuelson also told through intermediaries to Hakansson that he had not seen Hakansson’s thesis but felt guilty.  Samuelson’s 1969 paper was part of a group of 4 papers published in 1969 linked to the MIT Econ group.

Samuelson Paul 1969 “Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming” MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 239-46

Robert C Merton Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case.  MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 247-57

Optimal Savings under Uncertainty    Levhari, David    Srinivasan, T N  Review of Economic Studies. Volume (Year): 36 (1969) Issue (Month): 106 (April) Pages: 153-63.

Levhari was a coauthor with Samuelson and co-author of Franklin Fisher.

Before them all and at MIT since 1966 was Hakansson’s 1966 thesis and UCLA working paper.

Hakansson’s paper was delayed in publication at Econometrica from 1966 to 1970.  Franklin Fisher was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 and 1970.

In 2003, after over 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson wrote the following.

 Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

(See also


So in 2003, after 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson tells us this is it.  This suggests the picture that at MIT, Samuelson, Stanley Fischer, Robert C. Merton and their thesis committees including Miguel Sidrauski, Duncan Foley, Franklin Fisher, Paul Samuelson and others there such as Karl Shell and Peter Diamond were busying studying the 1962 paper by Phelps and did not know of the 1966 paper by Hakansson.

Phelps paper 1961 working paper at Cowles. “The Accumulation of Risky Capital: A Discrete-Time Sequential Utility Analysis.”

The MIT case is as follows.

  1. MIT does not acknowledge having the Hakansson 1966 paper at MIT in their statements.  So if it is shown they did have it, that shows they concealed information in their self serving claims later.
  2. Samuelson invented the intertemporal portfolio part for finite horizons himself and sketched the extension to multiple risky assets and inequality constraints.
  3. Robert C. Merton was not aware of the Hakansson or Hayne Leland 1968 Harvard thesis.
  4. Fischer invented his thesis based on the Samuelson August 1969 paper in draft form.
  5. Merton based his 1969 paper on the Samuelson 1969 paper in draft form.
  6. Stanley Fischer in his 1980s book with Blanchard gives sole credit to intertemporal portfolio choice to Samuelson not mentioning Hakansson at all.

Some problems with this are

  1. Stanley Fischer doesn’t even cite the 1962 Phelps paper in his thesis. Strange if they were all using Phelps as their starting point.  Note Samuelson was on the Fischer thesis committee, so if Samuelson thought they were using Phelps as their starting point, why didn’t he make Fischer cite Phelps in Fischer’s 1969 thesis?
  2. Karl Shell then of MIT chaired a session in 1966 in which Hakansson presented his thesis. This is in the published records of the American Economic Association (Page 114)
    . Thus in all their later statements, MIT concealed this material fact.
  3. Hakansson’s 1966 UCLA thesis was mimeographed by UCLA and sent out as a working paper to a distribution list.  Library of Congress has some records related to that working paper series.  Samuelson and likely others at MIT were probably on that list.
  4. Karl Shell and Franklin Fisher shared an office at MIT.
  5. Stanley Fischer and Robert C. Merton shared an office at MIT.
  6. Joseph Stiglitz cited the Hakansson paper in a Cowles paper dated from January 1969 and thanked Samuelson for comments in that draft.  The Samuelson paper was not published until August 1969.
  7. The Stanley Fischer thesis copies not just from the Hakansson 1966 thesis but also from another working paper of Hakansson at Yale.   Duncan Foley was from Yale and Stiglitz was at Yale.
  8. Franklin Fisher not only was the final chair of the Stanley Fischer thesis but he also was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 the date of a letter to Hakansson and 1970 the date of publication.
  9. Duncan Foley in a list of Stanley Fischer’s papers at History of Economic Thought left out the paper by Fischer that copies the working paper by Hakansson from Yale.  Foley was from Yale and was middle Chairman of the Fischer thesis.  Foley may have gotten the Hakansson paper with that part and then left that Fischer paper off the list of Fischer’s papers at HET.
  10. In various published later statements by Samuelson, Fischer, and others, the papers by Samuelson and Fischer have been admitted to as being equivalent to the Hakansson papers.
  11. Stanley Fischer does not cite the Levhari Srinivasan paper that does the infinite horizon case published in 1969.  Samuelson claims he started from the Levhari Srinivasan solution for an infinite horizon, when it was in draft form.
  12. The Stanley Fischer thesis is much longer than the Samuelson paper and had to be started at least a couple years before publication in 1969.
  13. The Fischer thesis starts from a more basic level than Samuelson and goes over the intermediate steps unlike Samuelson.
  14. The Fischer thesis doesn’t follow the Samuelson paper as a template, but instead it follows the Hakansson paper as a template.
  15. Samuelson makes some slips in his 1969 paper.  Samuelson thinks a certain one period equation in his paper is standard.  However, that equation only appears in the Hakansson paper, Fischer thesis and likely in the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis.  So Samuelson can’t think it was familiar or well known except he had seen it in these other places.
  16. Samuelson says that inequality constraints will work as an extension.  However, Samuelson knew from a prior book and a paper with McKean that inequality constraints, a type of boundary condition, usually throw off a formula solved without them.  Hakansson had shown already that in this special case you could still get a solution with them. Samuelson could only know that from Hakansson’s paper.
  17. Fischer follows closely the thesis of Hakansson in building up intertemporal portfolio theory from a new version of one period optimization first.  Prior one period portfolio theory used mean variance optimization. Before going to multiple period, it was first necessary to recast one period in terms of a new equation.  It is this equation Samuelson slips and calls familiar in his 1969 paper.
  18. Fischer published two papers while at Chicago out of his thesis. These acknowledge Hakansson’s priority.  However, in his 1980s textbook with Blanchard, Fischer only cites Samuelson, not his own papers or Hakansson or Leland.
  19. Hakansson is the person who first did intertemporal portfolio theory.  This is proven by the published record.  Yet he has never been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society or received any award for it.  Intertemporal portfolio theory is the foundation of modern finance since the 1960s including intertemporal equilibrium pricing models.
  20. In 2004, Olivier Blanchard interviewed Fischer. At that time, Blanchard didn’t even know that Fischer’s thesis was on intertemporal portfolio choice, which was part of their joint book Lectures on Macroeconomics in the 1989.  So no one told him for almost 20 years that part of his own book with Fischer was the subject of Fischer’s thesis and 2 of Fischer’s papers.  Rather amazing.
  21. Hakansson had many working papers from 1966 to 1969.  These were cited by other people at other universities.  He presented them at the 1966 Winter meeting of the Econometric Society.
  22. Merton in his Nobel Prize autobiography in 1997 incorrectly states that Hakansson was a graduate student up to 1969.  In fact, Hakansson was a prof at Yale from 1966 onwards with Stiglitz.  This is important because part of the Fischer thesis is based on a working paper by Hakansson at Yale.
  23. The Hakansson papers were what everyone in economics especially at MIT were trying to do, find the microfoundations of macro and the link between macro and finance.
  24. Textbooks since 1969 have tended to omit Hakansson’s papers at all such as Fischer’s own or have masked the priority of Hakansson.
  25. In Phelp’s Nobel Prize autobiography he is afraid to mention Hakansson and just vaguely says his own paper was the basis of work that followed.
  26. Samuelson in his quote above does not even mention that it is Hakansson.
  27. The Fischer thesis is using the Hakansson papers as a template in places.  Close textual analysis shows this. Moreover, results presented in Fischer if truly his own work and independent should have been cited by the MIT group as innovations. Instead they never give credit for any specific equation in Fischer’s thesis EVER.
  28. As mentioned, the Samuelson 1969 paper makes slips which show he was already familiar with the Hakansson paper results.
  29. The timeline of Samuelson publishing his paper in 1969 doesn’t work for the other papers.  The timeline by comparison of Samuelson, Merton and Fischer has to be Fischer first, then Samuelson and Merton.
  30. Merton’s continuous time work is a transcription from Fischer’s discrete time, not Samuelson’s discrete time.
  31. Samuelson does not make even an attempt to prove second order conditions. Hakansson did that first for intertemporal choice.  Fischer follows Hakansson and Merton follows both in the continuous time limit.
  32. No one treats Fischer’s work as the important work it would be if it was truly independent.
  33. Everyone associated with the MIT group has received awards for often trivial work while Hakansson’s work which is a foundation of modern macro and finance has never received an award.
  34. Peter Diamond got a Nobel Prize in between nominations.
  35. Peter Diamond was strangely added to the Aaron Swartz investigation by MIT after they were asked to investigate plagiarism in the Stanley Fischer thesis.
  36. Franklin Fisher was sent materials and asked to provide them to the Senate and FBI on this.  Did he?
  37. Karl Shell, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were linked then and since and with Peter Diamond.  Have they given statements to the FBI?
  38. Daniel Rubinfeld was at MIT at the time, has he given a statement?  Rubinfeld is at Berkeley.
  39. Akerlof and Yellen at Berkeley have known of this for decades presumably.  Have they furnished statements to the FBI?
  40. Martin Weitzman was also at MIT at the time and later attended conferences in Poland prior to the 1975 Nobel Prize of Kantorovich.  What does he say? Did the Russians say they knew this and ask for nominations for Kantorovich from Arrow and Samuelson?
  41. Arrow strangely moved to Harvard and then back to Stanford. Was that linked to this?
  42. Marschak was on the Hakansson committee, and was a known Communist.  Was that used?
  43. Something happened in 1952 at University of Chicago and Markowitz’s thesis was delayed it appears until Cowles Commission left Chicaago.  Was that used by Samuelson?
  44. Did Russia use this to get IMF loans in the 1990s?
  45. Why does Putin keep saying that Shleifer was a CIA agent advising Anatoly Chubais? Chubais handled the IMF loans for Russia.
  46. Boris Berezovsky worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow that does the same math as in these papers. Did he have the idea to use this as pressure for IMF loans?  Were loans for shares his share?
  47. Did MIT provide information on this to the FBI or MI-5 during the 1990s? After Berezovsky’s death and before the Chechen terrorist attack in Boston?  After it?
  48. There are Berezovsky coauthors in the US and UK as well as other people who attended the conferences in Poland in the 1970s prior to the Nobel Prize for Soviet Kantorovich.  Have they been questioned?
  49. Russia has made numerous references to plagiarism in physics, math and econ starting in the 1930s to the present.  Have these ever been disclosed to the FBI by any university ever?  Their role in getting Nobel Prize nominations in physics and econ? Their role in gaining atomic secrets?
  50. Aaron Swartz was possibly investigating misconduct in his attempt to get JSTOR files.  Was this what he was interested in?  Lawrence Lessig knows Franklin Fisher and is a friend of Hal Abelson. Is that why Peter Diamond was added to the Abelson review of Swartz’s death?
  51. How many people have been pressured over this? How many gotten rewards?
  52. Dominique Strauss Kahn harassed female employees at IMF.  Was it because he knew this that he could get away with it?
  53. A Stanford professor put up photos of a Stanford junior faculty member at an econ conference and commented on her appearance to her dismay.  Was he able to get away with that because of this?  How much harassment has gone on where the professor is shielded by his knowledge of this?
  54. Junior faculty are being forced to participate in these citation games.  Are they being made to feel they are implicated? Are they being set up for another generation of pressure by Russia?
  55. China and India at a minimum seem aware of this if not involved at various times.  China especially.  The cooperation between Russia and China started in the 1940s and seems to be alive today.  This is valuable information for the FBI and MI5 to know.  The universities have concealed this.
  56. Events and investigations can be made in the US, UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, and other countries.
  57. Pakistan appears to have known of this in physics and may have used it to help avoid its role in 9/11 being made public and to life its nuclear sanctions.  India also may have used this to help get the limitations on its importing nuclear fuel lifted.  So both sides of a nuclear arms race are benefiting from this?  Even if not, why does the US support two sides in a nuclear arms race and no one say anything about it?
  58. LTCM bought Russian government bonds in the 1990s. Because it knew this?
  59. DE Shaw did the same.  They later hired Summers, nephew of Samuelson, and paid him 5 million a year.  The employees thought he was a joke and a waste of time it appears from reports.

Hakansson and his wife have set up a website with his papers. They have had to endure 30 years of the lies from MIT and the false claims of credit.  Other people have gone along with it to get Nobel Prizes.

Stanley Fischer has a victim’s website, a family that is his victim.  Has MIT told the Senate or FBI about this website?  Have they explained the inconsistencies in their story since 1969 to the present?

The above is draft and preliminary.   This is subject to revision.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Edward M Corson Agent Provocateur Russia continued

February 23, 2014

The FBI files on Edward Anatole Michael Corson reveal a very interesting character.

Corson, Edward Anatole Michael, Ph.D. 1945

Corson’s father came from Russia and likely changed his name to Corson. Edward Corson was born in 1921 on Long Island.

Referral Responses
Emil Klaus Fuchs

Page 34 of the pdf starts a section on Edward M. Corson. This is a memo dated March 3, 1950.

Note the FBI misspells Edinburgh as Edinburg. (One of those furrin cities.) So if you search in the pdf, don’t include the h on the end.

Bottom of page 34.

Michael George Corson was investigated by the FBI from 1941 to 1945 and again from July 1946 to April 1948. These found nothing. Michael G Corson was considered a possible security threat because he was from Russia. We learn elsewhere in these docs that someone said he was a White Russian and anti-Communist who came to the US in 1918. Edward was born in 1921.

Valentine George Corson, brother of Edward M. Corson and son of Michael G. Corson was investigated in March 1949 in connection with the Loyalty Program.

Page 35,

Edward M. Corson in his filings claimed to be born June 27, 1921 in Long Island New York. His mother was Natalie T. Corson. His brother VG Corson and parents were born in Russia.

Corson showed his education as Johns Hopkins University from 1938 to 1943, receiving a Ph.D. (The JHU record above indicated this was granted in 1945.) Institute Advanced Study Princeton 1946. (This is when he plagiarized Fock.)

Corson worked for Union Carbide and Carbon from 1943 to September 1947 at New York City and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Corson thus could have passed info on processing uranium to the Russians. As it turned out, they built processing plants with dimensions close to those of the US for critical processing.

Corson married to Mary E. Kuntz granddaughter of Peter Kuntz a multimillionaire of Dayton, Ohio.

Charles H. Shaw, professor of physics at Ohio State University who worked with Corson during the war heard Corson to make sympathetic statements to Russia during the war. Shaw characterized Corson as unreliable in his work and declined to recommend Corson for employment.

In 1944, Edward M. Corson paid 100 dollars to the Russian Student Fund in NYC. This was to Pierre Routsky. The fund was associated with radical groups including Communists and pro-Soviet as well as White Russian.

Dr. J. C. Hubbard of JHU indicated he applied to the Russian Students Fund in 1937 and 1938 on behalf of Corson for a loan of 500 dollars, which money was to be repaid.

Michael George Corson was born in Kiev, Russia on December 20, 1886. He entered the US in NYC on December 20, 1918. On Feb 27, 1925, he was naturalized in New York City.

Prior to coming to the United States he was employed in Russia as a research and plane development instructor. From 1922 to 1925 he was employed at the Union Carbide and Carbon Company Research Laboratories. From 1926 to approximately 1947 he was in business for himself as a consulting engineer for various iron and steel companies.

By letter on June 17, 1941, Mr. Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Department of State, advised the Bureau that on May 31, 1940, Michael George Corson appeared at the Department of State and desired to be made an agent of the Department of State in Mexico to combat Nazi and Japanese interests. At that time he said that he had been a Terrorist in Russia and had no fear of using similar methods to rid the world of Hitler ani similar dangers. When told that a memorandum would be made of his visit at the State Department, Mr. Corson remarked that apparently the department was not interested in his offer and unlike Americans in general he was not afraid of shooting and hanging to save the country and he would continue his plan without official aid.

Page 4 of the FBI document is skipped and we go to page 5. The document does not disclose
everything and somethings are blacked out even on pages included.

Page 5 discusses a plan Corson had to get technical information for a plant to process Beryllium to go to Russia. Corson talked with a Dr. Kawecki to obtain plans and possibly Kawecki to travel to Russia.

Michael Corson wrote Bureau that he saw too many capitalists and their top servants to think they were morally or intellectually fit to run the nation’s economic machine.

The FBI original document goes beyond page 5, but this is not included in the PDF.

One question that arises from these documents is whether Edward M. Corson and his father were both mentally unstable. Oppenheimer suggested that in one place.

However, Corson’s relation to Max Born is not fully disclosed. It appears that Oppenheimer told very little to the FBI about Max Born.

We now know that Max Born assistants and students included Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang who all went to the Eastern Block or Communist China before or shortly after the arrest of Fuchs as a spy. Of these, Cheng Kaijia and Huanwu Peng worked on the Chinese atom bomb.

If we conclude that Max Born was a spy and was a node in a Russian spy ring, then Corson is more likely a Communist. This would probably point to his father being also a spy for Russia. Their histrionic displays would then be seen as ploys.

Corson would later accuse Mott the physicist of being a Communist. Max Born in his book published after his death, says Mott sent Fuchs to Born because Mott thought Fuchs was a Communist and spread Communist propaganda among the undergraduates. Page 284 of Max Born “My Life Recollections of a Nobel Laureate.” Mott in a footnote denies such a comment was made seriously.

Born says he knew Fuchs was a Communist. Corson in the FBI materials says that Born had told him
that Fuchs was trying to spread Communist materials and that Born told him not to.

Looking at the FBI materials, the plagiarism by Corson of Fock and Fock Letter were not reported to the FBI. Oppenheimer talked to them about Corson but did not mention that. Nor did Oppenheimer tell the FBI that Born was plagiarized and Kapitsa had implied this in print in the obit of Rutherford. The Oppenheimer Security Clearance hearing was in spring 1954. Max Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in fall of 1954.

Page 8 of pdf related to Corson.

Page 9 of pdf is the information from Oppenheimer and from Corson’s employer relating to him being mentally unstable.

Page 10, Corson said he met Fuchs in 1943.

The book “Klaus Fuchs a biography” by Norman Moss states on page 20 that Corson knew Fuchs in Edinburgh in the 1930s.

The book states the Fuchs, Peierls, and Corson worked on gaseous diffusion calculations for the Oak Ridge plant to process uranium together in New York. Corson claimed not to see much of Fuchs after work it states.

Corson and Peierls both were supportive of Fuchs when Fuchs was arrested. See page 150 of this book and the FBI reports.

Page 151, Peierls restarted smoking after Fuchs arrest and seeing Fuchs in jail. Genia, the wife of Peierls was from Russia and was upset at Fuchs arrest and spying being revealed.

So was Corson unstable? Was he also a Communist? Were Corson’s actions a ploy to distract attention or exhibits of mental instability?

If we assume that Max Born was a Communist, and that Russia sent him people already Communists, then Corson going to Edinburgh in the 1930s would indicate Corson was already a Communist then. This would be at age 17 if that was 1938. Perhaps the entire Corson family were Communists with a cover story of being White Russians who were anti-Communists.

There also is the contentious point of Fuchs being sent by Mott to Born because he was a Communist or not. In the book by Norman Moss, it is stated, Fuchs was sent because they had too many people at Bristol.

Much information was not disclosed to the FBI. Why did Oppenheimer not tell the FBI about Corson’s plagiarism and the Fock Letter when Oppenheimer reported on Corson calling him and being distraught and mentally deranged at Fuchs’ arrest?

Page 10 of pdf of FBI goes on about Corson saying others in England were Communists and security risks. Eventually Corson names Mott as one.

Michael Corson was living on 610 West 142nd Street NYC in May 1950. See page 15 of pdf.

MI-5 stated they didn’t attach a high degree of reliability to Corson’s accusations about 4 people as security risks for Russia, although one of them was a known Communist sympathizer.

We keep coming back to the question of whether Corson was unstable. Even if he was, Oppenheimer didn’t tell the FBI about the plagiarism by Corson or that Max Born was a victim of plagiarism or that Kapitsa made references to it.

In 1950, Sidney Dancoff duplicated without attribution the method of Tamm, which is part of Fock Space methods.

It appears that Marcos Moshinksy at Princeton started the use of the term Fock Space and was the first to use that term. He was from Mexico but was born in Ukraine, the same as Corson’s father.

He was born in 1921 into a Jewish family in Kiev, Ukraine (which was then part of the Soviet Union). At the age of three, he emigrated as a refugee to Mexico, where he became a naturalized citizen in 1942. He received a bachelor’s degree in physics from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a doctorate in the same discipline at Princeton University under Nobel Laureate Eugene Paul Wigner.

In the present paper we propose to develop a quantum-mechanical scheme in Fock space that would describe interactions that take place through the formation of a compound particle.

Corson Fock letters in 1947.

If Oppenheimer wanted to make the case that Corson was unstable why omit this? Except that it would direct attention to plagiarism which would lead to attention to Max Born as a plagiarism victim and Kapitsa’s comments about this, cryptically, in the Rutherford obit? That would lead to a focus on the Max Born assistants then leaving to the Eastern Bloc, and raise questions about Oppenheimer himself. So Oppenheimer said nothing about that.

Oppenheimer became director of IAS in 1947, the same year as the Corson Fock exchange. That was an IAS matter since Corson was at IAS at the time.

Later, Oehme would publish his paper on Edge of the Wedge while at IAS. The Russians are still pushing that this was Bogolyubov’s work and have written Oehme out of the story at the Wiki entry on Edge of the Wedge.

In December 2008, Tamtamar edited this Wiki page to push the Russian version.

Oppenheimer was direct of IAS when Oehme was there on this paper. Oehme then went to Univ of Chicago. Oehme seems to have been obsessed over this dispute.

Oehme created his own wikipage earlier in 2008.

Fuchs helped the Chinese according to the book Nuclear Express.

Fuchs was granted amnesty and released on 23 June 1959, after serving nine years and four months of his sentence at Wakefield Prison and promptly emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).[54] A tutorial he gave to Qian Sanqiang and other Chinese physicists helped them to develop the first Chinese atomic bomb, the 596, which was tested five years later according to Thomas Reed and Daniel Stillman, the authors of The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation (2009).[55] Three historians of nuclear weapons history, Robert S. Norris, Jeremy Bernstein and Peter D. Zimmerman, challenged this particular assertion as “unsubstantiated conjecture”[56] and asserted that The Nuclear Express is “an ambitious but deeply flawed book”.[57

Note the Nuclear Express book was discussed Sep 2008 in an article by the same authors.

That article linked this blog

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 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.

The many Max Born assistants who went to China and at least 2 worked on the bomb for China show that there was much not being discovered by the FBI in the Corson and Fuchs investigations. Some of this was intentional withholding by the universities it would appear. That continued into the 1970s when Kapitsa got the Nobel Prize in physics.

In 1947, the Soviet most likely to get the Nobel Prize in physics was Fock. So if the Soviets were trying to push him, having Corson plagiarize intentionally would be one tactic so they could expose it. The Dancoff paper in 1950 may have been the same with Tamm as the victim. Dancoff was an Oppenheimer student who worked on the bomb. Oehme was at IAS in 1958 and the victim was Bogolyubov. Tamm got the Nobel Prize in 1958 and Born in 1954. Born was also a plagiarism victim and one Kapitsa was implicitly referencing both in obits of Rutherford in the 1930s and later. Rutherford had made Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society the year after the plagiarism of Born which helped Bohr get Rockefeller money. Rutherford’s son in law Fowler was the professor who sponsored the plagiarism and likely got a letter with the preprint of the Born Jordan paper in 1925. Kapitsa was there and learned this and became a witness against Bohr and Dirac. Kapitsa sent a letter to Bohr trying to recruit him for Russia in 1944. There was then the Terletsky meeting with Bohr and later Sudoplatov book pushing the Terletsky meeting and also that the intelligence services in Russia got the bomb info.

An undergrad paper by Michael Schwartz in 1996 at Harvard states that Russia got its first bomb and all the info on how to process the fuel from the Americans.

This paper implies a much larger network than US universities admit to. Sudoplatov also claims his network was larger than is known.

The Sudoplatov book may have been intended by Russia in 1994 to put pressure on the econ profs in control of IMF loans to Russia, Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. The IMF loans increased in size at this time. Berezovsky then got a loans for shares corrupt enrichment perhaps because he was the one to think of doing this. In his 1997, Nobel Prize autobio, Robert C. Merton makes a misstatement about Hakansson that helped protect Stanley Fischer. A book on Long Term Capital Management says they traded Russian government bonds as if they had inside info. They took a large long position to profit from inside knowledge that Russia had kompromat over Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson uncle of Summers?

Going back to Edward M. Corson, at a minimum, info was not disclosed about him or Max Born to the FBI. Nor was this disclosed at the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearing. Edward Teller likely knew some of this, but limited his testimony after Hans Bethe and Teller had a heated discussion the night before on what Teller would say.

Bethe and Weisskopf erupted with anger over the Sudoplatov book getting coverage in the US from PBS News Hour and other publications. Weisskopf had plotted with Oppenheimer to kill Heisenberg in 1944 too late in the war for a German bomb but when Heisenberg was a threat to expose some Max Born assistants as communists once the war was over.

An early response came from three Manhattan Project physicists in a letter of protest to McNeil-Lehrer. Hans Bethe, Robert R. Wilson and Victor Weisskopf expressed amazement that the program would broadcast such scandalous charges without trying to check the facts. “As a result,” they wrote, “you helped a criminal, who has mounted a highly skilled effort to make himself rich, to slander some of the greatest scientists of this century.” The American Physical Society promptly organized a press conference in which physicists and historians combined to warn that there were strong reasons to doubt Sudoplatov’s claims.

In some quarters any reply by physicists seemed self-serving. “It is now obvious that McCarthy was right,” said the London Sunday Times (April 24); the National Review (May 30) speculated that the APS’s call for opening relevant archives might produce “unhappy surprises of the sort that greeted Hiss and Rosenberg partisans when they demanded access to the FBI’s archives.” A special responsibility fell upon historians of science for an objective evaluation.

The Harvard paper by Swartz would support the Sudoplatov book that there was a vast network of scientists spying for Russia that gave Russia all the info to build their bomb and process the fuel. Sudoplatov indicates in his book that the first bomb was a copy of the American bomb.

Sudoplatov’s implications about Bohr, Fermi and Oppenheimer receive support from the plagiarism aspect of it and the many Max Born assistants involved in bomb work for China. Fermi was also a Dirac plagiarism victim. Oppenheimer as well as Teller, Heisenberg, Pauli, Weisskopf were Max Born Assistants.

Bethe was a Fowler assistant and received Rockefeller money. Rutherford made Bohr and Sommerfeld Fellows of the Royal Society in 1926 the year after the plagiarism by Dirac of Born that Fowler was part of.

Bethe was an assistant to Fowler, Sommerfeld, Bohr and Fermi in the following years.

The FBI was unable to put together a picture on these interrelationships because the scientists and universities held back info. They knew about the plagiarism and knew Russia knew about it. Russia published comments in print. The Nobel Prize for Tamm was linked to this through the Dancoff duplication of the Tamm work. (Duplication is meant to avoid taking a position on plagiarism, duplication by sympathetic vibrations so to speak is allowed.)

This continued in the 1990s as the scientists reacted in anger to the Sudoplatov book. This reaction created a big furor which the econ profs would hear. They in turn had their plagiarism to cover up. Russia had already put pressure on them to get Nominations for the econ Nobel Prize for Kantorovich is likely. This includes at econ conferences in Poland, where Martin Weitzman of MIT and now Harvard was an attendee. Weitzman was closely linked to Duncan Foley, Peter Diamond, Karl Shell, and Franklin Fisher all linked to the Stanley Fischer work that duplicated the Hakansson thesis that Shell had at MIT in 1966 from public records. All of these should be witnesses along with Robert C. Merton and the latest winners of the Nobel Prize in econ as well.

Miguel Sidrauski was to be Stanley Fischer’s thesis chairman and he was from Argentina. They bonded as fellow immigrants and Zionists as we find from Duncan Foley in part.

Interview Karl Shell

Olivier Blanchard interview of Stanley Fischer.

Blanchard didn’t even know Fischer’s thesis was on dynamic programming including part of their joint book in the 1980s on Macroeconomics.

By the time of Fischer’s thesis, the events of Corson were part of Soviet tradecraft. So the idea of using Fischer to ensnare Samuelson and MIT to put pressure on them to get nominations for Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ may have been in Russia’s mind. If so, Sidrauski and possibly his wife Martha may have played a role. Duncan Foley’s interview prompts such an inquiry. They may also have told Russia it happened.

Sidrauski then Foley then Franklin Fisher were chairmen of the Stanley Fischer thesis. Samuelson was on it. An unusual thesis to have 3 different people as chairman and to apparently plagiarize the Hakansson thesis and another Hakansson paper.

What happened with Corson, Fuchs, Max Born, etc. became tradecraft for Russia to use with academics by the 1960s when the Fischer thesis came along. At that time, Russia wanted a Nobel Prize in econ for Kantorovich. This parallels the prize they got for Tamm after he was apparently plagiarized by Sidney Dancoff, a former Oppenheimer student and assistant, in 1950.

The Fock Letter is a basic point of Soviet tradecraft to manipulate academics over plagiarism. This is true whether Corson was an intentional agent provocateur of theirs or not. The concept was there either way by the time of the 1960s. Sidrauski may have played a role with Stanley Fischer of such a nature. There are also parallels with Fowler and Dirac plagiarizing Max Born. That gave Russia through Kapitsa leverage over Rutherford, Fowler, Dirac, and Bohr. They got leverage over Bohr because Rutherford made him a Fellow of the Royal Society the next year and Bohr was linked to Born and Jordan. Born then wrote to Bohr asking for a Rockefeller stipend for Jordan at Bohr’s institute.

Sudoplatov makes much of Kapitsa in his 1994 book and Bohr. All this was meant to put pressure on the econ profs to give Russia IMF loans. When those materialized from Fischer and Summers, Berezovsky got rewarded in loans for shares. It was Berezovsky who picked Putin to succeed Yeltsin. Putin taunted Fischer with a comment about getting him a job in Moscow after he finished with the IMF. Now Fischer is up for Vice Chairman of the Fed. Franklin Fisher and the others at MIT should be interviewed on these subjects.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Navigating Resources on Russia Plagiarism Files

January 31, 2014

This post is meant to help in finding information on Russia Plagiarism Files, ie the hypothesis that the Russian government keeps track of plagiarism, or its appearance or post publication efforts to claim credit or deny credit or recognition to rivals or victims.

If you come to a tag page like Klaus Fuchs you will find a stack of articles with the tag Klaus Fuchs with the latest articles first.  You can think of it as a column of articles with the latest article on the top of the column.

The latest article may be tagged Klaus Fuchs because it has some application related to Klaus Fuchs.  However, the latest article is not the one to read if you are starting at the beginning.  It will simply confuse you and seem hopeless.

One thing you can do is go to the bottom of the column which is the oldest article.

The top article currently in the Klaus Fuchs tag column is

This article is mostly about Thomas C. Reed citing the tag column Klaus Fuchs.  It is December 12, 2008.

Note the current link to the Reed article is now

If we go to the bottom of the Klaus Fuchs tag column, we get

This article is from 2006.  The 2006 article is more basic and from the beginning. So you would do better to read that unless you can’t think for yourself, in which case you just want to see that Thomas C. Reed linked to these webpages.  Reed was a former Sec of the Air Force and worked with Teller before that to develop nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore.

Another place to start on Russia Plagiarism Files is

This has links to some other articles.

If you come to a random article webpage from a Google link or a link in an email provided by a friend or unfriend, then you may find it confusing or not of much use.  You have to make some effort to find the right articles to read given your background knowledge.

This navigation page will be added to from time to time.  So you may want to come back to it.


As a reminder, See Something Say Something.

If you know something that could be of use in exposing government or academic corruption or in counter-terrorism, speak up.  Chechens or others may have specific resentments against academic, banking, government or international targets.  If you work for one of those or are a student and see something suspicious, speak up.  Report it to someone.  Post a comment on these webpages if you can’t do anything else.

This is currently posted on January 31, 2014.  We are in a fever over Sochi Terrorism.  But the strike may be somewhere else such as Harvard and MIT economics departments or business schools.  If you work or study there, and no one seems to take notice of anything, speak up.  These departments should issue warnings in advance of the Sochi games, really even before this.  They are a special target during Sochi. So are the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC or affiliated locations in Europe.

Russia may also be spreading stories inside Chechen or Muslim groups blaming Andrei Shleifer, Larry Summers, Stanley Fischer or others.  Putin wants to deflect blame for the Chechen genocide and Moscow Apartment Bombings onto the US, British and likely Israel.

After the Boston Bombings in 2013, Putin blamed the CIA for manipulating Anatoly Chubais, this fingered Harvard prof Andrei Shleifer.  If something happens in the US or Europe, Putin will blame the CIA.  If someone is killed, Putin will say they were the next Snowden and were going to expose the CIA.    Russia will have a twisted story to explain whatever happens.  Thus you can’t exclude any target or any scenario because it is too absurd or stupid.

Stanley Fischer’s appointment as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the Sochi Olympics was waiving a red flag in the face of Chechens and Muslims. They blame the IMF loans under Fischer and Summers for funding the Chechen genocide in 1999 during the Second Chechen War.  The Kavkaz Center in Sweden pushes this line.  Thus the Federal Reserve is a target and groups or individuals linked to it.  If you know something about any of this, you should pass that on.  This includes Russia’s use of academic misconduct kompromat, pre or post publication.

The universities, the IMF and World Bank, Federal Reserve, banks and other related financial institutions have not passed on what they know to the FBI or JTTF or even within their own organization to their own security people.  They have to take blame for not doing so.  If you have information or academic misconduct, Russia’s use of it, an interest in this subject by Chechens and Muslims, Chinese, or Russians, then pass it on.

Countries like Pakistan and India and likely Iran try to piggy back on this information and use it. So report people from these countries if you know they are involved in such matters.  You can link to this page in a written report or tip as providing background on these subjects.

Don’t be a victim.  These people manipulate not just terrorism but academic misconduct and recognition to advance their national or group interests.  You don’t have to protect them because they are colleagues or leader figures, even if they have important titles or recognition.

Edward Snowden reveals that NSA monitored Russia Medvedev communications

June 16, 2013

NSA targeted Dmitry Medvedev at London G20 summit

Leaked documents reveal Russian president was spied on during visit, as questions are raised over use of US base in Britain

Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and James Ball
The Guardian, Sunday 16 June 2013 15.47 EDT

This article appears to be just about from where and/or how Russia sent communications. It does not appear to be about the content of the communications. These are presumably encrypted.

Snowden is now going to reveal information of substance? This is still about how the communications game is played as opposed to actual substance unknown to the public.

Will Snowden expose that Russia used kompromat to get IMF loans in the 1990s from Lawrence Summers and Stanley Fischer? Did DOJ under Clinton, Bush and Obama cover this up? If so, Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill would leapfrog over Woodward and Bernstein, Guardian would leapfrog the Washington Post and Edward Snowden would leapfrog Deep Throat.

Does the NSA have a file on Russia Plagiarism Files? Does Snowden have it? This would change history.

This is a discussion of a story of public interest. Please restate all statements as questions. This is hypotheses or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

Ben Bernanke Russia Plagiarism Files

August 25, 2009

Questions to ask Ben Bernanke in the FBI background check and by the Senate.  Has he ever heard and if so from whom anything related to the following.  See reference material after these questions.  Has Bernanke heard or know that:

  1. Russia keeps track of plagiarism or apparent plagiarism or possible plagiarism by profs in the West?
  2. Has he heard that in relation to Paul Samuelson and copying by Samuelson in his 1969 paper on dynamic programming that replicated in part work of Nils Hakansson in the Hakansson 1966 UCLA thesis?
  3. Bernanke cited the Sameulson 1969 paper in Bernanke’s thesis at MIT under the supervision of Stanley Fischer.  He also cited the Merton 1969 paper but not the Stanley Fischer 1969 thesis at MIT or the subsequent Stanley Fischer papers.  Bernanke also didn’t cite the Hakansson 1966 thesis or any paper by Hakansson.  Why?
  4. What did Bernanke know at the time of writing his thesis?
  5. Why did Fischer add a citation to the Hakansson paper in his thesis late as he says, which was deposited late in the MIT library and in his publications, but Bernanke doesn’t cite the Hakansson papers or thesis?
  6. Bernanke’s thesis work was after 1975, the year that Soviet economist Kantorovich won the Nobel Prize in economics.   Had Bernanke heard then that the Soviets pressured Paul Samuelson or Kenneth Arrow or economists at Harvard to nominate Kantorovich?
  7. Was this pressure based in part on allegations of plagiarism by Samuelson in the 1969 paper which was an NSF grant paper?
  8. Did Russia also use allegations of still existing coverups by professors in the US and US universities of Russia’s network and efforts to gain atomic know-how?
  9. Did this include refererences to the Fock Letter published in Physical Review in 1947?
  10. Did this include issues relating to Klaus Fuchs?  To J. Robert Oppenheimer?  To Hans Bethe concealing information about Fuchs, Max Born, etc?
  11. To the Max Born assistants who went to China and became involved in its atomic bomb program after Fuchs was arrested in 1950?
  12. To Infeld another Max Born assistant who went to the Soviet zone after the Fuchs arrest?
  13. Did LTCM trade Russian government bonds in August 1998 or earlier based on a belief that Russia was pressuring Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer based on this for low interest IMF loans?
  14. DE Shaw has been said to have traded Russian government bonds, whether accurately or not.  DE Shaw hired Summers and it is reported paid him 5 million dollars.  This was after the US v. Harvard, Shleifer investigation.  What does he know of this?  Did DE Shaw have information about any of this when it was trading Russian government bonds, if it was? After that?
  15. Did DE Shaw know about this by the time Summers was hired by Obama?  Did DE Shaw provide information on this to the FBI in a background check on Summers to be hired by Obama?
  16. Who else traded Russian government bonds based on this information?
  17. Was the private bailout of LTCM arranged by the government or the Federal Reserve Bank in NY or by Goldman Sachs or others because they knew of this and wanted to keep it out of any trial involving an LTCM bankruptcy?
  18. Was this leverage over LTCM to get them to agree to the terms of the bailout group?  Was John Merriwether questioned on this at any time?  Anyone else from LTCM?
  19. Did econ profs at the DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analsysis Group know this?  Did Carl Shapiro know it?  Was he rehired at DOJ because of a coverup going on at DOJ?
  20. Was information relating to the above concealed from Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom from 1997 to 2005 during US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  21. Did Shleifer know of any of the above?  Did Shleifer use that as leverage to get Harvard to stand by him?
  22. What about associates of Shleifer at companies he was involved in or at University of Chicago or Harvard?
  23. Did Hay get a Ph.D. in math from Moscow State University while US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay was pending so that if he lost his law license he could get an academic job in Europe as a math prof?  Was this to keep him from doing a deal with USAO Mass?
  24. Did DOJ HQ know about this under Clinton, Bush and Obama?
  25. Is Eric Holder part of a conspiracy to cover this up?
  26. Did Obama know about this from Cass Sunstein at University of Chicago while his wife was paid over 300k per year?  Steve Sailer reports that job was abolished after she left it.  Was this money for silence?
  27. Did Elena Kagan know of this?  From the Clinton time? Did she conceal it from USAO mass while she was Dean of Harvard Law School?
  28. Are others at DOJ involved?  Other econ profs in the US government?  Under Clinton, Bush and Obama?
  29. Did Summers get Paula Jones audited in September 1997 while concealing info from USAO Mass and paying hush money to Russia because Clinton knew it and used that as leverage?  Summers was in charge of the IRS reorganization and the IRS was without a Commissioner from spring 1997 to Novemember 1997, effectively leaving Summers in charge.  Did Clinton arrange it that way so he could use this information to pressure Summers to audit Jones?  Was Clinton’s motive to intimidate Monica Lewinsky?  Clinton didn’t commit perjury until Jan 1998.  Once he did so he would be under the power of Lewinsky to destroy him, as was shown. Did he audit Jones to frighten Lewinsky as part of their perjury pact?  Did Clinton permit Russia to continue to pressure an addition 4.8 billion from Summers and Fischer in 1998 after this and during the impeachment process?  Did Russia figure that out and use it?
  30. Did other countries know of this history and use it as leverage against Clinton, Bush or Obama?  Those countries include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, Mexico, Russia, and China?
  31. Of all the econ profs and law profs under Clinton, Bush and Obama have any revealed any information about any of this?
  32. Did John Yoo know it?  Did he learn it from Berkeley?  Did Paul Wolfowitz learn of it from his father Jacob Wolfowitz as to incidents before his father’s death?  Did they tell Bush?  Did Bush use it during Bush v. Gore?  Gore was linked to Summers and Russia in a troika by House Republican leaders.
  33. Some of them were hired by Bush at SEC and CIA. Did they know of this?  Did they conceal it?
  34. Did Albert Gonzales as AG?
  35. Did Yoo and Wolofowitz owe their independence to their role in this?
  36. Did Libby use this to help get the Marc Rich pardon from Clinton?
  37. Is Obama using this history to espace having to reveal his documents related to his hospital issued birth certificate?  His other concealed documents?
  38. Is this being used as leverage to get health care passed?
  39. For the hate crimes bill?
  40. Was Eric Holder’s Nation of Cowards speech meant to intimidate those in the know, in and out of DOJ, and in and out of government from speaking up with a new administration?
  41. Were the US Attorney firings meant to intimidate DOJ HQ employees or others such as Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom from reopening the US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay case?
  42. Was the bailout of 2008 meant to also keep quiet those on Wall Street who know of this?  Including at Goldman Sachs?

Reference material on the above questions

(taken from prior post)

Paul Samuelson plagiarism “public good”

Edmund Phelps, Insider-Economists’ Insider

Introduction by PAUL A. SAMUELSON

Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

No it wasn’t.  It was Nils Hakansson’s Ph.D. thesis at UCLA.  It was not a public good for horning in.  Paul Samuelson got an NSF grant for his horning in.

MIT had the thesis by 1966 because a professor there, Karl Shell, chaired the session at which Hakansson presented it.  It was one of the top theses of all time in economics and caused a sensation in the profession.  It was not a public good at all.  Public good has an ironic meaning when Samuelson get an NSF grant for his 1969 “horning in”.

By David Wessel

Asked about the economics of implementing a cap-and-trade approach to climate change at an Economic Club of Washington event today, White House economic adviser Larry Summers deliberately sought to avoid saying anything newsworthy. Instead, he cited a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. thesis written in 1979 by a then-young economist named Ben Bernanke, now, of course, chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke cites the Samuelson 1969 paper in his thesis.;jsessionid=F6535BEB64E73E0150C398D6A48A8B55?sequence=1

Page 149 of thesis cites Samuelson but in the citations, Hakansson does not appear.

Stanley Fischer in his 1989 textbook credits Samuelson 1969 and mentions Hakansson not at all.

Nils Hakansson was not even made a Fellow of the Econometric Society.  So many at MIT in 1969 were made Fellows even though they did nothing of comparable worth.


Summers is still continuing the bullying.  But now he is trying to intimidate those who know from coming forward.  Summers is also bullying Assistant US Attorney Sara Miron Bloom not to investigate what is now on the Internet.  Summers is doing this with Obama’s knowledge very likely.  This includes bullying and intimidating the staff of DOJHQ, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, FBI, etc.  They are all being bullied by Summers and Obama and Nation of Cowards Attorney General Eric Holder.

Thomas C. Reed September 2008, page 47

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 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.

Holder, Obama and Summers know AIP has linked to this blog on this.  They know they are facing investigation for this.  They are using bullying to keep the DOJ staff and FBI staff from investigating this.

Joel Brenner talk mentions Russia’s intense effort towards end.

“But he said Moscow appears less interested in U.S. commercial and military technology than other countries”

The above is all speculation and hypotheses.  This is draft and preliminary.  All other disclaimers apply.  Comments and corrections welcomed.

Bullying and plagiarism by profs are same thing in Russia Plagiarism Files

August 21, 2009

The court heard that Houghton had waged a string of verbal and physical attacks on Miss Moore since the pair were 14 and District Judge Bruce Morgan told her: “Since Emily Moore was 14 you have waged compelling threats and violent abuse towards her.

“Bullies are by their nature cowards, in school and society. The evil, odious effects of being bullied stay with you for life. On this day you did an act of gratuitous nastiness to satisfy your own twisted nature.”

Houghton, of Malvern in Worcestershire, had two previous convictions relating to her vendetta against Miss Moore. In 2005 she was convicted of assaulting her as she walked home from school and was subsequently expelled.

The bullying makes no sense at one level, but make sense in other contexts.  The bully does it out of habit and the way they are, whether by nature or nurture.  Society then lets them get away with more and more and doesn’t treat it as the real harm it is.  Note the method of pretending they are the friend described in the article.  This approach is common in academia and elsewhere.

Paul Samuelson plagiarism “public good”

Edmund Phelps, Insider-Economists’ Insider

Introduction by PAUL A. SAMUELSON

Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

No it wasn’t.  It was Nils Hakansson’s Ph.D. thesis at UCLA.  It was not a public good for horning in.  Paul Samuelson got an NSF grant for his horning in.

MIT had the thesis by 1966 because a professor there, Karl Shell, chaired the session at which Hakansson presented it.  It was one of the top theses of all time in economics and caused a sensation in the profession.  It was not a public good at all.  Public good has an ironic meaning when Samuelson get an NSF grant for his 1969 “horning in”.

By David Wessel

Asked about the economics of implementing a cap-and-trade approach to climate change at an Economic Club of Washington event today, White House economic adviser Larry Summers deliberately sought to avoid saying anything newsworthy. Instead, he cited a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. thesis written in 1979 by a then-young economist named Ben Bernanke, now, of course, chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke cites the Samuelson 1969 paper in his thesis.;jsessionid=F6535BEB64E73E0150C398D6A48A8B55?sequence=1

Page 149 of thesis cites Samuelson but in the citations, Hakansson does not appear.

Stanley Fischer in his 1989 textbook credits Samuelson 1969 and mentions Hakansson not at all.


The bullying described by the judge is exactly how Paul Samuelson, Stanley Fischer and the others at MIT treated Nils Hakansson from 1969 to present.  They have bullied him repeatedly.  The judges words describe Paul Samuelson’s actions towards Nils Hakansson.  The others went along with it.

This is what gave Russia leverage over Larry Summers to get the low interest rate loans fro the IMF.  This is why LTCM and other hedge funds bought Russian government bonds, based on their knowledge of this history of bullying.  It was bullying in printed publications of the major institutions of society which control the credentials of the elites which made it far more harmful than Facebook.

Nils Hakansson was not even made a Fellow of the Econometric Society.  So many at MIT in 1969 were made Fellows even though they did nothing of comparable worth.


Summers is still continuing the bullying.  But now he is trying to intimidate those who know from coming forward.  Summers is also bullying Assistant US Attorney Sara Miron Bloom not to investigate what is now on the Internet.  Summers is doing this with Obama’s knowledge very likely.  This includes bullying and intimidating the staff of DOJHQ, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, FBI, etc.  They are all being bullied by Summers and Obama and Nation of Cowards Attorney General Eric Holder.

Thomas C. Reed September 2008, page 47

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 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.

Holder, Obama and Summers know AIP has linked to this blog on this.  They know they are facing investigation for this.  They are using bullying to keep the DOJ staff and FBI staff from investigating this.

Joel Brenner talk mentions Russia’s intense effort towards end.

“But he said Moscow appears less interested in U.S. commercial and military technology than other countries”

The above is all hypotheses and should be restated as that if not already.  This is speculation.  Comments and corrections welcome.  This is draft and preliminary.  All other disclaimers apply.

Obama Cairo: First I come for the Jews

June 8, 2009

Obama’s life’s work is the final solution of the white problem, the genocide of the white race.  This is as a disciple of Alinsky and the left.  They do it with gradualism.

Introducing Islam into the West is the new Alinsky gradualism.  Islam is not tolerant and will finish the white race including the Jewish people.

Gaffney analysis of Obama Cairo speech.  Deconstructs it and shows its a promise of Islamic supremacy over Israel and the United States.

The Jews in Obama’s cabinet are frozen by the Russia plagiarism files problem.  They have legal liability and depend on Obama.  They can also hope for a pardon from Obama.  Eric Holder at DOJ has power of prison over them.

Larry Summers gave Russia over 20 billion in low interest IMF loans while Russia had kompromat on Stanley Fischer and the Summers Samuelson family and their universities and financial service links.  Goldman Sachs is part of that tangle of compromised entities.

(The main kompromat is that Russia used pressure over plagiarism in physics to get Fuchs into Los Alamos and other benefits in physics.  Thus later pressure becomes not just covering up plagiarism but potential legal risk for ongoing covering up of atomic espionage.  This applies to any pressure applied in 1970’s in econ to get Nobel Prize nominations.

Russia may have taped conversations in Poland in 1972 and 1974 at econ conferences for Western and Eastern bloc profs in economics.  They then replay those in the 1990’s for Summers and Fischer and point out the legal liability now is not just plagiarism but that the profs in 1970’s were told it was to cover up atomic spying as well.  So the legal liability increased to accessory to atomic espionage potentially.  Summers could hardly go to a law firm and ask for a legal opinion on this risk.

Russia also pushed the buttons of atomic physicists in 1990’s by Sudoplatov allegatations that Oppenheimer, Fermi and Szilard allowed spies to be hired at weapons labs.  Pontecorvo was brought by Fermi.  Oppenheimer had Max Born as thesis adviser as did Klaus Fuchs.  Born had 3 Chinese students, 2 now listed by China as heroes of its weapons program.  Fuchs is now reported to have helped the Chinese in the 1950’s after getting out of prison.

Fuchs was arrested in January 1950.   4 Max Born former assistants then went to China or the Eastern bloc, one before then.   Oppenheimer lost his security clearance.  One Born assistant left England for Australia.  Born left England for Germany putting him close to East Germany, easily accessible in the 1950’s by car.

When the Sudoplatov book came out, the US atomic physicists came out and denounced the allegations.  They were on the News Hour on PBS.  This was during the time that Russia was running Aldrich Ames (convicted 1994) and Robert Hanssen.  They tipped Russia off they had moles.  Russia had an oligarch handle the Fischer Summers IMF relationship consistently over the course of the 1990’s.  LTCM had people familiar with the econ history who were identified as the ones pushing he big bets on Russian bonds in August 1998 in the days leading up to Russia’s default as if they had inside information that Russia would not default according to one book.)

Stanley Fischer was Ben Bernanke’s thesis chairman at MIT.  Fischer is now in Israel, safe from prosecution in the US.  But the rest are here and subject to that risk.  Obama and Holder control it.

Bill Clinton and Bush and many in their administrations are subject to this risk as well. Elena Kagan and Cass Sunstein have to consider their liability as well.  As do many others.  Thus Obama controls many at DOJ and elsewhere in the legal profession including on the courts and in the law schools.

Obama positioned Hillary Clinton at Secretary of State so that he could come for the Jews first.  He controls her by controlling the prosecution of Bill Clinton for his role including the IRS audits of Paula Jones In Sep 1997  that Summers likely orchestrated while Clinton knew Russia was pressuring Summers for IMF loans.  The USAO Mass investigation of Harvard and Russia activity was public in spring of 1997.  US Supreme Court ruled in spring 1997 that Jones could sue Clinton and depose him.

The IRS commissioner resigned in spring 1997 and a new one was not appointed until Nov 1997.  Summers controlled the IRS reorganization underway since at least 1996 as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.  Only Clinton and Lewinsky knew in Sep 1997 that they would both lie about their affair under oath. That gave Lewinsky power to destroy Clinton once he perjured himself.

By auditing Jones in Sep 1997 Clinton showed Lewinsky he was powerful and could have her father audited or others in her family.   Clinton likely knew from NSA overhearing profs in Europe talk about this as well as from people who likely told him what was going on for the good of the country.  So Clinton had this over Summers who along with Harvard and Shleifer were not telling this to USAO Mass.  Shleifer had this over Summers and Summers ordered Harvard not to fire Shleifer while Summers was president.  The Harvard econ department knew this the whole time.

So did people at Goldman Sachs.  The LTCM rescue in 1998 during the Russia crisis was in part to cover this up.  LTCM had bought Russian government bonds betting on their kompromat over Fischer and Summers.  But the Russian oligarchs instead wanted to short the Russian currency and make money off that.  There is evidence they did that.  They also wanted to show the profs at LTCM, Scholes and Merton, that they were smarter than them and that they couldn’t not outsmart Russia to trade on this information.  Boris Berezovsky was likely the mastermind of this and he had been a math prof in the area of math that deals with the problems in the 1969 papers of Samuelson and Fischer and Merton that used Hakansson’s 1966 work without proper acknowledgement.

Bush and the neocons used this information to get Clinton to sign the Iraq 1998 neocon amendment to make regime change in Iraq the goal of the US.  That was during his impeachment.  They had that on him then.   Now Obama has that on the neocons.

Obama thus neutralizes both the Clinton team and the Bush team.  He has the power of prosecution over both.  He is thus free to propose measures that will result in the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people in Israel by the Muslims.  His measures make that a virtual certainty.

Obama’s Four Pillars of Second Holocaust of White West

  1. Immigration of non-whites
  2. Affirmative Action for non-whites
  3. PC-MC: Whitesbeing made to affirm their own genocide
  4. Diversity (No Segregation, no avoiding it for whites. No where to hide. Also universal in all white lands.  No white land left untouched.)

Obama engaged in genocide denial right at Buchenwald Concentration Camp and in his Cairo speech as in everything.  Immigration is genocide of the white race as we speak.

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

This math applies to the Jewish people in Israel, as well as in the U.S.

Carl Shapiro at DOJ Antitrust Division is a Berkeley econ prof who got his Ph.D. at MIT.  He is another node of Obama controlling DOJ.  Controlling antitrust lets him go after whatever company he wants.  It gives him control of M and A at Goldman Sachs, since he can have antitrust refuse to approve their merger deals.  Same with FTC antitrust people.

Shapiro was in the same spot in 1995 under Clinton.  He was there during the Russia pressure on Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans.  He was followed directly or after one other by Daniel Rubinfeld in 1997 at DOJ in the same spot who was Paul Samuelson’s research assistant c. 1971 after Robert C. Merton and who was at MIT in 1969 when the MIT papers copying the work of Nils Hakansson were published including NSF grants for Samuelson and Merton.  Hakansson became a prof at Berkeley in 1969 and has been there ever since and is now emeritus.

Joel Brenner head of counter intelligence was a trial lawyer in the antitrust division.  He has said that Russia is pressuring people with kompromat.  He also recently said he is not allowed in his position to be specific or to pursue law enforcement cases in effect.  He is trying to have it both ways. Warning us in general terms of what Russia did but say he is not allowed by law to expose it.   But Obama has hired the very people who were pressured by Russia.  The universities and investment banks involved are all linked in the bailout as they were in prior years.

Carl Shapiro may try to impose antitrust on banks:

Cass Sunstein may have been the one to first tell Obama about this.  Elena Kagan was in the Clinton administration and appointed by Summers to Dean of Harvard Law School while USAO Mass investigated Harvard from 1997 to 2005.  Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom was kept from learning this by Harvard and the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Is Carl Shaprio DOJ related to Carl Shapiro Madoff victim for 500 million?  (Actually Carl J Shapiro invested starting in the 1970’s and took money out and so made money from Madoff.)

Ben Berannke’s Ph.D. thesis at MIT:

Title: Long-term commitments, dynamic optimization, and the business cycle.
Author: Bernanke, Ben
Other Contributors: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economcis.
Advisor: Stanley Fischer.

Note it was the breakthrough in dynamic programming of Nils Hakansson in 1966 that Stanley Fischer copied in his 1969 MIT Ph.D. thesis, attributing it to Samuelson instead of Hakansson.  MIT had the Hakansson thesis in 1966 because Karl Shell had it then and approved it for presentation at a session of the Allied Social Sciences Meeting. Stanley Fischer thesis dspace

Stanley Fischer advised on many theses at MIT.

“Results 110 of about 316 from for Stanley Fischer thesis.”

Bernanke in his thesis cites the Merton and Samuelson 1969 papers, but not Fischer and not Hakansson.  Fischer knew that he did that and approved it.   Russia applied pressure at the two conferences in Warsaw in econ in 1972 and 1974 to get Samuelson and Arrow uncles of Summers to nominate Kantorovich of the Soviet Union for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics is a likely conjecture.  Russia in Matekon accussed Harvard econ prof Leontiev and NP winner of in effect plagiarism if input output from Soviets.   In the 1990’s, they made up with Leontieff (alt spelling) but were clearly using that as pressure.  Samuelson has an essay on Leontieff in 1999 it appears (see below) where he drops that the Soviets researched the date of Leontief’s birth and changed the year.  Samuelson points out they were going through his file.  This is after several years that the Russians were pressuring Summers.  See the bottom of page 1.

Carl B. Shapiro is the economist

However the relation of the Shapiros works out, the overall configuration of the Obama administration is to give him undue influence and control over the staff of the DOJ and the government.  This gives him the ability to pursue a pro Muslim anti Jewish policy in Israel.  Obama’s policies would achieve the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people in Israel (and the US) as pointed out above with the Wright Island Model material.

Carl B Shapiro is being brought back to DOJ antitrust as part of the coverup it appears.   They know that they are vulnerable to investigation by Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom still at USAO Mass.  Others too could investigate them.  Bringing back Shapiro sends a message to Wall Street and the financial services industry to keep quiet about this or face antitrust action.

Jewish activists to save Israel like Pamela at Atlas Shrugs don’t realize how Obama has neutralized many Jewish cabinet or DOJ appointees and thus is free to ethnically cleanse the Jewish people in Israel.  The same applies to Bush appointees like Paul Wolfowitz.  Obama believes he has played the situation perfectly and gathered in many who were vulernable to prosecution from Clinton and Bush in DOJ and in foreign policy so that he controls them.

Israel hired Stanley Fischer as central bank governor in January 2005.  This was announced after the AEA meetings had ended, late on the Sunday.  This prevented anyone from bringing this up at the meetings.  But this gives Obama leverage over Israel.  he can expose this.  By not prosecuting the AIPAC people involved in alleged spying he keeps that case open for later going after them or making them testify against others.

Obama thinks he is also buying off the Jews by the bailouts that Bernanke and Summers want.  Obama thinks he can give the Jews money in New York and genocide them in Jerusalem.  This is the South Side of Chicago in his brain. (Jewish doctors are injecting black babies with aids. He listened to that for almost 20 years every Sunday in Rev Wright’s church.) He thinks that makes him morally superior.  So in his mind, it justifies his doing it.  He’s paid them for the right to do it.

Obama can thus pursue an openly pro-Muslim policy and seem to have Jewish support for it in his cabinet.  This neutralizes opposition and makes it ineffective.  Obama thinks he is smarter than the KGB and its successor organizations were.  He is the smart one to finally use this history, and he is using it to ethnically cleanse the Jewish people from Israel in favor of the Muslims.  Thus making Obama one of the great “geniuses” of history.  One of the great evil geniuses.

When Obama came back to Europe from Cairo he wouldn’t have dinner with the president of France, Sarkozy, who is partly Jewish.  Instead Obama had a private dinner in a private room with his wife and children only.  He needs time alone with his family while he is doing this.  They also went to a museum instead of meeting with Sarkozy.  They were staying a short walk from Sarkozy’s presidential palace.

Obama wouldn’t let the Queen of England attend some ceremony or other.  He is feeling all powerful.  He is the leader of the Muslims in their jihad against the Jews and the Jews can’t stop him because he has outsmarted them.  That is what he thinks.  So far, its working.

The above are hypotheses or speculation.  This is draft and preliminary and subject to revision.  Comments and corrections welcome.  All other disclaimers apply.

GS pursues legal action against blogger

April 11, 2009

I understand Goldman Sachs may take legal action against the site  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 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.

Jeffrey A Taylor US Attorney plays dirty?

August 1, 2008

On July 12, 2008 I posted criticism of US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor on my blog. On July 15, my regular email account started rerouting messages to name@isp where name was my actual last name instead of username@isp where username was some initials. (I think I found the problem, but I will leave this up anyhow, because I think it has a certain fit and otherwise has some interesting information.)

Probably a random glitch. That’s my main theory for now. But just in case its a nasty National Security Letter (NSL) or something like that I thought I would memorialize these thoughts for future reference.

Was that you Jeff? Didn’t like the criticism? If you can’t stand the criticism stay out of the Bush activity. If its you Jeff, could you make sure they fix it?

Jeffrey Taylor is part of the Bush inner circle at DOJ. He was appointed US Attorney for DC without Senate approval by using a loophole Bush put into the Patriot Act, showing they intended it before 9/11.

If it is Taylor, what might the mighty Taylor be after?

Whether I am communicating with Congress and members of Congress who want to impeach Bush? It turns out my local Congressman is in favor of that. Yes, Jeff, I do think your email reading habits should be questioned by Congress.

Does he want to know if I am communicating with Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom via my email account? I discussed that the Bush DOJ might be intimidating her from investigating the Russia Plagiarism Files issue and whether Bush used that as leverage over Gore and Clinton during Bush v. Gore. Taylor may be part of that group give his history as discussed on the July 15, 2008 post. See here:
Does he want to know if I am communicating with journalists as well as Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom over the Russia Plagiarism Files?

Over the India Nuclear Deal? That is, is India using this history to pressure Bush? They could tell somethings to the US Attorney Office Mass. Ed Markey might be interested in that too.

July 10, 2008 posted at Markey’s webpage on India nuclear deal:

How India might be using kompromat to get our nuclear know-how from Bush is discussed here:

Just asking. Of course, it could be just a glitch. If its you Jeff, can you get them to do something about the spam? Some spam goes to my inbox instead of my spam box. Just mention it to them when you have a chance.

Also, Jeff, please don’t go around to archives and have records disappear. That isn’t a nice thing to do.

The above is draft, preliminary, and subject to revision. Hopefully, its overactive imagination, because Jeff Taylor seems like a guy who doesn’t play fair and has the sense of humor that laughs when squishing bugs. Comments and corrections welcome. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: