-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Bill Gates, Microsoft at 2:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: We highlight the things that the FOIA staff of Seattle’s Police Department stated upfront would not be included among/inside the documents disclosed
THE uninitiated may not be aware that, as listed in this page about the Gates Foundation (strictly reverse-chronological order), we’ve spent a long time investigating what happened half a decade before the media exposed Bill Gates as highly and closely connected to the world’s most notorious pedophile, who died last year in his prison cell (the media called it a suicide, but later on the coroners or specialists deemed autopsy experts disputed this, calling it a homicide). Missing footage, unproven claims of prior suicide attempts (unverified, no evidence) and so on supported the narrative of cover-up, not a person taking his own life behind bars. This series is not about that person (whose name is “Epstein” if that matters), but the context matters a bit.
Early in the series we noted great technical difficulties that the police claimed (unable to access its own files), so we began to suspect that tampering was possible. It’s likely that they rely heavily on Bill Gates’ computer systems, including Windows with remote access capabilities. Maybe they even store the material on servers that Microsoft controls directly. We don’t know, but it’s a possibility. A separate FOIA request may be needed for that.
“It’s likely that they rely heavily on Bill Gates’ computer systems, including Windows with remote access capabilities.”Upon receiving the first installment I had utmost interest in what was not included in it (aside from what might be reserved strategically for another installment, if any). The Seattle Police Department (“SPD” below) provided a spreadsheet (Microsoft’s proprietary OOXML of course!) with a list of redactions. We’ll quote that below in full (original above, as an image):
>
>
> PDR#: P058951 1st Installment
>
> Redactions Applied
>
> Redactions Applied: SPD did not prepare a detailed exemption log because the information normally provided in an exemption log, such as title, author, recipient, subject, and number of pages is readily ascertainable by looking at the responsive records.
>
> 14-22121-4 Redaction CodeExemptionComments1(g)Driver’s License Numbers, Driver’s permit Numbers, and State Identification card numbers (information not received from DOL) RCW 42.56.230(5), RCW 9.35.005Explanation: Disclosure would violate an individual’s right to privacy, and could be used for identity theft, fraud or other criminal activity.1(h)Information Received Directly from Dept. of Licensing – RCW 46.12.635, 18 UCS § 2721, RCW 42.56.070Explanation: Disclosure of an individual vehicle owner’s name and address, driver’s license number and VIN received directly from DOL to third parties is limited to specific parties. RCW 46.12.635 allows certain individuals, businesses and government agencies access to this information. A request for access must be directed to DOL. You may request access by going to the State Department of Licensing website (http://www.dol.wa.gov/), forms section, for a “Vehicle/Vessel Information Disclosure Request.”1(n)Child Pornography – RCW 9.68A.011, RCW 9.68A.050, RCW 42.56.070Records contain depictions of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011. RCW 9.68A.050, an other statute under RCW 42.56.070. Explanation: Disseminating visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in an act of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68.011 is a felony.
>
The above make sense. They correspond to omitted blocks in the text/scans (clearly visible, to their credit). We shall see what will be excluded from future installments. “They have advised me at Seattle PD that they will send these in installments and that it will take up to 8 months to receive all,” said a source of ours. Some further E-mail inquiries are made at the moment.
“Everything we’ve read so far in the first installment is entirely consistent with what we’ve said since last year.”At the moment we are trying to figure out our publication strategy, which is debated among associates and regular/longtime members. We are 100% committed to getting the facts 100% right. Everything we’ve read so far in the first installment is entirely consistent with what we’ve said since last year. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sat May 4 22:33:58 2024