I saw a setting in the CBC yesterday, the setting was given (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/us-h1b-visa-canada-benefits-1.7640068) with the capture ‘The new, steep price for this U.S. visa could be a blessing for Canadian tech’. Well that’s one way to look at it I reckon. As such plenty of Amazon employees might wanna consider switching to Vancouver for that. The second reason is that they are a mere 90 minutes from the greatest ski slopes on the world. And the text “As the Trump administration moves to limit some skilled workers from entering the U.S. on a specialized visa, the Canadian tech sector is champing at the bit — hoping the new restriction will send talent up north.” I the directly seen setting for that. So with the added text ““Canada has built an entire industry by capturing this talent. And with this $100,000 fee, that trend is about to grow much stronger,” she said. “This is almost a gift because every time the U.S. closes the door on global talent, Canada gains.”” And as I see it, a direct blessing for Vancouver in disguise, other cities might benefit too from that. And it will benefit places like Amazon to set up locations in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa for AWS pools. I reckon that Google Portland, Google Seattle, Google Ann Harbor, Google Detroit might see the same setting as they are relatively close to Canada, which could save them a clean billion from the get go. I reckon that others like Microsoft would follow that example. It stands to reason that the new set places like AI verification places would be created in Canada as the whole range of NIP locations would require hundreds of Verification stations. Canada might do well to ensure these locations as President Trump is now making them too expensive to create them in the USA. Perhaps he forgot that Stargate without verification becomes useless near the moment those settings are switched on?
So as we are given ““There’s going to be a net benefit effect for Canada across the board,” said Andres Pelenur, an immigration lawyer and founding partner at Borders Law Firm in Toronto.” I guess he is seeing the upbeat Ka-Ching of the cash registers in his location and he might consider branching out to both Vancouver and Ottawa in the near future.
So as we are given “The visa isn’t exclusive to the tech sector, but 60 per cent of H-1B holders approved since 2012 have held computer-related jobs, according to Pew Research — and the visa is used heavily by giants like Apple, Amazon and Google.” Gives us the other setting that we until now ignored. What is Apple going to do? Set up a much larger distribution shop in Canada? Doesn’t that imply that President Trump is shooting himself in the foot yet again?
So as we see the response by Pew Research (which hilariously relies on foot shooting) with “The fate of the H-1B program – which offers U.S. employers a way to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations – has divided influential Republicans. Tech leaders like Elon Musk strongly support the program, while other Republicans question its impact on American workers. President Donald Trump imposed restrictions on the program in his first term, but his current policy agenda on H-1Bs remains under discussion. Meanwhile, bipartisan calls for H-1B reforms advocate for more oversight to protect American workers while addressing skill shortages.” But as I see it, the setting set into law with the use of a handpscribble makes that a little too late unless President Trump undoes the damage he has done, which is seemingly unlikely. Some will remember his smudging up the error that the coffee typo gave the press. And you can mesmerize on that whilst having a Trump Sandwich in Lambo’s Deli (176 Bellwoods Ave, Toronto). It being a sandwich with Baloney with a small pickle. The other one is on 1372 Queen St E, Toronto. Others might have it that option on their menus too.
Yes, Canadians like their comedy that is easy to swallow as good as Australians do. As such we are also relieved that around 400,000 H-1B applications for high-skilled foreign workers were approved in 2024. That’s more than twice the number of applications approved in fiscal 2000. Approvals peaked in 2022, when 442,425 applications were approved. (source: Pew Research Centre) Since 2013, the majority of approvals each year have been applications to renew employment. In 2024, 65% of approved applications, or 258,196, were renewals. The other 35%, or 141,207, were new applications for initial employment. And all that gathered workforce could now be heading toward Canada as well, and optionally reduce the pool of work seekers in Canada as well as adding fresh blood to Ottawa, a setting that place needs like yesterday. I reckon that the pools in Vancouver and Toronto are already well set.
Beyond what is great for Canada, there is a larger industrial move already on its way and the VISA costs merely enhanced that setting and added a few requirements to the needs of Canada. Making it fast into the new work-hub to be for the Commonwealth.
Good going Trump, you American president you. 🙂
So you all have a great day and start dreaming of a job in Canada whilst snacking on a Pizza at Eataly, they are opening in the Eaton centre in the near future, your place to be for fashion and interior needs in Toronto.
I have been sitting on a story for about three days. I have been hesitant as it is a field I am thoroughly unaware off, but it could hit me in the future and as we are given (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-19/first-guardian-shield-collapse-asic-and-superannuation-flaws/105783328) the setting of ‘First Guardian, Shield superannuation disasters expose deep flaws in Australia’s $4.3 trillion retirement system’ we see that ABC is giving us not only cause for pause, but also cause for alarm we are set in a stage of almost desperate inability to protect our retirements. And lets be clear if Australia is set to a $4.3 trillion danger, what is the dangers towards America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany?
I tried to illustrate dangers like this in ‘Wages of fear’ which I wrote in May 2023, two years ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/05/02/wages-of-fear/) and there I wrote “Lets be clear, this was NOT his fault, but the point where we cannot avoid what comes next was achieved. If only people had woken up a lot sooner. But there we got past a point where the problems would accelerate and now we are almost at that point. And the banks will be no help. I tried to warn you a few times over. Some of their risk and liquidity is in US bonds and when the US forfeits payment your 401K and many other things will become worth close to nothing” Now the fair question is, is this the same? I don’t think it is, but there is a larger failing into the retirement systems as it is not a hands on pathway. ABC in another story hands us “Ms Wohlers is one of about 12,000 Australians haunted by the loss of more than $1 billion of retirement savings after the collapses of First Guardian and Shield.” As well as “ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court, who has commonly described the First Guardian and Shield cases as “industrial-scale misconduct”, says the regulator acted as soon as it could. “We don’t think we missed red flags,” she told ABC News ahead of ASIC’s appearance at a parliamentary hearing on Thursday, when she was grilled by politicians about whether it was a tough cop on the beat properly identifying financial misconduct.” And it relates to the story we are given with ‘140 targeted by ASIC on Shield, First Guardian’ as I see it, a mess of a disastrous kind. Where the latter gives us “So, for example, the financial advisers are saying to us ‘you can’t hold us accountable for this because the ratings house had rated the Shield Master Fund as of investment grade’, while superannuation fund trustees are telling us the same – ‘well, we relied on the ratings houses’, or ‘we relied on the fact that these members had financial advice’,” (Source: Financial Newswire) I see it as a setting where there is a ring setting with no beginning and no end. I am in a setting where Microsoft could steal my IP and my only defense would be to convict 280,000 Microsoft employees to death and kill them myself. I get that this is utter madness, but that would be the result of one party just playing a game with other whilst that party knows that they cannot be held to account. I remember the rating houses in 2008 and they got away whilst millions lost it all. I see the simpler setting “You take from me, I take from you” and the setting that Microsoft losing over 45% of its staff (I am utterly destined to fail) making it implode on itself. Now take that to the setting of rating houses and the the truth comes out (if it ever does) the people need to react and react harshly. It is not ‘business as usual’ it will become business at the cost of souls and that is a harsh reality to face.
So whilst some will lawyer up and that is their right, they should not be allowed to walk away with even a dime. I reckon that they will sue the rating houses and those rating houses will need to get sanitized (to some extent) because losing billions is a larger setting and when Australia with their billions in losses (up to 4,300 billion) the setting for America and Canada is a lot more severe. And America up to ten times as much as Canada faces. And about a month ago we were given ‘ASIC takes further action against Ferras Merhi over First Guardian and Shield superannuation advice’ where we are given “ASIC has sought leave from the Federal Court to expand its existing proceeding against former financial adviser Ferras Merhi to allege he engaged in unconscionable conduct, failed to act in the best interests of clients, gave conflicted advice, and provided defective statements of advice whilst receiving millions of dollars.” Yet my question becomes did Ferras Merhi do anything illegal? You see, in my setting I would be, but did he do anything illegal? The setting revolves around “provided defective statements of advice whilst receiving millions of dollars”, so what makes a statement ‘defective’? You see, I am not protecting Ferras Mehri. I am looking at the following:
s12CB of the ASIC Act – engaging in conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services, which was in all the circumstances unconscionable.
So, what makes the setting of “all the circumstances unconscionable” an economist looks at this in one way and I as a law graduate and IT technician in another way.
Then we get: s952E of the Corporations Act – providing defective disclosure documents. As such, what makes the documents “defective disclosure documents”, I do not know and I look at them separately as that is what the law does and when merely one law falters, it all collapses (it matters later on).
Then we get: s961B of the Corporations Act – failure to act in their client’s best interests, and what is that at the start? Most clients are ‘greed’ driven, they want the highest return and that is ‘their’ best interest. It is a hard lesson to learn that looking back the client gave the wrong advice to the advisor. I myself only work a balanced portfolio, I will never make large leaps but then again I am unlikely to lose a lot either.
So in that setting we see: the Court made interim freezing orders over Mr Merhi’s property. These orders remain in place until 12 December 2025 (25-024MR). ASIC cancelled the AFSL of FSGA, effective 7 June 2025 and permanently banned its responsible manager (25-102MR). In July 2025, the Court made travel restraint orders against Mr Merhi. Those orders prevent him from leaving or attempting to leave Australia until 12 December 2025, or until further order of the Court (25-024MR).
That is fair enough I reckon. But now we get to the settings that ABC at the top gave. We see there “In all of these cases, no criminal charges have been laid, but ASIC is heading to court to make allegations against the people at the centre of the Shield and First Guardian funds — those involved in managing and promoting the schemes.” The no criminal charges gives pause to consider that no criminal acts have transpired and when we look at some of the allegations the two that take the cake (a Tiramisu cake) is that the settings of “defective disclosure documents” must be proven and the lawyers will fight that. Then we get “all the circumstances unconscionable” and that is the ballgame, ‘unconscionable’ is not per se illegal and it is about the legality of the matter in court and that is the setting we see. So when I made a statement two years ago saying “Some of their risk and liquidity is in US bonds and when the US forfeits payment your 401K and many other things will become worth close to nothing” we see what bonds were worth 5 years ago. There we see “For the year, long-term U.S. Treasuries were by far the best-performing fixed-income investments, with a nearly 17% gain,” (source: Reuters) at present they are “the 10-year yield settled around 4.36%” that represents a loss of 13%, so who pays for that bond? This was a danger I saw 5 years ago (as uneconomical as I am) and 10 years ago I heard people to buy bonds as the interest is like free money and I stopped. There is no free ride and this is almost pushed into the AI field all whilst there is no verification in place. All settings that are interconnected and we now see the ABC giving us “expose deep flaws in Australia’s $4.3 trillion retirement system” so, what do you think you will end up with because as I see it, there is the chance that these people can do what they like all whilst there is no criminal accountability. Yes, he is stopped for now, but Ferras Merhi is about to walk away with more than $19 million in payments. As such he is willing to sweat it out for a few months. It is a lot more (like 79.2581 times more) than I ever made in my lifetime.
So I see this case that ABC alerted me to with some suspicion. These people live by the setting of walking the edge of legality, there is no risk at that edge and I expect that Ferras Merhi is doing just that not doing anything illegal. As such 12,000 Australians are about to learn that they could lose it all without any illegal actions transpiring and I fault it to two settings (mentioned above) and we all considering setting the clocks to Islam where we see “Islamic banking prohibits the use of interest, speculation, and excessive risk. It emphasizes profit and loss sharing, fairness, honesty, and transparency in financial dealings.” By the way this setting was in place for hundreds of years.
Have a great day and see that Statista gives us “Robusta, named because it can grow at a wider range of altitudes and temperatures, sold for 1.87 U.S. dollars in 2018, projected to sell at 5 U.S. dollars per kilogram in 2026” did you predict in 2018 that you would be setting your retirement to pay 267% for your coffee?
That is at times a rule, but to call it the massive rule to measure things to is not the greatest rule to live by (you might have to think that sentence over a little while before it makes sense). You see, there is a story that bugs me and I was almost willing to let it go. But Yesterday in ‘Name Calling’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/09/17/name-calling/) I started down a rabbit hole, a hole that smothers and makes it hard to breath. You see the press to a much larger degree has become a populist media, they do not check sources (as shown yesterday) The media is losing credibility in massive waves. The problem is that I thought I was alone. When you are the only one shouting at a wall, is there a case that you yourself might have lost the focus?
That was my premise (at first).
So when you start looking at the wall, not being a wall, but a sea the dimension changes. It is no longer the height, but the amount of water that becomes an issue (it makes sense after a little while) and when you start looking into the water and you realise that water is transparent, you start looking for things. As such I found several sources (I already had a few) and these sources are a lot more focussed on the sham that is the International Association of Genocide Scholars. There was the simplest setting that “a member in good standing—a status achieved simply by paying an annual fee of 30 dollars. No academic credentials are required” and this comes with the added quote “Dr. Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in San Diego and a scholar who has served on the IAGS advisory board, told The Media Line: “I was silenced. And the resolution was forced through. What really troubled me was the way that it was presented to mainstream media, that 86 percent of the association had unanimously agreed to condemn Israel for genocide. That’s inaccurate. And to be perfectly honest, it lacks academic integrity, basic integrity to falsely represent the association and falsely cite statistics.”” (source: the media line) The France24 news (added in yesterday’s blog) had a few other settings that were weird, but the overbearing setting was that the media didn’t care, they preferred to not do their job. They became (as I personally see it) as courtesans towards the digital dollar.
The medicine also gives us “Only 28 percent of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. Of those who voted, 108 supported the measure—less than a quarter of the association’s total membership. Yet international outlets, including The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times reported the outcome as if it were a sweeping consensus of the world’s foremost genocide experts. Critics inside and outside the association now argue that the process was unrepresentative and that the coverage misled the public into believing in unanimity where none existed.” Now I wanted to have a setting that if people like Amal Clooney (a revered British lawyer and human rights activist) was part of that list, you get a mixed setting, but that is as I see it less of a case. The doughty street chambers adds this to her name “Amal Clooney is a barrister who specializes in international law and human rights. She is ranked in the legal directories Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leading barrister in international human rights law, public international law, and international criminal law. She is described as ‘a brilliant legal mind’ who is ‘in a league of her own at the Bar’. The directories spotlight her ‘commanding presence before courts’ and describe her as ‘a dream performer before international tribunals’ with ‘superb advocacy’ that is ‘crystal clear in focus and highly persuasive’. The rankings emphasize her ability to galvanize ‘heads of state, foreign ministers and business … in a way that is very effective’ for victims of human rights abuses.” That would be a legal mind to say ‘wow’ to, but when you see the feedback from the IAGS (in the France24 story) stating that it goes through a “rigorous peer reviewing process” and that it went through three separate committees. Now here is the crunch, there are 500 members, did they came from that pool? Where is the paperwork on that? And that happens before the vote. So how was the voting set? What was the minimum amount of votes? Only 28% voted as other sources gave its (the France24 article never brought that out) the article also ‘pressed’ of those who voted. As I see it, Melanie O’Brien never gave the details and more over France24 never pushed anything on this. And she skipped over the report being a three page document. That alone should have halted the press. They didn’t. The joke about the journalist no one cares about was 106 pages (the UN document). One person, so how come that the ‘genocide’ setting that players like Hamas feed us can be summarized in three pages? So how is ‘extensive’ research done in three pages? And who are these reliable and extensive sources? That entire sham (about 4 minutes of it) was swallowed whole by the audience.
So, here I am digesting several matters. As such it is time to call in some assistance and (at https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts) wee see that the Free Press gives us ‘Another Reason Not to Trust the ‘Experts’’ and it starts by giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars calls itself a body of experts, but joining requires only a form and a fee. Members include parody accounts like ‘Mo Cookie’ and ‘Emperor Palpatine.’” And the story start of in a most interesting way. “This week, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted on a resolution that accused Israel of committing genocide in its war against Hamas. Like moths to a flame, the mainstream press ran wild with the story of the organization’s declaration. “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says,” ran the headline in The Washington Post.”
And in continuation we get “The Guardian quoted the president of the association, Melanie O’Brien, declaring that the resolution represented “a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide.” In another interview with ABC News Australia, O’Brien boasted that the resolution passed with nearly 90 percent support. The BBC’s headline read: “Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza, World’s Leading Experts Say.” The problem for these publications is that if you kick the tires—even slightly—it becomes obvious that the resolution is a sham, top to bottom.” And the press is not waking up? You have gotta be joking me. With the source that according to most started the wave of looking into this setting we are given “On Tuesday evening, Salo Aizenberg, a board member of HonestReporting and contributor to NGO Monitor, tested that proposition. After exploring the IAGS website, he found that he could become a member of the organization with just a $30 contribution. “This organization that purports to be a leading organization of scholars is open to anyone who is interested,” he told The Free Press.” I got alerted to this setting by the Javier Bardem (who told us all on the red carpet in the Emmy event) and someone who went to town on this in LinkedIn. That was my trigger to give you yesterday’s blog and I found out most of what I know in under an hour of investigation. As such what did the Guardian, the Washington Post and ABC News Australia do? Is it weird that I call the ‘Courtesans of the digital dollar’? (I considered that calling them greed driven whores was too crass a statement to make). We then get “IAGS’s open membership is important because as Aizenberg learned in his research on the website, 80 of the 500 members of IAGS all claim to be based in Iraq—a country not known for universities with robust genocide scholarship. But it’s even worse than that. Only 108 out of the organization’s 500 members actually voted for the resolution. So contra O’Brien, only 21.6 percent of the IAGS supported it, not nearly 90 percent. That figure represents 108 out of the 129 people who bothered voting for the resolution at all.” As well as “One IAGS member, Sara Brown, the author of Gender and Genocide in Rwanda, posted on X that the leadership of the organization prevented members from filing comments criticizing the resolution before the vote. “We were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions,” she wrote, “but the president of the association reversed that. The association has also refused to disclose who were the authors of the resolution.” After reading through the resolution, it’s easy to understand why the identities of the authors were shielded from the other members of the group. It’s riddled with inaccuracies and deceptive language. For example, the first paragraph asserts that Israel has killed “59,000 adults and children in Gaza,” without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas fighters.” You need to read the rest in the Free Press article (link above) And there is more to ‘convict’ the IAGS of, they make a sham of several settings and the press has no other recourse but to convict them as well, because if they do not, the press will have proven themselves to be biased and unworthy to call themselves news media. There is of course the funny setting that all these papers will have to be charged VAT from now on as most hide behind the zero VAT setting for being news sources. When that stops their advertisers go the way of the Dodo really fast.
The media line also gave us “For her, the flaws went beyond procedure. “They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health,” she pointed out. “The fact that those are the statistics that they had to cite and it’s in the first paragraph immediately speaks to a lack of academic integrity … It’s not even academically lazy. It’s reckless. And the harm is real.””
Darn, I forgot to shine the limelight on Microsoft again (my personal behemoth) and in that same setting I now wish you a good day and consider trusting the news media a lot less than before. So to all of you, have a great day today and don’t forget to question your news vendor at some point.
That is the uncertain certainty we all face. We talk about rats, we call people turncoats, but how many people are aware of the term ‘Dicky Dick’? That is what I saw evolve last night. You see, there is a stage of misinformation that I found repulsive. In this I am calling towards the Emmy’s and in particular the quote by Javier Bardem, he made mention of the IAGS.
As such I offer the video (at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BDPoQ273RmU) that will give you a considerable jolt. Whilst on the other side we get (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrUXCU6_mjI) France24 with the IAGS talking on air. So here is the setting and the first one is important as it gives the issues we tend to ‘ignore’ Who are these scholars. How many voted, how many members? In another video I saw member names like Adolf Hitler and a few more hilarious settings, like a canola Jedi. Then we get to a publication called Quillette (I have never heard of them) giving us (at https://quillette.com/2025/09/11/the-genocide-scholars-who-cant-define-genocide-iags-israel/) ‘The Genocide Scholars Who Can’t Define Genocide’ giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars (“IAGS”) recently announced that 86 percent of their members had concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. This was extremely misleading. First of all, only around 28 percent of their members voted on the resolution and a mere twenty percent of total members approved it. And this was not the only problem with the resolution. It also misrepresented the crime of genocide.” As I see it, this should wake you up and it is just another slap n the face of the media, not vetting the sources they have. It gives us the supporting setting of “Genocide is an act undertaken with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such. If you cannot establish a specific intent to commit this crime (such an intent is known in legal parlance as dolus specialis), you cannot establish genocide.” As well as “The IAGS resolution did not even attempt to establish such an intent, relying instead on statements made by other entities and by extrapolating from what the organisation B’Tselem has described as a “broader analytical framework.” However, legally, genocide requires a fully conclusive finding, meaning that no other explanation exists for the event or events in question other than the intent to commit the crime of genocide. This does not apply here, as there are alternative explanations for the casualties in Gaza that the IAGS fails to recognise.” And then we get to the report of France24. Can anyone tell me why Gaza’s cannot escape to Egypt? It borders Egypt on one side. As such they aren’t “boxed in” so why isn’t the press asking clarification from the government of Egypt? I am certain that at least a dozen media channels haven’t done that. Has anti-Israel grown that much in the western media?
And the Quillette article is showing us a lot more and shows the media to be at fault for ever relying on the IAGS. The article was written by Elliot Malin is apparently an attorney and policy advocate. I am using the word apparently as in this instance I am confronted with a whole heap of sources I never heard before and as such there are issues. Oh, and before you sign off on anything. When has anyone mentioned the setting of Hamas in all of this, because THEY started this. And whilst their ‘leaders’ are hiding in Qatar (were until recently, before the Israeli air force made short work of them). Now there are further escalations and no one is wondering why Qatar was keeping Hamas leaders in the first place.
This setting has all the works of misdirection. So now the setting of a Dicky Dick. That is a legal professional who knowingly and willingly works for organized crime. As such, what do you call a person who knowingly and willingly is calling himself an expert in (for example) ‘Genocide’ whilst having no legal or military expertise in the matter? Something to consider and what do you call the media who is optionally intentionally using such sources for painting an anti-semitic image?
Another part to consider. I am not an expert (even though I have some military expertise) and this setting is turning my stomach and when people like Javier Bardem take stage to elevate these non-experts. Questions need to be asked. I am very willing to state that the intentions of Javier Bardem were good. After all the media is the bigger culprit, how big? That remains the question.
That is what I realised last night, science is a balancing continuous factor in our lives. It isn’t good, it is’t bad, it merely is. You see, we all saw the end of the United States on the last day. It wasn’t tariffs, it wasn’t economic sanctions (although they helped). It was the simple rebranding of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. That act ended the United States. Whatever President Donald ‘the duck’ Trump sets it, it is the end of a world setting the stage of a better day from 1776 to 2025. And you can read ‘his’ reasoning (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/05/department-war-defense-trump-executive-order-pentagon). The world needs a balance, not some woke balance, a real balance and his actions are a joke to begin with. He has given Russia pause by two weeks again and again. Some war department he has.
And my setting in this is that at some point he goes around the need for congressional approval the next time he needs it (like Canada and Greenland) and that next tier gets set to a massive destabilizer. At present his acts are setting the scientific world in an uproar. Their continuation is gone and now they are finding Chinese settings, at times through the Arabian peninsula to moderate whatever they need and I reckon before the end of 2027 The bulk of scientific progress comes from China, no longer from America (or South Korea). At present the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Keir Starmer is no longer useful to the scientific community either. He is too much of an American appeaser to be taken seriously. This leaves us Canada, but at present they are in danger of becoming the 51st state and that is not what they want, or what the Canadians want, but that setting is now getting more and more in the open. As the scientific community wants stability, at present, it seems that only China can offer that. Could I be wrong?
That is the ball game, but as we see Australian politics seemingly catering to American needs, the Commonwealth is done for and they will at some point rally behind Prime Minister minister of India Shri Narendra Modi. I reckon he never thought that he might become the leading voice of the Commonwealth. That is the reality the world faces and at that point China will be strong enough to take on Russia and America at the same time. I reckon that when the dies are cast, America will enter another civil war, not like in the movies, but a setting where the poor learn that their pensions are gone, Wall Street banked it all on red, all whilst the common people were black. That is the second setting America faces. We all see the media throwing a tantrum stating that some state made 4 billion in 2024, all whilst the 2025 numbers are ghastly. Now they demand an explanation and the media will come up short ending their short lived courtesan lives towards the digital dollar.
You can agree or disagree with my views. I’m fine with that. I do not care. I’m just alerting you to the settings that by 2028 I will have been proven right with my views on the matter. I don’t care to be correct, I merely demand to be recognised after the fact and the media has a way of retrenching the truth according what makes them the most money.
So see what I told you and take the facts you are given and make your own conclusions. The $703 billion revenue state of California is about to get a rude awakening as 2026 goes on its merry way and $235 billion state of Florida will not do much better. They are about to get the rudest wake up calls in lost revenue and bankruptcies in their own histories in about 3 months. That basically set the tender to New York and Wall Street will take that lesson and bank in whatever they can and their captains of industry will walk out of whatever they had with whatever they can carry, as such diamonds will become a swift moneymaker as these people will walk out with whatever they can carry to a non-extradition zero tax place.
And me myself and I (the Lawlordtobe) called it today that I accept that verdict as well if I’m wrong. You see, it is not merely about being right, it is about recognizing that I might be wrong and I can blame the media, but is that fair? I am merely reacting to a setting that the media gives me over a number of countries and I am trying to make my fortune with what I have as clearly as day. So have a great day, California and British Columbia join us on this Sunday in less than six hours.
We all have those, it isn’t about being nice, or being not so nice. They merely are and they are at times thrust upon us by outside influences. As such I had a few when I was told that ‘Federal judge allows 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia to proceed’ (at https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/federal-judge-allows-9-11-lawsuit-against-saudi-arabia-to-proceed/3672771) I was puzzled. Saudi Arabia was on the side of America as they hunt Al Qaeda, more over there has been more than one report that the CIA aided Osama Bin Laden in their needs in the time frame From 1979 to 1992, as part of CIA activities in Afghanistan, specifically Operation Cyclone. As such why aren’t these people suing the CIA? I am not saying that is the best course of action. I am merely saying that if justice is what you are seeking, that might be one way to go. Of course if it is money you seek, the CIA might not have as much. I got a lot from CBS as well.
They give me (at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-families-911-victims-sue-saudi-arabia-over-hijackers/) ‘Judge allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for allegedly helping hijackers’ the setting becomes, what kind of assistance has been given? And lets not forget Osama Bin Laden as a CIA asset would have been able to thwart any ideology and assistance setting to make people pay for what they need. It is a CIA tactic, as such ‘what gives?’
That is the setting we need to look at. So whilst we are looking at “A federal judge in New York denied a motion by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims who are seeking to hold the Middle Eastern country responsible for potentially providing support to the hijackers, allowing the suit to proceed.” As well as “Saudi Arabia had the suit temporarily dismissed in 2015, before the dismissal was overturned by a federal appeals court. While the appeal was pending in 2016, Congress enacted a law known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allowed victims of terror attacks to sue foreign governments and individuals if they provided material support to the attackers. It also gave U.S. courts jurisdiction over potential lawsuits filed over injuries and deaths in attacks on U.S. soil.” Here I get a laughing spell. You see when we consider “Congress enacted a law known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” this little act would put the hairline on the CIA. As such the Saudi Government would be able to push the CIA to spill the beans on several projects running from 1979 through to 1992. And that will et the markers against the CIA for the largest extent. The question becomes does the Saudi Government have the events documented? If might give the Saudi Government the opportunity to get Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri to give evidence as he was a mainstay link between Saudi Arabia and western intelligence agencies, including the Five Eyes alliance, and was credited with helping Muhammad bin Nayef transform and modernise the Saudi security services and their counter-terrorism methods. As such he would be a person Saudi Government would like to ask a few questions of and in that same setting former-CIA Director John Brennan and both would have had ‘interactions’ with Osama Bin Laden. Yes, this case is really a good way to expose the dirty laundry of the CIA.
My interest? I don’t really have any, other than the ‘evidence’ that “Decades ago, investigators also found a notebook in Bayoumi’s home that seemed to show a drawing of a plane and a mathematical equation that could be used to calculate the rate of descent to a target.” I found that piece strange. You see the Microsoft Flight Simulator is an excellent simulator. As such why the ‘evidence’ when a top notch PC has the ability to set a lot more in motion and that is the figment I found missing. That evidence would not need to be in America. A place like Indonesia would be able to hide it, they could have a muslim vacation there and as such there would be a lot to be made available. The entire setting could be moved to a memory stick and kept on the person (or in a safe space) when pieces don’t fit I wonder about things. And this is a yummy exercise and it can go in all the wrong directions and this justice setting introduced by US District Judge George Daniels gives a new setting, one that puts the briefs of the CIA out to the open and the added delicacy is that they get to expose Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri allegedly yet again.
It is but a small cog in the wheels of justice, but in this case the people get their day in court. I merely wonder what court they get into and what Saudi Arabia could bring to the table.
We can focus on the setting that “Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy — assisted the hijackers while they were in California.” But the larger issue become, is there a direct link between Osama Bin Laden and these two nationals. Then we get to the setting what these two nationals actually did and did they have certain people allowing them the acts, or merely graced the misuse of Saudi officials. That second part is important, because that comes with a larger setting. There would be little evidence putting it to the front of the evidence pile and whilst that is happening, the Saudi Government will be able to call former-CIA Director John Brennan to the stand with the setting that now current exile Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri gets called into the court and the CIA was so adamant into ‘protecting’ him from exposing the billions he brought to the table.
Yes, this episode of comedy capers will get a few reruns over the entire globe. All whilst it is done in the name of Justice. As such what evidence will suddenly ‘find’ its way to the leaky press corp?
Just a few details to keep in mind here. Have a great day today, my Monday starts is 56 minutes.
That is at times a setting. I got this article two days ago in my sights, but I rejected it for the obvious reasons. But today I had some second thoughts, so I took a hold of it. There are a few settings that I need to explain. When a newspaper needs 7000 words to give you the issues that you could have gotten from 700 words, we usually see that there is something under it all. In this case we see all these ‘emotional’ settings, because there is basically nothing to be seen. This isn’t entirely true, but the gist of it comes to that. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/07/long-read-british-bribery-britain-arms-deals-saudi-arabia-ian-foxley) gives us ‘Very British bribery: the whistleblower who exposed the UK’s dodgy arms deals with Saudi Arabia’ and the headline gives us ‘dodgy arms deals’ and that takes some explanation. The United Kingdom is a nation, a monarchy no less. As such it can sell weapons to other nations. Saud Arabia is a monarchy too, as such is there something dodgy going on?
And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?
Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense. The first is that it took 7000 words to say nothing, the second that it is lacking a few items. The first is that Declassified (at https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-saudi-military-support-programme/) gave us a lot more information which was RELEASED in 2019. A simple setting is that the London School of Economics had 24 alumni working there. So at what point did the Guardian interview, or at least try to interview any of them? The 2019 story also gives us “Earlier this year, another US military official, Colonel Kevin Lambert, manager of the US’s own SANG modernisation programme, confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflict”.” The Guardian article doesn’t even mention Yemen once. In addition, the story is riddled with emotion. Things like “an accountant called Michael Paterson, was “a madman”” this might be true, but what purpose does it serve? If it is about dodgy deals, why is the wife involved? I get that she gets to be mentioned once (at the beginning) optionally twice (at departure), but the other two mentions? As I stated, the more data you see, the less is valued and it is not valued because there is more useless data, at times more data is to hide that you have none. So, then we get the ‘abundance’ of data. In this I refer to “Another time, a colleague casually joked about a Saudi general being willing to sign anything GPT suggested, on account of something called “bought in services”. Foxley didn’t recognise the term and when he began asking about it, he received only vague non-answers about “things we buy in”.” 47 words that could have been set through “GPT used ‘bought in services’ to hide acquisition of Saudi top military signing for services” I simplified it in 15 words, one third and then I would set the situation to evidence, which is massively lacking here. Then we get the word ‘bribery’ used 13 times, but how? Once is to mention the Bribery Act which was passed in 2010. It is important three times. The first is “Foxley could not have known bribery was rife in Saudi Arabia” (i’ll get to this later) and “Not only had the government ratted him out to GPT when he discovered the bribery conspiracy”, so who did rat him out? And is ratting him out the correct phrase here? The third time is “The MoD and the government “had been running the scam, the bribery, since 1978, ever since the project was set up”” So, exactly what scam were they running? A scam implies that criminal acts are being committed by the UK government. What is the scam exactly and who is involved? Then we get the one setting where it is important. It is given with ““Do you know about the Cayman Islands?” Paterson asked. Over the following 90 minutes, the accountant set out a series of discoveries that implicated GPT in years of bribery and corruption. What neither man knew was that the scheme they had stumbled upon had been overseen and authorised for decades, in both Britain and Saudi Arabia, by the highest levels of government.” Here we get the following settings. The Cayman Islands and what evidence is there of bribery and corruption? The setting is given in the article as well. “It doesn’t invalidate the invoices and the payments to Simec” as such, bribery is merely a smudging word and there is no evidence of bribery or corruption.
As I see it, the United Kingdom needs to walk a fine line to make deals with some nations and these high ranking officials are entitled to a commission, or a consultancy fee and as Generals were mentioned they are most likely allowed consultancy fees. I am using ‘most likely’ because I do not know Saudi law in these matters. In case of Simmer, that is up to the Saudi government. This article is a simple act of slinging mud, see what sticks and I fear it is very little as this article is missing all kinds of connections and evidence. So when we see “Eight Saudis received a collective £10m between 2007 and 2012 alone” and weirdly enough, this article doesn’t name these people as we are also given “the British government had authorised the entire scheme – had won out.” As such 7000 words to fulfill the setting that was decided over a year ago. So, what exactly was the meaning of this? Seems a fair question as there are settings that are not given, too much emotion in the entire article and a massive amount of facts that just aren’t there.
So what was exactly the call for this article? To smear the Saudi Government? To smear the British government? As such we also get both Cook and Mason were acquitted. Then a mention that one of them is separately convicted for taking kickbacks, while he was a civil servant at the MoD, before he became part of the GPT. A simple unrelated misconduct offence.
In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.
That is at time the saying, it isn’t always ‘meant’ in a positive sight and it is for you to decide what it is now. The Deutsche Welle gave me yesterday an article that made me pause. It was in part what I have been saying all along. This doesn’t mean it is therefor true, but I feel that the tone of the article matches my settings. The article (at https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-expands-use-of-palantir-surveillance-software/a-73497117) giving us ‘German police expands use of Palantir surveillance software’ doesn’t seem too interesting for anyone but the local population in Germany. But that would be erroneous. You see, if this works in Germany other nations will be eager to step in. I reckon that The Dutch police might be hopping to get involved from the earliest notion. The British and a few others will see the benefit. Yet, what am I referring to?
It sounds that there is more and there is. The article’s byline gives us the goods. The quote is “Police and spy agencies are keen to combat criminality and terrorism with artificial intelligence. But critics say the CIA-funded Palantir surveillance software enables “predictive policing.”” It is the second part that gives the goods. “predictive policing” is the term used here and it supports my thoughts from the very beginning (at least 2 years ago). You see, AI doesn’t exist. What there is (DML and LLM) are tools, really good tools, but it isn’t AI. And it is the setting of ‘predictive’ that takes the cake. You see, at present AI cannot make real jumps, cannot think things through. It is ‘hindered’ by the data it has and that is why at present its track record is not that great. And there are elements all out there, there is the famous Australian case where “Australian lawyer caught using ChatGPT filed court documents referencing ‘non-existent’ cases” there is the simple setting where an actor was claimed to have been in a movie before he was born and the lists goes on. You see, AI is novel, new and players can use AI towards the blame game. With DML the blame goes to the programmer. And as I personally see “predictive policing” is the simple setting that any reference is made when it has already happened. In layman’s terms. Get a bank robber trained in grand theft auto, the AI will not see him as he has never done this. The AI goes looking in the wrong corner of the database and it will not find anything. It is likely he can only get away with this once and the AI in the meantime will accuse any GTA persona that fits the description.
So why this? The simple truth is that the Palantir solution will safe resources and that is in play. Police forces all over Europe are stretched thin and they (almost desperately) need this solution. It comes with a hidden setting that all data requires verification. DW also gives us “The hacker association Chaos Computer Club supports the constitutional complaint against Bavaria. Its spokesperson, Constanze Kurz, spoke of a “Palantir dragnet investigation” in which police were linking separately stored data for very different purposes than those originally intended.” I cannot disagree (mainly because I don’t know enough) but it seems correct. This doesn’t mean that it is wrong, but there are issues with verification and with the stage of how the data was acquired. Acquired data doesn’t mean wrong data, but it does leave the user with optional wrong connections to what the data is seeing and what the sight is based on. This requires a little explanation.
Lets take two examples In example one we have a peoples database and phone records. They can be matched so that we have links.
Here we have a customer database. It is a cumulative phonebook. All the numbers from when Herr Gothenburg got his fixed line connection with the first phone provider until today, as such we have multiple entries for every person, in addition to this is the second setting that their mobiles are also registered. As such the first person moved at some point and he either has two mobiles, or he changed mobile provider. The second person has two entries (seemingly all the same) and person moved to another address and as such he got a new fixed line and he has one mobile. It seems straight forward, but there is a snag (there always is). The snag is that entry errors are made and there is no real verification, this is implied with customer 2, the other option is that this was a woman and she got married, as such she had a name change and that is not shown here. The additional issue is that Müller (miller), is shared by around 700,000 people in Germany. So there is a likelihood that wrongly matched names are found in that database. The larger issue is that these lists are mainly ‘human’ checked and as such they will have errors. Something as simple as a phonebook will have its issues.
Then we get the second database which is a list of fixed line connections, the place where they are connected and which provider. So we get additional errors introduced for example, customer 2 is seemingly assumed to be a woman who got married and had her name changed. When was that, in addition there is a location change, something that the first database does not support as well as she changed her fixed line to another provider. So we have 5 issues in this small list and this is merely from 8 connected records. Now, DML can be programmed to see through most of this and that is fine. DML is awesome. But consider what some called AI and it is done on unverified (read: error prone) records. It becomes a mess really fast and it will lead to wrong connections and optionally innocent people will suddenly get a request to ‘correct’ what was never correctly interpreted.
As such we get a darker taint of “predictive policing” and the term that will come to all is “Guilty until proven innocent” a term we never accepted and one that comes with hidden flaws all over the field. Constanze Kurz makes a few additional setting, settings which I can understand, but also hindered with my lack of localised knowledge. In addition we are given “One of these was the attack on the Israeli consulate in Munich in September 2024. The deputy chairman of the Police Union, Alexander Poitz, explained that automated data analysis made it possible to identify certain perpetrators’ movements and provide officers with accurate conclusions about their planned actions.” It is possible and likely that this happens and there are intentional settings that will aide, optionally a lot quicker than not using Palantir. And Palantir can crunch data 24:7 that is the hidden gem in this. I personally fear that unless an accent to verification is made, the danger becomes that this solution becomes a lot less reliable. On the other hand data can be crushed whilst the police force is snoring the darkness away and they get a fresh start with results in their inbox. There is no doubt that this is the gain for the local police force and that is good (to some degree). As long as everyone accepts and realizes that “predictive policing” comes with soft spots and unverifiable problems and I merely am looking at the easiest setting. Add car rental data with errors from handwritings and you have a much larger problem. Add the risk of a stolen or forged drivers license and “predictive policing” becomes the achilles heel that the police wasn’t ready for and with that this solution will give the wrong connections, or worse not give any connection at all. Still, Palantir is likely to be a solution, if it is properly aligned with its strengths and weaknesses. As I personally see it, this is one setting where the SWOT solution applies. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats are the settings any Palantir solution needs and as I personally see it, Weakness and Threats require its own scenario in assessing. Politicians are likely to focus on Strength and Opportunity and diminish the danger that these other two elements bring. Even as DW gives us “an appeal for politicians to stop the use of the software in Germany was signed by more than 264,000 people within a week, as of July 30.” Yet if 225,000 of these signatures are ‘career criminals’ Germany is nowhere at present.
Have a great day. People in Vancouver are starting their Tuesday breakfast and I am now a mere 25 minutes from Wednesday.
Yes, these people exist, but it is uncommon and actually quite rare, but the setting of Ghislaine Maxwell warrants that thought. It is not a simple setting. Not only was she convicted, she was convicted to 20 years and several women’s life were squandered to what some call the ‘pedo’ organisation of a lifetime (as expressions go). They were not merely destroyed by man, a woman named Ghislaine Maxwell seemingly ‘prepared’ them for the ‘entertainment’ of certain man.
And now 4 years later it starts again as she is vying for reduced sentences, optionally overturning her situation. I’ll grant it is balmy, because every father with daughters is willing to shoot her down, they will hunt her across the globe and as she wants to ‘compel’ them to stay their weapons, she is unlikely to succeed. And this is a circus with three rings. The first ring is the list of Epstein and the wealthy ‘suiters’ of these underaged woman. The second ring has President Trump and whatever political aspirations are coning from this scene. And here we see the first (as I personally see it, the first lie) and we get to thank ABC news for that (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/trump-has-not-considered-pardoning-epstein-ally-maxwell/105584506) where we see ‘Donald Trump says he has not considered pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell’, you see, the question was asked and in that moment any person would consider the question and as such he would have considered pardoning her. There of course the thought that he would reject that, but that doesn’t matter the question was considered as I personally see it. So as ABC gives us “Maxwell is appealing against her 20-year prison sentence, arguing that a prior plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein took protected her from prosecution.” This is as I see it a null option. For that to be considered Epstein would have had to set that stage, but he (allegedly) committed suicide making the entire stage to go away. It is a personal view and perhaps there was something, but if that is absent of documentation it is null and void. You see, an old setting has been (going all the way back to the Italian army of AD45) “If it isn’t written down, it does not exist” or words (and written down) to that nature. As such this is basically a Marie Celeste in business, in politics and in ethics. Now, I am all for the law and if there is something then show us the documentations, in other settings, such an agreement would have had witnesses, who were they? Where are they? And what was the stage? Because Jeffrey Epstein decided that suicide by hanging was preferable than facing the world and his world is all about presentation and alleged holiness. He took the fast way out, he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and he was sentenced to (as some sources state) be housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was, after 3.5 months, allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to twelve hours a day, six days a week, but after one month he must have realised what his life was about to become and he took the quick avoidance method.
The third ring is about the list, who was on it, what evidence was there and so on. This ring has its issues and problems. The conspiracy theorists are flaming this in the trend of “Republicans will set the list to democrats, no republicans and President Trump was never on the list” in that setting I have no idea. You see, the setting is that political players all want billionaire people as friends as they can fund campaigns, as such plenty might have ‘known’ Jeffrey Epstein but to what matter remains the question. We all have seen the image of Trump and Epstein. That is however no proof of guilt. Billionaires hang around billionaire, that part makes sense, but that is no evidence that President Trump did anything wrong. I go one step further, as I speculatively see it, no farther of daughters will use a minor girl for sex. The only possible setting is that these men also sexually abuse their own daughters. It is speculation but that is what I think and if there is a decent psychologist that states that this is not the case, I will accept that. As I say it is speculation. I still have a problem imagining that any woman will serve up female minors for sex duty.
So as we see this we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/ghislaine-maxwell-supreme-court) who gives us ‘Maxwell, sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking, says 2007 plea deal negotiated by Epstein should have protected her’ and my issue is also (I already answered this at the beginning) that she ‘waited’ over 2 years to set the stage. Was she hoping the case had gone cold? As we are given “Her legal team, however, submitted a request to the supreme court on Monday, seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision, arguing that a prior plea deal that Epstein took protected Maxwell from prosecution.” The skeptic in me is thinking that they have a juicy paycheck coming their way and whilst Ghislaine Maxwell is paying, they will continue any branch they can get. In the end it becomes a setting of coin and a setting of ego. More coin as it is a paying setting, less ego as it is about overturning a conviction with witnesses and that is a lot to un-stage. So as we are given “The controversial 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and the justice department said that if Epstein followed the terms of the plea agreement, the US government would not charge “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”, including “but not limited to” four co-conspirators. Maxwell is not one of the four co-conspirators named in the agreement, but her attorneys say she did not need to be named to receive the protection from that deal.” I have an issue with that (with my limited law knowledge). As such shouldn’t the four coconspirators be named? Who are these four? As I see it, an exact number requires identities? No, here the attorney of Ghislaine Maxwell is correct, it is seen in “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”. The issue is, how was this ‘overlooked’? The referred document is seen (at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement/) and on page 2 and 3 gives us the setting. We are given:
THEREFORE, on the authority of R, Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days’ of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.
This is what we are given as Exhibit 62. What I believe the case is that as given “Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement” making the setting null and void. As such all coconspirators could be prosecuted and that is as I see it the setting. So when we see
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community conool consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term supra.
But he never did the second term, he never made it past the first term as such the setting becomes a nulled one and he basically hung all ‘his friends’ out to dry, wasn’t that great of him? As I have legal training (a decade ago), this is what I see. Perhaps there are American ‘rules’ that state that the agreement is till valid, but that agreement would be hung (I couldn’t resist that) on the setting that he completed his sentence and he did not.
I reckon that this was seen 5 minutes after this was agreed upon and it is my personal view that lawyers will cash in on any option they can and as Ghislaine Maxwell cannot spend her money in prison and most likely will not survive her time in prison (she is 63 after all) there might be an alternative setting for the lawyers in question (a presumption, as there is every chance that they were instructed by their client Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue any option they can) and they are doing their job as instructed.
As such I think this goes nowhere and perhaps there will be leniency if she hands over the list, but that is might be a big if, and that should strike fear in the hearts (and loins) of anyone making that list. As such I reckon that a certain Silk Road marker place will have more than one items for the execution of Ghislaine Maxwell with the reward at ₿1000 (or $119,000,000) that is the setting she is invoking, even if she gives false names, her days are numbered. These people don’t like taking chances and she is likely happy to go that road for one free day, one last meal and one drink. This is mere speculation but that is how I see it and as I stated it, every father of daughters likely wants her dead, they are all about keeping their daughters safe. It might not sound reasonable, but fathers tend to be not so solid and sturdy when their little girls are in danger.
That is at times the issue, I would add to this “especially when we consider corporations the size of Microsoft” but this is nothing directly on Microsoft (I emphasize this as I have been dead set against some ‘issues’ Microsoft dealt us to). This is different and I have two articles that (to some aspect) overlap, but they are not the same and overlap should be subjectively seen.
The first one is BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdnz1nlgyo) where we see ‘Microsoft servers hacked by Chinese groups, says tech giant’ where the first thought that overwhelmed me was “Didn’t you get Azure support arranged through China?” But that is in the back of my mind. We are given “Chinese “threat actors” have hacked some Microsoft SharePoint servers and targeted the data of the businesses using them, the firm has said. China state-backed Linen Typhoon and Violet Typhoon as well as China-based Storm-2603 were said to have “exploited vulnerabilities” in on-premises SharePoint servers, the kind used by firms, but not in its cloud-based service.” I am wondering about the quote “not in its cloud-based service” I have questions, but I am not doubting the quote. To doubt it, one needs to have in-depth knowledge and be deeply versed in Azure and I am not one of these people. As I personally see it, if one is transgressed upon, the opportunity rises to ‘infect’ both, but that might be my wrong look on this. So as we are given ““China firmly opposes and combats all forms of cyber attacks and cyber crime,” China’s US embassy spokesman said in a statement. “At the same time, we also firmly oppose smearing others without solid evidence,” continued Liu Pengyu in the statement posted on X. Microsoft said it had “high confidence” the hackers would continue to target systems which have not installed its security updates.” This makes me think about the UN/USA attack on Saudi Arabia regarding that columnist no one cares about, giving us the ‘high confidence’ from the CIA. It sounds like the start of a smear campaign. If you have evidence, present the evidence. If not, be quiet (to some extent).
We then get someone who knows what he in talking about “Charles Carmakal, chief technology officer at Mandiant Consulting firm, a division of Google Cloud, told BBC News it was “aware of several victims in several different sectors across a number of global geographies”. Carmakal said it appeared that governments and businesses that use SharePoint on their sites were the primary target.” This is where I got to thinking, what is the problem with Sharepoint? And when we consider the quote “Microsoft said Linen Typhoon had “focused on stealing intellectual property, primarily targeting organizations related to government, defence, strategic planning, and human rights” for 13 years. It added that Violet Typhoon had been “dedicated to espionage”, primarily targeting former government and military staff, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, higher education, the media, the financial sector and the health sector in the US, Europe, and East Asia.”
It sounds ‘nice’ but it flows towards the thoughts like “related to government, defence, strategic planning, and human rights” for 13 years”, so were was the diligence to preventing issues with Sharepoint and cyber crime prevention? So consider that we are given “SharePoint hosts OneDrive for Business, which allows storage and synchronization of an individual’s personal work documents, as well as public/private file sharing of those documents.” That quote alone should have driven the need for much higher Cyberchecks. And perhaps they were done, but as I see it, it has been an unsuccessful result. It made me (perhaps incorrectly) think so many programs covering Desktops, Laptops, tablets and mobiles over different systems a lot more cyber requirements should have been in place and perhaps they are, but it is not working and as I see, it as this solution has been in place for close to 2 decades, the stage of 13 years of attempted transgression, the solution does not seem to be safe.
And the end quote “Meanwhile, Storm-2603 was “assessed with medium confidence to be a China-based threat actor””, as such, we stopped away from ‘high confidence’ making this setting a larger issue. And my largest issue is when you look to find “Linen Typhoon” you get loads of links, most of them no older than 5 days. If they have been active for 13 years. I should have found a collection of articles close to a decade old, but I never found them. Not in over a dozen of pages of links. Weird, isn’t it?
The next part is one that comes from TechCrunch (at https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/22/google-microsoft-say-chinese-hackers-are-exploiting-sharepoint-zero-day/) where we are given ‘Google, Microsoft say Chinese hackers are exploiting SharePoint zero-day’ and this is important as a zero-day, which means “The term “zero-day” originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so “zero-day software” was obtained by hacking into a developer’s computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them.” This implies that this issue has been in circulation for 23 years. And as this implies that there is a much larger issue as the software solution os set over iOS, Android and Windows Server. Microsoft was eager to divulge that this solution is ‘available’ to over 200 million users as of December 2020. As I see it, the danger and damage might be spread by a much larger population.
Part of the issues is that there is no clear path of the vulnerability. When you consider the image below (based on a few speculations on how the interactions go)
I get at least 5 danger points and if there a multiple servers involved, there will be more and as we are given “According to Microsoft, the three hacking groups were observed exploiting the zero-day vulnerability to break into vulnerable SharePoint servers as far back as July 7. Charles Carmakal, the chief technology officer at Google’s incident response unit Mandiant, told TechCrunch in an email that “at least one of the actors responsible” was a China-nexus hacking group, but noted that “multiple actors are now actively exploiting this vulnerability.”” I am left with questions. You see, when was this ‘zero day’ exploit introduced? If it was ‘seen’ as per July 7, when was the danger in this system solution? There is also a lack in the BBC article as to properly informing people. You cannot hit Microsoft with a limited information setting when the stakes are this high. Then there is the setting of what makes Typhoon sheets (linen) and the purple storm (Violet Typhoon) guilty as charged (charged might be the wrong word) and what makes the March 26th heavy weather guilty?
I am not saying they cannot be guilty, I am seeing a lack of evidence. I am not saying that the people connecting should ‘divulge’ all, but more details might not be the worst idea. And I am not blaming Microsoft here. I get that there is (a lot) more than meets the eye (making Microsoft a Constructicon) But the lack of information makes the setting one of misinformation and that needs to be said. The optional zero day bug is one that is riddles of missing information.
So then we get to the second article which also comes from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdv68gejm7o) given us ‘OpenAI and UK sign deal to use AI in public services’ where we get “OpenAI, the firm behind ChatGPT, has signed a deal to use artificial intelligence (AI) to increase productivity in the UK’s public services, the government has announced. The agreement signed by the firm and the science department could give OpenAI access to government data and see its software used in education, defence, security, and the justice system.” Microsoft put billions into this and this is a connected setting. How long until the personal data of millions of people will be out in the open for all kinds of settings?
So as we are given “But digital privacy campaigners said the partnership showed “this government’s credulous approach to big tech’s increasingly dodgy sales pitch”. The agreement says the UK and OpenAI may develop an “information sharing programme” and will “develop safeguards that protect the public and uphold democratic values”.” So, data sharing? Why not get another sever setting and the software solution is also set to the government server? When you see some sales person give you that there will be ‘additional safeties installed’ know that you are getting bullshitted. Microsoft made similar promises in 2001 (code red) and even today the systems are still getting traversed on and those are merely the hackers. The NSA and other America governments get near clean access to all of it and that is a problem with American based servers and still here, there is only so much that the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) allows for and I reckon that there are loopholes for training data and as such I reckon that the people in the UK will have to set a name and shame setting with mandatory prosecution for anyone involved with this caper going all the way up to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. So when you see mentions like ““treasure trove of public data” the government holds “would be of enormous commercial value to OpenAI in helping to train the next incarnation of ChatGPT”” I would be mindful to hand or give access to this data and not let it out of your hands.
This link between the two is now clear. Data and transgressions have been going on since before 2001 and the two settings when data gets ‘trained’ we are likely to see more issues and when Prime Minister Keir Starmer goes “were sorry”, you better believe that the time has come to close the tap and throw Microsoft out of the windows in every governmental building in the Commonwealth. I doubt this will be done as some sales person will heel over like a little bitch and your personal data will become the data of everyone who is mentionable and they will then select the population that has value for commercial corporations and the rest? The rest will become redundant by natural selection according to value base of corporations.
I get that you think this is now becoming ‘conspiracy based’ settings and you resent them. I get that, I honestly do. But do you really trust UK Labor after they wasted 23 billion pounds on an NHS system that went awry (several years ago). I have a lot of problems showing trust in any of this. I do not blame Microsoft, but the overlap is concerning, because at some point it will involve servers and transfers of data. And it is clear there are conflicting settings and when some one learns to aggregate data and connect it to a mobile number, your value will be determined. And as these systems interconnect more and more, you will find out that you face identity threat not in amount of times, but in identity theft and value assessment in once per X amount of days and as X decreases, you pretty much can rely on the fact that your value becomes debatable and I reckon this setting is showing the larger danger, where one sees your data as a treasure trove and the other claims “deliver prosperity for all”. That and the diminished setting of “really be done transparently and ethically, with minimal data drawn from the public” is the setting that is a foundation of nightmares mainly as the setting of “minimal data drawn from the public” tends to have a larger stage. It is set to what is needed to aggregate to other sources which lacks protection of the larger and and when we consider that any actor could get these two connected (and sell on) should be considered a new kind of national security risk. America (and UK) are already facing this as these people left for the Emirates with their billions. Do you really think that this was the setting? It will get worse as America needs to hang on to any capital leaving America, do you think that this is different for the UK? Now, you need to consider what makes a person wealthy. This is not a simple question as it is not the bank balance, but it is an overlap of factors. Consider that you have 2000 people who enjoy life and 2000 who are health nuts. Who do you think is set to a higher value? The Insurance person states the health nut (insurance without claims) or the retailer the people who spend and life live. And the (so called) AI system has to filter in 3000 people. So, who gets to be disregarded from the equation? And this cannot be done until you have more data and that is the issue. And the quotation is never this simple, it will be set to thousands of elements and these firms should not have access, as such I fear for the data making it to the outer UK grounds.
A setting coming from overlaps and none of this is the fault of Microsoft but they will be connected (and optionally) blamed for all this, but as I personally see it the two elements that matter in this case are “Digital rights campaign group Foxglove called the agreement “hopelessly vague”” and “Co-executive Director Martha Dark said the “treasure trove of public data” the government holds” will be of significance danger to public data, because greed driven people tend to lose their heads over words like ‘treasure trove’ and that is where ‘errors are made’ and I reckon it will not take long before the BBC or other media station will trip up over the settings making the optional claim that ‘glitches were found in the current system’ and no one was to blame. Yet that will not be the whole truth will it?
So have a great day and consider the porky pies you are told and who is telling them to you, should you consider that it is me. Make sure that you realise that I am merely telling you what is out in the open and what you need to consider. Have a great day.
