Dennis Montgomery/Mike Lindell. Analysis plus minor update.
This is for all the marbles. All of them. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this matter, please see my write-up here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnYrQlIR/dennis-montgomery-mike-lindell-a/
If you haven’t seen my explanation of legally what is going on, see here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JSzFb9/dennis-montgomery-and-mike-linde/
Let’s begin with a minor legal update.
The judge has not issued a ruling on Mr. Lindell’s motion.
In federal court, a typical motion practice proceeds as follows: (1) a memorandum in support of a motion is filed with the court; (2) a memorandum opposing the motion is filed by “the other side”; (3) a reply to the opposition memorandum is filed by the moving party; (4) the court holds a hearing at which there is oral argument; and (5) the court rules on the matter.
Some steps don’t actually have to occur. A motion doesn’t have to be opposed – maybe both parties agree. Also, a reply brief doesn’t have to be filed, although I’ve not seen an instance where one isn’t filed. …When I wrote my previous legal explanation, my understanding was that Mr. Lindell’s attorney had indicated that the judge had issued a ruling lifting the protective order (i.e., the “gag order”). When I had checked the court’s docket on the morning I wrote the summary, I saw that the last item on the docket was the memorandum in opposition (filed by the United States). Given my understanding that a ruling had been made, I assumed that perhaps no reply brief was going to be filed, and that perhaps the judge had ruled from the bench at a hearing concerning the matter – and the ruling hadn’t yet been reduced to writing and entered in the docket.
Late that afternoon, I saw that the docket had been updated to include a court order allowing Mr. Lindell’s attorney an extension of time to file his reply memorandum. That means we are at step #3 in the process I outlined above. The deadline for the reply brief is tomorrow, October 21, 2022. So that is when it will be filed.
One more thing: the judge assigned to the matter is Miranda Du – an Obama appointee. I don’t know anything about her other than that.
OK… Now on to some speculative analysis.
Listen to these breathtaking recordings when you can. They are a little long. Pour yourself a bourbon and listen tonight.
These recordings appear to have been made covertly. I’m not certain on that point. They include Tim Blixseth (a billionaire who made his money in land/timber), Sherriff Joe Arpaio, and a third gentleman that appears to be a prosecuting attorney representing Maricopa County. From one of Montgomery’s declarations, I understand these recordings to have been made in 2013. The topic relates to Montgomery having approached Blixseth with data proving that Clapper and Brennan (among others) were abusing Hammer. There are other topics discussed too – Obama’s birth certificate, for example.
Here's a small portion of what I take from them:
-Hammer was developed by Montgomery, as I stated previously.
-Hammer uses “brute force” (among other methods?) to find the private asymmetric key of a target server. With that key, the subsequent exchange of the symmetric key used to secure the rest of the SSL (HTTPS) session is compromised. Thus the session can be listened in on.
-By virtue of eavesdropping on targeted HTTPS sessions, the CIA observed people entering their usernames and passwords to access various systems – that’s how the database with millions of Americans’ user names and passwords (to access their bank account information) was obtained.
-From 2004 to 2009, Hammer was run out of a server center in Reno, NV. In 2009, the CIA took it in-house to Fort Washington, MD at a “naval research center” that actually housed a custom-built supercomputer center to operationalize Hammer.
-You can hear that John Roberts was targeted, as was the head of the FISA court. This was in 2013 that the recording was made. So even back then, they wanted to abuse the FISA court to conduct illegal surveillance of political opponents, etc.
-My take on John Roberts. He was targeted because the Chief Justice has the sole, unfettered authority to place judges on the FISA court. That’s what Obama and crew wanted: they wanted corrupt judges on the FISA court, and needed Roberts to put them there.
I know this is a bit confusing because I’m sort of combining topics. I’m in a hurry today – my apologies.
I’ll conclude here, for now. This could use other ears and minds. Please assist with ears and bourbon tonight.
EDIT: THIS POST IS - FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EFFORT AND STYLE AND CLARITY - NOT UP TO MY USUAL STANDARDS. MY APOLOGIES, THIS WAS A VERY BUSY DAY FOR ME AND I WANTED TO GET THIS INFO OUT.
I WILL FOLLOW UP AGAIN LATER WITH A POST THAT IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF MY USUAL TONE, VOICE AND INFORMATIONAL DENSITY AND PACE.
I have company coming over soon. So I can't exactly provide a clear, slow, structured response. Time constraints. My apologies.
Some topics for me to cover off to add clarity:
(1) A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order.
(2) Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner. Montgomery licensed the software to the government. To oversimplify matters, the government just ran it on the servers in MD. ...The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD.
(3) When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract.
(4) A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that. No time to discuss that now. I'll circle back
u/chaos_actual
Wow. This page is getting confusing to navigate.
(1) Chaos - I know you posted something last night concerning whether moving Hammer to Ft. Washington referred to physically moving servers from Reno to Ft. Washington, or whether it meant "rebuilding" the software on a brand new set of servers in Ft. Washington. You asked for a link or some sort of reference on that point. For whatever reason, I can't find that post on this page right now. I'm sure it's here - I'm just missing it.
Anyhow, if you listen to the first audio clip I sent you - "pt. 1" - you'll hear Blixseth state that $5M were spent on new servers and that the new system (Ft. Washington) is orders of magnitude faster than the old one (Reno). I'd ignore the actual price cited by Blixseth and actual performance numbers he stated. He's clearly not a technologist, and neither of those figures are likely correct. The point is that the government spent money on servers and the new servers were faster.
Bringing Hammer in-house does not mean moving machines. It meant getting the latest technology - not just machines, I'd imagine, but O/S level sorts of technologies to dynamically allocate resources to certain solution spaces as they become more probable, etc. In other words, it would be a ground-up technology transfer that would result in Hammer running on the "latest" technology and therefore operating with much more power.
(2) MITM. You also wrote about this, Chaos. Sorry this reply is dissociated from your post. I suspect that our NSA is deep in our communication infrastructure. As I understand it, they are always capturing every packet being transferred and storing that information. This is what you refer to as "splicing" I think: (a) packet data is received at a piece of network equipment, say, a router; (b) a duplicate of the packet data is created and stored or sent to a chosen destination; and (c) the original packet data is routed according to ordinary routing principles. When Hammer receives data pursuant to a splicing arrangement, it is being used to passively listen. ...I think you and I are on the same page on that?
I think the NSA can also dynamically rewrite routing tables across our network nationally. So, at the "flip of a switch" data packets intended to be routed to a given IP can be routed to a different machine. This allowed the government to divert any given communication session so that Hammer could be interposed in the communication stream. Does that make sense to you, Chaos?
(3) Protective Order. I haven't read what you linked to. If we are on the same page about the necessity of going to a court (as opposed to an executive) to lift a protective order, then great. No need to say anything more on that point.
u/chaos_actual u/Magadeburger
u/v8power
On to some speculation.
I've always assumed that the ultimate and final escape hatch in all of this is China. If a stage is reached where the evidence of what happened can no longer be suppressed, then the evidence will reveal orchestration by China. This would permit the guilty domestic actors to say "We were hacked by China! Who knew? We're just as outraged as you!"
Although I haven't followed the Italy-did-it theory as closely as I should, I note that Italy is a part of China's Belt and Road Initiative. China damn near owns vast tracts of Italy.
Italy would be a logical place to stand-up another Hammer / Scorecard instance. It could be operated by Chinese agents without us having to re-locate the technology to China proper - we're not that stupid (I hope). We probably re-located an instance at that defense contractor (Leonardo, I believe) that is mentioned so often. Packet data would be diverted to the hypothetical Italian Hammer / Scorecard instance so that it could be situated to execute a MITM exploit.
Or perhaps Hammer was running at the CIA facility in Frankfurt, and Scorecard running at Leonardo. Before I do any research on this, I'd love your thoughts.
u/chaos_actual
u/Magadeburger
u/v8power
Why talk of hacking computers? Because hacking computers probably occurred. And is illegal. And demolishes the fabric of our republic.
"Hacking humans" is another terms for political persuasion. I may think that people make choices for poor and ill-informed reasons, but that's the process.
As for the paper ballot record - what we've seen of it so far indicates fraud. No ballot counts on any of the chain-of-custody documents in AZ. None of the boxes sealed. All of the dividers between batches resting at the bottom of boxes, with ballots on top. No timestamps or datestamps or any log data (machine no.; batch no.; ballot no., etc.) on 140,000+ images. No record of actually having received about that same number of ballots. No indication that those votes ever originated from paper ballots to begin with.
And no one is permitted to look at the router logs.
This is exactly what you'd find in the case of digital stuffing accompanied by physical stuffing of ballots in the warehouse.
That's why we talk about hacking computers.