Friday, September 29, 2017

On a slightly unrelated yet very much related note re: The False Claims Act

I wasn't aware that one could file a sealed complaint, via a qui tam action, Pro Se. That certainly eliminates a huge barrier for me and for our United States Department of Justice and taxpayers, et al. 

According to most case law, if the Government does not intervene, then the Pro Se litigant may not be able to pursue the case further, unless he or she retains counsels (or get's his bar license by then, etc.)

Or maybe I was aware and it's a done deal. I just wouldn't be allowed to talk about it, of course, per the law. 

Pursuant to: U.S. Codes and / or "other."

Pursuant: "in part," but "not in whole," and / or not pursuant in part or in whole to U.S. Attorney’s Manual: Chapter 9, et al., 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 18 U.S.C. § 1513, 18 U.S.C. § 1515, 18 U.S.C. § 2381, 18 U.S.C. § 2071, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 401, further, Anticipatory Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of Justice "related to: U.S. Military Code (US CYBERCOM Code: 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a)," which is now a fully Unified Combatant Command (UCC), for the record, also pursuant to the 1st Amendment and the (apparently) beloved 5th amendment (for both good and bad and / or better or worse), and the Court of Public Opinion. Duress.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

An open "letter" to the FBI and DOJ...

Is public corruption just allowed to continue to run rampant in our country and / or specifically the State of Florida and / or the 15th Judicial Circuit and to continue to "threaten" and / or "obstruct" and / or "other" the National Security of our country, the United States of America, as I've strenuously been mentioning this and bringing this to your attention, ad nauseam, (via phone, email, and twice, in person, at the Miami FBI headquarters in Miramar) or will the FBI and / or DOJ actually do something about it? 

If so, when? Or, conversely, are you way ahead of me on this one (it's a big, long chain of dominoes, you might say) and I simply wouldn't know or wouldn't have known, as logically I can't rule that out either. Though, based on the facts and evidence, that's not the sort of intel I'm seeing or picking up. 

Though, you're pretty tricky and pretty good, in my (humble) opinion. 

Game recognize game. 

We're just running out of time. Strike that. We may be out of time and damaged. It's time for some action and some takedown(s). Me included, no one is above the law, so if you so choose, well then, that's your choice. Your choice. Personally, I'd highly advise you to be careful in your analysis with regards to the parties that you "pick." That's my 2 cents on the matter(s). 

This correspondence is not intended to be a complete recitation of all applicable laws, facts, claims, or remedies (whether equitable or legal), all of which are expressly reserved, and of course, always have been, including my right to any and all attorneys fees and / or costs. Nothing in this correspondence or any correspondence I've sent shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of my rights, et al. and etc.  

Duress, Distress, Coercion, Intimidation, Self Defense, et al. 

It's go time. I'm ready if you are. 

Love, one of your best friends.

Question re: Affirmative Defenses vs. The 5th Amendment

Yeah, so how does that work? You know? Or no? Are you good then? No "problem?" 

What is Obstruction of Justice? ... Wiki.

Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent can be used to allow any person questioned by police merely to deny answering questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. 

In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court, though the witness may then exercise their rights, for example in the Fifth Amendment, if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves

If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect (such as by providing a false alibi) or to hide from investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime), this may leave them liable to prosecution. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters, destroys, or conceals physical evidence.[1] 

Obstruction charges may also be laid in unique situations such as refusal to aid a police officer, escape through voluntary action of an officer and refusing to assist prison officers in arresting escaped convicts.

Obstruction can include crimes committed by judgesprosecutorsattorneys general, and elected officials in general. 

It is misfeasancemalfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion.

Per the Public, Free, Encyclopedia known as Wikipedia:

re: Motion To Withdraw as Counsel


Abraham Lincoln Had It Right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Premise 1: Isabella Soprano aka The Laws of Our Land (of the Free, the Brave, the Proud et al., / i.e. The United States of America) are and / or can be, at times...really, really Weird.

Coming soon...I mean, c'mon, let's get real about this one. Have you ever seen the show "Cathouse" on HBO? I think it's only been and / or was on the air for like 26 seasons or episodes or something like that. I'm not going to look up the ABA rules to properly cite it or whatever other Rules aka Rules of Civil Procedure that one must follow in order for your E-Filing to be "accepted," or for your PDF to be searchable and not contain any metadata, et al. So, maybe you can just look it up on Google or on IMDb (that's the Internet Movie Database, for the non-lawyers out there). 

Also, for the record, I can neither confirm nor deny that I have any recollection of and / or "other" of Isabella Soprano and am invoking my right to plead the 5th on that one. Thanks, U.S. Constitution. Though, I remember discussing with my roommate at the time how she seemed almost like an anthropology or women's studies graduate student or something to that effect. It was paradoxical and amazing at the same time, I feel and / or felt and / or might remember. 

So, the same "act," i.e. soliciting a prostitute in (geographically speaking), for example, in downtown Los Angeles, would get you arrested, get your mugshot on the internet forever, maybe sort of "ruin your life" a bit, especially if you have children or a "job" or stuff like that. 

But, you can also, just instead, if you opted to, simply hop in your Prius or BMW or whatever you're rolling in (maybe a helicopter or private jet), throw on some satellite radio or stream some internet radio or jam out to the tunes on Highway Country radio on the A.M. channels (hey, don't knock it, till you try it) and cross the state line over to Nevada, where brothels are a legally licensed business and a profession. So, such said businesses aka brothels, collect taxes, it's seen under the Law as a profession (some might say the oldest profession in the world). 

I'm guessing they accept credit cards as it would seem somewhat shady to be a "cash only" type of business (that'd fall more under the California Law boundaries type of thing, I'm speculating or guessing, I think) and I'm sure they'd need to be in compliance with the IRS and import their earnings and handle their accounting and revenue, net revenue, cash flow, et al, into Quickbooks or whatever other accounting ledgers and / or methodologies and / or software they're using, etc. Not sure if any of them require an SEC form 10-Q, yet, though I might be wrong? Are those just for publicly traded companies or private companies also? Don't make me Google it. 

So, the same "act" of soliciting a prostitute, for "poignant" example purposes, in Los Angeles could essentially ruin your life and yet the same exact "act" about a 3-4 hours drive across state lines into Nevada (and depending on County Laws too, let's not forget about State, Local, Federal, et al.) would not only be legal, but you might be able to just throw it on your Amex Platinum, earn some rewards points, maybe get some free airfare out of it or tickets to see Taylor Swift or something?

I don't know. Seems weird. The same "act" committed about 3 hours to the left (or West) vs. the same "act" committed about 3 hours to the right (or East) are seen, under the Laws of our Land, very differently. 

So, okay "Mr. John" if you could just schooch on over about 3 hours to the right and hit your mark (we've taped it for you, per Home Box Office and / or the LAPD, et al, and / or "none") and as long as you commit the same act about 3 hours one way or another, give or take, you could either ruin your life or win an all expense paid trip around the world and get tickets to see Taylor Swift for the same act of "soliciting a prostitute"!!? Hooray! 

No? Is it just me? It might be. I can't rule that out, by logical definition. #JustSayin'

re: Jurisdiction

Does anyone know who has jurisdiction over here? Is there concurrent jurisdiction? Oh wait, nevermind. I know who has jurisdiction. Nevermind. I won't say it "out loud" as it's a "bad word." It's one of those 3 letter words. 

What did you score on this personality test? I came out as an INTP with a variation on the "empathy" aspect, meaning a heightened sensitivity instead of insensitivity, which I feel I know what I can trace that to. Though I can't escape the fact that I'm a human and can fall into the "insensitivity" trap, per the INTP profile test on the internet.

It is worth noting I was a student of logic and philosophy (among other things) as an undergrad, so I guess there might "be something to it."

Though correlation does not imply causation, of course.

"They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements could almost be described as a hobby, making it a bad idea to lie to an INTP. This makes it ironic that INTPs’ word should always be taken with a grain of salt – it’s not that they are dishonest, but people with the INTP personality type tend to share thoughts that are not fully developed, using others as a sounding board for ideas and theories in a debate against themselves rather than as actual conversation partners."

Sunday, September 24, 2017

In Furtherance of and / or a Variation of Occam's Razor and / or Nothing at All: Part 2.) - David A. Lerner's Razor.

David A. Lerner: OK, fair enough, I say. Makes sense. I'll quote from the below, "His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." So, clearly this is predicated on the fact that there are competing hypotheses, each containing assumptions, and that the one that should be selected is the hypothesis containing the fewest assumptions. Got it.

Let me also take the second entry from Wikipedia as the first one seems to have a lot of "words" and stuff like "ad hoc" and "falsifiability" and "scientific method" and "testable" and let me dispense with all that jargon.

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe I first heard the phrase "KISS" from a chemistry teacher I had at Miami Palmetto Sr. High School. Whenever the class was frustrated with a problem or stuck on some solution, the teacher would say to the (co-ed) class to "KISS: Keep it Simple, Stupid." That stuck with me. Maybe it was because it was high school and it became indelibly imprinted in my mind as my face tried not to turn red as I maybe had a "crush" on a girl sitting near me in the class. Either way, I've always remembered it and have had to remind myself of this on a near daily basis, I feel.

So, basically we're looking at something like "if there are two competing explanations for an occurrence, the simplest one is usually correct" and also "among competing choices or hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is usually correct."

Alrighty. So, what if we just didn't make any assumptions at all? Period.

Would that then in any way, shape, or form change Occam's Razor or would this fall under the category of the subject of my post "Nothing at All?"

I think I know and have a few ideas, based on the laws of logic and things of that "nature." Do you know what I mean, jelly bean? Or no? Or is it "Nothing at All." A distinct possibility. Does it mean you're not going to be "wrong" as long as you don't assume? Or no? Does it mean that you will, in fact, be "right" if you don't assume, unlike Sir Occam who said the selection with the fewest number of assumptions is usually correct, so can we then say if there are No Assumptions, then the selection will, in fact, be correct? Or No? I think I know. Or maybe I know. Or maybe I know it might be "Nothing at All." Do you? 

On a side note, I also like to think that I live in a world that is based on facts that are actually verifiable. But hey, that's just me. Unquote. You do you.  - David A. Lerner

Friday, September 22, 2017

re: MD5 algorithm

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:

The MD5 algorithm is a widely used hash function producing a 128-bit hash value. Although MD5 was initially designed to be used as a cryptographic hash function, it has been found to suffer from extensive vulnerabilities. It can still be used as a checksum to verify data integrity, but only against unintentional corruption.

Like most hash functions, MD5 is neither encryption nor encoding. It can be cracked by brute-force attack and suffers from extensive vulnerabilities as detailed in the security section below.

MD5 was designed by Ronald Rivest in 1991 to replace an earlier hash function MD4.[3] The source code in RFC 1321 contains a "by attribution" RSA license. The abbreviation "MD" stands for "Message Digest."

The security of the MD5 has been severely compromised, with its weaknesses having been exploited in the field, most infamously by the Flame malware in 2012. The CMU Software Engineering Institute considers MD5 essentially "cryptographically broken and unsuitable for further use".[4] Despite this known vulnerability, MD5 remains in use.

U.S. Cyber Command

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2017 — At the direction of the president, the Defense Department today initiated the process to elevate U.S. Cyber Command to a unified combatant command.
U.S. Cyber Command emblem
"This new unified combatant command will strengthen our cyberspace operations and create more opportunities to improve our nation’s defense," President Donald J. Trump said in a written statement.
The elevation of the command demonstrates the increased U.S. resolve against cyberspace threats and will help reassure allies and partners and deter adversaries, the statement said.  The elevation also will help to streamline command and control of time-sensitive cyberspace operations by consolidating them under a single commander with authorities commensurate with the importance of those operations and will ensure that critical cyberspace operations are adequately funded, the statement said.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is examining the possibility of separating U.S. Cyber Command from the National Security Agency, and is to announce his recommendations at a later date.
Growing Mission
The decision to elevate U.S. Cyber Command is consistent with Mattis' recommendation and the requirements of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Kenneth P. Rapuano, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and global security, told reporters at the Pentagon today.
"The decision is a welcome and necessary one that ensures that the nation is best positioned to address the increasing threats in cyberspace," he added.
Cybercom's elevation from its previous subunified command status demonstrates the growing centrality of cyberspace to U.S. national security, Rapuano said, adding that the move signals the U.S. resolve to "embrace the changing nature of warfare and maintain U.S. military superiority across all domains and phases of conflict."
Cybercom was established in 2009 in response to a clear need to match and exceed enemies seeking to use the cyber realm to attack the United States and its allies. The command is based at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, with the National Security Agency. Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers is the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency director. The president has directed Mattis to recommend a commander for U.S. Cyber Command, and Rogers for now remains in the dual-hatted role, Rapuano said.
More Strategic Role
Since its establishment, Cybercom has grown significantly, consistent with DoD's cyber strategy and reflective of major increases in investments in capabilities and infrastructure, Rapuano said. The command reached full operational capability Oct. 31, 2010, but it is still growing and evolving. The command is concentrating on building its Cyber Mission Force, which should be complete by the end of fiscal year 2018, he said.
The force is expected to consist of almost 6,200 personnel organized into 133 teams. All of the teams have already reached initial operational capability, and many are actively conducting operations. The force incorporates reserve component personnel and leverages key cyber talent from the civilian sector.
"This decision means that Cyber Command will play an even more strategic role in synchronizing cyber forces and training,  conducting and coordinating military cyberspace operations, and advocating for and prioritizing cyber investments within the department,"  Rapuano said.
Cybercom already has been performing many responsibilities of a unified combatant command. The elevation also raises the stature of the commander of Cyber Command to a peer level with the other unified combatant command commanders, allowing the Cybercom commander to report directly to the secretary of defense, Rapuano pointed out.
The new command will be the central point of contact for resources for the department's operations in the cyber domain and will serve to synchronize cyber forces under a single manager. The commander will also ensure U.S. forces will be interoperable.
"This decision is a significant step in the department's continued efforts to build its cyber capabilities, enabling Cyber Command to provide real, meaningful capabilities as a command on par with the other geographic and functional combat commands," Rapuano said.
(Follow Jim Garamone and Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @GaramoneDoDNews and @FerdinandoDoD)

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

In the Matter of: The Laws of "Our" Land (Notices of Appearance by the Plaintiffs and / or "Other" or None) vs. The Laws of Logic (Notice of Virtually No Notice or Appearance) by the Defendant. Let's Start "Adjudicating," Shall We? My Court is Now in Session. My Court is Also Your Court and Known as The Court of Public Opinion. Publicly Available. For the Record.


To all applicable or potentially applicable parties to this matter and / or my and / or any of my matters or potential matters or any matters that may or may not arise as a result of this or any matters or any upcoming matters, whether in theory or in practice or in reality or otherwise, I say to you all that this correspondence and blog post on Google's Blogger platform, along with any and all previous correspondence, also, as well as any connected matter or upcoming matter(s) and / or potentially connected matters and / or "both," as HERE COMES NOW and / or I’VE ALWAYS BEEN HERE NOW, from the beginning, of course, DAVID A. LERNER, and I say to whomever it may concern or may or may not concern or be applicable to and / or not applicable to, that “this” and this is NOT intended to be a complete recitation of all of the applicable laws, facts, claims, or remedies, etc. and "et al.," whether equitable or legal or theoretical, all of which are expressly reserved, and of course always have been, by me, DAVID A. LERNER, the Respondent, Representing the Laws of Logic, and further, pursuant to the whole United States of America “type thing,” and / or “stuff” or “whatever.”

Further, continuing and incorporating all of the above and “other,” which I may or may not yet have thought of yet but I hereby reserve the right to think of "it" and / or apply it retroactively, that nothing contained herein or omitted herefrom is intended, nor shall be construed, to operate as an admission, limitation, or waiver of my rights, remedies, or defenses at law (including and incorporating the laws of logic and / or math and / or physics and / or the science and / or the Laws of the Universe and / or the Laws from God and / or the Laws of Logic) whether legal or in equity, all of which are hereby expressly reserved, and by logical extension, also always have been, or something or "other" like that and more. So, it’s definitely safe, I feel, to say, something along the lines of and / or "all rights reserved,: whatever those may consist of or not consist of.

If anything I’m saying or have said and / or am thinking and / or was thinking, whatsoever, at all, is found and / or determined to be held invalid or unenforceable, thus, then, the logical opposite shall apply as well as and / or each and every other single word that I’ve said, whether implicitly or explicitly, or that you should have known and / or not known, whether reasonably or “telepathically,” or otherwise, shall stand and remain, as it was, of course, always there in the first place. I guess it might be up to a “American Judge.”

For redundancy and / or clarity: The foregoing is not intended to be a complete recitation of all applicable law and / or facts, and shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved, including my right to all available remedies against any possible recipient, including but not limited to the recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Pursuant to:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.