Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Idle hands | Main | +++No Climategate FoI prosecutions+++ »

The other snippet

I mentioned two snippets of information in the last post and no doubt some of you are wondering what the other one is.

The ICO officer volunteered that my complaint might not eventually be upheld because it was possible that UEA was in fact unaware of the existence of the archive of data and emails that eventually formed the Climategate hack/leak. He said that the current understanding in the ICO's office was that the archive was not an official data repository, but was set up by an individual within CRU for their own use.

This is important because, if true, it strengthens the suggestion that the data was not hacked but leaked. If the archive was on a hard drive on someone's PC then it is highly unlikely that a hacker could have found it, and it seems to me still unlikely that it would have been found on a shared drive either.

It's not definitive, but it does fit in well with earlier evidence of an inside job, such as the cleansing of file creation dates.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (42)

Very strange. Why would someone set up their own archive over a period of 13years (the first email was 7 March 1996)? Intriguing information.

It also confirms that UEA/CRU has no archive system. What a sorry (nay scandalous) state of affairs.

Jan 25, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Of course they have an archive somewhere. Someone is lying to get away from FOI requests.

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Many people archive mails and data. This gave MS headaches with Exchange because they'd not anticipated database bloat due to users archiving everything, especially attachments. Given the systems used at CRU, the suggestion that this was an unofficial archive process may be what Mosher alluded to. Or it may make it easier to narrow down the leaker.

Assuming someone was archiving their stuff, which is sensible, then why the FOI file? This may simply have been an own initiative process to filter out mail from the archive to create that given CRU staff would have been aware of the FOI requests and concerns. Or it may have been part of a 'CYA' file given the politics.

If it's looking unlikely the ICO won't or can't prefer charges, downside may be the leaker/whistleblower vanishes behind a compromise agreement and strict NDA. I'm hoping the leaker did it for ethical reasons though and will come forward to explain.

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

This is important because, if true, it strengthens the suggestion that the data was not hacked but leaked....

... all the while ignoring the incontrovertible fact that the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit has been brought in to investigate our (one would assume) extremist hackers and their climate-change denial agenda. Why would you clutch at a whim, when there is real circumstantial evidence?

It also ignores the fact that no whistle blower has come forward... you would understand why no break-and-enter hacker has come forward, but whistle blowers act out of conscience, and are usually likely to be motivated to come forward by the same streak of integrity that drives them to leak in the first place.

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterWadard

John Silver. If there is an archive system, the Climategate emails reveal that nobe of the CRU scientists were using it or were even aware of its existence.

Wadard: What a ridiculous assertion and offensive accusation. There are many reasons why whistle-blowers do not come forward. History has shown that they do not get the reward and recognition that they deserve; on the contrary, they are usually given no support and are thrown onto the scrap-heap.

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The good news is from Amazon:

We are pleased to report that the following item will dispatch sooner than expected: A W Montford "The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds)"Previous estimated arrival date: February 09 2010 - February 15 2010. New estimated arrival date: January 27 2010 - January 28 2010

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

NDET could have been brought in simply because an accusation of hacking by "extremists" was made. Doesn't prove a thing.

Jan 25, 2010 at 11:56 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I agree that it now looks to be leaked rather than hacked. This then poses the question whether the leaker redacted a huge amount of information that he still has? If this turns out to be the case maybe there is much more information to come out.

Jan 25, 2010 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Whale

I still think NDET is the wrong agency to be investigating hacking. When this broke though, there were reports that idiots had threatened Jones et al. If so, then that's NDET territory given they were created to help protect scientists from animal rights extremists. Now the door's open though, they may also take a look at threats to damage other scientists reputations, or even threaten physical assaults against Michaels, or auditors in dark alleys.

Jan 25, 2010 at 12:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Expect more of this type of smokescreen the closer to truth we get. Those in charge at UEA will use every nook and cranny the legal system allows to make sure there's no truly independent view of what they've been up to.

From their point of view...worst case it's better to get your wrist slapped by the Information Comissioner for a problem over data retention and FOI responses than get banged up for obtaining research funds fraudulently.

Jan 25, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohnRS

Philp Bratby: I was thinking more of the system administrators back up and such.
The emails are numbered i UNIX fashion, and implies professionalism with tapes in fire proof lockers and such.
But maybe they have slack IT department.

Jan 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

A couple of sources have previously indicated a backup server rather than someones PC. This does seem plausible.

For example one such scenario would be a head of department requesting a backup archive of departmental emails which are automatically copied from the main email system based on key researchers or some other trigger. The people inolved leave and nobody else is aware and the archive gradually builds but is not large enough to get attention. That is until Mr F comes along and spots the archive.

Jan 25, 2010 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterclivere

Don't forget the leaked information contained more than just emails. Server side archival would be the simplest way to keep copies of all departmental correspondance and may explain the naming conventions. What that doesn't explain is who then selected emails and files to asssemble the FOIA file, or why that happened. Somebody spent time putting that together, as well as attempting to obfusticate the source.

Jan 25, 2010 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Long-term archiving of emails is standard practice in many institutions. The mail server program (sendmail or whatever) is simply configured to copy all outgoing messages to an archive folder in addition to actually sending them. Given modern disk capacities, this would not occupy an inordinate amount of space for an institution the size of CRU.

Collecting emails relevant to an FOIA would then be simply a matter of a script grep-ing (searching) the archive directory for emails containing keywords and copying the messages found to a special directory. Then another script goes through the message files x-ing out email addresses.

Everything about the leak points to a whistle-blower releasing a collection of information that had been prepared by clerks or programmers for release in response to a real FOIA request, not to an external hacker. Note that the last date on the messages was just before McIntyre's request was officially rejected (iIrc).

Jan 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraig Goodrich

AGW has turned into a perfect storm of government/academic/industry corruption.
In the US, NASA is busy dumping things into the memory hole.
I wonder how many terabytes of tax payer funded data, info, and communications have been destroyed in the last couple of months?

Jan 25, 2010 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Craig- The thing about the grep theory is what keywords would you use to assemble the FOIA file? This is an aspect that makes me think it's not a simple hacker given the signal to noise ratio in the leaked archive. Somebody knowledgeable appears to have spent time filtering the content for effect, so it's not just emails relating to FOI but there is also a lot about the abuse of the peer review process.

Jan 25, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

In my opinion the theory that the files were collated for FOI is wrong and unneccessary. There is no evidence from any source other than blog speculation that such collation activity was going on. That speculation is entirely based on 1. The name used for the files. 2. The selection of content to exclude personal and trivial emails. 3. A desire by one side of the debate that "it is a whistle blower" rather than "a hacker".

We know that the details released are a "random selection" of a larger archive ie it is not a complete archive. Any dossier prepared for FOI would be much more complete

The released archive does contain a small amount of trivia. The selection was rushed and not completely thorough. An archive produced for FOI would require significant effort over many days if not weeks to produce.

We know the contents far exceed the scope of any FOI requests. The collection of the complete archive is clearly a progressive activity over years rather than the result of once off activity to prepare material for FOI.

We know that the emails and files were selected by Mr/Ms FOIA whover they are because they took time to provide a long list of the more juicy content. That selection was probably performed mainly between 13 and 16 November and what was provided was all that they had time to read and select during those dates.

The file names were chosen by F when they selected from the archive. They are not necessarily the names of the original archive.

F is clearly motivated to some extent by the FOI activity. They called themselves FOIA and chose FOIA for the file names and that certainly gives a clue to their motivation. It is possible they were directly motivated by the refusal of the FOI request on 13th November though I think it just as likely that the timing was down to opportunity plus proximity to a weekend.

Personally I think it more likely they are someone based at the CRU/UEA rather than an outsider but at this point it is indeterminate whether they are a whistlebower or hacker. The blog wars over whether it was a whistleblower or hacker whilst entertaining tend to lead people to make invalid assertions to protect their position. In reality it does not matter much which is true because it is the content of the files which really matters.

Jan 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterclivere

So many questions left open... What a nice guy to clean up addresses for everyone? A person who knew that the jig was soon to be up; a good time to get out stage left?... Someone who was aware of the FOIA file at CRU, perhaps preparing to show administrators or police? Probably a well respected fellow, good with computer stuff or close to someone who is. Clivere, suggests that somewhere between Nov 9th-13th, the files were reviewed. Strangely, PJ lets the reader know he is going home early on Friday the 13th. I can't think of another email that contains that kind of detail. Anyone?

Jan 25, 2010 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom

A couple things. First our book is now on Lulu

Ok. now for the important stuff. clivere gets a lot of things correct

On first pass through all the mails ( nov 17-18) It "looked like" the mails had been hand picked,
picked by a human intelligence ( no speculations on intelligent design please) In talking with
McIntyre he came to the same conclusion. But that task seemed daunting. On the 18th
it occurred to me that it looked like a file prepared for discovery, for example for an FOIA.
That didnt make any sense until I talked to Steve and he remarked that he had just recieved
a denial of his appeal, dated Nov 13th.

So, it seemed to me that the end of collection ( nov 12th) and the end of Mcintyre's appeal
Where tied together. Whoever, was collecting the mails knew the FOIA appeal was denied
( note there are no mails about this appeal in the file) and they decided to act on their own.
In the end the notion that the files were collected in anticipation of an FOIA doesnt hold
together well enough for me. But the date coincidence is a strong one and bears
examination. As an investigator I would short list people who knew about the denial.

After reread all the mails a second and third time, it become apparent that there were handfuls
of meaningless mails. out of office replies. That argued against a file built by human hands.
It also argued against a FOIA file. The whole coverage of Yamal in the files works against
FOIA interpretations since YAMAL was already released to steve and since it was never the subject
of FOIA.

Still the file has a very high S/N and some patterns do emerge. Those patterns suggest a proceedure
that would select mails based on certain keywords ( yamal,sres,soap) that are found on ClimateAudit
and/or certain to/from criteria.

The other thing to note is that there is evidence consistent with two different bleachings of the files.
You can see this best by just looking in the document folders at various documents and your see
the attempt to bleach the files to two different dates. For those of use around computer security, the bleaching pointed directly inside CRU. circumstantial of course since any hacker could create a false trail
by doing the same.

In the end statistics tell us that 80% of the time its an inside job. If this were a "fact" of global warming
at 80% probability, ANYBODY who suggested a hacker would be called a denier.

Jan 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteven Mosher

Regardless of leak or hack - these words sound to me like typical weasel words, used by civil servants to brush off demands by'civilians', i.e. taxpayers.
I bet that in 10% of the cases, people just accept such information and go away.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say that because the UEA was 'was in fact unaware of the existence of the archive of data and emails that eventually formed the Climategate hack/leak.', there is now no possibility of providing e-mails asked for through FOI.

I'm sure a friendly lawyer would have a field day with that.

Jan 25, 2010 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Slightly OT, but on BBC 6pm news just now, Roger Harrabin claimed that the BBC first broke the glacier story. Is that true? I bet it isn't.

Jan 25, 2010 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank Davis

Frank - See this post

Jan 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterclivere

On 5th December 2009

Jan 25, 2010 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered Commentermarchesarosa

Can someone run a script against the emails to determine the words that are common in every email? This would surely lead to some interesting insights. If it turns out that the only common words are things like 'the' and 'a', then the next logical analysis would be to look for the frquency of words and phrases.

Jan 25, 2010 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Someone I recall did and I believe Jones is a common word or at least that is what they said.

Jan 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Apart from the hacker/whistleblower issue, where I'm with Steve Mosher and the 80% case, I was struck by this:

He said that the current understanding in the ICO's office was that the archive was not an official data repository, but was set up by an individual within CRU for their own use.

If that's where the investigation has got to, great. We don't have to speculate on the motives. But I found the phrase "for their own use" cute. Not official, for their own use. It's the best soft soap anyone's got left. But it hardly gives the impression that any of the investigators plan to come down hard on the person concerned. All of which is good.

Jan 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Just ran a frequency analysis on the email folder and results are as follows, excluding (most) common words, and stopping at <1000 hits-

mann 3400
climate 3367
jones 2740
phil 2255
briffa 2180
keith 2012
science 1520
model 1411
ipcc 1291
ucar 1281
mike 1265
tom 1228
tim 1161
psu 1145
arizona 1115
osborn 1098
virginia 1002

So I doubt the email folder was based on a simple keyword search. I also looked through some of the metadata in the documents. Some of the autorecovery info has pointers to architecture, but not convinced that's anything significant. So I still think this is an insider rather than a 'hacker', or if it's a hacker, they had time to understand the system and the information people were after.

On which note, question for the Mosher. What suprises were there in the FOIA? So anything useful but unexpected, and wasn't previously known or subject to an existing CA et al FOI request? That may help nail down whether it was internal or external, but then most of the time, it's internal that is the problem.

Jan 25, 2010 at 9:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Jones needed to delete these e-mails and files to prevent any embarrassment in case a FOI request was successful. But he also wanted to retain a copy for himself.
The file's properties show it was compiled on a unix system.

Jones shoots himself in the foot by leaving the zipped file on their network where it was accessible to others. When McIntyre's FOI request was refused, someone with morals puts it into the public domain.

Just my guess, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone but Jones to compile this lot.

Jan 25, 2010 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

NDET could have been brought in simply because an accusation of hacking by "extremists" was made. Doesn't prove a thing

Except, Bishop, that they are still on the job as we speak. Hacking is very easy to rule out. Which is why Nature Geo Science can say with authority that it was a hack.

A hack also explains the rather strange spike in router-traffic from, "A miracle just happened!", as discovered by Frank Bi in the International Journal of Inactivism.

The desperation to characterise this as a leak, while ignoring real evidence belies an agenda, IMHO.

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterWadard

Here's a conspiracy theory for you to consider.

The story about glacier melting was first publicised by an Indian Journalist prior to Copenhagen. India is one country that would have its economic growth prospects curbed if Copenhagen was a success. It seems likely that the glacier story timing was intended to disrupt Copenhagen.

The release of the Climategate emails was also - prima facie - intended to disrupt Copenhagen.

So my grand conspiracy theory is that Indian intelligence services acting on behalf of the Indian National Interest have engineered not only the glacier scandal but the leaking of the emails.

Perhaps the British authorities will be looking very closely at South Asian employees at CRU?

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterTilde Guillemet

Wadard- Maybe stick to climate science and leave networking to the professionals? The IP address you quoted was an open HTTP proxy. A quick google would find other uses of it-

which is what tends to happen with open proxies. Still, leet climate hacker diversifying into xmas tree sales would make a more colorful story I suppose. The white line/gap in the graph is also what typically happens when the router is switched off or not logging. In climate science, this would mean infilling the data and making some traffic stats up.

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Thanks for the responses to my question!

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrank Davis

Wardard --

Please be polite and try to keep to real facts, and not make wild speculations common to the fanbois. You are dealing with a number of educated professionals on this site. Atomic Hairdryer has called you out on your post which was little more than rantings. I am also a seasoned networking expert with 20 years in Silly Con Valley and I am positive that there are several others other who contribute here who know even more than we do.

You are welcomed to be a counterbalance, if you wish to contribute. but please respect our intelligence. We are not a bunch of sheep easily spooked by the boggy man rantings. We know how to check the facts, something few in government appear to know how to do.

Jan 26, 2010 at 2:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Addresses were not stripped from the emails.
One of the online databases of the emails did strip them but that was because the creator was being a nice guy.

Content was kept pretty much on point, unlike the real hackers who really hacked mediadefender and really released everything - including "honey do" and salary type emails. which makes me think the cru leak was put together from the inside. Hackers love the attention and the "We pwned" aspect of releasing every little thing possible. Also using a proxy is rather non-elite. A hacker capable of breaking in to the CRUs many and varied servers to assemble the data, indicates that they could have released the by hacking any web server and leaving it there, or hacking several servers and leaving it on all of them. Why not deface the CRU site and put it there and continue to deface it? They could have used bittorrent or gnutella or the highly anonymous tor to disseminate the data. But no, they used a Russian proxy - big deal.

Hackers are also not fettered by trivial things like bandwidth. They would have no problems dumping gigs of data and laughing about it later. Hackers it seems to me, take a "release it all and let the world sort it out" stance.

I'd put my money on internal gathering and then internal bumbling - leaving it on a public ftp (for too long) as a means of transfer between depts or organizations for example.

I'd say there is not much more to come in terms of another batch of CRU emails. I'd say this is serendipity rather than a concentrated break in.

The NETC is astroturfing to provide a distraction. They are but one of the wagons circled to protect the CRU hockey team. Their goal is make the CRU look like victims.

As for visualizing the emails to spot trends or patterns, look to IBM's many eyes (free) or http://AnalyzeThe.US (also free and far more comprehensive) You can upload all the emails and then do all sorts of cool stuff.
Here is a pic of what I am talking about. It is an actual visualization of the actual cru emails, with addresses hidden.

here is a nice example of in action:
I know I'm leading horses to water here but maybe one will drink.

Jan 26, 2010 at 4:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Smith

Atomic Hairdryer, thanks for the analysis.

It seems nearly certain that the file had to be the result of a lot of human effort. Search terms alone would not result in this grouping of emails without a lot of additional hand sorting.

Its possible that someone had been collecting incriminating emails for 13 years on their PC (hard to imagine), or there was a backup of emails being made somewhere that was discovered after the Bishop's FOI denial was issued.

Jan 26, 2010 at 4:10 AM | Unregistered Commentermpaul


The Nature Geoscience piece was published at the time the Climategate story broke. Nobody knew a thing at that point. They are just repeating a line rather than "speaking with authority". As Pablo says, we do welcome voices from the other side of the debate, but please don't treat us as fools.

Jan 26, 2010 at 7:31 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

The only Man on the BBC to question the consensus has posted up an excellent piece regarding the IPCC.
His earlier stuff is worth reading too.

Jan 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterTony

Here's a better link to the Andrew Neil piece.

Jan 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank Davis


The Nature Geoscience piece was published at the time the Climategate story broke. Nobody knew a thing at that point. They are just repeating a line rather than "speaking with authority". As Pablo says, we do welcome voices from the other side of the debate, but please don't treat us as fools

Bishop, your assumption does not withstand interrogation. It was published in Nature at least three days after the crack - well after the likelihood of the hack has been established, as you will see below. Regardless, your supposed 'leaker' still turns turns out to be a hacker, according to Gavin Schmidt of RC:

At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file to our server. They then created a draft post that would have been posted announcing the data to the world that was identical in content of the comment posted on The Air Vent later that day. They were intercepted before this could be posted on the blog. This archive appears to be identical to the one posted on the Russian server except for the name change. Curiously, and unnoticed by anyone else so far, the first comment posted on this subject was not at the Air Vent, but actually at ClimateAudit (comment 49 on a thread related to stripbark trees, dated Nov 17 5.24am (Central Time I think)). The username of the commenter was linked to the file at Four downloads occurred from that link while the file was still there (it no longer is).

The use of a turkish computer would seem to imply that this upload and hack was not solely a whistleblower act, but one that involved more sophisticated knowledge. If SM or JeffID want to share the IPs associated with the comments on their sites, I’ll be happy to post the IP address that was used to compromise RC.

So, either Gavin is lying, or your leaker can hack (oh, and knows how to use open relays - thanks for your nothing observation, atomic), both of which are a bloody strange skills sets for the average whistleblower to have - or.... drumroll... this is the work of a black-hat hacker or hackers.

Why don't you use your claimed intelligence to work out the relative likelihoods of those three possibilities? I can't wait. Maybe Pablo can help you if he is finished being condescending.

I'm sorry, I don't want to get into a slanging match. I would seek to continue this discussion with civility. As evidence of this goodwill, you might note I have ignored the person who called me a troll (despite me being the only one here who has reference climate-science research).

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterWadard

Sorry Bishop, I confused Pablo's claim to possessing intelligence as your's. On that note, I don't think you are a fool. It's late in Aus - I'm off to bed.

Jan 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterWadard

Wadard: Why assume conspiracies when occam's razor may cut to the point? You assume skilled people because you don't appear to understand how to find or use an open proxy. You assume scientists are unskilled, yet scientists need to understand how to use computers in more ways than just running Powerpoint or Word. Open proxies are common, easy to use and widely used for anonymity (often unwisely) or spamming as I showed you.

You also are perhaps too trusting. Gavin has stated RC was 'hacked' and legitimate user access disabled. Yet Gavin has provided little detail, and was able to work around the disabled user access to stop the hack mid-flight, possibly without interrupting service to RC. Maybe he had firewall or tripwire alerts notifying him of the 'hack' in progress. Maybe he had console access to the server to regain control. Maybe the 'hack' wasn't very sophisticated if the 'hacker' could not prevent this. Maybe there was no hack, just unauthorised use of an admin account. This is all the more curious given the hacker's source seems to have been another HTTP proxy, which would limit the methods any hacker could use. It would however provide HTTP access to any web-based control panel for their site.

Jan 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Irrefutable Proof ICTY Is Corrupt Court/Irrefutable Proof the Hague Court Cannot

Legitimately Prosecute Karadzic Case
(The Documentary Secret United Nations ICC Meeting Papers Scanned Images)

This legal technicality indicates the Hague must dismiss charges against Dr Karadzic

and others awaiting trials in the Hague jail; like it or not.

Unfortunately for the Signatures Of the Rome Statute United Nations member states

instituting the ICC & ICTY housed at the Hague, insofar as the, Radovan Karadzic, as

with the other Hague cases awaiting trial there, I personally witnessed these United

Nations member states openly speaking about trading judicial appointments and

verdicts for financial funding when I attended the 2001 ICC Preparatory Meetings at

the UN in Manhattan making the iCTY and ICC morally incapable trying Radovan

Karazdic and others.

I witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings

to establish an newly emergent International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of

criminal corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable

topic of legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts

AND judicial appointments, for monetary funding.

Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal

was not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly

loud and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly believes if we

contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us

and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”

((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((( Instead of censoring the country representative

from Spain for even bringing up this unjust, illegal and unfair judicial idea of bribery

for international judicial verdicts and judicial appointments, all country representatives

present in the meeting that day all treated the Spain proposition as a ”totally legitimate

topic” discussed and debated it between each other for some time. I was quite shocked!
The idea was "let's discuss it." "It's a great topic to discuss."

Some countries agreed with Spain’s propositions while others did not. The point here

is, bribery for judicial verdicts and judicial appointments was treated as a totally

legitimate topic instead of an illegitimate toic which it is in the meeting that I attended

in 2001 that day to establish the ground work for a newly emergent international

criminal court.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

In particular., since "Spain" was so overtly unafraid in bringing up this topic of trading

financial funding the ICC for influence over its future judicial appointments and

verdicts in front of every other UN member state present that day at the UN, "Spain"

must have already known by previous experience the topic of bribery was "socially

acceptable" for conversation that day. They must have previously spoke about bribing

the ICTY and
ICC before in meetings; this is my take an international sociological honor student.

SPAIN's diplomatic gesture of international justice insofar as, Serbia, in all of this is,

disgusting morally!


I remind everyone, when I attended those ICC Preparatory Meetings in 2001,

witnessing first hand the country plenipotentiary representatives present with me

discussing so openly, trading judicial funding of a new international criminal court, for

its direct judicial appointments and judicial verdicts, those same state powers were


those same countries and people were already simultaneously, funding the already

established ICTY which was issuing at that time, arrest warrants for Bosnian Serbs

under false primary diplomatic pretenses.

The ICTY and ICC is just where it should be for once. Cornered and backed into and

an international wall, scared like a corned animal (and I bet it reacts in the same way a

rabid cornered animal does too in such circumstances). (ICTY associates)



(Documents: Hague war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has

destroyed all material evidence about the monsterous KLA Albanian/KLA organ trade

in Kosovo).

I believe strongly that ICYU assocaites murdered former Serb President, Slobodan

Milosevic, tried to murder me, as well and other Serbs prisoners and presently places ,

Doctor Radovan Karadzic’s life in direct danger as well as Ratko Mladic’s life
in danger should he be brought there.

The ICTY has no other choice than to halt all further court proceedings against,

Doctor Radovan Karadzic, and others there both serving sentences and awaiting trials.

Miss JIll Louise Starr (The UN Security Council has no choice but to act on this now).

I accuse the Hague ICTY war crimes tribunal of attempted assassination on my life

and others, contempt of court and obstruction of international justice and

"international witness tampering" in complicity with Richard Holbrook and Bill

Clinton (Former US President of the USA) as well as political players in Spain and the

Netherlands .

I represented the state interests' of the Former Yugoslavia, in Darko Trifunovic’s

absence in those meetings and I am proud to undertake this effort on Serbia’s behalf.

Jan 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterjill starr

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>