Company Seeks Sponsors For RICO Racketeering Lawsuit Against Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page and John Doerr

Company Seeks Sponsors For RICO Racketeering Lawsuit Against Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page and John Doerr




By Robin Right



Los Angeles – You might not know all of those names but you do know the names Google, Solyndra, Kleiner Perkins, Tesla and Barack Obama. All of these names cross-financed each other in quid-pro-quo payola schemes. In other words, none of them would exist if not for the dirty political corruption they swapped spit for between each of themselves.



You will recall that period from 2009 to 2015 when the largest number of Companies, all owned by, or connected to, the Filthy Four got more taxpayer cash than any group of companies in history and then, just as historically, immediately went belly up or engaged in stock swindles. That was the Non-Fabulous Four doing their dirty work.



These four white yuppie billionaire Silicon Valley frat boys who sleep at each other’s houses, and sometimes in the White House, made a deal to web manipulate and finance elections in exchange for never-ask-questions government hand-out cash and stock market “pumps” in the corrupt Steven Chu Administration of the Department of Energy.



One company worked with the U.S. Congress, top federal investigators, journalists, whistle-blowers and former employees of the Quadrangle-of-Corruption and has amassed hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence of absolute organized crime by these frat boys.



One would think that federal cops would have locked these four up long ago but, then again, one would think that federal cops would have locked up those bankers that hijacked Wall Street, a certain rogue email server person and a bunch of other characters that everyone knows are guilty but that somehow seem to evade the slammer. Could it have anything to do with paying off the West Wing?



It turns out, though, you do not need to wait for Elliot Ness to kick their doors in. You can Do-It-Yourself.



If you read the WIKIPEDIA description of a “RICO Lawsuit” you will find that you have the power, and the right, to file a lawsuit against the forces of evil and the dirty and corrupt.



Even better, you should try to get them to SUE YOU! It sounds all wrong but the fact is that, when you file your disclosure and take them on, the first thing they will do is file a “demurrer”. This is a request to dismiss your case before it even gets started. They will use this tactic to try to keep you from getting your day in court. If they sue you, you simply have to say “OK”, get your court date and then file a counter-complaint.



Let the bad guys do all the heavy lifting of setting up the lawsuit and then you take them down in the jury trial.



One company is seeking to sue Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Larry Page and John Doerr for racketeering and corruption for the vast losses of taxpayer cash they caused and for their attacks on those who competed with them. Another case is planned for a lawsuit against these same four but this time for Homicide. Three Tesla Employees, and some guys named David Bird, Gary D. Conley, Rajeeve Motwani and others are said to have been killed by these guys in order to shut them up. Yet, another group, former employees from a Company called Bright Automotive, are also thinking about suing these fellows. Apparently the Foul Four ordered their politicians to put a “hit job” on Bright Automotive because Bright was getting dangerously close to competing with Elon Musk.




p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>We can only hope that one of these efforts gets to a jury room so that the public can see the real dirt behind the glitz of these Silicon Valley oligarch mobsters.


Sony’s Paul Feig Ghostbusters 2016 flops really hard at the box office


Ghostbusters has drummed up some serious hysteria since its release. Leslie Jones managed to get Briebart editor Milo Yianopoulos banned from Twitter, and sick packs of rabid fans upon critics of the movie.

mark kern ghostbusters 2016 user rating

I hardly doubt that the user score will ever go above 2.9.

We also saw the terrible reviews that rolled in citing the movie was trying too hard. For what it’s worth, the movie is a great idea to promote female characters as strong leads, and it had quite a few laughs. Nevertheless, this movie was not the best choice for that approach. A much better choice is the upcoming Wonder Woman starring Gal Godot, and that 2017 summer picture will deliver in spades for DC.

deadpool vs ghostbusters 2016

In other words, even though “Deadpool” had an almost 100 million USD smaller budget. The movie still made +700 million USD more than “Ghostbusters 2016” did.

The all-female spectre busting quartet managed to secure $46 million in its opening weekend, but it doesn’t appear to be quite enough for a profit. Sony put up a serious budget to get the movie made. With over $144 million invested in Director Paul Feig, and analysts realizing movies such as Star Trek, and Jason Bourne’s earning potential its a dark day for Ghostbusters.

ghostbusters 2016 burning money

And still Sony want´s to make a “Ghostbusters 2016” part II movie…

To date, “Ghostbusters” has grossed about $130 million worldwide. However, that’s not even half of what they’ll need to break even and see a profit from the film. If they can make $300 million in sales, that would be a true revival of the franchise and secure a great presence for a sequel but can it happen? With the rumor mill circling that Sony and Paul Feig have decided on three films, it would be on Sony’s best interest to change directors, writers, or even come up with new original ideas for the cast.

twitter and ghostbusters 2016

If you didn´t know it, Milo Yiannopoulos (Greek-British journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for has been permanently banned from Twitter.

The most painful thing about a reboot is that it has to surpass the expectations of the previous movies, and “Ghostbusters” will never do that. The simplest answer is: because the talent was wasted, the script wasn’t original, and the director was trying to prove a point with his established comedy style using comedianne’s instead of male actors.

paul feig is a cuck

Paul Feig (Director and writer for “Ghostbusters 2016”) turned his “Ghostbusters” movie into a feminist/anti-male propaganda machine. In short, the movie was anything but the movie that the “Ghostbusters” fans wanted.

The identicle formula won’t work the same way every time, but that’s something Paul Feig refuses to understand. Success isn’t always measured by the outcome, its measured through effort, balance, and training.

In short, the movie was created and shot as a tribute film with a vendetta that didn’t land a mark on the classical 80’s comedy. It might as well have had a neon sign that said Don’t ask any questions. Just give us your money. And if there ever was one thing that made the advocates angry about the movie it was the comment ” Aint no bitches gonna bust no ghosts,” and that appears to be the case here also.

Amy Pascal sucks another one and Sony eats more shit!

See The Congressional Investigation Archive of the Entire Energy Department Scandal

See The Congressional Investigation Archive of the Entire Energy Department Scandal

See the crazy billionaires, the exploding batteries and the political kick-backs that led to some of the biggest political corruption in U.S. history. From the character assassinations to actual murders, these are the original investigation records that forced over 50 of the top players in Washington to lose their careers because those corrupt bureaucrats cost American taxpayers to lose nearly a trillion dollars.



Bee Sperm Havoc Leads To Less Honey

Leading insecticide cuts bee sperm by almost 40%, study shows

Discovery provides possible explanation for increasing deaths of honeybees in recent years, according to scientists
Previous studies have shown how neonicotinoids reduce the number bumblebees queens produced
Previous studies have shown how neonicotinoids reduce the number bumblebees queens produced. Photograph: Richard Becker/Alamy Stock Photo

The world’s most widely used insecticide is an inadvertent contraceptive for bees, cutting live sperm in males by almost 40%, according to research. The study also showed the neonicotinoid pesticides cut the lifespan of the drones by a third.

The scientists say the discovery provides one possible explanation for the increasing deaths of honeybees in recent years, as well as for the general decline of wild insect pollinators throughout the northern hemisphere.

Bees and other insects are vital for pollinating three-quarters of the world’s food crops but have been in significant decline, due to the loss of flower-rich habitats, disease and pests and the use of pesticides.

Neonicotinoids were banned from use on flowering crops in the EU in 2013. The UK opposed the ban and allowed a limited “emergency” lifting of the ban in 2015, but has refused further suspensions this year. There is clear scientific evidence that neonicotinoids harm bees, but there is only a little research showing the pesticides harm the overall performance of colonies.

Previous work has shown that neonicotinoids reduce the number of bumblebee queens produced and severely cuts the survival and reproduction of honeybee queens. But the new research, led by Lars Straub at the University of Bern, Switzerland and published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, is the first to test how neonicotinoids affect male bee fertility.

They exposed drones to the levels of two neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, seen in fields, and found that they had on average 39% less living sperm compared with unexposed bees. “Any influence on sperm quality may have profound consequences for the fitness of the queen, as well as the entire colony,” said the researchers.

Queen bees perform mating flights soon after emerging to collect and store sperm from multiple males, which is then used for reproduction over the queen’s lifetime. The drones reach sexual maturity at 14 days, but the researchers found 32% of the exposed drones were dead by then, and therefore unable to mate, compared to 17% of the unexposed controls.

“This could have severe consequences for colony fitness, as well as reduce overall genetic variation within honeybee populations,” the scientists said.

The researchers also found that exposed drones lived for 15 days compared to 22 days for the controls. They concluded: “For the first time, we have demonstrated that frequently employed neonicotinoid insecticides can elicit important lethal and sub-lethal effects on non-target, beneficial male insects; this may have broad population-level implications.”

Peter Campbell, from Syngenta, the company that makes thiamethoxam, said the new research was interesting. However, he noted that the sperm quality of all the drones in the study was reduced, compared to earlier work. “Given the multiple mating of honeybee queens it is unclear what the consequences of a reduction in sperm quality would actually have on queen fecundity,” he said.

Christopher Connolly, at the University of Dundee and not part of the research team, said: “This study is important, as failures in honeybee queen mating is reported to be a growing problem for beekeepers.”

He added: “Although the insecticide levels used in this study are realistic, it is unclear whether both neonicotinoids are commonly consumed together at these levels.

“Therefore, it will be important to investigate the impact of the neonicotinoids separately. Importantly, this study demonstrates the complexity of the possible consequences from chronic exposure to pesticides and these are not assessed during safety testing. Therefore, this study further supports the need to adopt the precautionary principle on neonicotinoids.”

Elon Musk Wants To Kill You All With His Space X Rocket Rides: Space Gives You Heart Disease And Gamma Radiation Cancer

Apollo deep space astronauts five times more likely to die from heart disease

First long-term study into health of Apollo crews shows deep space missions might take their toll, exposing astronauts to blood vessel-damaging radiation
A 1969 crew portrait of Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong, left, Michael Collins, centre, and Buzz Aldrin.
A 1969 crew portrait of Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong, left, Michael Collins, centre, and Buzz Aldrin. Photograph: AP/Nasa

Travelling to the moon, Mars or beyond could dramatically increase an astronaut’s risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, the first research into the long-term health of Apollo spacemen has revealed.

Nasa’s Apollo programme sent nine manned missions and 24 astronauts beyond low Earth orbit during the 1960s and early 1970s, including Apollo 11, which delivered Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon. But it seems such missions might have taken their toll.

A team of researchers looking into the fate of the Apollo astronauts has discovered that their rate of death from cardiovascular disease is four to five times higher than that seen for astronauts of the same era who only flew in low Earth orbits, or who never flew on an orbital mission at all.

That, the researchers say, suggests that venturing beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field could cause long-lasting damage to the cardiovascular system, potentially as a result of exposure to deep space radiation.

The findings come as a number of space agencies and commercial enterprises are looking to venture to the moon and beyond, with Nasa planning to send humans to Mars in the 2030s.

“With all of these plans for going into deep space we have only had this one really small group [of Apollo astronauts] that has actually done it,” said Michael Delp, first author of the study from Florida State University. “Previous to this study nobody had ever looked at their long-term health consequences – really pulling out the Apollo astronauts out of the group of other astronauts.”

Jeff Hoffmann, former Nasa astronaut and director of the Man Vehicle Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed, adding that when it comes to travelling to the moon and beyond, the findings suggest speed might be of the essence.

“We can’t shield against high energy cosmic radiation, not with our current mass-limiting capabilities, but it does re-emphasise the importance of getting to Mars as quickly as possible,” he said. “The less time you spend in deep space the less exposed you are getting to the radiation.”

Writing in the journal Scientific Reports, a team of researchers including scientists from Johnson Space Centre and Nasa Ames Research Centre describe how they compared the causes of death for the seven Apollo astronauts who had died up to that point with those of 35 low Earth orbit astronauts from the same era, and 35 non-flight astronauts.

While the sample size is tiny – a clear limitation to the study – the results reveal that 45% of the Apollo astronauts died from cardiovascular disease, compared to only 9% of non-flight astronauts and 11% of low Earth orbit astronauts.

While no difference was seen when the rate was compared to that of the general population, Delp believes that is most likely because astronauts are very fit and healthy, whereas the members of the public suffer from a wide range of conditions that could increase their risk of cardiovascular disease.

“Part of the reason why this cardiovascular effect has never been uncovered is because you are always looking and comparing [astronauts with] a general population,” he said.

To probe whether deep space radiation might be behind their findings, the researchers exposed mice to conditions that simulated weightlessness as well as the radiation found in deep space.

With previous studies showing that both radiation and weightlessness can, in the short term, damage the blood vessels of the mice, the researchers waited 6-7 months before investigating the effects – a period equivalent to around 20 human years.

The results revealed that while weightlessness did not cause any lasting cardiovascular harm, the radiation did. Mice exposed to radiation were found to have sustained damage to the cells lining their blood vessels – damage that could increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The fact that, by contrast, weightlessness caused no lasting damage makes sense, says Delp. “That corresponds with what we saw with the low Earth orbit [astronauts] – they may have problems immediately when they come back, which we know they do, but they recover.”

Richard Hughson, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, who has studied the effect space travel on the cardiovascular systems of astronauts, described the new research as “fascinating”.

While Hughson notes that the sample size for the Apollo lunar astronauts is very small, he believes the study puts forward a plausible suggestion for why lunar astronauts appear to be succumbing cardiovascular disease at a higher than expected rate.

“I think it is really important that Nasa and the European Space Agency, the Canadian Space Agency, and so on, recognise now that the cardiovascular system should be an important focus, one they look at, when they send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit,” he said.

With only an ultrasound device and a blood-pressure test needed to check for damage to the lining of the blood vessels, Hughson believes astronauts could monitor the effects of the radiation during their time in deep space, while the results also flag the importance of checking up on the cardiovascular health of astronauts once their have returned to Earth. “We just did this within the last month on Tim Peake when he came back from space,” he said.

Hoffman agrees that such check-ups are important. “I go down to Nasa every year for a thorough physical examination and if they know that cardiovascular fitness is important, that is something they can monitor you for every year and hopefully reduce the risk of a premature death from heart problems,” he said.

Delp admits that a deeper look into the medical history of the Apollo astronauts is needed to make sure that the findings are not the result of other factors – including their somewhat eclectic post-mission lifestyles. But, he adds, the new research also raises further conundrums, from the radiation doses needed to damage the cardiovascular system to whether the effects differ between the sexes and whether the problem can be lessened.

“All of these are future questions that really I think are important to address before we start sending humans into deep space again,” he said.