Regarding banks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCH0_4kdwG0

PS: some insight into how this stuff works…

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rats.htm

16 January 2011. Reports of ex-Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer to hand over
CDs of data to Wikileaks today is intriguing timing. Presumbably Wikileaks will
treat the ostentatious handover and disk with extreme care to avoid being
entrapped by a plea-induced sting and implantation of a hidden trojan or
marker to trace the path of the data from the disk to publication (as possible
with the alleged Manning disk). Open disclosure by a source of a submission to
Wikileaks is rare, and admission by Wikileaks of receiving material from a
source even moreso. An untraceable, unidentifiable-source airgap between
source and publication is a primary Wikileaks security claim—to protect the
source but more importantly to protect Wikileaks from entrapment and trace of
data flow. For this reason WL often denies any link to Bradley Manning or any
other source and in accord with good data security practice carefully reformats
received data to limit likelihood of covert incrimination.

A consequence of DoD forensics on Manning’s computer is that its unique
patterns of disk burning and data distribution provide a signature target for
analyzing data publication by Wikileaks so long as WL has not eliminated or
masked common tracking methods in use by copyright holders and
cybersecurity wizards. The extensive capability of these covert methodologies
are reflected in the Stuxnet worm attack and investigation, much of which
remains classified. And are not likely to be revealed in court or in the media,
instead more crowd-pleasing accounts will be provided as demonstrated in the
New York Times report on Stuxnet today. Nowhere in that report does it explain
how the worm can be backtracked to its source signature. A distinctive feature
of digital signals by satellite, disk or network is that what can be sent can
always be backtracked. Masks, diversions, ploys and cover-ups have unique
signatures which technicians would be foolish to disclose to the policymakers
who condescend to them.

I don’t know John Young, either personally or online - discovered his interviews
and Cryptome.org while researching Wikileaks - I cite his interviews and
Cryptome.org because it seems the most authoritative on WL - moreover, he’s
been doing the same thing for over 14 years, without the need for any MSM
editors or publishing services - he states in one interview that he runs
Cryptome.org for under $100 per month - donations are for DVD archives of
Cryptome.org files, if one wants them on disc and/or does not want to be
monitored by NSA while visiting the cite - he’s very open and informative about
monitoring of the entire internet and offers more insight into how all this stuff
works than virtually anyone else

_______________________________________________________________

here’s what the money is for  

DVDs. By $25 or more generous donation for two DVDs of the Cryptome 14.5-
years archive from June 1996 to November 2010. The archive contains about
58,000 files (~8.9GB) published on Cryptome.org and its related sites along
with the companion site Cartome.org and US Army INSCOM Dossiers of about
25,000 pages. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.
Email a shipping address to cryptome[at]earthlink.net. How to Donate
____________________________________________________________

as stated above, I only just discovered in my research
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

this is the page where John Young has posted emails (Oct. ‘06 - Jan. ‘07)
_______________________________________________________________________

at the very top of the page Young copies the messages that clarify his reason
for breaking off his support for WL - if this is believed to be fake or
manipulative - write here for confirmation Email: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

_____________________________________________________________

7 January 2007

A writes:

Just read the majority of the mailing list conversation and did not understand
your, what I thought, sudden shift in direction. I imagine something that did
not make its way onto the mailing list conversation prompted you to pull your
support and then publish the emails? If so, can you fill us in?

All the messages received were published. My objections had been building,
shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround
occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising
goal—see messages at the tail-end. I called that—along with a delay in
offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible
batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny—a surefire indication of a
scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies.
Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get
published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don’t reveal
themselves in an open forum.

My assignment is one I gave myself: to keep tabs on you, Fearthelies, so you can’t lie your head off and get away with it. So far you’ve failed to prove a single thing you’ve said - not surprising since everything you’ve said is a distortion or a lie. And the fact that you’re touting for this other site or sites is a very good reason to stay right away from them.

‘Money orders, make out to John Young’? No, thanks. And what’s your percentage?

complaints: send to http://cryptome.org/
unedited period -  in particular, NOT in any way vetted, filtered or censored by
MSM rich assets: e.g. NY Times, Guardian, Der Spiegl - the biggest clue in plain
sight - again, call in for your next assignment, O Bishi-san
___________________________________________________________________

Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by
governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression,
privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and
secret governance—open, secret and classified documents—but not limited
to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by
a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order
served will be published here—or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be
published if comical but otherwise ignored.

Email: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Mail: John Young, Cryptome, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024
Checks/Money Orders: Make out to “John Young”
Telephone for messages: 212-873-8700

“well, well, well… who ya gonna call? GHOST BUSTERS!!! time for O Bishi-san to call in
for the next assignment - cover’s blown here… boy o boy, had me goin’ - thought it was just a
Wikilemming - nope, an eager beaver junior spook, who flunked the Provocateur Blogging course.”

Whatever you’re on, it’s high quality shit.

‘Advice noted. We’ll polish up our sheers for cutting fleeces golden.’

Christ! Do people really talk like this?

“Chinese dissidents—a brand name among many—are already reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US.”

Covert funding? China OWNS the US, you moron. Where have you been? Bush and co. flushed Clinton’s trillion dollar surplus down the toilet and borrowed trillions more from China and Japan to run their colonial resource wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If everything else in this diatribe is as accurate as that, I think we can assume it’s crap. As I do.

America is printing money because it’s broke, just the way Germany did after World War I and it led to the collapse of the middle class and the rise of Hitler. America has been cannibalized by the corporatocracy: you know, the kind of bankers mentioned in the disks Elmer gave Wikileaks. The stuff you’re quoting reads like very bad fiction - and that’s pretty much what it is.

...hokem, moonshine and jargon…all your ravings.

___________________________________
well, well, well… who ya gonna call? GHOST BUSTERS!!! time for O Bishi-san to call in
for the next assignment - cover’s blown here… boy o boy, had me goin’ - thought it was just a
Wikilemming - nope, an eager beaver junior spook, who flunked the Provocateur Blogging course.
___________________________________

Now, moving on to something substantive - this is the breaking point for John Young
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

From:
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:26:00 -0500
To:

Even if you think we are CIA stooges, you can’t treat everyone on the
list that way.

“nothing I’ve written, nor cited on Wikileaks supports anything you write about me or attribute to me - again, you erect the ‘straw man’ you choose to target, you spit out ‘red herrings’ like a drunken fisherman, you resort to petty ‘ad hominem’ slurs and you ‘beg the question’ to the point that it forces me to again point out to you, O Bishi-san, it is you who is simply shadow boxing - the real me is nowhere to be found in your argument - incredible in the purest sense of the word!”

Well that’s a load of cobblers, Truthcracker. Anyone who uses the term ‘straw man’ or ‘ad hominem’ has lost my respect. Ditto for ‘begs the question’ and any other hokem, moonshine and jargon you can dredge up to disguise the fact that every single thing I’ve referred to is not only true but is what you said. You made no mention of the fact that A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED and the Swiss banker has handed over the evidence of collusion in that crime by the bank. On the other hand I’m betting you’re perfectly happy to believe that Assange raped two women who came back for more with gusto. One of them took photos of him naked on a bed. Was that for identification later if they put him in a line up or was it just so she could say ‘Yum’ and show her trophy off to her friends? I’m going with the latter, since she boasted to her friends on twitter about her ‘rapes’. Frame up 101.

But now that you’re confronted with a real crime committed by banksters, what do you do? Start squealing about ‘straw men’, yelling for the cops (to arrest Assange, of course, not the bank executives) and putting yourself forward as an honest pilgrim who is on a journey of discovery.

“about all I ever do is pose questions, raise modest doubt about the efficacy of what I see as curious phenomena and cite sources I find to be pertinent to the issue(s) at hand.”

Right. Of course you do. And what are those issues at hand if another humble pilgrim might ask? Apparently you have no problem with tax evasion and fraud, no problem with fake rape charges and a frame up of epic proportions so what exactly is your agenda? It’s what I’ve said it was all along: to damage and discredit Wikileaks and Assange any way you can for reasons only a humble pilgrim on a journey of discovery can know. My bullshit detector has made a reading and it has detected bullshit in truly mountainous quantities in all your ravings.

This will be fun to watch!

Focus on the game players, not only the capital participants.

PS: I encourage everyone interested to look into this John Young interview - John is
the FULL DISCLOSURE guy - no secrets by nobody is his position

in the CNet interview, are links to Cryptome pages where John has posted early
email exchanges between Wikileaks founders - a telling look inside the
organization

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

RE: You don’t believe in the rule of law and you aren’t interested in knowing the truth, that makes you (a) really stupid and (b) really lacking in moral fibre.

wrong again

by identifying the ‘data’ as ‘stolen’, ‘proprietary’ and ‘private property’, I only point to the position that I would expect the bankers and their CIA buddies to take and simply ask: does anyone else see it as curious that they do nothing to stop the public passing of these files? I didn’t propose that’s what they should do or that they had any legal right in taking that position

about all I ever do is pose questions, raise modest doubt about the efficacy of what I see as curious phenomena and cite sources I find to be pertinent to the issue(s) at hand

nothing I’ve written, nor cited on Wikileaks supports anything you write about me or attribute to me - again, you erect the ‘straw man’ you choose to target, you spit out ‘red herrings’ like a drunken fisherman, you resort to petty ‘ad hominem’ slurs and you ‘beg the question’ to the point that it forces me to again point out to you, O Bishi-san, it is you who is simply shadow boxing - the real me is nowhere to be found in your argument - incredible in the purest sense of the word!

“anybody else wondering why this photo-op was not crashed by agents - to confiscate the ‘stolen’ proprietary (i.e. private property) data?”

Really Truthparrot? Well, you say the
‘proprietary’ is stolen but don’t the public have a right to know that they’re being played for fools by rich crooks? Or is that all just so 20th century? Those disks contain proof of real crimes, such as tax evasion and fraud, not trumped up crimes put together by the CIA. I’m assuming you want these particular crooks to be protected and to get away with their crimes? You don’t want the public to know? Am I correct? And if you want to protect the criminals and help them to get away with their crimes, what the hell is wrong with you? As for the plot thickening, the only thing that’s thick around here is your head. You don’t believe in the rule of law and you aren’t interested in knowing the truth, that makes you (a) really stupid and (b) really lacking in moral fibre.

indeed - here it is - JHC, do I have to do all the work for you, O Bishi-san

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/global/18baer.html

with so much media on the scene, whom with ‘need to know’ wouldn’t know?

anybody else wondering why this photo-op was not crashed by agents - to
confiscate the ‘stolen’ proprietary (i.e. private property) data?

the interviews below with John Young seem to point toward a potential answer to
that question

RE: Your obsession with damaging and discrediting Wikileaks is inexplicable

wrong

not obsessed with damaging anything - just encouraging interested followers
to keep their eye on the ball - there appears to be much more going on here
than is seen ‘on stage’

besides, what could this possibly influence - no potential ‘investors’ are reading
this - did they raise the $5 mil initially proposed as a goal? - certainly all
potential investors already know everything in these interviews with John Young
- co-founder of Cryptome.org, leaking secret docs for over 14 years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRUiB_8tTc

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

“RE: Bad move Rudolf Elmer. You should have already passed those disks out. Doing it in public, you just might not get a chance.

Or, the world might be treated to a sensational spectacle… as ‘the plot
thickens…’ - according the John Young - Wikileaks initial webmaster -
(not my words, so please don’t credit me)
...the program is still in its testing stage - seeing how it plays on the global stage…”

More gibberish, Fearnotruth. I saw the banker passing those disks to Assange on the evening news. And there was no sensational spectacle. John Young is the ‘initial webmaster’ for a reason: a falling out being the most logical reason. How do you get imprisoned in a bombshell? And if Wikileaks and Assange weren’t being harassed and threatened at every turn more work could be done and more information released. Assange and his lawyers now have to defend him from extradition to Sweden to face false charges trumped up by the CIA, and that is impeding his activities - just as it was intended to. Your obsession with damaging and discrediting Wikileaks is inexplicable - unless you’re being paid.

i know I am behind the times but I still need to go and check out wikileaks

RE: a genuine epidemic of whistle-blowing !

quoting from another thread: http://tinyurl.com/4v9u2kw

By tropicgirl, January 17 at 5:36 pm

...legitimate [emphasis added] exposure websites and sources for
documents, such as Cryptome, What Really Happened, Information
Clearinghouse, Global Research, and many others, manage to expose
documents and declassified information, in real time, without mainstream
media “filters”.

Cryptome weighs in…

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rip.htm

29 December 2010
Wikileaks Rest in Peace

The original Wikileaks initiative is dead, replaced by a bloated apparatus
promising 260,000 cables at slower than a snail’s pace. At the rate of 20 cables
a day it will take 13,000 days to finish—some 35 years.

Will Wikileaks once again deliver its original promise or stay imprisoned in
bombshells so beloved by the main stream media?

_____________________

Complaints about this citation, please direct to
John Young, Wililieaks initial webmaster

http://cryptome.org/ - Email: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

Now your talking. Forget, at least for now, the hirelings in government. Go after the people calling the shots.

Three cheers for the “whistle blowers” !!!

C´mon folks !
The western world, especially the USA, needs a genuine epidemic of whistle-blowing !

The creation of Wikileaks was genius, it will increase transparency. The lack of transparency has allowed for very real corruption to occur with impunity.

That’s nice…

Why on earth give them warning?

I would rather the Swiss give up Roman Polanski, child rapist.

RE: Bad move Rudolf Elmer. You should have already passed those
disks out. Doing it in public, you just might not get a chance.

Or, the world might be treated to a sensational spectacle… as ‘the plot
thickens…’ - according the John Young - Wikileaks initial webmaster -
(not my words, so please don’t credit me)
...the program is still in its testing stage - seeing how it plays on the global stage…

e.g.  3-part interview

1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lTBJAkNyBk&feature=player_embedded#!
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzHRgJLgSm4&feature=related
3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ve_ez3LL0&feature=related

< yawn >

So?

Did anybody from USB go to JAIL? Did anybody from USB have their assets seized?

Only when they start putting them in JAIL and taking their money away will this make any difference.

Until then, just another bucket of warm spit.

****************

Bad move Rudolf Elmer. You should have already passed those
disks out. Doing it in public, you just might not get a chance. But
hooray, for you initiative. We and the IRS need to see who is
hiding their dough.