The Dogs of Disinformation and CoIntelPro
This evening I was greeted by this news on the Signs page - which is arguably one of the most thouroughly researched and prolific sites on the web:
Signs Under Attack! abovetopsecret.com EXPOSED!!!
Some of you may have noticed that Signs of the Times was down three times today. This was a result of threats by abovetopsecret.com's attorney to our website host. It seems that abovetopsecret.com finally could no longer stand the negative attention they were getting from our exposure of them as a probable CoIntelPro operation, initially in the form of Joe Quinn's article:
which was an analysis of the "catherder" article on abovetopsecret.com which essentially was support for Bush and the Neocon's conspiracy theory about the events of September 11.
After removing this "offending material", we published the letter from abovetopsecret.com's attorney on our forum. Within FIVE minutes, the Signs page was taken down again by the website host. When we called our server to ask "what now," we were informed that abovetopsecret.com's attorney had called again and was claiming that in the five minutes the forum posting was up, he had already received death threats because we had published his name and location! (which, incidentally, is freely available on the web.) We were forced to remove that information also. It seems that abovetopsecret.com's attorney is also well-versed in the tactics of CoIntelPro.
As anyone who is familiar with copyright law knows, our rebuttal of the 'Catherder' article is perfectly legal under standard copyright law. However, abovetopsecret.com, like Bush and the Neocons, make up their own laws and enforce them with intimidation and bogus threats from their 'hired-gun' attorney. As Laura has chronicled on her blog, abovetopsecret.com's urgent demands that we remove this article because it was a violation of their "creative commons" copyright was absurd and simply evidence of their position as an active cointelpro/psy-ops propagator on the internet. It isn't copyrights that abovetopsecret.com is concerned about, it is google bombing and running psy-ops. And now, they have proven it.
This action also is highly suggestive of the idea that the Pentagon issue is a LOT more sensitive than anyone has thus far suspected! Do take note of THAT!
We hope that everyone who reads this will spread this information far and wide because these people are covert Bush supporters, Cyber Nazi Brown Shirts.
So that's what happens when you expose an outfit like Above Top Secret. Com! You get cunning lawyers calling the site's web host and claiming copyright infringement, which could not be further from the truth if one takes the time to read the articles or research copyright infringement laws. That is, if an article is critically examined by another article, it is not appropriating it to 'sell' it's own website or anything else. But this is more thoroughly examined here where the whole saga has been documented from the beginning.
Here is the letter we received from our server people after being notified by about a hundred people via email that the signs of the times site was down:
From: "James" **** To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: FW: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:55:32 -0500
Date forwarded: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:38:12 -0600
Hi, we received the following complaint from your site. Please investigate this and let us know.
From: Jaeschke, Jr., Wayne [mailto:WJaeschke@****.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:35 PM To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement
Our firm represents AboveTopSecret.com LLP ("ATS"). ATS is the owner of numerous copyrighted articles being displayed in an infringing
manner on a website hosted by your company. That website is http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/> http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/.
The infringing articles appear at:
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs … 050909.htm ("the FEMA article")
The original articles appear on the Abovetopsecret.com website at:
The republication of each of these articles is governed by the Creative
Commons 2.5 Deed ("the CC Deed").
The 757 article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:
The FEMA article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:
Pursuant to the CC Deed, these articles, each of which is owned by ATS and is the subject of a registration in the United States Copyright Office 1) may not be published on sites/pages with commercial advertisements; 2) may not be used to make "derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article.
We must therefore request that Velcom.com, as hosts for the Signs-of-the-times.org website, remove these pages from publication.
Moreover, this letter constitutes notice to the operators of Velcom.com that ATS believes that have a right to enforce their copyright under Canadian and U.S. law and reserves the right to take further action in the U.S., Canada, or both without further notice.
As well, this letter is also to serve notice on Velcom.com that the owners of ATS have rescinded all rights to the operators of signs-of-the-times.org under the CC Deed, in view of their continued non-compliance with the terms and conditions of use of original, copyright content appears on the abovetopsecret.com website.
Please contact me at ******* if you have any questions with regard to this matter. Otherwise, we look forward to the prompt and amicable resolution of this matter.
Wayne C. Jaeschke, Jr. Morrison & Foerster LLP
McLean, VA 22102
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
Now folks, come on, how many websites that were just started by an ordinary guy who took on a couple of "ordinary" partners, and is just a hobby and sharing on the internet, are able to afford a copyright attorney in McLean Virginia???
This action also is highly suggestive of the idea that the Pentagon Issue is a LOT more sensitive than anyone has thus far suspected! Do take note of THAT!
I hope that everyone who reads this will spread this information far and wide because these people are EVIL Bush supporters, Cyber Nazi Brown Shirts.
See the blog posts:
COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum -- this post is most pertinent to the current Simon Grey issue.
See also forum threads on abovetopsecret.com and project SERPO:
Our research team is out there digging up info. This is back already:
Did a search on their lawyer, Wayne Jaeschke. Here is the official bio from his law firm's site (www.mofo.com!):
Mr. Jaeschke is a patent attorney in Morrison & Foerster LLP's Intellectual Property group. Wayne has been admitted to practice before the USPTO since 1994 and has substantial experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications in many fields, including: computer software, surface and polymer, electromechanical and optical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Wayne has also successfully handled internet domain name litigation and dispute resolution; copyright infringement litigation, inter partes reexamination, novelty, infringement and validity opinions for all technical disciplines; patent licensing, collaborative research agreements with major U.S. universities, and related intellectual property matters.
Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Allied- Signal's water treatment polymer group where he assisted clients in the areas of papermaking, mining, oil refining, and municipal water treatment. After Allied Signal, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Betz' Laboratories paper chemicals group where he was a process specialist in the field of wet-end paper chemistry, recycled fiber usage and overall papermaking performance enhancement through the use of specialty chemical technology.
Mr. Jaeschke holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the degree of Juris Doctor, cum laude, from the American University's Washington College of Law and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.His law firm, Morrison & Foerster (hence the mofo) has this about the firm. Sounds like a high-powered and expensive one:
Morrison & Foerster maintains one of the largest intellectual property practices in the world, with more than 300 lawyers providing a full range of services, including counseling, prosecution, litigation, dispute resolution and licensing transactions in patent, trademark, and copyright matters.
The firm's practice has been consistently ranked by independent observers as one of the top intellectual property practices in the country. In 2003, the firm was short-listed for the USA Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year Award by Chambers & Partners in London. In Managing IP's latest rankings of the top law firms in this field, Morrison & Foerster was one of only a small number of full-service firms (as opposed to IP boutiques) included in the Top 25 based on volume of U.S. contentious and non-contentious matters.
Morrison & Foerster's IP practice serves clients in a wide range of industries, including biotechnology, medical devices and healthcare; electronics, software, telecommunications, Internet and semiconductors; chemistry, chemical engineering and materials science; and media and entertainment. The firm's attorneys, including partners Tom Ciotti, Kate Murashige and Gladys Monroy, have played a significant role in the creation and protection of many of the landmark patent portfolios in the information technology and life science industries.
And this, regarding the complaint:
"... derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article."
Frozen fish is not technically a derivative work. A derivative use of the original would be if you made a movie using the article as a script, or if you translated the original article into another language. Although this is somewhat of a gray area:
"In short, a derivative work is a whole work based on one or more other whole works"
Criticism is protected under copyright law:
"The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use.""
So, it appears that ATS is claiming that Frozen Fish will supplant demand for the original article.
To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)
Joe Quinn, author of the critique of the abovetopsecret.com article has sent the following:
The "derivative work" claim is BS, pure and simple. I did not "alter, transform, or build upon" the ATS piece, so it is not a derivative work. Commercial use would be if they were some charge for people to access the work - there is none. The use of the ATS piece was criticism, therefore it was not competing with the original work.
Notice that in the lawyer's email, he does not make reference to any law, Why? Because there is no legal infringement. Of course, all of this is academic since the server folks are not in the business of defending their clients, they will bow down to the mighty dollar, or the threat of having to spend some, every time. So psychopathic manipulative tactics win the day, as usual. I think a lawyer joke is in order.
The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
The best we can do is use this episode to further expose the abovetopsecret.com crowd for what they are: the Internet equivalent of the national Enquirer: disinfo, psy-ops and just plain trash.