Plum City – (AbelDanger.net). United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Serco’s Mycroft Warrants apparently used to blackmail officials at triaged crime scenes controlled through the Langham Hotel and MI-3* Innholders Livery Company, to his sister Kristine Marcy’s alleged use of the U.S. Marshals Warrant Information Network (USM-007) in the tracking, torture and murder of GCHQ code breaker (spook) Gareth Williams.
Mycroft Warrant = A writ issued by a competent but blackmailed or extorted officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed.
MI-3 = Kristine Marcy + Norman Inkster + Interpol + Intrepid (William Stephenson)
McConnell claims Serco root companies extorted a Mycroft warrant from the then Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) to operate a 19th century telegraph blackmail service out of the Langham Hotel in London and extort pedophile or homosexual guests from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
McConnell claims Marcy and Serco director Maureen Baginski, defrauded the DoJ Asset Forfeiture Fund to procure Mycroft Warrants, Skynet satellite links and Wi-Fi devices used by USM-007 agents to track Williams and dress the body-in-the-bag Pimlico crime scenes.
McConnell believes Marcy and Baginski had Williams murdered because he had hacked the Entrust PKI system used for MI-3 “Mycroft Warrants” by USM-007 agents “Licensed to Kill”.
McConnell invites key word Googlers to read excerpts below and ask why “The List of Sherlock Innholders – The Wrist That Didn’t Bleed” book has a new title at http://www.abeldanger.net/
#1848: Marine Links MI-3 Langham Mycroft War Room to Serco’s Major Twin Towers Bovis Bomb
#1739: Marine Links MI-3 Innholders to Host Marriott Obama Snuff Films, Gareth Williams Clean-Up Crew
Strange meeting – Sherlock – BBC
LICENCE TO KILL HIGH DEFINITION
“Spy Gareth Wyn Williams: 10 unanswered questions about the spy’s mysterious death
Three years since the codebreaker’s body was found decomposing inside a bag, we are no closer to knowing the truth behind his death
The death of MI6 spy Gareth Wyn Williams is a mystery that will probably never be solved.
The top codebreaker – who had been seconded to the secret service from Britain’s listening station GCHQ – was found dead inside a holdall bag at his flat in Pimlico, central London, in 2010.
A string of post-mortem tests failed to determine how he died and police originally found it would have been impossible for him to have locked himself inside.
An inquest ruled that his death was “unnatural and likely to have been criminally mediated.”
However, even the senior officer investigating the case Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt admitted “no evidence has been identified to establish the full circumstances of Gareth’s death beyond all reasonable doubt.”
His family said in a statement they remain “naturally disappointed” with the conclusions of the investigation.
Here MirrorOnline poses ten questions which are still unanswered more than three years after Gareth’s death:
1. Why did MI6 fail to raise the alarm about his disappearance for more than a week?Gareth failed to turn up for work on August 16. Police were not alerted by colleagues until Monday August 23. When turned up to check at his flat they found his body. Gareth’s family have hit out at MI6 claiming they failed to make “basic inquiries concerning Gareth’s welfare”.
2. What was Gareth doing for the intelligence services? The 31-year-old was considered a maths genius – having gained O levels aged ten before graduating from university seven years later. He had been working for GCHQ in Cheltenham since 2001 but had been seconded to MI6 shortly before his death. However, according to his family, Gareth did not enjoy London and was about to be moved back to Cheltenham when he died.
3. How did his body come to be in a bag padlocked from the outside? Despite asserting that Gareth died as a result of an accident – police have been able to satisfactorily explain how he was able to lock himself inside the holdall. Some reports suggested that an escapologist of similar build was able to get in the bag and lock it from the inside, but these have since been dismissed.
4. Why were there no fingerprints around the bath? If Gareth got into the bag voluntarily, it begs the question why no fingerprints were found in the immediate area. Some reports have suggested the scene had been “deep cleaned” to destroy any possible forensic evidence, but police have dismissed this possibility.
5. What is the truth of Gareth’s personal life? The spy’s family and friends had known him to be a cyclist, fitness enthusiast and private individual. But during the investigation, another side of Gareth’s personality emerged which shocked and surprised them. Around £20,000 of women’s clothing and shoes were found in his flat. However, most were left untouched and an inquest found no evidence to suggest he was a cross-dresser. There was also evidence Gareth had visited bondage and festish sites – but again, this was infrequent and a coroner did not consider it significant in his death.
6. Was someone trying to smear Gareth? For a period of time, stories frequently appeared, attributed to unnamed sources, which pushed the theory that Gareth was gay, interested in S&M and may have been murdered by a gay lover. Such assertions were angrily denied by both police and his family – were they prompted by genuine evidence or was it an attempt to cover-up the real story behind his death?
7. Why was one of Gareth’s phones returned to a factory setting before he died? The coroner was particularly concerned by this piece of evidence. When police first entered Gareth’s flat, two iPhones, some sim cards and an Apple notebook were laid out neatly on the table.
8. Why was the heating left on? When officer’s found Gareth’s body, the contorted position of his arms and legs led them to believe they had been chopped up. The heating was also on, which increased the speed of decomposition giving investigators very little clue as to his true cause of death.
9. Why was his front door locked from the outside? This is regarded as further proof that someone else was certainly present when Gareth died.
10. Why did the Met’s Counter Terrorism officers fail to tell the inquest about nine memory sticks found at his SIS office? This led the coroner to conclude that the involvement of SIS colleague’s in Gareth’s death was a legitimate line of enquiry.”
“Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, notice is given that the Department of Justices (DOJ) proposes to modify a United States Marshals Service (USMS) system of records entitled “Warrant Information Network (WIN), USM-007.” Changes have been made to the “Categories of Individuals Covered by the System” to include individuals suspected in a state’s case that has been adopted by a USMS-sponsored task force; individuals for whom the USMS is conducting a criminal investigation or aiding in a criminal investigation by another law enforcement agency; missing persons, including children, for whom the USMS is conducting an investigation or aiding in a criminal investigation by another law enforcement agency; individuals, and their associates, who are the subject of, and who may provide information, assistance or leads in USMS fugitive, criminal, or missing persons investigations. Other changes are made consistent with the new categories of individuals covered, necessary updates are made, and routine uses have been revised to conform with DOJ model routine use language.”
“Daily Mail … How an enemy within betrays Sherlock in tonight’s TV climax: Who is it? The answer is far from elementary
PUBLISHED: 00:53 GMT, 12 January 2014 | UPDATED: 10:23 GMT, 12 January 2014
He is the most formidable and menacing enemy Sherlock Holmes has yet encountered: a manipulative media mogul who knows the secret weakness of every eminent politician in Britain.
The introduction of evil press baron Charles Augustus Magnussen in tonight’s blockbuster BBC1 drama is likely to raise parallels with real life, following years of revelations and debate over the links between newspaper owners and the Government.
But while the legendary detective battles with a blackmailer and extortionist with a mental prowess to match his own, he also faces betrayal from someone he considers an ally.
We will reveal no further details of the plot to avoid spoiling the twists and turns for the ten million viewers expected to tune in at 9pmtonight.
But amateur sleuths are already considering the clues from the two other episodes in this short series, to try to deduce which key character could turn out to be not what they appear.
It may be more than a three-pipe problem…
Possibilities include Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft, a senior official in the British Secret Service, played by series co-writer Mark Gatiss, who has referred to himself as the detective’s ‘arch enemy’.
He often plays down his own influence but Sherlock, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, has been heard to say his brother ‘is’ the British Government.
They share a high intelligence and an arrogant streak, but Mycroft has been seen to show a caring side and demonstrates concern for his brother.
Dr John Watson is Sherlock’s sidekick and best friend, with the detective acting as best man at his wedding to Mary Morstan in last weekend’s episode.
Holmes and Watson share an incredibly close bond, but Watson, played by Martin Freeman, was furious when he discovered Sherlock had faked his own death and left him to grieve for two years.
Other members of Sherlock’s close circle include Detective Inspector Lastrade, the officer played by Rupert Graves, who relies on him for help with many of his cases despite often being infuriated by his behaviour, and Philip Anderson, a forensics expert played by Jonathan Aris, who accused Sherlock of being a conman before becoming an almost obsessive fan of the detective.
MORE CLUES TO LEFT-WING BIAS?
The introduction of an evil capitalist newspaper baron as Sherlock’s nemesis will do nothing to dispel claims the show is peddling a hidden Left-wing agenda.
Last week’s episode featured jibes directed at a ‘dithering, incoherent, and self-interested’ unnamed Mayor of London and his ‘hare-brained schemes’. It prompted Boris Johnson to speak out about ‘a simple case of BBC bias’.
Co-writer Mark Gatiss has spoken of his family’s hatred for the Tories, while his colleague Steven Moffat has been vocal about his Left-wing views. Before the last Election, Moffat railed against the influence of the Right-wing media over politics, adding: ‘I hope the Tories don’t win. Let’s not beat around the bush.’
Or what of Mrs Hudson (Una Stubbs), Sherlock’s landlady at 221B Baker Street, who offers the detective a reduced rent after he ensured the conviction and execution of her ex-husband in Florida? Or Molly Hooper (Louise Brealey), a pathologist with an infatuation for Sherlock which he regularly exploits in order to be able to examine the dead bodies of victims? She was one of the few people who knew that Sherlock had faked his own death.
Fans have already begun speculating on the meaning of the episode’s title His Last Vow, with previous episodes’ titles providing key clues to the forthcoming events.
One thing that can be confirmed is the producers’ plans to continue the drama for a fourth and fifth series.
Co-writer Steven Moffatt has confirmed he and Gatiss had already mapped out their plans for subsequent story lines.
He said: ‘We’ll be back. We have got plans, exciting twists and turns, and I think we’ve got some crackers.’
Filming could begin on the upcoming series as early as this summer, with producers currently trying to arrange schedules to accommodate Cumberbatch and Freeman.
But first Sherlock must defeat the fiendish Magnussen, played by The Killing star Lars Mikkelsen. As the detective says: ‘I’ve dealt with murderers, psychopaths. None of them can turn my stomach like Charles Augustus Magnussen.’”
Royal Warrants are only awarded to tradesmen, such as carpenters, engravers, cabinet makers, dry-cleaners, even chimney sweeps. Some are well-known companies; many are not. The professions, employment agencies, party planners, the media, government departments, and “places of refreshment or entertainment” (such as pubs and theatres) do not qualify.
Some 850 individuals and companies, including a few non-UK companies, hold more than 1,100 warrants to the British Royal Family.
The Royal Warrant signifies there is a satisfactory trade relation in place between the grantor (The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh or the Prince of Wales) and the company. Within the company, there is a nominated person called the grantee. That person is in all respects responsible for all aspects of the Royal Warrant.
It takes at least five years of supplying goods or services to the member of the Royal Family before a company is eligible to have its application considered for recommendation. That application is then presented to the Royal Household and goes to the buyer who makes its recommendation for inclusion. It then goes in front of the Royal Household Warrants Committee, which is chaired by the Lord Chamberlain, which decides whether to accept the recommendation. It then goes to the grantor, who personally signs it. The grantor is empowered to reverse the Committee’s decision, and therefore the final decision to accept or withhold a grant is a very personal one.
Some Royal Warrants have been held for more than a hundred years. Goods need not be for the use of the grantor. For example, cigarettes were only bought for the use of guests of the Royal Family, but these Warrants were cancelled in 1999 as a matter of public policy.
For business, the granting of a Royal Warrant is a huge boost, because royal approval may be displayed in public with the coat of royal arms of the grantor, indicating that their services or products are of high quality.
Most Warrant holders are members of the Royal Warrant Holders Association, which liaises closely with the palace. Its secretary, Richard Peck, is a former submarine commander.”
The Office of the Inspector General, Inspections Division, has completed an inspection of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) fugitive apprehension program.
The objective of the inspection was to assess the USMS fugitive apprehension program and identify potential areas for improvement.
The inspection was conducted at the USMS Headquarters and at six district offices. We visited four of the top six fugitive apprehension USMS district offices – the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), the Southern District of California (San Diego), and the Central District of California (Los Angeles). We also visited two smaller district offices -the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) and the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The six offices we visited were responsible for 31 percent of the fugitive warrants open at the start of FY 1993.
During our field work, we interviewed 81 individuals (some on multiple occasions). Our interviewees included district office personnel as well as officials of the USMS Enforcement Division, the Information Technology Division, the Management and Planning Division, the Program Review Division, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
We met with representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to better understand how fugitive apprehension operations at these agencies relate to USMS fugitive apprehension activities.
We reviewed and analyzed Warrant Information Network (WIN) data,1 biweekly time distribution reports, workload statistics, and numerous related documents to assess USMS performance. We focused exclusively on the USMS’ responsibility regarding Class I felony violations, which are violations of law treated with the highest priority.
The WIN warrant data we reviewed was from the time period April 1, 1993, to March 31, 1994. We obtained basic information on all USMS Class I warrants that were open and on hand as of April 1, 1993; all Class I warrants that were received by the USMS from April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994; and all warrants that were closed during the same time period. We found that there were 19,399 warrants on hand as of April 1, 1993; 18,307 new warrants were received by the USMS during the following 12 months; and 17,779 warrants were closed during that time period.
We did not evaluate the USMS’ efforts to execute misdemeanor and traffic warrants. However, we made general inquiries about them at each district office we visited because they make up a substantial part of the USMS warrant workload. USMS representatives told us they simply do not have the time to pursue these warrants actively. They are typically kept on file after an initial ‘Notice of Arrest’ letter is sent to a subject and, in some locations, they are occasionally used for training purposes for deputies newly assigned to work warrants. USMS officials, both at headquarters and in the field, told us that although these warrants are the administrative responsibility of the USMS, little or no effort is made to apprehend the subjects of these warrants.”
The Global Positioning System helps power everything from in-car satnavs and smart bombs to bank security and flight control, but its founder has warned that it is more vulnerable to sabotage or disruption than ever before – and politicians and security chiefs are ignoring the risk.
Impairment of the system by hostile foreign governments, cyber criminals – or even regular citizens – has become “a matter of national security”, according to Colonel Bradford Parkinson, who is hailed as the architect of modern navigation.
“If we don’t watch out and we aren’t prepared,” then countries could be denied everything from ‘navigation’ to ‘precision weapon delivery’, Mr Parkinson warned.
“We have to make it more robust … our cellphone towers are timed with GPS. If they lose that time, they lose sync and pretty soon they don’t operate. Our power grid is synchronised with GPS [and] our banking system.”
Western governments are “in their infancy in recognising the problem”, Mr Parkinson told the Financial Times in an interview on the fringes of a conference for government officials, academics and defence contractors at the UK’s National Physical Laboratory.
He said: “[In the US] I don’t know anyone that is really in charge of it. The Department of Homeland Security should be [but] … they don’t have any people that understand it very well. They’ve got one person without any budget to speak of.””
“Serco in consortium selected as bidder for CIPHER programme
Date : 12 November 2008
A consortium including Serco and led by Logica has today announced that it is one of two bidders selected by the Defence Cryptosecurity Authority (DCA) for the Assessment Phase of the
CIPHER program me.
The purpose of CIPHER as specified in the Single Statement of User Need is to “provide the capability for a security management infrastructure for all grades of devices necessary to meet the needs of UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and wider government.” It covers the provision of all high grade cryptographic devices for UK MoD to meet the communications confidentiality, availability, interoperability and data integrity needs of the UK MoD for Defence Business and Operations, and will enable the provision of a pan-Government security management infrastructure.
The consortium comprises Logica, QinetiQ, Serco and Ultra Electronics, all of whom bring extensive experience of security within the defence, public sector and commercial markets.
During the initial 26 month phase, the consortium will carry out a comprehensive assessment of the technologies, processes and methodologies to establish how best to deliver the CIPHER programme in the future, while maintaining a vibrant UK market for the manufacture and supply of cryptographic equipment. It will also have the opportunity to bid for the subsequent delivery phase of CIPHER.
Sean Mallon, the CIPHER Programme Manager for the DCA, said: “CIPHER is an ambitious programme that seeks to exploit the skills and experience of the UK sovereign industrial base to deliver Information Assurance Components and their management over the next decade and beyond. I am looking forward to a compelling competition over the next two years that will yield the best solution for defence and wider HMG as a whole.”
Chris Theobald, Managing Director of Serco’s technical and assurance services business, said: “We are very pleased to have been downselected as part of the Logica-led consortium for CIPHER. Serco has a long and successful track record of service delivery in support of UK defence, particularly in high security environments. This experience makes us a key partner in a very strong team that has the breadth of capability to deliver success in every area of the program me.”
Download PDF [PDF, 30 KB] (Please note: this link will open the page in a new browser window)”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891
Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation
274 Total Views 2 Views Today
Please follow and like us: