04.20.20
Gemini version available ♊︎Editorial Note: Do Not Conflate Legitimate Inquiry About Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein With Nutty and Unverified Conspiracy Theories
The FOIA status (series index here)
Summary: More than a month ago they said they would send the 2,851-page report in twelve installments; we’re still waiting
THE IMAGE JUST ADDED above shows stalled progress, dating back to one day before the media started attacking Richard Stallman, trying to associate him with paedophilia in relation to MIT, perhaps because Bill Gates had come under fire for paying millions of dollars to MIT through his longtime friend, Mr. Epstein, who is now dead (taking many stories with him to his graves). It truly seemed (at the time) like a potential distraction strategy; days earlier people were still talking about Epstein and Gates meeting countless times, flying together, and coordinating PR stunts (reputation laundering by fake philanthropy) even after the high-profile conviction; they refuse to say how many times they met, so the number must be rather high if not unknown (losing track of the number).
The lock-down seems to have impeded the FOIA. In a sense, we cannot blame them. Safety first, right? We’d love to do follow-ups, but it seems like the Police Department of Seattle (SPD), which promised installments, isn’t delivering. After more than 7 months we’ve seen not a single page of this report, which is almost 3,000 pages long (2,851 to be precise). We have access to court documents, but it would be essential to see the detailed police reports the case was based on. The affidavit at least.
“The lock-down seems to have impeded the FOIA.”We have meanwhile been in touch with a number of people hoping to ‘break the silence’ from another angle. The people we speak to aren’t weird or anything. They have high professional credentials, but some wish not to be associated (not by personally identifiable means) with the whole inquiry. That’s understandable. They worry about reprisal of some kind. As we noted some days ago, at the moment our biggest problem is a bunch of nutters like QAnon who spread falsehoods and can, by association, discredit legitimate research into this. We don’t pay attention to unverified nonsense. We will, however, present open source intelligence and carefully curated information. There’s a legitimate problem and scandal here, but it isn’t what various “Q” accounts may be claiming. Please disregard them as their sole goal, associates of ours have alleged, is to discredit or distract from actual facts.
We aren’t being “elitist” or anything; we just need to be very careful distinguishing facts from fiction, or verified facts from mere hypotheses/theories. The media that is intimately connected to Gates (at times directly funded by him and previously edited by him) is trying to tell us that Gates has no credible critics and they’re all just conspiracy buffs, citing some new ‘study’. The message they wish to send out there is that if you see some criticism of Gates, then it is likely just a “boy crying wolf!”
“We have meanwhile been in touch with a number of people hoping to ‘break the silence’ from another angle.”Moreover, the goal is to ensure that investigations such as ours never quite reach ‘mainstream’ attention; by means of false association they can dissuade curious journalists. Publishers have various potent means by which to discourage curious and eager investigative journalists.
In the more distant past the media used allusions and insinuations to vaguely accuse the sceptics, suggesting all Gates critics are merely “jealous” or something to that effect, thereby distracting from a long track record of Gates crimes and at times even arrests. The man was never nice and he has long run into troubles with the law. At times he could not get along even with his very own family (some incidents were reported). █
“He [Bill Gates] acted like a spoiled kid, which is what he was.”
–Ed Roberts, Gates’ employer at MITS in the 1970′s (Atlanta Journal-Costitution, 04-27-97)
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA