How to destroy any company or person on Earth
How to destroy any company or person on Earth (as long
as they are criminally corrupt)
By Andre Pierson and Emily Watson
The feature film on Netflix called: “The Corporation”, and hundreds of thousands of University white-papers, drill down on the fact that a corrupt entity will infect all of the parts of itself. A dirty politician, company or organization only gets dirtier and more evil.
Like a tree, though, a large criminal corporation or entity can be easily toppled by simply using the fact that it’s core is rotten and diseased; and by then gently pushing it over. Once off balance, it's own weight will cause it to crush itself. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. An IBM or a Google can be brought down with the same ease as a crooked neighbourhood gardener who is stealing from the neighbours. No matter the size, nor the billions of dollars they flaunt, a handful of well intentioned voters, or FBI agents, can wipe them out. Successful take-downs can receive the thanks of a grateful nation, law enforcement commendations and, sometimes, cash awards.
The only rule is: The target must be corrupt!
This will not work on a 100% ethical, non-political, non-human-rights abusing target.
In the case of a company like Gawker or Google, most Google executives and investors have a cult-like belief that they are “doing the bidding of a higher calling” and that they must “succeed at any cost” (Including murders). Google bosses believe that all who oppose their privacy abuse, spying, voter manipulations, bribery, stock market rigging and psychological warfare are “enemies”. Google uses the exact same culture of denial as Hitler and the SS used to rationalize the mass murders of Jews. Nobody inside Google believes that Google is evil because they are conditioned to think that way using Scientology-like “reinforcement messaging”.
HSBC bank ran money laundering schemes for criminal operations, corrupt politicians and drug cartels. HSBC staff knew they were doing evil but they thought they could get away with it.
Both companies have different corporate conditioning which enable their crimes, but both can fall just as suddenly and as hard as an Enron, a Solyndra or a Bear Sterns.
We are going to teach you how top “Take Down Teams” can wipe out any company and how you can do it too. Not only is it entirely legal for you to wipe out bad guys, but 200 million voters, cops, reporters and researchers will help you do it.
#1- The Streisand Effect
With this tool you will get the bad guys to promote their own destruction. The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.
Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term in 2005 in relation to a holiday resort issuing a takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over use of the resort's name.
How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.
— Mike Masnick, 
The term invoked Barbra Streisand who had unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.
In November 2007, Tunisia blocked access to YouTube and Dailymotion after material was posted of Tunisian political prisoners. Activists and their supporters then started to link the location of then-President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's palace on Google Earth to videos about civil liberties in general. The Economist said this "turned a low-key human-rights story into a fashionable global campaign".
The French intelligence agency DCRI's deletion of the French-language Wikipedia article about the military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute resulted in the article temporarily becoming the most-viewed page on the French Wikipedia.
In April 2007, a group of companies that used Advanced Access Content System (AACS) encryption issued cease-and-desist letters demanding that the system's numerical key be removed from several high-profile websites, including Digg. This led to the key's proliferation across other sites and chat rooms in various formats, with one commentator describing it as having become "the most famous number on the Internet". Within a month, the key had been reprinted on over 280,000 pages, had been printed on T-shirts and tattoos, and had appeared on YouTube in a song played over 45,000 times.
In September 2009, multi-national oil company Trafigura obtained a super-injunction to prevent The Guardian newspaper from reporting on an internal Trafigura investigation into the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump scandal, and also from reporting on even the existence of the injunction. Using parliamentary privilege, Labour MP Paul Farrelly referred to the super-injunction in a parliamentary question, and on October 12, 2009, The Guardian reported that it had been gagged from reporting on the parliamentary question, in violation of the 1689 Bill of Rights. Blogger Richard Wilson correctly identified the blocked question as referring to the Trafigura waste dump scandal, after which The Spectator suggested the same. Not long after, Trafigura began trending on Twitter, helped along by Stephen Fry's retweeting the story to his followers. Twitter users soon tracked down all details of the case, and by October 16, the super-injunction had been lifted and the report published.
In November 2012, Casey Movers, a Boston moving company threatened to sue a woman in Hingham District Court for libel in response to a negative Yelp review. The woman's husband wrote a blog post about the situation, which was then picked up by Techdirt and The Consumerist as well as the Reddit community. By the end of the week, the company was reviewed by the Better Business Bureau, which later revoked its accreditation.
In December 2013, YouTube user ghostlyrich uploaded video proof that his Samsung Galaxy S4 battery had spontaneously caught fire. Samsung had demanded proof before honoring its warranty. Once Samsung learned of the YouTube video, it added additional conditions to its warranty, demanding ghostlyrich delete his YouTube video, promise not to upload similar material, officially absolve the company of all liability, waive his right to bring a lawsuit, and never make the terms of the agreement public. Samsung also demanded that a witness cosign the settlement proposal. When ghostlyrich shared Samsung's settlement proposal online, his original video drew 1.2 million views in one week.
In August 2014, it was reported that a guest house in Hudson, New York, had a policy that "there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH [Union Street Guest House] placed on any Internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event." The policy had been used in an attempt to suppress an unfavourable November 2013 Yelp review. Thousands of negative reviews of the policy were posted to Yelp and other review sites.
In January 2008, The Church of Scientology's unsuccessful attempts to get Internet websites to delete a video of Tom Cruise speaking about Scientology resulted in the creation of Project Chanology.
On December 5, 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added the English Wikipedia article about the 1976 Scorpions album Virgin Killer to a child pornography blacklist, considering the album's cover art "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18". The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site, and the publicity surrounding the censorship resulted in the image being spread across other sites. The IWF was later reported on the BBC News website to have said "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect". This effect was also noted by the IWF in its statement about the removal of the URL from the blacklist.
In June 2012, Argyll and Bute Council banned a nine-year-old primary school pupil from updating her blog, NeverSeconds, with photos of lunchtime meals served in the school's canteen. The blog, which was already popular, started receiving an immense number of views due to the international media furor that followed the ban. Within days, the council reversed its decision under immense public pressure and scrutiny. After the reversal of the ban, the blog became more popular than it was before.
In April 2016, it was revealed that officials at the University of California, Davis, including Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi paid consultants at least $175,000 to scrub the internet of stories about Katehi and the administration's involvement in the UC Davis pepper-spray incident. News of the payments brought the event back into the news, adding to negative press in the wake of revelation about Katehi's involvement on outside boards. On April 27, 2016, University of California President Janet Napolitano removed Katehi from her post and placed her on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into possible violations of university policies. Following the investigation, Katehi resigned on August 9, 2016.
In May 2011, Premier League footballer Ryan Giggs sued Twitter after a user revealed that he was the subject of an anonymous privacy injunction (informally referred to as a "super-injunction") that prevented the publication of details regarding an alleged affair with model and former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. A blogger for the Forbes website observed that the British media, which were banned from breaking the terms of the injunction, had mocked the footballer for not understanding the effect. The Guardian subsequently posted a graph detailing—without naming the player—the number of references to the player's name against time, showing a large spike following the news that the player was seeking legal action.
A similar situation involving super-injunctions in England and Wales have occurred, involving Jeremy Clarkson. Since January 2016 an unnamed celebrity couple have also used an injunction to prevent media in England and Wales reporting events which have been featured in foreign media and on the internet.
In January 2017 New York State police arrested Joseph Talbot on Dec. 29 in Wayne County and charged him with driving while intoxicated. Newspaper owner and editor Ron Holdraker says Talbot bought nearly 1,000 newsstand copies at $1.25 each. The story of his attempt to buy physical copies of the news but it still being posted to the internet made the news. 
The Streisand effect has been observed in relation to the right to be forgotten, as a litigant attempting to remove information from search engines risks the litigation itself being reported as valid, current news.
Stay Tuned For Part Two...
LET'S SUE OBAMA FOR RUINING YOUR LIFE AND AMERICA!
It turns out, On Jan. 21, 2017 Barack Obama can be sued for criminal actions he took to become President for which he benefits after leaving The White House
While it is a bear to sue a sitting President, it is not such a big deal to sue him after he gets booted out of the White House. In our case we knew his staff, had people who witnessed the corruption crimes, found his orders to cause damage to us, some of us were invited to join his crimes but refused, we have the financial tracking to prove he did crimes with the Silicon Valley billionaires (Who are also going to get sued in a RICO case) and mountains of evidence. He has no legal protection for conspiring with Google, Wasserman, Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, etc. BEFORE he became President and for benefiting from his RICO violations after being President.
CONTACT: JUDICIAL WATCH, CAUSE OF ACTION, E&E LEGAL, or THE TEXAS BAR ASSOCIATION for referral to a legal team that you can help fund for this case. Get a group of investors together and you can participate in the jury awards.
The Public v. Obama – and other times the president has been sued
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) listens as President Obama speaks during a ceremony honoring the President's Cup golf teams in the East Room of the White House in Washington June 24, 2014. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
The House Republicans’ efforts to sue the President are chugging along. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has announced his rationale for suing Obama – namely, the changes in employer mandate thanks to Obamacare.
This isn't the first time a president has been sued, both in and out of office. While some suits have been pointless, as Obama thinks Boehner's action is, some of them have had a significant impact in defining the office of president.
Here are some of the previous instances when presidents of the United States have encountered litigation.
Can Speaker Boehner really sue President Obama?
House Speaker John Boehner plans to file a lawsuit against President Obama for what he calls an overreach of power. Jackie Kucinich explains what happens when Congress takes the White House to court. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)
1974: United States v. Nixon
In the latter stages of Watergate, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Richard Nixon to turn over certain tapes and papers. Nixon refused and went to the Supreme Court to argue against handing them over. The judges unanimously ruled against Nixon. This crucial decision rejected Nixon’s claim of “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Fifteen days after the ruling, Nixon resigned. It was a landmark moment in defining the powers of the president.
1997: Jones v. Clinton
A former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton. This was another landmark case, establishing that presidents have no immunity from civil litigation -- and that presidents can be sued for actions unrelated to and before their time in office. Following a four and a half year case, Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Jones, paying her $850,000. Numerous embarrassing allegations were also made public about the president’s sex life.
1984: Phelps v. Reagan
The former head of the Westboro Baptist Church Fred Phelps sued Ronald Reagan for his appointment of a U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, arguing it breached the divide between church and state. Phelps filed the case in the U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kan., where the church was based. The suit was thrown out by Judge Richard Rogers who said Phelps “lacked standing” and ruled that Reagan hadn’t violated the First Amendment.
2000: Bush v. Gore
After the Florida hung in the balance following the 2000 presidential election, the state’s Supreme Court ordered a state wide manual recount. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-1 to stop the recount -- stating it was unconstitutional -- which meant Bush’s 0.5% majority in Florida was held. The ruling essentially named George W. Bush as the 43rd president.
1962: Bailey v. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy was sued during his time in office by Mississippi Senator Hugh Lee Bailey for injuries he sustained in a car accident two years earlier. Although Kennedy wasn't directly involved, Bailey claimed that injuries caused by Kennedy's driver left him unable to ride his donkey. Kennedy settled for $17,500.
2011: Kucinich v. Obama
Boehner isn't the first member of Congress to try to sue Obama. Two years ago, former House member Dennis Kucinich and eight other House members filed a lawsuit against Obama, arguing he'd violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution by taking military action in Libya without consulting Congress. A federal judge shot down the case, stating the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
2013: Saleh v. Bush
Although he's out of office, former president George W. Bush is facing litigation relating to his presidency. He is being sued, along with several members of his administration, by a single Iraqi mother for crimes of aggression against the Iraqi people and for violating the Nuremberg Principles. The Obama administration has tried to protect the defendants by attempting to bring down the case twice, unsuccessfully. Saleh filed her second amended complaint on Jun 8.