opinion and publicly available information, often including home addresses, about people most of whom are or were government officers or employees

boy selling newspaperPUBLICITY ABOUT THIS WEB SITE

This Web site has received newspaper, radio, and magazine publicity in North America. The following have expressed opposition to this Web site: Reader's Digest magazine, New York Daily News newspaper, New York Post newspaper, 1010 WINS radio, New York City's Fox TV channel 5. Off the Hook radio show, produced by 2600 magazine, was somewhat favorable to this Web site.


    1. OtH (Off the Hook) radio show, which 2600 magazine produces, broadcast about this Web site twice:
      1. 25 February 2004
        "an update with specific info on the undercover police officer tracking website"
        The update starts about 29 minutes and 3 seconds into the mp3 sound file containing the show (roughly the middle of the file).
      2. 10 March 2004
        "chastising the Daily News on its lack of investigative journalism"
        The chastisement starts about 52 minutes and 23 seconds into the mp3 sound file containing the show (near the end of the file).

      By the way:

      1. The 25 February 2004 show describes coverage of this Web site by New York City's Fox TV channel 5, which is part of MME (Murdoch Media Empire). For more information about how Fox treats other publishers, read "The Media Equation: When Fox News Is the Story", by David Carr, 7 July 2008, New York Times, which was at URL
      2. NYPD police commissioner Raymond W. Kelly's son, Gregory Kelly, works for WNYW (FOX 5).
      3. The web site URL repeatedly announced back then by OtH is now inactive and unused.
    2. OtH's coverage of this Web site differs from other media coverage in a few ways.
      1. OtH coverage seemed somewhat favorable to this site.
      2. OtH persistently was skeptical. For example, OTH personnel said that certain records are not necessarily true. Other media coverage failed to show skepticism about anything, and clearly showed implicit trust in government sources.
      3. OtH described publicity about this Web site, not only this Web site. No other media source mentioned that there were media sources other than itself. In fact, a 10 March 2004 DN (Daily News) article explicitly lied that it was an exclusive. That DN article wasn't even the first news coverage (much less: an exclusive).
      4. The OtH staff knows much about Web sites.


    Staff writer Celeste Katz and Daily News police bureau chief Michele McPhee wrote about this Web site in a mistake-filled article originally published on 10 March 2004, "Web worm posts cop secrets".

    1. Despite the article's title, no secrets are published at this site. The publisher of this Web site doesn't even have access to "cop secrets". All information in this Web site is easily available to the public. The writers of the newspaper article may not know how to investigate well, and thus may not know that all of the information provided at this Web site was obtained from public sources.
    2. The newspaper article wrongly describes itself as a Daily News "exclusive". The article was not an exclusive and was not even the first media coverage of this Web site. This Web site previously had been described on Fox TV channel 5 news and on 2600's Off the Hook radio show of 25 February 2004. This is an old Web site, and many people have known about it for a long time.
    3. Writers Katz and McPhee falsely write that this Web site is dangerous. Maybe they are confusing this Web site with a poorly managed government agency or with reporters who spread inflammatory falsehoods. Websites are astoundingly, amazingly, incredibly safe. It's hard to think of something that causes less violence than the Web. That's one of the wonderful things about the World Wide Web. This Web site, which has been on the Web for years, has never caused violence. There is no danger.
    4. Katz and Mcphee quote constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams as defending the site's legality by saying that people generally have the right to tell what they know. The constitutional law expert is right.
    5. No one affiliated with this Web site "... asked Internet users to 'please kill [the officer], all other NYPD cops and all of their adult relatives and friends.'" The Daily News is wrong, probably because Katz or McPhee believed the NYPD.
    6. No one affiliated with this Web site was found guilty of harassment. The Daily News's Katz and McPhee are wrong. Katz and McPhee should stop spreading falsehoods.
    7. Katz-McPhee falsely wrote that this Web site has "... photos of undercover detectives". The truth is that there are no photos of undercover detectives at this Web site. There are no photos of any police officers at this Web site, and almost no photos of living people. This Web site is unaware of any Web site which provides photographs of undercover detectives although such Web sites may exist.

      Incidentally, Yahoo! and many other Web sites link to Web sites that have photographs of police officers, some of whom were photographed while doing plainclothes police work. For example, this Web site's home page links to Shadow Information Network, which (on 13 April 2005) provides photographs of NYPD plainclothes police officers on the job. When those officers were photographed, they were not necessarily detectives or doing detective work.

      The DN's (Daily News's) falsehood raises an important issue: whether it is wrong to legally supply photographs of undercover officers (for example, over the Web). Although this Web site does not supply such photographs, we want to discuss the issue anyway. When there is a trial, lawyers for both sides (or the parties themselves if they do not have lawyers) are supposed to investigate, and that normally includes investigating the witnesses, especially witnesses who will testify. Both sides do this if they have competent lawyers. When the lawyer (or the party without a lawyer) asks his investigator to investigate police officers who are witnesses or are likely to testify (remember that this is normal procedure), the lawyer must clearly identify who should be investigated. For example, it helps much to give the name, rank or job title, police unit, home address, and home telephone number of the person to be investigated. A photo helps the investigator a lot. The lawyer gives the investigator whatever information the lawyer has about the person to be investigated. Pre-trial and even intra-trial investigation helps achieve a fair trial because it helps the truth be discovered. We emphasize that both sides thoroughly investigate, and that includes investigating witnesses.

      Furthermore, a lawyer's client might want to sue a police officer; for example, an undercover detective. A good lawyer has an investigator investigate first, and the investigation includes investigating the possible, future defendant. Maybe an undercover officer did something illegal, and the victim wants to sue. Maybe someone wants to sue someone else who happens to be an undercover officer although the lawsuit has nothing to do with the undercover work. Again, a photograph is really useful to the investigator. This is all completely legal.

      Let's imagine that an undercover officer is sued or subpoenaed. Normally, a process-server has to hand him the papers. The process-server appreciates a photograph of the person who is supposed to be handed the papers.

      Therefore, although this Web site does not provide photographs of police officers (for example, undercover detectives), doing so is a valuable, public service because it helps accomplish fair trials.

      By the way, sometimes a lawyer knows the name of the person (to be investigated or handed papers) but not that person's home address. Then, the lawyer provides any address available (for example, an address where the sought person exercises or engages in recreation). Moreover, the more information the investigator gets, the better and the faster the investigation he can do.

      Sometimes, some New York City government officers illegally investigate and surveil, question suspects in an illegal manner, illegally provide secret information (for example, the city government's 2000 release of Patrick Dorismond's juvenile arrest records), or lie on the job (for example, as reported in "Perjury Dividend -- A special report: New York Pays a High Price for Police Lies", New York Times, 5 January 1997, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Page 1; Column 2; Metropolitan Desk). In light of these and related facts (some of which the NYCLU discusses in "Five Years of Civilian Review ....", which was at URL, it is unbecoming for New York City government's management to complain about legal behavior. For example, a city government which sometimes illegally investigates should not complain about a Web site which provides the fruit of legal investigation (for example, photographs), and a city government which often, illegally provides secret information should not complain about a Web site which legally provides publicly available information (for example, photographs taken in a public place).


      1. There is now (10 April 2005) a Brooklyn court case which supposedly involves videotaping of NYPD officers on the morning of 9 February 2005 by three men (affiliated with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement) whose video camera was confiscated, whose film was taken as evidence, who were arrested, and who are now being prosecuted. That case is reported in a 22 February 2005 article entitled "Busted in Brooklyn ...." by Chanel Lee in the Village Voice Web site, and the arraignment (the first court hearing in the case) was reported in an undated, spring 2005 article by Antrim Caskey in the Indymedia Web site. We don't know many, important facts about that case. (By the way, in our opinion, if property is sincerely taken as evidence, it routinely should be returned automatically (without the owner requesting return) when the property is no longer needed as evidence; for example, if the case is dismissed at the prosecution's request. If property purportedly taken as evidence routinely is not returned when no longer needed as evidence, that suggests that really a different kind of taking is occurring.)
      2. If you have photographs of NYPD officers on duty, and you want those photographs available for free download from a Web site, one of the Web sites that might be interested on 12 April 2005 is Free Photographs Network.
      3. Some businesses and organizations (on and off the Web) sell or give away photographs of police officers (for example, on 12 April 2005, Copshots).
    8. Katz and McPhee quote an anonymous person as vaguely claiming that this Web site is "... providing a service to the criminal world, to the criminal element ...." Lying accusations are cheap. No example is given of even one criminal who allegedly got a service from this Web site.

      By the way, the article seems to imply that Katz-McPhee's anonymous source was in the NYPD's intelligence division, then (and now, in April 2005) run by Dave Cohen. The NYPD used to arrest Robert Lederman, an artist and political activist. The NYPD would arrest him, arrest him again, and arrest him some more. It arrested him dozens of times. As far as this Web site's publisher knows, Lederman was never convicted, just persistently arrested and prosecuted. The intelligence division was centrally involved in this scandal, for which no officers or prosecutors were arrested. The Lederman affair preceded Cohen's management of the intelligence division.

      If NYPD intelligence includes counter-terrorism, Hercules, and Nexus, we have names and home addresses of a few, NYPD, intelligence officers elsewhere in this Web site.

    9. This Web site is not the only victim of harassment by New York City's municipal government. There was a female judge, in a criminal court in Manhattan, who ordered that testifying witnesses, including undercover cops, had to identify themselves (for example, tell their names while sitting in the witness chair). NYPD officers complained to the press. A New York City news tabloid (either the News or the Post) harassed the judge (for example, by standing extremely near the judges' courthouse exit, photographing the judge as she left the courthouse, and publishing a photograph of the judge together with a contemptuous article. This Web site's publisher is under the impression that a photographer working for that tabloid followed the judge on the sidewalk for a while. If, while an NYPD cop left a police station on his own time after his shift ended, a person photographed the cop while standing as close to the cop as the tabloid photographer stood to the judge, that person (depending on who he was) probably would be arrested by the NYPD for harassing that cop. However, no one arrested the tabloid photographer or the tabloid business entity which ratified the photographer's conduct afterward (and may have approved of it in advance).

      This problem of illegal, local government conduct is not limited to New York, as William A. Sheehan III knows. Sheehan had at least one appellate case relevant to the DN coverage of us and our Web site: Court of Appeals, Division I, State of Washington, Docket Number 48161-4-I (King County, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. William A. Sheehan III, Appellant and Cross-Respondent). Sheehan wanted the King county government to supply names of deputies sheriff so that he could look up their home addresses, then put their names and home addresses on a Web site. This led to a trial court case which led to the appellate court case cited a sentence or so earlier. Notice that Sheehan was more aggressive than we are. We get information, then put it on the Web. Sheehan demanded that a county sheriff's department give him a list of the full names of all its officers. Some news media organizations (Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Washington bureaus of the AP [Associated Press], and Washington Association of Broadcasters) asked to intervene in the appeal to file a friends of the court document (an amicii brief). Their brief supported Sheehan. In their brief, they asked the appellate court to order the trial court to order King county to give Sheehan the deputies' full names. DN calls us a "Web worm". By that DN logic, the news media organizations (for example, the AP) are Web snakes (by which we mean something sort of like a worm but worse). Knowing Sheehan's purpose, the media organizations wanted the government forced to supply information to Sheehan. The news organizations joined a court case to help Sheeehan win it. The DN, which belongs to the AP (and which is in the same building as the AP: 450 west 33rd Street, Manhattan 10001), did not disclose that our conduct was much more modest than that helped by the AP and other media organizations. We merely had gotten information, then supplied it on the Web. The media organizations had said in court that the government should supply deputies' names to Sheehan in response to his demand. The AP is respected by many people who read or work for the DN. Why didn't the DN disclose that our conduct was much more modest than that helped by the AP and other media organizations? We don't know. We guess that no New York City government employees (for example, no press officer) told DN reporters what the AP and other media organizations had done, so the DN reporters had no way to find out.

    10. The New York City government (for example, the NYPD) seems to oppose investigation of police witnesses by defendants. How and when do defendants properly investigate police witnesses without the kind of information provided in this Web site? It may be necessary to consider dismissing many criminal court cases if it is city government policy to do illegal acts to thwart defendants from the investigations necessary for a fair trial.
    11. Process-servers often request the kinds of information provided in this Web site. If someone wants to sue a police officer or subpoena him (or sue or subpoena any other government officer), the process-server will request the kinds of information provided by this Web site. Is it city government policy to do illegal acts to thwart defendants from suing and subpoena-ing witnesses who are government officers (for example, police officers)?
    12. NYPD commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg resemble Don Quixote, who made a fool of himself as a windmills-attacker, when they attack this harmless, valuable Web site. It is a tragedy that the police commissioner and mayor do not know how to make NYPD cops safer. By implying that this Web site will cause violence to NYPD cops, the police commissioner and mayor demonstrate their ignorance.

      Incidentally, this Web site provides the home addresses of mayor Michael Bloomberg and police commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

    13. Before Michael Bloomberg was mayor, he openly was a liberal Democrat. For example, he contributed money to a Hillary Clinton campaign fund. Then, he wanted to be mayor but he couldn't get his party's endorsement. He temporarily, nominally changed to the Republican party. Conservatives, under Serphin Maltese's leadership, ran the executive committee of the Queens Republican party's county committee. In May 2001, those conservatives, under Serphin Maltese's leadership, arranged Bloomberg's endorsement although Bloomberg was still a de facto liberal Democarat. At about the same time that Bloomberg was endorsed, he paid $25,000.00 to the Queens Republican party's county committee. It is a factual question, for a jury to decide, if Bloomberg's $25,000.00 payment was the purchase price of his approximately simultaneous endorsement. Raymond Kelly was appointed police commissioner by Bloomberg. Did NYPD spokesman Paul J. Browne and commissioner Raymond Kelly have the integrity and courage to talk to tabloid reporters about Bloomberg's seeming bribe (keeping in mind that bribery is a felony)? It is unsurprising that Bloomberg, the Queens Republican leadership, and the NYPD have no use for this public information Web site, which increases transparency of government and makes information available to scholars.
    14. Before 11 September 2001, the NYPD had an unimpressive communications system. For example, officers in one NYPD vehicle could not have a two-way conversation with officers in any other NYPD vehicle. Also, while an NYPD vehicle was moving, NYPD management did not automatically, continuously know where the vehicle was. These communications problems persistently, much reduced the effectiveness of the NYPD in fighting crime. It's hard to brilliantly, efficiently, effectively manage a fleet of vehicles moving in New York City's five counties, and outside of the city as well, if you don't even know where all vehicles are at all times. Furthermore, knowing where all police vehicles are sometimes helps in criminal investigations. For example, there was an incident in Brooklyn on 9 August 1997 which supposedly involved NYPD officers Justin Volpe, Charles Schwarz, Thomas Bruder, Thomas Wiese, and others. Investigation of that matter would have been easier, and probably would have lead to much better understanding of what happened where and when, if the criminal investigators had known where all NYPD vehicles were at all times. After the 11 September 2001 massacres, a consultant to the city government of New York recommended improvements in NYPD vehicular communications, all of which could have been put into effect by Kelly when he had been commissioner before nine eleven if he had been sharp enough to realize the need. Many of the consultant's recommendations had been explicitly made before 11 September 2001. When some people blame NYPD management for a tragically disappointing communications system on 11 September 2001, former police commissioner Raymond W. Kelly (who was police commissioner before 9-11 as well as afterwards) deserves much of the blame. He's not good enough at police management to have gotten an excellent communications system for the NYPD before 11 September 2001.

      President Clinton appointed fellow Democrat Kelly to be the Treasury Department's undersecretary of enforcement. Later, Kelly was Commissioner of U.S. Customs. He was a powerful, high-ranking, law-enforcement executive. For example, he was over the person who supervised the Secret Service. He spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 18 July 2001, about 6 weeks before 9-11. Kelly had access to secret information, and his job included suggesting changes in government policy. When he spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee that day, he did not say that we needed to do more to prevent or cope with terrorist attack. When life and death hung in the balance, he did not understood what needed to be done. When some people blame America's top government executives for not having done more against terrorism before 11 September 2001, he is one of the executives being blamed.

      Everything important idea Kelly said to the judiciary committee (for example, the four ideas he called essentials) could have been said in 1930. Kelly rightly did not say to the committee that he had improved his agency's work by his imaginative, innovative implementation of recently developed technology. Kelly is best at doing things that were done well by government executives in the 1930s: taking orders, giving orders, showing up in person to see what's happening, studying problems without using a computer to mathematically analyze anything, reporting to senators, lying to reporters, etc. His reaction to this Web site fits a pattern. When Al Qaida massacres were about to happen, he warned no one, but when he discovered a harmless Web site that had been lawfully providing useful information for a long time, he ridiculously guessed that it is dangerous. If it is essential to use a computer to mathematically analyze data to expertly estimate what's dangerous and what's harmless, he skips that computer analysis and make a clueless guess instead.

      By the way, Kelly's accusation against this Web site is a Type I error.

      New York City spends billions of dollars a year on its police department and even has more cops than blocks, but that chiefly results in gigantic waste because guessers like Kelly are in charge. It's not Kelly's fault that he's second rate but he is second rate. It is a poor use of time to ask Kelly what he guess-thinks, and it was a big mistake for mayor Bloomberg to have appointed Kelly to be police commissioner.

    15. The News and many other tabloids sometimes get secret information from law enforcement agencies, then publish that information. This Web site was falsely accused of spreading secret information. The News often spreads secret information. Many of its articles are based on secrets disclosed to the News by police departments and other government agencies.
    16. Early in the history of the English-speaking part of North America, people did not eat tomatoes because people believed tomatoes were poisonous. The truth is that tomatoes were healthful, not poisonous. Even people who raised tomatoes (for example, Thomas Jefferson) raised them as ornamental plants only, not as food. A century from now, people will read about commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and mayor Michael R. Bloomberg the way we now read about old-time people who were afraid to eat tomatoes. Kelly and Bloomberg understand the Web about as well as English-speaking North Americans in the 1700s and early 1800s understood the tomato.
    17. "McHell McPhee and Detest Katz are tabloid twits who work for the Daily Lose, 'New York's Home Clown Newspaper'. McPhee and Katz, who jointly once won an award for best investigative sentence, are believed to live in Jackson Heights. The Lose was once convicted of harassing a cop in Queens." This is the kind of garbage that would appear in this Web site if we sank to the level of the Daily News.
    18. Incidentally, Kelly's statement to the senate judiciary committee, which is linked to on this page, includes interesting remarks about Kelly's views on internal affairs in law enforcement in general, not just in his part of Treasury.

      Kelly said that "... internal affairs needs to be staffed by the best and brightest investigators available ... staffed with the best of personnel ...". There are two problems with his statement: it's not really his policy, and it's contradicted by something else he said.

      In the NYPD (which he once ran and now runs again), the best detectives often are not assigned to intenral affairs. Most of the NYPD's best detectives are in homicide (or, these days, maybe in intelligence or counter-terrorism). If an impartial person evaluated every NYPD detective and other employee, he would not conclude that internal affairs is the part of the NYPD which is staffed with the NYPD's best and brightest. It is common for American law enforcement executives to lie that they think that internal affairs is the most important part of the department, that their best employees should work in internal affairs, etc. The truth is that the best executives are usually assigned to manage the entire department, and the best detectives are usually assigned to homicide. Kelly talks the talk (staff internal affairs with the best) but he doesn't walk the walk.

      In his statement to the judiciary committee, he said, "Service in internal affairs ideally should be mandatory, with rotation through internal affairs as part of the promotion track." This mandatory rotation policy, which may have been his real policy when he was in Treasury, is incompatible with his policy of putting the best people in internal affairs. His rotation policy seems to be that everyone has to work in internal affairs at least for a while, and that an employee can't get a promotion unless he has worked in internal affairs. Kelly's ideal, mandatory rotation policy would allow merely average employees, and even poor employees, to work in internal affairs. This is incompatible with the policy of staffing internal affairs with the best and brightest. This Web site suspects that Kelly's actual policy in Treasury was mandatory rotation or something similar, with the best and brightest being rotated out of internal affairs to do work that Kelly considered more important. In any event, there is a contradiction between the "best and brightest" policy (staff internal affairs with the best personnel) and the mandatory rotation policy (force each employee who wants a promotion to work in internal affairs temporarily, then rotate him out). Either internal affairs if for the best and brightest, or it's for everybody (even the mediocre and disappointing).

      By the way, rotation is not necessarily a good idea for internal affairs. An internal affairs investigator has to be willing to antagonize his fellow employees. If an internal affairs investigator expects or hopes to be rotated into a different unit, he may be reluctant to antagonize someone in that unit. Therefore, it is often wise to have internal affairs be a segregated hierarchy, with employees transferring into intenral affairs but not out.

      Kelly talked about internal affairs as if its sole function is to promote integrity and fight corruption. Internal affairs should have other functions, such as fighting brutality, rudeness, and illegality. (There is plenty if illegal conduct which isn't corrupt. For example, an officer's participation in an illegal roadblock might be something for internal affairs to investigate but it wouldn't necessarily involve a lack of integrity.) Based on Kelly's statement to the senate judiciary committee, he has an excessively small view of the function of internal affairs. On the other hand, maybe Kelly meant "everything illegal" when he said "corruption".

      Internal affairs officer should be paid extra, in our opinion.

    19. When New York City's municipal government tries to achieve an urgent goal (for example, destroy this Web site), that government does crimes and other illegal conduct, and tells many, serious lies to the news media and others. This raises a question of how to ethically, legally treat the city when in conflict with it.
    20. No one powerful in city government (for example, the mayor or police commissioner) ever contacted this Web site (for example, to request deletion of NYPD officers). Instead, one day, out of the blue, there began a campaign of hostile, lie-filled publicity. Ordinarily, people who want something ask for it. Maybe mayor Bloomberg felt that there was too much risk involved in courtesy and respect. Maybe he felt certain that a request would be futile.

      The Bloomberg administration's lies about this Web site (some told by Bloomberg himself) are not his only crime-related lies. For example, Bloomberg has repeatedly claimed credit for a decline in crime in New York City. Bloomberg has said, in a variety of ways on more than one occasion, that he drove crime down, and that he deserves to be voted for because of his administration's having caused crime to go down in New York City. As far as this Web site knows, he has never proven that his administration had any effect on crime rates in New York City.

      Since the 1980s, crime has been going down in America. The exact year this trend started depends on exactly how one counts crimes, and which aspects of crimes one is interested in. The U.S. federal Department of Justice, and many other sources of information, have many statistics which make this decline plain. This long-term decline has happened more in New York City than in America in general.

      For the beginning of an introduction to New York City's long-term decline in crime, go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics form entitled Crime - Local Level, Single Agency Trends, Step 1 of 2. Select "New York" and "cities of 1,000,000 or more", then click the "next" button. You will be sent to a new page. Leave the years on that page (1985 and 2002) alone. Don't change them. In the middle of the page, choose all of the variable groups; for example, click "index crime rate". (To choose all of the variable groups, you may need to press your keyboard's control key or shift key.) On the right of the page, click "New York City Police Dept.". Now, click the "get table" button. You will be sent to a new page, on which there is a Bureau of Justice Statistics table entitled "Crime reported by New York City Police Dept, New York". The table's left-most column shows years from 1985 through 2002. The right-most column shows the index offense rate for each year (in which rates are the number of reported offenses per 100,000 population). The oldest year in the table, 1985, is in the Koch administration. This year is the top row of the table. The most recent year of the table, 2002, is the first year of the Bloomberg administration. A high index offense rate means much crime, and a low rate means little crime, per 100,000 population. Notice that, as we read the right-most column from top to bottom, the rate generally goes down. The crime rate in New York City, according to statistics reported by the NYPD to the federal DoJ, has been going down for a long time. The year with the highest index offense rate was 1988 (a rate of 9780.1). The rate for 1989 was lower than the rate for 1988. Koch was mayor in 1988 and 1989. In 1991 and in every year after 1991, the rate was lower than the rate for the year before. Dinkins became mayor in 1990. The unbroken record of decline (decline year after year without interruption) started during the Dinkins administration and continued during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations. This Web site is not aware of any evidence that Bloomberg caused any of the decline.

      As an example of Bloomberg's crime-related bragging, the city government's media officers (for example, Skyler and Browne) issued a press release entitled "From the blue room":

      (release once at URL
      PR- 345-04, dated 13 December 2004. The headlines of the press release include: a "historic" crime reduction for 2004, that overall crime was down 5 per cent from 2003, and that the number of homicides was down.

      2004 was mayor Bloomberg's third year in office. Crime was already extremely low, maybe even historically low for some categories of crime, when Bloomberg was sworn in as mayor. New York City's long-term trend of decline in the index offense rate, discussed above on this Web page, eventually drove crime to a historic low while Bloomberg was mayor. Bloomberg did not make crime in New York start going down or even continue going down. There is no evidence that he, or anyone he supervises, drove crime down.

      Mayor Bloomberg's 5 per cent claim (overall crime was down 5 per cent from 2003 to 2004) is worth thinking about. The press release does not clearly define "overall crime" and the city's press release Web page does not link to the federal government document which the press release refers to. This makes it difficult to verify and evaluate claims made in the city's press release but this Web site shall try. 2004 was Bloomberg's third year as mayor. The comparable number for Dinkins was 7.8 per cent: overall crime in 1991 (Dinkins's second year) was 678,855, and overall crime in 1992 (Dinkins's third year, corresponding to 2004 for Bloomberg) was 626.182. (Overall crime is column 4 ["index offenses total"] of the Bureau of Justice Statistics table referred to above on this Web page.) The Bloomberg administration press release headline claims a 5 per cent reduction in overall crime, and the fine print of the press release admits that it is really 4.6 per cent. The reduction for comparable years of the Dinkins administration was 7.8 per cent. If Bloomberg wants to brag, he should brag that he's more than 60 per cent as good as Dinkins (because Bloomberg's 4.6 is more than 60 per cent of Dinkins's comparable 7.8).

      The Bloomberg press release headline also brags about the low number of homicides. There is an FBI category which this Web site shall call "murder" (BJS category "murder and non-negligent manslaughter", column 6 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics table referred to above on this Web page). Dinkins inherited a huge number of annual murders from the previous mayor. However, in 1991 (Dinkins's second year as mayor) and in every year after 1991 (until Bloomberg's second year as mayor), the number of murders was lower than for the year before. There are no exceptions to the murder-reduction trend that started in 1991, until Bloomberg's second year as mayor. There were 587 murders in 2002 but in 2003 there were either 596 murders (according to the NYPD Daily Blotter, which claimed to rely on NYPD information) or 597 murders (according to the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services table entitled "Index Crimes Reported: 2000 - 2003"). In the Bloomberg headline, he brags that the number of murders in his third year (2004) is under 600. It was under 600 in his first year.

      The mayor's press release is not an attempt to honestly report crime statistics to the public. The release is an attempt to conceal bad statistics and only report good statistics. Rape went up from 2001 (Giuliani's last year) to 2002 (Bloomberg's first year), according to the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services table referred to a few sentences above. Why doesn't the Bloomberg administration press release disclose the increases in murder and rape reported above on this Web page? That press release is unethical because it conceals important information.

      Bloomberg has persistently claimed that he deserves credit for good changes in crime during his administration. By his logic, he deserves blame for bad changes in crime in his administration (for example, the increases in murder and rape mentioned above). By his logic, he should go to people who were raped in 2002, and to those who loved people who were murdered in 2003, and apologize.

      Bloomberg ran for office promising to continue the Giuliani anti-crime heritage. Bloomberg has failed to continue the Dinkins anti-crime heritage. Crime reduction while Dinkins was mayor was much more dramatic than comparable reduction during the Bloomberg administration. The pre-Bloomberg trends started under Dinkins continue (except for the above-discussed trend of fewer murders year after year without exception). What Bloomberg is doing is like someone born on third base claiming he hit a triple.

      The press release has a purported copyright notice ("copyright 2005 ....") on its bottom left. A copyright forbids copying. Therefore, no one should copy the press release. However, everyone knows that the city government, especially the mayor's staff, really hopes that the press release will be widely copied (for example, in mass communications media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows). By the way, although this Web site is not expert in constitutional law of copyrights, a copyright on a government-issued press release may not be enforceable, for public policy reasons that have to do with a well-informed citizenry. This Web site guesses that there is no precedent for enforcing such a municipality-owned copyright. This Web site is under the impression that there was a Massachusetts non-profit organization that owned the copyright to a Massachusetts building code (a systematic statute regulating construction of buildings) but was unable to get the copyright enforced (against a for-profit publisher of law books which openly defied the copyright) by a federal appellate court. If you read the opinions in that case and similar cases, you may agree with this Web site's guess that the New York City government's copyright claim (on a press release for immediate release, which release describes and analyzes publicly available crime statistics) violates federal, constitutional law. Furthermore, the city's purported copyright probably does not apply to those parts of the press release which were copied by the city government (for example, crime statistics copied from a federal government document), and much of the press release was copied by the city government. In summary, the city government wants its "copyrighted" press release widely copied, this Web site guesses that no federal, appellate court would approve enforcing the purported copyright, and the purported copyright does not apply to material which was itself copied by the city government (for example, statistics copied from a federal government document). The motive for the press release is to try to trick people into thinking that the Bloomberg administration is driving down crime in New York City. Not only is the press release's motive deceptive, even the copyright notice is deceptive.

      Putting a copyright notice on a press release is like a man wearing a condom when he wants to impregnate. By the way, to see an uncopyrighted press release, click here.

      By the way, according to our understanding of Leonard Levitt's 18 September 2006 article, "CCRB: Dead Board Walking", in the Web site, statistics describing crime during the Bloomberg administration may be based on NYPD lies. The Mayor's Commission to Combat Police Corruption is a city government agency. The Commission's chairman was former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Pomerantz sought NYPD records following reports by two unions of police officers that NYPD commanders were downgrading crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to create misleading crime statistics. As far as we know, this is a kind of corruption. Kelly refused to release the records, saying it was none of the commission's business. Thus there was a conflict between Pomerzntz and Kelly. In this conflcit, Bloomberg said and did nothing. Pomerantz quit. In conclusion, statisitics describing crime during the Bloomberg adminsitration may be based on NYPD lies. Why didn't Kelly welcome an independent inquiry into the PBA's allegations? Was Kelly afraid that a former, federal prosecutor would discover that the unions' allegations were true? If the allegations are true, someone should investigate to discover that. If someone outside the NYPD investigates the PBA's allegations, that's good because it leaves NYPD personnel free to investigate allegations that outsiders are unable to investigate or are uninterested in. It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that Kelly may have concealed NYPD In any event, Bloomberg claimed credit for the supposed decline in crime shown by NYPD statistics.

      By the way, truthful crime records are needed for many purposes. For example, some kinds of crime respond more to patrol than do other kinds of crime. Excellent crime records may show that part of the city needs more patrol, more patrol at night or on weekends, or more vehicle patrol or foot patrol. Excellent crime records may show that the city needs more detectives, not more patrol. Excellent crime records may show that the city needs more convicted defendants incarcerated and for longer periods of time, not more patrol or more detectives. Excellent crime records may show that the city needs more parole and probation officers, not more patrol or detectives. To the extent that crime records are not truthful, a result is largely ineffective, unnecessarily expensive anti-crime policies.

      Recall the commanders involved in the PBA's allegations. If the allegations re true, should the commanders go to prison? If Kelly refused to give Pomerantz the records he wanted because Kelly was trying to conceal the commanders' criminal downgrading of records, would that refusal be a felony by Kelly (perhaps obstruction of justice)?

      According to paragraph 6 of Leonard Levitt's 8 January 2007 article in, " Police Shooting Incidents: The NYPD's New Math", and according to his 25 December 2006 article in the same Web site, "Not a Reporter Was Stirring ..." NYPD press officer Paul J. Browne claimed that New York had fewer fatal police shootings than L.A., Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Miami in 2006 but Miami police chief John Timoney said Miami had no fatal police shootings in 2006. By the way, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Anyone can trick and mislead by adroitly choosing statistics. Early in this paragraph, there is a link to an article about what Levitt sarcastically calls the NYPD's new math. That article discusses a misleading press release (about fatal, police shootings) which Browne supposedly handed out on 4 January 2007. To get misinformation, go to the NYPD's press office.

    21. NYPD spokesman Paul J. Browne, an important source for the Daily News in this matter, used to be the Daily News's Albany bureau chief. Maybe one reason that the Daily News uncritically passed on so many NYPD lies and serious mistakes is that they came from Browne, a former Daily News executive.
    22. Headquarters

      Commissioner Kelly and press spokesman Browne work in the NYPD headquarters building, which is at 1 Police Plaza. The building is northwest of Murray Bertraum High School in lower Manhattan 10038-1403. That building (which may be, or be near, 1 Avenue of the Finest, New York NY 10038) may be at the southeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue of the Finest. The two photographs are top views of that corner and vicinity.
      bird's eye view #1 of NYPD headquarters

      NYPD headquarters (1 Police Plaza) vicinity, NYC, NY, USA

    23. DN Officers
      1. Zuckerman

        The DN (Daily News) is published by Mortimer Benjamin "Mort" Zuckerman. We provide what seem to be his recent, home addresses in our University of California article, which is in our California pages.

      2. Drasner

        According to ex-URL Fred Drasner is co-publisher of the DN, and CEO of U.S. News and World Report (another Zuckerman publication). Also, Drasner seems to have been a partner with Zuckerman in NEC (New Elmira Company), Zuckerman owning 99 percent and Drasner owning 1 percent. NEC was a Delaware company formed to buy the assets of Elmira Litho, Inc., a New Jersey corporation which printed in Horseheads, Chemung county, New York. The Technical Services Bureau of the Taxpayer Services Division of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance published an advisory opinion issued by the NYS Commissioner of Taxation and Finance in response to Drasner's 13 May 1997 petition 970513E, which opinion is marked "TSB-A-97(18)C Corporation Tax".

        CYNTHIA C. DRASNER, 322 E. 57TH ST, NEW YORK NY10022,(212) 319-1030.

        DRASNER, FRED; 322 E. 57TH ST, NEW YORK, NY. MANHATTAN / NEW YORK block 1349, lot 41, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL COOP UNIT, 322 EAST 57 STREET, crfn 2003000289155, collateral cooperative. He may have owed money to NORSTAR BANK (56 E. 42 STREET, NEW YORK, NY) regarding MANHATTAN file number 91PN12872. Notice that Drasner used his Manhattan home address (east 57th Street).

        DRASNER, FRED (450 WEST 33RD ST, NY, NY 10001) may have owed money to SOCIETE GENERALE, ASCOLLATERAL AGENT[French bank SOCIETE GENERALE, AS COLLATERAL AGENT?] (1221 AVE. OF THE AMERICAS, NY, NY 10020) in 2002 regarding NYC ACRIS document FT_12400 06701324, MANHATTAN, file number 99PN37791. We don't know why he did business with what seems to be a French bank. We don't know if he is connected with France. Notice that Drasner used his DN work address, 450 West 33rd Street, not his home address. By the way, when the DN leased space at that West 33rd Street site, the DN was represented by Robert Selsam of Zuckerman's Boston Properties, according to's article, "Daily News to relocate to 450 West 33rd St. (New York Daily News)", which article was from Real Estate Weekly of 2 November 1994 (and was at URL Zuckerman, Selsam, and Boston Properties seem to have had what may have been the appearance of a conflict of interest. We don't know if there was an actual conflict. There may have been a waiver of rights related to any, possible conflict. Even if there were a conflict, we don't know who might possibly have been harmed by it (maybe DN's minority stockholder, Drasner). Also by the way, deputy mayor Daniel Doctoroff seems to have indirectly, partly owned the building that houses DN (450 West 33rd Street). We guess that journalistic ethics required the DN to disclose to its readers, while Dooctoroff indirectly, partly was the DN's landlord, that a high official in city government indirectly, partly was the DN's landlord. Part of the DN's rent indirectly went to city officer Doctoroff. That duty to disclose was particularly strong in articles about deputy mayor Doctoroff.

        In 2002, Drasner may have owed money to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.(5550 FRIENDSHIP BOULEVARD, CHEVY CHASE MD 20815-7201, US) and NATIONSBANK, N.A. (5550 FRIENDSHIP BOULEVARD, CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815-7201, US) in reference to document FT_13700 06729637, MANHATTAN, file number 99PN41456. Both of those debts, each to a different bank, are shown in acris DOCUMENT FT_1560008855356 of 24 October 2002.

        In 1999, DRASNER, FRED (100 EAST 50TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10022) may have owed money to BANK BOSTON, N.A. (100 FEDERAL STREET, BOSTON, MA 02110) regarding acris document FT_14500 06514245, MANHATTAN, file number 99PN14216. We don't why Drasner (a New Yorker, not a Bostonian, as far as we know) borrowed from Bank Boston. Maybe Bostonian Zuckerman suggested it.

        Drasner may have had debts to other lenders regarding acris MANHATTAN file number 99PN41456.

        Information about Drasner's seeming weekend home is on our DN page.

      3. Goodstein

        The DN's president and CEO is Les Goodstein. According to the New York Post, he was involved in a brouhaha in March 2005 in the DN's Scratch n' Match contest, in which the DN, despite having told many people that they had each won one thousand dollars, refused to pay those people any money. The issue is whether Mortimer Zuckerman and his cronies have honor, not whether their unethical behavior is legal. Not only does Zuckerman's DN often fail to tell the truth in its news articles, the DN failed to pony up money in its stupid Scratch game. Maybe Mr. Lotto (described elsewhere on this page) should warn DN readers not to waste their time on anything run by a Zuckerman business. Incidentally, according to the DN, Goodstein's late mother was Miss Bronx of 1935. He may have lived at:

      4. DN writers

        Some DN writers (and what seem to possibly be their titles [e.g. "staff writer"], ages, addresses, and telephone numbers) are on our DN page, which we link to near the bottom of this page.

    24. Watley Review

      By the way, the 12 April 2005 Watley Review has a satirical article about the DN and the Post, "New York Daily News and New York Post Simultaneously Buy Each Other Out".

    25. By the way, the DN had an editorial against a labor union's work at New York University (namely, the Graduate Student Organizing Committee's efforts to get a labor-management contract in 2005). In that editorial, the DN did not disclose that it is published by someone who is part of NYU management (namely, NYU trustee Mortimer Zuckerman). In our opinion, this non-disclosure violated journalistic ethics. The DN is owned by a man who, because he is an NYU trustee, has a high duty to help NYU. His duty conflicts with the DN's duty to its readers to frankly report and editorialize about the news regardless of the news's effect on NYU. In every DN editorial article about NYU, DN should inform its readers that DN publisher Zuckerman is part of NYU's management (namely, a trustee).
    26. The DN told yet another falsehood on 17 August 2006, when it said in a front-page headline that a murder had been "Solved!". The DN falsely published that the murderer was a teacher who had been arrested in Thailand. The alleged murderer had said that he drugged the victim but the autopsy report said that there were no drugs in the victim. The alleged murderer had said that he picked the victim up at her school but the victim hadn't gone to school that day.

      People often lie to help a spouse or to harm an ex-spouse. The alleged murderer's ex-wife (ex-wife, not wife) said that he was in Alabama with her the day the murder was done in distant Colorado.

      When the alleged murderer talked to reporters in Thailand, he was visibly nervous and stuttering. Why was he visibly nervous and stuttering? Why did he lie to make himself seem guilty? It would be interesting to know how he had been interrogated while a prisoner in Bangkok. Before he was arrested in Bangkok, he had been arrested in a small town in California. Maybe he had been mistreated in California because he had refused to say he was guilty, and maybe that California mistreatment made him decide to quickly say he was guilty in Thailand. We don't know whether he was mistreated while in custody in California or Thailand.

      In our opinion, Zuckerman runs a sensationalistic, frequently inaccurate tabloid. The DN publishes sensationalistic stories (for example, stories about the brutal murder of a little girl). Prosecutors and police supply these stories in volume for free. No one else does. In our opinion, the DN cannot afford to look a gift horse in the mouth. Many of his horses have bad teeth and gums but the DN gets the horses for free.

    27. Center for Judicial Accountability

      In America, there are some problems with judges; for example, it is common to sell judgeships. The Center for Judicial Accountability had a Web page, formerly at URL, entitled "New York Daily News: Paper Trail of Suppression, Protectionism, & Blackballing". According to that Web page, the DN is part of the problem.


      Staff writer Celeeste Katz, with Michele McPhee and Michael Saul, wrote an article originally published on 11 March 2004, entitled "Pol draws bead on cop-info site".
    1. In that article, Katz writes that this Web site may be legal now. This is one of the few, important statements she makes which is true. This Web site is legal.
    2. Writer Katz quotes Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, as saying that this Web site's publisher is clearly protected by the constitution. "We understand why the Police Department doesn't like this information getting out there, but the First Amendment protects [the publisher's] right to disclose that information."
    3. According to her article, House of Representatives member Anthony David Weiner said that he'll introduce legislation banning this Web site. Because Weiner is a liar who does not keep his promises, he still has not introduced such legislation. The article's title says that a politician draws a bead on cop-info sight but so far all Weiner has done is deceitfully promise to draw a bead. Furthermore, such legislation, even if it were introduced, would be unconstitutional and would never become law. The New York Civil Liberties Union is on one side with the American constitution, and Weiner's promise is on the other side.

      According to the newspaper article, the representative said that the Web site could be putting officers' lives at risk. Weiner may be confusing this Web site with a poorly managed government agency. It's hard to think of something safer than the Web. That's one of the wonderful things about the Web. This Web site has never caused violence. Furthermore, informed citizens and scholars, and transparent government, are good, not bad. They should be encouraged, not stifled. In addition, it is sometimes legal to picket a government officer's home (for example, Weiner's). That legal picketing requires knowing the home address.

      According to the newspaper article, representative Weiner's promise to introduce legislation resulted from his reading about this Web site in the Daily News. The News, which describes itself as "New York's hometown newspaper" although it's printed in Jersey City, also describes itself as "New York's picture newspaper". The News is best for people who read poorly, know little English, have a short attention span, and aren't fussy about how much of what they read is true. They need a picture newspaper. The News has about a dozen comic strips. It has an astrology column. Lotto is a simple, gambling game in which people bet on randomly chosen numbers. The News has a column (Mr. Lotto) which regularly advises readers about how to bet on Lotto. Remember that Lotto players bet on random numbers. It's sad that a member of Congress promised to introduce legislation based on what he read in the News.

      Incidentally, Weiner's Forest Hills home address and his $47,000.00 Federal Election Commission fine are covered in our article about him, which is currently on one of the Congress pages.


    Stanley Crouch wrote a column, "Freedom isn't about endangering cops", that was originally published on 11 March 2004.

    1. Crouch falsely wrote that, this Web "... site threatens the lives of undercover police officers and other public servants in New York by printing their names, their photographs, their addresses and even noting down the places where they jog or play games for fun or exercise.". The truth is that his site does not print any photograph of undercover police officers and other public servants in New York. Like Yahoo! and many other Web sites, this site links to Web sites which have photographs. By the way, not only does this Web site not show photos of cops, it has almost no photos of living people. Furthermore, as explained elsewhere on this Web page, Web sites are astoundingly, incredibly, amazingly safe. That's one of the wonderful things about the Web. Certainly, this Web site, which has been part of the Web for years, has never caused violence.
    2. Crouch writes that we can easily imagine what the names, pictures and addresses of undercover officers will result in if they get in the wrong hands at the most dangerous of all times. This Web site does not supply pictures of any undercover officers. Although this Web site does give names and addresses of cops, the Web site does not specify which cops are undercover officers. It is from the Daily News that one learns that some of the officers named at this Web site allegedly are undercover officers. Furthermore, why does Crouch claim that we can "imagine" the harm that will result if the information in this Web site falls into the wrong hands? According to an NYPD source cited in a Celeste Katz article published on 10 March 2004 (and discussed above on this Web page), the information has already come to the criminal world, the criminal element. Is Crouch implying that Katz's NYPD intelligence source is wrong (namely, that this Web site has not yet provided a service to the criminal world, the criminal element)? We thought that Crouch merely read Katz's articles to write his column. Does Crouch have an independent source of information on this subject, and does Crouch's source disagree with Katz's source?
    3. Many Web sites give information (e.g., name, address, employer, occupation) about political contributors. That's a good way to find out who's a cop and where cops live. Why doesn't Crouch criticize those Web sites? Can't he imagine what would happen if information from those Web sites fell into the wrong hands? Where does Crouch think this Web site gets its information?
    4. No one affiliated with this Web site criminally called for the killing of a police officer, his family and friends; or lost a harassment suit. Crouch was wrong again. How did Crouch prepare for writing his column?
    5. The theoretical basis for Crouch's analysis is partly the writings of eighteenth century, Scottish historian and philosopher David Hume. He is often studied by people who try to understand government without first understanding math and science. Hume discusses why people should obey their king. Because the NYPD is New York City's king, we should not be surprised that Crouch considers Hume. Crouch never tells where he got his facts, which may explain why so many of them are wrong. Hume was a philosopher of skepticism. Crouch should be much more skeptical of his factual sources, and he should stop spreading lies.

      Stanley Crouch, who wrote about endangering people, has incidents attributed to him on the Web and elsewhere:

      1. Crouch supposedly put Village Voice critic Harry Allen in a choke hold. As a result, Crouch lost his job at the Voice.
      2. At the First Annual Jazz Awards, Crouch supposedly punched jazz critic Howard Mandel.
      3. Crouch supposedly punched jazz writer Russ Musto.
      4. On about 23 August 2001, Dale Peck, a novelist and critic for The New Republic magazine, panned Crouch's awkwardly written, slow-moving, wordy novel, Don't the Moon Look Lonesome: A Novel in Blues and Swing. For example, Peck wrote, "Dont the Moon Look Lonesome is a terrible novel, badly conceived, badly executed, and put forward in bad faith; reviewing it is like shooting fish in a barrel.". In 2004, while Peck was having lunch in Tartine, a small restaurant in Manhattan's West Village neighborhood, Crouch approached Peck, supposedly slapped him twice, and threatened him, "Dont you ever do that again. If you do youll get much worse.". Crouch supposedly also mumbled something about taking it outside.

        By the way, above on this Web page, we accuse Crouch of being wrong about facts. In Peck's review, he accuses Crouch of being wrong about facts; for example, wrongly thinking that John Brown (who raided the Armory in Harper's Ferry in 1859) was a Southerner.

      5. Crouch supposedly punched Village Voice letters editor Ron Plotkin.
      We don't know if these supposed incidents happened. If Crouch did what he is accused of, he should learn that, as he might put it, freedom isn't about violence. We suspect that Crouch may have confused this harmless Web site with his Web reputation for violence.

      Daily News police bureau chief Michele McPhee wrote about this Web site in an article originally published on 12 March 2004, "Kelly takes aim at police-hate site".

      1. The article's title has a shooting metaphor (namely, "Kelly takes aim at ...."). In the body of the article, McPhee writes that the NYPD wants to shut down this Web site. That article was originally published on 12 March 2004. This Web site, which has been up for years (under a few names), is still up on 23 November 2004. In fact, the Web site continues to grow, adding information about new officers (for example, commissioner Raymond W. Kelly). When Kelly took aim, maybe his hands shook or he used an unloaded gun.

        Twice the DN used violent, gun metaphors in titles of its articles about how government officers treat us: "Pol draws bead on cop-info site" and "Kelly takes aim at police-hate site".

      2. McPhee calls this Web site a police-hate site. Her accusation is an irrelevant lie. What matters is whether democracy and honest government are strengthened by lawfully providing publicly available information about government officers, not whether alleged hate is somehow involved. The Daily News persistently publishes articles about the Web. Does that make the Daily News a Web-hate tabloid?

        The Daily News raises an interesting issue when it calls this site a police-hate site: what kind of tabloid is the Daily News? The News is published by the CEO of a corporation with extensive real estate investments in New York City (America's biggest city) and elsewhere. Why did a real estate expert buy a newspaper?

        Boston Properties (of which Zuckerman is CEO):

        1. Built and owns buildings for government agencies; for example:
          1. Built Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Office Building in the District of Columbia (the District where Zuckerman's U.S. News & World Report is published)
          2. Built New Dominion Technology Park II at 499 Grove Street, Herndon, Fairfax county, Virginia 20170-4732 (county parcel number 0162-02-0184E built by Boston Properties [maybe BP NEW DOMINION TECHNOLOGY, PARK II LLC] for GSA for CIA tenant)
          3. Seems to own Sodexho at CIA Reston (Virginia). According to Web site, the Sodexho Marriott is listed as owned by Boston Properties Inc, 12020, Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, VA 20190-5826.

          Furthermore, Dave Cohen, who used to run spying fro the CIA, is a buddy of Zuckerman, according to Web site. When Zuckerman was being followed, he asked Cohen, who was then at the NYPD, to have the following investigated. In any event, every DN article about the federal government (for example, articles about the federal courts or the CIA) should disclose to readers that the federal government occasionally pays money for construction work to DN publisher Zuckerman's Boston Properties. The DN is not an impartial observer of the federal government. The DN is owned by Zuckerman, an owner of a vendor to the federal government. The DN's owner-publisher Zuckerman gets much money from Boston Properties, which gets much money from the CIA and other parts of the federal government. It seems unlikely that Zuckerman would let the DN publish anything that would cause the CIA (or other federal agencies) to stop buying from Boston Properties.

        2. Has tried to develop government-owned real estate at least once (namely, real estate owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority at Manhattan's Columbus Circle), in the city where the DN is published.
        3. Has occasionally needed government cooperation (for example, building permits and zoning variances) for Boston Properties projects. Boston Properties has had projects in New York City, the District of Columbia, and other places.
        4. Has at least one government agency as a tenant: CIA tenant:
          1. (tenant through through GSA) at 499 Grove Street, Herndon, Fairfax county, Virginia 20170-4732 (county parcel number 0162-02-0184E, owner Boston Properties [BP NEW DOMINION TECHNOLOGY, PARK II LLC], agent Cushman Wakefield)
          2. Sodexho in Reston, as mentioned a few sentences above.

          For reasons of journalistic ethics, every DN article about American foreign relations or national security (especially articles about the CIA) should tell readers that the CIA indirectly pays rent money to DN publisher Zuckerman's Boston Properties (BP NEW DOMINION TECHNOLOGY, PARK II LLC).

        In conclusion, the profitability of Zuckerman's real estate business depends heavily on cooperation from government officials in New York City and elsewhere.

        In our opinion, the DN does favors for local and other government officials.

        The paper is sold for a low price in the morning, and freely given away in passenger railroad stations in the afternoon, as far as we know. A government agency operates, and maybe also owns, the railroad stations.

        Zuckerman has said that he owns newspapers because he is addicted to them. He supposedly has described himself as a media junkie.

        The News's associate publisher (and executive editor, maybe) is Ira Ellenthal. He was a (according to former URL a sales executive at a different publication, not at the News. Ellenthal did his sales management job poorly, so Mortimer Zuckerman demoted and transferred Ellenthal to helping run the News. Disappointing sales work does not disqualify Ellenthal from running the News. Incidentally, Ellenthal may have lived in Connecticut in telephone area code 203.

        When the DN has an article about government, the DN should disclose, in those articles, its conflicts of interest. For example, when the DN has an article quoting New York City government officials (for example, the mayor or the minority leader of the city council) talking about this Web site, the DN should disclose in that day's issue that one of the DN's co-publishers (namely, Zuckerman) runs and largely owns a construction business which occasionally needs and gets valuable cooperation from New York City's government (for example, building permits). For another example, when the DN has an article about the CIA, the DN should disclose in that article that Zuckerman's Boston Properties (and, thus, Zuckerman) gets income from the CIA. Many DN readers, when they read about this Web site or other government-related topics in the DN, may mistakenly think that the DN has nodescribe above, seems to us to violate journalistic ethics.

      3. The article claims that "Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly directed officials yesterday to sue and seek criminal charges against the ....". Did those officials disobey or ignore him? Incidentally, ordinarily, if a police department is thinking of arresting someone, it does not publicly tip him off by arranging for a newspaper article to be published about the future arrest. Normally, it is stupid for a police department to tell the potential arrestee about his pending arrest in advance. Advance notice allows the potential arrestee to destroy evidence, invent excuses, concoct alibis, and otherwise prevent successful prosecution. Furthermore, fomenting public hostility may make it impossible for the potential arrestee to get a fair trial in that jurisdiction, which may require that the case be prosecuted elsewhere, which may be expensive and inconvenient for police and prosecutors. Why did the NYPD announce to reporters that it was pursuing criminal charges?

        When a potential plaintiff (for example, a city government's police department) considers starting a lawsuit, it usually confers with a lawyer. If he takes the case, he usually advises the client not to talk about the case with others. The lawyer usually explains that statements to the press may harm the plaintiff's ability to win the case. The lawyer usually advises the client to refer all reporters to the lawyer, who knows how to answer reporters in a way that will help the plaintiff in court, not destroy the plaintiff's case. It is odd, if there is a sincere intention to start a civil suit, for a potential plaintiff to talk to reporters about it. Why did the NYPD talk to reporters about a potential civil case?

        The police commissioner's behavior, as reported in the article, suggests that he really was trying to (tortiously and criminally) intimidate people and businesses into avoiding contact with this Web site and its publisher, not that the commissioner sincerely expected criminal prosecution or civil litigation. If he sincerely expected criminal prosecution or civil litigation, he would have kept his mouth shut until after an arrest, and let lawyers do the talking.

      4. McPhee writes "The NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau and ... are pursuing criminal charges ...." She is almost certainly wrong. Almost certainly, IA (internal affairs) had nothing to do with this matter. Maybe McPhee faithfully reported what her NYPD sources told her. Maybe McPhee wrote a reference to the intelligence unit in her notes (for example, "int.") but mis-read her notes to mean internal affairs (which also starts with "int"). The intelligence unit sometimes does the NYPD's dirty work: denouncing, surveilling, and even arresting innocent people when told to do so by NYPD management.

        If IA were somehow involved in this matter (which is extremely unlikely), IA might be investigating the extensive misconduct and crime by commissioner Kelly and other New York Police Department officers against this Web site and its publisher.

      5. How often does McPhee seek corroboration for what the NYPD tells her? Does McPhee understand judicial rulings, the Internet, or the Web? Why doesn't she write about things she knows more about, like mitochondrial DNA or string theory? No judge has ever ruled that anyone affiliated with this Web site alarmed anyone (neither a cop nor anyone else, neither by Internet nor by any other means).
      6. McPhee writes, "Kelly also asked the computer unit to browse police-related Web sites and expunge any personal information on NYPD cops, Browne said.". Kelly's request is illegal and, if the NYPD were properly managed, he would have been punihsed for it. Police have no right to expunge anything from Web sites. The commissioner's alleged request is a crime.

        According to the article, "personal" information on NYPD cops will not be expunged from all Web sites, merely those that are police-related. How does the NYPD computer unit distinguish police-related Web sites from other Web sites?

    7. 1010 WINS, 12 MARCH 2004

      New York City radio station 1010 WINS wrote about this Web site in a mistake-filled article at former URL, "Kelly Aims to Shut Down 'Anti-cop' Website", that was originally published on the 1010 Web site (and broadcast by its radio facilities?) on 12 March 2004. Under the article, there is a statement that the Associated Press contributed to the article. At the top of the Web page, there originally were logos of 1010 WINS and the New York Post (a New York City tabloid which competes much with the Daily News). On 11 August 2004: the New York Post logo was gone. An "Infinity Radio" logo is under the Web page's Infinity Broadcasting copyright notice. Infinity Broadcasting, which has over 185 radio stations, is part of Viacom, which is largely owned by National Amusements. 1010 WINS is one of America's highest-billing radio stations.
      1. The 1010 WINS article has many of the same, important falsehoods as the Katz-McPhee Daily News article of 10 March 2004 and the Reader's Digest article of 2005, which are thoroughly refuted elsewhere on this Web page. For example, as explained above (in discussion of the Daily News article) and below (in discussion of the Reader's Digest article), this Web site is not dangerous. Furthermore, no one affiliated with this Web site criminally advocated the killing of police and their relatives.
      2. No judge ruled on any Web page of this Web site, or on any Web page of anyone affiliated with this Web site. No Web page of this Web site, and no Web page of anyone affiliated with this Web site, was the subject of a court case or court decision. 1010 is wrong.
      3. The title of the 1010 article contains the term Anti-cop in single quotation marks, as if the author of the article is quoting someone. If the author is quoting someone, we can only guess whom (maybe Kelly, whose name is in the same title as the quoted term "'anti-cop'"). In any event, this Web site lawfully provides opinion, analysis, and publicly available information about a wide variety of government officers, some of whom are police officers. This is good for democracy, scholarly research, and for transparency of government. This Web site favors letting NYPD cops live in New Jersey if they want to, a right they do not now have. This Web site is pro-people and pro-cop, not "anti-cop". By the way, and as a very minor criticism, the term Anti-cop should have been surrounded by double quotes, not single quotes ("Anti-cop" is right, 'Anti-cop' is comprehensible but wrong). Single quotation marks are for a quotation within a quotation; for example, "John said, 'Come here.' to Bill.".
      4. 1010 WINS's article seems to rely on statements by New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly. Why does the article contain important errors?
      5. CBS, Viacom, National Amusements

        The Internet domain,, is owned by CBS Broadcasting Inc. (which in early 2004 was owned by Viacom, which in early 2004 was largely owned by National Amusements). CBS Broadcasting has headquarters in Manhattan, New York City. CBS Broadcasting also owns New York City television station WCBS 2, also known as CBS 2 (which seems to belong to the Associated Press). Some of the reporters, anchors, and related staff who work for WCBS 2 are listed on our CBS page, which we link to on the bottom of this page.

        In 1984, Illinois's Eldorado Daily Journal managing editor Bob Ellis had the Journal publish an April Fool's announcement about a contest to save daylight. Contestants would bring the daylight they had saved to the Journal's office in any containers they wished. Only pure daylight would be saved. Mixing moonlight with daylight would disqualify the contestant. The contestant with the most daylight would get a prize. All entries would be donated to less fortunate nations that do not observe Daylight Savings Time. The Journal wrote that it seemed appropriate to coordinate the announcement with Sunday, April 1, All Fools' Day. Despite the ludicrousness of the announcement and its explicit reference to April first, CBS took the announcement seriously, according to and Just as CBS believed the Journal's ludicrous announcement of a daylight saving contest, CBS believed the New York City government's ludicrous announcement about this Web site.

        CBS has published false statements other than the 1010wins item referred to above on this Web page. A few examples follow.

        1. According to a 30 August 2006 Reuters article entitled "Couric sheds 20 pounds in doctored publicity photo": a photograph taken at a network event in May 2006, showing Katie Couric standing on stage smiling in a pin-stripped suit, was digitally altered by CBS to give the incoming CBS News anchor a trimmer waistline, darker clothing, and even a thinner face.

          Katherine A. Couric (University of Virginia, College of Arts and Sciences, 1979 grad); former host of NBC's "Today" show, may be:

          COURIC, KATHERINE A.; 1155 PARK AVE; NEW YORK NY 10128-1209 US; on the east side of Park Avenue, south of 92nd Street.

          Some people who may recently have lived near Couric are

          1. court officer (attorney at law) Michael A. BRIZEL, who is an officer of RDA (Reader's Digest Association).
            MICHAEL A. BRIZEL, age 48, 1215 MUSEUM MILE (which is part of 5th Avenue in Manhattan), NEW YORK NY 10029-5209, (212) 427-2959.
          2. DN (Daily News) staff writer Celeste Katz, who may possibly be CELESTE N. KATZ, born in October 1973, 119 E. 89TH ST. (on the north side of 89th, between Park and Lexington Avenues), NEW YORK NY 10128-1577, phone (212).
          3. John Sykes; Infinity Broadcastin, Viacom, Inc; Wesley Clark $2,000; 1185 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.78168, -73.95652.
          4. William Moran; Executive, JP Morgan Chase; John Edwards $1,000; 1185 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.78168, -73.95652.
          5. Henry S Schleiff; Chairman & CEO, Court TV; John Kerry $1,000; 1112 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.78074, -73.95739.
          6. Thomas Richardson; Consultant, City of New York; 1112 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.78074, -73.95739.
          7. Jane L Parshall; Teacher, NYC Dept. of Ed.; 1130 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.78062, -73.95772.
          8. Rosalyn Anderson; Development, Metropolitan Museum Of Art; John Kerry $2,000; 1088 Park Ave, New York, NY 10128; 40.7819, -73.95608.

          Couric's real estate: MANHATTAN / NEW YORK block 1520, lot 4, 1153 PARK AVENUE, (apartment?) 25.

          She may have owed to

          3. By the way, we guess it's a coincidence that someone affiliated with Chase bank may recently have lived in her building: Jonathan Weiss; managing director, JPMorganChase; DNC $4,000; 1155 Park Ave 4th, New York, NY 10128; 40.78144, -73.95711.

        2. In 2004, CBS's Dan Rather published false statements and failed to disclose important information about alleged documents concerning president George W. Bush's Air National Guard service.
        3. On 11 September 2001, Dan Rather wrongly reported a car-bomb explosion at the State Department in the District of Columbia.
        4. On 11 September 2001, New York City's WCBS-TV's Marcia Kramer (who earlier had been City Hall bureau chief at the New York Daily News newspaper) seems to have reported a non-existent truck-bomb arrest by the FBI under the Hudson River's George Washington Bridge, which report was repeated by Dan Rather. There seems to have been a related New Jersey Meadowlands false story broadcast by WCBS-TV.
        5. On 27 March 1991 during a CBS News broadcast, Dan Rather wrongly said, "A startling number of American children are in danger of starving" because "one out of eight American children is going hungry tonight."

        Some recent CBS executives, reporters, and other people are listed on our CBS Viacom page, which we link to on the bottom of this page.

        In early 2004, CBS was part of Viacom (which after 2005 we often call "old Viacom"), much of which was (in early 2004) owned by National Amusements. For a list of old Viacom directors in the year 2000, click here. Notice that three people surnamed "Redstone" (Brent, Shari, and Sumner) were on old Viacom's board of directors. Sometimes, if corporate nepotism occurs, it may result from improper causes (although that does not necessarily mean that anything improper happened at Viacom). Some directors, officers, and executives currently or recently affiliated with Viacom (old or New) are listed on our Viacom CBS page, which we link to on the bottom of this page.

        By 1 January 2006, Viacom had split into two corporations: CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS) and New Viacom Inc. (NYSE VIA.B). We often call the predecessor corporation "old Viacom" or "former Viacom". On 4 May 2006, Sumner M. Redstone was chairman of the board of both corporations, CBS and New Viacom. According to Nikki Finke's 23 August 2006 article in the The Huffington Report, "... the octogenarian [Sumner Redstone] was seen wandering dazed and confused into the kitchen of The Grill in Beverly Hills not long ago." (not long before 23 August 2006).

      6. AP Associated Press

        August 2004

        According to 1010 WINS, "The Associated Press contributed to this [1010 WINS] report." AP (Associated Press) is a cooperative organization with headquarters in Manhattan, New York, USA. The names and possible home addresses of some recent AP leaders, executives, and writers are on our AP page, which we link to on the bottom of this page.

        The NYPD's hoax against this Web site (spread by AP according to the 1010 WINS Web site, which hoax is exposed and refuted on this Web page) is not the only hoax spread by the AP. For example, the AP spread a hoax in early August 2004 that Benjamin Vanderford had been beheaded by terrorists in Iraq.

        22 August 2004
        The falsehoods that the NYPD told reporters about this Web site are not the only falsehoods that reporters have spread. It is common for government officers to illegally misinform to reporters, hoping that reporters will spread the misinformation. It is also common for government officers to illegally tell government secrets to reporters, hoping that reporters will spread the secrets. These two practices (telling misinformation and telling secrets) are sometimes related, because government officers sometimes selectively tell secrets to misinform those who are told. AP reporters, and other reporters, sometimes illegally encourage and help this illegal behavior (for example, by promising to keep secret the names of the government officers who break the law by telling misinformation and government secrets). Sometimes, reporters illegally refuse to testify in court about which government officers told the misinformation or secrets. AP writer H. Josef Hebert is an example of a reporter who illegally refuses to testify about his confidential sources. On 18 August 2004, he was held in contempt of court and fined by federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of U.S. district court in the District of Columbia. It is extremely unlikely that law enforcement agencies will prosecute Hebert or the AP for spreading government secrets. The AP has not fired Hebert for his persistent, illegal refusal to testify. According to Hebert's lawyer, Hebert will appeal. As of 20 August 2004, it looks as if Hebert's appeal will fail. Hebert has worked for AP for 34 years. Wen Ho Lee is the victim of Hebert's illegal refusal to reveal his confidential sources. Brian Sun, who is the lawyer representing Lee, seems to be Brian A. Sun, a Los Angeles area lawyer specializing in litigation. As of 3 June 2006, victim Lee's court case (against AP reporter Herbert and others) has been settled. Herbert and the other defendants abandoned their appeal, and 1.6 million dollars will be paid to Lee. The defendants (and those who pay lawyers to litigate for the defendants) have enough money to continue their appeal. In our opinion, the defendants abandoned their appeal because they expected to lose in the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, we think that Herbert and the other defendants came to the same conclusion we did in 2004: "As of 20 August 2004, it looks [to us, this web site] as if Hebert's appeal will fail."

        Not everyone is happy that victim Lee will be paid. People who illegally get secret information from the government, and people who spread government-issued misinformation, may be displeased by what happened to Herbert. Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (an organization which helps reporters rather than their victims), was "... very troubled by the results [of Lee's case] ....".

        Associated Press employees are not the only ones who refuse to testify in court. For example, Matthew Cooper (a 42-year-old reporter employed by Associated Press member Time magazine to cover the White House) refused to testify to a federal grand jury. According to our understanding of federal law, there is no First Amendment privilege that allows reporters to conceal information from a federal, criminal inquiry. Accordingly, in October 2004, federal judge Thomas F. Hogan found Cooper in contempt of court and ordered that he be jailed. Time and its employee, Cooper, appealed. Time paid for Cooper's appeal. The federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit (more properly, the three judges of that appellate court assigned to decide that case), on 15 February 2005, unanimously upheld judge Hogan's decision (in other words, the three-judge panel of the appellate court unanimously said that the lower court had correctly decided the case). Among the losers were AP member Time and its employee, Cooper. The losers in that appeal then asked the full court of appeals (in other words, all of its judges) to review the decision made by the three-judge panel. The court of appeals refused to do so. Time later (mid-February 2005) talked about an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 20 February 2005, we predicted that, if Time and Cooper appealed to that court, either the court would refuse to consider the appeal or the court would decide against them.

        Time and its reporter Matthew Cooper meritlessly appealed to the Supreme Court. On 27 June 2005, the Supreme Court announced its refusal to consider that appeal, which refusal had been predicted by this Web site on 20 February 2005.

        Valerie Plame, and other CIA employees who used the same cover corporation she used, are some of the victims of Time and its reporter, Cooper. Time magazine is part of Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX).

            Some recent TWX executives, leaders, and directors (and addresses at which they may possibly have lived) are listed on our TWX pages, to which we link on the bottom of this page..

        Incidentally, publishers and reporters sometimes claim that the information they get is so important that society benefits by never forcing the reporter to disclose his sources, and that, therefore, the reporter's refusal to testify should be made legal where it is not already legal. For example, a government employee might be afraid to help society by disclosing secret information to a reporter, unless the employee is confident that no one will force the reporter to disclose the government employee's name. However, even if we assume that this claim overrides all other considerations, the Cooper case is profoundly different. In the Cooper case, the government employees were not telling information to a reporter to try to help society (in our opinion). The employees were trying to criminally retaliate against Plame's husband for his legal conduct about a week earlier. Society was not helped by disclosing the information about Plame to reporters, and there was never any sincere belief by the government employees that society would be helped. The information about Plame was disclosed to reporters solely to illegally punish her husband for his earlier, lawful statement.

        According to a Web site news article, Time said on 30 June 2005, that it would provide Matthew Cooper's notes to the federal grand jury. The grand jury needs to learn enough to be able to decide whom to indict and for what crimes. Someone, possibly Time, said (according to that news article) that there is now "no justification" for Cooper to testify (perhaps on the theory that he knows nothing except what his notes say, and that the grand jury can fully understand his notes without any explanation from him). Luckily for Cooper, Cooper's source released Cooper from his "duty" to not tell anyone who the source is, so Cooper stopped contemptuously refusing to testify, so Cooper was no longer held in contempt; although another, contemptuous reporter was rightly held in contempt and jailed on 6 July 2005.

        By the way, another Time reporter may be involved in the Cooper-Rove CIA leaks scandal. RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL wrote a New York Times article published 2 December 2005, entitled "In C.I.A. Leak, More Talks With Journalists". (Doctor is to physician as reporter is to journalist.) According to that article, Time's reporter Viveca Novak (not related to the famous, American reporter Robert David Sanders "Bob" Novak) is also involved in the scandal. According to that article, "People involved in the case said that at a minimum Ms. Novak communicated to [Novak's friend] Mr. Luskin that [presidential adviser] Mr. Rove might face legal problems because of potential testimony from [Time reporter] Mr. Cooper, her colleague. They said Ms. Novak had told Mr. Luskin that Mr. Cooper might have been in contact with Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson [also known as Valerie Plame] in the days before her identity became public." While drinking with her long-time friend Robert D. Luskin, she seems to have discussed Rove's possible problems in the grand jury investigation (according to a 9 December 2005 article in the Washington Post, "Time Reporter Testifies in Leak Case [subtitle:] Rove Lawyer Was Deposed Last Week by Special Prosecutor", Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei, page A08). Luskin was Karl Rove's lawyer. As a result of what reporter Viveca Novak told lawyer Luskin about adviser Rove, Rove supposedly may have changed his testimony to the CIA leaks grand jury. We don't know how Novak discovered the information which she gave to Luskin. For example, we don't know if Cooper told her. It seems conceivable that Cooper or Novak, or both of them, violated the supposed reporter's ethics announced by the Associated Press, Time, and Cooper. An article about Viveca Novak's account of this matter is "Reporter Recounts Talk About C.I.A. Leak" by DAVID JOHNSTON, published 12 December 2005 in the Washington section of the New York Times. In any event, reporter Viveca Novak may be VIVECA J. NOVAK, born July 1956, 5230 DUVALL Drive (west of Massachusetts Avenue, southeast of Westmoreland Hills Recreation Center), BETHESDA, Montgomery county, MD 20816-1876, (301) 263-0355. That property (district 07, account number 00545883) is a one-family house she and Robert D. Lenhard own (as of 10 December 2005). According to information once at URL, someone named "Robert D. Lenhard" is a Democrat, a former labor lawyer, and a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.

        Another example (of illegal refusal to testify by an Associated Press member's employee) is provided by James "Jim" Taricani, who is part of the I-Team of WJAR-TV (channel 10, in Providence, Rhode Island, America), which is owned by IBS (Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.). Federal judge Ernest Torres correctly held Taricani in criminal contempt and sentenced him to jail. There was no punishment for the rest of Traficani's group (the I-Team), channel 10, or IBS. The punishment was almost literally a slap on the wrist: Taricani had to stay home while wearing an electronic bracelet. He did his jail time at home. As is common among Associated Press criminals, he lied that his behavior was legal and protected by the First Amendment. There is such a thing as truth. The truth is that Taricani's refusal to testify was illegal and unprotected by the First Amendment. The AP encourages reporters' illegally refusing to disclose sources, and has not expelled channel 10 or IBS.


      Reporters Murray Weiss and Al Guart wrote about this web site in an article originally published on page 30 of their tabloid on 12 March 2004, "NYPD to sue ID Web sicko", which has an online summary.

      1. The NYPD is supposed to fight crime, not legal Web sites. However, the NYPD, by criminally lying about this harmless Web site and its publisher to privately owned companies, has occasionally gotten this Web site temporarily shut down. That NYPD misconduct is referred to at the end of the Post's summary.

        The Post summary does not name the NYPD employees who criminally got this thoroughly lawful, harmless Web site temporarily shut down. (By the way, we are beside and betwixt ourselves about whether to name the NYPD employees who criminally got this thoroughly lawful, harmless Web site temporarily shut down.)

      2. For free, the Post provides only a summary of its article, not the full article. The full article has new falsehoods plus some of the same falsehoods as are in the Daily News articles and column refuted above. For example, the Weiss-Guart article claims that someone affiliated with this Web site "... was found guilty of harassing one officer he'd threatened on the Web in 1999." No one affiliated with this Web site threatened an officer on the Web in 1999, and no one affiliated with this Web site was found guilty of harassing an officer. The Post's Weiss and Guart spread falsehoods about us.
      3. Secrets

        The Post and many other tabloids sometimes get secret information from law enforcement agencies, then publish that information. This Web site was falsely accused of spreading secret information. The Post sometimes spreads secret information; for example, in the "Cop Gets Hook - Found in 'Brothel' Raid" article by Murray Weiss and Jennifer Fermino, on page 23 of the 20 May 2004 issue. That article has much secret information (not necessarily true but obviously secret) about an NYPD officer. The NYPD criminally gave the secret information to the Post through what the Post article describes as cops and sources. One of the article's co-authors, Murray Weiss, usually works in NYPD headquarters, not in a Post building, so he may be the person who received the criminally transferred information on behalf of the Post.

        According to the Post article, especially its title, a married NYPD detective was punished because he was found in a whorehouse. The Post tells what it found out from the NYPD: the detective's name, age, work history (including when he became a detective), new assignment (which seems to be a part of his punishment), marital status, number of children, and other details. Clearly, the NYPD and Post are cooperating to criminally disclose and publish cop secrets. When American wives discover that their husbands have cheated, some of those wives kill or injure the husbands. Killing and injuring a husband are not the most common reactions of betrayed wives, but killing and injuring do happen. The Post published its article in traditional tabloid form (ink on paper) before publishing the article in the Post Web site. Inflammatory information in a tabloid (ink on paper) might have caused domestic violence. Although no Web page has ever caused domestic violence, the NYPD and Post probably did not know that. In conclusion, the NYPD and Post criminally worked together to distribute and publish cop secrets that might cause violence. This Web site was falsely accused of publishing cop secrets that might cause violence.

        The NYPD wants to shut down this Web site because it allegedly publishes cop secrets that might cause violence. By the NYPD's logic, the NYPD and the Post should be shut down, because they criminally cooperate to distribute and publish cop secrets that might cause violence.

        By the way, the officer worked in the NYPD's intelligence division. Some intelligence experts have written that intelligence personnel should be treated in a way that they feel is fair, so that they are not strongly tempted to retaliate for unfairness by revealing secrets. The officer in the Post article was transferred in a way which was a punishment (from a glamorous unit to an ordinary unit), he was suspended, and he was publicly humiliated and embarrassed in a way which could cause divorce or even domestic violence. This is a stupid way to treat employees who have valuable secrets. Furthermore, many personnel experts advocate treating all employees, even those who know nothing, with dignity. Even when an employee is punished, he should be punished with respect, personnel experts have written. Clearly, this is not police commissioner Kelly's point of view.

        Kelly has not forbidden NYPD personnel to talk to the Post, probably has not ordered Internal Affairs to investigate crimes related to disclosure of information in the article, has not ordered arrest of the Post (more properly, NYP Holdings Inc, which publishes the Post; or News Corporation, of which NYP Holdings Inc seems to us to be an alter ego), and has not ordered that things used to do the crime (for example: Post printing presses, Post computer and telephone systems, and Post reporters' notes) be confiscated. The NYPD helped the Post do a crime which publicly degraded a cop and perhaps endangers him (depending on how his wife responds to the accusations).

        According to the article, the detective (before he was transferred to new work as a punishment) was an NYPD chauffeur. The NYPD routinely uses cops, even detectives, as chauffeurs and bodyguards (work that well-run organizations usually have civilians do). If any reader of this Web page cannot understand how New York City can have so much crime despite the NYPD's gigantic staff and budget, he should find out, as an example of NYPD management incompetence, how much a New York City civilian chauffeur earns and how much an NYPD detective earns. By contrast, Osama Bin Laden paid his chauffeur, Salim Ahmed Hamdan (later a Guantanamo prisoner), very little. Bin Laden did not use a high-paid investigator as a chauffeur. Al Qaida largely depends on contributions, so it is forced to economize; but the NYPD depends on New York City tax revenue, so the NYPD wastes much. In June 2009, Greater London's MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) seemed to employ at least one civilian, Roy Adams, as a chauffeur according to "Man died of heart attack while paramedic conducted risk assessment", 7 July 2009, by David Brown, Web site, Web article from The [London] Times. In summary, Osama Bin Laden used, and MPS seems to have used, a civilian chauffeur. It's wasteful to use a police offier as a chauffeur even if one wants the chauffeur to also be a bodyguard. Chauffeurs and bodyguards do not ordinarily arrest, give tickets, enforce search warrants, or do some of the other work police officers do.

        In some jobs, a worker improves by doing his job. For example, a detective might improve through years of experience investigating. It seems unlikely that a detective improves much by working as a chauffeur or bodyguard. All kidding aside, one doesn't need to be a detective to find a parking space in Manhattan. Some NYPD detectives are not as expert as they could be, because they work as chauffeurs and bodyguards instead of working as detectives. Some New York City crimes go unsolved, and some are not even investigated, because some detectives are used as chauffeurs and bodyguards. In summary, mal-assignment of NYPD cops and detectives causes three problems:

        1. Wasted money

          Civilian chauffeurs and bodyguards can do the work well but for less money. Furthermore, even when a police officer should work as a chauffeur or bodyguard, it is rarely appropriate that the officer be a detective (who usually are paid much more than patrol officers).

        2. Less investigation

          Some police work (especially investigation of crime) goes undone because officers detectives are diverted to chauffeur and bodyguard work. This is a kind of sabotage of the NYPDs anti-crime work.

        3. Less development of professional expertise as crime-fighters

          Some police officers (for example, detectives) are denied much professional development because they are diverted to chauffeur and bodyguard work.

        In conclusion, it is conduct unbecoming an officer to assign NYPD police officers, especially detectives, to work as chauffeurs and bodyguards. Commissioner Kelly should be suspended for these assignments.

        According to this Web site's understanding of the Post article, the detective was punished for conduct unbecoming an officer because NYPD police officers are prohibited from being in unlicensed businesses, and the whorehouse was not licensed as a massage parlor although it was a massage parlor. In other words, he should not have gone to an unlicensed massage parlor even if all he wanted was a massage, so the NYPD punished him for being on the premises of an unlicensed business, because being there is conduct unbecoming an officer (if this Web site correctly understands the article). According to that logic, other officers (even high-ranking ones) might be suspended or otherwise punished if found in an unlicensed business (for example, an unlicensed babysitter, cleaning woman, handyman, or typist). Don't hold your breath waiting for the punishments.

        This Web site knows nothing about the alleged whorehouse incident except what the Post published. Normally, a person enters a retail business in Manhattan (for example, a massage parlor) to find out if it is licensed. If one finds out that the business is not licensed, one leaves. Thus, it seems unfair to punish someone for merely being on the premises of an unlicensed business. There may be many important facts that were not published (which is normally the case in a Post article).

        When you bring clothing to a dry-cleaner, do you make sure that the dry-cleaner is licensed? When you eat in a restaurant, do you make sure it is licensed? There was an unlicensed medical office practicing medicine in Flushing neighborhood of Queens several years ago (a few years ago?). If any of the patients were NYPD officers, should they be suspended? When you go to a dentist or doctor, do you check if he's licensed? Last time you parked a car in a parking lot that charges to park there, did you check if it is licensed? It is not unbecoming a police officer to be on the premises of an unlicensed business. It is unfair, even ridiculous, to punish someone because he was in an unlicensed business.

        It is completely legal in New York state for a person to be in an unlicensed business. For example, if a person enters an unlicensed restaurant, he has done nothing illegal. If he has a meal, pays, and leaves, he still has done nothing illegal. A customer or visitor has no duty to find out if a restaurant (or any other business; for example, a massage parlor) has a license. Does the NYPD tell its officers that they are forbidden to be on the premises of an unlicensed business? Does the NYPD teach officers how to investigate if a business has a license without entering the business?

        Incidentally and as a minor point, the article has the word brothel in single quotation marks, which means that that word is a quote, possibly said by the Post's NYPD connection. Why are incorrect single quotation marks (') used instead of correct double quotation marks (")? Is the Post desperate to save space in headlines? Does Post software not permit use of double quotes in a headline?

        The whorehouse was in the midtown south precinct of Manhattan. Several years ago, there was a whorehouse in that precinct which was protected by that precinct's cops. In exchange for police protection, the whorehouse's owner had her whorehouse give free sex to the cops, and the owner also provided an apartment (sometimes called a crib) to the cops. Internal affairs is a small police department inside the NYPD, to investigate and arrest NYPD people. Internal affairs knew about the police-protected whorehouse but did nothing. One day, internal affairs found out that the next day a newspaper was going to publish an article about the midtown south whorehouse. Then internal affairs quickly acted. The entire affair was a scandal for the NYPD. Contrast that scandal wit the way that the NYPD recently treated one of its intelligence detectives. The NYPD lurches from one extreme to another: from internal affairs doing nothing about a police-protected whorehouse in the midtown south precinct, to the NYPD criminally disclosing secret information that publicly degraded an officer and possibly also endangers him.

        The NYPD used to advertise (perhaps still does) the principles of courtesy, professionalism, and respect. Did the NYPD recently treat its detective with courtesy, professionalism, and respect?

        According to the article, a Post reporter seems to have gone to the detective's wife to ask her about the whorehouse incident and its results. The Post seems to share commissioner Kelly's contempt for courtesy. A reporter questioning the wife is extraordinarily low. If someone from this Web site went to the detective's home and talked to the wife, and if the wife asked the police for help, the police might arrest the questioner. By the way, how did the Post legally get the detective's home address?

        Information can be a kind of property. Is the Post in possession of stolen property? Illegally getting and publishing information is a crucial, frequent part of how the Post operates, not a rare exception.

        This Web site does not know how many of the article's accusations are true.

      4. Incidentally, if Jerry Capeci's 4 July 2002 Gangland column of crime gossip (once at is true, Post reporters Weiss and Guart hated each other and even fought physically on 10 June 2002.
      5. On about 10 July 2006, the Post had a front page, exclusive article, "NYPD Jew", by Murray Weiss and Bill Sanderson. The article claimed that the NYPD had hired a Hasidic Jew to be a police officer. The article, which seems to have been based entirely on NYPD sources, was (according to former URL not true.
      6. Some Post reporters drink at Langan's. Langan's is an Irish, neighborhood bar and restaurant. It is at 150 West 47th Street, New York, NY 10036 (between Broadway and 7th Avenue).

      7. On 8 April 2006, the New York Post's editor in chief is Australian Col Allan, who supposedly often drank and fought (for example, with his fists). His Australian nickname ("Canvas Back") supposedly refers to his fight outcomes (defeated, on his back). He supposedly used to piss into a basin in his office in Australia while talking with his newly hired subordinates who were with him in his office as he pissed. When he came to the Post, he anonymously was given a new basin as a gift. Also, he supposedly pissed into a sink. According to another account, Col Allan engaged in "... boozing, pissing in the sink antics ..." and intentionally destroyed (by burning) NYPD property (a charge sheet) to prevent his being prosecuted.

        Every spring, the New York Post's garden column reminds readers that golden showers bring May flowers. Allan came to the Post because he mistakenly thought that Rupert Murdoch asked him if he wanted to be editor in chief of the New York Pissed. Don't ask him why his favorite song-writer is Pattis Smith, his favorite photographer is Andres Serrano, and his favorite color is yellow. Col, if you keep forcing subordinates to watch you piss, someday you may discover that urine trouble. Murdoch doesn't object to Col Allan's yellow journalism.

      8. Lachlan K. Murdoch (about 33 years old as of 30 July 2005 according to one report, born in 1971 according to another report), ran (but on about 30 July 2005 announced his resignation from) the chronically money-losing New York Post tabloid.

        In any event, the Post is owned by News Corporation Limited (perhaps through News Corporation's seeming alter ego, NYP Holdings, Inc.). News Corporation Limited is a holding company of which about thirty per cent is controlled by Rupert Murdoch's family as of 30 July 2005. News Corporation Limited's holdings include, directly or indirectly (when indirectly, at least sometimes through News America Incorporated): Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (NYSE: FOX), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Fox Television Holdings, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Sports Networks, Inc., NDS Group plc, News America Marketing In-Store Services, Inc., News America Marketing FSI, Inc., News International Limited, News Limited, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers Limited, STAR Group Limited, TV Guide, Intermix Media (an Internet business which owns, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. News Corporation Limited is run by media tycoon Keith Rupert Murdoch (born 11 March 1931 in Melbourne, Australia). Rupert lives in America. As of late October 2004: corporate headquarters of the $48 billion News Corp. Ltd. will officially move to the United States from Australia. This move may be a legalistic maneuver designed to achieve goals such as qualifying News Corporation for primary stock exchange listing in America rather than Australia. The tightly integrated News Corporation Limited financial empire has been managed from Manhattan for a long time, in our opinion. Rupert nepotistically appointed his son Lachlan (who announced on about 30 July 2005 that he will return to Australia) to run the New York Post. When Ted Turner annoyed Rupert Murdoch, the New York Post published an article saying that Turner was "veering dangerously toward insanity". Lachlan has spiky hair, a braided tattoo on his left forearm, and a wife named Sarah. News Corporation Limited provided Lachlan's job to him as a fringe benefit to its CEO, Lachlan's father, in our opinion. Lachlan is not impressive enough to investors to be allowed by them to take over management of his father's gigantic, media empire when his father dies. Lachlan's father, Rupert Murdoch, married Wendi Deng, possibly making her Wendi D. Murdoch. There is an apartment in Soho neighborhood (at 141 Prince Street, Manhattan NY 10012) linked to Lachlan Murdoch and to Wendi D. Murdoch. Maybe Lachlan lived there sometimes when he was in New York City.

        Lachlan K. Murdoch, Wendi D. Murdoch, NYP Holdings, and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. are all linked to 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York NY 10036 (in midtown Manhattan). NYP Holdings and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. are both part of News Corporation Limited, which is controlled by its chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch. The president and COO (chief operating officer) of both News Corporation and Fox Entertainment Group is Peter Chernin, about age 52 in 2004. As of 30 July 2005, Chernin is the most popular person, of those who are not related to Rupert Murdoch, in the New Corporation system of businesses. Lachlan Murdoch was deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation but announced, on about 30 July 2005, his resignation and plan to return to Australia. He was also an officer of Fox Entertainment Group (namely, president of Fox Television stations). David DeVoe, about age 56 or 57, is CFO, Senior Executive Vice President, and Director of both News Corporation and Fox Entertainment Group. Arthur Siskind, about age 64, is Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of both News Corporation Limited and Fox Entertainment Group. James Murdoch (Rupert's younger son) runs BSkyB (BritishSkyBroadcasting), and BSkyB has employed Rupert's daughter Elisabeth. News Corporation Limited owns about 36 per cent of BSkyB, a controlling share, as of 30 July 2005. James was an executive vice president of News Corporation. He was a member of the board of directors of both News Datacom and News Corporation. Jamesames Murdoch's wife">Kathryn Hufschmid, have two children.

        Rupert Murdoch has six children by three wives:

        1. Daughter Prudence Murdoch MacLeod, who lives in England with her three children, is Rupert's child by his first wife, the former Patricia Booker.
        2. He has three children by his long-time second wife, the former Anna Torv, who used to be an employee of his media empire, which we call MME.
          1. Elisabeth was born in Sydney on 22 August 1968. She was an executive at Rupert's FX Networks, a cable television business in Los Angeles. As EP Communications (according to former URL, Elisabeth and her first husband, Elkin Kwesi Pianim, bought two, California television stationson with a $35 million loan which Rupert helped them get. She used to work for BSkyB, which is part of MME (Murdoch media empire). She runs and owns most of Shine Limited (often called Shine Entertainment), a television production company. MME's BSkyB, which is directly controlled by her brother James and indirectly controlled by her father Rupert Murdoch (Keith Rupert Murdoch), owns some of Shine. She married her husband Planim on 10 September 1993. She has two children by him: Cornelia, who was born in 1994, and Anna, who was born in 1997.

            She later met Mathew Freud. He earlier had been arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. When she met him, he was a public relations consultant with whom she worked at BSkyB. He runs Freud Communications Limited, an important, public relations firm. He owns much of the Press Gazette, a media trade publication which, as far as we know, owns the British Press Awards. The Awards have been widely boycotted, in large part because of a supposed conflict of interest caused by Freud's marriage to Elisabeth and his work for Rupert's News International. Matthew's great-grandfather was Sigmund. Matthew's father was a British MP (Member of Parliament). Matthew's sister is television interviewer Emma Freud. Matthew is a nephew of immensely influential modern artist Lucian Freud. Matthew is a relative of Edward Bernays, a founder of modern public relations. After Matthew divorced his first wife, Caroline Hutton, she married the Ninth Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales. Matthew is related to many, other, influential Britons. Elisabeth and Matthew married in the Blenheim Palace chapel on Friday, 17 August 2001 (some reports say they married on the 18th), and have two children: Charlotte Freud, born 17 November 2000, and Samson Murdoch Freud, born 13 January 2007.

          2. Lachlan Keith, born in London on 8 September 1971, used to run the New York Post, which is part of MME.
          3. British resident James, who was born in Wimbledon on 13 December 1972, is a high executive in MME's European activities.
        3. Rupert has two children by his third wife, the former Wendi Deng: Grace, born on 19 November 2001, and Chloe, born on 17 July 2003. Wendi, born in 1968, is about forty years younger than Rupert. The two married in 1999 soon after she became vice president of MMME's STAR TV.

        There is a Murdoch family trust which owns 28.5 percent of News Corporation, a controlling interest. The trust was estimated in 2005 to be worth about $6.1 billion. All of Rupert's children own the trust in the sense that they financially benefit from it. However, they do not all control the trust. Rupert has half the voting power. The other half is held by Rupert's children by his first two wives, Patricia and Anna. Rupert's children by Wendi have no voting power. When Rupert dies, his voting power will stop existing. When he dies, his voting power will not be inherited by anybody. Therefore, Rupert's children by Wendi own valuable property they will never control.

        Rupert Murdoch's media empire has gossip columns. That empire provides much material about celebrities and their relatives and friends. Rupert Murdoch's media empire is familial. Keith Arthur Murdoch brought his son Rupert Murdoch into Keith's Australian newspaper business, which is how son Rupert entered the newspaper business. Rupert has brought his children into his media business empire and married two women who worked in that empire, as briefly mentioned in this Web site and as intenively described in other Web sites. A Murdoch family trustcontrols News Corporation.

        Usually, American law requires that one be an American citizen to control an American television station. Rupert therefore eventually became an American citizen, which process included his loss of Australian citizenship, as far as we know. Nevertheless, someone (an agent of Rupert?) persuaded the Australian government that Rupert should still be considered an Australian citizen. Rupert may be required by Australian law to be an Australian citizen to keep his control of some Australian media outlets. Rupert gained control of Fox (which broadcasts television in America) before he was an American citizen, which seemed, to some people, to violate U.S. federal law. The FCC investigated. Rupert remains an American citizen who indirectly controls American television stations and Australian media outlets.

        Lachlan Murdoch and another rich man's son together once started a business in Australia. It lost money and went out of business deep in debt. James Murdoch once started a business, Rawkus Entertainment. News Corporation bought that business. Since then, James has worked only for businesses controlled by his father Rupert, as far as we know.

      9. In 1980, about three years after Rupert Murdoch bought the Post, the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review called the Post "a force for evil."
      10. Book Review

        There is a book review published 22 February 2009 as "Tales from NYPD's own Keystone Kop"

        According to our understanding of an article by Leonard Levitt, "The Dream", 23 March 2009, in the NYPD Confidential Web site, the NY Post asked him to write a book review, agreed to pay him for it, then published his slightly modified review on Sunday, 22 February 2009, as "Tales from NYPD's own Keystone Kop" supposedly by "Cynthia R. Fagan", a Post reporter. His review was not attributed to him and he was not paid for it. After Levitt repeatedly complained in his Web site, his review appeared in the Post under his name, not under Fagan's.

      11. In spring 2007, Murdoch's News Corp. offered much money to buy the highly respected DJ (Dow Jones) company. DJ's controlling stockholders said that Murdoch and his media businesses were sleazy. Jim Ottway, Jr., and Jay Ottaway explained at length on 6 May 2007. For example, Jim Otaway wrote, "We see this [Rupert Murdoch's bad policies] every day here in America in his New York Post which regularly runs biased news stories and headlines supporting his friends, political candidates and public policies, and attacks people he personally opposes.". Post coverage of this Web site is an example of the Post's biased news stories and headlines.
      12. MME (Murdoch media empire's) Misconduct

        1. A British MME newspaper, NotW (News of the World), wrote about former Scottish Socialist leader Tommy Sheridan's supposed, sexual activity. Sheridan sued NotW for defamation and won.
        2. Two MME newspapers, the Sun and NotW, wrote that professional soccer player Wayne Rooney had slapped his fiancee during an argument in a Chesire nightclub. The newspapers' publisher, News Group Newspapers Ltd (owned by News International Ltd., owned by News Corporation, part of the MME) admitted that the slap allegations were false and settled the case by agreeing to pay the victim-athlete one hundred thousand British pounds.
        3. In America, there are problems with judges; for example, it is common to sell judgeships. The Center for Judicial Accountability had a Web page at URL entitled "The New York Post: Paper Trail of Suppression, Protectionism, & Blackballing". According to that page, the Post is part of the problem.
        4. Phone Hacks, Phone Taps

          One can hack a phone to tap it.

          According to "Cellphone Case a Royal Pain For Murdoch's Ailing British Tab[loid]", by Aaron O. Patrick and Cassell Bryan-Low, 10 August 2006; Wall Street Journal, Page B1:

          "Even by the standards of British tabloid journalism, the News of the World newspaper may have finally gone too far.

          "Clive Goodman [age 48; from Putney, London], the royalty correspondent at the paper, owned by News Corp. [part of MME, Murdoch media empire], was charged late yesterday along with one other person for allegedly hacking into cellphone messages."

          Goodman is part of NotW's management. According to "Terror plot disrupted", 10 August 2006,, Goodman is editor of the tabloid's royalty section.

          According to "News of the World editor quits over Royal family phone hacking" published by Ian Morgan on 27 January 2007 at the Web site: on 26 January 2007, royal editor Clive Goodman, age 49, was jailed for four months at the Old Bailey jail for cracking into royal phones and thus obtaining private messages including some left by Prince William. News of the World editor Andy Coulson submitted a resignation document two weeks before 26 January 2007 to executive chairman Les Hinton. However, Coulson delayed resigning until after the judge sentenced Goodman on 26 January. We don't know why Coulson delayed. Maybe he hoped that something would happen to make his resignation unnecessary. Prosecutor David Perry QC said that Glenn Mulcaire, age 36, signed a lucrative contract worth 104,988 pounds annually with the newspaper for his "... research and information services ...". Mulcaire was also given cash payments amounting to 12,300 pounds for stories relating to Prince Harry, his girlfriend Chelsy and the Duchess of York which Goodman treated as expenses, the court heard. The amount of money the newspaper paid, and that the newspaper paid some of the money in cash, reeks. Mulcaire and Goodman used a combination of mobile and landline telephones to crack into the voicemail boxes, including Goodman's office phone at News International in Wapping, east London, and his home phone in Putney, south west London, according to testimony the court heard. Sometimes in some jurisdictions (not necessarily England), if people use property to do a crime, that property can be confiscated as an instrumentality of the crime. NotW's bank accounts, phone system, and east Wapping realty were not confiscated as the instrumentalities of crime. It has been written that Rupert Murdoch has long taken a special interest in NotW newspaper, which suggests the possibility that Murdoch may have known about some of the impropriety there. If MME's Post newspaper has trouble getting an interview with Goodman while he's in jail, the Post should consider using Susannah Cahalan.

          The hacking by NotW mentionned above seeems to be a tiny part of the total hacking. According to News of the World phone hacking: live" (Telegraph, UK; Murray Wardrop and Tom Chivers; 7 Jul 2011), five NotW journalists and executives supposedly are "to be arrested", and police reportedly are contacting "more than 3,000 hacking victims". There was an accusation that a NotW hacker, after improperly listening to victims' messages, had deleted some messages to make room for new, incoming messages. According to As New Claims Grow, Murdoch Faces Parliament's Ire in Hacking Case" (New York Times, Sarah Lyall and Alan Cowell, 7 July 2011), there was debate in the House of Commons about how the British government's should respond to the hacking accusations.

          In addition to persistent hacking by NotW, there may have been an improper attempt by management to conceal the hacking. According to Rupert Murdoch's son must pay for phone hacking scandal, says MP Tom Watson" (Telegraph, UK; Andrew Porter; 7 Jul 2011), James Murdoch is acused of being at the center of an attempt to improeprly cover up criminal haking of phones. For example, Watson said, "Mr James Murdoch is the chairman. It is clear now that he personally, without board approval, authorised money to be paid by his company to silence people who had been hacked and to cover up criminal behaviour within his organisation. This is nothing short of an attempt to pervert the course of justice."

          NotW supposedly made improper payments to police officers.

          New York City's government said that criminals might someday use home telephone numbers (supplied in this Web site) to do violent crimes to government officers and people who live with them, and recommended shutting down this Web site. MME (namely, the Post) covered the city government's efforts to shut us down. The coverage showed that MME agreed with the city government and despised us. Which criminals use home telephone numbers to do crimes? MME's NotW has long used home telephone numbers to do crimes (as shown in the Clive Goodman and other phone crimes described above. Therefore by city government and MME (more particularly, the MME's Post) logic, the MME should shut down. MME's NotW cracked many, private voicemail to get telephone messages, then used the messages to sell newspapers, which resulted in more income for MME. MME should not be allowed to keep the money, because it is the fruit of MME's crime. MME should pay the money to the people whose voicemail was cracked. We guess that the British government won't shut down MME or even News Corporation (which owns NotW newspaper), MME will not shut itself down, MME won't pay its ill-gotten income to the crime victims, and New York City's government will continue to work closely with MME (for example, the Post). By the way, in January 2007, Clive Goodman's crime partner Glen (Glenn?) Mulcaire, age 36, owns crisis management consultancy Nine Consultancy, which is in an industrial park in Sutton, south London, and was listed as its director of operations. He used to be an amateur soccer (British football) player on Britain's Wimbledon team.

          The hacking described above may be the tip of the iceberg, according to July 2009 accusations reported in "Furore over News Corp phone tap allegations", by Ben Fenton, Chief Media Correspondent, 9 July 2009, FT (Financial Times). John Prescott, former deputy prime minister of Britain, said he wanted answers from police over claims they knew his phone was tapped by private investigators working for journalists at the (MME's) News of the World when Mr Andy Coulson was editor. Journalists working for News Group Newspapers, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, paid for private investigators to conduct multiple illegal hacks on mobile telephones, it was alleged. The incidents, investigated by the Metropolitan police, ended in at least three civil actions by well-known personalities whose privacy was violated, which lawyers for News Group settled for sums running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The people involved in the suits, including Gordon Taylor, leader of the Professional Footballers' Association, signed agreements that allowed News Group to prevent evidence of the illegal activities gathered by the police seeing the light of day. Charles Clarke, former home secretary, said that News International should publish the full list of those that they have bugged and that Andy Coulson should be fired. Supposedly the police investigation had turned up evidence of other reporters and editorial executives (not just Clive Goodman and Andy Coulson) being involved with investigator Glenn Mulcaire's illegal activities. Some of the FT's July 2009 coverage (of the re-emergence of the NotW phone hack scandal) derives from The Guardian newspaper's articles, one of which is "News of the World phone hacking: Commons [the lower house of Parliament] launches investigation", by James Robinson and Andrew Sparrow,, 9 July 2009. According to that article, the Commons culture select committee will launch an urgent investigation into allegations of phone hacking by News of the World journalists, after new (July 2009) revelations about the extent of the practice. Also, the Metropolitan Police and the Press Complaints Commission said that they will look again at the phone-hacking allegations.

        5. 2006apr8, Post's Jared Paul Stern

          He edited at least one issue of the Post's Page Six magazine (at least temporarily making him, in our opinion, part of Post management) and wrote the Nightcrawler gossip column. Stern was accused of trying to extort money ($100,000 plus $10,000 monthly, for a total of $220,000 for the first year) from someone Stern wrote about for the Post, Ron Burkle. We don't know if any of Murdoch's corporations ratified Stern's supposed crime. Supposedly, the victim and his lawyers kept complaining about the Post's statements (for example: to Rupert Murdoch, who did not respond; and to the Post's Colin Myler, who supposedly had promised to check if the published statements were true) but the Post supposedly continued to publish statements about the victim. Promptly after the Post found out that the FBI was investigating, the Post suspended Stern and said that Stern's alleged conduct, if it had occurred, violates the Post's standards and ethics.

          As far as we know, the Post tabloid does not have an errata section. Being investigated is not the same as having done a crime. As far as we know, Stern was never arrested or prosecuted regarding his supposed, attempted extortion. Regardless of whether Stern did a crime, there is a question for the Post of whether Stern's writing was true and newsworthy. The Post fired him in April 2006, seemingly after the Post learned that the FBI was investigating.

          By coincidence, Stern's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, has also represented Bernard Kerik. Kerik was an NYPD police commissioner, which may be one reason why much gossip about him was not reported in the Post.

          MME's Post publishes gossip, as do other MME publications. We suppose that MME does not oppose legally publishing gossip about its people. After all, they publish gossip about others.

        6. Notice that the MME's NotW's Clive Goodman, who had a gossip column, and the MME's Post's Stern, who wrote about society, both were accused of doing serious crime related to their work. We don't know if the supposed crimes constitute a pattern. Patterns are important for RICO and other purposes.
        7. Schwarzenegger and NotW

          According to "Strong-arming the Hollywood Press", by Neal Koch, which was published in the January/February 1991 issue of CJR (Columbia Journalism Review), governor Schwarzenegger had a libel claim against Rupert Murdoch's NotW (News of the World). The paper settled in spring 1990 by giving Schwarzenegger 30,000 British pounds and a published apology.

        8. Susannah Cahalan

          According to Jim Salter's January 2007 article, "... lawyer blasts jail security after reporter gets in", Post writer Susannah Cahalan supposedly obtained an interview by lying in writing to a jail that she was a prisoner's friend, then lying to the prisoner that Cahalan was writing for a university publication, not the Post. By the way, Salter reports the Post reporter's name as Susannah Catalan, not Susannah Cahalan. In the Post's response to the accusation of lying, the Post did not deny having lied.

        9. Max Mosely and NotW 2008aug1

          Above, we refer to the Post's Colin Myler in conjunction with Jared Paul Stern and Ron Burkle; and we refer to an MME newspaper, NotW, in conjunction with Clive Goodman and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

          Colin Myler was an editor of NotW. He edited that paper when it published material about Formula One auto racing executive, Max Mosely, with the headline "F1 [Formula One] Boss Has Sick Nazi Orgy With 5 Hookers". Mosely sued for invasion of privacy and won. The judge, Sir David Eady, ruled, on the key point of Nazism, that there was no evidence that Mosely's Chelsea session was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behavior. MME's NotW seems to have injured Mosely's career and marriage. Our remarks about this case are largely based on an article in the Week in Review section of The New York Times, "Scandal! Fleet Street Without Sex!" by John F. Burns, 27 July 2008, beginning at URL

          "The ruling upheld the central arguments by Mr. Mosely and his lawyers: that there had been no Nazi theme to the five-hour sex session in an apartment in the Chelsea district of London that was secretly filmed by the newspaper, and no issue of public interest in its decision to splash the article on its front page and post video on its Web site." The New York Times, "British Judge Rules Tabloid Report Tying Grand Prix Boss to 'Orgy' Violated Privacy", by JOHN F. BURNS, 25 July 2008, at URL

          We suppose that MME does not oppose legally publishing information about the sexual activity of its people. After all, they publish information about the sexual activity of others.

          By the way, when Mosely was with the women, one of them, a blonde, had a tiny camera in her bra. NotW had promised her $50,000 but paid her only $24,000, according to our understanding of the New York Times's 27 July 2008 article, which we cited a few sentences above. She was a prostitute but didn't make NotW pay in advance. That's interesting. She seems to be a professional dominatrix known, according to "Alan Turnbull's Secret Bases Part 1" Web page as Mistress Abi (real name Michelle), married to an MI5 Surveillance Officer who lives in Milton Keynes, according to sources including "How an MI5's involvement in a sex-scandal led to a high-speed car chase through London", by Jason Lewis, 8 June 2008, Daily Mail, UK; and's "Max Mosely Serves Court Order on Secret Bases 2".

          The MME activity seemingly resulted in discovery of the home of an MI5 officer, as described in the Daily Mail,, and Alan Turnbull Web sites cited above.

        10. Sick 2008aug2
          1. When Ted Turner annoyed Rupert Murdoch, the New York Post published an article saying that Turner was "veering dangerously toward insanity".
          2. The MME's NotW wrote of Mosely, "F1 Boss Has Sick Nazi Orgy With 5 Hookers". Notice that he did not have a healthy, Nazi orgy with five hookers. His supposed, five-hooker, Nazi orgy was sick.
          3. Murray Weiss and Al Guart wrote about this Web site (the one you're reading right now) in an article originally published on page 30 of the Post on 12 March 2004, "NYPD to sue ID Web sicko".
          4. We suppose that MME does not oppose legally publishing material about sickness or insanity-veering of its people. After all, they publish material about supposed sickness and insanity-veering of others.

        11. MME's Sun, praying Muslim. 2009mar27

          According to "Sun pays ... damages to Muslim bus driver accused of fanaticism" (by Leigh Holmwood and [news?] agencies, at, Thursday, 26 February 2009): on 26 February 2009, a London bus driver accepted 30,000 pounds in damages from the Sun (an MME newspaper) over a claim that he ordered passengers off his vehicle so that he could pray. The March 2008 story caused the driver considerable distress and embarrassment, his lawyer, Stephen Loughrey of Carter-Ruck law firm, told Mr. Justice Eady [also involved in Max Mosely's case against MME] at the high court in London. Loughrey said the newspaper now accepted that the allegations were entirely false and that the driver did not order any passengers off, there was no rucksack, and no one refused to re-board because he feared the driver was a fanatic. The driver's lawyer said to the court that the Sun's article falsely implied that bus passengers feared that the driver was a terrorist. The newspaper's lawyer apologized for the publication of the false allegations. The damages were for libel and invasion of privacy. The Sun Web site and the Sun newspaper both published material about the driver.

      13. The Post and News Corporation have reporters, executives, leaders, officers, and writers. A few (together with possible ages, home addresses, and home phone numbers) are listed on our K. Rupert Murdoch media empire page, to which we link from the bottom of this page.
      14. We suffer from both the New York Post's falsehood and New York City channel 5 Fox TV's falsehood. MME includes both.

      RD (Reader's Digest) magazine had an article entitled "Let's shut them down: These Web sites are an invitation to terrorists" by RD senior editor Michael Crowley. That article, which was part of the magazine's "That's outrageous!" series, was in RD's March 2005 issue on pages 33-35. Most of the article does not discuss this Web site but a little of the article seems to. The article with much background and comment is at Cryptome. The article with brief comment was at Web site and is at Web site. Elsewhere on this Web page, there is rebuttal to articles which were not published in RD (for example, articles in the Daily News). Those rebuttals apply to Crowley's article to the limited extent that his article applies to this Web site.

      1. The best way to understand Crowley's point of view is to read his article, and links to two copies of it are a few sentences above. In effect, Crowley presents powerful evidence that some Web sites have helped terrorists as much as unicorns and jackalopes combined. Read his article, see for yourself. Crowley is no dilettante. He obviously spent at least two days doing research on this topic. Crowley patiently explains to us (with what may very well be real facts) that an anti-abortion activist put names and addresses of abortionists on a Web site for a while but no violence resulted from the Web site. This is powerful evidence, that it would be outrageous to ignore, that Web sites are dangerous. We should all be grateful that RD published Crowley's penetrating analysis of the causes of violence and terrorism. This Web site looks forward to more articles by Crowley.

        At the risk of boring well-informed people, this Web site shall now explain a simple idea so clearly that even Crowley can understand. The effects of drugs sometimes depend on how they are administered. For example, a drug might have some effects if taken as eye-drops, different effects if injected intravenously, and no effects if massaged onto the skin as an ointment. Information is like that. You might respond one way to a remark if someone you love says it to you while the two of you are having supper together. You might respond a second way to the same remark if a stranger says it to you in a railroad station. You might ignore that remark if you read it on a Web page. The question is not whether information can be dangerous. (Many of us know, for example, that misleading magazine articles have sometimes harmed innocent people.) Crowley complaint is against a few, privately owned Web sites which re-provide information (often obtained from the government, incidentally) about:

        1. Government officers
        2. Important places and activities.

        (For reasons Crowley knows best, he does not complain about government-owned Web sites.) Therefore, the question is whether the Web is dangerous (especially whether privately owned Web sites cause criminal violence, for example, terrorists' criminal violence). There are a gigantic number of Web sites. They are amazingly, incredibly safe. For example, no privately owned Web site (Crowley's demon) ever caused criminal violence. Even Crowley (despite his astounding superficiality and occasional, important mistakes) does not claim that a Web site ever caused criminal violence. In conclusion, Crowley's article is the triumph of fear over knowledge. Crowley's fear is that a privately owned Web site will cause violence, especially to government officers. His fear is real but what he fears, isn't. If a Web site somehow causes criminal violence in the future, expect it to be a government-operated Web site causing criminal violence against someone who is not a government officer (written 23 September 2005).

      2. This Web site wants to discuss real crime, not provide incompetent speculation and mistaken conclusions about theoretically possible crime. On 19 June 1997, the U.S. senate approve the Feinstein Amendment to S. 936, the National Defense Authorization for 1998 Bill. The amendment forbids teaching of bomb-making for criminal purposes. A study requested by the senate during the debate in 1996 on the availability of bomb-making information on the Internet was prepared by the U.S. DoJ (Department of Justice) and sent to the Senate in April 1997. As a result of that DoJ report, the language of the passed amendment was changed. The DoJ report was an enclosure accompanying a letter dated 29 April 1997 that assistant attorney general Andrew Fois sent to Senate president Albert Gore, Jr. The report was entitled "REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF BOMBMAKING INFORMATION, THE EXTENT TO WHICH ITS DISSEMINATION IS CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL LAW, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DISSEMINATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: PREPARED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 709(a) OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996, SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE, APRIL 1997". Pages 6 and 7 of the report have a few sentences (and one footnote, footnote number 4) which describe a serious crime.
          "Stories of crimes contained in popular literature and magazines also constitute a rich source of bomb-making information. For example, the August 1993 edition of Reader's Digest contains an account of efforts by law enforcement officers to track down the killer of United States Court of Appeals Judge Robert S. Vance and attorney Robert Robinson. That article contained a detailed description of the explosive devices used by the bomber in committing the murders, including such information as the size of the pipe bombs, how the bombs were constructed, and what type of smokeless powder was used in their construction.4 According to the Arson and Explosives Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in a bombing case originating in Topeka, Kansas, the devices were patterned after the bomb used to kill Judge Vance. Upon questioning, the suspect admitted to investigators that he constructed the bomb based on information contained in the Reader's Digest article."
          4 See "Hunt for a Mad Bomber," Reader's Digest 77, 79 (August 1993).
        In summary, serious crime (namely, criminal construction of bomb devices) resulted from an RD article. The DoJ report is not a conversation in which people who are not experts speculate about whether a publication might eventually somehow cause criminal violence (like Michael Crowley's conversation with Anthony Weiner, for example). On the contrary, the DoJ report somberly describes serious crime which actually resulted from an RD article. Reader's Digest Association (the for-profit corporation which publishes RD) lacks the expertise to distinguish dangerous from harmless. That's why RD did what's dangerous and attacks what's harmless. RD wrote that this Web site helps terrorists but the truth is that RD helped terrorists. RD taught people how to make bombs. RD is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

        By the way, the August 1993 edition of RD (the one with the bomb-making information) seems to have been printed in July 1993, just five months after the first World Trade Center bombing (26 February 1993). RDA (Reader's Digest Association) is so ignorant of terrorism that not even the first World Trade Center bombing taught RDA not to teach millions of readers the details of how criminals made a murderous bomb. Owning a magazine does not make a corporation expert in anti-terrorist work. Preventing terrorism is not something so simple that it can be understood by people who merely have common sense and a college degree.

      3. Early in Crowley's article, he writes that "... the Internet is one of the most critical battlegrounds in our war against radical Islamists." An Islamicist either: (a) studies Islam as his specialty, or (b) supports or belongs to an Islamic revivalist movement ("gimme that old-time religion").

        By the way, if al Qaida were a German group, many Americans would call it neo-Nazi (kill the Americans and the Jews, kill many innocent people, kill gruesomely, a woman's place is in the home, armed struggle is glorious, Islam ueber alles, Muslim countries should not be democracies, brutal suppression of opposition and dissent). If al Qaida were an Italian or American group, many Americans would call it fascist for largely the same reasons it would be called neo-Nazi if it were German. There is no word "Christianityicist".

        This Web site is not at war against radical Islamicists, reactionary Islamicists, or other Islamicists. Furthermore, even for Crowley and the other Americans who are at war against radical Islamicists, the Internet is not one of the most critical battlegrounds in their war. The Internet will not be crucial or decisive in their war, despite what Crowley thinks.

        Moreover, even if all of the Web sites Crowley opposes were closed, that would not weaken radical Islamicists.

      4. Crowley claims that government officers are endangered by the Web sites he opposes. There are a few dozen Web sites which clearly meet his description of objectionable Web sites, although he seems to oppose only a few, privately owned Web sites. A few paragraphs above, this Web site reported that the Web is astoundingly safe (and, directly relevant to Crowley's accusation against privately owned Web sites: no privately owned Web site has ever caused criminal violence). If a Web site does somehow cause criminal violence, expect it to be a government-operated Web site causing criminal violence against someone who is not a government officer (written 23 September 2005). To refute Crowley more, it is helpful to discuss why violent crime against government officers in America does not result from the Web. Imagine that a terrorist wants to assassinate a government officer (perhaps a police officer whom the terrorist read about in a newspaper article, or the mayor of the terrorist's city, for example) in that government officer's home. First, the terrorist quickly, conveniently gets the intended victim's home address in person from a government agency (for example, a voter registrar or real estate tax appraiser). Home addresses of government officers (and of many other people) are easily available to the public from many government agencies.

        Then, the terrorist goes to that home. This is all easy to do, and does not involve the Web (much less, the Web sites Crowley opposes). Crowley does not seem to know how easy it is to murder. Crowley seems to think that murder of government officers is extremely difficult and, if only the Web sites he opposes were eliminated, the officers would be safer. This is ridiculous. One could abolish the entire Web (not just the Web sites Crowley opposes) and it would still be easy to discover government officers' home addresses.

        By the way, it is easy to get credit information about people, including prospective murder victims, although not from the few Web sites Crowley complains about. Credit information usually includes address and phone number. Furthermore, credit information can indirectly help a killer. To use a hypothetical example, credit information might show that a prospective murder victim has paid Macy's credit card bills. The killer could then show up at the victim's home, pretending to deliver a package from Macy's. In conclusion, the government is a great source of free information about where people live, and credit information (which is not supplied by the Web sites Crowley opposes) provides even more information useful to a murderer.

        Crowley's recommendations are wrong for other reasons, too. For example, terrorist assassins who kill government officers in America don't (as far as this Web site knows) murder in the victims' homes. For example, John Kennedy (killed by a former Marine) and Robert Kennedy were murdered far from home. Therefore, government officers in America would not be safer from terrorists even if those officers' home addresses were secret. Sometimes American government officers are murdered by people who are not terrorists. For example, San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk was killed but not by a terrorist (the murder trial which a former police officer won with a Twinkie defense). That murder was not at victim Milk's home. President Reagan was not shot by a terrorist (the shooter was a man trying to impress a woman), and the shooting was not at Reagan's home. In any event, the best way to get a government officer's home address is from a government office. Government offices are the source of much information provided by Web sites. To get the most recent residential information available about an intended victim, a prospective murderer probably would go to a government office (the same source of information that many Web sites use) or get credit information (which is not provided by the Web sites Crowley complained about). Obsolete information is tolerable if one's purpose is legal (for example: scholarly research, picketing, serving court papers, investigating government officers who will soon testify in court, or sending a Christmas card). However, someone planning a murder probably wants everything to go smoothly the first time and therefore will not settle for the relatively old information provided by the Web sites Crowley complains about.

        The facts stated in the above paragraphs may be part of the reason why privately owned Web sites never cause criminal violence. Reader's Digest and the government are dangerous, not the Web sites Crowley complains about.

      5. There is a question of who knows enough to suggest improvements. Prediction is the acid test of knowledge. The person who predicts better than others does so because he understands better. The person who cannot predict better than others, does not understand better than others. Crowley has not told us that he or his sources (for example, Weiner) have an impressive record of predicting terrorist violence in America.
      6. Crowley's article is a hodgepodge of ideas one encounters in news articles and editorials, for example: terrorism, violence, Internet, Islamicist, First Amendment, war. Basically, he complains about a few Web sites (although his description of them applies to many Web sites). The Web sites bother him because, as the RD subtitle puts it, they supposedly "... are an invitation to terrorists" (for example, to attack government officers in their homes). The objected-to Web sites' purported invitation has never been accepted and may never have been received.

        People are sometimes attacked in their homes in America, although usually not by terrorists. Making people safer in their homes in America should not be confused with making people safer from terrorists. The best ways to make people safer in their homes in America, do not involve anti-terrorist measures. Government officers are sometimes attacked in America, although usually not in their homes or by terrorists. Making government officers safer in America should not be confused with making homes safer or with fighting against terrorism. All of these admirable goals are achievable if one avoids confusing them with each other.

        Huge amounts of information are sold and given away every day (for example, social security numbers and credit information). Sometimes, this information is stolen from sellers, then given away or used criminally. Some sellers of information regard these thefts as a tolerable cost of doing business (much as a DHL shipper may regard theft as a tolerable cost of doing business). Let us imagine that someone wants to make government officers safer in their homes, by restricting the flow of information to criminals about where government officers live. The first step is to find out where criminals (who actually did crimes against government officers in their homes in America) found out where those officer-victims lived. After we find that out, we can try to make those information sources more difficult for criminals to use. Crowley skipped this first, indispensable step. If Crowley ever does that step, he will discover that he's barking up the wrong tree.

        Crowley is a senior editor of RD magazine, which sells access to articles on its Web site. He only attacks Web sites which give away information for free. In a sense, he is like a whore complaining about sluts. RD magazine sells advertising space to advertisers which do business with information-sellers. This may be part of the reason why Crowley's "Let's shut them down" article is silent about the huge information-selling business.

        Crowley did not ask this Web site to patiently tutor him or to write an article for him. This Web site has already forgotten more than Crowley will ever learn about the Internet, prediction of terrorism and other political behavior, violent crime in America, and how to examine data to discern cause and effect. Crowley is in way over his head when he writes about these and related topics. Maybe Crowley could write a gossip column well. Crowley mischaracterizes America's challenge as trying to protect itself from terrorists despite the free speech rights of a few, thrill-seeking Web site publishers. The challenge is to protect America from terrorists despite distractions from purveyors of harebrained schemes. When we waste time and money on harebrained schemes, we have less time and money left to fight terrorism and do other good things. The hodgepodge of topics in Crowley's article are too technical for him to understand. (For example, if there is an anti-terrorist tactic that is effective, cost-effective, ethical, and simple enough for Crowley to understand, it was probably put into effect already.) If RD wants a discussion of the Crowley article topics primitive enough to be suitable for RD magazine (for example, the anti-terrorist equivalent of "I am Joe's liver"), RD should consider using a science writer.

        By the way, the Web sites Crowley attacks have solid, legal protections other than free speech (which he would be aware of if he knew much more about litigation, the contents of those Web sites, and the activities and motivations of those Web sites' publishers). Crowley's article is libel.

      7. DN (Daily News) staff writer Celeste Katz, with Michele McPhee and Michael Saul, wrote an article originally published on 11 March 2004, entitled "Pol draws bead on cop-info site". (This Web site discussed and refuted that article above on this Web page.) Weiner's staff contacted DN in March 2004 in conjunction with a 10 March 2004 press release issued by Weiner's staff: "Bill would ban revealing personal data about police officers". As a result of receiving that contact, DN wrote and published its 11 March 2004 article. That article says that Weiner, a Democrat, said that he would introduce a bill to outlaw this Web site. (He has not kept his promise.) DN described Weiner as "outraged".

        One year later, in March 2005, RD published an article in its "That's outrageous!" column. Crowley wrote, "When Anthony Weiner, a Democratic member of Congress from New York, discovered the home addresses of undercover officers [in this Web site], he proposed a bill ....". The original DN article did not say that Weiner discovered that undercover officers' addresses were involved, just that police officers' home addresses were involved. Weiner's press release says " In response to reports about a web site that reveals personal data about New York City police officers, including the home addresses of undercover officers ....". What reports does the press release refer to? The DN article says, "Outraged by a report in the Daily News ... Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn and Queens) said yesterday he'll introduce legislation banning such sites." Thus, an 11 March 2004 DN article claims that the promised legislation responds to a 10 March 2004 DN "report" but the press release refers to "reports". Maybe Weiner's press release means "report" when it says "reports".

        The 10 March 2004 DN has only one report about this Web site, an article discussed and refuted above on this Web page. That article must be the report which the DN claims caused Weiner's promised legislation. That article does not explicitly claim that this Web site provides home addresses of undercover police officers although the article has some language which implies it. (By the way, the deceitful article's explicit claim that this Web site supplies photographs of undercover detectives is just another DN lie. We are certain that we do not have photographs of any detectives; much less, undercover detectives.)

        Although the press release refers to "reports", this Web site knows of no report (claiming that this Web site provides home addresses of undercover police officers) other than the 10 March 2004 DN report, which merely implies that such information is provided. Weiner may have received at least one report other than the 10 March 2004 article.

        This Web site provides information from publicly available sources, and has no way of knowing if anyone listed is an undercover police officer. Unlike the DN and many other newspapers, this Web site investigates strictly legally: no one has ever told us that an officer we list works undercover, so we have no way of knowing. Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, and other reporters, were treasonously told that a certain person was a CIA spy. Cooper and the others published the information, illegally refused to name their sources, and have been backed up by their employers. Time, for example, supports Cooper in his illegal refusal to disclose his treasonous source. Articles by Cooper and others led to discovery of a CIA cover business used by that spy and probably other CIA spies. Weiner has not promised to introduce legislation to ban publishers which pass on treasonous disclosures or encourage their employees' illegal refusal to testify. Why don't Weiner and RD attack Cooper and the other reporters who illegally refuse to reveal a treasonous source, and Time and the other publishers which knowingly encourage the illegal conduct of their employees? In answering this question for RD, it may be useful to know that RD sometimes cooperates with Time's owner TWX (Time Warner); for example, in the 2004 Postal Rate Commission case mentioned in the discussion of RDA officer Michael A. Brizel on our RDA page, to which we link from the bottom of this page. If Cooper and the others did not expose the spy, it would have been impossible for the public to have found out. However, if this Web site were abolished, many others now existing would continue to sell and give away addresses, telephone numbers, and much information not provided by this Web site. If the entire Web were abolished, the addresses and phone numbers disclosed here would still be easily available (as explained above on this Web page). Thus, it is hard to understand why, under the logic of Weiner and RD, Weiner and RD don't call for shutting down Time and the other publishers who encourage illegal refusal to testify. In the case of Weiner, there is another consideration: he is a politician. Time and the other publishers can help him, the number of CIA spies is small, there are many police officers in New York City, and this Web site neither wants to nor is able to help him. Weiner's course is clear.

      8. When RDA (Reader's Digest Association) needs to learn about tax law before making a tax decision, RDA may use some combination of an in-house lawyer (to whom RDA pays a salary) and an outside lawyer (whom RDA pays). When RDA needs to learn about securities law before making a securities decision, RDA may also use some combination of a lawyer on its staff (whom RDA pays a salary) or an outside lawyer (whom RDA pays). However, when Crowley writes an article for RD, cheapness is the rule. For example, his article about this Web site is based entirely on off-the-cuff answers he got in free interviews. He got what he paid for. Furthermore, almost all interviews were done in or near the District of Columbia although there are people elsewhere who know more about the article's subjects than the people he interviewed. (There was one interview of a web publisher in New York state's Manhattan, which is near RD headquarters, in New York state's Westchester county.) This Crowley policy of cheapness results in seriously mistaken articles but it keeps RD's expenses low. This is a sensible policy because the accuracy of an RD article is not important (unlike a tax return RDA submits to the IRS, or a document RDA files with the SEC, for example).

        If your shoulder hurts and you want expert advice about what to do, you probably don't ask a lawyer even if he used to represent a medical center. Regarding the Web sites Crowley opposes (only one of which, American Web site Cryptome, Crowley explicitly identifies), there does not seem to be, under American law (which is relevant to Cryptome), criminal intent, criminal act, or a victim (although Crowley fears that there may eventually be a victim). Furthermore, Cryptome provides much fascinating information and links to even more information; for example, about weaknesses in the forensic use of DNA and about NSA misconduct. Therefore, under American law (which applies to Cryptome), it would be an unwise use of prosecutorial resources, unethical, and possibly criminal to prosecute those Web sites publishers. However, Crowley not only interviews a lawyer but does so on subjects in which the lawyer has no claim to expertise. For example, Crowley quotes the lawyer, who has never been a criminal prosecutor or defender, about what's hard to prosecute (the lawyer's answer, to the extent it pertains to the law, is favorable under American law to the Web sites Crowley dislikes, by the way) and even quotes the lawyer on non-legal issues. Crowley did this because:

        1. Crowley needed people to quote (for the same reason a drunk needs a lamp post)
        2. The lawyer is in the District of Columbia, which keeps Crowley's transportation costs low.
        3. The lawyer charged nothing for the interview, which keeps Crowley's interview costs non-existent
        4. Crowley is only writing an RD article (nothing that has to be done well, like a document submitted to the SEC or IRS by the Reader's Digest Association).

        By the way, this Crowley policy of cheapness may partly explain why Crowley seems to complain only about some free Web sites, not about the many Web sites which sell the kinds of information he does not want supplied over the Web. He may complain about free Web sites because, among other reasons, his limited budget did not permit him to personally examine the other ones.

        When Crowley was taught (by a lawyer who never won or even lost a criminal case) what's hard to prosecute, Crowley never asked whether there could or should be criminal prosecution of RD and its chief executives for selling State Department and CIA propaganda without disclosing to customers and readers that that's what the published material was (as described in American Dreamers, Simon & Schuster 1996, a book by former RD managing editor Peter Canning). Would such sales be a kind of criminal fraud, or other crime, under the laws of any of the places involved? Would each sale be a separate count? Should everything used to print and fraudulently sell government propaganda, and all fruits of the sales, be confiscated? RDA had a sweepstakes which some state attorneys general thought was illegal. RDA vice president and associate general counsel Dupree, on behalf of RDA, seems to have sent an 8-K report about the matter to the SEC (filed on 3/9/1, 9:11am ET, SEC File 1-10434, Accession Number 858558-1-23). Did RDA do anything illegal, or even criminal, in its sweepstakes activities? In early 2005, RDA subsidiary QSP recalled battery-powered flying saucer toys because the flying saucer can overheat while charging, resulting in the plastic motor cover starting to melt, creating a risk of burns to children handling the toy (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission alert #05-547). If Crowley knows of those activities (sale of government propaganda by RDA without disclosing that it was propaganda, conducting a sweepstakes thought illegal by some state attorneys general, sale of melting toys), combined with his continuing to work for RDA, constitute ratification of those activities, so that he's personally liable for them? What are the statutes of limitation in the places involved? Would it be hard to prosecute RDA? If RDA were prosecuted, could it win using a free speech defense? Maybe some day Crowley will write about these topics. Many RD readers and customers would find these topics interesting. Maybe the article's title could be "Let's shut this magazine down".

      9. Consider, from the RDA-Crowley point of view (not from our point of view), what a terrorist would like from a Web site. A terrorist might want to fire a missile, mortar, or other weapon at the side of a building. The Al Qaida plane-hijackers flew into the sides, not tops, of buildings. Thus, photos of the sides o buildings would help terrorists. Imagine two terrorist each of whom wants to fly a helicopter, filled with explosives, into a side of the Empire State Building. One terrorist wants to fly into the west side of the building. Maybe there is a Saudi consulate on the west side of the building, and the terrorist is anti-Saudi, for example. Another terrorist wants to fly into the east side of the building. What's a terrorist-loving Web publisher to do? The publisher should provide a few views (for example: photographs showing target building as seen from north, south, east, and west). That way, each terrorist can use the view he wants. At least one such Web site now (31 December 2005) exists; for example, it provides photos of the Empire State Building as seen from north, south, east, and west. Why doesn't RDA call for that Web site to be shut down? We think that RDA and Crowley are too cowardly too tangle with Microsoft. Furthermore, Microsoft might someday advertise in one of the RDA magazines (or already does). Maybe RDA relies on Microsoft products.

        The Soviet Union was managed by people who resemble the ones Crowley interviewed. In the Soviet Union, it was difficult to get a map because the government thought that spies, seditious dissidents, invaders, and criminals could use maps to do bad things. Ordinary street maps were difficult to get. This is fruit of the RDA-Crowley mentality. We're waiting for RDA and Crowley to call for the shut down of Microsoft's Web site.

        Our above discussion of the Web site is based solely on the RDA-Crowley mentality and does not reflect our own views of that Web site or of which Web sites, if any, should be shut down.

      10. RD is published by Reader's Digest Association, Inc. (NYSE: RDA), which is a Delaware corporation. That corporation's headquarters are in a campus at the intersection of Reader's Digest Road and Roaring Brook Road (near Saw Mill River Parkway and North Bedford Road), Chappaqua hamlet, New Castle town, Westchester county, New York 10514. If you go to Pleasantville village, you won't find RDA. Real estate taxes (for the real estate parcel that RDA headquarters are on) go to New Castle town's government, not to Pleasantville village's government. There was a zoning request because RDA's office campus had been zoned for only one tenant (RDA), and the new owner wanted the parcel re-zoned to allow more than one tenant. New Castle town, not Pleasantville village, considered that re-zoning request. RDA headquarters are in Chappaqua school district (Chappaqua is in New Castle town), not in Pleasantville school district. People who live near RDA's headquarters say they live in Chappaqua or New Castle. The post office nearest to RDA headquarters is in Chappaqua: 107 N. Greeley AVE, Chappaqua, NY 10514. RDA is a tenant of its headquarters premises, not (according to a Web page once at the owner. The owner is Summit Development and Greenfield Partners of Norwalk, Connecticut. As of late May 2005, the owner was trying to get Pepsi to be a tenant at that campus. The campus is east of Conrail railroad tracks, northwest of Whipporwill Park, southwest of Mount Kisco Country Club, and roughly 34 miles north of New York City. The headquarters campus is about 0.8 mile (about a minute's drive) from the home of former U.S. president William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and his wife (secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton), the address of which is supplied in the Hillary Clinton entry of this Web site, which is currently (2006 August 7) on one of our congress pages. The telephone area code is 914.

        At the Edgar Web site for SEC documents, we once read an RDA notice to RDA stockholders about a coming stockholders' meeting, to be held in the auditorium at RDA headquarters. Stockholders had a right to attend in person and therefore needed directions to be able to get to the auditorium. The RDA stockholder notice said that the auditorium was in Chappaqua.

        On 29 January 2006, RDA has at least three real estate parcels in Chappaqua. RDA's headquarters office does not seem to be on any of them. The street addresses of the parcels are Roaring Brook Road (property class 311, residential vacant), 31 Roaring Brook Road (property class 311, residential vacant), and 57 Roaring Brook Road (property class 210; block 10, lot 10.0). These street addresses are where the parcels are, not the owner's correspondence address. The parcel at 57 Roaring Brook Road seems to be a one-family house. Maybe the Wallaces, who founded RDA, lived there. We don't know who lives there now. Here is some information about it:

        Land Number 1
        Land Type Primary
        Acres 1.05
        Total Records for Parcel 1
        East & North 212573 / 260444
        Building and Improvement Information
        Property Class 210
        Kitchens 1
        Building Style Colonial
        Bedrooms 3
        Stories 2.00
        Baths 2.50
        Year Built 1936
        Basement Type Full
        Total Building Area 2,016.00
        Finished Basement 360
        First Floor 828.00
        Basement Garage Capacity 0
        Second Floor 828.00
        Attached Garage Capacity 2
        Additional Floor 0.00
        Finished Over Garage 0
        Construction Grade Excellent
        Central Air Exterior Wall Type Wood
        Fireplaces 1
        Condition Normal
        Heat Type Hot Air
        Grade Adjustment 0.00
        Finished Attic 0
        Porch Type Screened Porch
        Porch Area 187

        The post office Web site has a zip code look up form. If one fills out that form with addressee Reader's Digest, town Chappaqua, and state NY, the Web site says that the full address is:

          480 BEDFORD RD
          CHAPPAQUA NY 10514-1799

        That address is near, but not in, the RDA headquarters campus. We do not know what RDA does on Bedford. There are other businesses at that address; for example, printer and publisher RR Donnelly.

        The post office seems to have assigned a Pleasantville zip code to the RDA headquarters campus although that campus is in Chappaqua, not Pleasantville. Chappaqua and Pleasantville are different places. They do not border each other. We do not know why the post office treats the RDA headquarters campus as if it were in Pleasantville.

            We have color photographs of RDA's headquarters campus at the bottom of our RDA page, to which we link from the bottom of this page.

      11. I am Joe's Bankruptcy Court Petition

        In the fiscal year ending June 2005, RDA had negative net income (in other words, RDA lost money), and had fewer employees than the year before, according to Hoover's Web site on 31 December 2005. As of 18 August 2009, RDA will soon petition the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to Web site, "Why Digest's Next Excerpt Will Be From Chapter 11", by Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, 18 August 2009.

        QSP (QSP, Inc.) fund-raising business is a subsidiary of RDA. QSP helps its customers to raise funds by selling magazines, chocolate, and other products.

        There was a court case in Delaware in which RDA seems to have been one of the defendants: Lang v. The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., et al, C.A. 19574-NC, Delaware Court of Chancery. We are not expert in that case. We have not read any papers filed in that case. The result of that case, as far as we know, seems to have been a $21 million increase to shareholders in re-capitalization. In our opinion (which could be wrong), that result was a defeat for RDA management. We are not certain who represented the victorious plaintiffs in that case. Lawyer JAMES S. NOTIS (of Gandy & Notis law firm, of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey) seems to have represented a plaintiff. Law firm (according to a Web page once at URL ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS of Manhattan, New York City, also seems to have represented a plaintiff.

        Wave Corporation, an engineering and software company, installed and configured MediaBank digital asset management software for RDA. RDA's editorial group has used PlanSystem3, which is software that helps managers and editors plan and collaborate. Jonathan Kranz's Kranz Communications sells services related to copy-writing, marketing, and communications. Kranz has helped its customer RDA, which Kranz lists with other Kranz customers that are in the "Catalogs/Buck Slips" industry.

      12. Some present and recent RDA executives, officers, and directors (and addresses at which they seem to have lived) are listed on our RDA page, to which we link from the bottom of this page.


      1. old publicity about our website
      2. AP Associated Press
      3. DN Mortimer B. Zuckerman's New York Daily News
      4. NWS K. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation
      5. RDA Reader's Digest Association
      6. TWX Time Warner
        1. surnames A-G
        2. surnames H-Q
        3. surnames R-Z
      7. Viacom Sumner M. Redstone's Viacom and CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System)


    2010 NY Pistol Permits Impropriety in USA Gov't Home Page
    USA Main Page Previous Page Next Page

    To return to this page       =

    map to CIA headquarters on Colonial Farm Road in McLean
    link to our home page