More on the Mystery Poster

In the post below, I collected much of the commentary of the TPM Mystery Poster. This nameless, enigmatic writer has aroused much attention lately, especially on Democratic Underground. The Poster claims to have uncovered the "Rosetta Stone" explaining Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' strange testimony on the so-called "terrorist surveillance program."

I published all that material without really reading it. I still have yet to go through much of it. But this much is clear: The claimed "Rosetta Stone" is a case brought by the Maine Public Utilities Commission against Verizon, the cell phone provider.

After the wireless wiretapping controversy first became public, various news stories asserted that Verizon was allowing the NSA to listen in on private telephone calls and emails of the company's customers. Maine has what is known as the "rule of ten" -- if ten customers of a utility lodge a complaint, the Maine Public Utility Commission must look into the matter. About twice that number have complained about Verizon. The citizen taking the lead in this case is a fellow named James Cowie.

And thus it was that the homeland of Stephen King became the first state to look into the fetid, gruesome morass of the National Security Agency.

Verizon responded by claiming that they were in an impossible position. The law (they said) did not allow them to confirm or deny any compliance with the NSA.

Well, the case has dragged on and on, and it is now clear that -- ayuh! -- Verizon has shared a whole bunch of stuff with the NSA. Our Mystery Poster alleges that documents in this legal case can help to explain why Gonzales has acted in such a strange manner.

All of the documentation can be found here; simply type in the number 2006274 in the "Case ID" field, and a wealth of data will soon be made available to you.

Well and good. But is it relevant data?

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Let's take a look at one section of our Mystery Poster's allegations. He directs our attention to the initial filing papers, dated 05/08/2006. Click on the little folder icon and you will soon be reading a 58-page .pdf file.

Scroll to the end, page 58: You'll see a name: The Verizon GC name listed is "Arena", the one who isn't the primary Verizon GC: Here's your first connection with the FISA: "Arena" is a former DoJ Type; and has been linked with the intermediaries; and his name is linked with the same AT&T-conference attendees in re NSA-JTTF-FISA intermediaries for processing warrants.

- Play with the phone numbers in the DC Madam list. Just for fun.

Okay, I did that. (The Madam's phonebook is here.) No match.

The "Arena" listed above is fellow named Drew C. Arena, who labels himself the "Vice President and Associate General Counsel Law Enforcement and national Security Compliance, Verizon." No one should be surprised to learn that he is a former "DOJ type."

So. Where does this get us?

The Mystery Poster insists that the key to everything can be found in the internal emails used within Verizon.

To make a long story short, once you index the e-mails for the Verizon internal e-mail system, you can then use open source information to cross-index with the outside NSA-FISA intermediaries: One of them is AMDOCS. Within the Verizon e-mail is also open disclosure of the Verizon General Counsel request for and receipt of information related to specific legal questions related to various litigation issues of interest to the FISA-NSA surveillance.

In court, once something has been disclosed, that cannot be hidden.

In light of the Gonzalez testimony on FISA, and the Verizon GC disclosures, plus the knowledge that Verizon does have this internal e-mail system, I would encourage a broad view: There is an overlap between the WH, RNC, Verizon, DoJ on the FISA through the AMDCOS-intermediary link within the Verizon e-mail.

Now, I'm no tech geek, but neither am I a total computer illiterate. And to be frank, I'm not able to translate this passage into English. Perhaps a reader can tell me exactly why and how these paragraphs relate to the Gonzales controversy?

I do know this: Amdocs is an Israeli telecommunications company (with headquarters in St. Louis, MO) that specializes in billing. When you get a cell phone bill or a DirectTV bill, you are probably looking at a piece of paper that Amdocs helped to generate.

Amdocs has been used as a contractor by the Department of Justice and the FBI. Some writers have alleged that, in the run-up to 9/11, the Israelis used Amdocs to hack into the Justice Department's communication systems in order to find out just what the FBI knew about Israeli agents in the United States. Do a little web-surfing and you will find the assertion that Amdocs got hold of the telephone and credit card records of U.S. intelligence operatives -- at home and abroad, presumably. I am not able to confirm the veracity of that claim, but the claim does exist, and has existed for a while.

Could this be the big secret that the Mystery Poster is trying to reveal?

I don't know. Alas, this person's writing style tends to impede his (I'll use that pronoun until someone tells me to do otherwise) message.

For example, here is how the MP ties the Maine/Verizon case to Gonzales:

Then, you want to compare the nature, and terms of the Verizon contract with the various media-messaging firms within the GOP-WH-DOJ that are linked with AT&T. One of the names that may appear is Fleishman Hilliard. This firm's name is one that has been linked with AT&T, and could very well have a contract that permits it to get the stripped down versions of the NSA intercept data; and which they use to develop some sort of media messages. The speculation is that the Gonzalez testimony about "this program" or "that program" relates to the method by which NSA data is stripped of identifying information; and how this non-specific information is then transferred possibly through an Intermediary to a firm associated with DoJ and DoD. As you dig into the Fleishman Hilliard Contracts, you Will find a common contract number that crosses multiple Presidential programs and appropriations -- DoJ, DHS, DoD. The contract numbers are essentially the same.

Your job should be to consider the Gonzalez testimony and WH efforts to claim privilege as a _subset_ effort to shield attention from the open source information that can be back doored into the WH, DoJ, and DOD. IN other words, the WH, DoJ, and AG are screaming, "You can't come in this door," and apparently hoping you don't realize that the stuff they're hiding, and the WH connection, isn't noticed through the Maine PUC data.

Some of this makes sense to me. Too much of it doesn't.

Fleishman Hilliard is real enough; the firm is a leader in the field of public relations. In 2003, they got into trouble here in Los Angeles, where they did some PR work for our Department of Water and Power. Fleischman Hilliard was accused of overcharging; they settled out of court.

I've heard elsewhere that NSA data is stripped of identifying info before the data mining is performed. If incriminating evidence is found, they can trace the message back to its originators.

But, but, but...

...why the hell would the NSA make this "stripped" (or "mined") data available to a public relations firm? Maybe Fleischman Hilliard has a "side business" they don't talk about on their web site...

The more I think about this allegation, the less sense it makes.

I still don't see how any of this explains that weird "race to the hospital" story. The Mystery Poster's scenario does not explain the allegation (almost certainly based on fact) that Dick Cheney instigated the bizarre affairs of that night. And we still do not have any explanation for the odd discrepancy between FBI Director Mueller and Alberto Gonzales regarding the nature of the surveillance program.

Am I being dense? If any reader wants show me up for a fool, then all I can say is: By all means, turn on the lights! On this occasion, I would be overjoyed to have someone reveal me as a dullard.

The Mystery Poster repeatedly asserts (both in posts published on Cannonfire and in other posts) that Congress should

go to the Joint staff and say: We want the information by Close of business today; if you don't get it, your budgets are going to get zeroed out, just like Murtha did with the congressional liaison. Then the NSA contractors will have to decide whether they're going to want to go through termination negotiations, and lose funding; or whether they're going to turn over the evidence linked with these disclosed Verizon documents.

Huh?

I'm not sure what "Joint staff" means. Congress does not have the ability to turn off the funding for this or that sub-department in a single day. Budgets are made on a yearly basis. (Would we want Congress to have that sort of highly specific, day-by-day power? Before you answer, imagine a Newt-vs-Bill Clinton scenario.)

Frankly, I can't place the Murtha reference, even after some Googling. But I wouldn't be surprised if my memory is at fault here.

Bottom line: Who is the Mystery Poster?

My first thought was Wayne Madsen, who has touched on some of these matters in his writings -- he has mentioned Amdocs, for example. Being former NSA, Madsen might not want to sign his name to material dealing with his one-time employer. Besides, he doesn't have the highest of reputations these days, and may prefer anonymity.

But I don't think MP is WM. The writing styles differ markedly.

Neither do I think, as some suggest, that the Mystery Poster is a Bush insider.

Right now, my guess is that the MP is James Cowie, the prime mover behind the citizens' lawsuit against Verizon. Cowie's correspondence with David Arena, the lawyer mentioned above, is reprinted in the online version of the court papers. Cowie would have a thorough knowledge of the documentation involved with that lawsuit. He would also have the technical knowledge needed to put together these claims, since he worked on the technical staff for the Maine Public Utility Commission before his retirement.

Also, the Mystery Poster repeatedly cajoles other states to do as Maine did. In other words, he is prompting other citizen activists to do as James Cowie did.

If not Cowie, then perhaps some other party to that suit...?

Incidentally, my co-writer dr. elsewhere suspects that the Mystery Poster may have contributed a comment to this very blog. A couple of days ago, doc e published a piece predicting that Gonzales would resign in August. Her article elicited this anonymous comment:

I am officially filing a complaint that may add a bunch of insult to injury to the Gonzo DOJ........ today after lunch.....

be prepared cause ya'll will probably read about this one next....I hope its the icing on the cake.

Whaduzzit mean? You tell me...!