WHO IS PAYING FOR IT | ORIGIN OF DDM
The enterprise's investment in silencing Plaintiff is proportional to what his Federal complaint alleges. Kraemer v. Spitale, D.C. No. 26-cv-1962
2006 - 2010: The Predicate Fraud
Northampton County Judge Edward Smith, after returning from Task Force 134 in Bagdad, Iraq in 2008 as a CIA / DOD judge adjudicating enhanced interrogation pursuant to DOJ guidelines, continued the use of his public office for corrupt acts-specifically in aid of systemic child trafficking. Previously, in 2006, he issued an order for a guardian for my daughter predicated on a ruled-out mental retardation diagnosis (ICD-9 MR317), then concealed it from the records. After Judge Smith's return and by 2010, the recipients of his official act used it to divert $255,000 from the child victim's college fund to a mental retardation employment contractor, LEHIGH and then enrolled her with the contractor. This was part of Northampton County's systemic child trafficking business operating out of the Easton Area School District.
2010: The Federal Shield - DOJ Obstruction | Origin of MDM
The father Thomas Kraemer filed Kraemer v. Pennsylvania 10-cv-4868 EDPA to expose the larceny and violent trafficking on behalf of his daughter Emilie. The Department of Justice entered an appearance for LEHIGH's Director Freya Kroger, the recipient of the corpus of the corrupt payment initiated by Judge Smith's corrupt official act. The DOJ suppressed Lehigh's use of ICD-9 MR317 as part of a quid pro quo robbery scheme from the court. The official act of obstruction by the DOJ empowered Judge Smith's coconspirator defendants to also suppress their use of ICD-9 MR317 for trafficking turning them into a federally protected criminal enterprise. That is, the United States protected their national security asset (Judge Smith) from exposure. Starting 12/2010, threats against my daughter by the admin of the MDM were made through out the pendency of 10-cv-4868.
2012 - 2015: Quid Pro Quo Hobbs Act Extortion. Federal Judge applicant Ed Smith extorted payments from coconspirators not due to him to obtain his Article 3 job — the violent witness suppression of his victim. At least three law firms and Lehigh were involved in the quid pro quo witness suppression payments:
1. 2012 Severely torturing the plaintiff's daughter. Repeated burnings with cigarettes in parking lots and private residences by Lehigh staff;
2. 2013 Attempting her murder via the deliberate infection of Norwegian Scabies after Judge Smith received his 08/01/2013 Presidential nomination;
3. 03/27/2014 Pharmacologically brain damaging her the day after Smith's Federal appointment;
4. 02/06/2015 My daughter was kidnapped by the enterprise blunting any investigation into Judge Smith's victim through the police, lawyers and judges that facilitated it; e.g, Judge Smith received his final quid pro quo payment while he was seated as a Federal Judge.
Police refused to make any arrest or recording of the maiming the judge's child trafficking victim - plaintiff's daughter - during his 4 year federal application milestones, subverting FBI background checks.
"I have a whole different perception of the term human rights, after seeing people who were tortured," Judge Smith said in 2008. He did, he and lawyers Lisa Spitale, Ray DeRaymond, Shanon Moore, and Marcie Romberger learned it was an effective mode of witness suppression to get what you want - that corrupt police, like deputy Gretchen Kraemer, NYPD leadership taking bribes in NYC and Judges in the enterprise would never charge for.
2015 the MDM was used for violent suppression to impede the father's capacity [myself] to reverse engineer the scheme and place two sets of irreconcilable certified documents - proof of Judge Smith's corrupt official act used for robbery and the trafficking of a child - before a Federal Court.
An array of lawenforment stake holders emerged with budget and access to the MDM including; NYPD DOI, NYPD IAB, Allied Universal Security, OIC Security; CGI IT, DOJ personnel, U.S. Capitol Police; Court clerks both Federal and State.
LAWENFORMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN DDM AIDED CROWDSOURCING, WITNESS TAMPERING
They used it for intimidation - enrolling a horde of union members, migrants, social services agencies into the MDM account [ now called DDM ] to engage in organized harassment, maimings and vandalism [ miscreants totally immune from prosecution ] running a protection racket in aid of racketeering specifically focused on a violent smear campaign, blunting my communication and sullying my credibility.
The defendants previous public posture has been dismissal. Paranoid litigant. Irrational pro se. Crazy - the word deployed at the Apple Store, the DMV, Starbucks, the Courthouse. Every institutional actor facing these documented events has adopted the same posture: nothing to see, nothing to investigate, nothing credible here.
The DDM network recordings tells a completely different story.
You do not deploy 3,651 provisioned devices in 79 days against someone you are not afraid of. You do not maintain a 45-person-per-day operational budget for 79 documented days against a nuisance. You do not rotate enrollment credentials the morning after flashing swarming the target your surveilling is just a paranoid litigant. You do not intercept calls to NYS Court First Departments clerks pools; Inject artifacts into Federal CM/ECF email systems to prevent case ingestion; Place them on U.S. Marshal watch list; and attempt dental fracture against someone whose claims have no merit.
The operational expenditure is the tell. Every dollar spent, every device provisioned, every ground crew deployed, every credential rotated is an implicit admission that the documents Plaintiff is trying to place before a federal judge - without ex parte interference given lawenforment's proximity - are exactly as dangerous to the enterprise as Plaintiff says they are.
[ ICE highly likely does not allocate or have budget for 45 people a day to track one violent illegal. ]
Forensic Monitor is the countermeasure. It documents crowdsourced operations in real time using Apple's own self-authenticating output - sealed under SHA-256, admissible under FRE 902(13) and 902(14), and ready for court, law enforcement, or counsel the moment a criminal swarm descends upon your device and location.