THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS A POLITICAL RETRIBUTION PROGRAM

https://phone-free.net/public/.THE_OBAMA_PAYOLA_SCAM_777_m.png

Those Who Get In The Way Of Obama's Financiers Should Not Expect To Survive

How ‘Green’ Energy Subsidies Transfer Wealth for the Rich and Their Corrupt Senators Through Dark Money Scams

Nicolas Loris @NiconomistLoris / Bryan Cosby

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Nearly three-quarters of subsidies for electrical vehicles go to households with an annual income of $100,000 or higher. (Photo: nrqemi/Getty Images)

When the Golden State Warriors, who won three of the last four NBA championships, signed All-Star Demarcus Cousins, sports pundits across the country offered the same opinion: The rich just got richer.

In many respects, the same holds true for energy subsidies.

Federal energy programs promise ambiguous policy goals such as abating climate change, spurring innovation, or reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. But they often lead to situations that help the rich at the expense of middle- and lower-income Americans. That’s because when the federal government gets involved in the energy business, it transfers billions of dollars to the production and consumption of politically preferred sources and technologies—and many of those involve the poor transferring money to the rich.

For instance, a recent study by the Pacific Research Institute found that more than 99 percent of subsidies for electrical vehicles go to households with incomes of $50,000 or higher, and nearly three-quarters go to households with an annual income of $100,000 or more.

Poorer Americans can’t access the $7,500 tax credits because of the high prices of electric vehicles, even after accounting for the generous subsidies, which means they help pay for the subsidies through their taxes but can’t themselves get eligible for the subsidies or other benefits, such as carpool lanes.

To make matters worse, some major car companies are forced to sell electric vehicles at a loss to comply with state mandates and regulations. As Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute explains:

California, along with the nine states that have adopted California’s policy, mandates that zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) comprise a set percentage of the automobile market. The mandated minimum market share for ZEVs is currently scheduled to grow from 4.5 percent of sales in 2018, to 22 percent of the market by 2025; and Gov. Jerry Brown is even contemplating a complete ban on sales of cars with internal combustion engines after 2040.

Complying with these mandates requires companies to maintain ZEV credits that equal their share of the mandate, based on the company’s specific sales. Acquiring sufficient credits requires manufacturers that do not sell enough ZEVs to either sell ZEVs in California at a loss, purchase credits from companies whose ZEV sales exceed their credit requirements, or pay a $5,000 fine per credit that the company is short.

Consequently, the sales mandate has become a subsidy to companies, such as Tesla, that sell more ZEV-qualified vehicles than required by the mandate; and, a penalty on companies whose ZEV sales fall short of the required mandate. The $700 million earned by Tesla via these credit sales, which does not even account for all the credits Tesla has amassed, exemplifies that these subsidies and penalties can be substantial.

Energy subsidies benefit not only wealthy individuals, but also wealthy companies in the form of blatant corporate welfare. The federal government’s loan guarantee program is another subsidy program where government-backed loans have, time and again, gone to companies that simply don’t need any support from the taxpayer.

You don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface to see that some of these projects have financial backing from giant tech firms, massive energy utilities, large investment banks, and other successful corporations.

The Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program granted more than $1 billion in loans for Nissan and Ford to retool their factories. This program is simply a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to these massive companies. These companies should have no trouble financing a project without government-backed loans if they find it is worth the investment.

Eliminating favoritism in markets will benefit all Americans—individuals and businesses alike—not just the privileged few.

 

The U.S. Department Of Energy Has Turned Into A Predatory Lender Operating Against The Public?

 

By Anston Conners

 

Your tax dollars pay for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to exist but if you want to get some of your tax money on loan to help the public by building electric cars or energy efficient homes you have to PAY DOE to even file an application and it will almost always not be approved.

You will have to spend enough of your own money to buy a house in Wisconsin, and over year of your life, to find out that the money you hoped to get was only hard-wired to political insiders.

Per DOE: You have to pay the government between $150,000.00 and up to $400,000.00 to even look at your loan application.

Contrast this with the fact that DOE has demonstrated, for over a decade, that it will reject all applicants who are not friends or financiers of Obama.

Additionally, contrast this with the fact that a commercial bank charges nothing, or less than $500.00, for the same application process and takes 2-3 weeks instead of 2-5 years as DOE dies!

Contrast this with the fact that Obama’s friends at Tesla, Fisker and Solyndra were simply handed funds from this account with almost no review or up-front ‘fees’.

Read the specs at these links:

Renewables/Energy Efficiency solicitation, page 18-19: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/DOE-LPO_REEE_Solicitation_03-Jun-2014.pdf and Fossil solicitation, Supplement 1: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/DOE-LPO_ADV-FOSSIL_Supplement-01_8-Jul-2014.pdf

DOE has now legally defined itself as a “BANK” but it is not regulated as a BANK! DOE holds a monopoly on certain types of financing in violation of anti-trust laws. If Elon Musk, an Obama financier, tells his partners inside of DOE to not fund you, you don’t get funded!

The communications from DOE, the videos of DOE staff from presentations, the communications with others, the actions of DOE, the statements by those who have interacted with DOE, the documents produced by DOE and other material, legally define DOE as an entity offering “Financial Offerings such as a Bank”.

DOE is engaging in “Predatory Lending” which is supposed to be regulated by Federal and State laws, rules and regulations.

By definition, predatory lending benefits the lender and ignores or hinders the borrower’s ability to repay the debt. These lending tactics often try to take advantage of a monopoly finance position which the lender created. A number of banks have been sued by the U.S. Government for such practices. DOE used systems, as discussed in former Tesla head Darryl Siry’s article: https://www.wired.com/2009/12/doe-loans-stifle-innovation/ to become the ONLY source of domestic auto and energy product financing by the way DOE “arranged things”. They created, working with the National Venture Capital Association (A predominantly DNC-controlled entity) the ONLY banking route and became THE ONLY BANK in high tech cars and alternative energy.

Standard banking practice holds precedent that a $100M business loan application takes three weeks, or less, to approve or deny, has few, if any fees required to process it and that the Federal Government never charges it’s constituent taxpayers, on average, more than $100.00 for any federal financing instrument.

DOE appears, by it’s actions, to now be violating numerous banking laws, ethics and standards and inflating process, fees and standards to protect our competitors and using our tax dollars to do so. The previous applicants will confirm these assertions.

Predatory Lending Practices

What constitutes a predatory lending practice? A number of actions are often cited as such — including a failure to disclose information or disclosing false information (such as the fact that DOE did NOT disclose that applicants direct competitors are the “loan reviewers” AND beneficiaries; that the money was “hard-wired to Tesla, Ener1, Fisker, etc;) and, that DOE uses risk-based pricing and inflated charges and fees. There are other predatory practices such as loan packing, loan flipping, asset-based lending and reverse redlining in use by DOE staff.

These practices, either individually or in concert with each other, create a cycle of debt and corruption that causes severe financial hardship on any applicant who is not a DNC insider. Here are some predatory lending practices that many are concerned about:

Inadequate or False Disclosure

The lender hides or misrepresents the true costs, risks and/or appropriateness of a loan’s terms, or the lender changes the loan terms after the initial offer.

Risk-Based Pricing

While all lenders depend on some form of risk-based pricing — tying interest rates to credit history — predatory lenders abuse the practice by charging very high interest rates.

Inflated Fees and Charges

Fees and costs (e.g., appraisals, closing costs, document preparation fees) are much higher than those charged by reputable lenders, and are often hidden in fine print or do not follow industry standards.

Loan Packing

Unnecessary products are added into the cost of a loan.

Loan Flipping

The lender encourages a borrower to refinance an existing loan into a larger one with a higher interest rate and additional fees.

Asset-Based Lending

Borrowers are encouraged to borrow more than they should when a lender offers a refinance loan based on their amount of equity, rather than on their income or ability to repay.

Reverse Redlining

The lender targets limited-resource industries like high-tech cars that conventional banks may shy away from. Everyone in the industry is charged higher rates to borrow money, regardless of credit history, income or ability to repay and/or process is changed for friends of “the bank”.

Balloon Mortgages

A borrower is convinced to refinance a loan with one that has lower payments upfront but excessive (balloon) payments later in the loan term. When the balloon payments cannot be met, the lender helps to refinance again with another high-interest, high-fee loan.

Negative Amortization

This occurs when a monthly loan payment is too small to cover even the interest, which gets added to the unpaid balance. It can result in a borrower owing substantially more than the original amount borrowed.

Abnormal Prepayment Penalties

A borrower who tries to refinance a loan with one that offers better terms can be assessed an abusive prepayment penalty for paying off the original loan early.

Mandatory Arbitration

The lender adds language to a loan contract making it illegal for a borrower to take future legal action for fraud or misrepresentation. The only option, then, for an abused borrower is arbitration, which generally puts the borrower at a disadvantage.

Unlicensed Loan Offers

Beware of loan offers through public officials. Make sure any lender you work with is licensed. Is DOE licensed?

Promises

Stay clear of lenders who promise that your loan will be approved regardless of your credit history or rating.

Being Rushed to Sign Papers

Applicants were rushed into the loan process with high Interest Rates and Fees

Blank Spaces in Documents

DOE left the loan application document up to the applicants, as they stated in the videos, the ENTIRE document was a “blank space”.

Legal Protections

Federal laws protect citizens against predatory lenders. Chief among them is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). This law makes it illegal for a lender to impose a higher interest rate or higher fees based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status or national origin.

The HOEPA Act protects citizens from excessive fees and interest rates. Loans that are considered “high cost” are subject to additional disclosure requirements and restrictions.

In addition, 25 states have anti-predatory lending laws, and 35 states limit the maximum prepayment penalty that a lender is required to pay.

Loan Churning a Problem

One of the most common practices among predatory lenders is loan churning, where borrowers are forced into a relentless loan cycle in which they are constantly paying fees and interest.

Loan churning usually works like this: The lender makes a loan the borrower can’t afford. The borrower fails to pay the loan back on time, so the lender offers a new loan that includes another set of fees and interest. The borrower, already under stress for not repaying the first loan, agrees to the second loan and the loan-cycle churn has started.

Prepayment Penalties

Another practice among predatory lenders is to include a prepayment penalty on loan agreements, especially those involving subprime mortgages or car loans.

A prepayment penalty is a fee charged to borrowers who repay a loan before its due date. It usually happens when borrowers are refinancing to take advantage of a more affordable interest rate. Prepayment penalties are meant to discourage borrowers from paying off a loan early because it deprives the lender of interest they expect to receive for the life of the loan.

Prepayment penalties vary from lender to lender. Many are for 2% of the amount owed. Others are for the equivalent of six months of interest on the loan. Most prepayment penalties are based around the number of years you have been paying the mortgage and usually expire after three years.


The Truth In Lending Act requires lenders to provide a disclosure form to borrowers that includes a box that the lender must check if a prepayment penalty is in play. The wording on the form says a penalty “may” be charged and that wording often confuses consumers. Some people will read that to mean “may not” or simply skip over it in hopes that it will not ever be enforced.

The smarter practice is for the borrower to ask the lender for details on the amount of the penalty and how long the prepayment period is.

Many states have laws preventing high interest rate loans.

This document: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43087.pdf  lists the entities that may have an interest in DOE’s deceptive and predatory lending practices.

Is DOE breaking the law?

 

Home » Contentious California Beach Access Case Heads to U.S. Supreme Court

California  |  General  |  Land Use  |  Litigation  |  Oceans  |  Public Lands  |  Regulatory Policy

   

Can arrogant billionaires do anything they want to?

Contentious California Beach Access Case Heads to U.S. Supreme Court

Longstanding Martins Beach Controversy May Well Capture Justices’ Attention

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018-19 Term is already shaping up as a big one for environmental law in general and the longstanding tension between private property rights and environmental regulation in particular.  The Court has already agreed to hear and decide two cases next Term raising the latter set of issues: one involves the question of how extensively federal regulators can limit development of private property that’s deemed by government to be “critical habitat” for animals listed under the Endangered Species Act; the other concerns whether the Court should renounce some or all of the “ripeness rule” it created in 1985 limiting property owners’ ability to bring “regulatory takings” cases in federal courts.  (Those pending cases were profiled in earlier Legal Planet posts found here and here.)

Now the justices are being asked to take up a third, high profile case next Term pitting environmental values against private property rights.  That case, Martins Beach 1, LLC v. Surfrider Foundation, Supreme Court No. 17-1198,  just so happens to be California’s most controversial and heavily-litigated coastal access case over the past decade.  The recently-filed petition for certiorari asks whether efforts by environmental organizations and state government regulators to maintain public access across private lands to the California coast triggers a compensable taking of private property under the U.S. Constitution.

Martin’s Beach near Half Moon Bay, CA (Richard Yelland)

The facts and origins of the Martins Beach controversy have been well-publicized and are by now familiar to many.  The relevant facts are set forth succinctly by the California Court of Appeal at the beginning of its decision–Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1 LLC–from which U.S. Supreme Court review is being sought:

“Nestled in a cove, sheltered on the north and south by high cliffs, Martins Beach lacks lateral land access.  The only practical route to Martins Beach is down a road, known as Martins Beach Road, that leads from Highway 1 in San Mateo County to the Beach.  [The previous landowner had for years allowed public access through the private road to the beach during daylight hours, charging a small fee to do so.  The current landowner] purchased Martins Beach and adjacent land including Martins Beach Road in July 2008…A year or two after purchasing Martins Beach, [the new landowner] closed off the only public access to the coast at that site.”

The property owner’s unilateral closure of access to Martins Beach triggered a political controversy that eventually garnered national media attention.  On one side of this public access dispute is coastal property owner Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley billionaire who–at least until he unilaterally terminated public access to Martins Beach–was best known as the co-founder of Sun Microsystems.  On the other side are public access organizations led by the Surfrider Foundation (which originally filed the litigation) and public agencies including the California Coastal Commission and San Mateo County.

The Surfrider Foundation’s lawsuit, commenced in 2013, is straightforward: it asserts that landowner Khosla could not discontinue previously-afforded public access to Martins Beach unless and until he first obtains a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act.  That’s because, Surfrider argues, Khosla’s actions to close and lock an access gate across Martins Beach Road at its junction with California Highway 1 constitute “development” under the Coastal Act for which a coastal development permit is required.  Khosla’s attorneys argued that simply closing the access gate doesn’t qualify as a “development” under the Coastal Act and, even if it did, requiring Khosla to continue providing public access across his land constitutes a “physical taking” of his private property rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The trial court and state Court of Appeal both ruled in favor of Surfrider, agreeing with the organization that Khosla’s unilateral closure of the access route to Martins Beach required a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act.  Those courts similarly rejected the landowner’s taking claim, ruling that it was not “ripe” for decision unless and until he first applies for a coastal development permit and the permit is subsequently denied.  Finally, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court injunction requiring Khosla to keep the beach access road open while the state court litigation proceeds on the merits.

Diagram compliments of the California Coastal Commission survey exhibit

(Surfrider’s lawsuit is only of several legal initiatives commenced to keep the Martin’s Beach accessway open.  Another NGO, Friends of Martin’s Beach, filed suit against Khosla, arguing that the public has a state constitutional right of access to Martins Beach or, alternatively, that Khosla’s predecessor had permanently dedicated a right of access to the public that Khosla could not revoke.  [That case remains pending in the trial court.]  Meanwhile, Khosla filed his own preemptive lawsuit against the Coastal Commission and San Mateo County, seeking a court ruling that he was not legally required to maintain public access to Martins Beach.  [Khosla’s lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court on procedural grounds.]  Both the Coastal Commission and the county have sent Khosla formal letters advising him of the government regulators’ position that the landowner’s unilateral termination of public access to Martins Beach indeed constitutes “development” requiring a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act before public access can be eliminated.  And, finally, the California Legislature enacted legislation in 2014 authorizing the California State Lands Commission to acquire a right-of-way or easement across Khosla’s property to Martins Beach, by eminent domain if necessary. [So far, the Lands Commission has not initiated legal action to secure that accessway.])

After the California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in favor of Surfrider, Khosla last month filed his petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the High Court to take up the case on its merits.  His petition presents two questions for Supreme Court review: 1) whether the state court-issued preliminary injunction requiring the access road to remain open constitutes a per se physical taking of Khosla’s property for which compensation is required under the Takings Clause; and 2) whether requiring him to apply for a permit from the Coastal Commission before closing the Martins Beach access road similarly violates the Takings Clause.

Khosla’s petition has both some key strengths and certain glaring weaknesses.  Perhaps its greatest strength is the quality and expertise of his legal advocates.  Khosla’s lead attorney in the Martins Beach case is Paul Clement, the one-time Solicitor General of the U.S. during President George W. Bush’s administration and a most able Supreme Court advocate: his law firm website states Clement has argued more cases before the justices than any attorney currently practicing before the Supreme Court.  The cert petition reflects Clement’s skill at Supreme Court advocacy: it’s a very well-written document, targeted squarely at the conservative wing of the Court.  (Four justices must vote in favor of a petition for certiorari for review to be granted.)  And those conservative justices have in recent years repeatedly signaled their strong interest in property rights-based challenges to environmental regulation.

After a surf session, Morgan Williams of San Francisco climbs over a locked gate at the main access to Martin’s Beach. (Michael Short, The Chronicle)

The weakness of landowner Khosla’s legal arguments relates to the nature of his takings claims: his lead issue boils down to the assertion that the state court judge’s issuance of a preliminary injunction requiring the Martins Beach access road to remain open while the case proceeds on the merits in the state court represents an unconstitutional “judicial taking” of his property for which compensation is automatically due.  But the controversial argument that courts–as opposed to legislators or regulators–can “take” private property was before the Supreme Court in a 2010 case in which the judicial taking theory failed to persuade a majority of the justices.  And Khosla’s back-up argument–that requiring him to apply for a coastal development permit before closing the road to the public triggers a compensable taking–seems to this observer a rather slender reed upon which to mount a viable takings claim.  Finally, a billionaire attempting to keep the general public from continuing to use a longstanding coastal accessway doesn’t constitute a particularly sympathetic property owner or set of facts.

As noted in a recent Legal Planet post, Californians are passionate in their love for the state’s 1100-mile coast and coastal resources.  So it’s no surprise that government agencies and state conservation groups alike have risen up to strongly resist Vinod Khosla’s efforts to close public access to one of California’s most scenic and popular beach areas.  But it’s also true that the Supreme Court justices have in recent years been quite sensitive to claims by private landowners that environmental regulation runs roughshod over their property rights.  So it’s certainly possible (though far from certain) that the Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach case could wind up on the Supreme Court’s docket next fall.  If the justices do grant review, the Court’s 2018-19 Term will emerge as the justices’ most consequential in over a quarter century when it comes to the intersection of environmental regulation and private property rights.

#######################################

The U.S. Department of Energy Engaged In Criminal Activities

By Lance LeLand

 

That may sound like an over-the-top assertion but the federal evidence I have seen appears to prove it.

Elon Musk, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Tom Steyer, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner are, at once:

1.) Silicon Valley oligarchs, as well as;

2.) The financiers of Barack Obama's political campaigns, as well as;

3.) The core beneficiaries of the Barack Obama Administration, as well as;

4.) The men who ordered and operated "hit-jobs" against anyone who competed with them, as well as;

5.) The bosses, or top shareholders, of the core staff that Obama hired to staff his Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as;

6.) The "Dark Money" operators during the Obama Administration, as well as;

7.) The past and future "revolving-door' employers of Obama's staff, as well as;

8.) The people that the Obama White House and Department of Energy actually report to, as well as all of the other things, above.

This is not conjecture. It is fact provable in court and known widely by FBI, GAO, Treasury and SEC investigators. Government investigators are blockaded from acting on this information by their bosses who are compensated by these men via Dark Money conduits.

Two of the above items might be a "coincidence". Eight such inter-connections are a "crime"!

This hurts the average person because this kind of corruption breaks the trust that voters hope to have in their government.

Department of Energy officials went to great lengths to A.) give away taxpayer money to these men, through covert stock market and investor routes, B.) pump the stock valuations owned by these men to stratospheric fluff numbers and C.) exclusively benefit their political campaign financing "PayPal Mafia Cartel". At the same time, Department of Energy officials went to great lengths to D.) sabotage, stone-wall, log-jam, defraud and lie to the competitors of these men in order to protect these Silicon Valley oligarchs, per their deals with Obama's Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, Valarie Jarrett, Jay Carney, David Axelrod, Tom Steyer, Rahm Emanual, Steve Rattner and Matt Rogers: Their "handlers" in the Obama White House.

Top Department of Energy Officials stated on video that applicants for Department of Energy funding would be reviewed on a "first-to-apply/first-served" basis. The law that created the funding even said that. None of the Silicon Valley Mafia insiders had their acts together, though, and assumed the money would just be handed to them. The Paypal Mafia insiders never bothered to submit their application paperwork on time.

When top Obama/DOE crook's Steven Chu and Lachlan Seward realized that none of the Silicon Valley Mafia insiders had their acts together and that the competitors of their friends had filed applications first, they simply ignored their own rules, changed the submission criteria and refused to process the applications of anyone who was not an Obama campaign financier. They stone-walled the campaign financiers competitors until they forced almost all of them out of business.

By applying for DOE funds as a business, you can't get funding from any VC in the NVCA, or any bank, until AFTER DOE decides about your funding. By freezing decisions, that only take two weeks to process, for many years, DOE killed an entire next generation auto industry.

In one instance, exposed in a federal lawsuit, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, an investor in some of the Silicon Valley Cartel's own companies, had his top staffer tell an applicant multiple lies. The lies were designed to sabotage the applicant, one of Elon Musk's and John Doerr's most feared competitor's. If the applicant got the federal funds then the companies owned by Elon Musk, John Doerr, Tom Steyer, Vinod Khosla, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner could not possibly compete.

In this instance, for one of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding pools, Steven Chu and Lachlan Seward wanted a fee paid to the Department of Energy in order to get them to look at the application. The applicant, XP, agreed to pay the $50,000.00 fee and acquired outside investors to fund the effort. All investors engage in due diligence and these investors required that one DOE official engage in one phone call for 3minutes to answer their single question about the process. The call was arranged BUT the DOE executive did not show up. The applicant faxed, email, FEDEX'd and messaged DOE daily, for weeks, but Steven Chu's staff ducked the calls as the deadline approached. DOE was made keenly aware that the funding depended on a single answer to a question. In one call, the DOE Secretary stated that the DOE executive was "not in the office" while he could be clearly heard in his office talking behind her. The DOE executive was standing right there and avoiding the call because he knew that the call was the last thing the applicant needed to complete the process.

The DOE executive was protecting Elon Musk, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Tom Steyer, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner because he got paid by them.

The applicant's investors were getting nervous because DOE was not responding. On the day of the deadline, after getting a waiver for the fee, even though the applicant had the money ready, The DOE official finally responded and said "sorry, you missed the deadline, you can't play". He had log-jammed and stone-walled the applicant to try to put them out of business to protect his bosses investments.

Carol Battershell worked at DOE as an Obama funding insider at this time. She was a huge promoter of climate change metrics. What we now know is that in 2008, every solution to the climate change crisis, if there was a "climate change crisis", just happened to be owned by Elon Musk, Tom Steyer, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner. Another amazing coincidence! Carol has quit DOE, under pressure over falsified climate change data, and now bird-watches in Ohio.

Carol Battershell was in charge of reviewing applicants for DOE yet refused to return any phone calls or emails from applicants who were competitors of Elon Musk, Tom Steyer, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner. What another amazing coincidence!

Battershell refused to ever talk to, or communicate with, any engineers or founders of the applicants who were the competitors of Obama's financiers.

That group of insiders may ring some bells for you. Steve Spinner was the husband of Alison Spinner who was the lawyer for Solyndra and Tesla. Solyndra was raided by the FBI and Tesla is still under FBI investigation. Steve Rattner was indicted in New York for stock market fraud. Steve Jurvetson was fired for sex scandal activities yet he is still in the news for hosting sex parties for Elon Musk. John Doerr is Climate Change advocate Al Gore's business partner and the subject of Silicon Valley's biggest sex lawsuit. Vinod Khosla is in the news for taking over a California public beach and nay-saying #METOO claims. Every one of this men has a dark and dirty dossier that makes one shudder to imagine the Omerta's they must engage in.

DOE officials used the most lame-brain excuses they could come up with to avoid funding their financiers competitors. They told the electric car company that the car was "not using enough gasoline". Then they told the same applicant that electric cars were too futuristic...while funding the same electric car with Nissan, a huge Obama Dark Money financier. At one point DOE stated that they did not have enough money for the applicants. IN FACT, they had enough money to fund EVERY applicant and there are still billions of dollars sitting unused in the fund.

Bright Automotive staff distributed a notoriously harsh letter that they had sent to Energy Secretary Chu after they realized that Chu had defrauded them too. Bright competed with the interests of Elon Musk, Tom Steyer, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla, Steve Jurvetson, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Steve Westly and Steve Spinner. Bright staff say the DOE out-right defrauded them. DOE knew, from Day One, that only Obama political campaign financiers would get the funding. DOE used the other applicants as a smoke-screen.

The Obama Administration used the U.S. Department of Energy as a political slush fund to pay off campaign financiers. Hillary Clinton promised Silicon Valley she would do the same thing using the U.S. Department of Transportation to fund "Driverless Cars" (that nobody actually wants). That is why DNC financiers Tesla, Apple, Google, etc. are fanatically pushing their driverless car projects. These are DARK MONEY POLITICAL SLUSH FUNDS. They are criminal programs!

 

They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL : https://topnewsglobal.net/index.php?trackback/2386

This post's comments feed