The 2019 Certification or Racketeering series of blogs began about Total Reclaim of Seattle. Craig Lorch and Jeff Zirkle were sentenced last week on their fraud case. I offered to fly in to testify, and sent them a letter for the judge, to make the case (as in the blog) that the executives at Total Reclaim had been told by BAN that 80% of recyclers were shipping 80% of goods overseas, where 100% percent were smashed by hands in primitive conditions. As I testified at Brundage's sentencing hearing in Chicago, those were false claims.
Essentially, defamation and slander are BAN's only product. And at its root, the initial domino of defamation - of people in faraway geographies beating LCDs and CRTs with hammers - is a fake statistic. BAN is the most ruthless in attacking anyone who questions their credentials.
What percentage of what Total Reclaim exported became "waste"? Was that the source of the corporate profits? Or were those profits, and the repeated purchse of flat screens from Asians, evidence that the exports were likely NOT WASTED? How does the Department of Justice conflate fraud, profit, and mercury to poison our minds with racist assumptions about Asia's Tech Sector when there is no evidence that the goods were dumped? The crime Total Reclaim execs pled guilty to was lying about the export, not knowing the goods were dumped or that the buyers were poisoned.
It's a sin to kill a mockingbird.
What did the Chinese say about these LCD imports? That they were worth millions of dollars as reused product, imported in competition with new LCDs made in Chinese factories. The Chinese Justice Department's story is in stark contrast to the US Justice Department's theory. And in this case, the Chinese are right, because they followed the source of the profits, and those profits stem from reuse, not abandoned waste.
Just 3,500 of the LCDs seized, China claims, were worth HK $2M. Is it more likely that Total Reclaim benefited from reuse value, or that the Chinese imported waste, again and again and again, simply to save the state of Washington some shredding costs?
What keeps happening is that recycling companies believe Basel Action Network's claims about overseas, and they believe BAN's claims that their competitors export 80% as unsorted, unexamined waste.
The recycling company owners, like Brundage, Lorch and Zirkle, think to themselves, "I'm not exporting anywhere close to 80% of my material" and decide they should get credit for being "stewards".
The stewardship however involves claims not even to export 10%, or in Europe's case, even 5% of the material, unless you PAY BAN CERTICATION to prove it's what the buyer wants. Buyers who BAN has never spoken to, and believes do not exist, and portrays as primitive dumpers.
That's how they get you. They convince you that your small amount of exports, only the cherry picked stuff that people overseas think is worth paying for and paying to repair, is very small compared to most USA recycling companies. So you sign their papers to get credit. But eventually you are tempted to export just a little bit (no one claims Total Reclaim exported even 10% of the stuff they picked up). But BAN has made good stuff look bad by cutting wires that they claim are evidence the goods are not repairable. Now you are going to jail.
And U.S. Attorney’s Office is Communications Director Emily Langlie press release implies that the stuff you exported was found to be dumped in the way BAN says it was. Ms. Langlie goes home at the end of the day, turns off the light, and never wonders whether Total Reclaim found out BAN was lying, and that state of the art facilities reusing electronics in China are not, as BAN claims, "a myth".
There is only one way to defend yourselves. The companies who get injured are the ones who sign a paper agreeing with BAN, who promote their company based on BAN literature. That establishes the basis of a crime of FRAUD. Whatever misinformation BAN's certification is based on, the law is clear, if you promise recycling practices (based on the underlying fraud of fake statistics), you can be convicted.
Jim Puckett then inserts himself into the sentencing headline, as if the sentence somehow supports or vindicates his vindictiveness. I write to Interpol, to prosecutors, and to EPA in order to take some of the hot air out of his balloon. I don't know whom Total Reclaim or Intercon Solutions sold material to, but I'm certain that material was not junk, and am certain that 80% of it was not managed in a polluting process. I don't think you could accomplish that by exporting only separated high quality material (as TR did) even if you tried. BAN showed that when they did try - by cutting wires to "ruin" an LCD they deposited in Seattle, which showed up in a high rise building complex (and not a "rice paddy" in Hong Kong's New Territories). Two years ago I contemplated hiring "Atticus Finch" to sue these fake watchdogs - for Racketeering, Defamation, and Fraud.
Like the society in Harper' Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, BAN has created a stigma around relationships between whites and dark skinned people. BAN's theory is that some innate advantage of "rich" countries makes the foreigners a victim. But the actual victims are Joe "Hurricane" Benson and the geeks of color doing positive things in those countries, and the American and European recyclers who dare to question BAN's narratives.
Prosecutors sometimes go after bad people who trade with brown people, and sometimes go after good people for trading with brown people - based on "defrauding certification". BAN's certification is barren of nuance, designed to promote the interests of Planned Obsolescence and Big Shred.
To date I've published 5 Blogs this year on Watchdogs, Certification, and Racketeering, with the following themes:
An actual hero in Africa was killed for journalistic success and integrity. He was targeted, and then he was murdered, and Africa was robbed of hope.
Prosecutors have a duty to examine BAN's claims that the LCD monitors were not repairable and not repaired. Prosecutors have a duty to examine the 'habeus corpus' - do the materials shown in BAN's photos (depicting "primitive" Asians and Africans) equate to what was shipped, or the volume? Or are they taking pictures of apple peels after the imported apples have been consumed?
And if Prosecutors find that BAN hid, manipulated, sold, or profited from trade of information about the GPS devices during their "sting", they examine the man who claims to know where all of our electronics wind up. Those claims are the subject of Racketeering 7.
For more about whether used electronics are usually repairable:
https://www.repairfaq.org/sam/faqsam.htm
For more about Total Reclaim sentencing:
https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2019/04/25/details-on-total-reclaim-prison-sentences/
https://www.opb.org/news/article/total-reclaim-e-recycling-fraud-washington/
For more about Intercon Brian Brundage sentencing:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-electronics-recycling-fraud-brundage-sentence-20190410-story.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/recycling-executive-guilty-fraud-and-tax-offenses-scheme-landfill-and-re-sell
- BAN begins by defaming the Tech Sector overseas, with wild hallucinatory descriptions of thousands of orphans in rice paddies beating electronics with hammers.
- BAN creates a lie about the Basel Convention having been "amended" to criminalize legal exports (reuse, repair and recycling are ALL legal under the actual Basel Convention, not just "tested working")
- BAN then defames those who (like yours truly) question or rebut the initial defamation, or correct information they give about the Basel treaty.
- BAN defames the companies who don't pay tribute through E-Stewards certification, and defames the alternative certifications.
- If the companies like Intercon or Total Reclaim threaten to withdraw from BAN, or defend themselves (Total Reclaim exported far less than 10% of the material they received), BAN's enforcement is to defame them.
Essentially, defamation and slander are BAN's only product. And at its root, the initial domino of defamation - of people in faraway geographies beating LCDs and CRTs with hammers - is a fake statistic. BAN is the most ruthless in attacking anyone who questions their credentials.
What percentage of what Total Reclaim exported became "waste"? Was that the source of the corporate profits? Or were those profits, and the repeated purchse of flat screens from Asians, evidence that the exports were likely NOT WASTED? How does the Department of Justice conflate fraud, profit, and mercury to poison our minds with racist assumptions about Asia's Tech Sector when there is no evidence that the goods were dumped? The crime Total Reclaim execs pled guilty to was lying about the export, not knowing the goods were dumped or that the buyers were poisoned.
It's a sin to kill a mockingbird.
What did the Chinese say about these LCD imports? That they were worth millions of dollars as reused product, imported in competition with new LCDs made in Chinese factories. The Chinese Justice Department's story is in stark contrast to the US Justice Department's theory. And in this case, the Chinese are right, because they followed the source of the profits, and those profits stem from reuse, not abandoned waste.
Just 3,500 of the LCDs seized, China claims, were worth HK $2M. Is it more likely that Total Reclaim benefited from reuse value, or that the Chinese imported waste, again and again and again, simply to save the state of Washington some shredding costs?
What keeps happening is that recycling companies believe Basel Action Network's claims about overseas, and they believe BAN's claims that their competitors export 80% as unsorted, unexamined waste.
The recycling company owners, like Brundage, Lorch and Zirkle, think to themselves, "I'm not exporting anywhere close to 80% of my material" and decide they should get credit for being "stewards".
The stewardship however involves claims not even to export 10%, or in Europe's case, even 5% of the material, unless you PAY BAN CERTICATION to prove it's what the buyer wants. Buyers who BAN has never spoken to, and believes do not exist, and portrays as primitive dumpers.
That's how they get you. They convince you that your small amount of exports, only the cherry picked stuff that people overseas think is worth paying for and paying to repair, is very small compared to most USA recycling companies. So you sign their papers to get credit. But eventually you are tempted to export just a little bit (no one claims Total Reclaim exported even 10% of the stuff they picked up). But BAN has made good stuff look bad by cutting wires that they claim are evidence the goods are not repairable. Now you are going to jail.
And U.S. Attorney’s Office is Communications Director Emily Langlie press release implies that the stuff you exported was found to be dumped in the way BAN says it was. Ms. Langlie goes home at the end of the day, turns off the light, and never wonders whether Total Reclaim found out BAN was lying, and that state of the art facilities reusing electronics in China are not, as BAN claims, "a myth".
There is only one way to defend yourselves. The companies who get injured are the ones who sign a paper agreeing with BAN, who promote their company based on BAN literature. That establishes the basis of a crime of FRAUD. Whatever misinformation BAN's certification is based on, the law is clear, if you promise recycling practices (based on the underlying fraud of fake statistics), you can be convicted.
Jim Puckett then inserts himself into the sentencing headline, as if the sentence somehow supports or vindicates his vindictiveness. I write to Interpol, to prosecutors, and to EPA in order to take some of the hot air out of his balloon. I don't know whom Total Reclaim or Intercon Solutions sold material to, but I'm certain that material was not junk, and am certain that 80% of it was not managed in a polluting process. I don't think you could accomplish that by exporting only separated high quality material (as TR did) even if you tried. BAN showed that when they did try - by cutting wires to "ruin" an LCD they deposited in Seattle, which showed up in a high rise building complex (and not a "rice paddy" in Hong Kong's New Territories). Two years ago I contemplated hiring "Atticus Finch" to sue these fake watchdogs - for Racketeering, Defamation, and Fraud.
Like the society in Harper' Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, BAN has created a stigma around relationships between whites and dark skinned people. BAN's theory is that some innate advantage of "rich" countries makes the foreigners a victim. But the actual victims are Joe "Hurricane" Benson and the geeks of color doing positive things in those countries, and the American and European recyclers who dare to question BAN's narratives.
Prosecutors sometimes go after bad people who trade with brown people, and sometimes go after good people for trading with brown people - based on "defrauding certification". BAN's certification is barren of nuance, designed to promote the interests of Planned Obsolescence and Big Shred.
To date I've published 5 Blogs this year on Watchdogs, Certification, and Racketeering, with the following themes:
- Who a real "watchdog" is (Journalist Ahmed Hussein Suale, assassinated in Ghana after exposing racketeering by paid soccer officials)
- How GPS trackers CAN be used to claim to expose illegal e-waste export / fraud.
- When GPS trackers have been deployed to intentionally target groups of people - to re-bolster support for a "profile" of groups that do not pay for certification
- How GPS trackers WERE methodically used in a way to "frame" a problem that benefits a certification leader's financial beneficiary).
- How GPS trackers are used in 6 actual GPS studies and one "Racketeering" hypothesis.
An actual hero in Africa was killed for journalistic success and integrity. He was targeted, and then he was murdered, and Africa was robbed of hope.
Prosecutors have a duty to examine BAN's claims that the LCD monitors were not repairable and not repaired. Prosecutors have a duty to examine the 'habeus corpus' - do the materials shown in BAN's photos (depicting "primitive" Asians and Africans) equate to what was shipped, or the volume? Or are they taking pictures of apple peels after the imported apples have been consumed?
And if Prosecutors find that BAN hid, manipulated, sold, or profited from trade of information about the GPS devices during their "sting", they examine the man who claims to know where all of our electronics wind up. Those claims are the subject of Racketeering 7.
For more about whether used electronics are usually repairable:
https://www.repairfaq.org/sam/faqsam.htm
For more about Total Reclaim sentencing:
https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2019/04/25/details-on-total-reclaim-prison-sentences/
https://www.opb.org/news/article/total-reclaim-e-recycling-fraud-washington/
For more about Intercon Brian Brundage sentencing:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-electronics-recycling-fraud-brundage-sentence-20190410-story.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/recycling-executive-guilty-fraud-and-tax-offenses-scheme-landfill-and-re-sell
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments have been turned off due to spam proliferation. Comments welcomed via Twitter @WR3A
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.