1) The Story behind the NASA electrogravitics patent: Did NASA steal it from an inventor? USPTO agrees to a re-exam of their patent.

3) "Kill the Energy Bill" article from NY Times -- no energy security in present bills.

7) World Economic Secret Societies: Reply to the Sept. 25 Future Energy eNews

KISSIMMEE -- On a hot August morning in 1998, a respected physicist from Alabama stands in a garage in St. Cloud and examines the work of some young inventors.

Dressed in khaki pants and a white, button-down shirt rolled up at the sleeves, the man from NASA, Jonathan Campbell, interviews the two inventors on video.

The three men look at a plywood circle about the size of a pizza pan at the center of the makeshift workshop that has a wooden dowel running through the center and wires stretched from top and bottom to four points along the wheel's edge, near four squares of aluminum foil.

The contraption is supported by a PVC pipe frame.

It has no motor, but when Hector Serrano and his partner, Dustin Maze, flip a switch to send 36,000 volts of electricity through the wires, the oversized pinwheel spins at about 60 revolutions per minute -- about twice the speed of an old long-playing vinyl record album.

No one has been able to explain exactly what makes it spin. But the force may just be a new propellant-less breakthrough in propulsion -- possibly the kind of innovation NASA would need to get manned spacecraft out of Earth's orbit and into deep space.

Within two years, the NASA scientist in the video patented a propulsion system based on similar technology. Serrano and his attorney, Michael Barber, claim Campbell and NASA stole their idea and that their videotaped interview is proof.

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center did not respond to the allegation. Campbell declined to be interviewed. The agency, in response to written questions from Florida Today, issued a statement which explained the technology behind Campbell's patent.

The statement did not answer any of the questions about the similarities with the Florida company's invention.

"Marshall Center has been contacted by Gravitec and . . . the Center is presently assessing the situation," NASA said in its statement. "However, it would be inappropriate for us to comment until the assessment is complete."

Serrano applied for a patent on his propulsion idea on March 5, 1999, about seven months after showing it to Campbell. One year and three days later, Campbell applied for a patent on similar technology.

His was called "Apparatus and Method for Generating Thrust Using a Two Dimensional, Asymmetrical Capacitor Module," a description very similar to how he explained Serrano's wheel on the video.

Serrano's patent was rejected.

Campbell's was approved.

"He's a Ph.D., and I'm a nobody," said Serrano, 30. "But I know this isn't the way you do science."

Early this month, an internal review board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed to reconsider Serrano's patent and all 33 of its claims. It may be approved after his company, Gravitec Inc., goes through one more administrative step, Barber said.

A patent entitles its holder to exclude others from making, using or selling the product in this country. It's not the person who files an application first, but rather, it's the person who invents first who has a right to the patent, University of Florida Law Professor Thomas Cotter said.

Meanwhile, NASA's Office of the Inspector General also is investigating the matter, Barber said. The inspector general's office did not return telephone calls from a reporter seeking to verify the office is investigating.

Before Campbell's visit to Central Florida, Serrano had sought the help of engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., a NASA center known for propulsion research. Serrano flew to Huntsville three times for guidance and to demonstrate his project.

Maze later built the wheel after getting suggestions from Campbell and other people at NASA.

"All we wanted was a little bit of help," Serrano said.

Barber wants criminal charges brought against Campbell for theft of trade secrets. The pictures in the two patents look very different. But in the world of patents, that's not what matters. Patents are based on the claims they make, Cotter said. One and maybe more of the claims made in NASA's patent may be too similar to claims made in Gravitec's, Barber said.

He said NASA did not give proper credit to Serrano or an earlier physicist, Thomas Townsend Brown, who in the 1930s made large spinning disks. Brown tried to establish a link between electromagnetic fields and gravitation fields hypothesized by Albert Einstein. This, Serrano thinks, is what makes his wheel spin.

Serrano said he thinks Campbell's patent was approved just because it had the NASA logo attached to it.

"It's easy to accuse someone of something, but when you have evidence to support it, it's no longer an accusation. It's an accusation with foundation," Serrano said. "Why would anyone steal blatantly take their technology, repackage it and say it was theirs? That doesn't compute in my head."

In the video, Campbell prompts Serrano on what kinds of applications could develop from the spinning wheel in the garage.

Serrano said that before any future work could be done, much less rocket building, he needed to get funding to move beyond a Home Depot phase and work with higher quality materials. The wheel they built cost $45.

To pay the bills, Serrano works nights in a warehouse for DHL Airways. They want the patent dispute resolved so they can get funding for a more extensive project.

In addition to NASA, Gravitec took its project to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office to see if the military was interested in the technology.

They need a vacuum chamber to test the device. They have not been able to use NASA's vacuum chambers.

Engineers at Purdue University tested something similar in a vacuum in the late 1990s.

Through all of this, Gravitec has been persistent. Gravitec officials said they had not heard from the NASA Inspector General since July 22. But after Florida Today began calling NASA about the case this week, Gravitec received a phone call the next day.

"We're like a bad weed," Serrano said. "We just keep coming up." (FLORIDA TODAY)

-----------------

Friday, 27 September, 2002

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 -- Lawyers for the General Accounting Office and Vice President Dick Cheney clashed today before a federal judge over which branch's claim is paramount -- the executive power to keep records confidential or the legislative right to investigate how public money is spent.

For the first time in the 81-year history of the agency, the comptroller general of the United States went to Federal court today to ask a judge to order a member of the executive branch to turn over records to Congress.

Lawyers for David M. Walker, the comptroller general and head of the General Accounting Office, and for the vice president argued over whether a federal judge can force Mr. Cheney to reveal the identities of industry executives who helped the administration develop a national energy policy last year.

Judge John D. Bates, who was appointed to the federal district court in December 2001 by President Bush, did not decide the case from the bench today. A decision is not expected for at least several weeks. After that, whichever side loses is expected to appeal.

The politically charged lawsuit, entitled Walker v. Cheney, raises important constitutional questions, including whether the vice president can ignore a request for information from the G.A.O. without the President's decision to exercise executive privilege.

Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer for the G.A.O. and a partner in the Washington law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, argued that if Judge Bates sided with the administration, the decision would have a "devastating" effect on "the G.A.O.'s ability to do its job."

"It would have an extraordinarily sweeping effect and would significantly halt the Congress's use of the General Accounting Office to conduct nonpartisan investigations," Mr. Phillips told Judge Bates.

Mr. Phillips argued that a 22-year-old law allows the comptroller general to "investigate all matters related to the receipt, disbursement and use of public money." The law also gives the comptroller general the right to obtain all "information the comptroller requires about the duties, powers, activities, organization and financial transactions" of the agency under investigation.

Paul Clement, the principal deputy solicitor general who represents Mr. Cheney, told the judge that the G.A.O. lacks the legal standing to bring the case against the vice president. Mr. Clement also argued that the law cited by Mr. Phillips does not give the G.A.O. the authority to conduct an investigation of the vice president.

"No court that I'm aware of has ever ordered the executive branch to turn over a document to a Congressional agent," Mr. Clement said. "This is unprecedented."

Mr. Clement was joined at the Government's defense table by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who does not usually attend arguments at the district court level. Indeed, Mr. Cheney was originally going to be represented by the Justice Department's civil division. Mr. Olson's role demonstrates the importance of the case to both Mr. Cheney and President Bush, who have said that disclosure of the information would hamper the executive branch's ability to solicit the advice of outside experts.

3) Kill the Energy Bill

New York Times | Editorial - Saturday, 5 October, 2002

Dear Colleague:
We are pleased to inform you that seats are still available for the Alliance to Save Energy's Associates Summit on Energy Efficiency - Charting a Course for Economic, Environmental, and Energy Security in Washington, D.C. on October 10, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The event will be held in the Ballroom of the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1315 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. Coffee and registration will begin at 8:30 a.m.

*****************************

Concerned citizens of MD, VA, and DC:

Turn up the heat on local leaders for a safe climate through clean energy!

Keynote Speaker: Ross Gelbspan, activist, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, and author of The Heat is On

Lisa Damon
Program Assistant
Energy & Climate Program
Environmental & Energy Study Institute
Phone: (202) 662-1886, Fax: (202) 628-1825

EESI. . .Seeking Innovative Environmental and Energy Solutions

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.

On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.

But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.

Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.

While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.

Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.

The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.

Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: Energy Suppression & Solar Decathalon


Hello Thomas

Regarding the History Channel's "Secret Societies"
broadcast, I append a quote I received from retired British Admiral, Lord Hill-Norton,
pertaining to the Bilderberger group. His response was in the context
of the UFO's and the apparatus necessary to maintain security. I had sent
Hill-Norton an interview I undertook with Mr John Maynard, an ex-military
intelligence operative who was working with the Disclosure Project.

Rich

"The Maynard interview is most interesting and convincing.
You were lucky to secure it so soon after joining the Club. I have heard it
all before, from a variety of different sources in one form or another. I
therefore believe it. The Bildebergers notion is about the only one which carries
enough clout to explain why some shadowy "they" are able to manipulate
enormously powerful people, corporations and events, without any reference to
Governments or, indeed their approval. I knew quite a bit about the
Bildeberg meetings when I was in office, nothing whatever to do with UFOs, and about which I cannot talk. I believe that they could certainly manipulate events, in the manner
which Maynard describes. I wonder if we really are seeing
the 'end game of denial scenario.' I hope so."

Forwarded as a courtesy from: