The Baltimore Sun, About December 4, 1995, pp. 9-11.

No Such Agency Part Four

Rigging the Game

Spy Sting: Few at the Swiss factory knew the mysterious visitors were pulling off a stunning intelligence coup -- perhaps the most audacious in the National Security Agency's long war on foreign codes.

By Scott Shane and Tom Bowman, Sun Staff

Zug, Switzerland. For four decades, the Swiss flag that flies in front of Crypto AG has lured customers from around the world to this company in the lake dis- [words missing] most sensitive diplomatic and military communications value Switzerland's reputation for business secrecy and political neutrality. Some 120 nations have bought their encryption machines here.

But behind that flag, America's National Security Agency hid what may be the intelligence sting of the century. For years, NSA secretly rigged Crypto AG machines so that U.S. eavesdroppers could easily break their codes, according to former company employees whose story is supported by company documents.

The value to NSA of such an intelligence windfall is hard to exaggerate. For NSA effortlessly to read coded messages between top officials of many countries is the equivalent of recruiting reliable spies in key government posts around the world, receiving minute-by-minute reports from them and never risking that they will be unmasked.

NSA appears to have pulled off an international sleight of hand as brazen and brilliant as the original Trojan horse by winning the covert cooperation of the Swiss firm. Wary of encryption companies in NATO countries, the suspicious governments of such prime U.S. targets as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia bought equipment from Crypto AG (or Crypto Inc.). They never imagined that when they coded their messages with the Swiss machines, they may have been sending an easily unscrambled copy directly to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade.

NCUA Inspector General office enters our legal project with an mp3 recording taken from an analog tape phone conversation recording made Tuesday afternoon December 2, 2008.

Message not audio edited so use the slide bar to move to the first.

and

1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of William H. and Patricia L. Payne on July 22, 2008.

See Yellow star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud William H. and Patricia L. Payne of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT

---

1 Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union [SLFCU] CEO Christopher Jillson fraudulently removed $11, 018.00 from the saving account of Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales on July 22, 2008.

See green star.



2 Jillson and SLFCU lawyer Kevin Hammar falsely claim that withdrawal was legally made as directed by valid court order.

Valid court transaction must carry seal of clerk of court as evidenced by



3 Here is the rule

Rule 79. Books and Records Kept by the Clerk and Entries Therein

(a) Civil Docket. The clerk shall keep a book known as “civil docket” of such form and style as may be prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and shall enter therein each civil action to which these rules are made applicable. Actions shall be assigned consecutive file numbers. The file number of each action shall be noted on the folio of the docket whereon the first entry of the action is made. All papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action and shall be marked with its file number. These entries shall be brief but shall show the nature of each paper filed or writ issued and the substance of each order or judgment of the court and of the returns showing execution of process. The entry of an order or judgment shall show the date the entry is made. When in an action trial by jury has been properly demanded or ordered the clerk shall enter the word “jury” on the folio assigned to that action.

4 Official PACER docket of court order, seen below, does not carry seal of clerk of court and thus is a BOGUS court order which was used to steal $11,018.00 from saving account.










See Public Access to Court Electronic Records [PACER] pdf of official docket entry 151.

Above BOGUS ORDER is worthless pieces of paper with no legal standing but used to defraud Arthur R and Rebecca Ann Morales of $11,018.00 from their SLFCU savings account.

END OF AFFIDAVIT

6 Below NCUA letter and attachments arrived on Thursday November 7, 2008.

Letter apparently was a result of Ms Kelly Lay reading fraud loss affidavits on Internet.

November 12, 2008 we respond to Ms Lay's letter with

Ms Kelly Lay, Director
Division of Supervision
1230 West Washington Street, Suite 301
Tempe, A2 85281
Office (602) 302-6000
Fax (602) 302- 6024
E-mail: region5@ncua.gov

Dear Ms Lay:

Thank you very much for the copy of your October 31, 2008 letter seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#ncua.

While you correctly state

Enclosed is a letter of complaint from William H. Payne concerning issues related to the filing of two fraud loss claim affidavits.

we are concerned that NCUA may not be properly processing our fraud loss claims in accordance to its rules set forth in Your Insured Funds

Our two fraud loss claims are prima facie in the sense that evidence of felony criminal fraud is again supported by Sandia Laboratory Federal Union [SLFCU] lawyer Kevin Hammer's October 31, 2008 threatening letter seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/hearing/hearing.htm#hammarthreat .

Hammar includes in that letter the exhibit showing that the court order does not carry the FILED stamp of the court and is therefore a bogus court order.

Page 9 in Your Insured Funds states

Rather the NCUA sending Mr Morales and I each a check $11,018.00 for an insurance claim, you appear to be handling our fraud loss claim as a complaint against SLFCU.

We conclude this from your statements to Mr Felix:

Please:
o Review Mr. Payne's complaint in accordance with the instructions and suggestions set forth in the enclosed copy of Section 4.12 of the Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions (Guide).
o Reply directly to Mr. Payne (this is a change from section 4.12(1) of the Guide).
o Send us a copy of your reply within the next 25 business days along with the
documentation supporting your review and conclusion.

We feel that it is unreasonable for us to wait up to 25 business day for a response from Mr Felix for the reason the evidence fraud is prima facie seen in the above enclosure to lawyer Hammar's October 31, 2008 letter.

Copy of your October 31, 2008 letter appears to us as an attempt to have the SLFCU Supervisory Committee pressure SLFCU management into returning our stolen $22,036.00.

We ask that NCUA send us fraud loss claim insurance checks of $11,018.00 each by close of business Friday November 14, 2008 in compliance with National Credit Union Administration Regulations § 793.1-8.

Sincerely,




Arthur R Morales
1400 Camino Amparo NW
Albuquerque NM 87107
505-410-2339
amorales58@comcast.net

We receive two emails from Ms Lay with unsigned pdf attachments.

Unsigned pdf 1.
Unsigned pdf 2.

November 13, 2009 Lay email reads:

November 17, 2008 email reads: