Top NASA Official Jailed Under Suspicious Circumstances

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Navarro
It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

Just to confirm, is your masterplan genuinely going to involve calling up a 70-year-old man and saying,

"Hi! You know how your recent arrest for child porn has shamed and humiliated you to the point where you feel suicidal and have to be hospitalised? Well, I'm calling from The Internet, where hundreds of thousands of people are currently talking about you, investigating every aspect of your life, and making sure that as many people as possible are made aware of the accusations against you. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions... hello? Hello? What's that gurgling sound?"

I'll keep an eye out for to the news reports tomorrow: "Ex-NASA employee hangs himself using phone cord after call from mysterious Internet person drives him over the edge."

Navarro's plan was to call Grant, not Lawson - as he said in his post.

He hasn't established Lawson's whereabouts.

originally posted by: berenike

Navarro's plan was to call Grant, not Lawson - as he said in his post.

He hasn't established Lawson's whereabouts.

Ah. I presume that information was in the part that a moderator removed from his post?

The only other phone number discussed in the thread was for the hospice that OP had previously said he intended to try calling again, hence the rather logical assumption that it was a continuation of The Search for Lawson.

a reply to: EvillerBob

The information removed was Grant's address and phone number.

Since the entire post was about Grant, and Lawson wasn't mentioned anywhere in it, some might think a logical assumption was that Navarro was continuing to refer to Grant when he said he'd make a call.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Navarro
I reviewed what I could find on one of the Pentagon Ten. Army Captain Gary Douglas Grant was a JAG officer. Grant explained, “that was just simple knowing possession of images, there was not intent to acquire.”
...
The quote even directly states that "court documents show" those two images were unsolicited. If so, and if he then "immediately deleted them" as he testified, then what you're looking at is small minded people who operate solely on the principal of absolute rules. That is, they're completely incapable of original thought in any form, and are absolutely inclined to destroy a man over something which couldn't have been avoided. If people were able to prevent illegal emails from being sent to them, then there would be no computer viruses. But there are, and Grant couldn't. If there was no intent, then there was no crime.

Meanwhile, the article primarily discusses Grant being disbarred. It even states the actual reason for his disbarment is that "the bar wants a decision to assert that the crime is unacceptable for any attorneys in this state and to ensure consistency in similar cases." So it's a show-trial. It's not about Gary Grant or the children in the photographs, it's about making an example. Grant just happens to be the pawn which they've decided to sacrifice for that goal. That's why they're not interested in the clear-cut case that there was no intent.

Again, we see no justice. This isn't prosecution, it's persecution. What're the odds Grant should be destroyed by the Federal Government without just cause, and then be immediately destroyed by State Government? Might this man have been a scapegoat, or could he have been beaten into submission by a system that declared him its enemy?

***SNIP***

It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

And here we go again.

Grant wasn't convicted because of some show-trial run by evil vindictive Illuminati-controlled prosecutors and their Masonic judicial brethren.

Grant was convicted because he entered a guilty plea.

He didn't attempt to contest it. He said, in his own words, to the court, that he "willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possessed images of minors under the age of 18 exhibiting their genitals for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer."

You know this. In fact, you know this the exact same way that I know it. It was written in the article. The article that you posted.

He never argued "knowing possession". He never argued anything, in fact. He, an experienced lawyer with more than 20 years of practice under his belt ( link to State Bar of CA profile ) stood up in court and said "Yep, I'm guilty".

The issue in the article is that, while he put in a guilty plea, he doesn't want to be disbarred. The only way to avoid being disbarred is to essentially prove to the court that he isn't guilty of a crime when he has already entered a guilty plea.

I don't know how you can say there is a "clear cut case that there was no intent" when he's already told a court that he's guilty of an offence that requires intent. Is the court entitled to essentially overrule the finding of a previous court but without actually overturning the conviction? Grant isn't appealing the conviction, after all.

What you're probably looking at, however, is a case of plea-bargaining gone bad. He was probably expecting to swap an early plea for a slap on the wrist - which is what he essentially got; 90 days in jail, temporary suspension from the Bar, and probation, which he's violated multiple times already. Now, the Bar want to push for full disbarment. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say he might have entered a defence if he thought they would disbar him. Now that might make for an interesting discussion.

I see that the pattern of inconvenient facts being left out isn't confined to the Lawson case.

Of course he pleaded guilty. You yourself said "What you're probably looking at, however, is a case of plea-bargaining gone bad." I would speculate that he was coerced, just as I speculated that Lawson was coerced into admitting his guilt. Naturally, if the objective is to defame, then you need to demonstrate his guilt. The simplest means of doing this is by forcing a confession. After all, had either of these men put up a fight in the courts and especially via media, their efforts would then become wholly concentrated on damage control. If these men did in fact know something, and had they disclosed what they knew during that fight, then it's game over. The goal is to shut him up, not to provide him a soap box to stand on. They would have compelled a guilty plea out of him prior any pretrial, and possibly prior to a formal arrest.

You're reaction is precisely the reaction which counter-intelligence theoretically hoped to gain through these efforts. Your response was to discount the possibility of anything nefarious on the account that he plead guilty. Meanwhile Grant was making statements such as “that was just simple knowing possession of images, there was not intent to acquire," which suggests innocence, or at best guilt by technicality. As in, "yes I knew I downloaded child pornography, but the moment I realized that I deleted it." That sounds to me like a man who could have been signaling that we look beyond the plea and that we carefully consider his words. This is a man who plead guilty, then suggests that he's innocent. That fact was so evident that within the article, Judge Werdegar asked “are you trying to set aside your guilty plea?”

I'm not saying that he's innocent, nor am I saying that Lawson is. I am saying that both matters are suspicious, particularly in the case of Lawson. I appreciate that you thoroughly read not only what I wrote, but also the article which I cited. However, your arguement contradicts the paramaters of the theory, and is fallacious in any case.

On the previously discussed topic of contacting Grant, I called the number which I acquired for him. There was an answer, but the voice on the other end came in the form of electronic gibberish. It sounded similar to a fax machine, but it could be related to VOIP. It was a long shot in any case. Even had I managed to reach Grant, I suspect he wouldn't have been very interested in talking. His life may depend on him maintaining silence after all. I guessed that it would be a wrong number, or that he wouldn't be inclined to speak to me at all. However, I felt there was a chance that I would reach him. I expected that he'd suggest there's no conspiracy, and I hoped that I would be able to tell whether or not he was lying, which admittedly may be difficult given that he's an attorney. I think it was worth the try though. It's possible that he would have outright confirmed a conspiracy after all, even if that possibility was remote.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Navarro
It's 04:51 in the morning in California right now. Later today I'll call that phone number once the time is more reasonable. Maybe I'll get lucky. Maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll have an interesting story to tell us.

Just to confirm, is your masterplan genuinely going to involve calling up a 70-year-old man and saying,

"Hi! You know how your recent arrest for child porn has shamed and humiliated you to the point where you feel suicidal and have to be hospitalised? Well, I'm calling from The Internet, where hundreds of thousands of people are currently talking about you, investigating every aspect of your life, and making sure that as many people as possible are made aware of the accusations against you. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions... hello? Hello? What's that gurgling sound?"

I'll keep an eye out for to the news reports tomorrow: "Ex-NASA employee hangs himself using phone cord after call from mysterious Internet person drives him over the edge."

And we're back to ad hominem I see.

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: Navarro

“Loose lips might sink ships”

Good job on the thread! Very interesting read and it seems like you attracted derailers/flodders on page 3, filling whole pages after this with recurrent rambling (a sign of substance from your side) I'm not talking about members who are reasoning against his ”official” rank at NASA. I’m talking about the ones who systematically ignore all the logic statements, aspects and (mandatory) coincidences surrounding cases like these. The same people who blindly pulls out the occam's razor argument simply because the controlled media and involved corporations scream child porn charges, and "these things happen".

If i’m not mistaken big corp. and government usually hire contractors for jobs like these. Why? because they are easier to manage this way and if anything would surface or happen the company can easily fall back on the ”he was only a contractor” aspect, in which the individual's connection to the company drastically minimizes and as a result their public image doesn’t get affected in the same damaging way.

Sure, he may not have ”deprived the world of knowledge” in the sense that it was his job to exclusively do so. But regarding his lengthy role at NASA and other high profiled corporations like SAIC, he more than surely has been subjected to highly classified material that none of us can even start to fathom.

Lawson was seventy years old. It could be that like so many before him, as retirement and rapidly approaching mortality reared it's head, he was thinking about disclosure. He was thinking about telling the world what he knew, and the information on his electronic storage devices was the evidence he needed to back up his claims. So don't trust him he's crazy and don't be surprised if he's already killed himself, but don't worry if he did because he's just a child molester anyway.

I share your thought based on; available information, the official story with its almost mandatory composition, and the numerous alphabet agencies he's been involved in. He had sensitive material stored on his devices, got red-flagged and to get to him/it they fabricated the other accusation.

Lawson has been the man in charge of controlling information coming out've NASA. Whatever the government deemed too sensitive for public dissemination, Lawson was tasked with overseeing the effort to keep those NASA secrets a secret.

I’m with you on this as well. But unlike some other members who focuses on misinterpretation and word twisting, I interpret it as;

COMSEC (Communications security) Preventing unauthorized interceptors from accessing telecommunications in an intelligible form, while still delivering content to the intended recipients. The field includes cryptosecurity, transmission security, and physical security of COMSEC equipment. COMSEC is used to protect both classified and unclassified traffic on military communications networks, including voice, video, and data. It is used for both analog and digital applications, and both wired and wireless links.

...He worked with securing highly classified information, and his mission was like you stated, to prevent this info from getting in the wrong hands, including public dissemination. While doing so he was subjected to its content

Do you believe this is the same person? (sydex: scroll down a little bit)

sydex.net...
www.beyond.com...
www.linkedin.com...

"Donald Lawson" + COMSEC is also mentioned in wikileaks icwatch
transparencytoolkit.org...

___________________________________________________________________

The Brevard County man was fired last month from his job at Kennedy Space Center, as well as from a federal information technology contractor, Science Applications International Corp, after allegations of "multiple security violations," court records state.

www.orlandosentinel.com...

So what kind of corporation was SAIC?

It provided government services and information technology support, and it had a annual revenue of 4,5 billion. They had a deep relation with DoD, I.C. and NSA, and due to their longtime relationship with NSA they jokingly called themselves NSA-West based on their geographical location in comparison to NSA headquarters. SAIC got the NSA ”Trailblazer” contract after the 9/11 attacks, after that they continued with ”ExecuteLocus”. In 2005 they got the FBI contract for the ”Trilogy” program, or more directly a data software flop called "Virtual Case File”. They also participated in DIA’s "Stargate Project” between 1992-1994, which was involved remote viewing, the purported ability to psychically "see" events, sites, or information from a great distance. In 2002, the company was involved in the creation of the IAO, which focused on applying electronic surveillance and information technology to track and monitor individuals. In 2013, SAIC changed its name to Leidos.
www.corpwatch.org...
www.theguardian.com...

Remind me again who also worked for NSA as a contractor, pretty famous guy.. A guy who saw, administered and eventually released highly classified documents. That's right - the contracted system administrator Edward Snowden. So can we please leave the debate regarding if Donald Lawson had access to highly classified documents or not.

(To whom it may concern. If you feel like responding to my comment, do so in a logic, coherent, fact based manner. Twisting words, taking words/sentences out of context to establish deliberate misleading, recurrent and/or non fact based responses will be met with silence.)

I had a look at the links you provided. I disagree that the Donald E Lawson which we're discussing and the Donald Lawson which you linked to are the same people. If you haven't seen it, this Linkedin profile appears to be his. It's the same profile remarked upon and linked to several times over the course of the thread, to include in the original post. The IC Watch link you provided didn't immediately display any references to Lawson. When I clicked the link referring to a collection of resumes, the return was an error. Using the website's search bar returned no results either.

Very interesting information about SAIC and Snowden. Kudos on the disclaimer.

originally posted by: Navarro
I noticed some discussion in the thread about the "accounting" issue, but I haven't yet addressed it because I felt it was a distraction coming from individuals who weren't taking the matter seriously, nor were they contributing anything useful. The idea that he was a "COMSEC accountant" is doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense. I think it's pretty clear that the intended idea behind the phrase is a reference to the mechanism which accounts for NASA's COMSEC. It could've been more clearly identified as "COMSEC division," but it's been many years since we've had policemen or garbagemen. Everyone's a Public Safety Officer or a Sanitation Engineer these days.

You speak of a five days issue, but I'm not clear on what you're specifically referring to. Five days between which two events? Investigation and arrest? Charge and arrest? Arrest and article? Orlando Sentinel published multiple articles on the subject. To which would you be referring?

5 days was the time between his arrest and the publication of the news article which states that he didn't ask for bail.

This does sound suspicious. The top informational officer who would be privy to all of nasas covert space programs with the next next next level of computer security protocols would never ever leave easily accessable pictures on any of his computers -let alone access them from work. That would be like a cop signing out drugs from the evidence locker and telling everyone party at my place.
How easy is it for an government agency to fabricate a story and then post it on the internet - none of us reading this are immune . Their reasons of national security vetos any personal rights and 1984 is alive and well. Perhaps he is guilty but we will never really know for sure in this age of disinformation.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
That is more interesting. As I noted previously, "accounting" has more than one meaning. In this instance it's essentially invenory/resource tracking (ie accounting for resources, availability & usage etc) rather than straight finances.

I don't think it significantly changes anything, however. He's still just counting paperclips for a living.

Really, counting paperclips? Is that what you think a highly secure asset management system would be used for at NASA?

I think there are far more interesting things that could be in that system. Physical assets could include decommissioned shuttles, control systems, space delivery vehicles, parts.

Now even more interesting would be the digital assets in that system, which would likely include several highly classified videos that any ATSer would love to get their hands on. Have I got your attention yet?

Remember, as trivial and operational as a system manager's job might be, and even though he's not the spokesperson for NASA, he still has access to the administrator account, which means he can probably look at pretty much anything he wants.

After reviewing a portion of the Project Flicker report produced by DCIS, I've found that the results of the investigation into Grant conflicts with his statements which I quoted him on previously. The report states that he utilized his .mil email address and/or military postal code to register for the paypal account which he then went on to use to pay for access to child pornography websites. He's alleged to have also sent two emails containing child pornography, which is the opposite of what the writer of the OC Register article stated within it. It said "Grant received two unsolicited emails containing sexual depictions of minors, court records show." I haven't seen the referenced records, but I think that unlikely given the DCIS report. If this report is accurate, I can't imagine that Grant could be telling the truth when he said "that was just simple knowing possession of images, there was not intent to acquire."

At this point, the only thing that's clear is that his was anything but the clean-cut case in favor of innocence that it previously appeared to be. It seems more likely at this juncture that the OC writer, Kellie Mejdrich, did no fact checking whatsoever and instead just trusted the defendants claims. If not, Mejdrich certainly should have at least directly quoted the "court records" which she referenced. It doesn't logically follow that DCIS would submit a report indicating that Grant did those things, and that the court records would simultaneously show the opposite of the DCIS report is true.

It's possible that Grant and Mejdrich's assertions are true and it's also possible that the DCIS report is a fabrication. However, it seems more likely that Grant is a liar and that Mejdrich is an incompetent journalist. It's also still possible that Grant did do these things but the reason behind his prosecution wasn't justice. That hasn't been conclusively debunked, but I feel that's probably because I'm attempting to prove a negative. It would still be worth inspecting those court records myself should I arrive at the opportunity to do so. I don't expect that I will though, particularly given that it now appears more likely than not that Grant was in fact guilty, and given that I've found no evidence suggestive of a conspiracy in the case of Grant. I'll just leave Grant to fall back into the oblivion that I pulled him from, and move on with the investigation.

originally posted by: Deny777

originally posted by: Navarro
I noticed some discussion in the thread about the "accounting" issue, but I haven't yet addressed it because I felt it was a distraction coming from individuals who weren't taking the matter seriously, nor were they contributing anything useful. The idea that he was a "COMSEC accountant" is doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense. I think it's pretty clear that the intended idea behind the phrase is a reference to the mechanism which accounts for NASA's COMSEC. It could've been more clearly identified as "COMSEC division," but it's been many years since we've had policemen or garbagemen. Everyone's a Public Safety Officer or a Sanitation Engineer these days.

You speak of a five days issue, but I'm not clear on what you're specifically referring to. Five days between which two events? Investigation and arrest? Charge and arrest? Arrest and article? Orlando Sentinel published multiple articles on the subject. To which would you be referring?

5 days was the time between his arrest and the publication of the news article which states that he didn't ask for bail.

What are you thinking that implies? I personally wouldn't expect the media to be very responsive to the story. From their perspective this matter must've seemed small-time. It in fact very well may be. Other stories surely had priority, and I imagine other news agencies may have reported sooner. One of my local television stations receives reports of UFOs frequently, yet they ignore them entirely. They don't report on but a fraction of the local murders, and so I imagine even fewer child pornography cases receive attention. I'd still like to know what the original source was though.

Speaking of that article, you might recall I contacted the writers with an information request. I've spoken to one of them a few times now over the past few hours. Kevin Connoly of Orlando Sentinel had informed me that information is available on PACER, the federal website I spoke of being unable to access earlier. He provided me with the code #: 6:15-cr-00164-CEM-TBS-1 as a reference to Lawson. I explained to Connoly that I don't have access to PACER and asked if he could relay the information. As I was writing the message to you, I received two PDF files from Connoly. Good guy, that Connoly. I'll review those PDF files and post what I find.

a reply to: Navarro

You are absolutely correct! For some unknown reason I only searched for the combination Donald Lawson OMSEC, and now I realize my hastiness and laziness was a poor combo.

I did a second search as thoroughly as I could. Different combinations of names, locations, acronyms, companies, and so forth, and the only links I could find (except the ones already mentioned) are the ones below:

Arrest information (with pic)
florida.arrests.org...

In Re Marriage of Lawson
"After twenty-two years of active duty in the Navy, respondent on September 1, 1985 transferred to inactive duty in the Fleet Reserve. In this status respondent is not assigned any duty but is subject to recall to active duty. He is employed full-time in civilian status by McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida." law.justia.com...

Diverse Business Service, Inc. (Nothing interesting to mention)
www.corporationwiki.com...

I can’t access icwatch, so I simply posted it if anyone have that ability.
When putting it in google this is what I get;


A new article arrived today, maybe someone (you) made people wonder.

NASA worker found with thousands of child-porn images has pleaded guilty in federal court, but his sentencing has been delayed while he undergoes a psychological evaluation.

He was to be sentenced in November, but both sides agreed to a delay then defense attorneys had him evaluated by a psychologist, who last month concluded that he was mentally incompetent to proceed, according to court records.

www.orlandosentinel.com...

False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications
www.jaapl.org...

"Truth" Drugs in Interrogation
www.cia.gov...

A New Twist to False Confessions – The Pharmacological Factor
wrongfulconvictionsblog.org...

So it has gone from ”hundreds” to ”thousands” of pictures, and i personally love the mix of a confession in combination with mentally incompetent, which was stated in 2015. I smell mind-altering drugs, but maybe that's just me.

originally posted by: Navarro
What are you thinking that implies? I personally wouldn't expect the media to be very responsive to the story. From their perspective this matter must've seemed small-time. It in fact very well may be. Other stories surely had priority, and I imagine other news agencies may have reported sooner. One of my local television stations receives reports of UFOs frequently, yet they ignore them entirely. They don't report on but a fraction of the local murders, and so I imagine even fewer child pornography cases receive attention. I'd still like to know what the original source was though.

Speaking of that article, you might recall I contacted the writers with an information request. I've spoken to one of them a few times now over the past few hours. Kevin Connoly of Orlando Sentinel had informed me that information is available on PACER, the federal website I spoke of being unable to access earlier. He provided me with the code #: 6:15-cr-00164-CEM-TBS-1 as a reference to Lawson. I explained to Connoly that I don't have access to PACER and asked if he could relay the information. As I was writing the message to you, I received two PDF files from Connoly. Good guy, that Connoly. I'll review those PDF files and post what I find.

To me, together with the fact that he admitted to everything he was convicted of so easily it could indicate he was being coerced to collaborate. I mean, I don't know how bail works in the US but I'd be eagerly asking for bail at the first opportunity if I was him.

I could tell the article was taken from a news agency because it was replicated almost word for word in more than one news site. Which could indicate it came from a NASA press release BTW.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

In Re Marriage of Lawson
"After twenty-two years of active duty in the Navy, respondent on September 1, 1985 transferred to inactive duty in the Fleet Reserve. In this status respondent is not assigned any duty but is subject to recall to active duty. He is employed full-time in civilian status by McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida." law.justia.com...

I'm pretty sure that's him. The dates and places line up nicely. It also confirms what I thought when looking at his online resume. The lack of any work history prior to his time at NASA suggested to me he was in the military.

I'm not yet convinced there's a conspiracy here, but some of you folks have done some great research. Keep up the good work!

-dex

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: Navarro
So what kind of corporation was SAIC?

It provided government services and information technology support, and it had a annual revenue of 4,5 billion. They had a deep relation with DoD, I.C. and NSA, and due to their longtime relationship with NSA they jokingly called themselves NSA-West based on their geographical location in comparison to NSA headquarters.

Brilliant comment. This thread is classic. We have the shills saying nothing to see here, he was nobody, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, move along. But, at the end of the day, someone in the higher spheres of power disappeared off the face of the earth without any trace, and you could be next.

I've now reviewed the documents which I received from Connoly. One was a warrant affidavit by Special Agent Thomas L Di Vita of NASA. The other was Lawson's plea agreement. The majority of the investigation described was conducted by NASA itself. The FBI seemed to play a supporting role, appearing at an interview and assisting in the search of Lawson's electronics. The "security violations" which lead to Lawson's termination doesn't look related to his collection of child pornography:

LAWSON's employer ... terminated LAWSON's employment ... escorted LAWSON off of NASA property ... personal belongings were seized and later searched for ... information that ... belonged to LAWSON's employer ... LAWSON had ... nine ... devices ... found ... child pornography.

The pornography discovery was incidental to their search of his electronics for NASA data.They were indeed concerned that he possessed information which he shouldn't have. The search for that information lead to the discovery of the child pornography.

As part of his plea agreement, Lawson agreed to:

...complete disclosure of all relevant information, including production of any and all
books, papers, documents, and other objects in defendant's possession or
control...

It appears that Lawson may have had an associate as well, or at least someone he knew something about which the government didn't like. Given that no NASA employees are known to have been charged with possession of child pornography since Lawson, it would seem that the information they sought either wasn't related to pornography or wasn't related to NASA.

Defendant agrees to cooperate fully with the United States in the investigation and prosecution of other persons, and to testify...

The government will make known to the Court ... extent of defendant's cooperation ... indicative of the defendant's rehabilitative intent by assuming the fundamental civic duty of reporting crime.

...should the defendant fail to voluntarily ... disclose ... information, and cooperation ... may prosecute ... for the charges which are to be dismissed...

In exchange for surrendering and disclosing the locations of any "books, papers, documents" and information the government wants from him, and for telling them what he knows about others they're interested in, the government:

...agrees not to charge defendant with committing any other federal criminal offenses known to the United States...

(only) charges the defendant with possession of child
pornography...

....recommending ... the imposition of a sentence
below a statutory minimum.

The Florida statutory minimum for this offense is five years, so this agreement means Lawson could be out anywhere from zero to five years. It sounds like Lawson better hope that I'm right when I speculate that he knows something, because the length of his imprisonment rides on the value of his information. He's still being charged with child pornography though. What other crimes does the government have on Lawson which they refer to charging him with if he fails to cooperate? I believe that when one makes a deal, they're generally charged with lesser crimes. Is there a more serious charge which the government is withholding?

Keep in mind that the principal investigating agency appears to be NASA itself. They largely kept the investigation internal, also as I've speculated. So the previous question becomes "is NASA holding a more serious charge over Lawson?" What might that charge be? Could it be related to NASA's apparent suspicion in the beginning that Lawson was in possession of information which NASA didn't want him to have? Is this potential possession of information related to the "security violations" which he was terminated for? Is this the same information that the government sought when the plea agreement required that Lawson disclose all "books, papers (and) documents?" Could the person NASA requires him to rat on be someone who aided him in obtaining that information, or someone who he intended to transfer that information to? Might that person have intended to act as a medium through which Lawson could disclose this information? There's more questions now than ever, and the depth of this rabbit hole seems ever increasing.

Anyone interested in reading the PDFs for themselves can contact me at the email in my signature. If anyone knows a website which would host PDF files, please let me know.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

It provided government services and information technology support, and it had a annual revenue of 4,5 billion.

You do see the key words here don't you?

He was nothing more than an IT manager that was contracted to NASA, he was no where near a top man at NASA...heck I doubt he was in the top 17,999 of top men at NASA.

Just so you know they only employ 18,000 people.

And for those who want to know what SAIC and the company the contractor actually worked for...here you go.

www.saic.com...

In fact he was fired from his job at SAIC after being let go by NASA...

He was fired May 29 from his job at Kennedy Space Center, as well as from a federal information technology contractor, Science Applications International Corp., after they accused him of several security violations.

www.orlandosentinel.com...

SO why is one of the top men at NASA still working for a contractor for NASA?

He wouldn't be.

Twisting words, taking words/sentences out of context to establish deliberate misleading, recurrent and/or non fact based responses will be met with silence.

But you will praise the OP when he has done just what your discussing...why is that?

Remind me again who also worked for NSA as a contractor, pretty famous guy.. A guy who saw, administered and eventually released highly classified documents. That's right - the contracted system administrator Edward Snowden. So can we please leave the debate regarding if Donald Lawson had access to highly classified documents or not.

That is the same Edward Snowden that stole government records then put American lives in danger because of his own stupidity...correct?

I bet you didn't know this did you...An ex KGB general says Snowden is working for Russia's intelligence the FSB.

More important is a new interview with Oleg Kalugin, who is a good deal more honest than Vladimir Putin. Titled “Snowden is cooperating with Russian intelligence,” this is an important development, given Kalugin’s position. He is something of a legend in espionage circles, since he was the youngest general in the KGB at the height of the Cold War, heading up the foreign counterintelligence office of the KGB’s elite First Chief Directorate, its overseas espionage arm. As such, Kalugin was responsible for overseeing the recruitment of foreigners working in the intelligence business…in other words, people just like Edward Snowden. Kalugin’s exploits working against U.S. intelligence are the stuff of exciting late-night spy stories, and you can read about some of them in his memoir, which I recommend (if you read Russian, that version is even better).

20committee.com...

And here is a good discussion on Mr. Snowden by a ex NSA intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer...somebody who knows what he is talking about.

20committee.com...

a reply to: confusedbutnotidiot

at the end of the day, someone in the higher spheres of power disappeared off the face of the earth without any trace,

Making a pretty bold statement there aren't you?

You have no clue this has happened and you have no clue about what your saying.

The man was a nobody at NASA that used government computers to download child porn...a security breach on a government computer since you open a secured network to unsecure sites.

If you consider an IT manager as being in the higher spheres of power you might want to do some better research. The man wasn't even a top man at the company he was contracted by to NASA, but somehow he was at NASA...do you not see something wrong there?

a reply to: Navarro

The Florida statutory minimum for this offense is five years, so this agreement means Lawson could be out anywhere from zero to five years.

But having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life is the real punishment.

Here is Florida's laws for sex offenders.

offender.fdle.state.fl.us...

Most sex offenders end up going back to prison, so his small sentence due to Fla. guidelines gets him on the back end after he leaves prison.

What other crimes does the government have on Lawson which they refer to charging him with if he fails to cooperate?

What are you talking about he voluntarily told them he had child porn on his computer after they saw pics of naked boys on it...they didn't force it out of him, he knew he was caught.

They have nothing but him using secure networks to download kid porn from unsecure sites...that is considered a security breach. How hard is that to believe?

Could it be related to NASA's apparent suspicion in the beginning that Lawson was in possession of information which NASA didn't want him to have?

Yes he had child porn on his computer...what employer would be fine with you having child porn on your work computer?

And no the Vatican isn't one. Although one could make a great argument for that.

Do any of the PDF's you have back your claim he was a top man at NASA, because if not why are you insistent on keeping this lie going about him being a top man at NASA?