The Paranormal Radio Host and the Money Scandal - Pt 5

"Beizer accused Steinberg of exploiting Beizer's personal plight in order to obtain cash donations, the vast amount of which, Beizer claimed, Steinberg kept for himself."

[Edit: If problems occur trying to view the Torson vs Steinbergs pdf linked throughout this post, view the file on Google Drive.]

Steinberg Court Docs Include Scathing Beizer Letter

Gene and Barbara Steinberg were sued in 2012 for failing to repay some $44,000 in personal loans to James M. Torson. The ensuing court motions included a scathing five-page letter penned by Steinberg's late brother-in-law Stephen Beizer, public records obtained from Coconino County Superior Court reveal. Beizer accused Steinberg of exploiting Beizer's personal plight in order to obtain cash donations, the vast amount of which, Beizer claimed, Steinberg kept for himself. The Steinbergs were eventually judged responsible for debt in excess of $44,000 in the case which began with a complaint for

By Jack Brewer The UFO Trail 11-21-18

Exhibit "A", p60 of pdf, Torson vs Steinbergs

breach of contract filed against the couple by Torson. The debt was the result of 14 personal loans issued between 2011 and 2012. A promissory note for repayment was previously signed by the Steinbergs to Torson, but records indicate a total of just $50 was actually repaid, and not until legal action was imminent. Default judgments against the Steinbergs proceeded, and garnishments were attempted. The debt was eventually discharged in Gene Steinberg's 2016 bankruptcy filing.

The Steinbergs were eventually judged responsible for debt in excess of $44,000 in the case which began with a complaint for breach of contract filed against the couple by Torson. The debt was the result of 14 personal loans issued between 2011 and 2012. A promissory note for repayment was previously signed by the Steinbergs to Torson, but records indicate a total of just $50 was actually repaid, and not until legal action was imminent. Default judgments against the Steinbergs proceeded, and garnishments were attempted. The debt was eventually discharged in Gene Steinberg's 2016 bankruptcy filing.

Court records do not clarify specific reasons given by the Steinbergs to Torson for the purposes of the loans. Attempts to reach Torson for comment were not initially successful.

Attorneys acting on behalf of Torson submitted an application for writ of garnishment in 2012 on the now deceased Stephen Beizer, seeking payment from Beizer for the debt incurred by the Steinbergs. Steinberg has long dubiously claimed his publicized money woes were partly attributable to his generosity to Beizer. Steinberg further claimed Beizer was anticipating a lucrative financial settlement which would create a windfall for Steinberg, but no significant evidence of any such settlement has ever been produced.

Beizer did not mince words in his response to the 2012 application for writ of garnishment. In a hand-written letter to the court dated Nov. 27, 2012, Beizer stated:

...Gene proceeds to offer “help” in lifting our pending burdens of rent and utilities in return for a note acknowledging our indebtedness to him – 3-31-11 A note which he dictates and I write and sign...

Weeks pass, no help, no money... we are panicked and Gene assures us he will do what he said, BUT, he needs another note because a friend of his will loan him the money - $5,000 – which he needs two thousand because he's in a short term “pinch” - so he wants (Gene) reassurance that we (the Beizers) fully intend to pay him back...

Beizer goes on to describe telephone contact from a paralegal, Jennifer, acting on behalf of Torson, and Beizer's purported dismay when he was informed Steinberg obtained much more cash than the previously discussed $5,000:

After the first Jennifer conversation, I spoke to Gene via phone, and asked about $5,000? 44,000??? He said Jennifer misunderstood his association with this man in Flagstaff goes back many years to the time he was paying our bills – REALLY? NO! Jennifer said that $44,000 was given recently from ca. 4/11 to 1/12 – Now, what else had Gene lied about and to whom and how many “whoms” - turns out many, many, many whoms – like near VIRAL on the internet...

Beizer continued, writing about finding Steinberg's “extensive” cash solicitations, describing them as “Gene's begging for money from listeners of his internet programs and how many were angry and disillusioned because of his assertions/lies – how many people from many walks of life had read of my misfortune and the plight of my family and sent Gene vast sums of money to help us (my family) - 'crumbs' yes, indeed – compared to the money Gene received and used for his own enrichment...”

Beizer concluded:

...I had a surprise visit from someone with intimate knowledge of Gene's skull-duggery and it was admitted to me that Gene not only told wild and untrue stories about me and my family, but he posted a picture of MY SON on the internet for more sympathy and of course more money not for my son, but to fill his, Gene Steinberg's, pockets – from the moment in Sept 2012 going forward to eternity; I do not, my family does not owe, will never pay or give anything to the Defendants in this action. They are in debt to me and my family and it is so clear now that the CRUMBS are what we survived on, but the check for the MEAL is now ALL HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY. We repudiate ANY DEBT to GENE or BARBARA STEINBERG.

To whatever extent Beizer's statements may or may not be entirely accurate (see the entire five-page letter submitted by Beizer, pp18-22 of pdf), his conflict with Steinberg makes it ever more clear that Steinberg's ongoing framing of the pair's relationship is less than transparent. Steinberg long used his claim of expecting a substantial sum of money from the Beizers as collateral to justify his hundreds of annual requests for handouts. However, Beizer could not have made it more apparent that no such repayment or gift was forthcoming. Steinberg nonetheless persisted with the story.

Moreover and as explored in a previous blog post, Steinberg chronically failed to disclose to his following that Beizer pleaded guilty in 2004 to charges of Sale of Unregistered Securities and Theft. The charges arose out of what the Arizona Attorney General's Office described as bilking two elderly women out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Steinberg repeatedly spun Beizer as a victim worthy of charity, going as far as to criticize those who sought legal action against him, while never accurately portraying the circumstances.

In 2009 Steinberg presented Beizer to Paracast listeners as a “currency trader.” In doing so, Steinberg neglected to disclose Beizer was, in fact, the purported down on his luck brother-in-law described in Steinberg's ongoing cash solicitations. Furthermore, Steinberg neglected to disclose to his Paracast and Tech Night Owl followers that Beizer pleaded guilty to felony theft charges, and neglected to disclose Beizer owed $186,000 in restitution to his theft victims. This was the case all while Steinberg solicited money, supposedly on behalf of Beizer, through emails dispersed to those followers.

However one chooses to interpret all of the public court documents, it remains glaringly clear Steinberg frequently misrepresents the situations. Omissions and inaccuracies are commonplace, while public solicitations for cash under the guise of chronic emergencies continues relentlessly from a man, Steinberg, who presents himself as a gold standard of reporting on issues surrounding the paranormal genre.

Fraud or other crimes perpetrated through the internet may be reported at the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. Other resources include your state's Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

The Paranormal Radio Host and the Money Scandal – Pt 4

The Paranormal Radio Host and the Money Scandal - Pt 3

The Paranormal Radio Host and the Money Scandal - Pt 2

The Paranormal Radio Host and a Money Scandal

A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation [Re His Conviction for Wire Fraud]

Long Time Criminal & Conman, Bill Knell To Cut Deal On Felony Charges with Boone County Prosecutor

The Crash of Philip J. Imbrogno

Piracy: A Silent Plague on Ufology

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 5)

Tweet

By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 11-18-15

      This is Part 5 of an ongoing series regarding the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and their involvement UFO phenomenon. I have already detailed over a dozen pages of declassified military documents that show us that tangible UFO events have come to the attention of NORAD. The first four posts in my series can be found here:

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 4)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 3)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 2)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 1)

Dealing with NORAD is not easy. Normally, one would request information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from an American government agency, or under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) from a Canadian government agency. However, NORAD is a “bi-national” organisation, and the governments involved decided to “exempt” it from either FOIA or ATIA in 1982. However, the US’s Northern Command (NORTHCOM), who partly controls NORAD, can process FOI requests for NORAD records – but everything is on NORAD’s terms. The actual response one gets from the NORTHCOM FOIA and Privacy Act Requester Service Center at Peterson Air Force Base for NORAD records is, except in exceedingly rare cases:

“NORAD as a bi-national organization is not subject to FOIA.
No search of records will be conducted.”

With a statement like that, what hope does anyone have of obtaining NORAD records (be they radar data analysis reports, position statements, operational reports, etc) regarding UFO activity? In due course, I will explore this at much greater length. Despite this information vacuum, a number of NORAD records have been released during the last few decades. In this post I will focus on airspace management and so-called “air breathing” events. In the next post I will focus on space-based issues. Also, much of the following findings, unlike my previous NORAD-related posts, have only been possible due to the ceaseless efforts of British research, colleague and friend David Charmichael. Together we have managed to discover more about NORAD and the UFO matter than has been discovered for some time.

Currently, NORAD is divided in eight areas known as “J Directorates”. “J2” and “J3” are of most importance to us. J2 is the Directorate of Intelligence, and J3 is the Directorate of Operations. Furthermore, within J3 there are a number of divisions. We have ascertained that the “Aerospace Operations Division” is responsible for the unknown tracks, and, thus, the UFO matter. This division is known as number “3”. So, when written in official documentation, the whole abbreviation is “J33” or sometimes “J3(3)”. On top of that, there is further breakdown of the J33 area, but the details seem to be classified. We have, however, managed to find out that there is an sub-division of J33 called “Airspace Management” which could be of importance. It is known as the “C” sub-division of J33, written as J33C. We also know of other areas of NORAD that appear to be significant to the UFO matter, as we shall soon see.

As for official NORAD documentation, two tantalising Instructions I have on file are “NI 10-5 (OPERATIONS) IDENTIFICATION OF AIR TRAFFIC”, dated 31st January, 1996, and “NI10-19 (OPERATIONS) AEROSPACE REPORTING SYSTEM”, dated 12 April 1996. Both Instructions are promulgated “BY ORDER OF CINCNORAD” – The Commander-in-Chief of NORAD. The introduction section of “NI 10-5 (OPERATIONS) IDENTIFICATION OF AIR TRAFFIC” states:

“This instruction describes how to identify airborne objects, to include aerial drug trafficking, with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) system.”

Section 2.1 states:

“NORAD regions attempt to identify all detected airborne objects (tracks) approaching the North American Continent…”

Below is the first page of NI 10-5 (OPERATIONS) IDENTIFICATION OF AIR TRAFFIC. It may be worth noting that David Charmicahel and I feel that this publication could still be classified, or, was re-classified after a careless release. I have chosen to publish anyway:

The following pages continue in sectioned point form, and reveal that NORAD – at least in the late 1990’s and into the 2000’s – categorised tracks as either “Friendly” or “Non-Friendly”. These categories are further subdivided into the classifications, “Unknown”, “Interceptor”, “AWACS”, “Special”, “Hostile” or “Faker”. Finally, a track that is awaiting classification is designated “Pending”. Tracks that remain “Unknown” – despite all attempts to identify them – are designated "NORAD Remaining Unknown”, or “NRU”. These events are – or were in the past – rapidly entered on a form known as NORAD Form 61: Unknown Track Report. One wonders how many of these “unknowns” have been bona-fide UFO’s. All “Unknown” and “NRU” events have always been classified SECRET. Also, some of the raw data used to be kept in a special NORAD database titled “NORAD Unknown Track Reporting System” and abbreviated to “NUTR”. Discovered by researchers Robert Todd and Barry Greenwood in 1989, NORAD released a general description page of this system after persistent enquiries and FOI requests. The database contained details of seven thousand unknown tracks compiled between 1971 and 1990. Below is an image of the database descriptor page begrudgingly released in 1990:

Upon discovering this database, Robert Todd immediately asked NORAD for a release of the contents of the database and was furnished with a series of almost entirely redacted database print outs. The columns were labelled as “HOW ID”, “Sum of Count of TRK #” and “Sum of Sum of # OBJ”. Also, a breakdown for, presumably, “Remaining Unknowns” is visible. But that’s it. The rest of the details – method of detection and verification, altitude and speed of object(s), place of last detection, etc – was blacked out. I am currently asking NORAD to release this old information, and I will discuss that in a later blog post. Below is an example of the database print out of unknown tracks and remaining unknowns. In this page, a total of 95 unknown tracks is listed, with 98 objects detected. This page seems to be results for a single NORAD Region, or, a USAF Air Division with direct data feed to NORAD. The time period is perhaps 6 months or 12 months of events, but we never found out, and NORAD weren’t offering to tell us.

Do NORAD actual study these events further? After years of speculation it turns out that NORAD do indeed investigate these occurrences further, despite having indicated otherwise – and now we have it in black-and-white. The above mentioned Instruction indicates that NORAD’s Air Defense Operations Centre (ADOC) passes relevant unknown track data on to a specialist area. Specifically, section 11.1 states:

The ADOC sends a copy of these reports to the Centre for Aerospace Analysis (N/SPANA).

The Centre for Aerospace Analysis? N/SPANA? We know very little about this organisation, expect that it appears to have been a “joint” area between both NORAD and the old United States Space Command (SPACECOM). In fact, “N/S” (in the organisational code “N/SPANA”) almost certainly stands for “NORAD/SPACECOM”. SPACECOM was absorbed into the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in 2002. Interestingly, in 1995, British researcher Armen Victorian received a reply to one of his enquiries to NORAD which stated:

“The Aerospace Analysis Directorate of US Space Command does perform analysis on NORAD Unknown Track Reports... ….they perform their analysis under the auspices of their NORAD role, utilising a dedicated NORAD data base.”

This information given to Armen Victorian matches what we know from the NI 10-5 Instruction. Maybe the titles “Centre for Aerospace Analysis” and “Aerospace Analysis Directorate” are the same thing, just with lazy or interchangeable title referencing.

What does any of this matter? It matters because it proves both NORAD and SPACECOM were jointly handling unknown track data above-and-beyond initial detection and plotting. We only have the 1996 version of NI 10-5 (OPERATIONS) IDENTIFICATION OF AIR TRAFFIC so much of this information is twenty years old, but it is a lot more than we knew before. Vague rumours have abounded for decades that NORAD investigated the UFO issue, but now we have something concrete. Obtaining a current copy of this publication has met with difficulty – and that’s putting it mildly. Either way, it would be very surprising if NORAD were not still passing significant unknown track information – UFO data in its purest form – to technical specialists in dedicated cells.

Another NORAD Instruction which directly relates to the UFO matter is “NI10-19 (OPERATIONS) AEROSPACE REPORTING SYSTEM”. It states:

This instruction outlines the procedures to report surveillance, tactical action, and supporting information to Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command (CINCNORAD) and subordinate NORAD commanders.

Chapter 6 of this Instruction, titled “Track Reporting”, begins:

6.1. Purpose. Track reporting provides significant air activity information to the NMCC and CINCNORAD through the NORAD Air Defense Operations Center (ADOC). The information is essential for the proper execution of NORAD's mission of warning and attack assessment, air sovereignty and air defense.

Further on, in section 6.2.3. it is stated:

….Information on all Unknown tracks must be immediately electronically forward told. The completed Form 61 will be forwarded NLT 1 hour after final action is completed unless otherwise directed by the ADOC. Information on any track, regardless of classification, perceived to be a threat (e.g. foreign military combat aircraft) or of national interest will immediately be electronically and voice forwarded to the ADOC.

And, just to be sure:

6.2.5. NORAD agencies use Form 61 to record air activity information on Unknown, Special 17 and 21 tracks.

So, at least some years ago, this “Form 61” – or, full title, “NORAD Form 61: Unknown Track Report” – is an item of the utmost importance. Containing real-time, accurate data on “unknowns”, and studied further by whatever “N/SPANA” became, or possibly a sub-division of the current J33 area of NORAD, these sets of data could be brimming with real UFO cases that need, in my view, to see the light of day. Apparently, however, Form 61’s are kept for only five years. Below is an image of a 1977 Form 61. Obtaining a more recent version has met with difficulty:

Now that I have dealt with NORAD’s atmospheric detections and study of unknowns, I will move on to space-based events in the next blog post of this series. Beyond that, I will continue to highlight what how NORAD play the game now – in 2015 – with myself and David Charmichael. Much effort has gone into this work, and, like so much in the UFO topic, more questions are raised than there are enough answers for.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 4)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 3)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 2)

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 1)

Police & NORAD Investigating UFOs Spotted Over Breckenridge | VIDEO

NORAD PROBES FLYING OBJECT | UFO CHRONICLE

UFO Was Russian Rocket Says Norad

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE