Cover-up? Fraud? Domestic Spying?

My second installment was previously to be a continuation of my initial post; however, my “welcome” posting produced some fascinating information that has the prospective to bring Alameda County, Bob Knox, and his daughter (Kati Knox) into the investigation and national debate on illegal domestic spying on United States citizens.

In a recent Alameda County Court matter where-by Kati Knox was defending herself and her San Leandro based firm against fraud claims, court records reflect Ms. Knox invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination when asked (under oath) to answer questions related to employment as a health care consultant in Washington DC.

Court records reflect an extended battle and exchange between Ms. Knox’s counsel and the Court regarding the sufficiency of invoking her Fifth Amendment rights in this proceeding. Despite the Court’s direct request for Ms. Knox to answer the questions related to her Washington DC employer, Ms. Knox did not answer and stood by her Fifth Amendment rights.

The Court made numerous additional request, and in doing so explained the seriousness of invoking her Fifth Amendment rights, and stated “even James Bond” or any employee of the “CIA” or “National Security…would have to say” under oath who their employer was. Ms. Knox’s counsel did not allow her to answer.

After further pressure from the Court to answer the question, things go from strange to memories of Watergate and Oliver North, as Ms. Knox’s counsel implies that even if Ms. Knox were to answer the question, “you wouldn’t get the company that she really worked for.” Ms. Knox’s counsel goes further and states there would be “criminal sanctions for disclosing the contents of that work that she (Ms. Knox) did.”

Personally, I am no legal expert; nevertheless implying to the Court’s of this Country your client (Ms. Knox) might commit perjury to cover-up her employers identity, as well be under threat of criminal sanctions for disclosing such raises very serious legal questions of what Ms. Knox and the Washington DC based company who employs her is actually doing, and why an apparent cover-up would be necessary.

In a closing exchange between Ms. Knox’s counsel and the Court, Ms. Knox’s counsel admits her client holds “a government job where she” (Ms. Knox) receives payment via a “shell company” for which “she’s not allowed to discuss, especially in open court.”

The information I have reviewed also indicates Ms. Knox admitted to purchasing a home in the Washington DC area and relocating her family. Despite the relocation and the stresses of a new job, her employer allowed her a great deal of freedom to regularly return to the Bay Area for business reasons that are extremely vague. Further, in what may have been a serious slip of the tongue, Ms. Knox’s counsel made reference during later questioning to a company or entity by the name of “Virginia Health Care Systems.”

I have gathered additional information that may further shore up Ms. Knox (Kati Knox) possible involvement in domestic spying activity. Ms. Knox has in the past used various last names including her maiden name as well versions of her married name Wrobel, Knox-Wrobel, and Granville. The latter name is the most intriguing, as Granville is Bob Knox’s middle name (Robert Granville Knox III). Ms. Knox has also used various versions of her first name such as Kathleen, Katie, and Kati.

Ms. Knox also has the following email addresses katik007@yahoo.com & kathleenlkw@yahoo.com. These addresses implore the question of arrogance and/or hiding in plain sight?

As I prepare to close my second installment, I will circle back to past Alameda County politicians and make in my opinion a simple connection between Kati Knox’s activities as noted above and her father, Bob Knox. This connection is supported with information available in World Wide Web that appears to claim Ms. Knox shared confidential and legally protected (Hipaa/Hippa) private patient medical information with her father. What is apparent from the information available is it looks as if both parties may have gone to great lengths in an attempt to cover-up this inadvertent, but apparently grave slip-up.

Please keep in mind Ms. Knox currently owns and operates a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, which provides her access to confidential medical records of her patients. The US and California Department of Justice and the California Department of Social Services oversees and enforces very strict laws on the release and disclosure of medical data. Sharing such information in violation of the law has serious legal consequences on both a Federal and State level.

For reference, I spent a few minutes reviewing the history of Valerie Plame. I found it very interesting in that it appears once Valerie Plame’s identity was revealed and confirmed as an employee of the CIA, the CIA “lifted” and “rolled back her cover.” The CIA determined that “public interest outweighed” any “damage” from “disclosure” of “employment and cover status.” The apparent truth of Valerie Plame was out and her employer was making no further attempt to cover-up her employment or role with the CIA.

I believe it would be reasonable for a person to venture, that in light of Ms. Knox’s use of her Fifth Amendment rights, and her counsel’s aggressive defense of such, as well her counsel’s surprising admissions to the Court, Ms. Knox is likely, to this day, working in a covert manner for an unnamed government shell company.

(A great deal of additional data on this particular subject is being vetted and verified and will be shared at an appropriate time)