The Electricity Sector of Liberia has been characterized by monopoly of generation, transmission, and distribution services, and there has also been a fusion of roles, where policy, regulation and operation were combined.
Regulatory functions of the energy sector were relegated to the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME), Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI), Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC), Rural and Renewable Energy Agency (RREA), Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). State-owned operators including the LEC and micro-utilities have been self-regulating. The result has been high electricity cost and inadequate services, which are major constraints to Liberia’s economic growth and poverty reduction.
To address the situation, the National Energy Policy (NEP) of Liberia was approved in 2009. It provides among others, liberalization of the sector and separation of policy, regulation, and operation.
The National Energy Policy led to the enactment of the 2015 Electricity Law of Liberia (ELL) on October 26, 2015. The ELL provides the legal basis for the establishment of the Liberia Electricity Regulatory Commission (LERC) as the National Regulator. LERC is an independent agency with respect to its budget, management, staffing and the exercise of its duties and authorities as prescribed in Section 13.3 of the Law.
LERC’s function, as regulator, is to issue licenses, approve tariffs, ensure liberalization of the sector, improve service delivery, protect consumers and create a vibrant electricity sector.
Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a mixed bag of a ruling on presidential immunity. In my view, they took what could've been a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into a dog's breakfast of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts. //
What has passed with remarkably little notice is Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence. Justice Thomas says the Court is putting the cart before the horse. The first question that needs to be answered is not whether acts were official or unofficial. The critical first question is whether this prosecution is legal at all. Thomas's comments begin on the 44th page of the linked document.
I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.
...
Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” Ibid. So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.”
Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and filled offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.
Minister of War
2 hours ago
"the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts"
Bingo!
Period.
End of story.
Close the book.
John Roberts is an idiot once again & the conservative justices are required to roll their eyes & go along with his stupidity just because that was the only way to get even a partial victory.
NetChoice often argued out of both sides of their mouth when Section 230 protections were in play. During back and forth with NetChoice counsel, Justice Gorsuch observed that NetChoice’s argument was, conveniently, both sides of the coin:
“So it’s speech for the purposes of the First Amendment, your speech, your editorial control, but when we get to Section 230, your submission is that that isn’t your speech?
So now, the cases head back to the lower courts, who've been tasked with doing their homework and using the proper framework to analyze the issues. //
anon-7lqi anon-tf71
4 hours ago
i think administratively you can declare any platform with more that 25% market share as a "public square".
Public squares are obliged to allow speech that smaller venues do not have to.
keeps 230 intact. focuses the law on the companies large enough to impact the public in any meaningful way
JustCause_for_Liberty anon-7lqi
3 hours ago edited
I do not even think its that hard. They get to declare if they are publishers or platforms. If you are a publisher you get no protections from 230 and are subject to liability claims for all content. If you are a platform you get liability protections from 230 but lose all rights to moderate content from users or their speech and posts. If laws are broken from users then refer those to law enforcement. Otherwise its not their job.
Just FYI their self identification of publisher or platform is for the entirety of that service. You either have to sell the Company or completely shut down the service and deploy a completely separate service afterwards to redeclare.
To be clear, assassinating your political opponent, or destroying the Supreme Court through EO or violence, is not a part of a President's enumerated powers. Biden can't just go offing people he doesn't like or that are inconvenient to him under this SCOTUS ruling, and it's stupid to think so...but look at who we're talking about here.
But the point I want to make here is that the Democrats have been harping on about how the villain Trump would utilize the military to take over the country and enact absolute rule, banning abortions, murdering LGBT peoples, and terminating the rights of anyone who isn't white and male.
Yet these same people have turned around to seal clap over the idea of Biden utilizing the military to become a supreme dictator and murdering people the left doesn't like, securing his power in office, and God knows what else.
Don't also let it get past you that if given the chance, these people will actively and openly call for violence against you and celebrate it happening. The same party that calls for tolerance and acceptance. The same party that believes it's the adults in the room.
These people are as hypocritical as they are idiotic, and proof that the Democrat Party has become a radicalized mess.
The online magazine The Federalist rightly called the decision an “immigration rebuke,” but the author was mistaken when he wrote that Asencio-Cordero “was denied a visa by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2015”—visa decisions overseas are made by consular officers, who are commissioned Foreign Service officers in the State Department.
The Muñoz case was the latest round in a battle by immigration activists against the doctrine of “consular non-reviewability,” which holds that decisions made by consular officers overseas in visa cases can’t be challenged in U.S. courts. If they were, the system would crumble—much like the asylum system has under President Joe Biden’s flood of released and paroled inadmissible aliens.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Donald Trump’s favor in the presidential immunity case, complicating at least two prosecutions against the 45th president.
“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the high court’s majority opinion. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” //
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent.
“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” Sotomayor argued. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.” //
Among the most well-known post-2020 election controversies involved Trump attempting to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stall or reverse a joint session of Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. The high court remanded the question of Trump’s immunity on this back to the district court to further clarify.
“Whenever the president and vice president discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct,” the majority says. “Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.”
Over 5,000 orbital rocket launches from nearly 30 different sites are depicted, starting in 1957 when Sputnik became the first artificial object in orbit.
“Potentially catastrophic wind damage is expected where the core of Beryl moves through portions of the Windward Islands, with the highest risk of the core in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada,” the hurricane center said.
Beryl has put up some eyepopping numbers in recent days, with warm ocean water allowing it to quickly gain strength after becoming a tropical depression on Friday. When it blossomed into a Category 4 storm on Sunday, it became the first Atlantic hurricane ever to attain that status in June.
Lara Trump added a key point about Democrats potentially swapping out Biden for someone more vibrant:
If they decide right here in the 11th hour to plug somebody else in, and it’s not Kamala Harris, I can’t think of a bigger assault to our democratic process than doing just that.
AugWest24
2 hours ago
Liberty is the essence of the United States and our Constitution. The Biden administration began to ignore the Constitution and existing law about ten minutes after he was sworn into office. Liberty is antithetical to the beliefs and goals of the coalition that runs the modern Democratic party. //
anon-gs8t
an hour ago
It's time to pull the scab off this open wound and expose it for what it is. If these people, beginning with his wife and family, will abuse this old, senile, completely compromised physically and mentally 81-year-old man to hold on to their power, what will they do to you? There is no limit to which they won't go to get what they want. They have no conscious; they don't care about this country; they certainly don't care about you; they only care about themselves. Yes, they are evil.
Montana radio host Aaron Flint pointed out that replacing Biden with another Democrat will still leave in power the people currently using him like a presidential skin suit. That’s also true, to a large extent, of replacing Biden with Trump. //
However, because we’ve already had the benefit of a Trump presidency, we can see that even a president as vigorous and defiant as he struggled to truly exercise authority over the people and institutions that, constitutionally speaking, the president commands.
Some of the most egregious examples of this occurred among cabinet-level national security types. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Trump Gen. Mark Milley was one of the worst offenders. Washington Post and New York Times reporters say, according to excerpts from Haley McLean, that Milley deliberately stayed in his position to sabotage voters’ elected commander-in-chief, saying to staffers of Trump, “I’ll just fight him” and “I will fight from the inside. //
Milley also disobeyed Trump’s order to pull U.S. troops from Afghanistan, setting the stage for the disastrous Afghanistan pullout Milley oversaw under Biden that seriously damaged U.S. foreign policy goals, killed 13 U.S. soldiers, and left stranded thousands of American citizens. //
In my new book, I point out that scholars such as Christopher Caldwell have shown that for more than a century the United States has been living under “two Constitutions.” One is the original Constitution that secures consent of the governed, rule of law, and government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The second Constitution, or regime, is that of the “living Constitution,” which I explain is essentially totalitarian because it recognizes no limits on its powers.
That second regime now has the upper hand, and it is run by this cabal of unelected bureaucrats who believe they have the right to saddle, ride, and spur Americans and bend us to their will. They don’t care what we vote for. We’re getting what they want regardless of how we vote. That goes for Congress, too, whom the deep state also treats like window dressing and who usually lives up to that cynical expectation.
So yes, the deep state is shamefully using Biden as their puppet president. But they believe they have the right to ignore the Constitution and voters even when the president isn’t a walking cadaver. For people who know that when the Democrat press starts shouting something it’s proof the opposite is true, this puts a pretty dark cast on all the Democrat shrieks about “democracy.”
anon-89ic
6 hours ago
He is right and he knows it and we all know it. The Democrats have a number of Nazi era planks to be debated at their convention in Chicago, and the fact that rounding up Jews is unlikely to be adopted is not exactly comforting. ]This is the first time a major party will take up Jewish expulsion in an American election since Lincoln and Grant tried to introduce such positions in to the Republican platforms in 1864 and 1868 and, of course, they did expel the Jews from the United States, so its not a great precedent.
anon-y65w anon-89ic
5 hours ago edited
Actually, General Order No. 11 was issued by Grant in 1862, effective only in the then Dept. of the Tennessee and was limited to TN, KY, MS. No one was expelled from the US, and when Pres. Lincoln found out about the order, he rescinded it immediately.
Hatred of Jews has been, sadly, a part of US history more often than not.
Laocoön of Troy anon-89ic
6 hours ago
Grant was trying to eliminate illegal cotton smuggling from the South to speculators in the North. When Lincoln got wind if it he ordered Grant to back off.
"... A paper purporting to be General Orders, No. 11, issued by you December 17, has been presented here. By its terms, it expells [sic] all Jews from your department. If such an order has been issued, it will be immediately revoked. ..."
You need to read whatever informed your ignorance more closely.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/grant-expels-the-jews-from-his-department
https://www.history.com/news/ulysses-grant-expulsion-jews-civil-war
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1862)
Grant formally rescinded the order, January 17, 1863, within three weeks after Lincoln revoked the order.
President Biden broke that faith with us, he spoke the unspeakable to Trump in a pathetic and vain attempt at bringing Trump to his knees. Biden lied about what he said, and that is the first insult. The president made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan the way he did, even against the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs and the commanders on the ground. Biden unilaterally decided to pull out haphazardly and recklessly, which resulted in 11 United States Marines, one Navy Corpsman, and another Army soldier killed in a suicide bomber blast that wounded dozens more on that August day in 2021. To this day, Biden's response to the criticism is blase at best, but the facts still remain, he lost 13 American troops that day. Then in January of this year, two U.S. Navy SEALs were initially listed as missing but later confirmed as killed in action as they were attempting to board a vessel at night that was carrying illegal weapons. Three more American Soldiers were killed in an Iranian-backed Hezbollah drone strike on their base in Jordan.
President Biden has had at least 18 United States servicemembers killed in action in the past three-plus years since he has been in office. I do not know what makes that lie worse; the fact that he legitimately forgot about them would show he truly doesn't care. Or the fact that Biden hates Trump so much that he will say whatever it is he needs to say, as long as it makes Trump look horrible. I think it is both and more. //
President Biden was not acting in good faith when he said what he did. He was showing his true colors and that he is a hateful, disgusting old man who needs to step down and or aside. He is not in full control of his faculties, and he is, by far, one of the worst commanders-in-chief that this nation has ever had. //
GBenton
7 hours ago
Biden's biggest lie is that he won in 2020, but beyond that, the current biggest lie is that Trump is the liar.
Biden and the Dems and the media are proven liars.
Trump told nothing but the truth during the debate and all the hoaxes have proven to be lies.
Weminuche45
7 hours ago
It's naive to assume the "news" media's intention is to inform. Their intention is to persuade you, entertain you, and profit from you. //
Romeg
an hour ago
To paraphrase Mark Twain "If you don't [follow] the news, you're uninformed. If you [DO follow] the news, You're misinformed."
All of the Alphabet networks as well as the two leading newspapers in the United States; the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, are within walking distance of mid-town Manhattan and are totally dominated by leftists whose agendas have one thing in common; The Destruction of The Republican Party, and a secondary objective of the destruction of The Constitution of The United States of America. Their greatest fear is that another four-year term by Donald Trump will further increase the originalist make-up of The SCOTUS and the further diminution of The Administrative State, especially following a week in which the Leviathan took some pretty serious reductions in its power with the abolition of The Chevron Rule.
A truly originalist SCOTUS might well put an end to The Administrative State altogether since there is no provision whatsoever for the delegation of the power to legislate that is granted, EXCLUSIVELY, to Congress.
Appeals court decision potentially reversing publishers' suit may come this fall. //
The Internet Archive (IA) went before a three-judge panel Friday to defend its open library's controlled digital lending (CDL) practices after book publishers last year won a lawsuit claiming that the archive's lending violated copyright law. //
"It's not unlawful for a library to lend a book it owns to one patron at a time," Gratz said IA told the court. "And the advent of digital technology doesn't change that result. That's lawful. And that's what librarians do." //
IA has argued that because copyright law is intended to provide equal access to knowledge, copyright law is better served by allowing IA's lending than by preventing it. They're hoping the judges will decide that CDL is fair use, reversing the lower court's decision and restoring access to books recently removed from the open library. //
dogbertat Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
66
Subscriptor++
chilldude22 said:
I’ve never thought or heard of this copyright interpretation before. How accurate is this description, both in law and intent? I always just assumed we’re in America and any rules benefit the powerful by default.
I think it's accurate, although I think the pendulum has swung to far toward commercial interests in the last 50 years so it isn't always apparent. Copyright is intended to serve the commonweal, not specifically the creator, by establishing the right for a limited time monopoly on works in order to incentivize creation. "The utilitarian aim of the Intellectual Property Clause is to maximize scientific and artistic progress. It does so by attempting to balance the incentives it provides for innovation, against the chilling effects that limiting access to writings and discoveries may have on novel thought." (Cornell Legal Information Institute)//
Tempus --)------- Ars Tribunus Militum
20y
2,675
Subscriptor++
BrianB_NY said:
Internet Archive wants you to believe that they can buy one copy and then "lend" it to everyone around the world, and that this is just like a library. But that isn't a fair analogy. In the tangible book arena, libraries buy many copies of books, creating sales of the books for the publisher. So people get the benefit of borrowing and both the author and publisher get paid for their work, so they can create new books.
You seem to be under the impression that other libraries don’t do lending of digital works and e-books, and that the internet archive policies allow lending a given work to more people at a time than they have purchased copies. Neither of those things are true. //
dogbertat Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
66
Subscriptor++
BrianB_NY said:
Internet Archive wants you to believe that they can buy one copy and then "lend" it to everyone around the world, and that this is just like a library. But that isn't a fair analogy. In the tangible book arena, libraries buy many copies of books, creating sales of the books for the publisher. So people get the benefit of borrowing and both the author and publisher get paid for their work, so they can create new books.
But that's not how the Internet Archive works. They practice what is called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). They take a physical copy, scan that particular copy, then make it available for checkout. While it is checked out, no one else can borrow it, just like a physical library. So while the title is available to everyone to try to check out, only that one copy can be (i.e., one physical book; one digital lending available). If you see multiple titles, it's because multiple physical copies of that book are held by the Internet Archives.
Libraries don't have to buy specially licensed physical books. They can (and sometime do) buy it off Amazon and put it on the shelf (although they usually use other suppliers). For some reason, the publishers think that libraries need specially licensed digital books. These cost much more than the digital copy you would get from Amazon or elsewhere. And they can't even buy the digital book in perpetuity like you can, but only for a limited number checkouts. So the Internet Archive is testing this saying, 'Hey, I can scan the book I own and lend it so long as I don't lend more than the copies I own.". //
The only reason the publishers are fighting this is that library-licensed-ebooks are WAY MORE PROFITABLE than the normal ebook (or book!), for absolutely no reason, other than that the whole "license, not ownership" thing that's happened over the last couple decades allows the publishers to do it.
That part is spot on. Since the law treats eBooks as computer programs, suddenly all of the things that publishers could not do with physical copies (such as sell books with "licenses" forbidding resale) can now be done. So publishers can limit the number of copies that can be purchased, and have the licenses expire after a certain number of circulations and/or certain time periods, and, oh, by the way, hold back sales of "library edition" eBooks until months after publication of their physical and other eBook copies. That is why CDL is such a threat to the publishing model.
The space agency did consider alternatives to splashing the station. //
NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a "US Deorbit Vehicle." This spacecraft will dock to the International Space Station in 2029 and then ensure the large facility makes a controlled reentry through Earth's atmosphere before splashing into the ocean in 2030.. //
"This decision also supports NASA’s plans for future commercial destinations and allows for the continued use of space near Earth."
NASA has a couple of reasons for bringing the space station's life to a close in 2030. Foremost among these is that the station is aging. Parts of it are now a quarter of a century old. There are cracks on the Russian segment of the space station that are spreading. Although the station could likely be maintained beyond 2030, it would require increasing amounts of crew time to keep flying the station safely.
Additionally, NASA is seeking to foster a commercial economy in low-Earth orbit. To that end, it is working with several private companies to develop commercial space stations that would be able to house NASA astronauts, as well as those from other countries and private citizens, by or before 2030. By setting an end date for the station's lifetime and sticking with it, NASA can help those private companies raise money from investors. //
The station, the largest object humans have ever constructed in space, is too large to allow it to make an uncontrolled return to Earth. It has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field. The threat to human life and property is too great. Hence the need for a deorbit vehicle. //
volcano.authors Smack-Fu Master, in training
6y
73
flerchin said:
The idea that SpaceX wouldn't even bid unless it was fixed price, and then came in well under the estimates for cost-plus is wild.
It's almost as though the cost-plus era has some political baggage that challengers like to point out.
RTWAP Smack-Fu Master, in training
1y
12
afidel said:
I assume SpaceX prefers the firm fixed price contract because it reduces the army of paper pushers needed and the amount of time that engineers and technicians need to waste documenting their work on the contract? I guess if you can actually execute correctly it's more profitable to just submit a bill and get paid than to do the old cost plus change order malarkey.
My speculation is that it enforces a certain discipline in the requirements. SpaceX isn't going to just happily go down every rabbit hole of dithering on requirements and possible changes because unless it's a costed and signed change order they'd be losing money on it. And anyone at NASA looking to change things knows it requires a highly visible contract change ($$$), not just a larger bill from the contractor. //
Tridus Ars Tribunus Militum
17y
2,189
Subscriptor
afidel said:
I assume SpaceX prefers the firm fixed price contract because it reduces the army of paper pushers needed and the amount of time ....
Yeah, exactly. They're not paying people handle the paperwork end of cost-plus.
Also if they think they can do it for significantly under that, the potential profit margin is higher since they'll get paid that no matter what it actually costs them to do it. It takes a high degree of confidence to want to go this way, but if any space company has the experience with this type of contract to make it work, it's SpaceX.
It REALLY showcases the differing mindset and abilities between them and a company that won't bid on fixed price contracts like Boeing, though.
“Safety tends to not be on the front burner until it really needs to be on the front burner.” //
Since the beginning of the year, landowners have discovered several pieces of space junk traced to missions supporting the International Space Station. On all of these occasions, engineers expected none of the disposable hardware would survive the scorching heat of reentry and make it to Earth's surface.
These incidents highlight an urgency for more research into what happens when a spacecraft makes an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere, according to engineers from the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research center based in El Segundo, California. More stuff is getting launched into space than ever before, and the trend will continue as companies deploy more satellite constellations and field heavier rockets.
Courts no longer owe deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of its ambiguous statutory mandate. //
The Court held that the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the operations of administrative agencies,
requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.
Thomas agreed with the Court’s decision but wrote separately “to underscore a more fundamental problem: Chevron deference violates our Constitution’s separation of powers, as I have previously explained at length.”
The violation, Thomas elaborated, stemmed from Chevron‘s mandate that judges surrender their judicial responsibility “to exercise . . . independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws.” //
The challengers also argued that Chevron is an abdication of judicial responsibility because courts have the duty to interpret the law, but Chevron deference substitutes the agency’s interpretation. The challengers criticized Chevron for “upend[ing] basic principles of constitutional due process of law” because it required deference to an agency’s interpretation when that agency is a litigant before the court. //
ThePrimordialOrderedPair | June 28, 2024 at 1:04 pm
Chevron is overruled.
Most important decision in decades … 4 decades, precisely.
And courts in the future need to keep in mind, in addition to this, that Congress is disallowed from delegating any of its Constitutional authority to any other entity unless specifically allowed to do so in the Constitution. To do so is to, de facto, amend the Constitution.
The past week has been the legal equivalent of the firebombing of Dresden for the administrative state.
In short order, many of the reasons we gradually, like a frog in a pot of boiling water, transformed from citizens into subjects have been demolished.
Christos T. • June 27, 2024 12:44 AM
@sqall:
In 1947 the US occupation authorities retrieved the files of the German Army’s codebreaking agency, called Inspectorate 7/VI. These had been buried at the end of the war in a camp in Austria.
The list of the documents that were retrieved is available from NARA as TICOM report IF-272 Tab ‘D’:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2811501
In page 12 of that report, it says: ‘Technische Erlaeuterung zur maschinellen Bearbeitung von AM 1 Kompromisstextloesungen auf der Texttiefe’.
The translation of that report is TICOM DF-114 ‘GERMAN CRYPTANALYTIC DEVICE FOR SOLUTION OF M-209 TRAFFIC’ and was released by the NSA to NARA in 2011 and copied and uploaded by me to Scribd and Google drive in 2012.
You can find it at NARA: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/23889821