Analysis of News—www.analysis-news.com
Of Interest to Investors, Survivalists and Others Concerned
About Their Economic and Financial Futures
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With
a focus on the Plutocrats, Goldsmiths, Super-Rich Insiders, and their Allies
and what they are conspiratorially doing to manipulate the financial markets, make
more profits, rip us off and install a world government under their control
The Goldsmiths, Part CLXV
By R. D. Bradshaw
On April
11, 2005, Mr Ashley Mote, Member of the European Union Parliament, addressed
the Parliament as follows:
Transcript:
“Mote (NI). Mr President, I wish to draw your attention
to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of
Jacob Rothschild. This is a
Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not
listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering
purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services. I have previously asked about the alleged
involvement of the European Union’s own
intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts,
and I still await a reply. To that question
I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what
relationship does it have with European Union institutions?”
Mote’s videotaped request has
since been made a matter of the public record.
It was at youtube.com on Aug 13, 2009 as well as numerous other
sites. Mr Mote did not receive a
response to his question. Consequently,
he followed up later with a written request.
Again, he did not receive a response on the then written request.
Mote’s web site (www.ashleymote.co.uk) gives his
biography as follows: “Ashley Mote is an elected Member of the European
Parliament. Representing the South
Eastern side of England (since 2004) he carries the wishes of the voters to be
free from the European Union. He wishes
his country to govern itself again. He
has made good use of taxpayers’ money to have his own EU paid for Campaign Bus
which tours his Region informing everyone of EU waste and corruption. His website is full of video speeches where (he)
eloquently does his job in EU Parliament pointing out EU Corruption. The EU is a tool of the New World Order. The UK is fighting back! Discover the real and corrupt face of the
European Union.”
Ashley Mote also adds: “I have no quarrel with the people of Europe.
My quarrel is solely with their
bureaucratic system of unitary government called the European Union. It has
nothing in common with that greatest of Anglo-Saxon inventions - an accountable
system of parliamentary democracy. The
EU's interference in British affairs over the last 30 years or so has wrought
great damage on so many aspects of our life and enterprise. It has virtually destroyed the British fishing
industry. It has undermined our ability
to feed ourselves. It sucks over £1.4
million every hour out of British taxpayers pockets. It has burdened British businesses with more
than 30,000 regulations - every one of which we managed perfectly well without
before we joined what was supposed to be a Common Market. And whenever I have asked ministers or other
EU enthusiasts to tell me what the benefits of EU membership are they fall into a dumb and embarrassed silence.”
Whether it has been Mr Mote’s
opposition to the EU or his embarrassing question about the Global Security
Fund, something touched off the British government and it responded with a
lengthy and detailed investigation into the life of Mr Mote. In time, the British government indicted Mr
Mote for fraud and tried him in front of a British jury. He was found guilty of offenses totaling
£65,506, occurred between February 1996 and September 2002 while Mote was
living in Langley, West Sussex.
On Aug 17, 2007, the Portsmouth
Crown court found him guilty of 21 offenses:
eight charges of false accounting, eight of obtaining a money transfer
by deception, four of evading liability and one of failing to notify a change
of circumstances. The 71-year old Mote
was sentenced to prison for nine months.
Christopher
Edward Harde Story
In time, Mote’s famous short
question to the European Parliament evoked some interest from other interested
persons and he was asked or prompted to discuss the basis for his
question. He traced it to a man he had
known for years--Christopher Edward Harde Story of
Oxford--a British author of many books, an investigative journalist, and
publisher of the following newsletters: International
Currency Review, Economic Intelligence Review, Global Analyst, Soviet Analyst,
Arab-Asian Affairs, Eastern Europe Analyst, World Reports, and several other
occasional titles.
In a later tribute to Story, Mote
said that much of Story’s best investigative work was done in the USA, where he
had highly valued internal sources of information within the Federal Reserve
Bank, the CIA, and within the financial and political communities as a
whole. He noted that his speech on the
Global Security Fund, made in Brussels, was based on a briefing made to him by Story.
Mote added in his tribute: “Like all speeches in a plenary session it
was recorded on videotape and can now be found on literally scores of websites
around the world. Even today, almost
five years later, new postings of that one-minute speech are regularly
uncovered by the Google search-engine.”
In Story’s briefing to Mote, he said that while the Global Security Fund
is cloaked in secrecy it was made possible by the US Federal Reserve banking
system.
After this information leaked out
with some of the work of Story, Mr Story died on July 14, 2010 of “liver
failure.” Though Mr Mote’s tribute to
Story (at the Mote web site) did not raise any questions about the death of
Story, many other reporters and analysts have done so. Some have suggested that Story was
assassinated with some type of poison which damaged his liver to bring on
death.
In the timeframe of Mr Mote’s
question to the EU parliament and subsequently with the arrest and conviction
of Mote and the death of Story, numerous conspiracy investigators have begun
looking seriously at this so called Global Security Fund. It prompted a reader of the Goldsmiths to
send me an email with a suggestion that I check into it. I have done considerable research and find
the issue to be vast in scope but worthy of my take in this Goldsmiths.
Ronald
Reagan
My research
suggests that the Global Security Fund started back on Dec 4, 1981 under
President Ronald Reagan when he signed Presidential Executive Order 12333 (now
Title 18, 6 US Code on Government Intelligence Corporations). Title 18 Section 6 corporations can be owned
by the U.S. government, or not, and can be run by intelligence operatives who
may legally disguise their intelligence agency affiliations and can deny they
exist. The umbrella company involved
with the Global Security Fund was called the AmeriTrust Group Inc.
The associated
funding was to be held in corporate shell companies in off-balance sheet,
off-shore accounts. Companies could be
established abroad by U.S. intelligence agents to supposedly identify threats. For example, in most countries if a drug
shipment worth $200 million is reported and seized, an informant can earn a
percentage of the shipment’s value. Thus, per one internet article, Title 18
Section 6 corporations established by American intelligence agents can earn
vast sums of money while reducing international drug traffic. Money laundering and other major crimes can
supposedly be identified and prevented by allowing intelligence operatives to
establish corporations that appear to participate in those and other illegal
activities.
Evidently, the initial funding for
the Reagan project came from the US government/Federal Reserve Bank with later
additions from up to 200 different foreign and domestic entities to the tune of
$27.5 trillion (the fund is now believed to be worth $60 to $70 trillion from
investments, financial market manipulations and other activities). While it is not clear who these 200 funding
contributors/providers were, suggestions made suggest various other central
banks and private investment and commercial banks. One web site has it that the following
central banks contributed to the fund:
Banco de la Republica, Colombia
Banco
do
Brasil
Bank of Uganda
Canco Central de la Republica Argentina
Central Bank of Kenya
National Bank of Hungary
Nepal Rastra
Bank
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
Although not named, it is highly
probable that the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, the Swiss National
Bank and various European central banks also made major contributions to the
fund.
The purpose of
the fund was at first supposedly set up to financially undercut and sabotage
the old USSR. In the post Cold War era,
the mission changed to influencing and directing the activities of Russia,
China and various Eastern European nations for western capitalism (surely to
benefit the Rothschild Cabal of bankers).
In time, the mission was expanded again to encompass most of the globe
in intelligence activities, spying, sabotage, bribery of foreign officials, creating
internal disruptions among Rothschild enemies, revolutions, assassinations, manipulating
financial markets, etc.
For the initial
set-up, CIA agent Leo (or Lee) Emil Wanta was
selected. Wanta
was both an intelligence and financial expert.
He was reportedly the CIA contact man at the Federal Reserve Bank. Wanta went to work
and recruited/selected the people needed to run this network. He established numerous businesses around the
world. Also, he allegedly owned numerous
other businesses as well--legitimate businesses belonging to him. Possibly there was a commingling of funds in Wanta’s personal businesses and those supposedly owned by
the Global Security Fund. Now, in more
recent years, Mr Wanta and
some of his associates have become involved in litigation both in the US and
abroad to retrieve or obtain some of the funding involved (as will be explained
below).
Dastych web log had an article
on the Wanta Plan and Global Security Fund which
said: “As a part of the administrative
functioning of the Fund, Reagan/his successors adopted and amended as desired a
series of protocols to govern the monies raised (possibly in an after effect
scenario in the vein of the termination and dissolution of the Fund) which
provided that each of the following states should receive five thousand million dollars: Canada, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Mexico and Spain. Additionally, thirty thousand million dollars were to be paid to the Russian Federation. China,
in turn, is owed thirty billion dollars
by virtue of other agreements reached with the United States Tax Office
relating to the Leo Wanta funds. Apparently this arises from China’s purchase
of treasury bonds from the United States.
“The money is
reportedly handled by means of instruments known as CHIPS (New York Clearing House Interbank Payments System).
During the years of negotiations and
court cases, when agreements were reached on various occasions both with Leo Wanta and with the countries involved, the CHIPS turned out to be hollow. That is, they existed as
accountancy entries but when it came to liquidate them there was no money
backing them. This was because the banks holding them had
siphoned off the money to other accounts by means of the false payees
we have mentioned, angering the countries who were to be beneficiaries. During the years that Wanta
was denied access to the funds, Clinton, Bush and accomplices had
used complex financial systems to spirit them away.
“Reports from
British analyst Christopher Story
indicate that these funds were on the agenda at recent G-8 summits, and that their non-payment has led to China
ceasing to use the dollar its oil transactions, essentially, with its main
supplier, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Particular
reports by Story reveal that last June these funds, supposedly to be used in
state terrorism operations should have been returned to Wanta’s
jurisdiction, under the supervision of the International Court of Justice of
The Hague. Ever since then, however, an
endless succession of delays and interruptions have occurred, involving the Rockefeller family, the
Rothschild family, Queen Elizabeth II, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, lawyers, judges and political heads of
various other countries, all placing obstacles in the way of the liberation of
these funds, which would be sufficient to solve the greater part of the
problems in the world.
“Currently, many banks worldwide have frozen the
secret accounts of these 1,500 operators, so that the
conspirators can no longer operate with the funds as before, when they traded
using the tax free accounts. British
member of the European Parliament, Ashley Mote, is the only such
figure to speak out publicly on the issue of these funds. Story’s reports further indicate that these
funds, hidden away in secret accounts, are being paid to terrorist organizations.”
As far as Leo Wanta,
in later years, he became a representative/ambassador for Somalia in
Switzerland where he was arrested and held in prison for fraud. Reportedly, there was an attempt on his life
by poisoning while he was in prison.
The
US Court Action
The above backdrop promoted a 2002
lawsuit by Leo Wanta in US District Court to liquidate
the fund, pay off creditors, return capital contributions to rightful owners
and recover his own alleged $4.5 trillion held in the
Global Security Fund.
On April 15, 2003
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, in case number 02-1363-A filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, issued an Order and
Memorandum of Opinion. In it, the Court
stated that the Plaintiff, Ambassador Leo E. Wanta,
should pursue liquidation of his corporations, recovery of their financial
assets, and he should pay all required taxes in accordance with the law. The amount of money involved in the Wanta international corporations to be liquidated was $27.5
trillion.
At worldreports.org on Global
Analysis, International Intelligence had this backdrop on the case:
“On or about April 15, 2003 the
Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, in Case Number 02-1363-A filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, issued an Order and
Memorandum of Opinion for the referenced numbered case. As part of the Order and Memorandum of the
Court (in the referenced case) the Court stated that the Plaintiff (in the
referenced case) should pursue liquidation of corporations, recovery of
financial assets and pay all required taxes in accordance with the law.
10. Petitioner initiated contact
with numerous third parties, including United States elected, nominated,
appointed and career employees plus foreign countries, for the purpose of
recovering financial assets.
11. Upon best information and
belief in December 2005 and January 2006, Secretary Snow (Secretary of the
Treasury at the time) and Chairman Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve
at the time) traveled to the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese required confirmation of
Petitioner’s signature to facilitate cooperation of the Chinese in completing
the transfer of financial assets referenced herein. Upon best information and belief
Snow/Greenspan determined that Chinese officials had the ability and
willingness to cooperate with petitioner in the recovery and transfer of
substantial financial assets that had been in the care, custody and control of
the Chinese for an extended period of time.
12. Premised on the
representations of Secretary Snow and Chairman Greenspan, the legal services of
Troutman Sanders, LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist
Parker Chapin, LLP (attorneys) were used to complete the preparation and administer
the execution of agreements and documents referred to collectively as ‘settlement
documents’. The following is a
compilation of the significant parties that are represented as either obligors
and/or beneficiaries of the settlement documents:
• Petitioner Wanta identified in this petition.
• Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) (including but not limited to Land Baron/Xeno).
• National
Security Agency (NSA).
• Department of
Homeland Security.
• Director of
National Intelligence.
• United States
State Department.
• United States
Department of the Treasury.
• United States
Department of Defense.
• The White House,
including but not limited to the Offices of the President and Vice President.
• C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.).
• China (PRC),
France, Great Britain, Germany and other foreign nations participating under
one or more international ‘Protocol’ including but not limited to the
Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol agreements.
• Others of
interest not intentionally omitted as part of this petition. The entirety of the financial assets mentioned
in the settlement documents prepared by the above mentioned attorneys concerns
approximately $27 Trillion United States Dollars in value. The portion
attributable and payable to the petitioner is $4.5 Trillion United States
Dollars.
13. In May of 2006 the People’s
Republic of China caused a free and unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion
United States Dollars through international bank fund transfer facilities to an
account at Bank of America located at Richmond, Virginia. The designated
beneficiary of the transferred funds from the People’s Republic of China was
Petitioner herein. This transfer was made by the People’s Republic of China
solely and exclusively as a requirement under the mentioned settlement
agreement.
14. Upon best information and
belief between the dates of July 31st to August 2nd of 2006 the United States
Department of the Treasury, without authorization of either the remitting party
or the receiving party removed the People’s Republic of China transferred
financial assets from Bank of America Richmond, Virginia to an account in the
name of Goldman Sachs at CITIBank New York, New York
as the beneficiary holder of the monies transferred by the People’s Republic of
China referenced above. This ‘Chip’
(Clearing House Interbank Payment) transfer was facilitated from Virginia
domiciled banks to New York domiciled banks via the Federal Reserve Bank
Richmond. The Chip transfer did not remove the name of Petitioner as the
intended recipient of the transferred money from the People’s Republic of
China. The transfer to the Goldman Sachs
et al account at CITIBank put a lawless restriction
that the funds were not to be released to Petitioner without the authorization
of United States Treasury. At or about
the time of the unauthorized transfer mentioned in this paragraph 14 Petitioner
protested the alleged right of ‘entitlement’ by Secretary Paulson and to
facilitate protest of right of ownership under the ‘Securities Acts’ accounts
were opened in the name of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. at Morgan Stanley, fiduciary client account at
CITIBank/NYC to receive direct deposit transfer of
Petitioner funds from Goldman Sachs.
15. The Petitioner has been
contacted by ‘Compliance Officers’ that are contract employees of the United
States Department of the Treasury that the transfer records of the United
States Department of the Treasury and the recipient (past and present holder of
the funds transferred to Petitioner by the People’s Republic of China) reflect
that the accounts opened to receive the financial assets are tagged and coded
for the benefit of the Petitioner. Access to the tagged and coded accounts
requires lawless authorization to be provided in writing by Secretary Paulson. To date Secretary Paulson refuses to provide
the required written authorization to the compliance officers. In addition one or more compliance officer
(referenced herein) has been contacted by Secret Service Agents who have
advised the compliance officers that the ‘White House’ ordered that the
compliance officers cease and desist from communicating in any manner with
Petitioner.
16. Upon best information and
belief the compliance officers mentioned in paragraph 15 have been in contact
with law enforcement officers representing the Central Intelligence Agency and
the United States Department of Defense. These mentioned law enforcement officers
confirm that the information provided by the compliance officers is true and
correct and that upon best information and belief the ‘order’ preventing Secretary
Paulson from releasing the ‘tagged and coded’ funds that are the sole and
exclusive property of the Petitioner have been either lawlessly and
individually controlled by Secretary Paulson and/or restricted through direct
participation by other United States of America elected and/or nominated
officials.
17. Upon best information and
belief Troutman Sanders LLP and Jenkens &
Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, seeking legal recourse on behalf of C.B.I.C. Inc.
(Mr William Bonney Sr.) and
the People’s Republic of China obtained an Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of
Mandamus Should Not Be Issued from the United States Supreme Court signed by
Justice Ginsberg. The People’s Republic
of China, as a foreign government, invoked the original jurisdiction authority
of the United States Supreme Court to obtain the document signed by Justice
Ginsberg. Upon further best information
and belief the responding parties to the action filed in the United States
Supreme Court are exercising any and all assumed defenses to ward off the issuance
of the Writ of Mandamus.
18. The United States Department
of Justice and/or any agency or investigative authority contacted has refused
to assist Petitioner in the collection of lawful funds. Said parties refuse such assistance
irrespective that there is clear and undisputed evidence that the subject funds
are identified in official United States government agency documents as being
the sole and exclusive property of Petitioner. As of the date of the filing of this Petition,
all requests for payment of lawful funds have been ignored by any and all
elected and nominated public officials that have the implied and apparent
authority to complete all requirements of the settled documents.
19. Petitioner individually and as
sole and exclusive controlling shareholder of AmeriTrust
Groupe, Inc. certifies as follows:
• The Petitioner
has personally had conversations with one or more officials at the United
States Department of the Treasury and said officials confirm the sequence of
events concerning inward remittance of subject funds from the People’s Republic
of China and inter-bank transfers within the United States.
• Petitioner
confirms that he has personal knowledge about the ‘Claims and Background’ set
out in this Petition and verifies upon penalty of perjury that the same are
true and correct.
• Petitioner has
fully and completely reviewed the content of this petition and certifies by
sworn affidavit attached hereto that the ‘Statement of Claim and Background’
are true and correct.
• Upon best
information and belief ‘Respondent’ individuals, agencies, public, private,
nominated and/or elected have knowingly, overtly, covertly and with specific
intent conspired together to defraud Petitioner. The individual and/or conspiratorial acts
amount to a violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in
1970), the Bank Privacy Act, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,
specifically R.I.C.O. and applicable international and national money
laundering restrictions. In addition it
is further the mentioned Respondents’ acting individually and/or ‘acting in
concert’ violate Petitioner’s rights under the provisions of H.R. 3723 as the
same pertains to private business transactions being protected under both private
and criminal penalties.
“Reasonable action has been taken
by the Petitioner in an attempt to obtain explanation and/or under what
authority Respondents are not allowing the ‘Rule of Law’ and permitting access
by Petitioner to the financial accounts referenced herein. Despite continued written notice and request
for a response the named parties continue to avoid their legal obligations and
continue to commit covert and/or overt acts in furtherance of their knowing and
purposeful violation of the statutory references mentioned hereinabove. In furtherance of this petition for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioners direct this Court’s attention to the
letters and other communications that have been marked as Exhibits A, B and C
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were
set out in their entirety in the body of this petition.’
“The petitioner in this case was
defined as: LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA,
AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA, Pro_Se, 5516 Falmouth Street,
Suite 108 Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner, Telephone: 814 455 9218, Telefax: 202 330
5116.
“Wanta
filed this AFFIDAVIT with the Court: ‘The
undersigned, being fully advised by counsel of the seriousness of the claim of
making false statements to a Court and being fully apprised of the consequences
for committing perjury (and the associated penalties), hereby make the
following statements concerning the petition for Writ of Mandamus being filed
on my behalf, by my counsel, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia:
1. I am more than twenty-one years
of age and I am a citizen of the United States of America.
2. For an extended period of time
I am functioning as a representative, investigator, contract employee and/or
facilitator of one or more assignments that were either executed and/or
performed at the direction and/or under the supervision of one or more persons
and/or agencies that were accountable to the Executive Offices of the United
States Government.
3. During most recent three to
five years I have been attempting to coordinate the repatriating of substantive
financial resources from foreign locations to the United States and cause the
tax payments owed on the patriated funds to be paid
to the United States Treasury. I have
substantially completed the stated objective task with the assistance of one or
more foreign sources.
4. I have read the entirety of the
Petition for Writ of Mandamus prepared by my attorneys. I confirm that I have personally directed
communications with the banks, security firms, the United States Department of
the Treasury (including one or more individual parties associated with the
Treasury that are named as Respondents) and other entities mentioned in the
Petition.
5. I have personally confirmed
that the financial assets sent by the People’s Republic of China were received
by Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia and that upon best information and
belief the subject financial assets were ‘tagged’ in my name and transmittal
instructions by the People’s Republic of China directed that the same be paid
to me without offset or delay.
6. I have been personally advised
by agents and/or contract regulation compliance workers, that
are accountable to the United States Department of the Treasury, that release
of funds sent by the People’s Republic of China for payment to me is
being restricted and/or blocked by one or more parties.
7. The exact party and/or parties
that are restricting and/or blocking payment of financial assets to my
designated accounts is not known absolutely.
8. Upon best information and
belief the United States Department of the Treasury has the power and authority
to direct release of the funds for my unrestricted use.
9. Despite continued demand for
release of financial assets (that were transmitted by the People’s Republic of
China) for payment to me personally the demands are ignored and are not rebuked
by any responsive communication.
10. I have been personally
informed by parties, that have the authority to release the block on funds
leveraged against recipient banking accounts established in my name, that
directives have been received from known and unknown parties that have the
effect of negating my ability to have free and unrestricted access to financial
assets that are ‘tagged’ solely and exclusively in my name.
IN WITNESS HEREOF I am causing the
above set forth affidavit to be notarized and sworn with full recognition of
the penalty of perjury this 11th day of June 2007.
[Signed]
Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta and Ambassador
Leo E. Wanta.”
Apparently, Wanta
made efforts to access the money involved but was stalled and obstructed by
various parties. This situation prompted
another legal action, viz: “(2): Text of the Wanta
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus as submitted to the court and published by this
service [see archive] on 24th June 2007 and 5th July 2007:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Case Number: 1:2007cv00609 – TSE –
BRP
Filed: 20th June 2007
Petitioner: Lee E. Wanta
Respondents: Henry M. Paulson,
Jr., Robert M. Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Michael Chertoff, Alberto R. Gonzales and Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond
Court: Virginia Eastern District
Court
Office: Alexandria Office
County: Richmond
Presiding Judge: District Judge T.
S. Ellis III
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge
Barry R. Poretz
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause: 28: 1361 Petition
for Writ of Mandamus
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government
Defendant
Jury demanded by: None
Note: This case cannot be sealed
until Ambassador Leo E. Wanta has been paid the $4.5
trillion of his Settlement diverted and exploited illegally since June
2006.
The Court has, most unusually,
given the Respondents TWO MONTHS to respond.
SIR LEO WANTA’S PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS (1)
The text of the Ambassador’s
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus follows:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA
Civil Action no.: 1-07 CV 609
LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA,
AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA (Individually and as sole and exclusive shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., a
Commonwealth of Virginia registered corporation)
Petitioner
v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
ROBERT M. KIMMITT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
JAMES R. WILKINSON
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
MICHAEL CHERTOFF
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
DIRECTOR AND/OR MANAGER OF
OPERATIONS,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Respondents
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
A. PARTIES:
1. LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA,
AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
2. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
3. Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
4. James R. Wilkinson
Chief of Staff
United States Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220: Respondent
5. Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.: respondent
6. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001: Respondent
7. Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond
701 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219: Respondent
B. JURISDICTION:
1. The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this cause of action pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United
States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1361 (mandamus),
Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1331, and Title 28 United
States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1332.
C. VENUE:
2. Venue is proper in this Court
pursuant to Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 87, Section 1391, and Title 28
United States Code Chapter 87, Section 1396.
D. STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
3. Mandamus is regarded as an
extraordinary writ reserved for special situations. Among its ordinary
preconditions are that the agency or official have acted (or failed to act) in
disregard of a clear legal duty and that there be no adequate conventional
means for review. In re Bluewater
Network & Ocean Advocates, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Telecomm.
Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir.
1984). Mandamus will be granted if the Petitioner shows ‘(1) the
presence of novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other
available remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will
aid in the administration of justice’, see In re United States, 10 F.3d 229 at
931, 933 (2d Cir. 1993).
4. Petitioner has attempted to
access monies that were transferred through international bank monetary
clearing systems to financial institutions located in the United States of
America. The remitting party was the
People’s Republic of China, People’s Bank. The remitting party designated that the transferred
funds were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitioner. The foreign entity that originated the inward
remittance designated Petitioner as sole and exclusive recipient for the
transferred money/financial instruments.
Irrespective of efforts proffered
by Petitioner and/or agents and representatives of Petitioner, private and
public individuals and entities, prevent Petitioner from exercising
Petitioner’s legal right to the use, transfer and unrestricted ability to
freely disburse said financial assets. The acts and/or omissions to act by
named and unnamed Respondents prevent Petitioner (and others who are ancillary
to this cause of action) from paying their respective tax liabilities to both
State and Federal taxing authorities.
5. Upon best information and
belief the organizations, entities, departments and individuals that prevent
and/or restrict Petitioner’s lawful access to said money and securities include
but are not necessarily limited to the following:
• Secretary of the
Treasury;
• Attorney General
of the United States of America;
• Bank of America;
• J.P. Morgan
Chase;
•
CITIBANK/CITIGROUP/NYC including but not limited to Mr Charles O. Prince,
CITIGROUP Chief Executive Officer;
• Goldman Sachs et
al including but not limited to past and present management and executive
officers and members of the Board of Directors;
• United States
Department of the Treasury including but not limited to Secretary Paulson,
Deputy Secretary Kimmitt and other known and/or
unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States
Department of the Treasury;
• Secretary Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security and other known
and/or unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States
Department of Homeland Security;
• One or more
known and/or unknown ‘compliance officers’ that act directly and/or under
contract with private bank and/or security brokerage firms to observe rules and
regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury and/or other USG
investigative and reporting entities;
• Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond, Virginia.
6. Upon best information and
belief Respondent acts and/or failures to act constitute a violation of the
Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank Privacy Act and
other non-specified banking regulations.
7. Reasonable action has been
taken by Petitioner to obtain an explanation and/or under what authority
Respondents are not permitting Petitioner to have access to the foreign
transferred private business financial assets referenced herein. Despite written notice and request for a
response the named parties avoid their legal obligations. In furtherance of this Petition for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioner directs this Court’s attention to the
letters and other communications that have been collectively marked as Exhibits
A attached hereto (2) and all of which documents, letters and Memorandum are
incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their
entirety in the body of this Petition.
8. The material, substantive and
immediate financial loss to the Petitioner resulting from loss of financial
benefit can not adequately be addressed in
conventional judicial proceedings. In one more instances parties in position of
knowledge, that can confirm the representations regarding interference in
private business dealings, between Petitioner and third parties, have been
placed at risk of physical harm by individuals representing to be fiduciaries
of one or more of the Respondents. Additionally, the acts and actions of the
Respondents prevent immediate payment of Federal taxes in the amount of $1.575
Trillion dollars into the United States Treasury.”
More
Issues
Wanta used a Richmond,
VA law firm
(possibly Troutman Sanders, LLP or Jenkens &
Gilchrist Parker Chapin, LLP). The name
William Bonney stated above appears incorrect. The London paymaster involved in supposedly
disbursing the funds was Lindell H. Bonney. Regardless, Wanta never received the funds. He made numerous attempts to gain control over
the funds, pursuant to the Richmond, VA Federal court order (which was not
appealed and which still stands valid today).
He lost on the above 2007 petition but refiled
it again in 2010.
Supposedly, there was a $4.5
trillion payment from China which reached the Richmond, VA Federal Reserve Bank
where it was transferred to Citi Bank/Goldman Sachs/New
York Federal Reserve Bank. The various
websites addressing this case suggest that Wanta tried
to get the Fed to honor the court order but was stalled with no satisfactory
recovery. In time, the White House
intervened and simply refused to honor the court order.
In subsequent years, other parties,
like CMKM Diamonds Inc and Michael C. Cottrell (whose company, Cottrell
Securities, Ltd in London handled the financial market investments and
activities of the Global Securities Fund and is reportedly due $6.2 trillion
from the fund), etc all claimed a share of this money and hired a law firm in
Pasadena, CA (Hodges and Associates) to recover the monies. Various other institutions and governments
per the protocols are entitled to a share of this money. Legal actions have been in the world court
and possibly before the BIS in Basel. Numerous
articles, letters and follow-up from Hodges and Associates can be found on the
Internet.
The
World Court Writ
In general, this comes from Hodges
with a report that the Chinese went to the World Court to settle the issue in
the form of perhaps $47 trillion or more involved in something called the US
Dollar Refunding Project/US Gold Badge Signatory, as run form London (under the
supervision of Lord Jacob Rothschild).
Per Hodges, the World Court issued a writ of Execution and Lien on the
US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Bank called the World Global Settlement
to release the $47 trillion due the Chinese and other monies involved (this
data from Hodges suggests that the monies involved were at some point in time transferred
to the US Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank, which funds may or may not have come
into the US as the Treasury/Fed could be holding the money overseas).
This World Court writ reportedly
produced a Basel List of beneficiaries (possibly the Basel List was tied to the
Bank for International Settlements in some way). It revealed that Mr
Lindell H. Bonney, Sr of the UK was chosen by MI 6 to act as paymaster in the
matter. Supposedly, the requirements of
the Basel List allegedly provided that $47 trillion be paid to the Chinese and
possibly $6.2 trillion (separately or a part of the $47 trillion) be paid to
Hodges’ client Michael C. Cottrell to an account with Morgan Stanley.
GlobalAnalysis.net addressed this
World Court reported action with data from Christopher Story as follows:
“LIEN EXECUTED AGAINST TREASURY
AND FEDERAL RESERVE IN THE SUM OF $47 TRILLION.
“Following further intransigent
obstruction, the Chinese parties who obtained the necessary World Court Writ of
Execution and Lien on the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, duly exercised
their powers and imposed the Lien on or around 6th December 2009. The Lien
against the Treasury is in the sum of $47 trillion, which is approximately the
aggregate identified by this service in 2007.
“As happened shortly after the
‘lockdown’ of the $14.0+ trillion sovereign funds including the $6.2 trillion
LOAN money provided by the British Monarchical Power [referenced again below]
on 10th-12th September 2008, when the Editor’s voicemail received a message
consisting of a recording of three actual gunshots, two specific threats,
mentioned in an Update to the previous posting, were received on Sunday 6th
December 2009, the date on which the Lien is believed to have been implemented…
“SPECIAL CONFIRMATION
OF THE LIEN OBTAINED BY THIS SERVICE. We
have obtained special confirmation of the foregoing Lien intelligence,
otherwise, self-evidently, we would not have published
this information. Furthermore, we have
taken extra precautions to ascertain whether publishing this would be liable to
‘cause any difficulties’, and we have been advised
that no impediment to publishing it has even been hinted at, although the fact
that we possess the information ‘is known’. Indeed you will have observed that we have
waited for a number of days in order to be sure that this shattering intelligence
is fully confirmed.
“We have been emphatically and
authoritatively advised, since 10th December, that it is. We obtained reiterated confirmation of this
intelligence, from New York, on 12th December.
“U.S. HIJACKING
OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN FUNDS. Within
the $47 trillion is the previously mentioned $14.0+ trillion,
and that aggregate in turn embraces the above-noted $6.2 trillion of funds
stolen from the British Monarchical Power by the criminal US Government, to
which frequent reference has been made in this column. Those funds were
transferred by the Bank of England to the criminal enterprise, Bank of New York
Mellon (as it became, effective 1st July 2007), on 19th-20th June 2007 under
levy, as we reported at the time.
“Instead of disbursing the funds
for the on-the-books Dollar Refunding Programme, as
required by the sovereign LENDER, the named institution was party to a
conspiracy involving other US criminal enterprise financial institutions, to
divert and steal those real funds for use as a ‘platform base’ for leveraged
financing operations to buttress their self-serving financial carousel.
“SOVEREIGN FUNDS PLACED INTO ‘LOCKDOWN’
ON 10-12 SEPTEMBER 2008. After this had
become fully apparent, and in response to this Editor’s strenuous
recommendation on 6th September 2008 that the $6.2 trillion, in particular, was
being abused in this manner, and that this state of affairs was intolerable –
and further, that irrespective of the consequences, the only language these
criminals would ever understand would be the removal of the funds from access
by them and their associates – the entire $14.0+ trillion (within which total
resided OTHER, non-British, sovereign monies) were placed into ‘lockdown’ (i.e.
beyond the reach of the criminal operatives at the US Treasury and elsewhere)
on 10th-12th September 2008 – a development that triggered the extreme crisis
that overwhelmed London and New York at the beginning of October.
“Coincidentally or not, scalar
Hurricane IKE which developed on 13th September 2008 was probably intended to
destroy the oil refineries and offshore oil platforms in the Houston area – the
heart of the US oil industry. A sudden and temporary collapse of oil prices
then followed, as did a quadruple witching day for commodities on Friday 19th
September. Certain parties who had probably hoped to
‘make a killing’ that week, were wiped out instead.
“BRITISH MINISTERS APPEARED TO HAVE
NO IDEA ABOUT THIS BACKGROUND. It has
since become apparent that the British Government appeared to have NO CLUE as
to these background circumstances concerning the ‘lockdown’ of the $14.0+
trillion, given the subsequent statements by Ministers such as the City
Minister, Lord Myners, that the financial system was
within hours of disintegration at a critical stage that October.
“A few days after the $14.0+
trillion was placed into ‘lockdown’, the Editor’s voicemail was enlivened (on
the morning of 20th September) by a recording of three actual gunshots, as we
reported at the time [see above]. This was an intelligence operation, as the
recording could not be recaptured after being played the first time. The Editor subsequently received special
protection during his visit to Washington and New York for the Annual Meetings
of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in October 2008…”
The above report from Christopher
Story included some speculation which would have tied to the question of the
release of the $47 trillion to the US market melt down
in Sep 2008. There were also comments
allowing the use of these funds in manipulating the derivative markets as will
be discussed below.
The
CKMX Diamonds Claims
The following backdrop on the CMKX
claims of $3.87 trillion (which may be a part of the $47 trillion or a separate
claim) apparently comes from data released by its lawyer Hodges and Associates:
“A brief history
of THE CMKX SHAREHOLDERS COALITION FOR JUSTICE shows it was formed for real
shareholders of CMKM Diamonds Inc. and is currently attempting to force the
truth into public. This is regarding the
money set aside for them as a result of a multi government sting operation
using the company and the shareholders as pawns to catch firms counterfeiting
the stock market.
“The COALITION
filed complaints with the RCMP, FBI/DOJ, SEC, and Texas State Bar Association. All are fully aware of the situation and the
crimes being committed against CMKM Diamonds Inc and its thousands of
shareholders. We have contacted
INTERPOL, had our evidence forwarded to the Honourable
Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety for Canada, and
forwarded to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister
of Foreign Affairs in Canada. They are
fully aware of the situation. Shareholders from the United States have put
in correspondence to politicians in almost every state and asked for justice by
the thousands to the Securities and Exchange Commission; all are fully aware of
the situation.
“The authorities
and our own company officials, due to non disclosures, were completely hiding
the facts of the last six years from the retail shareholders of CMKM Diamonds
Inc, so the COALITION filed a RECOL complaint with the RCMP in 2009, and
entered evidence to the Nevada FBI in 2009. There was absolutely no real investigation
into the allegations put forth, and the thousands of complaints put in by
shareholders to the SEC were met with condescension and disrespect.
“The COALITION
had already researched other sting operations run by the SEC/FBI/DOJ/RCMP along
with other agencies, and had documented not only the inaction of the
authorities but of criminal collusion to cover up the largest crime in history,
the systematic counterfeiting of the stock market. This included influencing news agencies to
cover up the story, which continues to this day. Corroborating evidence is available upon
request, or can be viewed at http://cmkx.info .
“As a result of
the inaction of all authorities involved and our own company, the COALITION
filed a lawsuit against the SEC in the British Columbia Supreme Court On
November 9th 2009, in Kelowna, B.C. for aiding and abetting the mass
counterfeiting of the stock market in general and CMKM Diamonds Inc. in
particular. We presented clear evidence
in that case that the SEC aided and abetted the insiders of CMKM Diamonds Inc.
in selling hundreds of billions of counterfeit shares in CMKX stock, and
covered up the firms who sold hundreds of billions of counterfeit shares in
CMKM Diamonds Inc.
“The lawsuit can
be viewed at http://cmkx.info, and in
particular the COALITION evidence against the SEC proves beyond a reasonable
doubt the SEC/FBI/DOJ/RCMP and others aided the insiders to sell unregistered
shares of CMKX stock, and in the cover up of several well known firms,
including TDWaterhouse. Evidence that Canadian firms were not even on
the NOBO lists, and that they were warned they were selling illegal shares and
continued to do so, is available upon request.
“The COALITON put
together several time lines with allegations and corroborating evidence from those
involved directly in the fraud. The evidence included a short historical
time line of SEC fraud, clearly showing they facilitated the mass
counterfeiting of the stock market and its cover up with the authorities who
were supposed to protect the public. A
package is available upon request which easily proves the Head of Market
Regulations at the time worked with the likes of Bernie Madoff
to create a system that allowed the mass counterfeiting of the general public
and purposely cover it up, lying to the general public.
“Regarding CMKM
specifically, a historical timeline of events clearly showed the SEC/FBI had
subpoenaed the records they used in current court cases against insiders of
CMKM in September of 2004 and the SEC was contacted on each sale by the corrupt
insiders of CMKM after September of that year, okaying the sale of the shares
each time, hundreds of billions of shares. CMKM was clearly a sting operation or all
authorities involved, including the RCMP/FBI/DOJ/SEC and others, aided the fraud.
This evidence can be viewed at http://cmkx.info and can be used
by all shareholders as they see fit.
“The fact is, it
is easy to prove this was a sting, but for this action the shareholders of CMKM
don’t have to prove that, the lawyer that represents them has given public
updates that the release of the monies put aside by the perpetrators in the
CMKM Diamonds Inc. sting operation was imminent.
“Mr. Al Hodges
has said he represents all 50,000 shareholders who are trapped in this intel operation, trapped because officials from the United
States government are to this minute are illegally withholding their money
earmarked for them and held in trust after the completion of the DOJ sting
operation was complete approximately five years ago.
“The imminent
release of these monies set aside in frozen trust has been promised now on
twenty or more occasions in the last eight months alone, and for years before
that, each time raising the hopes of the shareholders that justice would happen
finally, that the known crimes would finally stop being committed against them.
Each time the authorities from SEVERAL
AGENCIES UP TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND CIA have reneged on their word and broke
their judiciary duty to thousands of people in CMKM alone.
“We can provide
all time lines going back years to show what has gone
on, but what is currently happening is what the COALITION would like to ask the
authorities to investigate. The
COALITION will present a current time line going back to November 2009 to show
the crimes that are currently being committed or alleged to be happening to
this day to 50,000 shareholders in CMKM. The time line next will show that every
shareholder is owed a huge apology by all the authorities involved for the
treatment they received during this nightmare of a process, where authorities
all the way to the White House are currently committing serious crimes against
CMKM shareholders, but have them covered up completely to this day by all
involved. The Canadian government are
just sitting idle while they have been completely informed of the situation,
one in which they signed deals for Canadian perpetrators to stay out of jail, a
deal in which the victims have no justice six years later.
“The shareholders
of CMKM Diamonds demand the release of our money set aside for us in the Intel
operation ran by the DOJ/RCMP and others, one in which plaintiff Allan Treffry says Al Hodges is still working. We ask that the authorities who are
investigating this to step in and do their duty and stop the crimes being
currently committed against all shareholders. We ask that if our money is not release
according to the law, that a full public investigation be initiated immediately
into the evidence about to be entered in this complaint.
“The COALITION
now enters evidence for investigation, evidence which can be used by all
shareholders to demand an investigation into the crimes being currently
committed against them. This evidence
clearly shows that CMKM Diamonds Inc and its shareholders were used in a
government sting operation and that monies due to them are illegally being
withheld, and we ask that these crimes be stopped, thank you.
“TIME LINE OF
CURRENT FRAUD BEING COMMITTED AGAINST ALL CMKM DIAMONDS SHAREHOLDERS: June 2006 Mark Faulk finished his book
regarding CMKM Diamonds Inc. and was waiting on the indictments of corrupt
insiders before he could put his book out. At the same time CMKM Diamonds Inc. finished
the largest cert pull in history, proving the largest naked short in history. Al Hodges says in the court testimony on Aug.
2nd in California, attached, that the money set aside in the CMKM
Diamonds Inc. sting operation, one in which he has a witness to the deals made,
was to be released from frozen trust at this point.
“Shareholders sit
for years in agony waiting; most knowing this was a sting, in total darkness,
no real information from anyone involved, including their own company. Many
shareholders lost their homes in this time, didn’t get much needed operations,
and many died, all waiting for justice from the authorities, all treated like
the perpetrators instead of the victims.
“January 10th, after
the government does not release the money to the
shareholders of CMKM Diamonds Inc. like promised, even after they took the
taxes out of our money, Mr. Hodges is forced to file the Bivens
Class Action, and although he has seven named plaintiffs, says he represents
all shareholders in public letters. Here
is a portion of a press release put out by the COALITION which represents the
essence of the case, and again Mr. Hodges claims he has a witness to the
perpetrators making these deals and Mr. Hodges is currently an eye witness to
the crimes happening in this case that prevent the conclusion of his Bivens Class Action, one in which all bona fide
shareholders are a part of as they all have money held in frozen trust for
them: A Bivens
Class Action law suit seeking $3.87 trillion in damages was filed on January
10, 2010 against five present and five past Security and Exchange Commission
commissioners. A. Clifton Hodges of Hodges and Associates, Pasadena, Ca, filed
the suit on behalf of seven named plaintiffs and ‘all others similarly
situated’.
“The suit alleges
CMKM Diamonds, Inc. was used as a vehicle in a joint sting operation conducted
by the SEC, the Department of Justice (DoJ) of the
United States, Robert A. Maheu and others. The suit
contends between June 1, 2004 and October 28, 2005 ‘a total of 2.25 trillion
phantom shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. were sold into the public market through
legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market-makers, hedge
funds, ex clearing transactions and private transactions.’
“The class action
suit further alleges the ‘Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department
of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their
activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment
of taxes, and to support terrorist operations.’
“The twenty-page
complaint states the SEC, DOJ and the DHS, ‘(c)onsented to, facilitated and supported the
conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his
associates on the one hand and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all
for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with
consent of the US Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution
for such illegal sales.’
“According to Al
Hodges filing, between March 2004 and August 2006 a settlement was reached on
behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. by Maheu, with
assistance from others, and the alleged wrongdoers who had engaged in naked
short selling of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.
‘In exchange for a US Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the
wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for
disbursal at a later time.’
“The suit
contends these monies and other monies resulting from the sale of claims to
foreign entities were collected for the benefit of the shareholders of CMKM
Diamonds Inc., and are being held in a trust, or held in trust by the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and the United States Treasury. The $3.87 trillion dollar lawsuit states
demands for the release of said monies has been ‘repeatedly’ presented to the
SEC and ‘agents and employees of the SEC and the DOJ have represented
repeatedly that the release of the monies was imminent.’
“The Al Hodges
complaint charges, ‘As a result of the Defendant’s misconduct, each of the
named plaintiffs and all of those similarly situated, have been denied their
Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to, their Fifth Amendment
right to be secure in their property, free from taking without just
compensation and without due process of law, and have suffered injuries and
property loss in excess of Three Trillion Dollars.’
“Dear Ms. Brown:
“Thank you for
speaking with me earlier today and explaining that Mr. Markowitz was out for
the rest of the day. We discussed briefly the nature of my request and you
suggested that I forward the appropriate information to your attention via
e-mail for Mr. Markowitz’s review on his return Monday, March 1, 2010. The
information is as follows:
• I am a California
trial attorney with some 40 years experience in State and Federal Court, as
well as other jurisdictions.
• In January of
this year I filed a Bivens Class Action against the
five sitting SEC Commissions and five past SEC Commissioners seeking some 3.87
Trillion Dollars in damages for the taking of property by unconstitutionally
withholding consent to distribute such sums as had previously been collected
for the benefit of 50,000 + shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.; a conformed
copy of the complaint is attached.
• The SEC Office
of General Counsel has agreed to accept service on behalf of the sitting
Commissioners; the other commissioners are currently being served.
• The weight of
opinion is that this litigation will not be allowed to proceed
into the discovery stages and/or to trial; there is mounting evidence that a
distribution of funds to the shareholders is on the near horizon.
• I am advised
that a portion of trust funds previously ear-marked for distribution to support
the U.S. Domestic Settlement Fund Program currently in process were distributed
to the United States Treasury facility in New York City on December 31, 2009
through and with the assistance of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in New
York City.
• I am advised
that these trust funds totaled 4.2 Trillion Dollars and were paid into the U.S.
Treasury as and for taxes due to be paid from the trust(s) upon distribution of
the trust assets.
• I am further
advised that pursuant to Federal Banking Regulations, New York State Banking
Regulations, and the Martin Act, inter alia, the transferred funds could be
held without return for a maximum period of time under any circumstances for
forty-five days or until midnight February 14, 2010.
• I am further
advised that the U.S. Treasury has not remitted these funds, is still possessed
of these funds and more importantly the trust(s) assets have not been
distributed.
• The above
circumstances, upon proof, demonstrate serious criminal violations of the
statutes referred to above.
• I represent, at
least as the Class Counsel, a number of New York residents who are
beneficiaries of these trust(s) and are among the 50,000 + shareholders. I know
many of these people on a personal basis in addition to being their counsel of
record and can attest to their severe and continuing damage suffered and being
suffered as a result of the non-distribution and non-receipt of the afore
mentioned trust assets; some of them are also anxious to visit you in person
and describe their continuing outrage. Demand
is hereby made that your office initiate, at the
earliest possible time, an investigation into the criminal activities of those
persons within your jurisdiction whom have contributed to and
otherwise facilitated these criminal acts. I would be happy to discuss these
facts with you at your early convenience. Please feel free to contact me
directly at: (626) 564-9797. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to
this matter.
1--March 30th, no
resolution to the situation despite the fact numerous crimes are occurring
daily, no resolution but each week passes with hope given that this may end and
authorities may finally do their duties. March 30th Mr. Hodges
gives an interview to the Manhattan Examiner, in the article he claims he has
an eye witness to the deals made by Robert Maheu,
authorities from several agencies, and the perpetrators. Quotes from the
article show that Mr. Hodges again feels the shareholders money is about to be
released as we speak, it again proved to be false, and again shareholders were
given false hope our government would actually follow the law: ‘They [the
government] used the shareholders without their consent to perform this ‘sting
operation’ for National Security interests, and it wouldn’t have worked the way
it worked if they had disclosed it,’ he continued. ‘On the other hand, it
isn’t right to bury a company and put them out of business for the purpose of
trapping people who are using the company to cheat the government, to line
their own pockets, and to fund their operations against the United States.’
As noted above in complaint paragraph 34, and per Hodges, a deal was eventually
reached with the aforementioned criminals; they paid the government restitution
for documented illegal actions, and in turn, were offered immunity from
prosecution. ‘Rob Maheu had all these people in
a big room in Las Vegas, and made [an] offer to them,’ he said. ‘Every person,
organization and representative in that room stepped up, and either transferred
money while they were there, or agreed to transfer money upon some further
schedule’ to avoid indictment. Hodges also said, ‘I have a witness who
was there, who saw it, and part of the 2.25 trillion phantom shares is
documented by that person’s observations of how many shares were represented in
that room.’ HOW MUCH MONEY DID THE FEDS REALLY COLLECT FOR
RESTITUTION? ‘People are going to laugh and titter about the amount of
money that is being claimed, but understand the context of the lawsuit,’ he
said, before concluding, ‘we are not asking the government to pay us $3.87
trillion, what we’re asking is for them to release the funds that have been
collected for us.’ Thus, the implication is that this sum also
incorporates substantial punitive damages. In the end, Hodges believes
the U.S. government is going to settle the case before it actually moves to
trial. On this possibility, he said, ‘I think it’s in the process of
happening as we speak.’
2--April 27th update by
by Al Hodges to all shareholders, again Mr. Hodges
feels the money will be in the Trustee’s hands by week’s end, again this did
not happen.
3--Our Status – We are literally
on the thresh-hold. This means that the ‘work’ remaining to be finished will
not consume more hours than can be accomplished within one day. We have
been at this point now for more than a few weeks.
4--The Delay – Although I could
write a book about what’s been going on behind the scenes to cause this
additional delay, I’ll try to give you the condensed version: First – Please be aware and understand that
there is an economic war raging in the background. Second – The naked corruption that is endemic
in D.C. is more than most can comprehend; it is clear that these miscreants
have no regard for the US Constitution, Federal Laws and Regulations, nor even
any sense of simple morality. They are convinced that they are above any
constraint that might apply to lesser mortals and that no enforcement activity
will ever successfully address them. I hasten to add that such opinions are not
universal; having said that, it is more widespread than not. Third – These miscreants are, in effect,
fighting for their lives – at least that part of their lives that establishes
an environment in which they can continue to lie, cheat, steal, and mortgage
your progeny’s lives, all for their personal gain. Accordingly, they will fight
until the doors are all closed by a power that they cannot subvert. That fight
continues as I prepare this interim update.
Fourth – The good news is, we are winning the
battle. The circle within which these bad apples can operate draws inexorably
smaller with each attempt to bribe, suborn and otherwise corrupt the system,
and the people within it. By way of example, I was advised that over the
weekend one State Department person, 10 bankers and 18 Federal Reserve people
were arrested and dealt with. Fifth – By
what date will we have Economic Receipt, you ask. We will have it when this
initial battle phase comes to a successful conclusion. That will be in the very
near future in my opinion; the current schedule based on advice I received this
afternoon is that it should all be finished, with funds in the Trustee’s hands,
by week’s end.
5--May 20th 2010, Mr.
Hodges to President Obama, Mr. Hodges alleges that settlement monies set aside
in the sting operation and money set aside from the sale of land for the
benefit of the shareholders of CMKM are now part of the Global Settlement
causing further delays in distribution, something in itself that needs to be
investigated. He also claims the conclusion of the transfers of Global
Settlement monies should have taken place over the last two months and that his
paymaster is ready at this moment to finish up that work…
6--August 2nd hearing
in California where Al Hodges responds to the defendants (SEC commissioners
past and present) motion to dismiss, the defendants were represented by DOJ
lawyer Keith Staub, the same DOJ that should be
protecting the shareholders of CMKM and enforcing the deals they made years
ago: AH: Good Afternoon your Honor, A. Clifton Hodges on behalf of
the plaintiffs, two of whom are in the courtroom today, Mr. Hamilton and Mr.
_____________
Judge: Good
afternoon, welcome.
SEC; Good
afternoon your Honor, this is U.S. Attorney Keith Stavron
(??) on behalf of the Federal defense.
Judge: Good
afternoon Have you had a chance to review the tentative ??
Both say yes your
honor
Judge: Mr. Hodges
I think I would like to hear from you first please
AH: your Honor,
first of all let me concede the point raised in your
tentative that this is not your usual Bivens case.
That is clear for everyone I think. As a house keeping matter on page one there
is a typographical error, in the middle paragraph the Administrative Law
Judge’s finding was in 2005 not in 2010.
Judge: Thank you.
AH: Having said that, let me refer you to the second issue raised by the
government first. It asks the question whether or not there are property rights
at issue in this case. And very simply what we have alleged is
, let me back up a second. We have alleged a scheme, in effect a sting
operation, judged from the outside not from the inside. Basically the sting
operation was an operation put into effect through the Office of Homeland
Security, the Department of Justice, and the SEC Commissioners.
What we have
alleged is that the SEC Commissioners as opposed to the Agency itself,
coordinated with these other institutions and at their request and in concert
with them began a program, whereby, this company was raided. The SEC Commission
was fully aware, at all times, of the amount of naked shorting going on in this
company.
The then Chairman
of the commission has been quoted on several occasions as saying this was the
most heavily naked shorted company in the history of the world. As we have
alleged in our complaint one day, which I believe was in April 2005, some more
than 90 billion shares of this company were traded in one day. I have testimony
from, which is not alluded to in our current complaint, but I can provide
testimony from registered NSASDA companies, that were in business at this time,
who report that they were told ‘it’s free money’. You can sell as many shares
as you can find buyers for and put all of the money in your pocket. You don’t
ever have to buy the share.
They were on a no
borrow list to begin with, at that point in time, which was in 2005 primarily.
And if you were going to borrow shares as a legitimate broker in that point in
time, they had a $2.50 requirement for borrowing. You can imagine with some, I
think they averaged during that time 17 billion shares a day being sold, this
is an enormous amount of money for people to be borrowing shares to be sold into
the market. They were being sold for nothing, that is
how they drove this company into the ground.
They did it
because there was evidence by the government, and by others, associated both
directly and indirectly with the government, that this money was being sent
offshore. It was being accumulated by hedge funds offshore, it was being sent
to Iraq, it was being sent to Iran, it was being sent
to Afghanistan, it was being sent to Hezbollah, this was one of the means in
which these terrorist organizations were utilizing them to fund their
operations.
Having said that,
I recognized when I prepared this complaint at the time the company was being
de-listed, and the time this original agreement was made, we did not have a
basis to sue the SEC, the SEC commissioners, or anybody else. Because in fact,
as the Court correctly points out, in regard to (quoted
a case) it said the shareholders don’t have a right, they don’t have a property
interest. If they did not have that right at the time the agreement was made,
at the time the original ultra _______ criminal acts by these Commissioners
took place.
However, what
this complaint speaks to is at quite a later date after the company was
de-listed in October of 2005, and they stipulated to that delisting, Then we go
forward and what immediately happened was a Task Force, including one primary
and past board of director members, Mr. Bob Mahue,
who is no longer with us unfortunately, became the head of that Task Force. His
appointed duties, and the Task Force appointed duties, were to have the
shareholders pull copies of their shares, pull certificates for every share
that was legitimately then owned because it had been bought and paid for, and
based upon that share certificate pull, then turn around and liquidate the
company.
At the time the
company decided it was going to liquidate itself and distribute its remaining
assets to its shareholders the property rights attached to each of the
shareholders because at that point in time, this was in early 2006, they had a
right to believe that what was in their future was a distribution, a prorate
per share distribution of the assets that the company then owned. The company
then owned all of these monies that had been accumulated and put into trusts.
The company also owned shares of stock in a company called Entourage and they
had other assets. They did not have any substantial liabilities.
So the share
holders, from that point forward, had a property right that is protectable
under the Constitution. It is that claim that we are basing our complaint.
Having said that, once we get past the property rights issue, I certainly
understand the Courts concern and I have reviewed my complaint, about, perhaps
the use of some in artful language when I referred to the SEC rather than
specifying that it was the SEC commissioners that we are aiming this at.
The reason we are
aiming only at the SEC commissioners is because under the statutory scheme that
was set up after the Great Depression, the SEC commission and commissioners
individually have the sole and exclusive right to make the decisions. For
example with this firm, when this company was de-listed in October of 2005, it
was pursuant to an Administrative Law Hearing that took place here in Los
Angeles, a full day down in Federal Court, that I attended.
The
Administrative Law Judge then rendered a tentative decision. It was her
decision but it was tentative in the sense that it had no power and had no
effect. The only time that it became effective was when the company became
de-listed on October 24th or 25th of that year when the Commission met and
together agreed that this company should be de-listed.
They are the only
people who have the power to make these kinds of decisions. They are the people
who spoke to the other governmental agencies and to the people representing, at
least ostensibly the company at that point in time, with this agreement to
utilize this company without knowledge to the shareholders as part of a sting
operation to trap all of these hedge fund people. That started way back in
2004.
But it was those
commissioners acting in an improper and ___________ and probably criminal way
because their mandate under the law is to protect the shareholders. They were
doing exactly the opposite. They were entering into an agreement they knew way
going to damage he shareholders, it was going to
drive this company out of business, which it did, and without notice in a big
secret. It was only those commissioners who took that action that we are aiming
this complaint at.
We have named the
commissioners that have sat since that time because it is our position that
having denied these people payment these commissioners have signed on ratifying
the acts of their fellow criminals or miscreants, at least, and at the end of
the day refuse to release this money. Money that has been
collected. We are not suing the SEC, we aren’t suing the government.
Judge: who, in
your analysis, is the trustee of the funds? Who holds the funds?
AH: There are
actually several trustees who hold the funds, one of whom is currently the
DTCC. I only say that because I know the funds are on deposit with the DTCC.
Judge: OK spin
that out for me.
AH: The deposit
for a trust, clearing corporation, they are the clearing house for all the
financial transactions basically that they placed in __________
Judge: Privately
or publicly?
AH: They are a
private company but they act a public one.
Judge: As opposed
to governmental
AH: It is not a
governmental agency in the same sense that the Federal Reserve Banks are not
government.
Judge: What
document governs the terms under which they hold those funds?
AH: A trust
agreement.
Judge: Between?
AH: Between the
people who provisionally set this up
Judge: Who are?
AH: One of whom
was Bob Mahue.
Judge: As an
employee of the SEC?
AH: Not as an employee
of the SEC in any sense of the word, he was at one time on the Board of
Directors of the company CMKX Diamonds.
Judge: right
AH: He never
acted on behalf of the SEC.
Judge: What
control does the sec have over this trust fund?
AH: They don’t
have any direct control over the trust fund. The agreement, however, that was
originally entered into, as I understand the testimony of my, what I have been
able to accumulate without the opportunity to do actual discovery, my
understanding is that Bob Mahue and several of his
associates entered into a deal first with the Department of Justice, they got
the SEC on board through the commissioners by talking to several of them. Primarily Christopher Cox.
Judge: Who is a
defendant, a named defendant who used to be the Chairman?
AH: The essence
of the agreement they made was that in order to make this sting effective the
company would go and pump its stock, which it did, the government would assist
in that operation, which it did
Judge: How?
AH: There is
evidence that they paid for some of the expenses associated with a car, a drag
racing car that had CMKX painted on the outside of it that was being very
publicly bandied about the internet and raced in various jurisdictions. One of
their ex-employees a gentleman named Roger Glenn, an attorney, he used to be an
attorney in New York with the law firm _______________ signed on to increase
the stock at the request of the SEC, I am told. He came on to or into CMKX in
2004.
When he arrived
there the number of authorized shares for the company some
where of 100 or 200 billion, I forget exactly what, when he left some
nine or ten months later the number of authorized shares had illegally and
improperly, under every law that I am aware of at least, had been raised to 800
billion shares. And this company eventually sold some 700 billion shares of
stock. And there is over that many outstanding ____________, 703 billion plus.
Judge: Why isn’t
your client against the clearinghouse acting as trustee for these funds?
AH: Because that
would be like suing the escrow company.
Judge: Yeah but
the escrow company has the funds.
AH: As I started
to say, here is the simple answer, your Honor, as I started to say a few
minutes ago and I probably did not finish. The original agreement, there was a
war that ensued after the sting got under operation because what the sting
always contemplated was that Mr. Maheu would collect
all of these bad doers, the hedge fund people and people like T.D. Waterhouse
and all the other stock brokerage houses around who were naked shorting this
company, collect them all in a big room and offer them a deal for two reasons.
First
of all to collect money for CMKX for what had been done to them. And second of
all to teach these people a lesson that there were people out there watching
what was going on. Hopefully that would head them off from continuing in such
illicit and illegal and improper behavior. That was in fact done and I have a
witness that was there when it was done.
They had a room
about three times the size of your courtroom in which they had representative
from all of these brokerages from all over the world. They watched a video
presentation, because Mr. Mahue, as the court may be
aware, was at one time closely associated with the CIA, Howard Hughes and all
kinds of other people.
Judge: I was
going to ask you whether that was the same Bob Maheu.
AH: It is indeed
the same one, a gentleman I happened to make acquaintances with
in the 70’s to my good fortune. At any rate all of these people were in
this room and were shown a video and a slide presentation of all of the
evidence of their wrongdoing and they were offered an opportunity to either
step up and sign away your money and pay a reasonable amount for each transaction
you did illegally and improperly or go walk out of here and get prosecuted and
go to jail because what you did was criminal.
Every single
person in that room stepped up and made a deal. After that
time there became a big conflict between the SEC commissioners and the other
governmental entities who were supporting the SEC commissioners about who was
going to have the right to release this money to the shareholders and when.
My understanding is that it went on for some number of months but ultimately the
SEC commissioners prevailed and convinced Mr. Maheu
and his associates that it had to be their decision because only they and the
rest of the government could determine when this ting had fulfilled its
function.
That was the
basis on which he gave them the power to make this decision about when the
money is to be released. It is my understanding that every trust that is
currently being held for release of this money is being held by a person who is
sworn to observe that requirement. That the SEC, the US government whoever ____
this payment, goes first. Since my information is that was the SEC
commissioners that have this power, this is why they are the defendants in this
case.
Judge: Let’s
return to your Bivens theory, it is taking a headpoint
AH: this money
was supposed to have been released within a year of the time the company was
originally de-listed in October of 2005. This is now almost October of 2010,
some 4 years past that time. It is taking only because they refuse, not
withstanding information they have continued to give to ____________, they
continue to refuse to release this money. If they don’t release they money then
it is a taking. Because they are preventing what is rightfully ours for us to
receive. That is why it is a taking.
Judge: Thank You
AH: You are
welcome
Judge: Mr. Saton (?)
SEC: Thank you
your Honor. I have to admit most of what I just heard I heard for the first
time because most of it wasn’t in the claim.
Judge: I found it
very educational.
SEC: Indeed. True
or not I don’t know but we are here to discuss what is in the complaint today.
We’re not here to give oral argument and give testimony to facts no one has any
idea about, certainly not myself. We are here to talk about what is in the
complaint, whether it was properly pled under rule 8, the ___decision and
_________. As this Court pointed out in its tentative it is not properly pled.
Judge: Yeah I am
satisfied with that in the tentative. The case would be for the plaintiff to
dismiss the plead to re-plead. I guess what I am really
interested in is whether this is an appearance claim given the nature of the
asset raid whether sovereign immunity applies.
SEC: Well I
suppose they can sue a government official under Bivens
for any violation of civil rights whether it has to do with money or not. I
don’t know any distinguishing facts in this case that would prevent them from
being sued individually under Bivens if there are
sufficient facts.
Judge: Well if
you concede in theory that a Constitution violation of the taking clause could be
asserted against an individual an individual government worker.
SEC: Well I
haven’t researched that so I don’t know the answer to that specifically. We
asserted on our brief the original invest property because pursuant to the
complaint the SEC had the discretion to release funds, if in fact there are
these funds in existence, that discretion alone, under the case law that we
cited suggests that they don’t have the property rights. But the answer to your
question is I don’t know.
Judge: Well there
are two questions I guess. One is there a property right and is the contingent
asset, if you will, subject to distribution to the plaintiffs at the will of
the commission. But there is a separate issue is whether the nature of the
relief sought here is such that it can only be asserted against the
commissioners in their official capacity.
SEC: Well, I
don’t think the government has a way of stopping the release in official
capacity or in any way.
Judge: Well I
understand that, the issue is, is there some manner which these crimes could be
asserted against the individual defendants in their individual capacities or is
the relief sought by definition relief that can only be sought in their
official capacity in which case there can be no private claim they would be entitled
to sovereign immunity in their official capacity
SEC: That may be
the case, I don’t know the answer to that. I think the
court is inclined to be consistent with its tentative as far as the pleading
requirements. I think the plaintiffs have an opportunity to re-plead to amend
the complaint. We will certainly deal with the issue that the Court raised on
further briefing, I imagine there will be an
additional motion to dismiss in the future. But that being said clearly these
are high level government officials, they don’t deserve to be sued and
discovery taken of them. I am not specific, obligations have been made by some
and none have been made to a distant point.
I hear some
issues were addressed during oral argument that I didn’t see in the complaint,
even assuming those are true there is nothing specific to these SEC
commissioners other than the fact that they some how
have the sole discretion to make every single decision at the SEC. I don’t buy
that.
Judge: Mr. S—- it
might be easier to assess whether claims can be asserted against the
commissioners as individuals if we have a complaint that complies with
__________.
SEC: That may be
true, yes. If it’s in a fact complied and fitting the requirements of _________
and it can pass qualified immunity which also remains in the court obviously
doesn’t need to address right now. But if and when the Court decides it’s been
properly pled then I think qualified immunity should be addressed.
Judge: Well what
I am going to do is dismiss with ________ to re-plead for failure to meet the
Rule 8 requirements. Again not to dismiss the claims against them in their
official capacity as a matter of sovereign immunity and leave the other issues
until we have pleading that passes muster.
AH: Agree you
Honor.
SEC: I would only
ask you honor the government have 30 days to respond and to ________ people.
Thank you.
Judge: Mr. Hodges
AH: I certainly
recognize, your Honor, the need to be more specific in the complaint and I
appreciate the Courts willingness to give us the opportunity if that is the
Courts
Judge: I
understand you want
AH: 45 days with
the
Judge: any
objections?
SEC: None your
Honor
Judge: You have
30 days to respond by answering in a motion
AH: That is fine your Honor
Judge: OK we will
modify the tentative accordingly.”
Robert A. Maheu cited above may be a present or former employee of
the CIA. Hodges and Associates have
filed lawsuits against different parties and have written numerous letters to
Ben Bernanke at the Fed, President Obama, the Queen of the UK, the British
Prime Minister, various officials in the US, etc trying to obtain the monies
due CMKX and Cottrell. All efforts so
far have been met by US stonewalling and non cooperation. Here is one letter from Hodges to Obama:
“May 27, 2010
Via Facsimile
Only: (202) 456 2461
Honorable Barack
Obama
President of the
United States of America
White House
Washington, DC
In re: World
Global Settlements
Dear Mr President
I write to you
again this afternoon in furtherance of my previous recent correspondence
regarding prompt dissemination of the World Global Settlements.
As I have
previously stated, I represent some 50,000 shareholders who are to be paid a
settlement which consist mainly of monies collected from banks, brokerages,
hedge fund corporations, market makers, the Depository Trust
Corporation/Federal Reserve, and various billionaire ‘naked-shorter’
individuals, as well as some monies due from the SEC for damages. I have also
been involved in the representation of other payees awaiting this distribution
and have, in such capacity, been in direct communication with the UK Royal
Monarch.
I am currently
advised and understand the following:
• A portion of the
World Global Settlement funds have been collected and are presently held in the
custody of the Bank of America in Richmond, VA.
• Said funds are
sufficient to cover all disbursements to be made by the authority of the
Paymaster who has now spent more than eight weeks over the past three months,
in Richmond, for the purpose of concluding these transfers.
• The Paymaster
authority has, at the direction of the Pentagon, London, et al., been present
in the Bank in Richmond every day this week to complete the transfers.
• This morning he
was advised by ‘both sides’ that each desired this matter to be concluded as
soon as possible and that he should be available to enter the bank to
consummate the transfers.
• AS OF 6:00 P,
EDT, THE PAYMASTER AUTHORITY PERSONALLY ADVISED ME THAT YOU PERSONALLY, MR
PRESIDENT, WANTED AND HAD DIRECTED THAT THESE FUNDS BE HELD THROUGHOUT THE
COMING HOLIDAY WEEKEND.
• I have
previously been advised that you had given specific written authorization of
these transfers and confirmed the same verbally just this week.
Mr President, I
sincerely hope that my information is incorrect; because, as I am certain you
are aware, your personal involvement in delaying this distribution is an ultra vires action which exposes you to personal liability for
the sums involved and for accruing interest thereon. I would certainly not want
to see you personally involved in the future dénouement of this matter.
As I have
previously advised in my communications to you, only your direct intervention
will be efficacious in bringing this matter to conclusion.
Mr President, I
implore you to facilitate conclusion of this matter forthwith. There is simply
no legal basis for any further delay. Please act consonantly with your previous
statements and promises.
I would very much
appreciate your written confirmation that you will do so immediately;
accordingly, I will withhold public distribution of this correspondence until
8:00 pm EDT today.
Sincerely,
Hodges and
Associates
[Signed]: A.
Clifton Hodges”
More About the purposes of the $27.5 trillion, now
$60-$70 trillion Fund
What is important
here from the above is that attorney Hodges and his clients repeatedly charge
that the monies involved in the Global Securities Fund/Global Settlement Fund
were used in investment activities, short selling and to manipulate and control
the various world financial markets for the benefit of some secret unidentified
party or parties (and since British Lord Jacob Rothschild supervises these
funds, it’s not hard to put two and two together and see who has been
benefiting from these funds).
Many of us have
known for ages that the CIA is exempt from US law and that none of their work
can become an issue in US courts (that’s why, since at least 1961, under
Kennedy, the CIA become Murder Incorporated (to quote Lyndon Johnson). We don’t know and can’t find out how many
people the CIA has assassinated over the years.
The Agency made at least 26 attempts on the life of Castro (after 26
attempts to kill him, it is no wonder that Castro hates the US). It is also known by many persons that the CIA
has been a key agency in the world drug trade for years. Allegedly, the CIA handles drugs for payoffs
from the world ruling drug masters.
Ostensibly, the case can be made that the CIA works the drug trade for
additional income to supplement its activities beyond black ops appropriations
from the Congress and other secret funding from the US Executive branch.
With so many
illegal activities going on, it is entirely plausible that the CIA has been
heavily involved in the manipulation and control of the world financial markets
to supposedly benefit the Federal Reserve Bank and US Treasury (though
secretly, we can bank on it that CIA involvement in the markets is really to
benefit the secret plutocratic rulers of the US—namely the Rothschild Cabal of
bankers).
So while the case
can be made that the World Security Fund actively funded intelligence
activities, revolutions, assassinations, spying, sabotage, unrest in enemy
nations, etc on behalf of its US-Rothschild masters, it is manifestly clear
that the Agency has been involved in the manipulation of the global financial
markets. From the beginning, this fund
has been employed under the supervision of Lord Jacob Rothschild of Britain. Thus, we can be sure that the fund works for
the Rothschild Cabal of bankers. There
is no other way an intelligent person can believe it (true, blind idiots
supporting the status quo of Rothschild rule can go into a trance and start
mumbling about US democracy versus the alleged evils of Russia, China, Cuba,
Venezuela, Iran, etc).
Since Ronald
Reagan first established the Working Group for Financial Stability in 1988 (the
Plunge Protection Team), it is entirely plausible that the use of the CIA in
manipulating financial markets was clearly a part of the program (it is now
admitted that the CIA manipulated the currency markets to bring the Russian
Ruble down on more than one occasion).
Interestingly, the fact is that the
Rothschild effort to manipulate and control the worldwide financial markets
surfaced in a report from the Russian internet site Engforum.pravda.ru in early
Oct 2010 in a story on Windsor syndicate in London using Barclays Bank (UK) for
scam trades.
This report said: “More from the
Casper intel group (US): On Saturday 3rd
April 2010, the Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England) syndicate and The London Crown Temple delivered executive
documents by hand to Barclays Bank (UK) to use the US Prosperity Funds as
collateral for under-the-radar derivatives trading in London. Delivery of the
Prosperity Funds in the US was deliberately delayed to enable this élite dealing.”
It is not clear to me what the
Prosperity Fund is doing (the name sounds like something along the lines of the
Plunge Protection Team), but we can bank on it that Britain is involved in
manipulating the global financial markets as well as other Rothschild
controlled nations. So we have the
British government, the US Plunge Protection Team, the US CIA (thru its secret
funding of operations like the World Securities Fund), the large private banks
controlled by the Rothschild Cabal), and secret insiders like George Soros all
busy working together to manipulate and control the world financial markets for
their personal gains.
For those persons wondering how
the $27.5 trillion invested years ago has turned into some $60 to $70 trillion
today, it’s not hard to see how it happened.
Again, it appears that only an idiot can sit back and think that all of
the works of Britain, the US, the CIA, the Rothschild Cabal of bankers, etc are
being done for the benefit of the American, British and other peoples of the
world. No, this pap and crap can be sold
to idiot people who believe in the tooth fairy or who are in the market to buy
a bridge in Brooklyn but I submit intelligent people are going to back off and
say “no way.”
Some
Questions and the Bottom Line
At this point there must be a ton
of questions—which I certainly can’t answer.
In fact, I can’t even verify the existence of this fund and the above
statements beyond their presence in the various citations and numerous internet
references. I do believe that Hodges and
Associates are fully committed and that the cited law suits have taken
place. The World Court writ of execution
and lien is very plausible.
I think the various letters sent
to Obama, Bernanke, etc all were sent by Hodges. I further believe that this gang at the Fed
and with the US government would do as reported—ignore the requests and do as
they please with the full assurance that they are above the law and that nobody
can do anything to them since they control the powers of government. This is called the arrogance of power.
So we must logically ask—is the US
Federal Reserve Bank/US government holding in some secret account (in the US or
off shore) some $47 trillion belonging to the Chinese, $6.2 trillion belonging
to Michael Cottrell, $4.5 trillion belonging to Leo Wanta
and/or $3.87 trillion belonging to the CMKX Corp? Is some part of these funds being used to
pump up the US dollar and US debt on occasion; suppress gold, silver and commodities;
and manipulate the markets for the Rothschild Cabal? Well, I don’t know but I do know that where
there’s smoke there’s fire.
In this vein, is it not entirely
plausible that the US Treasury/Federal Reserve Bank could be holding trillions
of dollars legally belonging to other parties—like the Chinese (and why the
United States owes China some $47 trillion could be irrelevant at this point in
time). If a
settlement day ever arrives, what will this reality mean for the US dollar and
the future of the US government and the American people?
The other major issue involved is
plainly the apparent evidence that the US has been involved along with the Fed,
the British, many/most/all agencies of the US government, various central
banks, etc in the manipulation and control of the global financial markets for
quite some time. Since Lord Jacob
Rothschild of Britain is the master of this operation we can be sure that there
is a Rothschild Cabal banker conspiracy and collusion of the parties at the top
to rip off worldwide investors in the global financial markets.
____________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: None of the above is for investment advice.
It is for information purposes only.
Back issues of
the Goldsmiths, by the editor of the Analysis of News, can be accessed from a
Google or Yahoo search engine by typing in “R. D. Bradshaw” Goldsmiths. Several hundred web sites can be found with
the back issues and with translations to Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch,
Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Serbian, and other foreign
languages. Finally, the
“Archives-Goldsmiths” of this website (www.analysis-news.com ) has all of the
Goldsmith articles issued to date.
Besides the
revelations contained in the Goldsmiths’ articles, the work of the plutocratic
financial market manipulators to conspiratorially manipulate and control the
financial markets (to make more profits and install a world government under
their management) is also addressed at length in the periodic analysis of the
news and in other articles produced at www.analysis-news.com. This website has an article of interest to
any person interested in understanding the market Manipulators. It is the Hidden Secret of the Manipulators,
why they succeed and how to follow their manipulations.
Readers of the
above articles are invited to visit www.analysis-news.com and become a
subscriber to regularly read some of the material from the world of information
which will further reveal how extensive the manipulation, control and
dishonesty realities are in the financial, currency and commodity markets, not
only in the US but indeed around the world.
To go to the Home Page of this web site, click here: www.analysis-news.com.