LIVE Gold Prices $  | E-Mail Subscriptions | Update GoldSeek | GoldSeek Radio 

Commentary : Gold Review : Markets : News Wire : Quotes : Silver : Stocks - Main Page >> News >> Story  Disclaimer 
Latest Headlines to Launch New Website

Is Gold Price Action Warning Of Imminent Monetary Collapse Part 2?
By: Hubert Moolman

Gold and Silver Are Just Getting Started
By: Frank Holmes, US Funds

Silver Makes High Wave Candle at Target – Here’s What to Expect…
By: Clive Maund

Gold Blows Through Upside Resistance - The Chase Is On
By: Avi Gilburt

U.S. Mint To Reduce Gold & Silver Eagle Production Over The Next 12-18 Months
By: Steve St. Angelo, SRSrocco Report

Gold's sharp rise throws Financial Times into an erroneous sulk
By: Chris Powell, GATA

Precious Metals Update Video: Gold's unusual strength
By: Ira Epstein

Asian Metals Market Update: July-29-2020
By: Chintan Karnani, Insignia Consultants

Gold's rise is a 'mystery' because journalism always fails to pursue it
By: Chris Powell, GATA


GoldSeek Web

The Goldsmiths, Part CLXV

-- Posted Friday, 29 October 2010 | | Source:

By R. D. Bradshaw


On April 11, 2005, Mr Ashley Mote, Member of the European Union Parliament, addressed the Parliament as follows:



“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 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 ( 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 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.



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: 







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.




The text of the Ambassador’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus follows:





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)































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




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.




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.




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. addressed this World Court reported action with data from Christopher Story as follows:




“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 .


“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, 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 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. 


  1. Starting March 2009, The COALITION files complaints with the RCMP and FBI with absolutely no action, the whole time both organizations know that deals made by officials in both countries are not being adhered to.  Public officials in both countries, along with all agencies involved in the sting operation knowing the situation and dealing with thousands of letters of complaint from shareholders, but nobody acts.  They all just watch while knowing crimes are happening to prevent the money from being released that is held for the victims in the CMKM sting operation.
  2. November 9th 2009, the COALITION takes matter into their own hands as the authorities are not acting, and files a suit in Canada against the SEC for aiding and abetting the insiders of CMKM Diamonds Inc. sell counterfeit shares.  Given the authorities would not admit it was a sting, the COALITION proved they aided and abetted the fraud, and entered that as evidence in our case.
  3. Dec 16th, Al Hodges puts out his first update to all CMKM Diamonds Inc shareholders, informing them money is set aside for them in the sting operation they were used in, including money set aside for them from land sales in Saskatchewan, Canada.  These land sales totally hidden from public to this day along with the facts of the sting operation, or even the fact it occurred. Mr. Hodges says he will file a Biven class action suit if the money is not released.
  4. December 30/31, 2009 or there about the government says they will release our money, and the United States Treasury takes the taxes out of the money to be released. 
  5. January 4th 2010, the shareholders get an update on a public forum from plaintiff Reece Hamilton.  He tells everyone they are finally, after all these years of being hung out to dry by the authorities, about to be paid and closure is imminent…


“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.’


  1. The COALITON prepares for court February 4th in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in Kelowna, we are asking for a default judgement against the SEC in our case.  Our case has changed now, as every case changed when Mr. Hodges Bivens case was not only filed but the release of the funds promised, it appeared to be a given the money would be released at any moment.  The fact that the funds were to be released alone corroborates Mr. Hodges claims in his case that the money was there, and it was supposed to be released to the shareholders.  I talked to Mr. Hodges via phone on several occasions and Mr. Hodges verified the update by Reece Hamilton, and that the taxes were taken out of the trust fund.  He was willing to do a phone teleconference from his office on February 4th and testify to that fact, if the Supreme Court of British Columbia would allow.  Unfortunately, the court did not allow that to happen as the judge said that ‘we have decided’ that you will have to re-serve the SEC before going forward.  I felt moving forward on my case was moot due to the fact Mr. Hodges was on the verge of having our money released, but on that day I asked the court to release 50,000 shareholders money that was illegally being withheld from them; they denied that request.  As I write this it is September the 4th, exactly seven months later with no resolution for the shareholders and crimes being committed against us daily until this is resolved? 
  2. From February 4th to February 15th Mr. Hodges tells me personally and the whole shareholders base that follows on various public forums that the delay cannot go past that February 15th date, as that would go past the 90 days they are allowed given the taxes were taken out on December 31st 2009.  Mr. Hodges tells the shareholder base that various international crimes will be committed as soon as it goes past that date.  During the weeks leading up to February 15th the government agrees to release the money several times and each time reneges on their deals, until it finally reached the date.  Many are now breaking international laws with the full knowledge of all involved, they all sit idle while this happens, all committing crimes themselves for aiding this by not performing their judiciary duty and stopping this.  The shareholders do several actions to get the word to authorities, but the authorities are fully aware of the situation, they are the ones that need to be investigated.  Corroboration of this is in letters attached as evidence.
  3. February 26th letter to Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New York, again Mr. Hodges says payment is on the near horizon at this time:  Attorney General of the State of New York120 Broadway, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10001. 


“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.




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.




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 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. 



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 ( ) 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  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 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:

-- Posted Friday, 29 October 2010 | Digg This Article | Source:


Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizeE-mail Link of Current PagePrinter Friendly PageReturn to >> Story

E-mail Page  | Print  | Disclaimer 

© 1995 - 2019 Supports

©, Gold Seek LLC

The content on this site is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of and/or the providers of the content under license. By "content" we mean any information, mode of expression, or other materials and services found on This includes editorials, news, our writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the site. Please contact us for any further information.

Live GoldSeek Visitor Map | Disclaimer


The views contained here may not represent the views of, Gold Seek LLC, its affiliates or advertisers., Gold Seek LLC makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including news, editorials, prices, statistics, analyses and the like) provided through its service. Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of, Gold Seek LLC, is strictly prohibited. In no event shall, Gold Seek LLC or its affiliates be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.