On 10/25/2012 two corporate financial media bastions, MarketWatch (an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal) and CNBC, presented their readers with a bombshell. In a too-good-to-be-true lawsuit, the top echelons of the USA’s banking and civilian government had been sued for “racketeering and money laundering.” The suit requested “the return of $43 trillion to the United States Treasury.” Yes, you’ve read that right: 43 trillion—roughly 3 years worth of America’s GDP or 3 times America’s underestimate of its own national debt.
The suit characterizes itself, according to these two corporate media tabloids, as
the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History. [It identifies] $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the ‘Banksters’ and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers. [And it] pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the ‘Banksters’ located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.
The plaintiff “has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other ‘bailout money’ advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants.
This District Court Complaint—maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP—is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.
Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the ‘Banksters’ criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same ‘Banksters’ to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiffs home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the ‘Bankster’ Defendants.
The complaint—which has now been fully served on thousands of the ‘Banksters and their Co-Conspirators’—makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very ‘Banksters’ located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be ‘bailed out’ and to be ‘bailed out’ in the future.
It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by ‘Banksters’, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.
To begin with, it must be made absolutely clear that, unless this lawsuit enjoys the backing of the military component of our ruling Military/Banking Dyad, this lawsuit is a quixotic consciousness-raising exercise which has absolutely no chance of success. Most judges in this land have already been bought. If you need any proof, ask yourself: How is it that the highest court in the land, charged with protecting the Constitution, stands aside and looks while this very Constitution is being dismantled? Why does that said court not only allow rigged elections, but lends its full support to the riggers? Why does it not only stand aside and look while sunshine bribery (aka “campaign contributions”) corrupts every square inch of the republic, but actually seeks ways and means to further enshrine, institutionalize, and metastasize this bribery?
But, you might say, what about the many well-meaning men and women who still hold office in America’s “justice” system? The answer is simple. Would you, in their shoes, willingly let go of any chance of promotion for the sake of fighting a losing battle? Would you risk your name being dragged in the mud, your wife harassed or murdered, or your own body ending up in a dump?
Am I going too far in thinking that American judges do indeed face such dilemmas? No, for I am simply portraying the real undercurrents of politics, Washington style. Let me cite two U.S. presidents in support of this seemingly cynical view. First, James Madison, two centuries ago:
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
Next, Woodrow Wilson, a century ago:
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
You might still argue that all this is history and doesn’t apply to today’s world. Well, let me give you a more contemporary quote, this time from Catherine Austin-Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing in the George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
I think at the heart of the matter, Max, is not that the banks are out of control; I think the heart of the matter is physical violence, because a lot of what has happened, particularly as I understand in the United States is you have people who are afraid to say no because the results of saying no is physical violence directed at them or their family. I mean we have had a lot of people murdered or assassinated, etc., etc. So the question is yes we have to say no but the question is how do we say no. And that’s why it comes down to shifting our money, but the reality is we have a force operating in the world, that is completely operating outside of the law and no one yet has come up with a way to stop it. We are talking about violent mobster operations.
I hate to use a personal example, but I was a former Assistant Secretary of Housing, I had my own business in Washington, and I was helping the Department of Housing and Urban Development, essentially run things clean, and you had to get rid of the clean team to run the housing bubble and I was targeted, I was poisoned, I had dead animals left on my doorstep, and my home had been broken into, and people [had been] trying to run me off the road. You know it was very, very violent and it went on for years. So people who try to run the government clean or run Wall Street clean are targeted, and literally have to fear for their lives. I mean, people have been dying, so you know, it’s a very, very dangerous situation and the challenge is, if you have people who can kill and physically harass with impunity, how do you run a governance process?
So, unless our rulers (bankers and generals) are at war with each other and this lawsuit is a result of such internecine warfare, the lawsuit has no prospects of success. (We may note in passing that such warfare, if it is taking place, would throw light on the fact that the $43T lawsuit has not been glossed over by 2 organs of the corporate media. It would also explain the ongoing Lagarde List Affair, which has so far led to two deaths and which lists 22,000 names of wealthy tax evaders from various EU member states who hold Swiss bank accounts (see also this).
Nonetheless, the $43T lawsuit draws attention to the realities of American politics. It exposes the most profitable thieving operation in the history of our species. It tells every American smart enough to punch numbers in a calculator that, one way or the other, her household has been so far cheated of $377,000. It tells us that the US government is, in reality, a criminal operation. It tells the few American people who are still awake that if this rapidly-metastasizing cancer of corruption cannot be peacefully removed from our body politic, and soon, that it will have to be forcefully removed—the future of the republic is clearly at stake. Above all, as in the parallel case of the Lagarde List Affair, it discloses the identities of some implacable enemies of humanity and thereby places these enemies at a grave personal risk.
So, although the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed, or, in a best-case scenario, thrown out on appeal, it does create a major headache for the bankers and their political lackeys. These criminals can ill afford such exposure, such exceptional chutzpah, and such attempts to deprive them of their ill-gotten money.
Indeed, if history is any guide, such audacity never goes unpunished. In minor infractions against the “banksters” (the term employed by the plaintiffs), the banksters and their government lapdogs are typically patient, willing to curb their blood lust for a few weeks, months, or years, before exacting their deadly retribution. But in treachery of this magnitude, punishment is always swift.
Among the 1000s of examples that could be cited for this iron-clad rule, consider the case of prisoner number 40892-424: former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Rod Blagojevich threatened to stop the state’s dealings with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory in Chicago. On December 8, 2008 (the day before his arrest), all state agencies were ordered to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the company to make the loans. Blagojevich said the biggest U.S. retail bank would not get any more state business unless it restored credit to Republic Windows and Doors, whose workers were staging a sit-in. John Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of America, called Blagojevich’s gambit dangerous.
A day after this popular state governor stood by the people against the parasites, the federal Gestapo arrested him–for doing what just about every politician in our Sodom and Gomorrah does every day. According to another outlet of the global corporate media:
Disgraced Illinois governor [was] handed [a] stiff sentence for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat [and] was sentenced to 14 years in prison Wednesday, one of the stiffest penalties imposed for corruption. It took two trials for prosecutors to snare Blagojevich. While Blagojevich will likely end up at a minimal security prison, he’ll be largely cut off from the outside world. Visits by family are strictly limited, Blagojevich will have to share a cell with other inmates and he must work an eight-hour-a-day menial job—possibly scrubbing toilets or mopping floors—at just 12 cents an hour.
We’re ready to return to our lawsuit.
Obviously, the plaintiffs in the $43,000,000,000,000 case are at the gravest possible risk. But killing the heroic attorneys of Spire (the law group filing the charges) or their family members would be too obvious right now, even for people possessing a license to kill. Besides, Fiedler (the attorney who signed the filing) and his associates are not the main culprit, from the bankers’ perspective. American history is chock-full of obscure dissidents who died of old age. The worst offenders are the corporate media outlets which, because of oversight, or idealism, or naiveté, or internecine warfare, broke every corporate media rule and gave this story national exposure. This error or deliberate affront required a fast and furious shock and awe.
And this, in turn, brings us back to the blood-curdling murder of little Lucia and Leo Krim. It turns out that these toddlers’ father, Kevin Krim, is chief executive of CNBC Digital. Lucia and Leo were stabbed to death hours after the article covering the $43T suit appeared at the CNBC website. The knifing could be seen as a graphic and chilling warning to all mass media outlets, reminding them that Madison, Wilson, and Austin-Fitts really knew how the system works.
The bloody warning had not been lost on CNBC, which immediately after the slaying of Lucia and Leo removed the article from their website. They must have been in a hurry when they first took the article down, for some accompanying comments could still be read for some time, before they too were removed.
As of this writing (Sunday evening, 10/28/2012), one can still read about this lawsuit at the MarketWatch site, but, one suspects, not for long.
Bankers’ involvement in the murder of the Krim toddlers is plausible enough, but can if be proven?
The answer is yes and no. Remember, if the grim view presented here reflects reality, we’re dealing with the best-trained assassins in the world, psychopathic professionals who are not likely to incriminate themselves or their masters. Remember too that the men who order such assassinations possess a license to kill. At least as far back as the Civil War, they have always been getting away with the murders of our best and brightest while we stood aside and looked (to paraphrase the late Bob Marley). So although we can’t be absolutely sure that the invisible government butchered Lucia and Leo, we can say that such butchery fits a historical pattern of state executions, and therefore that this pattern probably applies to these children as well. Given this pattern, given my background as a natural scientist and a frequent traveler to the land of statistical levels of significance, I’d place that the probability that the execution of Lucia and Leo was an act of state at about 90% (assuming of course that the basic facts in our possession are accurate and that this lawsuit and murders are not a COINTELPRO smokescreen.) That is, a priori, and without any detailed detective work, I feel there is roughly a 9 in 10 chance that Lucia and Leo have been murdered by rogue elements of the United States government.
Finally, we may wish to look at the specifics of this tragedy, and see if they are consistent with our forensic interpretation. If so, they may raise the probability estimate to about 95%—the level which conventionally allows scientists to provisionally accept their hypotheses.
As we shall see now, although it’s too early to offer a conclusive answer, we can definitely conclude the following: the facts given to us so far by the men in the shadows are far more consistent with the hypothesis proposed here than with the hypothesis that these men themselves provide.
As we have seen, Lucia Krim, aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from multiple stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub of their home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a bloody Knife.”
Lucia and Leo’s parents were on the best possible terms with the children’s caregiver, Yoselyn Ortega, treated her well, and spent a few days recently visiting her family in the Dominican Republic. Ms. Ortega doted on her charges. Background checks gave every appearance of an ordinary, hard-working, decent person.
According to the New York Times, “Ms. Ortega had talked about how happy she was with her worklife… She loved her job with the Krims… was paid well and treated well. She also said she was so fond of Ms. Krim that she often put in extra hours to help her.”
As usual in such contrived cases, the CIA organ of record, along with its mendacious sisters have already solved the mystery: Their question is not “Who killed Lucia and Leo Krim?” Instead they ask: “Exactly what prompted [the nanny] to attack the children — children who, by her friends’ accounts, she was devoted to?” Haven’t these “journalists” read Conan Doyle? Did they skip each and every one of their Logic 101 class? Don’t they know that, when it comes to criminal investigations, appearances are meant to deceive? Their strange ignorance can be best ascribed to a directive from above, a directive “suggesting” that they resort to one of demagoguery’s ancient hat tricks: the complex question (the classical example being a prosecutor asking an innocent defendant: “Did you murder your husband with a hatchet or a cleaver?”)
One would want, at the very least, to get Yoselyn Ortega’s version of the events before accusing her of such a heinous crime. Again, as you might expect in license-to-kill incidents, detectives have been “unable to question Ms. Ortega, who was in a medically-induced coma in a hospital.” The tabloid of record does not bother to explain why a coma had to be induced. And again, as happens so often in state executions, the police retracted their first version of events, claiming later that Mrs. Ortega was “conscious and intubated.” Either way, poor Yoselyn can’t speak for the time being and tell the world what really happened. It is, in fact, doubtful that she will ever speak again.
Seasoned observers of government-sanctioned slayings may hazard two guesses. The first begins with the contingency, hinted at by the New York Tabolid, that Ms. Ortega might have visited a psychologist just before the murders. If so, she might have been programmed to commit the murders of the two children she loved (recall that the CIA mastered such programming technologies already in the 1950s (please consult this example). The problem with this scenario is time—I simply don’t know whether walking zombies can be created in a few hours. If she did indeed see a psychologist, a genuine detective would have begun by immediately questioning that psychologist and ruling out any connection to the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies.
The second, likelier, contingency, is that Ms. Ortega had been attacked by the same person(s) who murdered the two children and that the attacker(s) proceeded to place the knife in her hand. This would explain the chilling brutality of the case and its bizarreness, for both serve the goal of frightening and subduing would-be dissidents and whistle-blowers. If this version is correct, Yoselyn Ortega’s survival so far is a miracle and there is every reason to believe that she would not emerge out of that hospital alive or with her faculties intact. Indeed, given the obvious and present danger she is in, in a better world vigilantes would have taken it upon themselves to save her life by clandestinely removing her to a secret and safe shelter, treating her in a manner that would restore her health and psychological well-being, guard her life around the clock, videotape her version of the events, and post this version as soon as possible. Only such action, it may turn out, might have saved the life of this innocent bystander and expose the masterminds of a vicious, high-stakes, murder plot.