Corporate Governance

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down

Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:09

From at least 1998, a former Commodities Trading Advisor (CTA) of fourteen years, Walter Bubien[5] AKA Burien,[6] and a federal auditor of thirty years, Gerald Klatt, have claimed upon showings seen and from referencing within the now 184,000 local government CAFRs, AFRs and other Federal audit reports, including Audit of the IRS, US Treasury Audit of Bank derivative holdings (tables 1, 2, 3 on pages 22, 23, 24 show that the top three banks were trading and holding over 150 trillion dollars worth of derivatives, apparently in primarily government accounts, US Treasury Audit of Bank Mortgage holdings, Federal Consolidated Financial Statements, CAFR for the Federal Reserve and List of State CAFRs.

While some[who?] have called these the "2nd set of books", Burien refers to the CAFR as "the book" with the budget being a section contained therein. Their assessments of government assets, holdings and investment supporting globalism, ownership by government investment "for profit" and government's international investments profits, significantly enhanced with the use of the now 600 trillion dollar international derivatives markets with government investments strategically placed for profit from free trade, war, commodity market, stock market, International investment movement and extreme price volatility is created by these massive moves by "institutional government funds" speculators scattered around the globe manipulating the market either deliberately or by volume.

Since 1998, with the CAFR being brought to the attention of the public by the efforts of Walter Burien and Gerald Klatt,[7] the Government Accounting Standards Board[8] (GASB), starting making significant reporting standards changes using transmittal letters. Burien and Klatt claimed that such changes were calculated steps to hide from the general public's view massive domestic and international wealth, investment assets and authority "enterprise funds", all of which could be seen more visibly outlined in the combined financial columns of 1999 and previous CAFRs, which required a showing of gross totals. The modifications transitioned the accounting from a primary showing of gross totals to that of net totals. Burien and Klatt claim that because these changes are being made without inclusion in the formal standard, there has been virtually no media attention on these issues.

While a budget may indicate that a specific government or agency has financial trouble and debt as a result of excess spending within the select grouping of "general fund" accounts, the CAFR may indicate that overall the same government entity has many facets possessing large holdings and income considerably greater than what is shown in a budget report or the "general fund" alone.

The Corporate audio interview with Cliff Richardson...

The Corporate Nation Documentary Video (also watch the corporate nation 2 the pension fund hoax sequel)

The Corporate Nation website

Walter Burien interview...

Walter Burien The Biggest Game in Town...

Walter Burien...Trilllions Hidden

Timothy, where do you believe all of these profits may end up?

Last edited by quicksilvercrescendo on Fri 26 Aug 2011, 16:35; edited 2 times in total

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Fri 26 Aug 2011, 16:22

Money Laundering and Financial Crime: The Cayman Islands in a Global Perspective

It does not take long for a visitor to the Caymans to realise that the 1993 film “The Firm” still arouses the ire of those in the Cayman financial sector. Even today in certain circles Cayman is synonymous with money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Others however recognise that Cayman is far from the world’s money laundering haven and is in fact exploited by fraudsters because of its record of political and financial stability.

Cayman is certainly a financial success. A February 2010 International Monetary Fund paper titled “Cross- Border Investment in Small International Centers” reported that Bank for International Settlements statistics “indicate that banks resident in the Cayman Islands held over $1.7 trillion in assets at the end of 2008 (more than Italy, Portugal, and Spain combined).” And the March 2010 Global Financial Centres Index ranked Cayman as 28th in the world, tied with Edinburgh and Seoul and right ahead of Dublin, Hamilton and Munich.

Despite its negative image in certain circles, it is telling to review material where Cayman is found to be unremarkable or is not found at all. A simple check of indexes of relevant books shows that the Cayman Islands is not listed in The Money Launderers: Lessons From The Drug Wars: How Billions of Illegal Dollars Are Washed Through Banks & Businesses (1992), Washed in Gold: The Story Behind the Biggest Money Laundering Investigation in US History (1994), nor in Infiltrator: My Secret Life Inside the Dirty Banks Behind Pablo Escobar’s Medellin Cartel (2009). Other significant books make little reference to Cayman.

Nor, for example, is the Cayman Islands mentioned in the International Monetary Fund’s 2009 report entitled Ponzi Schemes in the Caribbean, which discusses seven other Caribbean islands. Even the one hundred forty page report entitled Hedge Funds, Leverage, and the Lessons of Long-Term Capital Management compiled in 1999 by the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (consisting of the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) mentions Cayman several times only because the now defunct hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), headquartered in Connecticut, consisted of partnerships in Delaware and the Cayman Islands. Cayman though was mentioned only in the context of bankruptcy and other legal strategies and not in connection whatsoever of wrongdoing on the part of any Cayman entity or person, a theme which repeats as this issue is researched.

And the NGO Global Witness’s 2009 report “Undue Diligence: How Banks Do Business With Corrupt Regimes” discusses numerous Caribbean and European countries but has nothing to say about Cayman.

In fact, despite its image problem, no Cayman entity or person has been responsible for any of the major and newsworthy financial crimes in years. While these major cases have been widely reported and the institutions heavenly fined, contrasting them with cases where the Cayman Islands has been implicated is telling.

In 1999, the Bank of New York was found to have laundered $7.5 billion in Russian money. In 2000 a BoNY vice president plead guilty to the laundering and in 2005 BoNY settled the matter with the Justice Department. Other fines in 2005—Riggs Banks for conducting transactions for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and for Equatorial Guinea’s ruling family, the New York branch of Jordan’s Arab Bank for failure to maintain proper anti-money laundering (AML) practices and ABN AMRO for improperly supervising its North American Regional Clearing Center for processing approximately 20,000 transactions valued at $3.2 billion using shell companies in the United States, Russia, and other former Soviet Union countries In 2007, the Russian customs service sued Bank of New York for lost revenue on the aforementioned laundered money and the parties reached an agreement in 2009, where among other things, BoNY paid Russian customs $14 million.

After a two-year investigation in 2009, US and New York authorities fined Credit Suisse and Lloyds for conducting illegal transactions for Iran. Both banks deleted information from wire transfer documents to hide their Iranian origin and advised Iranian banks on how to avoid detection. Credit Suisse was found to have conducted 7,000 illegal transactions amounting to $700 million and fined for assisting the Iranian banks and other institutions like Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation and its Aerospace Industries Organisation to facilitate.

Lloyds was found to have made $300 million of Iranian transfers and another $20 million worth of Sudanese transfers. Its employee training manual even contained a section on how to conduct these illegal transactions.

In addition to the Lloyds-Credit Suisse and Iran matter, a July 2008 Senate Investigations Subcommittee report entitled “Tax Haven Banks and US Tax Compliance” focused on UBS and LGT. In this well-known case, UBS agreed to pay a US government fine after one of its private bankers, Bradley Birkenfeld, resigned in 2005 and informed the US government that UBS had assisted thousands of US citizens in evading US taxes. The Subcommittee Report cited UBS’s estimate that it held in Switzerland 1,000 accounts of US citizens which have been declared to the IRS and 19,000 accounts which have not, these totalling $17.9 billion.

The second part of this report dealt with the information revealed by former LGT employee Heinrich Kieber, now in hiding, who copied LGT files showing how it assisted 1,400 clients from numerous countries to evade taxes and provided them to several governments, first to Germany. Within a month the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, and Australia Canada, New Zealand, Sweden were investigating the material provided by Kieber.

In March 2010, Wachovia Bank agreed to pay a fine for AML violations regarding improper due diligence of transactions involving Mexico. For example, from 2004 to 2007 Wachovia processed over 2 million wire transfers amounting to approximately $374 billion on behalf of 13 Mexican correspondent customers without proper AML controls. And in May 2010, Italian police announced they are investigating 7,000 account holders from HSBC Holding’s Swiss private bank after a former Genevabased HSBC employee turned over a list of 127,000 accounts belonging to 80,000 people to French officials.

Individuals as well as institutions have been in the news. In 2008, Hernan Arbizu, a native Argentinean and vice president of JP Morgan Chase’s Latin American unit based in New York was indicted for fraud. While at JP Morgan, Arbizu, a former UBS private banker, pretended to his UBS clients that he continued working at UBS and with the help of a willing accomplice at UBS sent documents with forged client signatures to UBS in order to transfer money to certain clients from the accounts of other clients. He was caught trying to send a UBS client money from a client’s account at JP Morgan.

Salah Ezzedine a Lebanese businessman, was arrested in Lebanon in 2009 and charged of conducting a one billion dollar pyramid scheme. There is no need to detail the Madoff and Stanford Ponzi schemes.

But after all, the Cayman Islands does have its history with money laundering and other financial improprieties.

Arrested in 1975, Frank Lucas, the drug dealer who monopolised the Harlem drug market in the 1960s and 1970s (played by Denzel Washington in the 2007 film “American Gangster” had an estimated $52 million in Cayman banks (though at the time money laundering was not a crime in the United States nor in Cayman). The South Africa apartheid regime tried “Operation Coast” from 1981–1993, with the goal of developing biological and chemical weapons in contravention of the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention. Their principal companies for this effort incorporated in the Caymans.

In recent years, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on 24 July 2008 entitled The Cayman Islands and Offshore Tax Issues. The Wall Street Journal of September 30, 2008 published an article written by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau entitled “Too Much Money Is Beyond Legal Reach.” Morgenthau cited Long Term Capital Management, two collapsed Bear Stearns hedge funds, and BCCI as all being charted in the Caymans. Senator Carl Levin who chairs the Senate Investigations Subcommittee entered this article into the Congressional Record two days later.

Estimates are that Enron established between 400 and 700 subsidiaries in the Caymans. Parmalat’s books showed a balance of $3.9 billion in the account of its Cayman subsidiary which was in fact empty. And much has been made of the Ugland House beginning in March 2004 with an article published in Bloomberg Market, “The 150 Billion Shell Game.” North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan stated from the floor of the Senate on April 12, 2010 that Ugland House “in 2004 was the official home to 12,748 corporations … since that time, since 12,748 corporations used that little 5-story house to avoid paying taxes, it has now grown to over 18,000 corporate addresses.” Statements made from the floor of the House of Representatives were similarly critical of Cayman.

What then can be understood from various pejorative statements regarding the Cayman Islands, particularly in light of the numerous international frauds perpetrated by reputable institutions and ostensibly reputable individuals without any Cayman connection?
There are several indications which put the issue of

financial crime in the Caymans into perspective. First, those who routinely insinuate that the Ugland House facilitates tax evasion do not present examples corroborating their assertion. Similarly, the aforementioned 2008 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Cayman lasting about an hour and forty minutes made scant reference to the Cayman Islands itself. Most of the witness statements and subsequent questions dealt with the overall issue of tax evasion, unrelated to the Cayman Islands.

In fact, one of the hearing’s witnesses—also one of America’s leading authorities on financial crime and offshore centres—attorney Jack Blum said, “I listened to the comments about Ugland House and must say to you that Ugland House represents the best of offshore, because Cayman Islands actually keeps better records than most of the other jurisdictions and has fewer corporations. [b]If you really want to worry about things look at the British Virgin Islands with 500,000 corporations, no records on any wall, you can’t go to a place and find an office because there is none, and no regular records to find out who currently owns the corporation. You can go to the Island of Nevis and you won’t even be able to find an address for the corporation. There are no Nevis nominee shareholders, directors, officers; if you were to take those people send them to Guantanamo and waterboard them you couldn’t find out who owned the corporation or what the corporation was doing.[/b]”

Second, a report titled “Large US Corporations and Federal Contractors with Subsidiaries in Jurisdictions Listed as Tax Havens or Financial Privacy Jurisdictions,” published by the GAO in December 2008 found that according to 2007 revenue figures, eighty three of the 100 largest publicly traded companies and sixty three of the 100 largest publicly traded US federal contractors reported having subsidiaries in tax havens. In short, the report emphasised that the establishment of these offshore subsidiaries is itself legal.

In fact, the point of Senator Dorgan’s April 2010 statement was to highlight that US law allows offshore subsidiaries to be established and that the problem is their abuse (“It was a legal dodge by companies setting up an address in order to funnel revenue through that address to avoid paying taxes to the United States … How about helping me close those loopholes?”) Senator Levin similarly entered DA Morgenthau’s Wall Street Journal article for the same reason, stating “we have a lot more work to do to rectify” the problem of abusive offshore entities. And Morgenthau himself wrote “We have to learn from our mistakes” and warned of the consequences “if Congress and Treasury fail to bring under US supervisory authority the financial institutions and transactions in secrecy jurisdictions.”

Third, a July 2008 GAO report, “Cayman Islands—Business and Tax Advantages Attract US Persons and Enforcement Challenges Exist” stated that “US officials consistently report that cooperation by the Cayman Islands government in enforcement matters has been good” and quoted a senior Justice Department official who “indicated that the Cayman Islands is the busiest United Kingdom overseas territory with regard to requests for information, but also the most cooperative” and that Cayman is one of DOJ’s ‘best partners among offshore jurisdictions.’” The report also noted Cayman’s “reputation as a stable, business-friendly environment with a sound legal infrastructure [which] also attracts business. This activity is typically legal.”

Even a FinCEN Advisory dated July 2000 reported Cayman’s “records of cooperation with criminal law enforcement authorities in the United States is excellent”.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the SEC chose CIMA as its partner for their April 2010 regional training program. And a May 2010 review of the Caymans by QFinance reported the following: “The ‘dark days’ of the Cayman Islands’ financial services and banking centre, when the Islands were a haven for money laundering, are now well and truly over.”

What we can conclude therefore is as follows. Despite the numerous and significant international cases, the have been no major Cayman entities or individuals known as international fraudsters. Even in his 15-page whistle blower letter of February 2008, Rudolf Elmer, the former COO of the Cayman Branch of Bank Julius Baer & Trust Ltd, criticised the Swiss private bank for aiding clients to evade tax but alleged no wrongdoing on the part of any Cayman entity or person. His criticism of Cayman was directed against Cayman law which allowed for certain financial transactions, which he thought should have been prohibited; his letter made no claim that a Cayman entity or person violated Cayman law or conducted any other impropriety.

Many institutions and individuals are attracted to the Cayman Islands because of its political and financial stability and business-friendly environment, thirty minutes by air from Florida. The Caymans has a strong record of bilateral and international cooperation. And much of the abuse associated with Cayman is due to loopholes in US law that Congress has heretofore been unable to close. It appears therefore that the reasons for the negative view of the Cayman Islands may be best explained by public relations rather than financial and criminal analysts.

It has been said that the United States is a sub-corporation of London.
These CAFRs indicate a huge part of the U.S. government's wealth.
Is it likely that some of these profits are "delivered" to the top of the financial and banking pyramid in London?

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Mon 26 Sep 2011, 08:00

One of the powerful family lines who funded the Roman Cult:

    The family of the Pierleoni, meaning "sons of Peter Leo", was a great Roman patrician clan of the Middle Ages, headquartered in a tower house in the Jewish quarter, Trastevere. The heads of the family often bore the title consul Romanorum, or "Consul of the Romans," in the early days.

    The family's rise was quick, for they were very rich before they were very powerful. The family descended from the eleventh-century Jewish convert Leo de Benedicto, whose baptismal name comes from the fact that he was baptised by Pope Leo IX himself. While the Pierleoni during their greatness spuriously claimed to be descended from the ancient Roman noble family of the Anicii, their enemies in Rome made much of their Jewish extraction and leveled the usual charges of usury. Leo's son was the Peter Leo (Pierleone) of the name and it is his sons that garnered for the family such fame as protectors of the popes: Pope Urban II died in one of the Pierleoni's castelli, July 1099. The family's territory was expanded to include the Isola Tiberina and a further tower house near the Theater of Marcellus. When Emperor Henry V came to Rome (1111), Petrus Leonis headed the papal legation that effected a reconciliation between the pope and the emperor. Pierleone's attempt to install one of his sons as Prefect of Rome in 1116, though favoured by Pope Paschal II, was resisted by the opposite party with riot and bloodshed. Another son, Peter, became Antipope Anacletus II (1131), and another, Giordano Pierleoni, with the revival of the Commune of Rome, became the head of the Republic as Patricius in 1144. The family generally supported the papacy and represented the Guelf faction of the city against the Ghibellines, often under the leadership of the Frangipani.

    Two branches of the Pierleoni are still in existence. The first is that of Matelica and Pesaro in the Marche and the second is that of Città di Castello in Umbria. Both are still members of the Italian nobility.

Ancillary historical background of the Pierleoni family line:

  • The family of the Pierleoni was of Jewish descent. Few historical studies are more interesting than that of the Jews under the Roman empire. The irrepressible vitality of this race is a source of constant amazement. Their native pliancy took advantage of disaster, and calamities which would have exterminated any other people became to them sources of power and growth. Conquered and dispersed by Rome, they formed in every Roman province and city an element which it was impossible to overlook. They obtained not only the right of citizenship, but also concessions which were refused to native citizens. Clinging tenaciously to their ancient law, they nevertheless entered freely into the broader life of the Gentile world. At once fanatical and complaisant, they found means to break down every barrier which their law and tradition opposed to Gentile intercourse. Fascinated by the power and beauty of Greek culture, they turned it successfully to the uses of proselytism. [the Roman Cult]. They held in their hands the world's commerce and a large share of its wealth, and thus made themselves indispensable. Scattered over the world, they preserved their national unity, and, by the constant communication of each of their communities with all the rest, controlled vast interests. They were the standing jest of Roman literature, the butt of Roman wits, yet their faith became a fashion court, and dandies and royal courtesans affected enthusiasm for the sacred books of Moses.

The strength of the Khazarian Diaspora in maintaining power and destroying
enemies and any trace of their history is demonstrated throughout the centuries
even to the 15th and 16th Centuries; the Pierleoni were one of these families.

The elite "White" Khazarian families and Celtic families share common ancestry
of the Yahudi (Israelites). This is where the British-Israel Society comes from
re Israel.

The Pierleone family became the wealthiest Roman senatorial family through

  • The title which was taken by Cardinal Pietro Pierleone at the contested papal election of the year 1130. The date of his birth is uncertain; d. 25 January, 1138.

    Pierleoni, Pietro (Anacletus II)

    Though the Pierleoni were conceded to be one of the wealthiest and most powerful senatorial families of Rome, and though they had staunchly supported the Popes throughout the fifty years' war for reform and freedom, yet it was never forgotten that they were of Jewish extraction, and had risen to wealth and power by usury.

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Tue 27 Sep 2011, 23:20

It can be very difficult at times to tell the difference between Jews and Italians.

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Wed 28 Sep 2011, 03:28

Yeah, when I used to correspond with F. Tupper Saussy, he emphatically
stated it's all the same at the top, Qsc.

What I think I am trying to develop here is the idea that America was
nothing more than a business venture and that the 'founding father's -
what bullshit - were going against the French and the British to control
that business. In fact, Benjamin Franklin obtained a loan from the French
to capitalize that business venture 'patriots' emotionally refer to as America.

Amazing, young barely conscious Americans will 'enlist', go to Afghanistan
and soon Pakistan, to main and kill people, not to mention destroy
infrastructure for the proposition of being an American patriot?! The system
is beyond...well, let's leave that for a different thread...anyway...

The Catholic Church was the originator of the idea of the 'corporate body';
and so it is today that everything you do is from the position of a subject/
slave. Even your passport, if you have one, is a document giving you perm-
ission to go through customs as a creature with less value than other
animals. The Roman cult.

And now, a little corporate adventure into biometrics and passports, this
time from the French...

The following is based on an email exchange I had the other day: "...pos-
sibly even virtual French control over the US since its founding."

The French are very big players in the intelligence game: L-1 Identity
was recently purchased by the French firm Safran Morpho,
and will make it the biggest provider of high tech personal biometric
identification systems in the world contracting with its biggest client:
the US Government.

Here is a corporate PR video from SAFRAN; very sophisticated.

    Safran Identity reveal

If you hold a passport it means it will be eventually switched to a biometric
identifier tagged in the 'passport' which will be about the size of a credit
card. A passport is essentially permission from the corporate rulers to go
through customs as a physical object. The first thing that should be obvious
to everyone, is that these corporations are 'defense contractors.' Defense
contractors collecting biometric data on everyone? Doesn't this just sort of
make you stop and think for a moment? Even if for ONLY a second?

    L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ID) is a large American defense contractor in Connecticut. It was formed on August 29, 2006, from a merger of Viisage Technology, Inc. and Identix Incorporated. It specializes in selling face recognition systems, electronic passports such as Fly Clear, and other biometric technology to governments such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. It also licenses technology to other companies internationally, including China.

On July 26th 2011, Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) acquired L-1
Identity Solutions, Inc.
for a total cash amount of USD 1.09 billion.
So the French will eventually 'own' all biometric data on Americans?

L-1 Indentity Solutions, Inc. is now a Part of Safran Morpho...
what is this corporation 'morphing' into?

    Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) has acquired U.S.-based L-1 Identity Solutions, creating the undisputed global leader in identity management solutions.

Safran Completes acquisition of L-1 Identity Solutions:

After completing all required approval procedures, Safran announced that it has finalized the acquisition of L-1 Identity Solutions Inc., a leading identity management solutions provider in the United States, for a total cash amount of $1.09 billion ($12 per share), which was originally announced in the press release on September 20, 2010. L-1 will join Safran’s existing security business, operating as Morpho, and will be renamed MorphoTrust. [where is it domiciled and who owns the trust?] The new company will be partly managed as a proxy structure, thus providing appropriate protection for U.S. national security.

Here is the corporate news: Mergers & Acquisitions: Safran acquires
L-1 Identity Solutions
For $1.09 billion, or 24% premium. As you view
this video, can you see how innocuous sounding it is, it's just another
merger where you can get rich by investing in Safran shares; you there
by become your own acquiescence to corporate control...

This is a brief run down on what exactly biometric technology can do,
although this is more of the 'benign' aspect of this technology. And isn't
it disturbing that great looking chicks are always doing the front PR work
for these corporations re this technology is like having sex with a
really hot babe:

    L-1 3D Face Reader Solutions

CEO of SAFRAN, Jean-Paul Herteman...

    Jean-Paul Herteman : "deux à trois ruptures
    technologiques dans les cinq années qui viennent"
    jeudi, juin 30, 2011

Jean-Paul Herteman et Carlos de Icaza lors du lancement de l'année du
Mexique en Franc:

This interview of Jean-Paul Herteman is in French at Bourget in 2009...

Safran is a French conglomerate involved in defense, aerospace propulsion
and equipment, and security. It is the result of a merger between the
propulsion and aerospace equipment group SNECMA and the defense
conglomerate SAGEM. Its headquarters are located in Paris.

  • The name Safran, literally meaning "rudder blade", was chosen from 4,250 suggestions. As a holding company [holding companies are specifically structured to keep from public records who the actual 'owners' of the corporation are; the these holding companies in turn, may be held by another layer of holding companies] for many subsidiaries the name was deemed suitable for the suggestion of direction, movement and strategy. Safran also translates as saffron, which the company highlights as one of the catalysts for early international trade.

These corporations in turn are held by what are referred to as 'holding
companies'; the companies that hold' the stocks and options on these
corporations. Essentially a layer of protection.

    Snecma is a major French manufacturer of engines for commercial and military aircraft, and for space vehicles. The name is an acronym for Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation (in English, "National Company for the Design and Construction of Aviation Engines").

    In 2005, the Snecma group, which included Snecma (called Snecma Moteurs at this time), merged with SAGEM to form SAFRAN. Snecma is now a subsidiary of the SAFRAN Group and previous Snecma group subsidiaries have been reorganised within the wider group.

    SAGEM (Société d’Applications Générales de l’Électricité et de la Mécanique, translated to Company of General Applications of Electricity and Mechanics) was a major French company involved in defence electronics, consumer electronics and communication systems.

    In 2005, Sagem merged with SNECMA to form SAFRAN. Sagem's communications business became SAGEM Communication, a subsidiary of SAFRAN. The company's defence electronics business became Sagem Défense Sécurité.

Mergers & aquisitions certainly does get complex...This is a look at
SAFRAN's biometric technology from their website:

Finally, a video discussing the data collection of biometric including
SAFRAN's participation as a global leader in biometrics. Have you ever
asked yourself where is all this technology leading to? Where is it stored
and what eventually will it be used for?

As you view this video, be sure to pick up on the relevant facts: the
International the US Government is setting an international standard
for drivers licenses; the adopted image/standard is derived from the ICAO
(International Civil Aviation Organization). The ICAO comes under
the UN; UN is 'one' in French.

When you view this video, notice carefully at exactly the 6:00 point in
the video of the background behind the speaker, Mr. Raymond Benjamin.
The backgrounds is a sign reading the French Chamber of Commerce in
; SAFRAN is a defense and aviation elated corporation...

    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), pronounced /aɪˈkeɪoʊ/, (in French: Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale, OACI ), is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. Its headquarters are located in the Quartier International of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Defense contractors collecting, designing, storing technology on
individual biometric data on every human....The French government
owns 40 percent of SAFRAN
. This corporation will then have access
to a data base of biometric data on all Americans, Canadians and
Mexicans in the coming years through passports and drivers licenses.

scratch Wtf?

Can you opt out of this system? What will it take?

Would you like to understand what is behind this French drive for
dominance? Watch this video and then think to yourself: is this what
we actually want to be a part of? A corporation controlling and dictating
life, data mining it, setting up a complete surveillance global society?

    Important Information for French Citizens!

    Due to the ongoing harassment of staff members by the Toulouse police, we are forced to conclude that the French government, in league with associations like MIVILUDES, believes that reading the content of these (or associated) pages poses a grave danger to the mental health of all French citizens who are, according to them, "fragile in mind" and cannot think for themselves. As such, we strongly advise all French citizens who fear for their sanity to leave this site now and never return.

Then view this video about the MIVILUDES in France:

I also disagree with this man on everything he refers to about the
constitution; it isn't there to protect anyone. You have absolutely no
rights under the constitution; and if you do claim rights against a
document you have no rights from, you will be arrested.

Is it time to pull the plug on the French? The attacks on 9/11 came through
France through Canada, just in case you might think 'Israel did 9/11?'

Last edited by tgII on Wed 28 Sep 2011, 13:33; edited 3 times in total

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Wed 28 Sep 2011, 06:22

Timothy, where do you believe all of these profits may end up?

"Military-industrial complex"; and I am now starting to think a breakaway
civilization exists although I can't accurately identify it or come to terms
with it.

This is huge, Flames; the French are absolutely huge players on what's
going on in the world and it is time to rip the veil off.

Also, I just edited the previous post with more information that I have been
digging out. Let's start with the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organi-
) which falls under the UN and established in 1947.

First though, this is an example of only one organization Maurice Strong
has been behind, remember him?

  • That "world forum" was authorized in 1972 by UN Resolution 2997 (XXVII) as the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Maurice Strong was designated Secretary-General of the Conference which, among other things, recommended the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which came into being January 1, 1973, with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director. The Conference held in Stockholm produced 26 principles and 109 specific recommendations which parroted much of the language in the COR publications. The difference is, of course, that the Conference Report carries the weight of the United Nations and has profound policy implications for the entire world.

It is my contention based on several years of working specifically on forensic
economics, that the ICAO was established by Maurice Strong. To
understand what is going on here though, this quote is highly instructive:

  • "Within the next year, travelers from dozens of nations may be carrying a new form of passport in response to a mandate by the United States government .. e-passport .. deployment of two new technologies: Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) and biometrics...International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a body run by the United Nations with a mandate for setting international passport standards. The ICAO guidelines, detailed in ICAO Document 9303, call for incorporation of RFID chips, microchips capable of storing data and transmitting it in a wireless manner, into passports. [but what is not noted is the word 'biometrics' in any of their literature; and the French firm SAFRAN, coming in under the radar to dominate this market through complex holding companies, will now be in a position to profit enormously in this transition to e-passports and drivers licenses. It's the banks that are the holding companies](In this paper we refer to the ICAO guidelines as a `standard.')[this standard was discussed in the video in my previous post] .. Skimming and cloning: Baseline ICAO regulations require digital signatures on e-passport data. In principle, such signatures allow the reader to verify that the data came from the correct passport-issuing authority. Digital signatures do not, however, bind the data to a particular passport or chip, so they offer no defense against passport cloning."

Before we proceed, one thing not to be overlooked, UN funds are handled
by Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. What I am alluding to, Flames,
and others as well is, this is a corporate party and you are not invited.

I will now leave you with this thought: a French bank is one of the largest
financial conglomerates in the world; stand by, more coming...can you
handle it?

The UN should actually be redefined as the BN; Bank Nation.


Last edited by tgII on Wed 28 Sep 2011, 13:35; edited 2 times in total

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:49

The largest banking conglomerate in the world, or what is referred to
as a 'banking group', is the French bank BNP Paribas S.A.

    BNP Paribas S.A. is the largest global banking group in the world, headquartered in Paris with its second global headquarters in London. [gee, who would have ever thought; the French and the British through Cameron and Sarkozy recently signed joint military agreements] In October 2010 BNP Paribas was ranked by Bloomberg and Forbes as the largest bank and largest company in the world by assets with over $3.1 trillion. It was formed through the merger of Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) and Paribas in 2000. In April 2009, BNP Paribas purchased a 75 percent stake in Fortis Bank, the Belgian banking business making BNP the eurozone's largest bank by deposits held.

And BNP Paribas S.A. manages all registered shares for the French
conglomerate SAFRAN. 'Registered shares?' You mean there are
'unregistered' shares as well?

    3. Who manages these registered shares for SAFRAN?

    BNP Paribas Securities Services manages these shares on behalf of the company. [SAFRAN] For any questions you can call a dedicated team on 0826 100 374 (France only), Monday through Friday from 8.45 a.m. to 6 p.m. or write to the following address:
    BNP PARIBAS Securities Services
    G.C.T. Emetteurs
    Relations Actionnaires
    Grands Moulins de Pantin
    9 rue du Débarcadère
    93761 PANTIN CEDEX

One of the fascinating aspects of studying economic forensics is that you
can investigate controlling interests and crimes with stunning accuracy, but
it takes an enormous effort. So, on a hunch I wanted to determine whether
or not there is a controlling family behind BNP Paribas S.A. Why of course,
none other than the French line of the Rothschild banking interests.

    BNP Paribas recrute Sophie Javary chez Rothschild
    Par Amélie Laurin le 04/01/2011

    Selon des témoignages concordants recueillis par L'Agefi, Sophie Javary rejoindra début février l’équipe de coverage (couverture clients) européen de Thierry Varène chez BNP Paribas. [according to consistent testimonies collected by the agefi, Sophie Javary Rothschild joining early February the team of coverage (coverage customers) European thierry Varene among BNP Paribas. Jusqu’à présent coresponsable du conseil en financement et restructuration à l’échelle européenne chez Rothschild, elle a annoncé son départ en interne en fin de semaine dernière. Associée-gérante depuis 2002, elle avait rejoint la banque de David de Rothschild en 1994 [Sophie Javary Rothschild had joined the bank of David de Rothschild in 1994] après 13 années d’expérience chez Bank of America, Indosuez et Barings Brothers. De 2000 à 2007, Sophie Javary était responsable de la coentreprise ABN Amro Rothschild où elle a notamment mené les introductions en Bourse d’ EDF et PagesJaunes. [Sophie Javary Rothschild was responsible for the joint venture ABN Amro Rothschild or in particular, she leads the introductions on the Stock Exchange of EDF and Yellowpages.] Depuis la dissolution de cette joint-venture, elle codirigeait l’activité de restructuration avec Vincent Danjoux, François Wat ayant pris les rênes du primaire actions. De l’avis de plusieurs bons connaisseurs de la maison, il n’y avait pas de place pour les trois associés-gérants.

So, getting back to e-passports, what we'll eventually be required to
have, which I don't plan on applying for, will be biometric loaded data
on e-passports managed by SAFRAN, a huge defense conglomerate,
working through the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Authority)
coming through the UN with shares of SAFRAN being handled by the
largest bank group in the world BNP Paribis S.A.

    A biometric passport, also known as an e-passport or ePassport, is a combined paper and electronic passport that contains biometric information that can be used to authenticate the identity of travelers. It uses contactless smart card technology, including a microprocessor chip (computer chip) and antenna (for both power to the chip and communication) embedded in the front or back cover, or center page, of the passport. Document and chip characteristics are documented in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO) Doc 9303. The passport's critical information is both printed on the data page of the passport and stored in the chip. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) [remember my posts in one thread on PKI technology?] is used to authenticate the data stored electronically in the passport chip making it expensive and difficult to forge when all security mechanisms are fully and correctly implemented.

The banks and their holding companies rule/own the world and you have
been relegated to a biometric data input...the only thing that has
changed in thousands of years is that now it's all doable...

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 29 Sep 2011, 00:57

Ive seen them (BNP Paribas) advertising at many big events and always wondered qwho they were
On the parallel vein to this covert superius corporate whore that devises / controls international laws and regulations to promote its own grip on world power , there was an expose documentary carried out on the blair demon earlier this week of which i caught a few minutes off, but i will watch its repeat later this week, and it was inquired about whom tony blair actually works for in his role as middle east peace envoy aka broker for multimillion corrupt oil and arms deals

The official entity that this black magician operates for is called the "QUARTET" which apparently is a representation of United Nations , European union, russia and america, but they have no official mandate that blair should be abiding by . His movements and his financial interests are cloaked in secrecy as he makes millions for his corporate string ticklers and himself ... under the guise of peace envoy .
The man that had a major hand in starting war in the region now proclaiming to be a peace envoy , a vehicle to move around the region at tax payers expense brokering his masters oil and arms deals
And he does it effortlessly with that psychopathic self justifying mix of bullshit and more bullshit that seems to convince person after person that he is a politically savvy humane activist

Biometric Passports , for all we know, they may now be chipping children at birth Shocked Twisted Evil Razz

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  Sputnik on Fri 30 Sep 2011, 00:00

*lol* germans have a choice to opt out of the new biometric passport if they happen to know that they have the right to do so. at least this is what I have been told officially. I will let you know in a few weeks how it went as I will soon have to get the new one. I don't know how the laws are for other European countries but I am sure we in Germany can reject the biometrics because of the Nazi Era...however I will tell you all about it then.

Posts : 1039
Join date : 2009-11-18
Location : Isaiah 14:11-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Fri 07 Oct 2011, 07:58

What and who the fuck is Bank of America???

What and who the fuck is...REALLY...Bank of America???

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Mon 10 Oct 2011, 01:56

That was good, Qsc; yeah, indeed, what the hell are banks all about

And this just in: I kept following leads on my biometrics/SAFRAN conglomerate
post above and just discovered the largest weapons manufacturer in the world
BAE Systems (British) is one-third owner of L-1 Identity Solutions Inc. along
with SAFRAN. That's why the British under Cameron and the French under
Sarkozy signed the largest military cooperation agreement in 50 years last

The world's biggest weapons/defense contractors collecting biometric data on
all people in the North American Continent. What in the hell is going on?!

Watch this video and pay attention. Sarkozy says to use Britain and France's
"abilities for the service of defense." Collecting biometric data as 'defense?'


Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Tue 11 Oct 2011, 11:37

Usa seems to be throttled in a Roman Necktie, and held down by a british empire jackboot , behind the scenes , as i speak , i am already biometrical data stored in some remote super computer located in an underground base , that data being updated and modified with even phone call i make , every key i push, but then i could decide to misrepresent myself , how would they know , how would i know , who am i Very Happy It must be tough job working in espionage , ones thoughts could run away with ones sanity

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Sat 07 Jan 2012, 01:12

The presumed corporate central control in the middle east was i presumed israel , but lately i think that the House of Saud have equal rights to that department considering that they qualify for all and more of the various reasons used for invasions to afghanistan, iraq and libya

Some interesting facts on this Black Gold desert regime

Saudi Arabia remains the only Arab Nation where no national elections have ever taken place, since its creation. No political parties or national elections are permitted and according to The Economist's 2010 Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the 7th most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.

Saudi Arabia ( i/ˌsaʊdi əˈreɪbiʌ/ or in American English as i/ˌsɔːdiː əˈreɪbiːʌ/) is the largest state in Western Asia by land area, constituting the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula, and the second-largest in the Arab World, after Algeria. It is bordered by Jordan, and Iraq on the north and northeast, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on the east, Oman on the southeast, and Yemen on the south.The Red Sea lies to its west, and the Persian Gulf lies to the northeast. Saudi Arabia has an area of approximately 2,149,690 km2 (830,000 sq mi), and it has an estimated population of 27 million, of which 8.8 million are registered foreign expatriates and an estimated 1.5 million are illegal immigrants. (POTENTIAL TERRORISTS BY BLAIR LOGIC ) Saudi nationals comprise an estimated 16 million people

Saudi Arabia has the world's second largest oil reserves and is the world's second largest oil exporter.[7] Oil accounts for more than 90% of exports and nearly 75% of government revenues, facilitating the creation of a welfare state.

From the foundation of the State to the present
The new kingdom was one of the poorest countries in the world, reliant on limited agriculture and pilgrimage revenues.[33] However, in 1938 vast reserves of oil were discovered in the Al-Hasa region along the coast of the Persian Gulf and full-scale development of the oil fields began in 1941. Oil provided Saudi Arabia with economic prosperity and substantial political leverage internationally. Cultural life rapidly developed, primarily in the Hejaz, which was the centre for newspapers and radio. But the large influx of foreigners to work in the oil industry increased the pre-existing propensity for xenophobia. At the same time, the government became increasingly wasteful and extravagant. By the 1950s this had led to large governmental deficits and excessive foreign borrowing.[24]
Abdul Aziz bin Saud first king of Saudi Arabia
King Saud succeeded to the throne on his father's death in 1953. However, an intense rivalry between the King and his half-brother, Prince Faisal emerged, fueled by doubts in the royal family over Saud's competence. As a consequence, Saud was deposed in favor of Faisal in 1964. The major event of King Faisal's reign was the 1973 oil crisis, when Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab oil producers, tried to put pressure on the US to withdraw support from Israel through an oil embargo.[24] Faisal was assassinated in 1975 by his nephew, Prince Faisal bin Musaid. (HMMMM)

In early 2011, King Abdullah indicated his opposition to the protests and revolutions affecting the Arab world by giving asylum to deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and by telephoning President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (prior to his deposition) to offer his support.[46] Saudi Arabia has also been affected by its own protests.[47] In response, King Abdullah announced a series of benefits for citizens amounting to $10.7 billion. These included funding to offset high inflation and to aid young unemployed people and Saudi citizens studying abroad, as well as the writing off of some loans. State employees will see their incomes increase by 15 per cent, and additional cash has also been made available for housing loans. No political reforms were announced as part of the package, though some prisoners indicted for financial crimes were pardoned. (WHAT A GREAT IDEA TO PAY OFF THE PROTESTORS, lucky they weren't organised by alien forces)

Monarchy and royal family
The king combines legislative, executive, and judicial functions[53] and royal decrees to form the basis of the country's legislation.[54] The king is also the prime minister, and presides over the Council of Ministers (Majlis al-Wuzarāʾ), which comprises the first and second deputy prime.

The royal family dominates the political system. The family’s vast numbers allow it to control most of the kingdom’s important posts and to have an involvement and presence at all levels of government.[55] The number of princes is estimated to be at least 7,000, with most power and influence being wielded by the 200 or so male descendants of King Abdul Aziz.[56] The key ministries are generally reserved for the royal family,[49] as are the thirteen regional governorships.[57] Long term political and government appointments, such as those of King Abdullah, who had been Commander of the National Guard since 1963 (until 2010, when he appointed his son to replace him[58]), Crown Prince Sultan, Minister of Defence & Aviation since 1962, Prince Nayef who has been the Minister of Interior since 1975, Prince Saud who has been Minister of Foreign Affairs since 1975[59] and Prince Salman, who has been Governor of the Riyadh Region since 1962,[60] have resulted in the creation of "power fiefdoms" for senior princes.[61]

The Saudi government and the royal family have often, over many years, been accused of corruption.[62] In a country that is said to "belong" to the royal family and is named for them,[12] the lines between state assets and the personal wealth of senior princes are blurred.[56] The extent of corruption has been described as systemic[63] and endemic,[64] and its existence was acknowledged[65] and defended[66] by Prince Bandar bin Sultan (a senior member of the royal family[67]) in an interview in 2001.[68] Although corruption allegations have often been limited to broad undocumented accusations,[69] specific allegations were made in 2007, when it was claimed that the British defence contractor BAE Systems had paid Prince Bandar US$2 billion in bribes relating to the Al-Yamamah arms deal.[70] Prince Bandar denied the allegations.[71] Investigations by both US and UK authorities resulted, in 2010, in plea bargain agreements with the company, by which it paid $447 million in fines but did not admit to bribery.[72] Transparency International in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index for 2010 gave Saudi Arabia a score of 4.7 (on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is "highly corrupt" and 10 is "highly clean"). (IT SOUNDS VERY CORRUPT IN ANYONES LANGUAGE)

Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, there has been mounting pressure to reform and modernize the royal family's rule, an agenda championed by King Abdullah both before and after his accession in 2005. The creation of the Consultative Council in the early 1990s did not satisfy demands for political participation, and, in 2003, an annual National Dialogue Forum was announced that would allow selected professionals and intellectuals to publicly debate current national issues, within certain prescribed parameters. In 2005, the first municipal elections were held. In 2007, the Allegiance Council was created to regulate the succession.[74] In 2009, the king made significant personnel changes to the government by appointing reformers to key positions and the first woman to a ministerial post.[75] However, the changes have been criticized as being too slow or merely cosmetic,[76] and the royal family is reportedly divided on the speed and direction of reform.

The physical punishments imposed by Saudi courts, such as beheading, stoning, amputation and lashing, and the number of executions have been strongly criticized.[116] The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery and can be carried out by beheading with a sword, stoning or firing squad, followed by crucifixion.[117][118] The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading. The last reported execution for sorcery took place in 2011[119] and three subsequent convictions for witchcraft did not result in execution. Although repeated theft can be punishable by amputation of the right hand, only one instance of judicial amputation was reported between 2007 and 2010. Gay rights are not recognised. Homosexual acts are punishable by flogging or death.[117][120] Lashings are a common form of punishment[121] and are often imposed for offences against religion and public morality such as drinking alcohol and neglect of prayer and fasting obligations.[117] Retaliatory punishments, or Qisas, are practised: for instance, an eye can be surgically removed at the insistence of a victim who lost his own eye.[111] Families of someone unlawfully killed can choose between demanding the death penalty or granting clemency in return for a payment of diyya, or blood money, by the perpetrator.[122]

Other human rights issues that have attracted strong criticism include the extremely disadvantaged position of women (see Women in Saudi society below), religious discrimination, the lack of religious freedom and the activities of the religious police (see Religion below).[116] Between 1996 and 2000, Saudi Arabia acceded to four UN human rights conventions and, in 2004, the government approved the establishment of the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR), staffed by government employees, to monitor their implementation. To date, the activities of the NSHR have been limited and doubts remain over its neutrality and independence.[123] Saudi Arabia remains one of the very few countries in the world not to accept the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In response to the continuing criticism of its human rights record, the Saudi government points to the special Islamic character of the country, and asserts that this justifies a different social and political order.(THIS PLACE IS A HORRORHOUSE OF THE LOWEST ORDER

In the Arab and Muslim worlds, Saudi Arabia is considered to be pro-Western and pro-American,[135] and it is certainly a long-term ally of the United States.[136] However, this[137] and Saudi Arabia's role in the 1991 Gulf War, particularly the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil from 1991, prompted the development of a hostile Islamist response internally.[138] As a result, Saudi Arabia has, to some extent, distanced itself from the U.S. and, for example, refused to support or to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[53] Relations with the United States became strained following 9/11.[139] American politicians and media accused the Saudi government of supporting terrorism and tolerating a jihadist culture.[140] Indeed, Osama bin Laden and fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. According to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups. . . . Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."[142]

Saudi Arabia's increasing alarm at the rise of Iran is reflected in the reported private comments of King Abdullah[143] urging the US to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake".[144] Saudi Arabia has been seen as a moderating influence in the Arab-Israeli conflict, periodically putting forward a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians and condemning Hezbollah.[145] Following the wave of protests and revolutions affecting the Arab world in early 2011 Saudi Arabia offered asylum to deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and King Abdullah telephoned President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (prior to his deposition) to offer his support.

Spending on defense and security has increased significantly since the mid-‘90s and was about US$25.4 billion in 2005. Saudi Arabia ranks among the top 10 in the world in government spending for its military, representing about 7 percent of gross domestic product in 2005. Its modern high-technology arsenal makes Saudi Arabia among the world’s most densely armed nations, with its military equipment being supplied primarily by the US, France and Britain.[146] The United States sold more than $80 billion in military hardware between 1951 and 2006 to the Saudi military.[148] On 20 October 2010, U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history – an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The package represents a considerable improvement in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces.[149] The UK has also been a major supplier of military equipment to Saudi Arabia since 1965.[150] Since 1985, the UK has supplied military aircraft – notably the Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft – and other equipment as part of the long-term Al-Yamamah arms deal estimated to have been worth £43 billion by 2006 and thought to be worth a further £40 billion.[

What a surprise, that its never been about ethics or treatment of people or belief, its always been about who your friends are and who your writing the big cheques for

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Mon 09 Jan 2012, 07:47

Congressmen regard "public service" as an opportunity to enrich themselves, their families and friends.

by David Richards

The USA is the Illuminati's military enforcer. To make sure American politicians play their role, Congressmen are allowed to own stocks in defense contractors, and make millions of dollars buying and selling them using insider knowledge.

According to reports from, in 2006, 151 members of Congress had $195.5 million invested in defense corporations. Their average net worth was $910,000 compared to $100,000 for American families in general. Over 50 range between $5 million and $190 million. John Kerry is at the top end of the scale.

For the psychopaths on Capitol Hill, each new military escapade is a lottery windfall.


While insider trading carries hefty prison terms for common people, it is perfectly legal for US congressmen. They are free to own shares in companies that are regulated by committees they sit on.

Members of congress can trade freely using insider knowledge they have about regulations or events that could affect specific industries or the stock market as a whole, such as an economic crash, a new law... or a war.

Peter Scheizer, a researcher at Stanford University, who is writing a book on insider trading on Capitol Hill, told CBS that congressmen have a simple outlook.

'This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends, and your family.'

They are running a criminal enterprise in all but name.

Scheizer: "We know that during the health care debate people were trading health care stocks. We know that during the financial crisis of 2008, they were getting out of the market before the rest of America really knew what was going on."


If you are a member of Congress and you sit on a 'defense committee', you are free to trade as much defense stock as you want to. A shocking example is former presidential candidate John Kerry, who has $30 million invested in defense contractors.

Wars are planned by groups such as the Council of Foreign Relations, founded by David Rockefeller. They feature both politicians and CEO's of defense contractors.

Another group is the 'Atlantic Council'. On their website, they describe their mission as "drafting roadmaps for U.S. policy towards the Balkans, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya." Corporate membership includes all four of the top four defense corporations in the country: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

Recently General Jim Jones left his job as chairman of the Atlantic Council to work as Obama's National Security Adviser. Four other prominent officials from Obama's administration are also members: Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, General Eric Shinseki, and the ominously named Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Another example is the cozy relationship that existed between Northrop Grumman, the fourth largest defense corporation in the world, and the Bush administration. According to Corpwatch, at least seven former officials, consultants or shareholders of Northrop Grumman held positions in the Bush administration. Unsurprisingly, as the war on terror expanded, Northrop Grumman saw net sales of $7.6 billion in 2000 skyrocket to $34 billion by 2008.

Most defense contractors fund the Republicans and Democrats equally. During the 2008 election, Lockheed Martin gave $2,612,219 in total political campaign donations, with 49% to Democrats ($1,285,493) and 51% to Republicans ($1,325,159).

What is the best way to expose our political representatives affiliations with bloodthirsty corporations?

I like a solution that has been circulating online. Let's require politicians to wear their corporate sponsors on their clothing like Nascar drivers.

If Obama had to wear a racing suit with 'Lockheed Martin' emblazoned across his chest, he would look absurd espousing his rhetoric for the impending war with Iran.

The bottom line is that politicians should be banned from receiving financial contributions of any kind. Those who can demonstrate support should be publicly funded. For the cost of one battleship, we could have genuine democracy.

Instead we use "democracy" as a pretext to wage wars of aggression around the world.

John Kerry is very special to the elite on the occult level of their operations...even much more than Bush Jr. Kerry is almost like a messiah Skull and Bones figure...probably due to bloodline.

The reality of this article, which does not begin to cover illegal funds and kickbacks is why I tell truthers and patriots that you are living in a dream world of trying to restore some romantic notion of a Constitution-based free Republic that you believe ever existed was or is even possible.
It never existed but was a romantic nationalistic lie sold to you while you were being sold out.
All that founding fathers, freedom, best country in the world was on many levels a grand deception.

This is why I am now seriously considering ending my contract, that I did not voluntarily engage in, with the United States corporation and its government by renouncing my U.S. citizenship. If I am going to be a sub-corp, subsidiary, or an employee wage-slave of a nation-state corporation, and that may be the only option available to me, then I want the most benefits for my efforts and my enslavement.

The only problem is that there really is no other place to go...the whole word is under the thumb of a global evil.

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Mon 09 Jan 2012, 21:58

Good to see some effective investigative journalism is still live and kicking , theres probably a few more countries that are, in essence, corporations, when all the flags and national wrappers are removed , the bones and the driving gear of the countries have corp logos stamped on them

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Thu 12 Jan 2012, 04:20

Monsanto Now Owns Blackwater (Xe)

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to

keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Thu 12 Jan 2012, 04:23

The Norwegian Oil Fund is a huge reserve of money and has 2.5 billion kroner invested in Monsanto...which is why politicians on the take are beginning to promote the benefits of GMO in a country where they are banned. Now authorized farmed fish feed contains nineteen GMOs and they are now trying to get GMO corn growing in Norway.

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:19

Another excellent exposure
Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.
These megalomaniacs love to play the pseudo-philanthropic - don't - you- love -me - I'm -so -good -to -people -card on the ignorant masses, but all the time, their real bottom line is never philanthropic, its dollar profits, the more obscene , and easily acquired the better , and they don't give a damn how non-philanthropically these profits are acquired and at what cost as long as they can continue functioning on their power trip

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  KapitanScarlet on Wed 18 Jan 2012, 15:55

CORPORATION = Experts at transmuting the Personal into the Impersonal through the Black arts of Law , yours sincerly, CoroprateHospitalitySuites (anon)

The City of London Corporation has won its High Court bid to evict anti-capitalist protesters from outside St Paul's Cathedral.

After a five day High Court hearing, which finished just before Christmas, Justice Lindblom ruled at about 2.30PM on Wednesday that the City had won the case.

The judge told the court that there were a number of "powerful considerations" pointing to the outcome for which the City contended.

He said that the City's decision to take legal action was "neither precipitate nor ill-considered".

"I am satisfied that the City had no sensible choice but to do what it has.

"Conscious of its duties under statute, it gave the defendants an ample opportunity to remove the protest camp without the need for time and money to be spent in legal proceedings."

Referring to the protesters, he said: "Whilst I recognise that this outcome will be disappointing to the defendants, I wish to pay tribute to all who participated in the hearing for the courteous and helpful way in which they conducted themselves."
However the City now had the right to remove the tents, he said.

Speaking to the Huffington Post UK, Occupy London said they would ask for an appeal.

"We're going to ask for an appeal," the spokesperson said. "It was 50/50, we didn't know what to expect."

"The judge said the city had the right to evict us from areas one and two, but there was no mention of the areas that belong's to St Paul's."

"People are disappointed but we are also positive that whether or not we are evicted we will survive. Occupy is more them the camp, its an idea."

In a statement Stuart Fraser, the City of London Corporation’s policy chairman, said:

"We took this action to clear the tents and equipment at St Paul’s. We hope the protesters will now remove the tents voluntarily. If not, and subject to any appeal proceedings, we will be considering enforcement action.

"Lawful protests are a regular part of City life but tents, equipment and increasingly, quite a lot of mess and nuisance, is not what a highway is for and the public generally is losing out – as evidence before the court made clear."

The City looks set to give the protesters three days before it enforces the decision.

The corporation had argued there was an "overwhelming" case for the court's intervention because of the impact on the area of the camp, which has been in place since October 15, and the risk that it would continue indefinitely.

John Cooper QC, for Occupy LSX, had argued that the impact on the area had been exaggerated.

Occupy said it did not prevent worship at St Paul's and any impact it did have on on those visiting, walking through or working in the vicinity was not solely detrimental.

They said that politicians, members of the public and commentators had expressed support for the camp's presence and the sentiments behind it, at a time when there was a consensus that the issues it raised needed addressing.

Protesters had called for a "ring of prayer" to be formed at the camp in "an act in a spirit of love towards all concerned" if the decision goes against them.

Others have called for no-violent resistance as the group vowed to fight on.

The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, commenting on the ruling, said: "Whatever now happens as a result of today's judgment, the protest has brought a number of vital themes to prominence.

"These are themes that the St Paul's Institute remains committed to exploring and, now through London Connection, we want to ensure they continue to have a voice.

"Bishops cannot have all the answers to what are complex economic problems. What we can do, however, is broker communications and make sure that a proper connection between finance and its ethical and moral context is found."

Posts : 3291
Join date : 2009-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  tgII on Thu 19 Jan 2012, 13:26

This dude wasn't about to become a corporate body/citizen/subject...

    "Get out of this temple you psycho financier money changers!"

The new motto known famously as the “Tetragrammaton” was- I•N•R•I
which means ILEX•NOVUM•ROMANUM•ITER—literally “One Law (is the)
New Roman Way” and “Holly New Roman Way”.

    "Damn this hurts."

    (i) The new official motto (INRI) of the Empire signaled the end to the three level pagan Roman system of one law for the rich and their loyal servants and one law for everyone else as slaves; and...


Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Mon 20 Feb 2012, 22:30

I, out of curiosity, am now beginning to watch the show...Doomsday Preppers...from National Geographic.

I think this show is definitely worth some commentary.

In my assessment of civil unrest, the lack of electric power for an extended period of time or a natural disaster that the first and foremost threat to you and your security is...other people. Then comes a clean, uncontaminated environment, water, food, weapons, etc.

Season 1 Episode 1...not able to embed...

...when the magnetic poles shift and continents move to different areas of the globe...will you have a week's worth of jarred chicken chimichanga? scratch
...the great quake of California...about a 3% chance of it happening. cyclops
...the U.S. has untapped reserves and allies that could supply more than enough oil...oil scarcity is a fiction designed for profits. No


Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

Re: Corporate Governance

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum