Marine Links Marcy-May Libor Protection Racket to Holder’s 9/11 Forfeiture Fund

U.S. Marine Field McConnell has linked his sister Kristine Marcy and Theresa May to a Libor protection racket where DoJ Pride hit teams were apparently paid with dirty money in Eric Holder’s U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to silence prospective Libor whistleblowers in New York on 9/11.

Prequel 1:
Marine Links Thomson Reuters Family Office to SamCam LIBOR Fraud

Prequel 2:
Marine Links Sister and Holder’s Forfeiture Fund to FBI Fast and Furious Gun

“The Global Custodians and 9/11 Canada Free Press ^ | Friday, June 17, 2005 | Judi McLeod & David Hawkins Posted on Mon Jun 20 2005 10:48:40 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by Alexander Rubin Toronto, ON-- Buttonwood International Group is the undisputed watchtower when it comes to looking out for the best interests of the self-styled Global Custodians". Boasting that its Global Custodian clients represent nearly $50-trillion assets in custody, Buttonwood represents Pooh-Bahs with enough cash reserves to rule the world. They pack the kind of power that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan’s right hand man, Maurice Strong once fantasized about when he told a reporter about the potential held by a group of world leaders who could actually capture control of the world’s capital markets by preventing the world’s stock markets from closing. In more contemporary times, there are some quarters worrying that the Global Custodians may soon cut off the [Libor bank] lines of credit to America’s capital markets in order to induce the kind of panic Strong fantasized about. …. Buttonwood’s blue-chip custodian client [Libor bank] JP Morgan Chase & Co., the third-largest U.S. bank agreed only Tuesday to pay $2.2-billion to settle a class-action lawsuit over its role in helping Enron Corp. engineer an accounting fraud that bilked investors out of billions of dollars. (MyWay.com, June 14, 2005). The agreement, confirmed by the bank and plaintiffs, represents the largest settlement deal in lawsuits against banks, advisers and Enron executives connected to the energy trader’s 2001 bankruptcy. It also comes just four days after [Libor bank] Citigroup Inc., the parent of Citibank, another one of Buttonwood’s blue-chip custodian clients, and America’s largest financial services firm, agreed to pay investors $2-billion to settle another class action lawsuit over the Enron fraud. In some respects, Buttonwood seems to be the Sherlock Holmes’s dog that didn’t bark when its Global Custodian [Libor bank] clients began "breaking and entering" into the world’s capital markets in a spooky déja-vue enactment of Maurice Strong’s fantasy. There are some intriguing questions relating to Buttonwood International and September 11, 2001. Buttonwood’s August 2001 business address was One World Trade Center, Suite 7967. A click onto the Buttonwood page for December 2001, just three months after the terrorist attacks is interesting: http://web.archive.org/web/20011202083232/http://www.buttonwood.com/.

Note the WTC photo icon below goes to a page dated 9/11 with these sad and scary words, "September 11, 2001: Buttonwood International’s office support staff was located on the 79th floor of One World Trade Center. As of today, we are unable to confirm that all personnel are safely evacuated." But the main page of December 2001 fails to state how many, or if any, Buttonwood employees died in World Trade Center 1. Curiously, Buttonwood a self-touted management consultant for [Libor bank] Global Custodians seems to have ignored the catastrophic events of 9/11 and its [Libor bank] impact on its $40 (now $50) trillion clients in the "global securities industry". http://web.archive.org/web/2002205135057/www.buttonwood.com/WTC 0913.html.

“By Alexandra Alper and Kirstin Ridley ' class=photo v:shapes="_x0000_i1025"> updated 6/27/2012 12:27:22 PM ET WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - British bank Barclays will pay $453 million to U.S. and British authorities to settle allegations that it manipulated key interbank lending rates known as Libor, ramping up pressure on other banks to cooperate in a probe that could cost the banking industry billions of dollars. Barclays admitted to trying to make Libor look artificially low, to avoid signaling the bank's distress to markets during the financial crisis. The bank also manipulated borrowing rates to benefit its trading positions. Libor underpins trillions of dollars in derivative contracts and is a crucial peg for corporate borrowing rates worldwide, linked to everything from U.S. consumer credit cards to loans funding Turkish phone networks. The manipulation, from 2005 through 2009, meant that millions of borrowers globally paid too little or too much interest on their debt. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and the UK's Financial Services Authority settled with Barclays on a civil basis, while Canadian authorities said they still had an open investigation. The Justice Department also said it still had a criminal investigation in progress. The Justice Department found that bankers across the industry worked together to manipulate Libor. It also made clear that in some cases the pressure to manipulate rates came from Barclays management. Market participants said the settlement in many ways confirmed what traders already knew. "It is an admission that they were manipulating the rates to get better conditions," said ING strategist Alessandro Giansanti. "There isn't really a lot of trust in the way Libor is calculated as... there were some banks who used to manipulate the rates just to get better conditions in the money market." The basis of Libor is a daily poll that asks banks including Barclays to enumerate the rates they think they will be able to borrow from other big banks. Libor is set daily for 10 major currencies and for 15 borrowing periods, ranging from overnight loans to 12 months. Thomson Reuters Corp is the British Bankers' Association's official [and allegedly extorted cf. DoJ Pride and Luka Magnotta’s same-sex snuff films] agent for the daily calculation and publishing of the Libor rates. A spokeswoman for the company declined to comment.”

“BBA LIBOR Historic rates The BBA have posted all rates we hold on our website. Please see a link to the historic BBA LIBOR at the bottom of the page. BBA LIBOR fixings did not commence officially before 1 January 1986, although before that some rates have been fixed for a trial period commencing in December 1984. Due to the specific methodology of calculating BBA LIBOR it is not possible to reconstruct rates before the official fixings commenced. There are a few websites that purport to be showing BBA LIBOR rates before the mid-80s but these are in no way affiliated with the BBA, who is the sole supplier of BBA LIBOR, and so we would not vouch for their accuracy. If there was any specific reason for why BBA LIBOR started in 1984. What was the historical impetus? During 1984 it became apparent that an increasing number of banks were trading actively in a variety of relatively new market instruments, notably Interest Rate Swaps, Foreign Currency Options and Forward Rate Agreements. Whilst recognizing that such instruments brought more business and greater depth to the London Interbank market, it was felt that future growth could be inhibited unless a measure of uniformity was introduced. In October 1984 the BBA working with other parties such as the Bank of England established various working parties, which eventually culminated in the production of the BBAIRS terms - the BBA standard for Interest Swap rates. Part of this standard included the fixing of BBA Interest Settlement rates, the predecessor of BBA LIBOR. From 2 September 1985 the BBAIRS terms became standard market practice.”

“On the 25th Anniversary of the U.S. Department of Justice’s asset forfeiture programme in 2009, United States Attorney General Eric Holder – who, as Deputy Attorney General in the 1980s had helped get the programme off the ground - stressed the success and vitality of the United States’ programme. “When we look back,” he said, on the last 25 years of the programme, we see a forfeiture regime that has been transformed from a collection of centuries-old laws designed to fight pirates, enforce customs laws and fight illegal contraband, into an array of modern law enforcement tools designed to combat 21st century criminals both at home and abroad.” Attorney General Holder noted that since 1984, the Department of Justice has deprived criminals of over $13 billion in net federal forfeiture proceeds. This figure does not include the more recent forfeiture actions taken by the Department of The Treasury, which maintains a separate asset forfeiture fund. He also commented that in 2008 alone, over $500 million in assets were forfeited and returned to crime victims as restitution. In these remarks, our Attorney General hit upon the key concepts and goals underpinning asset forfeiture regimes anywhere in the world: (1) depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains in order to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations; (2) seizing the instrumentalities of their trade in order to prevent others from using the infrastructure in place; (3) frustrating the goal underlying most criminal conduct - greed for material gain; and (4) attempting to make whole victims of crime. A law enforcement friend of mine once told me why he liked doing asset forfeiture as part of his cases so much. He said that the criminals were never happy about the blue lights of the police cars arriving in order to arrest and handcuff them; but, they knew that jail time was simply a price of doing business which they often had to pay. However, when the yellow lights of the tow truck drove up to take away their Mercedes or Cadillac Escalade, this tough, hardened criminal would break down, weeping, because that was the whole reason that he became a criminal to begin with, and it was more painful to be stripped of his expensive toys than to go to jail. The moral of that story is: criminals may be lot unhappier about having their assets taken away than they are about going to prison. We need to emphasize forfeiture in all of our criminal investigations.”

This on Independence Day +2, but more to follow.



Presidential Mandate

Abel Danger