McConnell alleges that Jane Platt, MI-3 Master of the Worship Company of International Bankers, former Chief Executive of Barclays Bank Trust and President of Reuters Services for Asset Managers, laundered dirty LIBOR money through his sister’s Asset Forfeiture Fund and help make predatory loans to Obama’s law-enforcement cronies at the state and federal level in support of false flag attacks on U.S. citizens at the Boston Marathon and military personnel at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood.
McConnell believes that Libor debts arranged by Ms. Platt and her MI-3 Livery Company colleagues and his sister’s associated malfeasant use of Asset Forfeiture Funds which enrich Obama’s paramilitary (?) supporters, violate public-interest and informed-consent principles of the Doctrine of Odious Debt and he will now explore with fellow veterans remedies which include repudiation of such debt and the impeachment of President Obama.
Disambiguation:
MI-3 = Livery Companies’ patent-pool supply-chain protection racket using Privy Purse Forfeiture Fund Marcy (Forfeiture Fund – KPMG Small Business Auction – Liquidation – Prisoner Medical Services – JABS)
+ Inkster (Queen’s Privy Purse – KPMG tax shelter – RCMP Wandering Persons Registry – Escrow fraud)
+ Interpol (Berlin 1942-1945 – Operation Paperclip into Foreign Fugitive File – William Higgitt - Entrust)
+ Intrepid (William Stephenson – GAPAN patent pool – MitM Pearl Harbor attack – Kanada Kommando) MI-3 = Marine Interruption Intelligence and Investigation unit set up in 1987 to destroy above
McConnell notes that in Book 12 at www.abeldanger.net, agents deployed by his Marine Interruption, Intelligence and Investigations (MI-3) group are mingling in various OODA modes with agents of the Marcy Inkster Interpol Intrepid (MI-3) protection racket based at Skinners’ Hall, Dowgate Hill.
See #1:
Abel Danger Mischief Makers - Mistress of the Revels - 'Man-In-The-Middle' Attacks (Revised)
Prequel 1:
#1705: Marine Links Sister’s MI-3 Insurers Keys to Guppy White Widow passports, Jarrett FCI Westgate Mall
Jane Platt, Master of the Worship Company of International Bankers
Check activities in 1984.
“Barclays Libor Fine Sends Stocks Lower as Probes Widen
By Joshua Gallu, Silla Brush & Lindsay Fortado - Jun 28, 2012 7:27 AM PT Barclays Plc (BARC)’s record $451 million fines for interest rate manipulation sent bank shares plunging as U.S. and U.K. authorities pursue sanctions in a global investigation of more than a dozen lenders.
Barclays shares slid as much as 18 percent. U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne called for a criminal probe amid speculation that lenders could face billions of dollars in lawsuits, while Prime Minister David Cameron called on Chief Executive Officer Robert Diamond to show accountability.””
“Jane Platt has been Chief Executive of National Savings and Investments (NS&I) since September 2006. NS&I exists to provide sustainable, cost effective retail funding for HM Treasury and looks after some £100bn of savings for around 26m people. In addition, she joined the FCA board as a non executive director on 1 April 2013.
Trained as an investment manager, Jane managed pension funds with Mercury Asset Management before moving to BZW where she held a number of senior management positions in their asset management division to become Chief Operating Officer at the time of the creation of Barclays Global Investors. She was Chief Executive of Barclays Stockbrokers and Barclays Bank Trust Company before moving to Reuters as President of their global division, Services for Asset Managers.
She has acted as a non-executive director of Royal London Group and has experience of being a pension fund trustee. She has chaired ACE, the association of government agency and NDPB chief executives. She is a Chartered Fellow of the Institute for Securities and Investments and is a member of the Advisory Board of Women in Banking and Finance. She was installed as Master of the Worshipful Company of International Bankers in September 2013.
Jane was awarded the CBE in the Birthday Honours in June 2013.”
“With Shutdown, Incentives for Forfeiture Rise for Law Enforcement
by TAC Daily Updates on October 3, 2013 in Forfeiture, Issues 0
By Eapan Thampy
While there are many implications of a potential shutdown of the federal government, one thing that won’t stop is the use of federal asset seizure and forfeiture by law enforcement. That’s because Congress doesn’t fund that activity through appropriations; that money comes out of the Asset Forfeiture Fund, controlled by the Department of Justice. Indeed, these kind of budget battles increase the use of forfeiture by law enforcement agencies looking to sustain budgets when Congress won’t pay the bills. In other words, the rights of Americans to private property may soon come under greater and sustained assault. The need for reform has never been greater. Asset forfeiture hasn’t always been a major revenue stream for law enforcement. Indeed, that policy proposal came before Congress in 1983, when the Comprehensive Crime Control Act was under consideration. During a May 1983 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Assistant Treasury Secretary John Walker, Jr. proposed giving forfeiture funds to the Departments of Justice and Treasury during this exchange with the late Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
Mr. Walker. The bill would also improve the method of payment for expenses incurred by the Government in conducting forfeiture actions by establishing forfeiture funds in the Departments of Justice and Treasury.
The establishment of these funds would allow the Government to conduct forfeiture actions with much greater dispatch while promoting overall cost savings. Better storage and maintenance of seized property would result, because Justice and Treasury would be able to balance forfeiture expenses with forfeiture proceeds.
Senator Specter [presiding]. How much do you think it likely that the Government would take in on forfeiture proceeds, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. Well, I think that we can estimate that with forfeiture proceeds, the ability to seize and to forfeit and seize and sell administratively, we are talking in the many tens of millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.
Senator Specter. To what extent are there any proceeds for forfeiture available at the present time?
Mr. Walker. Well, there are not. The forfeiture proceeds today go into the general fund. So they are not available now for the use in defraying expenses of forfeiture, or for paying for the budgets of the law enforcement agencies involved.
In the politically charged environment of Reagan’s War on Drugs, the notion of “forfeiture…paying for the budgets of the law enforcement agencies…” was an easy sell. Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984, and asset forfeiture quickly became a priority area for federal law enforcement.
Last year, federal asset forfeiture brought in over $4 billion dollars for federal law enforcement, some $450 million of which was sent to state and local law enforcement agencies through the “Equitable Sharing” program. It is worth noting that state and local law enforcement are able to access these federal forfeiture revenues outside of the normal appropriations channels, meaning that this money is ultimately spent with little real civilian or democratic oversight.
Larry Salzmann at the Institute for Justice wrote recently that ”Civil forfeiture is now one of the most serious assaults on individual rights in America. It allows the government to take cash, cars, homes and other property from people without ever convicting or even charging them with a crime. Worse, civil forfeiture turns the American principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head.” It is worth noting too that asset forfeiture has turned our notions of democratic governance on its head as well; no longer do executive branch agencies with law enforcement powers and forfeiture funds need Congressional appropriations to fund their activities. In the Oct. 2000 edition of the Miami Law Review, Brant Hadaway noted that:
Since the 1984 amendments, forfeiture has become an important measure by which law enforcement agencies have sought to raise revenue for their own departments. The federal laws are advantageous for local or state agencies, because, through federal “adoption” of local forfeitures, such agencies are usually able to receive more of the proceeds than they would under state law. Adoptive forfeitures have caused headaches for state lawmakers. Many states have laws restricting the disposition of forfeited assets to either a state’s general treasury fund or to special funds for education or other programs unrelated to law enforcement. Local police departments circumvent such laws through the use of adoptive forfeitures.
As a result, with the help of the federal government, local police departments are able to directly raise cash for what they determine are their priorities, free from accountability to any political process.This has led to the alarming development of law enforcement gaining a pecuniary interest not only in forfeited property, but in the very profitability of the drug market itself. Certainly, this cannot be healthy for a democratic society.
Indeed, the “pecuniary interest” in forfeited property, and the laws that allow its procurement, have generated substantial efforts by law enforcement agencies in lobbying for the general expansion of criminal law. Retired Redondo Beach (CA) lieutenant Diane Goldstein notes:
Law enforcement has long relied on the cliché “we don’t make the laws, we just enforce them” when called to task for their role in enforcing unjust laws. For many years this was the case, but in the last two decades the increased lobbying of law enforcement organizations – some motivated by considerations other than upholding the law or improving public safety – has undermined the role of police professionals by making them just one more special interest group.
Lobbying by law enforcement organizations is big business. It has contributed to the policy of mass incarceration as well as misprioritized law enforcement resources that emphasize the prosecution of drug offenses over violent crime. This lobbying has diverted critical fiscal resources from competing governmental services like education, health care and public infrastructure. All this has been done under leaders who are not working as stakeholders and collaborative partners with the voters, but simply protecting their own self interests.
Prominent examples of law enforcement lobbying organizations in California include the California Police Chiefs Association and the California Narcotics Officers Association, which use taxpayer dollars to fund their common lobbyist, John Lovell, to oppose any criminal justice reform, no matter how reasonable. His lobbying firm has received more than $1.3 million since 2003 from these two law enforcement clients alone.
Recent examples of reasonable reforms Lovell has successfully killed include bills in both the Senate and the Assembly this year that would have provided clarification to California’s murky Compassionate Use Act that governs medical marijuana use in the state. The Assembly bill provided a regulatory model, while the Senate bill clarified the need for a legal entity that would prevent patients from having to access their medicine in the illegal market.
These standards would have helped to reduce crime and complaints by giving law enforcement the tools and clarity needed to fairly enforce the law, which patrol officers charged with enforcing it had been urging for years. In both cases, Lovell successfully attacked the bills by claiming they would allow the medical marijuana industry to profit in spite of clear language that shows the Senate bill only applies to nonprofit entities.
By providing a direct link between law enforcement activities and law enforcement budgets, asset forfeiture is one of the fundamental assaults the War on Drugs has perpetrated on American governance. Indeed, to abolish this funding mechanism would be to return the reins of governance back to the legislative branch of government, and ultimately to the voters. Eapan Thampy serves as the Executive Director of Americans for Forfeiture Reform”
“A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan
President Obama believes that our guiding focus must be growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. That’s his North Star, and it's why he won't accept cuts that force the middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.
The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way — by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and closing tax loopholes.
Both parties have already come together to cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion and today the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace since then end of World War II.
President Obama's plan builds on this progress and would cut the deficit by another $1.5 trillion, bringing it below its historic average.”
“What are odious debts?
Excerpt from The Doctrine of Odious Debts, Chapter 17 of the book Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy by Patricia Adams
The legal doctrine of odious debts was given shape by Alexander Nahum Sack a quarter of a century after the settlement of the Spanish-American War. Sack, a former minister of Tsarist Russia and, after the Russian Revolution, a professor of law in Paris, authored two major works on the obligations of successor systems: The Effects of State Transformations on Their Public Debts and Other Financial Obligations and The Succession of the Public Debts of the State. With colonial territories becoming independent nation states and colonies changing hands, with monarchies being replaced by republics and military rule by civilian, with constantly changing borders throughout Europe, and with the ascendant new ideologies of socialism, communism and fascism overthrowing old orders, Sack's debt theories dealt with the practical problems created by such transformations of state. Like many others, Sack believed that liability for public debts should remain intact, for these debts represent obligations of the state — the state being the territory, rather than a specific governmental structure. This he based not on some strict dictate of natural justice, but on the exigencies of international commerce. Without strong rules, he believed, chaos would reign in relations between nations, and international trade and finance would break down.
But Sack believed that debts not created in the interests of the state should not be bound to this general rule. Some debts, he said, were "dettes odieuses."
If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State.
This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime's debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls with the fall of this power.
The reason these "odious" debts cannot be considered to encumber the territory of the State, is that such debts do not fulfill one of the conditions that determine the legality of the debts of the State, that is: the debts of the State must be incurred and the funds from it employed for the needs and in the interests of the State.
"Odious" debts, incurred and used for ends which, to the knowledge of the creditors, are contrary to the interests of the nation, do not compromise the latter — in the case that the nation succeeds in getting rid of the government which incurs them — except to the extent that real advantages were obtained from these debts. The creditors have committed a hostile act with regard to the people; they can't therefore expect that a nation freed from a despotic power assume the "odious" debts, which are personal debts of that power.
Even when a despotic power is replaced by another, no less despotic or any more responsive to the will of the people, the "odious" debts of the eliminated power are not any less their personal debts and are not obligations for the new power....
One could also include in this category of debts the loans incurred by members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the government to serve interests manifestly personal — interests that are unrelated to the interests of the State.
For creditors to expect any protection in their loans to foreign states, their loans must be utilized for the needs and interests of the state, otherwise the loans belonged to the power which contracted them, and were therefore, "dettes de régime."
The doctrine of odious debts is open to abuse by self-serving interpretation. To avoid arbitrarily repudiated debts, Sack proposed that a new government be required to prove that the debt ill-served the public interest and that the creditors were aware of this. Following these proofs, the onus would be upon the creditors to show that the funds were utilized for the benefit of the territory. If the creditors could not do so, before an international tribunal, the debt would be unenforceable.”
Happy Googling
Links:
PresidentialField Mandate
Abel Danger Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.