Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

Patriot Groups throughout the Maricopa and North Pinal County area.

The Monetary System is Already Dead! Are You Prepared to Die so that It Might Live Again?

British Empire Strategizes on Saving Their System by Killing YOU

March 30th, 2013 • 7:08 PM
The Bank of England (BOE) and the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) jointly authored a paper published on Dec. 10, 2012, titled "Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions." Largely unnoticed at the time, the 15-page document has come into focus over the last 48 hours as a critical planning document by the British Empire's financial hit-men, which strategizes over how to save their hopelessly bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system from the onrushing meltdown, including by stealing assets from depositors — in exactly the fashion that has just occurred in Cyprus and is spreading elsewhere — and leaving populations to scrounge in the rubble for their simple existence.
The report couches the discussion in terms of making "unsecured creditors" take the hit for bailing out the banks, and remains carefully ambiguous as to whether or not that includes depositors in those banks. But events now rapidly unfolding internationally, make it crystal clear that what is meant by "unsecured creditors" can in fact become depositors in those benighted, bankrupt banks. And it will not only be Cypriots, Spaniards and Italians that will be left to starve in order to bail out the banks; the same policy is planned for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States as well. It is coming soon to a bank near you!
The question that must now be posed, Lyndon LaRouche stated today, is: How many members of the U.S. Congress are aware of this swindle, and are not supporting Glass-Steagall, knowing this?
Lyndon LaRouche warned you about the precise policy that is outlined in the BOE-FDIC plan — and explained why only Glass-Steagall is a viable alternative — in an explosive Feb. 15, 2013 webcast, where he forecast:
"The vast mass of debt, which is represented by the monetarist operation, would be cancelled. In its place, they would have a new system of finances, which ignores entirely all the obligations associated with the old! Which would mean that most of the people of the world would be starving to death, quickly.. .I know exactly what they're doing, because I know how systems work. And what they're doing, the only way it will work, is to cancel the entire bailout system—just wipe it off the plate, and come in with a new system, in which people who are privileged will be brought into that system, and they will be given relatively good incomes to live on, but unfortunately the greater majority of the population will have none. This is the greatest population-reduction scheme so far in known history. And that's what the policy of the people who oppose Glass-Steagall is—whether they themselves know it or not. But they will be held accountable for the effect of that policy."
In light of that LaRouche warning, and unfolding events on the ground, the BOE-FDIC planning document has four policy points which should be emphasized:
1) In the event of a meltdown of a Globally Active, Systemically Important Financial Institution (G-SIFI), "shareholders would lose all value and unsecured creditors should thus expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders did not cover." As a March 29 posting on the blog "Random Thoughts" put it: "The $64 trillion question is who are the 'unsecured creditors'? If they are depositors over the guaranteed limits, expect corporations and individuals to park their money elsewhere."
2) The proposed "top-down" resolution (i.e. bankruptcy reorganization) of G-SIFIs, by a combined UK-US approach, will lead to "smaller, more manageable — and perhaps more profitable" financial institutions. Ring-fencing in the U.K. will be very helpful to bring this about, they say, asserting — absurdly — that this will prevent the derivatives bubble from blowing up in their face.
3) The Bank of England takes over regulatory authority of all banking in the U.K. from the Financial Services Authority (FSA), this coming Monday, April 1, 2013. Under the existing British Banking Act, the FSA does not cover "non-deposit-taking financial firms, notably investment banks and financial market infrastructures." But as of April 1, the new Prudential Regulation Authority, a subsidiary of the Bank of England, will. This is essential if their proposed policy is to go operational.
4) The BOE-FDIC report says that the December 2012 study is just the first step, and that they will have detailed plans in place by the end of 2013 for each and every G-SIFI — which are all the principal international banks in the world.
This policy is already being implemented, at breakneck speed:
Cyprus: Cypriot authorities announced on March 30 that depositors holding over 100,000 euros in the country's major banks, are going to be hit much harder than the 40% write-down originally reported. Rather, 37.5% of their holdings will be forcibly converted into common stock in the Bank of Cyprus ("Congratulations; you are now a proud owner of a bankrupt bank"). An additional 22.5% of their deposits won't even earn interest, let alone be returned; and 40% will accrue interest, but also won't be returned, unless "the bank does well."
European Union: Cyprus is the "template" for all of Europe, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the new President of the Eurogroup stated on March 25. He was seconded on March 28 by European Central Bank Governing Council member Klaas Knot: "This approach will be part of the European liquidation policy." On March 29, Swiss MEP Gunnar Hokmark added: "You need to be able to do the bail-in as well with deposits," amid press reports that specific legislation to this effect will soon be presented to the Euro Parliament.
Spain: One million Spanish households were swindled into using their deposits to buy "preferred stocks" (preferentes) in most major Spanish banks. As in the case of bankrupt Bankia, those stocks are now worth less than 1% of their original value. According to the blog "Slog," the British subsidiary of the Spain's leading bank, Santander, has just informed its depositors that their money will now be held in its capacity as a bank, and not as a trustee, ie that Santander can attach it at will.
Canada: The Hellasfrappe blog reports that Canada's "Economic Action Plan 2013" suggests that banks can be recapitalized by converting certain liabilities, including deposits, into regulatory capital.
To reiterate LaRouche's point: The question that must now be posed, is: How many members of the U.S. Congress are aware of this swindle, and are not supporting Glass-Steagall, knowing this?
 
 
 

LaRouche: Glass-Steagall or Die —
 The System is Already Dead

Patriots for Glass Steagall:

Lyndon H.LaRouche, Jr.
March 26th, 2013 • 5:15 PM --Lyndon LaRouche today declared that the U.S. Congress must immediately pass Glass Steagall or face the consequences of the total disintegration of the entire trans-Atlantic system. He emphasized that there is no alternative to a return to the original Glass Steagall principle, and that the U.S. Senate must immediately introduce legislation identical to H.R. 129, the Kaptur-Jones House bill to restore the Glass Steagall full separation of commercial banks from the gambling operations of today's Wall Street mega-banks.
"This country has no chance of survival without an immediate return to Glass Steagall, and if the United States goes down, the rest of the world, starting in Europe and the rest of the Americas is doomed," LaRouche warned. "The U.S. is already hopelessly bankrupt. As long as we continue with the hyperinflationary bailout polices of Obama and Bernanke, you are as good as dead. The choice is between killing the gambling debts or killing American citizens, as the citizens of Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are already being killed by willful and genocidal austerity."
LaRouche explained that we are dealing with a British imperial policy, transmitted through the City of London and Wall Street, that is based on a radical program of rapid population reduction. "This is the policy of the British Crown, of the Queen. The goal is genocide. This is the conscious intention behind the murderous austerity measures being imposed on Europe, and already in the United States. It is literally genocide. And the only cure is Glass Steagall now. We need a mobilization of patriots for Glass Steagall, here in the United States, in Europe and around the world."
But LaRouche focused his attention on the United States. "The immediate passage of Glass Steagall in the United States cracks the whole thing. It is vitally important that we take this action before the entire system reaches the point of breakdown. We need to pass Glass Steagall now—through both Houses of Congress, with no ifs ands or buts."

For more information: 1-800-929-7566

 
 
 

Support[1] for HR129[2]

Congressional Co-Sponsors to HR-129 (By Date of Signing)
  1. Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] (introduced 1/3/2013)
  2. Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/3/2013
  3. Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 1/14/2013
  4. Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-2] - 1/15/2013
  5. Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/22/2013
  6. Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-7] - 1/22/2013
  7. Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/22/2013
  8. Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 1/23/2013
  9. Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-35] - 1/23/2013
  10. Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-1] - 2/6/2013
  11. Rep Chu, Judy [CA-27] - 2/6/2013
  12. Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 2/6/2013
  13. Rep Miller, George [CA-11] - 2/6/2013
  14. Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 2/12/2013
  15. Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-25] - 2/13/2013
  16. Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 2/13/2013
  17. Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 2/25/2013
  18. Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-46] - 2/25/2013
  19. Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 2/25/2013
  20. Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/25/2013
  21. Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/25/2013
  22. Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 2/25/2013
  23. Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 2/25/2013
  24. Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 2/26/2013
  25. Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 2/26/2013
  26. Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 2/26/2013
  27. Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-13] - 2/28/2013
  28. Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 2/28/2013
  29. Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 2/28/2013
  30. Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-9] - 3/4/2013
  31. Rep Payne, Donald M., Jr. [NJ-10] - 3/4/2013
  32. Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 3/11/2013
  33. Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-18] - 3/11/2013
  34. Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 3/11/2013
  35. Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 3/11/2013
  36. Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-13] - 3/11/2013
  37. Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/11/2013
  38. Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/12/2013
  39. Rep Tonko, Paul [NY-20] - 3/12/2013
  40. Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 3/15/2013
  41. Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-13] - 3/15/2013
  42. Rep Brownley, Julia [CA-26] - 3/25/2013
  43. Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 3/25/2013
  44. Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-12] - 3/25/2013
  45. Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 3/25/2013
  46. Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 3/25/2013
  47. Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 3/25/2013
Glass-Steagall on The Hill
Resolutions for Congressional Action introduced Into State Legislatures
  • January 2013 – Rhode Island | Senate Resolution S10respectfully urging Congress to Enact "The Return to Prudent Banking Act"
  • January 2013 – Montana | House Joint Resolution 4introduced by B. Harris - "Urging the US Congress to enact the Return to Prudent banking act." On Jan. 28 the Committee on Business and Education voted 15 to 5 to table the resolution. Plans are being made to get the bill un-tabled.
  • January 2013 – Virginia | Senate Joint Resolution 273, introduced January 9, 2013.
  • January 2013 – Kentucky | Kentucky Senate Concurrent Resolution SCR16 introduced January 2013 and referred to the Banking and Insurance Committee.
  • February 2013 - Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania House Resolution HR73 "urging the Congress of the United States to support efforts to reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act and supporting H.R. No. 129." The resolution was introduced by Rep. Mark Cohen, has 9 cosponsors and has been referred to the Commerce Committee.
  • February 2013 - Maryland | House Joint Resolution 3 was introduced for the "Reinstatement of the Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking Functions" with the bipartisan support of 15 Representatives.
  • February 2013 - South Dakota | Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 was introduced with 69 cosponsors representing a large majority of the 105 total legislators. The resolution requests that Congress "reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act".
    On Feb. 28 South Dakota became the first state in the nation to pass a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall. SCR 6 passed the State Senate on Feb. 26 by a vote of 19 to 16, and passed the House of Representatives on Feb. 28 by a decisive vote of 67 to 2. The resolution, as passed, will be delivered to the S.D. delegation in Congress.
  • February 2013 - West Virginia | House Resolution 15 was introduced with 32 cosponsors and "urges Congress to enact H. R. 129, the 'Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013.'"
  • February 2013 - Alabama | House Joint Resolution 121was introduced with the bipartisan support of 18 cosponsors and urges "Congress to support efforts to reinstate the separation of commercial and investment functions in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act."
  • March 2013 - Washington | Senate Joint Resolution 8009was introduced by Senators Bob Hasegawa, Marilyn Chase, David Frockt and Adam Kline, asking that "Congress enact legislation that would reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass-Steagall act." The resolution has been referred to Committee on Financial Institutions, Housing & Insurance.
  • March 2013 - Maine | A resolution for Glass-Steagall has been approved by the Legislative Council and will come to the floor within the coming weeks.
  • March 2013 - Rhode Island | Rhode Island State Representatives McLaughlin, Bennett, and Hull introduced a resolution into the House, H5840, strongly urging Congress "to reinstate the restrictions of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act." This House resolution is identical to the Rhode Island Senate resolution already introduced in January.
  • March 2013 - Hawaii | Four Hawaiian State Representatives introduced House Concurrent Resolution 138 "requesting the United States Congress to take action regarding the separation of commercial and investment banking functions through the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 or similar legislation".
-
Institutional Support
  • The Greater Northwest Ohio AFL-CIO headquartered in Toledo passed a resolution in support of HR 129 on January 30th, 2013 and is forwarding the resolution to the Ohio Congressional delegation.
  • Point #2 of the Oregon Democratic Party's Legislative Agenda is the restoration of Glass-Steagall.
  • The National Farmers Union, representing farmers and ranchers in 32 states, reiterated support for re-instating the Glass-Steagall banking law, in its annual policy statement, released March 5, 2013 at the conclusion of its yearly convention.
-
Endorsements from Policy Makers & Notable Individuals
Sen. Maria Cantwell Reiterates Call for Glass-Steagall
" I'd certainly go back to Glass-Steagall and separate commercial and investment banking. And I would basically recapture resources from those banks and put it toward job training and education."
Thomas Hoenig, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp Board
“If we don’t make these changes, I think we’re destined to repeat the mistakes of the past,” Hoenig said. “When you mix commercial banking and high-risk broker-dealer activities, you increase the risk overall and as a result you invite new problems.”
Richard Fisher, President of the Dallas Federal Reserve 
"Only the resulting downsized commercial banking operations — and not shadow banking affiliates or the parent company — would benefit from the safety net of federal deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve's discount window."
Liam Halligan, Chief Economist of Prosperity Capital Management in ...
"This Glass-Steagall battle isn't over yet, on either side of the Atlantic. Not by a long chalk. We can only hope it doesn't take another crash to force our governments to see sense...."
Matthew Fink, Director Oppenheimer Mutual Funds, Director Retiremen...
"The Glass-Steagall Act and other New Deal measures worked. For decades, the nation avoided lax regulation, excessive speculation, and financial crises."
Robert Reich, Berkeley professor, former US Secretary of Labor
"Also included in that bill -- in order to make sure our future isn't jeopardized by another meltdown of Wall Street -- would be a resurrection of Glass-Steagall and a limit on the size of the biggest banks."
Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN) regrets his vote to repeal Gl...
"The other vote I made that was really bad is eliminating Glass-Steagall. We should have never done that and I bought into that. You know, if we had Glass-Steagall back, this wouldn't be an issue here ... You're putting taxpayers on the hook."
Gordon H. Hoffner, vice president of the Union Bank of Beulah, ND; ...
"Without the provisions of Glass-Steagall, there is nothing in our current regulatory framework that will bring this crisis under control. This is not a party-politics matter; it is a national security question."
-
International Glass-Steagall Developments

Call your Congressman at home; Congress is out of session for two weeks. Call their district offices and meet your Congressmen to Co-sponsor H.R. 129![1]. Also call your state legislators and demand they introduce or co-sponsor a resolution calling for the U.S. Congress to pass H.R. 129!

 
 
 

Declare Saudi Arabia A Terrorism Sponsor!

by William F. Wertz, Jr.
March 25—Documentary evidence now exists that Saudi Arabia funded two terrorist attacks on the United States of America—9/11/2012 (Benghazi) and 9/11/2001. This evidence was presented in a memo, sent by former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on Feb. 16, 2013, which was hacked and distributed to the media. This memo reported that French intelligence, Algerian intelligence, and Libyan intelligence all have evidence that Benghazi 9/11/2012 was funded by “wealthy Sunni Islamists from Saudi Arabia.” In respect to 9/11/2001, the evidence was restated last week in a hearing before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, on behalf of the families of the victims of the original 9/11, in a lawsuit brought against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its role in that attack.
The question that cries out from the victims of these atrocities is: Why are we allied with Saudi Arabia, a satrap of the British Empire, in supporting al-Qaeda in Syria today, a support which is bringing us to the brink of World War III, when it is Saudi Arabia which is responsible for killing American citizens?
Why is it that both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations have refused to declassify the 28-page chapter of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 on the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Why is it that no media in the United States have given coverage to the revelation in the Blumenthal memo to Hillary Clinton that the Saudis also funded the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya? Why is it that supposedly patriotic Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham fail to mention Saudi Arabia when they demand that we get to the bottom of Benghazi?
Isn’t it time that we end the coverup of the role of our so-called ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism?

Saudi Funding of Benghazi

Russia Today has released the full text of four confidential memos on Benghazi sent from Blumenthal to Clinton. The memos had been hacked by someone with the alias “Guccifer” and sent to numerous media outlets.
The most explosive revelation is that, according to Algerian intelligence, the Benghazi 9/11 terrorist attack and the Jan. 25 In Amenas, Algeria, hostage-taking were carried out by al-Qaeda, and that, according to French intelligence, both attacks were funded by “wealthy Sunni Islamists from Saudi Arabia.” The memo further states that Libyan intelligence independently knew of the Saudi funding.
The memo of Feb. 16, 2013, reveals that following President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s instructions, Algerian intelligence passed on information obtained from the interrogation of known and suspected supporters of Mokhtar Belmokhtar (MBM) in Algeria to Libyan government officials. However, the Algerian intelligence officials “informed Bouteflika’s senior advisors that they would not provide the Libyans with the most worrisome reports given to them by their liaison partners in the French DGSE [intellgence agency]. These Algerian officers also noted ironically that [Libyan intelligence chief] General Hassi and his staff did not realize that they had, for their part, provided the Algerian DGSE with intelligence that supported the French information.”
“Speaking on condition of absolute secrecy, this individual with sensitive access stated that the Algerians are keeping information received from the French DGSE confidential. According to the source, this information concerned the funding of the MBM operation and a possible link to the Ansar al-Sharia attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi Libya on September 11, 2012, during which the U.S. Ambassador was killed. This individual adds that this information provided by the French service indicates that the funding from both attacks originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to AQIM [al- Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania. These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al-Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate. The money was used to recruit operatives
and purchase ammunition and supplies. This person adds that the same tradecraft was used to provide money used by MBM to organize the In Amenas attack. In a separate conversation, the Algerian DGSE officers note in private, that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia. They did not tell the Libyans that they had similar reporting from France.”
and purchase ammunition and supplies. This person adds that the same tradecraft was used to provide money used by MBM to organize the In Amenas attack. In a separate conversation, the Algerian DGSE officers note in private, that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia. They did not tell the Libyans that they had similar reporting from France.”

Paydirt

Although the Drudge Report website provided a link to the Russia Today website which published the memos, neither Drudge nor any other news service in the U.S. or Europe, other than EIR and LaRouchePAC, have addressed the importance of this disclosure.
Since Feb. 16, 2013, when this memo was written, a number of important aspects concerning Benghazi have been revealed which confirm EIR’s and LPAC’s published exposure of the role of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in the terrorist attack on Benghazi.
• On Feb. 18, Arabic media reported that an “Algerian security source” said his government had definite information that the former leader of the LIFG, Abdelhakim Belhadj, had prior knowledge of the attack on the gas production facilities in In Amenas, and Algerian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ammar Ballani declared that Belhadj was persona non grata in Algeria. • On March 5, CNN reported that a phone call was intercepted from the site of the Benghazi attack from someone congratulating Belmokhtar. CNN reported that “Belmokhtar was in Libya for four months from December 2011 and that his visit was facilitated by the leader of a radical Islamist militia with influence in Benghazi and the East.”
• On March 15, the Libya Herald reported the arrest of Faraj al-Chalabi, a member of al-Qaeda and the LIFG, as a suspect in the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack. It was the LIFG led by Belhadj that the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, and Qatar allied with to topple Qaddafi in Libya, and are currently allied with to topple Assad in Syria.

9/11 Families Revive Saudi Case

At the same time that the hacked Blumenthal memo revealed Saudi funding of the Benghazi attack, on March 20, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from the law firm of Cozen O’Connor, representing the families of 9/11/2001 victims, and from the law firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, representing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as to whether the lawsuit originally brought against Saudi Arabia for its support for al- Qaeda in the first 9/11 terrorist attack should be reinstated.
In 2005, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in Manhattan dismissed the claims, finding Saudi Arabia immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976. The 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal in 2008, and the Supreme Court denied a petition to take the case up in 2009. At that time, the Obama Administration had defended Saudi Arabia in an amicus brief, in which the Solicitor General stated that “the lower courts correctly concluded that Saudi Arabia and its officials are immune from suit for governmental acts outside the United States,” in short, arguing that since Saudi Arabia had not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism, it had sovereign immunity against prosecution.
However, in the meantime, a ruling was issued in November 2011, by a different 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel, that a similar suit (Doe v. Bin Laden) brought by Judicial Watch against the Taliban government of Afghanistan for its support of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack, could proceed, thus contradicting the decision against Saudi Arabia in the same circuit. The 2nd Circuit acknowledged that its ruling was inconsistent with the same court’s 2008 decision in connection with Saudi Arabia, and after circulating its opinion to other judges not on the panel (mini-en banc procedure), and receiving no objection, it overruled the earlier decision.
The decision in Doe v. Bin Laden is based on what is called the “noncommercial tort exception” of the FSIA, which stipulates that the case “(1) is noncommercial, (2) seeks money damages, (3) for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, (4) that [it] occur[red] in the United States, and (5) that [it] was caused by the tortious act, (6) of [a defendant] foreign state or [its] employee . . . acting within the scope of his . . . employment.” On Dec. 22, 2011, the plaintiffs suing Saudi Arabia filed a motion seeking to vacate the judgments favoring Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC), also named as a defendant.
On Dec. 22, 2011, the plaintiffs suing Saudi Arabia filed a motion seeking to vacate the judgments favoring Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC), also named as a defendant.
During the March 20 arguments, Circuit Judge Chester Straub asked, if the court were to agree that Judge Daniels abused his discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request to vacate the judgments, whether the court could decide other issues in the case.
One aspect of the case “intrigues me,” he said, specifically, “whether the entire tort occurred in the United States.”
Cozen, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said that not only had the tort taken place in the U.S., as evidenced by the 2001 attacks themselves, but so did some of the conduct leading up to the attacks. In particular, he cited a Saudi intelligence officer who allegedly provided assistance to two 9/11 hijackers. “The whole tort did take place in the United States,” he said.
The plaintiffs’ appeal brief points out:
“In addition to the claims based on the conduct of the Kingdom’s charity agents that was attributable to the Kingdom, plaintiffs alleged that several individual agents of the Saudi government directly provided support to the September 11th planners and hijackers. In particular, Omar Al Bayoumi, a Saudi intelligence officer, and Fahad Al Thumairy, a Saudi diplomat later stripped of his diplomatic visa and barred from the United States based on suspected ties to terrorism, allegedly provided direct assistance to two of the September 11th hijackers from within the United States. Plaintiffs also alleged that Muhammed Fakihi, the head of the Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi Embassy in Berlin, provided material support to members of the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell that planned and coordinated the September 11th Attacks.”
The appeal brief further argues that “given the allegations concerning the sponsorshp provided by officials of the Saudi government to the September 11th plot participants, plaintiffs’ pleadings allege a more direct role in the September 11th Attacks than those concerning Afghanistan in Doe.”
In addition to Straub, the panel included Circuit
Judges José Cabranes and Ralph Winter. Cabranes was on both the 2008 panel that originally upheld the lawsuit’s dismissal, and also on the panel that reinstated the Afghanistan case in 2011.
Cozen recently filed a new lawsuit in Pennsylvania, where hijacked Flight 93 crashed. He said he believes the new lawsuit stands a better chance in the Federal circuit court.
The lawsuit alleges that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia made charitable donations to Muslim groups that were then funneled to al-Qaeda. The defendants include Prince Salman, the Governor of Riyadh, the Saudi Joint Relief Commission and other charities, and Saudi banks and bank executives.

Implications

These two developments underscore the necessity of declassifying the 28-page chapter of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, that is devoted to the Saudi involvement in the original 9/11 attack. Clearly the key person of interest in both 9/11 attacks is Saudi Prince Bandar, who, as Ambassador to the U.S. in 2001, provided funds, through his wife Haifa (sister of Prince Turki, who was the head of Saudi intelligence at the time), to two of the 9/11 hijackers, and who, as the current head of Saudi Intelligence, would have been involved in the funding of 9/11/2012 in Benghazi.
Bandar has a long history of funding dirty covert operations, going back to the Contras in Nicaragua when the U.S. Congress cut off funding in the 1980s. As EIR and LPAC have also emphasized, Bandar has access to a slush fund from the BAE-Al Yamama deal. Today, it is widely known that Bandar is also funding al-Qaeda in Syria.
Those like Senators McCain and Graham who say they want to get to the bottom of the coverup of Benghazi, even as they are pushing for U.S. intervention in Syria in alliance with Saudi Arabia, the funders and facilitors of the murderers of our citizens, need to be asked: Will you support the declassification of the 28 page chapter of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on the Saudi role in 9/11? Will you demand an investigation of the French, Algerian, and Libyan evidence of Saudi funding of Benghazi? Will you demand that Saudi Arabia be declared a state sponsor of terrorism? If not, you are engaged in as big a coverup as you otherwise correctly accuse the Obama Administration of carrying out.
 
 
 

Cyprus Template: The Case of Spain

Watch the video
March 27, 2013 • 6:34PM
To view this video please go to
http://larouchepac.com/node/26013
An interview with Dennis Small of Executive Intelligence Review,on how the Cyprus model is being applied to the rest of the Eurozone: in particular, to Bankia in Spain. Transcript: http://larouchepac.com/node/26046  

Views: 26

Comment

You need to be a member of Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots to add comments!

Join Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

© 2019   Created by Kelly Townsend.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service