Kolmannessa osassa pureudumme EU:n olemukseen suhteessa Brittien tilanteeseen. Pitäen mielessä edellä kahdessa osassa kerrottu lainsäädäntö haluan esitellä vuonna 2010 kesällä keskuudestamme poistuneen poikkeuksellisen tietolähteen kuvaaman tarinan Brittien EU taipaleesta. Tämä henkilö on tai oli Christopher Story, jolla oli poikkeuksellisen kovatasoiset tietolähteet kanainvälisessä tiedusteluyhteisössä sekä hän toimi myös aikanaan Margaret Thatcherin neuvonantajana.
Tämä osio perustuu hänen julkaisuunsa E.U. TREATIES PROCURED BY PAYOLA CORRUPTION BRUSSELS ACCOUNTS ARE FRAUDULENT: E.C. CREDIT RATING AT RISK Wednesday 12 October 2005, by Christopher Story
Aivan ensiksi hän toteaa että kyseisen aineiston (EU petokset yms.) lähdetietona ovat Ashley Mote MEP, Paul Buitenen MEP, Marta Andreasen, and Christopher Arkell. Tiedot Edward Heathista, Geoffrey Ripponista ja muista suhteessa heihin on saatu useista tiedustelupalveluista maailmalta. Hän lisäksi huomauttaa, ettei kukaan tai mikään taho ole kieltänyt tietojen oikeellisuutta kuukauden sisällä tietojen julkituomisesta. (1)
Christopher Story kysyy artikkelissa ”Miksi Euroopan Unoni on laiton ja lainvastainen Brittien näkövinkkelistä. Hän toteaa, että ensiksikin siitä syystä, koska Brittien liittymissopimuksen allekirjoitti kaksi Saksan rekrytoimaa agenttia, jotka kuuluivat ns. mustaan tiedusteluyhteisöön nimeltään DVD (Natsien salainen organisaatio Dachaussa). Nämä henkilöt olivat Edward Heath ja Geoffrey Rippon. Molemmat allekirjoittajat saivat merkittävät lahjukset yhteistyöstään. (2)
Lisäksi laittomuuden perustelee se tosiseikka, että jatkosopimusten allekirjoittajat on lahjottu kahdessa erillisessä erässä. Tähän sveitsiläiseen salaiseen rahastoon oli varattu 5 miljardia dollaria ja kyseiset varat maksettiin siten, että jokaisen maan osuus oli 100 miljoonaa dollaria molemmilta sopimuksilta. Toisin sanoen kumpikin erä oli 2,5 miljardia dollaria. Ensimmäinen maksuosuus suoritettiin kesällä 2004 (Inter Governmental Conference) ja seuraava 2,5 miljardia kun nk. Collective Treaty (uskoisin tällä tarkoitettavan Lissabonin sopimusta) on vahvistettu. Christopher Story on vastaanottanut myös tiedot tiedusteluyhteisöltä kyseisen salaisen tilin osalta sekä nimiä, joita on lahjottu prosessin aikana. (3)
Christopher Story vetää yhteen EU:n statuksen siten, että hän sanoo koko EU kokonaisuuden olevan iso rikollisorganisaatio. Tämän hän perustelee sillä, että kaikki keskeiset sopimukset on saatu aikaan lahjomalla, EU on syntynyt korruptiolla ja on korruptoitunut läpeensä. Lisäksi EU:n tilinpito ei täytä miltään osin rehellisen organisaation kirjanpitoa, koska keskeisiltä osiltaan se perustuu väärennöksiin sekä rikollisten piilorahastojen käyttöön. (4)
Christopher Story edelleen perustelee Brittien laitonta olemista EU:n jäsenenä vedoten valtiosopimusoikeutta koskevaan Wienin yleissopimukseen (1969), kansainvälinen sopimus valtioiden välisistä kirjallisista sopimuksista, ja erityisesti sen artiklaan 49 petos. Mikäli siis allekirjoitettua sopimusta rasittaa petos on kyseinen tai kyseiset sopimukset mitättömiä suhteessa valtioon ja kansaan. Tämän lisäksi Briteillä on vanha voimassaoleva laki 1689 Bill of Rights, jonka mukaan he eivät voine olla mukana sellaisessa yhteisössä, joka voisi sanella Briteille mitä tulee toteuttaa tai käyttäisi lainkäytön valtaa Briteissä. (5)
Christopher Story esittelee laajan yhteenvedon perusteluista miksi EU on rikollisorganisaatio. Näitä syitä ovat mm. petokset, kirjanpitorikokset, lahjonta jne. Mielestäni on hyvä vielä ottaa esiin yksityiskohta, jonka hän esittelee perusteluissaan. Olen nimittäin kyseiseen asiaan vedonnut usein ja perustellusti. Tämä on kiristäminen vedoten johonkin aineistoon, joka on toisen hallussa. The Sunday Telegraph raportoi artikkelissaan, että kaksi EU:n virkamiestä omistivat Brysselissä seksi hotelli ”Studio Europen”, josta vuokrattiin huone 13 euolla tunnilta. Jokainen voinee itse ymmärtää mihin tarkoitukseen hotellihuoneita vuokrataan tuntilaskutuksella. Storyn mukaan on myös selvää, että toiminta tähtäsi kiristysaineiston hankintaan. Henkilöt toiminaan takana olivat Carmela lo Giudice (assistant in the EC Budget Directorate-General) ja George Tzikis (porter in the Directorate-General responsible for employment). (6)
Jos siis on niin, että Christofer Storyn esittämät väitteet olisivat totta, ja miksi eivät olisi, katuu koko Brittien osallistuminen ja kuuluminen EU:n rikollisiin toimiin. Lähemmin voitte palata osaan 2 tutustumaan kansainväliseen oikeuteen ja sen artikloihin, jotka takaavat sopimusten mitättömyyden. Tästä osiosta puutuu kokonaan se analyysi, jolla pohditaan nykyjohdon ja virkamieskunnan syyllisyys tai korvausvelvollisuus vastuita. Kuuluisa rikosoikeudellinen fraasihan kuuluu seuraavasti: he tiesivät tai heidän olisi pitänyt tietää…
Alkuperäinen teksti – otteina
(1) Note: Intelligence on EC/EU fraud and corruption in this report was supplied by and derived from research by Ashley Mote MEP, Paul Buitenen MEP, Marta Andreasen, and Christopher Arkell. The intelligence on Edward Heath, Geoffrey Rippon, et al, and on the EU practice of making corrupt ’payola’ payments to key negotiators and signatories of specified EU Collective and Accession Treaties in exchange for their perverted ongoing cooperation was not obtained from them, but was provided inter alia by several intelligence agencies and was cross-checked prior to publication in XXX and on this website. It is noteworthy that one month after publication of this report and of the journal, not a single statement contained herein had been challenged, denied, or commented upon by the officials, journalists and others to whom the journal and this report were sent. All hope this will ’go away’, so that everyone will forget about it – but it won’t.
(2) WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION IS ILLEGAL AND ILLEGITIMATE
But first things first. The illegitimacy and illegality of the European Union – and thus of ALL its constituent structures, including the European Central Bank – arises from the following facts:
The British Treaty of Accession was signed by two agents of the German ‘Black’ Nazi intelligence continuum, DVD [•see below], based in Dachau, near Munich. The two signatories, both of whom received substantial financial rewards for their ‘cooperation’, were: Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon. Together with the late Roy Jenkins, they were recruited/compromised by the German Abwehr while studying at Balliol College, Oxford.
(3) THE E.U. TREATIES ARE ROUTINELY PROCURED BY FRAUDULENT MEANS:
That is to say, official signatories and senior policymakers/operatives have received, and routinely receive, substantial corrupt payments, remitted to their secret offshore bank accounts, in exchange for their ‘cooperation’ in pushing through successive EU treaties. The bribery funds are derived from a colossal secret ‘Black Operations’ slush fund account located in Switzerland – the title and size of which is divulged in the report. For instance:
- $5.0 billion was allocated from the Swiss slush fund to ‘procure’ the European Constitution Treaty, divided into two tranches:
- $2.5 billion was payable (and paid) on completion of the Inter Governmental Conference [IGC], in July/August of 2004, with $100 million allocated for each of the 25 EU ‘Member States’. The corrupt bribery funds were remitted in Euros.
- A further $2.5 billion ($100 million for each ‘Member State’) was payable on ratification of the Collective Treaty. Given the negative referendum results delivered by the French and Dutch electorates, payment of the second tranches has been a matter of understandable tension and contention ever since, not least since such ‘Black’ remittances, which are commonplace at the intergovernmental level, are illegal – and therefore ‘never happened’.
Intelligence sources have provided (XXX) with the name of the secret Swiss bank account, the vast amount of ‘Black’ money it holds, the amounts allocated for each corrupted EU ‘Member State’, and the names of three of the most prominent alleged recipients of ‘Black’ payments, together with details of the alleged transactions concerned.
(4) The European Union Collective is illegal and so extensively criminalised that it has become all but indistinguishable from a criminal organisation. It is illegal because key EU treaties were procured by means of slush fund payments. It is corrupt because, being born in corruption, its procedures are designed to mask the corrupt activities of many of its officials, while it publishes false accounts.
(5) THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES
Given that (a) the United Kingdom’s EEC Accession Treaty, (b) The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and (c) The (aborted) European Constitution Treaty were among E.U. treaties that were procured by fraudulent means, THE EUROPEAN UNION IS AN ILLEGAL ORGANISATION (The first tranche of corrupt payments for the Constitution Treaty was paid out, but the fate of the second tranche, given the negative French and Dutch referenda outcomes, is uncertain – as well as being the subject of vicious secret controversy).
This is because Article 49 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, to which Britain and other EU ‘Member States’ are parties, provides as follows:
‘If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, that State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty’.
According to intelligence sources, earlier European Union Collective treaties were likewise procured by fraudulent means.
In the British case, UK membership of the European Union Collective – an illegal organisation which exists to subsume, usurp and collectivise national sovereignty under the enticing cover of ‘cooperation’ (code for collectivisation) – contravenes the 1689 Bill of Rights, which remains the law of the United Kingdom to this day and which incorporates the following oath: ‘I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this realm’.
(6) WHY THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
In addition to exposing the illegality and illegitimacy of the European Union as a whole, the latest issue of (XXX) demonstrates, with extensive analysis and documentation, that the European Commission is a criminal organisation. The issue has been prepared in close collaboration with Ashley Mote, Independent MEP for Southeast England, and Continental MEP colleagues. In October 2004, Mr Mote and Marta Andreasen, the former Chief Accountant of the European Commission, presented the UK Serious Fraud Office with two large lever-arch files contained voluminous damning information about institutionalised corruption in the Commission and related EU structures.
Among reasons for concluding that the European Union is a criminal organisation, are the following:
- Because successive Presidents of the European Union preside over the disbursement of the corrupt ‘Black’ ‘facilitation fees’ identified, each successive (six-monthly) President is and has been aware of the corrupt mechanism used to procure the EU’s successive collective treaties.
- The incidence of fraud committed within the EU’s structures is so extensive and routine, that the European Commission has been condemned as condoning a ‘culture of corruption’, and presiding over a system of ‘institutionalised looting’. Scandalised EC whistleblowing officials refer to the European Commission as a ‘festering dustbin of corruption’. In 2004, there were nearly 3,500 separate cases of EC fraud.
- When he was informed in 2004 that the EC Vice-President-designate, Jacques Barrot, had been convicted for the embezzlement of funds, and had withheld this information from the President-designate, José-Manuel Barroso, the President denied any prior knowledge of this fact, and left Barrot in Place.
- It is nothing unusual for European Commission officials to be associated with lucrative corrupt ‘side businesses’ – often using offshore accounts – from which they benefit financially, consequent upon contracts being awarded to the businesses in which they themselves have a secret pecuniary interest. For instance:
- The Sunday Telegraph reported on 25th September that two EC employees own a Brussels sex hotel, Studio Europe, which rents out rooms for 13 euros an hour. No doubt this location is used for blackmail purposes. The EC officials were named as Carmela lo Giudice, an assistant in the EC Budget Directorate-General, and George Tzikis, a porter in the Directorate-General responsible for employment. This is the latest of innumerable EC scandals to have erupted into the public domain.
- Unhealthy and evidently pervasive masonic links exist between EC officials and contractors, resulting in corrupt and unhealthy ‘business relationships’.
- The European Commission’s accounting is not only shambolic, but also fraudulent. Evidence to this effect is presented, inter alia, by the well-known British forensic accountant, Christopher Arkell, FTCA, and by the former Chief Accountant of the European Commission, Marta Andreasen. She was ‘suspended’ after five months en poste, and then fired, after she queried the legitimacy of payments that Directorates-General required her to authorise. She asked awkward questions, and was effectively told to ‘shut up and just sign’. The EC’s accounting irregularities, which are glaring, include the following abuses:
- When certain accounting modifications were implemented at the end of 2004, the closing balances in 2004 and the opening balances in 2005 were not reconciled – thereby permanently embedding false accounting data for the future. This means that henceforth no EC accounts can ever be accurate (not that this has ever yet been the case).
- Even though EU ‘Member States’ have been making payments to the Commission for decades to cover the costs of pension liabilities for approximately 39,000 EC employees (as of 2005), the EU ‘Member States’ have simultaneously been charged with the liability of making/guaranteeing the resulting pension payments. Thus pension liabilities appear on both sides of the balance sheet. Proper accounting practice would require a charge to the Income and Expenditure Account of EUR 19.5 billion, and a consequent reduction in reserves. The European Commission should have been acquiring a liability for pensions throughout its existence, instead of fudging the accounts in this fraudulent and irregular manner.
- The European Commission ‘makes’ massive surpluses out of the ‘Member States’ annually, which it covers up. Surpluses are supposed, according to the EU’s own regulations, to be returned to the ‘Member States’. What happens in practice is that EC surpluses that have arisen after all accruals have been accounted for, are eliminated by the simple manipulative expedient of providing for potential expenditures not openly through the Income and Expenditure Account, but by means of corrupt adjustments to the Balance Sheet (‘Provisions’).
- This method of accounting is prohibited by all recognised accounting standards around the world as dishonest. Its use by the European Commission represents a clear fraud perpetrated upon the ‘Member States’ and their peoples.
- EC accounting records can be changed two or more years in arrears. The amount and the payee, but not the unique identifying number, can be altered, and no record whatsoever of such changes is/has been maintained in the records. This represents an open-ended invitation to scam the system, especially as it is routine for the EC’s Annual Accounts to be adjusted retrospectively.
- The huge Eurocracy (or self-interested EU nomenklatura) has perfected subtle mechanisms for ensuring that hardly anything is ever done to stamp out corruption. These techniques include, but are not confined to, the following:
8.1 The use of ‘candour’, which is NOT to be confused with the truth. ‘Candour’ is deployed in order to disarm, mislead, divert and mollify critics, so that any underlying fraud goes undetected.
8.2 The ‘multiple investigations’ technique. What happens is that several investigations are ‘opened’ separately. More ‘investigations’ may follow. Some are then ‘closed’, or ‘suspended’, ostensibly ‘pending’ the ‘results’ of other investigations. The resulting, deliberately contrived, confusion, with successive reports contradicting others, ensures that the corruption trail is buried and lost. Report-writing is used to smother transparency, clarity, and truth.
8.3 The EC and its structures have at least 3,094 secret ‘working groups’ or committees, all of which are answerable to no-one, and the operations of which are secret.
8.4 The main objective of any EC fraud investigation is to procure that the case is ‘exported’ as quickly as possible to the ‘Member States’ concerned, so that any corruption at the EC centre is consequently hidden from scrutiny.
8.5 Wherever possible, investigations are kept unresolved until the existing Commission is replaced by its successor, when the ‘that was then, this is now’ excuse kicks in.
8.6 Innumerable other deliberate obstruction methods, identified by (XXX), with the guidance of Ashley Mote MEP and his colleagues, are routinely employed by the EC and related structures, to maximise the obfuscation of troubling problems. For instance, one external corporation, based in Luxembourg, in which EC officials had an interest, was ostensibly established on 29th February 1989 – a date which never even existed. When a sanitised official report on the entity’s fraudulent activities was presented to the former President of the European Commission, Signor Romano Prodi – that allegedly corrupt Italian ‘machine’ politician – the date was altered to 22nd February 1989. This further illustrates the devious standard EC technique of promulgating conflicting information in separate, contradictory reports. By this means, controversy is deflected into sterile arguments over the conflicting information, diverting attention from the looting itself.
8.7 The European Court of Auditors has given an adverse opinion for many years, on 95% of all European Commission Expenditure. It has never, ever, approved the EC’s accounts. Furthermore, evidence has surfaced of fraud in the Court’s own accounts – one of several indications that the Court itself cannot be trusted. Indeed, like the Commission’s own internal Audit Service, its main task, by open official admission, is to minimise embarrassment to the Commission.
The evidence of EC looting and serial corruption contained in this single issue of (XXX) is sufficient to induce a terminal crisis at the European Commission.