BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DIDN’T BOTHER TO RESPOND
Monday 17 November 2008 17:15
On 2nd October 2008, the Editor sent the following email to the British Ministry of Defence under the heading [see Archive]:
London, 2nd October 2008:
EDITOR ASKS BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WHAT WE ARE DOING IN AFGHANISTAN
‘Please provide me with a written statement indicating what specifically BRITISH national interests (NOT international interests) are served by our operations in Afghanistan, with specific reference to the drug trade.
Please further confirm in writing that the British authorities are not engaged in any way in drug-trafficking, or in facilitating drug trafficking in connection with their operations in Afghanistan, and that the British authorities are not supporting drug-trafficking operations known to be conducted by elements of other foreign intelligence and military services operating in Afghanistan.
Manifestly, if other foreign forces operating in Afghanistan are engaged in drug operations, we should be fighting them, or we should not be there at all.
Please be advised that we will unfortunately not be content with a Public Relations bromide response concerning this matter, given that we have information which will be compared with your necessary written reply.
When we last embarked upon an enquiry on this subject by telephone, we were moved around from pillar to post and were more or less fobbed off with some statement about vague international cooperation, which of course missed the point of the enquiry.
So this time round, we are requesting a written response to my address, please.
As taxpayers for 40+ years I and my firm are entitled to know how you are spending our money and whether there is any abuse along the lines outlined here.
We need this for clarification when explaining to our readers what we are supposed to be doing in Afghanistan and in order to dispel well-informed data to the effect that we may be engaged in protecting or facilitating drug operations and distribution.
Self-evidently, ALL government involvement in ‘Black’ drug operations is inexcusable, despicable and Luciferian. Accordingly, they must be exposed.
No doubt you will be as keen to dispel any ‘misunderstandings’ that may exist on this score, as we are. Thank you’.
NO REPLY RECEIVED AT THE DATE OF THIS POSTING
As of this date, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has not had the courtesy either to acknowledge receipt of the foregoing email, or to reply to the issues raised.
The MOD’s website waffles: ‘As you can appreciate, MOD Ministers receive hundreds of letters, faxes and emails every week. Unfortunately, it is not practical for them to respond to all of this correspondence personally. However, all the messages submitted via this web form are read by staff in the Ministry of Defence and Ministers regularly receive reports on the issues raised’.
‘Please note that we cannot reply by email: you must include a postal address in the comments section below’ [which of course the Editor did].
This official text carefully omitted, naturally, to state that every communication would receive a response, let alone be acknowledged. However in view of the gravity of the issues raised in the Editor’s letter, any reasonable person might have assumed that it would have been sensible to respond to this communication, not least since the same reasonable person would be liable to believe that British military power has not been projected in Afghanistan to protect the drug trade.
The tactful procedure in these situations is to presume that official motivations are respectable (which the Editor did not do in this instance).
God forbid, therefore, that they should be criminal. Perish the thought.
Since the British Ministry of Defence has refrained from even acknowledging this enquiry, and more than seven weeks have gone by since the email was sent, the Editor is now ENTITLED, given the MOD’s silence, to draw the following obvious conclusions:
• The British Ministry of Defence could not write to the Editor to deny that our British forces are operating in Afghanistan to defend and help control the heroin poppy crop because that is precisely what they are there for.
• To lie about this would have progressively more devastating consequences for the MOD, given that the families of dead British soldiers would have every incentive to sue the Government for deploying their offspring to Afghanistan on the basis of a false and criminal prospectus.
• The British Ministry of Defence may have decided that it would far be too dangerous to respond at all, given this Editor’s uncomfortable habit of refusing to be bamboozled by officials whose life styles are sustained by the taxes we productive people pay to keep them in the comfort zones to which they are accustomed.
• By adopting this cowardly stance, the MOD laid itself open to the likelihood that the Editor of this service would have to conclude that British military power and resources are most certainly being deployed in Afghanistan to protect the heroin crop, which had been all but closed down when the hated Taliban were in control there.
• And indeed, THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION to be drawn from the MOD’s extreme arrogance on this score. No response AT ALL to the Editor’s letter = a tacit acknowledgment that the Editor’s necessary conclusion is CORRECT.
• FACT: The Editor’s father, the late Colonel Henry Harle Story MC, fought through the whole of the two Illuminati Wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), surviving both.
• FACT: He fought in order to purchase freedom inter alia for the complacent and arrogant officials who inhabit the corridors of the Ministry of Defence, which, given its evidently cowardly decision not to respond to the Editor’s email, has laid itself wide open to the accusation that is repeated here: YOU APPEAR TO BE ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL OPERATIONS the purpose of which may be to hold onto and assure control over the ‘Black’ money flowing from the heroin trade, which is known to be used inter alia to finance ‘Black Ops’ in furtherance of an internationalist agenda that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with BRITISH NATIONAL DEFENCE.
• If you were interested in UK NATIONAL DEFENCE, you and your duplicitous criminalist allies in the corrupt American structures would have CLOSED DOWN the Afghani drug business years ago.
• FACT: The REASON that Britain is flooded with drugs, as was vividly portrayed in the disturbing supplement on this subject published with The Observer newspaper on 16th October 2008, is that GOVERNMENTS, or rogue elements of the corrupt intelligence services thereof (in Britain’s case, Government Operations – 2, or GO-2) ARE THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN THE DRUG BUSINESS.
Now the British Ministry of Defence is identified as PROTECTING THE GLOBAL DRUG TRADE.
It will be interesting, will it not, to see whether the MOD, perhaps stung out of its moral torpor by this report, will SUDDENLY refute this Editor’s accusation, given that this very powerful (thanks to YOUR support) website is making such an extremely serious accusation.
But don’t bet on it. The MOD will probably continue with its policy of pretending that there isn’t a problem. In which case, folks, YOU MAY REST ASSURED that we will be returning to this subject with redoubled outrage and anger in the none too distant future. The Editor’s father didn’t fight through two Illuminati Wars to enable these reprobate officials and political hacks to facilitate the poisoning of our own people with drugs, as appears to be the case. He would be OUTRAGED.
• FACT: On 15th November, the Editor heard an interestingly deceitful weasel ‘rationalisation’ of this issue. It goes as follows: the heroin trade is being kept out of the hands of the Taliban because if it was allowed to fall back into their hands, the war in Afghanistan would continue forever. The only problems with this gross ‘rationalisation’ are that (a) the Taliban almost eliminated the drug trade while it was in control; and (b) the volume of drugs produced by Afghanistan since the United States and Britain arrived there to ‘fight the Taliban’ on the pretext of curbing scope for ‘terrorism’, has, as is universally known, gone through the roof.
• FACT: You will also be aware, to change the subject slightly, that US and UK ‘mainstream’ media outlets, and certain controlled ‘Psy-Ops’ websites that specialise in MARKETING FEAR, continue to speak of Osama Bin Laden in the present tense, and also in the context of rumoured and allegedly intended ‘Osama’ atrocities, notwithstanding that Osama Bin Laden, a.k.a. the CIA’s old asset ‘Tim Osman’, departed this mortal coil on 26th December 2001, as several times reported by this service and long since authoritatively reconfirmed.
• FACT: The reason that this ‘Black’ CIA ghoul is kept ‘virtually’ alive is that if his virtual existence were to be negated for public consumption by acknowledgment of his actual demise seven years ago, VERY GRIEVOUS UNANSWERED QUESTIONS about mass murders would require IMMEDIATE responses: which the two criminal REVOLUTIONARY Governments of the United States and Britain are not about to provide, for fear that certain of their number might deservedly wind up like Stalin’s victims, namely with a bullet through the temples: or should we say, dangling from those notorious lamp posts referenced by the contemporary manifestation of the Devil Incarnate, mega-drug baron, money launderer, giga-financial bandit, practitioner of deception and ‘Black Arts’ on a global scale, double-cross merchant, inventor of the Greenspan-Bush-Clinton Crime Nexus ‘Never-Pay’ Theft Syndrome, CORRUPTER OF THE NATIONS AND THE VATICAN, the destroyer of America, World Revolution gauleiter and murderous Godfather, DVD Chieftain George Herbert Walker BUSH Sr..
REPORTS IN PREPARATION
The Editor has refrained from reporting on the Settlements and associated issues since the end of October for a number of reasons. First, this website is an add-on to our long-established financial, economic and general intelligence publications and books, which take priority at all times.
On returning from the United States in late October, the Editor had to attend to urgent business associated with these publishing activities, which have continued without a break since 1970. In this context, we will very shortly be publishing new issues of the following services:
• International Currency Review [Volume 34, Number 1], on the international financial corruption crisis and its global consequences and evolution, with a detailed events narrative.
• Soviet Analyst [Volume 30, Number 10], which inter alia leads with an article entitled ‘Criminalist ‘blowback’ against the U.S. follows rape of the USSR’.
• Arab-Asian Affairs [Volume 32, Number 4]: ‘ONI Operative Vreeland was correct’ (in respect of his understanding of the underlying causes and sources of the world crisis, although he is a criminal, and extremely dangerous when ‘not on his meds’). Understanding Vreeland presupposes a basic comprehension of how the ‘Black’ US MK-ULTRA-type forces go about the splitting of personalities so as to create operatives who will do their filthy bidding when ‘triggered’.
• The Latin American Times: ‘Belize: Overcoming a bad legacy’, on the interesting developments in this former British Territory, where a new broom has been confronting local (and US) corruption.
Secondly, we have in fact acquired access to sensitive intelligence which will be publicised in a forthcoming report. For various reasons that we cannot go into here, it was deemed appropriate to withhold publication of this information pending certain further developments: and we are close to the end of this period. So, as soon as the new Settlements-related report is ready, it will be posted.
DETAILED REPORT ON THE HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF FRAUDULENT FINANCE
Finally, as previously indicated, our wide-ranging analysis of the US-driven fraudulent finance epidemic has been in preparation for some time.
This is a very demanding task. Specifically, we will be providing a detailed analysis and history of the Credit Default Swap scam and fraud model, from the BCCI operation under the Bush Crime Family, to the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae takeover which was perpetrated in order to obfuscate fraudulent finance operations controlled by the Bush-Clinton ‘Box Gang’ for the ‘benefit’ of their associated slush fund entities headed by A.I.G. and the Carlyle Group.
This important study will explain how the fraudulent finance epidemic developed, and WHY it is fraudulent, beginning with a speech delivered by Bevis Longstreth delivered on 8th April 1983 at the ‘American Assembly’ at Columbia University in New York. That presentation described almost precisely what was intended, and recommended the fraudulent finance model that ensued.
Our report will further expose the routine use of deceptive terminology to obfuscate fraudulent transactions. The originator and expert consultant for this project is the US Securities Markets expert Michael C. Cottrell, B.A., M.S., with editing, elaboration, publishing and marketing skills added by the Editor of this service and our printing, publishing and global distribution resources. The report is expected to be published in the New Year.
It will be made available to our paid-up subscribers, and will also be available, when paid for but NOT otherwise, to the international financial community generally. This is a commercial enterprise, and we retain our total independence thanks to the fact that we are financed by our subscribers.
REITERATION OF THE STATUTES, SECURITIES REGULATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF WHICH THE CRIMINALISTS, ASSOCIATES AND KEY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE IN BREACH:
LEGAL TUTORIAL: The Steps of Common Fraud:
Step 1: Fraud in the Inducement: “… is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment” Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
Step 2: Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:
• “ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scanter] when it causes injury to another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
• “THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… The elements of actionable deceit are: A false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.
Step 3: Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:
THEFT BY DECEPTION:
• “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.
• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.
• To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Concealment’.
• “FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the object of which is to defraud a creditor, or hinder or delay him, or to put such property beyond his reach…”.
• “Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent or person (entity) making transfer…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Conveyance’.
U.S. SECURITIES REGULATIONS OF WHICH INSTITUTIONS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN BREACH [SEE REPORTS]:
• NASD Rule 3120, et al.
• NASD Rule 2330, et al
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3040
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and SEC Rule 15c3-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3110
• SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and Procedural Rule 8210
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2330 and IM-2330
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-5
• NASD Systems and Programme Rules 6950 through 6957
• 97-13 Bank Secrecy Act, Recordkeeping Rule for funds transfers and transmittals of funds, et al.
U.S. LAWS ROUTINELY BREACHED BY THE CRIMINAL OPERATIVES AND INSTITUTIONS:
• Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
• Anti-Drug Abuse Act
• Applicable international money laundering restrictions
• Bank Secrecy Act
• Conspiracy to commit and cover up murder.
• Crimes, General Provisions, Accessory After the Fact [Title 18, USC]
• Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act
• Economic Espionage Act
• Hobbs Act
• Imparting or Conveying False Information [Title 18, USC]
• Maloney Act
• Misprision of Felony [Title 18, USC] (1)
• Money-Laundering Control Act
• Money-Laundering Suppression Act
• Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
• Perpetration of repeated egregious felonies by State and Federal public employees and their Departments and agencies, which are co-responsible with the said employees for ONGOING illegal and criminal actions, to sustain fraudulent operations and crimes in order to cover up criminalist activities and High Crimes and Misdemeanours by present and former holders of high office under the United States
• Provisions pertaining to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties [H.R. 3723]
• Provisions prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials [F.I.S.A.]
• Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [R.I.C.O.]
• Securities Act 1933
• Securities Act 1934
• Terrorism Prevention Act
• Treason legislation, especially in time of war.
• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.
We are a private intelligence publishing house and have no connections to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’ on this website and in all our marketing material is used for marketing/sales purposes only and has no other connotations whatsoever: see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been solely and exclusively engaged as an investigative journalist, Editor, Author and private financial and current affairs Publisher since 1963 and is not and never has been an agent for a foreign power, suggestions to the contrary being actionable for libel in the English Court.