PJ#092 WALK A CROOKED ROAD WITH THE CROOKS

PJ 92

CHAPTER 7

REC #1 HATONN

TUE., APR. 12, 1994 9:41 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 239

TUE., APR. 12, 1994

APPRECIATION

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to both Dr. John Coleman and Rick Martin. Mr. Martin was able to contact Dr. Coleman who has offered us permission to use anything from his book DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION or other items which we may yet have from his sojourn here. We are grateful for he has done one of the best jobs in the integration of the British within the world ruling systems. This in turn is a total linkage with the British-Khazarian/Zionist power/Bolshevik system.

There are now some massive movements by ones separated out from these groups which will ultimately rise against the established system. Are these going to be friends or enemies? How can you judge? Only by actions and intent--neither side will particularly be solely on the "side of God"--only struggling for greater power over what will be recognized as the anti-Christian forces. The NATIONS involved will be efforting to return power and control to nations and citizens through efforting to topple the massive physical, through political and economic means. There will be a restoration of efforts to reclaim goodly and balanced morality and open information outlets. If you are practicing or support such controlled elements as you now experience--you will perceive the reversal effort to be an invasion and revolution.
If you are of the reclaimers, you will consider it wondrous and for freedom. It most directly depends upon which side and who's side you claim alliance.

Through the evolvement of a return into free choices, however, you will at some point be able to again flourish in places now become all but dead. THAT includes that which you still wish to claim as the greatest power on the globe--the United States of America. If changes do not come soon--you are headed for the trash heap. The reclamation will not be an easy go of it; on the other hand, if you look through the LIES, you can see that it is disaster as we speak.

Again, I wish to honor and thank John Coleman for his gift of sharing. I also wish to thank John (Jr.) for the work presented in the published work and Lena (John's wife) for being sup­portive through these incredible times of hardship.

It may well appear to these people that I am also an enemy as one ponders past expression. No, I found it necessary that attachments and coalition WITH MY ENEMY BE BROUGHT TO ATTENTION--most specifically for the ones USED. There DOES come a time, in addition, when ego gratifica­tion MUST BE PUT ASIDE so that unity in action can be accomplished. THE TRUTH OF GOD SHALL STAND, ALONE IF NECESSARY, INTO INFINITY--THE SMOOTH-TALKING SALESMAN WITH HIS LIES WILL FADE AWAY. IT BECOMES OBVIOUS AS YOU MOVE ALONG AS TO WHICH IS WHICH. I SALUTE (HONOR) HIM WHO CLEARS HIS VISION AND COMES TO "UNDERSTAND" TRUE ENEMY FROM FRIEND.

CHINA'S JUSTICE

Dharma noted on the yesterday (carried on CNN) that an interesting justice was dealt to a businessman in China. He was exe­cuted!! Why? Because he was participant in a business and he had taken less than $400 from the company. It is quite a con­trast to George Green who took $350,000 in CASH (gold coins), moved it to another state and buried it in his yard--while still an active DIRECTOR of the corporation in point--and is still fighting to HAVE IT, even with the sender saying he has it illegally AND unlawfully, not to mention without morals. The sender, in fact, says that the letters Mr. Green is using for his proof of ownership of the gold and the one George stated came with one of the boxes of gold--DID NOT COME WITH ANY BOX OF COINS. Mr. Overton says he NEVER sent any correspondence WITH any of the coin boxes. So, again, Mr. Green--where art thou forked tongue?

But what happens here in the good old Justice system of the U.S.? Mr. Green was ordered by the court to produce the gold for the court--to be held for trial. No police organization has in­vestigated because the parties in POWER in the jurisdictions ordered the investigation to be stopped. Now it resides with the court for security and Green's attorney is petitioning delay of any hearing until at least November because he "has a trial" which he claims need of two to three months to "just" "hear". Everyone else involved in the above mentioned trial--claims there is no way under the sky to take more than two weeks--even by doing a lousy job of it.

Green has tied up the books until January, 1995 before a hearing is established. Good! That will certainly justify the claim that the books in point ARE OF NO VALUE BUT ACTUALLY A BURDENSOME EXPENSE TO THE INSTITUTE. The In­stitute will go for the full "note" from America West(s) and Greens for there is no value in the collateral!

Indeed it is that we believe Mr. Green would be rubbing his neck quite lovingly and nervously if he were in CHINA!

We have just offered "Parts 1 & 2" of Diplomacy by Deception, choosing the segment on "Covert Operations" because that is the topic of our intense input from other resources at present. I urge you readers to avail yourselves of the book in point for the entire volume is priceless and you need the information. I do not yet know how much of the volume we will offer and, again, I ask that you SUPPORT these daring authors who literally have to live without public recognition, address, phones or any semblance of "typical" lifestyle with open friendships, travel or par­ticipation in community--for literal fear of death. Dr. Cole­man's work can be obtained through: W.I.R., 2533 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89706.

Let us continue with this segment under way before we inte­grated other authors into the information bank.

DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION, PART 3.
Dr. John Coleman

QUOTING:

LISTENING POSTS

Two of the biggest and most comprehensive listening posts in the world are located in England and Cuba. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Cheltenham, England, is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to snooping. Although the U.S. Constitution forbids snooping on its citizens, the National Security Agency (NSA), meshes tightly with GCHQ and deceives the people of both nations in their ongoing overall surveillance operations. The U.S. Congress is either unaware of what is going on (unthinkable), or else, very possi­bly, too intimidated to put a stop to such illegal acts which occur every day at NSA.

In addition to its Cheltenham facility, the British government eavesdrops on the telephone conversations of its citizens out of its phone-tapping facility in Edbury Bridge Road in London. Some agreements were made on a diplomatic level which did not, however, make them any less of a deception upon the peo­ple of the countries who signed. UKUSA is one such agree­ment. UKUSA is allegedly working only on military intelli­gence levels, but my source says this is not true. Originally a diplomatic agreement between the United Kingdom and the USA, the pact was broadened to include NATO countries, Canada and Australia.

However, over the last few years it also includes Switzerland and Austria, and now there is evidence that traffic to and from commercial companies is being monitored, even Britain's EEC partners, Japan, South Africa and Iran. MI-6 has a separate department for economic intelligence gathering, called the Overseas Economic Intelligence Committee (OEIC). In fact, the expansion of this division is what made it necessary for MI-6 to move from the Broadway Building, which backed on Queen Anne's Gate, to Century Building, near the North Lambeth underground station in London.

The United States now has a new intelligence gathering agency called the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which cooperates with its British counterpart concerning industry, trade, and also industrial security. ISOO works with Interna­tional Computer Aided Acquisitions and Logistic Support In­dustry Steering Group of the United States. Its business con­cerns the regulating of commercial technology.

The Committee of 300 controls these organizations and is the powerful unseen force behind the decision to make British and Swiss mobile cellular phones of the next 256 byte algorithm generation comply with "snooping requirements" of the British and American security services. It is almost certain that only the ASX5 version, with a 56 byte, easier to listen in on the phone, will be allowed. This is one of the methods used by govern­ments to secretly control their people.

In January of 1993, representatives of NSA and GCHQ held a conference at which it was made known that the less complicated ASX5 version only would be allowed. No discussions were held with the U.S. Congress, no open forums, as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. Where A5 hard-to-penetrate phones are already
in existence, they are being recalled for "technical adjustments". The technical adjustment consists of replacing the AS 256 byte chip with an A5Z 509 byte chip.
By this means is illegal snooping becoming increasingly easier to carry out, the American people hoodwinked through diplomacy by deception at many different,
yet interconnected levels.

Even public phones have come under a lot of scrutiny by secu­rity agencies. In New York, for example, under the guise of allegedly "fighting crime", the pay phone system was rigged so that phones could not receive incoming calls. The New York police department felt it could stop public pay phones from be­ing used to transact business, in dope for instance, or prevent organized crime figures form conversing with each other, in private. It didn't work out too well, but there were also suc­cesses.

LATEST TECHNOLOGY

The latest technology is to give all public call phones a special number. In certain countries in Europe, pay phones end with 98 or 99. This allows a quick "fix" on the location of pay phones when they are used for "secure" conversations; only calling from a pay phone is no longer "secure." [H: This is WHY I tell you to be cautious in your conversations and ALWAYS FUNCTION AND SPEAK WITHIN THE LEGAL BOUND­ARIES OF EVERYTHING YOU DO AND SPEAK. BRAIN WAVES CAN NOW BE MONITORED AND SO "THINKING" IS NO LONGER A PRIVILEGED ACT EI­THER. If, however, you act always within that which is functioning around you--AND ALWAYS WITHIN THE TRUTH AND PROOF OF GOD'S, CREATION'S AND MAN'S LAWS, you have a better chance of "making it". As long as you are rabble-rousing--it is sure that sooner or later "they" will catch you and bring down the heavy arm upon you.] In genuine cases, such as where a crime is in progress, or kidnappers call to demand ransom money, this is indeed a very useful tool, but what happens to the privacy of the individual in cases where no crime is involved? Do innocent citizens get their phone conversations snooped on? The answer is a very definite "yes".

The public is unaware of what is going on in America, and Congress appears to have fallen down on the job. None of the potentially damaging surveillance going on over a wide front in this nation is legal, so deception continues unchecked. The Congress seems slow to act when it comes to overseeing spy activities abroad, and is not at all inclined to act against the proliferation of snooping on citizens at home.

This apathy by Congress toward the right to privacy guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution contrasts strangely with concerns whenever external problem areas come up for discussion. CIA director James Woolsey Jr. gave Congress a "threat analysis list", consisting of an evaluation by the CIA of nations who have such items as advanced surface-to-air missiles. Woolsey told Congress that Syria, Libya and Iran have operational cruise mis­siles capable of detecting "stealth" aircraft and threatening U.S. naval forces in the Gulf.

Pakistan is also known to possess such cruise missiles and is the most likely to use them against India, if war should break out. The U.S. government has long sought a diplomatic ploy whereby India and Pakistan are played off against each other. The United States fears that Pakistan might use its rocketry to help Syria and Iran against Israel, and this is very likely to hap­pen if a "Jihad" should erupt. The United States is using every diplomatic deception and covert action to persuade Pakistan not to think about joining forces with Iran in a "Jihad" in which Pakistan would use its nuclear weapons.

COVERT ACTION MOVES FROM THE
PASSIVE INTO THE ACTIVE

Covert Action moves intelligence from a passive to an active role, closely related in nature to the use of force, often times under the cover of diplomacy. In either case, it means action against a foreign government or a group within its borders. The definition of covert activities or special activities set out in Ex­ecutive Order 12333 is meaningless and valueless for two rea­sons:

"Special activities means activities conducted in support of na­tional foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States is not apparent or acknowledged publicly, and functions in support of such activities, but which are not intended to influence the United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media, and do not include diplomatic activities or collection and production of in­telligence or related support actions".

In the first place, executive orders are clearly illegal, as they are proclamations, and proclamations can only be made by kings. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows executive orders. In the second place, it is impossible to stay within the guidelines set out above, even if they were legal. Only the very ill-informed would, for instance, believe that the United States was not behind the downfall of the Shah of Iran, or that the CIA played no role in Iran to influence the United States political processes. In today's world, the CIA would be out of business if it observed Executive Order 12333.

OTHER AVAILABLE WEAPONS

But there are other secret weapons available to the CIA and MI-­6, to which we referred earlier, which can get around any written restrictions at whatever level they are proposed. The system developed at Tavistock is the most widely used one and, as indi­cated earlier, is the best weapon for mass social control and mass genocide, the ultimate objective of people control.

Assassinations are a part of covert activities, although no gov­ernment will ever admit to countenancing murder as a way of solving foreign and domestic policy problems deemed not possible to be solved by any other means. It is not my intention to list all the assassinations that have occurred as a direct result of diplomacy by deception; that would take a book on its own to accomplish. I shall therefore limit my account to recent and well known murders in a diplomatic or political context.

DEADED

The shots that killed Archduke Ferdinand and his wife at Sara­jevo echoed around the world, and are generally accepted as the cause of the First World War, although this is not the case, but a prepared perception for public consumption. [H: Do you not find it interesting that Sarajevo is AGAIN such a hot spot of confrontation?] Tavistock now does "prepared perception" well. British and Russian intelligence were heavily involved in the shootings. In the case of Great Britain, it was a desire to start a war with Germany that was the motivation and, in so far as it involved Russia, the object was to get Russia into such a war, and thereby weaken it for the coming Bolshevik Revolu­tion.

The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Negro civil rights leader, is a case worthy of further examination for it reeks to high heaven of covert activity and diplomacy by deception. The American nation, and more especially, the population, are convinced that James Earl Ray fired the shot that killed King. This is "prepared perception". The trouble with that is no one has yet been able to put Ray in the motel room at that window with the rifle in his hand at 6:01 pm on April 5, 1968.

Ray maintains his innocence, having been set up, he says, by Raoul, a mysterious figure whom Ray had met in Memphis to sell guns. On April 5, at about 5:50 pm. Ray says Raoul gave him $200 and told him to go and see a movie so that he, Raoul, and the arms dealer, when he arrived, could talk more freely than if he (Ray) were present. In examining Ray's claim that he is the "fall guy", let us note the following, which when taken together would appear to support Ray and weaken the King "prepared perception" case.

1) Memphis police officers who were keeping a watch on King stood under the balcony of the Lorraine Motel on which King appeared. One of the officers, Solomon Jones, said he observed a man with his face covered by a white sheet in a clump of bushes opposite, and directly in front of, the balcony. The man was also seen by Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter. Caldwell stated: "He was in a stooping position. I did not see a weapon in the man's hands...." Neither Jones or Caldwell have ever been questioned by any police agency about what they witnessed.

2) Willy Green, a mechanic who Ray asked to fix a low tire on his Mustang, clearly recalls talking with Ray a few minutes before King was shot. The gas station where the incident took place is four blocks from the apartment house on South Main in Memphis where Ray stayed. Ray could not possibly have been in two different locations at the same time.

3) The entry angle of the gunshot was consistent with a shot fired from the clump of bushes referred to by Jordan and Caldwell. It is inconsistent with a shot fired from Ray's window.

4) The alleged rifle used to kill King would have had to have been jammed into the bathroom wall if it was fired from the window. The bathroom was not wide enough otherwise, yet when the FBI examined the bathroom, there weren't any marks on the wall, let alone damage which would have been caused by the rifle butt.

5) When sheriff's deputies ran to the apartment from where they thought the shot had come, there was nothing outside the entrance doorway. Deputy Vernon Dollohite was at the door in less than two minutes after the shot rang out. He told investigators there was nothing lying by the door. Yet, in the few sec­onds while Dollohite went into Jim's Grill, right next door to the apartment, someone left a bundle containing a pair of undershorts--the wrong size for Ray--a pair of binoculars and the hunting rifle wiped clean of prints on the sidewalk near the door.

Ray is supposed to have been able to jump out of the bath in which it is alleged he stood to fire the shot, clean the binoculars and the gun of finger and palm prints, drop them in a bag with some cans of beer (also clean) rush 85 feet down the hall, run down a stairway, get into his Mustang which was parked some distance away--all in the space of the less than the 20 seconds Deputy Dollohite was gone from the apartment door. [H: Stay with us for Ronn Jackson and others will ALSO TELL YOU ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION OF REV. KING.]

6) Ray was somehow able to travel to Canada and England only on the $200 he says he got from Raoul, yet when apprehended, Ray had $10,000 in cash on him. One of the names assumed by Ray was Eric Starvo Galt, a Canadian citizen who bore an amazing resemblance to Ray whose name came up in a top se­cret file. Ray said he found Galt in Canada on his own; no one instructed him or gave him money. The other names that Ray used were the names of people also living in Canada; George Raymond Sneyd, and Paul Bridgman.

7) The register for the rooming house in Memphis vanished and has never been found. The only witness who could connect Ray to the King murder was a drunkard, Charles Q. Stephens, whose wife said her husband was in a drunken state at the time of the shooting and saw nothing whatsoever. At first, Stephens said he saw nothing, then later that evening, he switched to a second version:

"I saw who done it was a nigger, I saw him run out of the bath­room...." Cab driver James McGraw says Stephens was drunk on the afternoon of April 5. Bessie Brewer heard Stephens change his tune and said, "He was so drunk he didn't see anything". A press photographer, Ernest Withers, said Stephens told him that he hadn't seen anything.

No notice was taken of Stephens by any of the investigating agencies, until he suddenly had his memory refreshed after be­ing shown a photograph of Ray by the police. At that point, Stephens said Ray was the man he had seen running from the rooming house. The FBI put Stephens in a hotel at the cost of $31,000 in order to "protect" him, but did not say from whom. However, Grace Walden, the common law wife of Stephens, was mysteriously and forcibly taken to a mental institution in Memphis by an unidentified employee of the Memphis city government. Could it be that Walden could have wrecked the testimony of the government's only witness against Ray?

Walden was held in the institution and her attorney filed a suit against the FBI, the Memphis police and the county prosecutor charging a conspiracy to deprive Walden of her civil rights. Walden has stuck to her story, even under intense pressure to change it; she says Stephens was about to pass out from drinking when the shot rang out. She says she saw a white man without any weapon in his hands leave the bathroom in the rooming house soon after she heard the shot.

8) That Ray's trial was a mockery cannot be disputed. His at­torney, Percy Foreman, in the opinion of many expert lawyers, and in my opinion, turned Judas and got Ray to plead guilty. Foreman had defended 1500 people charged with murder and won nearly all of these cases. Experts say that had Percy not coerced Ray into pleading guilty, due to the lack of evidence, Ray would have been found not guilty. By getting Ray to plead guilty, Foreman accomplished the unthinkable, Ray forfeited his right of appeal for a motion for a new trial; appeals to the Ten­nessee Court of Appeals, appeals to the Tennessee Supreme Court and finally, a review of the case by the Supreme Court. No thinking person would disagree with the verdict of Fore­man's peers, viz., Foreman did Ray a total disservice.

The whole truth about who murdered King will probably never be told and, in this, it has powerful similarities to the murder of John F. Kennedy. There is just too much doubt surrounding the death of King and even the late Jim Garrison, former New Or­leans district attorney, said he believed there is a connection between the King and Kennedy murders, based on what he learned from Rocco Kimball, who made many phone calls to David Ferrie. Kimball says he flew Ray from the U.S. to Montreal. Ray denies this. The other similarity between the Kennedy and King murders is that both were covert operations, most likely sanctioned by very high-level government officials.

9) Ray says he met Raoul in Montreal, Canada after escaping from the Missouri State Penitentiary. (How the escape was ac­complished is also something of a mystery). Apparently Raoul induced Ray to work for him in a number of areas and then en­ticed him back to Alabama. While in Montreal, Ray was looking for false identity papers, and was introduced to Raoul who claimed to be able to meet Ray's need, provided Ray would carry out some assignments for him. Ray says that after a num­ber of meetings, he agreed to work for Raoul.

After several cross-border trips (one such trip was to Mexico), Ray says Raoul wanted him to go to Alabama. After a long dis­cussion, in which Ray says he expressed grave reservations about going to that state, Ray eventually went to Birmingham. Ray did several jobs, delivering packages of unknown content and phoning Raoul from Birmingham quite frequently to get new assignments.

According to Ray, Raoul then told him that his last job was coming up, for which he would be paid $12,000. Again, ac­cording to Ray, he was instructed to buy a high-powered deer ri­fle with a telescopic sight.

10) Ray says Raoul accompanied him to buy a hunting rifle at Aeromarine Supply, and Ray says Raoul later returned alone to the store to exchange the rifle for a Remington 30.06.

11) The Memphis Police mysteriously withdrew King's protec­tion about 24 hours before he was shot, and the seven-man unit stood down. Memphis Police Director Frank Holloman denies ever having given the order for this and claimed that he wasn't even aware that such an order had been issued. On the morning of April 5, 1968, four of the Memphis Police special units were ordered to stand down. No one in the Memphis Police Depart­ment knows where the order came from.

In one of the most mystifying episodes in this unsolved mystery, Edward Redditt, working as a detective in the Memphis Police Department, was lured away from his post by a series of radio messages that subsequently turned out to be false. According to Redditt, he was watching the Lorraine Motel from a vantage point across the street from the Lorraine Motel, where King was staying, when he was contacted on his radio by E.H. Arkin, a lieutenant in the Memphis Police Department. Arkin told Red­ditt to stop his surveillance and return to headquarters.

On arrival, Secret Service agents ordered Redditt to check in at the Holiday Inn in Rivermont, because there was a contract out on his life. Redditt balked, saying he was the only police officer who knew by sight all of the local klansmen and members of King's entourage.

However, he was overruled by Memphis Police Chief Frank Holloman and, accompanied by two police officers, Redditt was driven home to collect his clothes and toilet articles. In a most unusual departure from police procedure, the two officers sat in the front room of Redditt's house, instead of in the car outside. Redditt had not been home for more than 10 minutes when a special emergency radio broadcast announced the murder of King.

12) The Galt wanted poster said that he (Galt) had taken danc­ing lessons in New Orleans in 1964 and 1965, when in fact Ray was in the Missouri State Penitentiary at the time. [H: Hummnn, that Missouri prison system does do a lot of interesting business doesn't it??] Attorney General Ramsey Clark, arriving on the scene after the FBI had pushed all other law en­forcement agencies off the case, declared "all the evidence we have is that it is the work of one man". Why the unseemly haste to announce such a far-reaching conclusion, when the investigation was still in its infancy? Readers will agree that there is just too much working against the belief that Ray shot Martin Luther King.

President George Bush also deserves a special mention. Proba­bly Bush is the most accomplished president ever to conduct diplomacy by deception, and there are many case histories to prove that statement. The problem with Americans is that we believe that the United States Government is more honest, moral and open about its dealings than foreign governments. We have been taught this since childhood. George Bush proved this is a one hundred percent wrong perception.

The scenario for the Gulf War was actually drawn up in the 1970s. This was almost blown wide open by several newspaper articles in which James McCartney reported "A U.S. Secret Agenda". According to McCartney, the secret government of the United States decided early in 1970 to base its policy for the Middle East on the control of oil in the region being wrested from the Arabs. A pretext had to be found to establish a sub­stantial U.S. military presence in that region--but not in Israel.

Robert Tucker, writing in the Jewish magazine Commentary of January 1975, said that the United States must overcome any reticence about armed intervention in other countries and he specifically mentioned the Persian Gulf region in this context. Tucker said what was needed was a preemptive strike to estab­lish control of Middle East oil and not wait for some crisis to pop up before acting.

Apparently one of the architects of this brazen notion was Bush, who followed the beliefs of James Akins, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from October of 1973 to December of 1975. Akins' views formed the basis of the Reagan-Bush administra­tion policies and it is interesting to note that the script, ostensi­bly written by Akins, was followed exactly by George Bush when he engaged America in an illegal war against Iraq.

HENRY KISSINGER--AGAIN!

Subsequent investigations turned up the fact that Akins had merely been reading from a Henry Kissinger script, which Kissinger wrote under the title Energy Security. Kissinger at first advocated a direct assault on Saudi Arabia but the plan was modified and a smaller nation was substituted for Saudi Arabia. [H: Ah yes, but this better suited the British needs and de­posited a LOT of oil and mineral rights directly to the pri­vate BUSH clan.]
Kissinger reasoned that seizing Middle East oil as a preventative measure would be acceptable to the people of the United States and was an idea that could easily be sold to Congress. Ac­cording to my source in Washington, the idea was accepted with alacrity by Bush, who had plenty of experience in deception and his stint at the CIA sharpened his appetite for what some say is his natural bent. The Kissinger Energy Security plan was taken up by Bush and applied to Iraq. There is a strong belief that the quarrel between Iraq and Kuwait over the Al Sabah's theft of oil from the Rumalia oilfields, and the sabotaging of Iraq's econ­omy by underselling the stolen oil below the OPEC price, was worked out by the CIA in conjunction with Kissinger Associ­ates.

[H: And guess what?! Right on cue, Kissinger is this day meddling in the mess of South Africa. Stay alert!]
By pushing Iraq into an open conflict through the treasonous conduct of April Glaspie, Bush saw his plans coming to fulfill­ment. April Glaspie should have been tried for lying to Congress, but this is unlikely to happen. Just when Bush thought he had the game in the bag, King Hussein of Jordan al­most threw a spanner in the works. According to my intelli­gence source, and subsequently confirmed by Pierre Salinger of ABC Television, King Hussein believed that the United States was acting in good faith and would welcome a settlement of the Iraq-Kuwait crisis by peaceful means rather than by armed con­flict.

Proceeding on the basis of his belief in the integrity of the Bush administration, King Hussein called Baghdad and asked Presi­dent Hussein to submit the quarrel to the Arab nations for arbi­tration. King Hussein assured Saddam Hussein that he had the blessing of Washington for such a move. On August 3, the Iraqi military advance toward the Kuwait border was halted so that the proposed arbitration could be given a chance. But Saddam Hussein had one other condition: Egypt's dictator, Hosni Mubarak would have to agree to the arbitration proposal.

King Hussein called Mubarak, who readily gave his assent to the plan. Next, King Hussein called President Bush, who took the call in Air Force I while in route to Aspen to meet Margaret Thatcher, who was sent to deliver the Royal Institute for International Affairs ultimatum that U.S. military forces attack Iraq. According to intelligence sources, partly confirmed by Salinger, Bush was enthusiastic about King Hussein's initiative and promised the Jordanian ruler that the U.S. would not intervene.

But once King Hussein terminated the conversation, Bush called Mubarak and told him not to take part in any inter-Arab arbitra­tion discussions. Bush is reported to have called Thatcher and advised her of his conversation with King Hussein. Like Cham­berlain at the time of Munich, King Hussein was going to find out that a peaceful settlement of the Iraq-Kuwait dispute was the last thing that the American and British governments wanted.

After getting approval from Thatcher, Bush reportedly called Mubarak again and ordered him to do everything possible to de­rail the Arab mediation effort. The payoff, as we now know, came later, when Bush illegally "forgave" Egypt's $7 billion debt to the United States. Bush did not have the constitutional authority to forgive Egypt's debt. With Mubarak violently denouncing the mediation proposals, Bush began making threatening noises against Iraq. It was only a few hours after King Hussein told President Hussein that they had both been de­ceived, that the Iraqi Army crossed the border with Kuwait.

The role of the United States and Britain in starting the war against Iraq is classic diplomacy by deception. While talking peace in the Middle East, our government that we so unwisely trust, had been planning for the war against Iraq since the 1970s. The Gulf War was deliberately contrived in accordance with Kissinger's policy. Thus while Kissinger was not a gov­ernment official, he still exerted great influence over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. [H: Now if you new readers are doubting this information--go back and re-read the jour­nals as presented, along with the references in SPOTLIGHT and a few other presentations--THIS IS NOT NEW NEWS!]

The bombing of Pan Am Flight [103] is another terrible example of covert activity. All the facts are not yet in and, indeed, may never be, but what IS known thus far is that the CIA WAS IN­VOLVED and there were at least FIVE top CIA AGENTS ON BOARD, carrying $500,000 in traveller's checks. There are reports that the CIA actually videotaped the loading of the bag containing the bomb but thus far these reports have not been confirmed by other sources.

END OF PART 3

* * *

This last statement is not still true. There is ample PROOF of the Pan Am Flight 103 downing, and EXACTLY who and why it was destroyed, available and more coming forth as ones who "know" are starting to feel protected enough to come forward. Coleman printed this book a year ago, in addition, and every DAY now great insights and revelations are coming forth. You as readers will simply have to keep updating yourselves con­stantly.

I ask that CONTACT makes sure that Coleman gets regular copies of the paper. Further, I would suggest you offer him a "hearing spot" in same if he would wish to offer comments along the way. His place of living will not be revealed through any sources HERE. I cannot vouch for "others". We are inter­ested only in TRUTH--not the invasion of a man's privacy.

Thank you, I salute you for your inquiring minds which must remain open unto the Light.

PJ 92

CHAPTER 8

REC # 1 HATONN

WED., APR. 13, 1994 9:41 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 240

WED., APR. 13, 1994

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT EASY....

The information is pouring in upon us like chaff from the winnowing fields as we offer the inner workings of the intelligence services and get on with the nitty-gritty of presentations from ones whose work is so dangerous as to be shocking even to those who know real danger. As we move along, however, there are ones who surpass our work in some areas but by and large even in individual instances we HAVE the information, in detail, prior to almost all others. We simply cannot find funds or space to offer it all.

As we speak of covert operations, intelligence involvements in almost every criminal activity and effort to connect these operations with people you recognize--we can't get it ALL to you. We are hoping that by our following three or four authors who KNOW and have accurate information and yet need some of their own missing details filled in, we will give you a back­ground of confirmations enough to help you through that which is coming--even as we write, with the Federal Reserve, the monetary system, the ongoing Zionist takeover and even the involvement of the Russian Mafia.

Rick Martin, Nora Boyles and, today, Soltec are helping us out so that Dharma and I can stay focused on our subject as well as possible. We have people overseas who are under direct threat of murder and this gives cause for interruptions which negate ability to stay right on the subjects at hand. Readers "IT" is un­der-way! I can only urge you precious readers to remain with­out panic in all circumstances--there are no major changes--only the realization of the happenings.

You MUST not stop paying close attention to signs and happenings of natural appearing instances. Every time you have a claimed Shuttle in orbit--WATCH IT! Today you in the U.S. sent up a satellite which had been delayed for two years (really??) and things are heating up in man-made activities. You are mapping by radar and sonar? I don't think so, readers! Now, you have Krakatoa erupting and this has the capability of blowing out the entire island structure around it. The monitors and publicity agents are again talking about the "Big One" on the San Andreas along with possible total destruction of major parts of the West Coast--is any of this possible? YES! More­over, to bring you all into line is easily accomplished if YOU are completely helpless. These are, however, only CLUES and SIGNS of the overall. Note that the big dog, Kissinger and a bigger wig from England are in South Africa passing out ultima­tums.

It is an unfolding time of attending carefully through introspection your own choices and handling your public involvements and activities most CAREFULLY.

There are a few things I wish to share with you today before moving on to the work regularly under way these days. One is reference to another book which again confirms positively the involvement of CIA and politicians in criminal activities such as financial frauds and theft and drugs. The book itself was signed for, similar to Ronn Jackson's material, by a big publisher--for the express purpose of burying it. It has been published, how­ever, and I can't advise you as to where you can get it "generally" but I do know that you can get it through Criminal Politics Book Club for $23.95, shipping and handling included. (1-800-543-0486). It is called THE MAFIA, CIA & GEORGE BUSH, By Pete Brewton. I would share with you a write-up about the volume in an advertising of CRIMINAL POLITICS. The short review is presented by a prize-winning journalist.

Why do I not just tell you to get some of the early Journals and save your money because we wrote of things like Zapata Oil (Bush) moving drugs in through off-shore rigs, etc., several years ago? Because somehow I seem to represent a threat to you readers--you have difficulty making anyone pay attention to my presentations. So, you have wasted some three to seven years and finally when it is all but too late to take action, WHAM, "new" evidence is presented. I don't care, readers, if someone else can reach through to your sensitive eyes and ears--we will push the work as hard as we can. Will there be errors in each presentation? OF COURSE! You are unfolding history--each one will not have ALL--it requires a coalescence of the many and from that you will have ability to discern truth and through that truth--you will be able to decide action.

I still push volumes such as The Conspirators' Hierarchy (300)... by Coleman, however, because it goes further back up the line to the BRITISH and the East India Company. Do plan to work on your homework, readers--the time for letting "someone else do it...." is long since past.

THE MAFIA. CIA & GEORGE BUSH
by Pete Brewton

QUOTING:

Historically, the Central Intelligence Agency has been involved in drug movement with connections in the highest levels of the agency. In a shocking new book published by SPI books entitled The Mafia, CIA & George Bush, the story of exactly how drugs were brought into this country is told. [H: These new editions from "inside sources" will only confirm that which Mullins and other daring outspoken ones such as Ezra Pound and, yes, Coleman--have already given you. But YOU seem to need endless confirmations before you can ac­cept possibilities.]

....As director of the CIA, George Bush was well aware that drug money was the primary source of money to fund CIA covert or clandestine operations. Of course, he was not briefed on the specifics of most missions, but he still knew the overall operational methods for the CIA. After all, Mr. Bush did rise through the ranks from the CIA field agent to become director in 1976.

Along with benefiting from the drug money, many influential individuals such as George Bush and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, both from Texas, also received ill-gotten gains from the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression--the Savings & Loan crisis. It happened very quietly, without any fanfare or atten­tion. It happened before our very eyes, and we didn't even know it.

A small cabal of conspiracy-connected businessmen realized that S&L's were going the way of the dinosaurs. They recog­nized the institutions couldn't survive under rapidly increasing inflation and high interest rates, so they decided to exploit the situation for their own purposes.

These men believed themselves to be invulnerable because of help from the CIA and--their favorite politicians. They fig­ured that the insulation and protection of powerful institutions and individuals, in addition to all their endemic protections within the financial, judicial, political and journalistic systems would conceal their crimes. In most cases they were probably right. Unlike Watergate and the Iran Contra scandal, this was a bipartisan scandal. There WAS no opposing party to push for an independent investigation. [H: I will refer later to these "independent", and otherwise, investigations as set up by the very perpetrators.]
It is interesting to note that much of the borrowed S&L money went to the St. Joe Paper Co. owned by the Du Pont empire, one of the richest and most powerful bastions of wealth in this country. [H: Gosh, do you think the Du Ponts could have any association with the Committee of 17?]

The evidence uncovered is clear, convincing and compelling that the CIA participated in the nation's S&L debacle. Some of the richest and most powerful people in the country did business with the participants and profited from the S&L crisis. I will name many of them in my book.

These S&L's were also used to launder drug money, which was brought illegally into this country. One of the guises used was real estate schemes. Money could be placed into an S&L by a middleman broker, who could then secure loans to people based on deposits. Not only was the money laundered, but many high-ranking CIA and government officials received loans for their personal ventures at very low interest rates. I name them!

I was surprised to learn the drug story even touches CRIMINAL POLITICS Magazine's home base. A famous Cincinnati billionaire by the name of Carl Lindner has some interesting connections to this puzzle of drugs. Although allegations of CIA connections to Lindner waft around him, nothing has ever been proven.

What I do know is that Lindner owns the Ocean Reef Club, which is on the north end of Key Largo. On March 10, 1984, four U.S. representatives, Thomas Foley
(D-Wash.), Dante Fascell (D-Fla.), Edward Boland (D-Mass.) famous for the Boland Amendment, and Jim Wright, (D-Texas) and Speaker of the House, MET AT LINDNER'S CLUB IN FLORIDA. Oliver North was also present at this meeting and noted in his diary that President Bush WAS THERE, along with another man with the initials of H.A.K. THE ONLY PERSON LISTED IN THE IRAN-CONTRA CHRONI­CLE WITH THE INTHALS H.A.K. IS HENRY KISSINGER! No friends of Reagan were present!

Of the congressmen that met together, all would later serve on the House elect committee to investigate arms transactions with Iran. Boland became the chief sponsor of the Boland amendment, which prohibited the CIA and U.S. Government agencies from providing military support to the Contras. James Wright would later resign under a cloud of improprieties relat­ing to the Savings and Loans and other matters.

Cincinnatians may be interested to know--that during the presidency, George Bush often went fishing off the coast at the Ocean Reef Club. Carl Lindner was one of George Bush's largest donors. During the 1980s, the Lindner family con­tributed nearly $850,000 to Republican coffers....

END OF QUOTING.

I do believe you would find this an interesting book. You must also realize all along this pathway that Bush and Bentsen are two peas from the identical pod and, being Secretary of the Trea­sury, Bentsen wields tremendous POWER--remember--HE IS PAID BY THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND--NOT THE U.S.!

WHAT ABOUT THAT "AMES" CASE?

Well, THAT is a good one because it is all entangled with the government, the CIA and DRUGS! Even your FBI has charged the CIA with cover-up from the mid-80s when the Ameses so-called, defected. There is no question as to how and what the Ameses were doing--they were getting incredible amounts of money (cash) from drugs and it had nothing to do with espi­onage. Wake up sleepy-heads.

CIA work shifted to "narcotics" in the 1980s and it is time you realize it.

What is even more interesting to you who pay taxes and do without--there is an unimagined amount of money held by the Ameses and yet there has been no interest from the IRS--WHO KNEW ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSITS AND NEVER DID A THING. So what do you REALLY have out of the Ames mess? Well you will have another incredibly larger set of scandals because your laws don't make it automatically OK to launder money or deal in drugs for anyone--not even the CIA.

But maybe Clinton is NOT involved? Perish the thought be­cause if you are naive enough to think Billy is innocent--better check out Hillary! When the Whitewater disclosure hits truthville--Whitewater itself will be the least of any of Clinton's troubles.

WHO INVESTIGATES THESE THINGS?

The same ones who perpetrate the crimes! Robert Fiske, the independent prosecutor in this little play is deeply involved in cover-up politics. Specifically, Robert Fiske is a law partner of Lawrence Walsh, the individual who ran up over $30 mil­lion in bills for the American people investigating Iran-Con­tra--to no avail other than to find that Bush was uninvolved in October Surprise and such other cute two-stepping lies.

Get this one, though: It so happens that Mr. Fiske represented Clark Clifford, the leading Democratic power broker who worked for the CIA, drug-laden BCCI.
Mr. Fiske was able to get the venerable Mr. Clark Clifford off without so much as a hand-spank or a scratch, in spite of obvious violations in, if nothing else, banking statutes.

The Democratic Party therefore owed a debt of gratitude and let him receive the publicity and whatever fees are generated for his law firm in connection with Whitewater. Don't we just wish we had some lawyers on OUR side, like that? He won't have to DO anything except work with the other insiders and allow nothing to happen.

A retired Supreme Court Justice in Arkansas has laid it all out and has gone public through video tape [along with Larry Nichols who is a former marketing director of Arkansas Devel­opment Financial Authority {ADFA}] regarding the criminal activities of both Bill and Hillary [to order call Clinton's Circle of Power 1-800-253-8273]. He is Judge James Johnson. He has given PUBLIC testimony which was instantly buried.

You think I jest? Well, Mr. Fiske proves his loyalty to the criminals in point. The Dow Jones organization openly charged Mr. Fiske with a massive cover-up in its editorial of March 14, 1994. The Wall Street Journal said Fiske is doing "all he can do" to block legitimate inquiries from the press and Congress. Well, they are in it also so I'm sure it is far more political on the part of "DJ" than meets the eye. The editorial did cite a lawsuit which can be checked out, Dow Jones vs. the Department of Justice. The suit is to obtain reports on the death of Vince Fos­ter under the Freedom of Information Act. You see, people, even nice people who might work for the Wall Street Journal are getting suicided all over the place--along with Vince Fos­ter. This, readers, is a DIRECT VICTIMIZATION BY THE WORLD ZIONIST CONSPIRACY! IT IS NOW PUBLICLY RECOGNIZED REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ADL TRIES TO PREVENT COMING FORTH.

To add to the recognition that Fiske is a cover-agent it is noted that Bentsen was caused to testify, and what were the results? Mr. Fiske's response to this lawsuit has been to simply stonewall--across the board--and refuse to release anything. Mr. Fiske's crusade against congressional hearings has become an all-purpose shield for the president's staff. When the subject was raised at a House committee hearing, the WSJ reported that Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen replied--"On the ad­vice of
Mr. Fiske, the special counsel, I refuse to answer". So guess what this is technically? It is nothing more than the entire staff, Clintons and the Cabinet members are taking the Fifth Amendment on instructions of this "independent coun­sel". Moreover, Mr. Fiske himself refuses to answer any personal questions AT ALL. Thank you, Janet Reno, for another superb job of criminal action!

Is Hillary guilty of something or other or is it just "mean" politics? Hillary ORDERED ALL THE PAPER SHREDDING and started the shred-mill going all the way back in 1992! She is simply going to find that other "criminal politicians" are not stupid in the blackmail game--MOST OF THE STUFF WAS NOT "ACTUALLY" DESTROYED AND WILL COME FORTH TO GIVE A BAD HEADACHE.

The things being talked about are the mere tips of icebergs so don't get upset over commodities income, etc. There are some REALLY BIG "KEATING 5" TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN THIS BOX OF WORMS.

FISKE WILL UNCOVER NOTHING

It is a guarantee that Fiske will allow nothing uncovered: His own law firm represented the International Paper Co., which originally sold the property to Whitewater Development (Oops!). This in itself should have put Fiske OFF the consider­ation list
--by his own integrity (of which he has none). This, with being a law partner of Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra matter is twice reason enough.

So what happens to ones who "know something"? Well, it is pretty simple--suicide them. We have here a paper which was sent which was put together by Chuck Harder (radio) with Linda Thompson and we offer it to you readers as you might well find it quite interesting.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED SINCE BILL CLINTON

TOOK OFFICE WHICH ARE OF INTEREST

1. July 30, 1992, Victor Razor, 52, Alaska, Nat'l financial Co-chairman of Clinton Campaign, and his son, Mont­gomery Razor, 22, also very active in the campaign, were both killed in a private plane crash in Dillingham, Alaska. [H: Perhaps it is wise that George Green didn't take the job of financial chairman for the Carter campaign as he claimed he was asked to do. It seems the Carters and the Clintons are relatively un­safe PARTNERS.]

2. September, 23, 1992, Little Rock, Ark. Paul Culley, a Clinton campaign aide, Democratic Nat'l Committee po­litical director. He was the architect of Clinton's strategy which allowed him to be competitive in the electoral vot­ing. He was found dead in his hotel room of unknown causes. He was 48. Heart attack speculation. But noth­ing known.

3. Dec. 9, 1992, Monticello, Ark., Paula Gilbert, 36, trav­elled with Clinton as governor and during campaign. She was killed in a one car accident and the police said there were no witnesses and no reason for the accident.

4. Dec. 21, 1992, Aspen, Colo., Jim Willhite, Arkla execu­tive, 54. He was a close friend and bus. assoc. of White House Chief of Staff and a friend of Clinton. He suppos­edly ran into a tree while skiing and died. Mat McCarty used to work with Clinton at the Rose Law Firm along with Bubble and Hillary. McCarty was the last person to speak to Jim W. and was also an executive of Arkla, a multi-state natural gas co. and had dealings with the same banks that are now being investigated in Ark.

5. Bonn, Germand. Major General Jarrett J. Robertson, 52, deputy Commanding General of V Corps died when his UH-60 Blackhawk copter crashed as it tried to land at Weisbaden, Germany Air Base. Also killed was William J. Ginsburg (chief of ops), Col. Robert Kelly (chief of intelligence), and crew chief Gary Rhodes. Robertson was responsible for the First Armored Division which played a key role in the Bosnia peace-keeping plan along with the carrier Roosevelt. He was an opponent of the Bosnia "plan". Several people that are dead were Clin­ton's escorts on the carrier, the only time he was there. Five people are dead who were associated with Clinton's only visit to that carrier. His escorts and the people in­volved with the planning of the troop movements. Five of the escorts, Navy aviators, were killed when their ETUC Hawkeye early-warning plane crashed into the sea. They were waved off because of a supposedly rough sea and pitching deck and then "somehow" crashed.

6. 4 agents killed in the Waco were Clinton's bodyguards: Conway, Bleu, McKeen and DeWillis. They often use ATF agents as bodyguards during campaigns. All of these were out of the Little Rock, Ark. area, and had guarded Clinton when he was Gov.
Each of these agents had one wound to the left temple that blew out the back side of their heads, just like an execution. Each one of them had an identical wound to the left temple.

7. 4 presidential helicopter crewmen, Marines, Sgt. Haines, 32, Major Barclay, Sgt. Sable, Capt. Reynolds. These 4 did not usually fly together. They were the four that flew Clinton TO THE carrier Roosevelt.

8. June 22, 1993, Paul Witcher, DC lawyer who was investigating many of the same things that Linda Thompson was investigating. He had talked to the same people. And people who talked to him then sought her out. Some of these were gov't. agents and not very good guys. He also talked to a producer who also talked to Linda T.
He was found in his apartment, no known cause of death. He had written a 99-page letter to Janet Reno some 3 weeks earlier detailing CIA drug running, mind control used on Branch Davidians. He was concerned about the death of reporter D. Casolaro, who was investigating the theft of a computer program [Inslaw] by the DOJ. He was also murdered but not in relation to the Clinton body count.
[H: Forget this old hog-wash. And someday, some of the self-styled reporters are going to realize WE DO HAVE information which might save them egg-covered faces. Gunther Russbacher had just sent [to Witcher] a full set of disclosure tapes, video tapes, etc., of the Bush escapades--and they certainly DID relate to the drug trade, CIA involvement and other "goodies". This was
a close personal friend, as well, of Russbacher.]

9. In July 1993, the death of Vincent Foster. [H: ALL the representations of Foster's death are erroneous except the one offered right in CONTACT by one who KNEW the details right from the horse's (gunman's) mouth.]

10. The Health Reform Committee Chairman and its attorney. Stanley Heard, a chiropractor from Hot Springs, Ark. had met Clinton playing pinball years ago. Steve Dixon, the lawyer, was the advisor on the health reform issues. Both were killed on a plane. The men had rented a plane which developed mechanical problems on the way to DC. They rented another one in St. Louis and it crashed. Shortly after takeoff he said there was a fire on board; that was the last heard. You have to work to crash a small plane in such circumstances.

11. Nov. 30, 1993, Ed Willy, Clinton fund raiser, a prominent real estate lawyer and land developer, a hunter, sports­man. He was found dressed in a suit in the deep woods with no suicide note. He had a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound to the head just like V. Foster's. His wife works regularly for Hillary. He had substantial debts for some time and the news connected these two items as excuse for his "suicide". This is not true.

12. Hershel Friday, an attorney from Little Rock, Ark. He too had been a Clinton fund raiser. He was killed in a single-engine plane accident. Details not known.

13. Jerry Parks, Clinton's director of security in Ark. He was found dead, riddled with bullets, alongside a road in Jacksonville, Ark. Suicide? How did he shoot himself multiple times? There was some effort on follow-up to make it appear to be a random-crime shooting.

So there appear to have been at least 29 confirmed deaths with 12 of those being Clinton's body guards.

Thank you, Chuck and Linda.

* * *

CHINA

Since we have in the past written on the possibilities of China involvements I want to leave you with a serious and sobering thought regarding human rights, favored nation trade, etc.

Know that Christopher's China visit was prearranged well in advance.

You must be very clear about who is in charge of the foreign policy of your nation
--especially as regards China at this mo­ment. Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagle-burger are going to sink well over a BILLION DOLLARS into China THIS SPRING. This is being set up and orchestrated through Kissinger Associates and these three PLUS Christopher meet weekly at Kissinger Associates. The trade conflicts be­tween China and the U.S. are fully orchestrated. Believe us when we suggest that the New World Order WILL NOT WANT HUGE TARIFFS ON THEIR IMPORTS!

So what will be reflected? Long, long-time Kissinger associate Maurice "Ace" Greenberg, chairman of American International Group, is set to take full advantage of the depressed prices now emerging as seen from the Hang Seng Index from sharp sell-off in prices in the Hong Kong stock market (which actually repre­sents the Chinese mainland). What is going to be done? Along with other things there will be set up a new billion dollar closed-end investment fund established to make equity investments in INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN CHINESE-RELATED MARKETS.

Readers, make no mistakes here--it is going to be very, very difficult to topple this Zionist New World Order. The vipers have a tooth-hold in your very carotid arteries and are pumping in the venom. May you somehow come to your senses before the final act is over. May God have mercy as you stumble around trying to light your candles that you may be able to see.

Let us close this writing and we will return to our other projects under way. Thank you.

PJ 92

CHAPTER 9

REC #2 HATONN

WED., APR. 13, 1994 12:54 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 240

WED., APR. 13, 1994

ON THE RUSSIAN 'FRONT'

I said some time ago that I would share with you a reprint from FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 1994 issue. Why would it be important? Because you have no REAL idea of what is actually going on in Russia these days. You are handed stories on silver platters according to what you are supposed to see and hear and you can't tell one end from the other in Russia. The Govern­ment is still run by the Bolsheviks (Khazarian Zionists--"Jews" by "their" terminology). This is the same "group" that also runs your nation and many, many other nations. There is, however, upheaval and a desire on the part of the "freedom" seeking Russians to again effort to overthrow that Bolshevik element. Along with that comes the high-riding criminal elements which are also networked across the nations--the so-called Mafia (In Russia called the Mafiya).

In a time of supposed terrible hardships on the Russian people from all of the old East Bloc nations--comes the fact that well over $25 BILLION have been brought out of Russia and into Western Bankster systems. This is no small patty-cake dealing, readers, THIS IS BIG TROUBLE AND IT IS CONNECTED TO YOUR OWN BIGGER TROUBLE!

The article we will offer here is very good in explanation value. It has been sent to us by a reader in Missouri. I am going to give credit to the publication and to the author of the article in point. We are told that since this will be placed in a valid "newspaper" that we can use the material--IF we present it in full so that "context" is not subject to our own interpretation. We are very pleased to do so as it would detract from the investigating journalist's own summary to try to simply offer tid-bits of some sort. I SIMPLY CAUTION YOU TO READ THIS WITH ONE EYE OPEN TO THE FACT THAT MUCH OF IT IS NOT ACCURATE BUT IT IS THE TREND WHICH IS NOTABLE. YOU ALSO MUST REALIZE THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH CHINESE MAFIA AS WELL--THE POINT IS THAT IT IS NOW WORLD-WIDE, OUT OF CONTROL, CONTROLLED IN MANY INSTANCES BY THE AGENCIES SET FORTH FOR CONTROL AND, THUS, YOU WILL ALL PAY DEARLY.

The article is entitled: The Russian Mafiya. It is presented by Stephen Handelman.
Mr. Handelman is a Visiting Scholar at Columbia University's Harriman Institute. He was Moscow Bu­reau Chief of the The Toronto Star from 1987 to 1992. He is in the process of completing a book on the subject of Russian crime so this is but a token of his work. He states: "I have spelled "Mafiya" using its Russian phonetic translation in order to distinguish it from its Western counterpart. All figures cited in this article, except where otherwise noted, come from the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs. Since facts about orga­nized crime are still largely unpublished, much of the material presented here is based on private interviews with leading police officials, politicians and gangsters themselves".

To subscribe to FOREIGN AFFAIRS: U.S., $38.00, Canada $47.00, other countries via air $68.00 per year. Write Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235.

THE RUSSIAN 'MAFIYA'
by Stephen Handelman

QUOTING:

POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS

Organized crime is the most explosive force to emerge from the wreckage of Soviet Communism. The so-called Russian Mafiya has undermined reform, spawned extraordinary levels of violence in major cities, and helped fuel a growing ultranationalist backlash. Although it is considerably less organized than its Western counterparts, and for that reason often misunder­stood or underestimated in the West, Russia's crime syndicate constitutes a serious threat to post-Soviet democracy.

The "Mafiya", Russian-style, is a hydra-headed phenomenon that feeds on the emerging market economy. Between 3,000 and 4,000 gangs operate in Russia, including several hundred whose activities span the territory of the Commonwealth of In­dependent States and cross the old Soviet borders in Central Eu­rope and the West.

The definition of Russian organized crime is sometimes stretched for domestic political purposes. Police and politicians still fall into the Soviet habit of ascribing Mafiya connections to anyone who possesses what seems an unreasonable amount of money. Total active gang membership in Russia is estimated at less than 100,000 people. Nevertheless, the hazy boundary between criminal and legal business activity has allowed Mafiya groups to penetrate most areas of the Russian economy, giving them disproportionate influence.

According to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), organized crime controlled as much as 40 percent of the turnover in goods and services by 1993. Few entrepreneurs can expect to remain in business for long without being asked to pay money or provide shares in their companies to gun-toting "protectors". In the absence of government regulation, criminal cartels have infiltrated banks, real estate markets, stock ex­changes and even the rock music industry. Meanwhile, more traditional criminal pursuits have transformed the economy of regions like Central Asia, which is fast becoming the newest hub of the world narcotics trade. Most unsettling of all, perhaps, is the involvement of organized crime groups in the marketing of stolen Red Army weapons, which then turn up in the . ethnic quarrels on Russia's southern borders.

What makes the Russian Mafiya distinctively menacing is its connection to key sections of the government bureaucracy. No criminal enterprise of this complexity could have succeeded without the support and encouragement of officials at every level. According to government investigators, more than half the country's criminal groups in 1992 had ties to government. A number of cartels are fronts for the former Soviet elites--the "nomenklatura capitalists", who have shed their party cards en route to becoming wealthy monopoly financiers. Mounting evi­dence indicates that nomenklatura capitalists use organized crime groups as instruments in the fierce struggle over the spoils of the former Soviet Union: the industries, banks, defense facil­ities, ports and factories once exclusively controlled by the Communist Party.

In one notorious 1992 case, Chechen mobsters were intercepted in an attempt to swindle about $350 million from private banks in Moscow and other cities by using promissory notes, a form of interbank transfer inherited from the Soviet era. [H: Could the "Chechen" actually refer to the CHEKA which is that incredibly vicious and dreaded Bolshevik secret police apparat and military intelligence which was the forerunner of the GRU? Do not be naive enough, readers, to believe that just by the change of a name or initials that much of anything ACTUALLY changes.] Four employees of the Rus­sian State Bank were later accused of supplying the false promissory notes to the Chechens in return for a cut of the prof­its. Profit may not have been their only motive. The president of the country's largest commercial banking association believes the inspiration for the swindle came from senior Finance Min­istry officials determined to undercut private commercial bank­ing activity. Crime in the post-Soviet era, in other words, is often a continuation of politics by other means.

THE GREENING OF RED GANGS

To understand the Russian Mafiya's role in the nation's political wars, a brief look back is useful. Russia's criminal underworld has an impressive history. Societies of smugglers, thieves and highwaymen existed on the margins of national life for centuries. In the late tsarist era, outlaw bands were glam­orous symbols of struggle against landowners and the oppressive state. The traditional gang structure, fortified by a code of honor and rituals that discouraged outsiders, became a model for the early Bolshevik clandestine organizations.

The future founders of the Soviet state not only admired the gangs' antiestablishment ethos. They also secured employment for them in the revolution. Bandits were recruited for so-called expropriations--bank heists and kidnappings--carried out in or­der to raise funds. The young Josef Stalin counted gang leaders among his closest associates, eventually recruiting some of them into his secret police. After the establishment of Soviet power, members of the criminal underworld were used as enforcers and informers against political dissidents in the gulag prison system.

But the most profitable form of cooperation emerged in the 1960s with the rise of the black market. Soviet gangsters acted as unofficial middlemen in the "gray" and "black" economies, circulating privately produced goods or state materials with the tacit cooperation of factory managers and apparatchiks. At the same time, the archaic structure of the old Russian gang began to change. Large criminal organizations surfaced in many Rus­sian cities, led by mob chieftains known as vory v zakonye (thieves in law), who ran the equivalent of territorial monopolies in trade. As traditional underworld proscriptions against in­volvement with authorities weakened, many mob leaders began to operate in tandem with government officials in their regions. By the close of the Soviet era, more than 600 vory populated the length and breadth of the Soviet Union.

Communist authorities themselves, however, took second place to no one in criminal behavior. During the 1970s and 1980s, scandals such as the Cotton Affair, in which party bosses in Uzbekistan raked in huge profits by falsifying production re­ports, revealed a previously unsuspected talent for larceny be­neath the puritanical exterior of the Soviet leadership. Russians first began to use the word "Mafiya" in those decades to de­scribe the vast networks of corruption lurking inside regional and central ministries.

Perestroika did little to break the power of these networks. In fact, it brought various criminal strands of Soviet life together. "Perestroika was the real beginning of organized crime in our country," said one senior MVD investigator, a comment others repeated dozens of times. The secret wealth accumulated by underground tycoons and party barons found a legitimate outlet when the government expanded the permissible area of private commerce. Black and gray money poured into the stock exchanges, joint ventures, cooperatives, banks and joint stock companies that were otherwise celebrated abroad as harbingers of economic reform. At the same time, party bodies (and the KGB) quietly siphoned funds to trading companies and export-import firms that were being positioned to take advantage of the widely anticipated new era of "market socialism". Russian en­trepreneurs who tried to operate by the rules found it impossible to survive in the face of both official and criminal competition. By the late 1980s, according to Russian analysts, the majority of small cooperative businesses established during perestroika was either controlled by or heavily in debt to criminal elements.

The stage was thus set for the shifting alliances and violent struggles that have come to characterize modern Russian orga­nized crime. Russian mobsters have been as unwilling as their political counterparts to abide by the rules of compromise and consensus required of large organizations. This diffusion of Mafiya power across the country has had a devastating effect. Gangland murders, bomb explosions, kidnappings and gun bat­tles have become part of daily life in dozens of Russian cities. This increased violence has been the most visible sign of un­derworld competition for a stake in the new economy--and of a criminal sophistication beyond anything seen before in Russia.

The Russian gang is arguably the only Soviet institution that benefitted from the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Once the powerful party machine that administered the old empire fell apart, the 15 new nations that emerged represented easy pickings for criminals who perceived the entire Eurasian continent as their natural domain. For instance, the smuggling trade flourished as enor­mous quantities of copper, zinc and other strategic metals were shipped from central Russia in unmarked trucks or military air­craft to Baltic ports and then to Scandinavia or Western Europe. The smugglers took brilliant advantage of the Commonwealth clash of sovereignties: products stolen from a Russian factory were regarded as legal goods the moment they left Russia's bor­ders. So much illicit metal from Russian defense factories passed through Estonia on its way overseas--an estimated half a million dollars' worth a day in 1992--that the tiny Baltic republic earned the distinction of being one of the world's largest ex­porters of finished metal without operating a single metal plant.

Smuggling profits have formed the foundation of postcommunist Mafiya wealth and the basis for the working cooperation between criminals and the nomenklatura. By the time Com­monwealth governments awoke to the dangers created by their porous borders, and hastily began signing (largely ineffective) customs treaties, the income from the illicit trade in Soviet re­sources was being plowed into real estate, privatization vouchers and financial institutions. It soon became difficult to separate the gangs from their government patrons.

Russian authorities readily acknowledge that the mixture of unbridled capitalism, organized crime and official chicanery had produced a crisis of governance. A frustrated Boris Yeltsin said last year that mob activity had "acquired such scale and charac­ter" that it threatened the future of the Russian state. He com­plained it was destroying the economy, destabilizing the political climate and undermining public morale. "Crime", he con­cluded, "has become problem number one for us". It was im­pressive rhetoric. But it sounded, unfortunately, like an admis­sion of defeat.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

There has been much bluster in the Russian Parliament about crime prevention but, since casting aside communist rule in 1991, Russia's new leaders have failed to adopt any significant measures to curb organized crime. What's more, the reformers' most substantial achievements--demolishing the last vestiges of the police state and lifting most restrictions on private owner­ship--have had the perverse effect of creating the perfect envi­ronment for Mafiya growth.

Russian policymakers committed a fundamental mistake: they tried to develop a free market before constructing a civil society in which such a market could safely operate. As a result, busi­nessmen, politicians and law enforcement agencies suffer at the mercy of the lingering ideological prejudices of Soviet jurispru­dence. Many activities that are required for a market economy to function remain illegal or unprotected by legislation; other activities that are considered unlawful according to Western norms, such as organized crime, are not specifically prohibited.

Under the existing system, police may arrest a group of felons caught in a criminal act, but the lack of Western-style conspiracy laws means police cannot prosecute the mastermind if he or she stays off the scene. Under Soviet law, "racketeering" was considered a capitalist concept and therefore inapplicable to Soviet reality. [H: I wonder how long it will take for you-the-U.S. citizen to come into REALITY that you will have been shattered into typical Soviet type areas wherein no typical laws of any Constitution will apply as you have known them. Some states within the U.S. are really making an effort to regain sovereignty--but it is hard and you should look to Colorado this day as to how you might be going about reestablishing such sovereignty. This will not even begin to guarantee that you will survive intact but it will give you some kind of a pattern for action as other things come to the surface.] On the other hand, making a profit--"speculation," a serious offense under the old Soviet criminal code--remains an ambiguous area for post-Soviet law enforcement. Provisions for settling disputes between private companies have yet to be clarified, and no guidelines yet exist for establishing contracts or declaring bankruptcy. Russia has no independent judiciary and no way of tackling more sophisti­cated varieties of white-collar crime. Current laws offer no means of impounding the records of fraudulent companies or checking the criminal provenance of bank accounts. Even if such provisions existed, their enforcement would be doubtful. Russian policemen are so poorly equipped that some pursue criminals by bus and taxi. In such an environment, it is no wonder that crime flourishes.

Several ambitious plans to increase spending on police and security forces and replace the old Soviet criminal code lan­guished in the last parliament. The new Russian constitution, approved by a narrow margin last December, establishes some important principles for reforming the justice system, such as an independent judiciary and the right to private property and busi­ness. But it remains to be seen whether those principles and plans will be translated into law. [H: Good grief, wherein is the author's head? Why would you establish laws which would then have to be hidden and overridden by the crimi­nals in power? You would not have such problems in such as Singapore, would you? Or how about in China where they just executed an executive for taking money from his company? You have let the criminals take CONTROL and now there will be an entire World Order to insure their staying in power and control. And who do "they" control and take FROM? YOU! Are you beginning to understand?]

The greatest obstacle to a coherent anti-Mafiya policy re­mains perceptual. Many Russian policymakers (and some for­eigners) believe that corruption and crime are the price that must be paid for Russia's experiment with free enterprise. They ar­gue that other nations (including post-1917 Russia) also experi­enced high crime rates during periods of acute social and eco­nomic change. Today's smuggling tycoons and shady en­trepreneurs are often compared to the robber barons of nine­teenth-century America. Perhaps, too, it is only reasonable for those whose notions of order were shaped by Soviet authoritari­anism to wonder whether the cure might not be worse than the disease. But arguments for accommodating the Mafiya break down at a critical point. It is one thing to tolerate the excesses of future Russian Carnegies, Vanderbilts and Morgans; it is quite another to grant them free grazing rights in the political system. [H: Please don't forget this author is a traditional "journalist", a "visiting" scholar at COLUMBIA UNIVER­SITY'S HARRIMAN INSTITUTE. These are as ELITE as you can get, dear readers, so don't expect other than the "party line" of the ELITE. Yes indeed, these are the SAME ELITE that set up the whole criminal plan!]

THE MAFIYA'S CONNECTION TO GOVERNMENT
MAKES IT A DAGGER POINTED AT THE
HEART OF RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY

[H: The key word in all this may well be "democracy". A democracy is a terrible way to function--as BAD as you can get. What a nation and people of the nation must acquire is a WORKING, EQUITABLE REPUBLIC!]

The Russian Mafiya's connection with government, born of its symbiotic relationship with the former communist establish­ment, makes organized crime a dagger pointed at the heart of Russian democracy. The danger is especially apparent outside the urban centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, where local crime lords and their government allies have filled the vacuum created by the departure of communist authority. These al­liances are joined for political as well as economic reasons. As regional leaders seek more power over resources, they share a common interest with black-marketeers and underworld figures in resisting central control. [H: Can you see WHY so many in the Russias and other freedom-seeking nations of the world who once flourished even under Czars and Kings WANT BACK THEIR SOVEREIGNS? THERE WAS TOTAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNCTION AND THERE WERE NOT RAMPANT GANGS OF THUGS--EVEN THOUGH THE KING HIMSELF MIGHT WELL BE A BIG THUG. WHERE, HOWEVER, NATIONS ARE RUN BY LAWS­ ENFORCED--WITH EQUAL PUNISHMENT FOR EACH OFFENDER--EVEN IF IT BE FOR GUM (AS IN "CHEWING") VIOLATIONS, THERE IS ORDER AND JUSTICE. ALL KNOW THE LAWS AND THE CONSE­QUENCES OF BREAKING THOSE LAWS. AS IT HAS BECOME IN YOUR "FREE" NATIONS--ONLY THE CRIMINALS ARE FREE. However bad you may believe the players in your government and judicial system may be--IT IS FAR WORSE!]

Organized crime has infected the central nervous system of Russian politics. Throughout 1993, successive corruption scan­dals paralyzed the Yeltsin government. No institution was left untainted: senior commanders of the Red Army were caught in smuggling rings; cabinet ministers and police officials were dis­covered working for shady commercial firms. In the most cele­brated case, members of the ill-fated Supreme Soviet, led by then Vice President Aleksandr Rutskoi, forced several reform ministers out of office over charges of corruption. Government officials, in retaliation, released documents attempting to prove that Rutskoi and his political allies were guilty of money laun­dering and weapons smuggling. In February 1993, Russian De­fense Minister Pavel Grachev announced that 46 generals and top officers were to be court-martialed on corruption charges and that an additional 3,000 officers were to be disciplined for "illegal business deals" ranging from smuggling weapons to black-market sales of military equipment. A few months later, Grachev himself was hit with corruption charges related to the acquisition of official cars from Germany.

The burlesque of charge and countercharge politicized even the slender efforts the state was making to halt corruption and further reduced the government's credibility. Russians could easily remember how corruption cases during the Soviet era co­incidentally affected only the losers in political battles. While Yeltsin himself was not linked to any scandals, the president plainly found it awkward to deal with evidence of wrongdoing among his political allies. Several of his top anticorruption in­vestigators quit in disgust. As the euphoria of August 1991 faded, most people concluded that hardly anything had changed except the faces in power. "To tell you the truth", one prominent Moscow journalist admitted to me,
"if someone staged a new coup tomorrow, I would not know what or whom to de­fend".

To suggest to an increasingly disillusioned populace that crime is an unfortunate but unavoidable by-product of political and economic transition is an insult. The rising cost of living might be politically acceptable to ordinary Russians who, as they are the first to inform foreigners, have endured tough times be­fore. But when economic discontent is joined to anger over of­ficial corruption, and criminal violence, it becomes a potent po­litical force. The sight of the country's newly rich emerging from luxury restaurants and gambling casinos, of Western cars jamming the roadways, of gunmen strutting down the streets, intensifies the nationwide sense of betrayal and, more signifi­cantly, the loss of personal security.

Rising crime rates have turned what was once an ordered, communal society into a land of fearful strangers. In a 1992 survey, three out of four Muscovites admitted they were afraid to walk the streets at night. [H: So what else is new? Do you get the feeling this REALLY IS just a VISITING scholar?] And in 1993 another opinion poll found that 49 percent of Rus­sians rated crime higher on their list of concerns than unem­ployment. In the first year after the fall of Communism, the Russian public prosecutor reported 2.7 million crimes, an in­crease of 33 percent over 1991. The rates for murder, rape and aggravated assault continued to climb during the first six months of 1993, along with categories of crime that had been negligible during most of the Soviet era, such as drug trafficking, embez­zlement and theft of government property. [H: My, my--that good old Western democracy has really helped out those abused Russians, hasn't it? You have just spread wonders and miracles upon these poor hapless victims through the Bolshevik Khazarian Zionist commercial capitalistic system haven't you? Well, good friends, the Zionists developed Communism and now you are but a reflection of, already taken over by, this system and most of you still don't even see it.]

The strong support for the neofascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky in the December 12, 1993, parliamentary elections owed at least as much to the backlash against crime as to economic populism. The continuing appeal of both ultranationalist patriots and neo­communists is largely based on their invective against "Mafiya" (read "Western") values. Zhirinovsky, like many opposition candidates, campaigned on a harsh law-and-order platform. In his last television appearance before the election, he advocated a return to Russian civil war-era decrees ordering the shooting of criminals on sight.

Draconian solutions to the law-and-order crisis are now part of mainstream political thinking and will probably dominate the agenda of the new State Duma. [H: Sounds pretty bad to you? Why? If you are not a criminal doing unlawful acts and you are serving within the laws of God at all times un­der a just legal system of constitutional LAW
-- why would YOU be concerned? ONLY THE CRIMINALS WOULD BE CONCERNED, CITIZEN! My people think that sounds pretty good because they wouldn't ever again have to worry about being shot! YOU PONDER IT.] Having failed to de­velop a society guided by the rule of law, the first post-Soviet government is reverting to the habits of its predecessors. Retro­grade attitudes emerged in the aftermath of Yeltsin's battle with Parliament during the crisis of October 1993. Shortly after the assault on the Russian White House, the government imposed a curfew on Moscow and sent squads of soldiers and police to pa­trol the streets. Not surprisingly, crime rates plummeted. [H: They did in Watts, also!] The incidental success of these tem­porary measures strengthened the advocates among police and politicians for a Soviet-style war on crime. Yeltsin ordered police to drive "unregistered aliens" out of the capital in an effort to cripple the powerful crime syndicates who move easily be­tween Moscow and other cities across the Commonwealth. The measure was targeted primarily at gangsters from the Caucasus. Chechens and Azeris in particular are responsible for a large percentage of drug trafficking. [H: And who is the big dealer in the rest of the "Free" world? Enforced by who?]
But the blunderbuss approach resulted in the expulsion or beating of thousands of otherwise innocent traders. Such violence indi­cated growing racial intolerance among Russians as much as any serious determination to root out crime. [H: NOW, who does this sound like writing this article? We would be speaking about "anti-Semitic" racial intolerance, would we? What garbage--it is EXACTLY the same way in the U.S.A. and I would guess the Russians and most of the world have ample reason to call you the "Great Satan".] And, as some ob­servers noted dryly, most of the Russian crime lords welcomed the move as a way of eliminating their biggest competitors.

There are also signs that the government is preparing to take a harder line against entrepreneurs, conforming to right-wing prejudices that identify private business with crime. The Min­istry of Internal Affairs dusted off a KGB tactic used in the last year of the Soviet era--the search of commercial enterprises and confiscation of property without a warrant--and proposed it as part of an anticrime package. [H: No! Really? Readers, any of you sick to your stomachs yet? You've had this going on for a long, long time already, haven't you? Go back and read our video transcription of "America in Peril" which appeared in CONTACT Jan. 4, 1994, p. 10 and Jan 9, 1994, p. 2, about the troops coming over from the safety of Canada to raid and confiscate property in the U.S.] Yeltsin rejected the proposal after it was leaked to newspapers. But it surprised no one that the idea received sympathetic attention from nomenklatura capitalists and the right wing. [H: Right wing? Capitalists? And "Yeltsin rejected the proposal..?" ONLY "after it was LEAKED TO THE NEWSPAPERS"??]

A reversal or slowdown of reforms is the goal of the former Soviet establishment, which prefers a subsidized, corporate capitalism to the unlimited expansion of private property. [H: Whose private property? Who is actually getting all the property in your own nation? Please, readers, give us a break...!] It also happens to be the goal of the larger criminal syndicates, which are eager to transform their wealth into politi­cal influence. Gangsters ranked among the staunchest defenders of democracy during the August 1991 coup, partially because of their traditional antipathy toward Communists. But several have since confided that they no longer support reforms because of the "disorder" in the Russian economy. "In this kind of envi­ronment, who can do any business"? said one gangster without a trace of irony.

During the December campaign, some opposition candidates in the regions were believed to have received campaign contri­butions from Mafiya groups, and there are reliable reports that ultranationalist parties have used gangs to harass Caucasians and other ethnic minorities. Whether or not such reports can be believed, the maneuvering room of the Yeltsin government has al­ready been narrowed.

GOOD COP. BAD COP

Westerners underestimate the extent to which organized crime and corruption have hampered Russian political and eco­nomic reforms. Early assumptions that the introduction of free enterprise would smooth the way for democracy failed to take into account the lingering power of the former Soviet establish­ment. Organized crime has reinforced the old structures in their battle to retain control over key sectors of the economy and strengthened popular hostility toward the free-market democratic policies pursued by pro-Western reformers.

The West should take Russian organized crime far more seriously than it has up until now. The current situation poses a double dilemma to policymakers in Western capitals. While in­ternal Russian developments have moved once again to the top of the international agenda, the West has increasingly less influ­ence over Russia's domestic affairs. Western advice and finan­cial assistance, albeit limited, have been discredited by Russia's bruising encounter with the chaos of the marketplace. Nation­alist and authoritarian remedies are now ascendant. But im­portant areas of influence remain unexplored.

The first area requires a conceptual change in economic aid policies and in strategies for developing the Russian market. [H: Oh, good grief, could this man mean to pattern it after your unsuccessful system?] Until recently, the West concen­trated on helping Russia meet its international debt load while discouraging it to carry on with austerity policies. Since the December elections, opinion has shifted toward providing more overt support for social safety-net programs as a way of easing economic discontent. But these policies still do not address the central problem: the legal vacuum at the heart of the Russian economy. Western advice and assistance in creating a commer­cial infrastructure, including a viable banking system and regu­latory agencies, and in developing a legal framework for business activities would go far toward meeting the security con­cerns of Russian and foreign investors.

If the obstacles in the Russian marketplace hamper Russian entrepreneurs, they have a chilling effect on foreigners, for whom the nexus between organized crime and politics exacer­bates with cultural barriers between the ex-socialist East and capitalist West. [H: It certainly hasn't been a barrier to such as General Electric and Kissinger Associates (the first major mover-inner into Moscow following the so-called break-up!) Gorbachev was made President of Kissinger Associates' Moscow branch!] Bribery was always a hidden cost of doing business in the Soviet era. Today, the hapless foreign busi­nessman can find himself the target of extortion demands or worse. And he finds little sympathy from already overworked police and courts. [H: B(alderdash S(askwatch)!]

International assistance in bringing Russia's justice and law enforcement system into the modern era is therefore crucial. This task involved more than familiarization courses in the prin­ciples of Western jurisprudence and police exchange programs. [H: Yes indeed--it requires total destruction of any goodness left in their system in copy of your own!] Russian police are deficient in just about every area, from police cars and comput­ers to techniques of crime detection and prevention. Aid in re­forming the hoary machinery of Soviet justice, with its bias to­ward prosecution and disregard for individual rights, would go a long way toward removing a principal factor behind the widespread Russian contempt for law. [H: As you might sur­mise--I am having one big problem just going on with this outright drivel and stupidity.]

The Western police establishment, for understandable rea­sons, has been gun-shy about working closely with its Russian counterpart. The recent decision by the FBI to open a liaison office in Moscow is a step forward, [H: Right here I want to point out the total stupidity of this prior statement. This lit­tle town in Kern County, California would be
a good exam­ple RIGHT NOW! From this little tiny township in Califor­nia have gone SWAT team members, who have received honors and public pictures in the local paper, for GOING AND CROSS-TRAINING IN MOSCOW! There is a full ex­change program going on and ones from 'their' police come and train in Los Angeles' academy
--what is this disinforma­tion nut trying to do? Well, I think we all know what he is trying to do, don't we?] but several agents admit that widespread corruption inside Russian law enforcement has kept relations less than congenial. However, the West has more than an academic interest in forging a collaborative relationship with Russia's police agencies.
[H: Yes indeed--and just wait until you find out the truth about that statement.]

The old rhetoric of the "evil empire" has been replaced by fears of Russian Mafiya penetration of Western economies. Those fears are well grounded. Russian gangs have been re­sponsible for a wave of violent crime in Central Europe and Germany. The smuggling of Russian resources abroad has de­pressed world prices for commodities such as aluminum. Weapons-grade uranium and other by-products of the Soviet nu­clear arsenal have turned up for sale in West European capitals. [H: Well, you sell the stuff! Is this just a toss-up at trying to prevent that "competition"?]

Russia's criminal syndicates are also attracting unsavory partners in the West. [H: Oh my goodness--the government, do you suppose? By the way, your national debt number is not in the 4 or 40 TRILLION DOLLAR area, good buddies--the U.S.A. debt is now well over $140 Trillion and rising!] Gang leaders from Moscow and the Baltics have held "summits" with members of the Italian Mafia, and Russia's growing importance as a drug transit [H: Oh oh--getting close now, aren't we?] corridor has aroused interest from Colombian cartels. Post-So­viet gangsters have become active in the United States, as suggested by the growing number of murders, interceptions of smugglers and evidence of substantial capital transfers. The MVD estimates $25 billion was transferred from Common­wealth states to Western banks by organized crime structures in 1993. [H: Yes, and more
--all of which was facilitated by the governments and enforcers of the New World Order!] The sobering possibility that the former communist establishment, through its mob allies, could become a major investor in West­ern economies reinforces the need for closer attention to the West's own economic security. [H: What security? Did this man actually say "economic security"?]

Russia's internal conflicts have dampened the triumphant mood of the post-Cold War era. The turmoil of the past two years has shaken several assumptions made by the West after the fall of the Soviet Union: that the communist establishment has lost its grip on politics, that Russians would eagerly grasp democracy with both hands, and that capitalism would provide the engine of Russia's transformation. The uncertainty sur­rounding the third assumption is the most troubling. As Rus­sians increasingly identify free-market democracy with orga­nized crime and corruption, they will turn toward much less congenial forms of governing. Unchecked economic chaos and gang violence could well foster the rise of hostile, authoritarian power on the Eurasian continent, instead of the prosperous part­ner the West requires for a stable 21st century world.

END OF ARTICLE [H: Thank goodness.]

Now what do I REALLY think about this author and the mes­sage itself? I think that if you study FOREIGN AFFAIRS arti­cles you will find the CFR written within EVERY MESSAGE and it will give you hints as to exactly WHAT IS COMING DOWN. It may be presented in its actual OPPOSITE (AS IN BACKWARDS) FORMAT BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE THE NEXT STAGES AS PLANNED BY THE NEW WORLD ORDER--SETTING YOU UP!

Let's get out of here, Dharma--enough already! Oh, I see--you thought it enough before we even began? Well, so much for another long day. Thank you.

APPENDIX

THE REMAINDER OF THIS JOURNAL IS A
COLLECTION OF TIMELY NEWS AND/OR
EDUCATIONAL ITEMS

PJ 92

CHAPTER 10

CANADIAN-AMERICAN
FREE TRADE DECEPTION

Editor's note: The following is a transcription of an audio tape sent in to the office by a loyal CONTACT reader in Canada. This is an incredible interview in which you will hear about some of the more outrageous shenanigans which went on concerning the shaping of the so-called Free Trade Agreement by a career bureaucrat who was involved with the matter from the Canadian side of the dance floor. In the larger picture, the revelations are universal.

ALBERTA TALKNETWORK

With host. Dave Rutherford

We have here Shelley Ann Clark with the Federal Civil Service. She has some information from behind the scenes of the Free Trade Agreement. She was asked by her boss, she says, to do some very secretive midnight paper shredding, clause altering, skullduggery. She says the provinces were basically lied to. Her story hasn't reached the West, yet. I see it in one bit of media in the East, but so far very few media have picked up the story, so you are going to hear about it today, probably for the very first time. The free trade charade, she says.

We are finding out from somebody who was a career bureau­crat, who was indeed inside government, right there. Her name is Shelley Ann Clark and Shelley Ann Clark is joining me right now.

D: Hello, Shelley Ann.

S: Good afternoon, Dave.

D: Well you were indeed inside. Tell us the role you played, the positions you held in the federal government at the time of the free trade negotiations.

S: I was the executive assistant to the third in command, Ger­main Denis, who was the one reporting directly to Brian Mul­roney, which was most unusual because the chain of command in federal government at those levels should have been Mul­roney to Reeseman directly, which he did at times; but, the se­crecy of the phone calls between the third in command and Mul­roney made it possible for me to realize that something was go­ing on that wasn't quite kosher right from the start.

D: Ok, so you know, Simon Reeseman, for those of you who have forgotten, chief negotiator for the Free Trade Agreement. Germain Denis was also on the negotiating team, was he?

S: Yes, he was the third down the line of command but he had the major areas of agriculture and subsidies.

D: Ok. In what department did you work for?

S: The Department of External Affairs, which is presently known as Foreign Affairs.

D: Ok, you're in external affairs. You're in the trade negotia­tion role. What was your job?

S: I was principally the main liaison between the trade negotia­tions office and the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Coun­cil. [A select group of individuals with more power than the Prime Minister and which functions as the Queen of England's direct means for controlling Canadian Parliament].

D: Did you speak with the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] and Privy Council people?

S: Yes, I did, indeed. They would come to me for directives at all times or any complaints they received from the provinces.

D: You couldn't get any closer to the heart of government. You were right there!

S: I was right there. Dead center. Yes, that's correct.

D: Now, some of what you've said about the free trade negoti­ations at this time back in the late '80s and '88, of course, in the election year when free trade was shown to us, given to us, rammed down our throats whichever way you want to perceive it. At that time what were you asked to do that you didn't like doing.

S: I was asked to come in at midnight to prepare the briefing books for the provinces. The first time around I didn't under­stand the midnight business until I got there and I was asked to bring up the text from what had been negotiated in Washington and create an entire different file on the computer and asked to delete certain paragraphs, especially where energy was con­cerned and our water supplies and subsidies. I was asked to delete entire paragraphs and to alter the figures. If we had given away 50% to the Americans, I was asked to show only 10% to the provinces.

D: Ok. Now you are dealing with...

S: I'm dealing with a computer screen and I've created a sec­ond file stemming from the main negotiating file which had been used in Washington.

D: So Simon Reeseman and his negotiators meet with the Americans. They agree to a certain section, bring it back, type it up.

S: They bring it back and give it to Germain Denis and we pull it up on the screen. And Germain Denis, who would be briefing particular members of each province, would ask me to create a separate briefing book. To create that separate briefing book which was presented to the provinces, I had to create a second file on the computer, make the changes, delete the paragraphs, change the figures, then promptly erase it from the network. That second file was always deleted from the network com­pletely, so all I had left would be one version which I would then photocopy ten times for the ten provinces, which were pre­sented to the provinces. I had total control. Each book was numbered. Alberta would have number one, New Brunswick number two, etc., etc., so that if any book would have gone missing after he had briefed them, we would know exactly who would have the book. These people were never given the time to photocopy anything. They were given the book five minutes before the briefing would start. The books would be picked up immediately afterwards.

D: Shelley Ann, this is deliberate deception of the provinces.

S: Absolutely, extremely deliberate plus what I took out to the...I was asked to sneak out the material to Germain Denis to the trunk of his car and all of this was reported to the Public Service Alliance on July 22, 1988. I put forth a complaint using them as the vehicle in order to bring it to someone's attention safely as to what had been done. My report is dated July 22, 1988, to the Public Service Alliance and in there it reports the entire story of everything that
I carried out to this official's car and I had to sneak out through a period of between 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. at night at particular intervals. Amongst the doc­uments that went out to the trunk of that car was a particular document that is the one that is totally disastrous for this coun­try. It is the one showing the implementation scheme to arrive at a point where Canada would have to "sell out" to the United States.

D: What do you mean "sell out"?

S: "Sell out", in the sense that they are, the first step that would have to occur would be that Quebec separates. That is why Lu­cien Bouchard is in place. The second was the Grand Canal project keeping all of our, containing all of our, damming the James Bay, keeping the water in such a way that it was re­routed through to the states and from there we would be short of water. So, if you take away all of our minerals and resources and separate Quebec, Canada would be in a very desperate eco­nomic situation and we would have to send an SOS to the United States for them to come and help out.

D: Shelley, I'm going to stop you there for a second. What you have said, we are going to take a couple of minutes to absorb this because there are so many questions springing from this. I'll take a commercial break and come back. Shelley Ann Clark is my guest. We are going to find out where you are now, what you are doing, and who else knew about this whole scenario. We are talking about her involvement,--she saw it happen, inside government, the heart of government during the free trade negotiations and what was told to the public in the provinces, and what really happened. We're back after this.

D: Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rutherford. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark who has a story to tell. about her involvement in free trade negotiations. I say "involvement" like you were some sort of criminal. You actually did blow the whistle in July, 1988. What happened after that? Where is that report today at the Public Service Alliance?

S: The report was returned to me with a covering letter by the Public Service Alliance telling me to destroy this document im­mediately because, should it fall into the wrong hands, it would be highly dangerous. The document was returned to me and this is the document that was sent out and disclosed to the media and to all the premiers of every province across the country by my lawyer, Mr. Harold Funk, who was my lawyer at the time of the disclosure last June. So there have been several disclosures. On May 26, 1993, there was a first disclosure to the Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell at the time, and to all the ten provinces and to the media across the country by my lawyer. Then on June 3, 1993, our local radio and television station CJ AWAKES, Charlie Greenwell's Insider's Report, was given a disclosure which they aired for approximately 45 seconds and after that I have been disclosing using the vehicle of the National Party and the last election.

D: Alright, I'll ask you about your political involvement in a second but I want to go back to what creating these separate files now, and the negotiator, Simon Reeseman, etc., bringing back what they had agreed to do with the Americans and you creating a secondary file, changing numbers, changing informa­tion, virtually destroying the original agreement and deceiving the provinces. At that point, who do you think knew about that?

S: I would have to say from what I observed that Germain De­nis was in on it with Mulroney and perhaps, Gerald Shannon, who was the Deputy Minister of International Trade at the time.

D: The Prime Minister was aware of it?

S: Oh, yes, because there were conversations directly between Germain Denis and the Prime Minister.

D: Was it organized and engineered by the Prime Minister's of­fice?

S: I'm sure that it was organized and engineered by Mulroney and whoever was instructing him.

D: Who do you think was instructing him?

S: Well, I guess it would be the, it would have to be the bankers who give all the money to support Mulroney in his campaign. They would have complete control over him.

D: You are suggesting, though, that the potential for virtually destroying Canada was there and agreed to and Mr. Denis had a copy of it that you spirited out to his car, this implementation agreement. Why would they do that?

S: They could not possibly afford to let the provinces see any of what had been done because the provinces, even though we didn't need the act governing all of this does not require the sig­nature of the provinces to get the Free Trade through, they still needed the agreement of the provinces because it meant the provinces would have to change their trade rules to begin with. Indeed, they would have certainly made a humongous fuss at our having to sell out to the U.S. by the year 2005, which is when the implementation scheme is geared for.

D: 2005?

S: Yes. That's what is on the chart.

D: Those agreements on oil and water that you altered, do you remember what the originals said?

S: Well, I wouldn't remember exact figures at this point in time because, as I repeated many times to the (garbled) as they were investigating, I never, even though I had every opportunity, knowing the penalty for stealing a government, document, I never did take a copy for myself even though the opportunity was there.

I am going by what I wrote to the PSAC in 1988, plus memory, but I don't remember exact figures. I remember approximate figures but the year 2005 is something that is major and that I am not guessing at. That was an accurate figure on the chart.

D: There has been much concern about water in the Free Trade Agreement. People who don't like the free trade deal always raise water as this secret thing that's going to happen and the Americans are going to suck all the fresh water out of Canada.

S: Well, they are absolutely right. I have saved every article when we are talking about water and every study that I have read and all their assumptions are absolutely correct because water is one of the major things that they are planning to deprive us and to let the States have and then we would have to purchase it from the States.

D: Shelley, I want to talk a little more about you and your background because the reaction some people will say is, "You're a nut. This woman is a total nut and why should we believe her"?

S: Well, I guess I have been with the Department of Foreign Affairs since 1961. I've had a top secret clearance and to obtain a top secret clearance, which I still have to present day and which has never been removed, and I've been an employee.

I would have to say that the investigative work and all the investigation carried out by CESUS and RCM before you can obtain a top secret clearance should take care of any assumption that I am nuts or unbalanced. They even research back into almost 100 years of your family background when you get top secret clearance to see if there has been anyone that has been mentally ill in your family. And if your grandmother had been mentally ill in your family, they would hesitate before giving anyone a top secret clearance. The fact that today I am an employee of the Department of External Affairs still and that nothing has been removed speaks for itself.

D: Where are you now? Are you working in government any­where now?

S: I have been on paid leave for exactly one year, right up until December 23. After the new government was in place on De­cember 23, I received a call and I'm in a high profile position within the Department of External Affairs.

D: Does the change in government then...

S: Yes, I would say that it had an impact because before we had a change in government
I was staying home on full-paid leave.

D: Shelley Ann, I want to talk to you some more about this. Frankly, it is chilling. There are huge repercussions to what you say.

S: The repercussions are just so enormous. That's why I tried to use the Public Service Alliance to submit, to disclose, be­lieving that I would get their protection because I know the enormity of what I am saying. Unfortunately, they left the deci­sion with their number one as to whether to report it or not and the number one decided not to say a word.

D: Shelley Ann, stay with me please. We are talking about the free trade negotiations and Shelley Ann Clark's knowledge of what really happened.

D: I'm Dave Rutherford of the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is 32-year veteran of the Civil Service, Shelley Ann Clark, who is telling us the story that has tremendous proportions. I'm go­ing to have to say if true, Shelley Ann, because there is no way we can really verify this ourselves until something happens, and then we can say, "Oh, my gosh, she was right"! What about the RCMP, [Royal Canadian Mounted Police ] what is their role? They looked at it. Are they going to fully investigate?

S: No, they're not. They officially decided that because I didn't have any documents to back it up and that it did not re­quire the signature of the provinces, that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation. But I must say that I have written a letter to the Liberal ministers imploring them to have the canisters opened up where the Free Trade Agreement is locked up outside of Ottawa. The Free Trade Agreement, all the negotiating documents should have been in the archives for the Canadian public to view but they are not.

D: They are not now.

S: They are not now and even if a person or anyone, even someone like myself--I went there with a researcher and asked if I put in an access to information request, exactly what would
I get. I was told that the act governing the access to information had declared the free trade negotiation documents, approxi­mately 95% of it, a threat to Canada's national security.

D: You mean revealing them would be a threat to national se­curity?

S: Yes, to Canada's national security. That I have evidence of: that I was told by the person, a Mr. Paul Marsden, that is the person in charge of all the free trade negotiating documents said to me, in front of a witness, a Mr. Bruce Campbell, who is a re­searcher and wrote the book, TAKE BACK THE NATION with Maude Barlow, who is the chairperson of the Council of Cana­dians. He was with me and he heard it also. I was told that ap­proximately 95% of the documents could not be released be­cause they had been declared a threat to Canada's national secu­rity and when we asked, we both asked immediately the same question as to when Canadians would get to see the document, we were told in approximately 30 years time.

D: Ok. If, in fact, and I'm not that familiar with how comput­ers work, if you were there and were revising documents and made a hard copy, you printed it, is it not saved somewhere in that system electronically?

S: No. We had the key word that would delete everything even though someone has come forward, there is a newspaper that was carrying and following my story every single month. Ap­parently at Christmas time on December 22, they put out a fur­ther story on me and someone came forth, who would not reveal their name, but apparently this person, who was transferring material from the computer files to the archive stated to this journalist that I was telling the absolute truth and that he or she had seen what I was talking about.

D: So the revised documents then are somewhere.

S: This is what this person is saying. This person is saying that somewhere in the computer files she (he or she) has seen exactly what I'm talking about.

D: Ok. I guess that must mean that they have seen the original and the revised ones, which are the ones that are in the hands of the provinces, in fact, are fraudulent.

S: Everything that's in the hands of the public or the provinces is totally the incorrect version. Two versions came out. The first version that came out which I personally carried and gave to the Prime Minister in his hands was carried by me. On Octo­ber 4, 1987, I brought to the Prime Minister of Canada the 33 paged summarized version of what had been agreed to on that famous weekend of October 2 and 3, 1987, in Washington. This was the weekend where Reeseman was left out in the hall­way and the negotiations went on with James Baker all by him­self in the star chamber but with Carney, and Wilson, and Der­rick Burney from Canada. That version that came out was de­livered to the Prime Minister on the Monday morning after that famous weekend by me. Now the second version that came out was the legal version. Then there is a third version that's the real version.

D: Now the one you gave the Prime Minister is not.

S: That was just a summary. What I gave to the Prime Minister was a summary and that is what he tabled that Monday morning at the House of Commons.

D: Are you saying that summary two is fraudulent?

S: Well the summary has absolutely no details. It's 33 pages compared to the legal version that is 1500.


D: Shelley Ann, stay with me. I need one more break. We have to take a newsbreak from the newsrooms here in Alberta and we'll come back with your story, Shelley Ann Clark. If you are on the phone lines waiting to talk to her, I know many peo­ple are. They'll have questions I have not asked. We are talk­ing about the free trade negotiations, the paper work that is different. In external affairs in her role, you have heard her tell her story and it really is a chilling story, if you think of the ramifications of what this means. Shelley Ann has told us there is the legitimate, the real agreement between Canada and the U.S. for the Free Trade Agreement from 1987, '88. The real one has some very, very scary implications in it including the wholesale, is it sale or giveaway of our water, Shelley?

S: We'd be giving it away and we would have to purchase it back from the States.

D: The water has been a key concern of critics of free trade. Before I get to my phone calls are you motivated by--you men­tioned Maude Barlow, the Council of Canadians which have been anti-free trade for a long time and Maude Barlow has been in the studio talking about her objections to free trade, or are you motivated by the fact that you saw illegal subversive things going on?

S: Illegal subversive things which are destroying the country because I have children who are part of this country, who will be severely affected by the time this is in place.

D: The RCMP won't pursue it any further because you don't have hard documentation. Do you think that's the real reason?

S: No, I don't believe that that is the real reason. I know that the commissioner of the RCMP was a Mulroney appointee. Surely, that has affected the decision to an enormous degree. Perhaps, we'll have more hope when his term is up.

D: What have you heard, or have you heard anything from the provinces, the recipients of the doctored version?

S: I have heard from the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan who thanked us for the documentation and said they would carry out an investigation.

D: Nothing from those yet, that you know of?

S: No, nothing at all. What I am counting on is that Canadians would start calling or writing to the Prime Minister's Office requesting that they break into the cannisters and have a look at what's there.

D: These cannisters are containing what?

S: These cannisters, apparently, all the negotiating documents are in sealed cannisters 16 miles outside of Ottawa.

D: Where are they held? In a bunker somewhere?

S: I have to assume that they are in our bunkers that are out there and I have already put in a request to our federal Liberal ministers that something be done about entering those sealed cannisters. But, I think it would be far more effective if instead of just me asking, that the rest of the country started writing in to the Prime Minister demanding that they get into those sealed cannisters.

D: Even though this was negotiated under the Mulroney government, the Liberal government has proclaimed it. I mean it's a done deal. What motivation is there by the Chretien govern­ment to open things up again?

S: Because if Chretien means it, that he cares for this country, he should want to have a look at what I'm saying is the truth because if he can find the evidence that I'm telling the truth, perhaps he can do something about it before we are sold out to the States. Or perhaps Chretien wants us to be part of the U.S. It all depends on how he feels personally. I have no idea. Does Chretien want us to be part of the U.S., therefore he won't open the cannisters?

D: Well some would say he proclaimed North American Free Trade rather quickly. We were the first country to endorse it so I don't know. We don't know what the motivation of either of these governments is at the moment.

S: Exactly. Especially since they are funded by the same peo­ple. So one has to have a serious concern about that.

D: Shelley Ann, my listeners want to talk to you. Is that al­right?

S: Yes, absolutely.

D: Ok. Let's go to phone calls from across the province. First to Steve. Hi, Steve, go ahead.

Steve: Good afternoon, Dave and Shelley. I was just wonder­ing. There are a couple of things you ought to be aware of. It's amazing that you are not a hit-and-run yet, Shelley.

S: Absolutely amazing, you are right.

D: But, on that point. Obviously, we've all thought of that, Shelley Ann. Are you taking protective measures?

S: No. I have not taken any protective measures even though I have had my life threatened twice, because I feel that it is in the hands of others and if I am meant to die, I could die crossing the street tomorrow, so if they want to get to me there are no pro­tective measures that I could take that would guarantee my safety. I have learned to accept the fact that they could get me at any time.

D: And your family.

S: Yes, absolutely.

Steve: Ok, Shelley. What about the generation of jobs or the actual job loss in this country. Has some paperwork been ma­nipulated on that as well? I'm just wondering that if--like the way we have to increase our company productivity in this coun­try, we have to buy new equipment which would automatically displace all kinds of workers. I'm thinking of, like a backhoe. Every time the city company buys a backhoe it probably dis­places 20 or 30 ditchdiggers, let's say.

D: Are you concerned about the information that comes out of the government generally, Steve?

Steve: Yes. Is that correct that we are going to get more jobs or are we actually going to lose a whole pile of jobs?

S: Oh, you are not going to get more jobs. Absolutely not.

Steve: I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering why the media and a lot of the government keeps pushing that we are going to get more jobs than we can shake a stick at. I can't buy that as truth at all.

S: Ok. Well, the media, first of all, are owned by several of Mulroney's friends, therefore, the media is controlled. That's why here in Ottawa no one has printed up on the Free Trade story.

D: Shelley, let's be clear. When you say the media, primarily, do you mean the print media?

S: Yes. I'm talking about the print media plus, of course, CBC, [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] which is owned by government.

D: Has the CBC done anything with your story?

S: Absolutely not. They won't touch it.

D: Private television has CJOH in Ottawa.

S: CJOH did one month's worth of investigation and the lawyers cleared that they could go ahead.

D: And obviously, we're doing it today. Have you done many of these interviews?

S: I've done Montreal. CJAD, a main radio station in Mon­treal, and I have done many other private interviews for sec­ondary newspapers.

D: Steve, thanks. I've got to move along. There are a lot of questions about this. But the media, generally, has not picked up the story, sensational as it is. Had this been in the U.S. you'd be on the front page of every newspaper in America.

S: Exactly, because I was interviewed by a major radio station in New York City in November.

D: So the control, you think, the arms of the political and fi­nancial control reach into the media so deeply your story is be­ing ignored.

S: Absolutely. There is no shadow of a doubt about that, espe­cially that the Ottawa Citizen here, our main newspaper. People were putting extreme pressure on them to write up on Shelley Ann Clark and after several months of pressure they came up with a story on a Shelley Ann Clark that was blind and was a social director for the John Howard Society. So now when someone says you haven't written up on Shelley Ann Clark, they can say they have.

D: Alright, we'll go to Dan. Thanks for waiting. Go ahead.

Dan: Good afternoon. First I'm going to assume that everything you are saying is totally true. Now, I'm going to make a few comments. You are saying Quebec is going to be leaving. Well, first of all, the people of Quebec have to vote in referen­dum to leave. Let's say they vote to leave. Now, financially, the rest of Canada would be much better off if Quebec left be­cause all those billions and trillions of dollars that we've been pouring into their economy to keep them afloat wouldn't be go­ing in there anymore. Now, another thing that you mentioned, that sounds totally absurd is the damming of James Bay. Why would they dam James Bay when just a few hundred miles to the south you have five Great Lakes. The only areas of the United States that actually need water is Southern California, parts of Arizona and eastern Texas. This is absurd.

S: If it seems absurd, then I have to ask you why Simon Reeseman was the head of that project in 1985 and was making plans for it already two years prior to, one year prior to becom­ing the ambassador for the free trade negotiations. Simon Reeseman was already discussing the project of the Grand Canal and secondly, by re-routing the water from James Bay out into the Great Lakes and out into the ocean beyond that would pro­vide you with only salt water at this end and we would have to purchase our fresh water.

Dan: Ok, now the water in James Bay is practically fresh wa­ter. There is very little salt in there and it would probably cost at least a trillion U.S. dollars to build it and...

S: But Canada is planning to do this.

Dan: Well I don't think that we could afford to do that. We are talking at least, this is about 150 kilometers across at least.

S: I have the plan. I have the plan. I know exactly about the cost.

D: But Shelley, what do you mean you have the plan?

S: Well there is a map showing exactly where this Grand Canal will be built. I have a copy of that.

Dan: Ok, you may have this, but I think it is in somebody's deluded mind that they can realistically do this.

S: Well then you should be speaking to Simon Reeseman be­cause he was the one selling the idea.

Dan: Well, fine. He may try to sell an absurd idea. Anybody can do that but what is driving me crazy is that this is a typical Canadian attitude that my God, we have these resources, let's keep them in the ground forever. Let's not sell them.

D: But, Dan, despite your agreement or disagreement about the sale of water, that really is secondary. It is whether or not you and I were told the truth about what's in the Free Trade Agree­ment.

Dan: Now, that's the only thing that bothers me. But, every­thing really sounds so absurd if it was totally true.

S: That's why they have labeled those negotiations a threat to Canada's national security, is because what they have done is absolute treason.

Dan: By disguising documents, I would agree.

D: Thank you for your suspicions because we should be suspi­cious of what Shelley Ann is telling us, but based upon every­thing you've said so far, it's impossible for us to verify one way or other. You were inside, we weren't, and that's the story. Larry, go ahead.

Larry: Shelley Ann, first of all, I think you are a very brave person and the epitome of a patriot. I'm wondering, on the Ac­cess To Information Act, when you say that 95% would be de­clared for national security, is there any way to expedite it so that you could re-list it to them and have it made available for the court's eyes only? Surely, the judges are...

S: The judges are Mulroney appointed judges, most of them.

Larry: Surely they can't say the judges are a threat to our na­tional security, and thereby they could look at it. We wouldn't have to or you wouldn't have to. If I were a judge and they refused to let me look at it, I would be pretty upset.

S: Well, somebody would have to take this to court to demand that the judges take a look.

D: Based on that, who would you trust to look at it?

S: Exactly; there is no one I would trust to look at it.

Larry: But, in order to get the cannisters out, you are going to have to go through the courts to do it.

S: Exactly, but can you imagine the sums of money it would take from me to take this to court! I don't have that kind of money to take it to court myself and that's why I have been ap­pealing, even though I could be appealing to the wrong govern­ment to do something about it. If the Chretien government re­fuses to do anything about this, it should tell Canadians where they stand because if I did not ask them you would never know where the Chretien government stands.

D: Thank you, Larry. What about the other side of the deal, the American side? Are they as secretive, have they done the same thing to states and to other people?

S: Well, I was told by some people in my writing, some re­searchers that have gone into Washington to try, when I first brought out the story, to try and locate some documents, think­ing that there they would find something but, they did not. They've been just as secretive.

D: So is there then a public version and the real version in the U.S.?

S: That's correct.

D: Nancy, go ahead. This was related to me by these re­searchers that went down to Washington.

Nancy: I will but please don't cut me off because I've got some juicy information about this too. I really appreciate what Shel­ley Ann is doing. We were working with David Orcheck against the Free Trade Agreement and the little version that Mulroney was dragging around during the campaign was just for the public. The other is supposed to be a secret one. Now I have one of these and you know what I heard ...

D: You have one of what?

Nancy: The Free Trade Agreement. The original one, the good one and the short one, too.

D: Ok.

Nancy: But you see, when the fellow was talking with Mr. Chretien, Mr. Chretien demanded he see some revision of, you know, NAFTA, but the American guy on TV said, "No. Ev­erything's good". And I knew why, because this about the wa­ter is what Chretien was worried about. It didn't have to be in NAFTA because it is in the Free Trade Agreement. It was made and I've got that in my book. It says Canadians are obliged to provide U.S.A. with water, ice, and snow. I wish they'd come and take it today from Edmonton. They are sup­posed to provide it and even at the same cost or even lower than the Canadians.


D: Ok, but the people who interpreted that would say that's bottled water. That's not free-flowing rivers.

S: That's not free-flowing, that's correct. That is bottled wa­ter.

Nancy: Why snow? Why snow?

S: Because that can be self-contained.

Nancy: I see, but, anyway I took this out when Mr. Mulroney didn't know about it. I duplicated that and I wrote to him. I wrote a letter. It applies to the energy as well. Even if the United States got into war, Canada is supposed to provide en­ergy for them even if it is short in Canada.

S: That is part two because the energy chapter was only in­cluded on the famous weekend of October 2-3, 1987. Before then they were refusing to include it as a separate chapter.

D: But Nancy, you've got the NAFTA agreement, North American Free Trade, not the original Free Trade?

Nancy: No, I haven't got that one. But I'll tell you what I did. I duplicated copies and I sent copies about this energy to Mr. Chretien, personal, I wrote. I sent it to Paul Martin, the Finance Minister. I sent it to Mr. Manning and the leader of the Party of the Reform Party,
all four of them and months ago, and now on the first one I hear that Mr. Mulroney's government ac­cepted the Free Trade Agreement as is, God have mercy on us.

D: No response from anybody, no response from any of the leaders of the party?

Nancy: No response from any of them.

S: I believe her! I believe her!

D: Nancy, thanks.

Nancy: You're doing an awful good job and we'll protect you 100%.

S: Well, thank you very much.

D: Shelley Ann Clark is my guest. We are talking to you about the Free Trade Agreement and what Shelley Ann has seen going on behind the scenes. We're back with your calls after this quick break on the Alberta Talknetwork.

D: Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rutherford on the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark who has a story of incredible intrigue, subversion, a conspiracy theory. Shelley Ann, the people who'd know about this must be quite extensive on the inside of the core of power. You're the only leak, is that it?

S: Yes, that's correct. I'm the only leak.

D: Shelley Ann, to be perfectly blunt, I don't know why you are allowed to walk around.

S: I don't know, either, except that there must be people who are against it and I am convinced that certain things were done in order to put me in a position that I would indeed leak the in­formation for them.

D: Alright. The conspiracy is even broader then. There are those working behind the scenes controlling you as you leak the information, in opposition to those behind the scenes who are controlling the other side.

S: One is assuming that I have been put in position to do such a thing and that's why nothing has been done to me. You have to assume that there are many who have found out about this that wanted it out. That I was the person to do it, because there has to be a reason why nothing has happened.

D: Yes, there does have to be a reason. Stan, hi! Good after­noon.

Stan: Good afternoon. Very, very interesting. I've studied things like this now for a number of years. I was wondering if Shelley Ann could tell the people of Alberta who actually controls the government. We always assume that the people vote the politicians into power and that they're the ones that control what's going on but in her position she actually knows that it's big money, it's business, the shadow government that controls the politicians. If she could just kind of maybe enlighten the Albertans about that?

S: Yes. The government. whatever government is in power is controlled. We will take the Conservatives and the Liberals as an example, that they are both being funded by the same bankers. The leaders are being controlled by the same bankers. They are funded, there is a funding for the PCs [Progressive Conservative Party, also called Conservatives and the PCs] and the Liberals and all the funds are being provided by the same people.

D: But you're saying this is not money that is obviously re­ported to anybody.

S: No, this is secret money and by having that kind of control they are able, they pull the strings like it's the leaders' republic, they tell them what they want and what to do.

D: Alright, Stan, thanks for questioning. I have to move along to one more quick call. I know our time is short. It goes by so quickly. Barbara, hi!

Barbara: I wanted to thank you, Dave, for having this program. I also wanted to thank Shelley Ann. She must be a very brave and courageous lady.

D: This is Barbara Baxter, Council of Canadians. Barbara, Good afternoon.

Barbara: And what Shelley Ann is saying fits with much of what we know about the Free Trade Agreement, and as I under­stand, of course I didn't hear the whole program, but what she is really saying is, "Don't take my word for it but have it checked out".

D: But even checking, though, we're not going to find out anything, Shelley Ann, are we?

S: No, not unless those cannisters are opened. I can't believe that the documents that I saw are not somewhere. They must be.

Barbara: Or there should be other people who could verify that they saw what you saw.

S: See, there is already one person who saw it in the transfer of the files to the archives. That's from sources without a name.

Barbara: Of course, I didn't hear everything that you and Dave discussed earlier. Have you written a book?

S: Well, two people are writing a book. There is a journalist from Montreal and one right here in Ottawa that are writing a book and someone else is coming forth from Montreal, a pro­ducer who is thinking of a movie.

D: (Chuckle) I don't want to see the movie. Barbara, when I know about it I will tell you and I'll tell everybody on the air. Thank you very much, Barbara.

Barbara: I wanted to add one thing that I know in talking to Dennis Mills, who is an MP [Member of Parliament ] from Toronto, is that he has a copy of a 600 page thesis written by Crayton Yoiter, who was the American chief negotiator, Reeseman's counterpart, describing how water could be re-di­verted within North America.

D: Barbara, thanks for the call. Shelley Ann, do you have to go, or can you stay for a little bit?

S: Shelley Ann, I can stay for a little bit, no problem.

D: I'm overtime now. I have to go to a newsbreak across the province but I'm going to come back with you. Shelley Ann Clark, my guest, if you want to talk to her. I'm going to keep her for the next few minutes because it's an incredibly interest­ing topic. David Cox, the Canadian Center for Global Secu­rity on Bosnia, also standing by and we'll get to him briefly. * * * Good afternoon, I'm Dave Rutherford on the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark and we are going to continue our discussion with Shelley Ann past the time we had allotted because of the incredible interest expressed by you, obviously, and by all Canadians in what's going on. My sched­uled guest, David Cox, the Canadian Center for Global Security. We are going to be talking about our peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia and it's time to get us out of there. We just have to come home. We'll talk to David Cox in just a few minutes. But, I do want to give you some more time to talk to Shelley Ann Clark about her story. Let's go to Peter. Thanks for waiting, Peter, go ahead.


Peter: Hi! First of all, congratulations! You are doing much more than what any soldier could do in the very front line of a war. You are jeopardizing not only your life like the soldier, but also your family. You are really, truly a super Canadian citizen. God bless you! Your forecast is very very true. I've been saying this for ages. The States want Canada more than anything. And if Quebec is broken and the rest of Canada is separated, etc., Canada is a wounded and an easy prey. Water deprivation disaster will finish Canada in no time and it is hap­pening with our gas. Look: we are sitting on gas and we are paying twice as much for the damn thing as what U.S. citizens do.

S: That's correct.

D: Yeah, but we are in contracts that we apparently control that price, though, in the delivery of that natural gas.

Peter: We are being told to get rid of it by the bankers. It's all arranged. It's George Orwell. The Indians are being killed al­ready in Mexico and it will be just a short while that the war,
I wouldn't call it free trade, I'd call it slave trade.

D: One of the difficulties of the name of it, it should not be called free trade, but anyway, you say it's slave trade, Peter...

Peter: But regardless whether we agree or not, we can't resist. It's not even whether we agree or disagree on the free trade. The point is that there were gross injustices happening and unless we can somehow reveal this in front of the world, not only to Canada and the States but the whole world, the U.N., we are dead ducks! I came to Canada 40 years back believing in free­dom, in justice, and liberty but George Orwell is doing it all. He stole it all.

D: Shelley Ann, listen, what is happening and Peter is maybe on the leading edge of that, it's this belief that the entire coun­try, the world being run by this grand conspiracy. We've resigned ourselves to the fact that the bankers are running the world. Have we given up, if we succumb to that kind of think­ing?

S: Yes. We have given up if we stop doing anything about it. If you keep living with the illusion that you are under control and that we are under control, then you are giving up.

D: But is it that grand, is it that immense, is it that broad?

S: I can only speak for what I know because I've only seen what's happening here in Canada and I can only assume that the same thing is happening elsewhere, in Europe, etc, etc. Whether it is a worldwide scheme, I have no way of knowing and I wouldn't even want to pronounce myself on that but I do know that we used to have freedom here in this country, free­dom of the press, freedom of choice and that is something that we no longer possess.


D: How do we know that? How do we know we had freedom, I mean, at some point this conspiracy began. I'm sure it's long...

S: Oh, I mean, there's been corruption going on in politics for hundreds of years, sure, but it never has controlled our freedom to the extent that it does now. I remember in the '80s I was the executive assistant to Doris Anderson, who was the president of the Status of Women and she and I uncovered a major story with one of our Liberal ministers and certainly the freedom of the press was existing because at that time, Doris Anderson and I were in every major television station and newspaper in the country for eighteen months solid. Nothing was hidden from Canadians. I believe that there was more freedom at that time.

D: Ok. Joanna, go ahead.

Joanna: I think my question might have been answered. I was going to ask if past Prime Ministers like Pierre Elliott Trudeau were controlled to this extent and if the populist elected Prime Minister, maybe like Manning or someone, in the future would be controlled also if they were elected by a populist movement?

S: From what I know I would say that with Trudeau it was to a certain extent but with Manning it would be the same as it is with... His hands would be tied.

D: Well, don't take that as gospel, Joanna. That's an assump­tion.

Joanna: That's right. I just wanted an opinion.

D: George, go ahead. Hi, George. (No answer.) Let's try this one.

Ken, go ahead.

Ken: Yes, hello Dave. Thanks for having Shelley on this after­noon. I'm stunned at what she's revealed here. Shelley, I'm wondering whether this disclosure document is going to be made available publicly by you?

S: Yes, it has certainly gone public and anyone who wishes to have it can certainly have it to confirm what I'm saying, that in­deed the disclosure was made in 1988.

Ken: And where can it be accessed from?

S: By simply writing to me.

D: Well, I guess if people want to do that, Shelley Ann, we are not here to promote your book or your potential movie but tell us where to write anyway.

S: You can write to...

D: Do you want to put it on the radio?

S: Yes. The Canadian Institute for Political Integrity, P. 0. Box 1634, Station B, Kax, Quebec K8X 3XF

D: I have the address here so if the caller misses it I have it.

Ken: Dave, one last question. It is obvious that this story needs greater circulation and exposure. Is the Talknetwork planning to make a tape and a transcript of this interview available?

D: Tapes and transcripts are something that we really haven't gotten into in a large way yet. It is an expensive process to dis­tribute transcripts and tapes so the short answer is, no, we don't have them available. The procedure itself, though, is always being examined as to whether we will do it but, no we won't be making them available.

Ken: Sorry to hear that.

D: Yes, so am I but it is such a labor-intensive costly business to do it that we haven't got the resources at the moment to do it unless we can find somebody that's in the business doing it cheap but I don't know. But thank you.

Ken: Maybe things will change with this story.

D: One more break. Thank you for staying with us, Shelley Ann. * * * Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rutherford on the Al­berta Talknetwork and my guest is Shelley Ann Clark. We're talking about the free trade charade as it has been billboarded in one publication called THE MIRROR which we have. What town is that from, is that from Ottawa?

S: No, that's in Montreal.

D: That story about you in August is what I'm referring to. Let's go back to our calls, Shelley Ann. Leticia, go ahead.

Leticia: Hi there, Shelley Ann. I have to congratulate you on bringing this. For those people who are probably a little bit skeptical about how any of this happens, there is a more recent author who wrote a book, CAPTAINS AND KINGS by Taylor Caldwell. I think if people read this they would find they have far more insight as to the major conspiracy that Shelley Ann is talking about and thank you so much for bringing this out.

D: Alright, thanks Leticia. Let's go to George. Are you there?

George: Yes, I agree with what the callers have all said that, Shelley Ann, it is a tremendously brave thing you are doing. I can't believe and yet I can because you are probably aware of the crusading that Glen Keeley does against this very thing too. He was in Edmonton a while back and we heard a lecture and he revealed some of the things you are telling us at that lecture.

S: Yes, because as a matter of fact he was asked to market the Grand Canal Project at the time that it was brought forth. So, I am very well aware of Mr. Keeley's...

George: He reiterated the importance of Quebec being removed from the confederation so that the James Bay water would be much more easy to negotiate through Dontel.

D: For those of you who are interested, Glen Keeley is going to be on my program next week, so, we will talk to him then.

George: A lot of the people who were at that meeting poo­hooed it as being crackpot, you know, but look how politics have unfolded.

S: Hey, that's why I have been able to confirm that what he has said is accurate.

George: Oh, I'm sure it is. But it's one thing that bothers me, Shelley Ann, that shouldn't bother me knowing the capabilities of some of these elected politicians we have, how could a man like Mulroney do what he did in full knowledge of what he is doing, what does it take to commit treason? What is the defini­tion of treason?

S: A stream of money, I would say.

George: Well, I suppose we are all--Glen Keeley also told us about the homes that Mulroney owns and how did he get the money to own these homes, the beautiful home in Florida.

S: Exactly, because where he began it would be absolutely impossible.

George: He couldn't do it with the money he earned. No, we know that. Does anyone actually know 55 O'Conner Street? I think it's 50 O'Conner Street in Hull, Quebec and the goings on in that place?

D: What is that?

George: That's where a lot of government offices are. That's where a lot of the contractors are domiciled. That's also where the BCCI bank was that was revolving money that was going to Luxembourg. He told us all this stuff. Nobody believed any­thing he told us.

D: Alright, George, we've got to thank you. Let's go to Mike.

Mike: Hey, Dave. I'd like to ask your guest one question per­taining to the Free Trade the original, the first one. What about the six-month clause that we can get out of the deal if it is not to our satisfaction?

D: Alright, Shelley Ann, what about the six-month clause?


S: That clause expires this month and that's why I've been pushing so hard to see if the Liberals would do anything about it.

D: But, it expires this month. It was a five-year duration and it's over this month?

S: That's right, at the end of the month, to my recollection.

D: So there is no more out, from the Free Trade Agreement.

S: Yes, if it goes beyond the end of January, that's correct.

D: I don't know if the five-year time limit was as well known as you say it is. You know, I don't know if we knew it was ex­piring in five years. We thought it was always in existence.

S: No, there is an expiring date to that, which is January 30, 1994.

D: Jerry, hi, go ahead.

Jerry: Hi, Dave, how are you?

D: Well, I don't know yet.

Jerry: Thanks for extending the program. I only have a couple of things I want to say. Shelley Ann, I want to ask you one quick question. Is this type of documentation and stuff you are talking about here, is it available to all the Members Of Parlia­ment?

S: What documentation exactly are you talking about?

D: You mean the original one, the real one?

Jerry: Yeah.

S: Well, the real version...

Jerry: Wouldn't the opposition have had a chance to see this?

S: No. I would have to say "no" because I'm sure that even within the Mulroney ranks there would have been desertion.

Jerry: I guess, Shelley, I hope you don't mind me being skepti­cal. I'm not going to call you a dishonest person or anything like that and credibility is one that I've got to say the whole story is lacking a little bit of credibility because you don't have the evidence and I understand that so I think you are very articulate and well educated; I believe in you. I'd like to mention this to you and the rest of the listeners that I did stop by Grant Hill's, my MP, and I told him to tune in and I believe with the Reform Party being as strong as it is now in the government and I've also made a call to Preston Manning and I'd like the rest of the callers in Alberta to do the same thing. Phone your MP and demand them to research it and get to the answers.

S: I agree completely and I thank you for doing that.

Jerry: Ok. As the people of Canada, this is what these people are there for and if the pressure is put on the Reform Party--I believe in the Reform, I voted for them and they've got to get this thing out in the open.

S: There was certainly belief in me at the all-candidate meeting this past election. There were a lot of Reform people that came up to me and had no shadow-of-a-doubt about what I was say­ing.

Jerry: I hope Preston gives you a call. I asked him to, and I also asked Grant Hill to give you a call.

D: Jerry, that's a good note to end it on. Your right about go­ing to your MP. That's the way to go even though I think that Shelley Ann, I think, is on the other side of the spectrum.

D: Ok, Shelley Ann. Thank you for being here. It has been a compelling story and, you know, I hope it's not true.

S: Yes, well, there are a lot of people--I hope that it has disap­peared somewhere and can't be reinforced but I'm afraid that is not the case.

D: And Shelley Ann, we will keep track of you and will talk to you very soon.