POZA DE 1000 DE CUVINTE – din ziarul feis: Poză de 1000 de cuvinte, din 2015, VALABILĂ mult mai mult AZI. Insul de pe scaun e mega-financiarul statului paralel și ilegal MARIO DRAGHI (șef al băncii centrale europene: ECB), în conferință de presă. Femeia sare pe birou strigîndu-i JOS DICTATURA ECB și aruncîndu-i în față HÎRTII, simbol al BANCNOTELOR FĂRĂ VALOARE care sînt MONEDA europeană EURO (dar și cea americană USD). EXPERȚII numără zilele sistemului financiar americano-european, al COLAPSULUI economic TOTAL aflat în ultima fază de desfășurare în timp ce tovărășimea noastră de resort DOARME.

POZA DE 1000 DE CUVINTE – din ziarul feis: Poză de 1000 de cuvinte, din 2015, VALABILĂ mult mai mult AZI. Insul de pe scaun e mega-financiarul statului paralel și ilegal MARIO DRAGHI (șef al băncii centrale europene: ECB), în conferință de presă. Femeia sare pe birou strigîndu-i JOS DICTATURA ECB și aruncîndu-i în față HÎRTII, simbol al BANCNOTELOR FĂRĂ VALOARE care sînt MONEDA europeană EURO (dar și cea americană USD). EXPERȚII numără zilele sistemului financiar americano-european, al COLAPSULUI economic TOTAL aflat în ultima fază de desfășurare în timp ce tovărășimea noastră de resort DOARME.


Poză de 1000 de cuvinte, din 2015, VALABILĂ mult mai mult AZI. Insul de pe scaun e mega-financiarul statului paralel și ilegal MARIO DRAGHI (șef al băncii centrale europene: ECB), în conferință de presă. Femeia sare pe birou strigîndu-i JOS DICTATURA ECB și aruncîndu-i în față HÎRTII, simbol al BANCNOTELOR FĂRĂ VALOARE care sînt MONEDA europeană EURO (dar și cea americană USD). EXPERȚII numără zilele sistemului financiar americano-european, al COLAPSULUI economic TOTAL aflat în ultima fază de desfășurare în timp ce tovărășimea noastră de resort DOARME.

Descrierea pozei, de la link-ul indicat (v. supra):

A woman jumped on the table throws papers and confetti as she disrupts a press conference by Mario Draghi (C), President of the European Central Bank, (ECB) following a meeting of the Governing Council ain Frankfurt / Main, Germany, on April 15, 2015. The woman who charged at Draghi calling for an „end to the ECB dictatorship” was quickly escorted out of the premises by security officers before the news conference resumed. AFP PHOTO / DANIEL ROLAND (Photo credit should read DANIEL ROLAND/AFP/Getty Images)


A se vedea și o discuție între EXPERȚI REPUTAȚI, NE-OFICILAI, pe tema iminentului COLAPS FINANCIARO-ECONOMIC GLOBAL, care a avut loc acum cca 2 săptămîni (12 sept 19):


NATO este institutie de crima organizata, vinovata de CRIME DE RĂZBOI ÎN IUGOSLAVIA, cînd s-a aflat sub comanda mega-criminalului de razboi XAVIER SOLANA. Președintele Trump a clamat desființarea NATO în campania sa electorală, care a fost cerută legal și în rechizitoriul oficial al crimelor de război NATO comise în Iugoslavia, rechizitoriu alcătuit de Ramsey Clark, Procuror General și General Adjunct al SUA sub președințiile lui J. F. Kennedy și Lyndon B. Johnson, dar și a lui Jimmy Carter (lucru NE-menționat în biografia sa din wikipedia). – Doar în engleză



Co-editors: Seán Mac Mathúna • John Heathcote
Consulting editor: Themistocles Hoetis
Field Correspondent: Allen Hougland

E-mail: editors@fantompowa.netFormer US Attorney-General lodges complaint against NATO leaders over attack on Yugoslavia

Indictment from Canadian lawyer Michael Mandel and othersThe International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: The prosecutor of the trial against Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic and Vlajko Stojilkovic.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: The prosecutor of the trial against Radovan Karadzic and Genaral Ratko Mladic

Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Croatia vs Yugoslavia)

Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia)

Ramsay Clark

On July 31st 1999, the prominent US anti-war activist Ramsey Clark has lodged a complaint against Britain, the U.S. and NATO for their March 24-June 10 assault on Yugoslavia. Clark, who was US Attorney General under President Carter, heads the biggest anti-war movement in the United States, the International Action Center.

Clinton: Alleged to have committed war crimes during the NATO assault on Yugoslavia. On April 18th 2001, it was reported that the former U.S. president was sent a verdict sentencing him in absentia to 20 years in prison for „crimes against civilians”. According to news reports, Clinton, and his lawyers, also received a decision on the issuing of a warrant for his arrest by Yugoslav authorities.

The full text of the Complaint follows:


Charging William J. Clinton, The Government of The United States, NATO And Others With International Crimes And Violations of International And Domestic Laws Causing Death, Destruction, Injury And Suffering.

This complaint is presented to end the scourge of war, prevent future violations of fundamental human rights, protect international and national organizations, governments and institutions and to hold those convicted of the alleged violations accountable for their acts.

The Governments, Organizations and Individuals Named Herein are charged:

With Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity And Other Offenses In Violation of The Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal (Nuremberg), the Hague Regulations (Hague) and Geneva Conventions (Geneva) and Other International and National Laws;With Grave Violations of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), the North Atlantic Treaty (NAT), other international treaties, International Law, the Federal Constitution and Domestic Laws of the United States, the Basic Laws of Other Nations Including the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, Spain and other Governments of NATO members and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;

With Grave Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Genocide Convention, and Other International Covenants, Conventions, Treaties, Declarations and Domestic Laws named herein.

A. Defendants

1. President William J. Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Commanding Generals, Admirals, U.S. personnel directly involved in designating targets, flight crews and deck crews of the U.S. military bomber and assault aircraft, U.S. military personnel directly involved in targeting, preparing and launching missiles at Yugoslavia, the government of the United States personnel causing, condoning or failing to prevent violence in Yugoslavia before and during NATO occupation and Others to be named.

2. The United Kingdom, Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister and Commanding Generals, Admirals, U.K. personnel directly involved in designating targets, flight crews and deck crews of the U.K. military bomber sand assault aircraft, U.K. military personnel directly involved in targeting, preparing and Iaunching missiles at Yugoslavia, the government of the United States personnel causing, condoning or failing to prevent violence in Yugoslavia before and during NATO occupation and Others to be named.

3. The Federal Republic of Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister and Commanding Generals, Admirals, German personnel directly involved in designating targets, flight crews and deck crews of the German military bomber and assault aircraft, German military personnel directly involved in targeting, preparing and launching missiles at Yugoslavia, the government of the United States personnel causing, condoning or failing to prevent violence in Yugoslavia before and during NATO occupation and others to be named.

4. The Government of every NATO country that participated directly in the assaults on Yugoslavia with aircraft, missiles, or personnel and Commanding Generals, Admirals, NATO personnel directly involved in designating targets, flight crews and deck crews of the NATO military bomber and assault aircraft, NATO military personnel directly involved in targeting, preparing and launching missiles at Yugoslavia, the government of the United States personnel causing, condoning or failing to prevent violence in Yugoslavia before and during NATO occupation and Others to be named.

5. The Governments of Turkey, Hungary, Italy and others who permitted the use of airbases on their territory to be used by U.S., or other military aircraft and missiles for direct assault on Yugoslavia.

6. The North American Treaty Organization (NATO), Secretary General Javier Solana, Supreme Commander, General Wesley K. Clark

7. For Condemnation: Each NATO member that voted to authorize military assaults on Yugoslavia.

B. The Charges

1. Planning and executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and Impoverishment of Yugoslavia. The United States, Germany, NATO and other defendants engaged in a course of conduct beginning in, or before 1981 intended to break the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into many parts, segregate different ethnic, religious and other groups among and within newly balkanized borders, weaken the Slav, Serb, Muslim and other populations by causing and prolonging internal violence and by direct assaults by the United States and certain NATO members. As a consequence Yugoslavia which had 25 million people in an integrated society and economy is now comprised of many small nations, the largest of which is Serbia. Defendants intend to divide Yugoslavia until all parts of Yugoslavia have fewer than 5 million people, each to be overwhelmingly of a single ethnic origin and religion, to have severely impaired economies largely dominated by foreign interests, in which two groups, Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims suffer severest casualties, most extensive property damage, a vast reduction of productivity now down by 3/4s, or more, and a generation of impoverishment. U.N. Charter; Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention In The Domestic Affairs Of States And The Protection Of Their Independence and Sovereignty (Non Intervention Decl.), 1965 USGA Res. 2131.

2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between Muslims and Slavs. The United States and other defendants engaged in a course of conduct beginning in or before 1981, to cause Muslims and Orthodox Christian Slavs to engage in protracted fratricidal violence, in wars of attrition, similar to conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya between Muslims and Russian Slavs, which caused death, destruction and division in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere between the groups and dangerous frictions and enmity between two major enemies of the U.S., Slavic peoples and Muslims, in other regions, weakening both. Tactics included both providing and depriving select Muslim groups of arms to attack others, or adequately defend themselves in Bosnia; motivating, training and supplying KLA with arms to attack Yugoslavia police and military to seize control of Kosovo during NATO occupation and attack Serbs and others; preventing outside efforts to prevent and control the violence; committing, causing and condoning violence against persons displaced by U.S. and NATO bombing campaigns, and by KLA and Yugoslav police and military ground actions; causing and supporting clashes between Yugoslavia military/police/civilian groups and KLA/Kosovar paramilitary/civilian groups; condoning and failing to prevent assaults on displaced persons returning to and persons who remained in Kosovo, both before and after the NATO/U.S. occupation of Kosovo. In 1999, the U.S. caused the largest numbers of deaths, injuries and destruction by aerial and missile assaults against all elements in the population and its life support systems. U.N. Charter, Art. 2; Non Intervention Decl.; Resolution on the Definition of Aggression (Res. on Aggression), 1997 UNGA Res. 3314.

3. Preventing and Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in Yugoslavia. From the beginning of its efforts to implement its plans for dismemberment and destruction of Yugoslavia, the U.S. acted to prevent any interference, negotiation, or other efforts within Yugoslavia, or by other nations, leaders, or individuals to prevent the accomplishment of its intended purposes. Its techniques included political, military and economic threats and control of highly publicized peace negotiations much like those at Dayton, Ohio, during the Bosnia struggle, at Rambouillet, France, in 1999 which created an appearance of earnest peace negotiations, but offered Yugoslavia only two choices, agree to foreign military occupation, or expect a devastating military assault. U.N. Charter; Non Intervention Declaration; Resolution on Aggression; Pact of Paris 1928, Art I and II.

4. Destroying the Peace Making Role of the United Nations. The United States acted and coerced other nations to act to block the United Nations from performing its duties under the U.N. Charter to prevent conflict, control violence and maintain peace in Yugoslavia in violation of the Charter of the U.N. and threatening its viability as an international institution capable of maintaining peace and ending the scourge of war. U.N. Charter; Non Intervention Decl.; Resolution on Aggression, Pact of Paris 1928, Art I and II.

5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against and Occupation of Non-Compliant Poor Countries. The United States acted and coerced other nations to act to cause NATO to authorize direct military assaults on Yugoslavia in violation of the U.N. Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty relying overwhelmingly on U.S. weaponry and military technology and to cause NATO members to provide and finance the majority of the military forces to occupy Kosovo for the foreseeable future thereby employing the wealth and power of the rich former colonial powers of Europe against the poor and defenseless people of Yugoslavia. United Nations Charter; North Atlantic Treaty 1949, Art. I.

6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population Throughout Yugoslavia. Beginning on, or before March 24, 1999, the United States, without a declaration of war by the Congress, aided and abetted by certain NATO members, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Spain and the Netherlands, as well as Hungary, Croatia, Italy and others, commenced a war of missile and aerial bombing assaults, often indiscriminate in its targeting, against the populations of Yugoslavia intentionally killing and injuring many thousands of Serbs, Kosovars, Romas, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, foreign nationals throughout Yugoslavia with malice aforethought. Hague, Art. 22 and 23; Geneva 1949, Art. 19; Nuremberg, Principle VI a, b and c; U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. II

7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders and Selected Civilians. The United States planned, announced and carried out missile and aerial bombardment attacks intended to assassinate the Head of Government of Yugoslavia, members of his family, other government leaders and selected civilians to destroy existing government leadership and terrorize it and its closest personal support into submission. U.N. Charter, Art. 2, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (Protected Persons Convention); U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10; U.S. Presidential Executive Order 12333 (Ex. Order 12333); Geneva Conventions 1977, Protocol I Additional (Geneva 1977), Art. 48, 51

8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical, Diplomatic and Religious Resources, Properties and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia. Beginning on, or before March 24, 1999, the United States, aided and abetted by certain NATO members, including United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Spain and the Netherlands and others including Croatia, Hungary and Italy, commenced a systematic missile and aerial bombing assault on resources, properties and economic, social, cultural, medical, diplomatic and religious facilities intentionally destroying and damaging them throughout Yugoslavia to crush the productive, economic, social, cultural, diplomatic and religious viability of the whole society. Hague, Art. 22 and 23; Geneva 1949, Art. 19; Geneva 1977, Protocol I, Additional, Art. 48, 52, 53; U.N. Charter, Art. 2; Protected Persons Convention; U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10; Exec. Order 12333; Geneva 1977, Art. 48, 51; ICESCR.

9. Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of Yugoslavia. Beginning on or before March 24, 1999, the United States, aided and abetted by others, for the specific purpose of depriving the population of Yugoslavia of food, water, electric power, food production, medicines, medical care and other essentials to their survival, engaged in the systematic destruction and damage by missiles and aerial bombardment of food production and storage facilities, drinking water and irrigation works for agriculture, fertilizer, insecticide, pharmaceutical, hospitals and health care facilities, among other objects essential to human survival. Hague 1907, Art. 22 and 23; Geneva 1949, Art. 19; Nuremberg 1970, Principles VI a, b and c; Geneva 1977, Art. 48, 54.

10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces. The United States attacked chemical plants and storage facilities, petroleum and natural gas refining, processing and storage facilities, fertilizer plants and other facilities and locations for the specific purpose of releasing and scattering toxic, radioactive and other dangerous substances and forces into the atmosphere, soil, ground water and food chain to poison the environment and injure the population. Nuremberg Principal VI, Hague, Art. 22 and 23, Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, Geneva 1925 (Poisonous Substances Protocol); Geneva 1977, Protocol I Additional, Art. 48, 51, 56.

11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited Weapons. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and suffering against the population of all Yugoslavia. Despite knowledge of its deadly long term effect on life and warnings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. attacked Yugoslavia with depleted uranium missiles, bombs and bullets spreading radioactive matter into the atmosphere, soil, ground water, food chain and solid objects hit by depleted uranium missiles, bombs and bullets placing the Yugoslav population at risk of death, genetic damage, cancers, tumors, leukemia and other injuries for generations. Cluster bombs were used extensively spraying deadly razor sharp metal shards over wide areas against hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, apartment developments and other heavily populated places inflicting death, injury and property damage. The use of other illegal weapons is under continuing investigation. Hague, Art. 22 and 23, Geneva 1977, Art. 48, 51, 54, 55, POONA Indictment for the Subversion of Science and technology 1978 (POONA Indictment).

12. Waging War on the Environment. The United States aerial and missile assault intentionally created a widespread, long term and severe environmental disaster in Yugoslavia. Air pollution from overflights alone multiplied normal impurities in the atmosphere. Thousands of tons of explosives unleashed enormous quantities of chemicals into the air, raised clouds of dust and debris from places hit and started fires that often raged for days. Chemical, petrochemical, oil and gas refinery, storage and transmission facilities purposely targeted in the vicinity of Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis and other major cities exposed huge populations to dangerous and noxious pollution. Depleted uranium scattered across Kosovo and the remainder of Serbia will threaten life for generations. Hague, Art. 22 and 23; Geneva 1977, Art. 48, 51, 54, 55; Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972; Principles I, II, (U.N. Conf. on Human Environment), et al.

13. Imposing Sanctions through the UN That Are A Genocidal Crime Against Humanity to Achieve Impoverishment and Debilitation of the People of Yugoslavia. The United States began an economic attack on Yugoslavia designed to break it up politically and tear it down economically before 1989. It caused the International Monetary Fund IMF) to use its strongest shock therapy to attack Yugoslav productivity, add to its foreign debt burden and expose national wealth to foreign capital by forcing removal of trade barriers and privatizing vital public industry, commerce, utilities and facilities. In May 1991 U.S. Secretary of State Baker stopped all U.S. aid programs to all six Yugoslav Republics and vetoed future IMF credits, creating an enormous economic incentive and powerful political argument for political opposition to Belgrade to separate other Republics from Serbia. The U.S. forced U.N. sanctions against Yugoslavia, but relieved Republics, which seceded from Yugoslavia of sanctions. Such sanctions devastated the entire economy of Yugoslavia to the degree that a normal growth rate free of U.S. coercion would require 30 years to return Yugoslavia to its 1989 levels of productivity. Per capita production value for all six Republics of Yugoslavia in 1989 was $6220.

Today for Serbia and Montenegro, the remaining Republics of Yugoslavia, it is $1510. Ninety percent of all trade was among the six republics before the break-up. All former republics have suffered economically, but Yugoslavia now, with barely 40% of its 1990 population, including Kosovo, has had a far greater decline economically than the favored northern Republics of Slovenia and Croatia which are today more overwhelmingly Roman Catholic than before their secession. The sanctions against Yugoslavia continue and Serbia, excluding Kosovo, is barred from receiving any planned reparations and aid to rebuild from bomb damage and economic attrition. The sanctions have had a far more damaging effect on life, health, the economy and the quality of life in Yugoslavia than the military assault, increasing death rates, lowering life expectation, reducing nutrition and health care and driving production down. As in Iraq, and elsewhere, the sanctions are an economic crime, a crime against humanity and genocide. Nuremberg, Principle VI c, Crimes Against Humanity; Genocide Convention; Geneva 1977, Art. 48, 54, 55.

14. Creating An Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal To Destroy And Demonize Serb Leadership. The United States acting through defendant Madeleine Albright coerced the U.N. Security Council to create ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in violation of the U.N. Charter to destroy and demonize enemy leaders in those two countries and threaten leaders elsewhere. The U.N. Charter does not authorize creation of criminal tribunals. The U.S. strongly opposes the International Criminal Tribunal treaty approved by 120 nations at Rome in July 1998 and in the process of ratification by nations now, because it does not intend to subject its leaders, or military forces to the jurisdiction of an independent international Court and the rule of international law. By targeting individual enemies in ad hoc courts and charging them with genocide, it achieves their isolation internationally, pressures their own countries to remove them from power, corrupts and politicizes justice and uses the appearance of neutral international law to adjudicate and punish enemies as war criminals and establish itself as an innocent champion of justice. U.N. Charter, Statute of the International Court of Justice (Statute ICJ); UDHR; ICCPR.

15. Using Controlled International Media to Create Support for U.S. Assaults Anywhere and To Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers. The United States defendants have systematically controlled, directed, manipulated, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage concerning Yugoslavia and the U.S. assaults on it to gain public support for the massive bombardment of a defenseless Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, as had been done in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan and elsewhere. The international media has supported and celebrated U.S. political goals of further fragmentation of Yugoslavia and other areas, segregating each region; demonizing selected government officials, other leaders, generals, military officers and soldiers as genocidal murderers; controlling other nations by the threat of popularly supported missile and air assaults and crippling economic sanctions and stimulating acceptance and support from the U.S. public for future operations against other nations and to increase military budgets to support an expanding global role for U.S. military presence and control.

16. Establishing the Long term Military Occupation of Strategic Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces. The United States has coerced defendant NATO members and others to provide and support military occupation forces for the occupation of Kosovo, as it did in Bosnia, in order to physically control key parts of Yugoslavia to enforce permanent separation and segregation of States and peoples, to further injure the populations, to create barriers to immigration from Asia Minor, Arab states in the Middle East, North Africa, and former southern republics of the USSR, and elsewhere; to provide a buffer between Europe and the regions described by controlling the territory of divided, segregated and impoverished Slavs, Serbs, Orthodox Christians, Kosovars, and others; to exploit the resources of the region; and to prepare and condition NATO members for future participation against other nations. U.N. Charter; NAT. Art. I; Non Intervention Decl.

17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Christian and Other Peoples of Yugoslavia. The United States has attempted to destroy the Sovereignty of Yugoslavia, the rights of its people to self determination, the democratic institutions it has developed and its culture which defines the heritage, values and traditions of its people. The United States overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh administration in Iran in 1953 which it replaced with the Shah of Iran who ruled absolutely for 25 years; the democratically elected Arbeny government of Guatemala which was followed by forty years of brutal governments; the democratically elected Lumumba government of the Congo in 1962, which was followed by violent dictators to this day; the democratically elected Allende government of Chile which promised health, education, social and economic justice which was replaced by a reign of terror and military dictatorship under General Pinochet now sought by Spain and other nations for human rights violations; popularly elected leaders in Vietnam, Pakistan, the Philippines, Panama, Haiti and elsewhere were replaced by U.S. surrogates. The U.S. has opposed, assaulted and blockaded Cuba and its entire people for forty years.

The U.N. General Assembly voted 155 to 2 to condemn the U.S. for its blockade of Cuba in December 1998. The U.S. has maintained repressive governments on five continents in too many countries to name; all seeking to destroy the cultures that define the people, their history, character, values, arts, literature, music, with commercially exploitive products having no substantive worth and one overriding purpose – profits from the poor. A goal of U.S. policy is to entrench the belief that only one system works, capitalism, that only one culture has value, that of the U.S. and western European, and that history will end with the globalization of U.S. culture. UDHR; ICCPR; ICESCR.

18. The Purpose of the U.S. Being To Dominate, Control and Exploit Yugoslavia, Its People and Its resources. The long term purpose of all the acts complained of is to dominate, control and exploit the poor nations of the world and the poor people of the U.S. and other rich countries to further enrich and empower concentrations of wealth and neutralize the whole population of poor, overwhelmingly darker skinned people with fear, powerlessness, poverty, bread and circus.

19. The Means of the U.S. Being Military Power and Economic Coercion. The United States with a near monopoly on nuclear weapons, military aircraft, missiles, advanced armored vehicles, firepower, equipment, and highly sophisticated technology continuously expands its physical power to destroy, expending more on its military power than the rest of the UN Security Council combined. This year U.S. military expenditures will be near 300 billion dollars. The demonized Peoples Republic of China will spend 34 billion dollars, acquiring far less in destructive power for each dollar. The U.S. sells more destructive arms to other governments and groups seeking to overthrow governments than the rest of the arms selling countries combined. Often the intention is that they „kill each other,” a preferred means of achieving domination. The U.S. does not sell arms it cannot destroy without incurring significant casualties. The U.S. uses its enormous economic power to coerce foreign governments to comply with its wishes, without regard to the interests of the people of those foreign countries. The threat of economic sanctions alone coerces countries to meet U.S. demands contrary to their sovereignty and self-interest.

C. Relief Sought

1. Freedom for all Balkan peoples to form a federation of their choice to provide political, civil, social, economic and cultural independence and viability for all the peoples of the region.

2. Comprehensive efforts to create mutual respect, common interests and bonds of friendship among and between Muslims, Slavs and all national, ethnic and religious groups in the Balkans.

3. Strict prohibition on all forms of foreign interference with or disruption of efforts to establish unity, peace and stability in the Balkans.

4. Restoration of peace making functions of the U.N. and reform of the U.N. to make it effective.

5. The abolition of NATO.

6. Full accountability by individuals and governments for criminal and other wrongful military assaults and economic injustice, including sanctions inflicted on all the people of Yugoslavia, their lives, resources, properties and environment to include criminal prosecutions and reparations sufficient to place all the population in the condition it would be in had it not suffered the wrongs inflicted on it, together with resources with which to build a better future of the peoples’ choice.

7. Abolition of the illegal ad hoc international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia and reliance on a legal international tribunal of worldwide non-discriminatory jurisdiction capable of equal justice under the law.

8. Providing adequate media access to inform the world of the human destructiveness of the use of high technology weapons by the U.S. against poor and defenseless people and the practice of genocide by sanctions.

9. Removing all foreign troops from the Balkans at the earliest feasible moment and U.S. troops from NATO countries and elsewhere immediately.

A broader range of relief and reform may be found in Chapter 12 of The Fire This Time. It is drawn from the experiences and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the International War Crimes Tribunal which heard evidence in 20 countries concerning the assault on Iraq in 1991, the continuing assaults on Iraq thereafter and the genocidal sanctions which continue to this day.

Scope of the Inquiry

The Commission of Inquiry will focus on U.S. criminal conduct, aided and abetted by NATO, because of the dominant U.S. role in the military and other wrongful acts against Yugoslavia, without its incurring a single casualty while causing thousands of deaths in Yugoslavia, the peril of continuing U.S. conduct to all the people of Yugoslavia and the risk of aerial and missile strikes against other nations in view of the well-known record of the U.S. The Commission of Inquiry will seek and accept evidence of criminal acts by any person or government, related to the conflict, because it believes international law must be applied uniformly. It believes that „victors’ justice” is not law, but the extension of war by force of the prevailing party. U.S. propaganda and international media coverage has demonized Yugoslavia, its leadership, Serbs and Muslims to fit its purposes, but rarely noticed the criminal destruction of Yugoslavia by U.S. acts as set forth in this complaint. Comprehensive efforts to gather and evaluate evidence, objectively judge all the conduct that constitutes crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity and to present these facts for judgment to the court of world opinion requires that any serious fair effort focus on the United States. The Commission of Inquiry believes its focus on U.S. criminal acts is important, proper, and the only way to bring the whole truth, a balanced perspective and impartiality in application of legal process to this great human tragedy.

Ramsey Clark, July 30, 1999


Co-editors: Seán Mac Mathúna • John Heathcote
Consulting editor: Themistocles Hoetis
Field Correspondent: Allen Hougland

E-mail: editors@fantompowa.netThe War in Yugoslavia
NATO leaders indicted for war crimes

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark indicts NATO leadersAmnesty International reports on Kosovo

Human Rights Watch: Kosovo Focus on Human Rights

Censorship and Bias in the Yugoslav war

Kosovo Information Archive

TThe International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: The prosecutor of the trial against Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic and Vlajko Stojilkovic.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: The prosecutor of the trial against Radovan Karadzic and Genaral Ratko Mladic

Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Croatia vs Yugoslavia)

Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia)

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
February 22, 2000 ,
By: M. Mandel

Personal Note from M. Mandel:

Allow me to tell you a little bit about myself and how I came to be involved in this. I am a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School where I have taught for 25 years. I specialize in criminal law and comparative constitutional law with an emphasis on domestic and foreign tribunals, including United Nations tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I have no personal interest in the conflicts in Yugoslavia- I have no Serbs or Albanians in my family and I am not being paid by anyone. I became involved in this as a Canadian lawyer who witnessed a flagrant violation of the law by my government with unspeakably tragic results for innocent people of all Yugoslav ethnicities. I became involved as a Jew appalled by the grotesque and deliberate misuse of the Holocaust to justify the killing and maiming of innocent people for what I am convinced were purely self-interested motives, the farthest thing from humanitarianism, in a cynical attempt to manipulate the desire of Canadians to help their fellows on the other side of the world.

Illegality of the War

The first thing to note about NATO’s war against Yugoslavia is that it was flatly illegal both in the fact that it was ever undertaken and in the way it was carried out. It was a gross and deliberate violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter authorizes the use of force in only two situations: self-defence, or, when authorized by the Security Council.

The United Nations Charter provides in so far as is relevant:

  • Article 2(3): All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  • Article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independance of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
  • Article 33: The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  • Article 37(1): Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
  • Article 37(2): If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
  • Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
  • Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its’ decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, or other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
  • Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that the measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
  • Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security . Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is also clear. For instance, it stated in its ruling against United States intervention in Nicaragua;

In any event, while the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect. With regard to the steps actually taken, the protection of human rights, a strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible with the mining of ports, the destruction of oil installations, or again with the training, arming and equipping of the contras.[CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (MERITS) Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p.134-135, paragraphs 267 and 268]

It should be also noted that the preliminary decision of the World Court last year in Yugoslavia’s case against 10 NATO countries, including Canada, does not in the slightest contradict this. As Mr. Matas has pointed out to you in his statement, this decision was taken on purely jurisdictional grounds, first the United States’ shameful refusal to recognize the World Court’s jurisdiction in general, and second Canada’s objection to jurisdiction in this specific case. But it is worth quoting some paragraphs from the decision of the Court:

  • 15. Whereas the Court is deeply concerned with the human tragedy, the loss of life, and the enormous suffering in Kosovo which form the background of the present dispute, and with the continuing loss of life and human suffering in all parts of Yugoslavia;
  • 16. Whereas the Court is profoundly concerned with the use of force in Yugoslavia; whereas under the present circumstances such use raises very serious issues of international law;
  • 17. Whereas the Court is mindful of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and of its own responsibilities in the maintenance of peace an security under the Charter and the Statue of the court;
  • 18. Whereas the Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties appearing before it must act in conformity with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and other rules of international law, including humanitarian law.

[CASE CONCERNING LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (YUGOSLAVIA v. CANADA) International Court of Justice, 2 June 1999]

To sum up, in the case of NATO’s war on Yugoslavia, neither of the two exclusive bases for the use of force (Security Council authorization or self-defence) was even claimed by NATO.

As a violation of the United Nations Charter, the attack on Yugoslavia was also a violation of the NATO Treaty itself and Canada’s own domestic law.

The NATO Treaty (1949), so far as is relevant, reads as follows:

[Preamble]: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

  • Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain n their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
  • Article 7: This treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Canada Defence Act, in so far as relevant reads as follows:

  • 31. (1) the Governor in Council may place the Canadian forces or any component, unit or other element thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
  • (a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
  • (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.

The war’s illegality is not disputed by any legal scholar of repute, even those who had some sympathy for the war- for instance, Mr. Mendes in his presentation to this Committee. Of course, Mr. Mendes calls this a „fatal flaw” in the UN Charter. I don’t believe it is a „flaw” at all, for reasons I’ll elaborate. But I don’t think the seriousness of this can be glossed over one bit; the flagrant violation of the law by our government is no small thing. Democracy is quite simply meaningless if governments feel they can violate the law with impunity.

Humanitarian Justification

We all know that the leaders of the NATO countries sought to justify this war as a humanitarian intervention in defence of a vulnerable population – the Kosovo Albanians – threatened with mass atrocities.

A lot turns on this claim, but NOT the illegality of the war. In fact, the reason why there is such unanimity among scholars on the illegality of this war is that there is no „humanitarian exception” under international law or the United Nations Charter. That does not mean that there are no means for the international community to intervene to prevent or stop humanitarian disasters, even to use force where necessary. It just means that the use of force for humanitarian purposes has been totally absorbed in the UN Charter. A state must be able to demonstrate the humanity of its’ proposed intervention to the UN Security Council, including, of course, the five permanent members possessing a veto. Nor has the Security Council shown itself to be incapable of acting in these situations. It issued numerous resolutions authorizing action in this conflict. (Resolutions 1160, 1199, 1203 during 1998 and Resolutions 1239 and 1244 during 1999, the last of which brought an end to the bombing)

The Security Council has also shown itself capable of authorizing the use of force; for example, its’ authorization of „all necessary means” to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait in Resolution 678 passed 11/29/90, which gave Iraq until 1/15/91 to withdraw. Bombing by the Americans commenced on 1/16/91.

But NATO did not even move a Resolution before the Security Council over Kosovo. Nor did it use the alternative means of demonstrating to the international community the necessity for its’ use of force in the General Assembly’s „Uniting for Peace” (Resolution 1950), which allows the General Assembly to recommend action to the Security Council if two-thirds of those present and voting agree:

„…(The General Assembly) Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its’ primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

There are 2 basic reasons why these procedures were not utilized by NATO in this case. In the first place, the most plausible explanation for this whole war was that it was, at its’ foundation, nothing less than an attempt by the United States, through NATO, to overthrow the authority of the United Nations. In the second place, NATO could never have demonstrated a humanitarian justification for what it was doing- because, it had none.

In law, as in morals, it is not enough for a humanitarian justification to be CLAIMED; it must also be DEMONSTRATED. To use an odious example, but one which makes the point clearly enough, Hitler himself used a humanitarian justification for invading Poland and unleashing WW II: he claimed he was doing it to protect the German minority from oppression by the Poles.

In the case of NATO, what had to justified as a humanitarian intervention was a bombing campaign that, in dropping 25,000 bombs on Yugoslavia, directly killed between 500 and 1800 civilian children, women, and men of all ethnicities, and permanently injured many others; a bombing campaign that caused 60 to 100 billion dollars damage to an already impoverished country; a bombing campaign that directly and indirectly caused a refugee crisis of enormous proportions, with about one million people fleeing Kosovo during these attacks; a bombing campaign that indirectly caused the death of thousands more, by provoking the brutal retaliatory and defensive measures that are inevitable when a war of this kind and intensity is undertaken, and by giving a free hand to extremists on both sides to vent their hatred. What also has to be justified is the ethnic cleansing that has occurred in Kosovo since the entry of the triumphant KLA, fully backed by NATO’s might, which has seen hundreds of thousands of Serb (and Roma and Jewish) citizens of Kosovo driven out, and hundreds murdered as well- a murder rate that is about 10 times the Canadian rate per capita.

These results were to be expected and they were predicted by NATO’s military and political advisors in their very careful planning of this war which went back more than a year before the bombings commenced.

A humanitarian justification would have to show that this disaster was outweighed by a greater disaster that was about to happen and would have happened but for this intervention. The evidence for this, which must be carefully scrutinized by this Committee, is meagre to say the least.

Nobody could seriously maintain that the conditions for a repeat of the Bosnian bloodbath were there: this was not an all-out civil war with well-armed parties of roughly equal strength on each side and huge ethnic enclaves fighting for their existence. These conditions simply did not exist in Kosovo prior to these bombings.

Nor did the facts indicate a humanitarian disaster would have occurred but for NATO’s bombing. A total of approximately 2000 people had been killed on both sides in the prior two years of fighting between KLA and the Serbs, and violence was declining with the presence of UN observers. The alleged massacre of 45 ethnic Albanians at Racak, Yugoslavia, must be regarded with the greatest suspicions, not only because of the circumstances, but because of involvement of the American emissary Mr. William Walker, with his history of covert and illegal activities on behalf of the Americans in Latin America.

Nor is the Report recently released by OSCE of much value in assessing the situation, since it was written and paid for by the NATO countries themselves.

Even more importantly, the evidence is overwhelming that NATO did not make serious efforts at averting a disaster and was not at all serious about peace.

If we look at the Rambouillet negotiations, a number of perplexing questions are raised: why was the irredentist and insurrectionary KLA preferred as NATO interlocutor to the only popularly-elected leader, the moderate Ibrahim Rugova? Why, for that matter, was Rugova ignored during the war? Why did the US insist on a secret annex to the Rambouillet Accord (Appendix B) that would have allowed it to occupy all of Serbia? Why did the final peace agreement look so much like what the Serbs had agreed to before the bombings? Do we really think that NATO could not have put the 10 billion dollars ( worth of bombs it dropped) to working out and underwriting a peace agreement that would have accommodated and protected all sides, if it were only interested in humanity- and not war?

Why are NATO countries so unwilling to spend money on reconstruction of Kosovo, claiming that they have run out of money, with less than 1 billion dollars spent?

And where, to resolve these enormous doubts about whether NATO acted out of humanitarian motives this time, is the evidence that these people have ever acted from humanitarian motives before?

With such huge holes in its’ argument. we are entitled to examine the leopard on his spots. What about the failure to intervene with force in Rwanda? What about the United States’ own bankrolling of the repressive Suharto regime in Indonesia? What about Turkey’s violent repression of the Kurds, a humanitarian disaster that has claimed 30,000 lives, not 2000?

What about the United States itself? The richest country in the world which creates social conditions so violent and racist that its’ normal murder rate is in the realm of 20,000 per year, almost as high, per capita, as Kosovo is RIGHT NOW – the same United States that puts two or three people to death by lethal injection every week.

NATO has no humanitarian lessons to teach the world.

Finally, and very importantly, we must ask some serious questions about the way in which this supposed humanitarian intervention was handled. With Albanian citizens of Kosovo supposedly in the hands of genocidal maniacs, NATO gave five days warning between the withdrawal of the OSCE observers and the launch of the attack. This was followed by seven days of bombing by NATO that mostly ignored Kosovo itself. In other words, these tactics were an INVITATION to genocide that was not accepted, but one that also was guaranteed to produce a refugee flow to legitimate a massive bombing campaign.

As Ambassador Bissett told this committee last week, that NATO leaders have no respect for the truth should startle no one. What of the claim by Jamie Shea that it was the Serbs who bombed the Albanian refugee convoy? (until independant journalists found bomb fragments marked, „Made in USA”)

What of the claim by a NATO general, with video up on the screen, that the passenger train on the Grdelica bridge was going too fast to avoid being hit? (until somebody pointed out that the video had been speeded up three times its’ normal speed)

What of the claim that the Chinese embassy was bombed because NATO’s maps were out of date?

What of the claims by Mr. Clinton (and Mrs. Clinton) and Mr. Cohen that a „Holocaust” was occurring in which perhaps 100,000 men from Kosovo had been murdered? (until the bombing was over and the numbers dwindled down to 2108- and we have yet to be told who they were and how they died)

In fact, most people in the world simply do not believe NATO’s claim of humanitarianism.

A poll taken in mid-April and published by The Economist shows that this was a very unpopular war, opposed by perhaps most of the world’s population both outside and inside the NATO alliance. („Oh what a lovely war!”, The Economist, April 24, 1999, showing more than a third opposed in Canada, Poland, Germany, France and Finland, almost an even split in Hungary, an even split in Italy and a majority opposed in the Czech Republic, Russia and Taiwan) A poll taken in Greece between April 29th and May 5th showed 99.5% against the war, 85% believing NATO’s motives to be strategic and not humanitarian, and, most importantly, 69% in favour of charging Bill Clinton with war crimes, 35.2% for charging Tony Blair and only 14% for charging Slobodan Milosevic, not far from the 13% in favour of charging NATO general Wesley Clark and 9.6% for charging NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. („Majority in Greece wants Clinton tried for war crimes”, The Irish Times, May 27, 1999).

Much more plausible than the humanitarian thesis is the one that the United States deliberately provoked this war, that it deliberately exploited and exacerbated another country’s tragedy – a tragedy partly of its own creation (we should not forget that the West’s aggressive and purely selfish economic policies that have beggared Yugoslavia over the last ten years). NATO exists to make war, not peace. The arms industry exists to make profits from dropping bombs. And the United States, by virtue of its military might dominates NATO the way it does not dominate the United Nations. The most plausible explanation then is that this attack was not about the Balkans at all. It was an attempt to overthrow the authority of the United Nations and make NATO, and therefore the United States, the world’s supreme authority, to establish the „precedent” that NATO politicians have been talking about since the bombing stopped. To give the United States the free hand that the United Nations does not, in its conflicts with the Third World and its rivalries with Russia, China and even Europe.

In other words, this was not a case of the United Nations being an obstacle to humanitarianism. It was a case of using a flimsy pretext of humanitarianism to overthrow the United Nations.

Not only was this an illegal war that had no humanitarian justification. It was a war pursued by illegal means. According to admissions made in public throughout the war (for instance during NATO briefings), according to eye-witness reports and according to powerful circumstantial evidence displayed on the world’s television screens throughout the bombing campaign – evidence good enough to convict in any criminal court in the world – these NATO leaders deliberately and illegally made targets of places and things with on ly tenuous or slight military value or no military value at all. Places such as city bridges, factories, hospitals, marketplaces, downtown and residential neighbourhoods, and television studios. The same evidence shows that, in doing this, the NATO leaders aimed to demoralize and break the will of the people, not to defeat its army.

The American group Human rights Watch has just issued a lengthy report documenting a systematic and massive violation of international humanitarian law by NATO in Yugoslavia. They estimate the civilian victims to be about 500. This figure should be taken as a minimum because it is a number Human Rights Watch says it can independently confirm and that can be attributed directly to the bombing. It excludes persons known to be killed as an indirect result of the bombing. every benefit of the doubt is given to NATO, a fact exemplified by the Report’s puzzling and actually undefended distinction between these grave „violations of humanitarian law” and „war crimes”. Human Rights Watch has also documented the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in attacks on civilian targets.

The reason these civilian targets are illegal is that civilians are very likely to be killed or injured when such targets are hit. And all of the NATO leaders knew that. They were carefully told that by their military planners. And they still went ahead and did it.

And they did it without any risk to themselves or to their soldiers and pilots. That’s why this war was called a „coward’s war”. The cowardice lay in fighting the civilian population and not the military, in bombing from altitudes so high that the civilians, Serbians, Albanians, Roma, and anybody else on the ground, bore all the risks of the „inevitable collateral damage”.

War Crimes Charges before the International Tribunal

But the fact that this war was illegal and unjustified has further very serious implications. Mr. Chretien, Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Eggleton, along with all the other NATO leaders, planned and executed a bombing campaign that they knew was illegal and that they knew would cause the death and permanent injury of thousands of civilian children, women and men. Hard as it is for us to accept, or even to say, killing hundreds or thousands of civilians knowingly and without lawful excuse is nothing less than mass murder. Milosevic was indicted the The Hague for 385 victims . . . (NATO) killed between 500 and 1800 (civilians).

That is why, starting in April of last year and continuing to the present day, dozens of lawyers and law professors, a pan-American association representing hundreds of jurists, some elected legislators, and thousands of private citizens from around the world, have lodge formal complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague charging NATO leaders with war crimes.

The particular compliant I am involved in was filed in May, 1999 and names 68 ministers of the 19 NATO countries (including US President Bill Clinton, Secretaries Cohen and Albright, Canadian Prime Minister Chretien, Ministers Axworthy and Eggleton and so on down the list), and the highest ranking of NATO officials, from then Secretary General Javier Solana, through Generals Wesley Clark, Michael Short, and official spokesman Jamie Shea.

The charges against NATO leaders include the following:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, contrary to article 2 of the Statue of the Tribunal, namely the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (a) willful killing; (c) willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; (d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Violations of the laws or customs of war, contrary to Article 3 namely: (a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings; (d) seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science.

Crimes against humanity contrary to Article 5, namely; (a) murder; (i) other inhumane acts.

Article 7 or the Statute provides for „individual criminal responsibility” thus:

  • 1. A person who planned instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime.
  • 2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.
  • 3. The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.

We have been in frequent contact with the Tribunal, travelling to the Hague twice to argue our case with Chief Prosecutors Louise Arbour and Carla Del Ponte and their legal advisers, filing evidence, legal briefs and arguments in support of the case. I am filing with this Committee a book of the evidence we have filed with the tribunal. I understand that you already have the two volumes prepared by the government of Yugoslavia. I would point out that these volumes have been confirmed as „largely credible” by the Human Rights Watch Report.

Recently, Justice Del Ponte disclosed that she was studying an internal document analyzing the many claims that have been made against NATO. My latest word from her (February 8) is that she is still studying the case.

Justice Del Ponte has said that if she is not prepared to prosecute NATO she should pack up and go home, and I have to agree with her, because, in that case, the tribunal would be doing far more harm than good, only legitimating NATO’s violent lawlessness against people unlucky enough to be ruled by „indicted war criminals”, as opposed to the un-indicted kind that govern the NATO countries.

This was the very purpose for which the United States sponsored this tribunal in the first place, at least according to Michael Scharf, Attorney-Advisor with the US State Department, who, under Madeleine Albright’s instructions, actually drafted the Security Council resolution establishing the Tribunal.

„the tribunal was widely perceived within the government as little more than a public relations device and as a potentially useful policy tool… Indictments also would serve to isolate offending leaders diplomatically, strengthen the hand of their domestic rivals and fortify the international political will to employ economic sanctions or use of force” (The Washington Post, October 3, 1999)

I must confess that my colleagues and I and the thousands of others who have complained to the Tribunal have grave doubts about its impartiality. We have given the benefit of every doubt even in the face of mounting evidence that it didn’t deserve it: when, in January, 1999, then prosecutor Judge Louise Arbour made a rather dramatic appearance at the border of Kosovo, lending credibility to contested American accounts of atrocities at Racak, a precipitating justification of the war itself; when, only days after the bombing had commenced, she made an announcement of the Arkan indictment that had been secret from 1997; when she made television appearances with NATO leader Robin Cook, already the subject of numerous complaints during the war to receive war crimes dossiers; when she met with Madeleine Albright, herself by then the subject of well-grounded complaints before the tribunal, and Albright took the opportunity to announce that the United States was the major provider of funds to the indictment of Milosevic, on the basis of undisclosed evidence, for Racak and events which had occurred only six weeks earlier in the middle of a war zone – on what, in other words, must have been very flimsy and suspicious evidence; and when, at the conclusion of the bombing Judge Arbour handed over the investigation of war crimes in Kosovo to NATO countries’ police forces themselves – notwithstanding that they had every motive to falsify the evidence.

I am sad to say, because the former prosecutor is now a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada and an old colleague and friend of mine, of whom we all want to be proud, that these could not be regarded as the acts of an impartial prosecutor. Not when NATO was in the midst of a disastrous war in flagrant violation of international law.

We sincerely hoped for better things from Judge Del Ponte coming as she did from a country outside of the NATO alliance. But our expectations have been progressively lowered. First, when she declared, immediately upon taking the job, that her priorities were the prosecution of Milosevic, something which clearly suited the NATO countries but which, as we told her in November, could in no way be compatible with her sworn duties. A prosecutor cannot declare that she is going to concentrate only on some crimes and grant effective immunity to other criminals. Then, when she made the observation that she was indeed investigating complaints against NATO, and NATO reacted in its typically outrageous fashion by attacking the Tribunal, Judge Del Ponte quickly issued unseemly appeasing statements and went on a conciliatory mission to Brussels.

I am saying all this to put the Committee on guard against delegating its own judgment to this Tribunal which was set up as an instrument of the United States foreign policy and has given us so many grounds to suspect that it sees itself the same way. Whatever this Tribunal decides to do or not to do, it is incumbent on this Committee to scrutinize its reasons and the evidence with the utmost care.

Let me end by citing to you the words of Justice Robert Jackson from his opening statement to the Nuremberg Tribunal on November 21, 1945:

„But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law.” (The Nuremberg Case As Presented by Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States (New York; Cooper Square Publishers Inc, 1971) at page 93)

Reprinted from: http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/



via EXPOSED: All the Queen’s Agents and Corporations that Control the World


We may not realize it, but we are still subjects of the British Monarchy. American history books and classes indoctrinated (propaganda) us into believing we had won the American Revolution. But we didn’t. We are still subjects of Queen Elizabeth.

The history books were written by the victors and their big publishing houses. And it was much easier to control the new colonies by letting them think they had won their independence, while the British Crown carefully laid their tentacles throughout America, tentacles that grew longer and stronger with every passing year.

We aren’t the America we think we are. That’s the big red pill. Most of us on planet Earth are still under the Queen’s rule.

To get started with the real history of who runs planet Earth, we suggest that you listen to this conversation between Betsy and Thomas. They will explain the big picture. Then you will be ready to read the report that follows.




English law prohibits questioning the Monarchy about their personal holdings and business.

This is true of most of Europe’s royalty, whether enthroned or not. The wealth of the Monarchies is held outside of the countries that made the wealth. The British Crown’s offshore banks hold the greatest personal wealth in the world estimated at $35 trillion. Perhaps the British Crown still owns and controls its Commonwealth Nations, including the American “colonies.”

Monarchies are not supposed to be warlord bankers who create conflict and chaos to turn a profit or destabilize an economy for personal gain. But they have been for some time now, and history is a string of immoral wars caused by monarchies, the Vatican and other religions. Untold millions have died while kings and popes lived on to grab the wealth through well-established institutions that were created to control the commoner.

The Commonwealth of Nations, headed by Queen Elizabeth II, is made up of 53 nations, spanning the globe, accounting for one-fifth of the land mass of the Earth, and a very high percentage of its strategic resources and population. The Queen is a Knight of Malta and has vowed allegiance to the Pope through the largest insider trading club on the planet. The British Crown Agents are, in fact, also agents of the Vatican’s Knights of Malta.


The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) took control of the power and wealth of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon from within the Roman system. The SMOM controlled the banking and military power for the Vatican for hundreds of years through the first central bank, the Vatican Bank.

The Roman Catholic priestly order of the Jesuits (Society of Jesus) subordinated the SMOM in 1798 aided by Napoleon Bonaparte. This would eventually lead to the Jesuits installing British control over the Island Malta and the founding of a Jesuit College manned by British Jesuits. The Jesuits became somewhat crippled by this suppression in Catholic controlled Europe, so in order for the Jesuits to secure South American wealth they used Protestant banking houses and formed an alliance with the Venetian influences over Britain like the Pallavicini family who control the Monarchy and Rothschilds.

The Jesuits in 1840 put the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha bloodline into the position of Monarchy of Great Britain. This house is known today as the Windsor House which still rules the UK and the Commonwealth Nations. The same fate would eventually happen to the Vatican itself after suppressing the Jesuits in 1773. The Jesuit Order took control of the Papacy by 1814 and had enacted revenge once again for their persecution.

The Order of Malta and the recognized protestant divisions all play a role commanded by the Jesuit Order. This includes The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem controlled by Queen Elizabeth II. If you look at the last Grandmasters of the Order of Malta you will notice they came from Britain. Former-Grandmaster Andrew Willougby Ninian Bertie was a cousin to Queen Elizabeth II originated within the Grand Priory of England. The British arm of the Order of Malta controlling St John’s Wood is known as the Grand Priory of England. This location was once also a Knights Templar headquarters in Britain. The Order of Malta even owned Londinium (TheCityofLondon). TheCityofLondon was eventually rented out by the Order of Malta as their headquarters. The Jesuits took over Londinium in 1825 aided by the Rothschild family who had become the most powerful economic force in England.


The Knights of Malta are mainly involved in working for and with the Black Nobility (royalty without an active throne), the Vatican, and the various Papal and Royal Orders, especially the Jesuits who are ultimately in control of the Vatican and the Military Order of Malta. The SMOM’s most powerful controlling inner-cores are the Order of the Garter and the Pilgrim Society which are controlled by the Queen.

When you look at who controls the financial world you will find it is the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of JerusalemOrder of Malta and Opus Dei through the City of London Corporation and The Worshipful Company of Mercers and the more recent The Worshipful Company of International Bankers.



James S. Henry, former chief economist at McKinsey & Company, estimates that wealthy individuals have approximately $35 trillion in private financial wealth tucked away in offshore havens with $6.1 trillion in UK dependent states.

As a result of this offshore accounting, it is estimated that 60% of global trade now consists of internal transactions within multinational companies. In total, it is estimated that this complex corporate offshore accounting multinational corporations avoid paying about $240 billion per year in taxes

TheCityofLondonUK is now the money laundering capital of the world with UK firms aiding corrupt officials and criminals from across the globe to hide trillions of US dollars of ill-gotten gains. British-based banks have helped hide more than $6 trillion in nefarious payments and criminal proceeds since 2000.

Cayman Islands benefit from the added support of being a territory of the United Kingdom. The Caymans offer a number of tax-free incentives and little financial regulation and oversight. Today the country is the world’s fifth largest financial services center. It plays host to over 10,000 mutual funds, over 200 banks, over 90,000 companies, and 140 trust companies. It’s the world’s top home for hedge funds and captive health insurance companies.

Bermuda is another piece of UK territory that has long been known as a tax haven. Bermuda’s tax system puts taxes on staff payrolls, but not on corporate earnings or investment income. Its largest customer for offshore transactions is the United States.

Guernsey belongs to the British Crown but makes its own laws on matters such as taxation. The island of 65,000 people has made a big push towards being an offshore finance destination, and its main street is lined with private banks, law firms, and accounting firms. 

Jersey is another small British Crown dependency in the English Channel. Jersey prints its own banknotes and makes its own tax laws. A culture of secrecy and non-disclosure in the island has resulted in Jersey housing an estimated $5 billion dollars of wealth per square mile. Half of Jersey’s tax avoidance trade comes from the UK. 


 Using the first major corporation in England as their model, the British East India Company, warlord bankers start wars for profit. Slavery and the looting of mines, gold, diamonds, minerals, and land is all in a day’s work for an imperialist. England’s imperialism has worked into the economic and banking practices worldwide and the Queen’s Crown Agents and Agencies have controlled global resources for centuries.

There is a linear connection between the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately links the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks to their subsidiary firms in New York and TheCityofLondonUK. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was created and directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914, a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.


Now let’s look at the top shareholders of the top military contractors for America, who we call the Corporate or Bankster Warlords to see what connections they might have to the British Crown’s investments.

Vanguard Group, State Street Corp, Capital Research Global Investors, Templeton Investment Counsel LLC, Barclays Bank Plc, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd., Schroder Investment Management, Capital World Investors, Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of New York Mellon Corp, Black Rock Advisors, Black Rock Fund Advisors, Old Republic International, Wellington Management Company, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N. A., Evercore Trust Company, N. A., FMR, LLC, , Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. 

What is worth noting about this list is that you can find some of the usual suspects: Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Warburgs, and the rest of the Bankster Warlords behind some of these names.

To make things even more complex, so that we can never figure out who is in charge, every one of these corporations owns major shares in every other corporation. They are intertwined like a grape vine. If we look closer we find that every one of these corporations conducts international business and is invested in international military ventures.

This type of “corporate warfare” is transnational. It is beyond being international or global. These companies work outside of the control of America as a nation and have stronger ties to Britain than to America. They work against Americans with their transnational economic warfare and make money from both sides of any conflict.

Essentially, these British and international corporations are war criminals just like Henry Schroder, the Brit who funded both Hitler and England.  This type of banking warfare is common throughout British history. 


Essentially, all the conspiracies about the Queen of England have some merit after following the money back to the warlord bankers who set up the U.S. Federal Reserve. But unlike most conspiracy theories suggest, the Federal Reserve regional banks are not the true culprits. The true culprits are the original investors in the corporations, listed above, who serve the military through all types of wars – physical conflicts, cyberwarfare, and economic terrorism.

It is the interwoven fabric of the investments of the war-supporting corporations that have created a system that is inbred and tied to Britain…and then to Rome. Simply through the association of the royal families of the world who are members of the Knights of Malta you have an economic intelligence community that is comprehensive insider trading at a transnational level. The monarchies must protect their financial interests and pass wealth onto their family members. That is why so many of the richest families intermarry – to keep it “all in the family.”

The richest and most powerful people in the world belong to the Knights of Malta, the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, the Order of the Garter, the Teutonic Knights and other orders that vow allegiance to the British Crown and subsequently to the Vatican. If we wish to broaden the perspective, one can add that the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, are involved at all levels and have worked tirelessly as the soldiers of the Pope to create the ultimate “insider spy network” for the Vatican Bank.


The UK has many private intelligence agencies who are devoted to the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information for a profit. Christopher Steele, the author of the Carter Page Dossier was a former British spy, which shows you the unethical nature of “British spying.” Sixty3, Orbis Business International, Cambridge Analytica, and many other British private intelligence agencies sell propaganda as intelligence. Often these corporations have private contracts with the U. S. military and government and maintain top secret security clearances with the United States. Britain has not shown itself to be “honest spies” as is evidenced in the Iraq “weapons of mass destruction” lies and the current British disinformation coming out of Syria.

Some US $56 billion or 70% of the US $80 billion national intelligence budget of the United States was in 2016 earmarked for the private sector. Functions previously performed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and other intelligence agencies are now outsourced to private British intelligence corporations. Some prominent British intelligence agencies who maintain military and government contracts with America are:

Can we really trust intelligence from a country that has provided false intelligence many times? It was British intelligence itself that spied on Trump from the NSA’s headquarters in Fort Mead. “Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.”


When the Jesuits were suppressed by the Pope in 1773, they used their covert power over England to have the Rothschild family become guardians over the Jesuit South American stolen wealth instead of depositing it in the Vatican Bank. This action started a banking war between the Vatican and the Jesuits who used the Rothschild family as the anti-Vatican Bank.  The Rothschild’s eventually became the guardians of the Jesuit treasury in TheCityofLondon. The Rothschild’s used The Worshipful Company of Mercers to create the Bank of England which now held the Jesuit wealth stolen from South America. The Bank of England’s efforts were focused on taking over TheCityofLondonUK from Vatican control.

The Knights of Malta have never been favorites of the Jesuit Order. This hatred of the Knights of Malta increased even further in 1768 when the Knights removed the Jesuits from the Island of Malta. The Jesuits sought their revenge one year later in 1798 using Napoleon.


If you look at St. John’s Wood where the Order of Malta are based, you will see it is the old haunt of the Knights Templar in England since the time that TheCityofLondonUK became a sovereign Nation. If you look at one of the four of the most powerful Order of Malta headquarters in Rome, you will see that the Aventine Hill is another old Templar haunt which was their original World Headquarters.

The control of the Bank of England through The Worshipful Company of Mercers is what controls the global economy. The U.S. economy is fully controlled by the Mercers and Bank of England and has been since 1868. TheCityofLondonUK controls the U.S. Economy through the Royal Institute for International Affairs which subsequently controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR has set U. S. foreign policy since its inception.

TheCityofLondonUK controls the  which subsequently controls the Federal Reserve of New York, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. TheCityofLondonUK controls the U.S. Treasury monetary policy which commands all three of those globalist organizations through the Exchange Stabilization Fund.


The British Crown and the British East India Company have never left America, and in fact, the Crown Agents still do their business to this very day. They have a death grip on the U. S. economy. From data management, to corporate banking, to the rip-off of American resources of gas, uranium, gold, and every other valuable asset in the United States, American wealth feeds directly into Britain, the Bank of England, TheCityofLondonUK, and ultimately to the British Monarchy – Queen Elizabeth II herself.

The American corporate mechanism for the continued enrichment of the British Crown is the same one used for the corporate sell-out of the American Republic: corporate lobbyists controlling Congress, corporate pay-to-play through the executive branch (Department of State, etc.), and the Senior Executive Service (SES) to maintain the bureaucratic status quo that sells out to global corporatism at every turn with no-bid contracts and cronyism that clearly shows that we are subjects of the British Monarchy.


The Senior Executive Service hides in plain sight, but operates in a manner that aligns with the imperialistic intents of Serco and the numerous other corporations like British Petroleum, Shell, ICAP, British American Tobacco, SABMiller, American Standard Life, Rio Tinto, and Ixstrata among many others.


A Crown Agency was an administrative body of the British Empire, distinct from the Civil Service Commission of Britain or the government administration of the national entity in which it operated. These enterprises were overseen from 1833 to 1974 by the Office of the Crown Agents in London, thereafter named the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administration. Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations Ltd became a private Limited company providing development services in 1996.

Crown Agencies nominally reported directly to (and were wholly owned by) the Crown, but in practice, reported to the Crown Agency Office in London, thus independent of the Colonial Office. This office became, in the late 19th century, the sole official British commercial and financial agent of all British protectorates and Crown colonies. The Colonial Office enforced a policy of sole usage of crown agencies for all purchases of goods for government use, creating a virtual monopoly over government retail supply within the colonies of the British Empire.

The Crown Agencies also became financial institutions, supplying capital, routes for investment, and pensions to all public works and government in British dependent colonies. Is it even reasonable to believe that after the American Revolution, American companies did not continue to do business with these crown companies for resources, goods and services? Life went on.

Crown Agencies trace their founding to the time of the British Empire and in 1833 the British government, hived off from the Colonial Office as a financing, stores, transport, and development office. Historians have argued that crown agencies, whose organizations operated across the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were the de facto administrators of British colonies. Crown Agencies wielded governmental powers through a maze of British territories, protectorates, dependencies, Mandates, and Crown Colonies which made up the British Empire of the late 19th century. After this, their mandate was reduced to “dependent” colonies (most of British Africa, India, and the West Indies), but they were given near monopoly rights over finance and supply of non-local manufactures for any public or government use. With the dissolution of the British Empire, many of these agencies reverted to control by their respective governments, became parts of the British government, or became non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The British government incorporated the Crown Agency as a government mandated corporation tied to the Minister of Overseas Development, called the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administration. In 1997, the Crown Agency was privatized. As a private limited company, the CAOGA has a number of contracts to provide governmental or para-governmental services throughout the world. Even though these organizations were “privatized” on paper, the power generally did not shift, it merely transformed into shareholder holdings and boards of directors. The term “Golden Share” developed to describe special rights given to the Queen in a stock company that gave her special preferential rights over voting and profit distribution—and thus ultimate control—like she had before.

While privatization allowed more shareholders, the Queen generally continued to control votes and profit distribution in wild disproportion to her single 10 pence voting share (Golden Share) in the mining mega company Rio Tinto PLC, for example. In addition, whenever one sees that British royalty populate a company’s board of directors, remember that these are people who pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen first, company second.

The legal category of crown agencies still exists in some nations of the former British Empire. In most places, these have been replaced by government agencies, state-controlled companies, and (in parts of the Commonwealth) Crown Corporations. Canada and New Zealand maintain the category of government managed or owned entities called Crown Agencies.


Crown Agents International (CAI) is an international development company that works with governments, aid agencies, NGOs and companies in nearly 100 countries. Through consultancy, supply chain management and financial services, they help countries grow their economies, strengthen their health systems and improve financial management.

CAI is headquartered in Sutton, Surrey but has an established network of international offices, project offices or representatives in 40 countries.

CAI is one of the world’s leading experts in public procurement and supply chain management and they provide financial services to facilitate development, focusing on international payments and cash management, trade finance and investment management for donors, NGOs and financial institutions.


The following descriptions of the corporation, Crown Agents USA Inc., are taken from their website, found at: http://www.crownagents.com/about-us/our-clients/us-government.

Our story begins in the 1700s, when colonial administrations employed agents to recruit people and procure and ship supplies to the colonies. Some agents had been authorized to manage British Treasury grants and they had become known (unofficially) as crown agents.

On April 1, 1833, the British government appointed the first Joint Agents General for Crown Colonies, George Baillie and Edward Barnard. Although appointed by the British Treasury‚ the Joint Agents General were accountable only to the governors of the 13 crown colonies that they served. They managed grants, raised capital, recruited personnel and shipped supplies for their clients.

Since our incorporation in the United States, we have provided technical assistance services and support to U.S. Government agencies, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD), and the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).

We are an international development company that partners with governments, aid agencies, NGOs and companies in nearly 100 countries. We help countries grow their economies, strengthen their health systems and improve financial management. We have permanent offices in 22 countries and presence in another 18 through our project offices and representatives.

We are a limited company owned by a non-profit-making foundation. The Crown Agents Foundation is our sole shareholder and oversees our ethos and activities. The Crown Agents Board is responsible for the company’s corporate governance. We were founded in 1833 and operated as a British statutory corporation for many years before being privatized in 1997.”


As an implementing partner of USAID, Crown Agents USA Inc. provides expertise in the areas of procurement, public financial management, logistics, health systems strengthening, private sector development, monitoring and evaluation, and agriculture. Here is a list of contracts that Crown Agents USA Inc. has with America that American’s themselves could easily accomplish:

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts:

For example, here are three Crown Agents USA Inc. contracts with USAID associated with this single “Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite QUANTITY” USAID Public Financial Management contract (Read: a blank check):

Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC Federal Vendor Contracting Profile[1]

AIDOAAI1200038 $23.7m[2]

AIDOAAI1200038-AID391TO1500001 $6.6m[3]

AIDOAAI1200038-AIDOAATO1400007 $19m[4]

  • Worldwide: Supply Chain Management System  2005-2015
  • Worldwide: Farmer to Farmer Special Program Support  2008-2014
  • Worldwide: USAID – Deliver I & II Project, 2006-2015
  • Worldwide: Agribusiness & Agriculture Value Chain Development Assessment 2010-2014
  • Worldwide: Agricultural Knowledge and Program Support Work, 2010-2015
  • Worldwide: Climate Economic Analysis for Development, Investment, and Resilience 2014
  • Worldwide: Business Growth Initiative, 2006-2011
  • Worldwide:  Evaluation Services IQC, 2010-2015, subcontractor to AMEX International
  • Worldwide: Macroeconomic Foundations for Growth IQC, 2011-2016
  • Worldwide: Policy, Planning and Learning-Learning, Evaluation and Research 2015-2020,
  • Worldwide: Rule of Law IQC, 2013-2015, subcontractor to Democracy International
  • Worldwide:  Rural Agricultural Income and Sustainable Environment 2004-2015
  • Africa: Indoor Residual Spraying I and II IQC, 2006-2012
  • Africa (COMESA countries + Tanzania):  Support for Food Security Activities
  • Asia and Middle East: Asia and Middle East Growth Best Practices Project
  • Bangladesh: Feed the Future Design and Initiation Project, 2012-2014
  • Bangladesh: Trade Facility Activity, 2013 – 2018, subcontractor to IBI International
  • Bangladesh, Haiti, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, U.S.: Feed the Future System 2011-2013
  • Egypt: Technical Assistance for Policy Reform II, 2006-2009, subcontractor to Bearingpoint
  • El Salvador: Access to Financial Services Program, 2011-2014
  • Ethiopia: Health Center Renovation and Coordination Project, 2006-2009
  • Ethiopia: Agriculture Growth Program – Agribusiness and Market Development 2011-2016,
  • Guatemala: Policy & Regulatory Support for Economic Growth Project, 2011-2015
  • Liberia: Roberts International Airport Equipment Procurement Program 2008-2010
  • Malawi:  National Distribution and Management of Long Life Insecticide Treated Nets to Public Health Facilities Nationally in Malawi, 2011-2015
  • Nigeria: Nigeria Expanded Trade and Transport Program, 2012-2016
  • Pakistan:  Support for Privatization Activity 2014
  • Rwanda:  Private Sector Driven Agricultural Growth 2014-2019
  • Tanzania: Strategies for the Prevention of Corruption Bureau, 2007
  • Tanzania: Staples Value Chain 2011-2016
  • Turkmenistan: Agriculture Technology Program, 2012-2015
  • Zambia: Production, Finance and Improved Technology Plus Program, 2012-2016


Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) contracts:

  • Ghana: Financial Management and Procurement Assessment Services Project, 2005-2006
  • Honduras: Procurement Oversight/Advisory Services, 2006-2011
  • Kenya: MCC Kenya Threshold Program, 2007-2009
  • Mongolia: Procurement AgentServices, 2008-2013
  • Morocco: Procurement Services Agent and Procurement Oversight Advisor, 2009-2014
  • Namibia:  Procurement Agent Services, 2009-2010
  • Tanzania:  Procurement Agent Services and Oversight Advisory Services, 2008-2014


Department of State (DoS) contracts:

  • Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Impact Evaluation for Small Business Development Centers, 2012-2015
  • Middle East, Africa, and Asia: Impact Assessment for the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, 2012-2013
  • Sustainable Buildings Initiative, 2012-2013
  • Evaluation of the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Transnational Crime and Rule of Law Programs in the Russian Federation, 2012-2013
  • Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs M&E of Bureau Programs, Projects, and Activities Agricultural Biotechnology Outreach Funds, 2012-2013
  • Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political Military Affairs Program Evaluation, Balkans, 2012-2013
  • Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues Mercury Program Evaluation, 2013-2014
  • Evaluation of the Nexus Dialogue on Water Infrastructure Solutions, 2014-2015
  • El Salvador and Mexico: Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Impact Evaluation for Small Business Development Centers, 2012-2015


Department of Defense (DoD) & United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) contracts:

  • Vietnam:  USTDA National Single Window Customs Project, 2012
  • Global: DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Integration Contract II IDIQ, Subcontractor to Raytheon, 2011-2016
  • Botswana: USTDA Procurement Advisory Services to the Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources, 2015



Another British corporation that has taken over the uranium enrichment market in America is the URENCO Group that has gone to great extremes to hide the fact that Britain, Holland and Germany own and run the largest uranium plant in America. The URENCO Group is a nuclear fuel company operating several uranium enrichment plants in Germany, the Netherlands, United States, and United Kingdom. It supplies nuclear power stations in about 15 countries, and has a 29% share of the global market for enrichment services in 2011. URENCO uses centrifuge enrichment technology in New Mexico subsidized by U. S. tax payers.

In July 2012, it was reported that a sale of the government interests of URENCO was being sought. URENCO, headquartered in Stoke Poges in Buckinghamshire and registered in the UK, is one third owned by the UK government, one third by the Dutch government, the rest by two major German utilities, E.ON and RWE (one sixth each).

URENCO also owns a 50% interest in Enrichment Technology Company (ETC), a company jointly owned with Areva. ETC provides enrichment-plant design services and gas-centrifuge technology for enrichment plants through its subsidiaries in the UK (Capenhurst), Germany (Gronau and Jülich), the Netherlands (Almelo), France (Tricastin) and the U.S. (Eunice, New Mexico). 


Somehow, the British owned URENCO company has the uranium market cornered in America. Located in southeastern New Mexico, the URENCO USA facility began operations on June 11, 2010. URENCO USA is the first enrichment facility to be built in the United States in 30 years and the first ever using centrifuge enrichment technology.

URENCO uses the U. S. National Enrichment Facility (NEF) as its plant for the enrichment of uranium in Eunice, New Mexico. The NEF is operated by Louisiana Energy Services (LES), which is in turn owned by the URENCO Group, just to make sure it looks like an American company. Notice the elaborate ownership of this facility hides who actually owns and benefits from this facility. Foreign nations directly benefit through the profits after U. S. tax payers pay two/thirds of the cost of building it.

Since the Dedication Ceremony in October 2008, the company has grown to 236 employees with an annual payroll of USD $23 million. At full capacity, NEF can provide 50% of the current enriched uranium demand for civilian nuclear power plants in the U.S. The NEF began operations in June 2010. The original proposed budget was USD $1.5 billion, but this increased to USD $3 billion for an enlarged facility capable of 5.9 million SWU at full capacity.

Urenko plant
URENCO USA’s New Mexico Enrichment Facility


In the 1970s, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan who worked for a subcontractor of URENCO in Almelo, brought stolen drawings of the centrifuges operated by URENCO to Pakistan. In the early 1974, Dr. Khan joined the uranium enrichment program and, within a short span of time, established a highly advanced uranium enrichment facility near Islamabad.

In May 1985, the United Nations Council for Namibia decided to take legal action against URENCO for breaching UNCN Decree No. 1, which prohibited any exploitation of Namibia’s natural resources under apartheid South Africa, because URENCO had been importing uranium ore from the Rössing mine in Namibia.

According to Greenpeace, URENCO has a standing contract with Russia for the disposal of radioactive waste. In reality, these contracts do not relate to the disposal of waste, but to the sale of depleted uranium tails, which are re-enriched to natural uranium equivalent. As the enricher, Russia would be the owner of any radioactive waste that results from this process. In March 2009, there were protests about the largest-ever load of depleted uranium hexafluoride being transported from Germany to the Siberian town Seversk.


BP might as well stand for “British Pirates” if you look at the record of a company that flourishes in America, the home of the largest oil companies in the world, and pollutes and destroys environment in a country they don’t live in. BP has a poor safety record and it looks like they just don’t care about America’s ecosystem. These British Pirates, along with Shell, have fleeced America in every way concerning oil, from drilling to gas stations. From New York to San Francisco, British Petroleum has a network of retail stations that provide Americans with fuels, lubricants and other products essential to modern transportation. The company’s nationwide retail presence includes over 7,100 BP and ARCO branded gas stations, along with close to 1,000 convenience stores.

In 2016, BP delivered 7.3 billion gallons of BP-branded fuel to its U.S. customers. BP’s upstream operating segment includes production from Prudhoe Bay area in Alaska and four production platforms in deep-water Gulf of Mexico, where BP is the leading leaseholder. In 2016, BP produced 676,000 barrels of oil per day, making the company one of America’s largest oil and natural gas producers.

How is it possible in America that U. S. governmental agencies allow the British invasion of our land, waters, and streets. There is no reason that U. S. oil rights should go to a foreign country for their profit. American oil should be processed and sold by American companies not added to the portfolio of the Queen of England.


BP PLC is the company responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP paid a record $20.8 billion to the US government to cover damages caused by the disaster. It is considered the largest settlement with a single entity in American history. Apart from this settlement, BP has spent a reported $28 billion on cleanup and compensation for their criminal negligence.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster is considered by many to be the worst oil spill in US history. The spill occurred when an offshore oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, dumping 4.9 million barrels of oil into the surrounding waters. The explosion killed 11 people and devastated marine wildlife in the area.

BP was found to be in gross negligence for not testing the only safety measure they had available for deep-water drilling accidents. BP continued to lie about their unpreparedness and criminal cover-up. The massive oil slick still exists and has yet to be properly managed or cleaned up. America will never fully recover from this disaster. BP (British Pirates) carelessness for gross profits cost America more than money can recover.


Shell Oil Company is the United States-based wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a multinational oil company of Anglo-Dutch origins, which is amongst the largest oil companies in the world. Shell Oil is wholly owned by British interests. Approximately 22,000 Shell employees are based in the U.S. The U.S. headquarters are in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Company, including its consolidated companies and its share in equity companies, is one of America’s largest oil and natural gas producers, natural gas marketers, gasoline marketers and petrochemical manufacturers.

Shell is the market leader through approximately 25,000 Shell-branded gas stations in the U.S. which also serve as Shell’s most visible public presence. At its gas stations Shell provides diesel fuel, gasoline and LPG. Shell Oil Company was a 50/50 partner with the Saudi Arabian government-owned oil company Saudi Aramco in Motiva Enterprises, a refining and marketing joint venture which owns and operates three oil refineries on the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Shell products include oils, fuels, and car services as well as exploration, production, and refining of petroleum products. The Shell Oil Refinery in Martinez, California, the first Shell refinery in the United States, supplies Shell and Texaco stations in the West and Midwest.

After Texaco merged with Chevron in 2001, Shell purchased Texaco’s shares in the joint ventures. In 2002, Shell began converting these Texaco stations to the Shell brand, a process that was to be completed by June 2004 and was called “the largest retail re-branding initiative in American business history.”


Shell Puget Sound Refinery, Anacortes, Washington, was fined $291,000 from 2006 to 2010 for violations of the Clean Air Act making it the second most-fined violator in the Pacific Northwest. As of 2011, it was listed as “high priority violator” since 2008.

In 2008, a lawsuit was filed against Shell Oil Company for Clean Air Act violation. Shell Deer Park facility, 20 miles east of Houston, was the nation’s eighth-largest oil refinery and one of the world’s largest petrochemical producers. The facility was also the second largest source of air pollution in Harris County, which ranked among the lowest in the nation in several measures of air quality.

Between 1978 and 1995, Shell Oil produced polybutylene pipes, which corrode when exposed to chlorine. A class action lawsuit was filed in 1995 against Shell Oil when the polybutylene pipes caused flooding in many households in the U.S. and Canada. The settlement required Shell Oil to pay for the re-installation of piping for millions of houses for claims filed through May 2009.


British American Tobacco plc (BAT) is a British multinational tobacco company headquartered in London. It is the largest publicly traded tobacco company in the world. BAT has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange. BAT has a market-leading position in over 50 countries and operations in around 180 countries. Its four largest-selling brands are its native brand Dunhill and US brands Lucky Strike, Kent and Pall Mall, others the company markets include Benson & Hedges and Rothmans.

The company was formed in 1902, when the United Kingdom’s Imperial Tobacco Company and the United States’ American Tobacco Company agreed to form a joint venture, the British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. In 1911, the American Tobacco Company sold its share of the company. Imperial Tobacco gradually reduced its shareholding, but it was not until 1980 that it divested its remaining interests in the company.

In July 2004 the U.S. business of British American Tobacco (Brown & Williamson) was combined with that of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R. J. Reynolds), under the R. J. Reynolds name. R. J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson were the second and third-ranking U.S. tobacco companies prior to the combination. When they combined, R. J. Reynolds became a subsidiary of Reynolds American, with BAT holding a 42% share.

In 2017, BAT bought the remaining 57.8 percent of U.S. cigarette maker Reynolds American in a $49.4 billion takeover that would create the world’s biggest listed tobacco company with brands including Newport, Lucky Strike and Pall Mall.

Over six million people worldwide die to tobacco death each year. The British don’t seem to mind that this industry kills more people per year than all the wars combined. There have been no class action suit against BAT in the UK.


ICAP was the world’s largest interdealer broker for over-the-counter (OTC) trading. In 2016, ICAP sold its global broker business to the British brokerage firm Tullett Prebon, which retained the “ICAP” brand, and ICAP rebranded the remaining, non-brokerage part of the business as NEX Group.

ICAP had daily transaction volume of more than $2.3 trillion at 50 locations in 32 countries, and offered both voice-driven and electronic brokerage systems plus post-trade services. It provided wholesale brokerage on a range of interest rates, credit derivatives, commodities, foreign exchange, emerging markets, equities and equity derivatives. More than 40 percent of its trading occurred on its two electronic trading platforms, BrokerTec and EBS, which merged to become EBS BrokerTec.

ICAP offers a range of OTC (over-the-counter) financial products and services in energy, foreign exchange, interest rates, credit and equity markets and indices. For each of these asset classes, ICAP’s electronic capability gives customers the choice to enter prices and execute trades electronically, directly via one of ICAP’s electronic trading systems, or to engage with brokers to identify and help negotiate trades. According to its 2013 Annual Report. Its electronic broking volume for 2013 reached $728.3 billion.


TP ICAP plc is a global firm of professional intermediaries that operates in the world’s financial, energy and commodities markets. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index. In November 2015, the company agreed to terms with ICAP (now known as NEX Group) to acquire their global hybrid voice broking and information business. Using the name of the acquired business the company changed its name from Tullett Prebon plc to TP ICAP plc on 30 December 2016.


On September 25, 2013, ICAP was fined a total of $87 million, including a $65 million settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and a $22 million settlement with Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority as part of an investigation into the manipulation of the LIBOR benchmark interest rate. The ICAP fine was in addition to settlements paid by British lenders Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as UBS, of Switzerland, of a combined $2.5 billion related to the LIBOR scandal. ICAP was the first interdealer broker fined for rigging the Libor.

In June 2014 ICAP received an antitrust complaint from the EU’s antitrust arm alleging it facilitated a cartel to manipulate yen Libor. The complaint alleged that “ICAP acted as a facilitator to breaches of EU competition law by certain banks in relation to yen Libor for isolated periods between 2007 and 2010.”


The UK is the leading European destination for Silicon Valley investors, with British tech companies raising more venture capital from Bay area VCs than any other European country. According to the investment data released by London & Partners, over the last five years UK tech companies have received more venture capital investment from West Coast investors than France, Germany and Ireland combined.

Silicon Valley investors continue to pump large sums of money into UK tech companies despite Brexit, with 2017 already seeing a record $1.13 billion raised since the beginning of the year. The findings have been released to mark the start of Silicon Valley Comes to the UK, a week-long series of events bringing together leading figures from the Bay area and UK tech scenes.

Further analysis of the investment data reveals that London tech companies received the majority of venture capital investment from the Bay area, accounting for over 90% ($1.04bn) of the total amount raised by UK tech companies this year. Over the last five years, London tech firms have also raised considerably more capital ($2.5bn) than their European counterparts.

London’s thriving VC market has been boosted by the number of unicorn companies based in the capital, with separate research from investment firm GP Bullhound revealing that London is home to more unicorns than any other European city. Fresh analysis of its 2017 Titans of Tech report found that London accounts for almost one third of all unicorns in Europe. With 17 out of the 53 unicorns founded in London.


Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA) was a wholly owned American subsidiary of the England and Australia-based mining giant, the Rio Tinto Group, headquartered in Gillette, Wyoming, United States. The company, previously known as Kennecott Energy after another of Rio Tinto’s American subsidiaries, was formed in 1993 when Rio Tinto purchased NERCO and placed that company’s Spring Creek coal mine and Antelope coal mine under the RTEA umbrella. Subsequent acquisitions included the Cordero Mining Company, the Colowyo Coal Company, and the Jacobs Ranch coal mine. RTEA operated four mines  in Wyoming and Montana, supplying fuel for the generation of approximately 6% of the United States’ electricity consumption. The RTEA mines were spun off to Cloud Peak Energy in 2010.


The heart of Rio Tinto Borates’ business is the open-pit mine in Boron, California, one of two world-class borate deposits on the planet. Company founders began mining borates in 1872. What began as an underground mine was transformed into an open pit mine in 1957.


The Resolution Copper project is a proposed copper mine that can supply the world with the copper it needs to support ongoing technological and environmental innovation. The project will generate sustainable benefits for Arizona, creating several thousand direct and indirect jobs and is expected to have an economic value of several billion dollars over the estimated life of the mine.

Rio Tinto Kennecott

Rio Tinto Kennecott is a fully integrated mining operation located just outside Salt Lake City, Utah, US. Kennecott is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto. For more than 110 years, Kennecott has been mining and processing minerals from the rich orebody of the Bingham Canyon Mine. In 1989, Rio Tinto acquired the Bingham Canyon Mine and other facilities in the Salt Lake Valley.


The top U.S. securities regulator rejected arguments by Rio Tinto Plc and two former top executives that its civil lawsuit claiming they concealed the plunging value of coal assets owned by the big Anglo-Australian mining company should be dismissed. In letters filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Securities and Exchange Commission said its complaint adequately alleged that fraud occurred, and that Rio Tinto, former Chief Executive Thomas Albanese and former Chief Financial Officer Guy Elliott intended to deceive investors.

The SEC accused Rio Tinto of ignoring the need to write down most of the value of Mozambique coal assets it had bought for $3.7 billion in April 2011, while it was raising roughly $5.5 billion from U.S. investors. Rio Tinto wrote off most of the value in January 2013, and sold the assets in late 2014 for just $50 million. It said that had Rio Tinto properly written down the assets, its net earnings for the first half of 2012 would have been reduced by more than 50 percent.


The total price tag for ObamaCare’s main enrollment portal cost American’s more than $2 billion, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Government. The new total includes efforts to construct and then fix HealthCare.gov after serious technical problems threatened to shutter the site last fall.

Who was the pathetic corporation that gouged Americans? A Canadian company called CGI – Consultants to Government and Industries. Don’t forget, the British Crown owns large stakes in most Canadian national businesses due to being part of the British Commonwealth. The Queen always has her first choice of stocks in any Commonwealth Country – especially Canada.

Americans were not happy with the exorbitant costs charged by CGI, nor the fact that a Canadian company ripped-off U. S. tax-payers and created an ineffective portal that a high school student could have done a better job creating. Congressman Issa had this to say about the debacle:

“Two billion dollars is an awful lot to pay for a website with lingering security issues that transfers the costs of healthcare from customers to taxpayers,” said House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in a statement.

“If this were private enterprise, the CEO would have been fired and company shareholders would be suing,” he added. “But in this Administration, there’s no high-level accountability and the focus remains fixated on signing up as many Americans as possible regardless of the cost, the security risks, or the impact on the quality of healthcare for all Americans.”

CGI Group Inc. (Consultants to Government and Industries), more commonly known as CGI, is a Canadian global information technology consulting, systems integration, outsourcing, and solutions company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. CGI purchased American Management Systems (AMS) for $858 million in 2004, which grew CGI’s presence in the United States.

CGI Federal’s 2010 acquisition of Stanley, Inc. for $1.07 billion almost doubled CGI’s presence in the United States, and expanded CGI into defense and intelligence contracts. In 2012, CGI acquired Logica for $2.7 billion Canadian, making CGI the fifth-largest independent business processes and IT services provider in the world, and the biggest tech firm in Canada.

In 2016 CGI ranked No. 955 on the Forbes Forbes Global 2000. At the time CGI had assets worth CAD $20.9 billion, annual sales of $10.7 billion, and a market value of $9.6 billion. As of 2017, CGI is based in forty countries with around 400 offices, and employs approximately 70,000 people. As much as 29% of CGI’s business comes from the United States.


Queen Elizabeth II, owns and controls U. S. data management, corporate banking, resources of gas, uranium, gold, and many strategic resources and systems in the United States. This system of control is called SERCO, and it is essentially a Crown Agent.

Serco is not only an enemy of the United States, but an enemy of countries and people around the world. For example, did you know that the U. S. Patent Office is controlled by Serco? That’s right, a BRITISH based company controls the creative efforts of American entrepreneurs and creators. Serco was the company awarded the Obamacare data management system that cost America’s over $2 billion.

That’s right. SES employees in charge of selecting contracts for this lucrative data management system couldn’t find any U.S. based companies to do the work. Instead they cherry-picked their buddies at British owned and controlled Serco to deliver Obamacare management.

Here are a few highlights of what Serco does already in our government. To our friends in other parts of the world, don’t be surprised when you see similar structures in your own country run by the British Monarch through Serco:

  • Serco manages all patents for the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. Brits have the first shot at stealing American’s intellectual property rights. This is shocking but true.
  • Serco controls the most sensitive data management systems in all branches of the military, federal government, and state and local municipalities.
  • Serco controls air traffic management, airlines security, airport management and all aspects of ticketing, visa data management, and timetable management.
  • Serco is called, “the largest company no one has ever heard of.”
  • Serco’s efficiency rating in England, Canada, and Australia is below 65% and many lawsuits have been filed against the company for egregious fraud and mismanagement.
  • Serco was paid $1.2 billion to management the data of Obamacare — British company handling American’s private medical information.

 Serco goes by many names, so always look under the hood in their corporate documents to find its trail back to Queen Lizzie. In America, it operates as Serco Inc. and claims on its website that it “is a leading provider of professional, technology, and management services for the federal government.” Headquartered in Reston, Virginia, Serco Inc. has approximately 10,000 employees, annual revenue of $2.5 billion, and is ranked in the top 35 of the largest federal prime contractors.

Piercing the corporate veil, we find that Serco Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Serco Group plc, a $7 billion international business that works with government and public services around the world.

Many researchers say that Serco runs the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Canada, and Australia. Serco has over 60,000 people in 35 countries across the world. To our international readers, it is highly doubtful that they are not operating in your country.

Serco is a leading provider of public services of all types. Serco operates internationally across five sectors and four geographies: defense, justice, immigration, transportation, health and human services. Its services are delivered in UK, Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.  

Serco delivers records management and processing support services for many U. S. government agencies. Major programs include processing and classifying of patent applications for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; records management and process of applications and petitions at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Service Centers; processing visa applications at the U.S. Department of State’s National Visa Center and Kentucky Consular Center; and, records management services at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ National Benefits Center, among many others.

Ninety percent of Serco’s business is with the federal government with 10,000 workers across 45 states. Serco’s experience is in paper pushing, records management, processing applications, processing visas, handling patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. There are more than 60 million records that Serco handles for the Department of Homeland Security.

Serco Inc. is indeed part of Serco Group, an international contracting firm headquartered near London and partly owned by the UK government itself. Serco Inc. is the North America division of Serco Group, plc. In North America, Serco Inc. serves federal, state and local governments, along with the Canadian government and commercial customers, and over 14,000 in North Americas.

Digest that for a moment: U.S. federal records, personal medical records, patents, and visas are held by a company owned and directed by the British Monarch. Its “soldiers on the ground” are employees of SES. These SES employees guarantee that Serco gets the contracts and then manages and oversees their continued involvement.

Th UK is suing Serco for the alleged theft of $80 billion dollars. UK officials have been investigating Serco and found that the company is only effective 65% of the time. Serco has been found out to be corrupt from top to bottom. Many mistakes of data management have also happened in the United States that have caused terrible disasters and multiple deaths. Serco manages services for the military and government that are incredibly sensitive and should be trusted to no one else but the United States of America.

Profile_SercoSpider1See our article on Serco for more details about this inefficient and corrupt British corporation:




We are not a sovereign nation with our arrangement with the British government and UK based corporations. It seems that we are still subjects of the British Monarchy in many ways.

The American corporate mechanism for the continued enrichment of the British Crown is the same one used for the corporate sell-out of the American Republic – corporate lobbyists controlling Congress, corporate pay-to-play through the executive branch (such as Hillary’s Department of State), and the Senior Executive Service (SES) to maintain the bureaucratic status quo, selling out to global corporatism at every turn with no bid contracts and cronyism.

The Senior Executive Service and Serco are the people and organizational systems that the British Monarchy uses to control America through economic cronyism that bolsters the continued economic slavery of Americans to foreign powers.

The Senior Executive Service aligns with the imperialistic intents of Serco and the numerous other corporations that we have described in this intelligence report (BP, Shell, ICAP, British American Tobacco, Rio Tinto, etc).

It is time to send the Red Coats running home to Queen Lizzie and finally end the American Revolution against British tyranny. It is time to notice that the UK is not our friend and we should not be sharing intelligence in the Five Eyes Community (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA).

We need to bring our wealth back home to America and stop using tax payer dollars to fund Crown Agents in whatever form they take. American freedom and independence does not need the dead weight of archaic monarchies that believe they should always get their “golden share” before the commoners get their crumbs.

We must throw off the shackles that have tied the British Crown to American economic affairs. We do not need to pay taxes to the Crown any longer. We simply must choose American companies to do American work and stop the Senior Executive Service from giving higher priority to Crown Agents and British corporate interests.








[1] Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC. (Accessed Apr. 17, 2018). Federal Vendor Contracting Profile via GovTribe. USAID.

[2] Crown Agents USA Inc. Wasington DC. (Sep. 30, 2012). Contract No. AIDOAAI1200038, $23.7m, thru Sep. 29, 2020 (7 years), PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGMENT: PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT – TO CROWN AGENTS via GovTribe. USAID.

[3] Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC. (Dec. 24, 2014). Contract No. AIDOAAI1200038-AID391TO1500001, $6m, thru Feb. 22, 2018 (3 years), SUPPORT FOR PRIVATIZATION ACTIVITY: IN SEPTEMBER 2013, THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (GOP) AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) REACHED AGREEMENT ON A THREE-YEAR, $ 6.68 BILLION EXTENDED FUND FACILITY (EFF). Vendor Contacts: Anne C. Sattgast, Joe G Lentini. Via GovTribe. USAID.


Dintr-un articol publicat la www.voltairenet.org: „Să nu uităm că de la dezmembrarea Iugoslaviei încoace Statul Major SUA a experimentat și pus în operă în foarte multe țări strategia sa numită a „luptelor de cîini”. Ea constă din a asasina membri ai comunității majoritare, apoi ai comunității minoritare, inginerizînd în acest timp aruncarea vinei unora asupra altora astfel încît fiecare din părți să fie convinsă că se află în pericol de moarte din partea celeilalte. Așa a provocat Washingtonul războiul civil atît în Iugoslavia cît și, mai recent, în Ucraina.” Articol semnat Thierry Meyssan (7 ian 2015) pe care îl reproducem în întregime în originalul francez. – Trad. fragmentului titlu: ActaDiurna

Dintr-un articol publicat la www.voltairenet.org: „Să nu uităm că de la dezmembrarea Iugoslaviei încoace Statul Major SUA a experimentat și pus în operă în foarte multe țări strategia sa numită a „luptelor de cîini”. Ea constă din a asasina membri ai comunității majoritare, apoi ai comunității minoritare, inginerizînd în acest timp aruncarea vinei unora asupra altora astfel încît fiecare din părți să fie convinsă că se află în pericol de moarte din partea celeilalte. Așa a provocat Washingtonul războiul civil atît în Iugoslavia cît și, mai recent, în Ucraina.” Articol semnat Thierry Meyssan (7 ian 2015) pe care îl reproducem în întregime în originalul francez. – Trad. fragmentului titlu: ActaDiurna
Să nu uităm că de la dezmembrarea Iugoslaviei încoace Statul Major SUA a experimentat și pus în operă în foarte multe țări strategia sa numită a „luptelor de cîini”. Ea constă din a asasina membri ai comunității majoritare, apoi ai comunității minoritare, inginerizînd în acest timp aruncarea vinei unora asupra altora astfel încît fiecare din părți să fie convinsă că se află în pericol de moarte din partea celeilalte. Așa a provocat Washingtonul războiul civil atît în Iugoslavia cît și, mai recent, în Ucraina. – Thierry Meyssan, 7 ianuarie 2015, la http://www.voltairenet.org
(Traducerea: ActaDiurna)


Qui a commandité l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo ?

Alors que de nombreux Français réagissent à l’attentat commis contre Charlie Hebdo en dénonçant l’islamisme et en manifestant dans les rues, Thierry Meyssan souligne que l’interprétation jihadiste est impossible. Alors qu’il aurait tout intérêt à dénoncer lui aussi une opération d’Al-Qaïda ou de Daesh, il envisage une autre hypothèse, beaucoup plus dangereuse.


 Dans ce reportage, France 24 a coupé la vidéo pour que l’on ne voit pas les assaillants exécuter un policier au sol.

Le 7 janvier 2015, un commando a fait irruption, à Paris, dans les locaux de Charlie Hebdo et a assassiné 12 personnes. 4 autres victimes sont toujours dans un état grave.

Sur les vidéos, on entend les assaillants crier « Allah Akbar ! », puis qu’ils ont « vengé Mahomet ». Un témoin, la dessinatrice Coco, a affirmé qu’ils se réclamaient d’al-Qaïda. Il n’en a fallu pas plus pour que de nombreux Français dénoncent un attentat islamiste.

Or, cette hypothèse est illogique.

La mission de ce commando n’a pas de lien avec l’idéologie jihadiste

En effet, des membres ou des sympathisants des Frères musulmans, d’al-Qaïda ou de Daesh ne se seraient pas contentés de tuer des dessinateurs athées, ils auraient d’abord détruit les archives du journal sous leurs yeux, sur le modèle de ce qu’ils ont fait dans la totalité de leurs actions au Maghreb et au Levant. Pour des jihadistes, le premier devoir c’est de détruire les objets qui, selon eux, offensent Dieu, puis de punir les « ennemis de Dieu ».

De même, ils ne se seraient pas immédiatement repliés, fuyant la police, sans avoir achevé leur mission. Ils auraient au contraire terminé leur mission, dussent-ils mourir sur place.

Par ailleurs, les vidéos et certains témoignages montrent que les assaillants sont des professionnels. Ils avaient l’habitude de manier leurs armes et n’ont tiré qu’à bon escient. Ils n’étaient pas vêtus à la mode des jihadistes, mais comme des commandos militaires.

La manière dont ils ont exécuté au sol un policier blessé, qui ne représentait aucun danger pour eux, atteste que leur mission n’était pas de « venger Mahomet » de l’humour gras de Charlie Hebdo.

La vidéo censurée par les TV françaises

Nouvelle vidéo amateur. Les terroristes ne sont pas pressés.

Cette opération vise à créer le début d’une guerre civile

Le fait que les assaillants parlent bien le français, et qu’ils soient probablement Français, ne permet pas de conclure que cet attentat est un épisode franco-français. Au contraire, le fait qu’ils soient professionnels contraint à les distinguer de possibles commanditaires. Et rien ne prouve que ces derniers soient des Français.

C’est un réflexe normal, mais intellectuellement erroné, de considérer lorsque l’on vient d’être attaqué que l’on connaît ses agresseurs. C’est le plus logique lorsqu’il s’agit de criminalité normale, mais c’est faux lorsqu’il s’agit de politique internationale.

Les commanditaires de cet attentat savaient qu’il provoquerait une fracture entre les Français musulmans et les Français non-musulmans. Charlie Hebdo s’était spécialisé dans des provocations anti-musulmanes et la plupart des musulmans de France en ont été directement ou indirectement victimes. Si les musulmans de France condamneront sans aucun doute cet attentat, il leur sera difficile d’éprouver autant de peine pour les victimes que les lecteurs du journal. Cette situation sera perçue par certains comme une complicité avec les meurtriers.

C’est pourquoi, plutôt que de considérer cet attentat extrêmement meurtrier comme une vengeance islamiste contre le journal qui publia les caricatures de Mahomet et multiplia les „unes” anti-musulmanes, il serait plus logique d’envisager qu’il soit le premier épisode d’un processus visant à créer une situation de guerre civile.

La stratégie du « choc des civilisation » a été conçue à Tel-Aviv et à Washington

L’idéologie et la stratégie des Frères musulmans, d’Al-Qaïda et de Daesh ne préconise pas de créer de guerre civile en « Occident », mais au contraire de la créer en « Orient » et de séparer hermétiquement les deux mondes. Jamais Saïd Qotb, ni aucun de ses successeurs, n’ont appelé à provoquer d’affrontement entre les musulmans et les non-musulmans chez ces derniers.

Au contraire, la stratégie du « choc des civilisations » a été formulée par Bernard Lewis pour le Conseil de sécurité nationale états-unien, puis vulgarisée par Samuel Huntington non plus comme une stratégie de conquête, mais comme une situation prévisible [1]. Elle visait à persuader les populations membres de l’Otan d’un affrontement inévitable qui prit préventivement la forme de la « guerre au terrorisme ».

Ce n’est pas au Caire, à Riyad ou à Kaboul que l’on prône le « choc des civilisations », mais à Washington et à Tel-Aviv.

Les commanditaires de l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo n’ont pas cherché à satisfaire des jihadistes ou des talibans, mais des néo-conservateurs ou des faucons libéraux.

N’oublions pas les précédents historiques

Nous devons nous souvenir qu’au cours des dernières années, nous avons vu les services spéciaux états-uniens ou de l’Otan
- tester en France les effets dévastateurs de certaines drogues sur des populations civiles [2] ;
- soutenir l’OAS pour tenter d’assassiner le président Charles De Gaulle [3] ;
- procéder à des attentats sous faux drapeau, contre des civils, dans plusieurs États membres de l’Otan [4].

Nous devons nous souvenir que, depuis le démembrement de la Yougoslavie, l’état-major états-unien a expérimenté et mis en pratique dans de très nombreux pays sa stratégie des « combats de chiens ». Elle consiste à tuer des membres de la communauté majoritaire, puis des membres des minorités en renvoyant les responsabilités dos-à-dos jusqu’à ce que chacun soit convaincu d’être en danger de mort. C’est de cette manière que Washington a provoqué la guerre civile aussi bien en Yougoslavie que dernièrement en Ukraine [5].

Les Français seraient bien avisés de se souvenir également que ce ne sont pas eux qui ont pris l’initiative de la lutte contre les jihadistes revenant de Syrie et d’Irak. À ce jour d’ailleurs, aucun d’entre eux n’a commis le moindre attentat en France, le cas de Mehdi Nemmouche n’étant pas celui d’un terroriste solitaire, mais d’un agent chargé d’exécuter à Bruxelles deux agents du Mossad [6] [7]. C’est Washington qui a convoqué, le 6 février 2014, les ministres de l’Intérieur de l’Allemagne, des États-Unis, de la France (M. Valls s’est fait représenter), de l’Italie, de la Pologne et du Royaume-Uni pour faire du retour des jihadistes européens une question de Sécurité nationale [8]. Ce n’est qu’après cette réunion que la presse française a abordé ce sujet, puis que les autorités ont commencé à réagir.

 John Kerry s’est exprimé pour la première fois en français pour adresser un message aux Français. Il dénonce une attaque contre la liberté d’expression (alors que son pays n’a cessé depuis 1995 de bombarder et de détruire les télévisions qui lui faisaient ombrage en Yougoslavie, en Afghanistan, en Irak et en Libye) et célèbre la lutte contre l’obscurantisme.

Nous ignorons qui a commandité cette opération professionnelle contre Charlie Hebdo, mais nous ne devrions pas nous emballer. Nous devrions considérer toutes les hypothèses et admettre, qu’à ce stade, son but le plus probable est de nous diviser ; et ses commanditaires les plus probables sont à Washington.

Sur le même sujet, lire : « Selon McClatchy, Mohammed Mehra et les frères Kouachi seraient liés aux services secrets français », Réseau Voltaire, 9 janvier 2015.

[1] « La „Guerre des civilisations” », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 4 juin 2004.

[2] « Quand la CIA menait des expériences sur des cobayes français », par Hank P. Albarelli Jr., Réseau Voltaire, 16 mars 2010.

[3] « Quand le stay-behind voulait remplacer De Gaulle », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 10 septembre 2001.

[4] « Les Armées Secrètes de l’OTAN », par Daniele Ganser, éd. Demi-Lune. Disponible par chapitre sur le site du Réseau Voltaire.

[5] « Le représentant adjoint de l’ONU en Afghanistan est relevé de ses fonctions », « Washington peut-il renverser trois gouvernements à la fois ? », par Thierry Meyssan, Al-Watan (Syrie), Réseau Voltaire, 23 février 2014.

[6] « L’affaire Nemmouche et les services secrets atlantistes », par Thierry Meyssan, Al-Watan (Syrie), Réseau Voltaire, 9 juin 2014.

[7] On objectera les affaires Khaled Kelkal (1995) et Mohammed Mehra (2012). Deux cas de « loups solitaires » liés à des jihadistes ; mais ni à la Syrie, ni à l’Irak. Malheureusement, tous deux furent exécutés en opération par les Forces de l’ordre de sorte qu’il est impossible de vérifier les théories officielles.

[8] « La Syrie devient „question de sécurité intérieure” aux USA et dans l’UE », Réseau Voltaire, 8 février 2014.

La Cina cea de Paște – poezie dedicată Arhiereilor contemporani (mai ales români), care socotesc că ei sînt BISERICA, iar poporul e „necăjit, săracul, iar noi /„BISERICA”, adică/ îl ajutăm….mai ales în diaspora ” – cum a sugerat IPS.ul Germaniei Serafim, în predică la Putna, la început de an bisericesc.

La cina cea de Paște, în camera de sus,
înconjurat de-apostoli, S-a așezat Iisus.
Se revărsa din sfeșnic o galbenă lumină
pe azimile calde, pe mielul…fără vină…
Era plăcut prilejul. Și toate pregătite.
Dar vai, uitase gazda o slugă a trimite,
un rob sau o copilă, ca, dup-a vremii lege,
cureaua de pe glezne pe rând să le-o dezlege,
să le aline talpa de colbul de pe drum.
Și-acum cei doisprezece, sfielnic oarecum,
se întrebau în cuget: Cum vom ședea la rugă?
Sau cine își va pune ștergarul cel de slugă?

O, iată-i cum se-ncruntă, privind cu tulburare
când vasele cu apă, când praful pe picioare.
Și Duhul îi întreabă, în fiecare zboară:
-N-ai vrea să-ți pui tu, Petre, ștergarul astă seară?
-Chiar eu?…Nu șade bine. Eu doar sunt mai bătrân.
-Dar tu? Tu cel mai tânăr? – Eu stau lângă Stăpân…
-Dar tu? întreabă Duhul acuma pe Andrei.
-Chiar eu?…Sunt cel din urmă la Domnul dintre ei?
-Dar tu ce ții doar punga? – Eu am făcut de-ajuns.
Am cumpărat merinde și mielul l-am străpuns…
-Tu, Toma, nu vrei oare să fii tu cel ce spală?
-Sunt trist. Se luptă-n mine o umbră de-ndoială…
-Dar tu, Matei? Tu, Filip? Dar tu, Tadeu? Dar tu…?
Și-n fiecare cuget răspunsul a fost Nu.

Atunci, lăsându-și brâul și haina-ntr-un ungher,
S-a ridicat Stăpânul Cel coborât din cer
și-nfășurând ștergarul, S-a aplecat ușor
să-și spele ucenicii ca rob al tuturor.

De-atunci pe apa vremii, atâția ani s-au dus.
Și-acum – a câta oară? -Se-așează iar Iisus
să-ntrebe, tot prin Duhul, pe cei ce-L înconjoară:
-N-ai vrea să-ți pui tu, Gheorghe, ștergarul astă seară?…
Tu, soră Mărioara? Tu, Radu? Tu, Mihai?…
Frumos va fi odată acolo sus in Rai!

Dar azi sunt mii de-amaruri. Necazul greu se curmă.
Nu vrei, în lumea asta, să fii tu cel din urmă?
E bun un vas de cinste, dar trebuie și-un ciob!
Nu vrei să fii tu, frate, al fraților tăi rob?

Sunt răni neîngrijite, sunt mucuri ce se sting,
batiste-n care lacrimi, în taină se preling,
sunt văduve bolnave, bătrani fără putere,
sunt oameni singuratici, lipsiți de mângâiere,
sunt prunci rămași acasă, cu-o mamă în spital,
bolnavi care așteaptă un salvator semnal.

Se cere osteneală și jertfă uneori.
Și nopți de priveghere și iarăși muncă-n zori.
Nu mânuind Cuvântul, când harul nu ți-e dat,
cât mătura și acul și rufa de spălat,
cât cratița, toporul și roata la fântână,
ciocanu-n tabla casei și-n gard la vreo batrana.

Să stai de veghe noaptea la câte-un căpătâi,
să-ntorci cu greu bolnavul, să rabzi și să mângâi;
să-l scoți apoi la soare și să-i alini amarul.
…Nu vrei cu Mine, frate, să-ți înfășori ștergarul?
-Chiar eu?…Nu șade bine. Eu doar sunt mai bătrân…
-Chiar eu? Eu nu am vreme. Eu am făcut de-ajuns.
-Chiar eu? – Chiar eu? Același și-același trist răspuns.

Și-atunci lăsând să-I cadă cununa Lui și haina,
iubirii fără margini trăindu-i iarăși taina,
încet – a câta oară? – Se-apleacă iar Iisus
și, plin de-atâtea gânduri, ștergarul iar Și-a pus.

Și-așa cum o mlădiță se-ndoaie lângă trunchi,
Stăpânul omenirii Se-apleacă în genunchi.
La jugul fără slavă Iisus din nou se-njugă.
El, Împăratul Vieții, din nou e rob și slugă.
Veniți, leproși ai lumii, murdari de-a ei țărână!
Iisus vă spală iarăși cu propria Sa mână!
Veniți, voi ce-n păcate nădejdea vi se frânge!
Iisus vă spală astăzi cu propriul Său sânge!…

Voi, frați, goniți mândria, visările și somnul!
Luați cu drag ștergarul, alăturea de Domnul!
Și nu uitați: pe cale, orice lucrare-i bună;
dar cine ia ștergarul, acela ia cunună! (*Ștergarul, de Costache Ioanid*)

Costache Ioanid
Autor: Anonim  |  Album: fara album  |  Tematica: Poeti
Resursa adaugata de Softy in 28/01/2011



Costache Ioanid

Daca blandetea este o forma de lepadare de sine pentru cel tare, smerenia este o lepadare de sine pentru cei inzestrati cu talente deosebite.

Nimeni nu poate spune despre un tantar sau despre un purice ca este “bland”. Blandetea nu sta alaturi cu slabiciunea si cu lipsa de posibilitati. Putem spune ca este “bland” doar despre o entitate care, daca ar voi, ne-ar strivi sau ne-ar ului prin declansarea exploziva a posibilitatilor potentiale. Bland este, nu puricele, care oricat s-ar stradui nu poate decat sa sara si sa se ascunda, ci elefantul, leul sau ursul; bland poate fi omul foarte puternic sau inzestrat cu posibilitatea de a distruge.

In mod similar, despre smerenie sau umilinta nu se poate vorbi in situatia celor cu posibilitati limitate, ci doar in cazul acelora care, prin ceea ce sunt si prin ceea ce pot face, se ridica cu mult peste media societatii din jur.

Probabil ca cel mai frumos exemplu de smerenie pe care l-am vazut a fost viata pictorului, sculptorului, artistului si poetului crestin Costache Ioanid. L-am intalnit de multe ori si mi-a facut cinstea sa ma numeasca printre prietenii lui din mai tanara generatie.

Prietenia lui exemplara cu familia lui Aurel Popescu, si venirea lui printre noi la serile de studiu si predici ale lui Liviu Olah sau Iosif Ton, mi l-au adus aproape si mi-au deschis calea catre inima si casa dansului.

Iata, in rezumatul rece al datelor si cifrelor, ceva despre viata acestui om deosebit:


1912 Decembrie, 3-se naste Costache Ioanid, al patrulea fiu al lui Titus si al Ecaterinei, la Comandaresti, in Bucovina de Nord.

1923-Îincepe sa studieze la Liceul Internat din Iasi.

1929-1934. Studiaza la Academia de Arta Dramatica pe care o absolva cu nota maxima. Deschide prima expozitie de sculptura caricaturala. Lucreaza in lut pictat, in culori de ulei, in sticla, ceara, hartie, lemn.

Intre 1934-1952 deschide sapte expozitii de acest gen la Iasi si mai apoi la Bucuresti.

1938-se muta in capitala. Realizeaza “Balet nepolitic”, celebru in epoca. La una din reprezentatii participa insusi regele Carol al II-lea.

1939-se casatoreste cu Elena Stefanescu din Iasi.

1940-citind Biblia pe o banca in parc, este observat de Mihai si Sabina Wurmbrand care îi invita la Biserica Lutherana pastorita de Richard Wurmbrand.

Incepe studiul aprofundat al Bibliei si scrie primele poezii crestine.

1941-1944. Este incadrat cartograf la Marele Stat Major.

1958-1961. Isi castiga existenta din picturi. Frecventeaza Biserica Penticostala din Calea Mosilor. Scrierile sale circula ilegal in toata tara. Refuza sa scrie in stilul propagandei comuniste.

1961-1966. Lucreaza ca desenator tehnic la IPROMET.

1963-se afla sub stare de arest la Malmaison. Este anchetat pe tot parcursul anului.

1966-frecventeaza Biserica Lutherana. Este recunoscut ca unul dintre cei mai importanti poeti crestini alaturi de Traian Dorz si altii.

1981-moartea sotiei sale, Elena.

1981-imigreaza in SUA. ÎIi apare primul volum de versuri, “Taine”.

1987 Noiembrie, de Ziua Recunostintei (Thanksgiving)-trece la Domnul.

Istoria unui nume: Burdujeni


Istoria unui nume: Burdujeni


Spaţiu privilegiat al călătorului, mereu în aşteptare, gara rămâne un decor imuabil, o fereastră deschisă spre lume, peisaje şi poveşti. Zidurile îşi deapănă amintirile¸ înscrise în pietre dantelate, arcade, toponimii, dar mai ales în suflete.

În anul 1472, pe locul unde se află astăzi Mănăstirea Teodoreni, sfetnicul Bunea a construit o biserică din lemn, iar din porunca lui Ștefan cel Mare, le aduce aici, de la curtea lui Radu cel Frumos, pe domnița Maria și pe fiica ei, Maria Voichița. Biserica va fi arsă de turci, dar un secol mai târziu, postelnicul Teodor (Toader) Movilă ctitoreşte pe aceste meleaguri o mănăstire de călugări, ridicând o biserică de zid. Teodor, fiul marelui logofăt Ioan Movilă și frate vitreg cu domnitorii Ieremia și Simion Movilă înzestrează mănăstirea cu numeroase moșii și sate (Adâncata, Nagoreni, Grușevița). Într-un document din 19 decembrie 1611 se spune că mănăstirea „numită a lui Toader Moghilă” a fost zidită „din nou” în timpul domniei lui Ieremia Movilă de fratele său Toader, care i-a dat „tot avutul său și multe sate ce au fost dreptele lui ocine”.


Mănăstirea Teodoreni

În scurt timp, aşezământul cunoaşte o perioadă înfloritoare, fiind considerat de cronici drept unul dintre cele mai bogate din Moldova. Cu toate acestea, împrejurimile nu erau nelocuite, iar pentru a lucra moșiile mănăstirii au fost aduși aici țărani ruteni din părțile Storojinețului. Rutenii  primesc o bucată de pământ  pentru a-și construi case, dând astfel naştere satului Teodoreni.

Prin căsătoria cu Elena, nepoata lui Teodor Movilă, noul proprietar al Teodorenilor, devine  logofătul şi cronicarul Miron Costin. Iubitor de frumos şi tradiţie, acesta va efectua o serie de reparaţii la biseric㸠pregătind-o astfel să străbată vremurile. Pârcălab de Hotin, cărturarul apela la un baci, pe nume Burduja, pentru a transmite mesaje către slujbașii săi din Teodoreni. Numele mesagerului a ajuns până în zilele noastre, căci treptat, denumirea localității avea să se schimbe din Teodoreni în Burdujeni.


Gara din Burdujeni

În 1892, anul începerii lucrărilor la gara Burdujeni, granița austro-română era situată între localităţile Itzkany (în română Ițcani, astăzi Gara Suceava Nord) și Burdujeni (azi Gara Suceava). Deoarece terenul pus la dispoziţie era mlăștinos, s-au folosit pompe pentru desecare, apele au fost captate și dirijate spre râul Suceava, iar gropile rezultate au fost acoperite cu pământ și prundiș în cantități mari. Pentru asigurarea unui fundament solid, constructorii au așezat una lângă alta grinzi de stejar de mărimea unui copac. Lucrările au fost efectuate de  o societate italiană din Milano, după un proiect similar cu cel al gării din orașul elvețian Fribourg. Atunci au fost construite etajul superior și cele două pavilioane laterale. Construirea clădirii a fost terminată în 1898, dar copertina peronului principal și alte instalații auxiliare au fost finalizate abia în 1902.

Nu puteam încheia epopeea “Burdujeniului”, fără să amintim de “Muza de la Burdujeni” scrisă de Costache Negruzzi în 1851. O nouă fereastră, o nouă poveste..

Imnul Românesc al Sfîntului Ioan Iacob Hozevitul

🇷🇴POPOR ROMÂN; acesta este imnul pe care ar trebui să îl cânți!🇷🇴 Imnul Românesc- de Ioan Iacob de la Hozeva

Imnul Românesc- de Ioan Iacob de la Hozeva

Acum, ori niciodată 🇷🇴
Treziţi-vă, Români! 🇷🇴
Având credinţă-n suflet 🇷🇴
Şi arma sfântă-n mâini. 🇷🇴
În rodul născocirii 🇷🇴
Să nu nădăjduiţi, 🇷🇴
Ci “arma mântuirii” 🇷🇴
Mereu s-o mânuiţi! 🇷🇴
Uniţi-vă în cuget 🇷🇴
Prin simţuri creştineşti 🇷🇴
La sânul “Maicii Voastre” 🇷🇴
Cele duhovniceşti! 🇷🇴
În pavăza credinţei 🇷🇴
Fiind adăpostiţi, 🇷🇴
La vremuri de războaie 🇷🇴
Veţi fi nebiruiţi. 🇷🇴
Tot neamul de pe lume 🇷🇴
Şi “cel de sub pământ” 🇷🇴
De s-ar scula-mpotrivă 🇷🇴
Va fi de voi înfrânt. 🇷🇴
Plecaţi-vă la Domnul 🇷🇴
Grumazul umilit, 🇷🇴
Să vă înalţe fruntea 🇷🇴
În “plaiul cel dorit”. 🇷🇴
De somnul nesimţirii 🇷🇴
Să nu mai dormitaţi 🇷🇴
Că “zorii mântuirii” 🇷🇴
S-arată la Carpaţi. 🇷🇴
Cu dragoste curată, 🇷🇴
Ca fraţii petrecând, 🇷🇴
Să nu ştirbim onoarea 🇷🇴
Şi graiul nostru sfânt! 🇷🇴
Trezindu-ne simţirea 🇷🇴
Din suflet creştinesc 🇷🇴
Să punem Semnul Crucii 🇷🇴
Pe steagul românesc! 🇷🇴
Pe tronul cel din suflet 🇷🇴
S-avem necontenit 🇷🇴
Icoana prea cinstită 🇷🇴
A Regelui mărit! 🇷🇴
De vom păzi unirea 🇷🇴
Şi “Crezul din Strămoşi”, 🇷🇴
Vom fi şi jos, în lume 🇷🇴
Şi-n ceruri glorioşi! 🇷🇴
În scumpa noastră ţară 🇷🇴
Atunci vor creşte iar 🇷🇴
Virtuţile străbune, 🇷🇴
Cu nume secular. 🇷🇴
Din groapa stricăciunii 🇷🇴
Săpată de tiran 🇷🇴
Se va scula cu slavă 🇷🇴
“Răsadul lui Traian”. 🇷🇴
Deci, azi, ca niciodată, 🇷🇴
Să ne vădim “Creştini” 🇷🇴
Păstrând neprihănită 🇷🇴
Credinţa, prin străini 🇷🇴

Image may contain: 3 people, text

„Coafura româncelor este romană: părul este împărțit în două pe frunte și împletit în cozi lungi, care se strâng pe capul acoperit ușor de o bonetă brodată, în formă de diademă. Adesea ele poartă ștergare pe care le adună ca și femeile franceze, ce se coafează după moda turcească…” – observație a ofițerului austriac M. Demion, care a trecut prin Banat, în lucrarea “Tableau geographique et politique des royaumes de Hongrie, d’Esclavonie, de Croatie et de la grand principaute de Transylvanie”, tipărită în 1809 – din contul Colecția Etnografică Marius Matei, facebook

„Coafura româncelor este romană: părul este împărțit în două pe frunte și împletit în cozi lungi, care se strâng pe capul acoperit ușor de o bonetă brodată, în formă de diademă. Adesea ele poartă ștergare pe care le adună ca și femeile franceze, ce se coafează după moda turcească…” – observație a ofițerului austriac M. Demion,  care a trecut prin Banat, în lucrarea “Tableau geographique et politique des royaumes de Hongrie, d’Esclavonie, de Croatie et de la grand principaute de Transylvanie”, tipărită în 1809 – din contul Colecția Etnografică Marius Matei, facebook

foto: “căpița de bani”, “tulbent de bani”, salba de bani pe lanț

 — in Timisoara, Romania.

(Colecția etnografică Marius Marian, facebook)

· October 7, 2017 

“Călătorii și inspectorii străini care au trecut prin Banat precum: Francisco Griselini, J. J. Ehler, J. Friedel, au remarcat podoabele, coafurile și bijuteriile femeilor bănățene.

W. C. W. Blumenbach amintește că la 1840, în Banat, între obiectele femeii se găsesc: „boieli pentru colorarea în roșu a obrajilor, culori negre pentru sprâncene, cercei, salbe, mărgele, broderii”. În “Tableau geographique et politique des royaumes de Hongrie, d’Esclavonie, de Croatie et de la grand principaute de Transylvanie”, lucrare tipărită în 1809, M. Demion, ofițer austriac care a trecut prin Banat, pezintă foarte plastic podoabele și bijuteriile populare „Coafura româncelor este romană: părul este împărțit în două pe frunte și împletit în cozi lungi, care se strâng pe capul acoperit ușor de o bonetă brodată, în formă de diademă. Adesea ele poartă ștergare pe care le adună ca și femeile franceze, ce se coafează după moda turcească. Femeile bogate adaugă la bonetele lor o cantitate de monede de argint sau de aur, care în timpul mersului dau un sunet asemănător zurgălăilor unui cal înhămat la sanie.”​
Colierele, salbele de aur sau argint purtate cu ocazia unor împrejurări festive, constituiau și obiectul succesiunilor testamentare. O salbă de aur valora cât o turmă de oi sau cât o moșie țărănească. Colierele și podoabele lucrate din monede găurite, sau prinse în diferite monturi, /și/ valoarea salbei dată de valoare intr/in/secă a monedelor, destul de ridicată în general, fac parte din categoria podoabelor care servesc la distingerea persoanei care o poartă. Prezența lor este dovedită în multe tezaure din secolele XVIII- XIX-lea.”
fragment din lucrarea, M. M., “Portul traditional din Banatul de Câmpie. Găteala capului”, Luceafărul, Ed. ASTRA Museum, Sibiu, 2017, p. 8

foto: “căpița de bani”, “tulbent de bani”, salba de bani pe lanț

 — in Timisoara, Romania.

Imagini din Constanța în anii 1943-1944 – Pagini de istorie românească scrise profesionist pe…facebook, că școala oficială nu e în stare – de ea se ocupă lgbt.istul Soros, după cum îi place. (Fir conversațional din 2017.)

Imagini din Constanța în anii 1943-1944 – Pagini de istorie românească scrise profesionist pe…facebook, că școala oficială nu e  în stare – de ea se ocupă lgbt.istul Soros, după cum îi place. (Fir conversațional din 2017.)
Imagine rara cu balustrada falezei Cazinoului /Constanța/ intesata de sarma ghimpata in anul 1943:Este posibil ca imaginea să conÅ£ină: unul sau mai mulÅ£i oameni şi în aer liberConstanta Old Memories

· 30 mai 2017editat 

Trupele germane /în Constanța/ in WW2

  • Toli Septar Din pacate, istoria a cam fost ascunsa /„cam”?/ in epoca ceausista. Putini stiu ca am fost aliatii germanilor, ca Antonescu era germanofil si asa cum s-a spus mai sus, nemtii aparau orasul Constanta si protejau litoralul contra unei eventuale debarcari sovietice.
    Toli Septar Bateria Tirpitz impreuna cu 2 nave de linie romanesti si alte vedete torpiloare reusesc sa scufunde in iunie 1941, Distrugatorul Moscova, care impreuna cu alte Cuirasate rusesti lovisera deja Portul Constanta si zona garii Palas.
  • Toli Septar Astfel, de la Sf. Gheorghe din Delta si pana la Vama Veche gasim si astazi peste 50 de constructii – cazemate- destinate adapostirii armamentului greu de artilerie- Bateria Tirpitz, situata spre mare in dreptul localitatii Lazu, cu tunuri de 280mm sau mitraliere grele sau instalatii jumel;ate anti-aeriene.
  • Toli Septar Este de salutat atitudinea aliatilor germani si inainte si dupa august 1944. Au fost niste aliati adevarati, adevarate caractere….pacat ca n-am stiut sa luam de la ei ce era de urmat. Va mai dau doar un exemplu: Horia Agarici, un tehnician roman ce a devenit pilot de lupta si in afara de Trecerea Prutului* a aparat orasul Constanta de pe Aerodromul din Mamaia. A participat la raiduri aeriene, distrugand 3 bombardiere rusesti si asta este doar un singur exemplu. Dupa razboi, fiind germanofil, a fost intemnitat 25 de ani la munca silnica la Aiud, fiind degradat ca ultimul dezertor. Si asta doar ca nu i-a iubit pe rusi….. Exact asa am stiut sa ne slavim eroii….iar Capitanul Agarici a fost doar un exemplu.

RUGA LUI NICHITA STĂNESCU ”STÂND ŞI FIIND”: Doamne, apără poporul român. Ai grijă de el şi apără-l! El este al tău cu blândeţea lui de miel[…] cu răbdarea lui de taur /și/ cu omenia lui de floare de zăpadă[…] care se vede pe geam, pe fereastră și pe libertate. – Poezia “Fiind și strigînd/?/ ” a fost scrisă la Belgrad pe 5 aprilie 1976 (parte din volumul “Inedite” recuperate de Adam Puslojic), cf. pagina `Nichita Stănescu”, facebook

RUGA LUI NICHITA STĂNESCU ”STÂND ŞI FIIND”: Doamne, apără poporul român. Ai grijă de el şi apără-l! El este al tău cu blândeţea lui de miel[…] cu răbdarea lui de taur /și/ cu omenia lui de floare de zăpadă[…] care se vede pe geam, pe fereastră și pe libertate. – Poezia “Fiind și strigînd/?/ ” a fost scrisă la Belgrad pe 5 aprilie 1976 (parte din volumul “Inedite” recuperate de Adam Puslojic), cf. pagina `Nichita Stănescu”, facebook

®Acta Diurna™

Fotografia postată de Nichita Stanescu.

Nichita StanescuÎmi place pagina


Doamne, apără poporul român.
Ai grijă de el şi
El este al tău
cu blândeţea lui de miel
şi cu răbdarea lui de taur
cu omenia lui
de floare de zăpadă
ce se vede pe geam, Doamne,
pe fereastră şi pe libertate!
poporul meu nu se spală de mine!
Eu nu mă spăl
de poporul meu!
Dacă-mi vine alt miros
decât mirosul lui,
mă spăl pe mâini
numai de propriile mele mâini
şi mă las legat
de boarea de zăpadă
a poporului meu.
Mărul se poate spăla
numai de măr,
de pomul mărului nu! De pom nu!
Apără, Doamne, poporul român
şi nu te spăla de el!
Pe maica mea
care m-a născut pe mine
am dăruit-o poporului român.
Dăruieşte-ţi, Doamne,
pe maica Ta, care te-a născut pe Tine,
poporului român!

Vezi articolul original 1 cuvânt mai mult