with links to the Federal Institute of Technology study on the banking cartel in footnote 3 and the power transition model in footnotes 7,8 and 10.
156,744 views on videos about world’s gold; 93% of 1,943 viewers gave a thumbs’ up
I told the Department of Defense Inspector General to reinstate Major General Micael Cary, Commander or the 20th Air Force, and Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, who prevented a nuclear device from detonating over Charleston, South Carolina on October 8, 2013:
Your readers can follow me on Twitter. Please let me have any questions.
Here is Wolfgang Struck’s correspondence concerning David Crayford, Keith Scott, and the Office of International Treasury Control for your eyes only at this stage, since he has not yet gotten back to me about his willingness to have you post it. The stuff I sent you above can be posted.
You may be too busy with so many things. You may even be bothered by that response of David Crayford. May I come to the rescue? The office of Wolfgang Struck has anticipated that David Crayford would act as he did and we thank him for that.
We are not Mr. Loudmouth and Company. We are rather low key in all aspects of life. Now, and only now, we have assumed a lofty position after Atty. Karen Hudes encouraged us and announced to the world that Wolfgang Struck is the documented signatory to the global accounts. You want to hit me, you hit her. You want to hit her, you hit me. You are welcome. We stand up to that.
As proof to that, dear Karen I send you this for your disposal earlier than he or the world could expect a reply to his lengthy accusations.
Have a nice day,
Good Morning Mr. Crayford,
Thank you for timely acknowledgment of my response.
Unfortunately, a Ho-Ho-Ho and a Hey-Nonny-Nonny will not resolve the issue. I grant that you are a prolific and staunch supporter of the Office of the International Treasury Controller, but I am not aware of anything published, which confirms that you have the right to act as either the official or unofficial spokesman for the OITC and its associated structure.
Perhaps that places us on a par, as being equally without verifiable status in relation to our claim. But is that really so?
For my own part, it is a relatively simple matter to qualify that I am a lawyer by education, former international banker by profession, researcher, author, and of the past fifteen years, ardent supporter of the aims and objectives of President Marcos, who I firmly believe has been maliciously maligned by accusations of plunder and other activities which are untrue. My sole drive and inspiration is to contribute to an effort to assure that the vision of President Marcos is sustained and not lost to a den of thieves and predators of such blatant mendacity as would make Ali Baba blush with shame.
Your comments do me an injustice, in the sense that you have had the opportunity to view only a minor selection of documents, but not all. However, on basis of whatever you believe you have learned from those documents viewed, you choose to brand me a person of no account in relation to the Global Debt Facility.
You have made the observation that it is impossible to reach resolution or even a fair opinion, if you do not have the whole picture, and at this point, you have not been introduced to the “whole picture” from my personal perspective, which I can state in all modesty is particularly comprehensive in its structure and court recognized in multiple instances.
I find it significant that you take every opportunity to denigrate Dr. Keith Scott by branding him as a CIA member intent on destruction or usurpation of control of the OITC. I have not met Dr.Scott personally, even though I have exchanged limited correspondence with him on e-mail, but found in that correspondence nothing to indicate that he was in any way disloyal to the principles of the OITC.
In that context, I have to ask myself if the true role of David Crayford is to keep enquirers at bay from his treasured O.I.T.C., and thus he chooses the modus operandi of attacking the credential and objectivity of any person who is perceived as a threat to his pursuit of some obscure or covert agenda.
The point I seek to make, Mr. Crayford, is that you have intruded in a dialogue between myself and Ms. Hudes.
Now myself and Ms Hudes pursue totally different agendas,
Ms. Hudes seeks to return the Rule of Law to the institution she serves as Senior Counsel, and is most vociferous in her pursuit of that objective, while I seek due completion of the vision of President Marcos.
The symbiosis of those differing agendas lays in the obstruction of fair interpretation and compliance with law, and probably more importantly, a clear understanding of what precisely motivates such obstruction, so that justice can prevail.
You are clearly a learned man, and so you must be familiar with “Misprision of Felony”, U.S. Code, Title 16, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4., which I find cause to include here :-
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a crime cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not, as soon as possible, make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
In the circumstances, the dismissal of Ms. Hudes and her branding as a “whistle-blower” is clear condemnation of Ms. Hudes simply for performing her sworn duty as Senior Counsel, which obliges her to take action for correction.
I have noted your comment in previous correspondence that “you would fire her”. Fire her, Mr Crayford? For doing her duty, and acting in good faith under auspices of her office?
Can I now note that your comment as to Ms. Hudes is oddly familiar in context of your comments in relation to Dr. Keith Scott and to myself, thus leading me to challenge your objectivity.
I cannot speak for Ms Hudes, but from my own part, I would be pleased to debate your conviction as to my lack of standing in the matter, provided that the debate is conducted in confidential correspondence rather than in a public forum, with the further proviso that you demonstrate a vested or qualified interest in the matter of instance.
Please note, Mr. Crayford, that while Ms. Hudes has station of office in a global organization, and my own credential is readily verifiable, I know nothing of you, beyond that you have chosen to throw down a gauntlet without indicating or qualifying why you feel compelled to enter this arena.
Your initial demand was that full disclosure be made in a public forum, yet in early correspondence with Ms. Hudes you sought to induce her to enter a “Secrecy Agreement”.
The adage of instance states – “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”.
Let us now take a moment to reference a particular paragraph of your response :-
What disrespect you show Mr Struck for an International Institution of “Sovereign Entity” status and one that stands above and beyond all other “Sovereign Entities” for the very reason I have explained before which was to ensure that there was NO undue Influence, duress, or otherwise levied upon the ITC by Politicians, Governments, Political Parties, Religion, or other persons, parties, or National Interests whose interest were solely for their own purposes (as had been experienced during the time of the TTTGC 1945 – 1995).
The problem I have with that paragraph is that Dr. Dam is constantly referenced as “a protected person, immune from all legal actions ….”, and suddenly, press reports indicate that he has been jailed, tortured, and ultimately rescued by a friendly party and nursed back to health.
Question How can a man of such elevated status and beneficiary of global immunity be arrested?
Question How can a man of such elevated status, and beneficiary of global immunity be tortured to the point of imminent death in a jail cell, when his immunity is recognized the world over?
I have other questions which appear to defy logical explanation, but we can leave those for another time. The relevant point is that all the claimed protections were apparently ineffective, and thus the entire OITC structure is “suspect” because it does not, in practice, portray the claimed powers and authority.
If your involvement with the OITC is a deep as you infer, perhaps you can inform us as to why no action is taken to correct the apparent ills of the world, or at least make the attempt.
As those ills worsen by the day, week and month, your precious OITC stands strangely silent on the matter of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster which materially altered the natural course of the Gulf Stream, resulting in startlingly colder temperatures in Europe. Equally, we might point to the Fukushima disaster which emits lethal particles into the air reaching the continental United States, and poisons the water of the Pacific Ocean to destroy marine life.
Am I mistaken in my understanding that the massive funds the OITC purportedly controls are for the benefit of the people of all nations? If that understanding is conceptually correct, then why has there been no active involvement? Is the OITC a “paper tiger”?
The failure to make a recognizable contribution to alleviation of current global ills does not sit well with the claimed status, power and influence of OITC, and one does begin to wonder at credibility and objectivity of that organization.
Well designed web-sites and fancy words of challenge do not represent material assistance to the impoverished who are deserving of every humanitarian effort that can be mobilized.
The work of myself and that of Ms. Hudes have community in that we seek solution to what we perceive as injustice in the world. We work separately with a view to reaching such a goal, and cooperate where that cooperation makes sense in relation to our separate objectives.
If you want to continue debate in a public forum, simply demonstrate a vested interest, and you will be accommodated.
With due respect, Mr. Crayford, if you find it impossible to demonstrate a credible interest in the matter, I will be obliged to the opinion that you are little better than a “sticky-beak”, meaning someone who seeks information to which he or she is not correctly entitled.
I am not a charlatan, take that. I have both standing and credibility in the matter of instance, which I will clearly demonstrate in an acceptable environment. That credibility has two parts, with the first gained under Mandate from the party identified in earlier correspondence, and the second being personal and well recognized by the Court.
I now return the gauntlet Mr. Crayford.
Demonstrate a credible interest and we move immediately to accede to your requests in fitting fashion.
If ever you want to take action which probably would be the right time now, this is my response this morning to my friend who supplied the information.
I read that attached information half with disgust, half with a sour smile. My reply to Mr. David Crayford would be: Keep it, have it, enjoy it, man! I have nothing to do with Spiritual Wonder Boy or any of those 900-something invented ludicrous account numbers. That is pure bull manure for the Filipino mind in the beginning. Now we see it is spreading through the winds and finds some lunatic ground to grow new plants.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing true or even near the truth to the statements of Mr. David Crayford. He does not know anything, and I mean anything, about the Global Accounts. He should have read the history of Dr. Ray C. Dam who was trained in America by who knows who to go after one parental account which is the overall trust account for the Managed Currencies of the Central Bank of the Philippines which was and is sitting on top of the gold of the world, literally and physically, 400,000MT.
That Parental Account in Barclay’s Bank PLC in London is based on a 1936 deposit of gold of 17,000MT in Barclay’s Bank Singapore (made by Jose Antonio Diaz, JPR, as Jose Bautista Cruzen) as security backing for the printing of the money for the new Commonwealth of the Philippines which was done in the Bureau of Printing and Engraving in Washington, giving the U.S. financial control of the Philippines through-out until Marcos changed everything in 1969. The money is returned, was paid 1969 into that parent account 984527009 but not released by Barclay’s (claiming maturity 2005) which even had a man of the Federal Reserve posted as Chairman to oversee control. His name is Preston Martin, apparently still alive somewhere in America. He would witness that nobody was able to touch the account which is running in the hundreds of billions now.
That account was transferred by way of deed of assignment in 1972 to Rev. Dr. Floro E. Garcia whom I represent now. Karen Hudes has seen my documentation to that effect and she likes it, anything wrong with that? The OITC was formed in 1995 “by the nations of the world”. Who are they, if I may ask? Who gives them what authority? Anyhow: They are a little bit late, 23 years late to be exact. And they were a little bit too early, 10 years to be exact before maturity 2005.
They cannot claim ownership just like that. We have a rule of law, don’t we?
I was made aware of this attack on your and my credentials in connection with an e-mail apparently sent to you on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2014 at 19.47 by Lion. I do not know David Crayford other than from earlier goings with Neil Keenan and Benjamin Fulford. I did have exchanges on mail with Keith Scott, the right-hand man or left-hand man of the man of the OITC, His Excellency Dr. Ray C. Dam, which all led to some hot air but basically to nothing. Mr. David Crayford was always somewhere in the background, for me, but I never had the feeling that he was connected with the OITC which impression he tries to invoke in his attack now on you and me.
Two things on my mind: The OITC is deniable but it is there. It is possible that this is the way the cabal wants to get their hands on the global accounts, slowly but surely while the world is looking elsewhere as always. Three people were involved. The two I mentioned may or may not be alive. Number three David Sale may be a double or triple agent (Bush/Putin/Hilary?). His whereabouts are not known. If the global accounts are in the trillions of dollars and millions of tons of gold, it is only natural that nobody wants to believe it, touch it, or think about it, except the super-powers of the world, especially the secret super-powers of the world.
The history of the OITC and the history of Dr. Ray C. Dam are quite reliable. The gold is the gold of the Royal Families stolen centuries ago from their far away colonies, deposited in Jewish banks, stolen from the Royal Families by the Jewish banks, stolen from the Jewish banks, and buried as Yamashita treasure in the Philippines. The other part of the Royal’s gold was parked in the Vatican some one hundred years ago (some 600,000MT), entrusted to Dr. Jose P. Rizal who shipped it back and forth until it became subject of the August 1950 BILATERAL MINESFIELD BREAKTHROUGH SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT and secured for 50 years plus 5 years moratorium, maturity 2005, buried deep under the Central Bank of the Philippines. Please always think of this (maturity 2005) when you want to understand what happened since year 2000 and why the Americans are not going to leave the Philippines.
Now, Ms. Hudes, you are so deceitful, David Crayford claims, you even claim that Wolfgang Struck is the signatory to the Collateral Accounts. The rest of his accolades is so bad we should not mind, which obviously was your choice, but my good friend wrote a comment that is so good, so hilarious that I have to give it to you as it deals with this complex once and for all. Here it comes and I quote (as if I were the one writing):
I believe that someone should acquaint Mr. Crayford with an adage which states – “People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.” I say this because, to my knowledge, he has not tendered compelling evidence of his own credibility to make the statements of instance. Yes, I have read his various items posted to Fourwind10.com and to RumorMillsNews, but I do not recall any serious qualification that could be verified elsewhere. The thought occurs that “self-praise is not a recommendation”.
In fairness, the revelations and comments made by Mr. Crayford have been interesting and, I am sure, have opened a wider knowledge and debate in financial affairs than could ever have occurred without that stimulus. However, the challenge of the posting of instance is unfair in its balance, by asking the challenged party to make public disclosure of elements that he considers spurious.
Now, that, Mr. Crayford, is a most devious device you employ. It is devious because its clear design is to have first-hand knowledge of what is it that motivates Ms. Hudes in her quest. If that were not so, then you, Mr. Crayford, could quite readily publish a knowledgeable discourse as the WHY Ms. Hudes is in error. You would have no need for her disclosure. If you want to occupy the “high-ground”, then you must establish your eligibility for that lofty station.
Ms. Hudes, on the other hand, has credibility of office, in that she is a senior counsel of a global institution. That credibility is enhanced by her clear and unambiguous campaign to defeat corruption in the institution she serves. What is equally clear is that her relentless campaign has captured public attention and she has a sound following of parties interested to see that she succeeds in her endeavor. If there is one characteristic which is startlingly apparent in her presentations, it is integrity. She has never varied in her theme for correction.
I perceive that the interest in “Hawai’i gold” is exclusively that of seeking a means to enable the U.S. to become compliant in their address to the World Bank and thus avoid a potential “currency war” as anticipated by a highly respected financial model. The lady is not driven by any desire to unduly influence the Global Collateral Accounts but she is highly motivated to draw attention to a pressing financial corruption problem that is not being addressed.
Now, could I please enquire, Mr. Crayford, as to what exactly the Office of the International Treasury Controller is dong to avoid the condition of a currency war as indicated by the financial model referenced by Ms. Hudes? By challenging the lady, you infer authority in the matter and so the question is valid, and is deserving of a robust response, from those who claim authority. While you, as the inquisitor, have your protocols all neatly wrapped in Treaties and Secrecy Agreements, you are demanding that Ms. Hudes make disclosure in the most public of forums.
Not entirely fair, Sir, when, if you are as credible as you claim, you have the opportunity to use the same public forum to refute all that Ms. Hudes proposes. Under the circumstances, the challenge is totally unnecessary and does not deserve to be honored, as there is no consideration.
As an ASIDE: The internet has been the means which exposed hitherto hidden elements of the global financial structure to public view. Of late, multiple interests appear to have converged on the Global Debt Facility to claim, power, authority, or access. All without compelling evidence to such right.
The world, which is constantly portrayed as beneficiary of indicated massive wealth emanating from those global accounts, observes the ills of the world that could, and should, be attended and marvels as to how Trustees can steadfastly continue to ignore the need for positive and timely action. THAT is the question that drives public interest and it is the question which must ultimately drive public revolt as the question fails to be satisfactorily answered.
Less time spent, Mr. Crayford, sniping at efforts made by others and more time spent explaining WHY you fail to use the authority you claim to make a material contribution to the world’s wounds would be a more material contribution to the current debate and would confer undeniable credibility.
It can be recognized and accepted that there are complex issues but Ms. Hudes is not letting grass grow under her feet, Mr. Crayford, she is both vocal and relentless in her reestablishment of the rule of law in the institution she serves. Since it appears you share a common goal, could I suggest that a more cooperative stance might well enhance any common interest and at the same time demonstrate a genuine effort to effect change.
That’s it, Karen, and I hope this is to your liking.