State-Controlled United States Media Still In Lockdown Over $3.87 Trillion Lawsuit AGAINST the Securities and Exchange Commission

The American Republic has been under siege since the illegal inception of the private Federal Reserve Central Bank, and its political integrity under assault since the assimilating of thousands of Nazis by way of Operation Paperclip, bursting into fruition with the CIA-instituted coup through JFK’s assassination. Many of the individuals behind this putrid history are alive today, and learning who they are and how this all came to be is the inevitable result of probing just what is behind the largest criminal racketeering lawsuit ever to be filed, one whose defendants are individuals at the helm of the SEC and, as the lawsuit indicates, by association individuals within, and by implication behind, the United States Government. Now, it’s become nakedly evident that we can no longer afford to entrust the preservation of our American Republic into the hands of the CIA-controlled mainstream media.

Since this mega-lawsuit was filed in early January, 2010, not one news agency other than WorldReports.org has covered it. The explanation? Major criminal racketeering on the part of the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of the U.S. Communist-infiltrated Shadow Government’s “Operation Stillpoint.” … What? no? … heh.

FINALLY !! . . . . . the Examiner takes a, albeit cursory, stab at ‘em. Inform yourself of the details surrounding the decades-old international plot to take down the American Republic partaken of by Nazi infiltrator, George H. W. Bush, alias for German-born George H. Scherf, Jr., G.W. Bush, Kissinger, Gorbachev, Obama, Kohl, Merkel, Ackerman, and the Clintons, just to name a few, at http://worldreports.org/news

This video was posted on YouTube on April 5th, 2010:

CMKM Diamonds and the $3.87 trillion lawsuit you didn’t hear about

Reposted from the Manhattan Headlines Examiner

March 30th, 2010

By Tim Barello

“Conscience and law” [Photo Credit: Marcel Douwe Dekker]

As the United States continues to fracture in every way imaginable, most citizens are unable to keep up with the never-ending hodgepodge of government corruption.  Each day, a new larger-than-life scandal emerges, and in the short mind span of news media, there is always a bigger and better story to chase. Right now, the hot button issue for mainstream news outlets is healthcare reform, and its myriad implications for our society; this doubtlessly ensures the aforementioned media will continue to overlook unprecedented accusations brought forth in a recent $3.87 trillion lawsuit (embedded below) against U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Shapiro, as well as several other current and former SEC commissioners, among others.

This Bivens action suit represents the largest fraud case in world history, and was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on January 8^th by Pasadena attorney Al Hodges; in his complaint, made on behalf of CMKM Diamonds shareholders, Hodges alleges that:

[Complaint paragraph 31] During the period of June 1, 2004 through October 28, 2005 a total of 2.25 Trillion “phantom” shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc, was sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market makers, hedge funds, ex-clearing transactions and private transactions. The sales of the majority of such shares were at all times known to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Defendants herein.

[Complaint paragraph 32] At some date prior to June 1, 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission in concert with the Department of Justice of the United States, together combined with Robert A. Maheu and others to utilize CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for the purpose of trapping a number of widely disbursed entities and persons who were believed to be engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations.

To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:

(a) Assisted in and approved the retention of Roger Glenn, an ex-SEC trial attorney and drafter of Sarbanes-Oxley, to join CMKM Diamonds Inc. for the purpose of verifying claims value, increasing authorized shares of stock to 800,000,000,000, and supervising from the inside of the company;

(b) Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the set up of the “racing activities” of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;

(c) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company claims to several foreign corporations;

(d) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U. S. Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales;

(e) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the declaration of dividends payable by the company to each common shareholder of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

(f) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the distribution of shares of CIM, a private company owned by Urban Casavant, as a stock dividend, including consent and approval of distribution of said shares to holders of more than 1.4 Trillion shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. common stock.

Based on these assertions, CMKM was used by the U.S. government as part of a covert sting operation – unbeknownst to shareholders – to apprehend criminals for their offenses. However, instead of prosecuting most of them, restitution deals were apparently cut:

[Complaint paragraph 34] During the period from March, 2004 through August, 2006, on behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Robert A. Maheu, with assistance from others, negotiated a settlement with the illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company. In exchange for a U. S. Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.

[Complaint paragraph 35] Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that other moneys have been collected for the benefit of the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, from the United States Government, and from the sale of additional assets including consent to enter into joint venture agreements with other companies holding mineral claims in Saskatchewan, Canada. Plaintiffs herein are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said moneys, collected for the benefit of shareholders have also been placed in a trust or are otherwise now held in trust by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and the United States Treasury.

Therefore, the crux of this complaint – and the massive fraud allegedly committed by the SEC (and Department of Justice) – is as follows:

[Complaint paragraph 36] Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, the Securities and Exchange Commission reserved unto itself the sole and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution.

[Complaint paragraph 37] Demand for release of said moneys has been repeatedly presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission without result. Agents and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice have represented repeatedly that the release of moneys for distribution was imminent, and/or would occur within several weeks, and/or would occur within less than a month. Each of said representations have been made knowing them to be false, and at the specific direction of the named Defendants. These actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and of all similarly situated.

During the timeframe referenced above, CMKM was registered as a publicly traded diamond and gold mining company. By 2005, concrete evidence detailing fraud within the company emerged; in addition, it became publicly apparent that CMKM also sold, at the very least, hundreds of billions of unregistered shares – a practice often referred to as naked short selling – to third parties. Eventually, the SEC moved to delist CMKM stock, whose value never exceeded one penny per share, in accordance with Section 12(j) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. After several administrative proceedings, CMKM stock was ultimately deregistered in October 2005.

In September 2006, Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent of The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune, caught wind of the CMKM scandals, and began to report on some elements of the criminal fraud that ravaged CMKM’s estimated 40,000 shareholders. Norris has reported on more than one occasion that at least 259 billion shares of unregistered CMKM stock was sold; however, per the SEC’s 2008 action against CMKM, the agency itself acknowledges that as many as 622 billion shares of “purportedly unregistered stock” was sold by the company over a 20 month period.

So, how did Hodges initially determine that at least 2 trillion unregistered shares were sold?

[Complaint paragraph 25] A frequently asked question (FAQ) page was added to the web site [CMKMTaskForce.com] on the evening of November 4, 2005 and in response to a question about the degree of naked shorting of CMKM stock, the Task Force [consisting of Robert A. Maheu, Donald J. Stoecklein and Bill Frizzell] indicated that “Credible information indicates the number of naked short shares is potentially as high as 2 Trillion shares.”

‘QUITE A CASE’

Several weeks ago, I spoke with Al Hodges, a practicing attorney with four decades of experience, to find out more about this extraordinary case, and moreover, to determine exactly how he calculated his clients’ potential damages to be nearly $4 trillion – a figure many observers have openly scoffed at.

Almost immediately, I could not help but ask why the mainstream media has not fairly reported on this case; frankly, given the scope of accusations, one would assume that, at the very least, Floyd Norris and The New York Times would have some interest in thoroughly examining the merits of this action; instead, Norris has essentially brushed off Hodges’ allegations as being baseless.

It’s not that Hodges and his associates haven’t tried to attract the media’s interest; in fact, on this side of the Atlantic, all the major dailies, including The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have all been informed of the suit. Their respective editorial staffs – with the exception of Floyd Norris – have utterly decided to ignore it.

In the United Kingdom, efforts have also been made to attract mainstream media interest. Veteran financial intelligence Editor and Publisher Christopher Story FRSA – an investigative specialist that focuses on covert government operations and scandals – has personally reached out to The Daily Telegraph’s International Business Editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, with whom he is acquainted, to notify him about Hodges’ case. To date, Pritchard has failed to respond to Mr. Story, who has authored a number of articles (1) – and other published commentary – in The Daily Telegraph over the course of his near 50-year-career.

Hodges noted that Story, publisher of International Currency Review, and several other serials, is “subscribed to by every intelligence operation in the world.”

If intelligence agencies are reading about CMKM, then why isn’t the mainstream press covering this case? Hodges prudently observed that “they’re not going to touch it.”

MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON’T COVER ISSUES TIED TO COVERT OPERATIONS? (EVIDENTLY NOT)

“They [the government] used the shareholders without their consent to perform this ‘sting operation’ for National Security interests, and it wouldn’t have worked the way it worked if they had disclosed it,” he continued.

“On the other hand, it isn’t right to bury a company and put them out of business for the purpose of trapping people who are using the company to cheat the government, to line their own pockets, and to fund their operations against the United States.”

As noted above in complaint paragraph 34, and per Hodges, a deal was eventually reached with the aforementioned criminals; they paid the government restitution for documented illegal actions, and in turn, were offered immunity from prosecution.

“Rob Maheu had all these people in a big room in Las Vegas, and made [an] offer to them,” he said.

“Every person, organization and representative in that room stepped up, and either transferred money while they were there, or agreed to transfer money upon some further schedule” to avoid indictment.

Hodges also said, “I have a witness who was there, who saw it, and part of the 2.25 trillion phantom shares is documented by that person’s observations of how many shares were represented in that room.”

HOW MUCH MONEY DID THE FEDS REALLY COLLECT FOR RESTITUTION?

“People are going to laugh and titter about the amount of money that is being claimed, but understand the context of the lawsuit,” he said, before concluding, “we are not asking the government to pay us $3.87 trillion, what we’re asking is for them to release the funds that have been collected for us.” Thus, the implication is that this sum also incorporates substantial punitive damages.

In the end, Hodges believes the U.S. government is going to settle the case before it actually moves to trial. On this possibility, he said, “I think its in the process of happening as we speak.”

Based on these explanations – and the recent scandals and assertions that have surfaced about the SEC – I believe the mainstream media is doing the public a great disservice by not properly examining Hodges’ CMKM case.

The same conclusion must also be drawn about Christopher Story’s reports on the criminality that is undermining international efforts to refund the U.S. dollar, which is dangerously close to losing its status as the world’s global reserve currency… but that’s touching on a whole other can of worms … or is it?

(1)  In Paul Johnson’s article “Unions, Pensions, and Financial Responsibility: The British Experience” published in the Journal of Labor Research, Volume 2, Issue 2 (1981) pp. 292, 294, 295, 296, he highlights Christopher Story’s authoritative research, as published in The Daily Telegraph on 30 April, 31 August and 1 September 1976, as well as on 4 September 1978.

View this document on Scribd

Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

Reposted from World Net Daily

By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
April 1st, 2010

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

~~

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president.  Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

~~

The relevant Obama admission

At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems.  If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation.  Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen.  Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.

While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen.  “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”

There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language.  But they didn’t.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795.  Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

Origin of the natural born citizen clause

The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance.  It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.  The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity.  One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth.  That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously.  Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text.  Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text.  The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …

It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted.  As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor.  Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born.  Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age.  He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently.  Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged  Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible.  This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents.  As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility.  Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality.  That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents.  In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.

It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog.  Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility.  He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen.  Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen.  But that’s not accurate.  The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here.  If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”

While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.

The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators.  Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.  His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public.  There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  This is not a political issue.  It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.  As such, it deserves judicial review.

[For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, “What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?” by John Greschak.

---

Leo Donofrio is an attorney with 20 years’ experience.  He is a partner in the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio and he authors the Natural Born Citizen blog.