The paper trail goes back to WW1 and the alliance between Germany and Turkey.

It would seem quite possible, if we ever get to the bottom of this story, that Deutche Bank, Merkel and Germany have had a far greater role to play in the genocide and wanton destruction of Syria than we have been led to believe.

And funding it all has been manipulation and suppression of the gold and silver markets to the detriment of the financial security of Western Nations…

By Mark Anthony Taylor and Katherine Frisk

In some strange way I have been led to this final chapter as laid out by Mark Anthony Taylor below.

The paper trail goes back to WW1 and the alliance between Germany and Turkey. Central to this period in history was the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Turks and with German observers. A similar brutality was repeated by Nazi Germany in WW2. 30 million Russians lost their lives in that war, along with 12 million Protestants and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and 6 million Jews. During WW2 the Muslim Brotherhood was aligned with Nazi Germany and supported their war efforts in order eject the British influence out of the Middle East.

Over 70 years later I was deeply disturbed to see similar alliances. Between Merkel in Germany and Erdogan in Turkey under a US President who has sympathies with the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama was put into the White House with the support of Brzezinski, a Jesuit from Ukraine and part of the Black Nobility along with Kissinger and Soros ( Open Society Foundations) , Khazar Jews from Eastern Europe, all of whom are members of the Bilderberg Group founded by the Nazi supporting Dutch Royal family where Queen Beatrix has been their patron. Hillary Clinton had the backing of this same alliance for her Presidential run in 2016.

“Regime change” policies as we have come to know them with support of the CIA in the US and the Muslim Brotherhood Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia and Qatar along with their many franchise groups known as Al-Qaeda, Al- Nusra, ISIL, ISIS… and who knows what they will think up next, have resulted in a destroyed, failed state in Libya; a close miss in Egypt where the Egyptian military and General Sisi managed to avoid a close call with a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of that country;  terrorist Islamic franchises fighting on the side of Nazi affiliated groups in Western Ukraine against Russian speaking Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ukraine; and last but certainly not least, the travesty that we have seen unfold in northern Iraq and Syria in the last six years.

Again the German-Turkey alliance has become central in both Ukraine and Syria. Terrorist fighters found in both these countries the large majority of whom are not Ukrainian or Syrian, but have come from over 100 different countries around the world.

I recently watched the film “A Most Wanted Man,“staring Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role. He died before this film could be released in 2014. Which has always left a large question mark in my mind, especially as at the end of it we see Hoffman attempting to prevent Islamic terrorist activity only to be obstructed by an important Muslim businessman who launders money through German banks, along with collusion between the German secret services and the American CIA.

With the plot of this film still hanging around my subconscious like a dark cloud I also happened to come across an article written in autumn of this year by an architect who is dying from cancer who wanted to confess to being complicit in the building of underground bases in Germany for the express purpose of training Islamic extremists. Though I want to stress that as of yet I have still not found confirmation of this story, what rang the alarm bells in the last week was the following headline : Islamist radicals in Germany backed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Qatar – German media.

Also within the last week I was contacted by Mark Anthony Taylor and this ensuing three-part series resulted focusing on Deutche Bank, gold and silver price rigging, connections to a “remain” vote for Brexit and even more important to my mind anyway, Deutche Bank laundering money for Islamic terrorists commonly known as ISIS, though this is a many-headed hydra that goes under numerous different names often given the obscure label,  ‘the rebels.”

It would seem quite possible, if we ever get to the bottom of this story, that Deutche Bank, Merkel and Germany have had a far greater role to play in the genocide and wanton destruction of Syria than we have been led to believe. Compounded by the fact that Russia, who has been wrongly accused of invading Ukraine and Crimea which voted in an internationally observed referendum to return to Russia, is beset on all sides, not only by Islamic extremists out of Georgia and Chechnya but these same terrorists fighting alongside the Nazi Junta that has persecuted the people of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine. And funding it all has been manipulation and suppression of the gold and silver markets to the detriment of the financial security of Western Nations.

Here is part three of Mark Anthony Taylor’s attempts to expose Deutche Bank.

Recap

 

In Part 1 we presented proof that UK authorities covered up Deutsche Bank’s gold and silver rigging, where the Lord Chief Justice, Baron Thomas and the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright MP, conspired with HSBC to suppress legal action via a restraining order that would have identified market manipulation in July of 2015, more than a year before Deutsche Bank’s confession was made in New York.

In Part 2 we saw that that conspiracy undermined the ability of both men to function in Gina Miller’s lawsuit in an honest way, and that all the key members of Parliament and in the UK judiciary knew that the lawsuit was rigged.

Now in part 3 we come to the most serious crime –

That the UK authorities conspired to allow Deutsche Bank to fund ISIS.

We will prove that Deutsche Bank consolidated the bullion of its own clients to deliver to terrorist groups in the Middle East. In the FCA reports against HSBC for Forex manipulation an algorithm is defined, which was nicknamed ‘Taking out the Filth’ by traders in the cartel.

From the transcripts disclosed by Deutsche Bank in their New York lawsuit under Valerie E Caproni, it appears the same algorithm was used to systematically suppress prices. The technique is both elementary and utterly criminal – the cartel shares their own clients’ financial situation between themselves, so that they can compute how far prices have to fall for clients to be forced to sell and lose their deposits.

Each member of the cartel agrees not to buy what the others sell on the dip. Naked shorting is used to suppress prices and then the cartel buys up its own clients’ contracts. Clients – the ‘filth’ – lose everything – they are ‘taken out.’ Once the clients are closed out banks then cancel their orders.

In this age of austerity they can figure, correctly, that most of their smaller clients are financially distressed. This is just as true for buyers of physical bullion. Anyone who holds bullion long enough and suffers the same financial pressures as the masses will eventually be forced to sell to pay the bills. The banks, with their near endless bailouts, in comparison have near infinite money to hold their bullion and weather the hardship. Without question then, by systematically keeping prices low, the bank will force clients to sell their physical bullion back into the market. Some end up in the hands of honest stackers, but inevitably a large fraction ends up back behind the counter of the banks that sold it.

Deutsche Bank, under investigation from BaFin, suspends OTC trade. Early in 2014, it became evident Deutsche Bank were under investigation from BaFin, the German regulator, for gold price manipulation. Elke Koenig, president of BaFin, at the time, evaluated liabilities for such rigging in the hundreds of trillions of USD – or about the size of the global derivative position. She was hinting at systematic large scale suppression of prices. Deutsche Bank responded by withdrawing its chair from the London Bullion Market Association and announced it would cease trading Over the Counter (OTC) physical bullion.

In the light of Deutsche Bank’s latest confession, these reactions tell us that the directors knew of their bank’s own guilt, and were mitigating liabilities. At this time I, Mark Anthony Taylor, thought it was appropriate to sue them, I had studied the markets enough to know that price manipulation entailed an onerous naked short position on the Comex, although I was not aware of the exact algorithms used. I threatened the bank in an email – and the bank replied months later that it had carried out an investigation of itself and found no signs of manipulation. At the same time it was telling Reuters an audit was underway.

I knew that all the German directors were responsible for processed my demand, and that an audit had to be ordered by the same directors. So there was no way one or both audits/investigations could be honest.

How Juergen Fitschen, Charged With Fraud and Perjury Was Found Innocent But Is Guilty of Fraud and Perjury at the same time.

In Part 1 I proved the British judiciary covered up Deutsche Bank’s frauds. I should fill in a gap here and tell you how the German judiciary and government proved just as corrupt. I started a lawsuit against Jürgen Fitschen, CEO of Deutsche Bank, (32 C 1953/14 (72) in the Frankfurt district court) for the paltry sum of €5000 – the limit in the small claims court, to recover damage against my gold bullion I had been forced to sell to Deutsche Bank. The judge, Frau Lorenz, procrastinated for months, and part way through my action, Fitschen was charged with fraud and perjury in the Koch prosecution case for which he eventually stood trial.

In the winter of 2015 I returned from England, to Frankfurt, for the hearing against Fitschen. I arrived at court in the morning and discovered no courtroom had been prepared. The judge explained that she had not expected me to turn up and had cancelled the hearing without my knowledge or permission. I demanded a hearing that day, and she phoned Fitschen, who referred her to a lawyer, and she promised to hold the hearing later that afternoon. I asked if Fitschen would turn up, and she refused to give an answer. I guess in Germany the attendance of a defendant in a court action is a confidential matter.

Fitschen’s lawyer turned up for the hearing, and as you may guess, Fitschen declined to appear. I asked the judge why – I never got an answer. His lawyer answered questions from the judge in sign language and grunts. My interpreter never had to translate the lawyer’s responses. I cannot say I was familiar with German sign language. Body language was so subtle the untrained eye could not distinguish positive from negative nods.

The judge told me Fitschen denied gold rigging – his words were ‘what does it have to do with me?’ And that he had contested one my OTC receipts, as it was missing a signature from the bank teller. He did not deny the quantities of bullion I said I had bought and sold, and his lawyer did not have a copy of Deutsche Bank’s receipts.

The recording of the hearing consisted of Judge Lorenz selectively applying a dictaphone when she had something to memorize. There was nothing transcribed. After quantifying my losses I went to ask the judge a question and her response was ‘the hearing is over.’ She deferred judgement and said I would know the result within a fortnight.

Six weeks after the hearing the judge wrote back to me to say that I had lost. With Deutsche Bank’s recent confession, and with my correspondence that shows directors knew that their own audit had to be rigged, there can be no question why Fitschen refused to attend court – he could not address the matters of the audit – there was no audit – it was fictitious. The judge, who is employed as an inquisitor, according to German Law, showed not the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity into Deutsche Bank’s audit, or why it did not correspond to the letters Deutsche Bank sent to me. The logical conclusion is that she had been bought off.

Fitschen’s denial constitutes fraud and perjury.  I wrote to the Munich prosecutors, who had charged him with perverting the result of the Kock lawsuit, and showed that he had been equally dishonest in Frankfurt, giving the evidence of a fake audit that Judge Lorenz had stonewawlled – but they wrote back to say they were not interested . Neither were BaFin, even when they were telling the world they were investigating gold rigging. BaFin apparently did  not care that Fitschen refused to admit or deny the audit was fake. Fitschen was later cleared of fraud and perjury. I cannot say that I am convinced the prosecutors did an honest job.

Incidentally, on the very week that Anshu Jain was served my British lawsuit by email, BaFin closed its investigation. We can figure that Jain, upon receiving his email, phoned the president of BaFin and asked for the investigation to be terminated. With Deutsche Bank’s recent confession we can see BaFin were not doing their job. The confession was for allegations that accused them of systematically suppressing prices for over seventeen years. Are we really to believe the integrity of their audits, or BaFin’s inability to discover manipulation, or BaFin’s inability to detect that their audits were insubstantial?

When BaFin leaked their field agents’ report against Anshu Jain in July 2015, that accused Jain of misleading the Bundesbank with fake Libor statistics. With extensive Libor manipulation, for which Deutsche Bank paid fines, every audit at Deutsche Bank that involved Libor indices would have to be rigged. They would have to be rigged at the executive level. BaFin were spelling out the obvious with the result of their own internal investigation. The response of BaFin’s president, Felix Hufeld, was to dismiss his own field agents’ reports. The dismissal took the form of the Clintonesque: ‘evidence is not evidence.’ The same man was responsible for closing the gold rigging investigation against Deutsche Bank.

Just before the July hearing in Birmingham, and before the BaFin report against Jain became public domain, I issued Notice to Admit Facts #3 to Jain, which asked him to verify that he had understated the true borrowing costs of the bank more often than overstating them. I had figured that Libor rates were misrepresented by Jain to underplay Deutsche Bank’s solvency and liquidity issues, and this was verified by the BaFin report when it was published 24 hours after the hearing. Judge Simon Brown had deemed my demand for Deutsche Bank to disclose that report as vexatious – and was used in part as justification of the restraining order against me. In general the UK courts would have it that anything that incriminates or discredits a bank executive must be vexatious by definition.

I challenge the authorities to check Herr Hufelds computer and phone records for the morning that Jain received his email from me. My email is time-stamped 25 January 2015 23:31. Bullion Vault reported BaFin’s investigation was terminated on 28 January 2015. We can figure BaFin made its decision on the 25-27 th of January. Hufeld is as incriminated for directing gold rigging as is Fitschen.

What is in a single receipt?

I guess as Sherlock Holmes would say, ‘This was not written on a train.’ Fitschen in denying that a receipt was valid, without contesting that the quantities of bullion I said that I had bought and from Deutsche Bank and sold to Deutsche Bank. So in one sentence accused me of fraud, at the same time of not accusing me of fraud

A simple question became apparent to me – did Deutsche Bank still have my receipts? If Deutsche Bank had abandoned the LBMA, and had stopped OTC bullion trade, could it have destroyed receipts in an effort to obstruct further lawsuits against OTC trade? I was fortunate that I kept receipts, but many of its client may not have. If they face Deutsche Bank without any receipts, and Deutsche Bank does not have its own copies, then neither side can quantify damages. Destroying receipts is a very serious accountancy fraud. It would have to be orchestrated at the very top – between Fitschen and Jain, and is also a violation of Anti-Money-Laundering control laws (AML).

In the UK lawsuit, in Birmingham, I wanted the truth, so instead of supplying defendants with receipts, I invited them take them from Deutsche Bank’s copies, with my permission. The defendants included HSBC, RBS, UBS, Barclays Bank, JP Morgan and Citigroup. – the dominant market participants on the Comex with a proven history of collusion and market rigging. No defendant demanded to see receipts and all stonewalled my invitation to retrieve them from Deutsche Bank. This told of a cartel. Honest competing businesses embroiled in a market manipulation lawsuit, in which their competitors are withholding evidence that would otherwise substantiate their audits and refuse to supply trading receipts make for bad co-defendants. They are the sort of defendants from which an honest party would want to distance itself. But none of the defendants demanded proof of what was bought and sold. Their defence said that my trades ‘lacked particularization’ – while at the same time they were given the means to particularize the receipts but refused to do so. The conclusion is that all defendants conspired to let Deutsche Bank get away with having destroyed its receipts in violation of AML laws.

In the subsequent hearing, under Lord Charles Haddon-Cave, and in the appeal, under the application read by Lord Ian Burnett of the Court of Appeal, they were expressly charged with having destroyed receipts as part of accountancy fraud and in violation of AMLs. No defendants, Deutsche Bank or otherwise, denied the allegations. In British civil law, a party that does not deny an allegation implicitly admits it There is no right to silence or 5 th amendment in UK civil law – if you refuse to deny, you are taken to have admitted – end of.

Financial Times Corroborates AML violations

So we have every reason to deduce and assert that the bank has destroyed its OTC receipts under the direction of Fitschen and Jain. May Day 2016 in the UK was not only celebrated by communists and pagans, but also by litigators, as the Financial Times disclosed a letter leaked from the Financial Conduct Authority, in which they have fined Deutsche Bank for AML violations. A little later Reuters also disclosed they had been independently fined by BaFin for the same crimes. Both fines were done in secret.

The FCA had alleged that Deutsche Bank could well have laundered money to terrorists, and had destroyed materials to cover up its crimes. Clearly one only destroys materials to cover up AML violations if one is guilty of money laundering. Deutsche Bank were thus being accused of money laundering, not just poor accounting. All of these accusations corroborated what I had been telling the courts in advance of the hearings – and all courts and investigation agencies had ignored my complaint – BaFin, the FCA, the SFO, Interpol, Munich prosecutors, Frankfurt prosecutors, the US DoJ and the SEC – all had ignored my evidence that Deutsche Bank’s audit was fake and that its receipts had been destroyed to obstruct future litigation.

Deducing the Funding of Terrorism for Ourselves

The secrecy of the FCA fine prevents us amateur detectives from scrutinizing the evidence used to deduce money laundering may have funded terrorists. We are not in a position to test the evidence, but we can draw the same conclusion ourselves.

There are comparatively few European terrorists movements at this time, the worry is from Islamic quarters. The media may present the idea of lone-wolf Putin-incited madman bent on blowing up gay bars – but it is a rarity, and money laundering does not come into it. The kind of money laundering that terrorists groups are funded with has to be substantial. We can figure the FCA alludes to Deutsche Bank customers from the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, who bring money into the country from drugs trafficking or the oil trade – that is the Taliban or ISIS. There are not too many Afghans in Germany. I know this from experience, but there are plenty of Turks, and some of these are anti-Kurd. Some of those Turks are Sunni-Muslims and pro-ISIS. Turkey in the latest Wikileaks is a known to be a major financier of and supplier of ISIS.

So without question, a number of pro-ISIS Turkish residents of Germany would have bought OTC bullion from Germany for use in the Middle East to provide liquidity to ISIS for the purchase of munitions. Western governments, with a mission to destabilize Syria by supplying moderate ISIS terrorists, to turn Syria into another Libya anarchy waste-land, could well have perceived the Deutsche Bank OTC trade to Turkey as consistent with their own underhand ambitions for the region.

The question is not if, but to what degree. An honest intelligence agency could take Deutsche Bank’s OTC history, and cross-reference the names against Islamic terrorists and fund raisers in Germany on the appropriate watch list. This would immediately identify individuals likely to be carrying bullion back and forth across Germany.

In letters to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe of the UK’s Metropolitan Police Force, and to the executive of the UK’s National Crime Agency, this was explained. It is not rocket science. Nobody followed up.

When the matter was pressed to the Serious Fraud Office, referring to the New Yorker article in which Deutsche Bank was exposed for laundering $10 billion, they refused to act. The request was via Jon Thomson, head of HMRC in petition #9559 to the SFO – to establish tax liabilities for such laundering. The man in charge of the SFO is the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright MP. The Treasury Committee and the Justice Committee both refused to address Jeremy Wright for his decision.

So we can figure the Attorney General has blocked a simple database search that would established the names of ISIS money launderers . If Deutsche Bank is destroying OTC receipts, then every day that the investigators delay is another day in which a paper trail to a terrorist is lost.

We thus conclude that not only did the authorities in Germany and UK allow Deutsche Bank to launder money to ISIS and similar groups, but they allowed Deutsche Bank to destroy the paper trails to its own frauds – to evade liability from future prosecutions. In other words they conspired with Deutsche Bank to pervert the course of justice.

While Deutsche Bank has helped create a catastrophe in the Middle East resulting in serious issues of mass migration in the rest of Europe, it is financing mass immigration lobby groups in the USA: .

There is no separation of Merkel from Deutsche Bank in the destruction of Europe and the USA by provoking racial conflict from the proceeds of market manipulation and endless bailouts. It is no wonder Obama is close to Merkel, and no wonder there is no prosecution against Deutsche Bank executives from the SEC.

Source: Silver Doctors


Comments are closed.