All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
BAR COMPLAINT
1. Please note below what Barack Hussein Obama, Esquire admitted to
and why any reasonable person would conclude that what he did or
failed to do was improper according to the rules and ethical standards
established by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission.
Filed July 22, 2008
In re Barak Hussein Obama
Commission No. ___ CH __
Synopsis Of Complaint and Recommended Report
NATURE OF THE CASE: a) making a statement of material fact in
connection with a bar application that the applicant knows to be
false; b) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law; c) engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; d) engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice; and e) engaging in
conduct which brings the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute.
RULES DISCUSSED: Rules 8.1; Rule 8.4(a)(3); 8.4(a)(4); 8.4(a)(5) of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 771
SANCTION: Disbarment
Filed July 22, 2008
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. ________.
Commission No. ___ CH _____
EVIDENCE
The Respondent first admitted illegal drug use by disclosing it in his
book, Dreams from My Father. Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father: A
Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995. In
that book he admitted, "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow
when you could afford it. Not smack, though." pp. 93–94. The
Respondent knew that his activities were illegal. The drug use
occurred from as early as high school at least until he completed his
bachelors degree in New York City. He entered law school in 1988,
living in and traveling in Somerville and Cambridge. He graduated
from law school in 1991.
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
questions 18 and 19 included the following statement:
NOTE. In connection with your answer to questions 18 and 19, you are
advised that no statute, court order, or legal proceeding withholding
adjudication, expunging information from any record, sealing any
record, or purporting to authorize any person to deny the existence of
occurrence of any information or matter shall excuse less than full
disclosure of any information or matter otherwise required to be
disclosed herein. You must answer questions 18 and 19; the attachment
of letters from law enforcement agencies in lieu of an answer is not
acceptable. Information provided in response to one of the two
questions need not be reported in response to the other.
18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited,
arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any
violation of any law other than moving traffic violations.
In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered
"no." The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring
through his time in high school and college.
By this time in his life he was very mature and sophisticated person
that he either did or should have given a great deal of consideration
to his response to question 18 a great deal of consideration. He has
not disclosed if he consulted with anyone, such as Illinois attorney
Michelle Robinson(later his wife) before answering the question.
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his involvement in illegal drug activity. If he had been caught he
likely would have been charged with criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the fifth degree which is a class D felony.
New York Penal Law Sec. 220.06 (McKinney).
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
William Shaheen, Esquire
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Dover, NH 03821-0977
(603) 749-1838 fax
(603) 749-5000 phone
wshaheen@shaheengordon.com
Also see: 1.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/observations
2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/latoyakidd/gGCJhC/
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
question 49 included the following statement:
NOTE: In connection with your answers to questions 47, 48, and 49,
you are advised that no advice of counsel, statute, court order, or
legal proceeding withholding adjudication, expunging information from
any record, sealing any record, or purporting to authorize any person
to deny the existence or occurrence of any information or matter shall
excuse less than full disclosure of any information or matter
otherwise required to be disclosed herein. You must answer questions
47, 48, and 49; the submission of letters from law enforcement
agencies in lieu of an answer is not acceptable. If you are required
to report an incident in response to more than one of the three
questions, you are required to complete only one explanatory form
regarding that incident.
49. Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver's license?
51. Do you have any outstanding parking violations?
In response to question 49 & 51, the Respondent answered "no."
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his multiple civil citations or his concealment of them on his bar
application.
The Respondent knew that he had incurred multiple violations. These
fines exceeded the $200.00 reporting threshold for a total of $400.00.
Between October 5, 1988 and January 12 1990, violations included
failing to put money in meters, parking in a resident-only area,
blocking a bus stop, and multiple tickets in the same day for
exceeding the time limit at a meter. At this time he was living at
365 Broadway, Somerville, Massacustts, 02144. The substance and
frequency of his disregard for legally valid rules demonstrate a
contempt for the rules. He obviously felt he was above the rules that
"the common folk" were expected to follow. All the time that he was
supposed to be attending to learning the law, he contemptuously
thumbed his nose even at simple parking rules. Do as I say, not as I
do! The fines and penalties went unpaid for almost two decades. He
asks others to obey the law yet he is too good and it is beneath him
to pay lowly parking fines. Its all about expediency, parking rules
don't apply to the "important people" and its too inconvenient and
time consuming to bother with finding a legal parking space. He is so
smart and virtuous that merely electing him will end the illegal war
in Iraq but finding a legal parking space near the elitist law school
it too taxing for him.
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
Mrs. Susan Clippinger, Director Mr. Tom Champion, Spokesman
Cambridge Traffic, Parking & City of Somerville
Transportation Department Somerville, MA 02144
Cambridge, MA 02139 traffic@ci.somerville.ma.us
(617)349-4747 fax
Also see: 1. http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama...
2. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/08/...
Evidence Offered in Mitigation
None. The Respondent does not have a good reputation for truthfulness
and veracity but continues even to this day to shade the truth and
mislead. The Respondent has never expressed remorse for his
intentional misleading and dishonesty.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator must establish
charges of lawyer misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. In re
Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390 (1999). It is the
responsibility of the Hearing Panel to determine the credibility and
believability of the witnesses, weigh the conflicting testimony, draw
reasonable inferences, and make factual findings based upon all the
evidence. In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 196, 623 N.E.2d 300, 308
(1993). In this case, there is no dispute as to facts as the
Respondent readily admits them. With the above principles in mind and
after careful consideration of the evidence and exhibits, I ask the
Hearing Panel to make the following findings.
The Respondent should be charged with:
1.
making a statement of material fact in connection with a
bar application that the applicant knows to be false in violation of
Rule 8.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rules");
2.
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the
Rules;
3.
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Rules;
4.
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules; and
5.
engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
It is undisputed that the Respondent consumed illegal drugs and failed
to disclose that when completing his bar application. The Respondent
subsequently disclosed these actions in his own published writings.
Furthermore, he committed multiple criminal traffic violations which
he deceptively and intentionally failed to report them as required to
on his bar application. Of the 17 violations, cumulatively they
exceeded $350.00. By his own admission by his use of drugs he was
therefore in possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree
which is a class D felony. As a result, we find clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(4).
It follows that such misconduct was prejudicial to the administration
of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute.
In analyzing whether the attorney engaged in misconduct, we request
that the Hearing Board adopt the Administrator's previous suggestions
to employ a two-step process. First, the Hearing Board ascertained
whether in that particular case, appellate opinions were of a nature
to be properly identified in response to the question on the
application. If they were, the Hearing Board then examined the
attorney's state of mind to determine whether his failure to disclose
the information was purposeful.
The Hearing Board concluded that the appellate decisions were directed
at the trial court's actions, not the attorney's actions or
professional conduct and therefore found that the attorney responded
appropriately. In so finding, the Hearing Board did not reach the
second step of the analysis, but noted the attorney's candor and
credibility.
In applying the two-step analysis in this matter, we must first
determine whether the Respondent's conduct as a serial violator of the
criminal traffic laws was of a nature to be properly identified in
response to question 49 of the bar application. Question 49 asks,
"Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver's license?" It is known
that prior to the time the Respondent submitted his bar application
the record irrefutable proves that he his multiple citations
represented fines in excess of $200.00. As a result, we find the
Respondent's payment of the fines without objection in this case is
sufficient nature to be properly identified in response to question 49
on the bar application. Knowledge of his repeated violations when
understood in conjunction with the plain language of question 49, we
find the Respondent answered deceptively and that he therefore engaged
in intentional misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public,
maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the
administration of justice. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 434, 721
N.E.2d 1126 (1999). In determining the proper sanction, I ask that the
Hearing Board give deliberative consideration to the proven
misconduct. In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 398, 583 N.E.2d 526 (1991).
In this matter the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent consumed
illegal drugs that should have resulted in felony charges and a felony
criminal conviction. The Respondent can be sanctioned under the Rules
of Professional Conduct for a criminal conviction even though he
committed such acts before he was admitted to the bar. See In re
Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994).
The Respondent has not cooperated fully with questions into his
illegal drug use and possible sale or distribution of drugs. While he
has no publicly known prior bar discipline we find multiple
aggravating factors. He has consistently denied his misconduct as it
relates to his bar application, failed to take genuine responsibility
for his actions, and demonstrated no remorse.
Based upon the well settled case law discussed above and the
considerable evidence in mitigation I believe disbarment is the
appropriate sanction.
CONCLUSION
Considering the nature of the Respondent's misconduct, the lack of
significant evidence in mitigation and the numerous instances of
aggravating factors, the movant recommends that the Respondent be
disbarred.
Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7006 2150 0002 2527 0708
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 2:32 PM on July 23, 2008 in CHICAGO, IL 60601.
The Eligibility Issue
The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Why?
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Janet Dobbs on -
John, One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is to ridicule your opponent to marginalize them. Obama and his handlers do that very well with the aid of their lapdogs, the liberal MSM. Politicians don't want to be marginalized, especially in an election year.
Further, Obama's Administration has evidently strong-armed the MSM into submission. I read an article recently about the TV networks being strong-armed, unfortunately I can't locate it. But here is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Canada Free Press:
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th, Douglas Hagmann—a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press—the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!
According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:
- A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.
- FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine “look mild” in comparison to other consequences.
- In at least one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other specific subjects like Obama’s Illinois lawyer’s license, his college records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.
During the interview, Hagmann and McLeod—who never mentioned a particular network by name—alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession, copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations. But they did tantalize listeners with descriptions of meeting with “sources” outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, a high-placed contact looking nervously over his shoulder, references to directives and warnings given by “those at the top,” and the undisguised threat of one executive to his underlings: “This is serious, and so will the consequences be if anyone chooses not to be a team player with this.”
This comes as no surprise to Fox watchers who have noticed that the Stalinist-style censorship of the Obama regime is already here. This couldn’t possibly be because of the healthy shares of stock the Saudis bought in Fox, could it? If so, why would the Saudis care so much about quashing potentially damning revelations about Obama? Have they also bought shares in Obama?
Come to think of it, who exactly paid the tuition for Obama’s stint at Harvard Law School? What role did Obama’s long-time friend, Khalid al-Mansour, a key advisor to a Saudi billionaire, play? Writer Kenneth Timmerman describes al-Mansour as “well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.” This is not to omit that al-Mansour was originally contacted to intervene with Harvard on Obama’s behalf by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan Borough President and the lawyer of Malcolm X. Ah…the tangled web of it all!
Then there is the question of what role was played by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? You remember Prince Alwaleed, who offered then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani $10 million after September 11 if he would only blame America for the terrorist attacks of which 15 of 19 perpetrators were Saudi Arabian—a “gift” the mayor promptly and with appropriate contempt rejected!
In short, what influence have the Saudis exerted on Fox to muzzle the issue of Obama’s birth certificate? I don’t ask this about the network TV channels or cable channels like CNN and MSNBC, which are still issuing daily hagiographies of Obama.
TIP OF THE ICEBERG
Just who has been sending “the message”? And how did it permeate not only the media, but also the once-respected U.S. Congress and the courts of our land, including the once-incorruptible Supreme Court? And what menacing forces made the once-courageous conservative media abandon their mission to expose rank corruption and collusion?
Two words: Money Talks!
If you’re a media mogul and you get word from the FCC that your license will be pulled immediately and irrevocably if you mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! You send that word to your employees and tell them that their mega-salaries—in fact, their employment—are on the line.
If you’re a conservative talk-show host and you get your boss’s directive not to dare to mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! Lips sealed; curiosity zero!
If the money thing doesn’t work, there’s always the threat thing, i.e., “going public” about tax records, health status, or family secrets. Or be audited by the IRS. Or be investigated by any number of regulatory agencies.
-
Permalink Reply by Janet Dobbs on
-
One aspect of the article above I posted where it says that Khalid al-Mansour was contacted by Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama's behalf, it's actually the reverse. al-Mansour went to Percy Sutton to ask him to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to Sutton's contacts at Harvard. Here's Percy Sutton in his own words:
-
Permalink Reply by Donna on
-
One of the saudi prince's was obamas father,according to my mother in 1961.
-
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on -
The allegation that Obama was disbarred because of multiple and known lies on his bar application, which showed a pattern of not only criminal conduct, but of intentional misrepresentation of facts as well. Since his usurpation of the office of President this pattern of intentional lying has only increased. The record of lies is only exceeded by the New York Times and other purported news outlets augmenting the lies unabatedly.
The sealing of the disbarment is surpassed by the FCC illegally violating the 1st Amendment by forcefully forbidding disclosure of information related to Obama's birth certificates or mention of the circumstances resulting in the loss of privilege to practice law in Illinois.
The lies revealed in a 2008 complaint to the State Bar of Illinois include self-admitted felonious drug use and lying about his multiple parking tickets. As with most scandals, it is the cover up that is more of an issue than the original crime. Conspicuously missing from the complaint is the glaring perjury of Obama not admitting any of his aliases.
from: http://factsfirstok.blogspot.com/
Actual Bar Complaint, as filed
-
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on
-
Drummond Pike of the Tides foundation is linked to George Soros. Hard to believe he would want to put Fox News out of business.
Drummond Pike, Tides Foundation
-
Permalink Reply by Diogenes on
-
Seems Soros did not believe in birth control.
Alexander
Jonathon
Robert
Jeffrey
Paul
Gregory
Daisy
Of course they could be syblings.
-
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on
-
It smacks of nepotism!!
György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the Gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:
George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't–you don't see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
-
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on
-
George Soros
Billionaire currency trader and hedge fund investor.
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”
Source: Philanthropy Notes, Capital Research Center Foundation Watch, August 2006, page 8.
Hardcopy: Copy of page 8 from the source document.
Where: In a discussion of his future philanthropic plans in The Age of Fallibility.
Contributor: AIM.
Category: Anti-Americanism
-
Permalink Reply by Diogenes on
-
I once met what I dubbed a white-gloved mafioso, I call him John. I met him in a hospital room shared by brother-in-law Fred; both were dying. After he died the NYT printed his obituary, it was then I learned what he represented. During my visits to see Fred I had a number of conversations with John. One day when I was pointing to the doings of mob members that appeared in the newspapers, he said that those guys were lower echelon. He saw my amazement and said that those who directed criminal undertakings are quietly in the background, and he mentioned a name that appeared on a huge complex west of St. Patrick's in NYC. He said we are no different. Shifted my thinking that those that wear white gloves engage in accumulating wealth quietly. We hear of George Soros doing this and that so much that he doesn't meet being a member of the white glove club; that he is of the lower echelon. It is said that the Rothchilds run things and they do it quietly. Soros is a soldier. Some detail was made obscure but the background is
true.
-
Permalink Reply by Janet Dobbs on
-
Also David Rockefeller.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
