Swiss Bank Whistleblower: “Julian Assange Is A Fighter.”

By Jerry Alatalo

***

“Government was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect has been to embody and perpetuate it.”

– WILLIAM GODWIN (1756-1836) English minister, reformer, philosopher

(Malta, May 2018) Swiss bank whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld points to a WikiLeaks published document, that “… nobody was supposed to see.”

wiss bank whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld praised the work of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange recently at an event in Malta. Like Julian Assange, Mr. Birkenfeld was targeted for persecution after revealing inconvenient truth concerning corruption and imprisoned.

Brad Birkenfeld wrote an extremely revealing book about his extraordinary experiences in the highest levels of global banking, government protection of the white-collar criminal rich and powerful, and all things corrupt in the arena of top-floor finance titled “Lucifer’s Banker”. Men and women interested in reading his book and learning more about the dark side of international banking can visit Mr. Birkenfeld’s website: https://LucifersBanker.com/

The following short presentation in Malta by Brad Birkenfeld in May 2018 is particularly relevant as it relates to the current uncertain situation of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Being a major whistleblower himself, Mr. Birkenfeld has focused his efforts on supporting and protecting fellow truth tellers – including Julian Assange, who he’s worked with personally – through advocacy for strong legislation around the entire world.

Reports suggest Mr. Assange faces an imminent eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has been held a virtual prisoner for more than 6 years. In the eyes of people familiar with the highly controversial situation with huge ramifications for journalism and free speech ideals, the most objectionable, bewildering aspect of Julian Assange’s years-long legal nightmare is the fact he has not been convicted of any crime – whatsoever.

***

Brad Birkenfeld calls attention to his association with and appreciation of Julian Assange toward the end of his presentation:

“But I’ll just end in one note … Is that when I met with Julian Assange in London – and I think this poor guy is going to be extradited out of the Ecuadorian Embassy soon – he told me a situation with respect to why this was going on with WikiLeaks, and how it paralleled with my whistleblowing – historic whistleblowing – at UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland). And he said ‘Look, some people have a gut instinct to do the right thing. Do you have the gut instinct to do the right thing if you see something wrong – to report something?’ ”

Investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated in a car bombing on October 17, 2017 in Malta.

“I was fortunate enough to meet Daphne (investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia) here in Malta before her demise, her murder, and this was a very unfortunate thing for Malta. And we talked for a little bit about this situation, about transparency, and about offshore banking and so forth. And it brought it home to light that I had moved here from the United States and I live here in Malta.”

“And I got to know her very little, but we had this chat before she was murdered. And I think it’s important to understand her demise is so important for all of us, because she was a crusader; she was a fighter. Just as I was a fighter; just as Julian Assange is a fighter; Mr. Snowden’s a fighter.”

“You may not like some of these people; you may have an opinion, and that’s fine. But what their end result was … was better for all of society. And I think that’s the message here:  you’re either part of the problem, or you’re part of the solution. Which one is it? (Responds to member of audience)  ‘Yeah … there you go. Exactly. Precisely.’ And that’s where whistleblowing is paramount.”

“And I’ll sort of end on the whistleblowing note, because they think it’s … It’s important.  I go around and lecture throughout Europe and Asia and America, and what I try to tell people is just think about it logically – if you’re not breaking the law you don’t need whistleblowers. Don’t break the law.”

“So, law enforcement should embrace whistleblowers, not attack them. They’re an extension of law enforcement. They do their job better, whether they’re understaffed, under budget, maybe even part of the problem. There are corrupt police out there in law enforcement. A whistleblower will come in and give you everything. Harry Markopolos – great friend of mine –, he exposed the (Bernie) Madoff fraud. He didn’t get paid anything, but he did the right thing. He yelled and screamed for a decade, until he did something about it.”

“So, the point I’m trying to make here is that whistleblowing … To protect whistleblowers – number one, and to compensate them – number two. And that’s a controversial part here in Europe, but it works. I’m a prime example of why it works. I even started whistleblowing before the program came in play, so it wasn’t about the money. Everyone says ‘Ah, you did it for the money’. Absolutely not. So my point is … Is that Europe needs to pass, and Asia needs to pass, positive whistleblowing laws to protect and compensate whistle blowers.”

“Why?”

“Because they make your life better; your children’s lives better; your grandchildren’s lives better. Or … we’ll just go and we’ll steal and cheat and lie, and we’ll just keep that going. So you have a choice. What society do you want to live in? So that’s why whistleblowing is so paramount.”

“And that’s why I go around lecturing and send the message out. Not just about what I did at UBS and in Switzerland, which was cataclysmic as I said before – but also because it might send a message to each and every one of you, and your children if you have children, that this is so important to go ahead and praise whistleblowing.”

“We’ve seen it time and time again. And as I said: if you’re not breaking the law you won’t need whistleblowers. So, let’s promote the whistleblowing angle, and let’s move forward to help everyone in that regard.”

“Thank you very much.”

—-

(Thank you to d10e at YouTube)

Advertisements

Bill Browder And The Magnitsky Act: A Second Look.

ill the heavily suppressed, momentous film by director Andrei Nekrasov win the Academy Award and Oscar for Best Documentary?

Americans will be especially interested in watching Mr. Nekrasov’s journey of profoundly disturbing discovery, as he makes his historical record of events surrounding hedge fund billionaire William (Bill) Browder, his accountant (or “lawyer”, according to Mr. Browder) Sergei Magnitsky, multi-million dollar tax schemes, Russia-U.S. relations, international law – and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who mentioned Mr. Browder by name during the recent press conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in Helsinki, Finland.

See what Western politicians, media companies and journalists are not talking about in “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”. One might expect this posting of the film on YouTube to become suppressed and taken down in short order, so after viewing please download the documentary if possible, and/or share widely.

It is reasonable to assert that passage of the Magnitsky Act in the U.S. Congress was the birth of what has become described and recognized as the “New Cold War” between the United States and Russian Federation. The legislation is one of the major factors responsible for Russia-U.S. relations deteriorating to their lowest and most dangerous level in decades.

If what director Andrei Nekrasov conveys in his extraordinarily important, virtually censored/blacked-out film is accurate, – and it seems impossible to refute his astonishing discoveries – repeal of the Magnitsky Act becomes a moral and ethical necessity. The legislation’s repeal becomes inevitable as the law had as its genesis, foundation or basis an enormously elaborate and contrived set of criminal lies.

While director Andrei Nekrasov’s work might not win him the Oscar for best full-length documentary, men and women who watch the film might feel he is certainly deserving of the Academy Award in the non-fiction category. Talk of awards aside, one might need to search long and hard for a documentary film which matches the power, urgency, timeliness and importance of “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”.

***

(The film “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” is also available for viewing at Bitchute.com, – noted here for people interested in viewing should it become “disappeared” from the YouTube platform.)

***

(Edit: July 31, 2018) Our 1st posting of “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” was taken down by YouTube. Thankfully, another concerned citizen posted the film on their channel …

(Edit: August 1, 2018) The film was once again taken down by YouTube, this time removed much faster, so our recommendation for people wishing to view the film is to go to Bitchute.com.

Clearly, the people at YouTube don’t want the explosive truth about the fraud Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act disseminated widely.

***

Here is a link to view “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” published on Bitchute.com. Please disseminate/share widely:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/y8FL1e6Bqos5/

The World ‘Knows’ Bin Laden Did 9/11 — So Why Isn’t There Any Evidence?

Vietnam veteran Geoffrey O’Neill’s powerful and impeccable writing on the facts surrounding September 11, 2001 are impossible to deny, impossible to forget, and impossible to ignore. Thank you, Mr. Geoffrey O’Neill.

***

Saudi ‘monster’ pronounced guilty by government decree

“A lie told once is lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”—German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels

July 14, 2018

By Geoffrey O’Neill (Special to Truth and Shadows)

He is arguably the most notorious person in the 21st century.

The world takes for granted that Osama bin Laden was the architect of the “terror attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001. But why was this man singled out for this horrific crime? How did we learn of his alleged guilt? And what is the evidence used to support his guilt?

These questions are critical because the allegation against bin Laden led, less than a month later (on Oct. 7, 2001), to the launching of the Global War on Terror with the invasion of Afghanistan. The mission, called Operation Enduring Freedom and ordered by President George W. Bush, and was supposedly intended to capture or kill bin Laden.

This is what we know about the claims of evidence against bin Laden:

Just hours after the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, a man by the name of L. Paul Bremer appeared on an NBC affiliate in Washington D.C. Less than a minute into theinterview with host Jim Vance, Bremer mentioned bin Laden as potentially being the mastermind of the event. It appears that the bin Laden myth was created at this point, and it soon went viral.

Who is L. Paul Bremer, and what was he doing in Washington at the time?

Bremer, like Bush, is a graduate of Yale and, like Bush, is also a member of the notorious Skull and Bones fraternity. After leaving government in 1989, he became managing director of Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm owned by Henry Kissinger. (It’s worth noting that Kissinger was the original choice to head the 9/11 Commission.)

In May 2003, following the introduction of “shock and awe” in Iraq, Bremer was named director of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Without question, he was a Republican insider. He was supposed to be on his way to New York City, to his office in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept., 11 but his plane was diverted due to the events of that morning.

In addition to speculating in the interview about bin Laden’s complicity, Bremer said that “terrorists declared war on the United States, and we declared war on the terrorists.” What was this supposed to mean? Would it follow that the United States would have carte blanche to invade any country anywhere if a terrorist or terrorists were thought to be living there? Would that include Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, or France?

Bremer also said, “We can’t throw away democratic freedoms and civil liberties that are the heart of our society.”

But those liberties were not thrown away; they were taken away by Bremer’s colleagues in the Bush administration. This happened through the passage of the Patriot Act, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, the spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, the prosecution of whistleblowers, and the stifling our 1st and 5th Amendment rights. The list is long.

Bremer continued: “There will be consequences. In fact, I hope the most severe military consequences we can come up with.”

In this he was prescient. Using the justification of 9/11, the United States invasion of Afghanistan was followed by the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the bombing of Libya into the Stone Age, the arming and aiding of Saudi Arabia in their mission to destroy Yemen, and the instigation and perpetuation of the Syrian horror. Add in drone wars and proxy wars in God-knows-how-many countries, and Bremer must have swelled with pride over the level of carnage.

Bush names bin Laden

On the evening of Sept. 11, President Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office of the White House and said this: “Today was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” For the second time on that day we hear the name bin Laden from a national bully pulpit.

Without a shred of evidence to support their claim, two high-profile government officials, speaking to Americans, put bin Laden in the crosshairs. He instantly became America’s public enemy number one, guilty by government decree.

The accusation was further reinforced by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who appeared on the BBC the morning of 9/11 (even before the buildings came down) and pointed to bin Laden and al-Qaeda as likely being behind the event. He called for the U.S. to launch an “operational, concrete war on terror.”

Before the dust had settled from the destruction of the towers, Bremer and Bush, along with Barak and the worldwide media, implicated bin Laden without offering any evidence. A little more than a week later, on Sunday, Sept. 23, Colin Powell made it official. With host Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Powell named bin Laden the architect of 9/11.

Russert asked Powell for evidence, and he responded: “We are hard at work bringing all of the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a white paper, a document that will be able to describe quite clearly the evidence we have linking him [bin Laden] to this attack.” He told Russert he would make it available to him once it was completed.

Fleischer slams the door

The day after Powell’s promise, the New York Times devoted a front page article to the evidence that it believed was forthcoming, citing statements by government officials that “the evidence reaches from the southern tip of Manhattan to the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan.”

But the same afternoon, Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer met with the media and said Powell’s statement of a white paper had been “misinterpreted.” There was no plan to release the information. “It is classified.”

A reporter had the audacity to ask, “Is there any plan to present to the public evidence so the average citizen, not just Americans but people all over the world, can understand the case against bin Laden”?

Fleischer’s response was predictably condescending: “In a democracy it is always important to provide the maximum amount of information possible. But I think American people understand that there are going to be times when that information cannot immediately be forthcoming.”

On one issue, Fleischer spoke truthfully: the white paper was not immediately forthcoming. In fact, it has never been produced. No white paper exists in the public domain containing forensic evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.

The arrogance, hypocrisy, and disregard for human life of this man and the entire Bush administration cannot be overstated. American troops were about to be sent to war. Many would die or be seriously injured for life. Afghan civilians, considered collateral damage, would be killed in large numbers as always happens in war. Yet no soldier, American citizen, or Afghan citizen was allowed to see the evidence cited to justify why the United States was about to invade one of the poorest countries in the world.

It gets worse. Continue reading “The World ‘Knows’ Bin Laden Did 9/11 — So Why Isn’t There Any Evidence?”

Assange-Correa 2012 Interview Explains 2018.

By Jerry Alatalo

***

“If war no longer occupied men’s thoughts and energies, we could within a generation, put an end to all serious poverty throughout the world.”

– BERTRAND RUSSELL (1872-1970) British mathematician, philosopher

t was shortly after interviewing then Ecuador President Rafael Correa in 2012 that Julian Assange took sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has remained for over 6 years – the last 4 months without means of communicating via telephone or computer, and unable to see visitors besides his lawyers.

Approximately 4 months ago Assange’s phone and computer/internet access was effectively cut, along with the total restriction on visitations by close family and friends, by Correa’s successor – President Lenin Moreno, – whose actions came as a profound disappointment and source of grave concern for supporters of Assange the world over.

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, endured framing on trumped-up charges of rape in Sweden, of which the original victim has long since stopped pursuing. Despite repeated pleas by Assange’s legal team, the Swedish prosecutor of Assange’s case waited for over 5 years before going to London and speaking to Assange personally on details of the alleged “crime”. The bizarre legal situation is clearly related to existential questions of continuance or not of in-practice free speech fundamentals in the age of the internet.

Assange’s situation is one of unprecedented political persecution orchestrated by individuals in highest level power positions, particularly led by the United States, Britain and the West, and exhibiting the objectionable, blackish flavors of Catch-22, Kafka, kangaroo court … etc..

It has now been over a year since the United Nations’ main human rights organization confirmed Assange’s innocence in a published report, stating his continued unjust detainment and neglected medical/physical conditions in confinement constituted serious human rights violations committed by British legal authorities. Despite every aspect of the “case” being in favor of freedom for Assange, he remains, without means of communicating and in virtual solitary confinement, trapped inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

In the past few days former president of Ecuador Rafael Correa, under whose government Assange received diplomatic protection, has experienced a similar, related form of political/legal persecution, under a process becoming increasingly known as war by other means: “lawfare”. Correa’s successor Lenin Moreno has approved an arrest warrant against Correa on the trumped-up charge of being involved in a kidnapping incident which occurred around 2012.

Rafael Correa now resides in Belgium. The Ecuador judge presiding over the “case” ordered him to travel to Ecuador every two weeks or risk deeper legal problems, effectively placing impossible conditions on the former president for the purpose of forcing him to stay out of the country – with the result being the total block of Rafael Correa’s participation in Ecuadorian politics.

Going back to 2012 and listening to an interview of Rafael Correa by Julian Assange, shortly after which Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy, contributes to a greater understanding of the relevant facts behind the subsequent malevolent, unjust treatment of these two highly influential and respected, globally recognized leaders – one in the field of deep investigative journalism, and the other in the arena of Latin American political and socioeconomic evolution.

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)