The Fraud at Lloyds of London

by **antiaristo** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:33 pm

There is a fabulous article on the fraud at Lloyds of London, available for the first time on-line. I have been pushing this for five years. <a href="http://loidz.bravehost.com/Uploads/TIME_EUROPE_FEB21_2000.html">loidz.bravehost.com/Uploa..._2000.html</a> This is the quid pro quo for “poodle” Blair’s unflinching commitment to George Bush. From the British perspective this answers the question “Why?” My personal nemesis is Jeffrey Archer. He did a terrible thing to me and two hundred colleagues at Anglia Television. If you pick up a copy of his 1986 “A Matter of Honour” you will find this exchange: “Not at all, my dear Bischoff,” said Poskonov. “After all these years the honour is entirely mine. And kind of you to open the bank on a Sunday. But now to business. Did you manage to get Romanov to sign the release form?” “Oh yes,” said Bischoff matter-of-factly. He did it without even reading the standard clauses, let alone the extra three you asked us to put in.”“So his inheritance automatically returns to the Russian state?” “That is so, Mr Poskonov, and we in return…” “…will represent us in all the currency exchange transactions we carry out in the West.” Archer is a chancer and a convicted criminal. He is describing what happened to those poor idiot American Names. One of them was Justice Steven Breyer!

by **antiaristo** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:43 pm

I realise what I put above may be a bit cryptic, so let me give a broader context. Below is something I wrote to Paul Braithwaite, leader of the Equitable Members Action Group. These are disgruntled investors in Equitable Life, yet another City of London disaster. They were trying to bring a misfeasance action against the regulator the FSA. Just like BCCI investors against the BoE and Railtrack investors against HMG. There is an awful lot of misfeasance in London. C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Paul Braithwaite Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Equitable Members Action Group Spain Canaria 28 February 2004 Dear Sir, You know all about the Equitable Life fraud from your own experiences. I have told you, through Gordon Pollock, about the fraud at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. I have told you about the fraud at Anglia Television. How many examples does it take to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering? Let me give you one more, from that same insurance industry as Equitable Life. I imagine you are old enough to remember the Miners Strike in 1984/85. Once Thatcher had broken the union there was nothing left to restrain the Windsor Gang and their filthy homicidal Freemasons. The very next year, 1986, three seemingly unrelated events took place. First, the Thatcher government passed the Financial Services Act. Second, a controversial “English Jurisdiction” clause was quietly inserted into the contracts signed by Americans recruited as Lloyds “Names”. Third, Jeffrey Archer published A Matter of Honour. You probably remember the headlines from ten years ago. Massive losses at certain Lloyds syndicates. Names wiped out by unlimited liability. Respected men and women, pillars of their community, ending their own lives. Did you know that the very final face confronted by these doomed individuals was none other than Her Ladyship Mary Archer? The Chairman of Lloyds “Hardship Committee” was the hard-nosed debt collector for the Windsor Mob. But then who has sympathy for a Lloyds Name? With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see how Lloyds salesmen targeted gullible wealthy Americans by playing to their snobbery. Thousands of American citizens were actively recruited as names during the 1980’s, only to have the sky fall in on them in the early 1990’s. Many felt cheated, and decided to fight. But when they tried to sue they found that they had signed a contract that stipulated that any dispute must be fought-out under English jurisdiction. How could this be? What competent US attorney would allow his client to agree to such ruinous terms? For not only did this mean that all disputes were to be settled in English courts by English judges, but it also meant that English law applied – specifically the Financial Services Act and the Lloyds Act. (And of course lurking in the background, out of sight, lay the Treason Felony Act of 184<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . The answer of course is that none of those thousands of attorneys did allow his client to agree such suicidal terms. Which brings us to A Matter of Honour. It’s a crappy novel, of course. But there is one revealing exchange between a Swiss banker (Bischoff) and a Soviet agent (Poskonov). They have conspired to defraud a third party, Romanov (yes, Archer is that inspired!). But let Archer tell the story. “Not at all, my dear Bischoff,” said Poskonov. “After all these years the honour is entirely mine. And kind of you to open the bank on a Sunday. But now to business. Did you manage to get Romanov to sign the release form?” “Oh yes,” said Bischoff matter-of-factly. He did it without even reading the standard clauses, let alone the extra three you asked us to put in.” “So his inheritance automatically returns to the Russian state?” “That is so, Mr Poskonov, and we in return…” “…will represent us in all the currency exchange transactions we carry out in the West.” So there you have it. The spook targets the “mark”. The aristocrat recruits the “mark”. The banker switches contracts at the last moment. The “mark” can’t be bothered to read the “whole damn contract”. S/he signs. With fatal consequences (literally). I’ve enclosed about one half of a Time Magazine special report written by David McClintick, and which was my prime source of information about the scams at Lloyds. It was a great piece; it was enormous; it was true. So it got buried. At this point I suggest you read that material (Time, Feb 21 2000; pp41-51) To my mind understanding what happened at Lloyds, and why it happened, is the key to understanding quite a few present-day riddles. The three I personally would highlight are these. First, the amazing and enduring political influence enjoyed by the Archer family under successive governments of both left and right. During the Tory Supremacy of 1979 to 1997 he was noteworthy for being a “valued and trusted friend” of Thatcher and Major. Both nominated Archer for a peerage. Yet Blair was prepared to deliver Archer’s chosen opponent as Labour’s candidate for London Mayor. Blair was also preparing to endorse the Major treatment of what happened at Anglia Television. The favourable treatment from the courts (“the Fragrant Mary Archer”). The never-ending efforts at rehabilitation. The assassination of Jill Dando and Monica Coghlan. It seems the Windsor Mob is willing to grant any favour to their favoured son who dreamt up the Lloyds scam. A scam that grossed “at least $23.8 Billions for just the years 1988 through 1992”. Second, the massive push currently underway to marginalize the role of the jury as arbiter of fact, and to promote the role of the judges. You will have noticed that Archer was convicted by a jury of twelve honest men and women. But the Lloyds scam, like the rest of the Windsor protection rackets, was facilitated by pliable “professional judges” (i.e. failed Queens Counsel). In point of fact judge nobbling (the “subconscious influence” of the Treason Felony Act) is absolutely central to the Windsor plan for their Thousand Year Judicial Reich. Not that all of this has gone unnoticed elsewhere. You may have seen that Richard May was dumped this week from the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia. Even Kofi Annan has had enough. So let me quote myself writing to Slobodan Milosevic right at the beginning of the Hague extravaganza of victors’ justice. “Richard May, of the English Court, and Patrick Robinson, of the Jamaican Court, both swear to obey the same person. She is really out to get you, isn’t she? Another of her agents is Mr Blair. I think you will find that Mr Blair was an impostor at the time of the NATO campaign in former Yugoslavia. Check with anyone who was at Feira on 19 June 2000. Best of luck.” (19 February 2002) Third and most important this drama explains why Blair took Britain to war in Iraq. Nobody is satisfied with Blair’s own various explanations. The British people still have no satisfactory accounting for what has been done in their name to the sovereign state of Iraq. And Blair wants to “draw a line and move on”. Well he would, wouldn’t he? Trying to understand “Blair’s reasons” is a chimera and a red herring because they do not exist. You might as well try to understand a hologram. Tony Blair is a first class Mob lawyer, untroubled by any moral implications of his craft. His flexibility is purely tactical. He represents the interests of his client (our Most Gracious Lady the Queen) at all times, and most notably when espousing his various personal missions from God. If the British held more faith he would never be able to get away with it. Blair took Britain to war in Iraq to pay off a private debt, pure and simple. It is the Windsor interest that maintains British subservience to the USA. A deal drawn up by Thatcher, brokered by Major, and delivered by Blair. A sweet deal, as they say, with a macabre inherent symmetry. For just as the people of Iraq had no possible defence against George Bush and his machine of death, so those American Names had no possible defence against our Most Gracious Lady the Queen and her Treason Felony Act. A few days ago I was reading about some of the treatment handed out by invading British squadies to Iraqi civilians in their own country. Of how one blameless man was bound and hooded, and then kicked to death. If you have taken the trouble to gain access to the documents lodged with the European Court of Human Rights* you will understand why I feel a certain affinity with that poor man. There but for the grace of God go I. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Allan Beith MP (with attachments, correos Certificado 54826) Dr Tony Wright MP ( “ “ ) Lord Goldsmith ( “ “ ) Gordon Pollock QC ( “ ) *See ECHR (Strasbourg) ref. 24316/03 John Cleary v United Kingdom Addendum 14 Marzo 2004 Michael Mansfield, President of the UN Court for Sierra Leone, is under the same pressure as Richard May. Mansfield too will be dumped. According to today’s London Observer, the financier behind the aborted coup in Equatorial Guinea is Ely Calil, a close associate of Lord Jeffrey Archer. Small world!

by **slimmouse** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:46 am

Fascinating post Anti. Especially the deja vu with regard to the Archer "fiction" - and the nefarious actions of the company, in both hiding what the "inner circle" knew prior to a parliamentary act to protect them, and the subsequent clause ensuring that any action against them be taken in a UK court of law. Where I get a bit confused with this however, is exactly why the Windsors would go to such extreme lengths to protect Lloyds - since you imply that protecting Lloyds was essentially protecting them. A financial motive, based upon the consequences for the City of London and the entire UK banking system that would have arisen from the losses ? The Windsors personal liabilities should Lloyds have gone Belly up ? Where exactly do you see this with regards to Lizzy and co ?

by **antiaristo** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:25 pm

Hi slimmouse, The Windsors have the practice of hiding their interests behind many fronts. In British law the royal family are different to the rest of us: we are subjects. On the rare occasion this is a drawback rather than an advantage for them they get round it by creating an intermediary “person”. Yes indeed, the Windsors have been THE driving force behind the rise of the corporations. Lloyds is one such intermediary, though it is not a corporation. The Windsors hold the residual equity position in the whole enterprise. (You won’t find that written down anywhere) The Crown was re-established with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which gave us the Coronation Oath Act and the Bill of Rights. Lloyds Coffee House began underwriting that same year. How do they get away with it all? Let me introduce you to section 3 of the Treason Felony Act of 1848, viz 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. As you can see, our Most Gracious Lady the Queen can do just about anything she wants to do, anywhere she wants to do it. Any person who opposes her in any way (put any force or constraint upon her) will get lawfully zapped. Do you remember the trial of Paul Burrell? The case was abandoned when he revealed his intention to call the Queen as a witness. Can you see why? Can you remember he told us she had warned him that “there are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge”. Can you see who she was talking about?

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:38 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1521635,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/cartoo...35,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:36 am

Time for a general knowledge question. What is the name of Britain's newly appointed lord chief justice, who will take over from Lord Woolf on October 1 as the most important judge in the land? You will not be alone, I think, if you do not immediately call to mind Nicholas Phillips, who as Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers has presided over the court of appeal for the past five years. Nor are you likely to be the only reader not fully aware that Lord Phillips will be succeeded as master of the rolls by Sir Anthony Clarke, nor that Sir Igor Judge - surely the best name on the English bench - will be the new head of the Queen's bench division of the high court. These three major appointments were announced quietly in a press release a couple of weeks ago. The release contained almost no further information about the appointees. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that they received only cursory attention. No newspaper thought the story sufficiently interesting to put it on the front page. Fewer still followed it up. There was no debate among commentators, much less any public controversy, about the kind of questions that might normally apply: whether these were the right men for the top jobs, where they stood on significant legal issues of the day, or where these appointments might take the English courts. This was striking and eloquent, and not only because of the contrast it provides with what has just been unleashed in the United States. These appointments were, after all, the first under the very major changes in the structure of the English courts brought in by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It might have been expected, therefore, that the appointment of Lord Phillips and his colleagues might have been marked in a way that signalled to the public, however carefully and properly, that they will be key figures in a new constitutional era. In the event, nothing remotely of the sort occurred. The truth is that the most senior appointments in our supposedly reformed judicial system have been made much as they were in the past - unheralded and with a minimum of openness. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5231376-103390,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/print/...90,00.html</a> In a globalised world these are the people who make judgements for all of us.

The Fraud at Lloyds of London

The Fraud at Lloyds of London

The Archer Connection

More assistance please

Lloyds 'n Lizzie

Qui pro quo

The Thousand Year Judicial Reich

Who is online