Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?

Lucia Krim (above), aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from multiple stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub of their home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a bloody knife.”

Did Corporate Media Coverage of a $43 Trillion Lawsuit Lead to the Heinous Stabbing  of Two Young Children?


by Moti Nissani


A $43 Trillion Bite Out Of Crime?


On 10/25/2012 two corporate financial media bastions, MarketWatch (an affiliate of the Wall Street Journal) and CNBC, presented their readers with a bombshell. In a too-good-to-be-true lawsuit, top government and banking officials in the United States  had been sued for “racketeering and money laundering.” The suit requested “the return of $43 trillion to the United States Treasury.” Yes, you’ve read that right: 43 trillions—roughly 3 years worth of America’s GDP or close to 3 times America’s underestimate of its own national debt.

The suit characterizes itself, according to these two corporate media tabloids, as

“the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History. [It identifies] $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the ‘Banksters’ and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers. [And it] pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the ‘Banksters’ located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

The plaintiff “has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other ‘bailout money’ advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants.

“This District Court Complaint—maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP—is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.

“Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the ‘Banksters’ criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same ‘Banksters’ to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiffs home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the ‘Bankster’ Defendants.

“The complaint—which has now been fully served on thousands of the ‘Banksters and their Co-Conspirators’—makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very ‘Banksters’ located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be ‘bailed out’ and to be ‘bailed out’ in the future.

“It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by ‘Banksters’, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.”

A Few Ugly History Lessons

To begin with, it must be made absolutely clear that, unless this lawsuit enjoys the backing of the military component of our ruling Military/Banking Dyad, this lawsuit is a quixotic consciousness-raising exercise which has absolutely no chance of success. Most judges in this land have already been bought. If you need any proof, ask yourself: How is it that the highest court in the land, charged with protecting the Constitution, stands aside and looks while this very Constitution is being dismantled? Why does that said court not only allow rigged elections, but lends its full support to the riggers? Why does it not only stand aside and look while sunshine bribery (aka “campaign contributions”) corrupts every square inch of the republic, but actually seeks ways and means to further enshrine, institutionalize, and metastasize this bribery?

The Good Judges, James Ensor, 1892

But, you might say, what about the many well-meaning men and women who still hold office in America’s “justice” system? The answer is simple. Would you, in their shoes, willingly let go of any chance of promotion for the sake of fighting a losing battle? Would you risk your name being dragged in the mud, your spouse harassed or murdered, or your own body ending up in a dump?

Am I going too far in thinking that American judges do indeed face such dilemmas? No, for I am simply portraying the real undercurrents of politics, Washington style. Let me cite two U.S. presidents in support of this seemingly cynical view. First, James Madison, two centuries ago:

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”

Next, Woodrow Wilson, a century ago:

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

You might still argue that all this is history and doesn’t apply to today’s world. Well, let me give you a more contemporary quote, this time from Catherine Austin-Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing in George H. W. Bush’s Administration:

“I think at the heart of the matter, Max, is not that the banks are out of control; I think the heart of the matter is physical violence, because a lot of what has happened, particularly as I understand in the United States is you have people who are afraid to say no because the results of saying no is physical violence directed at them or their family. I mean we have had a lot of people murdered or assassinated, etc., etc. So the question is yes we have to say no but the question is how do we say no. And that’s why it comes down to shifting our money, but the reality is we have a force operating in the world, that is completely operating outside of the law and no one yet has come up with a way to stop it. We are talking about violent mobster operations.
“I hate to use a personal example, but I was a former Assistant Secretary of Housing, I had my own business in Washington, and I was helping the Department of Housing and Urban Development, essentially run things clean, and you had to get rid of the clean team to run the housing bubble and I was targeted, I was poisoned, I had dead animals left on my doorstep, and my home had been broken into, and people [had been] trying to run me off the road. You know it was very, very violent and it went on for years. So people who try to run the government clean or run Wall Street clean are targeted, and literally have to fear for their lives. I mean, people have been dying, so you know, it’s a very, very dangerous situation and the challenge is, if you have people who can kill and physically harass with impunity, how do you run a governance process?”

Juan O’Gorman, Enemies of the Mexican People

So, unless our rulers (bankers and generals) are at war with each other and this lawsuit is a result of such internecine warfare, the lawsuit has no prospects of success. (We may note in passing that such warfare, if it is taking place, would throw light on the fact that the $43T lawsuit has not been glossed over by 2 organs of the corporate media. It would also explain the ongoing Lagarde List Affair, which has so far led to two deaths and which lists 22,000 names of wealthy tax evaders from various EU member states).


No Challenge to the Bankers Ever Goes Unpunished

Nonetheless, the $43T lawsuit draws attention to the realities of American politics. It points to the most profitable thieving operation in the history of our species. It tells every American smart enough to punch numbers in a calculator that, one way or the other, her household has been so far cheated of $377,000. It tells us that the US government is, in reality, a criminal operation. It tells the few American people who are still awake that if this rapidly-metastasizing cancer of corruption cannot be peacefully removed from our body politic, and soon, that it will have to be forcefully removed—the future of the republic is clearly at stake. Above all, as in the parallel case of the Lagarde List Affair, it discloses the identities of some implacable enemies of humanity and thereby places these enemies at a grave personal risk.

So, although the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed, or, in a best-case scenario, thrown out on appeal, it does create a major headache for the bankers and their political lackeys. These criminals can ill afford such exposure, such exceptional chutzpah, and such attempts to deprive them of their ill-gotten money.

Indeed, if history is any guide, such audacity never goes unpunished. In minor infractions against the “banksters” (the term employed by the plaintiffs), the banksters and their government lapdogs are typically patient, willing to curb their blood lust for a few weeks, months, or years, before exacting their deadly retribution. But in treachery of this magnitude, punishment is always swift.

Among the 1000s of examples that could be cited for this iron-clad rule, consider the case of prisoner number 40892-424: former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

A Candidate for a Post-Revolutionary Justice Tribunal: Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America when the witch hunt against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich started.

“Rod Blagojevich threatened to stop the state’s dealings with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory in Chicago. On December 8, 2008 (the day before his arrest), all state agencies were ordered to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the company to make the loans. Blagojevich said the biggest U.S. retail bank would not get any more state business unless it restored credit to Republic Windows and Doors, whose workers were staging a sit-in. John Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of America, called Blagojevich’s gambit dangerous.”

A day after this popular state governor stood by the people against the parasites, the federal Gestapo arrested him–for doing what just about every politician in our Sodom and Gomorrah does every day. According to another outlet of the global corporate media:

“Disgraced Illinois governor [was] handed [a] stiff sentence for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat [and] was sentenced to 14 years in prison Wednesday, one of the stiffest penalties imposed for corruption. It took two trials for prosecutors to snare Blagojevich. While Blagojevich will likely end up at a minimal security prison, he’ll be largely cut off from the outside world. Visits by family are strictly limited, Blagojevich will have to share a cell with other inmates and he must work an eight-hour-a-day menial job—possibly scrubbing toilets or mopping floors—at just 12 cents an hour.”


The Heatbreaking Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim

Obviously, the plaintiffs in the $43,000,000,000,000 case are at the gravest possible risk. But killing the heroic attorneys of Spire (the law group filing the charges) or their family members would be too obvious right now, even for people possessing a license to kill. Besides, Fiedler (the attorney who signed the filing) and his associates are not the main culprit, from the bankers’ perspective. American history is chock-full of obscure dissidents who died of old age. The worst offenders are the corporate media outlets which, because of oversight, or idealism, or naiveté, or internecine warfare, broke every corporate media rule and gave this story national exposure. This error or deliberate affront required a fast and furious shock and awe.

And this, in turn, brings us back to the blood-curdling murder of little Lucia and Leo Krim. It turns out that these children’s’ father, Kevin Krim, is chief executive of CNBC Digital. Lucia and Leo were stabbed to death hours after the article covering the $43T suit appeared at the CNBC website. The knifing could be seen as a graphic and chilling warning to all mass media outlets, reminding them that Madison, Wilson, and Austin-Fitts really knew how the system works.

The bloody warning had not been lost on CNBC, which immediately after the slaying of Lucia and Leo removed the article from their website. They must have been in a hurry when they first took the article down, for some accompanying comments could still be read for some time, before they too were removed.

As of this writing (Sunday evening, 10/28/2012), one can still read about this lawsuit at the MarketWatch site, but, one suspects, not for long.


Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?

Bankers’ involvement in the murder of the Krim toddlers is plausible enough, but can it be proven?

The answer is yes and no. Remember, if the grim view presented here reflects reality, we’re dealing with the best-trained assassins in the world, psychopathic professionals who are not likely to incriminate themselves or their masters. Remember too that the men who order such assassinations possess a license to kill. At least as far back as the Civil War, they have always been getting away with the murders of our best and brightest while we stood aside and looked (to paraphrase the late Bob Marley). So although we can’t be absolutely sure that the invisible government butchered Lucia and Leo, we can say that such butchery fits a historical pattern of state executions, and therefore that this pattern probably applies to these children as well. Given this pattern, given my background as a natural scientist and a frequent traveler to the land of statistical levels of significance, I’d place the probability that the execution of Lucia and Leo was an act of state at about 90% (assuming of course that the basic facts in our possession are accurate and that this lawsuit and murders are not a COINTELPRO smokescreen). That is, a priori, and without any detailed detective work, I feel there is roughly a 9 in 10 chance that Lucia and Leo have been murdered by rogue elements of the United States government.

Finally, we may wish to look at the specifics of this tragedy and see if they are consistent with our forensic interpretation. If so, they may raise the probability estimate to about 95%—the level which allows scientists to provisionally accept their hypotheses.

As we shall see now, although it’s too early to offer ananswer, we can definitely conclude the following: the facts given to us so far by the men in the shadows are far more consistent with the hypothesis proposed here than with the hypothesis that these men themselves provide.

As we have seen, Lucia Krim, aged 6, and her brother Leo, aged 2, died from multiple stab wounds. Their mutilated bodies were found in the bathtub of their home, “with their nanny unconscious on the bathroom floor and holding a bloody Knife.”

Lucia and Leo’s parents were on the best possible terms with the children’s caregiver, Yoselyn Ortega, treated her well, and spent a few days recently visiting her family in the Dominican Republic. Ms. Ortega doted on her charges. Background checks gave every appearance of an ordinary, hard-working, decent person.

According to the New York Times, “Ms. Ortega had talked about how happy she was with her worklife. . . . She loved her job with the Krims. . . . was paid well and treated well. She . . . was so fond of Ms. Krim that she often put in extra hours to help her.”

As usual in such contrived cases, the CIA organ of record, along with its mendacious sisters, have already solved the mystery: Their question is not “Who killed Lucia and Leo Krim?” Instead they ask: “Exactly what prompted [the nanny] to attack the children—children who, by her friends’ accounts, she was devoted to?” Haven’t these “journalists” read Conan Doyle? Did they skip each and every one of their Logic 101 classes? Don’t they know that, when it comes to criminal investigations, appearances are meant to deceive? Their strange ignorance can be best ascribed to a directive from above, a directive “suggesting” that they resort to one of demagoguery’s ancient hat tricks: the complex question (the classical example being a prosecutor asking an innocent defendant: “Did you murder your husband with a hatchet or a cleaver?”)

One would want, at the very least, to get Yoselyn Ortega’s version of the events before accusing her of such a heinous crime. Again, as you might expect in license-to-kill incidents, detectives have been “unable to question Ms. Ortega, who was in a medically-induced coma in a hospital.” The tabloid of record does not bother to explain why a coma had to be induced. And again, as happens so often in state executions, the police retracted their first version of events, claiming later that Mrs. Ortega was “conscious and intubated.” Either way, poor Yoselyn can’t speak for the time being and tell the world what really happened. It is, in fact, doubtful that she will ever speak again.

Seasoned observers of government-sanctioned slayings may hazard two guesses. The first begins with the contingency, hinted at by the New York Tabloid, that Ms. Ortega might have visited a psychologist just before the murders. If so, she might have been programmed to commit the murders of the two children she loved (recall that the CIA mastered such programming technologies already in the 1950s; please consult this example). The problem with this scenario is time—I simply don’t know whether walking zombies can be created in a few hours. If she did indeed see a psychologist, a genuine detective would have begun by immediately questioning that psychologist and ruling out any connection to the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies.

The second, likelier, contingency, is that Ms. Ortega had been attacked by the same person(s) who murdered the two children and that the attacker(s) proceeded to place the knife in her hand. This would explain the chilling brutality of the case and its bizarreness, for both serve the goal of frightening and subduing would-be dissidents and whistle-blowers. If this version is correct, Yoselyn Ortega’s survival so far is a miracle and there is every reason to believe that she would not emerge out of that hospital alive or with her faculties intact.

Indeed, given the obvious and present danger she is in, in a better world vigilantes would have taken it upon themselves to save her life by clandestinely removing her to a secret and safe shelter, treating her in a manner that would restore her health and psychological well-being, guarding her life around the clock, videotaping her version of the events, and posting this version as soon as possible. Only such action, it may turn out, might have saved the life of this innocent bystander and exposed the masterminds of a vicious, high-stakes, murder plot.

Moti Nissani is in the process of writing License to Kill: The Decisive Role of Political Murders, Scandal-Mongering, and False-Flag Operations in American Politics. This book, in turn, will form a vital part of his Revolutionary’s Toolkit.

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on October 28, 2012, With Reads Filed under Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

15 Responses to "Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?"

  1. sumwoman  November 2, 2012 at 8:19 am

    all this for what?
    Why not just say, “Resistance is Futile”.

    Bring on the fake alien invasion boys…in uniform.
    Lets lie, cheat, con and bomb the people so banksters are free to rape, pillage and destroy anyone, anything, anytime, anywhere.

  2. LC  November 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Mrs. Krim was probably held at gunpoint and ordered to say that she saw the nanny stab herself. This is an definite bankers’ killing.

    The Spire Law Group, run by Mitchell Stein in California had filed a civil rights lawsuit a year ago after getting raided by Kabala/Kamala Harris, California’s Attorney General who stripped Stein of his license. On August 3rd, 2012, the California Federal court dismissed Steins case. Here is the dismissal decision: (delete ****):

    **** http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2012cv00985/251851/91/0.pdf?1344069038

  3. ghostman  October 31, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    this does not make sense,

    “The police said they spoke with Ms. Krim later on and pieced together the more detailed account that he gave at the Friday briefing, when he said Ms. Krim witnessed the nanny stabbing herself when she turned on the bathroom light. The police said they found Ms. Ortega unconscious on the floor when they arrived minutes later.) ”

    she witnessed the nanny stabbing herself ?

  4. ghostman  October 31, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Excellent article , VT is becoming the most hard hitting site out here.

    I like all the examples and links you have given and agree with the 95% percent certainty idea which is probably more like 99% to 100% certainty .

    Is there nothing these insane tyrants wont resort to , I guess not.
    Women and Children should be off limits in any war , as Bin L would say.
    But the banksters war shows no mercy.

  5. anna golinska  October 30, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Absolutely correct! It is the same pattern. The “deadly messages” are from controllers of the system, individuals who control the process happening before money is deposited to individual banking accounts. It is NOT the defendants!!! What I am saying is that someone has pre-arranged the process. I see defenders as executers of a given idea from levels outside of the matrix.
    I am pointing to case filed by Eric Schneiderman because looks very credible and I don’t understand why it is the same case number but defendants are different and his work was for Obama, when Spire’s case is listing Obama campaigners as a defendants. This twist is very misleading or maybe I just don’t have enough information.
    The law is only good if the law can be applied! With the political back up you can prosecute owners of the accounts. They are guilty without question but also they maybe a “scape goats” of the controllers to whom the law can not be applied. In such case special protection is needed for families of the brave one, who will decide to testify.
    Even with the superficial knowledge based on few documentaries and lectures on mind control, you will instantly suspect some mind control technique in both cases. There is no bigger punishment for parent that to have their children killed! In comparison, yourself being killed is like a reward.
    Aren’t thieves always hiding their loot? Everybody knows about off-shore accounts! It does not look like a good place to hide the loot of such a size. The loot maybe distributed in smaller portions but its total amount is identifiable by the source at some point of the process.
    Recently, there was a great deal of information from individuals who are trying to figure out money transfers within the system now and in the past, back to 1930-thies. The comments I read, are pointing that there is literally hundreds of trillions dollars on hidden accounts. Hypothetically: Could it be that we, as a nation, are extremely rich but our money was stolen and access is being denied?
    We will never know because it is against thief’s nature to show stolen loot on demand? Asking will not help. If hundreds of trillions of dollars is true they will kill us all and pay killers with our own money!
    We like it or not we are on the battlefield with gangsters and thieves. Technically we lost the battle already and our money is out of our hands, but we are still holding on to our principals, so we don’t loose by default.
    They will never prosecute the real killers of Lucia and Leo Krim and 43 trillion case is bogus and is going nowhere. Your link was revelation to me and extremely helpful. Thanks.

  6. carolcarlisle  October 30, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Robert Holmes, key witness in Libor fraud case = Global elite bankers face jail, son set up?

  7. poppakoppa  October 30, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Uncover the truth about the MERScurse at http://www.TitleTrail.com.

  8. Excalibur  October 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    We all know very well that the international criminal cabal is more than capable of such a terrible crime – several millions of times over if necessary – especially if there is a profit of some kind in it. It is their real stock in trade.

    Moti Nissani floats the very real scenario here that one day soon the ‘military’ (that is to say – soldiers, airmen and sailors who are NOT compromised by the crime syndicate) – could find itself tasked by the powers of a higher righteousness authority, empowered by natural law, with taking out the cabal in it’s nests around the world.

    This is why the compiling and application of lists of individuals are of great help. Ordinary people are put on lists without their permission or agreement thousands of times over by cabal ordered entities. It is high time that THEY are carefully listed as well – to make any decision to act accurate and much simpler. The research team at VT, among others, would be one such reliable gatherer of such info – to be shared globally within interested arenas.

    I am not sure that the Greek list mentioned above will disclose any more than fraudsters and criminals of a lower order than the cabal itself. All the same this is the way to begin fighting back.

    Armed with the lists a few military units could easily be tasked with the confiscation and guarding of all bank assets and collateral, cash printing presses and arrests of wanted suspects for judicial disposal. This, after all, is only what the cabal has been ordering troops to do around the world to countries that refuse to bow to their threats and demands.

    The world could only be a better place afterwards.

  9. Brian  October 29, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Cheryl Meyer, a psychology professor at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, and co-author of the book “Mothers Who Kill Their Children,” said that while many women who kill their kids feel trapped, in most cases a nanny who thinks she is at breaking point with a difficult child can walk out.

    She said it’s not uncommon to hear of a family in which the nanny or baby sitter quits, leaving a note or just never coming back.

    Brian: The media is now suggesting financial troubles and psychiatric problems pushed her to kill the kids. I don’t believe it.

  10. Brian  October 29, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I thought most of the judges in New York are self-hating Muslims who blame Muslims for 911. 🙂

  11. Garibaldi  October 29, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Not to mention der Judges. The suit is assigned to a Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein and referred to a Magistrate Robert M. Levy, (wink, wink, nod, nod) To plaintiffs et al, I say good luck with that.

  12. Aine  October 29, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Mr. Nissani: It’s good to see such a well written article on this subject. I number of sites have drawn attention to the relationship between the death of these children and the posting of the law suit but you have put it into context. I did read some of the information from your link to the Revolutionary’s Toolkit. I do think that if the everyday person could finally accept the concept of “conspiracy” as a mechanism of control and power in daily life…we might begin to have the mass awakening that we need. Your links seem to address this. Good. From all of my experience with dealing with corrupt situations…I have reached a number of conclusions, one of them being that there is a big disconnect between national and global corruption and local corruption. People are willing to acknowledge the “big guys” but they don’t want to approach any of their “local” bad guys. They are unwilling to translate this conspiracy concept to the local politics and develop strategies necessary to “outing” the people around them. For example: People still believe that college campuses are benign institutions where young (or older people ) are educated and are then are surprised when female students are raped and the university works actively to suppress this information. Why are people surprised? Because they don’t understand the world around them…they are dissociated from the “local conspiracy.” We need understanding of this conspiracy mechanism and we need strategies developed that protect us from the actions taken against us when we confront or expose the corruption. I’m going to post an example of this …something I posted in response to the article “Amherst Severely Mishandles Rape Charge. Amherst’s Female Students Are Not Surprised.”

    Having been in a fight for 8 years to get rid of a corrupt university president…let me explain some basics about state and federally funded universities:
    1. They are GOVERNMENT institutions. Therefore they will protect their reputations and funding status at the expense of any student.
    2. Government institutions have enormous amount of resources: Therefore they usually have litigation contracts withe most of the law firms located in the state. There is more money in defending the STATE than in defending the rights of a student.
    3. The governing body of the university is called a Board of Regents…the members of this board are generally politically appointed in most institutions. These are appointments based on prestige and payment of political favors. The board does not care about students.
    4. Taking a complaint to a state employee ( i.e. school counselor etc.) will automatically be a red flag to the university administration to make sure that they shut you down right away. They do not want any law suits.
    5. NEVER EVER ASSUME THAT A UNIVERSITY IS THERE FOR YOU! On the contrary, the administration is only concerned about insuring their state paid positions. Students come and go…you don’t matter.
    6. If you are raped or violated in any way…you must immediately go to the CITY POLICE NOT THE CAMPUS POLICE and file charges. Never use university resources to deal with your assault or complaint. The campus police department is under the control of the campus administration. The campus police will cover-up any possible scandals related to the university.
    7. Immediately align yourself with any outside agencies that are not aligned with the state university and file as many complaints that you can. Leave a very big paper trail. Make sure you get your hospital records ASAP before anyone is able to alter them.
    8. The STATE WORKS FOR YOU, however, you need to be very savvy about the political implications in every step of your process in a complaint against the state. Find allies, such as representatives that are not golfing buddies with the university president.

    Looking forward to your book.

  13. Garibaldi  October 29, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Here is the lawsuit- http://www.scribd.com/doc/111307429/Spire-Law-Federal-Complaint-in-New-York
    If one reads far enough into its 900+ pages, a very distinct Republican and partisan flavor emerges, which appears to favor a “Bush et al” faction. Forget the list of plaintiffs. Just look at the list of defendants.

  14. ricohands  October 29, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Extremely sinister world out there.

  15. Brian  October 29, 2012 at 8:38 am

    I’m trying to post this again:

    I thought this was a strange story when I heard about it on television news, but after reading an article and this article about the tragic killings, if the lawsuit is real, perhaps the banksters made a statement; don’t write about our crimes. If the blackmailed Obama had absolute proof a bankster is responsible for the killings he would do nothing about it.

    The financial meltdown the United States experienced in 2008 was due to financial crimes not greed and stupidity. Obama knows the banksters committed financial crimes yet did nothing about it. Due to his secret personal life Obama is extremely vulnerable to blackmail just ask Netanyahu.

    Regarding the Supreme Court and it’s bad decisions, it’s highly likely three of them are homosexuals, one of them doesn’t hide it but is not openly a homosexual.These people are vulnerable to blackmail; this is not from a movie.

    Most of the banksters are Jewish, thus with a Jewish controlled major media an investigation of the tragic killings by the major media is probably not going to happen.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network