----- Original Message -----

From: Dimce Giorgief

To: Dimce Giorgief ; cstory@worldreports.org

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:30 AM

Subject: The Queen and the $6.2 Trillion

 

Dear Mr. Story:

 

If Wanta stated that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t “own” the $6.2 T in funds loaned to her by the Bank of England, then he is absolutely correct.  Her Majesty does NOT own the funds, nor did the BoE.

 

Please allow me to explain?  First of all, the BoE does not have the capability to loan anybody $6.2T.  I severely doubt there is an Affidavit, but for the sake of argument, lets say there is one.  The funds, which I believe are real, are subject to International Treaties that would supersede any Affidavit.  Her Majesty is a custodian to the funds loaned to her by the Office of the International Treasury Control (OITC).  Due to the International Treaties the Queen and the OITC are sworn to secrecy and we, as subjects are not privy to that information.  In a sense, she owes us no explanation.  No other entity is capable of loaning this amount of money, but the OITC.

 

Your comments about the $6.2T being frozen within Citibank is very revealing.  Who froze the money in Citibank?  The Queen cannot.  The BoE has no jurisdiction in the USA.  Answer is rather simple, the OITC because at the end of the day, it was their money.  Here is where it gets very interesting, if you were to see a timetable you may notice that when the funds were frozen, shares of Citigroup Inc. collapsed and there was an unprecedented meltdown.  The DVD/Nazi’s as you call them, in conjunction with other culprits tried to crash not only Citibank, but also the entire financial system.  As we move along, we can see who had the most to lose in a Citibank bankruptcy, the OITC because $6.2T is within Citibank and they cannot stake claim to these funds, or can they?  What happened next?  The UST supported Citigroup Inc. by a $306B assets guarantees, however, again, who had the most to lose?  The OITC of course, they were behind the asset guarantee at Citigroup, this was confirmed by a RMN posting by Hobie where Mr. Whistleblower stated that support was given to Citigroup by the OITC.

 

Why didn’t the UST sell off their shares of Citigroup when they repaid TARP?  Shares were worth over the $3.25 mark at that point?  The UST did not own the shares, did they?  I am going to stop here because this letter will be sure to ruffle some feathers; my only response to that is all the information was already in the public domain. 

 

Anyone wishing to post this letter on their website, please feel free to do so. 

 

Until Next Time,

DG

 

#1  (Reply)

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Director

To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:14 AM

Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

 

Message:

 Dear Mr. Bellringer,

 In response to DG/The Queen and the $6.2 Trillion.

 It is well documented in the History of banking that was previously posted on fourwinds and RMN that the Chinese Royals are in control of the world's heritage assets and that OITC made an ATTEMPT in 1995 to replace the Chinese Royals in order to take control of the Heritage assets. Whistleblower, OITC, Candace and DG are misleading the readers by what they have posted. It is interesting that Whistleblower/OITC did not post a rebuttal in regards to any of the documented information within the History of Banking including the comments about OITC or Whistleblowers participation in the footnotes related to the documented History of Banking.

 The TRUTH will soon be known in regards to the Heritage assets. I would request that fourwinds repost the link for the documented History of Banking so that the readers may now have a better understanding of the TRUTH concerning the Heritage assets after what has been falsely implied.

 Best wishes to all,

 Director

#2  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----

From: Dimce Giorgief

To: Dimce Giorgief ; cstory@worldreports.org

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:08 PM

Subject: Response to Mr. Story. The Queen and the $6.2 Trillion

 

Dear Mr Story:

 

I am not disputing whether Wanta is a criminal or a victim, that is for the courts to decide.  He was correct on the one issue of the Queen and her "ownership" of the $6.2T.   However, it should be added that Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta and his CIA/DVD cohorts are NOT my sources in any claim that I have made.  The sum total of words written by Wanta to me is less than a paragraph long.  His emails only started January 18, 2010, as a direct result of my exposure of the Bush clan hacking into the Mae Hua Trust of Taipei Taiwan. 

 

Mr. Story, you may have discovered that the Chinese did not enter into an agreement with Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta for the settlements of $4.5T.  What is refered to as the "settlements" is in fact an agreement with the Bush II administration and the illegal access to the Mae Hua Trust.  The Mae Hua Trust is part of the collateral accounts of the global debt facility owned by the Office of the International Treasury Control.  The entire $27.5T was stolen from the collateral accounts. 

 

If you require further details please feel free to send me an email.  I would be happy to work with you.

 

Best Regards,

DG