In his latest report dated Feb 14, 2007, CHRISTOPHER STORY writes:

“PARTIAL INDICATION OF A FURTHER 48-HOUR ‘EXTENSION’

The further complication, received via email timed 14th February 2008, at 03:36, is that one or more special Trustee parties have been asked from the highest level of at least one European State to hang on for a further 48 hours to enable this matter to be resolved (as though this hasn’t happened already), with the Trustees reluctantly agreeing because of certain measures that may now be taken to force payment. The source adds: ‘That of course takes us to Friday and another week of nothing, and Monday is President’s Day, a holiday here’. An interestingly named one, too.

SOME TRUSTEES RESIGN THEIR COMMISSIONS AND GO HOME

On 11th February, we were advised at 10:30am that an associate of a key Trustee had given up waiting and had returned to Germany. On 13th February, we also ascertained that a number of Trustees have resigned. Specifically, three Trustees from Tier Three have resigned, with one returning to Germany and the other two presumed to have left from home also. Additionally, seven Trustees from Tier Five have resigned their assignments. Some of these Trustees were appointed specifically to make payments, obviously on a fee basis about which the Editor has no knowledge. The resignations of these Trustees will mean that the payees for which they were responsible will not be paid. Please do NOT shoot the messenger.

We report what we know and verify: this information has been separately obtained from two sources independently. One would have thought that this development would be quite liable to raise tensions considerably, making life in the White House even more uncomfortable: necessitating the delivery, perhaps, of more crates of scotch to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Camp David.”

MY COMMENTS REGARDING THE ABOVE:

My Story has verified certain facts regarding the resignation of certain Trustees.  Three Trustees from Tier Three and seven Trustees from Tier Five seem to be key.  Some of these were appointed specifically to make payments.  ‘The resignation of these Trustees will mean that the payees for which they were responsible will not be paid’.

Is this not predictable?  Was Casper’s latest comment  about ‘something else going on’ not more than a mere hypothetical or rhetorical question?  Why would any Trustee simply up and resign their office and cease capacity as fiduciary where payments are a critical function of that office at this time specifically?  Go figure!!   Who appointed or retained these Trustees in the first place, and what ‘trust’ are each associated with?   What appears to be ‘resignation’ could actually be ‘ordered’ by a ‘trust protector’ as a ‘termination’.

 Who are the purported ‘payees’ in Tier Three and Five?  I do not know for fact, but if one relies on Mr. Story’s Report dated January 25, his stated understanding of the ‘payee tiers’ is as follows:

“THE MULTI-TIERED ‘PAYMENT DOMINO’ STRUCTURE

The tiered payee/recipient ‘domino’ payment structure, established as indicated above by Bush-Greenspan in such a way that (so they have long imagined) the interlocking transactions could be destabilised and thwarted at any stage by means of sabotaging one or more key targeted payouts – enabling the stolen funds and related accruals to be held and traded by their criminal networks indefinitely – was layered roughly as follows [please note that this outline information must not be construed as authoritative: it represents what we understand to be the case to the best of our knowledge and belief]:

Tier One: The Group of Eight/Group of Ten countries (incorporating Russia and China) and key ‘special’ recipients and trustees incorporated within Tier One. Tier One pays Tier Two.

Tier Two: The 160 national representatives referenced above. Tier Two pays Tier Three.

Tier Three: OMEGA Ponzi financial scam victims and investor trustees, thought to number about 420 trustees, with perhaps 20,000 recipients between them. Tier Three pays Tier Four.

Tier Four: Retired US Federal Government officials and their families who were scammed by their own Government and were never paid. Tier Four pays Tier Five.

Tier Five: Smaller bankers and institutions that invested funds (in $100 or $200 million increments) into high-yield investment programs and were never paid out (i.e. were scammed, in accordance with the Bush-Greenspan ‘never-pay’ model: see above). Tier Five pays Tier Six.

[Subsequent details unknown].

It is understood that there were originally eleven such Tiers, but that Tiers Nine, Ten and Eleven have been ‘cancelled’ or merged, as the funds in question may have been stolen by Bush Sr. (41) and by former President Clinton (42). The Katrina funds, as we pointed out in an earlier report, were stolen (worth $2.1 billion).”

I do not have it in front of me presently, but Casper or Poof or Patrick….someone….. has said that there are the large Family Trusts, the Corporate Foundations and Sovereign Asset Funds or whatever that are at the very top of the list. Then, apparently these lesser tiers. If the Family [Money] Trusts, Foundations, and Sovereign Asset Funds are funded, and Tier One, which pays Tier Two, which is to pay ? Tier Three, that’s where the trickle down will stop, due primarily to lack of fiduciary to accept and then further disburse funds. Receipt of ‘delivery’ by whatever means, and Constructive or Actual Economic Receipt is necessary for an actual “Acceptance” to effect an economic event of record. Lack of any fiduciary having capacity, kills the Trust, or makes it silent, unable to act on its own, due to the fact that only fiduciaries can act for the trust. If any Trustee resigns and appoints no ‘successor’, or if no ‘successor’ is pre-appointed, or if there is no specific provision within the Trust ‘indenture’ or ‘resolutions’ and/or Minutes to provide for ‘successor’ upon termination or voluntary resignation of a Trustee, with or without ‘cause’, the Trust could become NULL AND VOID, FOR LEGAL CAUSE, wherein ‘legal cause’ means “lacking [fiduciary] capacity” to operate, which also means lack of status or standing to operate in commerce.

In short, based upon the above ‘tier’ model, if Trustees at level Three resign, it could very well effect trust operations at every level from 3 and below. This is only a cursory hypothetical analysis, lacking in facts and details. Funds which are scheduled to ‘disburse’ from Tier Two to Three and below will remain ‘non-distributed’ and ‘on account’ at whatever bank under control of those who have disposition on those funds, which would be the bankers and trustees of level 2 [and above?]. In this game of high stakes greed, POWER, and CONTROL by any means, is it inconsistent with the m.o. of ‘business as usual’ for the wedge to be driven into the distribution matrix right at the level where ‘ordinary’ non-elite people have come into the mix? Think about it.

If the construction of the ‘ponzi scheme’ of inter-locking trusts presumably runs in a ‘circle’ is such that if one does not pay, none get paid, then there is another issue as to whether anyone at the higher levels receiving ‘notices’ will get paid if none of the lesser trusts get paid. If those limitations no longer apply, we have heard nothing to the effect that they do not. However, one thing may reasonably be assured. Trust law, banking law, and commercial law will predicate that a trust is not a ‘trust’, and cannot take receipt of anything or act in any manner unless it has vital capacity of fiduciary(s).

If the upper levels or ‘tiers’ are decoupled from the lower, and the lower trusts fail to receive-accept notification and act accordingly for lack of fiduciary capacity, status and standing at law, the ‘impediment’ or ‘delay’ could take a very long time to ‘cure’. It really depends on what contingencies exist for just such a scenario as this and how long it will take to ‘cure’ the Trustee successorship issue.

Do I think this is no mere happenstance or mere ‘irony’ that Trustees at level 3 and 5 walk away in the heat of battle? It is axiomatic: He who leaves the battle field first looses. You betcha. I smell a skunk. And, perhaps, just perhaps, that those bringing the ‘embargo’ intent on assurances that they get paid, are the ones who agreed to or even suggested that certain trustees skate at those levels, in order to assure the Burning Bush et al. that they get some sweetener to keep their wheels well greased. Believe me, this is not above or below the mentality of many of the people who are on the power grid involved in this play. They will hang it around someone else’s neck if they must in order to get themselves ‘well settled’.

In conclusion, if Mr. Story’s current report is accurate on these issues, and there is no reason to doubt that he is not, whatsoever: I’d say, someone up the ladder does not want to give over the ‘money’ to the people. As long as the critical players get paid, if they in-fact do, that leaves the people ‘floppin on the deck’ while the thunder of the emerging machine of the new system ramps up and rolls on. I would also surmise that many of these lesser trustees were ‘plants’ or ‘pawns’ in the first place. If a ‘trust protector’ is in effect on any such trust, the ‘protector’ taking his/her orders from those who made the trust, has full official capacity to terminate any trustee at any time with or without cause. The ‘protector’ is all powerful, enjoined by contract to the trust maker, and has no discretion to act other than what his/her duties express at the time of acceptance to contract. It would take analysis of the trust indentures themselves, and all resolutions and minutes to determine the details of these issues, because all trusts are essentially ‘private’ and not subject to disclosure of any information, even under judicial orders, if they are set up that way in the first place. In short, further analysis of the trustee/trust aspect of the level 3 and below blockage cannot be affected by anyone outside of any of the trusts. As all trustees also have strict non-disclosure agreements in place, both during and after their official capacity is held, they will be in breach and subject to liability if they make any disclosures restricted to the business of the trust only. These issues are very plausible and not intended to project or presume facts not known or in evidence. However, things do not appear to be ‘moving right along’ as others have recently stated. Even if one ‘received’ notification pkts, one may not be able to access for all of the above reasons, because trustees are those who make things happen within a given trust structure according to pre-designated purpose established by contract [indenture], resolution, and minutes.

S