10 August, 2022

Real Reason for the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid: The public worldwide outraged. For what motive? What object?

Neither the Biden regime, nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to cause a Republican mega victory in November. So why did the FBI bust into Trump’s property?

No other US president in history has had to submit to the indignity of a police raid like that of 8 August.

We are no better than a third world country, a banana republic,’ Trump wrote in a press release. ‘Biden knew all about this , just like he knew all about Hunter’s deals’ with corrupt people in Ukraine, Russia and China.

The FBI refused to let Trump’s lawyer examine their warrant. They expelled Christina Bobb while they made their search.

Why did they STRONGLY insist on having nobody watching them, everyone out?’ Trump asked. ‘Obama and Clinton were never ‘raided’ despite big disputes.

The motive for the shock raid was allegedly to find the documents destined for the National Archives, but FBI officials did not just search the boxes in the basement where they were kept. They intruded themselves everywhere. They bust open President Trump’s safe. That must have involved permission sought and given by Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, and lawyers in the White House, perhaps including Biden himself. He will take the rap for it.

What were the FBI looking for in Trump's safe or Milania's closet? Why, if the motive was these archive documents, did the FBI not first send him a polite request followed by subpoena? Apparently the boxes that Trump took with him had already been communicated to the national archives. No problem was reported. The president has authority to declassify all documents. So the alleged motive of national security does not stand up. Presidents often take such documents with them for their presidential libraries. The FBI never raided the files of Barack Hussein Obama or George Bush.

Why did the FBI send so many officers (30 to 100?) from Washington?

Why did they undertake such a controversial operation that would only enrage the Trump supporters? That makes a Republican surge in upcoming elections even more likely.

Why did they wait till Trump was out of town?

Here's my guess. 

I do not think they were looking for documents for the national archives. Trump has life-long powers to de-classify all documents and had already done so on major issues (but the FBI etc was slow-walking them).

The magistrate Bruce Reinhard wrote the warrant. He had a long-time work record working with Jeffrey Epstein's people as a defense lawyer. Epstein ‘died’ in prison while awaiting trial for global sex-trafficking.

Here is my impression of the most explosive document that would implode on the major enemies of Trump. A time bomb.  Clinton, Gates and others have made numerous trips on Epstein’s aircraft known as the Lolita Express to his private island. Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted of involvement in this pedophilia and high-level blackmail operation.

But the client list of world VIPs involved in this operation was not published at the time of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. This is a blackmail list on pedophilia to beat all lists. It has names of top politicians, financiers and scientists and their foibles that lays them open for control by several intelligence services (including the Israelis).

Why was it not published as evidence at the trial? Where is Epstein's little black book?

The safest way to keep secrets is not to put them on the internet, especially if you are dealing with intelligence agencies, experts in cyber-crime. Hence the little black book has always been the safest for blackmailers.

Who took charge of it afterwards? And other compromising evidence. The FBI does not seem to know where the Hunter Biden laptop is! In it he describes his relationship with the person he called China’s top spy and the money he received.

The little black book is probably the WORLD'S MOST VALUABLE DOCUMENT. It gives the dirt about how to control Arab oil sheikhs, billionaire financiers, the leaders of the world's most powerful nations, global banks and how to distort scientific results to exploit the wealth of the world, maintain geostrategic control of vital foods and medicines, and encourage the depopulation of 'unwanted' peoples.

The person who has right to place in safe-keeping this highly sensitive information of criminal activity and treason is the US president. It does not take much brain to realise that this black book with the names of world presidents, prime ministers, top politicians, billionaires, together with the most influential scientists (another Epstein speciality) would be placed in safe-keeping during President Trump’s administration.

Where is it now?

12 July, 2022

Banned! Buried! Forbidden! Europe's Bill of Rights


Banned! Buried! Forbidden! Europe's Bill of Rights

EU Commission's Censorship from Jean Monnet to von der Leyen


Seventy years have past since Jean Monnet chaired the first meeting of the European Commission in Luxembourg. It was then called the High Authority. It is the central innovation of the European Community of Coal and Steel. It brought peace to Europe for the first time in more than two millennia.

How? It provided the democratic and just means to adjudicate between coal and steel cartels, the national and multinational entities (greater than States) that incited Europe to seemingly endless wars. The High Authority was acclaimed as Europe’s Honest Broker.

Was it honest under Jean Monnet? No, not really. Today’s troubles stem from Monnet’s mistakes.

The first major act of the High Authority was to assemble a bureaucracy and make available the Treaty of Paris to the officials. This was the international agreement that defined their work, their relations with other institutions and their goals.

The officials were all given a bound copy of the Treaty with a black cover.

But Horror of horrors! It lacked one essential document in the Treaty.

Guess what Monnet left out?

Clue: Monnet was concerned about the autonomy of the Community and wanted to run the High Authority unhindered. To make his position clear, he wrote to the Council of Europe Secretary General just days after taking office.

On 1 August 1952, he wrote to Schuman’s former colleague, Jacques-Camille Paris, then Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Acting under Foreign Minister Schuman, he had negotiated the creation of the Council of Europe as a Director for Europe at the French Foreign Ministry.

Monnet wrote (on notepaper of the Planning Agency, not the High Authority!):

‘The role and nature of the Council of Europe are, as you are aware, wholly different from the European Community.’

This was one of the first shots in what became the battle between the two Schuman institutions. It set the two organisations on different paths when they should have been working together.

Robert Schuman had made this clear when in August 1950, just after he had launched the Schuman Plan for the European Community, he presented to the Council of Europe the outline of the Community institutions and how they would work together to reinforce Human Rights in Europe.

The first three Community treaties (Coal and Steel, Euratom, EEC) were all discussed in the Council of Europe. Monnet’s ill-judged action gave later politicians the unfounded belief that they could create treaties totally independently of human rights considerations.

They could override rejections in national parliaments. They could ignore referendums that rejected their drafts. They could install these fraudulent treaties lacking public support as if they were authentically democratic.

The least the public should expect is that Community treaties have full public support. It should be democratic. That is not the case for the like of the Lisbon/ Constitutional Treaties. They are imposed on the public against obvious pubic rejection. Brexit was the consequence of this Democratic Deficit.

Charlie McCreevy was European Commissioner 2004 to 2010.

How did this happen? Was the first treaty defining the institutions defective or was Jean Monnet as president of the High Authority responsible for the problem?

The missing Treaty

The Treaty of Paris contains eight documents besides the text describing how the institutions of the Community work together in the European Coal and Steel Treaty.

The Treaty of Paris is composed of:

1.       Text of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, ECSCT ,

2.       The Charter of the Community or D├ęclaration commune,

3-5.       Three protocols on

  • privileges of officials,

  • the Court of Justice, and

  • the Council of Europe,

6-7.       French and German governmental letters on the Saar,

8 .      Convention dealing with initial and transitory measures.

Guess which Monnet (who was used to getting his own way) omitted from his little black book!

Was it the Protocol on the Council of Europe?

This would have been an impossible task. There were three protocols of equal weight legally. One gave the legal immunities of the officials as far as diplomatic privileges were concerned. A second defined the Court in the European Community system and how it should work. This shows the importance of protocols: the Court is defined by one of them. Thus to leave out the third protocol would be seen as contrary to justice and common legality. What Monnet did was to reduce its importance.

The Protocol’s aim was stated as to ‘establish ties as close as possible’ with the Council of Europe. ‘It was emasculated by the doggedness and obstinacy of Jean Monnet,’ said Paul Levy, the Director of Press and Information at the Council. But the essential survived, but often only in theory.

The Protocol described its relationship the Community as being one of a human rights guardian. It included, at first, shared membership of the two parliamentary Assemblies. Before they were elected, national parliaments delegated the Assembly members, Article 1. Thus if both had common personalities it was easy for them to raise human rights and transparency questions that might arise in the European Community in the Council of Europe. Action could be taken in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The Protocol specified:

  • The High Authority and the Community Assembly should send their annual reports on their activities to the respective bodies in the Council of Europe, Articles 2 and 3.

  • The High Authority should inform the Council of Europe about the outcomes of recommendations it had given to the Community, (Article 4).

  • Joint work together was envisaged in Article 6.

Monnet could and did minimise these stipulations in practice.

What could not be avoided was the document equivalent to a Bill of Rights, written legally in the form of a diplomatic treaty. He tried to eliminate it by leaving it out completely.

The Community’s Bill of Rights

The Charter of the Community providing the public and all participants of the institutions to appeal to Courts of law about corruption, lack of transparency and fairness. Two courts were available for this: the European Court of the Community and the Court of Human Rights at the Council of Europe (for a further, higher appeal).

This was the document left out completely of the printed copies.

Why was the Charter so important for the public and too much for Monnet’s tastes? It provided a guarantee that the institutions like the European Parliament should be open like a national democratic parliament, and the Consultative Committees should elected and open and yes! the Council of Ministers should also be open too.

In other words, politicians and representatives to the institutions should be held responsible to their electors, a record should be kept of their proceedings and the public could choose whether they would ‘kick out the rascals’ who behaved in a dishonest and autocratic fashion. That does not happen in autocracies of the extreme Right and Left.

The European institutions would therefore distinguish themselves from the People’s Democracies of Soviet controlled eastern Europe. Or as we would say nowadays from North Korea where the government ruled by edicts of a one-party State.

What the Charter says

The Charter makes clear that the Community is only open to democratic States who accept the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It describes how unity can be expanded in Europe through the Community system, not by creating a federal Super-State but by creating further Communities as the needs arise. They do not attack the basic sovereignty of the States but in fact add to their sovereign powers.

It restricts entry into the European Community to countries that are able to prove they have and retain fundamental freedoms like: freedom of speech — to criticise government — and freedom of assembly — to create their own parties and opposition movements able to criticise centralised one party States. They have freedom to own property, to create businesses etc.

Importantly they recognise the new constitutional form that is inherent in the Community system. It is neither an international organisation like a confederation such as NATO or the OECD, nor a federation like the USA or Canada. The Member States retain their own sovereignty. But the remarkable innovation is that these sovereign States agree by free assent to designate one institution, in this case the High Authority or European Commission, to have supranational or federal powers. As Schuman wrote the Community system lies midway between a centrally controlled federal system (or Super-State) and a confederal system where the State is unrestricted.

The Charter states:

In signing the treaty founding the European Community for Coal and Steel Community, a community of 160 million Europeans, the contracting parties give proof of their determination to call into life the first supranational institution, and consequently create the true foundation for an organized Europe.

The Community system has the means to bind the States in a way to organise key sectors (like coal and steel) or the nuclear industry in the case of Euratom, so that the common goal of eliminating intra-State war is achieved.

Thus a new hope for a peaceful future is created that encourages peace-enhancing collaboration and commerce across the entirety of the Community territory. Common laws and a means to justice in case of disputes cement the process.

Even before the work was set in motion, the virtues of the idea that inspired it had already aroused  in our countries and beyond its borders an extraordinary surge of hope and confidence.

Membership open to all as far as Russia

Schuman was asked about Russia when he made his Proposal on 9 May 1950 that all European countries (defined by membership of the Council of Europe) could become members of the European Community.

Could Russia become a member?

Schuman’s answer surprised many. ‘Yes of course!

If Russia signed up to the above freedoms of expression and assembly then it would be welcome. That, incidentally would have made the monopoly power of the Communist party impossible. But it put Russia’s choice in stark relief. Did Russia want peace or want the monopoly of Communist control and ideological imperialism?

The European Coal and Steel Community could easily have been expanded to include Russia’s coal, gas and petroleum to the advantage of all.


The Treaty Charter found no liking with Jean Monnet. It presented quite a different world view from his idea of creating a USA-style market in what would be a federal State of Europe.

It is questionable whether Monnet ever really understood the significance of the constitutional innovation that Schuman had initiated. The Community idea was like nothing that had ever occurred in history. The Community had just one federal element. It was neither a federation nor a confederation. It had democratic controls far more potentially powerful than any other previous constitutional arrangement of freemen.

Schuman was a constitutional lawyer of great international renown. He was educated in Luxembourg, Germany and France. He earned his doctorate in law at Strasbourg university. He called this third approach ‘a supranational Community.’ ‘Supranational’ is a term directly associated with his new constitutional idea. To help people comprehend the magnitude of political power and astounding novelty of this idea in constitutional history Schuman wrote a book about it, analysed it in legal terms, gave innumerable speeches and wrote many articles.

What did Monnet write? Little or nothing is in his archives. He made out to journalists that he was behind the idea of Community. This is a gross exaggeration. The drafts were written by Paul Reuter, Schuman’s jurisconsult in conjunction with Schuman and his Cabinet director, Bernard Clappier, a top grade financial expert who later became head of the Bank of France. Monnet was self-taught and had never gone to university.

Admittedly these drafts were written and discussed in Monnet’s offices. Why? Because the Foreign Ministry was full of Gaullists and nationalists, violently opposed to any concession to Germany or any other foreigner.

It is clear Monnet was never at the origin of the idea of a supranational Community. In his Memoires, he writes:

The High Authority was qualified as ‘supranational’ in the fourth draft {of the Schuman Declaration}. But I did not fancy the term and never fancied it. … Reuter made his contribution in this creative phase.’ p352.

Monnet later struck out the term supranational in a later draft. Reuter was a trusted legal aid for Schuman, a man of his confidence, who helped Schuman prevent officials at the ministry sabotaging his plans for European reconciliation.

Monnet later often told colleagues that he was wrong to agree to an authority above governments — thus he failed to understand what brought thousands of years of war! So Monnet learned little from Schuman.

Monnet had worked with Charles de Gaulle during the war. He owed his postwar position in government as the chief bureaucrat of the Planning Agency to de Gaulle. And de Gaulle was firmly against anything that opposed his idea of a nation-State of Napoleon or Charlemagne.

This may be another main factor why Monnet acted as he did and buried the Charter Treaty.


Three Communities were created that set Europe on a new path for peace and prosperity. The last two, the Euratom treaty and the Economic Community were hurriedly signed in Rome in 1957.

The reason for haste was that Charles de Gaulle was about to seize power. Europeans knew that these treaties would not be signed by France once he was in control.

A decade of Gaullist power followed. De Gaulle tried to destroy the Communities and block any progress towards unity. He wanted to dominate a ‘Europe of the fatherlands’ by force of his power. His ministers boycotted the institutions for six months hoping it would break them. The Community turned out to be stronger than an autocrat in one Member State.

The Charter was not only buried deep in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry but the ideas of democratic and human rights control was sidelined and forbidden as de Gaulle fired up a war in Algeria to gain power and then attempted to douse the flames top establish his autocracy.

When de Gaulle was forced to retire following riots and insurrection, European politicians were left with a Community system without its vital Bill of Rights.

Some of these politicians were ministers under de Gaulle. They had lived through a decade of autocratic decision-making, closed door meetings without the public having a look-in on their own rights.

Politicians too often prefer to make decisions without public supervision. It makes their work easier and allows a moderate amount of corruption.

Then this became a major problem. Gaullist France used the Community as a private piggy bank. The Community’s Common Agricultural Policy got out of hand with more than 70 percent of the Community spent on subsidising farmers and paying for farm surpluses in storage.

Democrats forbid public supervision?

In April last year I wrote to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asking that the Charter be published on the EU website and in the Official Journal as a founding document of the Community. Not having received a reply, I made a complaint to the European Ombudsman.

I still do not have an official reply from the President’s office, a year and a quarter later.

I also asked Commission, Parliament and Council representatives who launched the Conference on the Future of Europe to publish the document to aid discussion on democracy in Europe. They readily agreed.

The Conference on the Future of Europe is now past history. The Charter has still not been published in spite of reminders of the pledge to publish.

  • Has the legal service of the Commission put the Charter under a censoring interdict so it cannot be published on its website?

  • Is it too afraid of the legal implications of the Charter Treaty? If not why do Europeans not have their Bill of Rights published with other founding documents in the Official Journal?

  • Does this censorship prove that the Commission is now a confirmed autocracy?

  • Once the Charter is well known and published by historians and newspapers again, and seen on television and the internet, will the autocracy collapse of its monstrous hypocrisy?

10 May, 2022

Europe's Democratic Future: Falsified or Fit?


Europe's Democratic Future: Falsified or Fit?

There is a solution

European democracy is entering its eighth decade since the Schuman Proposal of 1950. The Conference on the Future of Europe wound up in Strasbourg today. Will it help the average citizen?

What does the watchman see ahead: fog or clear waters? Where is the European ship of Democracy headed?

French President E Macron speaks; Commission President von der Leyen, European Parliament President Roberta Matsola and in foreground Commission Vice President Suica and Parliament’s Guy Verhofstadt listen.

Nearly four out of five Europeans want more say in decisions of the EU, according to a recent Bertelsmann Report, Under ConstructionCitizens participation in the European Union. It lists seven instruments that the politicians have designed to give an appearance of participation.

None of them are satisfactory.

  • European Parliament elections.

  • European Citizens’ Initiative

  • Petitions to the European Parliament

  • European Ombudsman

  • Public policy consultations by Commission services

  • Citizens’ Dialogues (town hall meetings)

  • European citizens’ consultation online by Council .

The Conference has produced nothing that will make a substantial difference to today’s dismal distrust of Brussels.

How to judge? The core issue is democratic control of laws, money and strategy. Adding more ‘people’s initiatives’ and ‘consultations’ won’t cut the mustard for people’s control of untrustworthy elites. They meet and decide in secret. They can ignore everybody else and invent reasons for actions that suit themselves. Secrecy is vital for tyranny. The North Koreans know this well.

Knowledge is power for leaders; that’s why politicians often enforce ignorance for the public. That’s the way tyrants keep power.

Autocrats’ desire to keep secrets may be the essential reason why the elites have refused to publish the original documents that described how Europe should really work and describe citizens’ rights to information and control. These tools would unzip modern tyranny.

Correcting this abuse is a major challenge. Schuman’s Proposal was a work of supreme genius. Who else could create peace and prosperity after 2000 years of continuous war? There are few people of his metal today.

Can Democracy work in Europe?

Is the EU doomed to failure as a democratic experiment? Not at all.

The facade of many 'dialogues' and 'initiatives' hide and cover up the real duty of leaders to follow the treaties and for honest governance. Even the treaties that politicians invented for their own benefit contain and retain principles of real and effective democracy. They just ignore the parts they don’t like.

Instead of openness, Europe has closed-door Councils ruling the roost, dishing out taxpayers' money according to their own rules. There are no published records of their debates, nor public access. Hence no accountability and no public trust.

What is the solution?

First, blow away the fog. Europeans have legal rights far beyond these inadequate, fig-leaf instruments that have little or no legal effect.

Leaders of three EU institutions pledged on 19 April 2021 to have an in-depth analysis of how the present 'democracy' differs from the original democratic framework and human rights safeguards drawn up at the start of the European Community in the 1950s. What really happened that the public is now so disdained?

Re-publication is an obvious first step to reverse the Democratic Deficit that the public have complained about for decades. Parliament is open; Council is closed.

The symptoms

Distrust is the inevitable result of politicians' disdain. The public in their Referendums rejected government by secretive councils. Each treaty with more secret bureaucracy was resisted time and time again.

Democratic fiascos followed the politicians plans for the Maastricht, Nice, the Constitutional, Reform and Lisbon treaties. Member States had referendums that rejected all these treaties. Public opinion was ignored or the public was told to reverse their vote.

What happened on the first and therefore the most important treaty? No referendum, no public debate even, was offered on renewing the foundational European Coal and Steel Treaty in 2002. It was stopped. Result? Disaster in the steel and energy economies.

And a decade later? Brexit was the inevitable result. The British referendum was actually based on a treaty the British public had never agreed to, and the French had rejected! (compare the Constitutional's Article 59 with Lisbon’s Article 50: they are practically word-for-word the same).

Conclusion: For decades the political leadership has failed the people.

Where are the goods?

The leaders failed to look at the original Schuman design for European democracy. In spite of my several complaints to the Ombudsman they failed even, as a bare minimum, to agree to publish the original constitutional documents. The Charter of the Community outlines how Human Rights should dictate fair and honest institutional development. (See https://schuman.info )

Schuman and the Founding Fathers envisaged, for example:

  1. Institutions open to the public and the press. The Lisbon treaties still repeat this requirement, see TFEU #15

  2. Consultative Committees shall be directly ELECTED to represent organised European civil society (industry, consumers, workers) and Regions. They would have revising powers to the Commission’s Proposals similar to the Council of Ministers (Schuman in Council of Europe, Aug 1950, Reuter etc).

  3. Commissioners should be unbiased arbiters and independent of political parties and lobbies etc. See their Oath in ECJ. Nor are they presently 'selected' properly and openly to public scrutiny as with the original High Authority.

  4. Parliament should be elected on the principle of one person one vote, not by the present system that gives some people 10 or 12 vote equivalents. TFEU 223.

  5. And so on.

How to start?

The same medicine is required in Brussels as in North Korea. The first step is for the public to insist that the Council of Ministers obey their own treaty. Their debates should be published. The press should be allowed to follow all aspects of the debate. The public should see it all on television and the internet. Only when ministers become accountable will a semblance of democracy begin to glimmer through the opaque panes of the Justus Lipsius building.