Anna von Reitz...What They Do, What You Do....The Short Explanation? ..Statesmen Three! -- The 100 Billion Dollar Robbery

What They Do, What You Do

 

By Anna Von Reitz 

They "seize upon" your Given (Trade) Name that your parents created and gave you, and they create a franchise for their foreign corporation named after you. 

If your Given Trade Name is "John Michael Johnson", the Territorial State of State creates a franchise for itself called "John Michael Johnson" and the Municipal STATE OF STATE creates a franchise for itself called "JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON" ---- all without telling you a thing about it. 

After that, they merely pretend that you are responsible for their franchises and the debts of their franchises. 

Because the franchises are named after you, it's easy (usually) to confuse you and everyone else about "which" John Michael Johnson is being discussed. 

Are you referring to the living man named "John Michael Johnson"? Or the unincorporated business operating as "John Michael Johnson"? Or the incorporated Territorial State of State franchise operated as "John Michael Johnson"? Or the Municipal STATE OF STATE franchise operated as "JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON"? 

This is key, especially when you bear in mind that when the Clerk calls out the name "John Michael Johnson" ----there is absolutely no way that you can verbally tell the difference between these various entities. The name "John Michael Johnson" being used by a living man sounds exactly the same as the name "JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON" --- doesn't it? Yes.... 

So the very first Order of the Day is to find out which "John Michael Johnson" is being addressed and the source of the Prosecutor's authority to address "John Michael Johnson"--- if he has any such authority at all. 

When the Prosecutor walks into court he is bearing a bond issued in your name--- in this case, the name of "John Michael Johnson" --- but that name is also the name of "JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON" --- isn't it? 

They have set up the situation where you are technically not a party to a case. 

Why? Because technically, none of this applies to you the living man, at all. They only play with the Territorial State of State franchise doing business as "John Michael Johnson" and the Municipal STATE OF STATE franchise doing business as "JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON" because their courts are specifically forbidden from addressing the living man. 

When you visit (never "appear") a court by special limited visitation, you are saying up front --- hey, I am separated from all of this. That's Job One to protect your living "person" from attachment or false claim. 

"I am visiting the court today by Special Limited Visitation to exercise my right of subrogation in this matter and direct the court to enforce my right to exonerate my Good Name. I am owed legal subrogation as well as the lawful subrogation right and I am asking the Prosecutor to certify my right of subrogation and I am serving my Notice of Demand on and for the record for the court and the District of Attorney. It is my credit underlying the bond held by the Prosecutor and I request discharge of the claim and the reversal and dismissal of all Orders otherwise." 

So long as you haven't hurt a specific living being having first-hand knowledge of the issues and circumstance, they are obligated to do as you say. 

Just step forward and do it. Depriving the Prosecutors of their profit is a highly desirable and fun activity to pursue on a dark and wintry night. Remember to send your Notice of Claim and Demand to the District Attorney, the State Attorney General, the Clerk, the Prosecutor, and the Judge. 

Once you raise the issue of subrogation, the court has to stop and address it before any other proceedings. You just hold your ground no matter what they say or do --- "Your Honor, I have raised a bar to these proceedings and the issues must be addressed....." 

http://annavonreitz.com/whattheydowhatyoudo.pdf

The Short Explanation? 

By Anna Von Reitz 

You start out playing a game of Checkers, but in 1913, they changed to Parcheesi and didn't tell you anything about it. 

Then, in 1933, they changed to 3-D Chess and never said a word. 

And now, they are trying to change the game and the rules again, all without telling you anything. 

So there you are, Joe Schmoe, still proceeding according to the rules and assumptions of playing a game of Checkers, when the Rats are now playing Clue. 

This is called the "assumption of a normal course of business". 

When they advertise a "home loan" you naturally assume that they are proposing to loan you money to build or remodel a home, right? That would be "a normal course of business". 

But that is just your assumption. Because they have no money to loan and haven't had any money for decades. So what is actually going on here? 

They are proposing that you loan them your home as collateral backing their debts and investments. "Home loan"--- right? 

What if nobody ever tells you any different, and you just go on thinking that they have loaned you money, when in fact, they've given you a bunch of I.O.U's. and you have loaned them your home instead?  

They took "title" to your home and used your assets to raise capital which they used to pay their debts and make investments --- gave you a little bit of the gross receipts as credit equal to the amount of the "loan", and kept 9/10ths of the benefit for themselves. 

That is what has actually gone on here. 

Millions of Americans have unknowingly loaned the banks labor and assets and yes, their homes, in exchange for worthless I.O.U.'s that the banks then deliberately dishonored. 

That's what the foreclosure crisis is all about. You "loaned" them your house, instead of them loaning you anything. They then used your house as collateral to borrow money from investors, named you the "secondary" and co-signer for their loan and claimed that your house was their collateral ---- and absconded, leaving you to pay off their mortgage to their creditors. 

This is not "a normal course of business". This is not anything close to what you thought was going on. You were playing Checkers and they were playing Parcheesi. 

And now the filthy animals are trying to change the game again and set up another round. 

That is "whutsup".

http://annavonreitz.com/theshortexplanation.pdf

Statesmen Three! -- 

The 100 Billion Dollar Robbery 

By Anna Von Reitz 

OMG!!! 

Dedicated to the Victims of Plutocratic Usurpation -- The Oppressed and Downtrodden of America..... 

Everyone, quick ---- go online to this address: 

: https://books.google.com/books?id=74PZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Statesmen%20Three%20The %20%24100%20Billion%20Robbery&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiuHb9cbfAhUGRa0KHQ2nBXQQ6AEIKDAA&fbclid=IwAR2sU93ymWXUzVDi5Jex6BVEJyJcixk_iFoAqv_QcS FB6d0bEh2m-q0L8bo#v=onepage&q=Statesmen%20Three%20The%20%24100%20Billion %20Robbery&f=false 

And download and preserve this book!!!! 

Published in 1896, a Senator, a Judge, and a Colonel in the military secured all the records and analyzed the financial status of the country from 1812 forward. 

What they found is crucial information that every American should know and which all military and civilian leaders should know---- and take action to correct, even now, when the results of this uninterrupted crime spree have spread for over a hundred years and gone worldwide. 

This is one giant leap forward in the quest to nail down what happened to our country and what needs to be done now. 

I am concerned that once our enemies know the importance and content of this book by Archie Campbell Fisk, they will do what they have done before --- and seek to destroy the evidence. 

Go online and download your copy of the pdf and distribute it and archive it for posterity. 

http://annavonreitz.com/statesmanthree.pdf

also see her last short message titled,Why Subrogation Provides Relief, But Not Remedy....here

http://annavonreitz.com/subrogationreliefnotremedy.pdf

all of anna's archives are here

http://annavonreitz.com/

VICTOR ROTHSCHILD, SOVIET SPY

By Mark Hackard

The mystery of Lord Victor Rothschild’s (1910-1990) connections to Soviet intelligence has vexed researchers for over a half century now. As the scion of an ultra-wealthy banking house and confidante to Winston Churchill, Rothschild was an influential figure in Britain’s power elite for decades, occupying key positions in counterintelligence, the energy sector and strategic policy planning. But was he also the notorious Cambridge Spy Ring’s “Fifth Man,” a spy for Moscow who could access the crown jewels of UK secrets?

The Cambridge network – consisting of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross – has gone down in history as one of Soviet secret service’s most successful penetrations, to the shame of the British establishment. Long after their exposure, Rothschild was well-situated as a grey cardinal of UK politics, seemingly untouchable.

In 1994 investigative author Roland Perry wrote The Fifth Man, implicating Rothschild as a Soviet asset based on interviews with anonymous KGB veterans in Moscow. Yet Perry couldn’t obtain the direct proof he needed to clinch the case.[1] Now, new evidence has surfaced, suggesting that if not the Fifth Man, Rothschild was indeed working for Soviet foreign intelligence alongside the Cambridge Five from the 1930’s up to the initial stages of the Cold War. The source is none other than the first chairman of the KGB, General Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov (1905-1991).

An enforcer for Stalin and Khrushchev, General Ivan Serov served as the first chairman of the KGB from 1954 to 1958.

Ivan Serov was a physically brave and ruthless NKVD officer who specialized in mass deportations and quelling internal unrest under Stalin. In 1954 he was chosen to head the newly reconstituted state security apparatus, the KGB, by Nikita Khrushchev, who considered Serov reliable from their time in pre-war Ukraine. “Ivan the Terrible,” as the Western press christened him, led the KGB until 1958, when the Politburo sent him to head the GRU, Soviet military intelligence. Ousted in 1963 after the exposure of GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky as a CIA-MI6 agent, Serov was soon lowered in rank, excluded from the Party, and forced into retirement. Though relegated to oblivion, the cashiered Kremlin enforcer kept a diary – a fact that was known to the KGB as early as 1971. Serov concealed his writings within the walls of his Moscow dacha’s garage, and they were only discovered in 2012, some two decades after his death.

Serov’s diaries, published in Russian as Notes from the Suitcase (Zapiski iz chemodana), reveal a myriad of details on NKVD wartime deportation operations, the treacherous games played amongst Stalin’s lieutenants, and a first-hand account of how the Red Army crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. While Serov was not a professional intelligence officer, some of the most fascinating entries concern the espionage operations that he oversaw as chief of the KGB and GRU. And the question of Lord Victor Rothschild – whether he acted as a Soviet asset – is finally put to rest.

Serov describes meeting Rothschild while accompanying Khrushchev on his April 1956 visit to London:

I met with Victor Rothschild only once, at the embassy. This person was well-known from very long ago as an “heir” to the Philby affair and others. He knew perfectly well that these people, having certain inclinations, were connected to us, and used them to pass on information to Moscow, including false information.

Overall, useful ties with him ended with the formation of Israel.

As you remember, the British government was always against the creation of Israel, while Rothschild, to the contrary, aided this.

All materials on the Palestinian problem in the 1940’s and on the British position were received by our intelligence service in the 1930’s-40’s. After Burgess and Maclean’s escape, he only appeared at official receptions at our embassies and met with the ambassador, Mikoyan or Malenkov.

In London he made an unpleasant impression on me. He didn’t inspire trust. I’ve met many such hustlers in Bessarabia and Romania, as well as in Germany after the war.

The contact, according to the program of the visit and issues for discussions with the British, was interesting, of course. But Rothschild always pursued only his own goals. In his own way, Rothschild also compromised Philby and others. Ties with him put the information passed on by them in doubt.

We were helped by such solid, serious, moral and non-mercenary people who shared our views, such as Bernal, Ivor Montagu, and major scientists. Rothschild was just a fellow traveler.[2]

The ex-chairman of the KGB opens his passage with a stunning claim – Victor Rothschild not only knew of his school friends’ espionage, he actively supplied information to Moscow Center through their network[3]. Back in their Cambridge days, Rothschild, Burgess, and Blunt had all been members of the Apostles, a campus society characterized by Marxist intellectual speculation and homosexual activity. But as Serov makes clear, Rothschild the ‘fellow traveler’ was not under Soviet control. Rather, it is implied he was pursuing another aim entirely – the creation of a Jewish state, a family dream fulfilled in the aftermath of the Second World War. The role of the Rothschilds in founding Israel is undisputed[4]; the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was due largely to the energies of young Victor’s uncle, Lord Walter Rothschild[5]. Secret diplomacy, double-dealing, the use of spies, and even terrorism all formed an indispensable part of the drama. And now Serov’s revelation would suggest that by the end of the 1940’s, the Soviet Union had outlived its utility in the eyes of the legendary financial dynasty.

Stalin had been among the first to support the fledgling State of Israel; after all, the political spectrum of the new nation-state leaned heavily socialist, and a large portion of its immigrants had come from the Eastern Bloc. Armaments from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia helped tip the balance in favor of the Zionist cause during Israel’s War for Independence, what Palestinian Arabs rather less enthusiastically have termed anNaqbah, “The Catastrophe.” At the time of Israel’s formation, the Kremlin believed Ashkenazi settlers, refugees and emigres – some of whom had fought in or alongside the Red Army against Nazi Germany – would deal a blow to Western imperialism in the Middle East. As Serov’s entry indicates, Rothschild and the Cambridge network helped inform the Soviet leadership and perhaps further undermine Britain’s weakening grip on the Palestine Mandate[6].

Soviet hopes for a red stronghold on the Levant, however, would evaporate quickly.  Stalin was in firm command of international communism, but the Zionist movement proved well beyond his grasp. Events from the 1948 assassination of playwright and Jewish Antifascist Committee chair Solomon Mikhoels in Minsk to the Doctors’ Plot show that the “Father of All Nations” was unable to bring Zionism under his control. The postwar purge of prominent Jews in the Soviet Union conformed to Stalin’s standard practice of eliminating any and all perceived potential threats to his rule.

While Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion initially pursued a policy of balance between East and West[7], he came to steer his country toward the Atlantic alliance – Israel needed a dependable great-power patron with a wealthy and influential Jewish diaspora community, and the United States fit the bill. Less than a generation into Israel’s existence, under the Johnson Administration, Washington and Tel Aviv cemented extensive security cooperation (read: billions in arms contracts and economic aid) that continues to this day.

The Soviets would counter Israel’s westward shift by backing not only the dispossessed Palestinians, but also secular Arab states in the region such as Syria, Egypt, and eventually Iraq. In the context of the Cold War, it made sense for Israel to arrange intelligence sharing with Western powers, especially the United States. The CIA’s pointman for the Israeli relationship throughout the first half of the US-Soviet struggle was Company counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, who happened to be a longtime drinking friend and understudy of none other than Kim Philby.

The demise of the Cambridge Five, beginning with the flight of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean to Moscow in 1951, roughly coincided with Israel’s gradual but steady integration into the Western camp. Working in Washington as the MI6 liaison, Philby knew from the freshly-decrypted Venona intercepts that Maclean’s career as a Soviet agent (codename “Homer”) was coming to an end. He sent the debauched Burgess, who was also serving at the British Embassy and living in his house at the time, to warn Maclean and facilitate his escape. As it turned out, both Cambridge school mates vanished behind the Iron Curtain, leaving Philby under a dark cloud of suspicion and forcing his resignation. The master spy played it cool, laid low, and eventually made his way to Beirut five years later as an MI6 asset under journalistic cover (additionally re-establishing contact with the KGB).

Philby’s final unmasking in Beirut during the winter of 1962-63 was the result of Rothschild action, a fact that most accounts have passed over without critical analysis. While Anatoly Golitsyn, the KGB major who defected to the CIA in 1961, is popularly attributed to have confirmed Philby’s identity as a Soviet agent, it was Victor Rothschild who sealed his fate. The ostensible reason for the legendary mole’s exposure was his unfavorable attitude toward Israel, as conveyed on the pages of The Observer and The Economist. Flora Solomon, an ardent Zionist whom Philby unsuccessfully had attempted to recruit in the 1930’s, became incensed at his pro-Arab, anti-Israel journalistic slant and decided to reveal what she had known for decades. Solomon, whose son would found Amnesty International, reported Philby to a figure perched high in the British security establishment: Lord Victor Rothschild[8].

If Serov’s diary is genuine, then Rothschild would have no interest in Philby being brought back to the Old Bailey to stand trial, risking his own exposure. Much better to have the Cambridge Five’s brightest star spirited away to Moscow than spilling secrets of high criminality in the establishment. As MI6 was about to close in with a group of officers headed by old friend Nicholas Elliott, Philby received a warning[9]. Anthony Blunt, his spy days largely behind him and now ensconced as Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures, went to Beirut under the pretext of a botanical excursion in December of 1962, mere weeks before Philby’s escape. The documentary film maker George Carey notes he was ostensibly in search of the frog orchid, a flower that grows wild in England, yet nowhere in Lebanon[10]. So who sent Blunt, the KGB’s London residency or his longtime associate Victor Rothschild?

Moscow Center wouldn’t need to send Anthony Blunt all the way to Beirut to tip his old school friend off to the oncoming danger. Philby was already in contact with his immediate handler, a certain Petukhov stationed nearby under Soviet diplomatic cover, and Yuri Modin, his longtime control officer. Modin had in fact warned him of Golitsyn’s defection in the summer of 1962, instructing him “not to return to Britain because of the danger of arrest, and to make contingency plans for his escape.”[11] Modin himself thought that through its seeming incompetence, MI6 “had actively encouraged him to slip away.”[12] The most powerful elements of the British ruling class, personified by Victor Rothschild, wanted Philby safe and silent behind the Iron Curtain so that higher-level elite treachery would remain hidden from public view.

During his lifetime, Lord Victor Rothschild threatened to sue anyone into penury for claiming he had worked for Soviet intelligence. Hardly would he believe that one day, from the grave, the former chief of the KGB would expose him as a spy.

---

[1] Leitch, David. “Rothschild ‘spied as the Fifth Man.’” The Independent, 22 October 1994, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rothschild-spied-as-the-fifth-man-1444440.html.

[2] Serov, Ivan. Zapiski iz chemodana. Ed. Aleksandr Khinshtein. Moscow: Olma Media Group, 2016, pp. 543-544.

[3] The late Stanislav Lekarev, a veteran of the KGB First Chief Directorate who had worked in London, claims that Rothschild was first contacted by Soviet intelligence in August of 1934 at a symphony. His recruiter was supposedly the illegal Theodore Mally (“Otto”). Lekarev posits that Rothschild was not an agent in the ordinary operational sense, but rather was handled as a high-level agent of influence.

Lekarev, Stanislav. “Baron Viktor Rotshil’d: Istoriia sponsora kembridzhskoi piaterki.” Argumenty nedeli, 1 Feb. 2007. http://argumenti.ru/espionage/n40/33679.

[4] “History.” Yan Hanadiv, http://www.yadhanadiv.org.il/general-page/history. Accessed March 21, 2018.

[5] “Walter Rothschild and the Balfour Declaration.” The Rothschild Archive, https://www.rothschildarchive.org/contact/faqs/walter_rothschild_and_the_balfour_declaration. Accessed March 26, 2018.

[6] Hines, Nico. “How Secret Russian Spy Kim Philby Helped Set Up Israel.” The Daily Beast, 6 May 2017, https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-russian-mole-and-the-fight-for-the-promised-land.

[7] Shlaim, Avi. “Israel between East and West, 1948-1956.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36:4, November 2004, 657-673.

[8] Weiss, Philip. “Kim Philby’s last straw.” Mondoweiss.net, 23 May 2015, http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/philbys-last-straw/.

[9] Carey, George. “Kim Philby: The spy who went into the cold.” BBC News, 18 Nov. 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24803131.

[10] Norton-Taylor, Richard. “Was Philby tipped off before defection to Moscow?” The Guardian, 14 Nov. 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/nov/14/mi6-mi5.

[11] McIntyre, Ben. A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal. London: Crown Publishers, 2014, p. 242.

[12] Ibid, p. 277.

https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/2018/03/27/victor-rothschild-soviet-spy/#more-1354

First Uranium One case going to trial, other three copped pleas

Mark Lambert is charged with bribery, money laundering, and internet fraud in one of four related cases involving Uranium One.

He has already rejected two plea deals.

Lambert owns and operates a distillery. On his LinkedIn internet resume, Lambert admits he worked as an intelligence analyst for the Department of Defense.

Uranium One resulted in the sale of 25 percent of America’s uranium resources to Russia.

And $145 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation, according to Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Now the U.S. buys uranium from Russian. The amount is enough to fuel 10 percent of America’s electric power.

The article below is from Pravda. It is owned and controlled by the Russian government.

http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0/

No trial date has been set in the criminal matter of Mark Lambert.

The Judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys have already discussed and planned for a three week trial.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys told the judge last month that Justice Department records in this case are gibberish, unable to be deciphered, or read.

https://www.scribd.com/document/395975259/Mark-Tutt-Lambert-Status-Conference-Dated-Sept-3rd-2018-33-Pages

According to the court’s condition of release, Lambert may travel anywhere in the Continental U.S.

He is a free man.

No bond is necessary.

Firearms must be surrendered.

https://www.scribd.com/document/395976814/Mark-T-Lambert-s-court-s-conditions-of-release-dated-Jan-12th-2018-It-is-three-pages

Pacer is the official record of the federal courts

Defendants in three of the Uranium One cases have already plead guilty to bribery, money laundering, and fraud.

Only Mark Lambert is going to trial.

The Trial Judge is Theodore D. Huang. He was a classmate of President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School. Judge Huang ruled that President Donald J. Trump’s immigration ban unconstitutional.

The other federal judge who struck down Trump’s travel ban was Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii.

Huang and Watson worked together in the Justice Department before their appointment to the court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/travel-ban-blocked.html

Mark T. Lambert

These are the four related cases involving Uranium One. They are cited on the Justice Department’s web site.

http://fcpa.stanford.edu/enforcement-action.html?id=583

All the above Uranium One cases were filed and heard in the U.S. District Court of Maryland.

Rod Rosenstein (above), Deputy Attorney General

Rod “Rosenstein supervised the Uranium One investigation”, said Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398656

As Deputy Attorney General, Rosenstein is second in command at the Justice Department.

Prior to that, Rosenstein headed the Justice Department’s Office in Maryland from July 12, 2005 to April 24th, 2017.

“We must make sure that these documents (about Uranium One) that have been hidden are brought forward,” said Gohmert.

Uranium One was approved on Oct. 22nd, 2010.

Rosenstein told Congress that the first Uranium One case was filed on July 7th, 2014.

If no prosecutions existed prior to Uranium One, where was the evidence on why the deal was corrupt and should be stopped?

According to Charles Doyle, Acting Law Librarian of Congress at the U.S, Library of Congress, the time to prosecute certain federal crimes could be extended from five to ten years.

In the case of Uranium One, Rosenstein’s office went back to 2004 to prosecute them.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

https://www.loc.gov/law/

Here is one Uranium case starting in 2004. It is a Justice Department record.

Please scroll down 21 pages to “Appendix A” in this link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/395932828/Transport-Logistics-46-page-deferred-prosecution-agreement-pdf

The next 14 pages are facts that the Justice Department has agreed are true in court.

The bribery scheme is detailed in 18 examples, all prior to the approval of Uranium One. All say that the District of Maryland had the records.

And this is in just one of the four Uranium One cases.

The Uranium One deal was “a long-running scheme” by “high-level executives”, according to the Justice Department.

The documents also say that Mark T. Lambert was an owner and executive of Transport Logistics from August 1998 to September 2016.

As Managing Partner, Lambert ran the business.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1216/ML12165A411.pdf

William Douglas Campbell was an owner and executive of Transport Logistics from 1998 to December 2009.

From 2010 to 2011, Campbell was no longer an employee. He was self-employed working as a lobbyist for Tenex. It is a subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian government’s nuclear agency.

Campbell’s role was bagman, the guy who collected and paid some of the bribes.

The Justice Department admits Campbell was a co-conspirator in the bribe scheme starting in 2009. However, court documents show the bribes started March 16th, 2005 and continued to Oct. 1st, 2014.

Campbell said he called the FBI as soon as he became aware of the bribery scheme which was in Nov. 27th, 2009.

The FBI, however, had another informant.

How else could they have known about bribes dating back to 2004?

http://fcpa.stanford.edu/fcpac/documents/4000/003144.pdf

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-CLINTON-INFORMANT/010051PX3W7/document.pdf

Rosenstein knew.

From the George Webb Channel on YouTube broadcast this morning.

Please fast forward video to 37:35 for details of Mark Lambert’s travels to Iran in 2002.

Daughters are fluent in Farsi (Pakistani).

So is their father, Mark.

Their Mom is Russian.

Mark Lambert (above) in his distillery

Mark Lambert in stocks at his distillery.

George Webb at Dragon Distillery. He confirmed Mark Lambert is fluent in Arabic and is from Cincinnati, Ohio.

Yevgeny Adamov, Russian nuclear physicist (above)

Andrew G. McCabe, former acting Director of the FBI

Harry the Greek

https://brassballs.blog/?author=59839ac4414fb5bec61d9b4a

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.