United tribal alliance

[listeningeagle]

Can anyone find anything good about this organization. I have been doing research on The Many Horses Foundation. Gary Adler Fourstar is a treaties chief for the united tribal alliance. The uta says they are forming a new nation with its own central banking system. The president, Violet Gail Eldridge, has been involved in a scam that bilked millions from investors. She said that the Government was trying to take control of the central banking system away from the natives. She also said that the case against her was in retaliation for her providing information about the BCCI banking scandal and the roseud files. Im very familier with the bcci scandal, but not the rosebud files. Does anyone know what the rosebud files are.   

[educatedindian]

We have a previous thread in here on Adler.

The UTA's website.
http://www.theuta.org/modules/about_uta/

While claiming 72 nations allied with them by 15 treaties, I don't see either the nations or treaties listed. Its main project seems to be tribal banks, which they say they have a team working on. I don't see anyone listed as their board, leaders, anything.

Their official gift shop.
http://www.thetribeshop.com/main/

A walk they sponsored in Georgia.
http://environment.meetup.com/298/?gj=sj6

Many Horses Foundation
http://www.manyhorses.org/

Sweats that MHF and Adler sponsor.
http://www.enota.com/Events.htm

There is a group with an identical name but different people that Maori activists are calling a fraud and a scam.
http://maorinews.com/scams/kohuiarau.htm

This is the case involving Eldridge, the UTA, and the feds. Important points have arrows added.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20052.htm
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20052 / March 23, 2007
SEC v. Violet Gail Eldridge and UTA-BVI, Ltd., Defendants, and The United Tribes of the Americas Inc. and Executive Bureau of Research and Recovery, Inc., Relief Defendants, No. 05-0735 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Georgia)
On March 21, 2006, the Honorable Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission and against Defendants Violet Gail Eldridge ("Eldridge") and UTA-BVI, Ltd. ("UTA-BVI") and Relief Defendants The United Tribes of the Americas, Inc. and Executive Bureau of Research and Recovery, Inc. (collectively "Relief Defendants"). The Court found that UTA-BVI violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2), and that Eldridge, who served as a director and trustee of UTA-BVI, aided and abetted UTA-BVI's violations.

>>>The Court also found that the Relief Defendants received ill-gotten gains to which they have no legitimate claim.

The Court found that UTA-BVI was an investment adviser because it exercised control over the assets of First National Equity, LLC ("FNE") and P.K. Trust & Holding, Inc. ("P.K.T.") and decided to invest those assets in securities. Moreover, the Court found that UTA-BVI was in the business of providing investment advice to FNE and P.K.T, did so for an extended period of time and was to be compensated for its services rendered, as evidenced by Trust Management Agreements UTA-BVI entered into with FNE and P.K.T.

The Court found that UTA-BVI, through Eldridge, violated the Advisers Act by making transfers of funds entrusted to it by FNE and P.K.T. for the benefit of Eldridge and the Relief Defendants.

>>>The Court found that funds were used for a variety of purposes not in the best interest of FNE and P.K.T., including
>>>for transfers to Eldridge and the Relief Defendants and
>>>for credit card payments, hotels, restaurants, retail purchases, rent and other payments and transfers. The Court found that Eldridge aided and abetted UTA-BVI's violations by directing these transfers from UTA-BVI's brokerage accounts.

In granting the Commission's motion for summary judgment, the Court ruled that UTA-BVI should be permanently enjoined from future violations of the Advisers Act and that Eldridge should be permanently enjoined from aiding and abetting future violations of the Advisers Act. The Court will set amounts of disgorgement and civil penalties at an evidentiary hearing set for a later date.

For additional information concerning this matter, see Litigation Release No. 19146 (March 18, 2005).

[educatedindian]

The original case filing mentioned by the feds.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19146.htm
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 19146 / March 18, 2005
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Violet Gail Eldridge and UTA-BVI, Ltd., Defendants, and The United Tribes of the Americas Inc. and Executive Bureau of Research and Recovery, Inc., Relief Defendants, No. 05-0735 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Georgia)
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today that it filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Defendants Violet Gail Eldridge ("Eldridge") and UTA-BVI, Ltd. ("UTA-BVI") and Relief Defendants The United Tribes of the Americas, Inc. and Executive Bureau of Research and Recovery, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Eldridge and UTA-BVI, which she controlled,
>>>misappropriated at least $2 million from two investment advisory clients.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in 1999 UTA-BVI, acting through Eldridge, entered into written trust agreements with two entities named First National Equity, LLC ("First National Equity") and P.K. Trust & Holding Inc. ("P.K. Trust"). After signing the trust agreements, First National Equity and P.K. Trust transferred $24 million into securities brokerage accounts Eldridge controlled in the name of UTA-BVI. Under the terms of the trust agreements UTA-BVI, through Eldridge, agreed to invest the money received from First National Equity and P.K. Trust in the best interest of those two clients. However,

>>>instead of investing the funds for the benefit of First National Equity and P.K. Trust, Eldridge and UTA-BVI misappropriated at least $2 million of the funds by paying personal expenses for Eldridge and by transferring funds to several bank accounts, including accounts Eldridge controlled in the names of the Relief Defendants.

First National Equity and P.K. Trust, along with others, are defendants in an action the Commission previously filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In that case, the Commission alleges that First National Equity, P.K. Trust and others fraudulently raised the $24 million in funds deposited with UTA-BVI and Eldridge. Eldridge and UTA-BVI were initially defendants in that action but were dismissed, without prejudice, on venue grounds. The Commission's allegations against UTA-BVI and Eldridge in the new action pending in the Northern District of Georgia mirror the allegations first alleged in the Indiana action, namely that UTA-BVI, acting through Eldridge, was an investment adviser and violated its fiduciary duty to its clients by misappropriating client funds; by transferring client funds for its and Eldridge's benefit, in violation of the trust agreements and without notice to or authorization from its clients; and by knowingly misrepresenting the uses it would make of client funds.

The Commission's Complaint alleges that UTA-BVI violated Section 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act") and that Eldridge aided and abetted UTA-BVI's violations of the Advisers Act. The Complaint also alleges that Relief Defendants The United Tribes of the Americas Inc. and Executive Bureau of Research and Recovery received ill-gotten gains to which they have no legitimate claim. The SEC's Complaint requests that the Court permanently enjoin UTA-BVI and Eldridge from the securities law violations alleged, order both UTA-BVI and Eldridge to pay a civil penalty, and order UTA-BVI and Eldridge, along with the Relief Defendants, to disgorge, with pre-judgment interest, all ill-gotten gains.

[educatedindian]

Another court case they had. They only escaped judgement because they were brought before the wrong jursidiction.


http://207.41.16.152/opinions/AMF130O1.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
IP 03-1513-C B/S US SEC v MontanaJudge Sarah Evans BarkerSigned on 2/15/05NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN PRINTUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANAINDIANAPOLIS DIVISIONUNITED STATES SECURITIES AND )EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ))Plaintiff, )vs. ) NO. 1:03-cv-01513-SEB-VSS)JOHN L. MONTANA JR., )MELVIN R. LYTTLE, )PAUL E. KNIGHT, )VIOLET GAIL ELDRIDGE, )WORLDWIDE T & P, INC., )FIRST NATIONAL EQUITY, LLC, )P.K. TRUST & HOLDING, INC., )UTA-BVI, LTD., )THE UNITED TRIBES OF THE )AMERICAS, INC., )EXECUTIVE BUREAU OF RESEARCH )AND RECOVERY, INC., ))Defendants. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANAINDIANAPOLIS DIVISIONUNITED STATES SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION,Plaintiff,vs.JOHN L. MONTANA, JR., MELVIN R. LYTTLE,PAUL E. KNIGHT,VIOLET GAIL ELDRIDGE,WORLDWIDE T&P, INC.,FIRST NATIONAL EQUITY, LLC,P.K. TRUST & HOLDING, INC., andUTA-BVI, LTD.,Defendants,andTHE UNITED TRIBES OF THE AMERICAS,INC. and EXECUTIVE BUREAU OF RESEARCH ANDRECOVERY, INC.,Relief Defendants.)))))1:03-CV-1513-SEB-VSS)))))))))))))))))))))ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS UTA-BVI, LTD. AND VIOLET GAIL ELDRIDGEAND RELIEF DEFENDANTS UNITED TRIBES OF THE AMERICAS, INC. ANDEXECUTIVE BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND RECOVERY, INC.'S MOTION TODISMISSThis matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants UTA-BVI, LTD. ("UTA-BVI???) and Violet Gail Eldridge ("Eldridge???) and Relief Defendants, theUnited Tribes of the Americas, Inc. ("United Tribes???), as well as Executive Bureau of Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
-2-and Recovery, Inc.'s ("Executive Bureau???) (collectively the "Moving Defendants???) directedtowards Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (the "SEC???) claims alleging that the Moving Defendants violated the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the"Advisers Act???), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-1 et seq. In two counts, the SEC claims that UTA-BVI, withthe assistance of Eldridge, knowingly, willingly or recklessly defrauded its clients, in violationof the Advisers Act. The Moving Defendants moved to dismiss these claims under Rules12(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6), F.R.Civ. P., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personaljurisdiction, improper venue, and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons explained below,we agree venue is improper and to that extent GRANT Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.BACKGROUND On October 14, 2003, the SEC filed an action against four individuals and four entities for their involvement in various schemes relating to the fraudulent sale of approximately $30million in investment contract securities to approximately 29 investors in several states. TheComplaint alleges that from August 1999 until April 2000, Defendants John L. Montana, Jr.("Montana???), Melvin R. Lyttle ("Lyttle???), and Paul E. Knight ("Knight???) sold interests in a banktrading program which purported to invest money in the trading of various instruments includingmedium term notes (the "Trading Program???). Montana, Lyttle and Knight raised funds for theTrading Program through the entities that they controlled: Lyttle's First National Equity, LLC("First National Equity???), Knight's P.K. Trust & Holding, Inc. ("P.K. Trust???) and Montana'sWorldwide T&P, Inc. ("Worldwide T&P???). The SEC contends that Montana, Lyttle and Knighttold investors that they could earn significant returns risk-free through the Trading Program. Approximately $24 million of the investor funds raised by Montana, Lyttle and Knight were
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
1The trust agreements did not include provisions discussing, for example, a return oninvestor funds, the security of investor funds or any of the assurances that Montana, Lyttle andKnight had given to investors. -3-transferred to UTA-BVI, a British Virgin Islands corporation. The SEC asserts that, in turn, UTA-BVI and Eldridge ("Eldridge???), President of UTA-BVI, defrauded First National Equity and P.K. Trust. The alleged fraud was perpetrated through"trust management agreements,??? whereby UTA-BVI agreed to serve as trustee over the $24million in investor funds transferred to it from First National Equity and P.K. Trust. Under thetrust agreements, UTA-BVI was to receive compensation for services rendered plus a 0.50%participation fee in the profits generated from the trust property. Additionally, the trustagreements identified First National Equity and P.K. Trust as beneficiaries of the trust andprovided that UTA-BVI would manage the trust funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries. TheSEC asserts that the only investment instruction provided by the trust agreements was that UTA-BVI was to either hold uninvested trust property or invest trust property in any manner deemedin the best interest of the trust.1The SEC contends that UTA-BVI used its discretionary authority under the trustagreements to distribute the $24 million in investor funds among several UTA-BVI brokerageaccounts controlled by Eldridge and gave sole trading authority to a broker who used the fundsto engage in highly leveraged stock trading in margin accounts. The Complaint alleges thatinstead of managing the funds for the benefit of First National Equity and P.K. Trust, UTA-BVIused the trust funds to pay Eldridge's personal expenses and transferred funds to several bankaccounts including ones she controlled in the name of the Relief Defendants, United Tribes andExecutive Bureau, who the SEC asserts had no right to receive these funds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
-4-Legal AnalysisA.Subject Matter Jurisdiction.Moving Defendants seek to dismiss this action with respect to themselves only. Beforewe consider the issues of personal jurisdiction and venue, we address the Moving Defendants'challenge to this court's subject matter jurisdiction. Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 324 (7thCir.1998) (finding that "t is axiomatic that a federal court must assure itself that it possessesjurisdiction over the subject matter of an action before it can proceed to take any actionrespecting the merits of the action???). The Moving Defendants argue that this court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction because the SEC has failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute a violationof the Advisers Act.In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), we accept astrue all material allegations of the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff'sfavor. Retired Chicago Police Assoc. v. City of Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 1996). Theplaintiff, here the SEC, bears the burden of establishing that it meets the required elements ofstanding. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). The Advisers Act confersjurisdiction on the district courts of the United States to resolve "all suits in equity and actions atlaw brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of thissubchapter or the rules, regulations, or orders thereunder.??? 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14. To determinesubject matter jurisdiction, therefore, we examine the Complaint to determine whether it hasadequately pled a violation of the Advisers Act; in this case we conclude it has. Moving Defendants assertion that the Advisers Act does not apply to them as trustees isunavailing. We agree with the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Abrahamson v. Fleschner that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
2The Second Circuit found that several provisions of the Advisers Act "reflect the factthat many investment advisers 'advise' their customers by exercising control over whatpurchases and sales are made with their clients' funds.??? Id.3We also find that the facts alleged in the Complaint, if true, indicate UTA-BVI andEldridge acted knowingly and with scienter.-5-"the SEC Report, together with the House and Senate Reports, make it clear that [in the AdvisersAct] Congress intended to reach persons who receive compensation for investing funds of theirclients. 568 F.2d 862, 871 (2d Cir. 1977).2The allegations in the Complaint indicate that thetrust arrangement between UTA-BVI and National Equity Trust and P.K. Trust was establishedto allow UTA-BVI to manage and invest the funds of National Equity Trust and P.K. Trust andthat UTA-BVI would receive compensation for performing this service. Consequently, thisrelationship falls within the type of arrangements that Congress intended to conclude under theAdvisers Act. See Id. The Complaint also alleges that by diverting funds from the trust forpersonal use, UTA-BVI/Eldridge violated their duty to manage the trust funds for the benefit ofFirst National Equity and P.K. Trust, thus committing fraud under the Advisers Act.3Accordingly, we find that the Complaint adequately pleads violations of the Advisers Act withrespect to UTA-BVI and Eldridge, effectively establishing our subject matter jurisdiction overthis dispute.B.Venue.We next address whether the Southern District of Indiana constitutes a proper judicialvenue in which the SEC can bring charges under the Advisers Act against UTA-BVI andEldridge. To determine proper venue, we first look to the language of the Advisers Act, whichprovides that a civil suit "may be brought [in the district wherein any act or transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
4The Advisers Act venue provision is nearly identical to the venue provisions of theInvestment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-43, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 78aa, and the meaning of the phrase, "wherein any act or transaction constituting theviolation occurred??? has been construed to be the same in all the Acts. Abramson v. INA CapitalManagement Corp., 459 F. Supp. 917, 919 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1978) (Citing Zorn v. Anderson, 263F.Supp. 745, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)). Accordingly, we look for guidance in the cases interpretingthis same language in the Securities Exchange Act. Id.-6-constituting the violation occurred] or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant ortransacts business.??? 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14.4As there are no allegations that Moving Defendants either inhabit or transact business inthe Southern District of Indiana, venue in this district is proper only if "an act or transactionconstituting the violation occurred??? in this district. Under the Advisers Act, all that is necessaryto confer venue on a district court is one act or transaction "within the district which representsmore than an immaterial part of the allegedly illegal events.??? Securities and ExchangeCommission v. Diversified Industries, Inc., 465 F.Supp. 104, 111 (D.D.C. 1979) (citingSecurities and Exchange Commission v. National Student Mktg. Corp., 360 F.Supp. 284, 293(D.D.C.1973)). Proper venue can also be established through the acts of co-conspirators suchthat "any allegation of a securities act violation is sufficient for venue purposes even as to adefendant who did not commit an act within the district if that defendant is in league with adefendant who did act within the district.??? Levin v. Great Western Sugar Co., 274 F.Supp. 974,978 (D.N.J. 1967) (emphasis added) (citing Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Co. of Ridgewood,New Jersey, 226 F.Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Clapp v. Stearns & Co., 229 F.Supp. 305(S.D.N.Y. 1964); Townsend Corp. of America v. Davidson, 222 F.Supp. 1 (D.N.J.1963);Dauphin Corp. v. Redwall Corp., 201 F.Supp. 466 (D.Del.1962)); see also Securities andExchange Commission v. Wallace, 94 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2000) (affirming that "any
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
5Also, Lyttle's company, First National Equity, is an Indiana corporation.6Montana's Worldwide T&P, Lyttle's First National Equity, and Knight's P.K. Trust.-7-material act committed by one defendant . . . in furtherance of a multi-defendant fraudulentscheme satisfies venue under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to all defendants whetheror not the other defendants ever committed a violation in the district???).Since the Complaint omits any allegation of an act committed within the SouthernDistrict of Indiana which was a material part of the scheme by UTA-BVI /Eldridge to defraudFirst National Equity and P.K. Trust, the only basis on which this district constitutes propervenue with respect to the Moving Defendants is through the co-conspirator theory. The SECargues that venue is proper because defendant Lyttle resides in the Southern District5and,through the co-conspirator theory, acts committed by Lyttle can establish venue with respect tothe Moving Defendants. The Moving Defendants argue that the Complaint does not indicate thatUTA-BVI/Eldridge were ever "in league??? with any of the other defendants, including Lyttle, andtherefore on the face of the pleading the co-conspirator theory is not applicable in this case. Weagree with the Moving Defendants' analysis.The Complaint reveals that, between and among the separate groups of defendants, therewas no overarching scheme to defraud investors; instead, the Complaint alleges that there weretwo distinct fraudulent schemes. The first scheme involves efforts by Montana, Lyttle, andKnight, through their respective companies,6to defraud investors. The second schemeimplicates UTA-BVI and Eldridge in defrauding First National Equity and P.K. Trust. TheComplaint contains no allegations that the Moving Defendants conspired or were "in league???with the other defendants with respect to either scheme; indeed, it appears that the defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
7The SEC, paradoxically, appears to the argue that the Moving Defendants were "inleague??? with the other defendants, essentially claiming that Lyttle/First National Equity Trustconspired with the Moving Defendants to defraud First National Equity. See Pl.'s Surreply Briefat 4. This novel argument turns the concept of fraud on its head. See United States v. Bates, 96F.3d 964, 969 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that to "act with the intent to defraud means to act withan intent to deceive or cheat someone, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial lossto another or bringing about some financial gain to oneself???) (citation omitted). 8The Complaint explains: "The two phases of this scheme were united through the use ofinvestor funds. Most of the investor funds solicited by Montana, Lyttle, and Knight ended up atbrokerage accounts in the name of UTA-BVI and controlled by Eldridge.??? Compl. ¶ 29.9The Complaint makes clear that under the trust agreement between UTA-BVI and FirstNational Equity/P.K. Trust the funds that UTA-BVI and Eldridge allegedly mismanaged were"owned by First National Equity and P.K. Trust and not by the investors who had provided thefunds to First National Equity and P.K. Trust for investment.??? Compl. ¶ 46. -8-from the first fraudulent scheme were, in turn, defrauded by the Moving Defendants in thesecond scheme.7Indeed, the Complaint acknowledges that the two schemes were separate andonly related to each other through the tenuous connection of the funds that were allegedlyembezzled during each scheme having been taken from the same investors.8The link betweenthese two schemes, as argued by the SEC – that the common thread is the investors' funds – iseven more attenuated in light of the fact that the investors, themselves, were not the victims ofthe second scheme.9Under these facts, we conclude there is no basis for applying the co-conspirator theory to establish venue over the Moving Defendants. We conclude that theComplaint contains no allegations of acts or transactions taking place in the Southern District ofIndiana which constitute a material part of the purported scheme by UTA-BVI/Eldridge todefraud First National Equity and P.K. Trust and, therefore, proper venue over the claims againstthe Moving Defendants does not lie here. ConclusionBecause the Southern District of Indiana is not a proper venue to resolve the claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
10Because we grant the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of improper venue, we decline toaddress the other grounds for dismissal raised by the Moving Defendants.-9-against the Moving Defendants, we GRANT the Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss withoutprejudice.10Date: SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGEUnited States District CourtSouthern District of IndianaCopy to:John E. BirkenheierSECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSIONbirkenheierj@sec.govSteven Lee KlawansUS SECURITIES & EXCHANGECOMMISSIONklawanss@sec.govBoris ParadPARAD LAW OFFICES P.C.goto@paradfirm.comJason YonanUNITED STATES SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSIONyonanj@sec.govPAUL E. KNIGHT917 Palmer CourtKodak, TN 37764MELVIN R. LYTTLEFIRST NATIONAL EQUITY, LLC502 Fifth StreetP.O. Box 007Aurora, IN 47001-0007PAUL E. KNIGHT917 Palmer CourtKodak, TN 37764
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
-10-

[educatedindian]

There are two different claims of what some call the Rosebud Files, some related to the war, others related to Peltier's case.


http://homepage.mac.com/karsten/Tech%20Ramblings/C1449323645/E20050702013220/index.html

I hereby dub this latest CIA intelligence fiasco The Rosebud Files. As you may have heard, the Bush Administration is having a wee amount of difficulty finding a single drop of biological weapons or a single artillery shell of chemical weapons in Iraq....Desperate for political cover amid this dearth of dastardly destructive devices, the CIA has found a figurative fig leaf of said cover literally under the rosebushes of Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi . He had something to trade with the U.S. officials: six or seven components manufactured in the construction of an experimental gas centrifuge - a machine used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons - and detailed designs for the machine that he had buried in his rose garden 12 years ago on the orders of Hussein's son Qusay.

But just as quickly as Obeidi's, ahem, components of mass destruction have been unearthed, they've been buried again...

The White House wasted no time citing the Obeidi finds as proof of WMD activity by Iraq - which, of course, it is, though at a threat level considerably below what some might think would necessitate a military invasion halfway around the world. You need thousands of these machines running fulltime for years in a major industrial plant , not a can of decade-old prototype parts, to enrich uranium to weapons grade. "What's notable is that this case illustrates the extreme challenge that the world community faces in Iraq as we search for evidence of WMD programs that were designed to elude detection by international inspectors," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said from the White House Press Room, not the White House Rose Garden . He provided no estimate of how many Iraqi rose gardens would now have to be dug up by American military forces in the coming months and years to assure our national security from dangerous foreign technology.

In the meantime, the Administration and CIA were so eager to show off to the world their figurative fig leaf, er, cache of components of mass destruction that they forgot that it's information, not hardware, that is truly dangerous. After posting an official statement concerning the Obeidi find on the CIA website ( mirrored here on the Federation of American Scientists website), somebody remembered, Oh, we're pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war over these exact same devices being built by the Iranians and North Koreans; perhaps we might not ought to show them pictures of similar Iraqi components of mass destruction, or they might learn a thing or two they didn't already know before...

So, the CIA pulled the Rosebud files and photos off its site, but not before everybody on the Internet had already made a copy-- including SciScoop; check 'em out below. We'll let you know whether our log files show downloads into Iran or North Korea before the FBI makes us take our copies off the SciScoop server.

-----

The pg notes in brackets are from the site's author. The claims of Janklow being a rapist are heavily disputed, but his role as an NDN hating racist willing to bend or break the law to go after AIM is well documented.

http://www.geocities.com/standingdeer1/peltier.htm
"AIM countered Janklow's offensive when organizational officer Douglas Durham "discovered" the old Rosebud files. AIM leader Dennis Banks secured the filing of charges and brought the case before Rosebud tribal judge Mario Gonzales. Durham, meanwhile, had located Jancita Eagle Deer in Iowa, where she had resided since dropping out of school and leaving the reservation.

[pg note: Neither Matthiessen nor anyone else ever asked me about this; I'm the one who investigated the Jancita matter. Jancita bore an illegitimate son to Janklow, Janklow arranged his adoption by a white Iowa family. In 1989, the boy--who, despite his dark skin and hair facially resembles pictures of the young Janklow--repudiated his rapist-biological father and expressed the wish to be an Indian.]

Durham was able to persuade Eagle Deer to return to Rosebud to testify at the upcoming trial. Janklow refused to enter tribal jurisdiction to answer the charges. Gonzales then issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of rape and obstruction of justice. Durham and Eagle Deer apparently became lovers. (In any event she became her traveling companion.) [pg note: it would be more appropriate to say Durham served as her pimp, with Jancita in forced servitude to him.]. Janklow won his election bid on November 2.

In his new capacity as Attorney General, Janklow intensified his campaign against AIM, focusing his most lethal attentions upon Dennis Banks (who had showcased the charges) rather than upon Durham (who had brought them up and steadily pursued them). "The only way to deal with Dennis Banks is with a bullet between the eyes.&Quot Regardless of his political stance, Janklow is a trained attorney possessed with the usual legalistic logic. His omission of Durham from his personal "hit list" particularly given Durham's relationship to Jancita Eagle Deer (the one witness who could link him concretely to the rape charge), seemed odd at the time. It was soon to seem less so.

It was during the January, 1975 AIM occupation of the Alexian Brothers Abbey in Wisconsin that it came out that Durham was a paid ($1,000 per month cash) FBI informant. [pg: Well, AIM knew it them, I drove him away from the Shawano Motel where he was doing press relations and meeting with local vigilante groups, but it wasn't publicly revealed until the following March.] As head of AIM Security, Durham had been privy to many of the private defense team meetings during the so-called "Wounded Knee Leadership" trials of Banks, Means, and other AIM leaders, despite prosecution assurances--provoked by direct questions from the trial judge--that the defense team had not been infiltrated by government agents.

Although Banks and Means were acquitted at this trial, it remains true that no effort has ever been made to bring the prosecutors or responsible FBI officials to court on what amounted to flagrant perjury and contempt of court (as well as obviously attempting to deliberately cause miscarriages of justice).

[pg note: A few days after the conclusion of the St. Paul trial, the Justice Department gave prosecutors Hurd and Gienapp outstanding achievement awards in fact.]

Meanwhile, Durham essentially dropped out of sight--with Jancita in tow. [pg: No. He sent her to South Dakota to mingle where he no longer could.] In March, 1975, Eagle Deer was found dead alongside a road in central Nebraska. While the state police report listed cause of death as being "hit and run" even their autopsy report indicated she had been beaten sometime prior to having been run over.

[pg note: This is entirely wrong. Jancita was struck while walking uncertainly in the center of the road by a 17-year-old son of a local wealthy farmer. I interviewed the coroner, state police and others on this matter, both as a followup on Durham and in support of a lawsuit brought by Jancita's mother-in-law on behalf of her 4-year-old daughter. Coroner told me she might have been beaten or flung from a fast-moving car--I had established Durham picked her up earlier that day in South Dakota, driving his father's old blue Chevvy--but it was presumed she was drunk. No blood alcohol was done on her. Local efforts actually were bent toward protecting the 2 drunken farm boys whose car had struck her. They reported the accident from a nearby farmhouse. Hit and run wasn't involved, the only real question is whether she jumped or was pushed from the moving car driven by Durham. The insurance claim was unsuccessful in joining Durham to the cause of action.]

Durham was never questioned in the matter of his companion's death.

[pg note: Not true: I questioned him as extensively as I dared to in May of 1975, before he took off to Dallas, Texas, where he is living now, and continuing to work for other agencies of the U.S. government--the FBI were never his only employers.]

Durham was called as the sole witness before a House Internal Security Subcommittee investigating AIM in the summer of 1975. There he provided "evidence" that AIM was a "terrorist" organization, then went on a lecture tour for the John Birch Society during the winter of '75-'76.

[pg note: His tour had an odd itinerary--around towns by every major Indian reservation in the U.S. Durham's talk identified AIM as &communist sponsored" as well as terrorist. Durham also masterminded local incidents such as the shooting of AIM member Jerry Roy and the burning of AIM's files at the White Earth reservation, while speaking to John Birchers at Bemidji.]

Janklow, freed of the spectre of Eagle Deer's possible testimony against him, proceeded to secure a conviction of Dennis Banks--before an all-white western South Dakota jury--on "riot" charges stemming from a police assault on AIM in Custer, SD in January, 1973. Faced with a prison sentence in Janklow's tender care, Banks went underground. When he surfaced again, it was in California, where the circumstances surrounding his case were deemed odorous enough to warrant Governor Jerry Brown's granting of sanctuary from extradition to South Dakota.

As Matthiessen makes abundantly clear in his epic sifting of the facts, it is against the backdrop of such circumstances that the case of Leonard Peltier--indeed of AIM itself--must be understood and assessed."

[frederica]

One thing that confuses me about the United Tribal Alliance Banking system is they say they are using a currency that is secure and independent from all others. Doesn't the Treasury Dept. frown on that sort of thing. All the Nations in the  U.S. are considered sovereign but they cannot create their own money. What am I missing here?   frederica

[listeningeagle]

I think The UTA that Maori activist are calling a scam and the one Eldridge is president are the same organazation..

[educatedindian]

Technically anyone can print their own money, as long as you make it clear you are not trying to duplicate US or other national currency. The hard part is getting people to accept it as exchange for goods. Some small towns experimented with printing their own money in the Great Depression, the idea being to keep local money from leaving. Some Libertarians have called for cities and states to do the same now, to be more independent of the feds. This is the first I've heard of a business or tribes trying to print money.

I'm not sure if the Maori UTA is the same. Hard to know if it's any of the same people since the UTA doesn't seem to mention who they are, outside of the court case with Eldridge.

[frederica]

okay, Thanks. Knew it wasn't the same as conterfiting but wasn't sure what they were doing. Whatever it is, looks high risk.  frederica

[listeningeagle]

An email from Miss Eldridge" I will get the info pulled on Gary as soon as possible. The target of the sec is me. The millions they are talking about never got to the uta. What did come to the uta was return with the exception of the money that was invested in an insurance company and real estate both of which was offered to the investors. The trust agreement was followed to the letter. It is the governments way of of trying to get control of the central bank. They did not want to stop it just take it away from the control of the native americans. I have been  target by their stings since I formed the rosebud files in 1989. When I furnished considerable documentation of the BCCI and the Hammer case they realized I had too much evidence. Then I formed a country. That gave me to much power in their eyes. They have formed stings even against my attornies and other attornies as well. One attorny John Dodge out of Arkansa was arrested and tried but won the case. He is working with me. I could go on and on but the bottom line is they need to discredit me so they can take over what was put together for the natives.    My mothers people are Cherokee with some still living on the reservation. They are also Lakota. My Cherokee name is "Sunshine". My Lakota name is "White Buffalo Women". My father is from the Cullen Clan and is Irish. He is a decendant of King henry the VII which is linked to the Maori of New Zealand so I am told. I have blond hair and blue eyes and light complexion Most people do not know that Crazy which I am a decendant of on the Lakota side also had blond hair and blue eyes. Also the Cherokee are decendants of the Irish race as well. You have to be aware that no country as important as what we are doing was ever developed without a lot of opposition.  Gail Eldridge     

[frederica]

Most of the information is old, I doubt if you will find much new on the Internet. It is still to vague.I would guess there is a reason for the vagueness.  Some took place in the 70's, 80's and 90's. If it is the same John Dodge in Arkansas, he was just told by the court to stop. There is already Indian Banking, so that's not exactly correct.  There are problems with her genealogy, it's about as vague as the rest. I don't think Henry VII was Irish, think he was a Tutor and had something to do with the War of the Roses. And I don't think the Cherokees came from Ireland. So unless you can obtain information from one of the Security Fraud Watch Dog groups the information will be old or conspiracy. You can present what you have to the person you are doing this for. But sometimes no amount of education will make them change their mind.     frederica

[Paleface]

I am here to share a great deal of information on the Subjects of this topic. I would ask those who have relevant information to cooperate and participate. I will gladly answer questions re: the Subjects.

Expect that this exchange may take us into areas that may be dangerous.

[Defend the Sacred]

How about explaining who it is you are talking about, and posting links to, and quotes from, any relevant online information? Otherwise it's hard for us to know what you're getting at here.

It would also be appreciated if you could introduce yourself.

added after thread move:

Didn't mean to come off snarky. It's just the opening of the new thread was a bit vague. Agreed it was best to merge the thread into this existing one.

[Paleface]

Anyone who is familiar with the UTA will know of whom I am talking.

[Moma_porcupine]

There is already a thread on this;

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1264.0

I'm sure people would appreciate any additional information PF has.

Maybe this thread should be merged with the old one so if people are looking for information, they will find it all in one place - and not possibly miss the 1/2 that is in another thread  ... ?