something for the gold bugs

  1. 1,544 Posts.
    Picked this up on a Canadian site.
    A copy of a copy if you will.......

    Please read down to the end for the full impact.
    the following was copied from another bulletin board:
    To:Jim Willie CB who wrote (4796)
    From: JWRPhD Tuesday, Jun 10, 2003 7:39 AM
    View Replies (2) | Respond to of 4829

    Barrick confesses: We and Morgan Chase are agents of the central banks
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gata/message/1538

    1:19a ET Tuesday, June 10, 2003

    Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

    Barrick Gold has confessed that it and its bullion banker,
    JP Morgan Chase & Co., are the direct agents of the
    central banks in the international control of the gold
    price.

    Barrick's confession was filed in U.S. District Court in
    New Orleans as part of a legal maneuver to gain dismissal
    of the federal anti-trust lawsuit brought against it and
    Morgan Chase by Blanchard & Co., the New Orleans-based
    coin and bullion dealer. Barrick moved to dismiss the
    Blanchard lawsuit on the grounds that the suit had failed
    to include as defendants some "indispensable parties" whose
    vital interests are at stake, the central banks; that the
    central banks, having what is called sovereign immunity
    against suit, simply could not be included in the suit;
    and that the suit therefore had to be dismissed.

    Barrick's confessional motion was dated February 28 this
    year and is posted at the Barrick Internet site here,
    headlined "Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss
    for failure to join indispensable parties":

    http://www.barrick.com/2_Press_Releases/

    GATA has copied the memorandum and posted it at GATA
    Chairman Bill Murphy's Internet site for some permanence
    in case Barrick removes it from the company's own
    Internet site. GATA's copy of the memorandum is posted
    here:

    http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/img2003/memoformotiontodis.pdf

    Fortunately, the judge hearing the Blanchard lawsuit,
    Helen G. Berrigan, denied Barrick's motion two weeks
    ago after an exchange in open court with one of the
    company's many lawyers, Mark D. Wegener. That exchange is
    appended here. The judge concluded that Barrick's motion
    to dismiss argued in effect that an illegal action
    involving "so many powerful entities from all around the
    world" is "going to be immune from being challenged."

    "That's, as we say, not acceptable," Judge Berrigan said,
    denying Barrick's dismissal motion.

    Barrick and Morgan still have other dimissal motions
    pending and much remains to be done before they can be
    held fully accountable for themselves in court and
    compelled to produce evidence and testimony.

    But it is thrilling that Judge Berrigan has indicated
    that she will not be intimidated by all the (fiat)
    money and power in the world, and thrilling that one
    of the issues on which GATA consultant Reg Howe's
    trail-blazing federal lawsuit against the same
    conspiracy foundered -- sovereign immunity -- has been
    removed as an obstacle in the Blanchard case because
    of the much smaller number of defendants.

    Building on the Howe case, the Blanchard case has an
    ever-improving chance of bringing transparency and
    honesty to the gold market and to national economic
    policy generally. GATA supports the Blanchard suit
    and urges its friends to inform the mining industry
    about the suit's encouraging progress.

    CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
    Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

    * * *

    From oral argument in
    Blanchard & Co. et al
    v.
    Barrick Gold Corp.
    and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

    U.S. District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana

    Judge Helen G. Berrigan, presiding

    May 29, 2003

    The Court: How would those contracts be challenged, under
    your theory that everybody has to be involved? Because, how
    do you get jurisdiction over everybody?

    Mr. Wegener: You can't.

    The Court: So you all can just tally-ho and do
    anti-competitive stuff? ... So the idea is, if you get
    enough people involved in a monopoly, then you're immune
    from litigation?

    Mr. Wegener: Well, I don't think it's quite that. ...

    The Court: And you're saying it's not possible to bring
    everybody in?

    Mr. Wegener: Yeah, I think you can't bring the central banks
    in, because they're immune. You can't bring in all the
    bullion banks, because they're beyond the jurisdiction of
    the court. ...

    The Court: I mean, if what you say is correct, then it
    sounds like the legal remedy is for individual plaintiffs,
    like, say, Blanchard, to go to the United States court,
    like he's done here, and go after J.P. Morgan. And then
    wherever these other entities are, to go to those courts,
    in those countries, in those locales, and try to seek the
    same relief. ... But I'm very much troubled by the end
    result of your argument, which is to the effect that if
    an outfit is large enough and involves enough people,
    enough entities, then they can kind of do what they want.
    ... But I just don't find it possible to think that
    something could -- if, in fact there is an anti-trust
    violation going on here -- that because it involves so
    many powerful entities from all around the world,
    therefore it's going to be immune from being challenged.
    That's, as we say, not acceptable.

    Mr. Wegener: Uh-huh.

    The Court: If that's the logical result of your argument,
    then I'm going to have to find some other way to deal with
    it than that.

    * * *

    Judge Berrigan denied Barrick's motion to dismiss.

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.