WantaGate: SUPREME COURT ORDERS BUSH TO PAY

Below is the bulk of the new information in Christopher Story's article for February 14, which article appears here:

http://worldreports.org/news/121_u.s._supreme_court_orders_president_bush_to_pay

Reference is made to Casper articles; the most recent of those can be found here:

Christopher Story writes:

On 11th February, the Editor received the following message timed at 02:27am UK time:

‘I can affirm that my intel people are saying that sanctions [against the United States, imposed by the Group of ‘Nine' countries] will go into effect on Tuesday if be aren't paid by 6.00pm New York time tomorrow. The sanctions seem dramatic, but I am assured by three sources that they are real'.

On 12th February the Editor received the following from a source very closely connected with the settlements. The message, timed as received by us in UK at 20:08pm stated that ‘your Updates are consistent with what my intelligence and high officials are telling me. There definitely are sanctions being launched. My intel informed me a few minutes ago that his operatives at the highest intel level are going into a high-level meeting regarding the sanctions [imposed by the G-8(9) countries and they will get back to me as soon as it concludes'.

The same source had emailed on 12th February (received by us at 1:42am): ‘Thanks for your three Updates. Very informative and pretty accurate as far as I have been able to ascertain. My intel are checking our ‘company' and military contacts to see if our forces over here are, in fact, on alert for what you and others are predicting'.

SUPREME COURT ORDERED BUSH TO PAY AND HE DIDN'T
At 03:26am on 14th February, the Editor received the following message from the source: ‘It has been a horrendous day. My intelligence & official sources inform me that the meeting referenced previously was a meeting of the US Supreme Court and other high officials, and, last night, they voted against Bush Jr. and ordered him to pay. Of course, that didn't happen and I'm now told that [a party deleted by the Editor] are moving to force his hand'. We are also advised that ‘several power groups in the United States are taking very serious action'.

In the past couple of days we have received several poisonous emails from people who appear to be sitting on their brains and who have foolishly pointed out that what we mentioned in the recent earlier reports ‘didn't happen', so that, accordingly, what we reported was inaccurate. It was and is not inaccurate. As stated at the beginning of the last several reports, shooting the messenger is inadvisable because the messenger has a detailed record of every single piece of information and its provenance on file. The messenger also pointed out that the situation is fluid, and so subject to change almost immediately a report has been posted. People with common sense and discernment understand this. ‘Useful Idiots' and those who are apoplectic with fury because we have exposed this criminality (and by implication their complicity in it) don't, or choose not to.

THE TIMING OF THE SANCTIONS AND DE FACTO ‘EXTENSIONS'
Concerning the sanctions and their timing, the known facts in the public domain are as follows:

• The Group of Eight (which means effectively nine, as previously explained) agreed (minus the United States) to impose sanctions on the United States if the Lee Wanta Settlement and the other payments are not released immediately. The date on which the release was to have taken place was last Saturday 9th February.
• On that date, Russian military aircraft buzzed the Nimitz as widely publicised. Russia is a member of the Group of Eight and is livid that it has been repeatedly lied to and cravenly double-crossed by the White House.
• The same applies to all the other G-8 countries, including the United Kingdom.
• For unexplained reasons (or rather, the piece of the puzzle may be missing) the deadline for compliance was set at noon EST on Monday 11th February. When that deadline came and went, the four tankers sitting half a day out from Saudi Arabia were ordered not to proceed on to the United States, but to return to their Saudi port.

Interestingly, on 13th February, AFX News Limited reported that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had just stated that ‘volatile geopolitics in the oil producing countries means that stocks must be rebuilt'. The timing of this comment can hardly have been at all fortuitous, although Venezuela's reported intention to withhold oil deliveries from the United States may have been pertinent.

• The representatives of 160 countries who had been clicking their heels, waiting for settlement since last October, as reported by us earlier, were told to go home. We are not sure who ‘told' them, but we assume that there was or is some central information source coordinating their responses. They proceeded to prepare for departure. At some stage during the afternoon of Monday 11th February, this request was rescinded, and they were asked to stay for another 48 hours in the United States. They complied with this request.
• The 48 hour ‘extension' reportedly ‘expired' at 6.00pm EST on Wednesday, after which the 160 country representatives were going to leave for home, without being paid. The Editor believes that the movements of the 160 country representatives were coordinated with the Group of Eight (9) so that effectively the sanctions specified in the decisions agreed upon on Saturday the 9th February were alleviated until 6.00pm on Wednesday 13th February 2008. Some antagonists have chosen to overlook these facts and to complain that because what was intended to take effect on Wednesday didn't happen, therefore nothing is true. This is mistaken and mischievous. Everything that has been reported is true to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of posting. This is a fluid and extremely unstable situation, and serious students of the matter have to have their brains in gear, which includes taking the extreme volatility of the situation into account at all times.

SUPREME COURT HAS DECISIVELY DETACHED ITSELF FROM BUSH
As indicated above, on 13th February, the Supreme Court ordered Bush to pay the Wanta and other settlements, having voted against the President. This is consistent with the Casper report to the effect that ‘we are not going down with your sinking ship' [12th February]. Since Casper's report preceded the meeting referenced here, it appears that the Supreme Court has indeed detached itself from the President twice - first, as indicated in Casper's report posted on 12th February, and secondly, as indicated through their vote against the President above.

An elaboration, explained to us on 13th February, was that President Bush signed papers with the Supreme Court for ‘packages' applicable to payees (not related to the Wanta Settlement, which is separate) to be sent out, we believe, on 12th February. Bush then did what he routinely does, i.e. changed his mind. We were informed that this was the SIXTH time he had been through this crude Leninist routine with the Supreme Court over the same matter. Specifically, Bush ordered the said packages to be returned to the Supreme Court, which then, for the FIRST time, refused to accept them. This was probably the context of Casper's report. (That left the aforesaid ‘packages' in limbo, presumably inside the delivery system, where the trail ran cold).

PRESIDENT BELIEVES HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SUPREME COURT
At all events, these two indications that the Supreme Court has detached itself from the President, and our knowledge that the President has refused to comply with the Supreme Court's order dated 12th February, to order the payments on 13th February, reveals definitively (not that anyone could have been in doubt) that the President of the United States believes that he is not subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court applicable specifically to his own conduct.

Not being a constitutional lawyer or expert, the Editor would not know to what extent this stance places George W. Bush in peril of being removed from office, but considered in the context of the other pressures he faces, this refusal to adhere to the Supreme Court's order would hardly appear to enhance his position. The Group of Eight (or nine) has signed off with the World Court for those listed in our earlier reporting to be arrested, we understand ‘on sight', should this intransigence over the settlements continue. It has continued. Last night we were authoritatively informed that, failing settlement on 13th, serious consequences will ensue effective from 14th February. We know what these are liable to be, but refrain from specifying them at this juncture.

The future of the 1,500+ DC political figures and associates, whose complicity in this monumental financial corruption was exposed as a consequence of the raids mounted in European centres that we reported for the first time last spring, is also in severe jeopardy, and has been for many months.

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

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

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

U.S. TREASURY'S SYSTEMS HACKED ON MONDAY NIGHT
On Monday night 11th February, the US Treasury's computer systems were hacked into, causing a crisis which lasted all night. According to our own sources, the matter was resolved, but we cannot ascertain whether funds were stolen, stolen and restored, or simply that the hacking took place but nothing was lost. In answer to the early question that we put, ‘who did it?', we quite understandably received no answer. But when we asked the further question, considerably later: ‘Was the cyber attack of foreign or domestic origin?' we were specifically told: ‘domestic origin'.

This is of interest for many reasons, one of which is that if Mr Paulson was there, it would not be necessary to hack into the Treasury's system, as that serial thief (see preceding reports) could do it himself from inside, or using his special ‘box' for the purpose.

Which brings us to the Paulson matter.

PAULSON ASSESSMENTS BY INDEPENDENT AMERICAN OBSERVERS
Two extremely perceptive American sources watched the ‘Paulson' interviews televised on 12th February. The first said to the Editor, completely out of context and with no prompting, at 2.50pm UK time on 13th February: ‘I swear to you that the Paulson I saw on television is not Paulson'.

The second very close contact, whose life speciality is studying ‘humint' and the behaviour and interactions and linkages of personalities, described the ‘Paulson' presented for controlled public consumption as lacking the same colour of skin as Paulson, lacking the dark rings under his eyes, and noting many other discrepancies from the ‘Paulson' we know and love.

On 13th February 2008 a message timed at 23:13 and labelled ‘Paulson appearance today - NOT' was received by us, which reads as follows:

‘I was in a coffee shop this afternoon and I believe they had MSNBC on TV. They were doing a segment on the economic outlook and yakking about the housing market. There in living color was a man alleged to be Paulson, but clearly to my recollection was not. I'm saying, not even close. He was talking, answering questions and making comments, and his eyes were blinking faster than the words coming out from his mouth. He looked very uncomfortable energetically, not at all like a man who's job it is to do such things. Where did they get this guy? Hollywood Screen Actors' Guild?'

Not far wrong, there. In the first place, we have referenced the three known make-up artists who are contracted by the CIA to handle such crisis situations. Secondly, the United States is unique in having a sort of industry of ‘doubles' who hire themselves out, or are available on a list via an agency, for use as stand-ins to replicate prominent personages.

Those in the know, know that this is well known. Those not in the know, don't.

It will also have been observed from various TV presentations, including the State of the Union event, that the cameras trained on Paulson do not go full frontal, or when they do (as when the President was walking after his State of the Union Speech and shaking hands), the ‘Paulson' is half obscured, on purpose. We rely upon our detailed report dated 9th January 2008 for all the other factors, especially the sourcing of the original reports; and we note that, to this day, not a single statement that we have EVER posted on this website since the Wantagate crisis erupted, has ever been denied by a US official source. The reason these things have never been officially denied is that they cannot be, as they have been true as posted. The State Department reported that Paulson was dead and never retracted that report, which we have sourced and referenced.

If that was untrue, the error has never been corrected by the US authorities. It would be odd, to say the least, if they did so at this late stage.

You can make what you like of that: but it seems quite clear from this and the other evidence that, despite the several ‘extensions' that have occurred since the G-8(9) agreed their strategy on 9th February, and signed off with the World Court to that effect, ‘normal service' is NOT about to be resumed. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem, not ours. Keep it to yourself, please.