Dear Dimce,
I have taken knowledge of your concerns. I came home last night and had to read that unacceptable letter coming from David Crayford. It was sort of expected but turned extremely naughty, so bad that I could not take it any longer. In the heat of the fight . . . you know. I got mad.

More reasonable but in line with what I said last night, I advise every reader to inform himself/herself about the history and legal status of the institution he claims to serve as consultant. wikipedia says fraudulent. Please invest also a little thought in the question who could have an interest like that, in 1995, 6 years before Nine-Eleven, to get their fingers on the Global Debt Facility or the Collateral Accounts which magician David Crayford mixes in one pot when they are, in effect, totally different issues.

Now, could I please enquire, Mr. Crayford, as to what exactly the Office of the International Treasury Controller is doing to avoid the condition of a currency war as indicated by the financial model referenced by Ms. Hudes? By challenging the lady, you infer authority in the matter and so the question is valid, and is deserving of a robust response, from those who claim authority. While you, as the inquisitor, have your protocols all neatly wrapped in Treaties and Secrecy Agreements, you are demanding that Ms. Hudes make disclosure in the most public of forums.

Not entirely fair, Sir, when, if you are as credible as you claim, you have the opportunity to use the same public forum to refute all that Ms. Hudes proposes. Under the circumstances, the challenge is totally unnecessary and does not deserve to be honored, as there is no consideration.

As an ASIDE: The internet has been the means which exposed hitherto hidden elements of the global financial structure to public view. Of late, multiple interests appear to have converged on the Global Debt Facility to claim, power, authority, or access. All without compelling evidence to such right.

The world, which is constantly portrayed as beneficiary of indicated massive wealth emanating from those global accounts, observes the ills of the world that could, and should, be attended and marvels as to how Trustees can steadfastly continue to ignore the need for positive and timely action. THAT is the question that drives public interest and it is the question which must ultimately drive public revolt as the question fails to be satisfactorily answered.

Less time spent, Mr. Crayford, sniping at efforts made by others and more time spent explaining WHY you fail to use the authority you claim to make a material contribution to the world’s wounds would be a more material contribution to the current debate and would confer undeniable credibility.

It can be recognized and accepted that there are complex issues but Ms. Hudes is not letting grass grow under her feet, Mr. Crayford, she is both vocal and relentless in her reestablishment of the rule of law in the institution she serves. Since it appears you share a common goal, could I suggest that a more cooperative stance might well enhance any common interest and at the same time demonstrate a genuine effort to effect change.

By the way, you are accusing Ms. Hudes of not responding to you. May I assert here that you have never read my mails, never answered my mails, never dealt with any of the revelations I bring to the table. Instead you have shown unbending following the line, rehashing insinuations, and denying any efforts to show the birth of truth to a wider forum of interested readers.

That is my view on things and I insist that everyone has the right to be wrong, even me.

Wolfgang Struck