I would appreciate, if you can post this last response to DC asap. You know timing is always of the essence. Here we go:
30 January, 2016.
Good Evening Mr. Crayford,
While I said farewell in my last letter, your voluminous response prompts a further comment or two, and then let us have an end to this public display of petulance. I believe that I correctly use the word “petulance” in the sense that nothing can be achieved in a public forum, while we each hold in reserve items of interest that are not ready for public disclosure until such time as a correct legal poise has been established.
I have offered a private debate on the documentation at my disposal, and based on the interesting narrative you have just posted, accept the explanation that your current duties do not allow you the time for private correspondence.
A pity in many ways, as I believe we would both be enlightened on historical elements which have been obscured to serve the interest of factions intent on control of global wealth.
I did not need an expertise on the rights and wrongs of Wikipedia, or information gleaned from the world-wide-web. What you state is well understood, but the references were made in context of the opening sentence :-
“Strangely, the Office of the International Treasury Controller, if it has the substance you claim, has attracted a very negative press”.
That was fair comment, because it was demonstrably true. While you addressed each example with a relatively plausible narrative, it left unanswered the question of how a purportedly high level component of the global financial architecture could possibly attract such a negative press if its activities were entirely altruistic.
You go to some length to explain the “law” as it relates to the possession or promulgation of documents deemed “Secret” or “Cloaked in Secrecy”, but the presence of such documents serve to indicate a possible subterfuge, and their substance and authenticity can only be explored by exposure.
Were it not so, then those who seek to control the wealth of the world could simply write their own “secret” documents at will, and the “law” would protect their unilaterally declared position.
Very few such documents indicate a point at which they might be presented for authentication, and then we have a “Catch 22” situation when so presented, as if any document is ruled to be less than wholesome, then the presenter is arrested and charged with fraud, even though the inquiry was exclusively to secure opinion. Clearly a protective measure to grant plausible deniability.
Secrecy has its place, but it should never be all-embracing, for fear that the unscrupulous will assume advantage that is not their entitlement.
Your comment eloquently demonstrates the point – Quote
Such “Private Treaties” in conjunction with classified “Above Top Secret International Treaties” is where the problem of “Substance”, as you state, becomes publicly impossible which the ITC / OITC are legally bound by at all times.
It is this, in our opinion, what has led to the greatest fraud and deception in history as “Secrecy” in all its forms has allowed the TTTGC (Allied Nations) to do as it pleases with the Global Debt Facility which is contrary to the directives of the current M1, and the committee of persons that surround same, and also detrimental to the Nations and people of the world.
I will not labor the point further, but I can state with conviction, that the work of a researcher is not a simple task within the complexities of law, regulation, statute, obfuscation and other impediment to honest and well founded inquiry aimed at satisfactory understanding.
A correspondent informs me, that on his interpretation of your post, that you have threatened me. I do not presently perceive the closing paragraphs as a personal threat, but rather a “return match” of the closing paragraphs of my letter which prompted your response. Touché.
I note the comprehensive presentation of the “Sovereign Decrees”, and trust that they are wisely applied, for if not, the repealing of selected elements of the existing structure might well be seen as an effort to promote absolute control of the target accounts, not necessarily to the benefit of humanity.
Only time will tell.
There is however a sobering thought. Powers of the O.I.T.C. arise in a United Nations grant of authority. The original U.N. and its companion organization the I.M.F. are suggested to have been supplanted by corporations bearing the name of the original body, and those corporations purportedly controlled by covert banking interests.
Now if time reveals that O.I.T.C. efforts are directed toward wresting absolute control of the Global Debt Facility for purpose of restoring it to a position where it can truly serve humanity without corruption, and impediment by usurping corporations, then more power to you. The world applauds the effort. Otherwise the caution expressed in the penultimate paragraph of my letter stands.
The world watches and waits.
Let us put any disagreement behind us and see what the fates decide.
A final farewell, Mr. Crayford, my thanks for an interesting dialogue.
Wolfgang Erich Struck.