Ist dies ein Auszug aus der Klageschrift? oT (Ich verstehe nur die Hälfte)

verfasst von Talleyrand, 21.04.2001, 15:16

>By James Turk
>The Freemarket Gold & Money Report
>This past December in my essay"The Smoking Gun" I
>provided proof that the U.S. Treasury Department's
>Exchange Stabilization Fund was intervening in the gold
>market. From publicly available reports prepared by the
>Federal Reserve, I established that the weight of gold
>held as a component of the U.S. Reserve Assets has been
>changing, and that these changes -- some of which are
>of significant size -- result from activity by the ESF.
>These Federal Reserve reports conclusively demonstrate
>that the ESF has been intervening in the gold market
>since at least 1996.
>Though these Federal Reserve reports make clear that
>the ESF is involved in the gold market up to its
>"earmarks," a lot of people remain skeptical. I don't
>know why that is. It is worth noting that many of the
>most obstinate skeptics who deny U.S. government
>involvement in the gold market live overseas and have
>little if any experience or understanding of the way
>the U.S. government really works. Even Americans find
>it difficult to accept that the U.S. government
>intervenes in the gold market. Ironically, though,
>they readily admit that the government intervenes in
>the debt markets, foreign currency markets, and,
>according to a growing number of people, even in the
>U.S. stock market. It is therefore most baffling that
>they do not concede the ESF's involvement in the gold
>market.
>Maybe people are skeptical because they haven't
>bothered to take the time to read the Federal Reserve
>reports for themselves. Maybe it's because it's easier
>to accept the word of some government bureaucrat who
>denies ESF involvement in the gold market than it is to
>seek out and look for the truth. Maybe they don't want
>to believe that the U.S. government is lying to them
>when Treasury Department official after Treasury
>Department official denies any involvement by the ESF
>in the gold market.
>I don't know.
>Or maybe it's because they think that government
>officials work for the American people -- and not for
>vested interests -- in their deliberative sessions
>behind closed doors.
>Wouldn't it be refreshing if we could peek behind those
>closed doors to see what really is being said?
>Very little emerges from behind closed doors, and the
>minutes and transcripts of closed-door sessions that do
>make it into the public domain contain redactions that
>blank out the"good parts" -- the revealing statements.
>But what if someone forgot to redact one of those"good
>parts? Too fantastic to be true?
>Well, sit down, take a deep breath, and carefully read
>what follows.
>* * *
>A few weeks ago Reg Howe contacted me and asked my view
>on something he had discovered. He wanted a second
>opinion on this discovery, just as I contacted him for
>a second opinion after I came across the Federal
>Reserve reports showing the ESF's gold-related
>activity.
>When I read what Reg showed me, I was stunned. But at
>the same time it was clear to me what I was reading and
>what had happened.
>A transcript of a meeting of the Federal Reserve Open
>Market Committee has been released for which somebody
>forgot to get his red pen out. Someone forgot to redact
>some very revealing words about the ESF and its
>activity with gold. Here's what was said.
>* * *
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/Transcripts/transcripts_1995.htm
>[See the transcript from the January 31, 1995, meeting.]
>MR. MATTINGLY. It's pretty clear that these ESF
>operations are authorized. I don't think there is a
>legal problem in terms of the authority. The [ESF]
>statute is very broadly worded in terms of words like
>"credit" -- it has covered things like the gold swaps
>-- and it confers broad authority.
>* * *
>Please read the above statement again, and maybe even a
>third and fourth time.
>This statement, which I can only assume was
>inadvertently not redacted by the FOMC Secretariat,
>confirms what we already know but what the U.S.
>government has all along refused to admit -- that the
>ESF is involved in the gold market. In fact, the
>authority of the ESF is so broad that"it has covered
>things like the gold swaps."
>In other words, the authority of the ESF is so broad it
>has even been used to authorize"gold swaps."
>Before exploring the above quote, some background
>information is necessary.
>The proceedings of each FOMC meeting are taped. These
>tapes are transcribed, and the Federal Reserve releases
>these transcripts after five years. Thus, the
>transcripts from the 1995 meetings were released this
>year, and, having now read through them, I can say they
>contain a treasure trove of material, even though there
>are many redactions.
>The important point is that these transcripts are not
>only informative but are an accurate record of what is
>going on behind closed doors.
>Here is what the Federal Reserve itself says about the
>FOMC transcripts:
>* * *
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/Transcripts/
>Beginning with the 1994 meetings, the FOMC Secretariat
>produced the transcripts shortly after each meeting
>from an audio recording of the proceedings, lightly
>editing the peakers' original words, where necessary,
>to facilitate the reader's understanding. Meeting
>participants were then given an opportunity within the
>next several weeks to review the transcript for
>accuracy.
>For the meetings preceding 1994, the transcripts were
>produced from the original, raw transcripts in the FOMC
>Secretariat's files. These records have also been
>lightly edited by the Secretariat to facilitate the
>reader's understanding. In addition, where one or more
>words were missed or garbled in the transcription, the
>notation"unintelligible" has been inserted. In some
>instances, words have been added in brackets to
>complete a speaker's apparent thought or to correct an
>obvious transcription error or misstatement.
>Nonetheless, for the pre-1994 transcripts, errors
>undoubtedly remain. The raw transcripts were not fully
>edited for accuracy at the time they were prepared
>because they were intended only as an aid to the
>Secretariat in preparing meeting minutes. The edited
>pre-1994 transcripts have not been reviewed by present
>or past members of the committee.
>* * *
>In other words, the 1995 transcripts are accurate.
>There are no disclaimers for them, like those made for
>the pre-1994 transcripts. Therefore, the above quote by
>Mr. Mattingly about the ESF and gold is accurate.
>And who is Mr. Mattingly? Virgil Mattingly is general
>counsel of the Federal Reserve, its chief legal
>adviser.
>That Mattingly's remark passed without comment by
>anyone in the FOMC meeting implies that everyone knew
>exactly what he was referring to. In other words, to
>explain ESF authority, his example was purposefully
>chosen. It was one to which the Federal Reserve
>governors could all relate because it was something
>they saw happen during their watch.
>In my imagination I can see them sitting around the big
>FOMC conference table nodding their heads in agreement
>when Mattingly used this example of the gold swaps to
>explain how broad the ESF's authority is.
>
>Recognize too that though he is talking in the past
>tense, it doesn't necessarily mean that the swaps had
>already happened. They may still be happening because
>he may be referring to the authority that approved the
>gold swaps and presumably the swap lines, but not
>necessarily the date of the actual swaps themselves.
>So that this quote of Mattingly is not taken out of
>context, let me provide background information. Also, I
>invite you to read the full 145-page transcript of this
>Jan. 31, 1995, FOMC meeting if you would like to
>confirm both the accuracy of the above quote and the
>background information I am about to provide. By
>reading the entire transcript you will also see how
>frequently material was redacted.
>Mattingly's comments were made in a discussion by the
>FOMC on the rapidly deteriorating financial situation
>in Mexico. Crisis conditions had been prevailing since
>the peso began tumbling the month before -- that is,
>December 1994. You will recall that the Clinton
>administration back then had proposed that Congress
>provide a $40 billion package of government guarantees
>to bail out those who had loaned money to Mexico, and
>that Congress had rejected this proposal. So the
>administration was scrambling to come up with a way to
>get the money thought necessary to"fix" the problem.
>Unable to tap the Treasury directly because of the
>rebuff by Congress, the administration turned to the
>ESF.
>Because the Federal Reserve was to be part of the
>proposed bailout, the Federal Open Market Committee was
>reviewing what role the Federal Reserve would play in
>conjunction with the ESF. A proposal was on the table
>for the FOMC's consideration. A Mr. Fix-it who seems to
>be the go-between for the Treasury and the Fed was
>presenting the proposal.
>His name is Ted Truman. And he was responding to
>various FOMC members who were questioning whether the
>ESF had the legal authority to do what was being
>proposed. Hence, the Federal Reserve's legal counsel,
>Virgil Mattingly, responded, using the"gold swaps" as
>an example of just how broad the ESFªs authority
>actually is.
>To give you a flavor of the full discussion underway in
>the FOMC meeting, here is an excerpt from the
>transcript.
>* * *
>MR. MELZER. What ability do the Treasury or the ESF
>have to take us out of an obligation [i.e., repay the
>Federal Reserve] if funds are not appropriated by
>Congress? Do they have the ability just to say, we
>committed to this and we are going to pay the Fed off?
>MR. TRUMAN. Yes, they could.
>MR. MELZER. But if they can do that, why can't they
>just advance it themselves?
>MR. TRUMAN. They could, but I think they feel that it
>would be useful to their objectives to have a lot of
>people.... [Apparently the rest of his comments are
>redacted.]
>* * *
>The discussion continues on this point, but touches
>upon the relationship between the ESF and the Treasury.
>These comments also establish that the ESF does not use
>"appropriated funds," meaning that the ESF is
>answerable only to the secretary of the treasury and
>the president. All actions of the ESF are beyond
>congressional authority.
>* * *
>CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Could I just formally respond to
>Governor Lindsey? There is a question here of whether
>or not the amount the United States Treasury gives us
>has to be appropriated funds, which I think is really
>where our examination of the issue has to be. In
>examining the takeout, we ought to make certain that we
>talk to them with respect to the question of what
>happens if they do not get the appropriated funds.
>MR. TRUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization
>Fund does not have appropriated funds.
>CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Are we going to be getting a
>takeout from the Exchange Stabilization Fund?
>MR. TRUMAN. I think that is what is in the program.
>CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. OK.
>SPEAKER (?). That is not the same as the Treasury.
>MR. TRUMAN. Even if we didn't, the precedent in the
>1960s -- I think there was a question then about
>whether the Treasury could engage in foreign exchange
>operations outside of the ESF -- was the use of Roosa
>bonds in the 1960s. The Treasury floated Roosa bonds to
>obtain foreign currencies and used some of those
>currencies to take us out. That did not involve
>appropriated funds. That was treated as a debt-
>management operation.
>* * *
>The above passage confirms what we already know, but
>many people refuse to admit. The ESF is a slush fund
>beyond congressional oversight. It can be used to"get
>around" most anything (that is, it can skirt normal
>governmental procedures). No wonder so many people want
>to do away with the ESF. There is no room for it in our
>democratic process. It is not subject to the normal
>checks and balances carefully crafted by the Founding
>Fathers that have proven over time to be so essential
>for limiting the power of the federal government.
>The ESF is the antithesis of the American foundation of
>representative government because it subjects a free
>people to an unconstitutional governmental force. Still
>not convinced? Here are some more excerpts:
>* * *
>MR. LINDSEY. My second question has to do with our
>credibility. I don't know what questions to ask, and I
>hope you will help me out in that regard. I have this
>document in front of me, which includes a page entitled
>"What is the Exchange Stabilization Fund?" The document
>came from Treasury International Affairs. I gather it
>was written by them. I have written enough of these to
>know what you do, and that is to tell your point of
>view. Paragraph 3, not to mention the dots indicating
>an omission in Paragraph 2, got me a little nervous.
>Paragraph 3 says these holdings in the ESF are used to
>enter into swap arrangements with foreign governments,
>to finance exchange market intervention, to provide
>short-term bridge finance, etc., and all these things
>are great. So, basically Paragraph 3 is establishing
>that this is not unprecedented. My question would be:
>Do we do all these nice things if it's not in support
>of the dollar? Is this unprecedented with regard to the
>fact that we are supporting another currency?
>MR. TRUMAN. The language before the dots is....
>MR. LINDSEY. I am talking about the third paragraph. I
>will go to the second paragraph in a second. I'm sorry.
>I am running a little out of order. It is saying the
>ESF has done all these things.
>MR. TRUMAN. The legislation governing the objectives of
>the ESF was changed, I think for the most part in the
>mid-to-late-1970s. The changes included the language
>that the government of the United States and the
>International Monetary Fund have the obligation to
>promote orderly exchange rate arrangements leading to a
>stable system of exchange rates. That was interpreted
>to include making loans to Bolivia in helping it
>maintain a system of stable exchange rates.
>MR. LINDSEY. So that has happened before?
>MR. TRUMAN. Yes. They have made loans to or financial
>arrangements with at least 31 countries around the
>world over the last 50 years.
>MR. LINDSEY. I think we all will be asked questions
>about this. Can you read this paper and tell me that
>there is not something missing that I should know
>about, meaning that this is not only the truth but the
>whole truth?
>MR. TRUMAN. I can only say that Treasury lawyers have
>looked into the question of whether these operations
>are legal under this broad authorization of what they
>can do and what the purpose is....
>MR. MATTINGLY. If I can help out?
>MR. LINDSEY. Yes.
>MR. MATTINGLY. It's pretty clear that these ESF
>operations are authorized. I don't think there is a
>legal problem in terms of the authority. The statute is
>very broadly worded in terms of words like"credit" --
>it has covered things like the gold swaps -- and it
>confers broad authority. Counsel at the White House
>called the Treasury's General Counsel today and asked
>"Are you sure?" And the Treasury's General Counsel
>said,"I am sure." Everyone is satisfied that a legal
>issue is not involved, if that helps.
>MR. LINDSEY. Is there anything missing on this page?
>MR. MATTINGLY. No, there is not. If you look at the
>last paragraph, for example, that is part of the
>statute.
>MR. LINDSEY. About notifying Congress in writing in
>advance?
>MR. MATTINGLY. The statute says that with the
>permission of the president they can make loans.
>[MORE]
>There you have it. The ESF doesn't have to notify
>Congress about anything in advance. It is under the
>sole authority of the secretary of the treasury and the
>president, and they can do"gold swaps" without any
>congressional approval, which brings up an important
>point I made in"The Smoking Gun."
>I had noted a curious pattern in the correspondence
>emanating from the Treasury Department. The secretary
>of the Treasury never answered any questioning letters
>concerning the ESF, even if they were written directly
>to him. Rather, one of his assistants invariably
>responded. I therefore wondered whether the Treasury
>Department chain of command was being relied upon just
>as President Nixon had tried to rely upon the White
>House chain of command in an attempt to avoid being
>sucked into the vortex of a growing Watergate scandal.
>I even asked in"The Smoking Gun":"Did Secretary
>Summers' knowledge of the goings-on in the secretive
>ESF explain why his underlings, and not him, were
>writing the letters denying U.S. government involvement
>within the gold market?"
>The above excerpts from the FOMC transcript clearly
>establish that my question needs answering.
>It is becoming clear as more and more evidence emerges
>that the secretary of the treasury does not answer
>questions concerning the ESF because he, but not his
>underlings, knows to what extent the ESF is engaged in
>gold-related activity. His underlings can say that the
>ESF is not involved in the gold market because, as far
>as they know, what they say is true.
>However, we now have proof that the ESF is indeed
>involved in the gold market. So the secretary of the
>treasury does not respond to letters asking questions
>about the ESF and its activity in the gold market. He
>canªt answer them truthfully without spilling the
>beans. He obviously knows everything about what really
>is going on within the ESF, in contrast to his
>underlings. Or at least most underlings because it
>appears that one of them is in there up to his elbows
>washing ESF laundry. His name is Ted Truman.
>>From the FOMC transcripts it is quite apparent that
>Truman has a special role. Though recorded in the
>attendee list in the FOMC transcripts under the
>featureless title of"economist," he has a role that is
>anything but ordinary. The transcripts reveal that he
>clearly speaks for the Treasury Department in FOMC
>meetings and is very knowledgeable about the ESF. The
>insight displayed by him in the FOMC minutes makes it
>clear that he is not just fully informed about the ESF
>and its operations, but that he probably is also
>intimately involved in ESF decision making.
>Consequently, the following excerpt is particularly
>intriguing.
>* * *
>MR. PARRY. What is the size of the ESF?
>MR. TRUMAN. The usable funds in the ESF today, counting
>the foreign exchange as usable, amount to roughly $25
>billion.
>MR. PARRY. Can you say how it is broken down?
>MR. TRUMAN. About $5 billion is invested in Treasury
>securities and the balance is roughly equally divided
>between marks and yen. I think they have slightly more
>yen than marks.
>MR. PARRY. Thank you.
>MR. BOEHNE. Is any of it obligated in any way beyond
>what we are talking about with Mexico?
>MR. TRUMAN. It is obligated only in the sense that they
>have one other swap arrangement with the Bundesbank.
>* * *
>Wouldn't it be interesting to know what this swap
>arrangement with the Bundesbank entailed? What is the
>nature of this swap? Is it a dollar/deutschemark swap
>facility? Or is something else being swapped, like gold
>perhaps?
>Gold being swapped with the Bundesbank? It's an
>outrageous thought.
>Or is it?
>I have already established that the ESF is very much
>involved with gold. The only thing I haven't
>established is with whom the ESF has those gold swaps
>that Virgil Mattingly was talking about.
>Let's put 1 and 1 together here to see if we can come
>up with an answer.
>According to Mattingly, the ESF has authorized gold
>swaps, presumably in the recent past (circa 1995).
>According to Ted Truman, the only outstanding swap
>facility of the ESF (circa 1995) other than the one
>established for Mexico is the ESF's facility with the
>Bundesbank.
>Therefore, the ESF has a gold swap facility with the
>Bundesbank.
>It's an interesting proposition, and one that fits well
>with another newly discovered fact. Some very
>interesting sleuthing by Mike Bolser, who has been
>assisting Reg Howe in his lawsuit against the Bank for
>International Settlements, has revealed that the
>Treasury has made a small but very significant
>accounting change.
>Mike noticed that the Treasury Department has changed
>the designation of nearly 1,700 tonnes of inventoried
>gold at the U.S. Mintªs facility in West Point, N.Y.,
>which is approximately 21 percent of the total U.S.
>gold reserve, from"Gold Bullion Reserve" to"Custodial
>Gold."
>The August 2000 Status Report on U.S. Treasury-Owned
>Gold stored at West Point has a designation of"Gold
>Bullion Reserve."
>(See http://207.87.26.43/gold/00-08.html)
>But the September 2000 and subsequent status reports
>inexplicably designate this same gold that is stored at
>the U.S. Mint at West Point as"Custodial Gold."
>See http://207.87.26.43/gold/00-09.html
>This change was made without explanation, so rather
>than let the matter remain unexplained, Mike diligently
>contacted the Treasury asking what seemingly are two
>uncomplicated questions. Would the Treasury please
>explain why they made this change, and what does this
>change in designation mean with respect to the
>ownership status of the gold at West Point?
>They are simple questions, but perhaps they touch too
>close to a nerve. Not surprisingly, the Treasury so far
>has not responded to Mike.
>I have some views on what Mike discovered, and why the
>Treasury is so quiet about it. I think this change in
>asset classification is related to the ESF gold swaps.
>Hereªs my thinking.
>The change Mike spotted possibly occurred as a result
>of accountants looking at the financial statements of
>the U.S. Mint being prepared for its annual report
>ending fiscal year 2000. Note that the previous
>director of the Mint (Phillip Diehl) resigned in early
>2000, so this was the first annual report signed by the
>new director (Jay Johnson).
>If there is one thing that government bureaucrats do
>well, they take great pains to call things by their
>right name. To do otherwise would put their job in
>jeopardy if something under their responsibility came
>under congressional scrutiny, and it was subsequently
>determined that the name assigned to something was
>incorrect or misleading.
>Therefore, this change in the descriptive label for
>nearly 1,700 tonnes of gold at West Point from"Gold
>Bullion Reserve" to"Custodial Gold" was purposeful. It
>happened for a reason. This conclusion is all the more
>plausible because the Treasury did not change the
>classification from"Gold Bullion Reserve" to
>"Custodial Gold" to describe the gold stored in Fort
>Knox or at the U.S. Mint at Denver. Maybe new U.S. Mint
>Director Johnson saw something he didn't like. What
>could that have been?
>I have already put 1 and 1 together to establish that
>the ESF has"gold swaps" with the Bundesbank. It
>therefore does not require much conjecture to add one
>supposition to the equation by concluding that the gold
>at West Point has been swapped with gold owned by the
>Bundesbank, thereby necessitating its reclassification
>from"Gold Bullion Reserve" to"Custodial Gold." Here's
>what I think has happened.
>The Treasury Department wanted to make gold available
>to some bullion banks. This statement is based on my
>premise that several of the big banks have gold books
>that are hopelessly imbalanced. By having borrowed
>short and loaned long, these banks have in their quest
>for profits imprudently fallen into the alluring but
>usually fatal banker's deathtrap -- a mismatched loan
>book. But what's worse for these banks, it is even more
>difficult and treacherous to try extricating themselves
>from this particular deathtrap because they haven't
>mismatched their loan book of dollars, which we all
>know can be created by the Federal Reserve out of thin
>air if dollars are needed to bail out banks from a
>deathtrap predicament.
>Instead, these banks have mismatched their gold book.
>And no one -- not even the Federal Reserve -- can
>create gold out of thin air.
>So given this reality about the nature of gold, the
>Treasury Department had to turn elsewhere to find the
>gold necessary 1) to keep these banks from defaulting
>on their bullion obligations arising from their
>mismatched gold books in an environment where metal had
>become increasingly difficult to come by, and/or 2) to
>keep the gold price low so that the likelihood of
>default by the banks would be lessened, even though
>metal would remain tight because fabrication year after
>year was exceeding newly mined supply.
>Rather than accept the bitter pill that certain banks
>were about to default on their bullion obligations, the
>Treasury Department looked for alternatives and found
>one -- they put their hand into the till, until
>recently known as the Gold Bullion Reserve at West
>Point. They swapped this gold with the Bundesbank.
>I'll explain how they did it, but let's first consider
>the practical aspects of this transaction.
>In all likelihood these particular bullion banks needed
>gold in Europe, where their obligations were originally
>established. There is very little gold lending in New
>York. It is a practical problem to ship the gold out of
>West Point without raising the alarm of government
>auditors. It is costly too. Also, it is likely that
>some of the gold in West Point is coin-melt from the
>1933 gold confiscation. Even if it could be smuggled
>out of the West Point vault into the market without
>raising suspicions, the alarm bells would go off at the
>refiner and soon thereafter in the market because
>everyone knows that only the U.S. government has coin-
>melt bars.
>The appearance of coin-melt bars in the market would
>immediately raise suspicions that the U.S. Gold Reserve
>was being dishoarded, an outcome that the Treasury
>Department would obviously take steps to avoid in
>concocting its scheme because the U.S. Gold Reserve
>cannot be depleted without congressional approval.
>So one is faced with the practical considerations of
>overcoming these hurdles, but the answer is relatively
>simple.
>The Treasury has gold at West Point. The Bundesbank has
>gold in Europe. The Treasury cannot directly do a deal
>with the Bundesbank because, unlike the ESF, the
>Treasury is subject to congressional oversight. So
>instead the secretary of the treasury and the president
>decide to use the ESF to set up a swap line for gold
>with the Bundesbank.
>By so doing, the gold in the Bundesbank's vault in
>Europe becomes ESF gold, to do with as they please --
>that is, the ESF lends this metal to bail out certain
>bullion banks. And the Bundesbank now owns the gold at
>West Point, which as a result was purposefully
>reclassified from Gold Bullion Reserve to Custodial
>Gold because the Treasury no longer owns this gold,
>having swapped it out through the ESF in exchange for
>gold in Europe owned by the Bundesbank.
>Case closed. The mystery of the abnormally low gold
>price is solved. The ESF did it.
>The abnormally low gold price is the result of the
>proof that the ESF is deeply involved in the gold
>market. The ESF is involved in some 1,700 tonnes worth,
>because that is the weight of gold stored in West
>Point, which was probably being swapped at the rate of
>a few hundred tonnes per year from circa 1995 through
>2000.
>There are two other tidbits that I would like to share
>with you that add even more validity to this
>supposition.
>First, a couple of months ago I was analyzing the 1998
>and 1999 balance sheets of the ESF. As a former banker,
>I know a little bit about accounting, including where
>to find the big holes through which the proverbial
>truck can be driven. And I found one that could suggest
>that in these two years 975 tonnes of gold came into
>the market from the ESF.
>After reaching this conclusion, I wanted to test it. So
>I called a top gold market expert whose supply/demand
>analyses are second to none and who believes that gold
>from the U.S. reserves has been coming into the market
>for several years.
>Without telling him about my analysis of the ESF
>balance sheet, I asked him how much gold he thought
>came out of the Treasury/ESF in 1998 and 1999 in total.
>His response was 1,000 tonnes, a mere 25 tonnesª
>difference from what I had deduced from the ESF
>financial statements. When I told him that we had
>reached the same conclusion from different sources, he
>chuckled but was not in the least bit surprised, being
>so convinced that the Treasury/ESF has been a major
>source of metal for years.
>I have thoroughly reviewed his supply/demand numbers
>since 1994 and have determined that as much as 2,000
>tonnes of gold from the U.S. gold reserve may have
>entered the market in order to make the gold price as
>low as it is, which leads me to the second tidbit that
>I would like to share with you. It is just as
>intriguing.
>This same individual told me several months ago about
>some astonishing intelligence he had learned from a
>source in Europe. He told me that the Bundesbankªs gold
>vault was empty, which seemed so preposterous that I
>found it hard to believe. He also admitted that this
>news startled him and that he did not have an adequate


<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Gata Klage (lang aber brisant) - R.Deutsch, 21.04.2001, 13:28
  • Unter welcher URL kann ich ihn herunterladen?... - Diogenes, 21.04.2001, 13:39
    • Re: Unter welcher URL kann ich ihn herunterladen?... - R.Deutsch, 21.04.2001, 14:20
  • ...wer oder was ist bitte"ESF"...? Danke für Rückinfo. Gruß tf:-) (owT) - Trueffel-Ferkel, 21.04.2001, 14:05
    • Re:...wer oder was ist bitte"ESF"...? Danke für Rückinfo. Gruß tf:-) (owT) - R.Deutsch, 21.04.2001, 14:15
      • ...und danke! (owT) - Trueffel-Ferkel, 21.04.2001, 14:40
    • Re:...wer oder was ist bitte"ESF"...? Danke für Rückinfo. Gruß tf:-) (owT) - Diogenes, 21.04.2001, 14:26
      • ...ah ja, danke! (owT) - Trueffel-Ferkel, 21.04.2001, 14:38
  • Re: Ist das Gold der Bundesbank weg? (hier der kurze Rest) - R.Deutsch, 21.04.2001, 14:12
  • Ist dies ein Auszug aus der Klageschrift? oT (Ich verstehe nur die Hälfte) - Talleyrand, 21.04.2001, 15:16
    • Re: das ist so brisant, dass ich es wohl mal übersetzen werde owT - R.Deutsch, 21.04.2001, 16:08
      • wäre nett!! (owT) - ManfredF, 21.04.2001, 18:25
  • Das ist ein heißes Teil - Diogenes, 21.04.2001, 18:25