Discover more from Bailiwick News
Duress, State-sponsored, State-protected contract crimes, and the Bank for International Settlements
Exploring the duress defense for contract bioterrorists.
Orientation for new readers. Reconstitution starter pack. Also thank you to reader Roger Golden Brown who made a PDF of the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program post with clickable links. Other available PDF versions have footnotes instead.
I've been reading Tower of Basel by Adam LeBor, about the 1930 founding and subsequent history of the supranational Bank for International Settlements.
A series of banking incidents during the Spanish Civil War and World War II — the looting of gold and other assets through the BIS as transactional intermediary — illuminate a legal dilemma that still confronts BIS and its public and private sub-agencies.
Duress can provide grounds for judicial nullification of contracts.
International and federal courts, if any should emerge from their current status as BIS vassals, could nullify the contracts signed between the globalist infiltrators in the US government, the bioweapons manufacturers, and the state- and local agencies engaged in the front-line bioweapons attacks on victims, on grounds that the contracts were signed under duress and are therefore invalid.
This would mean helping private bioweapons dealers (masquerading as pharmaceutical and non-governmental organization executives) reduce their own criminal exposure, by creating opportunities for them to flip on their supervising accomplices in exchange for lesser sentences for themselves.
It would give them an opportunity to join with past and prospective victims to mount joint legal attacks against the individuals and institutions financing and directing the global chemical and biological warfare program.
I’m exploring it despite my interest in seeing corporate executives face full justice for their crimes, because I’m even more interested in killing the nascent and rapidly growing so-called biodefense industry, which is, in truth, a biomunitions industry.1
I’m interested in killing all of its grotesque technological platforms including but not limited to mRNA injections.
I’m interested in killing the weapons industry and the weapons platforms at the legal, financial and geopolitical sources that are supplying legal impunity, money and geopolitical ‘public health’ pretexts for global mass murder.
There will be more posts in this series, but the notes-draft got really long, so I'm breaking the material into pieces so the information is easier to digest.
Restatement of the world’s most pressing legal problems:
Historically, national governments have been able to destroy wealth and kill their own people by
designating sub-populations as internal enemies or genetic, cultural or political contaminants;
disarming them; and
propagandizing, coercing and arming other sub-populations to serve as guardians of purity by arresting, imprisoning and killing the designated enemies, and stealing their property.
Since January 2020, virtually all national governments, coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements and the World Health Organization, have been able to kill people all over the world by medicalizing and globalizing the nation-state mass murder model.
They’ve used coordinated, distributed lies-presented-as-true to persuade large proportions of each population that the ends (defeating ill-defined, invisible, ever-present, ever-mutating, lethal communicable pathogen enemies) justify the means: mass censorship; house-arrest and mass diagnostic testing; business, school and church closures and expropriation of assets; financially-incentivized hospital/nursing home homicide protocols; physical and socio-economic duress (firings, school expulsions, military discharges and medical license suspensions); and coerced, repeated mass injection of mislabeled toxic products that cause bodily injury and deaths, largely through gene-based disarmament and self-destructive, autoimmune weaponization of the human immune system.
A crucial, novel feature of the coordinated global fraud + mass murder program revealed through Covid-19, is the perversion of law, converting the law from a shield wielded by the lawful State in cooperation with the People, to protect the People from State and non-State violations of human moral and bodily integrity, into a spear wielded by unlawful, State-affiliated criminals, to weaken, attack, enslave and kill the People.
This inversion and transfer of power — from State-lawfuls to State-criminals — is the reason why prosecutors, courts and legislators have been rendered ineffectual as the chemical and biological warfare attack (disguised as Trojan horse ‘public health’ programs) has become more obvious to victims and observers.
This is also the reason why so many of the legal strategies pursued by private attorneys and plaintiffs have met with failure so far and are likely to continue to do so.
When the overarching criminal enterprise includes perversion of the law and perversion of the prosecutorial and judicial systems themselves, we're confronted with and trapped within a closed system.
State-sponsored, State-protected criminals commit crimes disguised as lawful acts, citing pseudo-laws.
The People are rendered vulnerable, and suffer without legal recourse or remedy.
Put another way: the pseudo-State-actors' adoption of pseudo-laws that conditionally (i.e. under declared public health emergency or national security threat conditions) pseudo-authorize criminal acts and pseudo-suspend Constitutional limits on State power, are foundational crimes underpinning all the other Covid-era crimes of fraud, theft, attempted murder and murder.
Crimes against lawmaking, language and legal interpretation are the crimes without which the other crimes could not have occurred.
So long as those pseudo-laws remain in effect — so long as they are not nullified by competent courts or competent legislatures — the derivative crimes can and will continue.
International contract law may be a vulnerability for the globalist contract killers, because they need two contradictory things.
They need some laws, courts, and contracts to be recognized as legitimate by the People and enforced by State officials who are perceived as legitimate, to carry out the interlocking fraud, theft and mass murder programs under ‘public health,’ ‘biodefense’ and ‘medical countermeasures’ rubrics.
But they also need some courts, laws and contracts — or at least some parts of otherwise-valid components of law, justice, government — to be viewed by the People as invalid, inapplicable, non-competent, and unenforceable, so they can keep getting away with what would otherwise be clearly stoppable, punishable crimes, without being stopped or punished.
Historically, the BIS has been embroiled in political controversies surrounding its unreviewable decisions about whether or not to conduct financial transactions between itself and member central banks. Prior BIS decisions and attempts to reconcile the internal contradictions are highly relevant today.
To the extent that executives running State-sponsored contract bioweapons producers have been threatened — by individuals impersonating US Government or US military officials, or by individuals representing the World Health Organization, Bank for International Settlements or federal central banks — with death to themselves and their families, or financial destruction of the companies they run, if they refuse to sign and fulfill bioweapons production contracts, those executives have been and are currently being subjected to legally-cognizable duress, and all current and derivative future contracts can be nullified by competent courts on that basis.
Duress comes to us from the early 14th Century, meaning "harsh or severe treatment." It derives from Old French duresse, by way of Latin durus, "hard," and proto-Indo-European deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast," related to other words for "wood" and "tree."
The legal sense of duress, as coercion and compulsion, comes from the early 15th Century: "actual or apprehended physical constraint so great as to amount to coercion."
In legal contexts, duress refers to a situation where one person makes unlawful threats or otherwise engages in coercive behavior that causes another person to commit acts that they would otherwise not commit.
In a 2010 Texas case, McCord v. Goode, 308 S.W.3d 409, the court defined duress as “unlawful conduct or a threat of unlawful conduct of such a character as to destroy the other party's exercise of free will and judgment…the threat must be imminent and the party must have no present means of protection.”
A 2006 Florida case, Williams v. Williams, 939 So.2d 1154, cited a 1928 case (Herald v. Hardin, 116 So. 863, 864) to define duress as “a condition of mind produced by an improper external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes him to do an act or make a contract not of his own volition.”
In corporate finance contexts, duress is defined as "the act of using threats or psychological pressure to force someone to behave in a way that is contrary to their wishes...”
In contract law, a party who is forced into an act or contract under duress can petition a court to rescind the contract, rendering it null and void.
In a duress defense, the party admits to committing a criminal act, but unwillingly. Even though the act was illegal, the act was entered into under extreme pressure or threat to cause bodily harm or even death. A party is not deemed guilty of committing an illegal act if he was convinced that he would suffer bodily harm if he did not participate in the act. The role of the [lawful] government is then to prove that the defendant threatened to cause harm to the plaintiff if the latter did not enter into the contract.
Generally, the criminal defendant attempting a duress defense must prove three things: 1) that the defendant was placed in constant, immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death; 2) the defendant reasonably feared the perpetrator could and would carry out the threat; and 3) there was no opportunity for the defendant to escape safely, except by committing the unlawful act.
Physical duress can be directed at either a person or goods.
Physical duress directed at a person includes death threats for noncompliance with demands, for example.
Duress to goods occurs when one party withholds the goods of another party until the party enters into an illegal contract, leaving the second party with no alternative other than to give in to the coercion.
Relevant to the DoD-ATI-ANSER-BARDA-DARPA-HHS-FDA-MCDC ‘biodefense’ and ‘medical countermeasures’ contracts disclosed through Brook Jackson’s whistleblower case, duress defenses can also be used by parties subject to economic threats.
Economic duress occurs when one party uses unlawful economic pressure to coerce another party into a contract that they would otherwise not agree to, or when one party threatens to cancel an existing contract unless the other party agrees to enter into another contract.
Courts can set aside criminal contracts if one or more of the criminal contractors “flip” on their co-conspirators and show that they had no choice but to enter into the contract, that they were presented with an offer [threat] they were not in a position to refuse.
The moral principle of free will is essential for the legal defense of duress, and this is why Catholic theology — particularly the juridical theology taught by St. Thomas Aquinas — is extremely important to the legal systems of historic Christendom.
This is also why the erasure of and public amnesia about the moral principle of free will has been such an important project for the Luciferian globalist banksters working over the last century to create conditions conducive to establishing global Old World Slavery, with a New World Order label slapped on the bottle.
They can't make the human attribute of free will not be a true fact about human nature, because God built free will immutably into our design and function.
But they can tempt, confuse, or abuse individual human beings to get us to temporarily forget, renounce, ignore or discount our free will.
That's what the 1951 Solomon Asch conformity experiments, 1958 Harry Harlow social isolation experiments, 1961 Stanley Milgram obedience to authority experiments, 1971 Philip Zimbardo Stanford prison experiments, 1972 Martin Seligman learned helplessness experiments; and 1977 Bruce Alexander solitary confinement “Rat Park” experiments were all about.
That’s what the whole collection of CIA-directed psychological, soul-torture programs and their progeny in the Covid-era "behavioral considerations" and "overcoming vaccine hesitancy" programs have been all about.
Resisting duress — fighting against the demonic temptation to renounce free will, submit to sin, and reject God, fighting even unto bodily death to stay close to God — is what martyrs do. Pastor Andrew Isker recently made a very good case that those of us alive in these times, are being called to endure psychological martyrdom.
The point is: globalists and their accomplices at the federal, state and local level can elicit temporary renunciation of free will, but they can’t make it permanent. The willing human being can always withdraw his or her prior consent to sin and return to God.
Even bioweapons arms dealers like Albert Bourla (Pfizer), Stephane Bancel (Moderna), Steve Hopkins (ANSER), Chris van Metre (ATI), Bill Gates (BMGF), and Seth Berkeley (GAVI).
BIS and duress in the 1930s.
So far, I’ve read the first six chapters of Adam LeBor’s 2013 book Tower of Basel.
It’s an extremely useful history of the Bank for International Settlements, and I’m using some of the footnotes to locate good source documents. One shortcoming is that LeBor (so far) appears to accept at face value, BIS claims that the intent of the original structure — outside of any sovereign government control — and the bank’s decisions are to keep the bank above or outside of politics, for “neutrality.”
Although the book is full of examples demonstrating that the neutrality characterization is a lie, LeBor doesn't directly confront the ways in which BIS has always deliberately used its concentrated, unchecked, unchallenged financial power to influence and direct geopolitical events.
BIS simply states as fact that bank decisions are not political, and since they're chartered outside the control of any national government, their statements have historically not been subjected to any form of moral or legal challenge.
Below are brief sketches of three examples from the very earliest years of the bank’s operations, through which BIS executives, with or without BIS board knowledge or approval (it varied), made different decisions about whether to conduct requested international financial transactions, depending on the BIS staff's own geopolitical goals and legal opinions about whether or not the requests were submitted under duress, which could have made it impossible for BIS to honor those requests under Article 10 of the Jan. 20, 1930 BIS charter:
…The Bank, its property and assets and all deposits and other funds entrusted to it shall be immune in time of peace and in time of war from any measure such as expropriation, requisition, seizure, confiscation, prohibition or restriction of gold or currency export or import, and any other similar measures…
Not surprisingly, BIS decisions ran in favor of BIS profits in every case, and for or against specific depositors in each case.
Most relevant to the geopolitical, legal and financial contract predicaments in which the world is now embroiled, BIS bank officers and directors experienced some difficulty and some concern about public exposure of their legal analyses and financial transaction decisions.
Briefly, BIS has financially facilitated looting and mass murder programs, and some member countries have occasionally found the bank’s actions reprehensible.
The first example of BIS geopolitical interference played out during the Spanish Civil War. (pp. 54-57)
LeBor reports that “transnational capital decided the fate of Spain,” during the war between the Nationalist army, led by General Franco, and the Republicans.
“The nationalists understood that finance was a weapon as effective as bullets.”
The nationalists set up a rival economy, rival national bank, and rival currency, called the peseta, the same name as the Republican currency. Despite the fact that the Republican government had ample gold reserves and should have been able to issue bonds to finance the economy and the war, the international banks and financiers refused to purchase the bonds. Meanwhile, “Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provided hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid” to the nationalists.
The result was inflation: “the Republican peseta was worth three times less in French francs” than the nationalist peseta.
“The nationalists steadily corroded the Spaniards’ belief in their currency and, by extension, in their government.”
Because they couldn’t issue bonds, the Republican government instead sold the country’s gold and silver reserves to France and Moscow. Meanwhile, the nationalists criminalized the use of banknotes issued by the Republicans after 1936, and sent bankers into each newly-captured territory with military leaders, “to reorganize the local banks.”
“This, as much as the Blitzkrieg, was the real lesson of the Spanish Civil War: the nationalists’ sophisticated fusion of financial and military power2. The Nazis would hone this model, using the BIS to underpin their economic empire.”
The second example of BIS geopolitical control through financial transactions is Hitler’s September 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland territory of the Czechoslovak Republic and subsequent requests — which Czech officials made to BIS under German orders — that BIS transfer Czech gold reserves to the Reichsbank. (pp. 59-69)
Before the war, the Czechs had already transferred most of their gold reserves to two accounts at the Bank of England for safety. There was one gold account in the name of BIS and one in the name of the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.
“Josef Malik, the governor of the national bank, and his fellow Czechs believed that, even as the Nazis dismembered their homeland, if the national gold was safe, then something of the country’s independence would endure.”
In February 1939, “Berlin ordered Prague to transfer just over 14.5 metric tons of gold.” Then in March, after the Wehrmacht occupied Prague and dissolved Czechoslovakia,
“a Reichsbank official was dispatched…and ordered the [Czech bank] directors, under the threat of death, to issue two orders…the first…to transfer the 23.1 metric tons of Czechoslovakia gold held at the BIS account at the Bank of England to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at the Bank of England [and] …the second to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own account to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.”
Malik and other Czech bank directors believed the BIS and Bank of England would not do the transfers, on grounds that they were under Nazi duress.
But BIS president Johan Beyen consulted BIS legal advisor Felix Weiser, who argued that if the paperwork was in order, the BIS-to-Reichsbank transaction should be processed, and further argued that the Czechs couldn't be under duress, because the only way to prove it would be to go to a Swiss court, but they couldn't travel to Switzerland to press their case, because they and their country were under German control.
After a few ass-covering maneuvers, BIS and Bank of England, led by Montagu Norman, ratified the annexation by transferring the first 23.1 metric tons of gold.
“With London, Paris and Basel’s compliance, Nazi Germany had just looted 23.1 metric tons of gold without a shot being fired.”
Brief political and popular outrage ensued. There were some unflattering press reports in the Daily Herald and Financial News and angry Parliament speeches. The second transfer didn’t go through after the chancellor of the Exchequer construed the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own gold account at the Bank of England differently from the Czech gold held in the BIS account. The former was construed as a national asset subject to transaction blocks; the latter was construed as exempt.
The precedent had been set; BIS and Bank of England established legal principles giving them authority to expropriate and transfer the national assets of other countries.
The US Federal Reserve followed the precedent shortly thereafter, transferring $35,000 from the Czechoslovak National Bank account into the BIS account.
Side note: Tower of Basel author LeBor interprets these actions as the incapacity of Montagu Norman (Bank of England) and Johan Beyen (BIS) to “conceive of any moral or political dimension to their decisions.”
In my view, a more plausible explanation is that both men — and their successors — have been fully aware of the moral and political dimension of their decisions, and make decisions to covertly achieve geopolitical aims that cannot be achieved through public mechanisms of elective, sovereign governance at the nation-state level.
A third example of BIS geopolitical control through financial transactions occurred in June 1940, after the Red Army invaded Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. (p. 79-80)
By this time, the BIS president was American lawyer Thomas McKittrick. When the Soviets ordered the three central bank governors in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to instruct the BIS to transfer their gold reserves into the Soviet Union’s state bank, BIS managers and legal advisors argued that the transactions should go through, citing to the Czech-Reichbank precedent.
McKittrick solicited an external legal opinion from a Swiss professor (Dieter Schindler), who argued that the Baltic banks and bank governors were no longer “free agents, but had probably acted under the instructions of the Soviets.”
LeBor writes: “[Schindler] quoted Article 10 of the BIS charter, which prohibited coercive mechanisms against depositors…thus…it was the duty of the BIS management to ‘resist’… any attempts by governments to interfere with the BIS’s assets.”
The BIS refused to conduct the transfer of Baltic gold to the Soviet Union.
McKittrick sent the legal opinion to Merle Cochran, the unofficial American State Department ambassador to the BIS, asking Cochran to keep it confidential.
“My one serious concern is that it should not get into the press. After the damaging campaign of publicity regarding the Czech gold, it is of the greatest importance to the BIS to remain in the background at this time.”
State's evidence v. People's evidence
In the scenario I'm exploring, executives at Pfizer, Moderna, ATI, ANSER and other DOD biomunitions contractors would have an opportunity to flip on the criminal contract counterparties who have placed them under economic and likely also physical duress.
Historically, this process would be called "turning State's evidence" because — until the Covid-19 biowarfare criminal enterprise began — in most cases the criminal contract counterparty was not identical to the State, or at least not as obviously and with as widespread, deadly effect.
Until January 2020, the State, represented by the public prosecutor, (federal or state Attorney General or county District Attorney) could accept reports and then investigate organized crime, criminal enterprises, and criminal contracts on behalf of the People, to protect the People from the predations of the criminals.
After evidence collection, the State prosecutor could then file charges against one or more criminal defendants, some of whom could choose to admit guilt — admit participation in the criminal activity — and then reveal valuable evidence to the prosecutor.
Men and women who “flipped” could testify at trial as witnesses to support conviction of other criminals in the network (accomplices or co-conspirators), higher up the chain of command, in exchange for lessened charges.
And this is another way in which we’re in uncharted legal waters.
During the ongoing Covid-19 fraud, theft, and mass murder criminal enterprise, infiltrators control the power levers of the State — including the prosecutorial and judicial offices — and are simultaneously serving as the supervising accomplices and contract counterparties to the private bioweapons manufacturers and criminal frontline aggressors: militarized nurses and pharmacists injecting targets with poisons.
To whom do People have recourse when almost every State worldwide has been captured by criminals and the capture is rendered almost invisible by perversions of language and law?
As far as I can tell, it’s God: the Divine authority from whom all legitimate earthly human authority derives.
That’s why I think it's a good idea for people to be ready — with all the evidence and arguments we’ve been assembling since the Covid-19 crime spree began — for the time when God clears the path and shows us where legitimate human lawmakers, prosecutors and judges are located and who those people are.
I have no idea what that path will look like, when God will reveal it. I don’t know who those men and women are, or when God will help them step forward.
I'm on the lookout for it every day. I pray that He opens the path soon, and that I’ll be able to recognize it quickly, and walk it faithfully.
I have faith that He will provide the path and the people when the time is right, according to His plan for the world.
Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:
It is not the sanctuary that is in danger; it is civilization.
It is not infallibility that may go down; it is personal rights.
It is not the Eucharist that may pass away; it is freedom of conscience.
It is not divine justice that may evaporate; it is the courts of human justice.
It is not that God may be driven from His throne;
it is that men may lose the meaning of home.
For peace on earth will come only to those who give glory to God!
It is not the Church that is in danger, it is the world!
Similar to the way the Lend-Lease program in 1941 was established to pre-commit the United States to entering World War II, the development of the "warm-base" bioweapons manufacturing system built since the early 1980s, is designed to replace the Cold War arms race, with what the globalist hope will be a permanent, costly "biodefense" industry capable of destroying wealth and populations, along the lines of the 1967 Iron Mountain report.
A key lesson of World War II is the globalists’ sophisticated fusion of financial, military and biomedical power.