TBR Neews April 7, 2016
The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. April 7, 2016: “Little by little the so-called ‘Panama Papers’ are coming into public attention. Inside the Beltway in Washington, there is a mixture of animal fear and rage because it is known that a number of very prominent political leaders, major business and governmental leaders have accounts. The coming elections could well be seriously impacted by knowledge that this or that Presidential candidate had been hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars where neither the public or the IRS can find them. The end is not in sight here but it is entertaining to note that the two individuals most detested by the controlled media, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin do not have off-shore accounts. Just think, that rich American who put up the money to steal these documents must be weeping with frustration seeing nothing buy members of the Saud royal family and half the political leaders of Europe on the hook.”
Conversations with the Crow
On October 8th, 2000, Robert Trumbull Crowley, once a leader of the CIA’s Clandestine Operations Division, died in a Washington hospital of heart failure and the end effects of Alzheimer’s Disease. Before the late Assistant Director Crowley was cold, Joseph Trento, a writer of light-weight books on the CIA, descended on Crowley’s widow at her town house on Cathedral Hill Drive in Washington and hauled away over fifty boxes of Crowley’s CIA files.
Once Trento had his new find secure in his house in Front Royal , Virginia, he called a well-known Washington fix lawyer with the news of his success in securing what the CIA had always considered to be a potential major embarrassment. Three months before, July 20th of that year, retired Marine Corps colonel William R. Corson, and an associate of Crowley, died of emphysema and lung cancer at a hospital in Bethesda, Md. After Corson’s death, Trento and his Washington lawyer went to Corson’s bank, got into his safe deposit box and removed a manuscript entitled ‘Zipper.’ This manuscript, which dealt with Crowley’s involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, vanished into a CIA burn-bag and the matter was considered to be closed forever
After Crowley’s death and Trento’s raid on the Crowley files, huge gaps were subsequently discovered by horrified CIA officials and when Crowley’s friends mentioned Gregory Douglas, it was discovered that Crowley’s son had shipped two large boxes to Douglas. No one knew their contents but because Douglas was viewed as an uncontrollable loose cannon who had done considerable damage to the CIA’s reputation by his on-going publication of the history of Gestapo-Mueller, they bent every effort both to identify the missing files and make some effort to retrieve them before Douglas made any use of them.
Douglas had been in close contact with Crowley and had long phone conversations with him. He found this so interesting and informative that he taped and later transcribed them.
These conversations have been published in a book: ‘Conversations with the Crow” and this is an excerpt.
Conversation No. 81
Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997
Commenced: 9:10 AM CST
Concluded: 9:27AM CST
GD: Just to let you know, Robert, I was able to sell the two drawings I got from Mueller.
RTC: Very good, Gregory. Did you get your price for them?
GD Yes. Fine.Chagal trash. I can understand why Hitler burned a lot of this but it does sell. Mueller must have had a warehouse full of this. Much of it came from Jewish collections in Paris and Amsterdam and to my mind, just artistic trash. Same school as the idea that Myron and Estelle bought the Picasso because it matched their rug. Taste up their anus. A friend of mine was in Paris and visited the Rothschild palace there. The building was a beautiful place but the gaudy garbage inside looked like the parlor of a Tijuana whorehouse.
RTC: (Laughter) Well, there’s no disputing tastes, is there?
GD: No, but art is art and junk is junk. Stolen junk but junk the same.
RTC: What about the Polish piece?
GD: That Raphael? It’s safe now. When Heini died, his wife begged me to get it out of the house before someone saw it so I was of assistance. ‘Portait of a Gentlemen.” Looked more like a Hollywood makeup artist if you ask me but a beautiful piece. Well, Frank looted it and the Leonardo from the Poles in ’39 and they got the ‘Lady with the Ermine’ back but the Gestapo had bagged the Raphael and Mueller took it at the end week of the war. The Germans were looking for portable treasures, you know. , and after the war into the hands of its liberators for precisely the same reason. Many paintings, sculptures, rare books, manuscripts and other valuables have never surfaced in public since the war ended in 1945.The Raphael belonged to the wealthy Polish Czartoryski family. Hans Frank, the Governor of the former Polish territory. Frank brought the painting back to Germany since he had to evacuate his post as the Soviets advanced into Poland. The Raphael was taken from Frank by the Gestapo, and the Americans seized the Da Vinci and later returned it to the Poles. The Raphael painting, “Portrait of a Gentleman,” is still listed as missing.
RTC: I understand we got our hands on boatloads of stolen art. Wasn’t Mueller selling it as I recall?
GD: Yes. He got the Rothschild coins, which consisted of a collection of over 2,000 rare gold coins taken from the Vienna branch of the Rothschild family and kept at the Hohenfurth monastery in Czechoslovakia for safe keeping. These coins were taken from the Linz collection in the last month of the war by Dr. von Hummel, Bormann’s secretary, and Dr. Rupprecht, curator of Hitler’s armor collection and an acquaintance of Müller. The collection was transported by car to Berchtesgaden and vanished from sight.
RTC: Did Mueller get these too, are you sure?
GD: I have seen some of them. Yes. Of course the Raphael would be impossible to sell in public auction, but the coins are a different matter. Some for the wife and his second family, some for my dealer friends and some for me. A good, constructive business, Robert.
RTC: All that income was most welcome.
GD: Oh yes, and I wonder how many top CIA people have a Raphael or Fra Fillippi print on their walls. I have a few of my own. Who can prove where they came from? Who cares? On the other hand, if the Polacks discovered where the Raphael was now, there would be many loud questions asked.
RTC: I would imagine that we kept most of that noise making down. Amazing what a few private threats will do.
GD: Well, if I had it, I would just hang it on my wall and avoid eating Polish sausage. My God, Heini made millions with the stuff. And I’ll bet he even gave you people a few dollars out of the kindness of his heart.
RTC: We take it where we get it. Swiss gold, Nazi looted art, drugs, name it and rejoice.
GD: Name it? You adulterated the gold reserves of a number of our blessed allies during the war…or rather after it. They think they have pure gold bars but what they do have are low grade gold heavily plated. Well, they put the stuff in their vaults and never use it. And how much of the other countries stuff did you keep? I mean, just to protect it from the Russians? Of course they stole too but we beat them to most of it. I have a tea service that belonged to Catherine the Great but someone want to buy it so I may part with it. I don’t give tea parties these days and silver is so hard to keep clean.
RTC: If you have a nice porcelain teapot, Emily would love it.
GD: I have about eight in storage. Eighteenth century French do?
RTC: Original?
GD: Of course. Who knows where it came from so enjoy it. I have a nice gold cigarette case that belonged to Nicholas the Second. Faberge work. Don’t smoke but it looks nice on the table right under a nice oil of the last Tsar. They smoked long cigarettes with attached cardboard holders. Has Nicky’s initial set with stones on the front lower right. You smoke?
RTC: Well……..I’m not supposed to. Were you going to give me the gold case?
GD: I thought a box of Camels might do.
RTC: A very kind person. But you don’t smoke.
GD: Ah, but you’re not supposed to. How about a nice eighteenth century silver Torah? The Gestapo bagged it in some synagogue in Stuttgart in November of 38. Tag and all. Fine work but it looks weird in the hall and like the silver service, it’s a bitch to keep clean.
RTC: No thanks.
(Concluded at 9:27 AM CST)
Panama Papers reveal offshore secrets of China’s red nobility
Disclosures show how havens such as British Virgin Islands hide links between big business and relatives of top politicians
- The Panama Papers revelations so far
- French villa at the heart of a scandal
April 6, 2016
by Juliette Garside and David Pegg
The Guardian
The eight members of China’s Communist party elite whose family members used offshore companies are revealed in the Panama Papers.
The documents show the granddaughter of a powerful Chinese leader became the sole shareholder in two British Virgin Islands companies while still a teenager. Jasmine Li had just begun studying at Stanford University in the US when the companies were registered in her name in December 2010. Her grandfather Jia Qinglin was at that time the fourth-ranked politician in China.
Other prominent figures who have taken advantage of offshore companies include the brother-in-law of the president, Xi Jinping, and the son-in-law of Zhang Gaoli, another member of China’s top political body, the politburo standing committee.
They are part of the “red nobility”, whose influence extends well beyond politics. Others include the daughter of Li Peng, who oversaw the brutal retaliation against Tiananmen Square protestors; and Gu Kailai, wife of Bo Xilai, the ex-politburo member jailed for life for corruption and power abuses.
The relatives had companies that were clients of the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca. There is nothing in the documents to suggest that the politicians in question had any beneficial interest in the companies connected to their family members.
Since Monday, China’s censors have been blocking access to the unfolding revelations about its most senior political families. There are now reports of censors deleting hundreds of posts on the social networks Sina Weibo and Wechat, and some media organisations including CNN say parts of their websites have been blocked.
The disclosures come amid Xi Jinping’s crackdown on behaviour that could embarrass the Communist party.
Two more well-connected figures – the brother of former vice-president Zeng Qinghong and the son of former politburo member Tian Jiyun – are directors of a single offshore company. They have previously been linked in a court case that highlighted how some Chinese “princelings” have used political connections for financial gain.
They have emerged from the internal data of the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca, obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in Washington with the Guardian, the BBC and other media.
China and Hong Kong were Mossack Fonseca’s biggest sources of business, with clients from these jurisdictions linked to a total of 40,000 companies past and present. About a quarter of these are thought to be live: in 2015, records show the firm was collecting fees for nearly 10,000 companies linked to Hong Kong and China. The Mossack Fonseca franchise now has offices in eight Chinese cities, according to its website.
There are many legitimate reasons to use offshore companies. Individuals living in multiple jurisdictions find them convenient, and in China they are often used as a way to attract and safeguard investment from overseas. While there is no indication of any wrongdoing, the leaks draw unwelcome attention to the wealth of leaders’ families. In some cases, they show how secrecy havens are being used to create and hide potentially lucrative connections between big business and politics in the world’s second largest economy.
Even as officials advertise their zeal in targeting corruption by hunting assets overseas and checking on the relatives of officials, they remain highly sensitive to the disclosure of the business interests of top leaders’ families.
In 2014, the websites of the Guardian and several other media outlets were blocked for several months after revealing such offshore holdings. Xi’s brother-in-law Deng Jiagui and Li’s daughter Li Xiaolin were named in those leaks, too. The new documents therefore indicate multiple offshore holdings.
Xi’s harsh anti-corruption drive has brought down a host of high-ranking figures. In December, he urged politburo members “to strictly educate and supervise their children and other family members as well as subordinates, and to rectify their problems in a timely manner”. He urged members of the 25-strong body to not only have integrity but “stay away from vulgar taste and set good examples for other cadres and the general public”. In other words, avoiding wrongdoing is not enough, impressions count, too.
Xi’s daughter, Xi Mingze, studied at Harvard but kept a low profile, living under an assumed name. In contrast, Jasmine Li came to public attention when Vogue featured her in a floor-length Carolina Herrera gown at the Hotel de Crillon’s annual debutante ball in Paris in 2009. She was presented alongside Lady Kitty Spencer, niece of Princess Diana, and the daughter of Clint Eastwood.
The following year, shortly after beginning a course in international relations at Stanford, she was recorded as the sole shareholder of two entities registered in the British Virgin Islands, Harvest Sun Trading Limited and Xin Sheng Investments Limited. These companies established at least two businesses in Beijing, with a combined registered capital of £200,000, described on the register as specialising in “investment and consulting”.
The leaked data reveals Harvest Sun was incorporated in July 2009 and that its first shareholder was someone apparently unconnected to Li: a 57-year-old Hong Kong entrepreneur known as the King of Watches.
Cheung Yu Ping’s firm, Hengdeli, is valued at $470m on the Hong Kong stock exchange and is one of the world’s biggest sellers of Swiss watches by volume. It supplies pieces by Cartier and TAG Heuer to China’s new rich.
In December 2010, Cheung passed his shares in Harvest Sun to Li for just $1. A lawyer for Cheung said the company had contained no assets at the time of transfer. He explained: “Our client had no relationship with Ms Li, who was introduced to our client by some business partners for taking up the company without the need to set up another shell company herself. Our client considered the consideration of the transfer reasonable as the company was only a shell company with no assets inside.”
Li did not respond to requests for comment.
Politically exposed persons – or PEPs, public officials, their families and known associates – are considered high risk clients by those providing offshore services. Mossack Fonseca said: “We have duly established policies and procedures to identify and handle those cases where individuals either qualify as PEPs or are related to them … Enhanced due diligence procedures apply in these cases.”
The president’s brother-in-law
Xi Jinping’s brother-in-law Deng Jiagui was a shareholder in two BVI companies, Wealth Ming International and Best Effect Enterprises.
Deng appeared on the shareholder registers of both companies in September 2009. They both existed for roughly 18 months before being closed in April 2011 and October 2010 respectively.
The previous leak of offshore documents revealed Deng owned a 50% stake in the BVI-incorporated Excellence Effort Property Development. Ownership of the remainder of the company has been traced back to two Chinese property tycoons.
Deng is married to Xi’s older sister, and together they built a fortune through investments in property and natural resources. In 2012, they were reported to hold stakes in companies with total assets of $376m, and an indirect 18% share in a minerals company worth $2bn. Since Xi became president, they have pulled out of many of their investments.
Thanks to his close connection to the centre of Chinese power, Deng qualifies as a PEP. Banks, registered agents and professionals such as lawyers are obliged to carry out detailed checks on the source of funds when managing money for politicians, public officials, their families and close associates.
Deng was the named shareholder and had given the firm his Hong Kong identity papers. But Mossack Fonseca’s files did not list him as a PEP, raising questions about whether detailed checks were made on what his offshore vehicles were used for. Deng did not respond to requests for comment.
The power queen
Former premier Li Peng is known by his detractors as the butcher of Beijing for his part in the bloody crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In 1994, a BVI company called Cofic Investments Limited, ultimately owned by his daughter Li Xiaolin, was incorporated.
Her fortune has been estimated at $550m, and she has made a name as China’s “power queen” after a career spent running electricity-generating businesses. She is vice-president of state-owned power group China Datang Corporation.
Li is noted in China for conspicuous consumption – her appearance in a pink Pucci trouser suit at the annual meeting of a top government advisory body prompted a widely shared social media post that suggested the 12,000 yuan (£1,300) price tag was equivalent to warm clothes for 200 poor children.
Previous ICIJ investigations have linked her to two other BVI companies, and to Swiss bank accounts. Li and her husband, Liu Zhiyuan, were revealed as the beneficiaries of five bank accounts that together held as much as $2.48m in 2006-07.
Li’s identity became known to Mossack Fonseca when BVI regulators asked for information about Cofic in 2015, and inquiries were made with the Geneva law firm that represented it. Cofic’s directors at this time were two partners in the firm, Charles-André Junod and Alain Bruno Lévy. Its shareholder, however, was a secretive Liechtenstein entity called Fondation Silo, whose beneficial owners were named by Junod as Li and her husband.
When asked about his clients, Junod sent their passports to Mossack Fonseca with the following explanation: “Regarding the source of funds, it is business profits: my clients have provided, through Cofic, services to other clients of my office who were exporting heavy industrial equipment from Europe to China.”
Cofic held a Swiss bank account at UBS and another with the asset manager Mirelis InvesTrust, the files show. Junod said: “In our activity, we have always been acting in full compliance with laws and regulations governing our profession.”
Li did not respond to requests for comment.
The Hong Kong lobbyists
Zeng Qinghong was China’s vice-president until 2008. His younger brother, Zeng Qinghuai, is well known in Hong Kong, having worked there as an envoy for the ministry of culture. He was a consultant to Beginning of the Great Revival, a state-produced propaganda movie which, according to the New York Times, “exemplified the hand-in-glove relationship between business and politics”. Government offices and schools were ordered to buy tickets and any criticism was censored. State support ensured it was one of 2011’s top grossing films.
The Panama Papers reveal that Zeng Qinghuai is a director of a company called Chinese Cultural Exchange Association Ltd, registered first in the tiny South Pacific island of Niue, then in Samoa. He sits on the board alongside another princeling, Tian Chenggang, son of former vice-premier and politburo member Tian Jiyun.
A 2012 court case, in which Tian Chenggang unsuccessfully sued a developer called Beijing Henderson Properties, shed new light on the business dealings of the red nobility. The court in Hong Kong heard that Tian and a company linked to Zeng had been separately engaged to lobby regulators on behalf of Henderson when it was under investigation for breaching foreign exchange regulations in 2006. An exchange of letters disclosed in court suggested Tian’s father had written to the regulators to plead leniency. In the event, the fine imposed was smaller than expected.
Companies linked to Zeng received fees of $2.1m and $650,000. Henderson rejected Tian’s demand for $5.5m, so Tian sued for the money but lost. The judge’s summing up said of him: “He tried to project an air of superiority … His attitude was contemptuous and disrespectful.”
Zeng and Tian did not respond to requests for comment.
The others
Also in the data are Hu Dehua, the businessman son of Hu Yaobang, the Communist party’s general secretary ousted in 1987 because he was seen as too liberal (and, some sympathisers say, for his attempts to root out corruption among leaders’ families). Hu has interests in technology and energy, and is registered as sole shareholder of a BVI entity called Fortalent International Holdings. Hu did not respond to requests for comment.
Hong Kong businessman Lee Shing Put is married to the adoptive daughter of Zhang Gaoli, who is China’s senior vice-premier. As a member of the politburo standing committee, he is one of the seven most powerful politicians in China.
His son-in-law Lee worked for Xinyi, a glass, plastics and solar power manufacturer founded by Lee’s father, but resigned in 2008, according to the company. He is listed as a shareholder in Sino Reliance Networks Corporation, now closed, Glory Top Investments and Zennon Capital Management.
At the time of his father-in-law’s elevation to the politburo, Lee, who did not respond to requests for comment, was a director of 17 Hong Kong companies, the South China Morning Post reported.
(Panama Papers reporting team: Juliette Garside, Luke Harding, Holly Watt, David Pegg, Helena Bengtsson, Simon Bowers, Owen Gibson and Nick Hopkins)
‘Corruption’ as a Propaganda Weapon
April 4, 2016
by Robert Parry
Consortiumnews
Sadly, some important duties of journalism, such as applying evenhanded standards on human rights abuses and financial corruption, have been so corrupted by the demands of government propaganda – and the careerism of too many writers – that I now become suspicious whenever the mainstream media trumpets some sensational story aimed at some “designated villain.”
Far too often, this sort of “journalism” is just a forerunner to the next “regime change” scheme, dirtying up or delegitimizing a foreign leader before the inevitable advent of a “color revolution” organized by “democracy-promoting” NGOs often with money from the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy or some neoliberal financier like George Soros.
We are now seeing what looks like a new preparatory phase for the next round of “regime changes” with corruption allegations aimed at former Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The new anti-Putin allegations – ballyhooed by the UK Guardian and other outlets – are particularly noteworthy because the so-called “Panama Papers” that supposedly implicate him in offshore financial dealings never mention his name.
Or as the Guardian writes: “Though the president’s name does not appear in any of the records, the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage. The documents suggest Putin’s family has benefited from this money – his friends’ fortunes appear his to spend.”
Note, if you will, the lack of specificity and the reliance on speculation: “a pattern”; “seemingly”; “suggest”; “appear.” Indeed, if Putin were not already a demonized figure in the Western media, such phrasing would never pass an editor’s computer screen. Indeed, the only point made in declarative phrasing is that “the president’s name does not appear in any of the records.”
A British media-watch publication, the Off-Guardian, which criticizes much of the work done at The Guardian, headlined its article on the Putin piece as “the Panama Papers cause Guardian to collapse into self-parody.”
But whatever the truth about Putin’s “corruption” or Lula’s, the journalistic point is that the notion of objectivity has long since been cast aside in favor of what’s useful as propaganda for Western interests.
Some of those Western interests now are worried about the growth of the BRICS economic system – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – as a competitor to the West’s G-7 and the International Monetary Fund. After all, control of the global financial system has been central to American power in the post-World War II world – and rivals to the West’s monopoly are not welcome.
What the built-in bias against these and other “unfriendly” governments means, in practical terms, is that one standard applies to a Russia or a Brazil, while a more forgiving measure is applied to the corruption of a U.S. or European leader.
Take, for instance, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s millions of dollars in payments in speaking fees from wealthy special interests that knew she was a good bet to become the next U.S. president. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Clinton Stalls on Goldman-Sachs Speeches.”]
Or, similarly, the millions upon millions of dollars invested in super-PACS for Clinton, Sen. Ted Cruz and other presidential hopefuls. That might look like corruption from an objective standard but is treated as just a distasteful aspect of the U.S. political process.
But imagine for a minute if Putin had been paid millions of dollars for brief speeches before powerful corporations, banks and interest groups doing business with the Kremlin. That would be held up as de facto proof of his illicit greed and corruption.
Losing Perspective
Also, when it’s a demonized foreign leader, any “corruption” will do, however minor. For example, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s denounced Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for his choice of eyewear: “The dictator in designer glasses,” declared Reagan, even as Nancy Reagan was accepting free designer gowns and free renovations of the White House funded by oil and gas interests.
Or, the “corruption” for a demonized leader can be a modest luxury, such as Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s “sauna” in his personal residence, a topic that got front-page treatment in The New York Times and other Western publications seeking to justify the violent coup that drove Yanukovych from office in February 2014.
Incidentally, both Ortega and Yanukovych had been popularly elected but were still targeted by the U.S. government and its operatives with violent destabilization campaigns. In the 1980s, the CIA-organized Nicaraguan Contra war killed some 30,000 people, while the U.S.-orchestrated “regime change” in Ukraine sparked a civil war that has left some 10,000 people dead. Of course, in both cases, Official Washington blamed Moscow for all the trouble.
In both cases, too, the politicians and operatives who gained power as a result of the conflicts were arguably more corrupt than the Nicaraguan Sandinistas or Yanukovych’s government. The Nicaraguan Contras, whose violence helped pave the way for the 1990 election of U.S.-backed candidate Violeta Chamorro, were deeply implicated in cocaine trafficking. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga.”]
Today, the U.S.-supported Ukrainian government is wallowing in corruption so deep that it has provoked a new political crisis.[See Consortiumnews’com’s “Reality Peeks Through in Ukraine.”]
Ironically, one of the politicians actually named in the Panama Papers for having established a shadowy offshore account is the U.S.-backed Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, although he got decidedly second-billing to the unnamed Putin. (Poroshenko denied there was anything improper in his offshore financial arrangements.)
Double Standards
Mainstream Western journalism no longer even tries to apply common standards to questions about corruption. If you’re a favored government, there might be lamentations about the need for more “reform” – which often means slashing pensions for the elderly and cutting social programs for the poor – but if you’re a demonized leader, then the only permissible answer is criminal indictment and/or “regime change
One stark example of these double standards is the see-no-evil attitude toward the corruption of Ukraine’s Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who is touted endlessly in the Western media as the paragon of Ukrainian good governance and reform. The documented reality, however, is that Jaresko enriched herself through her control of a U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund that was supposed to help the people of Ukraine build their economy.
According to the terms of the $150 million investment fund created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Jaresko’s compensation was supposed to be capped at $150,000 a year, a pay package that many Americans would envy. But it was not enough for Jaresko, who first simply exceeded the limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars and then moved her compensation off-books as she amassed total annual pay of $2 million or more.
The documentation of this scheming is clear. I have published multiple stories citing the evidence of both her excessive compensation and her legal strategies for covering up evidence of alleged wrongdoing. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How Ukraine’s Finance Minister Got Rich” and “Carpetbagging Crony Capitalism in Ukraine.”]
Despite the evidence, not a single mainstream Western news outlet has followed up on this information even as Jaresko is hailed as a “reform” candidate for Ukrainian prime minister.
This disinterest is similar to the blinders that The New York Times and other major Western newspapers put on when they were assessing whether Ukrainian President Yanukovych was ousted in a coup in February 2014 or just wandered off and forgot to return.
In a major “investigative” piece, the Times concluded there was no coup in Ukraine while ignoring the evidence of a coup, such as the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who they would put into power. “Yats is the guy,” said Nuland – and surprise, surprise, Arseniy Yatsenyuk ended up as prime minister.
The Times also ignored the observation of George Friedman, president of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, who noted that the Ukraine coup was “the most blatant coup in history.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]
The Propaganda Weapon
The other advantage of “corruption” as a propaganda weapon to discredit certain leaders is that we all assume that there is plenty of corruption in governments as well as in the private sector all around the world. Alleging corruption is like shooting large fish crowded into a small barrel. Granted, some barrels might be more crowded than others but the real decision is whose barrel you choose.
That’s part of the reason why the U.S. government has spread around hundreds of millions of dollars to finance “journalism” organizations, train political activists and support “non-governmental organizations” that promote U.S. policy goals inside targeted countries. For instance, before the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine, there were scores of such operations in the country financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose budget from Congress exceeds $100 million a year.
But NED, which has been run by neocon Carl Gershman since its founding in 1983, is only part of the picture. You have other propaganda fronts operating under the umbrella of the State Department and USAID. Last year, USAID issued a fact sheet summarizing its work financing friendly journalists around the globe, including “journalism education, media business development, capacity building for supportive institutions, and strengthening legal-regulatory environments for free media.”
USAID estimated its budget for “media strengthening programs in over 30 countries” at $40 million annually, including aiding “independent media organizations and bloggers in over a dozen countries,” In Ukraine before the coup, USAID offered training in “mobile phone and website security,” which sounds a bit like an operation to thwart the local government’s intelligence gathering, an ironic position for the U.S. with its surveillance obsession, including prosecuting whistleblowers based on evidence that they talked to journalists.
USAID, working with billionaire George Soros’s Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in “investigative journalism” that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.
Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what looked to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014.
Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his “findings” always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted by both The New York Times and The Washington Post.
In other words, the U.S. government has a robust strategy for deploying direct and indirect agents of influence. Indeed, during the first Cold War, the CIA and the old U.S. Information Agency refined the art of “information warfare,” including pioneering some of its current features like having ostensibly “independent” entities and cut-outs present U.S. propaganda to a cynical public that would reject much of what it hears from government but may trust “citizen journalists” and “bloggers.”
But the larger danger from this perversion of journalism is that it sets the stage for “regime changes” that destabilize whole countries, thwart real democracy (i.e., the will of the people), and engender civil warfare. Today’s neoconservative dream of mounting a “regime change” in Moscow is particularly dangerous to the future of both Russia and the world.
Regardless of what you think about President Putin, he is a rational political leader whose legendary sangfroid makes him someone who is not prone to emotional decisions. His leadership style also appeals to the Russian people who overwhelmingly favor him, according to public opinion polls.
While the American neocons may fantasize that they can generate enough economic pain and political dissension inside Russia to achieve Putin’s removal, their expectation that he will be followed by a pliable leader like the late President Boris Yeltsin, who will let U.S. operatives back in to resume plundering Russia’s riches, is almost certainly a fantasy.
The far more likely possibility is that – if a “regime change” could somehow be arranged – Putin would be replaced by a hard-line nationalist who might think seriously about unleashing Russia’s nuclear arsenal if the West again tries to defile Mother Russia. For me, it’s not Putin who’s the worry; it’s the guy after Putin.
So, while legitimate questions about Putin’s “corruption” – or that of any other political leader – should be pursued, the standards of evidence should not be lowered just because he or anyone else is a demonized figure in the West. There should be single not double standards.
Western media outrage about “corruption” should be expressed as loudly against political and business leaders in the U.S. or other G-7 countries as it is toward those in the BRICS.
US government, Soros funded Panama Papers to attack Putin – WikiLeaks
April 6, 2016
RT
Washington is behind the recently released offshore revelations known as the Panama Papers, WikiLeaks has claimed, saying that the attack was “produced” to target Russia and President Putin.
On Wednesday, the international whistleblowing organization said on Twitter that the Panama Papers data leak was produced by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), “which targets Russia and [the] former USSR.” The “Putin attack” was funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and American hedge fund billionaire George Soros, WikiLeaks added, saying that the US government’s funding of such an attack is a serious blow to its integrity.
Organizations belonging to Soros have been proclaimed to be “undesirable” in Russia. Last year, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office recognized Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation as undesirable groups, banning Russian citizens and organizations from participation in any of their projects.
Prosecutors then said the activities of the institute and its assistance foundation were a threat to the basis of Russia’s constitutional order and national security. Earlier this year, the billionaire US investor alleged that Putin is “no ally” to US and EU leaders, and that he aims “to gain considerable economic benefits from dividing Europe.”
“The American government is pursuing a policy of destabilization all over the world, and this [leak] also serves this purpose of destabilization. They are causing a lot of people all over the world and also a lot of money to find its way into the [new] tax havens in America. The US is preparing for a super big financial crisis, and they want all that money in their own vaults and not in the vaults of other countries,” German journalist and author Ernst Wolff told RT.
Earlier this week, the head of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which worked on the Panama Papers, said that Putin is not the target of the leak, but rather that the revelations aimed to shed light on murky offshore practices internationally. “It wasn’t a story about Russia. It was a story about the offshore world,” ICIJ head Gerard Ryle told TASS.
His statement came in stark contrast to international media coverage of the “largest leak in offshore history.” Although neither Vladimir Putin nor any members of his family are directly mentioned in the papers, many mainstream media outlets chose the Russian president’s photo when breaking the story.
“We have innuendo, we have a complete lack of standards on the part of the western media, and the major mistake made by the leaker was to give these documents to the corporate media,” former CIA officer Ray McGovern told RT. “This would be humorous if it weren’t so serious,” he added.
“The degree of Putinophobia has reached a point where to speak well about Russia, or about some of its actions and successes, is impossible. One needs to speak [about Russia] in negative terms, the more the better, and when there’s nothing to say, you need to make things up,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, commenting on anti-Russian sentiment triggered by the publications.
Panama Papers not ‘responsible journalism,’ should be released in full
WikiLeaks spokesman and Icelandic investigative journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson has called for the leaked data to be put online so that everybody could search through the papers. He said withholding of the documents could hardly be viewed as “responsible journalism.”
“When they are saying that this is responsible journalism, I totally disagree with the overall tone of that,” the co-founder of the Icelandic Center for Investigative Journalism told RT’s Afshin Rattansi in Going Underground, when asked about his reaction to the ICIJ head saying that the consortium is not WikiLeaks, and is trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly by not releasing the papers in full
“They should be available to the general public in such a manner so everybody, not just the group of journalists working directly on the data, can search it,” Hrafnsson said.
The WikiLeaks spokesman also told RT he’s not surprised that there have been no big American names in the leaked 11.5 million documents of the Panamanian law company.
“It seems to be skewed at least a way from American interest. There’s always a possibility that it’s not a journalistic bias but simply a bias in the documents themselves,” Hrafnsson said, adding that Mossack Fonseca “is simply one law firm in Panama servicing and providing tax haven companies mostly out of the BVI [British Virgin Islands].”
“It doesn’t even give the entire picture,” he concluded.
‘Panama Papers’ company set up 1000+ businesses in USA
April 6, 2016
RT
Mossack Fonseca, the Panamanian company at the heart of the leaked documents scandal, has set up over 1,000 businesses inside the US since 2001, highlighting the emergence of the US as an international tax haven.
Dubbed the “Panama Papers,” the leaked papers have pointed to several former and current government leaders across the world. Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson was pressured to resign over his role in the scandal, while the offshore fund run by the late father of UK Prime Minister David Cameron has been named as a client as well.
However, Mossack Fonseca has also operated in the United States, registering almost 1,100 businesses over the past 15 years. Its Nevada operation, which USA Today describes as “a one-employee company based out of a low-slung tile-roofed office building 20 miles from the Las Vegas strip,” is responsible for 1,026 registrations. Another business registration operation was set up in Wyoming the same year.
The Wyoming office is actually operated from Las Vegas, according to a testimony given in a Nevada court case in 2014 by Mossack Fonseca’s Patricia Amunategui, USA Today reported.
Among the corporations created by the Nevada subsidiary of Mossack Fonseca are 123 firms named in the corruption probe involving the current and former presidents of Argentina, and another entity implicated in the corruption scandal within FIFA, the international soccer association, according to USA Today.On Monday, as “Panama Papers” revelations captivated the headlines, US President Barack Obama announced new rules aimed to prevent US corporations from using legal tricks such as “inversion” to avoid taxes.
The move is yet another step in the ongoing US crackdown on offshore tax havens, launched with the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The law requires financial firms to disclose accounts held by US citizens and report them to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or face penalties.
Yet when the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) sought to apply FATCA standards internationally, the US was among the handful of countries that refused to sign on – along with Bahrain, and the Pacific island nations of Nauru and Vanuatu, according to a Bloomberg report from January.
In fact, as Washington has blasted foreign tax havens, many transnational financial organizations have been setting up shop in the US, using the low taxes and confidentiality provisions in state laws in places like Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Delaware.
Andrew Penney, managing director at the Rothschild Wealth Management & Trust, even went so far as to describe the US as “effectively the biggest tax haven in the world,” according to Bloomberg – though he ultimately decided to omit that description from a presentation given to clients in San Francisco, California last September.
Mossack Fonseca’s marketing materials have pointed out that Wyoming has no state taxes, low corporate taxes, and “robust protections for the assets of management and investors.” Likewise, limited liability companies “may be formed with a single member which can help avoid US federal income tax reporting requirements,” while ownership is “confidential and under state law may only be obtained by court order.”
The “Panama Papers” were initially leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) a year ago by an unknown hacker. The paper then forwarded them to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
The ICIJ is “funded and organized entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity,” former UK diplomat Craig Murray pointed out, noting that the CPI is backed by the US government’s international development agency (USAID), and foundations such as George Soros’s Open Society Fund, the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller Family Fund.
While the ICIJ has denied targeting Russia, much of the coverage of the “Panama Papers” in the US and the UK has focused on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose name does not appear anywhere in the documents.
The Panama Papers Revealed
Section 1
by Harry von Johnston, PhD
Herewith a partial, very partial, listing of persons with Panamanian off-shore bank accounts. There are very many of these, to include American political and business figures. Hundreds of copies of these lists have been sent around and the American media is going to great length to shove it to one side and talk about the cat in the tree or robo cars. Election time is on us and what if it turns out that, along with CIA personnel hiding money made selling raw opium or a Congressman taking money to pass a bill, perhaps one or more of the Presidential candidates also have an off-short account. It is interesting in looking over the immense trove that the media-despised Trump or Putin’s names are never mentioned!
Name Pages Size
160403-divorce-01-cpi-16-0401.pdf 1 21 KB
160403-iceland-04-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
785 KB
160403-russia-02-cpi-16-0404.pdf
1
1375 KB
160403-Russia-03-cpi-16-0404.pdf
2
617 KB
160403-sports-02-cpi-16-0401.pdf
2
572 KB
160403-sports-03-cpi-16-0401.pdf
2
44 KB
160403-sports-04-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
479 KB
160404-Banks-04-cpi-16-0404.pdf
4
54 KB
20160404-banks-01-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
45 KB
20160404-banks-03-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
32 KB
Abdessalam-Bouchouarebdoc1r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
432 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
588 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
251 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc3-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
27 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc4-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
29 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc5-cpi-16-0322.pdf
2
660 KB
Abu-Ragheb-Alidoc6-cpi-16-0318.pdf
2
48 KB
Al-Mirghani-Ahmaddoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
447 KB
Al-Mirghani-Ahmaddoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
229 KB
Al-Nahyandoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
4
97 KB
Al-Nahyandoc2-cpi-16-0402.pdf
6
1733 KB
Al-Nahyandoc3-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
31 KB
Al-Nahyandoc4-cpi-16-0402.pdf
5
116 KB
Al-Nahyandoc5-cpi-16-0401.pdf
1
29 KB
Al-Saud-Mohammaddoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
325 KB
Al-Saud-Mohammaddoc3-16-0329.pdf
1
329 KB
Al-Thani-Hamaddoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
322 KB
Al-Thani-Hamaddoc3-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
308 KB
Al-Thani-Hamaddoc4-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
179 KB
Al-Thani-Hamaddoc5-cpi-16-0328.pdf
9
111 KB
Aliyev-Familydoc2r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
5
175 KB
Aliyev-Familydoc3-cpi-16-0322.pdf
2
770 KB
Aliyev-Nuralidoc1-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
30 KB
Aliyev-Nuralidoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
155 KB
Allawi-Ayaddoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
200 KB
Allawi-Ayaddoc3-cpi-16-0322.pdf
3
396 KB
Allawi-Ayaddoc4-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
41 KB
Allawi-Ayaddoc5-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
117 KB
Almeyda-Cesardoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
10 KB
Almeyda-Cesardoc2-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
201 KB
Ametchi-Jean-Claudedoc1-cpi-16-0401.pdf
1
96 KB
Annan-Kojodoc1re-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
166 KB
Ashcroft-Michaeldoc2re-1-cpi-16-0403.pdf
7
6795 KB
Benediktsson-Bjarnidoc1r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
527 KB
Borbon-Pilardoc2-cpi-16-0316.pdf
1
410 KB
Botelho-Josedoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
962 KB
Cahuzac-Jeromedoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
49 KB
Cahuzac-Jeromedoc2-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
73 KB
Cameron-Iandoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
15
1362 KB
Cameron-Iandoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
78
293 KB
Chiriboga-Galodoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
248 KB
Chiriboga-Galodoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
590 KB
De-Oliveira-Idaleciodoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
117 KB
Delgado-Pedrodoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
16
5248 KB
Devillers-Patrickdoc1-cpi-16-0402.pdf
1
19 KB
Domecq-Micaeladoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
5
768 KB
El-Majidi-Mohammeddoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
396 KB
Emir-of-Qatardoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
283 KB
Francolini-Riccardodoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
40 KB
Grindetti-Nestordoc1r-cpi-16-0402.pdf
1
80 KB
Gunnlaugsson-Singurlagdoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
1381 KB
Gunnlaugsson-Singurlagdoc3-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
1470 KB
Gutierrez-Carlosdoc1-16-0330.pdf
7
182 KB
Gutierrez-Carlosdoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
56 KB
Hinojosa-Juan-Armandodoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
37 KB
Hinojosa-Juan-Armandodoc3r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
25
4199 KB
Horvath-Zsoltdoc1-cpi-16-0321.pdf
1
22 KB
Horvath-Zsoltdoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
345 KB
Horvath-Zsoltdoc3-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
91 KB
Ibori-Jamesdoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
41 KB
Ibori-Jamesdoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
374 KB
Ibori-Jamesdoc3-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
62 KB
Itoua-Brunodoc1-cpi-16-0316.pdf
1
977 KB
Itoua-Brunodoc2-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
30 KB
Itoua-Brunodoc3-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
80 KB
Ivanishvili-Bidzinadoc1-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
25 KB
Jiagui-Dengdoc1-cpi-16-0331.pdf
1
71 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
3
108 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
3
108 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc3-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
258 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc4-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
112 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc5-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
15 KB
Kejriwal-Anuragdoc7-16-0330.pdf
1
89 KB
King-Al-Saud-Salmandoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
186 KB
Kirby-Iandoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
9 KB
Kuffuor-Johndoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
28 KB
Kuffuor-Johndoc2-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
660 KB
Kyungu-Jaynetdoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
3
32 KB
Kyungu-Jaynetdoc2-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
436 KB
Lazarenko-Pavlodoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
55 KB
Lazarenko-Pavlodoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
54 KB
Lazarenko-Pavlodoc3-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
54 KB
Li-Jasminedoc1-cpi-16-0331.pdf
2
104 KB
Lyra-Joaodoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
109 KB
Lyra-Joaodoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
5
1373 KB
Macri-Mauriciodoc1-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
69 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
33 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc3-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
230 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc4-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
256 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc5-cpi-16-0401.pdf
1
157 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc6-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
246 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc7-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
175 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc8-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
39 KB
Makhlouf-Rami-Hafezdoc9-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
1052 KB
Mates-Michaeldoc1-cpi-16-0331.pdf
20
665 KB
Mizzi-Konraddoc1r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
822 KB
Mizzi-Konraddoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
19
4013 KB
Molina-Javierdoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
17
7552 KB
Molina-Javierdoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
116 KB
Mubarak-Alaadoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
3
1086 KB
Mubarak-Alaadoc2-cpi-16-0318.pdf
3
46 KB
Mubarak-Alaadoc3-cpi-16-0328.pdf
1
188 KB
Munoz-Hector-Danieldoc1-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
1087 KB
Munoz-Hector-Danieldoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
790 KB
Munoz-Hector-Danieldoc3-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
797 KB
Mustafa-Mohammaddoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
199 KB
Nazifuddin-Mohddoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
101 KB
Nazifuddin-Mohddoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
290 KB
Nazifuddin-Mohddoc4-cpi-16-0401.pdf
2
1837 KB
Nazifuddin-Mohddoc7-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
108 KB
Nazifuddin-Mohddoc8-cpi-16-0329.pdf
2
363 KB
Ndahiro-Emmanueldoc1-16-0328.pdf
1
35 KB
Nicosia-Giuseppedoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
159 KB
Nicosia-Giuseppedoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
113 KB
Nordal-Olofdoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
4
1148 KB
Nordal-Olofdoc2r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
9
2184 KB
Ovalle-Alfredodoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
23 KB
Ovalle-Alfredodoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
80 KB
Ovalle-Alfredodoc3-cpi-16-0322.pdf
2
125 KB
Papastavrou-Stavrosdoc1-cpi-16-0401.pdf
3
732 KB
Papastavrou-Stavrosdoc2-cpi-16-0328.pdf
3
360 KB
Papastavrou-Stavrosdoc3-cpi-16-0401.pdf
3
813 KB
Papastavrou-Stavrosdoc4-cpi-16-0328.pdf
3
366 KB
Papastavrou-Stavrosdoc5-cpi-16-0328.pdf
2
658 KB
Piskorski-Paweldoc1-cpi-16-0321.pdf
1
228 KB
Piskorski-Paweldoc3-cpi-16-0321.pdf
1
228 KB
Poroshenko-Petrodoc1-cpi-16-0316.pdf
1
22 KB
Poroshenko-Petrodoc2-cpi-16-0318.pdf
1
864 KB
Poroshenko-Petrodoc3-cpi-16-0316.pdf
1
277 KB
Pouye-Mamadoudoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
82 KB
Rawal-Kalpanadoc1-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
50 KB
Rawal-Kalpanadoc2-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
49 KB
Rawal-Kalpanadoc3-cpi-16-0329.pdf
1
370 KB
Rawal-Kalpanadoc4-cpi-16-0331.pdf
1
45 KB
Roldugin-Sergeidoc1-cpi-16-0403.pdf
1
24 KB
Rosenthal-Cesardoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
5
400 KB
Rotenberg-Brothersdoc1-cpi-16-0403.pdf
22
63 KB
Saraki-Toyindoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
1
16 KB
Shansonga-Attandoc1-cpi-16-0331.pdf
17
2444 KB
Shansonga-Attandoc2r-cpi-16-0403.pdf
2
745 KB
Sharif-familydoc1-cpi-16-0331.pdf
2
46 KB
Sharif-familydoc2-cpi-16-0330.pdf
2
417 KB
Sharif-familydoc5-cpi-16-0319.pdf
1
223 KB
Sharples-Pameladoc1-cpi-16-0321.pdf
1
46 KB
Toure-Mamadiedoc1-cpi-16-0328.pdf
2
966 KB
Villanueva-Jesusdoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
3
33 KB
Villanueva-Jesusdoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
2
716 KB
Vong-Vathana-Angdoc1-cpi-16-0405.pdf
4
70 KB
Xiaolin-Lidoc1-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
54 KB
Xiaolin-Lidoc2-cpi-16-0322.pdf
1
201 KB
160 505