Rockville, Md., Property Purchased with Nigerian Corruption Proceeds
Forfeited Through Justice Department's Kleptocracy Initiative.
1. The GOC claims that 31 million dollars of its funds went to an
American concern called GIA for the purchase of a BBJ for its HOState.
2. GIA is owned vt the very American Russel Meek.
3. The facts now show that instead of transferring the 31 million USD
to Boeing for the BBJ, the very American Russel Meek used these funds
to acquire several planes; some of them leased to the then Cameroun
Airlines which was been runned by - and from - the presidency of
Cameroun.
4. Then GIA suddenly declared bankruptcy and disappeared.
5. At the time of GIA's disappearance, CAMAIR - via the presidency of
Cameroun - was allegedly keeping a plane bought for 16 million USD by
GIA.
6. The GOC mandated negotiator, post the demise of GIA - Me. Akere
Muna - found that GIA had assets of a C130 Hercules, without doubt
bought with GOC funds.
7. But before there was an uptake to grab this C130, the liquidator of
GIA - a certain Wurst - sold the C130 for 1.7 million dollars. Meaning
that the 31 million USD Cameroon money could have bought 15-C130s.
8. Indian Airlines was after GIA for circa 5 million dollars so the
liquidator had to pay both the GOC and Indian Airlines which had
serious claims on GIA.
9. The GOC received circa 800.000 dollars while Indian Airlines
received circa 700.000 dollars.
10. The 700.000 dollars paid to Indian Airlines was Cameroon's money -
since GIA has used part of the 31 million to acquire that plane.
11. Missing is circa 13 million dollars - into the deep pocket of Mr
and Mrs R. Meek who are still to-ing and fro-ing the earth after
smiling to,the bank. probably they are in the Bahamas.
Question: if the US government can execute a 'LAND GRAB' ie confiscate
the assets of an a supposed corrupt Nigerian should it not stand to
reason that the US government can go after Mr and Mrs Russek Meek for
defrauding Cameroun of 31.000.000 USD or is it 13.000.000USD?
Just asking.
Ntemfac Ofege - Prophet.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, May 31, 2013
Rockville, Md., Property Purchased with Nigerian Corruption Proceeds
Forfeited Through Justice Department's Kleptocracy Initiative
A forfeiture judgment was executed today against real property with an
estimated value of more than $700,000 in Rockville, Md., that had been
purchased with corruption proceeds traceable to Diepreye Solomon Peter
Alamieyeseigha, a former Governor of Bayelsa State, Nigeria, announced
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal
Division and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director
John Morton.
"Foreign officials who think they can use the United States as a
stash-house are sorely mistaken," said Acting Assistant Attorney
General Raman. "Through the Kleptocracy Initiative, we stand with the
victims of foreign official corruption as we seek to forfeit the
proceeds of corrupt leaders' illegal activities."
"This investigation was initiated by ICE's Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) Asset Identification & Removal Group (AIRG) in
Baltimore, in an effort to recover the criminal proceeds from Diepreye
Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha's assets, whose shell companies were
convicted of money laundering offenses in Nigeria," said ICE Director
Morton. "HSI's AIRG will continue working with the Department of
Justice to seek to recover illicit proceeds gained through foreign
corruption and to protect the U.S. financial system from being
utilized by criminals."
Alamieyeseigha, aka DSP, was the elected governor of oil-producing
Bayelsa State in Nigeria from 1999 until his impeachment in 2005. As
alleged in the U.S. forfeiture complaint, DSP's official salary for
this entire period was approximately $81,000, and his declared income
from all sources during the period was approximately $248,000.
Nevertheless, while governor, DSP accumulated millions of dollars'
worth of property located around the world through corruption and
other illegal activities. The complaint alleges that DSP acquired the
Rockville property during his first term as governor of Bayelsa State
with funds obtained through corruption, abuse of office, money
laundering and other violations of Nigerian and U.S. law. Title to
the property was transferred to Solomon & Peters, Ltd., a shell
corporation controlled by DSP and on whose behalf the former governor
entered a guilty plea to money laundering in Nigeria in 2007.
On May 24, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus of the
District of Maryland granted a motion for a default judgment filed by
the Criminal Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section
and issued a final decree of forfeiture. The order extinguishes all
prior title and authorizes forfeiture to the United States of the
private residence located in Rockville, Maryland, estimated to be
worth more than $700,000 and allows the United States to liquidate the
property in accordance with federal law. In a related action in the
District of Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and ICE Homeland
Security Investigations successfully forfeited approximately $400,000
from an investment account traceable to DSP.
Both actions were brought under the Justice Department's Kleptocracy
Asset Recovery Initiative announced by the Attorney General in 2010.
Through this initiative, the Department of Justice, along with federal
law enforcement agencies, seeks to identify and forfeit the proceeds
of foreign official corruption, and where possible and appropriate
return those corruption proceeds for the benefit of the people of the
nations harmed by the corruption.
The case was investigated by the HSI's Asset Identification & Removal
Group (AIRG) in Baltimore. The case was prosecuted by Assistant Deputy
Chief Daniel H. Claman and Trial Attorney Tracy Mann of the Criminal
Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, with
assistance from the U.S. Attorney's Office of the District of
Maryland.
Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign
corruption in the United States, or funds laundered through
institutions in the United States, should contact Homeland Security
Investigations or other federal law enforcement, or send an email to
kleptocracy@usdoj.gov.
On 6/1/13, Ofege Ntemfac <ntemfacnchwete@gmail.com> wrote:
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>
> FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
>
> EUGENE DIVISION
>
>
>
> YVES MICHEL FOTSO, 6:12-cv-1415-TC
>
> Plaintiff,
>
> v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
>
> REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON, PAUL BIYA,
>
> PASCAL MAGNAGUEMABE, JUSTICE
>
> SOH, JEAN BAPTISTE BOKAM, COLONEL
>
> AMADOU, and INNOCENT BMOUEM,
>
> Defendants.
>
> COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:
>
> Plaintiffs complaint alleges compensatory and punitive damages for
> torture by a public
>
> official, false imprisonment and breach of contract pursuant to 28 United
> States Code sections 1331
>
> and 1350. PlaintiffYves Michel Fotso is an incarcerated Cameroonian in the
> custody oftheRepublic of Cameroon. One of the named defendants is Paul
> Biya, President of Cameroon.
>
> On or about December 1, 2010, plaintiff was imprisoned pursuant to
> criminal actions
>
> initiated against him by the state of Cameroon for allegedly
> fraudulently keeping $31 million associated with a transaction he
> undertook to purchase aircraft on behalf of the government. Plaintiff was
> the General Manager-Administrator for Cameroon Airlines and the
> government's point of contact. The company that was supposed to supply
> the aircraft, GIA International, Incorporated, went bankrupt in 2004,
> after the transfer of the $31 million. Cameroon filed
> adversary proceedings
> pursuant to the bankruptcy and in 2006, entered into a Settlement Agreement
> and Mutual Release with the bankruptcy Trustee. The Settlement Agreement
> and Mutual Release also released Cameroon
>
> Airlines and its agents and employees. Criminal proceedings against
> plaintiff commenced on December 1, 2010.
>
> Between December 1, 201 0 and May 25, 20 12, plaintiff was imprisoned in
> Yaounde Central Prison-Kondengui. Plaintiff alleges that while
> imprisoned there, he was housed in a small windowless cell without
> light or fresh air for over 12 hours each day. On May 25, 2012, plaintiff
> was transferred to the Gendarmerie Lock-up run by the Secretaired'Etatala
> Defense in charge of the National Gendarmerie. During the transfer,
> plaintiff alleges he was beaten, kicked, shocked with electricity, and
> subjected to torture by hooded soldiers. Plaintiff alleges his time at the
> Gendarmerie Lock-up, where he is still being held, has been marked
> by
> prohibitions on writing and reading material, radio and television. He
> claims his visits from family members have been unreasonably controlled and
> that his access to counsel has been infrequent and monitored.
>
> Currently before me is the government's suggestion of immunity from suit as
> to President
>
> Paul Biya. (#31). For the reasons discussed below, I find that
> Defendant President Paul Biya is immune from suit in this action and
> recommend that this court dismiss this action against him.
>
> Discussion
>
> It is well settled that the executive branch's suggestion of immunity is
> conclusive and not
>
> subject to judicial review. Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578,
> 589
> (1943). "For over 160 years American Courts have consistently applied the
> doctrine of sovereign immunity when requested to do so by the executive
> branch" with no additional review ofthe executive's determination. Spacil
> v.Crowe, 489 F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir.1974). "[A] determination by the
> Executive Branch that a foreign head of state is immune from suit is
> conclusive and a court must accept such a determination without reference
> to the underlying claims of a plaintiff." Ye v.Zemin, 383 F.3d 620, 626-27
> (7th
>
> Cir. 2004). 1 A court's deference to the Executive Branch's determination
> is motivated by caution "appropriate to the Judicial Branch when the
> conduct
> of foreign affairs is involved." Id. at 626 (citing Republic of
> Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30, 35(1945) ("[I]t is a guiding
> principle in determining whether a court should [recognize a suggestion
> of immunity] in such cases, that the courts should not so act as to
> embarrass the executive arm in its conduct of foreign affairs. In such
> cases the judicial department of this government follows the action of the
> political branch, and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an
> antagonistic jurisdiction.") (internal citations omitted)).
>
> In his December 6, 2012 letter to the Department of Justice, Harold
> HongjuKoh, Legal
>
> Advisor to the United States Department of State, sets forth the Executive
> Branch's recommendation for finding President Paul Biya immune from civil
> suit:
>
> "Under common law principles of immunity articulated by the executive
> branch in
>
> the exercise of its constitutional authority over foreign affairs
> and informed by
>
> 1 "Head-of-state immunity is a doctrine of customary international law
> pursuant to which
>
> an incumbent head of state is immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign
> state's courts." Yousuf v. customary international law, President Biya, as
> the sitting head of state of a foreign state, is immune from the
> jurisdiction of the United States District Court in this suit
>
> while in office .... This letter recognizes the particular importance
> attached by the
>
> United States to obtaining the prompt dismissal of the proceedings against
> President
>
> Biya in view of the significant foreign policy implications of such an
> action."(#31, Exh. 1)
>
> Here, I recommend that this court apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity
> to President Biya as requested by the executive and dismiss plaintiffs
> claims against him.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Pursuant to the finding above, I recommend that President Paul Biya be
> dismissed from this suit. As discussed at the January 28, 2013 status
> conference, the parties shall file briefing related to the immunity of
> other Cameroonian officials.
>
> The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States
> District Judge
>
> for review. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen days after
> the date this order is filed.
>
> The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the
> specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.
> Martinez v.Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). If no objections are
> filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement
> on that date. If objections are filed, any party may file a response
> within fourteen days after the date the objections are filed. Review of
> the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement when the response
> is due or filed, whichever date is earlier.
>
> DATED day of January 201
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a
> thing makes it happen.
>
--
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in
a thing makes it happen.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment