Posted originally onFeb 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong
The latest data showing the US trade deficit widening sharply to about $70.3 billion should not be interpreted the way mainstream economists always frame it. They immediately jump to the conclusion that a rising trade deficit is a sign of economic weakness, when in reality it often reflects the opposite and represents strong domestic demand. According to the latest Commerce Department figures cited in financial reports, the gap widened as imports surged while exports lagged, driven in part by capital goods and technology demand.
A trade deficit is not occurring in isolation. If the United States imports more than it exports, the excess dollars do not vanish, rather, they return as capital investment into US assets, equities, real estate, and Treasuries. That capital inflow is precisely why the dollar can remain strong even while the trade deficit widens. America has been running trade deficits since the late 20th century, yet it remains the world’s primary capital destination.
Imports rose sharply, particularly in industrial supplies, technology equipment, and capital goods linked to AI infrastructure expansion. America is attracting global capital into productive, growing sectors. Historically, trade deficits expand during periods of investment booms because domestic demand outpaces supply.
Even with aggressive tariff policies, imports continued rising, and the goods trade deficit reached record levels of around $1.24 trillion in 2025. Trade balances are driven more by capital flows and currency strength than by tariff policy alone. Global capital still viewing the United States as the safest destination amid geopolitical uncertainty in Europe and elsewhere. Capital always moves to the strongest legal and financial system, not the one with the best trade balance. This is why nations like Germany or Japan may run surpluses while still seeing capital volatility.
Countries that run chronic trade deficits are only in danger when capital stops flowing in. The key factor is CONFIDENCE. As long as global capital continues to view the United States as the primary safe haven during periods of geopolitical and economic instability, the trade deficit becomes a reflection of strength in capital attraction rather than weakness.
I have warned many times that immigration policy is increasingly being shaped by political ideology rather than long-term social cohesion and economic stability. The report that Canada is considering an express entry pathway for highly trained foreign military personnel raises very serious questions that go far beyond labor shortages or skills-based immigration. When governments begin fast-tracking individuals with military training into civilian society under expedited frameworks, this is no longer just an economic policy — it becomes a national security and social stability issue.
Historically, successful immigration systems were built around assimilation, economic contribution, and cultural integration. Governments are struggling to build their militaries amid recruitment shortages. Their solution is to import “skilled” fighters as we move closer to global conflict. Military personnel will be included among other high-skilled occupations since the demand far exceeds the available domestic supply.
The larger concern is assimilation and demographic shifts. I have repeatedly stated that social stability depends on shared legal, cultural, and institutional norms. When immigration policy accelerates without equal emphasis on integration, fragmentation follows. Europe has already demonstrated this lesson in multiple countries where rapid demographic policy shifts created long-term social divisions and rising political polarization. Canada is not immune to those same cyclical forces simply because it has historically maintained a more structured immigration system.
There is also the geopolitical layer that cannot be ignored. We are entering a period of rising global volatility into the 2026–2032 window, according to the cyclical models. During such phases, governments increasingly prioritize security, institutional resilience, and strategic labor pools. Policies targeting military-trained migrants may be framed as skills-based immigration, but they also reflect a broader shift toward state planning in response to global uncertainty.
Look at Russia. Putin turned to Kim Jong-un in a desperate plea to recruit more men. Impoverished nations are willing to import anything, including humans. Canada’s announcement alludes to the government’s importance of rapidly building the armed forces. Canada was so focused on forcing their own men and women to take the COVID vaccines a few years back that they pushed away contenders. What could go wrong if a nation opens its borders to trained mercenaries who may have an allegiance to a foreign government? Ancient Rome too relied on non-Roman recruits, but that was merely one aspect of the collapse.
I have explained in my writings on the Fall of Rome and How Empires Die that empires always turn to external manpower when domestic demographics weaken, and the population no longer supports the state financially or militarily. Hiring outsiders, expanding bureaucracy, and increasing control are all late-cycle responses to declining confidence in the system itself.
Posted originally on Feb 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
If we are honest, the current international world order is crumbling and it has demonstrated its inability to effectively resolve crises when financial gain is at stake. The EU is desperate to become relevant again as a world power being overshadowed by Russia, China, and the USA. This is leading to some starting to rethink strategic balances and rapid evolution in geo-economic relations. How wars are going to be fought is also changing before our eyes. Traditional threats are becoming increasingly hybrid in nature, and this is causing tremendous uncertainty among intelligence agencies. The Biden Administration assumed that Ukraine could easily defeat Russia and US would quickly establish bases there. That policy failed. Their sanctioning Russia removing it from SWIFT, was a monumental mistake that has divided the world economy creating BRICS.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has reached a strategic impasse between Western military support and Russia’s strategy of industrial exhaustion. The US won World War II because we had the manufacturing base to turn out weapons including planes and tanks. Today, Russia is able to replenish assets and China’s manufacturing base is in the position that the US was during World War II. China could replenish lost ships, planes, and tanks faster than the USA or Europe for that matter.
The EU and NATO have called the shots and have refused to allow Ukraine to seek peace every time. According to our sources, despite signing the Minsk Agreement that was to allow the Donbas to vote, the West has negotiated that in bad faith and instructed Zelensky not to make any territorial concessions. The nature of the war is rapidly evolving towards nuclear confrontation and the increasing use of autonomous weapon systems. NATO and the EU do not care about Ukraine or its people. This has always been about the conquest of Russia itself. Even assuming the claims that Russia is weak are true and NATO can walz in with no casualties, then it is time to push the button.
Meanwhile, The New York Times writes Vladimir Putin remains confident of his superiority on the front lines. The claims are that he is banking on a protracted war and is prepared to continue fighting for at least another two years to establish complete control over the entire territory of the Donbas region. There is NO WAY Putin can back down. If he did, he would be overthrown in a coup and then you will get a Russian Neocons who will be just as eager to push the button to wipe out NATO.
Posted originally on Feb 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Macron just said “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” He expect the EU to clash with Trump because they are in dire straights and when a country is in the death spiral, they will become increasingly authoritarian. The two worst offenders are France and Spain. Macron has been covertly telling French institutions to sell dollars and bring the money home pushing the euro higher which then reduced their trade surplus.
Last April 2025, in response to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, Macron called for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States, stating “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States”
Macron has been pushing “targeting digital services and financing mechanisms of the US economy.” We are seeing that in trying to come up with a European credit card and banning both Visa and Mastercard.
At Davos 2026, Macron noted that European savings are “overinvested in bonds and sometimes in equities – but outside Europe,” suggesting he wants Europeans to invest more domestically. They call Macron the Petite Napoleon. Despite his approval rating at 11%, probably lower than any world leader in history, he is carrying on the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle who destroy the gold standard because of his hated of the United States. He withdrew France from NATO which is why they have independent nukes. De Gaulle ordered all US troops and NATO instalation out of France which prompted the US to ask if that included the dead America buried there to defend France.
At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, Macron said Europe must redesign its security architecture independently and confirmed Paris is holding strategic nuclear talks with allies, referring to a more “holistic” approach to nuclear deterrence among European allies.
In an address to the nation in March 2025, Macron announced plans to negotiate with the allies the possibility of placing European countries under the protection of France’s nuclear deterrence forces. Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Denmark have expressed readiness to discuss the issue. This is why they call him the Petit Napoleon. He is once again trying to make France the dominant power of Europe and it has been him, according to sources, who pushes to invade Russia to gain the assets to rise above the United States as a rival.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany does NOT want to develop its own nuclear weapons, but is interested in incorporating French and British atomic bombs in a deterrence arrangement reminiscent of NATO’s U.S.-based nuclear umbrella.
Wolfgang Ischinger at the Munich Security Conference noted that France has air-based nuclear-capable cruise missiles that can be deployed from Rafale aircraft, and “perhaps in the future, such systems could be stationed not only in France, as has been the case so far, but also in Poland or Germany, on a rotating or even permanent basis. Yes, one could even consider replicating the US model of nuclear sharing, whereby these weapons could be launched from suitable partner aircrafts.”
Macron’s proposal are definitely an offer to build an independent nuclear deterrent within the EU framework. Any arrangement whereby Paris would transfer sovereignty over the use of its own nuclear bombs to an EU institution or another state is a no-go in terms of domestic politics. Macron wants to replace the US and retain control of all nukes, not hand them over to the EU.
So yes—Macron has offered extended nuclear protection to Europe, and discussions about potentially stationing French nuclear-capable systems in Germany (similar to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement) are part of the conversation, though final decision-making would remain with France.
Behind the curtain, it has been Macron who is trying to replace the USA and lead all of Europe as the modern version of Napoleon. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has emphasized that European nations cannot defend themselves against Russia without the support of the United States, suggesting that they would need to significantly increase their defense spending in the absence of U.S. assistance. He warned that losing U.S. support would undermine Europe’s security and freedom. Rutte said bluntly during an appearance at the European Parliament: “If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,”
This is why reliable sources see through Macron seeking to seize power and take Europe into a third World War in hopes to leading Europe and fulfilling the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle. It was De Gaulle who was redeeming dollars for gold believing that if france had the larges gold reserves that the franc would replace the dollar.
Charles De Gaulle was an extreme nationalist far worse than they acuse Trump today. He objected in February 1965 to what he called the “Exorbitant Privilege” of the US dollar’s dominant role and began converting France’s dollar reserves into gold, which put pressure on Bretton Woods. In 1967, I was there in Montreal with my Family at the World’s Fair. My father had met De Gaulle bing with Patton who liberated France. My father was a colonel with Patton and told me how De Gaulle demanded that he lead the victory parade ahead of the Americans as he liberated France. In Montreal, he encouraged Quebec to separate from Canada because they were the English. He was still anti-American and British all because they defeated Napoleon. He refused to allow Britain to join the European Community. Britain joined ONLY after De Gaulle died. Macron seems to be suffering from De Gaulle syndrome.
Posted originally on Feb 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong
Switzerland is now preparing to vote on a proposal to cap its population at 10 million by 2050, and the entire debate is being framed in the press as merely an immigration issue. That is far too simplistic. What this really reflects is a rising global tension between economic reality, demographic trends, and political narratives about sustainability and population management.
Under the initiative, once the population approaches 9.5 million, the government would be required to tighten immigration, residency, and asylum policies, and potentially even renegotiate agreements with the EU on free movement if the cap is exceeded. Switzerland already has about 9.1 million residents, with a large share foreign-born, largely from EU countries.
Supporters argue the cap would protect resources, housing, and social systems, while critics warn it could trigger labor shortages and harm economic growth in a country heavily dependent on foreign workers.
I have written many times that the concept of “population control” is not always presented directly. It is often framed as sustainability, climate targets, migration limits, or resource protection. The terminology changes, but the underlying policy direction becomes increasingly centralized and authoritative. Politicians believe they must begin managing how many people can live, move, and work within a system. That is a very dangerous trend because it expands government authority over the most fundamental aspect of society: demographics.
Switzerland has seen a surge of migrants from Islamic nations, which has led to cultural clashes. The “No to 10 Million Switzerland” initiative acknowledges the downfalls of mass migration as the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) openly wants to close the border and is considered “far-right” for its beliefs. Reframing population control as an issue for the environment and resources would allow the left to jump on board without being demonized for recognizing that certain cultures cannot assimilate to European life.
Globalist figures like Bill Gates have openly spoken about population growth in the context of sustainability and resource allocation. I have repeatedly warned that population control is rarely presented bluntly; it is framed as climate policy, public health, sustainability, or infrastructure capacity. The danger is not in any single proposal, but in the normalization of the idea that governments and unelected institutions should “manage” population levels as an economic variable.
Switzerland is particularly important because it is not an EU member yet is deeply integrated into the European economic system. If a population cap forces restrictions on immigration or free-movement agreements, it will not just be a domestic policy shift. It would signal fragmentation in the European labor and capital framework.
The Swiss are in favor of the proposal. The LeeWas research institute conducted a poll in November 2025: 48% are in favor, 41% are against, and 11% are undecided. Yet we know the wishes of the people are never truly acknowledged. The bureaucrats must believe that the measures would benefit them directly.
Nations begin to look inward during times of instability. Tighter immigration control, capital control discussions, increased surveillance of movement and finances—these are all par for the course. Once governments normalize the idea that population levels must be administratively managed for sustainability, it opens the door to broader regulatory control over society.
Posted originally on Feb 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Zillow is now openly acknowledging a shift in the US housing market that most analysts are still refusing to properly interpret. They are framing it as a “trend change” in homebuyer preferences toward smaller, adaptable, and more functional homes rather than large status properties, but this is not a lifestyle trend. It is an economic consequence of declining affordability and a structural shift in purchasing power.
During the peak years of cheap money, the housing market was driven by excess liquidity. Low interest rates inflated asset prices and encouraged buyers to stretch into larger homes, oversized layouts, and high-maintenance properties that projected wealth. Now that mortgage rates remain around 6% instead of the artificially suppressed levels of the pandemic era, the entire psychology of the housing market is changing.
Zillow notes that monthly mortgage payments are already about 8.4% lower than a year ago as rates eased slightly, yet affordability remains constrained. What they are describing as buyers prioritizing “adaptable” and “functional” homes is, in reality, the market adjusting to the end of an artificially inflated cycle. When carrying costs rise from insurance, taxes, maintenance, and utilities, then buyers tend to see big homes as big liabilities.
“Homes featured dramatic two-story foyers, arched doorways, decorative columns and complex rooflines designed to project prosperity from the street,” Zillow wrote. “Listings highlighted formal living rooms and formal dining rooms, spaces reserved for special occasions rather than everyday use. Home theaters were status upgrades: the bigger the screen, the better,” Zillow continued. “Oversize primary suites, Jacuzzi tubs and walk-in closets were must-haves, while energy efficiency and climate resilience were rarely mentioned.”
This fits perfectly with historical real estate cycles I have discussed in my reports and in Real Estate Outlook. Real estate does not crash immediately after a bubble; it transitions into a stagnation phase where prices stabilize, inventory rises, and buyer behavior shifts toward practicality.
Zillow also expects only modest home value growth in 2026 ,roughly in the low single digits, while mortgage costs still consume a large share of household income. When buyers begin prioritizing resilience, efficiency, and flexibility over luxury, it signals uncertainty about the future.
We must also understand the demographic and economic layer beneath this shift. Millennials and younger buyers are entering the market with significantly higher debt loads, higher insurance costs, and elevated living expenses. Starter homes are less practical. Entering the housing market in general is a stretch for many young potential buyers.
At the same time, older homeowners are locked into low mortgage rates and are reluctant to sell. This creates a supply distortion that keeps prices firm even as demand weakens. That is more of a classic stagnation model rather than a 2008-style collapse.
Zillow’s narrative that homes will become more “intuitive, personal, and adaptable” over the next 20 years is essentially a polite way of saying the era of excess housing consumption is ending. Consumers are concerned that larger purchases will lead to “house poor” finances.
Posted originally on Feb 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announces he is “forced to raid the rainy day fund, retiree benefit trust reserve, and to increase property taxes” in order to keep the city on “firm financial footing”
Here we go again. A city runs expansive social programs, expands spending, promises benefits, and then suddenly discovers a “budget crisis” that requires raiding reserves, tapping rainy day funds, drawing from retiree trusts, and raising property taxes to maintain so-called fiscal stability. New York City’s latest proposal openly admits it may withdraw nearly $1 billion from its rainy day fund, hundreds of millions from retiree health benefit trusts, and consider a roughly 9.5% property tax increase to close a multibillion-dollar deficit. This is not an emergency measure. This is the predictable outcome of policy trends I have repeatedly warned about, particularly in cities dominated by progressive and socialistic fiscal models.
I have written before about how politicians like Gavin Newsom and other liberal Democrats have also tapped rainy day funds during periods of economic stress while simultaneously expanding long-term obligations. The pattern is always the same: spend during the boom, blame external factors during the slowdown, and then drain reserves to avoid immediate political consequences. Rainy day funds are supposed to be buffers for recessions or crises, not routine financing tools to sustain structurally imbalanced budgets. Once governments normalize using reserves during periods of growth or mild deficits, they remove the very cushion needed when a true economic downturn arrives.
The mayor’s own budget framework acknowledges a significant fiscal gap and presents two paths: higher taxes on wealth and corporations or shifting the burden through property taxes and reserve withdrawals. You cannot continuously expand spending commitments while assuming tax revenues will keep pace indefinitely. That is not how economic cycles work. Capital is highly mobile, and as taxation rises, the tax base erodes.
Socialistic policy prioritizes redistribution and government expansion under the assumption that taxation can permanently fund rising obligations. In reality, economic confidence is the key driver of revenue. If policies discourage investment, business expansion, and high-income residency, the very tax base required to fund social programs begins to contract. Then governments are forced into the exact scenario we are seeing higher property taxes, reserve depletion, and political pressure for more state aid. Property taxes rise, services expand, costs escalate, and reserves shrink until a cyclical downturn exposes the imbalance.
Socialistic policies promoted by many progressive and socialist-leaning Democrats rest on the assumption that government can endlessly expand, redistribute, and intervene without consequence, as if economic cycles no longer apply. In the end, it is not markets that fail these systems, but the policy belief that government control can permanently override the business cycle.
Posted originally on Feb 18, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
What you are looking at with Canada completing the roughly $9.4 billion Darlington nuclear refurbishment early and under budget is something that completely contradicts the prevailing political narrative about energy policy in the West. The final 878-MW unit is now preparing to return to commercial operation, marking the end of a decade-long rebuild of the four-reactor complex, finished four months ahead of schedule and about $110 million under budget.
A massive nuclear infrastructure project in a Western country was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. That alone tells you this was treated as a strategic national priority rather than a political talking point.
The refurbishment extends the plant’s operational life by decades and secures over 3,500 megawatts of reliable baseload electricity into at least the mid-2050s. This is the key difference between energy policy driven by engineering reality versus ideological policy driven by climate politics and bureaucratic regulation. Nuclear provides stability. Wind and solar provide volatility unless backed by baseload power.
From a cyclical perspective, this fits directly into what I have written in my reports on energy, sovereign debt, and industrial competitiveness. Nations that secure long-term, reliable energy sources maintain industrial strength. Nations that deliberately dismantle baseload energy in favor of politically fashionable policies inevitably face rising costs, deindustrialization, and declining confidence.
Canada’s approach here is pragmatic. The project began back in 2016 as a long-term refurbishment of all four CANDU reactors, replacing major components and effectively giving the facility another generation of operational life. This is not simply maintenance — it is strategic infrastructure renewal.
Compare this to Europe. The EU has been shutting nuclear plants, imposing Net Zero mandates, and then wondering why industrial production is collapsing and energy costs remain structurally elevated. Energy policy is not separate from economic performance. It is the foundation of it. Germany is the perfect case study of how abandoning nuclear in favor of ideology undermines industrial competitiveness.
What is even more significant is the timing. This project comes as global electricity demand is rising due to electrification, AI infrastructure, and reindustrialization trends. Governments are beginning to realize that intermittent energy cannot sustain modern economies or military readiness. Baseload power is not optional in a geopolitical cycle turning toward fragmentation and potential conflict.
The fact that this refurbishment is being called one of the world’s largest nuclear life-extension projects also signals something deeper: nuclear is returning as a strategic asset. Historically, during periods of geopolitical tension and rising sovereign risk, governments shift toward energy security. That is exactly what the model has been projecting into this 2026–2032 window of rising volatility.
Posted originally on Feb 18, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
According to the February 2026 Euro indicators data, euro area GDP expanded by just 0.3% in the fourth quarter, matching the previous quoter and underscoring a persistent low-growth environment across the bloc.
Year-over-year growth is hovering around roughly 1.3%, which is hardly a recovery when you consider the massive fiscal expansion, energy disruptions, and regulatory overreach imposed across the EU in recent years. This is exactly the type of sluggish cyclical performance that aligns with a declining confidence model in government policy rather than a normal business cycle expansion.
At the same time, inflation has fallen to 1.7% in January 2026, down from 2.0% in December, with energy prices still contracting and services remaining the primary source of price pressure. On the surface, bureaucrats in Brussels and the ECB will celebrate this as a victory over inflation. But this is where mainstream economics consistently gets it wrong. Disinflation alongside stagnant growth is not true strength.
Services inflation remains elevated while energy prices are negative year-over-year. That reflects structural distortions created by EU energy policy, sanctions, and the forced transition toward Net Zero, which I have repeatedly warned would crush industrial competitiveness across Germany, France, and the broader eurozone. You cannot deindustrialize an economy and then pretend weak inflation is a sign of stability.
Growth is being driven disproportionately by a handful of economies, such as Spain, while core economies like Germany and France remain structurally weak and politically unstable. A monetary union with a one-size-fits-all policy always produces divergence. Strong regions survive; weaker ones stagnate under a centralized monetary policy they cannot control.
From a capital flow perspective, this data reinforces the broader trend we are tracking into the 2026 ECM window. Capital chases stability. When growth is stuck at 0.3% quarterly and inflation is falling below target, global capital begins to question long-term stability. That is precisely how slow capital flight begins.
The ECB is now trapped. With inflation falling below target and growth barely positive, they cannot justify aggressive tightening, yet easing risks further currency instability and capital outflows. This is the classic sovereign debt-cycle dilemma I outlined in Manipulating the World Economy. Central banks do not control the economy; rather, they react to it, and usually too late.
What we are witnessing is not a recovery. The ECM has long projected rising volatility into 2026, and Europe’s data is lining up perfectly with that model.
Posted originally on Feb 18, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION #1: I wrote an article entitled Trump’s Man in Germany; Thou Shalt Not Covet Another Man’ Wealth…..yet and in this article I mentioned you and posted the documentary done on the injustice in your imprisonment. Tonight I have reviewed all the court documents I could find on your case and it is quite apparent to me that there is a huge discrepancy between what the prosecutors accused you of and what the CFTC alleges happened through Republic Bank Trading Operation. You were basically accused of conspiracy yet I cannot find any information that would conclude you did any of the trading on your clients account.
Phil
QUESTION #2: Anna Paulina Luna represents you. Why has she not demanded that the House Judiciary Committee investigate your case when she went to bat for the rapper?
PY
ANSWER: I was NOT managing money for the Japanese. I was buying their portfolios of distressed Japanese stocks and issuing up to a 10-year note to repay at their original cost, covering their losses. The portfolios were down on average 40% in yen. Under Japanese law, you did not have to report investments mark-to-market. You reported a loss only when taken. The Japanese MOF (Ministry of Finance) approved a bailout. They had to review and approve each and every portfolio that I bought. You cannot issue a note in yen without government approval. Each account in the United States was in my name – not a client.
I bought the portfolios with a NOTE in yen that can ONLY be issued with government permission. I would then sell the portfolio, taking the loss for the client, so they did not have to report such devastation. I then converted the cash to dollars and invested in Fannie Maes becoming perhaps the largest invester earning 8% annually, which doubles your money with interest in less than 10 years. The computer also showed the yes would crash so I could revover losses with interest and currency. I was making money of the currency and the interest. Even Republic’s audit showed I was very conservative – opposite of the allegations. The futures were hedging yen at times.
Mark Pittman of Bloomberg News had just written an article on what we were doing in Japan, bailing out companies by buying their portfolios at cost, just a couple of months before. To cover up what the government did, Bloomberg removed Mark from covering my case, deleted all the evidence of what we were really doing, violating, I believe, my civil rights in conspiracy with the government, just as techs did with COVID. Bloomberg would NEVER report the truth. They supported the government in every possible way. I saw how corrupt Bloomberg News really was. This is a letter from Mark Pittman’s wife. Bloomberg even threatened her for using Mark’s stationery to let me know he had died. We use to publish daily reports on Bloomberg. They erase all our previous reports on Blomberg.
My Japanese clients believed that the Japanese government conspired with the US government to shut down our forecasting because we had “too much influence” since in March that year I had forecast that the LDP would lose the election in Japan for the first time since WWII and that forecast was correct. My clients did not believe the Financial Supervisory Administration could make a decimal error turning $1 billion into $10 billion when they audit all financial companies in Japan. That was a lot of money back then since Republic National Bank was bought by HSBC for $10 billion.
Hermitage Capital Management was a partnership between Edmund Safra and Bill Browder who previously was the right-hand man of Robert Maxwell, the father of Ghislaine Maxwell who was linked to Epstein. Robert Maxwell was part of the club and was linked to Mossad of Israel. They supported the coup to overthrow Gorbachev and was cutting a deal that all Jews in Russia coup then flee to Israel. The coup failed and Yeltsin came to power. Maxwell lost about £200 million on one of the failed market manipulations and he was going to have to testify, which would have exposed the CLUB so he conveniently fell off his yacht and drowned. Bill Browder then went into partnership with Safra still focused on Russia.
Safra was linked with Boris Abramovich Berezovskyand allegedly Vladimir Aleksandrovich Gusinsky, the media tycoon. As the plot was laid out by Russian sources, Yeltsin was convinced to take $7 billion from the IMF funds to refurbish the Kremlin – a staggering amount of money. The funds were wired to a largely unknown company in Switzerland. The wire was steered through Bank of New York and as soon as it was made, Safra had his bank run to the Feds and report that Bank of New York had just conducted a money laundering event. The Feds ran in wide-eyed and of course announced their action to the world before thoroughly investigating the allegations of Safra. I had a personal meeting with Dov Schlien president of Republic National Bank in March 1999 where he asked me to invest $10 billion offering a letter of credit guarantee. I sent an email to Tokyo explaining the offer to our office there with my recommendation to reject it.
It was at this time that THE CONSPIRATORS threatened Yeltsin with exposure of his theft of $7 billion on the world stage. The demand was to appoint Berezovsky as the new President of Russia and for Yeltsin to step down and not run in 2000. Yeltsin, realizing he was set up, turned to Putin who nobody had heard of. As the story goes, Putin promised to take care of everything if Yeltsin appointed him instead, Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, after Safra was killed on December 3rd in Monaco. The Presidential elections were held in Russia on the 26th of March 2000 formally electing Putin.
Berezovsky and Gusinskyfled Russia with their assets confiscated with the former gaining political asylum in Britain and the latter taking off to Israel.I even had a meeting with the Assistant US Attorney in NY in April 2000 about this mess because they ran into huge problems with the whole Bank of New York alleged $7 billion Money Laundering. They could not get any cooperation from the Russian government.
It was Edmond Safra’s Republic National Bank then ran to the US Government in August 1999 and informed them that the Bank of New York had just wired $7 billion to Switzerland in a money laundering scam. The US authorities ran in immediately. The wire was sent to Mabetex, which was the Swiss based company ran by Kosovo/Swiss entrepreneur Behgjet Pacolli who claimed to have the contract to refurbish the Kremlin. He became President of Kosovo in 2011. The Bank of New York broker Lucy Edwards pleaded guilty but did no jail time because she “cooperated” with the government. At her sentencing, the Judge simply asked who was the $7 billion money laundering for? She replied it was a “ransom” for a Russian businessman. The Judge did not bother to even ask any names. The classic cover-up as if anyone would ever pay $7 billion ransom.
Giving the bank the benefit of the doubt, after asking me to invest $10 billion to take over Russia funding Hermitage Capital Management, and I rejected, warning them Russia would collapse, all I can assume is that, receiving this letter, they perhaps judged me by themselves and presumed I took the $10 billion and put it elsewhere. They stole the $1 billion that was there, ran to the government, and said they had no idea where the money was. That would be true concerning the $10 billion. The Federal Reserve went back and asked for clarification because that would be like $100 billion today. Only then did the Japanese FSA, 13 days later, send a correction letter reducing it to $1 billion as if this was an honest decimal error. The bank could not then say sorry, return the $1 billion, and tell the government they had no money whatsoever.
I met with the Receiver, Alan Cohen, and told him the bank stole the money. He said, “We believe the bank.” It is impossible to get $1 billion out of a bank and then say nobody knows where it went. That can only be done by wire. My lawyer, who they removed, Richard Altman, said “You should have run to London.” They would have had to put on a real case to get you back. The accounts were at Republic NY Securities in Philadelphia – NOT New York at Republic Bank. When my case was brought in NYC, my lawyer said of shit. NY practices law differently from any other court in the USA. Boy, did I discover how corrupt they really are.
The government looked at these transactions in dollars and constructively ignored the fact that they were yen transactions. They say the note had a 4% interest rates and looking at it in dollars, they then assumed I paid them 20% instead of 4% and concluded I was OVER PAYING my clients to get more money. They called it a Ponzi scheme, without understanding anything about cross-currency transactions.
When the bank pleaded guilty, suddenly, the government prosecutor Richard D. Owens told a separate court that the transactions were in yen. Yet in my case, he was using dollars. Normally, a receiver gathers the assets to repay the victims. In my case, I had a $400 million profit because the dollar rose and the yen fell from 120 to 68 yen to the dollar. They went to my clients asking them to sign a complaint against me looking that I paid them less dollars than I received. My clients were befuddled and said they were fine since the transactions were in yen, and I had redeemed $2 billion at that point. They then actually told the court I manipulated the Japanese yen to make them “THINK” they made money, since nobody would sign a complaint.
My lawyer pointed out that there were no complaints from any client, only allegations from the bank that stole the money. There was no crime whatsoever on my part. Just these idiots failing to understand the FOREX markets. It was that claim that I manipulated the yen to make my clients think they made money that even opened the eyes of Gretchen Morgenson at the NY Times. She said not even the central banks can do that. These people were prosecutors who did not understand foreign exchange at all.
Edmund Safra was killed, I believe buy the CIA, in Monaco. I also knew Dominick Dunne who investigated Safra. He told me that there were bullets found in his body and was being covered up. He also told me he was at a restaurant in Paris and someone walked up and threatened him to be careful what he writes about. They plant to be the head of Russia was Boris Berezovsky, who they claimed committed suicide, but his body guard said he was killed by MI6. Everyone involved was killed, except Bill Browder.
On April 27th, 2000, these government attorneys then realized everything was a lie. I had invoked a speedy trial, trying to get to a jury, and they were not about to let that happen. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a public trial. They illegally closed the court, altered the transcripts to hide that fact, and threw out the press. The Associated Press was thrown out and reported the illegal “closed hearing,” where they then threw out all my lawyers. They added “some wondering if he can get a fair trial.” This is the Associated Press questioning if an American can get a fair trial in the United States!
When Richard Altman said he would defend me for free, Judge Owen then turned to the government and asked if they were investigating him as part of my conspiracy. They said, of course, lying to the court again. They he could not represent me if he were a co-defendant. No charges were ever filed against Richard.
I had later met a VP of one of the major newspapers in NYC, not Bloomberg, and he told me that when the judge illegally closed the court, threw the Associated Press out, and altered the transcript to hide that fact, they knew I was innocent. And we have the audacity to criticize China or Russia on human rights when they do whatever they want to hide what they have done. Worse yet, not a single member of Congress will dare to ask for an investigation, fearing they will then target them.
They first tried to create a contempt claiming I went to the office, got past their guards, stole all the evidence that proved me guilty, their guards chased me through the parking lot, I assume carrying unknow number of boxes, and I got away. My lawyer, Richard Altman, was a personal friend. He called me and asked if I was crazy, and told me the allegations, and we have a contempt hearing tomorrow. I told him I was in NYC and to call the security company because I would have had to swipe an access card twice to get in. They told him nobody went into that office.
I believe the government was illegally tapping my lawyer’s phone when we went to court, as the Judge is entering the room, the government jumps up and claims there was a mistake. The dribble went on and on, and finally claimed that someone moved boxes from one room to another, but nothing was stolen. Judge Owen then says they dropped the charges, and I was “in good shape.” But when I got the transcript, the 20-minute dribble and outrageous explanation that guards chased me through parking lots was all removed.
When I asked what happened to the transcript, I was told that in NYC, the Judge can alter the court records. If I did that, it would be 5 years in prison.
Transcript after transcript was being altered. Being pro se, I did not have to comply with the same rules as a lawyer. I filed a motion to recuse Judge Richard Owen. When I went to court that day, hundreds of people came. I asked what was going on. The lawyers said it’s you. I asked me? They said, “You cannot accuse a federal judge of committing a felony.” I replied, you all say they do that. He then said, “Yes, but you cannot accuse the judge.” Judge Owen understood I knew what I was doing. A lawyer has to provide a list of witnesses you will call, and the judge has to approve them BEFORE they testify. As pro se, I did not have to comply with these rules. He saw hundreds of people there and had no idea I was going to start calling witnesses.
Judge Owen got scared. He said he altered the transcripts, but he did not recall altering anything material. He refused to recuse himself. I appealed, and of course, the court of appeals claimed they never got it, and I was out of time to appeal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that judges were altering transcripts. They claimed they lacked the power to tell judges to obey the law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to ever review anything. The outright violation of law and international human rights meant nothing to any court.
I did an interview with the Japanese Press and asked them to report that the bank stole the money and that they had been coming to New York to file a lawsuit against the bank, or they would never see a dime. They did as I directed. I then met with the lead counsel representing the Japanese, and he said I am terribly sorry for what they are doing to you. You are “collateral damage.” I said, yes, I know. We agree to help each other since we were on the same side.
The government then escorted HSBC into the criminal court to put a Gag Order on me to prevent me from helping my client against the bank. The law demands you MUST help the victims recover their losses. Nothing matters in New York City. It is a vile, corrupt legal system that should be razed to the ground and start over. Since it is a statutory court and ONLY the Supreme Court is constitutionally established, Congress can order the closure and begin anew. But nobody has the guts to reform and make sure citizens actually have constitutional rights.
The prosecutors lied to the courts and me. They seized my company, and I argued that under the Civil Asset ForfeitureStatute, the companies were entitled to a lawyer. Judge Owen denied that motion and said there was NO Civil Asset Forfeiture, and the government remained silent, for they were using a third court to which I was never served to seize all assets, claiming it was a fraud when it was not. Ethically, they should have informed the court that there was a third court and did not deny the companies any lawyers. If they told the truth, the receivership keeping me in contempt was illegal since the SEC could not seize the assets with a receiver that was PREVIOUSLY seized by the DOJ.
I only found out about that after the bank pleaded guilty, since the receiver handed my notes to the bank to redeem, as the Bank then pocketed the $400 million profit I had, and I have suspected everyone got a piece of the action. The bank redeemed the notes at $606 million, keeping my profit of $400 million. The receiver handed them my notes, and the deal was that they had to make all my clients whole. They did, and kept my $400 million profit.
Since all my clients were repaid, legally, I should have been released. The receiver then stood up and claimed that there was another fraud, but there were no charges. So the judge kept me in prison for another 5 years with absolutely no charge of anything. New York became no different than a banana republic.
They then wanted to fire all my employees, 240 in total, and stop all the forecasting, I believe, at the request of the Banks and hedge funds who lost billions on Russia. Even Soros and Bessent lost $2 billion on Russia. Bessent then left Soros.
A client offered to rent the company to keep the forecasting going. They refused and demanded that I turn over the source code to Socrates. With the receiver Alan Cohen being hired by Goldman Sachs directly to their board after getting all the recorded tapes from transactions that would have exposed the bankers inviting me to join in manipulations, I was not about to handover the source code. It would die with me.
I objected to turning over all the tapes, but the judge pretended they might lead to assets they knew the bank stole. Amazingly, the receive Alan Cohen then magickly becomes a board member of Goldman Sachs but continued as the receiver no runn8ing my company from the boardroom of Goldman Sachs.
They protect the banks in NYC, which is why no bankers are ever personally charged for anything, no matter how they blow up the economy routinely. When I asked a lawyer why no bankers are charged, he said: “You don’t shit where you eat!”
Since the tapes were EXCULPATORY, I was supposed to get copies. When I asked for them, the SEC then claimed that all the evidence in my case was destroyed in the World Trade Center attack. Even the court-appointed lawyer said they have to drop the case now since they claim the files are all gone. Naturally, they never follow the law.
I made a motion before Judge McKenna to compel the government to explain what I was even being charged with. He ordered the government to respond. They went to Chief Judge Michael Bernard Mukasey, and he took my case away from Judge McKenna and sent it to Judge John F. Keenan, who immediately overruled Judge McKenna and said that the motion is denied. He denied all discovery requests and made it clear this was a kangaroo court. The docket sheet was sealed so I cannot even see how they moved my case. Under Due Process, I should have the right to be heard. That was never even an option.
I was told to plead guilty to a conspiracy and face 5 years, or they would imprison me for 120 years. The deal was that I was to be given a Form B pleading, where you get credit for time served. They made it sound like once I pleaded, I would get to go home with the credit for the 7 years of contempt toward the 5-year sentence. Judge Kenan was ruthless. At the start of the hearing, he changed the terms and claimed he did not have the authority to give credit under a Form B pleading, where you get credit for time served. “Form B” is informal shorthand for a specific motion under a section of the U.S. Code (like 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which concerns credit for prior custody).
The government wrote the script, and I was not allowed to speak in my own words. The judge’s ultimate role is to determine, based on this entire conversation, that your plea meets the strict legal standards of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. While the judge will ask you many questions, there is a critical moment where you must speak directly. This is your opportunity to explain to the court why you are guilty. The judge is not just a passive participant; they are the gatekeeper responsible for ensuring your plea is valid. If the judge is not satisfied with any part of the process, they can reject the plea.
Then Judge Kennan went out of his way to accuse me of stealing the idea of Pi for my model from a movie that did not even come out until 1998. They do not even give a shit and expect the press to write whatever they say because they hold the scepter of power. They were claiming notes I sold from 1989 were based on a model I took from a movie 10 years in the future.
I had no restitution since my clients were made whole by the Bank after stealing my $400 million profit in those notes.
The CFTC wanted $30 million in an account to take as a fine. But then the Supreme Court ruled that if you were denied the use of your funds to hire a lawyer of choice, the conviction is AUTOMATICALLY overruled. Because of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), holding that a trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction. There was $30 million in an account that the CFTC wanted as a fine until the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of the use of funds for counsel of choice is an automatic reversal of all proceedings. T, now they freaked out. The client had already been paid. To this day, I believe they just stole the money and have never provided any accounting.
This is a letter from the court-appointed forensic accountant. The Receiver Alan Cohen, Tancred Schiavoni, SEC, and CFTC, withheld exculpatory evidence and refused to ever provide anything to the court-appointed accountant. On the limited review he was able to do on the documents that had been submitted to the court, he concluded I was the victim of the Bank. The number of error trades stuffed into my accounts, I assumed they were parking their bad trades using my money. But after another journalist asked if they were laundering money through my accounts, “as they were doing in Madoff,” made me realize these were not errors. If the error trade was put back to the same account, then it would be an error, but if it went to a different account, then it was money laundering.
I assumed that they were trying to fund their takeover of Russia, still using my accounts, calling them errors. One prosecutor, Brian Coad, clearly wanted to go after the bank. I believe he saw what was going on. In the Court of Appeals, he told my lawyer Thomas Sjoblom directly, “We know he did not steal any money.” Richard D. Owens, the head prosecutor, I believe, removed him from my case because he disagreed.
In prison, the man in charge of the law library was Oliver Brown. At first, we butted heads and said all you rich guys are the same in here. Only after the 18 month civil contempt sentence was up, they spoke to the US Attorney, not the Receiver, SEC, or CFTC, who were just the front for the contempt. It was the prosecutor who was using three courts against each other. Oliver Brown came to me after the 18 months were up, and I should have been released. They conceded I was probably innocent and that they were just trying to break me.
I sued the SEC, assuming they barred me from the industry. They told the court I was NOT barred and I could apply any time I wanted. The District Court ignored all the pleadings, including an affidavit from Oliver Brown stating they were just trying to break me. The court ignored all the evidence and said I was not barred, so the case was dismissed.
But there are TWO IMPORTANT pieces here. (1) Oliver Brown stated that the civil contempt was really being directed by the DOJ and not the parallel civil court. (2) They had to be illegally tapping my lawyer’s phone. Marcus Vetter, who was filming the movie for Oliver Brown, then the DOJ showed up at his door to intimidate him the day before, not to be in the movie. How did they know when the filming would take place?
They went as far as to kill this movie to covertly break into Marcus’s studio in Germany and steal the footage. Marcus has a backup, so the movie appeared. His deal with Netflix was suddenly cancelled, no doubt after they got a phone call.
The film was shown in Europe and even in Canada as well as Asia. It was banned in the United States. So much for FREE SPEECH or anything whatsoever that is supposed to make the United States different from other nations. It’s all propaganda. This is the country they ask people to defend with their lives in battle. It is all to ensure that the US government always wins.
To make this even more bizar, during the 2007-2009 Crash & Great Recession, Congressman Walter Jones who was on the House Financial Services Committee, came to me for help since I was always on the opposite side of the table from the NY boys. Here I am helping during the Great Recession against the bankers and some directs the prison to cut off my communications and throw me in the hole. This letter was sent to the Warden. The head of the secret police who what the police in prisons, comes to take me out of the hole and is kissing my ass. By the time he takes me back to the camp, I meet with the Counselor and he says “You have a lot of juice!” When I asked why was going on, he said there was a Congressional investigation as to who and why the put me in the hole to cut off all communications. Everyone was throwing the Warden under the bus.
Any lawyer who looks at this shakes their head. You just can’t make up this stuff, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The CFTC took all the lawyers away, then moved for default judgement claiming I failed to respond. I stood up and cited the Supreme Court that a corporation cannot be represented pro se (by the individual). When I said your former law clerk, Alan Cohen, is the receiver, and they should have answered. He refused to ever defend the companies. Judge Owen was so pissed off, he called me a legal terrorist for it was probably the first time in his career that he ever had to deny a government motion.
They tried to kill me, but after being in a coma for 3 days, to their dismay, I survived.
AnnaPaulinaLuna
05:12
I have been asked by many why Luna hasn’t done something to correct this government outrage. While I know that she does know what they did to me, I believe it is the staff who are never really loyal to the person they serve. They are typically intermediated by outside sources and make sure any suggestion never actually reaches the congressman in question. That issue with Tory Lanez was Hollywood whereas I am in a different league.
I believe NOBODY will dare have this case reviewed because it was all about the regime change in Russia and the US interference in their 2000 election that resulted in blackmailing Yeltsin, who then turned to Putin. After all, Yeltsin had the US Neocons on one side and the Russian Neocons making an impeachment motion, trying to take Russia back to the USSR. Putin was neither an oligarch nor a communist. This is why the American Neocons hate him personally so much, because he even seized all the assets of Hermitage Capital Management, the company they wanted me to put in $10 billion.
The accountant for Hermatage Capital Management, which Putin seized that was operating the whole Russian scheme, was most likely killed to prevent him from telling the truth what was going on. It was John McCain who sponsored the Magnitsky Act. There was the controversy with Trump Jr. in the Trump Tower Meeting where some Russians were trying to tell him the truth about the Magnitsky Act. One of the lawyers who was on my case participated in that meeting. My case is so intertwined with national security I am lucky to still be alive.
It was John McCain who personally handed the fake Russian dossier on Trump paid for by Hillary to James B. Comey. It just so happened that James Comey was the lead prosecutor on my case and had to have approved of what they were doing. I believe that Comey was part of the deal for when he questioned Hillary the in the FBI, he took no notes. That does not happen. I believe that Hillary blamed Putin for interfering in the 2016 election assuming it was pay back for the 2000 attempt to impose regime change in Russia. She created the whole RussiaGate story. That was all proven to be a fraud upon the country by the Special Prosecutor that never existed and the Democrats were fined for the fake dossier. The Hill wrote that the people involved behind RussiaGate should be prosecuted. Nobody ever was. Welcome to the real America where Justice is reall spelled – “Just Us.”
I believe they have intimidated everyone to cover up what they have done. I laid out a lot more in the Plot to Seize Russia.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 