Statement of Facts for CitiGroup Settlement – Dept. Of Justice Action

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/558201471413645397758.pdf

1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup Inc., through certain of its affiliates (“Citigroup”), securitized thousands of residential mortgage loans and sold the resulting residential mortgagebacked securities (“RMBS”) for tens of billions of dollars to investors, including federally insured financial institutions. Prior to securitization, Citigroup conducted due diligence on loans (including credit, compliance, and valuation due diligence). In securitizing and issuing the RMBS, Citigroup provided representations in offering documents about the characteristics of the underlying loans. As described below, in the due diligence process, Citigroup received information indicating that, for certain loan pools, significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations provided to investors about the pools of loans to be securitized.  Citigroup’s RMBS securitization process and representations In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup securitized and sold RMBS, through both “thirdparty” and “principal” transactions.  For “third-party” transactions, Citigroup served as an underwriter. In certain of those transactions, Citigroup served as the lead underwriter. In that role, Citigroup, among  other things, structured the transaction and sold RMBS certificates to investors. Citigroup acted as an underwriter through its wholly-owned subsidiary Citigroup Global Markets Inc. For “principal” transactions, Citigroup purchased groups or “pools” of loans from third parties prior to securitization and, in certain instances, originated the loans itself through another of its subsidiaries. Citigroup also acted as underwriter for certain of the principal transactions. Citigroup bought pools of mortgage loans from numerous lending  institutions, or “originators.” These lending institutions included Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Argent Mortgage Company LLC, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., New Century Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and others. 
2
In these transactions, Citigroup securitized the loans under its own shelf registration, such as its shelf  known as “Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc.” or “CMLTI.” In various RMBS offerings, Citigroup provided representations, or otherwise disclosed information, in certain offering documents, about the loans it securitized, telling investors that:
 Loans in the securitized pools were originated generally in accordance with the loan originator’s underwriting guidelines.
 Exceptions to those underwriting guidelines had been made when the originator identified  “compensating factors” at the time of origination.
 The securitization sponsor or originator (which, in certain instances, was Citigroup) represented that each loan had been originated in compliance with federal,  state, and local laws and regulations.
 The loans being securitized had various characteristics, such as loan-to-value ratios at origination within various ranges.

In the base prospectus for certain RMBS offerings, Citigroup further represented that it would not include any loan “if anything has come to [Citigroup’s] attention that would cause it to believe that the representations and warranties made in respect of such mortgage loan will not be accurate and complete in all material respects as of the date of initial issuance of the related series of securities.”  Citigroup’s due diligence process Citigroup reviewed due diligence results on loans prior to securitization.
3
In principal transactions, before purchasing a pool of loans from a third-party originator, Citigroup conducted due diligence on those loans.  Citigroup typically conducted this due diligence by reviewing certain loans in the loan pool, rather than the entire pool. This sample was generally composed of certain loans from the pool with characteristics that Citigroup viewed as warranting review. Citigroup  would contract with a due diligence vendor to review the sampled loans. The vendor would “re-underwrite” the individual loan files in the sample.  Part of this review focused on “credit,” including whether the loan met the originator’s underwriting guidelines, or whether the originator had found the loan to possess sufficient “compensating factors” to warrant a deviation from the guidelines. Another part of this review was focused on “compliance,” to determine whether the loan had been originated in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. For each sampled loan reviewed for “credit” and “compliance,” the due diligence vendor assigned a grade. In general, the vendor graded a loan “EV1” when the loan was underwritten according to the applicable guidelines and originated in compliance with applicable laws. The vendor generally graded a loan as “EV2” when the loan did not comply with applicable underwriting guidelines, but nonetheless had sufficient compensating factors that the originator had found to justify the extension of credit. The vendor graded a loan “EV3” when the loan was not originated in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the loan did not comply with applicable underwriting guidelines and lacked the sufficient offsetting compensating factors, or the loan file was missing a key piece of documentation.  Citigroup obtained the results of the credit and compliance reviews from the due diligence vendors and was provided information about the number or percentage of loans in the sample that the vendor had graded EV3. Citigroup also was provided with the reasons that the vendor had assigned the EV3 grades, including the nature of the defects, such as 

4
whether the borrower had unreasonable stated income, when the borrower’s credit score was below guidelines, when the ratios of loan-to-property value and debt-to-income exceeded the underwriting guidelines, and when the loan file reviewed was missing  documents or had inadequate documentation. Citigroup referred to EV3 loans as “kicks,” “kickouts,” or “rejects.” Citigroup also used a due diligence process to assess the reported values of the properties that served as collateral for the mortgage loans. This “valuation” review was intended to determine whether information about the property’s value sufficiently supported the reported value for the property. The valuation review was conducted by a vendor, using methods such as automated valuation models, broker price opinions, and appraisal reviews.  The vendor used one or more of these methods to calculate a valuation determination for the property being reviewed. Citigroup used thresholds or “tolerances” for the valuation firm to assess whether the information about the property’s value sufficiently supported the reported value as determined by an appraiser. Citigroup instructed the vendor to recommend the loan for rejection if the vendor’s valuation determination differed from the appraised value by more than 15 percent with respect to certain types of loans. In other words, Citigroup had an internal “tolerance” of up to 15 percent. This meant that Citigroup routinely accepted, for purposes of  the valuation review, specific types of loans for purchase and securitization when the valuation firm’s determination deviated by less than 15 percent from the reported appraised value. Citigroup’s thresholds further provided that if a valuation firm determined that the combined loan-to-value ratio for a loan exceeded 100 percent, the loan would be recommended  for rejection.  In third-party transactions, depending on the role played by Citigroup, Citigroup would work with due diligence vendors to perform diligence on samples of loans selected with
5
the participation of the issuer or otherwise review reports from due diligence vendors retained by the issuer or other underwriters to the transaction.  Due diligence on Citigroup RMBS in 2006 and 2007 In 2006 and 2007, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors provided Citigroup with reports reflecting that the vendors had graded certain of the sampled loans as EV3. For numerous pools, the reports showed that the vendors had graded significant percentages of the sampled loans as EV3.1  In addition, Citigroup’s internal due diligence personnel reevaluated loan grades and subsequently directed the due diligence vendor to assign grades of EV1 or EV2 to loans as  to which Citigroup’s due diligence vendors had previously assigned grades of EV3. Certain of Citigroup’s main due diligence vendors would track when loans that they had graded as EV3 were “waived” in by Citigroup. Citigroup’s contemporaneous records did not in all cases document Citigroup’s reasons for directing the due diligence vendors to re-grade loans.  Further, in certain instances, Citigroup learned from the vendors conducting valuation due diligence that loans in particular loan pools exceeded Citigroup’s valuation tolerances. The vendors also reported that a number of the properties securing the loans had reported or appraised values that were higher than the vendors’ valuation determination. In certain instances, Citigroup securitized loans that its vendors had reported exceeded Citigroup’s valuation tolerances or where the vendor’s valuation determination exceeded the reported or appraised value.

1 There were loans in each of the RMBS reviewed by the Justice Department that did not comply with underwriting guidelines, including the securitizations set forth on Appendix 1, which the Justice Department determined to contain significant percentages of  defective loans.
6
Examples In the following deals, Citigroup securitized loans, making representations of the type described earlier that the loans generally complied with underwriting guidelines or  had sufficient compensating factors, had been originated in compliance with law, and possessed certain characteristics.
1. In three CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2006, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors reported to Citigroup their findings that loans in the samples had not been originated in compliance with underwriting guidelines and with applicable federal law and regulations. Certain of these loans were missing documentation, such as HUD-1 documents that Citigroup had told the vendor were necessary. A due diligence report sent to Citigroup, after the re- underwriting was complete, showed that more than 12 percent of loans in the sample had been graded EV3. A due diligence report for another large pool, which contributed over 2,000 loans to another RMBS, showed that more than 29 percent of the sampled loans had been graded EV3. Citigroup securitized the loans from these pools that had not been rejected at the end of the due diligence process in the three RMBS. 

2. In an RMBS where Citigroup served as the lead underwriter in 2006, the due diligence report provided to Citigroup by its vendor showed that more than 25 percent of the loans in the sample reviewed for credit and compliance had been graded by the vendor as EV3 or were found to have missing file documents. Many of the loans did not comply with underwriting guidelines or represented exceptions to those guidelines: more than 67 percent were graded as EV2 by the vendor. The vendor graded only approximately 6 percent of the loans in the sample as EV1. Notwithstanding these results, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the RMBS. 

3. In a CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, the due diligence vendor initially reviewed a sample of loans selected based on certain criteria (the
7
“adverse sample”). Early in the diligence process, the vendor notified Citigroup employees that it had graded over 44 percent of the adverse sample as EV3s. The vendor identified trends associated with its review of those loans and stated that, if the trends continued, it expected the pool to have an “unusually large” number and percentage of rejects.  Later in the due diligence process, the vendor asked Citigroup whether it would  be “prudent” to perform additional diligence based on a random sample, to determine whether the large number of “kick outs” were the result of the adverse selection method or reflective of the loans across the entire pool. Thereafter, the due diligence vendor advised Citigroup that it had graded over 32 percent of the random sample as EV3.  In addition, during the due diligence on the same loan pool, Citigroup’s due diligence personnel reevaluated certain of the vendor’s loan grades and directed the due diligence vendor to change some of those grades from an EV3 to an EV2 or EV1. The final report from the vendor graded approximately 20 percent of the sample as EV3.  Apart from the random sample, Citigroup did not conduct further due diligence to determine whether the remaining loans in the pool contained defects. Instead, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the RMBS.

4. In two CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, Citigroup’s due diligence vendor identified a number of loans that were outside of Citigroup’s valuation rules and tolerances. These included loans where the difference between the reported original appraisal and the vendor’s valuation determination exceeded 15 percent, or otherwise exceeded Citigroup’s thresholds. Citigroup also instructed the due diligence vendor to change the grades of loans that its vendor had recommended for rejection, following Citigroup’s review of those loans and loan grades. Citigroup then securitized hundreds of the loans that its vendor had identified as outside of Citigroup’s tolerances.
8
In addition, early in the due diligence process, a trader at Citigroup wrote an internal email that indicated that he had reviewed a due diligence report summarizing loans that the due diligence vendor had graded as EV3s and had noted that “a lot” of these rejected loans had unreasonable income and values below the original appraisal, which resulted in combined loan- to-value in excess of 100 percent. The trader stated that he “went thru the Diligence Reports and think that we should start praying… I would not be surprised if half of these loans went down. There are a lot of loans that have unreasonable incomes, values below the original appraisals (CLTV would be >100), etc. It’s amazing that some of these loans were closed at all.”   Despite this trader’s observations, Citigroup securitized loans from this pool in the two RMBS.

5. In four CMLTI RMBS issued and underwritten by Citigroup in 2007, Citigroup securitized loans from two loan sellers.  Citigroup employees had been informed that in prior RMBS securitizations where the underlying loans were from the same companies, a significant number of loans had already gone into early default.  In addition, prior to the securitization of those four RMBS, Citigroup received additional information about the quality of mortgage underwriting at those companies. Prior to the issuance of the four RMBS in 2007, Citigroup had begun the process to acquire assets from one of the companies. As part of that acquisition, Citigroup conducted due diligence on the companies. As part of that due diligence, Citigroup received some of the company’s internal audit reports, and distributed them to, among others,  a Managing Director who was involved with Citigroup’s RMBS securitizations. The internal audit reports showed that the seller had itself found, in the prior year, that it lacked key internal controls over its quality assurance for loan production, and that substantial percentages of the loans failed to adhere to underwriting guidelines, which the seller itself labelled as “high risk.”
9
Citigroup also conducted its own reviews of a sample of loans provided by the seller. In that process, Citigroup identified issues with the seller’s internal quality controls. During this time, Citigroup’s due diligence vendors graded a number of sampled loans, both from loan pools to be securitized and from loans funded through “warehouse” lines of credit, as EV3, including loans that the vendors found did not comply with applicable laws and regulations due to missing documentation. In certain instances, Citigroup’s due diligence personnel reevaluated certain of the vendors’ loan grades and instructed its due diligence vendor to change some of those grades from an EV3 to an EV2 or EV1.  Notwithstanding the information Citigroup had received about the companies’ loans, Citigroup purchased the loan pools and securitized loans from those pools in the four RMBS.

It Never Ceases to Amaze Me, The Stupidity of the Public

I swear!  It never ceases to amaze me, the stupidity of the public.  Everyone sitting around with their fingers in their asses while we are continually nuked!  What the f–k is wrong with people?  Is it Ok that you children’s children will be unrecognizable as humans?  What are you people thinking?

No one gives a shit!  What is going on?  Years ago, when 3-Mile Island was going on, people became afraid of nuclear reactors, and rightfully so.  Now, the horrible scary news about Fukushima, WIPP, and Hanford are just like totally ignored by you people!  Hell, I didn’t have kids, and I am more frantic about the situation than the people with kids, and grandkids.  What the fuck are you people paying attention to?  Nothing?

Yes, I am mad!  Mad as hell!  All the people that protested in the 60’s early 70’s what the hell are yall thinking?  Shit!  You would protest anything and everything, and now, it is suddenly ok to nuke everyone?  What the hell did you grow up to be?  A Senator or Congressman, protected from the radiation on earth?

I tell you what people…  If you don’t get out of your zombie states, and you own little world taking whatever kind of I don’t give a shit pills yall are taking, there won’t be nothing but radiation sickness, damaged genes, and the mutation of all mankind.

I don’t know what to tell yall!  I thought everyone snoozing through Foreclosure Hell was bad enough, but now they are literally killing us with an unseen toxin.  Do you really think you are immune?

Well, you’re not! 

Once Upon a Time…. I Thought the Worst We Had To Face Was Foreclosure Hell, I WAS WRONG!

Ya know, I used to think that Foreclosure Hell was the worst thing we in this Country had to face.  Wow, Was I Wrong!

I didn’t realize that just like in Japan, they will cook us to death with radiation, and not even bother to tell us.  I have condemned the Japanese for nuking the world and not telling us the truth about it, but fuck me, this country is doing the same thing.

While most people go about their daily business, they never think about the fact, that a pleasure of getting rained on is killing them.  We are the walking dead, and being asleep to the fact is just fucking us up more.

I would apologize for my slang, no, crude language, but something needs to wake these sleeping zombies up!

So, they are not only going to take every house they can get their grimy paws on, but they are going to continue the slow kill of humankind from the planet.  

It is not the kids growing up now that will suffer so much, it is like the butterfly test in Fukushima.  It is the children’s children that will be riddled with deformities. 

No matter what they try to tell us, we cannot be stupid, and believe that radiation is ok.  The thought of believing that, well, it is, stupid.  The sheeple that make up this country now, is amazing.  If the government says the radiation is not hurting us, we’ll just believe them.  Because the government says so?  Yall need to get out from under the rock, and out of the sun, cause damn!  You been drinking too much water with fluoride in it, for too long, and it has made you dumb!  I take that back, it has made you dumber than dirt!

For years, they have been doing things with the weather, with our food, with our prescriptions, our health!  They have taken healthy human beings and turned them into out of shape, fat slugs that have lives that are meant for cattle.  Chemtrails is no lie either.  What about HARP?  I guess that you also believe that 911 was not an inside job.

No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I believe in taking what is put before me, studying it, seeing it for what it is, listening to scientists, listening to experts, and deducing my own opinion.  You see, we woke up.  We quit drinking the tap water.  We quit watching the regular news.  The news media is brainwashing you sheeple, which is not hard for them to do.

Terrorists are here, they are going to get you, so we have to militarize the Police forces.  These false flag shootings, are to outrage you sheeple, so that you will agree that guns are bad, and they can confiscate our guns.  We are told that our rights have to be taken, so that we can be protected from the terrorists, etc.,

If you are so blind you cannot see your nose on your face, you will not notice that Fannie Mae, and the banks are throwing our elderly out on the street.  Right now, in Goodyear, Arizona, and 83 year old woman and her 86 year old husband are being thrown out of their home.  No one cares.  In Colorado Springs, CO, an 82 year old woman is being thrown out of her home.  No one cares.

What the hell is wrong with you sheeple?  It’s not you, so it is Ok?  The Bank With the Most Homes in the End Wins, Get Used to It!!!

Sheeple Awaken! 

Judge rules secret FBI national security letters unconstitutional

CA Federal Judge Illston Sends FBI a Message

Judge rules secret FBI national security letters unconstitutional

fbiwarantless12z.jpg

Feb. 10, 2009: The main headquarters of the FBI, the J. Edgar Hoover Building, in Washington, DC.AP

A federal judge has struck down a set of laws allowing the FBI to issue so-called national security letters to banks, phone companies and other businesses demanding customer information.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the laws violate the First Amendment and the separation of powers principles and ordered the government to stop issuing the secretive letters or enforcing their gag orders, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The FBI almost always bars recipients of the letters from disclosing to anyone — including customers — that they have even received the demands, Illston said in the ruling released Friday.

The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy “serve the compelling need of national security,” and the gag order creates “too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted,” the San Francisco-based Illston wrote.

A Department of Justice spokesman told the Journal the department was “reviewing the order.”

FBI counter-terrorism agents began issuing the letters, which don’t require a judge’s approval, after Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The case arises from a lawsuit that lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed in 2011 on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company that received an FBI demand for customer information.

“We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” EFF lawyer Matt Zimmerman said. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”

Illston wrote that she was also troubled by the limited powers judges have to lift the gag orders.

Judges can eliminate the gag order only if they have “no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal counter-terrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”

That provision also violated the Constitution because it blocks meaningful judicial review.

Illston ordered the FBI to cease issuing the letters, but put her order on hold for 90 days so the U.S. Department of Justice can appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Illston isn’t the first federal judge to find the letters troubling. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York also found the gag order unconstitutional, but allowed the FBI to continue issuing them if it made changes to its system such as notifying recipients they can ask federal judges to review the letters.

Illston ruled Friday that it’s up to Congress, and not the courts, to tinker with the letters.

In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general found widespread violations in the FBI’s use of the letters, including demands without proper authorization and information obtained in non-emergency circumstances. The FBI has tightened oversight of the system.

The FBI made 16,511 national security letter requests for information regarding 7,201 people in 2011, the latest data available. The FBI uses the letters to collect unlimited kinds of sensitive, private information like financial and phone records.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

KEEPING AMERICANS IN FEAR

 25 April, 09:05

HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER CLAIMS BOSTON BOMBING WAS A “FALSE FLAG ATTACK”

Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack"

Thanks to:      http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_25/The-Boston-bombing-was-a-false-flag-attack-Nathan-Folks-7658/
 
Play
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:00
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
 
00:00
Mute

Download audio file

Crisis actors, smoke bombs, fake blood and literal “smoke and mirrors” were all part of what was the false flag terrorist attack called the Boston Marathon Bombing. To anyone who saw the pictures and footage of fake blood, make- up artists and smiling “victims”. It was obvious that something was not right. For those involved in filmmaking and in the know the discrepancies were obvious. We spoke to famous Hollywood filmmaker, producer and director Nathan Folks about why he is certain the Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag terrorist attack.

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Nathan Folks, he is a well known US based film and TV director and producer. He is also one of the organizers of the Worldwide Wave of Action and a truth seeker. This is part one of a longer interview.

PART 2

Robles: Hello Sir.

Folks: Hi, how are you?

Robles: I’m very well. How are you?

Folks: Very good.

Robles: That’s nice to hear especially after everything you have been through. Now your story is going way-back. It started with the Boston Bombing. If you can tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that “event” and what has happened to you since.

Folks: Back in 2013 I was watching the events unfold and as a producer, you can pinpoint very specific things that didn’t seem right. And I started to realize that we are watching yet another false flag event unfold. And as I started putting the pieces together I realized that we are up against an environment that is trying to create a fear factor in the media. And the fear factor is to keep us scared and to keep us in fear as long as they can.

And the events that I know to be true, including the “Boston hero” who was a person in my last film, “The prosecution of an American president” and his wife, I started to recognize that this was not an event that was at all 100% true.

Robles: What about this Boston hero? What role did he play?

Folks: He is actually a father that had lost a son in the Iraq War and he was part of our film and a part of the movement, you know, of exposing the truth about Iraq and talking about the things that the Bush Administration did during those years of his administration.

And I was blown away at the fact that he was essentially being used to act in this fake environment, this hyper-reality scene of a terrorism that never happened.

Robles: Now, can you tell us three things here if you could. You used the term “Hyper-Reality” what is that and how is it used? And what is a “Crisis Actor”? Many people may still not know what that is. And if you could, detail for the listeners, some of the things that you saw as far as screens being put up as for the false stages being set up where things were filmed and stuff?

Folks: I will start up by saying that if there was an injury or a death in the event that unfolded my heart goes out to those families. But from the people that I know that were involved, from the people that were in the scenes that we call Hyper-Reality Filmmaking, which is a very common thing you do in the military.

It’s where filmmakers, or people, create a hyper-reality scene so that the military can be well-adjusted to a real scene in Iraq or any other kind of war zone.

This is where these people are actually able to see and feel and help what they think is a real injured person whereas it is really just an amputee that is playing as a crisis actor, and (in this case) a crisis actor being someone that had lost their limbs but a makeup artist has been able to re-enact a bloody scene with “no leg blown off” and this hyper reality scene, so that when we are now on the ground, they actually see and feel like they are in a war zone.

And I’m watching this unfold on the streets of Boston and thinking, one: how were they able to get away with that? And two: watching the edits and the supposedly live television broadcasting we were seeing, it wasn’t “live” at all, it was edited.

Robles: How you know? What did you see? What were the clues you saw?

Folks: Well, there were a lot of things. In live footage you don’t see cuts. You know, cutting from one scene to another and in live footage you don’t have, especially now, this wasn’t in 2013 HD technology, this was in old technology from 2002, because it is grainer and you can’t see the edits as well.

As a filmmaker that what I would do if I was trying to reenact something like that and…

Robles: I’m sorry. Can you be more specific? I didn’t quite follow that. So it was made using old technology?

Folks: It’s using an older technology that is grainer. So you can’t see the very true HD quality and you are watching… If you look back at any old footage from early 2000 or even the 1990s, it is very grainy and when you are watching it on a new technology television with latest plasma and HD and any kind of new technology you can see that it was edited.

Robles: So television stations at that time, they were using modern technology?

Folks: They were definitely using modern technology last year. It’s just when you see pictures from 2013 that were in HD and then you look at clips and cuts of the footage from television, it is very obvious that it was used on purpose.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about some of the scenes. I’m sure a lot of people who were interested in what really happened, they saw some of the pictures, for example: the amputee with sticks, apparently sticking out of his legs or something, and blood that looked like paint, I mean, I have seen blood, I worked in a hospital, I know what blood looks like, it’s dark, it’s brownish red and this was this bright red paint. Can you tell us about that?

Folks: I think even more of an obvious situation is that: you get your legs blown off you are not going to be out in front of millions of people celebrating Boston at a hockey game or any type of arena. I think the emotional impact of losing your legs would probably keep you out of the public eye for at least a year. And that was the biggest obvious example to me, but as far as anyone that has been in the paramedics or nursing would know, that if you blow your legs off, you are not supposed to moved.

If someone’s falls here on Wilshire, just falls down, they tell you not to move, they are not supposed to move them. They could have broken a bone or a neck; their spine could be dislocated. You don’t move them and you certainly don’t put them in a wheelchair and run them down the road.

And it is just taking this to a whole different comical level that the fact that they think we all buy this, and that we are all going to sit here and watch it happen over and over again, you know, they have another thing coming. That’s why I joined forces with the Worldwide Wave of Action because you know; the truth has to come out. And people are not going to sit here and watch them make a mockery of ourselves.

Everybody around the world knows Boston Bombing was a joke; everyone in the US has been fed lies and lies after lies and it started in 9-11 and it hasn’t stopped.

Robles: Can you tell us… you sent me some pictures of these screens that you could actually see the road like “moving up”, it was like a mirror or something. Can you tell us about those?

Folks: You mean as far as the 3D… the Green Screen that they used at the Boston Bombing?

Robles: Yeah, can you detail all that?

Folks: From what I understand, they… it looks to me like they used a second street in order to re-enact the scene, over and over, to get it right and by using Green Screen they were able to show the buildings that were actually on Boylston Street and when you use a Green Screen it is a lot like Titanic. In the movie Titanic in 1997 we are watching the film and we are watching this boat sink and we are watching the water fill into the boat and we see people falling off the boat. That is obviously not happening in real life, we are watching it on Green Screen. They are putting a digital layer behind the screen of real action people. And we are watching a boat sink in the background and that is what they did in this example.

They just did it on television. We are watching green screen on television to re-enact a street scene that happened for real, but just a smoke bomb but when they re-enacted the people that were hurt they had to add the blood and the amputees and to put one the makeup.

You can see the person putting makeup on these people the entire scene; I call her “The Woman in Pink”. She has literally got a makeup bag and she is going to each victim, she is not helping them! She is putting make up on them!

So I’m sorry, I’m not fooled and I’m not going to let everyone else be fooled. Someone has to speak out against it. And they can follow me, they can do whatever they want but at the end of the day the truth has to come out some time. They can’t get away with it anymore.

Robles: Now please tell us, you have been persecuted, you have been through hell, I can’t think of any other way to put it. If I can tell our listeners: you contacted me right after it happened and after that a lot of terrible things started happening to you. Can you tell us some of those things?

Folks: Well, obviously, you can’t prove anything because I was very sick. I have never been sick in my life, I have never been in the hospital, but in the days after this event and weeks after this event and me talking about it, I was in the hospital for a total of 22 days over the course of three months.

And they really couldn’t determine what it was and I couldn’t hold water, I couldn’t hold food, it was some type of poison.

I can’t say for sure that I was poisoned by someone but I can say that I had some type of poison that nearly killed me.

And it took me good 3 to 6 months to kind of rehabilitate and get back on my feet and I figured if they are trying to scare me off or they are trying to keep me down from speaking: then it was a good try but it didn’t work.

Robles: Could you tell us what has happened to some other people? There was one guy, he wrote an article, you said, questioning the reality of the Boston Bombing Marathon. And you told me about some other people who had gotten sick as well.

Folks: Yeah, there is a gentlemen that runs a website called “Natural News” and he was coming out with very similar examples that I was during that time. And just now finding out that they wrote an article about how he has gotten sick from the food, he talks about. And they took his article down and re-wrote it in the third person.

And I don’t know if he is even able to speak, but I do know that after finding some of these examples of people that were coming out at same time that I was, that they were sick and poisoned as well, makes me realize that something is going on.

Robles: When you were in the hospital you also told me some other people close to you… (Can you talk about that?) that there were some other people you knew that got sick.

Folks: Yeah, I don’t think I can go into any detail but there were several other people that had gotten sick, and that seems to be part of this coming out. Anyone that has come out about this, got sick or disappeared.

Robles: How many people have disappeared, since then?

Folks: Well, I can say that everybody that reacted to this Boston bombing, the millions and millions of people that came out on the websites, came out about the scene and about the situation, essentially were silenced because there wasn’t a word about it this year. And that just gives me more of a comforting notion that it has been silenced for someone who has gone out and done something to the people that did come out about it…

Robles: You said that Internet before we started, you said that your Internet shut down in the US, it is on lockdown or something…

Folks: I mean strange things like in one day I have a Verizon Wireless Internet and in one day over 200 GB was taken from my service, ran up 35 hundred dollar bill in a 24-hour period. And then when you contact Verizon saying that it is obviously not something that I did, they ignore me and say that I have to pay if I want my service back on. So not many people want to just pay $3,500 for no reason.

Obviously, I never turned my Internet back on. I have been working on different types of Internet on different phones but it was designed to create a situation that I would shutdown. It was a warning probably of some sort. It was so that I would stop speaking about things that I’m knowledgeable about.

Robles: You gave me a good example about Boston False Flag, if someone who did a search on Google. Can you tell us about this false bomb?

Folks: Yeah, it is just that nobody is speaking about the Boston bombing. There is nobody speaking about false flags. And in this country our web searches seem to be completely deleted. You know, during that time I downloaded everything I knew and everything I saw and I have it on hard drive and the fact that all of that is now gone and I have them on hard drive.

Robles: Everything is gone?

Folks: Somebody is trying to take it away, make it disappear. It was very bad; whoever was in charge of the Boston Bombing Campaign did a very lousy job. They need to consult with some real Hollywood producers if they are going to do anything like that again and maybe make sure that they don’t fool the nation in their process because this is absurd.

Robles: They are not very creative in doing the same thing again and again and again.

Folks: They keep getting away with it, they are getting used to be able to get with it and they are getting sloppy and eventually and as this Worldwide Wave of Action is able to expose the truth more and more, I think we are going to stop this evil that is now taking over the US and is trying to keep people in fear and using fear mongering techniques on our media.

CNN and FOX and all these media sources are not telling the truth anymore. They are more interested in talking more about artists like Justin Bieber and Lindsay Lohan going to jail than potential war in Crimea.

I mean, this is, don’t even get me starting on that because I think we all know who is behind the taunting of that situation.

So it is just becoming obvious and even though people are not speaking about it because they are scared off or because they are scared to make a name and come out and talk about it.

This is our time to re-live the 60s, this is my generation’s time to stand up and say “No more!”

And we are not going to sit here and be poisoned and be lied to and listen to this “essentially crap” that they are feeding us in our media, this is not going to happen anymore. We have to stand up and make a change.

Surveillance vans parked outside of Folks’ home.

This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Nathan Folks, he is a well-known US film and TV director and producer. He is also the organizer of the Worldwide Wave of Action. You can find the rest of this interview on our website voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening!

That was the end of part one.

The Future for America and Obamacare!

Man cuts off own hand with a homemade guillotine

 

 photo
Stock image via Getty Images

A man from Devon, England, was so desperate to end his suffering after spending many painful years with an injured hand that he did the unthinkable—he built a guillotine and cut off his own hand.

According to the Daily Record, Mark Goddard, 44, amputated his arm because he suffered excruciating pain since injuring the arm during a motorbike accident in 1998. Goddard claims to take 40 painkillers a day and says he had to quit his garage job. While Goddard would have preferred for the surgery to have been done professionally in a hospital, Goddard claims that doctors were hesitant to honor his amputation request because his injured hand, despite the nerve damage, was still functional.

It took two weeks for Goddard to build the guillotine. Before amputating, he tied two tourniquets to his arm and had a first aid kit nearby. After severing the hand, he tossed the body part into a fire he had started in an outdoor garden bin. Goddard’s wife came home soon after and, upon discovering the grisly scene, immediately called emergency services.

Local authorities claim Goddard appeared rational when they arrived on the scene. Officers attempted to salvage Goddard’s hand but it was too badly damaged. Goddard hopes his desperate act will convince doctors to implant a spinal stimulator in his back to ease his pain.

http://m.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/woman-shot-newton-county-deputies/nfPZw/

Crime & Law

Updated: 7:01 p.m. Monday, March 31, 2014 | Posted: 5:00 p.m. Monday, March 31, 2014

Woman fatally shot by Newton County deputies

 

By Angel K. Brooks

An armed woman was shot to death by Newton County deputies on Monday afternoon, authorities said.

A woman threatening suicide called authorities, who responded to a home on Russell Braden Road around 3:30 p.m., the Newton County Sheriff’s Office said.

When deputies arrived, the woman came out of the home with a rifle and refused to drop it despite repeated commands to do so, according to the sheriff’s office.

Deputies fired shots and the woman was hit an unknown number of times. She was transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead, Deputy Felicia Jefferson told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The incident is under investigation by the GBI and internal affairs, Jefferson said.