February 14, 2017
After making a claim, what is the next step?
An instruction manual. Like a cheap wine, the invoice has to age a little before we can take further action to pursue payment. In the meantime, the PCA team thought it was high time to teach a few things to the powers that be.
Firstly, that the current administrator is not the only person with sufficient information to restart the payment process. To illustrate this fact, we sent a well-developed implementation plan to all of the usual suspects. This document also had the secondary purpose of debunking any excuses related to lack of ability to execute.
Secondly, the German government may not be able to find a way to make contact with us, but we found a way to make contact with them. On February 8, 2017 the claimant representative and her legal counsel met with the US Honorary Consul for the Federal Republic of Germany. The meeting was very constructive. We quickly agreed on several points including:
1. That the German government should have made contact with us a long time ago.
2. The process of restarting the payments appears straightforward given that the whereabouts of the database and funds is known, the infrastructure is already in place, and that trillions of dollars in payments have already been made.
3. Given the imminent public release of The Hague Award, and the recent claims made against the 2012 “Agreement to Facilitate Payments,” communication should continue in an attempt to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
It was then agreed that the details and documents presented at the meeting should be sent up the official diplomatic chain of command. While the Consul moved the details of the meeting up the official chain, we shared them up the unofficial, more direct back channel.
In the last few weeks, in order to allow a quick, discrete resolution to this matter we have made an official claim for our funds, given the German government a complete implementation plan, and an official conduit for communication with the PCA team.
All details of both the implementation plan and the meeting with the US Honorary Consul for the Federal Republic of Germany will be forwarded to The Hague in the next couple of days.
SI Investment Group
As a claimant pertaining to the matter before the Permanent Court
of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague in the Netherlands, are you
and the other claimants acting for themselves or are you collectively
acting for all the investors relative to the approximate 35,000
In the current case, I am only allowed to officially represent myself and the three other Claimants.
Does that enable you to officially represent us all, namely the collective holders of the 35,000 unpaid accounts and if not, why was this not a group action?
April 25, 2017
What about the liens?
On April 14, 2017, UCC Financing Statement #946013900029 was filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State in the United States. This lien applies to all real and tangible assets owned by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the State of Hessen, Federal Republic of Germany and controlled by select collateral holders in the United States.
All collateral holders have been notified. Press releases to media outlets, rating services and German opposition parties are being distributed.
February 27, 2018
Why were the motions filed in Pro Se?
We have used legal counsel in the past. When our
German lawyers requested assistance the response
When our Australian lawyers requested assistance
the response was this.
When our US lawyers requested assistance we got no response at all.
This time there are no lawyers to bully, intimidate, or argue irrelevant points of rule. Either help us or the next stop is the International Criminal Court!
The problem posed with directly representing all of the remaining investors is that we had no way of getting authorization to represent all investors.
Under what conditions can progress be shared with the account holders of SI?
In lieu of the above limitation, we requested that the PCA award be granted as a precedent that could be used for all other accounts. Because 117 countries belong to The Hague Convention, this ruling should be recognized by most of the jurisdictions in the world.
What are major issues that may be anticipated in moving forward?
There is still a rocky road ahead. Currently there are two paths that can be taken, depending on the Respondents. If the Respondents continue to do nothing, once we receive the award from the PCA, liens will be filed against all Respondent assets in any and all jurisdiction and other civil remedies will be evaluated. If those in authority and control finally decide it is time to resolve this matter before it becomes another epic international scandal, then negotiations will commence and arrangements will begin to restart the payments which began in 2006.
What resources do you anticipate will be required to be found to manage these events?
It is difficult to say at this time. We have gotten further than anyone ever imagined with the assistance of amazing talent and generosity. However, the next steps are actually the hard part. Getting bankers and politicians to part with what they perceive as their cash. Additional legal assistance is needed to research the location of Respondent assets and file international liens. Additional funds will also be needed to pay increased administrative and travel costs.
Should all account holders be alerted to these events?
Absolutely. It is time for all interested parties to be informed. Not only in preparation for coming events but also to assist by contributing their resources. We will need all hands on deck to drive this home for everyone.
Further information will be distributed in this section as it becomes available, such as the name, alias, location and legal chamber of Simon’s current representation, as soon as we get confirmation.
Thank you to everyone for your amazing resilience, patience and support. We could not have done this without you.
June 3, 2016
How does a win at The Hague materially help me beyond setting a precedent?
The Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was chosen because their rulings and awards are recognized in 117 countries. The PCA team sees several potential scenarios.
The first and preferable is for the Respondents to work with the PCA and the Claimant Representative to commence the payment process started in 2007, whether with the old architecture or using a new structure.
The second will be for the advisors to the PCA team to file a new action using the PCA award precedent in either the PCA or another court. These advisors, also SI investors, are in possession of ALL of the evidence presented to the PCA. With both the PCA award and the detailed evidence, they should be able to convince a court to designate the case a class action thereby forcing the Respondents to pay ALL remaining accounts.
The last and least preferable option is for each SI investor or a small group of investors to file claims in their local or country jurisdictions using the PCA award and evidence to enable them to receive a favorable ruling.
We believe the Respondents want to avoid the last two options as much as the investors. First, both would guarantee a worldwide international scandal, and secondly it would ensure the scandal remained media fodder for decades, whenever it was a slow news day.
What can we expect as a payout?
This is a very difficult question to answer. There are several issues that must be addressed. As has been stated several times, the original settlement agreement stipulated the July 1, 2006 balance plus an additional 170 day term equivalent to the previous contract (refer to Julius calculator for rough estimate of confirmed payment balances).
However, it has been verified that certain accounts were processed more than once. Also, significant time has passed, in which the administration has been able to make sizable profits. According to the laws researched by the PCA team, all investors within the same class of investment must be treated equally. Therefore, the monetary compensation requested in the PCA award included the original settlement agreement balance plus an additional amount for approximately 9 years of interest and profits commensurate with the distributions made to the investors paid in 2008-2011.
In addition, an equal amount was requested to be paid into a charitable entity to be managed by the PCA team for the benefit of the investor’s preferred benevolent causes.
June 28, 2016
Will Brexit have any effect on our case?
Directly, the answer is No.
Indirectly the world is a lot more nuanced. The number of players involved are multinational, and aplenty, with differing agendas and preoccupations. So Brexit will undoubtedly give some a new excuse for bad behavior and to continue to ignore us. However, the day is fast approaching when a ruling from The Hague will be issued. At that point, no one will be able to hide.
As for all of the honest, hardworking people who voted to ‘Leave’ with promises of better, they will be sadly disappointed. The only thing Brexit (or any chaos for that matter) allows is for the few in power to renegotiate new agreements for the benefit of themselves at the cost of the many. Every agreement; personal, corporate or governmental is now open for renegotiation and there are no referendums on the fine print.
The perfect example being our ‘Agreement to Facilitate Payments’ buried as an addendum to the 2,000 page German EU Bailout agreement supposedly to ensure our funds be paid to its rightful owners. What it really did was guarantee the funds could be used for the benefit of others, indefinitely.
Thank you again for the amazing support so many have given on this adventure. At this point, one of the most important things everyone can do is find ways to spread the word of our case. Send all available information to your up and downlines, contact any media outlets, splash it on your Facebook pages, websites and Tweet, Tweet, Tweet.
July 6, 2016
Where is the current administrator, Simon J. Church aka Richards?
We have been informed that from November 2014 until April 2016, Mr. Church was staying in protective custody as a guest of the Federal Republic of Germany in the proximity of the Frankfurt am Main OLG accompanied by his legal counsel Mr. F. McNeill, who is traveling under an alias. Though we are unable to find any records verifying Mr. McNeill’s legal credentials, we are told he has worked for 23 Essex Chambers.
Currently both are residing at Lake Constance. Lake Constance has a unique history. It is an ideal place for the German government to hide an embarrassment because of an ongoing border dispute with Switzerland and Austria.
Where are the escrow funds?
The funds were first deposited with HSBC. After HSBC refused to continue payments, the funds were transferred to Barclays. Along with RBS and Lloyds, Barclays paid approximately $20T in over 100,000 transaction. After some discrepancies were discovered, the funds were transferred to Dexia. Dexia commenced limited payments before ceasing all processing in 2011.We have been informed that our escrow funds are currently split into 5 accounts held in Handelsbanken Austria. Mr. Church is the only person who can access the accounts.
Is there anything else that can be done while awaiting The Hague award?
Yes, the PCA team is currently researching the viability of filing a complaint with the European Banking Authority. The EBA has investigative and regulatory powers that are different and potentially complementary to The Hague. Also, unlike The Hague, an EBA complaint can be made on behalf of ALL remaining unpaid investors. However, we must be very careful not to interfere with anything The Hague is currently doing to assist us.
An EBA complaint would be very narrowly focused on compelling the current administrator, Mr. Simon Church, the German Judicial Overseer, Dr. Roman Poseck and the financial trustee, Handelsbanken Austria to restart the payment process by giving the Federal Republic of Germany additional authority to force the current administration to perform their fiduciary duties.
The specific banking infractions we would be alleging are:
1. The current administration’s lack of any communication with any beneficiaries since taking control in 2012.
2. That four years far exceeds any definition of a reasonable time to restart payments that started in 2008.
3. Since there has been no oversight, it is impossible to determine whether the funds have been properly managed for the best interest of the beneficiaries.
We also continue to make contact with any and all related parties in an attempt to get meaningful dialog started. It is and has always been our intention to resolve this matter quietly and discreetly. But if that is not possible, and the other parties refuse to cooperate, we will settle for very messy and public.
August 9, 2016
How long will it take for the Permanent Court of Arbitration to issue the award?
This is a very difficult question to answer. There are many factors to be considered. Though all of the respondents defaulted, the PCA must still perform its own investigation into the evidence presented by the claimants. This probably included assisting the three person tribunal in a thorough understanding of the international banking system, obtaining detailed transaction information from the Bank of International Settlement, and verifying the IP address of the computer monitoring station currently located at the Frankfurt am Main OLG.
Once the investigation was completed and with the approval of the other two jurists, the chief jurist will draft the award document. This draft will then be reviewed, edited, finalized and finally signed by all three jurists. Next month will mark one year since our official filing. We can only hope that we can measure what has already been an unnecessary and difficult wait in weeks and not months.
It took only four days after the official announcement of our website shortfingereddonald.com, to reach over 1,000 visitors. The countries represented included Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the US. Not quite as many countries as the Olympics but a wonderful representation. Keep spreading the word.
January 13, 2017
How do we make a claim?
This was a question that had dogged us for some time. There was no website we could access and the current administration had done everything in their power to hide.After much debate about the complexity of the legalities involved in this matter, a simple solution presented itself. Use the International Uniform Commercial Code that covers the rules of debt. In other words, send them a bill.
On September 5, 2016, an invoice for US$11,960,615,698.34 due immediately, was sent return receipt to Mr. Simon J. Church via the Central Authority, State of Hessen by the four claimants of the PCA team. No response was received.
On October 21, a request for assistance was made to the Central Authority, State of Thüringen by the PCA team’s German citizen residing in Thüringen.
On October 27, we received a response from the Minister of Justice, Migration and Consumer Protection, State of Thüringen acknowledging our request but stating he was unable to assist with a matter in another state.
On December 12, after waiting a considerate 90 days, an invoice for US$12,499,131,835.80 due immediately, was sent return receipt to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Central Authority, State of Hessen.
As of this week, the invoice is 30 days past due.
According to UCC law, there are only three options open to a debtor.
1. Acknowledge the debt and start a dialog between the interested parties to make plans to pay the invoice and all of the investors within the same class.
2. Acknowledge the debt but dispute either its amount and/or veracity. Again this requires communication between the parties.
3. Continue to ignore the debt. This option allows the debtee legal grounds to commence filing liens against any and all assets of the Federal Republic of Germany, the State of Hessen and Mr. Simon J. Church.
In all the above instances, the debtor is required to recognize the debt in their year-end financial disclosures. In the case of governments, nondisclosure could be construed as fraud by any party purchasing government bonds, negotiating with government banks or entering into business with any government agency. EU filings are due March 1.