The Beneficiaries of the Fraud and the Cover-up
The "CAFR" shows that the pension funds effectively guarantee that the State and Federal Judges are "promoted" to the millionaire boys' retirement club, being guaranteed from 3 to 8 million dollars after serving from 1 to 2 years tenure. (Now you know why the laws are as they are throughout the country...)
Wake up and smell the roses... or should I say skunk weed... Disclosure of the "CAFR" for viewing and comprehension by the public will end their game Cold in it's Tracks... When you see the total moneys, you can backtrack to see where they came from and where they are currently being used...
I guess the public can't see the trees through the forest, or is it they can't see the forest through the trees. Or is it they can't see the mountain in front of them as the rocks from the mountain fall on them... Don't feel bad, the “Boys” controlling this multi-trillion-dollar syndicated national financial takeover have spent billions to keep you in the dark and to distract your attention elsewhere... They are smart and have accomplished their goal...
The "Budget Report," on which the media and government intentionally focuses the public's attention, is the expense side of traditional governmental services, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF, while the "CAFR contains the profit side of Government-owned businesses/Agencies and "Investments" which are considered to be "outside the Budget Report" and are restricted by statute from being included as direct revenue into the "Budgetary Basis."
WAKE UP!... The revenues I speak of are NOT off budget funds but revenues masterfully controlled and developed by the “Boys” outside of the public's awareness and view...
THE INTENTIONAL REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR PARTNERS THE MEDIA (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and national Newspapers) TO MAKE SIMPLE AND CONSPICUOUS MENTION OF THIS REPORT AND THE COMBINED REVENUE BEHIND IT COULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE RICO ACT AS PERPETUATING AND ASSISTING A CRIMINAL SYNDICATE... SOME CASE LAW FROM ARIZONA, PERTAINING TO DISCLOSURE AND SILENCE, SHOWS THAT CERTAIN FORMS OF NONDISCLOSURE CAN BE REGARDED AS FRAUDULENT MISCONDUCT:
A. "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021, U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300.
B. "Fraud may be committed by failure to speak, but a duty to speak must be imposed." Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930, 96 Ariz. 246 (1964).
C. "Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely." Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Ariz. 239. (1941).
D. "When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth." State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155, 135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz. App. 1983).
E. "Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation." Leigh v. Loyd, 244 P.2d 356, 74 Ariz. 84. (1952).
F. "When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth." State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (Ariz. App. 1983).
G. "Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth." Morrison v. Acton, 198 P.2d 590, 68 Ariz. 27 (Ariz. 1948).
H. "Damages will lie in proper case of negligent misrepresentation of failure to disclose." Van Buren v. Pima Community College Dist. Bd., 546 P.2d 821, 113 Ariz. 85 (Ariz.1976).
I. "Where one under duty to disclose facts to another fails to do so, and other is injured thereby, an action in tort lies against party whose failure to perform his duty caused injury." Regan v. First Nat. Bank, 101 P.2d 214, 55 Ariz. 320 (Ariz. 1940).
J. "Where relation of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make full and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment." Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P.2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937).
K. "Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud." Universal Inv. Co. v. Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P.2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz. App. 1980).
God's Speed and a wake up call to you...
Sincerely,
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
CEVI
P.O. Box 11444
Prescott, AZ 86304
Voice 1(520) 717-1994
E-Mail: cevi2000@AOL.COM
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com