Day: February 20, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sergei Magnitsky

 

 

 

 
2007: The Magnitsky case

The case involved the theft of US$ 230 million from the Russian Treasury and is one of the largest tax fraud cases in Putin’s Russia. The crime was uncovered in 2007 by Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was working for Hermitage Capital Management, hedge fund, then the biggest foreign investor in Russia.

Magnitsky was arrested by the same police officers whom he accused of covering up the fraud. He was thrown into jail, where he died of mistreatment and inadequate medical care. Despite his death, the government of Russia continued to prosecute him. https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/russia-the-cellist-and-the-lawyer/

 

 

 

President Putin

 

 

 

 
2012: The United States passed legislation named for the dead tax attorney that cited the “Magnitsky List” of implicated Russian state officials.

Until the Ukraine and Syria crises, even during the so-called reset period, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act constituted the Putin government’s single biggest grievance with Washington.

More diplomatic energy was spent by Moscow on efforts to block or penalize passage of the bill than on any other part of bilateral relations with the United States. Russia, for instance, passed its own “counter – Magnitsky” suite of sanctions on U.S. officials.

But the core of the Putin strategy was to shift the blame completely. The Kremlin accused Browder of orchestrating both the tax fraud and Magnitsky’s murder.

In “The Browder Effect” documentary, Browder is depicted as no longer just a cynical accomplice to a crime against the Russian people, but now a shadowy agent of Cold War-style intrigue, and it would seem to be the CIA, rather than Russian authorities, that somehow denied Magnitsky life-saving medical treatment in prison.

The film also contained the accusation that, Browder, codenamed “Solomon,” had been working for MI6 since 1995. In 2006, he supposedly recruited Navalny, codenamed “Freedom,” and proceeded to disburse upwards of $1.5 million to him. With that slush fund, Navalny was supposed to engage in minority shareholder activism to expose graft in state-owned companies such as the energy giant Gazprom. Navalny was also supposed to focus on Russian officials, such as General Prosecutor Yuri Chaika. Towards this, Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation had suggested, in a “YouTube” video exposé that went viral that the General Prosecutor had accumulated a vast family fortune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act

 

 

 

William Browder (CEO Hermitage Hedge Fund Capital)

 

 

 
24 Apr 2016: Once the leading British  spymaster in MI6 – Andrew Fulton has new clients. He Works for Team Putin and a Mobbed-Up Russian Lawyer

A Russian prime time news programme showed a documentary film “The Browder Effect,” which was about Alexey Navalny and his mentor, or handler, William F. Browder. It claimed that William Browder, (the CEO of Hermitage Hedge Fund) had been recruited by MI6 in 1995. His long term mission, to destabilize the Russian government.

Browder determined Navalny to be “the most suitable candidate for future political leader of Russia” given his creativity, new media mastery and speaking skills on politics, law and economics. He subsequently recruited him to MI6 in 2006.

That’s where Andrew Fulton enters:

In the film “The Browder Effect” the key source lending ostensible credibility to the allegations was named as Andrew Fulton, a former high-ranking MI6 spy. His opinion was presented on air as that of an independent analyst who verified the authenticity of documents. In fact, email correspondence leaked online and independently verified, shows that Fulton has been working as a private investigator for Andrey Pavlov, the lawyer for the alleged Russian mafia types accused of committing the crimes the television channel is seeking to pin on U.S. and British intelligence.

In a panel discussion following the showing of the documentary the presenter said:

“just so as you understand we have the results of an independent forensic study completed for us by an Agency in England headed by Andrew Fulton. Who is a well-known British specialist who for a long time headed the analytical department of MI6. This person, more professional than you or me, knows how documents are written. I have a written study report signed personally by him that the documents are authentic.” Fulton currently chairs GPW & Co., a private investigations firm based in London.

Unmentioned by the media is the fact that GPW & Co. are also subcontracted to the American white-shoe law firm Debevoise & Plimpton on behalf of their client Andrey Pavlov.

Pavlov is also the legal representative of the Klyuev Group. And he has spent a small fortune in the United Kingdom waging a PR counter offensive against accusations made by Browder against him, mainly to keep his name off any impending Magnitsky legislation in Europe. So far, he’s had little success: a non-binding European parliamentary resolution, urging the EU’s Council of Ministers—the policy-making body in Brussels—to sanction Klyuev Group members including Pavlov, was passed in April 2014.

Email correspondence between Pavlov and Debevoise & Plimpton, which was leaked on the Internet, contains a “letter of engagement” between GPW and the London office of the U.S. law firm.

It is dated Sept. 26, 2014, and signed by Andrew Wordsworth, a founding partner of GPW:“We will need to conduct an in-depth investigation of the schemes, the legal proceedings surrounding [the allegations made against Pavlov] and the involvement and make-up of the so-called ‘Klyuev Organised Criminal Group,’ of which your client is accused of being a part,” Wordsworth wrote. He continued by explaining that he will personally oversee the Pavlov investigation while drawing on “the experience of my Partners and Chairman Andrew Fulton.”

To date, Fulton has not publicly acknowledged any role whatsoever in vetting or confirming Sokolov’s documents, nor has Fulton made it clear whether this was in conjunction with his compensated work on behalf of Pavlov. When reached for comment he replied “Thank you very much for your questions. It is not our policy to comment on speculation regarding the identity of our clients, or our projects. I’m sorry not to be more helpful.” (thedailybeast)

 

8 Feb 2017: In a trial just under a year later – Alexei Navalnay found guilty of fraud – Kremlin critic gets 5 year suspended sentence in retrial, which bars him from running for President in the next election. In a hearing on Wednesday a Judge handed down a five-year suspended prison sentence and a fine of about $8,500 to Navalny for embezzling timber worth about $500,000. (Aljazeera News)

 

 

 

Alexey Navalny

 

 

 

Andrew Fulton’s mission (in the couple of year’s he was in Scotland) included defeating the SNP in the 2014 Referendum. He did as he was tasked. But the projected meltdown of the SNP following on from defeat failed to materialise. Full story on another post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Sep 2011: Only 6% of Scots think Scottish Tories put Scotland first

Polling of 1,500 Scottish voters for the Tory Party in Scotland before the Holyrood elections asked whether certain parties put mainly English, Scottish or British issues first. The Scottish Conservatives were seen as the most English and the least Scottish… and by some distance.

Murdo Fraser (MSP) said the finding strengthened his argument that the Scottish party needed a new identity: “No problem was ever solved by brushing it under the carpet. We have watched our vote decline at every election since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, and this polling tells us exactly why.

We have been fooling ourselves for almost 15 years and we must not allow it to go on. There is a belief amongst some that if we bide our time for another 10 years, things will get better. But we said that 10 years ago. It hasn’t got better, and it never will without radical change.

The anti-change approach will ultimately drag us down to a single-figure vote share, a single-figure number of seats in the Scottish Parliament, no seats at Westminster and effectively the end of the centre-right in Scotland. (conservativehome)

 

 

 
10 August 2012: Ruth Davidson Castigates lazy Scots for being content to live off handouts from Westminster

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party claimed that nearly 90 percent of Scots households are currently “living off state’s patronage,” reports. At a Tory conference on Monday, Davidson cited that only about 283,080 households in Scotland – 12 percent of the total number – pay more in taxes than what they receive in public services from the state. In addition, due to the dominance of the public sector in Scottish life, she said that state spending now represents at least one-half of Scotland’s wealth.

She thundered: “It is staggering that public sector expenditure makes up a full 50 percent of Scotland’s GDP and only 12 percent of households are net contributors, where the taxes they pay outweigh the benefits they receive through public spending. The rotten system of patronage, which denies so many people real choices in their lives, has created a corrosive sense of entitlement which suits its political gang masters.”

Referring to the exalted 12 percent who are “responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth,” she rhetorically asked: “I wonder how many of them work on public sector contracts.”

Citing data from the Office for National Statistics, Davidson said that the average Scottish household uses £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays out in taxes. Even middle-income Scots, she noted, consume £20,000 more in state spending than they pay out. Only Scotland’s wealthy, that is, those who account for the top 10 percent of earners, pay £17,205 more in tax than they receive in public services.

She also alleged that over-dependence on the public trough has created a generation of Scots who are hopelessly loyal to the Labour and Scottish National Party, at the expense of the Tories. “If the gang master state is the only provider people can see for their housing, education and employment, it’s no surprise those who seek to break the stranglehold find barriers in their way,” she declared.

It contradiction, the Telegraph reported that on the whole Scotland paid 9.6 percent of the United Kingdom’s total tax bill, while accounting for only 9.3 percent of British public spending. (IBTimes)

 

 

 
20 Jan 2010: Ruth Davidson, ex BBC journalist was shortlisted for the Ultra-Safe Bromsgrove Worcestershire, England seat. But was not selected as the candidate.

17 Apr 2016: Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson quit her well-paid job as a popular drive-time radio presenter with the BBC in 2009 in order to stand for Holyrood. (The Guardian)

 
Comment: The written word condemns the Tory party spin, Ruth Davidson’s political career was focused on gaining a seat at Westminster for an English constituency. Her failure to gain the trust of English Tory party activists altered her thinking and prompted a return to Scotland to stand for election to Holyrood an institution she had previously slagged off for being all spend and no accountability. She eventually managed to gain a place as a list MSP.

 

 

 
12 May 2016: The Tory Party Surge- Yet another BBC fantasy designed to manipulate the outcome of the election

Using the 2014 referendum as a bench mark it is evident that Scot’s polarised their vote’s around one of two banners. The Green Party and the SNP voted “yes” and the Unionist party’s voted “no”.

Utilising the same benchmark, assessing the performance of each of the parties in the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election is relatively straight forward.

The “New Labour ” element of the miscalled Scottish Labour Party returned to the Tory Party they had deserted (in preference for Tony Blair) nearly 20 years before.This had the effect of increasing the Tory Party vote by nearly 19%. No great effort was demanded of Davidson since voters had decided upon their choice of party some two year’s before.

Tory claims of a massive surge in their support enhanced by the popularity of Davidson is abject nonsense and they know it. The electorate had simply returned the Tory Party base vote to the pre-Thatcher days – between 24-25%.

The collapse of the Labour Party seems to be terminal, with their support amongst the electorate being reduced to a rump 18-20%. Two decades before, the base vote would have been much enhanced by voters loyal to the Party.

A resurgent SNP benefited from good governance and in retaining the confidence of the electorate laid claim to a substantial 49% of the overall Scottish vote and a historical third term in office.

The decline of the other Unionist Party, the Lib/Dem, by nearly 4% confirms well established pattern of rejection by Scottish voters, with only Orkney, Shetland and the largely rural North Fife sticking with it.

The Green Party’s common sense approach to opposition politicking ensured it’s love affair with the electorate also continued with a near 5% increase in their vote.

Applying the outcome of the election to the 2014 referendum provides the following result:

SNP + Green (Yes)  53.5%

Tory, Labour & Lib/Dem  46.5%

Ruth Davidson, in her after election victory speech made the silly claim “The increase in the Tory Party’s share of the vote sends a clear message to the SNP and their supporters that there is no appetite for another referendum.”

But her speech and that of other Unionist Party leaders betrayed their fear of another referendum since the SNP manifesto had not included any reference to another referendum.

The outcome of the election (without any campaigning by the SNP) also gave every indication that another referendum would result in a “yes” vote.

The first use of the term “Tory surge in Scotland” was introduced into the election coverage by the BBC in it’s balanced election coverage a couple of weeks before the election.

And was speedily picked up and given maximum coverage by the compliant Scottish Press. Another example of the blatant misuse of the power of media manipulation by the Westminster government and the BBC.

It was incredulous to many voters that the party of rampant “austerity”, and ever increasing levels of family and child poverty, had gained votes in Scotland despite the wanton freezing of the elderly fuel allowance (against a 20% depreciation in the allowance purchasing performance), and the reviled bedroom tax, ruthless attacks on the disabled and health and welfare benefits so much admired by many countries worldwide.

There is still hope that members of the Labour party in Scotland will “grasp the nettle” and get onside with their fellow Scot’s taking up the mantle of freedom, rejecting the “federalist” policies of Kezia Dugdale which will only result in total rejection of the Labour Party by Scot’s.

In any event the future is now much clearer, the polarisation of Scottish politics is complete. The die has been cast. The Unionist Party’s have been exposed as a bunch of bully’s with no interest in the Scot’s except as a source of income and armed forces. The future is ugly (without effective representation), for Scot’s unless they vote with their hearts and minds and break free from the oppressive yoke of Westminster.