Click to skip to bottom of this list of billionaires who have died in the last 3 years.https://twitter.com/matttttt187/status/1673876114807087105
{Matt} $XRPatriot
@matttttt187
Anyone notice Lots of Billionaires are “dying” lately…?
I made a list for ya, probably nothin 😅
2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣0️⃣➖2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣3️⃣
Abhay Vakil ($6.2 billion)
Arne Wilhelmsen ($2 billion)
Aloysio de Andrade Faria ($3 billion)
Alberto Bailleres ($8.6 billion)
Alberto Roemmers ($2.4 billion)
Allan Goldman ($2.8 billion)
B. Wayne Hughes ($3.3 billion)
Benjamin de Rothschild ($1.4 billion)
Billy Joe “Red” McCombs ($1.7 billion)
Clement Fayat (1.2 billion)
Carol Jenkins Barnett ($2.3 billion)
Carlos Ardila Lülle ($2.3 billion)
Chuck Bundrant ($1.7 billion)
David Gottesman ($2.9 billion)
Donald Foss ($1.7 billion)
Dmitry Bosov ($1.1 billion)
Dietrich Mateschitz ($20 billion)
Edward "Ned" Johnson III $10 billion)
Edmund Ansin ($1.4 billion)
Eduardo Cojunangco ($1 billion)
Eli Broad ($6.9 billion)
Ennio Doris ($3.4 billion)
Fayez Sarofim ($1.5 billion)
Fong Yun Wah ($2.2 billion)
Gordon Moore ($6.8 billion)
Herbert Kohler Jr. ($8.8 billion)
Heinz Hermann Thiele ($12.9 billion)
Hiedi Horten ($2.9 billion)
John Martin ($1.2 billion)
Julian Robertson Jr. ($4.8 billion)
Jose Luis Cutrale ($1.9 billion)
Joseph Safra ($25 billion)
Juan Lopez-Belmonte Lopez ($1.8 billion)
John Arrillaga ($2.6 billion)
James Crown ($10 billion)
Kim Jung-ju ($10 billion)
Lily Safra ($1.3 billion)
Lo Siu-tong ($1.3 billion)
Leonardo Del Vecchio ($24 billion)
Lee Man Tat ($17.5 billion)
Lee Kun-hee ($20 billion)
Masatoshi Ito ($4+billion)
Mahendra Prasad ($2.2 billion)
Majid Al Futtaim ($4.2 billion)
Manuel Moroun ($1.7 billion)
Manuel Jove ($2.5 billion)
M.G. George Muthoot ($3.2 billion)
Michael Price ($1.2 billion)
Montri Jiaravanont ($4.7 billion)
Nari Genomal ($1.2 billion)
Olivier Dassault ($4.7 billion)
Onsi Sawiris ($1.1 billion)
Park Yeon-cha ($3 billion)
Pallonji Mistry ($15 billion)
Peter Buck ($1.7 billion)
Petr Kellner ($17.5 billion)
Pierre Bellon ($4.2 billion)
Queen Elizabeth II (Notable $500 million, so they say)
Roberto Ongpin ($1.1 billion)
Robert Brockman ($4.7 billion)
Rakesh Jhunjhunwala ($5.8 billion)
Rudy Ma ($2.5 billion)
Robert Toll ($1.1 billion)
Rahul Bajaj ($8.2 billion)
Randall Rollins ($5 billion)
Sumner Redstone ($2.6 billion)
Suna Kirac ($2.2 billion)
Sir David Barclay ($3.7 billion)
Sheldon Adelson ($35 billion)
Sheldon Solow
Stephen Bechtel Jr. ($1.9 billion)
Tang Shing-bor ($4.7 billion)
Trail Engelhorn (4.2 billion)
Ted Lerner ($6.6 billion)
Teh Hong Piow
Tom Love ($5.5+ billion)
Thomas Lee ($2+ billion)
Teh Hong Piow ($5.7 billion)
Vito Rodriguez Rodriguez ($1.3 billion)
Valentin Gapontsev ($2.8 billion)
Walter Scott Jr. ($4 billion)
Winarko Sulistyo ($1.1 billion)
Whitney MacMillan ($4.3 billion)
W. Galen Weston ($7 billion)
Zuo Hui ($15 billion)
I’m sure I missed a few… this isn’t even counting the millionaires..such as the ones who just died on the submersible that visited the titantic.
(2 were Billionairs.)
Shahzada Dawood & Son ($360 million)
Stockton Rush ($25 million)
Hamish Harding (1.1 billion)
Paul-Henri Nargeolet ($1.5 billion)
You’re telling me these very wealthy people went down on a toy sub controlled by a game controller?
9:08 PM · Jun 27, 2023
·
550.3K
Views
ransomnote: I converted the PDF of the letter to HTML and posted it below:
July 20, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Rosenstein,
According to news reports, during the 2016 presidential election, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump” and did so by “disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter…”[1] Ukrainian officials also reportedly “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”[2] At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative “who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee” and reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[3]Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, saying that Trump’s candidacy caused “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.”[4]
Reporting indicates that the Democratic National Committee encouraged Chalupa to interface with Ukrainian embassy staff to “arrange an interview in which Poroshenko [the president of Ukraine] might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych.”[5] Chalupa also met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., and Oksana Shulyar, a top aid to the Ukrainian ambassador in March 2016 and shared her alleged concerns about Manafort. Reports state that the purpose of their initial meeting was to “organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine.” However, another Ukrainian embassy official, Andrii Telizhenko, told Politico that Shulyar instructed him to assist Chalupa with research to connect Trump, Manafort, and the Russians. He reportedly said, “[t]hey were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa” and that “Oksana [Shulyar] was keeping it all quiet…the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.[6]
Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials. Indeed, Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar, “[i]f we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump’s involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September.”[7] Later, Chalupa did reportedly meet with staff in the office of Democratic representative Marcy Kaptur to discuss a congressional investigation. Such a public investigation would not only benefit the Hillary Clinton campaign, but it would benefit the Ukrainian government, which, at the time, was working against the Trump campaign. When Politico attempted to ask Rep. Kaptur’s office about the meeting, the office called it a “touchy subject.”
Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and
Ukrainian government, Chalupa’s actions implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act
(FARA). As you know, the Committee is planning a hearing on FARA enforcement. Given the public reporting of these activities in support of a foreign government, it is imperative that the Justice Department explain why she has not been required to register under FARA.
FARA requires individuals to register with the Justice Department if they act, even through an intermediary, “as an agent, representative, employee, or servant” or “in any other capacity” at the behest of a foreign principal, including a foreign political party, for purposes of engagement with a United States official.[8] The registration applies to anyone who attempts to influence a U.S. government official on behalf of a foreign principal in an effort to “formulat[e], adopt[], or chang[e] the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.”[9] As such, the focus of FARA is to require registration for individuals engaged in political or quasi-political activity on behalf of a foreign government. Likewise, an individual whose activities are subject to registration under FARA and who sends informational material “for or in the interest of [a] foreign principal” with the intent or belief that such material will be circulated among at least two persons must transmit the material to the Attorney General no later than 48 hours after actual transmission.[10] Notably, an ongoing failure to register is an ongoing offense.[11]
According to documents provided to the Committee, the Justice Department required the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC to register under FARA for working on behalf of the Ukrainian government.[12] Their registration was required even though the client, the European Centre for the Modern Ukraine (ECFMU), wrote a letter saying it was not directly or indirectly controlled by the Ukrainian government. That did not matter to the Justice Department because their lobbying activity was not to “benefit commercial interests” of the ECFMU but instead to promote the “political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.” The Justice Department made clear that an individual acting in the political or public interests of a foreign government must register under FARA. As such, because Podesta and Mercury were effectively working on behalf of Ukrainian government interests, they were required to register.
Unlike that situation where the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC worked for the middleman (EFCMU) and not the Ukrainian government, here Chalupa reportedly worked directly with Ukrainian government officials to benefit Ukraine, lobbying Congress on behalf of Ukraine, and worked to undermine the Trump campaign on behalf of Ukraine and the Clinton campaign. Accordingly, these facts appear to be exactly the type of activity Congress intended to reach with FARA. Please answer the following:
- What actions has the Justice Department taken to enforce FARA’s requirements regarding Chalupa given the public reporting of her actions on behalf of the Ukrainian government?
- Why has the Justice Department not required her to register under FARA?
- Has the Justice Department sent a letter of inquiry to Chalupa? If so, please provide a copy. If not, why not?
- Under 28 C.F.R. § 5.2, any present or prospective agent of a foreign entity may request an advisory opinion from the Justice Department regarding the need to register. Has Chalupa ever requested one in relation to her work on behalf of the Ukrainian government? If so, please provide a copy of the request and opinion.
- Please differentiate the facts that required the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC to register with Chalupa’s.
- Are you investigating the Ukrainian government’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of the Clinton campaign? If not, why not?
- Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee? If not, why not?
I anticipate that your written response and the responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. The Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information. The Committee is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request. Please respond no later than August 3, 2017. If you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
[1] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, POLITICO (Jan. 11, 2017).
[8] 22 U.S.C. §§ 611(b)-(c).
[12] Letter from Samuel R. Ramer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t. of Justice to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Comm. on Judiciary (June 15, 2017).
Re D.E.W.
I'd been thinking that there are likely some comms involved if some of these fires are D.E.W.
From the time I saw the umbrellas and blue car, I thought I thought the shade of blue was close or identical, and I thought I recognized the shade of blue in question. It wasn't 'everything blue' but I saw some evidence of that blue.
The cameras used for the photos, and the type of image codec used can cause a lot of differencings in these images - so I may be farther off on color similtarity if I saw them in real life -so right now, I'm just recalling from memory where I think I've seen that shade before.
Each wavelength in the blue range creates a separate shade of blue.
The chart below doesn't go into fine detail so I'll guestimate based on it's location on the chart that the wave length for the color of the car and umbrellas is around 420 (nm).
Umbrellas image snagged from the thumbnail of this video:
https://www.brighteon.com/e336da96-dca4-4848-a410-87a18844ce32
It would make sense for cafe umbrellas to be fire retardent but HOW fire retardent can they get?
Actually, the comms I was thinking were threats, warnings and assasinations when the damage as seen in the paradise fire is 'too odd'. For example, the forest fire where the houses burn and the trees don't and there's a precise excision-by-fire of houses versus mailboxes and compost bins next to the houses - if it had been D.E.W., they could have burned the trees or surroundings to make it look natural but the fires were tidy within boundaries.
One of the recent Maui videos had two cars in a parking lot charred to dust but they were surrounded on all sides by untouched greenery and houses. If this had been D.E.W. or any other DARPA technology, they could have hidden the damage by charring surroundings but instead, there appears to be almost a square burn pattern on the ground. So if it was weaponry AND comms, then 'we can get you anywhere, anytime' and the blue means 'we can't be killed' or some such.
Or maybe not, I dunno.
If I hadn't seen the Paradise fire, and heard from someone I knew in real estate that some of the wealthy Paradise survivors dispersed to her areas under assumed identities (traveled in a cluster and rented property under others identities) , I may not have turned my attention on the Maui fires.
In response to Nick Carraway's thread post here:
I followed a few interlinked Newsweek articles to try to learn more. It was confusing and I didn't like what little information I did gain.
I thought I noticed something a little off in the statements saying the new booster had been 'approved'. Also, all of the vaccine harm to date was designed to escape liability because the Covid 'vaccines' were issued under an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization); licensing the boosters would incur medical liability for vaccine harm.
During the first Covid declared emergency, the FDA 'approved' PFizer's original Covid 'vaccine' in order to defeat employees and those serving in the military who were refusing to get the vax because it was experimental. However, those finally receiving what they thought was the 'approved' Covid vax (Comirnaty) were given the original product under the EUA.
Prizer didn't manufacture the approved Comirnaty version of the Covid vax because FDA licensing would remove immunity from liability. INstead PFizer continued to disburse the experimental version. The contents of both versions were supposedly unchanged, but keeping the EUA version on technicality meant no liability protections for those taking the vax.
So I was suspicious to read that the 'new' booster was 'approved' and yet never tested on people. Is it because a) the FDA just dispensed with the EUA sham and just rubber stamped it, or b) the new vax is under a new EUA?
Actually, neither answer is correct for Moderna's updated booster. The malevolent FDA waited until September 11, when the attention of the public was elsewhere, to update Moderna's old EUA to cover its new Covid 'boosters'.
An EUA requires a state of emergency (medical) and that no other treatments are available. Both criteria have not been met for Moderna's booster. The CDC is trying to create an emergency to keep the EUA in place but states elsewhere that the public health emergency has passed. In the meantime there are multiple medical protocols that work and studies revealing Ivermectin works very well. How did Moderna get an EUA without the needed criteria?
So the Covid 2.0 planning is again using the same tactics to drive the public to get an insufficiently tested 'shot' for an illness that doesn't require vaccination, and for which alternative drugs are available, and for which many have developed immunity from prior exposure - and they are doing it in a way that hides the fact that the EUA dispenses with liability.
Recall that the CDC/NIH 'justification' for the 'public health emergency' and calling for complete lockdowns was Fauci's knowingly false assertion that Covid was technically classified as a 'novel' virus, which meant that none of us would have any prior exposure to it and therefore would have zero immunity. This is where they based their 'millions dying' calculations. But that assertion was false - many people had sufficient prior exposure to similar corona viruses to give them some immunity.
But that excuse is gone for Covid 2.0. Many have officially been exposed to Covid and developed immunity. And there's all those people who were vaccinated and told the vax would prepare them to fight off future exposures. So there's no real justification to keep the Covid shot/mask/lockdown machine going.
The MSM seems baffled by the reluctance of some to get the latest Covid booster, specifying that Moderna's 'vaccine' is approved when in fact it's just an update to the 2020 EUA, and the FDA has never 'approved' or licensed Moderna's Covid 'vaccine'.
COVID Booster FDA Approval Sparks Resistance for Some
Hmmmm...why, oh why, don't people trust them??? Especially since even the Newsweek article says the public heath emergency has ended (i.e., shouldn't the Emergency Use Authorization f or Moderna's experimental 'vaccine' end when the public health emergency ended?).
From the above Newsweek link: "For the first time since COVID vaccines emerged, the federal government will not cover the cost of the shots, due to the end of the public health emergency, which expired in May." (by Natalie Venegas and published by Newseek on September 11, 2023)
Each dose is over $100 dollars so the insurance companies would likely 'have' to pay for them? The Covid 'vaccine' is not good news for health insurance company underwriters. However, I recall seeing Anthem Blue Cross's incentive pay scale to physicians based on how many of his/her patients received the Covid vax.
Vaccine.gov outlines programs that can pay for those who don't have insurance or those whose insurance requires partial payment - so technically the vaccine boosters may not require out-of-pocket expense from consumers. That government webpage would have been a great place to make clear that Moderna's are under an EUA, and although some of Pfizer's shots were FDA approved, the EUA version is probably still the only Pfizer shot in use.
It's sad to read the website's linked information which states some people need multiple injections to remain up to date.
Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines
From that article I found the FDA's extension of the EUA for Moderna's Covid 'vaccine' booster for children, even though the public health emergency has passed and children were never very succeptible to the illness.
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (2023-2024 Formula) Authorized For Individuals 6 Months through 11 Years of Age
The FDA's page for Moderna's SpikeVax documentation is here.
The Fact Sheet on that page links to a downloadable file that specifies in the title that it's an Emergency Use Authorization. How many people will see that notice and understand what it means in terms of liability?
I found the FDA's letter to Moderna (dated September 11, 2023) authorizing their Covid Vaccine, 'SpikeVax' for people 12 years old and above. Disturbingly, there are two 'pediatric deferrals' which allow the booster to be given now when the studies to determine if children may take the vax will not be completed until the end of this year or the end of next year.
See pages 3 and 4 for details about completion dates for people 12 years to 17 years of age, and those from 2 to 16 years of age
I found Pfizer's 'authorization' for children, also released on September 11, 2023.
Pfizer and BioNTech Receive U.S. FDA Approval for 2023-2024 COVID-19 Vaccine
I didn't find an EUA for it, but I see the name of PFizer's FDA licensed version of the Covid vax (Comirnaty) previously used to deceive the public into believing they were not being given the experimental version. That information should be made clear and readily available, along with the myocarditis and other 'vaccine adverse events' that the FDA and CDC always knew about, but hid from the public according to FOIA work relayed by Naomi Wolfe, among others. Of course, if Pfizer is asked, "But why wasn't I given the approved version of the Covid vax?" the answer will be a dismissive, "Don't worry, the contents are the same. The name change is just a technicality." Unspoken is the freedom from liability that Pfizer enjoyed(s).
I've circled around the CDC/FDA docs for both 'vaccines' and I didn't find a clear overview of which versions are EAU and if any of the 'licensed' versions (Pfizer) were in fact going to be distributed or were they still going to use the experimental versions to dodge liability. There's no consumer reference to tell you the testing, trial results, side effects, and EUA/Licensing of what you are supposed to get injected into your arm.
According to the CDC's vaccine information page, side-effects following Covid vaccination are 'rare'.
"Adverse events (serious health problems) are rare but can cause long-term health problems. They usually happen within six weeks of getting a vaccine."
While any admission of adverse events (serious health problems) intended to reach the public are extremely rare, assurances that the vaxes are 'safe and effective' are not. I can't believe the FDA and CDC are doing the same thing again, and MSM and medical regime elites just can't understand 'vaccine hesitancy'.
