Serpo
12th July 2013, 12:31 AM
In Blanchard case, Barrick confesses to gold price suppression scheme Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2003-06-11 07:00. Section: Daily Dispatches (http://www.gata.org/taxonomy/term/2) 1:19a ET Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
Barrick Gold has confessed that it and its bullion banker,
JP Morgan Chase & Co., are the direct agents of the
central banks in the international control of the gold
price.
Barrick's confession was filed in U.S. District Court in
New Orleans as part of a legal maneuver to gain dismissal
of the federal anti-trust lawsuit brought against it and
Morgan Chase by Blanchard & Co., the New Orleans-based
coin and bullion dealer. Barrick moved to dismiss the
Blanchard lawsuit on the grounds that the suit had failed
to include as defendants some "indispensable parties" whose
vital interests are at stake, the central banks; that the
central banks, having what is called sovereign immunity
against suit, simply could not be included in the suit;
and that the suit therefore had to be dismissed.
Barrick's confessional motion was dated February 28 and is headlined
"Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for failure to join
indispensable parties":
http://www.gata.org/files/BarrickConfessionMotionToDismiss.pdf
Fortunately, the judge hearing the Blanchard lawsuit,
Helen G. Berrigan, denied Barrick's motion two weeks
ago after an exchange in open court with one of the
company's many lawyers, Mark D. Wegener. That exchange is
appended here. The judge concluded that Barrick's motion
to dismiss argued in effect that an illegal action
involving "so many powerful entities from all around the
world" is "going to be immune from being challenged."
"That's, as we say, not acceptable," Judge Berrigan said,
denying Barrick's dismissal motion.
Barrick and Morgan still have other dimissal motions
pending and much remains to be done before they can be
held fully accountable for themselves in court and
compelled to produce evidence and testimony.
But it is thrilling that Judge Berrigan has indicated
that she will not be intimidated by all the (fiat)
money and power in the world, and thrilling that one
of the issues on which GATA consultant Reg Howe's
trail-blazing federal lawsuit against the same
conspiracy foundered -- sovereign immunity -- has been
removed as an obstacle in the Blanchard case because
of the much smaller number of defendants.
Building on the Howe case, the Blanchard case has an
ever-improving chance of bringing transparency and
honesty to the gold market and to national economic
policy generally. GATA supports the Blanchard suit
and urges its friends to inform the mining industry
about the suit's encouraging progress.
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
* * *
From oral argument in
Blanchard & Co. et al
v.
Barrick Gold Corp.
and JP Morgan Chase & Co.
U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge Helen G. Berrigan, presiding
May 29, 2003
The Court: How would those contracts be challenged, under
your theory that everybody has to be involved? Because, how
do you get jurisdiction over everybody?
Mr. Wegener: You can't.
The Court: So you all can just tally-ho and do
anti-competitive stuff? ... So the idea is, if you get
enough people involved in a monopoly, then you're immune
from litigation?
Mr. Wegener: Well, I don't think it's quite that. ...
The Court: And you're saying it's not possible to bring
everybody in?
Mr. Wegener: Yeah, I think you can't bring the central banks
in, because they're immune. You can't bring in all the
bullion banks, because they're beyond the jurisdiction of
the court. ...
The Court: I mean, if what you say is correct, then it
sounds like the legal remedy is for individual plaintiffs,
like, say, Blanchard, to go to the United States court,
like he's done here, and go after J.P. Morgan. And then
wherever these other entities are, to go to those courts,
in those countries, in those locales, and try to seek the
same relief. ... But I'm very much troubled by the end
result of your argument, which is to the effect that if
an outfit is large enough and involves enough people,
enough entities, then they can kind of do what they want.
... But I just don't find it possible to think that
something could -- if, in fact there is an anti-trust
violation going on here -- that because it involves so
many powerful entities from all around the world,
therefore it's going to be immune from being challenged.
That's, as we say, not acceptable.
Mr. Wegener: Uh-huh.
The Court: If that's the logical result of your argument,
then I'm going to have to find some other way to deal with
it than that.
* * *
Judge Berrigan denied Barrick's motion to dismiss.
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.gata.org/node/1858
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
Barrick Gold has confessed that it and its bullion banker,
JP Morgan Chase & Co., are the direct agents of the
central banks in the international control of the gold
price.
Barrick's confession was filed in U.S. District Court in
New Orleans as part of a legal maneuver to gain dismissal
of the federal anti-trust lawsuit brought against it and
Morgan Chase by Blanchard & Co., the New Orleans-based
coin and bullion dealer. Barrick moved to dismiss the
Blanchard lawsuit on the grounds that the suit had failed
to include as defendants some "indispensable parties" whose
vital interests are at stake, the central banks; that the
central banks, having what is called sovereign immunity
against suit, simply could not be included in the suit;
and that the suit therefore had to be dismissed.
Barrick's confessional motion was dated February 28 and is headlined
"Memorandum in support of motion to dismiss for failure to join
indispensable parties":
http://www.gata.org/files/BarrickConfessionMotionToDismiss.pdf
Fortunately, the judge hearing the Blanchard lawsuit,
Helen G. Berrigan, denied Barrick's motion two weeks
ago after an exchange in open court with one of the
company's many lawyers, Mark D. Wegener. That exchange is
appended here. The judge concluded that Barrick's motion
to dismiss argued in effect that an illegal action
involving "so many powerful entities from all around the
world" is "going to be immune from being challenged."
"That's, as we say, not acceptable," Judge Berrigan said,
denying Barrick's dismissal motion.
Barrick and Morgan still have other dimissal motions
pending and much remains to be done before they can be
held fully accountable for themselves in court and
compelled to produce evidence and testimony.
But it is thrilling that Judge Berrigan has indicated
that she will not be intimidated by all the (fiat)
money and power in the world, and thrilling that one
of the issues on which GATA consultant Reg Howe's
trail-blazing federal lawsuit against the same
conspiracy foundered -- sovereign immunity -- has been
removed as an obstacle in the Blanchard case because
of the much smaller number of defendants.
Building on the Howe case, the Blanchard case has an
ever-improving chance of bringing transparency and
honesty to the gold market and to national economic
policy generally. GATA supports the Blanchard suit
and urges its friends to inform the mining industry
about the suit's encouraging progress.
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
* * *
From oral argument in
Blanchard & Co. et al
v.
Barrick Gold Corp.
and JP Morgan Chase & Co.
U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge Helen G. Berrigan, presiding
May 29, 2003
The Court: How would those contracts be challenged, under
your theory that everybody has to be involved? Because, how
do you get jurisdiction over everybody?
Mr. Wegener: You can't.
The Court: So you all can just tally-ho and do
anti-competitive stuff? ... So the idea is, if you get
enough people involved in a monopoly, then you're immune
from litigation?
Mr. Wegener: Well, I don't think it's quite that. ...
The Court: And you're saying it's not possible to bring
everybody in?
Mr. Wegener: Yeah, I think you can't bring the central banks
in, because they're immune. You can't bring in all the
bullion banks, because they're beyond the jurisdiction of
the court. ...
The Court: I mean, if what you say is correct, then it
sounds like the legal remedy is for individual plaintiffs,
like, say, Blanchard, to go to the United States court,
like he's done here, and go after J.P. Morgan. And then
wherever these other entities are, to go to those courts,
in those countries, in those locales, and try to seek the
same relief. ... But I'm very much troubled by the end
result of your argument, which is to the effect that if
an outfit is large enough and involves enough people,
enough entities, then they can kind of do what they want.
... But I just don't find it possible to think that
something could -- if, in fact there is an anti-trust
violation going on here -- that because it involves so
many powerful entities from all around the world,
therefore it's going to be immune from being challenged.
That's, as we say, not acceptable.
Mr. Wegener: Uh-huh.
The Court: If that's the logical result of your argument,
then I'm going to have to find some other way to deal with
it than that.
* * *
Judge Berrigan denied Barrick's motion to dismiss.
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.gata.org/node/1858