American military vs. American military

[jerry]

The discussion on why the world is imploding at an ever increasing rate is daunting and quite scary. After listening to a video from Jim Willie today I wanted share some of the content. It seems to make sense and actually connects a few more dots . It was basically about the Pentagon facing off with Langley.

The following article came from Secrets of the Fed .com

Jim says it started on When President Bush ordered U.S. forces into Iraq in 2003, trends forecaster Gerald Celente predicted that no matter the outcome, the result would eventually lead to civil war. Well, it took 11 years from that time for his prognostication to come to pass, but ironically, it is another civil war that is about to take place in the region, and it has nothing to do with the Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds.

It has to do with one American military force about to face off with another American military force.

On Jun 19, President Barack Obama ordered 300 U.S. military advisers into Iraq to ‘help’ stabilize the country after radical Muslim insurgents invaded the nation from Syria. But few understand the ramifications of this, or the fact that America has multiple types of military forces, with several not being tied at all to the Pentagon or Department of Defense.

The primary insurgent force in Iraq today is known as ISIS, and is led by a former prisoner that was let loose by President Obama in 2009. And according to Jordanian sources, as well as from an interview on Friday with Dr. Jim Willie, ISIS was not only trained by Langley and CIA operatives, but their leader Baghdadi was indoctrinated while in prison, and released in 2009 to become an agent leading one force of the CIA’s covert military.

The troops that are working there (Syria/Iraq) are Langley troops. They’re trained, funded, and armed by Langley who is also funded by the Afghanistan heroin market

What I’m hearing… the U.S. military (Pentagon regulars), and you have to be careful when you refer to U.S. military anymore. What kind of U.S. military? Is it the Pentagon U.S. Army, or is it the Langley military, which has unmarked uniforms and 10′s of thousands of mercenaries?

They’re about to encounter each other in Iraq. The U.S. military Pentagon regulars evacuated Iraq, and what filled the vacuum was the Langley mercenaries, trained for Syria, that migrated South and announced their new agenda.

If and when the Pentagon regulars encounter the Langley mercenaries in Iraq, Obama’s going to get a house call, because U.S. military will be fighting U.S. military. Pentagon vs. Langley. – Trunews, June 27

Dr Willie went on to say that if this happens, pressure from both the Pentagon and Congress will become so great that the possibility of a full impeachment and indictment will take place.

America is finally reaping the consequences of a foreign policy that predicated that the U.S. was to be the policeman to the world, and needed to dip their fingers in every nation and conflict that emerges. And with the Middle East blowing up into pure chaos in nearly every quarter of the region, the very mechanisms the government created to fight both an overt and covert war under the ideological straw man known is terrorism is about to come to a harsh reality where American military could be facing off against American military, and actual objectives for war no longer have any relevance or meaning.

[jerry]

Impeachment would certainly give the world and our country a new found hope for our future. With a true attack on corruption of the lawless officials and shakedown at the top maybe we can get on track for the change Barry promised.

[jerry]

Unless the world reins in the demented criminals in Washington, the world has signed its own death warrant
I just heard on National Public Radio two things that have totally destroyed what tiny bit of belief I still had in American leadership. I have concluded that the term “intelligent American” is an oxymoron.

American elites have decided that Americans are not sufficiently threatened by war and economic chaos, so they are bringing the ebola virus to America. National Public Radio reported that two people infected with the ebola virus, which cannot be cured and is usually deadly, are being brought to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.

All it takes is one cough, one sneeze, one drop of saliva, and the virus is loose in one of the main transportation centers of the US.

Pandemic anyone? Little doubt but that most of the world would emit a great sigh of relief to be rid of Washington.




Allegedly the ebola carriers will be quarantined in special rooms. But we already know that American hospitals cannot even contain staph infections. http://rt.com/usa/177408-nightmare-bacteria-antibiotic-southeast/ What happens to the utensils, plates, cups, and glasses with which the ebola infected persons eat and drink? And who gets to clean the bed pans? One slip-up by one person, one tear in a rubber glove, and the virus is loose.

If we don’t die from ebola, we still have to dodge nuclear war. I heard part of Obama’s press conference. Obama accused Putin of doing everything that only Obama is doing.

If Obama believes what he told the press, he is utterly disinformed by his advisors. If he doesn’t believe the crude propaganda that he speaks, he is consciously leading the drive to war with Russia which probably means war with China as well and the end of us all.

Keep in mind that after eight years the US military was unable to successfully occupy Iraq and that after 13 years the US is unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban in Afghanistan.

Russia and China are not Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan.

War with Russia will be nuclear. Washington has prepared for it. Washington has abandoned the ABM treaty, created what it thinks is an ABM shield, and changed its war doctrine to permit US nuclear first strike. All of this is obviously directed at Russia, and the Russian government knows it. How long will Russia sit there waiting for Washington’s first strike?

Russia hasn’t done anything except get in the way, belatedly, of Washington’s lies that Washington uses to start wars. Russia (and China) went along with Washington’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Russia (and China) went along with Washington’s lies that Washington’s 13-year attempted conquest and occupation of Afghanistan had to do with finding Osama bin Laden. Washington (and China) fell for Washington’s deception that a UN resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya was for the purpose of preventing Gaddafi’s air force from bombing his own people, only to discover that Washington misused the resolution to send the NATO air force to overthrow the Libyan government.

When Washington drew a “red line” in the sand with regard to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against the outside forces that Washington had organized and sent into Syria to overthrow the government, all the while pretending that these Islamists mercenaries were the true spokesmen for democracy in Syria, most of the world knew that Washington was about to organize a chemical attack and blame Assad. When the Washington orchestrated attack happened on schedule, this time Russia and China did not fall for it. And neither did the British Parliament. Washington was unable to produce any evidence for the charges that Washington made and hoped would bring in at least the British to support Washington’s military assault on Syria. Russia, however, was able to produce evidence, and the evidence foiled Washington’s plot against Syria.

Russia’s intervention angered Washington, as did Russia’s intervention that blocked

Washington’s plot to attack Iran. Washington, devoid of all evidence and in contradiction to the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspectors on the ground in Iran that there was no diversion of uranium from the legal energy program to a weapons program, had Iran set up for attack. Iran was surrounded by about 40 US military bases and two of Washington’s fleets off its coast.

But in stepped Russia and worked out a deal, which Washington had to accept, that kept Iranian uranium enrichment at the low level used for energy, a level far below weapons requirements.

Two black marks agains Russia whose government prevented wars that Washington wanted. Russia (and China) were supposed to endorse Washington’s lies like the puppet states of Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, countries that long ago gave up their sovereignty to Washington.

Unfortunately for Russia, Russia demonstrated that Russia had achieved sufficient power and influence to block Washington’s war plans and, thereby, brought into action against Russia the Wolfowitz Doctrine. I have cited this doctrine in recent columns, but you can google it and read it for yourself. The doctrine is the basis for Washington’s foreign policy and declares that the principle goal of Washington’s foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that could serve as a check on Washington’s hegemony over the world. (The doctrine explicitly mentions Russia but also applies to China.)

Washington is disturbed that Russia has twice foiled Washington’s war intentions and that the Parliament of the US Puppet State of Great Britain voted with the Russians.

Washington is also concerned with the growing economic and political relations between Washington’s EU puppet states and Russia. EU countries, especially Germany, have numerous and profitable economic connections with Russia, and all of Europe is dependent on Russian supplied energy.

Washington concluded that Washington was in danger of losing its control over Europe.

While the Russian government was asleep at the switch enjoying the Olympics, Washington pulled off its coup in Kiev.

Neoconservative Victoria Nuland, appointed by Obama as Assistant Secretary of State,

announced at a press conference last December that Washington had spent $5 billion

purchasing fifth column Ukrainian NGOs that can be put into street demonstrations to destabilize a government and on grooming and purchasing Ukrainian politicians who will serve as Washington’s stooges. Nuland, of course, described Washington’s purchase of Ukraine as “furthering democracy” in Ukraine.

Washington’s coup against a democratically elected government brought to power extreme elements that proclaimed their hatred of Jews and Russians. These elements destroyed Russian war memorials erected to remember Russia’s liberation of Ukraine from the Third Reich, passed legislation outlawing Russian as an official language, and engaged in violent physical attacks on the Russian speaking population.

Ukraine has always been an area of changing borders. As some have put it, “Ukraine is a country in search of borders.” When Ukraine was a Soviet province, Soviet leaders attached, for various reasons, traditional Russian provinces to the Ukraine Socialist Soviet Republic. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, pressure from Washington on a weak Russia resulted in the separation of Ukraine from Russia and this included Crimea, a part of Russia since the 1700s and Russia’s warm water port.

The Russian populations in the former Russian territories that Soviet leaders foolishly attached to Ukraine were alarmed by the extreme Russophobia of the government that Washington established in Kiev. The former Russian territories voted to rejoin their mother country and to depart the Russophobic US puppet state established in Kiev.

The Russian government accepted the request from Crimea, but not the requests from the other former Russian provinces in order to demonstrate to Europe that Russia was not provocative and not the source of the crisis. Putin even had the Russian Duma rescind his power to intervene militarily in Ukraine in order to protect the secessionist provinces.

This restraint hurt rather than helped the Russian government’s position. Washington

used its propaganda machine to label self-determination by Crimeans as “invasion and annexation by Russia of Crimea.”

Russia’s restraint with regard to requests to rejoin Russia from the other former Russian provinces resulted in a Washington encouraged military attack by its puppet government in Kiev against the separatist provinces that Russia refused to accept. Washington’s propaganda then succeeded in blaming Russia for the war that Washington launched on the separatist provinces.

Washington is not interested in the truth, and Russia cannot win a propaganda war with Washington which controls the world language, which is English, the language of Washington’s propaganda. The Western media consists of idiots who are enabling Washington’s drive toward war and the extermination of life on earth.

If the Russian government had accepted the separatist provinces request, there would be no war. The Ukrainian government is demented and controlled by Washington, but it is not going to attack territories acknowledged by Russia as its territory.

By showing restraint, Russia has convinced Washington that Russia is weak, and Washington has increased the pressure. Russia has convinced Europe that there is

no cost from Russia to Europe’s complying with Washington’s sanctions. By relying on good will, reasonableness, truth and evidence, Russia has misread Washington and its craven European puppets.

What Obama meant in his White House Press Conference today (August 1) when he said that Putin should use diplomacy–which Putin has been using to no effect–is that Putin should hand Crimea, over the objection of Crimeans and the Russian people, to Washington’s puppet government in Kiev so that Washington can evict Russia from its warm weather port and access to the Mediterranean Sea, thus making redundant Russia’s naval base at Tartus, Syria. Obama also wants Putin to send into the separatist areas of Ukraine, areas that traditionally were part of Russia, Russian military forces to subdue the breakaway territories for Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.

This is Washington’s “diplomatic” position. Only a totally demented person could regard Obama’s position as realistic.

As a person who is considered fair-minded by world media and who arrives at reasonable conclusions independently of Washington’s propaganda, I am often interviewed by foreign as well as US independent media organizations. As of late, the Russian media has turned to me on a number of occasions. What I have learned is that the Russian media is perplexed by Washington’s hostility to Russia.

Russia is not operating in the old Confederate South trying to turn the American South

against Washington for Washington’s rapine, murder, and destruction of the Southern culture, but Washington is operating in the Russian South trying to turn Ukraine, long a part of Russia, against Russia.

As Russians, except perhaps for the government, are unaware of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, they do not know that the main goal of Washington is to prevent the rise of all other powers that could limit Washington’s role as sole Unipower, Hegemon over Earth.

Instead of realizing the real threat, Russian media organizations ask me if the Russian budget can stand responding to sanctions from Washington and the EU by cutting off the energy supply to Europe.

Each time I hear this question I am astonished. Russia can shut down much of European industry and deprive the Europeans of heat in winter, and Russian media ask me if Russia can afford it?

Can Russia afford to be demonized by lies, to be driven into the ground by propagandistic sanctions that will hurt Europe and some US corporations, to convey the

image that Russia is so weak as to be helpless in the face of Western sanctions as to accept the sanctions without demonstrating the cost to Europe and the US?

Does Washington even have Russians brainwashed?

I am concerned about the crisis that Washington has orchestrated, because I believe it is leading to war, which will be nuclear. Are you ready to be destroyed over Washington’s lies about one Malaysian airliner? I am convinced that Washington is behind the destruction of MH-17, because Washington’s propaganda show was already ready and was instantly in performance. That Washington is responsible is the reason that Washington will not release its satellite photos of the area during the moment of the airliner’s destruction. That Washington is responsible is the reason that Washington replies to Russian hard evidence with lies and propaganda. It is Obama and Obama’s stooges in Kiev that refuse to negotiate, not Russia.

Russia has as many nuclear warheads as Washington, and Washington’s “ABM shield” is a farce. If the insane American government drives a crisis, which Washington alone created, to war, we will all die, and for what? The answer is: for a Washington LIE.

Do you want to die for a lie? Another Washington lie?

If you don’t, you had better let Washington know.

Russia cannot end this crisis unless it puts its foot down. I have previously made the case that Russia should take its case to the UN. Alternatively, the Russian government needs to engage Europe in two questions. One is does Europe want its energy supplies from Russia cut off, energy that Washington, despite its lies, cannot replace for 3 or more years if at all.. The other is does Europe want war with Russia and does Europe think that those idiotic countries that host Washington’s missiles won’t be nuked and exterminated?

The crisis in Ukraine will continue to Russia’s and all of humanity’s cost until Russia explains to the stupid, arrogant, hubris-filled West that the West’s criminal and aggressive actions against Russia bear a real cost, and that Russia is prepared to impose the cost.

The propagandized people in the West have no idea of the fate toward which their demented governments are driving them. Russia needs to make it clear to the brainwashed propagandized peoples in the West that Russia is not going to be a puppet state of the West or to accept gratuitous aggression from the White House Fool.

It would help to save life on Earth if China also made this clear.

The sooner the better.

Unless the world reins in the demented criminals in Washington, the world has signed its own death warrant.
Paul Craig Roberts

[GlassSteagallfan]

jerry,

do you have a link to the jim wille video?

thx

[jerry]

At the 48 minute mark he begins the discussion about the war between the Pentagon and Langley, how Langley is funded by the Afghan heroin trade and the Soros mercenaries. Really is worth the time to hear it all. I like this guy , has made a lot of on-the-money predictions and most his theories make sense.
B26qf-GxhdE

[wnlight]

jerry, your excellent post refers to "US Puppet State of Great Britain". I am not sure which is the puppet of which, or if both are puppet states of the Vatican. I am not sure if Russia's apparent resistance is real or if it is a ruse to trick what is left of the independent world into thinking that there is a strong nation pushing back on the countries of the dark cabal. It is getting easy to tell when Washington is lying, but it is not easy to be sure what nation might be telling the truth. Bolivia has recently declared Israel a terrorist state. I can be sure of that truth.

[jerry]

jerry, your excellent post refers to "US Puppet State of Great Britain". I am not sure which is the puppet of which, or if both are puppet states of the Vatican. I am not sure if Russia's apparent resistance is real or if it is a ruse to trick what is left of the independent world into thinking that there is a strong nation pushing back on the countries of the dark cabal. It is getting easy to tell when Washington is lying, but it is not easy to be sure what nation might be telling the truth. Bolivia has recently declared Israel a terrorist state. I can be sure of that truth.
We’ll know our disinformation programs are complete when everything the public believes is false” William Casey CIA Director 1981

[sirdipswitch]

And so the story goes... according to whichever "Expert"... you care to listen to...:wizard:

[jerry]

A brief summarization by Greg Hunter on the smoke and mirrors battle in the middle east, ground zero for the Pentagon vs Langley .

Iraq is the top story, and the crisis there is boiling over. At its core, this is a religious war between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. One big problem–the U.S. has armed and supported both sides. We have sent military advisors to help the Shia majority government that is being helped by Iran. ISIS was armed in part by the U.S. in Syria; and, now, the Obama Administration is asking Congress for $500 million to aid the so-called rebels in Syria. I have been telling you that a large percentage of the Syrian rebels are al-Qaeda and not “moderate.” ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is an offshoot of the Syrian rebels. This week, the President said that when it comes to attacking the ISIS rebels, you just can’t “play whack-a-mole.” It is much deeper than that because Saudi Arabia is also arming these rebels. You think they might stop taking U.S. dollars for their oil if the U.S. attacks the people the Saudis are supporting? On the other hand, Iran is threatening any “petrodollar country” that is helping ISIS. This is a not so veiled threat to Saudi Arabia. The U.S. is in a damned if we do, damned if we do scenario. If we help the Iraqi government, we will be helping the Iranians; and the Saudis will, no doubt, stop oil trade in dollars. If we do nothing, ISIS might take over Iraq and a terror army will have its own country. This is an enormous mess, and it will spike oil prices and might even start WWIII.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Jerry, thanks for your bravery on this one --

'homeland security WHACK of 1942' :P

and the rock is still rollin' over us! :(

[jerry]

Jerry, thanks for your bravery on this one --

'homeland security WHACK of 1942' :P

and the rock is still rollin' over us! :(
its a no brainer and this is the way I see it ... He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it..MLK

[Operator]

Another remarkable point he mentioned is that Germany might back away from the euro, EU and NATO.

In an ideal world you would think that after the break up of the Warsaw Pact it would be great to break
up NATO too. No more wars, no more spending on crazy weapons etc. Unfortunately the world is not at
all like that.

The question is what really is at play here. I recently heard some interviews that were about the
perestroika deception (more details here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73055-Malaysian-Plane-MH17-shot-down-with-over-295-on-board.-But-by-who&p=859367&viewfull=1#post859367)).
Part of it is the breaking up of NATO. But most likely we would then do away with the boys in the
pentagon (reduction is more likely) so that the boys from Langley remain.
Apart from other negative aspects of perestroika deception it is easy to see where this is going ...
(not good).

[jerry]

Another remarkable point he mentioned is that Germany might back away from the euro, EU and NATO.
I found this story this evening backing Jims comments


Germany U-Turns, Torpedoes Corporate Sovereignty Charter in Trade Agreements With US and Canada, Resistance Grows

By Don Quijones,
Amidst the rising drum beats of war and the growing fears of a new banking collapse in Europe (Portugal’s Banco Espiritu Santo), a very important news story seems to have flown below the radar.

Published on July 28th by the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, the article’s basic premise is that the German government will not accept CETA, the Canadian-European trade agreement, if it contains a corporate sovereignty chapter in its present form:

German EU diplomats confirmed in Brussels on Friday that the [German] federal government could not sign the agreement with Canada “as it is now negotiated.” Germany is, in principle, ready to initial the agreement in September, but the chapter on the legal protection of investors is “problematic” and currently not acceptable.

The reason this could be of paramount importance – not only for Germans but for all Europeans, Canadians and Americans – is that the investor state dispute settlements (ISDS) that Germany now seems reluctant to accept are precisely what give trade agreements like CETA, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) their long canine teeth: they allow private companies to sue entire nations whenever they feel that a new law lost them money on their investment.

Historic U-Turn

Whether Germany’s reservations are genuine or whether they merely form part of last-minute horse trading is still too early to tell. However, it’s certainly telling that Süddeutsche Zeitung’s allegations come hard on the heels of a statement by Brigitte Zypries, a Parliamentary State Secretary at the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, that Berlin is determined to exclude arbitration rights from the EU-US trade deal (TTIP) as well. “From the perspective of the [German] federal government, U.S. investors in the European Union have sufficient legal protection in the national courts,” she said.

If completed, Germany’s U-turn could well be a serious game changer, for two reasons. First, as home to the largest economy in Europe which is effectively backstopping the cratering economies on the periphery, Germany wields more influence over EU decision making than any other Member State. Second, Germany has been a major advocate of ISDS for decades. Indeed, the first ever bilateral investment treaty (BIT) was agreed between Germany and Pakistan, in 1959.

As the Transnational Institute reports, Germany currently heads the list of states to have signed such agreements, with a total of 139 signed BITs, of which 130 have entered into force. In the vast majority of these agreements investors have the right to apply for international arbitration (investor-state arbitration) when they feel there has been an alleged breach of a treaty provision. This right of action was increasingly included in BITS from the 1980s onwards, but it wasn’t until the end of the 1990s that investors began to widely and offensively sue host states.

Since then, nearly 400 known arbitration cases have been launched under these agreements. However, due to the acute lack of transparency and accountability of the international arbitration system, the total number of cases remains unknown.

What is known, thanks to recent figures published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, is that almost half of new ISDS cases in 2013 were filed against developed countries – most of them against EU member states, including Germany. In the last decade it has been sued twice for billions of euros a piece – and what’s more, by the same company!

An Expensive Battle Over Germany Energy Policy

That company is Berlin-based energy giant Vattenfall AG, a subsidiary of Vattenfall AB, which is wholly-owned by the Swedish state. Vattenfall’s first complaint, for €1.4 billion, came on the back of Germany’s decision to reduce the damaging effects of carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant owned by Vattenfall.

Then, following the Fukushima disaster, Germany decided to close a nuclear power plant also owned by Vattenfall, which hit back by taking the country to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. The Swedish firm claims that it has suffered no less than €3.7 billion in losses and lost profits resulting from the government’s decision to phase out nuclear power.

Interestingly, neither of Vattenfall’s challenges argues that its power plants are actually safe or environmentally sound; the sole focus is on protecting investors from losing money. As I wrote in “The Global Corporatocracy Is Just A Few Strokes of a Pen From Completion,” it is this exclusive focus on investor rights – at the expense of all other considerations – that is at the root of all that is wrong with the new generation of “free” trade treaties:

If allowed to take universal effect, the system will impose above you, me, and our governments a rigid framework of international corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of all financial risk and social and environmental responsibility.

But now Germany appears to be getting cold feet, having had a bitter foretaste of the potential consequences of handing over what remains of its national sovereignty to the Global Corporatocracy. If, in the end, Merkel’s coalition government does refuse to sign on the dotted line, the European Commission will have little option but to take the ISDS clause out; because of the nature of CETA and TTIP, all 28 EU member states must approve it before it is fully ratified.

The European Commission is not happy at the prospect; nor, it seems, is the Canadian government. Without these clauses, a Canadian company would hardly ever invest in Europe, the Commission’s trade department told the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The EC’s claim, however, is ludicrous: according to the Commission’s own figures, bilateral investment between the EU and Canada is flourishing. In 2012, the total investment by EU companies in Canada was €258 billion, while Canadian investment in the EU was €115 billion – 45% of the EU’s, even though Canada’s population is only 7% of the EU’s.

Contrary to the European Commission’s scaremongering, Canadian companies are perfectly happy to invest in Europe on a massive scale even without ISDS. The inescapable conclusion is that ISDS is therefore unnecessary, and can be dropped from CETA – and for that matter from the TTIP as well!

But then ISDS was never about trade; it was always about usurping sovereignty from nation states and planting it in the grasping hands of our corporations.

Yet the resistance, it seems, is on the rise. With growing ranks of countries beginning to question the legitimacy of ISDS, including France, Australia, Malaysia, Brazil (which has never included ISDS in its trade and investment treaties), Ecuador, India and South Africa, the future of corporate sovereignty may not be quite so bright after all. For the global citizenry, it represents only a razor-slim glimmer of hope, but at least it’s something. By Don Quijones. An exclusive for Wolf Street.

Meet the secretive powers behind the trade negotiations that attempt to rewrite US and EU laws and regulations to their liking and beyond democratic controls. Read…. Behind the Curtains: How The Corporatocracy Is Driving the US-EU Trade Agenda

[jerry]

case against the bankers building steam
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-03/g-20-revolt-france-gets-positive-reception-challenge-us-bank-fines

¤=[Post Update]=¤


case against the bankers building steam
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-03/g-20-revolt-france-gets-positive-reception-challenge-us-bank-fines

probably need to start a new post as this one is going off topic