KPMG, Wag-the-Dog Desmarais and the Bhutto Contract Hit

Belief Banazair Bhutto killed by contract hit team paid with money laundered through 'Wag-the-Dog' movie-insurance and tax shelters structured by KPMG for Paul Desmarais and Total S.A. (2001)

Open message sent December 31, 2007 to:Members of  Hawks' CAFE

From:
Captain Field McConnell and David Hawkins,
Forensic Economists at Hawks' CAFE http://www.hawkscafe.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawkscafe/

Dear Members of Hawks CAFE:

Re: KPMG, `Wag-the-Dog' Desmarais and the Bhutto Contract Hit

Hawks CAFE believes that Banazair Bhutto was killed by a contract hit team to be paid with money laundered through `Wag-the-Dog' movie-insurance and tax shelters structured by KPMG for Paul Desmarais and fellow directors with Total S.A. (2001). http://www.usdoj.gr/ch03a.html

"Wag the Dog is a 1997 film starring Robert De Niro about a Washington spin doctor who distracts the electorate from a presidential sex scandal by hiring a Hollywood producer Dustin Hoffman to construct a fake war with Albania .. The film explores serious themes, such as the manipulation of themass media and public opinion, with a comedic sensibility. The film drew attention at the time for similarities to the Clinton sex scandal .. The title of the movie is taken from the joke: "Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog." Interpretations differ as to the meaning of this metaphor. Some suggest the dog is public opinion, and the tail represents the media; the dog is the media, and the tail is political campaigns; or the dog is the people, and the tail is the government. Or, when considering the personal relations in the movie, the dog is the president and the tail represents his PR assistants, who immediately assume the authority for the damage control. Moreover, the expression "the tail wagging the dog" refers to any case where something of greater significance is driven by something lesser."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_dog

We will show evidence in the lawsuit (see url) to support our claim that the Canadian privy councilors Maurice Strong and Paul Desmarais, are principals of a "Wag-the-Dog" murder-for-hire network whose members refer to themselves as the `Global Guardians'. We allege the two men launched `al-Qaeda' terrorist attacks in 1993 to divert attention from their racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization (`RICO') of the Clinton White House.  Civil Case 3:07-cv-49,  "Hawks CAFE v. Global Guardians", http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html Clerk's Office, Federal District Court of North Dakota 655 1st Ave. North, Suite 130, Fargo ND 58102.

Yours sincerely,


Field McConnell avalonbeef@... Tel: 218 329 2993
28 year airline and 22 year military pilot, 23,000 hours of safetyhttp://www.captainsherlock.com/
David Hawkins hawks-cafe@... Tel: 604 542-0891
Former oil industry operating engineer, blow out specialist, safety officer; 15 years experience with radioactive materials, explosives, incendiaries

Re: KPMG, `Wag-the-Dog' Desmarais and the Bhutto Contract Hit

"Insurers Fight Hollywood Claims Over 'Gap Financing' for Movies By Charles E. Boyle July 10, 2000 As most people with experience in the movie industry could tell you, it's an easy way to lose a lot of money. That may happen to several insurance companies, notably France's AXA, if they lose the lawsuits that have been filed in New York and London seeking to void coverage on a number of "gap financing" policies written over the last five or six years. The idea is fairly simple. Making a motion picture costs a lot of money, even if it's not "Star Wars" or "Mission Impossible"; so, producers have increasingly sought loans to cover the "gap" between the budget for the costs of production and the amount they have committed to the film, which in some cases amounts to very little. Once the film is produced and distributed, the loans are repaid. Banks and other lenders, however, are reluctant to lend large amounts of money for films that may never find a distributor, or may flop at the box office. If this happens— and under Hollywood's arcane accounting procedures it happens frequently—the producer can't reimburse the amount advanced. The solution is to insure repayment of the loan, i.e. if the producer fails to reimburse the lender because the film fails to recover its production costs, the insurer covers the lender's loss by paying the difference between the amount lent and the amount that has been repaid. Typically the insurance company involved assumes only part of the risk, or reinsures some of it, so there may be several insurers and reinsurers involved. AXA was one of the most active companies writing gap financing coverage, both directly and as a reinsurer. Stephanie Binet of AXA Corporate Solutions in Paris confirmed that AXA had "probably participated in about 30 such deals over the last five or six years," but gave no exact figure. "It was a very specific type of insurance and we had one broker who was responsible for it, starting around the end of 1993 or early 1994," ..  Binet declined to discuss details concerning the lawsuits that AXA has brought against several Hollywood production companies, individual producers and the banks and brokers involved–notably Chase Manhattan and Stirling Cooke Brown–saying only that each case was different and involved different people."http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2000/07/10/features/21519.htm

"Chase initiated this action to recover insurance proceeds of $4.3 million, allegedly due on a Contingent Loss of Revenue Policy (the policy), which defendant New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC) issued on March 16, 1998, in connection with a credit facility that Chase had extended for the production of a movie. In March 1998, AXA had signed a reinsurance slip, reinsuring 60 percent of the NHIC Policy .. On May 15, 2002, AXA served an answer and interposed the following affirmative defenses: (1) Chase's claim was barred by the terms and conditions of the Policy; (2) Chase's failure to Deliver the Project precluded a claim under the policy; (3) Chase and its agents made substantial and material misrepresentations to procure the policy; (4) Chase's claim under the policy was not dependent on the happening of a fortuitous event; (5) the lack of an independent sales agent with incentive to sell the movie breached certain warranties in the policy; (6) Chase misrepresented facts regarding the film's progress, completion, and quality, in order to induce NHIC to agree to change the film's Delivery Date; (7) Chase misrepresented, in its claim, that the film had been delivered on the Delivery Date, even though Chase had a claim against the Completion Bond Company for failed delivery; and (8) Chase had failed to cooperate with AXA' s requests for information about the claim. AXA also asserted eight counterclaims for (1) rescission of the insurance slip and cut through endorsement; (2) breach of warranty, regarding the independence and motive of the movie's sales agent; (3) misrepresentations regarding changes of the movie's Delivery Date; (4) Chase's misrepresentation in its claim that the movie was timely delivered; (5) rescission, based on Chase's fraud and on the unilateral mistake of AXA's underwriter, who allegedly believed that the Chase policy was for contingency insurance, when it was an unauthorized financial guaranty; (6) lack of fortuity in violation of public policy; (7) lack of Delivery of the film; and (8) lack of cooperation."http://www.courts.state.ny.us/comdiv/Law%20Report%20Files/May%202003/Chase%20Manhattan.htm

"Hollywood Pool Now .. using insurance to help guarantee profits .. innovative type of securitization .. pools a slate of movies and guarantees that the future revenue streams of all the films will cover the production costs of making the films. "There's safety in numbers .. If there are 15 films in the slate, you might have two hits, two dogs, and everything else will keep the lights on."  .. For the filming of "Apocalypse Now," Fireman's Fund had to shell out $1.5 million to replace the set of a village that was destroyed by a typhoon. General production insurance also includes equipment, faulty film stock and third-party property damage. In filming "Thief," actor James Caan plays a character who firebombs his house. While filming the dramatic fire scene, a stray ember drifted to a neighbor's house, sparking a fire that destroyed it, causing $900,000 in damage, Kozero said.  … St. Paul offers a production package for feature films that covers cast, negative film and videotape, faulty stock, props, sets and wardrobes, equipment, third-party property damage, extra expenses, animal mortality, plus the standard business insurance, such as general liability and auto .. As a general rule, the higher the production costs of the movie, the more expensive it will be to insure. To write film coverage, the company looks at the script. "Is it a talking head or an action film? Are there stunts involved? .. The most unusual challenges we face are dealing with the creativity of the directors from an insurance standpoint; Paulsen said. "Every time they want to make a movie, they want to make it bigger, better and more interesting. It goes right in the face of the conservative insurance company." But insurers do have a say in how a film is made .. "Insurers have a lot of control, especially when it comes to completion bonding," he said. "In some cases, if a film gets drastically behind schedule or over budget, the bonding company can take authority to bring the movie back on track. They can reject actors and crews, review scripts, production schedules, production budgets and insurance arrangements;' he said. .. Axa and American International Group Inc. put together a $100 million insurance-backed financing for Destination Film Distribution in October 1998, said Aaron Stem, president and CEO of Axa Corporation Solutions' alternative risk transfer division. Four months later, Axa fired the executive in charge of the transaction, and decided to exit the business. "We stopped writing that business in February of 1999," Stem said. "The underwriter who had been accepting these transactions in our facultative division was terminated for violating the terms of his underwriting guidelines." The insurance policy protected against a short-fall of revenues from films that were to be made by Destination, and was supposed to cover a minimum of 36 films made in three years, Stem said." http://www.rmi.gsu.edu/rmi/faculty/klein/RMI_3500/Readings/Other/Underwriting_Hollywood.htm