Hello, Entrepreneurs and Investors I am admin of Solid-Profits.com. We are a professionally managed group of energy trading specialists. Our focus is to achieve the highest returns possible for both sides: for ourselves and our investors. We invest in crude oil futures contracts to generate our returns. A small majority of our investments are also in the Energy Sector, consisting of Coal and Natural Gas. Over the years we have worked out skills and techniques to generate the largest possible returns, minimizing the amount of the risk and loss.

http://www.solid-profits.com

We have spent thousands of dollars for the safety of your funds and information while designing this program. The diligent work we have done in the last five years has positioned our corporation for growth in the immediate future.

To assure repayment on short term and long term loans we have established partnerships with the largest financial institutions in the world.

Banners, Logos, Advertisements Removed

Questions or comments: Email admin@solid-profits.com

http://www.solid-profits.com

Has anyone tried or have an opinion of Kitco's program for metals investing?

Quote:Pool Accounts - Defined

Pool Accounts, also often referred to as unallocated storage accounts, refer to a precious metal account deposit in which the client does not have title to specific (allocated) bars or coins. The client instead owns a defined but unallocated interest in a pool of precious metals held by Kitco. However, the client is entitled to receive physical bullion in the form of any type bar or coin normally carried by Kitco upon payment of quoted fabrication charges.


About Kitco Pool Accounts

Whether you are an experienced or first-time investor, Kitco’s Pool Account service makes purchasing precious metals easier than ever before. Kitco Pool Accounts will allow you to diversify your portfolio and enhance your investment strategies. Kitco’s Pool Accounts are perfect for those who want to invest in precious metals, without having to pay additional charges such as fabrication, storage or shipping and insurance.

Kitco Pool Accounts are free and hassle-free!

Kitco Pool Accounts allow you to invest in gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium online, with no additional service charges. You have the flexibility of adding to your holdings, taking physical delivery, or selling your account holdings at anytime. You pay no safety deposit fees or monthly depository charges.

You also pay no premiums, bar charges, shipping, or insurance unless you’re ready to receive physical bullion products in exchange. When exchanging pool account holdings for physical metals, a small premium plus shipping and handling charges are applicable. By accumulating ounces in a pool account and then swapping your pool for physical items, you can save on multiple shipping fees.

Save on Transaction Fees

Pool Accounts give you instant access to the precious metals markets without the need to go through brokers or traders. You can buy and sell quickly online using real-time quotes with a small spread, and pay no commissions.

With no required minimums, you can use your Pool Account to make an initial purchase and accumulate ounces over time.

Payment Options

Payment to Kitco must be provided using a certified check, cashiers check, postal money order or direct bank wiring of funds. Kitco does not accept direct deposits as a form of payment. Direct deposits do not include any details regarding the origin or type of funds deposited. Your bank may suggest a direct deposit as a cheaper alternative, however, please inform them of our policy.

All international orders must be paid by bank wire. Any amounts exceeding $50,000 can only be paid by bank wire. Any type of official check that is over $ 50,000 will be subject to a hold for a duration of ten (10) business days from the date the funds are received. Payment instructions are available when you log into your online account. Payment must be dated within 24 hours of your order confirmation, and must be received by us within ten business days. Kitco reserves the right to cancel orders that do not meet both these requirements. Kitco does not accept C.O.D. orders or credit card payment for bullion products over the Internet.

I tend to agree with the opinion expressed, but there seems to be quite a debate over this.

Gold: It's Not Over Yet

By David Nichols
Aug 22 2008 3:12PM

Quote:http://www.fractalgoldreport.com

In my last article I warned that a breakdown out of a triangle consolidation typically leads to a very swift and scary downside move, and this is just what has happened to gold and silver.


Unfortunately it does not look like this correction is over, even though the decline has been quite severe to this point. I have a big cluster of fractal projections down at $675, so that looks like the final destination for this corrective pattern.

The weekly fractal dimension supports this idea, as so far this decline has only carried this indicator down to the mid-40s. Most strong trends run out of energy when the fractal dimension is in the low-to-mid 30s, so there is still plenty of available energy to push gold down to the $675 target.

It's also important to remember that a severe correction like this is a normal and healthy part of a multi-year bull market pattern. The purpose of this correction is to generate a large amount of fear and uncertainty in a short period of time, to create the right sentiment mix for the next rally. Gold can only turn around and head back up when a majority of bulls have abandoned their positions.

According to my projections, this final "breaking point" should be somewhere between $675 - $720.

Anecdotally-speaking, I’m also seeing lots of commentary from the gold community about how this is a great buying opportunity right here. At the actual bottom only a handful of people will be willing to stick their necks out and call it a buying opportunity, as this correction should take gold so low that nobody wants it anymore, as the perceived risk is just too great.

So even though it's been bad to this point, it has to get really bad before it's over. It's possible that gold will even need to go lower than $675, so that is why we always have to wait for our specific buy trigger, even off these big targeted energy levels.

The good news is gold should rebound very energetically off $675, and that should end up being the multi-year low that sets up the next strong leg up for the bull market.



The situation in silver is even more severe, which is invariably the case with the "wild child" of the precious metals. This has been a meltdown of historic proportions in silver, but the coming rebound should also be historic, so this is an opportunity we do not want to miss. Silver is set to deliver the most profitable trading opportunity of the year.

It's actually a fairly simple concept to understand why the rebound off this sort of decline can be particularly profitable, as it's exactly equivalent to pushing a spring a down until all the coils are tight. The harder and farther you push the springs -- so-called "spring-loading" them -- the more energy will come out in the opposite direction when it is finally released.

So the job right here is to figure out the spot where silver will have been pushed down too far, and the energy has no other choice but to release back to the upside. One thing we don't want to do is step in too early on silver, as the free-fall declines in this market are breath-taking, and we don't want to get caught up in one of those.

One last note on gold: there is a scenario right now where gold could rally strongly higher, but a few things have to fall into place for a true reversal pattern to develop off the recent low. So if we get a buy trigger right here, it will definitely be worth moving back into a long position, but we only want to do it if a few specific things fall into place from here.

David Nichols

China used planes, rockets to prevent wet end of Games

Mon Aug 25, 2:33 AM ET

Quote:Meteorologists dispatched eight planes to release rain dispersal chemicals and fired 241 rockets into incoming clouds to ensure a dry Beijing Olympics closing ceremony, state media said Monday.

Rain clouds from the north of China had started to move towards the capital on Sunday afternoon, Guo Hu, head of the Beijing Observatory, was quoted by the official Xinhua news agency as saying.

"We decided to use planes to cover a larger area, along with firing rain dispersal rockets from the ground," said Zhang Qiang, an official at the Beijing Weather Modification Office, according to Xinhua.

Meteorologists also fired more than 1,000 rockets into clouds on August 8 to prevent showers from ruining the opening ceremony -- the biggest-ever operation of its kind by China.

China has long dabbled in rain dispersal and rain-making technology, using a vast array of chemicals to either induce or prevent rainfall.

Scientists have viewed the technology as promising, but acknowledge that no method has been developed to objectively prove that such techniques work.

Your opinion of our new look and features please? Right away I noticed attachments can be added to posts now, a very handy feature. What do you think?

Lone accountant takes on IRS and wins

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Business Writer

Quote:WASHINGTON - It took seven years, but Charles Ulrich did something many people dream about, but few succeed at: He beat the IRS in a tax dispute.
Not only that, but tax experts say potentially millions of other taxpayers could benefit from his victory.

The accountant from Baxter, Minn., challenged the method the IRS has used for more than 20 years to tax shares and cash distributed by mutual life insurance firms to their policyholders when they reorganize as public companies.

A federal court recently agreed with his interpretation.

"There's a tremendous amount of money at stake," said Robert Willens, a New York City-based tax analyst at Robert Willens LLC. "Tens of thousands of people could be in line for a refund."

Don Alexander, an IRS commissioner in the 1970s and now a tax attorney in Washington, said while it's not unusual for individuals to take on the agency, "most of them lose."

Alexander called it "quite a significant case."

The dispute arose when more than 30 mutual life insurance companies became publicly traded corporations in the late 1990s and earlier this decade, in a process known as "demutualization."

Mutual companies are owned by their policyholders, so the companies provided stock and cash to compensate them for the loss of their ownership interests when they went public.

All told, roughly 30 million policyholders received distributions, Ulrich estimates. MetLife Inc. provided over $7 billion of stock to about 11 million policyholders when it went public in 2000, while Prudential distributed $12.5 billion in stock to another 11 million.

The IRS held that the recipients hadn't paid anything for the shares and owed taxes on the full amount when the shares were sold. Cash distributions also were fully taxable, the IRS said.

That didn't sound right to Ulrich, 72, an accountant for 49 years. He began researching the issue in 2001, when he received shares from two companies, Prudential and Indianapolis Life.

Ulrich concluded that policyholders had paid for their ownership rights through their premiums so the distributions should have been tax-free.

That could make a significant difference in what a taxpayer owes. If a company distributed shares worth $30 and a recipient subsequently sold them at $32, under the IRS' view they would pay taxes on all $32. Under Ulrich's interpretation, they would owe taxes only on the $2 per share gain.

In 2003, Ulrich publicized his views by contacting tax and insurance experts and setting up a Web site.

"Largely I was regarded as a lunatic," he said, who "would never prevail against the IRS."

Still, some people who'd paid taxes contacted Ulrich and asked him to file refund requests, which he did, for a fee. Some of those refunds were granted, he said. Tax experts say the IRS doesn't always closely scrutinize small refunds.

One of his clients, Jean Prevost and her husband, Jim, who live near Minneapolis, received a refund of almost $1,500 in federal and state taxes in 2003.

"It wasn't a huge amount of money, but it was ours," she said.

But the IRS wasn't pleased with Ulrich, accusing him of promoting abusive tax shelters and demanding the names of his clients, which he said he refused to provide.

The agency backed off in 2004 with help from the IRS's Taxpayer Advocate office, Ulrich said.

IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland said the agency is prohibited from commenting on its interactions with taxpayers.

One of Ulrich's clients, Eugene Fisher, a trustee for a Baltimore, Md.-based trust, sued the IRS in February 2004 after being denied a refund.

Judge Francis Allegra of the Court of Federal Claims in Washington sided with Fisher and called the IRS' view "illogical" in an Aug. 6 decision. He ordered the agency to refund $5,725 in taxes plus interest to the trust overseen by Fisher.

It's not clear how many people could benefit from the ruling. Many of the 30 million policyholders are probably too late to seek refunds, since claims must be filed within three years of the April 15 tax deadline. That means the statute of limitations for taxes paid for 2004 ran out April 15, 2008.

Many individual taxpayers may not have enough at stake to go to the trouble, said Burgess Raby, a Tempe, Ariz.-based attorney who represented Fisher. Still, millions of policyholders could benefit from the court's ruling, he said.

Raby credits Ulrich with being the driving force behind the issue.

"The genesis for this was Chuck's real feeling that this was an unfair position" by the IRS, Raby said.

The government could appeal the ruling and likely will fight future refund claims, perhaps hoping for a different outcome in a separate court, tax experts said.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the government hasn't yet decided whether to appeal.

Still, taxpayers should request refunds if they're eligible, the tax experts said, because even if the IRS rejects the claim, doing so extends the deadline for a potential refund for two more years.

Ulrich will prepare refund requests for interested taxpayers, for a fee, and has posted additional information at his Web site, http://www.demutualization.biz. But he said the principle is more important to him.

"I think it's important that taxpayers' rights be protected," he said. "We should have had a Boston Tea Party over this."

FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods
Saturday, August 23, 2008 by: Mike Adams

Quote:http://www.naturalnews.com/023945.html

(NaturalNews) NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling -
According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.
However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)
That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated -
As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.
Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."
And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."
But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.
Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."
The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?
I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish -
Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

Quote:Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry.

Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" -
In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?
WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)
Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:
Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.
If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...
So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"

Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA -
Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.
Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible. If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!
Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.
I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.
I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

Sources:

(1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

(2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html

We use OR (open range) breakouts often with great success. You can get a free
e book called "Trading the 10 O'clock Bulls" at http://www.marketguage.com
(we are not affiliated with them)and learn about the OR strategy. We teach this
strategy an many others too. Trading FOREX around the clock is a sure way to
lose money and your friends. That is why we trade only 3.5 hrs a day, from 4:30
am to 8:00 am PST (30 min. before the New York market opens) and aim for 30
to 50+ pips. During those hours there are great set ups and volatility. All first
time visitors get a free week of live trade calls and coaching. Join us at:
http://www.trade4freedom.com

Marijuana Use May Shrink the Brain
Smoking Pot Could Have Lasting Effects on the Brain
By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

June 2, 2008 --

Quote:Long-term marijuana use may actually shrink certain parts of the brain and have lasting effects on mental health.

A new study shows heavy marijuana use over several years was associated with structural differences in at least two different regions of the brain, the hippocampus and amygdala.

Researchers found that the hippocampus, which is thought to regulate memory, was an average of 12% smaller among marijuana users, compared with people who didn't smoke pot. The amygdala, involved in emotion and memory, was an average of 7% smaller.

The study also suggests that long-term marijuana users were more likely to report symptoms associated with mental disorders, although the strength of their symptoms didn't meet the criteria for diagnosis of mental illness.

Smoking Pot May Go to Your Head

Researchers say there is conflicting evidence regarding the long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain.

"Although growing literature suggests that long-term cannabis use is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences, many people in the community, as well as cannabis users themselves, believe that cannabis is relatively harmless and should be legally available," writes researcher Murat Yucel, PhD, of ORYGEN Research Centre the University of Melbourne in Australia, and colleagues in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

"With nearly 15 million Americans using cannabis in a given month, 3.4 million using cannabis daily for 12 months or more and 2.1 million commencing use every year, there is a clear need to conduct robust investigations that elucidate the long-term sequelae of long-term cannabis use," they write.

In the study, researchers used high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging to compare the brain structure of 15 men who smoked more than five joints of marijuana daily for more than 10 years with images from 16 men who did not smoke pot.

The participants also took a verbal memory test and were evaluated for symptoms of mental disorders.

The results showed men who smoked pot regularly had significantly lower brain tissue volumes in the hippocampus and amygdala areas, as well as more symptoms of mental disorders.

Researchers say marijuana users also performed significantly worse on the verbal learning test, but these differences did not correlate with brain volumes in either group.

"There is ongoing controversy concerning the long-term effects of cannabis on the brain," write the researchers. "Although modest use may not lead to significant neurotoxic effects, these results suggest that heavy daily use might indeed be toxic to human brain tissue."

Quote:...there is a clear need to conduct robust investigations that elucidate the long-term sequelae of long-term cannabis use,...

US Attorney: Terrorist Link to Some Goldfinger Bullion Money Transfers

Quote:The murder of Pamela Fayed , the subsequent arrest of James Fayed for operating a money transmission business without a license and the government seizure of some millions of dollars in gold bullion, now appears to be simply the surface story as the first details emerge of terrorist links to the movement of some money through Fayed's firm.

It appears that the arrest of Fayed on charges that he ran a money transmitting business through Goldfinger Coin & Bullion and also through eBullion without proper licenses may have been a forced hand of prosecutors because of the murder of Pamela Fayed (and their belief that James Fayed was responsible for the murder of his wife, possibly killed by James Fayed's brother).

According to a filing made this week by attorneys for Fayed, Godfinger Coin and Fayed may not have been be the targets "of a long standing" FBI and IRS investigation in which Assistant U. S. Attorney Mark Aveis told a US District court magistrate back in February, in a sworn statement, that Goldfiner and eBullion were highly visible going concerns and that an indictment at the time should be sealed, so that "real-time monitoring of the flow of criminal proceeds could continue.".

Aveis added that the indictment of Fayed and Goldfinger were " one of several steps in a long-term investigation by the FBI and IRS regarding fraud, money laundering and terrorist financing..."

With some $24 million in gold bullion involved, there's room for all sorts of funny transactions.In fact, the filing states that in the past 36 months, Fayed had cooperated on numerous investigations with various government agencies, including the SEC, the CFTC, US Attorneys in Connecticut, Nevada and Washington, the FBI, the FTC and state and local governments.

The filing states that since its inception in 2001, eBullion has had over 466,300 users accounts.

One promising bit of news for those with gold accounts with Goldfnger or eBullion, the filing states that the government seized $24 million in gold and silver, which suggests that account holders may eventually receive some, if not all, of their original investment.