How Messers. Jeffrey Ice and Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari of IDPixie LLC saved Internet Commerce from online ID theft!
Mr. Jeffrey Ice is the patent inventor and CTO of IDPixie LLC hired by Mr. Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, CEO of IDPixie LLC. All technical data is screened by them and all technical data is conformed to their pledge.
My Pledge
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, CEO and Founder of IDPixie LLC pledge my Foundation to halt child slavery activities including my charity, the Global Peace Film Festival, Inc., at www.peacefilmfest.org. I pledge moral support of legal, peaceful activities and my non-profit gifts offshore, onshore and globally, primarily with philanthropy from my personal investment to help halt Internet fraud, violence and online scams hurting innocent children, women and families so help me God.
Blog...
Thursday 25 January 2007, 12:47 AM
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, give the CEC Charity a second disclosure- 7B
Part 7B
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I give the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases a disclosure a second disclosure.
No statement herein is a promise for return on investment or equities. No investment is solicited by these statements and no interest is requested by any party anywhere.
All projections hereto are forward looking statements for possible endowment based on an average exploitation of the U. S. of A. market by the prime product of IDPixie LLC. Any use of this data for any investment is a crime.
I am Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari. I herein explain how the endowment system is going to be set up to do various good and charitable pro bono acts for all people in the world. My lawyers set up for IDPixie LLC a Foundation that I call here just the Foundation.
This uses a DC Federal Foundation system with an umbrella aspect for any number of other family or community charities.
The IDPixie LLC Company is committed to endowing to the Foundation 10% of all net profits.
The ROI Company investment beyond 14 months after platform start is forward looking estimated at 1.91 going upwards thereafter.
The Charitable Endowment Council Charities, or CEC, is set up by contract affidavits. It is a Washington DC based charity system that gives advantages to US Charities under a Foundation umbrella. These entities will be separate non-profit companies.
The system was originally set up for fundamentalist Christian Churches that had a loose association but were not like the old Anglican and Catholic Church superstructure. It was designed to give the maximum flexibility for a legal and lawful Charity to advance its public pro bono, for the good purposes. The do this while managing charity assets in charity owned LLC feeder companies that shall be explained in depth by my counsels to the trustees and their counsels at the appropriate time.
Federal levels of giving, say what used to be 4% or more annually must be done and this can be done one charity to another for compliance filing as long as they obey the Federal Foundation rules and laws.
Charities in general are alerted about profitability only because from profit comes endowment of Charities however all Charities should be advised to avoid all activities that look like non-Charitable acts.
I cannot since to reveal proprietary data would unfairly disadvantage those beneficial Charities, beneficial Charity families and beneficial Charity communities. Past history indicates a pernicious felons did predation upon the naiveté of Charity beneficiaries in all marketplaces.
This puts extra responsibility upon the Foundation settler to do acts in a wise, cautious and measured way.
After the ID theft platform is on, Company break-even based upon forward-looking, estimates takes place within a year of 12 months operation or further by month 14.
Furthermore, fiscal reports will be made automatically through the Foundation to each charity thereto since our platform for charities utilizes the same software previously deployed for the Pearl Debit Card network with all the benefits of those brochures as said back in 2002 and 2003.
The platforms I built in the past were ten years ahead of where banking is now. I will not issue new brochures and cards for the pearl network until after Charity establishment under the Foundation system. In the US of A checking account marketplace over 4 billion swipes of debit/credit cards in 2006.
The U. S. FFIEC mandates banks must have top level authentication. Anyone who can do my platform for less will profit to pay me, as all I outdo I will fail. Banks rely on software and tools and not new platforms.
My new ID theft platform, like my 2001 brochures show, will serve the debit marketplace with state of the art ID theft protection since IDPixie LLC serves the consumer industry directly and it owns the market patent number is US 6,598.031 B1 to Mr. Jeffrey Ice, Inventor, for "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROUTING ENCRYPTED TRANSACTION CARD IDENTIFYING DATA THROUGH A PUBLIC TELEPHONE NETWORK" i.e. Internet, phones or any electronic medium in the U. S. of A.
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I give the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases a disclosure a second disclosure.
No statement herein is a promise for return on investment or equities. No investment is solicited by these statements and no interest is requested by any party anywhere.
All projections hereto are forward looking statements for possible endowment based on an average exploitation of the U. S. of A. market by the prime product of IDPixie LLC. Any use of this data for any investment is a crime.
I am Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari. I herein explain how the endowment system is going to be set up to do various good and charitable pro bono acts for all people in the world. My lawyers set up for IDPixie LLC a Foundation that I call here just the Foundation.
This uses a DC Federal Foundation system with an umbrella aspect for any number of other family or community charities.
The IDPixie LLC Company is committed to endowing to the Foundation 10% of all net profits.
The ROI Company investment beyond 14 months after platform start is forward looking estimated at 1.91 going upwards thereafter.
The Charitable Endowment Council Charities, or CEC, is set up by contract affidavits. It is a Washington DC based charity system that gives advantages to US Charities under a Foundation umbrella. These entities will be separate non-profit companies.
The system was originally set up for fundamentalist Christian Churches that had a loose association but were not like the old Anglican and Catholic Church superstructure. It was designed to give the maximum flexibility for a legal and lawful Charity to advance its public pro bono, for the good purposes. The do this while managing charity assets in charity owned LLC feeder companies that shall be explained in depth by my counsels to the trustees and their counsels at the appropriate time.
Federal levels of giving, say what used to be 4% or more annually must be done and this can be done one charity to another for compliance filing as long as they obey the Federal Foundation rules and laws.
Charities in general are alerted about profitability only because from profit comes endowment of Charities however all Charities should be advised to avoid all activities that look like non-Charitable acts.
I cannot since to reveal proprietary data would unfairly disadvantage those beneficial Charities, beneficial Charity families and beneficial Charity communities. Past history indicates a pernicious felons did predation upon the naiveté of Charity beneficiaries in all marketplaces.
This puts extra responsibility upon the Foundation settler to do acts in a wise, cautious and measured way.
After the ID theft platform is on, Company break-even based upon forward-looking, estimates takes place within a year of 12 months operation or further by month 14.
Furthermore, fiscal reports will be made automatically through the Foundation to each charity thereto since our platform for charities utilizes the same software previously deployed for the Pearl Debit Card network with all the benefits of those brochures as said back in 2002 and 2003.
The platforms I built in the past were ten years ahead of where banking is now. I will not issue new brochures and cards for the pearl network until after Charity establishment under the Foundation system. In the US of A checking account marketplace over 4 billion swipes of debit/credit cards in 2006.
The U. S. FFIEC mandates banks must have top level authentication. Anyone who can do my platform for less will profit to pay me, as all I outdo I will fail. Banks rely on software and tools and not new platforms.
My new ID theft platform, like my 2001 brochures show, will serve the debit marketplace with state of the art ID theft protection since IDPixie LLC serves the consumer industry directly and it owns the market patent number is US 6,598.031 B1 to Mr. Jeffrey Ice, Inventor, for "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROUTING ENCRYPTED TRANSACTION CARD IDENTIFYING DATA THROUGH A PUBLIC TELEPHONE NETWORK" i.e. Internet, phones or any electronic medium in the U. S. of A.
Wednesday 24 January 2007, 8:50 PM
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari gives the CEC Charity assn a disclosure- 7A
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari trust the CEC Charity unincorporated assn 6D
Posted by Abdul Tawala Alishtari
Part 7A
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I promised the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases a disclosure.
This is totally voluntary and not required by any filings since IDPixie LLC is private NYS business. In fact, it is not being done for any fiscal purposes at all.
That being said, it is a true record since if things go as planned, I want a true record for all possible future possibilities including going public. I put all this out candidly since after I license everyone I need to do for profitability, well, I want analysts to be able to know what is real from idle slander, gossip and what have you...
part 7- A- Disclosure
I am Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari and I herein explain what type of Company IDPixie LLC is by way of stock system. My lawyers set it up so a sale of majority of IDPixie LLC retains control to another Company. They used a New York State limited liability company splitting ownership into two parts.
Part one-The treasury stock of IDPixie LLC ownership is 2,500,000 share percentages.
1% of Company goes to a policy control general manager at 25,000 share percentages.
Part two- (This leaves 2,475,000 non-voting LLC partnership share percentages,)
30% of Company is bought by capital investor(s) at 750,000 treasury share percentages.
30% of Company goes to general manager at 750,000 share percentages.
19% of Company goes to patent inventor at 475,000 share percentages.
10% of Company goes to contract parties splitting 250,000 share percentages.
10% of Company goes to the Foundation at 250,000 share percentages as endowment.
(The DC CEC Charities split 1% or 25,000 share percentages for 20 years from said Foundation.)
(Global Peace Film Festival, Inc. splits ˝% pro rate on net profits for 10 years from Foundation.)
Capitalization is from mint sales, from title sales, from investment or from judgments for $31 million.
Perth Mint re-capitalization was in several types of gold sale orders and sent for Company benefit.
Mr. Alishtari sold his home in Riverdale, NY for $870,000.00, *see below, for Company in 12/2004.
From TRO on bankruptcy, an E-Gold licensee in Canada’s paid law costs in 2003.
From Mareva settlement, an E-Gold licensee paid law costs to Company in Australia in 2003.
A TRO settlement on another E-Gold licensee released funds to Company in 2003-4.
Close to $354,000 in cars was sold free and clear in 2004
From assignment, $22 millions plus patent investment written onto balance sheet in
Mr. Alishtari sold his home in Scarsdale, NY for $881,000.00 in 5/2006.
The * notice is $400,000.00 from home sale funded Global Peace Film Festival, Inc. in 2003.
This set the value of stock of 31% of the Company such that I was able to seek private placement.
In 1/2004, Messer’s PDL, and KS, Canada, offered me $8-10 million cash on a napkin I rejected.
In 9/2004, Mr. B.S., NJ, defaulted a signed contract for $10 million cash to rebuild EDI platform
In 3/2005, Mr. V.M., Las Vegas offered $20 million cash, $95 million credit I rejected
In 4/2005, Mr. J. H, Brooklyn, offered $50 million on a Dr.’s bond; Dr. A.’s hospital closed/defaulted
In 8/2005, a Chicago Bank explored $40 million cash for Gaming EDI but FBI arrested their client
In 10/2005, Mr. V.W., Indiana & Virginia, defaulted a signed deal for $50-$100 million
In 9/2005, Mr. J.H., Ontario, had a friend do a paper proffer of $50 million, not verified so stopped
In 3/2006, Mr. J.H., Ontario, offered sundry sums for lawyers to fund patent litigation I rejected.
In 8/2006, Mr. M.J., UK and K2, signed deal for $100 million cash, verified, escrowed, partly paid.
In 12/2006, Dr. R.J., SA, asked for contract to buy out Mr. M.J.’s deal completely
Platform start is extended due to Mr. M.J., my limited partner, being swapped out by Dr. R.J. Dr. R.J. handed me $100 million 20 years ago so we work well together as he likes being my limited partner.
Posted by Abdul Tawala Alishtari
Part 7A
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I promised the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases a disclosure.
This is totally voluntary and not required by any filings since IDPixie LLC is private NYS business. In fact, it is not being done for any fiscal purposes at all.
That being said, it is a true record since if things go as planned, I want a true record for all possible future possibilities including going public. I put all this out candidly since after I license everyone I need to do for profitability, well, I want analysts to be able to know what is real from idle slander, gossip and what have you...
part 7- A- Disclosure
I am Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari and I herein explain what type of Company IDPixie LLC is by way of stock system. My lawyers set it up so a sale of majority of IDPixie LLC retains control to another Company. They used a New York State limited liability company splitting ownership into two parts.
Part one-The treasury stock of IDPixie LLC ownership is 2,500,000 share percentages.
1% of Company goes to a policy control general manager at 25,000 share percentages.
Part two- (This leaves 2,475,000 non-voting LLC partnership share percentages,)
30% of Company is bought by capital investor(s) at 750,000 treasury share percentages.
30% of Company goes to general manager at 750,000 share percentages.
19% of Company goes to patent inventor at 475,000 share percentages.
10% of Company goes to contract parties splitting 250,000 share percentages.
10% of Company goes to the Foundation at 250,000 share percentages as endowment.
(The DC CEC Charities split 1% or 25,000 share percentages for 20 years from said Foundation.)
(Global Peace Film Festival, Inc. splits ˝% pro rate on net profits for 10 years from Foundation.)
Capitalization is from mint sales, from title sales, from investment or from judgments for $31 million.
Perth Mint re-capitalization was in several types of gold sale orders and sent for Company benefit.
Mr. Alishtari sold his home in Riverdale, NY for $870,000.00, *see below, for Company in 12/2004.
From TRO on bankruptcy, an E-Gold licensee in Canada’s paid law costs in 2003.
From Mareva settlement, an E-Gold licensee paid law costs to Company in Australia in 2003.
A TRO settlement on another E-Gold licensee released funds to Company in 2003-4.
Close to $354,000 in cars was sold free and clear in 2004
From assignment, $22 millions plus patent investment written onto balance sheet in
Mr. Alishtari sold his home in Scarsdale, NY for $881,000.00 in 5/2006.
The * notice is $400,000.00 from home sale funded Global Peace Film Festival, Inc. in 2003.
This set the value of stock of 31% of the Company such that I was able to seek private placement.
In 1/2004, Messer’s PDL, and KS, Canada, offered me $8-10 million cash on a napkin I rejected.
In 9/2004, Mr. B.S., NJ, defaulted a signed contract for $10 million cash to rebuild EDI platform
In 3/2005, Mr. V.M., Las Vegas offered $20 million cash, $95 million credit I rejected
In 4/2005, Mr. J. H, Brooklyn, offered $50 million on a Dr.’s bond; Dr. A.’s hospital closed/defaulted
In 8/2005, a Chicago Bank explored $40 million cash for Gaming EDI but FBI arrested their client
In 10/2005, Mr. V.W., Indiana & Virginia, defaulted a signed deal for $50-$100 million
In 9/2005, Mr. J.H., Ontario, had a friend do a paper proffer of $50 million, not verified so stopped
In 3/2006, Mr. J.H., Ontario, offered sundry sums for lawyers to fund patent litigation I rejected.
In 8/2006, Mr. M.J., UK and K2, signed deal for $100 million cash, verified, escrowed, partly paid.
In 12/2006, Dr. R.J., SA, asked for contract to buy out Mr. M.J.’s deal completely
Platform start is extended due to Mr. M.J., my limited partner, being swapped out by Dr. R.J. Dr. R.J. handed me $100 million 20 years ago so we work well together as he likes being my limited partner.
Wednesday 24 January 2007, 12:54 AM
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari trust the CEC Charity unincorporated assn 6D
Part 6D
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I trust the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases due to the below. Some of my people feel don't talk about bad things which the company survived however I think it is a good thing an ID theft company survived, ID theft and corporate espionage itself. The protocols I have had to put into place to stop cyber thieves and all types of criminals would be helpful to any business. I think we need more candor in the ID theft protection business since many companies advertise what cannot protect and the thieves are having a hey day. So, why not try candor when all else fails...
I, Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari, trust the CEC Charities and its unicorported association because it is in everyone's best interest to sanitize moot and dead Bahamian equipment lease contracts executed in the Freeport Freezone in The Bahamas by forgiving them and in a legal and regular manner by settling all charities for legal beneficiaries in Washington DC openly and plainly.
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, control intellectual property and patents owned by IDPixie LLC which is essential to the security of banks, governments and private persons today.
My public record of building EDI's globally and providing for my clients the top security is to date a perfect record with not one breach of my system or technologies. I published online repeatedly whatever I was doing so everyone could see it.
My lawyers in various venues vetted my leases to make sure one venue was not violating another venues law. My financial correspondent companies were licensed, as an offshore guild, to police the global traffic of offshore leases to make sure all laws were honored and no illegal acts happened.
Still, industrial espionage, infiltration and forgery worked in tandem with corrupting subcontractors and offshore electronic gold companies to seize my company or force me to sell it to, well, bad people. My now moot equipment leases for Internet network sharing within regions were not collateral for any security or equity stock in any company nor were they made to be a stand alone investment. My leases forbade any crime.
Forgery, disinformation and extortion by now known Canadian felons and cronies failed to bring me down or force the sale of IDPixie LLC. As the old saw goes, what has not destroyed us makes us stronger.
My attorneys felt it was better to pay gifts to the CEC Charity beneficiaries than to let anyone even distantly associated with me to be scared of me for doing business while Arab. One of the things I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, have always been proud of is I brought all my projects in under budget and to the benefit of all involved.
My counsels designed a lawful resolution for my one gray area, The Bahamian leases with a blanket forgiveness setting up CEC Charity beneficiaries. However, my enemies failure to force me into bankruptcy caused them the only recourse left sending out poison pen letters to try to force everyone else to avoid me. At first, I chose to overlook conflicts by these sour grape Canadian felon associates but why not respond to it. I did nothing wrong.
It did not matter who said what or what anyone felt if a safety net was created for the innocent such that past leases were nullified and I funded endowments to various and sundry beneficiaries for the public good. As an ex-bank committee appointed official, I know elegant solutions are better than meaningless gestures. I did what I did to destroy any damage to common folks. No damage also was my tradition with those who backed me that no one got hurt from a safe ID protection system that also benefited charities.
Opposing Canadian counsel after deliberations said after signing this he personally had to outmaneuver one Canadian from the group of representative trustees who he said dumped liability for a loss with a bunch of persons in another deal whose funds vanished. He said he flew to Europe and retrieved the funds returning them despite the other Canadian's attempt to blame this attorney, himself, for the loss.
Some of these same Canadians did not sign their affidavits personally since they themselves cannot prove they were the beneficiaries however all speculation will be resolved after Charity set up in Washington DC. I will let the marketplace reveal what is true and what is myth.
I don’t know the truth to who betrayed who. The offshore world is a murky no man's land where people walk around with billions and no one traditionally asked any questions. Even this came out indirectly while in talks on other banks looking for ID theft protection security. It went a long way to encouraging me to honor the CEC Charity affidavits since I felt I might be dealing with an honorable group that respected morality in a way I do myself.
I have no relationship to the Canadian felon's groups directly so I don't understand animosity save I banned them from being licensed to me or having anything to do with me. My banning of them is consistent. The felon's group insisted on a link converting my agents and employees to their agents and employees as affidavits and memos by those agents say they did themselves. I do not know why those I tried to not do business stole my ID for fraud. I did everything in my power to ban and to block anyone with dubious records.
Why did I ban my first Canadian in 1996? My answer is simple. He failed a fingerprinting test by burning off his fingertips with acid and my lawyers said anyone who burns off his fingerprints is not a good business risk associate or ally. His replies as to why he did it and all his grand theft auto admissions, in writing, that he now denies are moot. I don’t care to know why he did it. I also blocked another Canadian who served time for shipping heroin in bric-a-brac.
Earlier a year ago, evirons, the FBI showed up at my door asking if I could help them against the several Canadians by name, I asked them two questions. The first was after saying I was under counsel advice and I didn’t think I could answer questions, I asked why they needed my help and I asked if it would cost me cash which I don’t have? They hemmed and hawed.
They might intimidate me if I wa hiding. Here, the FBI was asking my help in my pajamas. I gave them my attorneys phone number and they called him, but he wasn’t in yet at 8 AM. I believe my attorney advised them, later, that I surrendered all my bank records and lots of records. He advised me I could not afford the cost of summarizing my reflections in a legal memorandum since I was, well, low on funds.
If the SEC and FBI had not insisted on a written memorandum that would cost me over half a million USD I would not have used my rights to stop cooperating. As it was, I had to sell two homes and liquidate all my cars and furniture to pay my lawyers while I had two more cases ongoing against two E-Gold licensees that I later won.
It was the right decision to put my cash where I might get some cash and not put it where I got nothing save an empty victory. I had fully cooperated until my funds ran low. I am a businessman and what I did was the right decision based upon my resources at hand.
In 2002, an affidavit by a Mr. Dennis Krauter said the now known Canadian felon is affiliated with my consultant in Canada who was licensed to an offshore financial correspondent company originally from the Isle of Mann, then The Bahamas and finally from Panama. The Canadian friend of the Canadian felon I had trusted.
A 2004 memo written by this friend of felony admitted he was a partner with the Canadian felon's partner hmm. 2004 memos by the Canadian CFO of a Nevada corpus, Mr. Curtis Mann, another Canadian I stopped for trying to link me to an imaginary Canadian bank in 2001. Mr. Mann bragged about character assassination poisoning my family, my business and me. The plot thickens. My Canadian consultant was employed by both Canadian felony partners while being licensed to me and then he wrote an affidavit admitting forgery.
Mr. Krauter, who is a Canadian good guy, made his affidavit in 2002 predicting a team of Canadian fraudsters, including the now admitted felon as proved by their own memos were a criminal ID theft syndicate. Mr. Krauter said they will sully my good name, dismantle my business, take it over and profit from illegal scams. This seemed unbelievable in 2002 but, well, it is more believable after the fact.
I like most bankers though ID theft to be like occasional and not major in 2001. My ex-consultant leaked his own 2004 memos to another Canadian investor while fund raising. In it, he has his CFO, Mr. Curtis Mann, another banned trickster, name the scam they did upon me as a “Dump and Run”. This certified Mr. Krautner's warning.
I also banned a lot of people on my White List, who I did not know personally. I cancelled people for minor irregularities. They were not offering me funds so I avoided them under my constitution. I felt safe but that is exactly how an ID thief wants you to feel before raising money in your name for a dump and run. Ignorance is no excuse under the law if I commit a crime and my alert to unrelated crimes did not make sense. I hadn’t committed a crime so I was safe. Not good enough today since ID thieves love denial.
I did meet the Canadian felon in February 2003 a full year before he confessed his crimes in Canada in October 2004. He said he was a trustee for others, which skirted my ban, as he bought out various leaseholders and thus become, in his own words, a big power. Listening to his words, my attorneys grew fearful. The various counsels had a disagreement as to any potential harm by him since we did not know what he was saying to others on the nature of past lawful leases on the Internet for banks based upon contracts.
Not knowing what he was saying meant there was a possibility he misrepresented me. Furthermore, the Bahamian meeting of 2003 was where leaseholding trustees voted in new representation. It was where I said past leases, in writing, and on videotape, were moot and must be settled by funds and profits from my U. S. of A. endeavors since my counsels felt there was too much talk of money laundering.
At the Bahamian conference, I showed the moot lease holders some proprietary product systems that in and of themselves could make me almost a billion dollars USD by giving online security to banks and the US Government through our bundling system. Simply, no one can hack my system that uses the computer and an offline device that is one application of my patent which hadn't been granted yet.
However, I never went into my patent since it was pending then plus the potential for the full patent deployment is beyond estimatable values. Imagine getting $0.25 cents to $0.50 cents for every one of the 8 trillion swipes of a card in the world. It threatens to be so big that I didn’t want to give anyone hearing hyperbole since I wanted them to believe. My patent was not granted until July 22 2003.
Before that, I had a functional market ready use product and all I had to do was take it to market. This has a salutary effect on all in attendance however I was later to discover that various crooks present started lobbying that I should just give it to them entirely. This was nonsensical for several reasons.
The first is by declaring the leases moot in The Bahamian venue, debt was dead and I thought it gracious and generous to settle with them lease values which my attorneys told me repeatedly I did not have to do. I had done best efforts and failed. It was global treaties that made my Bahamian system non-viable and not anything I did with it
The Canadian felon was linked to an American woman consultant to my prime contractors. She claimed qualifications while working. She personally led efforts to dismantle my consultant investigation group, advised her partners on inside values as she dismantled my platform forcing me to sublease to a contractor who was corrupted by her.
My subcontractor has her on videotape advising anyone who would listen to her that the only way to profit was to takeover my company products. She spread rumors I had to go to jail I guess for imagined crimes, or possibly for crimes of the Canadian felon who was blaming me for his crimes. He failed to trick me, into selling stock or hiring him as a cash agent. No one had made any investment by into GlovalProtector.Net, Inc. or EDI Secure LLP stock except me. I owned it 100% as a closely held venture with no stock out to others.
To gain my trust, some Canadians gave me copies of Internet emails and sites showing other Canadians linked to the felons were bad guys too. They showed BC Canada’s SEC took over a number of businesses owned by one family of one person Mr. Krauter called a crook. The Canadians, in question, don't use their own names; prefering to use others as agents. Still his surname is sullied by his family's misdeeds.
Most people don’t know that two entities were first into the gold e-commerce community. One was a guy who later built GoldMoney for Barclay’s Bank, a very respectable and quite proper operation and the other was myself in my flat exchange built for Arabs in the Gulf.
Almost all the others were sued by the Barclay genius for using his virtual software from a stolen laptop. His case in NYS alleges this allowed E-Gold and all of its licensees to compete illegally and to create a virtual marketplace of competition without using bank accounting protocols used, or course, by Barclays.
It is also public record that cyber crooks, mafias and extortionists use E-Gold or E-Gold licensees as favored banks for Internet scams especially to casinos. The Canadian felon flew in to see me in Florida 22 months before becoming a felon. He insisted on meeting me in DC at a Republican business conference where I won a Republican Businessman of the Year Award from the US Republican Congressional Committee meeting the Hon. Newt Gingrich.
The Candian felon lobbied hard for an E-Gold licensee and I conceded to place some funds with that E-Gold licensee after the lady in his employ working for my subcontractor verified it was OK. Now, I did not know it was an E-Gold licensee since I had previously for two years been suing another E-Gold licensee for stealing my cash, which case I later won. I am certain she knew it.
This inside man, call her Dragon woman, ran and oversaw the E-Gold licensee bonafides hiding its E-Gold link. I would find only later that this company had direct links and cross licenses to the E-Gold licensee I was actively suing for stealing millions USD in cash. I would not have licensed it or opened accounts there knowing it was linked to E-Gold that had resisted US Federal subpoenas to its offshore ownership, one shareholder theretom Mr. Zidar, who was in Federal prison for securities fraud.
The Canadian felon's plan seemed to be freeze my offshore cash, offer me a buyout, steal my assets, freeze my funds and then dump all his illegal securities fraud which never came to me in such a way that I go to jail. His partner claimed to have done this before in Seattle Washington Mr. Zidar now in U. S. Federal prison for fraud. The difference was Mr. Zidar did crimes and I returned cash sent me to link me to crimes. The Canadian felon's partner's brag they got Mr. Zidar's assets in E-Gold offshore. The Canadian felon blamed me for his crimes, which the OSC found untrue. My January 2003 videotaped written direction said "Stop All Work". His plan was brilliant and should have worked had I been even a little corrupt.
Despite all the above acts, I stand by the CEC Charity affidavits and this is why. I think all the beneficiaries of the offshore leases that are now moot, which became beneficiaries of CEC Charities, are good people. They were conned too though not by me. They are victims of ID theft, money laundering and any number of scams. The E-Gold licensee were promoted by the Canadian felon.
I believe the agents who represent CEC Charities genuinely want resolution for all beneficiaries. For two years, the Canadian has been raising funds to sue me but he has no case. Hearsay from criminals is not acceptable by any legal authority. In the end, I settled this for my children. I make for my children a safe profitable environment and I trust the CEC Charities agents thereto
I can be doggedly and unrelently tough as I did a TRO on one E-Gold licensee freezing its US funds and it settled with a gag order so I cannot say its name per se. I did a global Mareva, TRO, on E-Gold’s other licensee that settled giving errors by E-Gold’s counsel on shared escrows violating its corporate lawyer insurance in Maryland. E-Gold settled but I can say E-Gold all I want as long as I don’t lie about it which I do not do. I liquidated assets and settled leases with the CEC Charity affidavits that tricksters' thought they will control if I sold out to them. If you think I am a wimp, look again.
I was released by letter from the Canadian OSC investigation after it reviewed records given to the US SEC. Over the last two years, Arab bankers in several deals offered me over a hundred million USD for my companies. After I finally did do a deal, it was with a consortium that owns widely disparate businesses globally. This company may partially be bought out this week. In the end, supply and demand runs businesses and my leadership is my ability to keep my vision while distracted by pickpockets.
I am a tough cookie who keeps his word to stop ID theft using my patent number is US 6,598.031 B1 to Mr. Jeffrey Ice, Inventor, for "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROUTING ENCRYPTED TRANSACTION CARD IDENTIFYING DATA THROUGH A PUBLIC TELEPHONE NETWORK" i.e. Internet, phones or any electronic medium in the U. S. of A.
I trust the CEC Charities to be professional. The reason I did not sell majority control was I cannot get a promise to protect my endowments if I did sell out. So, my charities and I are stuck together for a long time. A smart review of their own memos and facts proves my story is the only explanation of all these litigations and facts.
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I trust the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, unincorporated association of settlement of The Bahamian equipment leases due to the below. Some of my people feel don't talk about bad things which the company survived however I think it is a good thing an ID theft company survived, ID theft and corporate espionage itself. The protocols I have had to put into place to stop cyber thieves and all types of criminals would be helpful to any business. I think we need more candor in the ID theft protection business since many companies advertise what cannot protect and the thieves are having a hey day. So, why not try candor when all else fails...
I, Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari, trust the CEC Charities and its unicorported association because it is in everyone's best interest to sanitize moot and dead Bahamian equipment lease contracts executed in the Freeport Freezone in The Bahamas by forgiving them and in a legal and regular manner by settling all charities for legal beneficiaries in Washington DC openly and plainly.
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, control intellectual property and patents owned by IDPixie LLC which is essential to the security of banks, governments and private persons today.
My public record of building EDI's globally and providing for my clients the top security is to date a perfect record with not one breach of my system or technologies. I published online repeatedly whatever I was doing so everyone could see it.
My lawyers in various venues vetted my leases to make sure one venue was not violating another venues law. My financial correspondent companies were licensed, as an offshore guild, to police the global traffic of offshore leases to make sure all laws were honored and no illegal acts happened.
Still, industrial espionage, infiltration and forgery worked in tandem with corrupting subcontractors and offshore electronic gold companies to seize my company or force me to sell it to, well, bad people. My now moot equipment leases for Internet network sharing within regions were not collateral for any security or equity stock in any company nor were they made to be a stand alone investment. My leases forbade any crime.
Forgery, disinformation and extortion by now known Canadian felons and cronies failed to bring me down or force the sale of IDPixie LLC. As the old saw goes, what has not destroyed us makes us stronger.
My attorneys felt it was better to pay gifts to the CEC Charity beneficiaries than to let anyone even distantly associated with me to be scared of me for doing business while Arab. One of the things I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, have always been proud of is I brought all my projects in under budget and to the benefit of all involved.
My counsels designed a lawful resolution for my one gray area, The Bahamian leases with a blanket forgiveness setting up CEC Charity beneficiaries. However, my enemies failure to force me into bankruptcy caused them the only recourse left sending out poison pen letters to try to force everyone else to avoid me. At first, I chose to overlook conflicts by these sour grape Canadian felon associates but why not respond to it. I did nothing wrong.
It did not matter who said what or what anyone felt if a safety net was created for the innocent such that past leases were nullified and I funded endowments to various and sundry beneficiaries for the public good. As an ex-bank committee appointed official, I know elegant solutions are better than meaningless gestures. I did what I did to destroy any damage to common folks. No damage also was my tradition with those who backed me that no one got hurt from a safe ID protection system that also benefited charities.
Opposing Canadian counsel after deliberations said after signing this he personally had to outmaneuver one Canadian from the group of representative trustees who he said dumped liability for a loss with a bunch of persons in another deal whose funds vanished. He said he flew to Europe and retrieved the funds returning them despite the other Canadian's attempt to blame this attorney, himself, for the loss.
Some of these same Canadians did not sign their affidavits personally since they themselves cannot prove they were the beneficiaries however all speculation will be resolved after Charity set up in Washington DC. I will let the marketplace reveal what is true and what is myth.
I don’t know the truth to who betrayed who. The offshore world is a murky no man's land where people walk around with billions and no one traditionally asked any questions. Even this came out indirectly while in talks on other banks looking for ID theft protection security. It went a long way to encouraging me to honor the CEC Charity affidavits since I felt I might be dealing with an honorable group that respected morality in a way I do myself.
I have no relationship to the Canadian felon's groups directly so I don't understand animosity save I banned them from being licensed to me or having anything to do with me. My banning of them is consistent. The felon's group insisted on a link converting my agents and employees to their agents and employees as affidavits and memos by those agents say they did themselves. I do not know why those I tried to not do business stole my ID for fraud. I did everything in my power to ban and to block anyone with dubious records.
Why did I ban my first Canadian in 1996? My answer is simple. He failed a fingerprinting test by burning off his fingertips with acid and my lawyers said anyone who burns off his fingerprints is not a good business risk associate or ally. His replies as to why he did it and all his grand theft auto admissions, in writing, that he now denies are moot. I don’t care to know why he did it. I also blocked another Canadian who served time for shipping heroin in bric-a-brac.
Earlier a year ago, evirons, the FBI showed up at my door asking if I could help them against the several Canadians by name, I asked them two questions. The first was after saying I was under counsel advice and I didn’t think I could answer questions, I asked why they needed my help and I asked if it would cost me cash which I don’t have? They hemmed and hawed.
They might intimidate me if I wa hiding. Here, the FBI was asking my help in my pajamas. I gave them my attorneys phone number and they called him, but he wasn’t in yet at 8 AM. I believe my attorney advised them, later, that I surrendered all my bank records and lots of records. He advised me I could not afford the cost of summarizing my reflections in a legal memorandum since I was, well, low on funds.
If the SEC and FBI had not insisted on a written memorandum that would cost me over half a million USD I would not have used my rights to stop cooperating. As it was, I had to sell two homes and liquidate all my cars and furniture to pay my lawyers while I had two more cases ongoing against two E-Gold licensees that I later won.
It was the right decision to put my cash where I might get some cash and not put it where I got nothing save an empty victory. I had fully cooperated until my funds ran low. I am a businessman and what I did was the right decision based upon my resources at hand.
In 2002, an affidavit by a Mr. Dennis Krauter said the now known Canadian felon is affiliated with my consultant in Canada who was licensed to an offshore financial correspondent company originally from the Isle of Mann, then The Bahamas and finally from Panama. The Canadian friend of the Canadian felon I had trusted.
A 2004 memo written by this friend of felony admitted he was a partner with the Canadian felon's partner hmm. 2004 memos by the Canadian CFO of a Nevada corpus, Mr. Curtis Mann, another Canadian I stopped for trying to link me to an imaginary Canadian bank in 2001. Mr. Mann bragged about character assassination poisoning my family, my business and me. The plot thickens. My Canadian consultant was employed by both Canadian felony partners while being licensed to me and then he wrote an affidavit admitting forgery.
Mr. Krauter, who is a Canadian good guy, made his affidavit in 2002 predicting a team of Canadian fraudsters, including the now admitted felon as proved by their own memos were a criminal ID theft syndicate. Mr. Krauter said they will sully my good name, dismantle my business, take it over and profit from illegal scams. This seemed unbelievable in 2002 but, well, it is more believable after the fact.
I like most bankers though ID theft to be like occasional and not major in 2001. My ex-consultant leaked his own 2004 memos to another Canadian investor while fund raising. In it, he has his CFO, Mr. Curtis Mann, another banned trickster, name the scam they did upon me as a “Dump and Run”. This certified Mr. Krautner's warning.
I also banned a lot of people on my White List, who I did not know personally. I cancelled people for minor irregularities. They were not offering me funds so I avoided them under my constitution. I felt safe but that is exactly how an ID thief wants you to feel before raising money in your name for a dump and run. Ignorance is no excuse under the law if I commit a crime and my alert to unrelated crimes did not make sense. I hadn’t committed a crime so I was safe. Not good enough today since ID thieves love denial.
I did meet the Canadian felon in February 2003 a full year before he confessed his crimes in Canada in October 2004. He said he was a trustee for others, which skirted my ban, as he bought out various leaseholders and thus become, in his own words, a big power. Listening to his words, my attorneys grew fearful. The various counsels had a disagreement as to any potential harm by him since we did not know what he was saying to others on the nature of past lawful leases on the Internet for banks based upon contracts.
Not knowing what he was saying meant there was a possibility he misrepresented me. Furthermore, the Bahamian meeting of 2003 was where leaseholding trustees voted in new representation. It was where I said past leases, in writing, and on videotape, were moot and must be settled by funds and profits from my U. S. of A. endeavors since my counsels felt there was too much talk of money laundering.
At the Bahamian conference, I showed the moot lease holders some proprietary product systems that in and of themselves could make me almost a billion dollars USD by giving online security to banks and the US Government through our bundling system. Simply, no one can hack my system that uses the computer and an offline device that is one application of my patent which hadn't been granted yet.
However, I never went into my patent since it was pending then plus the potential for the full patent deployment is beyond estimatable values. Imagine getting $0.25 cents to $0.50 cents for every one of the 8 trillion swipes of a card in the world. It threatens to be so big that I didn’t want to give anyone hearing hyperbole since I wanted them to believe. My patent was not granted until July 22 2003.
Before that, I had a functional market ready use product and all I had to do was take it to market. This has a salutary effect on all in attendance however I was later to discover that various crooks present started lobbying that I should just give it to them entirely. This was nonsensical for several reasons.
The first is by declaring the leases moot in The Bahamian venue, debt was dead and I thought it gracious and generous to settle with them lease values which my attorneys told me repeatedly I did not have to do. I had done best efforts and failed. It was global treaties that made my Bahamian system non-viable and not anything I did with it
The Canadian felon was linked to an American woman consultant to my prime contractors. She claimed qualifications while working. She personally led efforts to dismantle my consultant investigation group, advised her partners on inside values as she dismantled my platform forcing me to sublease to a contractor who was corrupted by her.
My subcontractor has her on videotape advising anyone who would listen to her that the only way to profit was to takeover my company products. She spread rumors I had to go to jail I guess for imagined crimes, or possibly for crimes of the Canadian felon who was blaming me for his crimes. He failed to trick me, into selling stock or hiring him as a cash agent. No one had made any investment by into GlovalProtector.Net, Inc. or EDI Secure LLP stock except me. I owned it 100% as a closely held venture with no stock out to others.
To gain my trust, some Canadians gave me copies of Internet emails and sites showing other Canadians linked to the felons were bad guys too. They showed BC Canada’s SEC took over a number of businesses owned by one family of one person Mr. Krauter called a crook. The Canadians, in question, don't use their own names; prefering to use others as agents. Still his surname is sullied by his family's misdeeds.
Most people don’t know that two entities were first into the gold e-commerce community. One was a guy who later built GoldMoney for Barclay’s Bank, a very respectable and quite proper operation and the other was myself in my flat exchange built for Arabs in the Gulf.
Almost all the others were sued by the Barclay genius for using his virtual software from a stolen laptop. His case in NYS alleges this allowed E-Gold and all of its licensees to compete illegally and to create a virtual marketplace of competition without using bank accounting protocols used, or course, by Barclays.
It is also public record that cyber crooks, mafias and extortionists use E-Gold or E-Gold licensees as favored banks for Internet scams especially to casinos. The Canadian felon flew in to see me in Florida 22 months before becoming a felon. He insisted on meeting me in DC at a Republican business conference where I won a Republican Businessman of the Year Award from the US Republican Congressional Committee meeting the Hon. Newt Gingrich.
The Candian felon lobbied hard for an E-Gold licensee and I conceded to place some funds with that E-Gold licensee after the lady in his employ working for my subcontractor verified it was OK. Now, I did not know it was an E-Gold licensee since I had previously for two years been suing another E-Gold licensee for stealing my cash, which case I later won. I am certain she knew it.
This inside man, call her Dragon woman, ran and oversaw the E-Gold licensee bonafides hiding its E-Gold link. I would find only later that this company had direct links and cross licenses to the E-Gold licensee I was actively suing for stealing millions USD in cash. I would not have licensed it or opened accounts there knowing it was linked to E-Gold that had resisted US Federal subpoenas to its offshore ownership, one shareholder theretom Mr. Zidar, who was in Federal prison for securities fraud.
The Canadian felon's plan seemed to be freeze my offshore cash, offer me a buyout, steal my assets, freeze my funds and then dump all his illegal securities fraud which never came to me in such a way that I go to jail. His partner claimed to have done this before in Seattle Washington Mr. Zidar now in U. S. Federal prison for fraud. The difference was Mr. Zidar did crimes and I returned cash sent me to link me to crimes. The Canadian felon's partner's brag they got Mr. Zidar's assets in E-Gold offshore. The Canadian felon blamed me for his crimes, which the OSC found untrue. My January 2003 videotaped written direction said "Stop All Work". His plan was brilliant and should have worked had I been even a little corrupt.
Despite all the above acts, I stand by the CEC Charity affidavits and this is why. I think all the beneficiaries of the offshore leases that are now moot, which became beneficiaries of CEC Charities, are good people. They were conned too though not by me. They are victims of ID theft, money laundering and any number of scams. The E-Gold licensee were promoted by the Canadian felon.
I believe the agents who represent CEC Charities genuinely want resolution for all beneficiaries. For two years, the Canadian has been raising funds to sue me but he has no case. Hearsay from criminals is not acceptable by any legal authority. In the end, I settled this for my children. I make for my children a safe profitable environment and I trust the CEC Charities agents thereto
I can be doggedly and unrelently tough as I did a TRO on one E-Gold licensee freezing its US funds and it settled with a gag order so I cannot say its name per se. I did a global Mareva, TRO, on E-Gold’s other licensee that settled giving errors by E-Gold’s counsel on shared escrows violating its corporate lawyer insurance in Maryland. E-Gold settled but I can say E-Gold all I want as long as I don’t lie about it which I do not do. I liquidated assets and settled leases with the CEC Charity affidavits that tricksters' thought they will control if I sold out to them. If you think I am a wimp, look again.
I was released by letter from the Canadian OSC investigation after it reviewed records given to the US SEC. Over the last two years, Arab bankers in several deals offered me over a hundred million USD for my companies. After I finally did do a deal, it was with a consortium that owns widely disparate businesses globally. This company may partially be bought out this week. In the end, supply and demand runs businesses and my leadership is my ability to keep my vision while distracted by pickpockets.
I am a tough cookie who keeps his word to stop ID theft using my patent number is US 6,598.031 B1 to Mr. Jeffrey Ice, Inventor, for "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROUTING ENCRYPTED TRANSACTION CARD IDENTIFYING DATA THROUGH A PUBLIC TELEPHONE NETWORK" i.e. Internet, phones or any electronic medium in the U. S. of A.
I trust the CEC Charities to be professional. The reason I did not sell majority control was I cannot get a promise to protect my endowments if I did sell out. So, my charities and I are stuck together for a long time. A smart review of their own memos and facts proves my story is the only explanation of all these litigations and facts.
Tuesday 23 January 2007, 10:16 PM
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari explain CEC Charity adverse clause part 6C
Part 6C
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I feel the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, Charity adverse clause needs special identification and clarification. I reveiw adverse clauses for claims against others and arbitration below just for public record...
I, Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari, executed several Endowment affidavits with particulars on adverse behavior by Charity agents for Charities. The adverse clause provisions might by incident, and by CEC Charity lawful, reporting, actually increase endowment value to a CEC Charity by eliminating payments to adverse entities. The adverse clauses give power to a CEC Charity for increasing endowment cash gifting. This is by non-profit Charity maintaining a peaceful, non-contentious and organized system of gift giving, of distribution and of receipt in accordance to affidavit rules.
The adverse clauses protect my gift Endowment deal and myself by halting all adverse acts that are against each CEC Charity’s best interest for beneficial pro-bono funding. It does so without any risk to the tax-exempt nature of each CEC Charity. The Part C-B, supra, affidavit sanitizes, legally cleans up, all global business, of record between others and myself, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, by nullifying and voiding disputed Bahamian equipment leases whose integrity might be questioned, or attacked, under bank treaties, as valid in all venues. Therefore, all those leases are now moot, void and a nullity.
Any CEC Charity might increase its own non-profit gifting sums by giving to me, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, legitimate and viable third party evidences with affidavits to prove any other CEC Charity parties have done adverse acts in writing, in word or in witnessed statement against my family, my business or me in any media. A reporting witness, per se, might not be at risk, as long as he or she did not violate any adverse clauses or do crimes. If a CEC Charity’s agent, for instance, heard another CEC Charity agent refers to my family, my business or myself in an adverse way, with third party affidavit proof of that in writing on the offending CEC Charity agent per affidavit particulars.
The reporting CEC Charity’s agent witnessing this, as a fact, must give me affidavit proof such an adverse act from the alleged adverse entity was sent and received by any media to it including orally. This might lead to a CEC Charity being blocked and/or banned from future funding of that CEC Charity from the date of verification.
This, then, nullifies, not the reporting CEC Charity itself, but blocks further and future endowment to another CEC Charities offending the adverse clause of affidavit. This "impeachment" might be good since all CEC Charities funded stand to benefit by increasing pro rata their income from the shared endowment. I will leave no CEC Charity that has signed settlement outside the safety net of endowment save all who lack proof one should exist for funding. This does not mean any charity will not be funded; actually the reverse is true. All Charities will be funded however some might be put in escrow for proper U. S. of A. Federal authorities if fundalmental irregularities or errors against the law are discovered or are reported.
The purpose of every charity is to benefit its beneficiaries and no block to that must be seen in any curing forms. All resolution of CEC Charity gifting must fit within my safety net and all proof of any damage by CEC Charity agents to my name, myself or to my companies is requested by me, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, Charity settler now.
Thus, in a case of 240+ CEC Charities splitting 1% net IDPixie LLC profits from my endowment thereto, actual funds might be increased to 239 other non-offending CEC Charities if any Charity is exposed as a fraud or a chimera. The loss of one CEC Charity going adverse and de-funded from future non-profit gifting, increases the actual dollars gifted to all other CEC Charities without changing funding volume.
Submitting documentation of the type requested will not stop each affidavit CEC Charity being set up or stop its initial funding per se. However, adverse acts may cause an escrow to be created managed by a Federal arbitrator or appropriate objective third party paid executor while claims are reviewed.
An investigation will not stop initial CEC Charity incorporation or endowment process though it may affect its timeliness. Violating adverse clauses may cause a punitive reduction of value to offenders after third party verification and submission to Federal arbitration establishes a right to end or discontinue future endowment. Furthermore, all appeal of arbitration by Federal Foundation authority rulings must be through the court process of the Court of the US Federal Congress as it applies.
Any proof of adverse acts by a CEC Charity agent forces the arbitration clause whereas a third party Federal foundation authority must review the documentation and decide whether the proofs constituted unlawful breach of the adverse clause and indeed warranted all escrowed funds to be split for distribution to CEC Charities. Even the having of evidences, with substantial and damning proofs, might not stop my setting up of any CEC Charity per se, however adverse evidences might block the non-profit further funding endowment of a CEC Charity beyond my initial funding.
If a CEC Charity’s agent or beneficiary was adverse to the CEC in writing, this is not a breach of the adverse clause included in the affidavit however if someone wants to be party to a CEC Charity arrangement and at the same time, criticize the gift giving and or gift giver, then what is called in NYS a Rockefeller type clause provision in the Foundation affidavit agreement prevents adverse acts from continuing from a fie. The correct behavior of a Charity is to be polite and professionally modest. Any other type of behavior causes breach of adverse relations provisions that have dire consequences for any one CEC Charity. One should not bite the hand that feeds it.
There has been considerable discussion on various agents of the CEC itself taking adverse positions to the CEC per se. Taking adverse positions against oneself is not a violation of the affidavit per se however any statement against my corpus, my family or myself is adverse. Such breach might is cause to block a CEC Charity to become funded after incorporation and to furthermore from that point onwards to de-fund it. This de-funding can take place only for discovered acts with proofs at any point in the twenty year endowment relationship of the Charity such that a Charity could receive, say, millions USD over a several year period and verified proofs of adverse behavior by beneficiaries or trustees might and should cause a cessation of all further funding of said CEC Charity for term of endowment due to documented adverse behavior in violation of the Rockefeller type clause of the affidavit. It is a control.
Lets say someone asked a CEC Charity’s agency to send adverse data against my corpus, my business or my person to a third party, the only way a CEC Charity’s agent or beneficiary could protect itself is to evidence the adverse act against me by making an affidavit of disavowal. This states that although CEC Charity’s agency name is associated with the adverse statements that the CEC Charity’s agent agency is innocent of making these statements and the CEC Charity’s agency disavows these statements as untrue hearsay, slander and libel. Disavowal by CEC Charity with a corresponding affidavit is a positive act protecting the CEC Charity from harm.
If this affidavit and proofs are not notarized by CEC Charity’s agent then that data is hearsay. If another CEC Charity’s agent notarizes proof your CEC Charity did the offending adverse act first, this would make a block for the reported CEC Charity from full benefit of endowment due to it having to go to Federal arbitration for discovery of a lawful resolutions of gift giving according to US Federal laws
There is a salutatory effect of the CEC Charity affidavits. The CEC Charity affidavits took a disputed lease or possible security and it made it legal onshore in the US of A after forgiveness since there is no profit to anyone from nullified leases and no damages to anyone anywhere respectively. Even if it was declared a security, its voiding means no fault, no damage to any parties.
Furthermore, my endowment gift giving program to CEC Charities funds no rebate of nullified deal assets. Any language suggesting that act is adverse language to legal fact and it is possibly causing de-funding of a CEC Charity from adverse acts. Remember another provisional clause of the affidavit states no CEC Charity may break any laws in the US of A in any way. Here language is critical since for-profit language is adverse to legal fact and use of for-profit language to explain CEC Charity benefits is not only wrong but also it is adverse to the CEC Charity affidavit on file
My personal experience is whenever any entity threatens me or tries to blackmail, or greenmail, me, my first response is to go to my counsel and say how do I best report this so I disavow the allegations and cause no harm to my company, family and name.
Several years ago, a person wrote hate mail advising sundry persons against me. The email said if I didn’t do what was asked economically, they would go to the authorities. This was adverse. I got the note, went to my counsel, who contacted the FBI in that venue and reported it to the FBI so they could ask the writer what is their intent. That is what an honest person does since I knew despite adverse personality assassination I had not broken any law or made errors.
Still, if those persons executed an affidavit after that, I would watch them, but not ban or block that CEC Charity endowment gift, unless new and recorded adverse behavior persists with evidences of such adverse acts
The adverse clause is punitive. I must have no obstruction to building my business and this clause stops the adverse breach of confidentiality and hold harmless provisions of the affidavit. It was made to curtail any and all adverse attacks against my business, against my family or against me personally that might have a damaging effect upon my business, my family or my personal production of profit for endowment and other normal concerns during the 20-year term of endowment both before non-profit CEC Charity incorporation and after non-profit CEC Charity incorporation.
The adverse clause can only be used on each CEC Charity whose agents or beneficiaries act in a manner adverse to the affidavit on file that guarantees my endowment otherwise it gifts for a term of 20 years.
Any language used by a CEC Charity that refers to a non-profit gift as a for-profit return on investment, security or cash rebate is adverse. Any insults, jokes, sarcastic rejoinders, sardonic parodies or any other type of critical assessments indicating error, blame, fault, corruption, crimes, foolishness, un-professionalism, criticism or disdain of my business, of my family or of myself are seen as adverse for action by my counsels and corpus to halt all work for further endowment of violating CEC Charity once it is set up legally.
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I feel the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, Charity adverse clause needs special identification and clarification. I reveiw adverse clauses for claims against others and arbitration below just for public record...
I, Mr. Abdul Taw’ala Ibn Ali Alishtari, executed several Endowment affidavits with particulars on adverse behavior by Charity agents for Charities. The adverse clause provisions might by incident, and by CEC Charity lawful, reporting, actually increase endowment value to a CEC Charity by eliminating payments to adverse entities. The adverse clauses give power to a CEC Charity for increasing endowment cash gifting. This is by non-profit Charity maintaining a peaceful, non-contentious and organized system of gift giving, of distribution and of receipt in accordance to affidavit rules.
The adverse clauses protect my gift Endowment deal and myself by halting all adverse acts that are against each CEC Charity’s best interest for beneficial pro-bono funding. It does so without any risk to the tax-exempt nature of each CEC Charity. The Part C-B, supra, affidavit sanitizes, legally cleans up, all global business, of record between others and myself, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, by nullifying and voiding disputed Bahamian equipment leases whose integrity might be questioned, or attacked, under bank treaties, as valid in all venues. Therefore, all those leases are now moot, void and a nullity.
Any CEC Charity might increase its own non-profit gifting sums by giving to me, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, legitimate and viable third party evidences with affidavits to prove any other CEC Charity parties have done adverse acts in writing, in word or in witnessed statement against my family, my business or me in any media. A reporting witness, per se, might not be at risk, as long as he or she did not violate any adverse clauses or do crimes. If a CEC Charity’s agent, for instance, heard another CEC Charity agent refers to my family, my business or myself in an adverse way, with third party affidavit proof of that in writing on the offending CEC Charity agent per affidavit particulars.
The reporting CEC Charity’s agent witnessing this, as a fact, must give me affidavit proof such an adverse act from the alleged adverse entity was sent and received by any media to it including orally. This might lead to a CEC Charity being blocked and/or banned from future funding of that CEC Charity from the date of verification.
This, then, nullifies, not the reporting CEC Charity itself, but blocks further and future endowment to another CEC Charities offending the adverse clause of affidavit. This "impeachment" might be good since all CEC Charities funded stand to benefit by increasing pro rata their income from the shared endowment. I will leave no CEC Charity that has signed settlement outside the safety net of endowment save all who lack proof one should exist for funding. This does not mean any charity will not be funded; actually the reverse is true. All Charities will be funded however some might be put in escrow for proper U. S. of A. Federal authorities if fundalmental irregularities or errors against the law are discovered or are reported.
The purpose of every charity is to benefit its beneficiaries and no block to that must be seen in any curing forms. All resolution of CEC Charity gifting must fit within my safety net and all proof of any damage by CEC Charity agents to my name, myself or to my companies is requested by me, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari, Charity settler now.
Thus, in a case of 240+ CEC Charities splitting 1% net IDPixie LLC profits from my endowment thereto, actual funds might be increased to 239 other non-offending CEC Charities if any Charity is exposed as a fraud or a chimera. The loss of one CEC Charity going adverse and de-funded from future non-profit gifting, increases the actual dollars gifted to all other CEC Charities without changing funding volume.
Submitting documentation of the type requested will not stop each affidavit CEC Charity being set up or stop its initial funding per se. However, adverse acts may cause an escrow to be created managed by a Federal arbitrator or appropriate objective third party paid executor while claims are reviewed.
An investigation will not stop initial CEC Charity incorporation or endowment process though it may affect its timeliness. Violating adverse clauses may cause a punitive reduction of value to offenders after third party verification and submission to Federal arbitration establishes a right to end or discontinue future endowment. Furthermore, all appeal of arbitration by Federal Foundation authority rulings must be through the court process of the Court of the US Federal Congress as it applies.
Any proof of adverse acts by a CEC Charity agent forces the arbitration clause whereas a third party Federal foundation authority must review the documentation and decide whether the proofs constituted unlawful breach of the adverse clause and indeed warranted all escrowed funds to be split for distribution to CEC Charities. Even the having of evidences, with substantial and damning proofs, might not stop my setting up of any CEC Charity per se, however adverse evidences might block the non-profit further funding endowment of a CEC Charity beyond my initial funding.
If a CEC Charity’s agent or beneficiary was adverse to the CEC in writing, this is not a breach of the adverse clause included in the affidavit however if someone wants to be party to a CEC Charity arrangement and at the same time, criticize the gift giving and or gift giver, then what is called in NYS a Rockefeller type clause provision in the Foundation affidavit agreement prevents adverse acts from continuing from a fie. The correct behavior of a Charity is to be polite and professionally modest. Any other type of behavior causes breach of adverse relations provisions that have dire consequences for any one CEC Charity. One should not bite the hand that feeds it.
There has been considerable discussion on various agents of the CEC itself taking adverse positions to the CEC per se. Taking adverse positions against oneself is not a violation of the affidavit per se however any statement against my corpus, my family or myself is adverse. Such breach might is cause to block a CEC Charity to become funded after incorporation and to furthermore from that point onwards to de-fund it. This de-funding can take place only for discovered acts with proofs at any point in the twenty year endowment relationship of the Charity such that a Charity could receive, say, millions USD over a several year period and verified proofs of adverse behavior by beneficiaries or trustees might and should cause a cessation of all further funding of said CEC Charity for term of endowment due to documented adverse behavior in violation of the Rockefeller type clause of the affidavit. It is a control.
Lets say someone asked a CEC Charity’s agency to send adverse data against my corpus, my business or my person to a third party, the only way a CEC Charity’s agent or beneficiary could protect itself is to evidence the adverse act against me by making an affidavit of disavowal. This states that although CEC Charity’s agency name is associated with the adverse statements that the CEC Charity’s agent agency is innocent of making these statements and the CEC Charity’s agency disavows these statements as untrue hearsay, slander and libel. Disavowal by CEC Charity with a corresponding affidavit is a positive act protecting the CEC Charity from harm.
If this affidavit and proofs are not notarized by CEC Charity’s agent then that data is hearsay. If another CEC Charity’s agent notarizes proof your CEC Charity did the offending adverse act first, this would make a block for the reported CEC Charity from full benefit of endowment due to it having to go to Federal arbitration for discovery of a lawful resolutions of gift giving according to US Federal laws
There is a salutatory effect of the CEC Charity affidavits. The CEC Charity affidavits took a disputed lease or possible security and it made it legal onshore in the US of A after forgiveness since there is no profit to anyone from nullified leases and no damages to anyone anywhere respectively. Even if it was declared a security, its voiding means no fault, no damage to any parties.
Furthermore, my endowment gift giving program to CEC Charities funds no rebate of nullified deal assets. Any language suggesting that act is adverse language to legal fact and it is possibly causing de-funding of a CEC Charity from adverse acts. Remember another provisional clause of the affidavit states no CEC Charity may break any laws in the US of A in any way. Here language is critical since for-profit language is adverse to legal fact and use of for-profit language to explain CEC Charity benefits is not only wrong but also it is adverse to the CEC Charity affidavit on file
My personal experience is whenever any entity threatens me or tries to blackmail, or greenmail, me, my first response is to go to my counsel and say how do I best report this so I disavow the allegations and cause no harm to my company, family and name.
Several years ago, a person wrote hate mail advising sundry persons against me. The email said if I didn’t do what was asked economically, they would go to the authorities. This was adverse. I got the note, went to my counsel, who contacted the FBI in that venue and reported it to the FBI so they could ask the writer what is their intent. That is what an honest person does since I knew despite adverse personality assassination I had not broken any law or made errors.
Still, if those persons executed an affidavit after that, I would watch them, but not ban or block that CEC Charity endowment gift, unless new and recorded adverse behavior persists with evidences of such adverse acts
The adverse clause is punitive. I must have no obstruction to building my business and this clause stops the adverse breach of confidentiality and hold harmless provisions of the affidavit. It was made to curtail any and all adverse attacks against my business, against my family or against me personally that might have a damaging effect upon my business, my family or my personal production of profit for endowment and other normal concerns during the 20-year term of endowment both before non-profit CEC Charity incorporation and after non-profit CEC Charity incorporation.
The adverse clause can only be used on each CEC Charity whose agents or beneficiaries act in a manner adverse to the affidavit on file that guarantees my endowment otherwise it gifts for a term of 20 years.
Any language used by a CEC Charity that refers to a non-profit gift as a for-profit return on investment, security or cash rebate is adverse. Any insults, jokes, sarcastic rejoinders, sardonic parodies or any other type of critical assessments indicating error, blame, fault, corruption, crimes, foolishness, un-professionalism, criticism or disdain of my business, of my family or of myself are seen as adverse for action by my counsels and corpus to halt all work for further endowment of violating CEC Charity once it is set up legally.
Tuesday 23 January 2007, 9:58 PM
I, Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari explain the CEC Charity endowment part 6B
Part 6B
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I see that to many the rationale for the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, and the various Charities I support may need clarification today. For the purposes of record Mr. A. T. Alishtari and Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari are the same person. I have the actual agreement below just for public record...
Quote" GPN Letterhead
REGARDING ENDOWMENT: ENDOWMENT AGREEMENT
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari owns many companies and intellectual property of value; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari seeks to do good in the public domain; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari is a known philanthropist and endower of charities in the US of A; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari accepts the us code for federal charitable giving; and
Whereas Charity seeks as part of a Charity Endowment Council (CEC) to get an endowment as agreed below; and
Whereas Charity is made of a family of related persons or of a community of unrelated persons; and
Whereas Charity seeks to not violate any of the laws of God or of man; and
Whereas Charity seeks to be endowed by Mr. A. T. Alishtari through his ownership of companies; and
Therefore for these gifts be it known Mr. A. T. Alishtari of NYC for his own individually in discussion with Charity sponsors promises the Charity said below and file with Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s attorney to resolve and to execute an endowment to a Charity member of the Charity Endowment Council (CEC) with the below particulars:
1. Charity agrees venue is Washington, District of Columbia of the Federal Republic of United States of America.
2. Charity agrees to Federal good standing provisions set up by Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s legal counsels for Charity.
3. Charity agrees to accept authority of the National Foundation Association in Washington DC for arbitration.
4. Charity agrees to honor Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s philanthropy by giving his accountant a legal receipt for each gift.
5. Charity agrees it has no claim on Mr. A. T. Alishtari and its beneficiaries have no claim except to gift giving.
6. Charity agrees Charity is to be a not for profit and is not part of any for profit company’s assets or corpus.
7. Charity agrees to split endowment of 1% revenue with CEC Charities endowed by Mr. Alishtari for 20 years.
8. Charity endowment is limited to a term of 20 years from Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s Foundations and revenue.
9. Charity agrees to attend a training for the Charity given in Washington D.C. at Mr. Alishtari’s cost.
10. Charity agrees to a one-time endowment of $162, 250.00 USD or multiples thereto by Mr. Alishtari.
11. Charity agrees multiplier is 1 times or is as made below and said in ‘Name Charity by Numbers as Code’ box.
12. Charity agrees this endowment is unrelated to any supra document anywhere or to any other notices anywhere.
13. Charity agrees to accept endowment by Mr. A. T. Alishtari to a family Charity or to a community (Charity) on setup.
14. Charity agrees to join at its own cost all relevant Charity Associations for executing pro bono works as needed.
15. Charity agrees Mr. A. T. Alishtari will pay set up initial costs for its Family or Community Charity.
16. Charity agrees to support the United States of America Federal Foundation and Charity System after set up.
17. Charity agrees an adverse act done by Charity against Mr. A. T. Alishtari or his family stops all funding of it.
18. Charity agrees adverse agents are legal or public representatives, friends, beneficiaries or employees of Charity.
19. Charity agrees that any other third party agents causing private or public damage in any media ceases endowment.
20. Charity agrees to be held harmless by Mr. A. T. Alishtari for his acts that conflict with non-profit endowment.
21. Charity agrees to hold harmless Mr. A. T. Alishtari from its acts or from its beneficiary’s acts separately.
22. Charity agrees to not challenge Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s charitable giving to other Charities for any reason.
23. Charity agrees it may hire employees that must adhere to standards set by the United States Federal Charity Laws.
24. Charity agrees to US Federal Foundation Association arbitration for disputes with Mr. A. T. Alishtari.
25. Charity agrees to a total confidential on Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s gifts and all breach is considered an adverse act.
Dated
Affirmed
Approved Person Trustee Signature Sign Above
Mr. A. T. Alishtari (address of record)
Name Charity by Numbers As Code (1-4) [ no.__]
Submit Name for Charity
Witnessed by Notary Seal
___________________________
(normal notary language goes here
This must be signed and countersigned before filing Notary ID is # ___ on the ___ day of ____ 2004 "End quote
As I reflect in my journal upon the previous parts, I see that to many the rationale for the Charitable Endowment Council, or CEC, and the various Charities I support may need clarification today. For the purposes of record Mr. A. T. Alishtari and Mr. Abdul Tawala Alishtari are the same person. I have the actual agreement below just for public record...
Quote" GPN Letterhead
REGARDING ENDOWMENT: ENDOWMENT AGREEMENT
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari owns many companies and intellectual property of value; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari seeks to do good in the public domain; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari is a known philanthropist and endower of charities in the US of A; and
Whereas Mr. A. T. Alishtari accepts the us code for federal charitable giving; and
Whereas Charity seeks as part of a Charity Endowment Council (CEC) to get an endowment as agreed below; and
Whereas Charity is made of a family of related persons or of a community of unrelated persons; and
Whereas Charity seeks to not violate any of the laws of God or of man; and
Whereas Charity seeks to be endowed by Mr. A. T. Alishtari through his ownership of companies; and
Therefore for these gifts be it known Mr. A. T. Alishtari of NYC for his own individually in discussion with Charity sponsors promises the Charity said below and file with Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s attorney to resolve and to execute an endowment to a Charity member of the Charity Endowment Council (CEC) with the below particulars:
1. Charity agrees venue is Washington, District of Columbia of the Federal Republic of United States of America.
2. Charity agrees to Federal good standing provisions set up by Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s legal counsels for Charity.
3. Charity agrees to accept authority of the National Foundation Association in Washington DC for arbitration.
4. Charity agrees to honor Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s philanthropy by giving his accountant a legal receipt for each gift.
5. Charity agrees it has no claim on Mr. A. T. Alishtari and its beneficiaries have no claim except to gift giving.
6. Charity agrees Charity is to be a not for profit and is not part of any for profit company’s assets or corpus.
7. Charity agrees to split endowment of 1% revenue with CEC Charities endowed by Mr. Alishtari for 20 years.
8. Charity endowment is limited to a term of 20 years from Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s Foundations and revenue.
9. Charity agrees to attend a training for the Charity given in Washington D.C. at Mr. Alishtari’s cost.
10. Charity agrees to a one-time endowment of $162, 250.00 USD or multiples thereto by Mr. Alishtari.
11. Charity agrees multiplier is 1 times or is as made below and said in ‘Name Charity by Numbers as Code’ box.
12. Charity agrees this endowment is unrelated to any supra document anywhere or to any other notices anywhere.
13. Charity agrees to accept endowment by Mr. A. T. Alishtari to a family Charity or to a community (Charity) on setup.
14. Charity agrees to join at its own cost all relevant Charity Associations for executing pro bono works as needed.
15. Charity agrees Mr. A. T. Alishtari will pay set up initial costs for its Family or Community Charity.
16. Charity agrees to support the United States of America Federal Foundation and Charity System after set up.
17. Charity agrees an adverse act done by Charity against Mr. A. T. Alishtari or his family stops all funding of it.
18. Charity agrees adverse agents are legal or public representatives, friends, beneficiaries or employees of Charity.
19. Charity agrees that any other third party agents causing private or public damage in any media ceases endowment.
20. Charity agrees to be held harmless by Mr. A. T. Alishtari for his acts that conflict with non-profit endowment.
21. Charity agrees to hold harmless Mr. A. T. Alishtari from its acts or from its beneficiary’s acts separately.
22. Charity agrees to not challenge Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s charitable giving to other Charities for any reason.
23. Charity agrees it may hire employees that must adhere to standards set by the United States Federal Charity Laws.
24. Charity agrees to US Federal Foundation Association arbitration for disputes with Mr. A. T. Alishtari.
25. Charity agrees to a total confidential on Mr. A. T. Alishtari’s gifts and all breach is considered an adverse act.
Dated
Affirmed
Approved Person Trustee Signature Sign Above
Mr. A. T. Alishtari (address of record)
Name Charity by Numbers As Code (1-4) [ no.__]
Submit Name for Charity
Witnessed by Notary Seal
___________________________
(normal notary language goes here
This must be signed and countersigned before filing Notary ID is # ___ on the ___ day of ____ 2004 "End quote
Previous
