Once upon a time, I thought monstrous conspiracies were largely the product[s] of active or vivid imaginations because the world's a small place and after all - no one is actually "above the law" - or so I thought. The time I speak of - my naïve years - was the 15 or so years I spent toiling as a broker in institutional financial markets involved in everything from foreign exchange to euro dollar deposits to U.S. government bonds and interest rate derivatives. You see, having been there in person - up close - always thought it inconceivable that anything so large could be so amiss.

For all the years that I worked in international financial markets I was more than aware that the BIS [Bank for International Settlements] was a supranational organization - and indeed was the 'Central Bank' for "Central Banks" - largely because my Keynesian [by default] academic training [Bachelor's degree in Economics] had taught me so with their overtly biased views and cursory explanation of the inner workings of our fiat monetary system.

Exactly why academia never [in my experience] delved into the inner workings of arguably the most powerful financial institution on the planet is a topic for debate. Perhaps there was so little published about the institution that no one could access it properly? Then again, maybe it had more to do with the fact that,

The BIS, as we shall see, is not accountable to any public authority and [as a completely private corporation-just like the FED] operates with complete autonomy and self-sufficiency. [RK emphasis]

I mean, it certainly would have been a much tougher task to explain to a bunch of bright eyed, bushy tailed green horn students - with an in depth look at how the BIS is really structured - that any prudent man would ever entertain allowing an institution to be founded on such principles - now wouldn't it? But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

So, getting back to my story; there I was - feeling rather 'plugged in' and informed - but in fact, retrospectively, as ignorant as can be but life was bliss. I had faith - in government as well as corporate and monetary officials because we were all 'pulling for an honest living along with truth and justice, or, the right things' - weren't we?

Then along came the Internet. More than anything, the internet has enabled interested parties to communicate with one another and provided forums where independent like minded researchers can share knowledge thereby empowering common folk - allowing them to connect dots ascertaining the true nature of the murky world of global finance.

So, it wasn't until a stint in the retail end of finance - being engaged in gathering assets with "average Jane and Joes" to administer for fees - that I finally had the impetus or the slightest inkling to question any of my naïve notions - the ones that used to be cast in stone. It was while working for the largest mutual fund dealer in the land that I had the occasion to casually ask a co-worker which precious metals fund they used for client's money when the need arose? Their answer - that the largest mutual fund dealer in the country [with about 150 funds on their proprietary product shelf] had no such fund - suggesting a conspiracy. Hearing this, my first response was for my eyes to roll into the back of my head figuring that a good UFO story would be next. Then I actually thought about it. We had mergers and acquisitions funds, bond funds, growth funds, strategic funds, value funds, natural resource funds, money market funds, dividend funds, real estate funds, internet funds, bio tech funds, in fact - you name it - and we had a fund for it. Unless, of course, you wanted good ole fashioned precious metals [gold and silver] that have been around for, say, 5000 or so years?

If any of this strikes you as funny - I just want to tell you - it's ok to laugh out loud. At the time, I did not understand the importance of gold either - and, apart from seeming "odd" - none of this fazed or alarmed me whatsoever.

Anyway, as I mentioned - the particular situation outlined above [once it was brought to my attention] did strike me as being rather odd. In fact, the more I thought about it - the odder it all seemed - and on 'a bet' - still not being a believer in conspiracies - I was compelled to investigate, initially just to prove a point.

My research began on the internet and very quickly I amassed what I considered to be 'very convincing' and voluminous evidence to support the contention that the precious metals markets are "rigged" - largely by U.S. monetary authorities. I also learned that the folks primarily leading the charge in 'uncovering' the meddling in the metals markets was a group called GATA. GATA's chief contention is that the U.S. Federal Reserve [in cahoots with the U.S. Treasury] has been actively managing the price of gold [and silver by extension] for slightly better than 10 years - or from about the mid point of the first Clinton administration [1994].

In support of their claims, GATA has amassed a great deal of evidence. One hanging or loose thread [or chad if you prefer?] that I've never been able to "tie down" in term of assigning any great significance to is this:

The Federal Reserve has been a member of the Board of Directors of the BIS since 1994.

That's right, according to the Federal Reserve's own web site. Consider, if you will, the Fed never bothered to 'exercise' their right to and in fact shunned their board seats at the BIS from 1930 all the way up to 1994 - coincidentally, right about the exact time that GATA claims that their [the Fed's] surreptitious rigging of the gold market began. Does this not strike anyone as being odd? If there is one thing I've learned in researching the Federal Reserve - it's that nothing they do - I mean absolutely none of their actions - are undertaken without very good and explicit reason.

Well, I must admit, from the time I became aware of this fact it always struck me as being peculiar - but I could never make heads or tails of exactly why - why then at that specific time? Until I recently stumbled across this [already referenced above - but well worth a second look/read]:

It is not surprising that the BIS, its offices, employees, directors and members share an incredible immunity from virtually all regulation, scrutiny and accountability. ......

and

Further, members of the BIS board of directors (for instance, Alan Greenspan) are individually granted special benefits:

• "immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence;"
  "inviolability of all papers and documents;"

• "immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings;"

The excerpt above is taken from a fine piece of investigative journalism detailing the murky inner workings of the BIS. It's brought to us by Patrick M. Wood - editor of The August Review and published at www.newswithviews.com . I take my hat off to you, Sir. Additionally, a quick summary of the privileges and immunities extended to BIS personnel - outlined in Mr. Wood's research - include the following [available at the BIS web site for your perusal here - Article 12, pg. 42 and here]:

• diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e., diplomatic pouches)

• no taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to employees

• embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by the BIS

• no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority

• freedom from immigration restrictions

• freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort

• freedom from any legal jurisdiction

To this I say, Great Work if you can get it, ehhh?

Finally, this part of the picture is now 'crystal clear'. Some people [specifically BIS directors] would appear to be above the law so long as they can 'hang their hat' on the prospect that their activities were part and parcel to them carrying out their solemn tasks as directors of the BIS.

As I have reported in the past,

Since we all know, in Sir Alan of Greenspan's own words [quoted from written correspondence in a letter to Rep. Ron Paul under oath 2/24/1999],

"....that since the 1930's the Federal Reserve has had no authority to be involved with the gold markets...."

this does create a conundrum of sorts [or perjury, perhaps?] now, doesn't it? If my memory serves me correctly - some people have gone to jail for telling fibs - haven't they?

Perhaps this explains why Sir Alan flaunts his double speak on the rest of us! Maybe it also explains why he - sly like a fox - sought the refuge of BIS directorship to cloak or insulate what he otherwise would have obviously known to have been his ILLEGAL activities in the gold market - just as GATA contends. Apparently, so it would seem, no one can touch him - maybe he really is "above it all."

The moral to this Pirate's tale: never under estimate the significance of a loose chad.

Shame on you Mr. Greenspan.