CNBC Exec’s Children Murdered; 1 Day After CNBC Reports $43 Trillion Bankster Lawsuit

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree there sure seems to be a conspiracy behind these murders, but I am not as convinced we have the right motive. I don't discount it, but I need more to be convinced.

Plus, if we don't have the right motive, settling on this lawsuit story as motive makes it way too easy to miss the real motive. Certainly it's worth fleshing out, but there may be something else afoot.

reply to post by MotherMayEye


They don't care about the lawsuit, why would they? The bilderbergers have enough money to buy everything.

They care about keeping themselves out of the lime-light, while they systematically destroy every fiber of society in preperation of a one world currency and one world government.

You should watch some alex jones to wisen up!

reply to post by MotherMayEye


It wasn't revenge, it was a very brutal message, and the exec probably knew who did this, or at least what shadow group, as soon as he found out.

The message would be easy to understand, by all who had been warned.

Defy us, and we will respond brutally.

reply to post by poet1b


And how many fathers do you know that let someone take their children away? Now there is just one more pissed-off guy with nothing to lose. Oh wait, he's rich, nvm.

Originally posted by moutonnoir
Hey Guys.....


Did any of you see this yet?

pastehtml.com...

or this?

twitter.com...

Interesting....

Even here, of all places, everyone hates the bankers to death, but when someone tries to do something about it they get called liars and cheats themselves. ATS does not make sense anymore and I suspect that is because there are more disinfo agents than legit posters. Too many unthoughful posts with a pro-status twist....

Yes I read the links you provided and think the information provided is phoney as hell. I am going with Spire Law group having good intentions and that causing friction with the elte. It could have been the best law firm and they would also have gotten discredited.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
This is indeed a tragic event. Any time a child dies, for any reason, it is a tragedy in my view. Very saddening.

On the matter of this topic specifically though, some questions:

1) What is the hypothesized motive on the part of the bankers? Simple revenge seems unlikely because the executive and his news organization, as well as the story itself and the case, still exist. So the motive would then become, "to send a message." Which leads to another question...

2) How would he know who was sending the message? All he knows is that his nanny snapped and murdered his two children. Why would he suspect anyone else's involvement? Why would he specifically link the tragedy to the banking case, or his network's reporting of it? So if "sending a message" was the motive, the message hasn't exactly been conveyed, has it? Which leaves, "shaking him up so badly as to preoccupy him" as the motive. But...

3) Why would they go to this much trouble simply to distract the man? Why not simply poison him, fabricate false charges against him, outright kill him directly, or generate legal trouble for his company? If we are to believe they have the power to brainwash a woman who reportedly loved these children into murdering them all just to distract a businessman from running his news corporation, then we must also believe they are more than capable of these other measures. But moreover...

4) Why would they target him rather than the investigators, attorneys, or even individual reporters more closely associated with and directly responsible for the report and the case? Are they not much more of a direct threat to them than this man, several times removed, from the case? The only remaining possibility I can fathom is that the message was not intended for him, but for others. "Cross us, and even your families aren't safe. We know this won't change anything, but it may prevent you from taking similar measures in the future." But again...

5) Why not go after those more intimately involved with and responsible for the case instead? Because his family would be higher profile and the message would be more widely circulated? That's the only reason I can conceive of for such a conspiracy, in light of all the other factors.

However...

6) How would the intended targets of the message know who "they" were? From their perspective, a nanny killed those children... not some shadowy group of elites and bankers with the power to brainwash her into doing so. Unless some secret communique to both he and other corporate heads somehow accompanied these tragic events, how could they ensure their message was effectively sent, and that this wouldn't simply be seen as the tragic act of a disturbed or otherwise ill woman?

The most logical and rational speculation in my opinion - in the absence of evidence to the contrary at least - is that that's all it was. We must carefully consider all of the known variables and possibilities in cases such as this, and examine them rationally, skeptically, and deductively. And if the hypothesis of a conspiracy doesn't make logical sense, then in the absence of any compelling evidence to that effect, we cannot and must not assume that a conspiracy was at work in my view, simply because it's more interesting or might give some semblance of meaning to such a horrific act. This does not mean that it wasn't. Merely that we refrain from assumptions not borne out by evidence, until such evidence exists.

As always, I could be wrong.

Peace.

You are correct here... The lawsuit, VERY SADLY, is a scam itself- a scam aimed at homeowners who have already been foreclosed on... Very sad.. Licking the down and out.. check out the links i pasted above... it is pretty much proof that the lawsuit is a scam, and that the Press Release was not posted first on CNBC, and that the lawsuit is public knowledge for months - and there is no motive or logic or even possibility really (c'mon - two hours after its posted? a press release? an exec's kids?) They organized that in two hours? For a press release the exec almost definiately didnt see? for a scam the defendants wont even ever hear about becuase underlings take care of stuff this ridiculous?

There is zero connection between the lawsuit and the CNBC Exec's tragedy.

Originally posted by moutonnoir
Hey Guys.....


Did any of you see this yet?

pastehtml.com...

or this?

twitter.com...

Interesting....

This is beginning to be one big mind f***. Why would CNBC and the WSJ post these stories without vetting?
Why is there no information on this guy? If all this is fake why let it out to the public? WTH is going on?

this is not a coincidence
these bankster thugs are soul-less and will stop at nothing to protect their asses.

this is disgusting, they do not care about human life as seen by the wars they profit off of.....bloodshed for profit is how they roll

Originally posted by moutonnoir

Also.. BRO.. Listen please... CNBC was not the first place to break the story. it was out for months before - CNBC wasnt even the first to publish the new Press Release

Maybe it was the first big media outlet to publish the news release? Sure anything can be public knowledge but unless the media gives exposure it will never reach the intended audience.

You trust STEIN more than the public record of facts accumulated over this recent life of crime?

Of course it COULD be a scam, but I find it highely irregular the CNBC executive's kids get brutally murdered one day after publishing the news release. Then the information gets taken down. You have to admit its strange to say the least.

If CNBC was not the first to air it, then who was?

Please consider looking depper.. There IS A CONSPIRACY - but it involves Spire and it's motives..

So you are saying the hitmen worked for spire law firm? I am confused as hell with your argument.

Heck maybe it was an internal dispute between wife and husband and someone pulled a fast one to collect life insurance from the kids. ANYTHING is possible, but sometimes(or many times) the evidence is right in front of us and we are too blind to see it.

I wondered where the money went.

Americans have been forced to buy automobile insurance for decades/ generations. Each person paying has been paying for Bonds. Where are all those Bonds?

$43 Trillion is just a tiny portion of the missing money. Where are the MEGA Trillions from the Insurance Bonds Americans have been paying for since the 1950's?

America should be the richest country on Earth....but someone's been stealing from us.

reply to post by Pervius


Yeah - its brutal what has happened... And we know where the money went - we just dont yet know what to do..

The money, with the jobs, was sent to places where rich people felt they would be able to keep more and put less into the society that made their riches possible..

Our share - the people in the middle - the 48% to the 99.5% - we only share like 10% of the wealth, and the real middle has much less. The top .5% apparently controls and recieves over 70% of GDP each year, yet somehow pays less than 35% of taxes.. No matter how you look at it, it would only be fair for them to pay 70% - if not more, of the taxes... With our 10%, the whole 50% of us pay the other 70% of taxes - easil 20% more than those making so much more than us.. It shows when mitt pays 13.9% tax, and obama 19.2% or whatever it was..... On their millions or even tens of millions. Plus, and this is scary, we dont know what their RETURNS are like.. Could be pretty much they pay 0% a lot of them......

reply to post by moutonnoir


Yeah but the murders are very real and someone did them.

I think only an extremely gullible person would believe that the nanny went haywire and stabbed the children, when hours ago they were playing in the park. And besides there are reports of a hostage situation taking fold and the media ignoring it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by moutonnoir

 

Yeah but the murders are very real and someone did them.

I think only an extremely gullible person would believe that the nanny went haywire and stabbed the children, when hours ago they were playing in the park.

Why? That stuff has been going on for.... forever i suppose.

The CNBC angle does not work if the lawsuit is a scam by known easily discovered scam artists - and the Press Release is automatically posted - and this fact is somsething every media savy person knows... Press Releases are paid company propaganda - not articles.

Thanks for the reply!

It is clear CNBC took it down to keep any of this conspiracy stuff from spilling into their Exec's face, who is... My god.. Just try to imagine what they are feeling..... This is not what they need.

Yeah but the "press release" was on more than one financial site. How many lawsuits were filed against Spire Group for their "scams"? Mitchell J. Stein was not disbarred he is listed as not elgible to practice law according to the California Bar website

Not Eligible to Practice Law-Those listed as not eligible may not practice law in California. There are several reasons that may result in this status, including suspension, involuntary transfer to inactive status and failure to pay mandatory State Bar fees.

www.calbar.ca.gov...

There is no disciplinary action listed. As for the lawsuit you do not have to be an attorney to file a lawsuit. You only have to know the rules of court procedure.

There is more to this than a crooked attorney without a license. His alleged SEC violations were determined in 2008. However he doesn't get charged until the lawsuit was filed. I also wonder why was the public not made aware of Mitchell Stein's antics before the $43 trillion story broke? It seems odd that after the $ 43 trillion story broke he gets discredited. If these websites were duped where is the retraction story?

I'll wait for more information before I attempt to call this one. Something isn't right.

... there is clear evidence of something... therefore, any 'secret groups' have no connection to this event. C'mon man, I've been saying this over and over, this is not a subtle event. A B&E with blood all over the place screams to a drug/gang connection. The nanny probably owed some drug dealer money or something...

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


Good point on the suspension vs. disbarment!