0:01 I would like to thank the District Court of Northern Netherlands for the opportunity to address you. My name is Katherine Austin Fitz and I am the publisher of the Cari report and I am the former uh partner and member of the board of Dylan Reed, an investment bank on Wall Street and the former assistant secretary of housing in the first Bush administration. I wish to give this statement because I believe that the pandemic represented an egregious misuse of health care policies to implement economic and political agendas. And I would like to explain the history and background as to why I am convinced that that is so. Um I'm an
0:47 expert on the United States federal credit and the federal budget and financial mechanisms. I have a great deal of information about that at my website, including on $21 trillion that's gone missing from the federal government. You can find that at missingmoney.sillary.com. Starting in 1998, I became very concerned that a change in policy had changed in the federal government whereby billions and then trains of dollars was going missing from federal accounts. It started in October 1st, 1997, which is the beginning of federal fiscal 1998. Between that time and the uh 911, there was four approximately $4
1:34 trillion missing from the federal government. In fact, the day before 911, the Secretary of Defense, Ron uh Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference and said the U that the Department of Defense was missing 2.3 trillion and this was a terrible problem. Um money continued to go missing um from then on and as of fiscal 2015 there was uh 21 trillion missing. Um, I had been tracking the missing money between fiscal 1998 and uh, 2015 and then started was speaking about it publicly and a professor from Michigan State University, Dr. Mark Skidmore,
2:20 heard me, contacted me, uh, thought it was unbelievable that this was so, but checked out the federal financial statements. All these numbers are from the statements. um and proceeded with his students to do a survey and that survey brought tremendous pressure on the government to obey the financial management laws particularly the laws requiring audited financial statements. Between fiscal 1998 and 2015 the federal government had refused to obey the laws related or requiring audited financial statements. Um, as that pressure put more pressure under the federal government to obey, um, what happened was a policy was adopted in 2019, I'm sorry, 2018 called Federal Accounting
3:06 Standards Advisory Board Statement 56, which essentially was an administrative policy that took the position that they could authorize secret books by the federal government. and we've had essentially no meaningful financial disclosure in my opinion since once fazby56 went into place. Again, tremendous documentation available at missingmoney.scaleri.com. Um it was at that point that I realized as I had realized all the way along, one of the reasons that I continued to try and publicize and um and tell people about the missing money and encourage reforms around the missing money is I said if we don't balance the budget by providing financial resources for the retirement systems both at the federal
3:52 and state level and continue to have this money disappear from the federal government, I called it a financial coup. the only way they can balance the books is by lowering life expectancy. And in fact, that had started to happen. Um, in the spring of uh 1997, I was meeting with a a leadership of some of the top pension funds who were on one of my advisory boards at my company in Washington uh called Hamilton Securities Group. and I made a presentation to them about how we could re-engineer federal finances in a way that would um bring tremendous new wealth to the country and make it possible for the pensions to afford um the retirement's uh promised to the boomer generation. Essentially, the boomer generation was a a financial
4:39 pig going through the snake. And the question was, how would we how would we generate enough returns on the pension funds to make it? And a leader when I presented my plans on how we could re-engineer federal spending so that we stopped running huge deficits, um the head of the largest pension fund in the country, Kalpur, said to me, he said, "You don't understand. It's too late. They've given up on the country. They are moving all the money out starting in the fall." And I thought he meant we're we're reallocating the investments in the pension funds to the emerging markets because the growth rate is bigger. That's not what he meant. He meant no, we're we're going to start moving huge amounts through out of the back door of the federal government with the 21 trillion that went missing by 2015. And in fact, if you look at the budget
5:26 deal where I believe that decision was made in 1995, um when he said they have given up on the country, there was a huge effort by the leadership of the financial system to get the budget on a balanced budget. When they failed, literally the next month, a series of policies were put in place that started to lower life expectancy in the lower income groups. And that continued. If you look at any chart of life expectancy in the United States um versus the other industrialized nations, the top 19 industrial nations other than the US are steadily rising in terms of life expectancy. And starting at that point in 1997, you start to see the United States drop and start to diverge from the other countries. And then when the
6:12 pandemic hits, it falls off the chart. And I remember sitting in my car. I was running errands in Tennessee and talking to Dr. Skidmore after our efforts to get real reforms done. And Dr. Skidmore said, "Why don't you just give up? Why why do you keep bringing this up?" And I said, "Mark, don't you understand? If we if we don't do something here, they're going to have to lower life expectancy much more than they're doing now, they're going to have to lower life expectancy in the middle class." And so when the pandemic happened um I was not surprised. In the summer of 2019 every year the central bankers meet in Jackson Hole the G7 central bankers and have various policy discussions. And in the
7:00 2019 the year after Fazby statement 56 was adopted. The central bankers met in Jackson Hole in 20 as I said summer of 2019 and they reviewed a plan from the Black Rockck Investment Institute prepared by a group of retired central bankers called the going direct reset. Now we know that the central banking system every 80 to 120 years um does a reset and often that reset is when you evolve the currency or you move the currency to a a different currency. So, um, we know this happens every, you know, at some point you sort of flush the system. And so, I assumed when that happened that we were, uh, going into a new reset. The
7:46 going direct reset. Going direct refers to a radical change in policy. Traditionally, when uh a central bank like the Federal Reserve added money to the system, it would add it by investing in the or or putting money into the reserve track and then the banks would use that reserve track to then put money in the system. Going direct was the Fed essentially injecting enormous amounts of money directly without going through reserve track but but buying um among other things securities from the um the non-depository institutions. And what happened starting that September after the going direct meeting um the Federal Reserve uh with interventions in the market in September but then with the
8:33 announcement of the pandemic injected extraordinary amounts of money into the system. Normally um and and different estimates are that was5 trillion or $6 trillion invested or injected directly. Normally any injection like that would have extraordinary inflationary impact. And in fact um there was one uh one former uh under secretary of the treasury who speaking with Swiss investors uh said you know enormous inflation is baked into the cake. We just won't feel it right away. And the reason we won't feel it right away, as it turns out, was the pandemic um many of the pandemic uh uh uh sort of
9:20 actions of locking people down or calling certain businesses um not uh not essential and uh leaving other businesses open and some not essential uh created an enormous deflationary offset. If you look at what happened in the United States, um, we basically shut down Main Street. Lots of small businesses, left the publicly traded companies open and shifted enormous market shares out of the small businesses into the big businesses that thus radically consol consolidating enormous amounts of economic activity. So you inject 5 trillion um essentially grossly oversimplified into Wall Street
10:05 and you shut down Main Street and then um Wall Street has money to go shopping and Main Street is in an economic squeeze there. The last estimates I saw estimated that 35% of the small businesses in America were shut down. Um and and in some places I think San Francisco was as much as 49%. So it was very very successful at consolidating economic activity into the big players. One estimate was we in the United States we created 500 or maybe it was worldwide we created 500 new billionaires. So, so as I said, um, looking at this from the viewpoint of what was happening financially around the world, it was pretty clear to me that much of the pandemic,
10:51 um was uh, essentially designed to implement the reset and using health policy as an excuse. Um, one of the things I had, uh, I had been an investment adviser for 10 years and because of that had dealt with many clients who'd experienced vaccine injury or neurological damage from vaccines, but also various pharmaceuticals. And so I was very concerned about whether or not the vaccine was safe and effective. We now have many studies proving that it wasn't. Um, that doesn't surprise me. What we certainly have in looking at what's going on in the United States is we have enormous increases in excess death and a continued drop in in
11:39 lowering life expectancy including in the middle class. So it certainly fits with what I expected. And what I would say is that when a society allows this much public policy and healthc care policy to be created based on other economic and political goals and does so without with terrible lies and propaganda and misinformation, that's not a society that can endure. And so um if we're going to have a civilization based on the rule of law, these kinds of egregious lies being used to by you know essentially oligarchs and billionaires to engineer central control
12:27 using these techniques um including things which are very very harmful to people's health uh can absolutely not be tolerated. And so I would just ask the courts to look at this case and look at the um the misuse of both uh of basically misinformation and disinformation to make cases uh as to what was appropriate from a medical or scientific stand standpoint that clearly wasn't in a way that did terrible terrible harm to people throughout Europe and the United States And I uh I would encourage you to take a very serious look at this because um if if
13:12 you look at what was happening economically and politically um it is clear to me that that what we're looking at is a re-engineering of how our governments work and how our societies work in a way that is not in any of our interests. Um certainly what we want and what we need is the rule of law and we depend on the courts to give that to us. So, I would ask that you give this case very serious consideration. And again, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today. And I thank you for your willingness to look at this case.
