It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KnowledgeIsPowre
Why would the Vatican bank agree/comply with a US federal gov RICO charge, especially one that exposes all those people? This doesnt make much sense on a basic level to me.
Originally posted by VonDoomen
I figure this is relevant to the thread-
Chief Justice Clarence Thomas is revising his last 13 tax returns.
Could Thomas be trying to come clean before this story goes supernova?
Originally posted by Kailassa
It looks like Sorcha Faal has a rival.
There are plenty of theories about the Calvi Affair.
One is that Banco Ambrosiano was used by Calvi and Gelli to funnel huge sums of money to regimes throughout Latin America which were friendly to both the US government and the Vatican.
Some of these regimes, it is theorized, were also deeply involved in the international drug trade -- hence the interest of organized criminal groups throughout Italy and elsewhere.
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time where the interests of nation states, gangsters, the Vatican and intelligence services overlapped.
When Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959, for instance, all of these different groups were losers; the drug trade ground to a halt, casinos owned by mobsters were shut down, foreign corporations booted out, and thousands of Vatican priests hurried out of the country.
We know that in just one transaction, this out of probably hundreds, Calvi diverted $65 million from an Ambrosiano corporation in Peru to a numbered account in Zurich Switzerland which was owned by Liccio Gelli. Another transaction diverted $30 million to Flavio Carboni.
Earlier, I mentioned that Gelli negotiated the sale of Exocet missiles from France to Argentina, that was paid for by another Ambrosiano-Calvi transaction, and some of it came from the Vatican bank. David Yallop, in his book about the death of John Paul I titled “IN GOD’s NAME,” says that over $100 million was funneled from the Vatican to the Solidarity movement in Poland -- and this was all taking place while Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, was excoriating Nicaraguan priests for getting involved in politics.
Another theory may well have been one that Calvi believed in, perhaps even up to the moment of his death. According to sworn depositions from his family, Calvi blamed “the priests”, men like Ortolani and Marcinkus, groups perhaps like Opus Dei, and certainly those men like Flavio Carboni who straddled the gulf between Liccio Gelli and Propaganda Due on one side, and the Vatican on the other.
By this theory, the Vatican “made a killing” and reaped huge sums of money by illegal offshore banking schemes, “peekaboo” finance, “anstalten” and other questionable financial devices.
It also bought enormous political influence and protection, because every single political party in Italy, and this includes the Christian Democrats, the Socialists and even the Communists, all of them were beholden to Banco Ambrosiano. And after doing all of that, it refused to bail out Roberto Calvi, and left him out to dry with a $1.3 billion debt and the certainty of a life in prison.
Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Blaine91555
Yes if you read the article it says that he had STOPPED putting his wife in his disclosure form in 1996/7.
I think we should ask why he stopped doing it since it seems rather strange?
And secondly, dont try putitng that left/right crap on me lol like im some democratic operative involved in some secret mission to destroy this man. Check my post history, You'll see i've evolved beyond the left/right paradigm.
I posted the article because It seemed possible with the timing that the two could of been related, and that was what I was pursuing. I will admit i breezed through the article quickly as i was in a rush before class.
Like all federal judges, Thomas must file annual disclosure reports on his personal finances, but he had omitted details of his wife’s earnings in what he wrote was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” He also had checked a box marking no spousal income.