ANOTHER EXCELLENT ARTICLE ABOUT - 

Executive Order No. 11110 & JFK Assassination & Federal Reserve

This article below is from Patriot Attorney Larry Becraft's excellent website.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/EO11110.htm

Executive Order No. 11110

There is currently floating around the Net one theory of the Kennedy
assassination based upon certain legal documents. According to this idea,
Kennedy was assassinated because he was about ready to start issuing 
silver certificates; to prevent him from doing so, the "powers that be" had him 
killed.

Please understand that what I offer below explaining the flaw of this 
argument does not mean that I am an apologist for the Fed or banking industry; it 
should be obvious from my site that I am not. I only offer these comments because 
this argument demonstrates just one of the completely erroneous arguments which 
is allegedly based upon the "law" but is not. 

When Congress enacts a law, it often delegates authority to enforce 
and administer the law to some executive official, typically the President.
Naturally, the President does not personally attend to such duties and 
must himself delegate to others within the Executive branch. The Agricultural
Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933, was one of these acts and it permitted the
President in §43 to issue United States Notes for the purpose of paying 
the bonded indebtedness of the United States and not for circulation purposes.

Via a law enacted by Congress in 1950, 64 Stat. 419, the President was
authorized to delegate his statutory functions to others within the 
Executive branch. It provided: 

The President of the United States is hereby authorized to designate and
empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or 
any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, to perform, without approval, ratification, or 
other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President 
by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by 
law to perform only with or subject to the approval ratification, or other action 
of the President: * * *

Pursuant to this statutory authority, on September 19, 1951, President 
Truman issued Executive Order No. 10289, which delegated to the Secretary of the
Treasury lots of the statutory duties of the President. This executive 
order provided in part as follows:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1 of the act of August 
8, 1950, 64 Stat. 419 (Public Law 673, 81st Congress), and as President of 
the United States, it is ordered as follows: 

1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to 
perform the following described functions of the President without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President: 

(a) The authority vested in the President by section 1 of the act of 
August 1, 1914, c. 223, 38 Stat. 609, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2), (1) to rearrange, by
consolidation or otherwise, the several customs-collection districts, (2) 
to discontinue ports of entry by abolishing the same and establishing others 
in their stead, and (3) to change from time to time the location of the
headquarters in any customs-collection district as the needs of the 
service may require.
(b) The authority vested in the President * * *
Thereafter, this executive order listed another 8 statutory powers of the
President which he was delegating to the Treasury Secretary, the substance 
of which is not important for this discussion. Please remember that this 
delegation to the Treasury Secretary was to be exercised "without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President." It should also be noted 
that this particular executive order did not delegate to the Treasury Secretary 
the authority to issue silver certificates granted to the President in the 
1933 law noted above.

From 1933 until 1963, the President alone possessed the statutory
authority to issue silver certificates. But then on June 4, 1963, 
President Kennedy amended Truman's 1951 Executive Order No. 10289 by Executive Order 
No. 11110. This particular order read as follows: 

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF
CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the
United States Code, it is ordered as follows: 

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended -
(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph
(j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of
the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver
certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in
the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, 
to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to 
coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their
redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act 
done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced 
in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such 
liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been 
made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963

By this executive order, the statutory authority of the President to issue
silver certificates was delegated to the Treasury Secretary. In Kennedy's
administration, the Treasury Secretary was Douglas Dillon, a man from a banking
family and a known established "power" in the banking community. Kennedy
delegated the authority to issue silver certificates to Dillon and his
successors, and this power could be exercised "without the approval,
ratification, or other action of the President."

The only reasonable conclusion which may be reached based upon the 
facts are the exact opposite of the argument made on the Net. For some 30 years, 
the President himself held the power to issue silver certificates. But some 5 
months before his assassination, Kennedy delegated this power to Dillon, and via 
this order, Dillon could do as he pleased with this power. To assert that 
Kennedy was by Executive Order No. 11110 getting ready to issue silver certificates is
contrary to the plain facts. Instead, Kennedy was surrendering this power 
and delegating it to the Treasury Secretary, who was someone from the banking
industry. Clearly, it appears that this EO was issued to put the power to 
issue silver certificates into safe hands, that of a banker. There is no 
substance to this theory on the Net. I cannot understand how this particular order 
proves that Kennedy was about to issue silver certificates. Where is the proof 
that Kennedy was anything other than a pawn of the banking community?

Additional Note re E.O. 11110:

From Jim Ewart at zns@interserv.com

Hi Larry:
Thanks for the input re the John F. Kennedy "silver-certificate" item. As
chance would have it, about two months ago I helped Ed Griffin ("Creature 
From Jekyll Island") write a letter to a guy who raised this issue with Ed. Ed 
and I came to the same conclusion as you did, that the story being circulated by 
some "patriots" was seriously flawed.

As you may recall, some 20 years ago a different story was making the 
rounds of the "patriot" community. This story said that JFK made a speech at 
Columbia University a couple of weeks before his death. In that speech JFK 
supposedly said, "I have discovered that the high office of the presidency has been 
used to foment a plot against the American people," and allegedly, this 
presentation continued with him saying that he was going to take decisive steps to stop 
that plot in its tracks.

JFK supposedly then ordered the US Treasury to immediately print zillions 
of US Notes (_not_ silver certificates) to replace all the Federal Reserve 
Notes then in circulation. The implication was that by replacing the Federal 
Reserve Notes with US Notes, the federal government would no long have to pay 
interest to the Fed on the face value of all the paper currency -- precisely 
because US Notes are "spent into circulation interest free" (echoing the late Pastor
Sheldon Emery and others of his persuasion, that is, the advocates of 
"populism" and/or "social credit.")

A few days before JFK's death, supposedly about $300 million of these US 
Notes were placed in circulation, and it was exactly this action by JFK that 
caused the bad guys, the "banksters," to arrange for JFK to be killed. However, 
while this story is interesting, it apparently has almost no factual basis.
One of Congressman Ron Paul's researchers was a libertarian gal with 
heavy economic and finance credentials, a Masters Degree in finance if I recall
correctly, and many years of investment analysis for a major brokerage 
firm.

This gal, Rita something or another, spent several months early in 1983
investigating the story for Ron Paul. She called me later that year to 
see if I could supply her with any supporting information.

I told her I had heard the rumor but did not have any facts to support 
it. She said she'd been in close touch with top-level people in the Kennedy 
family, and in contact with several of JFK's closest political cronies, and also in 
contact with top people at Columbia University. The University had no memory or 
other record of JFK being on that campus or in the area for any meeting of any 
kind within several years of the alleged appearance, and none of JFK's 
associates, political or personal, offered anything but negative comment on the whole 
tale.

This researcher (Rita D. Simone, from Arlington, Virginia, whose name,
address, and phone number is still in the ZNS database) concluded that the
alleged event simply did not happen.

However, some US Notes were issued in 1962 but solely to replace worn-out
Federal Reserve Notes from the series of 1950 and earlier. The US Notes 
were used because the Treasury had already issued all of its authorized 
inventory of uncirculated Federal Reserve Notes, and because the Treasury could print 
US Notes without special prior approval from the Federal Reserve banking 
system. But the US Notes were strictly an interim solution to the problem of 
replacing worn Federal Reserve Notes. Please recall that the next year, in 1963, 
the Treasury printed and began issuing Federal Reserve tokens, FRTs, the "new
Federal Reserve Note" bills, the ones missing the phrases "will pay to the
bearer on demand" and "and is redeemable in lawful money at the United 
States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank."

FRTs would eventually replace _all_ then-circulating paper currency: US 
Notes, Federal Reserve Notes from the series of 1950 and earlier, and silver
certificates. Within 10 years or so, the only paper currency circulating 
in the U.S. was the FRT.

The man who contacted Ed Griffin, questioning something Ed had said in
"Creature from Jekyll Island," said he had heard the US Note story from an
organization called "Christian" something or another. I had not heard of 
that entity, I had no record of it in my big database of patriotic groups,
publications, and broadcasts, etc., and I had no record of any similar-sounding
entity in the general area of the writer's home address.

I concluded that the "Christian" something or another "group" was really
just a dba of a lone individual patriot, someone who simply and 
innocently echoed a highly inaccurate version of the largely fictional JFK-Columbia
University tale.

[snip re personal matters]
Here's wishing you and your fine family a very happy Thanksgiving.
Also, thanks again for the analysis of the JFK "silver certificate" story.
Best wishes,

Jim Ewart
People should read Jim's book, Money.

Robert48911@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.



PS - HERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE - BOB

Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
By Norman G. Finkelstein
University of California Press
343pp., $22.50

Norman Finkelstein is the academic equivalent of a street fighter. An
anti-Zionist crusader who's also the child of Holocaust survivors, he 
regularly likens Jewish officials to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and has called Elie 
Wiesel the "resident clown" of the Holocaust "circus." He's a far left academic 
with a strong support base among the Holocaust-denying right, a man who one 
Jewish intellectual has described as "poison... a disgusting, self-hating Jew...
something you find under a rock."

He rose to notoriety in 2000 with The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the
Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, which argued that organized Jewry exploits the
memory of the Holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel and blackmail European
governments for compensation. Finkelstein's tract was initially ignored in the
US but was translated into 17 languages and spent nine months on German
bestseller lists. Only after the book created a storm in Europe did mainstream
American publications pay any attention.

Finkelstein boasts that The New York Times reviewed The Holocaust Industry
more savagely than Hitler's Mein Kampf. Writing in its pages, historian Omer
Bartov described it as "an ideological fanatic's view of other people's
opportunism - filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that
Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust."

His new book, Beyond Chutzpah, reprises these themes. Finkelstein argues that
American Jewish leaders wield the club of anti-Semitism to silence critics of
Israel. "By turning a blind eye to Israeli crimes in the name of sensitivity to
past Jewish suffering, [Jewish leaders] enable Israel to continue on a murderous
path that foments anti-Semitism," he writes. "Alongside Israel, they are the
main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today."

The second half of the book is given over to a debunking of Harvard legal
scholar Alan Dershowitz's 2004 bestseller The Case For Israel. Finkelstein
alleges that Dershowitz's book is a "hoax" stitched together from spurious
sources, with vast swathes plagiarized from Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial.

Dershowitz is America's most visible celebrity barrister, as well as a
tireless campaigner for Israel. After September 11, he became a target of hate
to many left-wing civil libertarians for advocating the torture of suspected
terrorists. Noam Chomsky has called Dershowitz a "Stalinist-style thug."

In an academic dogfight that made headlines throughout America, Dershowitz
launched a fierce campaign to stop Beyond Chutzpah going to press. When his
efforts to deter University of California Press failed, he asked Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger to intervene. Schwarzenegger refused to get involved in what he
called "an issue of academic freedom."

Finkelstein says he's less interested in exposing Dershowitz's fraud as the
corruption of intellectual debate on Israel-Palestine. "Alan Dershowitz is a
pathological liar, but I don't think he's the problem. The problem is the
institutions which give you a free ride when you toe the party line. The problem
is The New York Times which praised his hoax, the deans at Harvard who don't
call him to account."

Finkelstein makes no pretense about his academic credentials, bragging that
he's never been published in an academic journal and teaches at a "third-rate
university" in Chicago because he was "kicked out of every job" in New York. But
reasoned objectivity is not his aim, for Finkelstein is an angry man and writing
is his therapy. "The only reason I ever write anything is because I get so angry
I start screaming at the pages. My breath gets short and I start walking around.

It's just all lies! Rather than having it locked up inside of me, I write it out." 
For his supporters - most prominently, friend and mentor Noam Chomsky - 
Finkelstein is a bold iconoclast, prepared to speak the unspeakable about 
questions long sidelined in deference to political correctness. In his
just-published book The Case for Peace, Dershowitz argues that Chomsky uses
Finkelstein as a "hit man" to voice his hard-left perspective on Jewish issues,
which Chomsky has avoided ever since his name became tarnished by his
association with Holocaust deniers.

Finkelstein is untroubled about his work being embraced by neo-Nazis. "In
World War II, Thomas Mann went on radio constantly denouncing the Nazi regime
and they all said, 'That's giving comfort to anti-teutonic feeling.' I'm sure
there are people who are gleeful that a Jew is sticking it to the Jews. 

But you have to say, 'Well, who are the main victims now? Is it Jews or Palestinians?'

If my writing can mitigate, even in a small way, the suffering Palestinians have
to endure, and if it gives some comfort to a handful of kooks and loonies, then
I think that price is acceptable."

If Finkelstein was concerned about being a neo-Nazi pin-up, he wouldn't use
Nazi Germany as his most persistent analogy for Israel and the American Jewish
lobby. Asked about Dershowitz's claim that Finkelstein's mother was a Nazi
collaborator, Finkelstein doesn't hesitate to quote from Mein Kampf.

"He had a good insight, Hitler. He said in Mein Kampf: 'If you say a small
lie, people think: 'well, maybe that's true, maybe that's false.' But if you say
a colossal lie, people think: 'Nobody could possibly be so brazen as to make
something like that up.' Say Finkelstein's mother is a Nazi collaborator and
people will believe it. It's Hitler's Big Lie."

For Finkelstein, the outrage that greets his work proves his argument that
Jewish officials deploy the stereotype of the eternal Jewish victim to immunize
themselves from criticism. "If you were to say American actions in Iraq caused a
lot of anti-American feeling, would anyone think twice about it? But if you say
that the Jews and the Jewish state cause anti-Jewish feeling, everybody calls:
'Horror! That's blaming the victim.'"


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309563495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


How the Holocaust Industry Stole the Swiss Monies

Postscript to Foreign Translations

In chapter three of this book I documented the Holocaust industry's "double
shakedown" of European countries as well as Jewish survivors of the Nazi
genocide. Recent developments confirm this analysis. Indeed, for confirmation
of my argument, one need merely place documents readily available in the public
domain under critical and close scrutiny.

In late August 2000 the World Jewish Congress (WJC) announced that it stood to
amass fully $9 billion in Holocaust compensation monies. (1) They were
extracted in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" but the WJC now maintained
that the monies belonged to the "Jewish people as a whole" (WJC executive
director, Elan Steinberg). Conveniently, the WJC is the self-anointed
representative of the "Jewish people as a whole." Meanwhile, a black-tie
Holocaust reparations banquet sponsored by WJC president Edgar Bronfman at New
York's Pierre Hotel celebrated the creation of a "Foundation of the Jewish
People" to subsidize Jewish organizations and "Holocaust education." (One
Jewish critic of the "Holocaust-themed dinner" conjured this scenario: 
"Mass murder. Horrible plunder. Slave Labor. Let's eat.") The Foundation's
endowment would come from "residual" Holocaust compensation monies amounting to
"probably billions of dollars" (Steinberg). How the WJC already knew that
"probably billions" would be left over wen none of the compensation monies had
yet been distributed to Holocaust victims was anyone's guess. Indeed, it was
not yet even known how many would qualify. Or, did the Holocaust industry
extract compensation monies in the name of "needy Holocaust victims" knowing all
along that "probably billions" would be left over? The Holocaust industry
bitterly complained that the German and Swiss settlements allotted only meager
sums for survivors. It is unclear why the "probably billions" couldn't be used
to supplement these allocations.

Predictably, Holocaust survivors reacted with rage. (None was present at the
Foundation's creation.) "Who authorized these organizations to decide," a
survivor newsletter angrily editorialized, "that the `leftovers' (in the
billions), obtained in the name of Shoah victims, should be used for their pet
projects instead of helping ALL holocaust survivors with their mounting
health-care expenses?" Confronted with this barrage of negative publicity, the
WJC did an abrupt about-face. The $9 billion figure was "a bit misleading,"
Steinberg subsequently protested. He also claimed that the Foundation had "no
cash and no plan for allocating funds," and the purpose of the Holocaust banquet
was not to celebrate the Foundation's endowment from Holocaust compensation
monies but rather to raise funds for it. Elderly Jewish survivors, not
consulted in advance of, let alone invited to, the "star-studded gala" at the
Pierre Hotel, picketed outside.

Among those honored inside the Pierre was President Clinton, who movingly
recalled that the United States stood in the forefront of "facing up to an ugly
past": "I have been to Native American reservations and acknowledged that the
treaties we signed were neither fair nor honorably kept in many cases. I went
to Africa...and acknowledged the responsibility of the United States in buying
people into slavery. This is a hard business, struggling to find our core of
humanity." Notably absent in all these instances of "hard business" were
reparations in hard currency. (2)

On 11 September 2000 the "Special Master's Proposed Plan of Allocation and
Distribution of Settlement Proceeds" from the Swiss banks litigation was finally
released (hereafter: Gribetz Plan). (3) Publication of the Plan - more than
two years in the making - was timed not for the "needy Holocaust victims dying
everyday" but the Holocaust gala that same night. Burt Neuborne, lead counsel
for the Holocaust industry in the Swiss banks affair and "the most vocal
supporter of the distribution plan" (New York Times), praised the document as
"meticulously researched ... painstaking and sensitive." (4) Indeed, it seemed
to belie pervasive fears that the monies would be misappropriated by Jewish
organizations. The Forward typically reported that "the distribution
plan...proposes that more than 90% of the Swiss monies be paid directly to
survivors and their heirs." Protesting that "the World Jewish Congress has never
asked for a penny, will never take a penny and does not accept restitution
funds," Elan Steinber piously acclaimed the Gribetz Plan as an "extraordinarily
intelligent and compassionate document." (5) Intelligent it surely was, but
hardly compassionate. For hidden in the details of the Gribetz Plan is the
devilish reality that probably but a small fraction of the Swiss monies will be
paid directly to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. Before considering this,
however, it bears notice that the Plan conclusively, if unwittingly,
demonstrates that the Holocaust industry blackmailed Switzerland. (6)

Readers will recall that in May 1996 the Swiss banks formally consented to a
comprehensive, external audit - "the most extensive audit in history" (Judge
Korman) - in order to settle all outstanding claims by Holocaust survivors and
their heirs. (7) Before the audit committee (chaired by Paul Volcker), even had
an opportunity to meet, however, the Holocaust industry pressed for a financial
settlement. Two pretexts were adduced to preempt the Volcker Committee: 

1. the Committee couldn't be trusted, 
2. needy Holocaust victims couldn't wait for the Committee's findings. 

The Gribetz Plan demolishes both pretexts.

In June 1997, Burt Neuborne submitted a "Memorandum of Law" justifying 
preemption of the Volcker Committee. Against all evidence and with remarkable
effrontery, Neuborne dismissed the Committee as a Swiss initiative to deflect
criticism into a "private mediation effort that is sponsored, paid for and
designed by the defendants." (8) It bears notice that Neuborne even held
against the Swiss bankers that they footed the $500 million bill for the
unprecedented audit imposed on them. In August 1998 the Holocaust industry
successfully forced a non-recoupable $1.25 billion settlement on the Swiss
before the Volcker Committee completed its work. (9) Although the pretext for
this settlement was that the Volcker Committee couldn't be trusted, the Gribetz
Plan heaps praise on the Committee and emphasizes that the Committee's findings
and mechanism for processing claims ("Claims Resolution Tribunal" - "CRT") were
and continue to be of "vital significance" in distributing the Swiss monies.

(10) The Holocaust ndustry's enthusiastic reliance on the Committee for
distributing the Swiss monies confutes its main pretext for preempting the
Committee with a non-recoupable settlement.

In their settlement with the Holocaust industry, the Swiss were compelled not
only to pay for Holocaust-era dormant Jewish accounts, but also to "disgorge
the profits" they "knowingly" reaped from the Jewish assets looted, and Jewish
slave labor exploited, by the Nazis. (11) The Gribetz Plan reveals the
flimsiness of these charges as well. It admits that "very few if any" direct
links - let alone direct profitable links or knowingly profitable links - could
be established between the Swiss, on the one hand, and looted Jewish assets and
Jewish slave labor, on the other. Indeed, the Plan makes clear that the entire
indictment in these classes was built on what was "likely" or "presumed" or
"potentially" to be the case. (12) Finally, Switzerland was compelled to
provide restitution to Jews fleeing Nazism who were denied refuge. The Gribetz
Plan explicitly concedes - if only in a footnote - the "questionable legal
validity" of this claim. (13) Despite all these admissions, however, the Plan
still apprvingly quotes that "in a perfectly just world, plaintiffs should have
received a far greater sum" than the $1.25 billion extracted from the Swiss. (14)

Apart from the Volcker Committee's alleged partisanship, the Holocaust
industry gestured to the mortality of Holocaust survivors to force a
non-recoupable settlement on the Swiss. Time was supposedly of the essence
because "needy Holocaust victims" had only a short time left to live. 

With the money in hand, however, the Holocaust industry has suddenly discovered 
that "needy Holocaust victims" aren't dying so rapidly. Citing a study commissioned
by the Jewish Claims Conference, the Gribetz plan reports that "the population
of Nazi victims is declining more slowly than previously believed." 

Indeed, the Plan purports that "a fairly substantial number of Jewish Nazi victims may 
live for at least another 20 years and that 30-35 years from now" - that is, some
ninety years after the end of World War II - "tens of thousands of Jewish Nazi
victims are likely to be alive." (15) Given the Holocaust industry's track
record, it should surprise no one if this revelation is eventually adduced to
press yet new compesation demands on Europe. In the meantime it is already
being used to slow the allocation of compensation monies. Thus the Gribetz Plan
recommends that the monies be allocated in small increments over time because
"building expectations among needy survivors, only to remove the funding and
thus the assistance, would be a great disservice." (16)

During the Swiss banks affair, the Holocaust industry maintained that the
average age of a survivor was 73 in Israel and 80 in the rest of the world.

Life expectancy in the three countries where most Holocaust survivors currently
reside ranges from 60 (former Soviet Union) to 77 (the United States and
Israel). (17) One might be excused for wondering how it is possible for "tens
of thousands" of Holocaust survivors to be alive 35 years from now. A partial
answer is that the Holocaust industry has yet again revised the definition of a
Holocaust survivor. "One of the reasons for this relatively slower decline in
the size of the population," the above-mentioned Claims Conference study
reports, "is the finding that, using the broad definition, there are many more
relatively younger Nazi victims than previously believed." (emphasis added) (18)

Indeed, in a Weimar-like inflation, the Gribetz Plan puts the number of living
Holocaust survivors at nearly a million - a four-fold increase from the already
extraorinary figure of 250,000 Holocaust survivors reported during the Swiss
shakedown. (19)

To manage this actuarial and demographic feat, the Gribetz Plan now deems
every Russian Jew who survived World War II to be a Holocaust survivor.(20)

Thus, Russian Jews who fled in advance of the Nazis or served in the Red Army
now qualify as Holocaust survivors because they faced torture and death if
captured. (21) 

Even accepting for argument's sake this truly novel definition
of Holocaust survivor, it is unclear why Soviet functionaries who fled in
advance of the Nazis or non-Jewish conscripts in the Red Army don't also qualify
as Holocaust survivors. They too faced torture and death if captured. 

Indeed, the Plan reports that a Jewish-American serviceman captured by the Nazis 
was interned in a concentration camp. (22) Shouldn't every Jewish-American 
G.I. from World War II count as a Holocaust survivor? Possibilities abound.

Defending the Gribetz Plan mortality projections for Holocaust survivors, a
senior historian for the Holocaust wing of the British Imperial War Museum
explained that in a "stll broader sense...second and even third generation can
be considered" Holocaust victims because "they may suffer from psychiatric
disturbances." (23) It's only a matter of time before the Holocaust industry
restores Wilkomirski to grace as a Holocaust survivor since - to quote Yad
Vashem Director Israel Gutman - his "pain is authentic."

For the Holocaust industry, this redefinition and upward revision of the
figure for Holocaust survivors serves multiple purposes. Not only does it
justify the shakedown of European countries, but it justifies the shakedown of
actual Holocaust victims as well. For years these Holocaust victims have begged
the Claims Conference to allocate compensation monies for a health insurance
program. Noting this "thoughtful" proposal in a footnote, the Gribetz Plan
laments that the Swiss settlement "would be insufficient" to provide medical
insurance for "well over 800,000" Holocaust survivors. (24)

***


Apart from a trivial sum, the Gribetz Plan earmarks the Swiss monies only for
Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust. The settlement technically covered every
"Victim or Target of Nazi Persecution." In fact, this seemingly inclusive,
"politically correct" designation is a linguistic subterfuge to exclude most
non-Jewish victims. It arbitrarily defines "Victim or Target of Nazi
Persecution" to include only Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and
the disabled or handicapped. For reasons never explained, other political
(e.g., Communists and Socialists) and ethnic (e.g., Poles and Belorussians)
persecutees are left out. These are numerically the larger victim groups;
except for Jews, the groups designated "Victim or Target of Nazi Persecution" in
the Gribetz Plan are numerically much less significant. The practical upshot is
that almost all the compensation monies will go to Jews. Thus, the Plan covers
170,000 former Jewish slave-laborers; of fully 1,000,000 non-Jewish former slave
laborers, owever, only 30,000 of these are deemed to qualify as a "victim or
target of Nazi persecution." Likewise, the Plan allocates $90 million for Jewish
victims of Nazi plunder but only $10 million for non-Jewish victims. This
division is partly justified on the ground that prior compensation agreements
used such a ratio. Yet the Plan suggests that non-Jewish victims received a
disproportionately smaller share of compensation monies in the past. 

Shouldn't a just allocation plan redress, not perpetuate, past inequities? (25)

The Gribetz Plan sets aside fully $800 million of the $1.25 billion Swiss
settlement to cover valid claims on Holocaust-era dormant accounts. The Plan's
text, annexes and charts run to many hundreds of pages with well over a thousand
footnotes. The singular oddity of the Plan is that it makes no attempt to
credibly justify this - the crucial - allocation. It merely states that,
"Based upon his analysis of the Volcker Report and the Final Approval Order, and
upon consultation with representatives of the Volcker Committee, the Special
Master estimates that the value of all bank accounts that will be repaid is
within the range of $800 million." (26) In fact, this estimate appears wildly
inflated. The actual sum paid out on dormant accounts will probably not come to
more than a tiny fraction of the $800 million. (27) The "residual" monies -
that is, what remains of the $800 million after all legitimate claims have been
processed - are supposed to be distributed either directly to Holocaust
survivors or t Jewish organizations engaged in Holocaust-related activities.

(28) In fact, the residual monies will almost certainly go to Jewish
organizations, not only because the Holocaust industry will have the final say,
but because they won't be distributed until many years from now, when few actual
Holocaust survivors will be alive. (29)

Besides the $800 million for Holocaust-era accounts, the Gribetz Plan
allocates some $400 million mainly for the "looted assets," "slave labor," and
"refugees" classes. The Plan enters the crucial caveat, however, that none of
these monies will be released until "all appeals in this litigation have been
exhausted." Conceding that the "proposed payments may not commence for some
time," the Plan cites a crucial precedent in which the appeals process lasted
three and a half years. (30) For elderly Holocaust survivors this is a no-win
and for the Holocaust industry a no-lose situation. Many Holocaust survivors,
appalled by the Gribetz Plan, will undoubtedly want to appeal, but doing so
means that few will be around to benefit even if an appeal is sustained. 

The Holocaust industry, already the main beneficiary of the Gribetz Plan, can 
only gain from an appeals process in which more monies will by default flow 
into its coffers as survivors die out.


Once the appeals process is completed, the Gribetz Plan provides for these
allocations of the $400 million:

1. In the "looted assets" class, $90 million is earmarked not for direct
payments to Holocaust survivors but for Jewish organizations servicing Holocaust
communities "broadly defined." The largest allocation will go to the Claims
Conference, which the Gribetz Plan repeatedly acclaims for its "unmatched
expertise in serving the needs of Nazi victims. (31) The Plan sets aside $10
million for a "Victim List Foundation, the objective of which is to compile and
make widely accessible, for research and remembrance, the names of all Victims
or Targets of Nazi Persecution." It recommends that the Foundation start from
the "irreplaceable data contained in the Initial Questionnaires" for Holocaust
victims. A typical response in this "irreplaceable data" is that fully one of
every six Jewish victims (71,000/430,000) claimed title to a Swiss bank account
before World War II. Did one in six also own a Mercedes and Swiss chalet? (32)

2. In the "slave labor" class, each of 170,000 Jewish former slave laborers
supposedly still alive will receive a token payment in two installments: 
$500 after the appeals process is completed, and "up to" an additional $500 
after all claims on dormant accounts are processed. (33) In fact, the 170,000 
figure is grossly inflated, and it is unlikely that many of the Jewish former slave
laborers really still alive will yet be around to collect the first, let 
alone the second, token payment. Applications will be processed by the Claims
Conference, which - as the main beneficiary of residual compensation monies -
will profit from every rejection.

3. In the "refugee" class, legitimate claimants will receive payments ranging
from $250-$2500 in the same two installments as the "slave labor" class. (34)
Based on the "irreplaceable data contained in the Initial Questionnaire," some
17,000 Jews have claimed membership in this class. It is likely that only a
small fraction of these 17,000 will demonstrate a valid claim (the Conference
processes applications), and that even fewer will still be around to collect the
payments.

A close analysis of the Gribetz Plan thus confirms the main arguments in
chapter 3 of this book. It demonstrates that the pretexts invoked by the
Holocaust industry to force a non-recoupable settlement on the Swiss banks were
false, and that few actual survivors of the Nazi holocaust will directly - or,
for that matter, indirectly - benefit from the Swiss monies. A comparable
analysis of other Holocaust industry settlements would presumably yield
comparable results. Indeed, buried in the details of the Gribetz Plan is a
nest egg for the Holocaust industry. Most of the Swiss monies probably won't be
distributed until after all but a handful of survivors are dead. With the
survivors gone, the monies will pour into the coffers of Jewish organizations.

Small wonder that the Holocaust industry was unanimous in its praise of the
Gribetz Plan.

Norman G. Finkelstein
June 2001

Notes

1. For this and the next paragraph, see Joan Gralla, "Holocaust Foundation
Set for Restitution Funds," in Reuters (22 August 2000), Michael J. Jordan,
"Spending Restitution Money Pits Survivors Against Groups," in Jewish
Telegraphic Agency (29 August 2000), NAHOS (The Newsletter of the National
Association of Jewish Child Holocaust Survivors) (1 September 2000, 6 October
2000, and 6 November 2000), Marilyn Henry, "Proposed `Foundation for Jewish
People' Has No Cash," in Jerusalem Post (8 September 2000), Joan Gralla, "Battle
Brews Over Holocaust Compensation," in Reuters (11 September 2000), Shlomo
Shamir, "Government to Set Up New Fund for Holocaust Payments," in Haaretz (12
September 2000), Yair Sheleg, "Burg Honored at Controversial NY Dinner," in
Haaretz (12 September 2000), E.J. Kessler, "Hillary the Holocaust Heroine?" in
New York Post (12 September 2000), Melissa Radler, "Survivors Get Most of Cash
in Shoah Fund," in Forward (17 September 2000), "The WJC Defends Event Panned by
Commentary," in Jeish Post (20 September 2000).

2. "Remarks by The President During Bronfman Gala," Office of The Press
Secretary, The White House . Distributed by the Office of International
Information Programs, US Department of State (http://usinfo.state.gov).

3. The plan was formulated by Judah Gribetz, past president of the Jewish
Community Relations Council of New York, and currently member of the board of
New York's Museum of Jewish Heritage - A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. He
was appointed "Special Master" by Judge Edward Korman of New York's Eastern
District Court, who presided over the class-action litigation in the Swiss 
case.

The full plan is posted on http://www.Swissbankclaims.com. On 22 November 
2000 Judge Korman issued a "memorandum and order" that "adopt[s] the Proposed 
Plan in its entirety." (In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (United States 
District Court for Eastern District of New York: 22 November 2000), p. 7))

4. Alan Feuer, "Bitter Fight Is Reignited On Splitting Of Reparations" 
(New York Times, 21 November 2000). "Statement of Burt Neuborne" appended to 
Gribetz Plan. Judge Korman's "memorandum and order" (see note 3 above) points up 
the crucial role of Neuborne in deflecting criticism of the Plan (pp. 4, 6). 
As lead counsel in the Swiss litigation, Neuborne was credited with contriving the
"legal theories" used by the Holocaust industry.

5. Radler, "Survivors Get Most of Cash in Shoah Fund."

6. Significantly, Raul Hilberg, the world's leading authority on the Nazi
holocaust, has explicitly charged that the World Jewish Congress blackmailed the
Swiss: "It was the first time in history that Jews made use of a weapon that can
only be described as blackmail." In a declaration supporting the motion to
approve the Swiss settlement, Burt Neuborne, clearly worried by the blackmail
allegation ("certain persons may be tempted to mischaracterize legitimate
settlement payments as a form of blackmail"), called on Judge Korman to
repudiate it, which the Judge dutifully did. ("Holocaust Expert Says Swiss Banks
Are Paying Too Much," in Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 28 January 1999; Declaration
of Burt Neuborne, Esq. (5 November 1999), para. 8; Edward R.Korman,In re
Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (United States District Court for Eastern
District of New York: 26 July 2000), pp. 23-4)

7. In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, p. 19 (Korman).

8. Burt Neuborne, "Memorandum of Law Submitted by Plaintiffs in Response to
Expert Submissions Filed By Legal Academics Retained by Defendants" (United
States District Court for Eastern District of New York: 16 June 1997), p. 68
(cf. pp. 62-4). Hereafter: Neuborne Memorandum.

9. For non-recoverability of the final settlement, see Gribetz Plan, 
p.12n18: "It should be noted that no part of the $1.25 billion settlement amount
will revert to the defendant banks or to any other Swiss entities."

10. Gribetz Plan, pp. 11 ("vital significance"), 13-14, 93, 101-4.

11. Neuborne Memorandum, pp. 3, 6,-7, 11-12, 28-31, 34-5, 43, 47-8. The
memorandum concedes that the Swiss banks would be legally liable only if they
"knowingly" profited from the ill-gotten gains of the Nazis: "If one assumes
lack of notice on the part of defendant banks, defendants' actions would not
give rise to a claim for equitable disgorgement of unjust profits" (p. 34).

12. Gribetz Plan, pp. 23, 29, 113-14, 118n345, 128-9n371, 145-8, Annex G
("The Looted Assets Class"), pp. G-3, G-43, G-57, Annex H ("Slave Labor Class
I"), pp. H-52, H-57-8.

13. Gribetz Plan, Annex J ("The Refugee Class"), p. J-26n85. Buried in a
footnote we also learn that, according to a leading authority, Seymour J. Rubin,
"Switzerland did admit many more refugees, in proportion to its population than
any other nation. This is in contrast to a United States that not only denied
entry to the desperate St. Louis refugees, but systematically failed to fill
even the limited immigration quota that was available" (p. J-5). Noting that
refugees barred from entering Switzerland during World War II would now receive
compensation, Burt Neuborne, in a letter to the Nation magazine, regretted: "I
only wish that a similar sanction could be imposed on the United States for its
identical refusal to accept desperate refugees from Nazi persecution" (5 October
2000). Apart from hypocrisy and cowardice, what prevented the Holocaust 
industry's lead counsel from pressing this claim?

14. Gribetz Plan, p. 89. The quote is cited from Judge Korman's Court
order granting final approval to the Settlement Agreement.

15. Gribetz Plan, Annex C ("Demographics of `Victim or Target' Groups"), p. C-13.

16. Gribetz Plan, pp. 135-6.

17. Gribetz Plan, Annex C , p. C-12, Annex F ("Social Safety Nets"), p.F-15.

18. Ukeles Associates Inc., Paper #3 (revised), Projection of the
Population of Victims of Nazi Persecution, 2000-2040 (31 May 2000).

19. Gribetz Plan, p, 9, Annex C, p. C-8, Annex E ("Holocaust
Compensation"), pp. E-89 and E-90n282. The 250,000 figure was used to
distribute the monies from the "Special Fund for Needy Victims of the 
Holocaust" established by the Swiss in February 1997.

20. Gribetz Plan, Annex C, p. C-7, Table 3. The Plan concedes in a
footnote that "in the former Soviet Union, there are relatively few 
survivors of the concentration camps, ghettos, or work camps" (Annex E, p. E-56n150).

21. Gribetz Plan, pp. 122-3, 125, Annex E, p. E-138, Annex F, p. F-4n13

22. Gribetz Plan, Annex E, p. E-56.

23. Steve Paulsson, "Re: Survivor Article," posted on
http://H-Holocaust@N-Net.MSU.EDU (28 September 2000).

24. Gribetz Plan, p. 135. It bears notice that the figure for Holocaust
survivors in the original sense also undergoes a radical revision upward in the
Gribetz Plan. The plan states that in the neighborhood of 170,000 former Jewish
slave-laborers currently receive pensions from Germany. (Gribetz Plan, Annex H
("Slave Labor Class I"), pp. H-5-6) It is estimated that only one in four
former Jewish slave-laborers received a German pension. This would put the
total figure for former Jewish slave-laborers still alive today at nearly
700,000, and the total for Jewish slave laborers alive at war's end at
2,800,000. The standard scholarly figure for Jewish slave-laborers alive at
war's end is about 100,000, with perhaps several tens of thousands still alive.

25. Gribetz Plan, pp. 7, 25-7, 83-4, 118-19, 138-9, 149, 154, and "Summary
of Major Holocaust Compensation Programs." Apart from precedent, the Plan
tautologically justifies this distribution "by current demographics, as Jewish
victims now constitute the overwhelming proportion of surviving `Victims or
Targets of Nazi Persecution' as defined under the Settlement Agreement" (p.119). 
Jews only constitute the "overwhelming proportion" because of how the
category "Victims or Targets..." was defined. For Gypsy reservations to the
Plan, see Romani Comments and Objections to the Special Master's Proposed Plan
of Allocation and Distribution. (Ramsey Clark et al., In re Holocaust Victim
Assets Litigation (United States District Court for Eastern District of New
York: November 2000))

26. Gribetz Plan, p. 15. The same statement is repeated verbatim on pp.98-9.

27. The Volcker Committee recommended publication of the names of some
25,000 accounts having the highest probability of a relationship to victims of
Nazi persecution. The total "fair current value" of 10,000 of these accounts
for which some information is available runs to $150-$230 million. 
Projecting these estimates on the 25,000 accounts yields $375-$575 million. To judge 
by the Claims Resolution Tribunal's prior processing experience, valid claims 
will be filed against only one-half the 25,000 accounts and one-half the monies 
in these accounts for a total value of $188-$288 million. In addition, 
however, the 25,000 list overwhelmingly comprises not dormant but closed accounts 
bearing names that match a Holocaust victim. The Volcker Committee concluded that 
there is "no evidence of...concerted efforts to divert the funds of victims of 
Nazi persecution to improper purposes." Accordingly, the safe assumption is 
that almost all the closed accounts on the 25,000 list were properly closed by 
the acual account-holders, rightful heirs, or those with a legitimate and credible
power of attorney, and that the CRT will validate only a few claims against
these closed accounts. The total value of validated claims against the 25,000
accounts will thus likely fall well below even the $188-$288 million estimate
that assumed all the accounts were dormant and the claims on half legitimate.
(Gribetz Plan, pp. 94n298, 96-7, 105-6n326; Independent Committee of Eminent
Persons, Report on Dormant Accounts of Victims of Nazi Persecution in Swiss
Banks [Bern: 1999]), p. 13, para. 41(a))

28. Gribetz Plan, 12, 19-20. The Plan states on p. 12 that the "remainder
of the Settlement Fund is to be distributed among the other...settlement
classes"- i.e., "looted assets," "refugees," and "slave laborers." As shown
below, the monies allocated for the "looted assets" class will be paid not to
Holocaust survivors directly but rather to Jewish organizations involved in
Holocaust work The Plan further states on pp.19-20 that "it also may be
possible to allocate a portion of the remaining Settlement Fund to some of the
proposed cultural, memorial or educational projects that have been submitted to
the Special Master."

29. The Plan specifies that distribution of residuals from the $800 million
cannot begin until all claims on the 25,000 accounts have been processed. It
took the CRT fully three years to process 10,000 claims on a prior, separate
list of 5,600 Swiss accounts. The Plan reports that many more than 80,000
claims will likely be filed against the list of 25,000. In addition, the Plan
provides that all claims must be checked not only against the published list of
25,000 accounts but against millions of other Swiss accounts bearing no apparent
relationship to Holocaust victims. Thus even if the CRT process is streamlined,
it will surely take many years to complete. (Gribetz Plan, pp. 91, 94n299,
105-6n126) Apart from Holocaust victims holding dormant accounts, the Plan makes
only vague and narrow provision for heirs. (pp. 18-19, and Annex D ("Heirs"))

30. Gribetz Plan, pp. 16-17.

31. Gribetz Plan, pp. 25-6, 120-1, 119-38.

32. Gribetz Plan, pp. 18, 27, 116, Annex C, p. C-10, Exhibit 3 to Annex C,
p. 1. (The "Initial Questionnaires" were distributed to "Victims and Targets of
Nazi Persecution" after Judge Korman approved the Swiss settlement.) Dismissing
the extravagant claims of the Holocaust industry against the Swiss banks, Raul
Hilberg, who fled Austria as a child with his parents, recalled in a recent
interview: "In the 1930s, Jews were poor. My family belonged to the middle
class, but we did not have a bank account in Austria, let alone in Switzerland."
(Berliner Zeitung, 4 September 2000)

33. Gribetz Plan, pp. 29-31, 154-6.

34. Gribetz Plan, pp. 35-9, 172-5.