| |
Update on Treasury's Gold
|
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr President:
This letter serves two, legally distinct purposes.
The first purpose is that of an administrative appeal from the adverse decision the Secretary of the Treasury has just rendered in response to
my request for information under Freedom of Information Act.
In order to enforce the right to know under the Freedom of Information Act by way of judicial injunction, the decision denying the right to know must be administratively final. This means that the Secretary's decision must either be overruled by the President as incorrect, or upheld by the President as proper.
In this particular instance, a third possibility exists, that the Secretary of the Treasury still does not have access to the information requested, because nobody put the appropriate report into his briefcase.
In such an event, this letter will serve its second legal purpose, namely that of "de novo" request for the same information under Freedom of Information Act, submitted directly to the President of the United States as the only officer having access to the information requested.
In either case, the President's decision in response to this letter will be administratively final.
Both prior requests and responses are attached hereto to make the meaning of this request clear and the record of this case complete.
Why is the Secretary's decision characterized as "adverse"?
Because the "Yes" answer of August 1, 2001 was made "per the United States Mint's Office of the Chief Financial Officer" and not by the Secretary of the Treasury himself, even though both the request of May 7 and the request of July 10 specified Secretary's own response as essential.
And why is the Secretary's own response so indispensable?
US Mint holds the gold reserves of this nation simply as a custodian for US Treasury. If served with "subpoena duces tecum" and compelled to testify about this gold in a court of law, neither the Mint's Chief Financial Officer nor his Disclosure Officer, Kathleen Saunders-Mitchell, who signed the Secretary's reply, would be allowed to testify to the current ownership title to this gold. They could validly testify only that the Mint was holding this gold for the US Treasury. Whether the Treasury still had full title to this gold would be quite another matter.
It is a simple distinction between possession and title.
It is possible to pass a title to any property that is in physical custody of another. It is possible for a New York couple during a visit to London to
sell gold coins that are locked up in bank security deposit boxes in Manhattan. And bank officers in Manhattan would be as ignorant about any such change in ownership of the gold coins in their deposit boxes, as the US Mint officers would be ignorant about any swapping of the West Point gold for Bundesbank gold or for Bank of England gold. All the information the Mint officers have, and all they would be allowed to testify to, would be that they were holding this gold for US Treasury. Someone else, would have to be called to testify about Treasury's title to this gold. And that someone else could only be the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the President of the United States.
This is the simplest FOIA request under the sun. All it requires is a Yes-No answer.
Dated: August 6, 2001.
Respectfully yours,
Joseph N. Tlaga
2060 SW 81 Avenue
North Lauderdale
Florida 33068
tlaga@shadow.net
|
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES MINT
WASHINGTON, DC 20220
August 1, 2001
Mr Joseph N. Tlaga
2060 SW 81 Avenue
North Lauderdale, FL 33068
Dear Mr Tlaga:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated July 10, 2001, forwarded to the United States Mint from the Department of the Treasury. You raised the following questions: "Does the Treasury of the United States own 54,067,331 ounces of gold at US Mint in West Point, New York, which are classified in FMS Status Report
of September 30, 2000, as "Custodial Gold Bullion?" "Yes or No?"
Although your request was made "pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA), your letter is not a true FOIA request in that you are not seeking access to nor copies of agency records. Therefore, our reply is provided without consideration of the provisions of the FOIA and its
inclusive assessable processing fees.
Per the United States Mint's Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the answer to your question is yes.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Saunders-Mitchell
Disclosure Officer
Office of Management Services
|
|
The Honorable Paul H. O'Neill
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Mr O'Neill:
This letter is written to resubmit to your personal attention the attached FOIA request of May 7, 2001, for the reason that the attached reply of your Assistant Commissioner for Governmentwide Accounting, Larry D. Stout, dated June 27, 2001, is on its face patently incorrect.
This is the question that was presented in the FOIA request of May 7, 2001: DOES THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES OWN 54,067,331 OUNCES OF GOLD AT U.S. MINT IN WEST POINT, NEW YORK, WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED IN F.M.S. STATUS REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AS "CUSTODIAL GOLD BULLION"? YES OR NO?
And this is the final point of that request: "This FOIA request calls for a simple Yes-No answer. Only the Secretary of the Treasury himself can answer this question authoritatively. Anyone else can only make educated assumption, which would not be any better than a conjecture made by the author of 'Behind Closed Doors'."
Mr Stout did not obtain this simple Yes-No answer from you, Mr Secretary. He referred this question to Ms Bobbie Draves of the US Mint for reply.
US Mint maintains its own web site, which contains its Financial Statements in its Annual Reports. You can find them, Mr Secretary, at http://www.usmint.gov by clicking on ABOUT THE MINT, Annual Report, and Financial Statements:
Can you see "Fund balsnces"?
Can you see "Accounts revievable"?
Can you see "Feferal"?
Can you see "unmismatic sales"?
Can you see "beneficialy organizations"?
Can you see "emplyee benefit expenses"?
Can you see "accounts recievable"?
Can you see "andamortization"?
And above all, can you see "DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURE" in the title of these Financial Statements? These entries are identical in both 1998 and 1999 Financial Statements. (Both of them also carry an inscription "Updated: 3/23/2001".)
If you were serving in your present position under prior administration, Mr Secretary, and you were asked to arrange for swapping of the West Point gold bullion for that of some foreign central bank in order to dump it on the bullion market right under the noses of the "ever watchful" US Senators and US Representatives, would you even consider
entrusting such a secret to the people who produced the financial statements you have just read?
Of course not! However, the very ignorance of these people could be used as perfect cover for this masterful finesse. You would only need to arrange for seemingly innocent consolidation of eighteen separate programs into "PEF Gold" and for incidental change of "Gold Bullion Reserve" into "Custodial Gold Bullion".
I have no desire to know why the West Point designation was changed from "Gold Bullion Reserve" to "Custodial Gold Bullion" in September 2000, and why the subsequent FMS Status Reports of US Treasury Owned Gold were identifying gold in Fort Knox as "Fort Knox Gold", gold in Denver Mint as "Gold Bullion Reserve" and gold in West Point Mint as "Custodial Gold Bullion", nor do I have any desire to know why, after this FOIA request was filed, the designation of US Treasury Owned Gold was again changed in all three locations to read in the Report of May 31, 2001: "Deep Storage Gold". All these reports can be found at http://www.fms.treas.gov/gold/index.html
All I am asking is if the Treasury of the United States still owns the West Point gold. Yes or No?
The very same question was presented to you, Sir, by the Honorable Ron Paul, US Representative from Texas, on May 22. You pleaded ignorance of the novice, and Congressman Paul reserved the necessary follow up. Your
plea was reported as follows:
"Well, I will tell you, I would not probably be in a position to answer any of these questions except for the fact that on Sunday night when I was working through my briefcase, I found a report that it is my duty to transmit to the Congress providing the information on the most recent
examination of the Exchange Stabilization Fund...."
Mr Secretary: If you still cannot find in your briefcase the answer to the question who owns the West Point gold, may I respectfully suggest that this answer can be obtained from the former Secretaries of the Treasury
Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, and/or the former President of the United States William J. Clinton. Neither Ms Bobbie Draves of the US Mint, nor anyone in Podunk is likely to know anything about it.
A complete copy of this letter is mailed to Dr Lawrence B. Lindsey, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, who recently advised the Chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee that any comment from the White House about gold price manipulation would be improper because the matter is presently litigated.
For the benefit of both of you gentlemen, and for the benefit of the President himself, may I respectfully quote what Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri wrote on July 21, 2000, in Preface to his Interim Report to the Deputy Attorney General Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt Carmel Complex in Waco, Texas:
"Lawyers in private practice often volunteer as little information as possible. But playing it close to the line is not acceptable for people representing the United States government. Government lawyers have responsibilities beyond winning the cases at hand. They are not justified in seeking victory at all costs. A government lawyer should never hide evidence or shade the truth, and must always err on the side of disclosure.
"Government lawyers carry on their shoulders responsibility for not only the prosecution of specific cases, but also for public confidence in our system of government - the "consent of the governed" enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence. Indeed, this responsibility rests heavily on the shoulders of all government officials."
Dear Mr O'Neill: Please do not refer my question once again to the people who call themselves "DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURE". Kindly comply with this Freedom of Information Act request in honorable manner befitting the dignity of the Government of the United States. It only requires Yes-No answer, and... it's the law of the land.
Dated: July 10, 2001
Respectfully yours,
Joseph N. Tlaga
2060 SW 81 Avenue
North Lauderdale
Florida 33068
tlaga@shadow.net
|
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
HYATTSVILLE, MD 20782
June 27, 2001
Mr Joseph N. Tlaga
2060 SW 81 Avenue
N. Lauderdale, FL 33068
Mr Tlaga:
We received your inquiry about the ownership of gold at the US Mint in West Point, New York which is classified on the September 30, 2000 Status Report of US Treasury Owned Gold as custodial gold bullion.
The US Mint is the primary custodian for US Treasury owned gold and, as part of their custodial duties, compiles various reports and documents relating to the activity and status of US Treasury owned gold. With the exception of the gold held and/or on display by the Federal Reserve Banks,
all of the other information that is published by FMS and shown on the Status Report of US Treasury Owned Gold is obtained directly and solely from the US Mint.
Therefore, we are referring your correspondence to Ms Bobbie Draves of the US Mint for reply. She can be reached at 202-354-7874.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Stout
Assistant Commissioner
Governmentwide Accounting
|
|
Marty Weber
Disclosure Officer
Financial Management Service
United States Treasury
401 14th Street, S.W., Room 553
Washington, DC 20227
This is a request for information under Freedom of Information Act;
It is in writing and it is signed;
It is faxed to (202) 874-7016;
It reasonably describes the information requested;
The category of the requester for fee purposes is "all
others";
The requester agrees to pay all fees that might be incurred;
Expeditious processing, bypassing the 20 business days
deadline, is respectfully requested:
DOES THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES OWN 54,067,331 OUNCES OF GOLD AT U.S. MINT IN WEST POINT, NEW YORK, WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED IN F.M.S. STATUS REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AS "CUSTODIAL GOLD BULLION"? YES OR NO?
FMS Status Report of US Treasury Owned Gold dated August 31, 2000, identifies 56,945,284 fine troy ounces as stored at US Mint in West Point, New York: 54,097,041 ounces are classified as Gold Bullion Reserve, and the remainder is subdivided into 18 separate Programs ranging from 2,608,103
ounces in Gold Eagle Program to 53 ounces in World Cup Program.
The next month Status Report, dated September 30, 2000, identifies 56,945,838 ounces in West Point: 54,067,331 ounces are classified as Custodial Gold Bullion, and 2,878,507 ounces as PEF Gold.
Because the terms Gold Bullion Reserve and Custodial Gold Bullion appear to be used interchangeably within US Mint, and because US Mint's role is that of a legal custodian of US gold and silver stockpiles (which are reported in the custodial segment of the Treasury's Statement of Financial Position both as an asset and an offsetting custodial liability), this change from Gold Bullion Reserve to Custodial Gold Bullion may be perfectly innocent and
inconsequential. Consolidation of 18 separate categories into PEF Gold is self explanatory, as PEF borrows gold and silver bullion for numismatic operations and returns it from new gold and silver purchases (which are made after Gold and Silver Eagles are sold).
Unfortunately, this seemingly innocent change is open to horrendous interpretations, in view of the ongoing suppression of the price of gold by combined effect of massive gold selling and leasing operations by central banks and flooding the market with gold derivatives by the bullion banks. One such interpretation is presented in an article "Behind Closed Doors" http://www.fgmr.com/clsddoor.htm
The article informs that inquiry about who now owns the gold stored at US Mint in West Point was not answered by the US Treasury, but it does not say when the request for information was submitted, and whether it was submitted as a FOIA request (which would make it subject to a 20 business days reply deadline).
The reason why this FOIA request is submitted with request for expeditious processing is that it may substantially influence the outcome of a law suit of national importance now pending before Judge Reginald C. Lindsay at the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Howe vs Bank for International Settlements, et al).
If the West Point gold was in fact swapped for Bundesbank gold and used for leasing operations, disclosure of this fact now would be likely to prevail on denial of defendants' motions to dismiss; and if it was not so swapped,
disclosing this fact at the time of oral argument to paint the plaintiff as yet another conspiracy theorist would be likely to prevail on granting defendants' motions to dismiss.
As a party to this lawsuit (one of the defendants), Secretary of the Treasury thus has a direct interest in not disclosing this information right away, but he also represents the dignity of the Government of the United
States and should act accordingly.
This FOIA request calls for a simple Yes-No answer. Only the Secretary of the Treasury himself can answer this question authoritatively. Anyone else can only make educated assumption, which would not be any better than a
conjecture made by the author of "Behind Closed Doors".
Dated: May 7, 2001
Joseph N. Tlaga
2060 SW 81 Avenue
N. Lauderdale, FL 33068
(954) 718-2118
tlaga@shadow.net
|
| |
Printer Friendly Version
Email this Article