Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Electik, I was not planning on calling. Maestro asked if anyone knew how to find out more information re: date/time/location. I was providing him with the phone number. I am not in Texas and have never had any intention of attending the meeting.
Additionally, all "public" information re: this case has been posted here and on Dadd's website. The actual documents are available for all but the filing where Mary Dimke said she will be the attorney and that the Motion for the larger font was approved. I can always ask Dadd to put these documents on his site, if you would also like to see them.
Electick - Here's where I got that the hearing was on 6/29. It doesn't display correctly here but there are actually 6 columns: (1)Doc. no (2)Deadline/Hearing (3)Event Filed (4)Due/Set (5)Satisfied (6)Terminated.
On Document 2, 6/9/06 is under Event Filed: 6/29/06 is under Due/Set. Nothing under Satisfied or Terminated.
The case # is 4:06-mc-00238.
And, if you or anyone else would like to sign up for PACER, here is the link. You just have to search "All Courts" then type in ERHC. The first one that comes up is the current case. You are charged .08 for each page you view.
(Edit) Here's the link.
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx
4:06-mc-00238
David Hittner, presiding
Date filed: 06/09/2006 Date of last filing: 06/23/2006
Deadlines/Hearings
Doc.
No. Deadline/Hearing Event
Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
4 Motion Docket Date 06/22/2006 07/12/2006 06/23/2006
2 Motion Docket Date 06/09/2006 06/29/2006
As always, thank you very much for keeping the rest of us updated.
There's alot of information there - bet that one's going to be an expensive call. :)
Ok, thanks, I'll look for the Court Calendar on the Southern District of Texas website. Appreciate the reply.
Again, I'm pretty unfamiliar with the judicial system so I'm confused by your statement.
It seems to me the "motions" have already been filed and then the hearing was to make a judgement. And are these 2 motions (unseal file and return of property) the ones you feel are "simple motions"? And how would you find out what was set for discussion? (Not you, necessarily, but anyone.) Last one, would you elaborate on what other things may be discussed.
Sorry if this is "Courtroom Procedure 101", I'm just out of my depth here. Tia.
Do you mean link?
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/judges/dh/dh.pdf
(Edit) And this is where I found that link - click on Procedures next to Judge Hittner's name.
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/judges/judgedis.htm
Well, this explains why they didn't change the font to reduce the number of pages:
ALL PLEADINGS (SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT) FILED IN THIS COURT MUST BE:
DOUBLE SPACED, NOT LESS THAN ONE INCH MARGINS AND 14 POINT FONT.
If a Motion Hearing is scheduled and a pleading is filed within 5 days of the
scheduled hearing, counsel shall deliver a courtesy copy to chambers.
This is from Judge Hittner's "Procedures" found on the previous link. This is, I believe, in relation to civil proceedings but would imagine he is fairly consistent in his policies. I have to run now but there may be some more good information in this file if anyone is interested.
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/judges/dh/dh.pdf
Continuances. Judge Hittner maintains a restrictive policy on trial continuances.
A continuance will be granted only on the basis of exceptional circumstances.
Joint or agreed motions for continuance are not binding on the Court and will not
be granted as a routine matter.
A trial will not be continued because of unavailability of a fact witness or an
expert witness, including a medical witness. Counsel are expected to anticipate
such possibility and be prepared to present testimony by written deposition, by
videotaped deposition, or by stipulation, in accordance with applicable rules.
And, here's address - you may want to check for accuracy when you call.
JUDGE DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Courtroom No. 8A, 8th Floor
United States Courthouse
5l5 Rusk Avenue, Room 8509
Houston, Texas 77002
(7l3) 250-57ll
Maestro, here's # to Judge Hittner's office. It'd be great if you decided to attend. You can get alot from reading the information, however, first hand impressions of body language, tone, etc. is invaluable, imo.
Judge David Hittner (713) 250-5511
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/judges/judgedis.htm
I don't know any of the details or how something like this is handled. But, if someone in Texas is interested in attending, they could most likely just call the Southern District Court of Texas and ask. Are you in that area? If so, I could probably get the phone number from PACER.
Ajaxx, I am the wrong person to be asking...the only experience I have with the judicial system is when I went for jury selection (and wasn't chosen). I found PACER when another company I was following had legal problems and, much like in this case, we weren't getting any info from the company.
But, my opinion, fwiw, is that it's just a formality - government bureacracy at it's finest. I would think that if it were a stall tactic, erhc would've objected as it would delay them getting their materials back.
BWDIK.
As far as I can tell, the hearing is still scheduled for 6/29.
The other filings were that Mary K. Dimke (a trial attorney) will make an appearance for the US and the judge granted the unopposed motion for the US to file a 35 page document.
So, I would think that we would need to see the govt's document before the 29th.
I went and checked on the Hearing information and I don't understand what this means. There are actually 4 columns listed on the page that I see: Event Filed, Due/Set, Satisfied, Terminated. On the one with the (4) in front of it below - the 6/23/06 falls into the terminated column. There is nothing in either row that has "Satisfied" filled in with a date. It looks as though the Hearing Date for this recent motion filed by the DOJ has a date of 7/12/06 but then it says "terminated" 6/23/06. Original Hearing Date though still says 6/29/06. So, if anyone else wants to take a shot at deciphering, have at it. And, sorry I'm out of pocket most of the day and evening, if anyone has questions re: the actual page I'm viewing.
4:06-mc-00238
David Hittner, presiding
Date filed: 06/09/2006 Date of last filing: 06/23/2006
Deadlines/Hearings
Doc.
No. Deadline/Hearing Event
Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
4 Motion Docket Date 06/22/2006 07/12/2006 06/23/2006
2 Motion Docket Date 06/09/2006 06/29/2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! eom.
Strass, fwiw, I just went to about 5 different sites and they all have different information re: "Insiders" for ERHE.
What does this have to do with Corporations?
Platina, I'm with you on RIG. I've been following it for a few months now and it's a great buy right now. Glty.
And, from original article:
"Noreen Wilson, who has invested in ERHC, said last year that Jefferson helped the company hold onto drilling rights off the West African coasts of Sao Tome & Principe and Nigeria. But, she said, Jefferson never asked for anything in return."
Anyone have any idea when/where Noreen Wilson said this? I can't find it.
That would make sense except the affadavit is SEALED...no one not connected with the investigation "knows" what this is connected to, including ERHE staff and directors. That's the reason for the motion to unseal the file.
And, this is what's crazy to me about this blog. Yes, I understand it's just his opinion but, geesh, when he "connects the dots", it seems he ends up drawing a completely different picture than most. My humble opinion.
Sorry, ajaxx, didn't see this before I posted.
Edit, and Homeport, Fishdog, etc. didn't see your replies either. :)
Here's quote from Jeter:
"A company director and former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, Howard Jeter, said he didn't know whether the May search of the company's headquarters had anything to do with the Jefferson probe."
Here's quote from blog:
"Former US Ambassador to Nigeria Howard Jeter joined ERHC On The Move and many investors today in publicly discounting the possibility that ERHC Energy is tied to the bribery probe of Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat whose offices were searched a day after those of the company in Houston in what now appear to be separate probes."
Jeter says he doesn't know and Joe says, Jeter "discounts possibility". Huh?!?!?
China's "Year of Africa"
June 21, 2006, 16 hours, 52 minutes and 45 seconds ago.
By ANDnetwork .com
Asian economic giant China has increased its presence and even influence on the African continent as new deals have been signed with Nigeria, Angola, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo marking China's "Year of Africa".
By Jonathan Katzenellenbogen
China is giving Africa unprecedented amounts of diplomatic attention after a five-year period in which its trade with the continent, heavily driven by growth in oil imports and manufactured exports, has risen fourfold. In Beijing, senior foreign ministry officials are calling this, “China’s year of Africa”.
The attention is a strong indication that China is putting down its marker as a serious player on the African continent.
China’s growing role in access to oil in Africa could either set off new, intense power rivalries on the continent, or bring about new forms of constructive engagement.
A new “scramble for Africa”, similar to that which took place at the beginning of the 20 Century, is perhaps underway, and the consequences could be damaging for Africa.
The rise of China’s involvement in Africa has been so fast and so recent that external powers, such as the US, UK and France as well as Africa’s regional powers of Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, have showed signs of still thinking through the process.
China has however stressed that it is a “peaceful rise” in Africa.
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao is on a seven-nation African tour that includes a two-day stop in South Africa as part of China's new surge into Africa.
Earlier this year, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited three African countries, and in November, 2006, Chinese and African leaders will gather in Beijing for a China-Africa summit — only the second to have been held.
The only other country to have hosted a summit with African leaders is France. The European Union is struggling to hold such a summit due to its “smart sanctions” that are exluding Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe.
In January, 2006, Beijing released an official paper on its African policy, an indication of its seriousness in building a “new type of strategic relationship”.
With British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa report in 2005, and the global attention the continent has received, Beijing may well have felt under pressure to come up with its statement on what it is willing to in for Africa.
In 2007, Beijing will host a meeting of African finance ministers at the annual meeting of the African Development Bank, a move that reflects China's expanded role as an aid donor in Africa.
In terms of oil, Africa is of growing importance to China who have signed a number of deals in African countries, including Angola, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. Information on the share of African oil as a percentage of China’s oil imports are not confirmed, but are believed to be less than 20%.
When China has the political will to act, it does so on a massive scale, however China has yet to reach the scale of engagement comparable to any of the western powers.
The Chinese have a tradition of thinking big and having long-term plans. In Africa they’ve built national stadiums, parliament buildings, and the Tanzam railway in the 1970's.
Is China to become one of Africa's new development partners?
Hmmm...doesn't indicate where this increase will come from...I wonder...
Chevron to double Nigeria oil
21/06/2006 20:18 PM
Lagos - Chevron Nigeria Limited, a subsidiary of US oil firm ChevronTexaco said on Wednesday it hoped to almost double production over the next two years.
"As at today, we produce 400 000 barrels per day. We hope to increase to between 600 000 and 700 000 barrels per day (bpd) in a couple of years," the company's new managing director, Frederick Dan Nelson, told journalists in Lagos.
He said Chevron had seen a fall in production of around 140 000 bpd due to violence in the Niger Delta, the hub of the country's oil industry, but around half that amount - 70 000 bpd - had since been restored.
"We have about 50% of the production back," he said.
Nigeria is Africa's biggest crude producer, providing 2.6 million bpd, and is the world's sixth biggest exporter.
The bulk of the oil comes from the Niger Delta, a swamp measuring 74 000 square kilometres and containing more than 3 500 oil and gas installations.
Unrest in the Niger Delta has cut Nigeria's crude production by around 20%, sending jitters through the international oil market.
I think this is saying the hearing will be on 6/29. Anyone with better understanding of "legalese", please feel to correct me if I'm wrong.
4:06-mc-00238
David Hittner, presiding
Date filed: 06/09/2006 Date of last filing: 06/09/2006
Docket Information and Related Docket Entries
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2
Filed: 06/09/2006
Entered: 06/15/2006
Entered By: Lisa Tien ltien,
Event Name(s): Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion to Unseal
Full Docket Text for Document 2:
MOTION for Return of Property, to Enjoin Government Review of Seized Documents and Computer Images Pending Judicial Review, and MOTION to Unseal Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant by ERHC Energy Inc., filed. Motion Docket Date 6/29/2006. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) This entry is a duplicate of 1 and was made for case management purposes.(ltien, )
I always appreciate your posts and this is one to ponder. Thank you for this insight.
Oilman, imo, the stock has declined based on the search warrant, 4 articles written by Silverstein and no new information since the 8K stating the ERHE offices were raided. This is oil, Nigeria, China - combination that makes most investors nervous to begin with - and then you throw in the search warrant. Imo, some investors are waiting to see what happens before jumping back in and most traders are playing it cautiously, too.
I, for one, am very confused about what you're trying to "uncover" here. Read the SEC filings and press releases, then google ERHE. No one here can tell you anymore (for certain) than what's in those.
And, I'm really not sure why you think anyone here (moderator or not) should tell you their specific plans for their investments.
Quite probably, ERHE is just not the stock for you.
OT: Reponse on Q&A board:
Posted by: Bob Zumbrunnen
In reply to: Tina Marie who wrote msg# 68185 Date:6/19/2006 6:09:12 PM
Post #of 68214
You're a subscriber. Subscribers don't get the 728x90 ad units. The only ads you get, that I'm aware of, are the ones on the homepage and quotes page.
I've backed off the number of impressions the AmEx ad is getting as of about an hour or so ago.
This was posted on another board:
Posted by: magicatlast
In reply to: LowFloatGoat who wrote msg# 60782 Date:6/19/2006 3:46:51 PM
Post #of 60795
LFG, click on "tools" on your browser toolbar (not IHUB tools)then "manage add-ons", then disable the shockwave viewer.
Magic
OT: There have been questions about this on the Q&A board, this was Dave's (admin) response:
Posted by: grubmaster
In reply to: jbgoodtrader who wrote msg# 68188 Date:6/19/2006 3:47:55 PM
Post #of 68191
Most ads are frequency capped. I would guess that you are using such aggressive cookie blocking that they cannot detect that they have already delivered the ad to you.
Over-aggressive blocking of cookies is the #1 cause of problems registered users have when trying to use premium features on iHub (and SI), and it's very likely the #1 cause of users seeing too many of the same ad.
This one is entitled "Proposed Order" - haven't checked to see if it's the same as previous or what the difference is.
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-2 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 5
documents seized by the Government and shall produce to the Government all
non-privileged documents;
5. No later than 45 days after receiving all facially privileged paper documents from
the United States, ERHC shall produce a privilege log setting forth the following
information for any documents withheld based upon an assertion of privilege: (a)
the date of the document; (b) the author(s) of the document; (c) the recipients of
the document; (d) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (e) a description of the
document;
6. No later than 10 days from the date of this Order, the United States shall return all
imaged computer hard drives and other electronic data to ERHC’s counsel for
review;
7. No later than 45 days after receipt of all imaged computer hard drives and other
electronic data from the United States, ERHC shall produce to the Government all
non-privileged documents responsive to the Government’s search warrant at
Schedule B;
8. No later than 45 days after receipt of all imaged computer hard drives and other
electronic data from the United States ERHC shall produce a privilege log setting
forth the following information for any material withheld based upon an assertion
of privilege: (a) the date of the document; (b) the author(s) of the document; (c)
the recipients of the document; (d) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (e) a
description of the document;
9. As of the date of this Order, the Court will appoint a special master to review all
remaining seized ERHC material currently in the Government’s possession, and
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-2 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 2 of 5
within a time period established by the special master, any privileged materials
reviewed by the special master shall be returned to ERHC and logged on a
privilege log to be provided to the Government; and
10. No later than 10 days from the date of this Order, the United States shall provide
ERHC’s counsel with a copy of the Affidavit filed in support of the Search
Warrant executed on ERHC’s premises on May 4, 2006;
So ORDERED in Houston, Texas, this ___ day of _____, 2006
______________________________
United States Judge
cc:
All Counsel of Record
Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr.
United States Attorney’s Office
Southern District of Texas
P.O. Box 61129
Houston, TX 77208
Mark F. Mendelson
Mary Kit Dimke
Department of Justice
Criminal Fraud Division
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
___________________
Gregory V. Brown
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
1111 Louisiana Street
44th Floor
Houston, TX 77002-5200
Michael J. Madigan
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-2 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 3 of 5
Paul W. Butler
Michael A. Fitzpatrick
Suzanne E. Ashley
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-2 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 4 of 5
2 "new" documents posted on Pacer. Looks like they were filed on 6/9 and may be part of the previous filings, I haven't compared yet. Anyway, here they are:
N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In The Matter Of The Search Of 5444
Westheimer Road, Suite 1570, Houston
Texas on May 4, 2006
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No.
Oral Argument Requested
ERHC ENERGY INC.’S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY, TO ENJOIN
GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER IMAGES
PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND TO UNSEAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
SEARCH WARRANT
For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum of law, under Fed. R. Crim. P.
41(g), ERHC Energy Inc. (“ERHC”), moves for the return of property and to enjoin, prior to
judicial determination of an appropriate review mechanism, any review of documents and
computer hard drives seized by the Government pursuant to a search warrant dated May 3, 2006
and executed on May 4, 2006 because the seized documents and computer hard drives contain all
manner of attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. ERHC further
moves, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for the Court to unseal
the affidavit in support of the search warrant dated May 3, 2006 and executed at ERHC’s offices
on May 4, 2006. A proposed Order is attached.
DATED: June 9, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-1 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 3
2
GREGORY V. BROWN
State Bar No. 00793409
Federal I.D. No. 21038
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 220-5800 (telephone)
(713) 236-0822 (facsimile)
MICHAEL J. MADIGAN
PAUL W. BUTLER
MICHAEL A. FITZPATRICK
SUZANNE E. ASHLEY
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 887-4000 (telephone)
(202) 887-4288 (facsimile)
Attorneys for ERHC Energy Inc
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-1 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for ERHC Energy Inc. conferred with
counsel for the Government on multiple occasions regarding the relief sought herein. Counsel
for the parties cannot agree about the disposition of ERHC ENERGY INC.’S MOTION FOR
RETURN OF PROPERTY AND TO ENJOIN GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF SEIZED
DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER IMAGES PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW AND TO
UNSEAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 9, 2006, I served a true copy of
ERHC ENERGY INC.’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY AND TO ENJOIN GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF
SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER IMAGES PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW AND
TO UNSEAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT
by first class mail, postage prepaid upon:
Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr.
United States Attorney’s Office
Southern District of Texas
P.O. Box 61129
Houston, TX 77208
Mark F. Mendelson
Mary Kit Dimke
Department of Justice
Criminal Fraud Division
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
______________________/s/_______________
Andrew J. Dober, Esq.
Case 4:06-mc-00238 Document 2-1 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 3 of 3
Article published today supporting your theory:
WORLD ECONOMY: US outflanked in Eurasian energy politics
William Engdahl
Curiously and quietly the United States is being outflanked in its now-obvious strategy of controlling major oil and energy sources of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia’s Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.
The US’s global energy control strategy, it’s now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed “democracy” by Washington.
The quest for energy control has informed Washington’s support for high-risk “colour revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in the west-African Gulf of Guinea states, as well as in Sudan. It lies behind US policy vis-a-vis Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Evo Morales’a Bolivia.
In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance, a strategic US priority, has shown signs of producing just the opposite, a kind of “coalition of the unwilling” — states that increasingly see no other prospect but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control their future energy security.
The White House denied visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao the honour of a full state dinner when he visited in April, serving instead a short lunch. Hu was publicly humiliated by a well-known Falun Gong heckler at the White House press conference and by other obvious humiliations. In other words, the White House welcomed Hu with a diplomatic slap in the face.
At the same time, US Vice-President Dick Cheney slapped Russian President Vladimir Putin with the most open attack yet on Moscow’s internal human rights policy as well as its energy policy. In a speech in the Baltic state of Lithuania in early May, Cheney accused Russia of energy “intimidation and blackmail”.
Washington has repeatedly accused China of “not playing by the rules”, in terms of its oil politics, declaring that China is guilty of “seeking to control energy at the source”, as though that has not been US energy policy for the past century or so.
Eurasian energy bloc
The significance of taking aim simultaneously at both Russia and China, the two Eurasian giants (with China being the largest investor in US Treasury securities, and Russia being the world’s second most developed military nuclear power), reflects the realisation in Washington that all may not be as seamless in the quest for global domination as originally promised by various strategists in and around the Bush administration.
This month, member-nations of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), led by China and Russia, will reportedly consider inviting observer Iran to full membership. Even if full membership is postponed as has been mooted, the fact remains that Russia and China both want to seal closer cooperation with Iran.
The SCO was founded in June 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is beginning to look like an energy-financial bloc in Central Asia consciously being developed to serve as a counter-pole to US hegemony.
Russia’s state-owned natural gas transport company, Transneft, has consolidated its pipeline control to become the sole exporter of Russian natural gas. Russia has by far the world’s largest natural gas reserves and Iran the second largest.
With Iran, the SCO would control the vast majority of the world's natural gas reserves, as well as a significant portion of its oil reserves, not to mention potential control of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow corridor for a majority of Persian Gulf oil-tanker shipments to Japan and the West.
China’s energy geopolitics are also in high gear. China's booming economy, with 9% growth, requires massive natural resources to sustain its growth. China became a net importer of oil in 1993. By 2045, China will depend on imported oil for 45% of its energy needs.
On May 26, crude oil from Kazakhstan began to flow into China from a newly completed 1000-kilometre pipeline. It marked the first time oil began being pumped directly into China.
Kazakhstan had been regarded by Washington since the collapse of the Soviet Union as its sphere of influence, with ChevronTexaco, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s old oil company, the major oil developer. In 2005, China’s CNPC state oil company bought PetroKazakhstan for US$4.2 billion and will use it to develop oilfields in Kazakhstan.
China is also in negotiations with Russia for a pipeline to deliver Siberian oil to northeast China, a project that could be completed by 2008, and a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Heilongjiang, in China’s northeast. China just passed Japan to rank as world’s second largest oil importer behind the US.
Beijing and Moscow are also integrating their electricity economies. In late May, the China State Grid Corporation announced it plans to increase imports of Russian electricity fivefold by 2010.
China’s push into Africa
In its relentless quest to secure future oil supplies “at the source”, China has also moved into traditional US, British and French oil domains in Africa. In addition to being the major developer of Sudan’s oil pipeline, which ships some 7% of total China oil imports, Beijing has become more active in the states bordering the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea.
Since the creation of the China-Africa Forum in 2000, China has scrapped tariffs on 190 imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and cancelled $1.2 billion in debt.
Indicative of the way China is doing an end-run around the customary International Monetary Fund-led Western control of African states, China’s export-import bank recently gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola. In return, the Luanda government gave China a stake in oil exploration in shallow waters off the coast. The loan is to be used for infrastructure projects.
In contrast, US interest in war-torn Angola has rarely gone beyond the well-fortified oil enclave of Cabinda, where ExxonMobil, along with Shell Oil, has dominated until recently. That is apparently about to change with the growing Chinese interest.
Chinese infrastructure projects underway in Angola include railways, roads, a fibre-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5000 units of housing developments. A new airport with direct flights from Luanda to Beijing is also planned.
Indirectly, through its support of the Sudan government, China is also a contender in a high-stakes game of potential regime change in neighbouring, oil-rich Chad. Earlier this year, World Bank “tough guy” Paul Wolfowitz was forced to back down from plans to cut off World Bank aid, after a threat of an oil export cut-off by Chad.
ExxonMobil is currently the major oil company active in Chad. But Sudan backs Chadian rebels, who were only prevented from toppling the notoriously corrupt and unpopular regime of President Idriss Deby by the intervention of 1500 French soldiers. Washington has joined with Paris in backing Deby.
A new Sudan-backed regime in Chad would jeopardise the presence of Western oil firms. One can imagine that China just might be willing to step into such a vacuum and help Chad develop its oil exports, especially if the lion’s share went to China.
And immediately after his unpleasant diplomatic visit to Washington in April, Hu went on to Nigeria, long regarded by the US as its “oil sphere of interest”.
Hu signed a deal under which Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, will give China four oil drilling licences in exchange for a commitment to invest $4 billion in infrastructure. China will buy a controlling stake in Nigeria's 110,000-barrel per day Kaduna oil refinery and build railways and power stations, as well as take a 45% stake in developing Nigeria’s giant OML-130 offshore oil and gas field.
US hawks alarmed
The curious charge against China of “not playing by the rules” and “trying to secure energy at the source” begins to assume real dimension when these and recent Russian energy moves are taken as a totality.
It’s little wonder that some Washington hawks are getting alarmed. Suddenly, the world of potential “enemies” is no longer restricted to the Islam-centred “war on terror”. Leading neo-conservative ideologue Robert Kagan wrote a prominent opinion piece on it in the April 30 Washington Post.
Kagan is privy to pretty high-level thinking in Washington. His wife, Victoria Nuland, worked as Cheney’s deputy national security adviser until being named US ambassador to NATO. Kagan also co-founded the hawkish Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990s to, among other things, advocate a major US military build-up and forced regime change in Iraq.
Kagan charged that China and Russia have emerged as the protectors of “an informal league of dictators” that currently includes the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and Angola, among others, who, like the leaders of Russia and China themselves, resist any efforts by the West to interfere in their domestic political affairs.
“The question is what the United States and Europe decide to do in response”, wrote Kagan. “Unfortunately, al Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism faces today, or even the greatest.”
The mainstream US foreign policy organisation, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, has also weighed in on the question of Chinese energy pursuits. In an April 5 report, Sino-Russian Energy Ties, the CFR accused the Bush administration of lacking any comprehensive long-term strategy for Africa. The CFR criticised the US focus on “humanitarian issues” such as in Darfur, in western Sudan, demanding instead that the US “act on its rising national interests on the continent”. Those interests? The CFR lists oil and gas number one, and growing competition with China as number two.
[Abridged from <http://www.globalresearch.ca>. William Engdahl, a US economist and free-lance journalist, is the author of the best-selling book, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, published by Pluto Press (2004). He may be contacted through his website, <http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net>].
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/672/672p18.htm
OT: We have a "grandparents day" - however, it's typically referred to as a Hallmark Holiday. If you are unfamiliar with this term, it means that the company, Hallmark (who makes greeting cards) created this "holiday" (and several others) to boost their business.
And, happy belated Father's Day to you.
On the erhc website? Or in the documents on Greatsprings?
Found on the ERHC website:
VII. Penalties for Breach of Anti‑Bribery Provisions
1. Criminal Penalties
The following criminal penalties may be imposed for violations of the FCPA's anti‑bribery provisions:
§ ERHC may be fined up to US$2,000,000
§ Any ERHC person found in violation is subject to a fine of up to US$100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years
Under the Alternative Fines Act, higher fines may be imposed. The actual fine may be up to twice the benefit sought to be obtained by making the corrupt payment. It is forbidden for any fines imposed on an ERHC person to be paid by ERHC.
2. Civil Penalties
The Attorney General or SEC, as the case may be, may bring civil proceedings for a fine of up to $10,000 against ERHC and any ERHC person who violates the anti‑bribery provisions. In a SEC enforcement action, the court may impose an additional fine not to exceed the greater of (i) the gross amount of the pecuniary gain to the defendant as a result of the violation, or (ii) a specified dollar limitation. The specified dollar limitation depends on the seriousness of the violation and will range from $5,000 to $100,000 for a natural person and $50,000 to $500,000 for any other person.
The Attorney General or SEC, as the case may be, may also bring a civil action to enjoin any activity of ERHC or an ERHC person which is violating or about to violate the anti‑bribery provisions.
3. Other Governmental Action
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has guidelines under which any person or entity found in violation of the FCPA may be barred from doing business with the Federal government. The mere fact of indictment can lead to suspension of the right to do business with the US government.
In addition, a person or firm found guilty of violating the FCPA may be declared ineligible for export licenses. SEC may suspend or bar persons in violation of the FCPA from the securities business and impose civil penalties. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation may impose suspension or debarment from agency programs for violation of the FCPA. Any payment that violates the FCPA cannot be deducted as a business expense for tax purposes.
4. Private Cause of Action
Violating the FCPA may also form the basis for a private cause of action for treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). It may also give rise to actions under other federal or state laws. For example, a competitor may bring an action under RICO on the ground that the defendant won foreign contract under RICO.
http://www.erhc.com/CorporateGovernance.htm#
On the inventory, it says under location "on the desk" and discription "ERHC Whistleblower Protection Policy". It's in box 52, if that helps.
So far, the thing I've found the strangest is the "ERHC Whisteblower Policy" located "on the desk". You would think things "on the desk" are somehow being worked on or utilized. Wish we knew who's desk it was located on.
Thank you, Rambus! There's so much "unknown" information in all these documents it could take us all months to research it all. (Then after it's been found, you've got to find time to read it and try to figure it out!)
Thanks. eom.