McConnell claims his sister MI-3 boss Kristine Marcy and Norman Inkster instructed G4S auditor KPMG – founder of The Security Professionals and all modern Livery Companies – to set up a Clockmakers (61st in order of precedence) escrow position between the Queen’s Privy Purse and Obama’s Asset Forfeiture Fund and procure Westgate Mall rootkit keys to Serco network timing protocols for the spot-fixed civilian body count of 61.
MI-3 = Supply-chain protection racket operated through Privy Purse and Livery Company patent pools Marcy (Livery Company 8(a) hit teams – VA Prisoner Medical Services – JABS – Asset Forfeiture Funds)
+ Inkster (RCMP Wandering Persons Registry – KPMG Consulting – Abusive tax shelter – Escrow frauds)
+ Interpol (Berlin 1942-1945 – Operation Paperclip into Foreign Fugitive File – William Higgitt - Entrust)
+ Intrepid (William Stephenson – GAPAN patent pool – MitM Pearl Harbor attack – Kanada Kommando)
MI-3 = Marine Insertion Intelligence and Investigation unit set up in 1987 to destroy above
McConnell notes that in Book 12 published at www.abeldanger.net, agents deployed by his Marine Insertion, Intelligence and Investigations (MI-3) group are mingling in various OODA modes with agents of the Marcy Inkster Interpol Intrepid (MI-3) protection racket based at Skinners’ Hall, Dowgate Hill.
#1697: Marine Links Cameron’s MI-3 Gunmakers to Bullingdon Hunting Trip, White Widow Westgate Mall
#1476:Marine Links MoD Keys for Serco Clock, Cisco Rack to Bin Laden-Haig's Obama-In-Middle Attack
"White Widow" sought by Interpol after Kenyan mall attack [MI-3 founders Kristine Marcy and Norman Inksteers launched Interpol Foreign Fugitive File in 1987 to support MitM attacks on U.S. and its allies]
Inspector General releases highly-critical report on NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund
KPMG finds NOAA's administration of fund "neither transparent nor conducive to accountability."
According to the report:
The Inspector General (IG) determined that despite the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) reporting a balance of $8.4 million as of December 31,2009, OLE officials could not provide evidence that the AFF had ever been audited. Accordingly, the IG commissioned a major public accounting and auditing firm, KPMG, to conduct a forensic review of the collection of fines and penalties into, and expenditures from, the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF).
Using a broad interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), OLE has extensively used the AFF to pay for materials and services such as vehicles, vessels, travel, and training, while Office of General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL) uses the AFF to fund over 99 percent of its non-salary operating expenses.
KPMG was unable to discern the current balance of the AFF because it found that NOAA did not have a consistent definition of the AFF, and indicated the AFF was more of an abstract concept than a tangible entity within NOAA.
KPMG determined that no unit or individual within NOAA has a clear understanding of the AFF and how it functions from start to finish.
KPMG was unable to verify the $8.4 million balance provided by OLE and NOAA's Office of Finance, as cited in our January 2010 report.
KPMG found that during the period of its forensic review (January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2009), the AFF received approximately $96 million (including interest on prior balances), while expending about $49 million through over 82,000 transactions.
KPMG's review showed a history of inattention within NOAA to a substantial and highly sensitive monetary function of the agency.
KPMG's findings show that NOAA has administered the AFF in a manner that is neither transparent nor conducive to accountability.
While OLE and GCEL use the AFF for wide-ranging purposes, NOAA has no legal opinion on the applicable language in the MSA regarding authorized uses of the AFF.
The statutory language "Any expenses directly related to investigations and civil or criminal enforcement proceedings, including any necessary expenses for equipment, training, travel, witnesses, and contracting services directly related to such investigations or proceedings." 16 U.S.C. § 1861(e)(1)(C) would appear to restrict AFF expenditures to specific enforcement investigations or proceedings. NOAA, however, has interpreted this statutory passage to allow for use of the AFF to cover a variety of expenses which do not appear to be "...directly related to investigations and civil or criminal enforcement proceedings..." Specific examples of these types of expenditures, such as travel associated with international enforcement conferences, are contained in the report.
Clear from KPMG's findings is that the AFF has not functioned as a coherent program, despite being a substantial source of agency operational funding -- outside and supplemental to annual appropriations -- drawn solely from the proceeds of NOAA enforcement actions against industry.The complete report may be read at the website of the Office of the Inspector General.”
Abel Danger Blog