“When we stop asking questions we will disappear as humans. We will be cyborgs!” – Mihai Pâlșu, 10 december 2014
Internal NOTE of MAI (Interior Ministry) which proves the “white collars” conspiracy that robbed the public money.
Today, I am presenting EXCLUSIVELY a NOTE based on the Romanian and UE legislation, document drawn by the MAI lawyers, which stood prominently on the desk of the Interior Minister, Vasile Blaga. I repeat, the NOTE was drawn by the MAI lawyers, who offered additional legal explanations to Blaga! The MAI NOTE proves that the ex-Minister Blaga lies when he says that nothing more could have been done in the case of the EADS FRAUD. The NOTE proves that Vasile Blaga knew and remained silent! And he didn’t move in front, as a mercenary who was in the service of the “white collars” conspiracy, even since he had led the Customs! In 2005, the NOTE was brought to the knowledge of Minister Vasile Blaga. Due to the MAI NOTE, we have now the proof that Blaga knew and remained silent! By his silence, Vasile Blaga protected the EADS FRAUD.
The EADS FRAUD Conspiracy – Chapter dedicated to the prosecutors Moraru-Iorga and Koveși
Basically, the MAI NOTE and the circumstantial evidence show that there was a “white collars” conspiracy in which were part the former prime-ministers Năstase and Tăriceanu, the ministers of interior Rus, Săniuță, Blaga, Oprea and Nica, the MAI generals Zaharia, Carp and Gagiu, as well as several businessmen like Cătălin Harnagea, Dorin Marian, Tiberiu Urdăreanu, Claudiu Florică, Dinu Pescariu, Dorin Cocoș, Dumitru NIRO Nicolae, Alexandru Georgescu, etc. And DNA prosecutors behave as political customs checkpoint in order to dismantle the EADS FRAUD Conspiracy.
As I used a special term addressed to some personalities, I offer you a short presentation of the conspiracy, as it was defined by Judge John A. Bingham in the case of the process of the conspirators involved in the assassination of the American President Abraham Lincoln.
During the process that took place in Washington D.C., in 1985, referring to the possibility of proving a conspiracy, Judge John A. Bingham, having the role of accuser in the process, said:
“But how such facts can be proved? An activity which was so well and long planned and executed represents a sophisticated form of conspiracy. So, how are conspiracies disclosed and proved?”
To this purely legal question, Judge John A. Bingham gave the following answer during the process of the conspirators involved in the assassination of the American President Abraham Lincoln:
“A conspiracy is rarely proved, if ever, through positive testimony, when a crime of great magnitude is about to be committed by a group of individuals. Conspirators don’t act openly, but covered, in secret. The purpose kept in sight is known only by those who enter the system. Excepting the case when one of the conspirators betrays his fellows and offers evidence against them, their guilt can be proved only on the basis of circumstantial proofs.
In such situations, experts in evidence argue that circumstantial proofs are more powerful than the material ones. A witness can give misinterpretation of facts or commit perjury, evidence may be counterfeit, but circumstances cannot lie”.
It is useless to say that in America, in judging conspiracies, especially those of mafia type, as it is our case of the EADS FRAUD, the judges convicted the conspirators on the basis of the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecutors.
The documents declassified by FBI showed that many conspiracies were stopped by their creators when their plans were revealed to the public by journalists. Why? Because even in the case when the conspiracy reaches its goal and the offenders succeed to accomplish their evil plan, as it is the case of the EADS FRAUD, the circumstances that result from their criminal activities cannot be hidden.
Basically, the incriminating power of the circumstances makes the conspiracy vulnerable, and the prior denunciation of their plans is intended to point the accusing finger directly to the conspirators!
Dilatation of Seconds
Before going ahead with the MAI internal NOTE, we remind you that, even she receives monthly a consistent salary paid by the taxpayers in order to solve expeditiously the heavy corruption cases, the prosecutor Mihaela Moraru-Iorga delays unreasonably the EADS FRAUD case.
And the DNA head, Codruța Koveși, supports its immoral, political and totally illegal maneuver – if we take into account the fact that CEDO defined the reasonable investigation time for a penal file: 18 months!
Now it is clear for everybody that in Romania time is measured in other kind of seconds, that in our case the seconds are expanding as a prosecutor wants – in the EADS case, the binomial of magistrates Mihaela Morau-Iorga – Laura Codruța Kovesi. Maybe it is time that CSM makes office intimation and investigates the reason that stands at the basis of the dilatation of the investigation seconds used by Mrs. Prosecutor Mihaela Moraru-Iorga in the EADS FRAUD penal file. But also in other files, as Microsoft case.
The miserable contract
Vasile Blaga, Minister of Interior between December 2004 and April 2007, hid behind an apparent reduction of the initial price. But the reduction consisted, in fact, in eliminating from the contract some services that overlapped others, charged within the PHARE Program. So, from the initial amount of 650 million EUR, it reached 524.5 million EUR and then 750 million EUR, by the pen of Dan Nica.
But Vasile Blaga didn’t modify the SUBSTANCE of the contract with EADS, even if he had such possibility, as the internal MAI NOTE show us. Instead, as the DNA witness Claudiu Florică declared, “the honest” Vasile Blaga received BRIBE especially to not alter the substance of the contract – as it would have diminished considerably the BRIBE !!!
And the trick with the penal complaint submitted by Blaga against the generals Zaharia, Carp and Gagiu – complaint closed with NUP (non-prosecution) strategically offered by Daniel Morar – is a blemish which still stands on the DNA’s heraldry.
The internal NOTE of the Interior Ministry proves that the EADS Fraud was designed, implemented and perpetuated from the beginning until now by its “architects”, both German and Romanian. And nobody moves a finger in order to stop the bleeding of Romanian public money into the veins of the EADS owners.
In order to understand the magnitude of the EADS FRAUD scam, I am telling you that although the contract has started to take effect since 2004, today, in February 2016, after 12 years of continuous theft, Romania can offer the border security, as it is requested for the Schengen Area, ONLY by water and air. Not by land, too!
The summary of the NOTE that uncovers Blaga
As I accustomed you, I will publish the entire MAI NOTE at the end of the text. For those who are “lazy in reading” – no offense, with friendship – I found it necessary to summarize. Here it is:
In the NOTE it is shown that, according to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, among other commitments, we also assumed the border securitization.
But, “as it results form the Treaty’s provisions, Romania was NOT required to create an integrated system for border security.
The European Union insisted on measures for modernizing or accelerating the securitization process, but without specifying the obligation of having an integrated system completed in 2007”.
The NOTE tells us that, after EU specifically required to be no overlap between the PHARE Program and the EADS Contract, the minister Vasile Blaga sent an address, in April 2005, saying the following: “… the 2004-2006 Phare projects, implemented for the benefit of the Romanian Border Police, will not overlap with other actions financed by the Romanian Government, especially with those of EADS”.
The NOTE also speaks about the manner of direct assignment of the EADS contract and that Romania is likely to be judged at the European Court of Justice. The act has not prescribed!
The NOTE also shows that, after signing the contract, EADS had the advantage that the Description of the System – the basic technical document – was signed in blank. And Năstase, Rus and Săniuţă accepted to contract a volume of goods, services and works amounting 650,000,000 EUR, without any Technical Project.
The NOTE proves that, at the signing date, “The Description of the System” didn’t exist, but the document was listed among the current appendixes of the contract and, throughout the contract content, it is made reference to the content of the System Description, but without existing at least a page of this document!
The NOTE comes with a primary conclusion: the German part deliberately forced the signing of the contract in conditions imposed to the Romanian part, which was determined to accept in blank the functionalities, the goods, the services and the works that EADS was to perform, deliver and implement.
The NOTE draws the attention on the fact that potential checks that could be made by the European Commission may lead to the conclusion that the Romanian legal provisions, which were adapted to the European Union law, have been broken and, therefore, the Community legislation has been broken.
The NOTE is categorical: EADS knew very well the fact that at the moment of signing the contract there hadn’t been any technical document detailing the solution for which the German company requested 650,000,000 EUR.
The internal NOTE of the Ministry of Interior also shows how Romania can reach before the Court of Justice as Germany did in 2003. At that time, Germany was accused of assigning a contract without the tender procedure required in whole Europe for public services. The contract was assigned in 1994, for the amount of 29 million German marks (almost 15 million EUR). Germany recognized the infringement of the Community law, but motivated that a termination of the contract before the term was impossible without damages. But the court’s opinion was that this fact didn’t remedy the breaking of the European law, as the contract was still in force. So, the Germans weren’t at the first legislative deviation.
The main aspects of the MAI NOTE that ring an alarm signal about the EADS Contract
- The selection of the procurement procedure was made by ignoring the legal provisions.
- The Project Management Unit was another especially created body in the MAI structure, in order to facilitate the non-interference of the authorized structures in the contracting activity with EADS.
- The feasibility study performed by Bearing Point, which had to stand at the basis of the contract, was more like a simulacrum of a technical document, being done in a short period of time and being incomplete. Although the feasibility study call for tender also included a Technical Project for SISF (Integrated System for Border Securitization), it has no longer been done.
- The selection of the procurement procedure – meaning the negotiation with unique source – was made by violating the legal provisions.
- Choosing EADS as the only possible contractor is obviously forced, and the justifications (EADS is a well-known international company, EADS produces advanced security equipments, etc.) don’t make EADS the only company capable to implement a border security system. Even more, EADS has no experience in implementing such systems, as even its representatives declared, the system contracted by Romania being the first of this kind for them.
- The specification drawn for the tender request didn’t specify the exact requirements of the Romanian part and it was made up of some institutions’ points of views, being all uncorroborated and dispersed, which left EADS the possibility to bid whatever it wanted.
- The specification imposed the Tetrapol technology, which expressly violated the legal provisions that interdicted the imposition of a certain type of technology in the specifications.
- The offer sent by EADS was incomplete, it didn’t justify the price offered and it didn’t correspond to the requirements of the Romanian part. However, the Romanian part didn’t ask for clarifications and accepted the offer in the manner presented by EADS.
- The negotiation made for concluding the contract was a formal one, in which the Romanian part succeeded to remove from the contract proposed by EADS only few clauses unfavorable to the Romanian part.
- The negotiation wasn’t based on a draft of contract drawn up by MAI, as the legislation required, but on a EADS project which was negotiated in an unofficial meeting, before starting the negotiations, in the office of the EADS consultant, by the DGOPMR head and a legal adviser of DGRJC from the MAI part and by Cătălin Ghigea, the EADS consultant.
- The contract terms were drawn by EADS and not by MAI, as a buyer, as it should have been done.
- The signing of the First Detailed Appendix removed any possibility that MAI could have had to require a justification of the costs claimed by EADS.
N.B. The NOTE reminds us that there are cases when MAI officers received sanctions for minor deviations from the ministry’s regulations, but, in the case of those who contributed to the current situation, where there are obvious severe violations of the legal provisions, it seems there are no ways of sanctioning.
Mihaela Moraru-Iorga has now also at her disposal the MAI NOTE, with dedication for Blaga
So, the NOTE was brought to the knowledge of the minister Vasile Blaga by the MAI legal advisers. After he read it and discussed it several times with the signer of the NOTE, and also with other legal advisers and lawyers of international law, Vasile Blaga preferred to close his eyes. And now, Blaga walks around the TV studios saying he is not guilty, that he didn’t receive bribe, he had no knowledge of the ins and outs of the EADS Fraud, and he did everything he could to stop the public money bleeding. Totally false.
The internal MAI NOTE is categorical: The Interior Minister Vasile Blaga knew and remained silent. Blaga allowed the theft of public money in order to remain at the buttons, in order to stay at the table of the rich people. Blaga, as well as Năstase, Rus, Oprea, Săniuță, Nica and David, guided after the belief of the Romanian politician expressed by the crook Sorin Oprescu: “Small people” are useful only in elections!
From this moment, the prosecutor Mihaela Morau-Iorga has first-hand information from the legal point of view. As the signers of the note were employed as legal advisers in MAI, Mrs. Prosecutor only has to make a written request to the office of the technocrat minister Petre Tobă, in order to obtain names and contact information of NOTE’s authors. Obviously, everything institutionally.
N.B. SECUNDA hopes that, starting from today, the dilated seconds of Mrs. Prosecutor Mihaela Moraru-Iorga will return to the Greenwich standard!
The NOTE which explains the illegalities of the COMICEX-EADS Contract, in PDF format, is presented in full in Appendix
Material published by Mihai Pâlşu in the online newspaper SECUNDA – www.secundatv.ro – on the 1st of February 2016. – Translation by M. T.
