Alek Boyd

Who is FTI Consulting's Frank Holder?

2013-05-14T12:19:00.000Z

As the dust settles in the spurious lawsuit against Banco Venezolano de Credito brought by proxies of the Venezuelan regime (Derwick Associates), it is worth exposing some of the parties that participated in this malicious charade.

Frank Holder

FTI Consulting deserves special mention. It is a public listed company, that deals in a number of things, among which PR management. This "PR management" company instructed one of its employees, Maria Jose Tobar, to call me, to find out where I worked, so, presumably, I could be served. When I exposed FTI's idiotic attempt, Maria Jose Tobar deleted her LinkedIn profile. But FTI Consulting has been offering similar "PR management" and consultancy services to some of the worse thugs to come out Chavez's Venezuela: Rafael Sarria, Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, Moris Beracha, Alejandro Andrade, David Osio and the two imbeciles running Derwick Associates, Alejandro Betancourt Lopez and Pedro Trebbau Lopez. The commonality between mentioned names appears to be FTI's Frank Holder.

Holder "began his career with the U.S. Air Force as a political-military analyst for the U.S. embassy in Argentina and as a special agent for the Office of Special Investigations at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia." He cut his teeth in Argentina, where he set up some sort of risk assessment business called Buenos Aires Sistemas Inteligentes with none other than Luis Moreno Ocampo, who accused Holder of stealing information from his office. Holder then created Holder Associates and sold it to Kroll, becoming Kroll's man in Argentina. In 2000, Holder was found guilty of false claims and fraud. Holder was also accused of extorsion by former Governor of Entre Rios province Jorge Busti. In 2001, Holder produced an "intelligence report" about Argentinean Congressmen Gustavo Gutiérrez and Carlos Balter, which was found by judge Raul Sanchez as something baseless, commissioned and paid for by banker Raul Moneta with the unique objective of vilifying the two congressmen. Holder also founded Holder International, another intelligence firm which FTI Consulting acquired for $9 million in 2007.

Holder's name also popped in Brazil in relation to a scandal related to Daniel Dantas about a report of secret accounts that Lula da Silva, Jose Dirceu and other leaders of Partido dos Trabalhadores allegedly had offshore (Dantas was trying to use the report to blackmail Lula et al). Holder authored the report, and first claimed that he had come about the information in the course of Kroll's investigation into Italy's Parmalat's bankruptcy. Brazil's Veja magazine found through authorities in Milan that Holder's version was false. Confronted by Veja, Holder then admitted that hackers working for utterly corrupt former Argentina's Interior Minister Jose Luis Manzano "got the information", which Manzano handed over to him as "a personal favour". As a result of his relation with disgraced Brazilian banker Dantas, for which he got $838,000, Holder was accused of slander (he just fabricated "evidence" as in Argentina).

Apart from being a hired pen and a fabulist, FTI Consulting's Latin American director, Frank Holder, is meant to be an "expert" in "risk management... money laundering... forensic and litigation practice" and get this "fraud and public corruption investigations..." Holder is being sued in Florida ($6 million given to him gone missing) by Matias Garfunkel, another Latino 'businessman' involved in yet another massive corruption racket, in Argentina. In an attempt to acquire a controlling percentage of Telecom Argentina's shares, Garfunkel tried to use as guarantee two letters [see here, and here] from two Venezuelan banks owned by [guess who?] Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, another client of Holder and FTI Consulting. Did Fernandez Barrueco knowingly participate in this, or is it another example of Holder's penchant for recklessness?

But it gets even better, Holder was also hired by Hugo Carvajal, an OFAC designated kingpin targeted by the U.S. Treasury for supporting the FARC, Colombia's narco-terrorist cartel. As if that was not enough, former CIA agent Holder, also served as proxy for Rafael Sarria in at least two Florida-registered companies [SAI Advisors Inc. link, and Noor Plantation Investments link] used to launder money through real estate acquisitions. Hence Holder, and FTI Consulting as a result, have been involved, at the very least, in money laundering, racketeering, and aiding and abetting wanted criminals. Holder started off as an employee of the U.S. government: is he a double agent or is he just cashing in on the needs of criminals in Latin America? While FTI Consulting and Holder cheekily pontificate about FCPA compliance, when will federal authorities start questioning their activities in Latin America?

Robert Young Pelton's tale with Colombia's AUC

2013-05-10T13:17:00.000Z

Robert Young Pelton, perhaps the world's only "kidnap" victim allowed to have tourist snaps taken of him with his captors. Does this guy look like a kidnap victim or more like an adventurer planning on seizing a story for self-aggrandisement?

Last week I went public with my suspicion that self-styled adventurer and Foreign Policy columnist Robert Young Pelton is a fabulist. Pelton’s response was swift and aggressive. He dared me to put up $1,000 for every accusation I make. He even posted my last column on his website, ridiculing the suggestion that he is a fraud. The emailed reaction to my last article has only served to confirm my conclusion that his "kidnapping" in Colombia (a key component of his self-identity and used in virtually all of his bios) never happened.

Mr. Pelton, I gladly accept your $1,000 challenge. Unlike you, I am not a millionaire and $1,000 is a considerable sum for me but I assure you it will be put to good use.

Let me back up. When I received a callback from my source I asked "I've got a few questions about what happened in Colombia to Pelton, could you help?" The answer: "sure, shoot." In the course of doing research for a piece about human rights violations in Colombia, I came across the story of Pelton's alleged kidnap in January 2003 by the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary terrorist organization. Something was off about Pelton’s story. Different versions, different numbers, and different places, none of the protagonists’ accounts matched.

While Pelton was busy telling the world he had "walked into a firefight", his Panamanian jungle guide said they were "camping on a river bank when they were intercepted" by the AUC. One of Pelton’s American travel companions, 22 year-old Mark Wedeven stated "we were not kidnapped", while his other American travel partner, 22 year-old Megan Smaker, recounted how they were ambushed on "top of a ridge, where five rebels popped up with AK-47s..." It was like a South American Rashomon tale.

In Colombia, Pelton told the man that arranged his safe passage from the AUC that he hadn’t been kidnapped. Back in the U.S., however, he told National Geographic that he was kidnapped by a "right wing paramilitary group".

In 2003, he said he "had stumbled into the middle of a 150-man search-and-destroy mission aimed at FARC rebels supposedly hiding out in Panama." By 2013, the size of the "search-and-destroy mission" had grown to "175 members of the AUC on their way to invade Panama." His Panamanian guide however, Victor Alcazar, declared they had been "intercepted by 12 paramilitaries" later joined by 60 others.

One of the sources I contacted, said that Pelton's wife, Linda Pelton, was worried after a few days that Pelton hadn't communicated with her. That prompted her to reach out to some people that could find out what was happening with Pelton. Perhaps she wasn’t aware that he may have been with a 22-year-old paramour. Here's how the press reported about it:

That's what Linda Pelton wondered last month when her husband, adventure writer Robert Pelton, and two young hikers ventured into the jungle on the Colombia-Panama border and were captured by a right-wing paramilitary group. She called a friend, who called Brian Jones, a defensive tactics instructor and security consultant in Connecticut, who has arranged training events with Smith.

"When someone's life is on the line, you need to have the best person, the most skilled in a specific situation," Jones said.

Smith can handle distraught people, see the big picture and take charge, Jones said. "What separates Jamie from the others that I know has nothing to do with skill but has to do with his get up and go, if you will."

Smith picked up Jones' message Jan. 22, on his way home from a training gig in San Diego. He snapped into action, skipping sleep to make arrangements, and flew with Byrd to Bogota, Colombia, the next day.

They joined a journalist friend of Pelton's who arranged for the hostages' release to a priest. [Added: that journalist would be Steve Salisbury].

"DANGER IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS. BEACH COMPANY FOCUSES ON AVERTING TROUBLE, BUT ALSO GETS CLIENTS OUT OF IT", The Virginian-Pilot, February 2, 2003.

Robert Young Pelton, author of The World's Most Dangerous Places: A Guide to Warzones and host of a Discovery Channel show of the same name, has first-hand experience with SCG. Pelton was kidnapped by a Colombian paramilitary group in January of last year while hiking through the country researching an article for National Geographic. Even though the group released him after 10 days, Jamie Smith was brought in to find him and make sure he got out of the country.

"Security firm specializes in kidnap, ransom and rescue", Memphis Business Journal, July 18, 2004.

When I said to Pelton that sources involved with his extraction said he had not been kidnapped, he replied "I was never extracted." That contradicts the actions of Pelton's very own wife, as noted above.

Bear with me, dear reader, it’s about to get very bizarre. The most common definition of kidnap is to take someone by force to be used as a bargaining chip -as is regularly the case in Colombia-, to get ransom, to make political demands, etc. Further, kidnapping usually takes some degree of preparation and planning or an objective of some kind. The first source I spoke said that Pelton was most definitely not kidnapped. The fact that Pelton and his travelling companions were handed after a few days to a priest, without a scratch, by AUC's Elmer Cardenas group -responsible for the killing, disappearance and displacement of 11.127 people- leaves little doubt that kidnapping was not AUC's intention. AUC's Elmer Cardenas group top commander, Alfredo Berrío (aka El Aleman), had this to say: "los gringos se toparon con un campamento nuestro, y al confundirnos con la guerrilla comunista de las Farc, se declararon simpatizantes de sus ideales. Por represalia, los tuvimos hasta que nos cansamos", which translates as "the gringos walked into one of our camps, mistook us for FARC and declared they sympathised with [FARC] ideals. We had them until we got tired as reprisal." He should know what happened, right? AUC's supremo, Carlos Castaño, also commented on Pelton's "kidnapping" saying that they had been retained for their own safety and handed over to priests. These contradictory statements from terrorists are not conclusive.

Giving Pelton the benefit of the doubt, I sent an email to Colombia's highest authority at the time, after all the AUC and the Colombian government were about to start peace talks in the very days Pelton got lost in the jungle, and asked whether the AUC had used Pelton as a bargaining chip in their demands to the government. The reply I received was: "Jamás les habría tolerado el crimen por el cual usted pregunta", translation: "I would have never tolerated the crime you are asking about." In other words, the Colombian government would never have accepted such a thing. So Pelton wasn't even mentioned.

I also got in touch with journalists and foreign correspondents in Colombia, some of whom have interviewed AUC top commanders, and were excellently placed at the time to know what happened. Pelton's account did not fly with them either. One of them laughed at the very suggestion that Pelton was kidnapped.

Next thing I did was to confront Pelton with my suspicions. I must admit that I wasn't expecting the kind of reply I received, in one email Pelton wrote: "Can we wager lets say, $1000 per accusation so we can make this interesting? As I mentioned I have videotape, witnesses and photos of both events and I would love to make some money off either of these."

It seems that Pelton doesn't take criticism lightly. In a completely unrelated matter, his account of Human Terrain Teams in Afghanistan for Men's Journal also draw criticism, from the U.S. Army no less. When confronted by a blogger about his article, Pelton wrote:

"Old Blue…Dude I already sent you an email but you can’t seem to respond. I say again: do you want to to actually prove what you are saying. You have my request. So man up, and grow a name and a wallet. I will be waiting. I thought I was being quite charitable so I don’t agree with the hatchet job label. There are far more vocal critics out there. As your comments on untruths. As I offered you…how much money would you put up if I can prove them to be false. Its easy to say something, much harder to actually prove them. My charities await."

I’m not going to get into other published accusations of serial fabrications by Pelton—let’s just focus on Colombia. So what do we have here? We have a writer that should be writing fiction passing as a reliable source. We also have reputed news outlets, such as National Geographic, Men's Journal, Foreign Policy, etc., basically taking Pelton's word at face value. Whatever happened to fact checking? And when someone challenges Pelton he immediately wagers bets. Nobody takes him on.

Pelton posted this recently, in his own website:

Turns out I was the first to hike the trail in three years (the guys that did it before were kidnapped) and I walked into 175 members of the AUC on their way to invade Panama. I cautioned the two folks to downplay their kidnapping while in country and describe it as a battlefield detention because the AUC has a long reach in Colombia and outside of the region. People were murdered, villages were burned. We were under armed guard 24/7. Mark had a meltdown after the event. Meg was ok and did some interview. I flew to Iraq cuz the war was kicking off there. Same shit, different outfit.

What numbnuts doesn't know is that the State Dept essentially held us hostage and were leaning on us to press charges...while in country. Trying to make us poster children to go after Carlos and the AUC BEC. The AUC BEC is the oldest and most violent paramilitary group in Colombia. I pointed out that they weren't going to be around when an angry man with a chainsaw shows up at my house to tamper with the evidence. Mark and Meg agreed that this was Colombia's war and we weren't going to crusade for State despite being kidnapped.

Robert Young Pelton, "Re: RYP Hype. Fanboys in Colombia", May 6, 2013.

The lone hero was even abandoned by his government! As it turns, in this version not only had the AUC held Pelton hostage in Colombia, the U.S. State Department contributed by their inaction! Man, that must have been one fucked up trip. But notice that Pelton says he was "the first to walk the trail in three years".

How can he possibly know that? Actually, how can any editor or fact-checker know that? Did he conduct a survey before starting his trek? What data supports that claim? Is it not common knowledge that Darien is basically a highway of drug dealers, coyotes, and all sorts of South American people travelling north? Further, was he not handed over to a priest in Unguía, which is close to Arquia, the place Pelton wanted to get to? Does that mean hundreds of AUC soldiers, Kuna indians and area residents use that route on a regular basis? It would appear so: Marie Christine Lacoste, reporting from Boca de Cupe, has it that three Kuna indians were on their way to Arquía (Pelton would have you believe he was the first one on that trail in three years, remember?) heard someone ordering them to stop, shots were fired, they started running towards Paya (from where Pelton & co were coming from), found Pelton & co, warned them about what was happening, and left.

Naturally, Pelton spins the yarn further: "I cautioned the two folks to downplay their kidnapping while in country and describe it as a battlefield detention because the AUC has a long reach in Colombia and outside of the region." So Wedeven and Smaker falsely stated they had not been kidnapped purely on Pelton's advice. Only trouble with that is that Pelton himself said, repeatedly, that he was not kidnapped in Colombia:

Robert Young Pelton, a TV producer and dual U.S. and Canadian citizen, said they never felt kidnapped and were treated well. He speculated that AUC took them to prevent their seeing atrocities.

"Colombia War Takes 'Right' Turn; Anti-Communist Forces Negotiate with Government", Washington Times, January 28, 2003.

Pelton also informs groupies of his forum that the AUC "has a long reach... outside of the region". What "reach" is, or was that? Could Pelton point out one single instance, "outside of the region", whereby AUC had participated in any criminal activity? The world's bravest man seems to have been worried that the AUC would show up in his house in California with a chainsaw to "tamper" with evidence...

No, Robert Young Pelton is likely afraid that he would end up like Greg Mortenson. A disgraced fabulist who takes his readers for a ride and laughs all the way to the bank.

After PDVSA, Williams F1 to be 'sponsored' by Kazakhstan

2013-05-05T14:39:00.002Z

Frank Williams & his partners Hugo Chavez and Nursultan
Nazerbayev.

F1 journalist Joe Saward has a post at his blog about Williams, the F1 team, and Nursultan Nazerbayev's fiefdom, otherwise known as the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is interesting to see how professional journalists report on the dealings of dictators with F1 teams. In the last couple of years, Williams has gotten no small amount of criticism due to its deal with the late Hugo Chavez, who in characteristic dictatorial fashion one good day decided to waste millions of public funds from PDVSA on a third rate F1 team, on a sponsorship deal that has brought zero dividends for Venezuela. So confident are the Williams people that PDVSA's money will continue flowing that after Chavez's death they even dared saying to the press that their contract with PDVSA was watertight and would continue regardless (a preposterous allegation that has no basis in law).

When I first found out about the racket, I got in touch with Venezuelan Congressman Carlos Ramos, and basically asked him to start questioning the deal in Venezuela's Congress. After all, our current laws establish that PDVSA's expenditure need be approved by its board, but Congress has the final say on how or if proposed expenditure is to be approved (PDVSA is an oil conglomerate fully owned by the Venezuelan State). So Congressman Ramos started demanding questions about the deal, both in Venezuela and in England, and even agreed to sign a letter that I drafted and subsequently sent to Williams. Unfortunately, international attention on the issue caused some trouble to the Congressman back in the farm, and he admitted to me that "he was risking everything" by adopting such frontal stance regarding the corrupt and illegal deal.

Williams, a publicly traded company that's doing rather well, is totally unfazed by the whole thing. The thinking must go along the lines of "who are these little brown people questioning our affairs? Do they not know that our 'contracts' are watertight?" So far, they've been lucky. Henrique Capriles failed to win the last election, and so as long as chavismo is in power, they will likely continue getting Venezuelan public funds, nothing to do with legality of contract but rather with prevalent corruption and lawlessness. Probably foreseeing what will undoubtedly be an end of the deal should the opposition reach power in Venezuela, which will happen whatever their 'legal experts' would like to say, Williams has now branched out to another dictatorship: the Republic of Kazakhstan. Its ruler, Nazerbayev, another utterly corrupt and thuggish dictator (he calls himself Leader of the Nation in true Kim Jong il style) apparently has agreed to provide some funding to the team. Therefore, the question I would like to ask is: which tinpot dictator will become Williams F1's next sponsor?

How credible is Robert Young Pelton?

2013-05-02T18:06:00.000Z

From left: Mark Wedeven, Megan Smaker and Robert Young
Pelton after release by Colombia's AUC.

Fabulists, embellishers, and fradusters are often found in the media. The United States has no shortage of professional exaggerators, when it comes to military exploits and accomplishments. Sometimes men who claim to have “served” in “active duty” in Vietnam for instance—providing the perception of wading through rice paddies, were actually sitting at a desk job and never once picked up a rifle.

Imagine then my surprise when I came across a bizarre set of contradictions involving a celebrated adventurer: Robert Young Pelton. This is how Pelton describes himself:

"Author and filmmaker Robert Young Pelton is renown for overcoming extraordinary obstacles in his continued search for the truth. Pelton’s career consists of bypassing media, border guards, and military groups with the purpose of getting to the heart of the story..."

One of his bold claims: “He has been kidnapped by right wing death squads in Colombia..."

Pelton is a man who has become a brand name for danger. A quick Google search will provide plenty of proof of his adventures into dangerous places. Pelton regularly survives mortar shells, terrorist attacks, waltzes through war zones, meets impossible to find fugitives, and always escapes without a scratch. Some of the time his tales are personal accounts with no secondary evidence whatsoever. If he is to be believed, he is a modern day action-figure—an Indiana Jones. The extract above comes from his very own site, comebackalive.com, a commercial online platform where punters can read about his travels, and buy travel kit, insurance, but most importantly, it is a huge ad for his ongoing book sales. Pelton is also a frequent writer for such respected outlets such as Foreign Policy.

I came across Pelton when I was reading about an incursion that Colombian guerrillas did into Panama, killing four people in the villages of Paya and Púcuro in January 2003. I recently published in Colombia’s Semana and collaborate regularly with its journalists, and so I thought I’d do a column on the AUC and their human rights violations.

In a National Geographic interview with Pelton, entitled "Adventure Magazine Reporter Recounts Ten-Day Kidnapping by Colombian Death Squad" the following can be read:

Robert Young Pelton, along with two traveling companions, Mark Wedeven and Megan Smaker, was kidnapped on January 14th by a right-wing paramilitary group in Panama's Darién Gap. The Bloque Elmer Cardenas, a splinter group of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, released Pelton and the two young backpackers last Thursday after holding the trio captive for ten days in the jungle borderland between Panama and Colombia.

The news of Pelton's kidnapping was hot. It was published far and wide. But a claim by his companion Mark Wedeven, made right after his release and distributed by the Associated Press, contradicted Pelton's narrative:

"Wedeven said he never felt that he and his fellow travelers were abducted. "We were not kidnapped," Wedeven said. "During the time we were with the AUC we did not have any problems.""

Unfortunately Mark Wedeven died in 2010 after being caught by an avalanche in Mount Rainier. However a program about his time in Panama and Colombia called “Locked up Abroad,” also for National Geographic, aired in 2010. In the program, Wedeven's personal account of what happened is aired, and says "we weren't restrained, our hands were never bound…" which would reinforce earlier claims about not having been kidnapped. Wedeven also contradicts Pelton's claims of having walked into a firefight. Wedeven states that they were walking towards the location where gunfire was heard, and were surprised and ambushed by four men.

Megan Smaker, also party to the expedition, seems to lean more towards Wedeven's version, saying "After about 30 minutes, they came to the top of a ridge, where five rebels popped up with AK-47s..." as opposed to Pelton's "I don't know if you know what it's like when you walk into a firefight—but they were wired and twitchy, shouting and yelling."

I kept digging. The more I found the more I realized something was off, like reports in the Colombian media, that claim that Pelton et al were sort of “intercepted” by the AUC while they were walking in the Darien jungle (Wedeven & Smaker version), and protected by the AUC until they could be safely handed over to religious authorities, which indeed happened. There's also an actual press release sent by AUC commander Carlos Castaño to Reuters, where he claims that Pelton and his companions were found wandering in the Urabá, Chocó region, and were escorted out of the area for their own safety.

So here we have a party of seven people (Pelton, Wedeven, Smaker, guide Victor Alcazar, and three Kuna porters), crossing the Darién Gap. It is highly suspect, in my opinion at least, that a seasoned traveler to the world's most dangerous places, as Pelton claims to be, wanders into an area known to be dangerous with a 22-year-old blonde without any experience in similar situations (a volunteer firefighter) that he allegedly met online, and some other 22-year-old thrill seeker, equally clueless and inept, that Pelton bumped into in a map shop in Panama (I am not joking—these were Pelton’s companions). The accounts about what happened in Colombia simply don't match, most parties contradict what Pelton claims. Then, the three of them were handed over to a priest, completely unharmed. No ransom or other demands were made in exchange for these valuable hapless Americans. What kind of a kidnapping is that? Meanwhile, Colombian authorities believed this all took place in Colombian territory, while Panama's former President, Mireya Moscoso, claimed it happened in Panama.

In the meantime, Pelton's expedition guide (Pelton the all-conquering hero of the world's most dangerous places hired a jungle tour guide), Victor Alcazar, is quoted as saying that they were camping on a river bank, when they were intercepted by a dozen paramilitaries.

Other versions [see here, and here] relate to three Kuna indians going towards Arquía, a town in the Chocó region, when they heard a voice ordering them to stop and then some shots. They started running back towards Paya, and on the way they encountered Pelton and co, and warned them, but they decided to carry on.

I couldn’t believe these contradictions so I began to make some phone calls. Undermining even further Pelton's version, a source that became involved in getting the AUC to safely escort Pelton out of Darien to hand him over to priests, told me by phone that "Pelton was never kidnapped," but rather "invented" the whole thing.

Shades of Professional Fabulist Greg Mortenson

Greg Mortenson

The fact that Pelton spent a few days with the AUC in Colombia is not in question. Rather it is what would appear to be his embellishment of events, his twisting the truth, for commercial reasons. Fact checking such tales is practically impossible: Wedeven is dead, guerrilla commanders that "kidnapped" him can't be reached. There are no easily accessible communications to Kuna indians, though perhaps Smaker would like to shed light on how and where exactly she first met Pelton (not in Panama I've been told). Pelton's account appears to be made up, he turned a “found walking in the jungle by the guerillas and then escorted by them to some priests” into a “kidnapped by right wing death squads in Colombia” story. Pelton has literally dozens of tales ranging from Chechnya to Mogadishu to Papua New Guinea. All places where locals would never be trusted if they contradicted this National Geographic explorer, so what else has he been inventing?

In 2009 I was working for a human rights group and was a staff member at an event in Norway, the Oslo Freedom Forum. Mortenson, a household name, was one of the guest speakers. Mortenson was the hugely famous American who had been setting up a schools for girls in Pakistan. It turned out that Mortenson's books, sales of which netted him millions, were based on a wholesale fabrication of events. Some of the biggest lies included being present in Mother Teresa’s bedroom as she lay there just hours after her death, and being kidnapped by the Taliban. All lies. And nobody could contradict him. One man, Jon Krakauer, began to peel back the voluminous layers of bullshit and the entire house of cards came crashing down. Mortensen was not just a fraudster with his book, he was also defrauding the foundation he had created by spending millions of dollars on private jet travel, and pumping up sales of his book by having the foundation buy them in bulk to keep them at the top of the best-seller lists.

Finally, I did reach out to Pelton, with some of my questions, he replied dismissively:

"You can check with local news sources for independent photographs and accounts of the event. Just google it. There is plenty of video footage taken as well."

There are sources allright, Mr Pelton, some linked above, and the independent accounts do not support your version. It does strike me as odd that Colombian guerrillas would free Pelton and his travel companions just like that. It seems implausible. Someone like him is a huge bargaining chip, and I certainly don't buy macho stances from a gringo supposedly talking his way to freedom with Colombian criminals, who BTW were coming back from a killing spree in Panama. So I am throwing down the gauntlet, and hoping there are others who can help me crowd-source research into what appears to be the military version of Greg Mortenson.

Henrique Capriles: el radical

2013-04-30T16:57:00.000Z

El video que he colocado aqui arriba fue colgado en Youtube por Smartmatic. En el mismo puede observarse al Secretario de la Mesa de la Unidad (MUD), Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, afirmar que las maquinas de votación de Smartmatic han sido "auditadas suficientemente" (ver min. 1.50). La primera vez que escuché a Aveledo hacer tales declaraciones me alarmé, luego de lo cual le envié correos electrónicos a mi para nada desinformada lista de contactos en Venezuela, a ver si podían indicarme cuándo, dónde, cómo, y por quién habían sido hechas tales auditorías, por cuanto, hasta donde sabía, la unica vez que las maquinas de Smartmatic habían sido auditadas fue en Fila de Mariches, el 23 de noviembre de 2005, justo antes de las elecciones legislativas. En aquella auditoría, en presencia de observadores electorales de la Unión Europea y de la Organización de Estados Americanos, se demostró que el secreto del voto estaba comprometido.

Nadie sabe...

Ninguno de los recipientes de mis misivas solicitando información sabe dónde, cuándo, cómo y por quién fueron hechas esas auditorias a las que se refiere Aveledo. No hay reportes al respecto. Ni artículos de prensa. En ningún lado. Nadie vio nada. Nadie presencio nada. Nadie escribio un tweet, o un comentario en Facebook, sobre algo tan crucial. ¿Puede sorprender entonces que el video de las declaraciones de Aveledo esté siendo utilizado por Smartmatic como propaganda?

Quienes si presenciaron la única auditoría que se le ha hecho a las maquinas de Smartmatic hasta el momento, observadores electorales de la Unión Europea (ver pag. 25), concluyeron:

While the source codes are owned by the CNE they are for commercial reasons not made available for public scrutiny and no independent third party audits have been conducted on any part of the electronic voting system.

O para ponerlo mas claro, "el código fuente (de las máquinas) es propiedad del CNE y por razones comerciales no está disponible a escrutinio público y no se han realizado auditorias independientes en ninguna de las partes del sistema electrónico de votación." Desde luego que Smartmatic no va a utilizar lo citado como muestra de la eficiencia y fiabilidad de su sistema de maquinitas de lotería devenidas en dizque el "mejor sistema electoral del mundo". Vale recordar que absolutamente todos los procesos electorales en los que ha participado Smartmatic hasta ahora fuera de Venezuela, y que han sido auditados como se debe, en todos se han descubierto fallas en su sistema. En todos.

Pero Smartmatic no viene al caso hoy. El punto de este artículo es exponer la actitud hipócrita, deshonesta y maniquea de ciertos líderes de la oposición. A quienes hemos reclamado, por años, que se exija un mínimo de condiciones electorales al CNE se nos ha tildado de radicales, y de abstencionistas. Hace apenas seis meses esa era la postura oficial de la oposición para con quienes argüíamos que se debe condicionar la participación electoral, no adoptando posturas abstencionistas, sino exigiendo el respeto a la ley.

Las maquinas de Smartmatic no se auditan desde noviembre de 2005, a pesar de lo que diga el irresponsable Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, y lo mismo aplica al registro electoral, el cual no ha sido debidamente auditado desde el 2005. Ahora Henrique Capriles, quien ha declarado desconocer los resultados de las elecciones del 14 de abril, está basicamente exigiendo al CNE lo mismo que otros llevamos años reclamando. ¿Quién lo llama radical? ¿Quién lo describe como abstencionista?

Veamos lo que dice la Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política (ver LOSPP):

Artículo 95. En el Registro Electoral se hará constar:

1. Los nombres, apellidos, número de cédula de identidad, sexo, fecha de nacimiento, nacionalidad, profesión y los impedimentos físicos de los ciudadanos que tengan derecho a ejercer el sufragio, conforme a la Constitución de la República y esta Ley;

2. La indicación de si sabe leer y escribir;

3. La residencia del elector con todos los detalles de su ubicación exacta, con indicación de la Vecindad Electoral, Parroquia; Municipio y Entidad Federal;

4. El Centro de Votación y la Mesa Electoral en donde le corresponde votar al elector;

5. La cualidad de cada elector necesaria para ser seleccionado como miembro de los organismos electorales, conforme a lo dispuesto en el Título VII de esta Ley, así como la identificación detallada del lugar donde realiza las actividades que lo hacen elegible; y,

6. La condición de suspensión y su motivo, cuando sea el caso.

Parágrafo Único: Los datos señalados en este artículo deberán ser incluidos en las copias de la lista de electores que se le entreguen a los diferentes partidos o grupos de electores cuando así lo soliciten.

Artículo 156. Las máquinas para la automatización de las votaciones, escrutinios, totalización y adjudicación, sus equipos, programas y bases de datos correspondientes, deberán estar debidamente probados, almacenados y resguardados en locales adecuados ubicados en el municipio donde serán utilizados, con un mes de anticipación por lo menos a la fecha de realización de las elecciones, y una vez instalados no podrán ser mudados o manipulados por persona alguna, salvo lo que al respecto pueda disponer a los fines de su resguardo, mantenimiento, chequeo y conservación el Consejo Nacional Electoral mediante resolución especial.

Es decir, leyes vigentes permiten exigir al CNE tanto el escrutinio / auditoría a las maquinas de votación como al registro electoral. ¿Cómo puede describirse la solicitud y exigencia de aplicación de leyes vigentes como una actitud radical? Ahora el radical es Capriles, y los siete millones y pico que votamos por él. Si nos hubieran escuchado antes, quizás la situación fuera otra. Habiendo dicho esto, el movimiento opositor no necesita políticos como Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, que le mienten al pais con toda desfachatez y además desdeñan a quienes piden el respeto a la ley.

Venezuela necesita un líder de oposición que le hable con toda claridad al país, y al mundo, sobre la realidad electoral, y repita hasta la saciedad que los procesos electorales en Venezuela son, y han sido desde 2004, total y absolutamente fraudulentos. Ya basta de mentecatos, de mentirosos, de incapaces, que nos hacen avanzar un paso y retroceder una docena. Ya basta de colaboracionistas estilo Teodoro Petkoff, quien clama que nuestro sistema electoral es a prueba de fraude. Ya basta de representantes con poca o ninguna capacidad y menos preparación ante el CNE como Felix Arroyo, Enrique Marquez o Ramon Jose Medina. Ya basta de voceros que contraríen publicamente las declaraciones del líder de la oposición, como Ocariz. ¿Hasta cuándo tendremos que calarnos tal caterva de inutiles?

Ministro Ricardo Molina: el fascista

2013-04-25T15:31:00.000Z

El "Ministro" Ricardo Molina nunca se pudo imaginar que sus palabras lo harían famoso. Su padre, el insigne Manuel Isidro Molina Gavidia, fue durante la mayor parte de su vida un incansable luchador contra lo que su hijo ahora representa: un regimen abominable al cual "no le interesa en lo absoluto lo que dicen las normas laborales". ¿Cómo, habiendo tenido un padre como ese, quien sufrió en carne propia la persecución por motivos políticos, puede el "Ministro" Molina haber expresado, con tal convicción además, las infelices declaraciones que lo han catapultado a la "fama"? Es una pregunta que nos hacemos en casa, desde hace unos dias, mi esposa y yo.

Desde que conocí a la familia Molina, a través de Fidelina Molina y su esposo Rómulo Hidalgo (amigos de mi padre), a los 14 años de edad, siempre me había llamado la atención el evidente divorcio entre sus dizque posiciones políticas, militantes de izquierda, y su forma de vida. No existía tal discrepancia en el caso de Manuel Isidro Molina Gavidia, quien vivía de forma frugal, casi asceta, con respecto al materialismo. Pero algunos de sus hijos, como Fidelina, y ciertamente sus nietos, me parecía a mi, como que no habían entendido el mensaje, en el sentido que una persona que asume el comunismo como ideología política, como ellos manifestaban haberlo hecho, no puede, mejor dicho, no debe, perseguir la acumulación de riqueza como último fin, cosa supuestamente característica del capitalismo.

Tendría yo eso, 14 o 15 años, cuando en una conversación les dije: "qué de pinga Ustedes hablando del comunismo y de Cuba como la gran panacea, cómodos aqui, comiendo parrilla en ésta quinta en La Mara, con dos carros estacionados en el garage, negocio, etc. Por qué no se van a vivir a Cuba, a ver si allá pueden hacer lo que aqui?" Comunistas de urbanización.

Esa hipocresía siempre me molestó, pero entendía que la adopción de dicha postura política no era producto del estudio, del arribo a la misma por convicción propia, sino un reflejo de lo que, toda la vida, habían escuchado al "viejo Manuel" decir, quien era un motivo de orgullo familiar, un valuarte, un intelectual autodidacta, gran emprendedor, "una biblioteca andante", como decían algunos de sus nietos.

Los últimos años de vida de Manuel Isidro Molina Gavidia, transcurrieron de forma placentera, en una cabaña en las afueras de la ciudad de Mérida. Allí fuimos acogidos mi esposa (nieta de Manuel Isidro Molina Gavidia y por tanto sobrina del "Ministro") y yo muchos años más tarde, cuando decidimos montar un pequeño negocio en esa ciudad. En compañía del "viejo Manuel" pasamos muchas horas, agradabilísimas, en las cuales continuamente le preguntaba sobre uno u otro hecho o personaje de la política contemporánea de Venezuela. Pero sobre todo, lo increpaba sobre el comunismo. Para aquel entonces, 1997-1998, el fracaso del experimento del dictador Fidel Castro ya era harto conocido, para cualquier persona medianamente informada y objetiva. Y por ello en conversaciones, le pregunté cómo podía un regimen castrador de libertades, como la Cuba castrista, ser objeto de admiración y apoyo; "cómo puede alguien medianamente inteligente defender tal cosa?" le decía. Hasta que una vez me dijo, con la expresión de quien ha perdido algo querido, algo así como "si yo hubiera sabido en mis años mozos el precio, el costo humano del comunismo, nunca lo habría apoyado."

Ahora vemos como uno de sus hijos, el "Ministro" Ricardo Molina, asevera con absoluta convicción y claridad, que las leyes no importan, en lo absoluto, si acaso a alguien se le ocurre expresar una postura política distinta a la del regimen del cual forma parte. Tanto su padre, y por consecuencia él mismo, vivieron muchas penurias, precisamente por adoptar una postura política contraria al estatus quo de la época. Como en el caso de Jorge Rodriguez, la víctima se convierte en victimario. Y ése es quizás el peor legado de Hugo Chavez: el haber exacerbado el odio, el haber hecho del odio una postura política, digna de vitoreo "así, así, así es que se gobierna!", el haber tornado el odio en el elemento central de su dizque revolución. De tal ralea, de tal lumpen intelectual, es imposible esperar otra cosa que no sea radicalización, violencia, violación de derechos humanos, civiles y políticos, por lo dicho: les "importa en lo absoluto". Son un salto atrás estos tipos, un retroceso a tiempos de Boves y su ejército de resentidos patasucia, y no con votos precisamente fueron vencidos la vez primera.

Lo bueno de todo esto, es que la revolución está siendo televisada en todo su dantesco esplendor. La escoria chavista es estrella, es foco de atención, magnificada por millones de mensajes de texto, de videos, en Twitter y Facebook, en los despachos de las agencias noticiosas mundiales, en internet, salvando barreras culturales y lingüísticas, y eso es lo bueno, que los 15 minutos de infamia del "Ministro" Ricardo Molina ya son parte de la historia contemporánea de Venezuela. El "Ministro", sin duda, carece de la capacidad intelectual para apreciar la gravedad de su fascismo. Pero otros si la tenemos, y nos aseguraremos de recordarla. Los hijos de muchos padres que hoy viven la penuria impuesta por el castro-chavismo recordarán sus palabras y sus hechos, de la misma forma que el "Ministro" recuerda lo sufrido por su padre a manos del dictador Marcos Perez Jimenez. Eso perdurará, él lo sabe, aun cuando no entienda la dimensión y consecuencias de su radical y degenerada postura.

@willycochez Panama puede ayudar a Venezuela contra el lavado de dinero

2013-04-23T09:40:00.001Z

El Embajador Willy Cochez, en referencia a personas allegadas al régimen dizque ilegítimo de Nicolás Maduro, hizo un comentario a través de su cuenta en Twitter que me llamó la atención: "Desde ya ofrezco mis servicios de abogado para recuperar los bienes y $ de Vzuela q esos fariseos y boliguerses trajeron a Panamá." (sic)

En esa misma línea, el Embajador Cochez había hecho otro comentario: "Cuándo nuevo gobierno solicite información s/ cuentas y propiedades aquí,autoridades judiciales Panamá cooperarán. Me encargaré de q así sea" (sic)

Sería maravilloso que Venezuela tenga un gobierno en el futuro en el cual se investiguen, sin miedo a las consecuencias políticas, los abundantes hechos de corrupción ocurridos desde que el caudillo Hugo Chavez llegó al poder en 1998. Pues no solo aumentó exponencialmente el número de casos de corrupción, las fortunas mal habidas durante la era chavista alcanzan unas cifras que son imposibles de ignorar. La corrupción en Venezuela es un monstruo de mil cabezas que llega a todos lados y no distingue entre posiciones políticas. Lo más triste es que la sociedad venezolana no parece ver la corrupción como problema, sino como oportunidad.

Tomemos un caso reciente: el "empresario" revolucionario Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco. Ese individuo pasó de parquear carros en el estacionamiento de su padre en el Hotel Hilton en Caracas, a tener más de 250 empresas y una fortuna que superó en el 2006 los 1.600 millones de dólares. Ello no le tomó ni 10 años. Cómo se explica ese enriquecimiento, sin mencionar ilícito en el contexto? Veamos otro caso: Derwick Associates, una compañía de maletín, creada por un par de veinteañeros, que pasaron de ser office boys a recibir 12 contratos del estado venezolano -sin licitación- para la instalación de plantas termoeléctricas, en un período de 14 meses, lo cual les reportó réditos que bien podrían exceder los 1.000 millones de dólares. Mil millones de dólares en 14 meses, nada mal no?

Tanto Fernandez Barrueco como los directivos de Derwick Associates (Alejandro Betancourt y Pedro Trebbau) registraron empresas en Panamá, en las cuales testaferros designados obstaculizan la identificación de los verdaderos dueños, y la examinación de las actividades de dichas empresas. En lo que se percibe como el gran beneficio de operar en centros offshore, el anonimato es uno de los servicios más preciados, ya que ni se declaran cuentas, ni se pagan impuestos, ni hay forma de averiguar (de no ser que las autoridades de determinado país tomen cartas en el asunto) si el flujo de dinero es producto de actividades lícitas.

El problema es que Fernandez Barrueco y los "bolichicos" de Derwick Associates no son los únicos venezolanos que "operan" en Panamá. Prácticamente todos los ladrones de cuello blanco que han hecho fortunas ilícitas en Venezuela en los últimos 14 años o tienen presencia en Panamá (bancos, casas de bolsa, etc.), o han utilizado el sistema financiero panameño, o tienen compañías registradas en Panamá lo cual les permite operar con absoluta impunidad.

El Embajador Cochez dice estar dispuesto a colaborar cuando un nuevo gobierno solicite información. Pero qué pasa si dicho nuevo gobierno no se cristaliza? Qué pasa si Henrique Capriles no llega al poder? Acaso los boliburgueses que esconden sus fortunas en Panamá, o que utilizan Panamá como una gran lavadora de dinero, no deben ser investigados por las autoridades panameñas, independientemente de si un hipotético gobierno de Venezuela solicite información al respecto?

Al ofrecimiento del Embajador Cochez, le voy a agregar otro: en calidad de periodista de investigación con más de una década exponiendo casos de corrupción en Venezuela, desde ya me pongo a la disposición de las autoridades panameñas para identificar e investigar a los venezolanos que han utilizado Panamá para legitimar capitales obtenidos de forma fraudulenta.

Panamá no necesita solicitudes de Venezuela para impedir que su sistema financiero sea utilizado para lavar dinero venezolano. Panamá no necesita la participación de Venezuela para salvaguardar la integridad de su sistema financiero. Panamá no necesita a Henrique Capriles para demostrarle al mundo que toma con toda seriedad normas internacionales contra el blanqueo de capitales. Para lo anterior tan sólo se necesita la voluntad política de las autoridades panameñas. Esta por verse si existe dicha disposición.

En cualquier caso, vaya su palabra por delante Embajador Cochez, aquí tiene a un colaborador muy bien dispuesto a empezar con la tarea lo más pronto posible.

Derwick Associates settles out of court

2013-04-18T12:24:00.001Z

Last week a source in D.C. tipped me about Al Cardenas' desperation to "get out of" Derwick Associates lawsuit as "quickly as possible." I wrote to Cardenas and Joseph DeMaria to enquire about it, alas neither replied. Last Friday, Derwick Associates settled out of court its spurious lawsuit in Miami against Banco Venezolano de Credito (BVC), Oscar Garcia Mendoza, and Rafael Alfonzo. It's been reported that Derwick's sole requirement was to get a no-countersue guarantee from BVC et al. Readers may recall that the whole thing started with a couple of articles by an award winning journalist (Cesar Batiz) in Venezuela's most read newspaper (Ultimas Noticias), about a huge corruption racket, in which fly-by-night (Derwick Associates), run by two twenty-something year olds (Alejandro Betancourt Lopez and Pedro Trebbau Lopez), overcharged the Venezuelan State in the hundreds of millions of dollars, in a series of no-bid energy contracts awarded by utterly corrupt officials of the Hugo Chavez regime, in mysterious and most probably illegal circumstances. The novelty of this case in particular, is that the two halfwits running said company thought it would be great to prosecute its perceived critics (BVC et al) in a court of law in Miami. Well, that turned out to be a costly mistake, as predicted. After this deeply embarrassing u-turn Derwick Associates may be thinking that they got away with it, but truth is their problems have just started.

In subsequent posts, I shall be further exposing Derwick's associates (pun intended) in the USA: Hector Torres, Al Cardenas and, especially, FTI Consulting. Stay tuned...

Diosdado Cabello, and not Nicolas Maduro, has the power in Venezuela

2013-04-17T09:23:00.001Z

Diosdado Cabello holds the keys to Venezuela's future. Not Nicolas Maduro. Not his Cuban handlers. Not Henrique Capriles. Not Rafael Ramirez. Not the criminal enterprises that sustain chavismo. Not the electoral authorities (CNE) that will most definitely not allow a recount of votes or meaningful scrutiny, as requested by Capriles. Not the Congress. Not the media. Not the "international community". Not the USA. Not Colombia (Santos reached a new low if that was ever possible). It all depends, in my opinion, on how Diosdado Cabello plays his cards.

Cabello graduated from Venezuela's Armed Forces military academy in 1987. He was the second best, in a class of 216 officials (the Tomás Montilla Padrón, class of 87). Many of Cabello's colleagues participated in the coup led by Hugo Chavez in 1992, and many were rewarded by Chavez, once he reached power. Cabello has been one of the fixtures of chavismo. And so have been Jesse Chacon, Alejandro Andrade, and Jose Vielma Mora, to name but a few. Cabello and his colleagues have reached key positions within chavismo: tax collection, army, telecoms, finance, and government. Colleagues of Cabello control many of the most important military commands in Venezuela. On the 5th of July 2012, Chavez announced a new wave of promotions within the army: 42 officers were promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, with direct command over troops. Of the 42, 36 belonged to Cabello's class of 87. But, and here's a crucial point, 97 members of the class are still active within the army, but only 36 were promoted. That means 61 colonels, companions of Cabello, are due a promotion. It did not happen last year, which sources told me caused a great deal of discontent, that Cabello is managing to his advantage.

The power to promote people within the army rested solely with Hugo Chavez. In what can only be taken as a political decision, Chavez decided to promote some, not all of Cabello's classmates. All the while, there's never been lost love between Cabello and Cuba's dictators. In fact, Cabello never shared Hugo Chavez's subservient attitude and infatuation with Fidel Castro: he rarely, if ever, went to Cuba, and is said to despise what he considers the affront of getting orders from Cuba.

The Castro dictators picked Maduro for obvious reasons. A semi literate, intellectually handicapped yes-man, through whom continuation of Chavez's progressive cession of sovereignty to Cuba could continue unabated. But the Castro bros miscalculated big time. They put all the eggs in Maduro's basket, and that might prove fatal for their plan. For Maduro, a civilian, does not have the slightest ascendancy over Venezuela's army, which Cabello quite obviously has.

When push comes to shove, the Venezuelan army will step in and decide who runs the show, as is always the case. When that moment comes, neither Maduro, nor his Cuban handlers, stand a chance. Cabello already voiced, in Twitter, what could be interpreted as an open threat to Maduro, whose slim margin of victory over Capriles is seen as a monumental failure that could have brought an end to the "revolution". Cabello could, very easily, leverage fresh demands on the very real fire power of his classmates. With Chavez out of the picture, there's absolutely no one that can restrain Cabello, if he decides to move against Maduro.

In all of this, Capriles is just a passenger, background noise. He has no power to force the game, and will probably end up jailed (that could be a game changer, but it remains to be seen whether Cabello and the Castros are that stupid).

Maduro wins, Capriles wanders into the wilderness

2013-04-15T11:48:00.001Z

One thing that I can't get my head around is this:

every person in Venezuela knows that the State is fully behind the candidate of the ruling party, i.e. chavismo. It was like that when Hugo Chavez was alive, and it continues to be so. All Venezuelan institutions are controlled by chavismo. The Armed Forces are squarely behind chavismo. All the monies of the State are controlled by chavismo. Four out of five directors of the National Electoral Council (CNE) are chavistas, not some inside-the-closet chavista, no, fully open and public. The Congress is controlled by chavismo. The Judiciary is but an appendix of chavismo. 21 out of 23 states are governed by chavistas. The State, directly or indirectly, controls a huge network of community radios, TV channels, and the country's most read newspapers (Ultimas Noticias and El Mundo). In addition to that, Venezuela's electoral roll has not been independently audited since 2005, and the Smartmatic electronic voting system was last independently audited in November 2005.

Despite all that, Henrique Capriles ran against Hugo Chavez last year, pretending that everything was kosher at the electoral level. At that time, one of his collaborators (Ramon Guillermo Aveledo) irresponsibly lied to his constituency, when he falsely claimed that the "electoral system had been sufficiently audited." This year Capriles ran against Nicolas Maduro, adopting a more confrontational tone. If electoral results are anything to go by, the combination of Chavez's passing with a deterioration of every day living and an attacking mode got Capriles a few thousand votes more and close to victory. That being said, arguments about Nicolas Maduro not having legitimacy to govern, because he got some 230,000 votes more than Capriles, is, frankly, preposterous. Unless, of course, the Capriles team present the smoking gun.

Maduro got more votes than Capriles, that's that, end of the story. You just can't enter a race, accepting that everything is stacked against you, and when you lose, turn round and say: "we do not recognise this result", as Capriles said yesterday. That is an untenable position, for Capriles knew, before entering the race, that everything was stacked against him. He knew that the State was fully behind Maduro. He knew Maduro's appointment was unconstitutional. He knew Maduro's every action, since January 10, was illegitimate. He knew that no public resource would be spared to get Maduro elected. And yet, he did participate, "hoping" that he would be victorious. Hoping? Read the first paragraph again. How could a victory be "hoped" when, as a matter of fact, the political realities described above have not changed? How can someone, knowing all of the above, enter a race and then cry foul calling the winner illegitimate? Why is Maduro illegitimate today, but wasn't when Capriles filed his candidacy? Capriles, and his team, should have done that earlier. Not today, not now. A proverbial case of "too little too late."

Utter nonsense. Appalling. Shameful. That's what it is. This is not a situation where two political parties share, in similar amounts, institutional and political power. Far from it. This is a situation where one party controls everything, and the other controls nothing, regardless of how many votes it got yesterday. Maduro does not need to invite Capriles for a round of hard political negotiations in order to reach a compromise that will allow him to govern Venezuela. No. This is no Cameron and Clegg. Rather, it is chavismo, as its usual self, pulling all power levers.

What to make of Capriles' own election as Governor of Miranda? The electoral scenario then was just as dodgy as it is today. Is he calling himself illegitimate? Furthermore, is he questioning the legitimacy of his own votes yesterday? How about other ruling governors, and mayors? How about the representatives of the opposition (in minority) in Congress, elected by the same system under the same conditions: are they illegitimate too?

Therefore I can not but express contempt for Henrique Capriles' irresponsible antics. He's not the brightest bulb all right, but even then, he's been in politics long enough to have realised that once the die is cast, there's no turning back.

Venezuela suspende acceso a internet durante elecciones presidenciales

2013-04-15T06:30:00.000Z

Para mi, la noticia de hoy no es que Nicolas Maduro ganó las elecciones. Eso ya se sabía de antemano y esperar otro resultado, con las condiciones electorales y políticas actuales, era cosa de tontos. Pero que cortaron el acceso a internet, en toda Venezuela, por aproximadamente 45 minutos, cuando todavia los centros de votación estaban abiertos? Esa, en mi opinión, es la noticia de hoy. Para qué suspendieron el acceso a internet? El argumento de Arreaza, dizque "para impedir más hackeos" es ridículo e inaceptable. Los ignorantes chavistas y sus apólogos internacionales, sin duda, creerán el cuento de Arreaza, pero cómo puede el régimen chavista impedir hackeos a cuentas de Twitter de sus altos personeros, cuando el hackeo puede llevarse a cabo desde cualquier lugar del mundo que tenga acceso a internet? Ni los servidores de Twitter están en Venezuela, ni cortando el internet en Venezuela puede impedirse el dizque hackeo a cuentas Twitter.

Para ponerlo más graficamente, suspender el acceso a internet en Venezuela para impedir acceso fraudulento a cuentas de Twitter, es el equivalente a trancar la autopista Caracas-La Guaira para impedir el acceso por la M25 a Londres.

El equipo del ya dos-veces derrotado Capriles debería exigir respuestas en ese sentido. Eso, si es que quieren saber, de verdad, qué fue lo que paso ayer en las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela.

Maduro's win will mean chavismo is here to stay

2013-04-12T17:29:00.000Z

When trying to rationalise Hugo Chavez and his impact on Venezuelan politics, it is often said that the leader he resembled the most was Argentina's Juan Domingo Perón. Upon the death of the standard bearer of Latin American populism, peronismo took hold of political life in Argentina, on the back of the hugely popular Evita, who was exalted to demigod status in popular culture. More than fifty years later, that country is still dealing with the nefarious consequences of an irresponsible political establishment crafted by Perón. But as much as Chavez has been compared to Perón, chavismo's Evita died on 5th of March. So what will happen?

Chavismo seemed, until recently, to be a unipersonal enterprise, a political movement based solely on the whimsical designs of a caudillo, who spent a lifetime conspiring against the establishment and, once in power, ensured that no Evita could cast a shadow. Surrounded by incompetent and hapless yesmen, Chavez's continuity was guaranteed by a unique combination of charisma, a deep and personal connection to the impoverished masses, a laissez faire stance towards hugely corrupt collaborators and, above all, an endless supply of money which he used unrestrictedly and without oversight. Nicolas Maduro, who only has the latter, has demonstrated, should he win*, that contrary to conventional wisdom, there is life in chavismo after Chavez. It was not a house of cards.

Maduro's win in Sunday's presidential election will provide fresh evidence that Venezuela is a basket case. Lacking in charisma, political nous and oratory skills, but elected on empathy for the late caudillo and his ways, Maduro has perhaps the thing that matters the most in current Venezuelan politics: unfettered access to State resources. While Henrique Capriles Radonsky, the soon to be twice-defeated opposition candidate, has had to run his campaign on a shoestring and could not accept funds from the shrinking and debilitated private sector, Maduro has the unrestrained backing of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), or to put it in numbers, access to a kitty that gets -give or take- $250 million every single day. With that, charisma and popularity can be dispensed.

Capriles decided this time to launch a confrontational campaign. As much as his message appears to have resonated and energised his supporters, fact is no amount of heated rhetoric could undo chavismo's pile of cash, whose victory will signal that a clear majority much rather had a spend drift government than one that would bring an end to irresponsible populism. It is the affirmation that Hugo Chavez's manner of governing, i.e. populism, continues to be the choice of the majority. Between intangible promises from Capriles and hard cold cash from Chavez, or whoever his successors are, Venezuelans have little to think about. That's a reality that is not going to go away.

In 1845, a prescient Argentinean called Domingo Sarmiento wrote a book depicting the struggle between civilisation and barbarism (Facundo: Civilización y Barbarie). The history of his country, as much as ours, has been a mise-en-scene of the conflict between enlightened but ever so unsuccessful notions of nation building and identity and caudillo regimes, under whose rule development takes one step forward and ten back. Will Venezuela become the next Argentina? Will a more radical military Junta kick chavismo -as represented by Maduro- out? Early to say. It would be safe to predict however, that as long as chavismo controls the State and its resources, it can field any candidate in the certainty that barbarism's continuity won't be affected. That's a daunting prospect indeed.

*Jesse Chacon runs a polling company called GIS XXI. In last October's presidential elections he predicted Chavez would win by 55.1%. The caudillo got 54.8%. His prediction was closer than that of all other pollsters from Venezuela. Chacon is now predicting that Maduro is going to win with 55.3%, and calculates abstention to be between 26-22%. Chacon has an edge over all other pollsters in Venezuela: he is a former minister and old trusted man of Hugo Chavez, and keeps, to this day, very close connections with top chavistas.

Thatcher's death highlights hypocrisy and racism of the Left

2013-04-09T08:15:00.001Z

London - Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died yesterday. Her achievements are too long to list here, but I guess for me, the most important one, by a mile, was to have significantly contributed to bring communism down. For me, a guest in this country after all, it is the perfect opportunity to contrast how death of a phenomenal political leader is dealt with by Brits. When Hugo Chavez died over a month ago, various BBC programs called to request my comment. The utter shock of BBC staff upon hearing that I was somewhat joyful upon learning about Hugo Chavez's death was something to behold. The accusatory silence and recriminatory gazes that followed my comment were quite uncomfortable and I had to explain the reasons why I was in such mood.

But contrast that with the passing of Thatcher. In the last day or so a battery of Thatcher critics have been given tribune on all British media outlets, and they, let me inform you dear readers, have not had the slightest remorse, the flimsiest compunction to express, quite angrily in some cases, that they are overjoyed by Thatcher's death. The interesting thing is that such stances did not cause any negative reaction on the part of interviewers / moderators, no disapproving looks, no odd silence, nothing, a stance not only well accepted but encouraged and shared by most of the ever so left leaning British media.

Expressing blinding hatred for Margaret Thatcher is perfectly fine, but criticism of Hugo Chavez is met with disapproval.

And the above brings me to highlight not only the sheer hypocrisy of the Left, but its racism, embodied by postures that on the one hand condemn any joy of Chavez's passing, and on the other see no problem in expressing more radical views on Thatcher's death. It's OK to hate Thatcher, to wish her death, to be disheartened by the IRA's failing to assassinate her while hearing terrorist Gerry Adams give his "verdict" on her legacy. But woe the one who dares to say that Chavez's death is actually a very good thing for Venezuelan democracy. The majority of the Left in this country seems impervious to such impossible-to-reconcile positions, but then again, the Left was never something characterised by consistency and principles, was it?

#yosoyvenezolano

2013-04-07T15:50:00.000Z

Londres - Para quienes andan buscando entender lucida y coherentemente el tag #YoSoyVenezolano recomiendo lo siguiente:

Ver entrevista a Yoani Sanchez por Jaime Bayly.
Leer Cubanos y punto, de Yoani, suplantando cubanos por venezolanos y Jose Marti por el venezolano/a insigne de preferencia.
Ver intervención de Gladys Ibarra en el encuentro de artistas por Capriles.

Una vez seguidos los pasos anteriores, hasta los escépticos como yo recobran la esperanza. Las palabras de Yoani y Gladys, dichas o escritas, son de un contundente, que es prácticamente imposible rebatirlas. Me identifico, con el sentimiento genuino y sincero de ambas, la una diciendo que es cubana de Jose Marti, y la otra defendiendo sus opiniones (como si tal debiera defenderse), sacando su cédula y diciendo "yo soy venezolana." Vivimos tiempos de propaganda, de ruido, de paja, de politicos sin espina, de gente amoral, de medios y periodistas plegados al mejor postor, de instituciones huecas, y sociedades plásticas, y dentro de esa voragine, en la cual escasean voces sensatas, estas dos mujeres, plantadas en la más demoledora verdad pero expresandola humildemente, timidamente, sin inflexiones altisonantes, desarman cualquier argumento que quienes abdicaron de su libre albedrío puedan producir.

Me identifico con Gladys, me identifico con su argumento sobre cuan difícil es labrarse un espacio en sociedades que uno no conoce, en idiomas que uno aprendió de adulto, sin abandonar en el camino el amor por lo de uno, por la tierra de uno, sin adoptar actitudes mezquinas para con los de uno, para luego encontrarse en la surreal situación de tener que defender, entre los nuestros, opiniones, o posturas, por que uno ya no vive en el patio.

Me identifico con Yoani, cuando dice que a pesar de haber estado ya radicada en Suiza, en realidad seguía viviendo en Cuba. Seguía pensando en Cuba. Seguía viendo a Cuba, en todas sus interacciones diarias. Eso no le pasa sólo a ella, nos pasa a todos los que hemos emigrado, y los que nos critican es por que no han emigrado, no saben de lo que hablan, por que no han sentido en carne propia lo que es sentirse desterrado.

Me llena de esperanza oir las voces de Yoani y Gladys, y me digo "no todo está perdido cuando mujeres como esas están entre nosotros." Estas mujeres, y no Diosa Canales, deberían ser los estandartes de nuestras sociedades, nuestros bastiones morales, nuestras guías. Estas mujeres deberían ser el rol que todas las que sigan deberían tratar de emular, ya que ello pondría fin, de una vez por todas, a la incesante proliferación de perfectos idiotas latinomericanos como el difunto o su ídolo cubano.

Estas mujeres, mejor que nadie, pueden incidir de forma positiva en la creación de una nueva identidad, pueden modelar según sus cánones morales el significado de #yosoyvenezolano. Un poder extraordinario del cual disponen que, sin duda, nos llevará al respeto, a la dignidad, y al progreso.

Yoani dice que ella sueña con una nueva Cuba en la cual el gobierno sea un apéndice de la sociedad, y no un ente omnipresente y totalitario. Cómo no estar de acuerdo con eso? Venezuela, esa por la que llora Gladys, somos todos, no hay clases de venezolanos, más o menos dignos, más o menos venezolanos. En #yosoyvenezolano cabemos todos. Hasta los difuntos...

How about Venezuela in Offshore & Money Laundering ICIJ?

2013-04-04T12:56:00.002Z

London - The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published reports today, under the banner of "Secrecy for Sale: Inside the Global Offshore Money Maze". I must say that I welcome such efforts in exposing the multibillion dollar industry behind illegal movement of stolen public funds. It is an industry that has no territorial boundaries, or jurisdictional impediments of any sort. Despite prevalent Anti Money Laundering (AML) legislation in most of the developed world, the fact is, the world's "most reputed banks" have been, and are, ear-deep in money laundering and eager to continue circumventing laws to partake in the thriving business.

But when it comes to Venezuela, there's precious little in the way of investigations by non-Venezuelan investigative journalists. It may be due to the country being irrelevant, in the great scheme of things, but after more than a trillion dollars worth of income in the last decade, which has allowed for multibillion dollar scams, how come no one -apart from a handful of lone voices- seems interested in mapping out the enormous corruption racket going on?

To help future research, I am posting here some names and pictures that, I am sure, will surface in offshore investigations should well resourced organisations decide to focus its attention in that corner of the world.

Oswaldo Cisneros

UPDATE: after posting this, ICIJ published a piece on the ponzi scheme set up by Francisco Illarramendi in the US. Nothing new really, as information about that case has been in the public domain for a long while. In fact, it would be interesting to question the evident conflict of interests of FTI Consulting (one stop shop for all Boligarchs reputation management issues) with the receiver. The interesting thing is that ICIJ is mentioning a big name in the article: Oswaldo Cisneros. The other Cisneros, Gustavo Cisneros, owns a cesspit. It will be interesting to see whether ICIJ has what it takes to enter those rabbit holes...

Bribes in Ferrominera Orinoco's iron ore sales

2013-04-01T12:55:00.001Z

From: Patrick Hodgins

To: CAÑAS L. JORGE L. / FMO 3142: canas.jorge@gmail.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 6:11 AM

Subject: RE: Iron request for China

George,

First let me thank you for your patients in this matter , the chinese have been very hard in their negotiations, however we can revert with the following counter for your perusal.

We accept as per your Offer below and i thank you for your efforts in getting this far, we there for counter with the following:

1) Quantity:

a) 2007 Contractual Year: Nine (9) shipments of 70,000 MT +/- 10% MOLOO each (“Panamax” size vessels).

b) 2008 Contractual Year: Seven (7) shipments of 130,000 MT +/- 10% MOLOO each (“Cape” size vessels) or in Buyers options capes to be split into panamax (14) 70,000MT +/- 10%moloo.

2) Quality:

a) Ferrominera Sinter Feed (FSF2007), as per the specifications previously provided to you.

b) San Isidro Calibrated Lump Ore (SICLO-1), as per the specifications previously provided to you.

3) Delivery Period:

a) 2007 Contractual Year: Nine (9) shipments, as per point 1a above, from August 1^st,2007 until April 30^th, 2008.

The above was replied by the following email:

Panamax Bulk AS

Fra: Freddy A Castellanos [fcsenior57@hotmail.com]

Sendt: 11. juli 2007 16:43

Til: Patrick Hodgins

Kopi: Panamax Bulk

Emne: Re: Iron request for China

Patrick,

Thank you for the blind copy. Now, Jorge will reply to you as per the terms we have agreed but with the prices that will appear in the contract between FMO and you (either Crown Venture of Juhua Group). As per the discussions I have maintained with Jorge, FMO will have following FOB prices in the contract:

FSF2007: US Cents 69.54/DMTU

SICLO-1: US Cents 86.55/DMTU

As also agreed, the difference between above prices and those agreed between us (FSF2007: US Cents 75.00/DMTU and SICLO-1: US Cents 92.00/DMTU) together with the 1.5% (of the FOB value of shipments) commission for buyer, which will be included in the sales contract to be signed, will be for FMO's people who got the material and will approve the deal. I am sending on a separate message a draft of contract to be signed between Crown Venture and me concerning this issue.

Finally, I thank you for your efforts on successfully concluding this negotiations.

Kind regards,

Freddy Castellanos

The above is quite self explanatory, but to put it in context, actors must be identified.

As per his LinkedIn page, Patrick Hodgins is meant to be an Australian shipping executive that has worked in the past for Rio Tinto, Freight Investors Services, Fortescue Metals Group, and Nidera. At time of emails, Hodgins was with Australia's Fortescue Metals Group.

Jorge Cañas (Vzla ID no. 8.540.342) is quoted as being Sales Manager (Gerente de Comercializacion) of Venezuela's iron producer Ferrominera del Orinoco (FMO).

Freddy Castellanos (Vzla ID no. 4.883.936) is a metallurgic engineer, who worked for FMO until August of 2003 [see here].

Crown Venture claims to be a “global trading company being registered and having offices in Hong Kong, Singapore, Oslo and Caracas.” There's a Crown Venture Limited registered in Hong Kong (company number 1128011). It is a HKD 10,000 capital company (wholly owned by Singapore’s Amoy Trading PTE. Limited), whose director is Cook Island's based CV Services Limited [see here]. Crown Venture also has a record in Oslo (no. 995 957 086), where it appears as one of a number of subsidiaries of Hjalmar Røed & Co AS, owned / operated by Morten Frode Riis, whose other subsidiary Panamax Bulk AS was declared bankrupt. Unsurprisingly, Panamax Bulk AS and Crown Venture are registered at the same address in Oslo. There is no record of Crown Venture in Venezuela's registers.

Juhua Group, is China's Zhejiang province largest chemical industry.

In another communication, Fernando Campbell, Astrup Fearnley of Norway's representative in Caracas is copied. Given that both Panamax Bulk AS and Crown Venture are mere fronts of intermediators, perhaps Astrup Fearnley's Fernando Campbell was drawn in to arrange the maritime side of things. Or perhaps that was Morten Frode Riis's part of the deal.

In any case, just by observing the murky structure leading to Singapore, Hong Kong, Miami, Panama, Australia, Cook Islands, Venezuela and Oslo, one can infer where this is going. In subsequent communications [see here and here], Castellanos instructs Hodgins on what needs to be done for the deal to be completed, as well as requests of Hodgins payment of $2,309,978.92 worth of commissions to be divided among FMO staff and himself.

Payment was to be made to BAC Florida Bank, Account Number: 937-959-820, ABA: 067009044, SWIFT: BFLBUS3M, To the name of: "Societe Partry, S.A." [see here].

Castellanos sent Hodgins, as representative of Crown Venture Ltd, an invoice from Societe Partry SA with a bogus address in Caracas [see here]. Partry is a company registered in Panama, whose proxies Ana Luisa Amengual, Mercedes McCarthy and Francisco Ramirez are directors of hundreds of companies, and all share the same address in Miami, according to records [see here].

A couple of bank transfers (payment of commissions) are evidenced in the leaked documents: one from HSBC Hong Kong, acc. no. 168-313013-838, dated 01/07/2008, to Societe Partry's account in BAC Florida Bank for $426,939; another one dated 24 July 2009, from Crown Venture Limited's account in Singapore's DBS Bank Limited, for $381,571.58.

Castellano's leverage over FMO's commercial decisions is apparent when he writes to Hodgins:

As you see in FMO's message, they are also including the Letter of Authorization for your company to promote and sell FMO's iron ore in the Chinese market this year as well as next year. This will support you in your discussions with Beitai Group and other Chinese mills.

But Hodgins own position is also interesting, considering that at the time he was meant to be working for Fortescue. Was he dealing on the side, or was Fortescue involved in the paying of bribes to Venezuelans in iron ore purchases?

As per Junhua's, well Chinese companies' corruption is rampant and very well known across the world. There is hardly a market corrupt Chinese haven't been able to crack by hook or crook.

And what to make of HSBC's Hong Kong failure to notice Hodgins own dodgy set up, and that of beneficiary of transfers, Societe Partry? In one of the emails, it would appear that at least four transfers in 2008 (dated 01/07, 01/08, 27/08 and 09/10) were made to Castellanos through HSBC (as seen in case of Mexican narcos and many other scandals, HSBC's forte is not precisely strict observance to anti money laundering regulations). In the same email, Metalloyd of London (Reuben bros) is identified as having purchased around 447 metric tonnes of FMO's iron ore between January and July 2008.

I sent emails requesting comment to some of parties involved in this corruption racket. No one has replied. Another case of rampant corruption involving high chavista authorities and foreign companies and individuals only too happy to engage in criminal activities to make a quick buck in Venezuela.

CVG Ferrominera, Juhua Group, Astrup Fearnley, RB Metalloyd, Crown Venture, DBS & HSBC in a multimillion dollar corruption racket

2013-03-28T00:16:00.003Z

London - A source sent a sampling of iron ore transactions between companies above, which show corruption at the highest levels of Venezuela's CVG Ferrominera, as well as illegal payments made to its officials using DBS Bank and HSBC.

I have sent information requests to the parties involved and will be publishing documents, email exchanges, etc., in the next few days.

Los Guisos de Eva Golinger: Parte II

2013-03-27T16:22:00.000Z

Londres - El 23 de noviembre de 2010, publiqué un articulo titulado "Los Guisos de Eva Golinger", en el cual exponía a la gringa tarifada esa en todo su corrupto esplendor revolucionario.

Ha pasado un tiempo desde entonces, durante el cual he sabido que la Golinger se regresó a su país (EEUU) a dar a luz a un hijo, ya que supuestamente su vida corría peligro en la Venezuela Bolivariana de su amado líder, protector y benefactor. Supe también que Russia Today, el TELESUR de Vladimir Putin, la había contratado para un programa de televisión. También me dijeron las malas lenguas que el canal de Putin estaba corriendo con todos los gastos de la Golinger en Nueva York.

Lo cierto del caso es que mas allá de los rumores y chismes encontré hoy en la base de datos de propiedades de Nueva York, que la Golinger se compró un apartamento en Brooklyn, por $372.000. El registro da cuenta de la transacción el 9 de noviembre de 2010, a las 5:23 PM.

Eva Golinger's property record (Brooklyn, New York City)

Para el momento de la publicación de la primera parte de esta serie, Golinger llevaba algunos años ya trabajando en Venezuela, a tiempo completo, como propagandista del régimen del difunto caudillo, y para aquel momento había devengado, según el IVSS, BsF 44.752. Es menester recordar que ya en aquella fecha Golinger había admitido haberse comprado un apartamento en la Alta Florida en Caracas, valorado en 400 millones de Bolívares. Imaginen, estimados lectores, mi sorpresa, cuando me entero que además del apartamento en Caracas, resulta que la Golinger se compró otro, en Nueva York.

Por tanto, la pregunta es muy sencilla: de dónde sacó $372.000 para pagar un piso en Nueva York, si para la fecha lo que llevaba cotizado era BsF 44.752, es decir, unos $10.000?

La propaganda desde luego que da para todo, por cuanto Golinger ha cotizado hasta hoy, según el IVSS, BsF 208.787,07, lo cual al cambio actual son unos $33.000.

Como se explica que un ingreso de $33.000 dé para pagar hipotecas de 400 millones de Bolívares en Caracas y además pagar $372.000 de contado por un apartamento en Nueva York?

Nicolas Maduro ganará sobrado las elecciones del 14 abril en Venezuela

2013-03-23T11:55:00.000Z

Londres - En el 2007, el difunto caudillo (menos mal!), perdió las elecciones de la enmienda constitucional. Los opinadores de oficio dijeron entonces que la derrota había sido producto del activismo del emergente movimiento estudiantil, el cual se movilizó y organizó no pocas demostraciones y protestas debido, principalmente, al cierre de RCTV. Ese fue, concluyeron los expertos, el factor determinante en la primera derrota oficial sufrida por Chavez. Como no vivo en un entorno donde atribuirse crédito por este o aquel acto es el pasatiempo predilecto, pues rechacé la especie, y lo hice basado en lo que creo fue un análisis desapasionado de la situación, y en números.

La enmienda que Chavez propuso, comentada aqui por varios colegas, era un asalto al estatus quo chavista. La enmienda propuesta, de haber sido aprobada, le hubiera quitado todo el poder a los chavistas, que ya ejercían algún poder ejecutivo, e iba a concentrar todo, aún más, en manos de Chavez, quien hubiese podido re-ordenar la división geopolítica del país, nombrar, o remover a quien fuese, donde fuese, hubiese sido electo o no, hubiese puesto a la milicia bolivariana (directamente dependiente de las ordenas de y sólo de Chavez) en el mismo rango jerárquico y ejecutivo que las fuerzas armadas, es decir, el bicho quiso auto nombrarse emperador. Qué sucedió entonces? Tres millones de chavistas se quedaron en sus casas. Ese domingo, 2 de diciembre de 2007, tres millones de chavistas no fueron a votar por su dios. Por qué? Por los estudiantes y sus marchas? A otro con esas pajas. No salieron a votar, por que la maquinaria de movilización del voto chavista no se activó ese día. Y por qué no se activó, siendo que la enmienda era tan importante para el golpista? Por una razón muy simple: vieron peligrar sus cargos, futuro, acceso a dineros públicos, es decir, fin de la piñata. La enmienda de Chavez era contra todo el poder constituido, menos el suyo. Y por ello, y sólo por ello, perdió.

Hay que analizar ahora las circunstancias que rodean la elección del 14 de abril. A varios días de celebrarse, no temo en afirmar que Capriles va a perder, y por paliza. Por qué lo digo? Por la misma razón que Chavez perdió en el 2007. Aquellos que vieron su futuro en peligro en el 2007 deben estar pensando ahora: "si no voto por Maduro, se me acaba la manguangua." Mas allá de los sentimientos que puedan albergar los chavistas por la muerte de su caudillo, que los hay, lo cierto es que el estatus quo debe mantenerse en el poder para poder darle continuidad al proyecto chavista. Esta vez está en juego el pescuezo de muchos, y los ingresos de millones, de ambos bandos ojo. Esta vez la maquinaria de movilización del voto va a funcionar como nunca. Es más, no me extrañaría que Maduro saque el 14 de abril más votos de los que sacó Chavez el 7 de octubre, por cuanto la motivación aparte de sentimental, es monetaria, es personal.

Por mucho que el Capriles diga que va a mantener las misiones, eso no cuenta para los chavistas. Por mucho que prometa que va a mejorar esto o aquello, lo cierto es que en el universo chavista nadie le cree. Los que hasta ahora habían demostrado apatía política, pero cobraban sus reales por esta o aquella misión, esta vez van a ir a votar, pues saben que si no lo hacen pueden perder las dádivas del estado. El voto no será por Maduro, será por la continuidad del populismo y de la regaladera de billete, será, finalmente, por la continuidad de la forma de gobernar de Chavez. El voto no es Maduro contra Capriles, sino Capriles contra lo que Chavez representó: las misiones, las pensiones, Capriles contra electrodomésticos regalados, Capriles contra casas, Capriles contra la anarquía absoluta promovida durante 14 años por Chavez, Capriles contra el narcotrafico reinante en la más altas esferas del chavismo, Capriles contra los pranes, no digo Capriles contra la corrupción puesto que él mismo tiene algunas respuestas que dar, por ejemplo, con respecto a sus relaciones con individuos como los Castillo Bozo, pero ese es asunto de otra entrega. Es decir, Capriles contra el despelote imperante, Capriles contra el chavismo, en un país como Venezuela? Contra eso Capriles no tiene, ni tendrá, vida.

Maduro va a ganar, de calle, de ello no me queda la menor duda. Tiene que ganar además, para que más temprano que tarde los chavistas, como no sucedió con su líder, sufran, de verdad verdad, las consecuencias de sus actos.

Rogues Gallery

2013-03-21T15:26:00.000Z

Who is that, posing with the Big Dog?

Why that would be Orlando Castro, convicted felon and money launderer from Venezuela.

Is that the Big Dog again?

Who are those, posing with him?

Why they would be the Osorios (Amarilis and Claudio), about to be convicted fraudsters, also from Venezuela.

Is that the same couple?

Next to the "world's most elegant First Lady"?

Nahh...

I think it is!

For here is Claudio Osorio, again, posing with the "world's most powerful man".

So what else is out there? Is it a Democrats-only thing? That of posing with Venezuelan criminals? I must have misplaced pics of Osorio and Pelosi, and Hillary, and the videos... Damn! Alas it isn't a Democrats-only thing, how unfair of me.

Here's Al Cardenas, Republican, Chairman of ACU, who says "you've got to be consistent", as he is, consistently taking money from the worse Venezuelan Boligarchs.

Is he the only case among Republicans?

No. He is not. For who is that, next to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and David Rivera? Oh, that would be that squeaky clean banker, who has made "distinguished contributions" to American society and was given some sort of medal in Congress...

Marcos Rubio and Connie Mack were also part of the "several congressional colleagues" that praised and recognised "leaders" such as David Osio.

But is that all?

It isn't. Those are the Osorios, again, with Jeb Bush et al!

One thing is clear: ill gotten money gets you noticed, on both sides of the aisle, at the very top of American power circles and politics.

Fanny Kertzman y Alek Boyd en Semana: Los presos politícos de Chávez

2013-03-21T07:29:00.004Z

Londres - Semana, una de las publicaciones más importantes de Colombia, publicó ayer un articulo en el cual participé como co-autor junto a Fanny Kertzman, quien estuvo al frente del DIAN y fue Embajadora de Colombia en Canada. Me llena de orgullo ser publicado en Semana junto a importantes columnistas, y por ello reproduzco a continuación algo sobre una parte del legado de Hugo Chavez de la que nadie está hablando.

Los presos políticos de Chávez

Por Fanny Kertzman y Alek Boyd

OPINIÓNMás de cien personas han pasado por los calabozos de Hugo Chávez. Muchos cumplieron la pena, pero todavía hay muchos adentro.

.

El 13 de diciembre de 2004 fue capturado en Caracas el guerrillero de las Farc y hoy negociador de paz, Rodrigo Granda en una operación conjunta de la Guardia Nacional y la Fuerza Pública colombiana. Quien comandó la operación por parte de Venezuela fue el teniente coronel Humberto Quintero, quien era comandante de la Unidad Anti-extorsión y secuestros GAES del estado Táchira. Chávez ordenó detener a Quintero el 12 de enero de 2005, acusado de traición a la patria, abuso de autoridad, ofensas al decoro militar y privación ilegitimad de libertad. Quintero fue torturado de acuerdo a Wikileaks. Fue condenado a 3 años y 8 meses, pero pagó 4 años y 3 meses, mas de lo que estipulaba la condena. Fue liberado el 30 de abril de 2009.

No han corrido con tan buena suerte los ex comisarios de la Policía Metropolitana de Caracas Ivan Simonovis, Henry Vivas y Lazaro Forero. Acusados de complicidad en homicidio intencional y lesiones personales gravísimas en los hechos ocurridos el 11 de abril de 2002, el seudo golpe que llevaría a la breve remoción de Hugo Chavez de la presidencia de Venezuela. Simonovis fue arrestado el 22 de noviembre de 2004, mientras que Rivas y Forero fueron arrestados el 3 de diciembre de ese mismo año. Fueron acusados de la muerte de tres personas durante los confusos hechos en que murieron 19 personas, muy posiblemente a manos de francotiradores y miembros de la milicia chavista.

Su caso ha pasado a ser uno de los más emblemáticos de la era chavista. El juicio, en el cual se realizaron 231 audiencias, duró 3 años y 14 días, aun cuando la ley venezolana estipula que el juicio debe celebrarse en un solo día, y si es necesario debe continuar de forma consecutiva hasta su conclusión en los días siguientes. No obstante la incapacidad de la fiscalía de establecer culpabilidad, mas de 190 testigos declararon a favor de los inculpados, y las múltiples violaciones al debido proceso, los comisarios fueron condenados a 30 años de cárcel. El caso es un viacrucis de abusos, atropellos y violaciones a todas las normas legales vigentes en Venezuela,

El caso de la juez Maria Afiuni es el mas dramático y simbólico. Afiuni era jueza del tribunal 31 de primera instancia de Caracas. Según el Codigo Penal venezolano (art. 230), ninguna persona imputada de un hecho punible puede ser privada de su libertad por más de dos años sin que se le escuche en audiencia. Afiuni debía celebrar el 8 de diciembre de 2009 una audiencia preliminar del caso contra Eligio Cedeño, preso en los calabozos de la DISIP y acusado de fraude financiero. Debido a tácticas dilatorias similares a las empleadas en el caso de los comisarios (negativa del Ministerio Público a presentarse en audiencias), la jueza Afiuni pospuso la misma para el 10 de diciembre, cuando, basada en el Codigo Penal vigente y en opinión oficial del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria de las Naciones Unidas, decidió suspender la medida preventiva de mantener preso a Cedeño, quien para el momento ya llevaba 2 años y 10 meses privado de libertad.

La acción de Afiuni tuvo consecuencias inmediatas. Tan sólo 20 minutos después de que Cedeño recobrara su libertad, unos 10 agentes del SEBIN (servicio de inteligencia de Chavez) se presentaron en el tribunal y arrestaron a Maria Afiuni sin presentar una orden judicial, ni explicar cual era el motivo de la detención, o qué autoridad había ordenado dicho arresto. El siguiente dia, 11 de diciembre, Chavez acuso a Afiuni de ser una “bandida” en una de sus muchas cadenas nacionales, y exigió a sus autoridades judiciales 30 años de cárcel.

Han pasado unos 3 años y 3 meses desde que arrestaron, ilegalmente, a la jueza Maria Afiuni. El Codigo Penal actual sigue conteniendo la previsión de 2 años como periodo máximo permitido para estar en prisión previa a la sentencia. No obstante Afiuni sigue privada de su libertad. El caso le ha dado la vuelta al mundo, y es causa de criticas constantes al régimen del recién fallecido caudillo. La jueza Afiuni fue violada en la cárcel, tuvo que abortar posteriormente, y ha sido sometida a todo tipo de ataques y humillaciones por parte de presas a quienes ella misma condenó como juez. Para rematar le diagnosticaron un cáncer. Su situación es de tal precariedad que hasta el apólogo de Chavez, Noam Chomsky, pidió públicamente su libertad. En este momento tiene casa por cárcel.

Los casos descritos son algunos de los más conocidos, no por ello los únicos. Hay muchos más, como Franklin Brito, encarcelado después de que sus tierras fueran expropiadas, que murió en una huelga de hambre. La persecución de la que fue objeto el político Biagio Pilieri, enjuiciado tres veces por la misma causa, o a Otto Gebauer, quien fue condenado a más de 12 años de presidio por la dizque “desaparición forzosa” de Chavez en abril de 2002.

Muchos han cumplido condenas y hay muchos todavía presos: el agente Erasmo Bolívar y otros cuatro policias, condenados por homicidio y lesiones en una marcha oposicionista, tres personas condenadas por supuestamente haber participado en el atentado al fiscal Danilo Anderson, el empresario Gustavo Arraiz que antes era de la entraña de Chávez, el economista Antonio Márquez -ex director de la Comisión de Valores- que no cometió ningún delito, Mario Ricardo

Dickson Gutierrez también de la Comisión de Valores, César Ramón Medina y César Camejo Blanco. A ninguno de estos dos se les ha iniciado juicio pese a estar presos desde 2010 y 2011 respectivamente.

Sobre el caso Afiuni, ver el informe de la Human Rights Foundation.

Lista de presos políticos: http://www.fundepro.com.ve/fundepro/PDF/Lista detallada de presos politicos enero 2012.pdf

Reputation management David Osio style

2013-03-20T18:04:00.002Z

From left: David Osio, Andres Coles, and
Congressman David Rivera.

London - Yesterday, out of the blue, I got a call from someone I respect, and whose professional integrity I have no reason to doubt. He was asked about me (whether I was a pen for hire), by a third party (Italo Pizzolante), who, it would appear, acts as a spin doctor for David Osio. The reason? My writings about how Al Cardenas and FTI Consulting have struck gold with Venezuelan criminals and businessmen of extremely dubious credentials. It continues to fascinate me, how some people manage to keep defying the rule of law and/or outright violating it, and be generally referred to as "do-gooders, respectable, and successful" in circles that by education, sophistication, and access to information should really know better.

Case in point: David Osio. This gentleman was recently given some sort of recognition for his "distinguished contribution", or that's what Congressman David Rivera press release said anyway:

Washington, DC- Today Congressman David Rivera (FL-25) and several congressional colleagues will welcome more than two dozen Venezuelan-American leaders to the United States Congress in Washington D.C. for a ceremony in recognition of their distinguished contributions.

“April 19, 2012 marks the 202nd anniversary of the beginning of Venezuela’s movement toward independence from Spain. This date offers a fitting opportunity to highlight the great contributions that Hispanics of Venezuelan descent have made to the United States and the diverse fabric of American society. We are proud to be honoring more than two dozen Venezuelan-American leaders who are at the top of their field in areas including medicine, business, arts and culture, journalism and activism for democracy, in recognition of their outstanding and distinguished works,” Congressman Rivera said.

The awards ceremony will take place at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday in the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs Room, 2172 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC.

From left: Rivera, Osio and Ros-Lehtinen.

Among the "several congressional colleagues" doing the "recognition" were Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, perhaps the two more hawkish -vis-a-vis the Chavez regime- Republican politicians in America. So there they were, up in The Hill, happily, laughing, all cuddly and posing for pictures with David Osio. Did their staff did any due diligence on the list of "Venezuelan-American leaders" that were to be honoured? What "distinguished contributions" has David Osio specifically done?

Before getting the call yesterday, I sent an email to David Osio directly, for I have been reading up about his financial activities, and have some questions to ask, mainly about the sort of anti money laundering compliance he's put in place. For the record, he did reply, acknowledging receipt of my email and CCing a couple of his employees meant to deal with my concerns (still waiting).

In any case, Google returns some really interesting stuff about Osio's operations. His group, called DAVOS but totally unrelated to its homonymous Swiss city, seems to be a provider of financial services. It has offices in various jurisdictions, it claims to provide tax efficient solutions to its presumed wealthy target clientele, claims to do so transparently, and it also claims to have $2.8 billion under management. That's a substantial amount, so I thought relevant to ask what guarantees were in place in case, erm, their promised 3% return on CDs goes the Allen Stanford, or Francisco Illarramendi, way.

Despite transparency claims, there's hardly a name in DAVOS's website, apart from that of founder / owner (DAVid OSio). One has to look in DAVOS's leaflet to find management names: Gustavo Rivas, Mauro Nannini, Rafael Tinoco and Andres Coles. No bios. Anywhere.

There's nothing wrong in not posting bankers details online, after what's happened in the last few years. But the questions remain: are these people authorised to do what they do? If so, by which authorities, from what jurisdiction? What financial entity from the jurisdictions where they operate ensures, for instance, that DAVOS complies with due diligence, know your client and, above all, checks on politically exposed persons? Is the legitimacy of origin of every last dollar, from the $2.8 billion pot DAVOS claims to manage, been checked? Their leaflet about AML seems to have been lifted from various other sources (without attribution).

A publication of DAVOS, aptly named Davos Observer, claims that the group got something called "Best Offshore Corporate Services Provider - Switzerland 2012." Go ahead and google it. Try and find a similar, grand sounding award, in any year, to another company, anywhere else. The award was allegedly given by "The New Europe Industry Awards". Google again. I found a puff piece about DAVOS in a magazine called The New Europe. It's meant to be published by a company called Chase Publishing in the UK. I traced an email and sent a message to "The New Europe" publishers:

To whom it may concern,

Your publication "The New Europe" is cited in relation to the "Best Offshore Corporate Services Provider - Switzerland 2012" to Davos Financial Group.

See: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/davos-financial-group-received-international-181600752.html

The New Europe website published an interview with Davos Financial Group execs, entitled "Davos Financial: The personal touch" on 29 May 2012.

Since news about the award seem to be, exclusively, press releases related to Davos Financial Group, I would like to ask if you could comment on the following:

1) What kind of an award is that?

2) Since when are those recognitions being awarded?

3) On what basis / criteria is the prize awarded?

4) Who are the judging authorities / personalities that take award decisions?

5) Are you able to provide an electronic copy of The New Europe publication (Dec. 2012) in which the news about "Best Offshore Corporate Services Provider - Switzerland 2012" were announced?

6) Since your website (theneweurope.co.uk) seems defunct, could you comment on whether your publication is made available to readers exclusively in hard copy?

My intention is to establish the existence of that award and the veracity of news related to it.

I haven't heard from "The New Europe". Note that "news" about the "award" reprinted in Yahoo Finance do not explicitly clarify that Yahoo Finance is not responsible for its contents, as Reuters does.

But oddities don't stop there, for there's also that other press release where DAVOS claims to have sponsored an artist called Peter Aerschmann. I called Peter, who told me that DAVOS sponsored the space where he was exhibiting, but he "didn't get any money for it." I also found in a Swiss registry that David Osio's powers over D. Société financière (Suisse) SA have been revoked ("Les pouvoirs de Osio David J.sont radiés.") Société financière is still named as a bank with which DAVOS works.

But coming back to yesterday's call, I have seen that, in the past, Osio has employed Derwick-like tactics to silence his critics. Interestingly, Pizzolante Comunicaciones (PR firm acting on behalf of Osio) tried to get to me through that contact referred to before, and law firm Lydecker Diaz LLC (responsible for getting venepiramides.blogspot.com, wikianticorrupcion.org, expedientepublico.org y vlinea.com to remove info about Osio) has been visiting this blog recently. As I said yesterday to my contact, if there's nothing untoward in DAVOS's operations the best way of dealing with my, or anyone else's, doubts / criticisms is to be open and address concerns promptly and honestly. Using intermediaries, third parties, lawyers and spin doctors is never a good strategy, and sending legal threats to journalists and bloggers generally motivates people to dig and write more.

TBC...

ACU Chairman Al Cardenas & FTI Consulting strike gold with Hugo Chavez's Cronies

2013-03-14T12:39:00.001Z

29-year old, billionaire (?), Pedro Trebbau-Lopez.

London - ACU Chairman Al Cardenas’s web of relationships with Hugo Chavez’s cronies goes back for years and extends to defence of individuals involved in fraud, theft, and money laundering. The day before yesterday, prior to posting an article further exposing the connections between Cardenas and some of Venezuela's most corrupt Boligarchs, I emailed Cardenas and his PR person at the ACU (Laura Rigas) requesting comments. They both read my emails but chose not to reply. As a blogger trying to report objectively, I felt I had to give them the chance to defend their professional relationship with the men behind Derwick Associates. Next I sent a request for comment to Joseph DeMaria, attorney at Tew Cardenas law firm, representing Pedro Trebbau-Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt-Lopez in the $300-million lawsuit against Banco Venezolano de Credito, and freemarket think tank CEDICE-Libertad's Oscar Garcia Mendoza and Rafael Alfonzo.

DeMaria did reply, saying:

Mr Boyd. I will refer to the public record.

I, and not Mr. Cardenas,am the attorney who was hired as litigation counsel for Mr. Betancourt and Mr. Trebbau. My firm has never represented Derwick in this litigation. When I was hired earlier this year, I was hired to represent these two individuals. And that is who I have appeared for in this case.

Further despite your constant reference to Mr. Cardenas in connection with this litigation, he does not provide any litigation services in this matter. The litigation is handled exclusively by me and my litigation team.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have had about how this litigation is being handled.

So, I stand corrected. Mr. Cardenas’s firm isn’t representing Derwick Associates, it is instead representing the two listed owners of Derwick Associates: recently-minted billionaires (?) Messrs. Trebbau-Lopez and Betancourt-Lopez. Cardenas’s firm represents the owners of Derwick Associates, not Derwick Associates itself.

The Tew Cardenas law firm has 23 attorneys in total. It isn’t some 500-attorney firm. It is a boutique. Cardenas is founder and principal of Tew Cardenas. Mr. DeMaria's claim, that Mr. Cardenas has nothing to do with either Derwick Associates and/or its principals, as far as litigation is strictly concerned, may be true. But how many of the firm’s clients does he actually ever represent? He is the rainmaker and chief salesman. Who got the contract, Mr. DeMaria? My sources in Venezuela state that Cardenas himself made the sale, that Cardenas was fully aware of the provenance of Derwick's fortune, and he saw an opportunity to make a killing in fees, and possibly get a lobbying contract. Can Cardenas actually say he has never met anyone from Derwick Associates before? In fact, the Derwick boys’ choice of venue in Florida (an odd choice if you consider the anti-Chavez sentiment of any Florida jury) had a lot to do with the phrase purportedly used by Cardenas during the sale: “I don’t lose cases in my own back yard.”

Al Cardenas (right) with R. Fernandez
Barrueco (left).

But let’s discuss a different white collar criminal from Chavez’s circle: Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco, another Boligarch billionaire who went from parking cars as a valet to being a major Chavez contractor and money launderer. He is another Venezuelan previously represented by Tew Cardenas in a tussle with the Drug Enforcement Agency. DeMaria was Fernandez Barrueco's counsel then. So, again, is this another person unknown to Cardenas? Can anyone buy DeMaria's argument that Cardenas -founder and principal of Tew Cardenas- is completely unaware and removed from what his junior partners are doing in representation of his law firm? Mr. DeMaria's argument flies in the face of photo ops where the ACU Chairman appears all chummy with this criminal (see picture). But it does not end there. In the same soiree when Cardenas was posing for pictures with Fernandez Barrueco, FTI Consulting's top dogs -Neal Hochberg, Matias Mora Simoes, Jack Dunn IV, Frank Holder and Erik Miller- were also present, which would suggest that both Cardenas and FTI Consulting have been pitching, and getting, substantial business contracts from Venezuela’s worst for a few years now. And guess who the Derwick boys hired to do their “image consulting”? You guessed it: FTI Consulting.

But why stop there? Tew Cardenas is currently representing none other than David Osio of Davos International Bank. This is a household name when discussing the Chavez government corruption and fraud. And once more, it turns out Mr. DeMaria has been retained as the legal counsel for David Osio, in a lawsuit initiated by former partners Rodrigo Fernandez and Andres Sotillo. Is DeMaria going to argue now that Cardenas has nothing to do with this either? Venezuelan financial bloggers claimed in the past that Osio was FTI Consulting's “representative” in Caracas, so a bit of context is in order, for those unaware of "banker" David Osio.

David Osio.

David Osio is one of a handful financial operators that have defrauded the Venezuelan people in the hundreds of millions. He is involved in the ponzi scheme set up by Francisco Illarramendi, in which approximately $550 million worth of pension money belonging to Venezuela’s oil workers disappeared (with the help of David Osio’s banks). In that case in particular, Moris Beracha, another former client of FTI Consulting, paid bribes to a PDVSA official using Osio's financial network. But that is not Osío first financial faux pas. Back in the day, his time at Banco Latino International during the Venezuelan banking crisis in the 1990s was questioned, as well as his actions at Global Bank and Dollar Savings Bank, for which the Office of Thrift Supervision ruled his activities as illegal. In association with others he forged documents to steal “considerable amounts” of money -belonging to Enrique Delfino- whose heirs, expecting funds to be part of their estate, realised that funds trusted to Osio had vanished and took him to court. Osio helped Gonzalo Tirado get chavista clients for Allen Stanford's ponzi scheme. Osio has also been involved in countless illegal transactions to help PDVSA officials, chavista ministers and members of the Bolibourgeoisie --Derwick Associates purportedly among them-- siphon and launder billions. For said operations, Osio would have made millions in commissions and is believed to have used Goldman Sachs, Bank Bauer, JP Morgan, UBS, CF Monaco, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions as part of his laundering operation. Osio also appears to have run into trouble in Switzerland, in relation to operations of D Société Financière Suisse S.A., another vehicle he used to move PDVSA's millions. Osio used to operate in Miami, with Mauro Nannini, but due to the lawsuit Tew Cardenas is handling he decided to close shop and move north, to New York City, where Andres Coles is looking after his interests. Osio’s financial network spans Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, the U.S., Switzerland, Antigua & Barbuda, even New Zealand. Fernandez and Sotillo, his former partners, claim that Osio even used his own mother to allegedly perpetrate a multi-million dollar fraud.

Andres Coles, Osio's man in NY

There is enough here for a book about corruption in Venezuela, one of the legacies of Hugo Chavez we will have to deal with for years to come. I post this as yet another example of the kind of Venezuelan clients Tew Cardenas is taking on, regularly. I risk sounding like a broken record here, but the United States' authorities would do well investigating the activities of David Osio, its relations to FTI Consulting and Tew Cardenas, and how Venezuelan crooks like Fernandez Barrueco, Beracha, Trebbau-Lopez, Betancourt-Lopez and Osio are abusing the system -with FTI's and Cardenas's help, and using stream of commerce and financial markets to launder their ill gotten fortunes. Despite what Mr. DeMaria claims, Al Cardenas seems to be up to his neck in all this. It is his prerogative to do so, of course, but the moral position of his ACU-GOP leader public persona is untenable.

On the Eve of CPAC, ACU Chair Al Cardenas Participates in the Persecution of Venezuela's Key Civil Society Leaders

2013-03-13T15:41:00.000Z

Al Cardenas and his protegé Marco Rubio.

London - The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the most important event of the American political right, begins tomorrow. The event is sponsored and organized by the American Conservative Union, which is led by Florida GOP leader Al Cardenas. Sadly, the ACU chairman (pictured with his pupil Marco Rubio) is the principal partner of the Tew Cardenas law firm, counsel for one of the most corrupt group of businessmen in Venezuela: Derwick Associates. But what makes Cardenas's association with Derwick Associates' owners Pedro Trebbau-Lopez and Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt-Lopez go beyond boundless greed is its participation in a major lawsuit against two of the most important opposition figures in Venezuela.

Tew Cardenas's targets are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Venezuela's premier free-market think-tank, CEDICE-Libertad. These two men have spent the better part of the last 14 years fighting against the Chavez government's slide into autocracy. One of them is a banker, Oscar Garcia Mendoza. The other is a businessman, Rafael Alfonzo.

Al Cardenas (right) with criminal Ricardo
Fernandez Barrueco (left).

In February I sent this information to a number of American news outlets. PJ Media and The Daily Caller replied, both interested in running the story. Unfortunately, after agreeing to publish the article with details about Cardenas's hypocrisy, they both backtracked. I understand they don't want to get dragged into legal disputes, but am saddened nonetheless by this. Hopefully those attending CPAC will have a moment to ask Al Cardenas why his firm is representing perhaps the most corrupt group of boligarchs to have come out of Chavez's Venezuela. When I began looking into this story I learned a problematic new factoid: Cardenas has done this before, when he represented Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco (both pictured above), another Chavez crony who, in less than a decade, went from parking cars to having a fortune of $1.6 billion.

Cardenas is, of course, entitled to make a living representing whatever criminals and crooks, but is it really kosher for the conservative movement to ennoble him as their anointed leader, when his firm is persecuting Venezuela's battered opposition?

Recently former Bush appointee Otto Reich coauthored (with Ezequiel Vazquez-Ger) a brilliant article in Cardenas's back yard, Miami, about Derwick Associates and their corruption. However, given Derwick's penchant for threatening to sue anyone who writes about them, Reich intelligently didn't mention Cardenas or Derwick by name, instead he wrote:

"In Chávez’s Venezuela, however, a politically favored group (some with no previous experience in complex sectors such as energy and finance) were able to accumulate, sometimes in four years, fortunes that allow them to purchase luxury mansions in the U.S., extravagant estates in Europe, the costliest private jets and automobiles, exceptional racehorses and more."

Reich and Vazquez have bravely denounced corruption on the right side of the aisle. The key question now is: will those at CPAC ask for their house to be put in order on this issue? While the Venezuelan opposition is increasingly the target of more attacks, the Derwick thugs celebrate weddings in the U.S. and line the pockets of so called beacons of the conservative movement.

On Hugo Chavez's death...

2013-03-12T13:40:00.001Z

My views on Hugo Chavez's death for the BBC's World Have Your Say: radio discussion with Gabriela Torres, producer for BBC Mundo, and Julia Buxton, Bradford University's professor of Peace Studies.

Podcast can also heard by visiting this page.