The United States Capitol Building

Reading Time: 6 minutes

There are a number of functions of the United States Capitol Building. Primary, it houses the meeting chambers of the Senate (in the north wing) and the House of Representatives (in the south wing). The two bodies that compose the legislative branch of the American government. It also includes the offices of congressional leadership. And last, but not least, it is used for ceremonies of national importance such as presidential inaugurations and the Lying In State of eminent persons. The United States Capitol Building is also a museum of American art and history and is visited by millions of people every year.

The events that unfolded yesterday, (Jan 6, 2021) were nothing more than an act of stupidity and which are going to further embroil the American people into dispute that is sure to last for some time to come. It also served to show the global elite that the American people really have become completely retarded in thought.

As to be expected, the Democrats have been using this event to further push their agenda’s as a way to say “See. We were right. The republicans are destroying America.” Nothing further could be the truth.

Shortly before the invasion of the Capitol Building, president Trump gave a speech, telling the crowd that they should stop by the Capitol Building on the way home. What he did not say is to riot or invade the Capitol Building.

In a speech after the riot, he stated: “We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high. But now tempers must be cooled and calm restored,” Trump said. “A new administration will be inaugurated on Jan. 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.”

As I wrote in the article The United States Election Process Explained, the US election would continue as it always has and that even if there are objections to the way a number of states had handled the electoral vote process, president elect Biden would still become the next US president.

This is the not the first time there have been protest at the US Capitol Building. As recent as the hearings for the appointment of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was met with an angry mob who were insistent that we are all gonna die because of … fill in the blank with whatever excuse there is of the day.

While this is the first large scale occupation of the US Capitol since 1814, there have been several other instances of violence at the US Capitol, particularly in the 20th century.

The 20th century saw several instances where the US Capitol was bombed, but no one was injured or killed. However, there were two instances during that time where there were casualties during attacks.

According to the US House Online Archive, there was an attack by four people of the Puerto Rican Nationalist party in 1954. At the time, US Capitol security was more lax and the four individuals were able to walk into the visitor’s gallery overlooking the chamber with their handguns. They opened fire and wounded five members of Congress. No one was killed.

In a 1998 attack, an armed assailant stormed past a Capitol security checkpoint and killed one Capitol police officer. He then exchanged gunfire with a Capitol detective protecting a Congressperson and fatally wounded the detective. The exchange allowed other officers to subdue the assailant.

However, 1814 was the last time the US Capitol fell to such a large scale insurrection as what occurred on Wednesday, Jan 6th.

During the War of 1812, the British invaded Washington, D.C. and were able to breach and burn down the US Capitol building. A Senate history page says the Senate did not meet in the historic Old Senate Chamber of the building again until 1819.

In conclusion, it greatly saddens me to see our political system and those that have reined in power for far to long abuse what was constructed to be a good working system. It also deeply saddens me that five people have died in this incident.

The Largest Crypto-Ponzi Scheme In History

Reading Time: 11 minutes


The Ponzi Scheme. Despite the notoriety of Charles Ponzi, the scheme that carries his name appears to have been first perpetrated by Sarah Howe in Boston in 1879, when she created the “Ladies’ Deposit” to help invest money for women.

When we think about the most noted Ponzi schemes in recent history, we immediately focus on the name Bernard Lawrence Madoff, (now serving a 150 year prison sentence. Eligible for release when he becomes 201 years old) who defrauded investors out of $64.8 billion, but rarely do we think about the others that have perpetrated the Poniz scheme on investors that didn’t make the major headline news that we so focus on.

For this writing, I would like to introduce you to Dr. Ruja Ignatova. Dr. Ignatova was born in 1980 in Sofia, Bulgaria, however her family emigrated to Germany early on when she was just ten years old. She studied Law in University and even earned a PhD from the University of Constance in a dissertation about the conflict of laws.

In 2012 she was convicted of fraud however not much happened as there wasn’t enough evidence or inclination to properly prosecute her. She only ended up with 14 months of suspended imprisonment.

She soon realized that as cryptocurrencies were becoming a thing there might be the possibility to exploit this trend. As an academic, she was well respected in the community, despite her white collar crime, so when she started BigCoin in 2013 she received a lot of support. This turned out to be a scam and quickly shut down.

Finally, she decided to go with the tried and tested Ponzi scheme approach. She set up OneCoin. You could buy packages of one coin which theoretically should inflate in value. Well, where did the money to buy the OneCoin go? All to Ruja. When people wanted to cash out she got more investment to pay back the initial investors as it always goes with a Ponzi scheme. But Ruja was a sensation. So many people wanted to hear her speak.

There were too many problems with OneCoin. First, often it would take a long time to cash out and when you couldn’t you would just get more OneCoin to thank you for the wait. Also, the data was stored in a database instead of the secure blockchain which is usually used. This was just weird and critics started pointing this out.

At this point, governments took serious notice. In September of 2015, Bulgaria’s Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) issued a warning of potential risks in new cryptocurrencies, citing OneCoin as an example. After the warning, OneCoin ceased all activity in Bulgaria and started to use banks in foreign countries to handle wire transfers from participants.

In February of 2016, the a British newspaper wrote that OneCoin is a get rich quick scheme scam and a cult, calling it “virtually worthless.”

The company and the scheme is on the observation lists of many authorities; among them are authorities in Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Latvia. Authorities in many countries have warned of potential risks involved in businesses like OneCoin and undertaken prosecutions against persons linked to OneCoin, including CEO Ruja Ignatova and her brother Konstantin Ignatov.

By March of 2016, The Direct Selling Association in Norway warned against OneCoin, comparing it to a pyramid scheme.

In December 2016, The Italian Antitrust Authority adopted an interim injunction against the company One Network Services Ltd., active in the promotion and dissemination of cryptocurrency OneCoin, and its representatives in Italy, describing their activities as an illegal pyramid sales system, and ordering them to cease promoting and selling OneCoin in Italy.

Also in December of 2016, the Hungarian Central Bank issued a warning that OneCoin is a pyramid scheme. And in China, several members and investors of OneCoin were arrested and $30.8 million of assets were seized.

In February of 2017, after concluding their investigation, AGCM banned all activity on OneCoin until further notice.

In March of 2017, the Croatian National Bank (HNB) advised the public to exercise a high degree of caution in decisions involving OneCoin, noting that OneCoin operations are not supervised by the HNB, and warned that possible losses will be fully borne by the investors.

In April of 2017, Indian police arrested 18 people in Navi Mumbai for organizing a OneCoin recruitment event. The police attended the event undercover to judge the accusations before they decided to act. Further investigation has been started to reveal the higher levels of the pyramid. In May, the investigation recovered Rs 24.57 crores ($3.49 million USD) in nine bank accounts. A further Rs 75 crores ($10.65 million USD) was transferred out before authorities were able to seize it. Beginning of May, two more people were arrested and Rs 24 crores ($3.41 million USD) were seized from bank accounts. A special investigation team was formed with four Assistant Police Inspectors and 15 personnel under Senior Police Inspector Shivaji Awate to follow the money trail for further arrests. Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) issued cease & desist orders to Onecoin Ltd, Dubai, and OneLife Network Ltd, Belize. The Authority concluded that trading in OneCoins was fraudulently trading. The Bank of Thailand issued a warning against OneCoin, stating it was an illegal digital currency and that it should not be used in trade.

In May of 2017, International Financial Services Commission of Belize (IFSC) issued a warning about OneLife Network Ltd conducting trading business without license or permission from IFSC or any other authority. OneLife Network Ltd was directed to cease and desist from carrying on with the illegal trading business.

In June of 2017, the CEO of OneCoin Ltd. claimed OneCoin was licensed by the Vietnamese government, that it was legally permissible to use them as a digital currency and that it was the first cryptocurrency in Asia officially licensed by any government. The Vietnam’s Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) responded by issuing a statement that the document which OneCoin used as proof was forged. They stated that the document was against the MPI regulations and that the person who supposedly signed the document was not in the position claimed by the document at the time when the document was created. MPI warned individuals and enterprises to be vigilant if they encounter the document during business.

In July of 2017, Ruja Ignatova, the CEO, was charged in India with duping investors as a part of the Indian investigation. This is also just about the time that Dr. Ignatova disappeared that evening with $4 billion, never to be heard from again. Leaving people who had put a lot of their livelihood into OneCoin broke.

In January of 2018, the Bulgarian police raided OneCoin’s office in Sofia at the request of the prosecutor’s office in Bielefeld, Germany. German police and Europol took part in the bust and the investigation. Also 14 other companies, tied to OneCoin, were investigated and 50 witnesses were questioned. OneCoin’s servers and other material evidence were seized.

In May of 2018, the Central Bank of Samoa (CBS) banned all foreign exchange transactions related to OneCoin and OneLife. The bank had earlier in March issued a warning about OneCoin. CBS describes OneCoin as a very high risk pyramid scheme.

In November of 2019, the New York Federal Court found lawyer Mark Scott guilty of money laundering and bank fraud for his role in routing $400M out of the US. The BBC published a detailed investigation of OneCoin and Ignatova titled Cryptoqueen: How this woman scammed the world, then vanished. The reporters believe that Ignatova resides in Frankfurt under a false identity. The the BBC published a documentary on her called “The Missing CryptoQueen.”

In 2020 the FinCEN Files showed that BNY Mellon processed $137M for Entities Linked to OneCoin.

To this day, the missing cryptoqueen has yet to be found. Many speculate that she is still living in Frankfurt, Germany under a different identity.

The Nine-Dash Line

Reading Time: 20 minutes


With the daily rhetoric from China, whether it be about an invasion of Taiwan, it’s displeasure with the US or claiming that it is being bullied, all the while, it has been shown by Beijing themselves that they are the aggressor.

As well as having re-ignited a war with India in an attempt to claim the mountainous region of Tibet to the boarder of India – a dispute that has been on going since 1962 – China has also in recent years stepped up it’s aggressiveness toward claiming all of the South China Sea.

As if not excepting responsibility for the release of a virus that no country should have been playing with in the first place was not enough for China to worry about, they have also stepped up their rhetoric towards the Philippines and Taiwan, much as they did with Hong Kong and we see how that is turning out. People are being jailed daily for the mere existence of thought, much less being able to speak or print what is on their mind.

In recent months, China has also stepped up its aggressive stance of complete ownership of all the South China Sea. This, unfortunately for them, has brought a lot condemnation from many countries as China is not known for being a good fishing neighbor when it comes to not over fishing and destruction of any body water it can get it’s hands on.

The Nine-Dash line at various times also referred to as the Ten-Dash line and the Eleven-Dash line refers to the undefined and vaguely located demarcation line used by China and Taiwan, for their claims of the major part of the South China Sea. The contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, and various other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. The claim encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation known as the “Great Wall of Sand.”

After being defeated in the Sino-French War in 1885, China signed the Treaty of Tientsin with France, and renounced the suzerainty over Vietnam. On June 26th, 1887, the Qing government signed the Convention Relating to the Delimitation of the Frontier between China and Tonkin, which did not clarify the water border between China and French Indo-China.

Following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the Republic of China claimed the entirety of the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly Islands after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. However, under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, the Republic of China’s sovereignty over the archipelagos and waters of South China Sea were not stated.

In November of 1946, the Republic of China sent naval ships to take control of these islands after the surrender of Japan. When the Peace Treaty with Japan was being signed at the San Francisco Conference, on September 7th, 1951. Both China and Vietnam asserted their rights to the islands. Later the Philippine government also laid claim to some islands of the archipelagos.

The Nine-Dash line was originally an Eleven-Dash line first shown on a map published by the government of the then Republic of China in December of 1947 to justify its claims in the South China Sea. The 1947 map, titled “Map of South China Sea Islands” originated from an earlier map titled “Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea” published by the Republic of China’s Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935. In 1949, the newly established People’s Republic of China dropped claims in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the eleven dashes were revised to nine.

After evacuating to Taiwan, the Government of Republic of China has continued its claims, and the Nine-Dash line remains as the rationale for Taiwan’s claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands. Under President Lee Teng-hui, the Republic of China stated that “legally, historically, geographically, or in reality,” all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were the Republic of China’s territory and under Republic of China sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken by Malaysia and the Philippines.

In a statement on July 13th, 1999, released by the foreign ministry of Taiwan. Taiwan and China’s claims mirror each other. During international talks involving the Spratly islands. The two countries have cooperated with each other since both have the same claims.

Taiwan rejected all rival claims to the Paracel Islands, repeating its position that all of the Paracel, Spratly, Zhongsha, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and Pratas Islands belong to the Republic of China along with their surrounding waters and respective seabed and subsoil, and that Taiwan views other claims as illegitimate. In a statement released by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs which added “There is no doubt that the Republic of China has sovereignty over the archipelagos and waters.”

The Nine-Dash line has been used by China to show the maximum extent of its claim without indicating how the dashes would be joined if it was continuous and how that would affect the extent of the area claimed by China.

The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia have all officially protested over the use of such a line. Immediately after China submitted a map to the United Nations, including the Nine-Dash line’s territorial claim in the South China Sea on May 7th, 2009, the Philippines lodged a diplomatic protest against China for claiming the whole of South China Sea illegally. Vietnam and Malaysia filed their joint protest a day after China submitted its map to the United Nations. Indonesia also registered its protest, even though it did not have a claim on the South China Sea.

In 2013 the Peoples Republic of China extended their claims with a new Ten-Dash map. The “new” dash, however, is to the east of Taiwan and not in the South China Sea.

Although China has not provided an official account, the first dashed-line map is widely reported by scholars and commentators to pre-date the existence of the People’s Republic of China, having been published in 1947 by the Nationalist government of the Republic of China. That map, which shows eleven dashes. Scholarly accounts indicate that the 1947 map, titled “Map of South China Sea Islands,” originated from an earlier one titled “Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea” published by the Republic of China’s Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935, and that Chinese maps produced after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 appear to follow the old maps. The maps published by the People’s Republic of China, however, removed the two dashes originally depicted inside the Gulf of Tonkin. Although not visible on the 2009 map, modern Chinese maps since at least 1984, including the vertically oriented maps published by China in 2013 and 2014 also include a tenth dash located to the east of Taiwan.


According to former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, “China’s Nine-Dash line territorial claim over the entire South China Sea is against international laws, particularly the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).”

Vietnam also rejects the Chinese claim, citing that it is baseless and contrary to UNCLOS. In 2010, at a regional conference in Hanoi, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that “The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea.” The United States has also called for unfettered access to the area that China claims as its own, and accused Beijing of adopting an increasingly aggressive stance on the high seas.

Parts of China’s Nine-Dash line overlap Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone near the Natuna Islands. Indonesia believes China’s claim over parts of the Natuna Islands has no legal basis. In November 2015, Indonesia’s security chief Luhut Panjaitan said Indonesia could take China before an international court if Beijing’s claim to the majority of the South China Sea and part of Indonesian territory is not resolved through dialogue.

As early as 1958, the Chinese government released a document pertaining to its territorial limits, stating that China’s territorial waters cover twelve nautical miles, and announcing that this provision applies to “all the territory of People’s Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and offshore islands, Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands and other islands belonging to China.”

Some parties have questioned the jurisdiction of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea on the dispute, arguing that the convention does not support claims based on sovereignty or title, and instead raises the right to continue using the waters for traditional purpose.

While China has never used the Nine-Dash line as an inviolable border to its sovereignty, this strategy together with the fact that China’s government has never officially explained the meaning of the line has led many researchers to try to derive the exact meanings of the Nine-Dash map in the Chinese strategy in the South China Sea. Some scholars believe that this line cannot be considered as a maritime boundary line because it violates maritime laws, which state that a national boundary line must be a stable and defined one. The Nine-Dash line is not stable because it has been reduced from eleven to nine dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin as endorsed by Zhou Enlai without any reasons given. It is also not a defined line because it does not have any specific geographic coordinates and does not tell how it can be connected if it was a continuous line.

A study of the Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, US Department of State in 2014 said about a possible interpretation that “the placement of the dashes within open ocean space would suggest a maritime boundary or limit.”

A 2012 Chinese eighth-grade geography textbook includes a map of China with the Nine-Dash line and the text “The southernmost point of our country’s territory is Zengmu Ansha in the Nansha Islands.” Shan Zhiqiang, the executive chief editor of the Chinese National Geography magazine, wrote in 2013 “The Nine-Dash line is now deeply engraved in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people.”

In October 2008, the website WikiLeaks published a cable from the US Embassy in Beijing reporting that Yin Wenqiang, a senior Chinese government maritime law expert, had admitted he was unaware of the historical basis for the nine dashes.

According to the Kyodo News, in March 2010, the People’s Republic of China officials told US officials that they consider the South China Sea a “core interest” on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, but subsequently backed away from that assertion In July 2010. The Communist Party controlled Global Times stated that “China will never waive its right to protect its core interest with military means” and a Ministry of Defense spokesman said that “China has indisputable sovereignty of the South Sea and China has sufficient historical and legal backing” to underpin its claims.

At the Conference on Maritime Study organised by the US based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in June 2011, Su Hao of the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing delivered a speech on China’s sovereignty and policy in the South China Sea, using history as the main argument. However, Termsak Chalermpalanupap, Assistant Director for Program Coordination and External Relations of the ASEAN Secretariat, said “I don’t think that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes history as the basis to make sovereignty claims.” Peter Dutton of the US Naval War College agreed, saying, “The jurisdiction over waters does not have connection to history. It must observe the UNCLOS.” Dutton stressed that using history to explain sovereignty erodes the rules of the UNCLOS. It is understood that China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996.

Maritime researcher Carlyle Thayer, Emeritus Professor of Politics of the University of New South Wales, said that Chinese scholars using historical heritage to explain its claim of sovereignty shows the lack of legal foundation under the international law for the claim. Caitlyn Antrim, Executive Director, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans of the US, commented that “The U-shaped line has no ground under the international law because the historical basis is very weak.” She added “I don’t understand what China claims for in that U-shaped line. If they claim sovereignty over islands inside that line, the question is whether they are able to prove their sovereignty over these islands. If China claimed sovereignty over these islands 500 years ago and then they did not perform their sovereignty, their claim of sovereignty becomes very weak. For uninhabited islands, they can only claim territorial seas, not exclusive economic zones (EEZ) from the islands.”

In January of 2013, the Philippines formally initiated arbitration proceedings against China’s territorial claim on the Nine-Dash line, which it said is unlawful under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention. China however refused to participate in the arbitration. An arbitration tribunal was constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS and it was decided in July of 2013 that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) would function as registry in the proceedings.

On July 12th, 2016, the five arbitrators of the tribunal agreed unanimously with the Philippines. They concluded in the award that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources, hence there was “no legal basis for China to claim historic rights” over the Nine-Dash line. The tribunal also judged that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights and caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment.” China however rejected the ruling, calling it “ill-founded.” China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping said that “China’s territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way,” but China was still “committed to resolving disputes” with its neighbours. Taiwan, which currently administers Taiping Island which is the largest of the Spratly Islands, also rejected the ruling.

Sadly, this only leaves time and the future writings of history to be the judge of how this dispute will end.