A warning to every nation.
I. Introduction: The Illusion of
Neutral Custody
Modern international finance rests on a presumption of trust: that assets
placed in foreign custody remain the sovereign property of the depositor,
insulated from political coercion and governed by neutral legal standards. This
presumption, however, is not codified as an absolute rule. It is conditional,
revocable, and increasingly subordinated to unilateral domestic legal
frameworks. Do you trust Trump holding your gold?
This essay examines how unilateral executive authorities — enacted under
the guise of emergency powers, anti-corruption mandates, and national security
— can function as instruments of de facto expropriation, without formal
declarations of war, judicial adjudication, or multilateral consent.
The issue is not ideology. It is process.
The question is not whether corruption exists. It is who decides, under
what standards, and with what safeguards.
II. Executive Authority and the
Elasticity of “Emergency”
Under U.S. law, statutes such as the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA) allow the
President to declare a national emergency and impose asset restrictions without
prior judicial review.
Once invoked:
- Asset blocking becomes administrative,
not judicial.
- Due process is postponed,
often indefinitely.
- The burden of proof shifts from
the accuser to the accused.
Executive Order 13818 (2017), issued under the Global Magnitsky
framework, exemplifies this elasticity. Although formally directed at
individuals accused of corruption or human rights abuses, its operative
language extends to:
- Any person deemed to have
“assisted,” “supported,” or “benefited from” such conduct;
- Any entity “owned or controlled”
by such persons;
- Any transaction that could be
construed as facilitating such activity.
The law does not require a conviction.
It does not require a trial.
It does not require multilateral validation.
III. From Individuals to States: The
Structural Risk
While such orders are framed as targeted measures, historical application
demonstrates a pattern of functional expansion:
- Iranian sovereign assets frozen for decades; So even
though it was their money, when Obama released such assets, it was Donald
Trump who accused Obama of handing American money. It was a flagrant lie,
but Trump lies all the time.
- Afghan central bank reserves immobilized after regime change;
- Venezuelan assets, including CITGO refineries,
were already stolen by the Trump administration, they were transferred
under contested recognition; It was an illegal seizure and the robbery of
those refineries, but nobody said anything because he made up laws that he
decreed.
- Russian reserves blocked without a formal war
declaration.
In each case, custody did not protect sovereignty.
Custody subordinated sovereignty to political determination.
The legal distinction between blocking and seizure becomes,
in practice, irrelevant when access is denied indefinitely, and ownership is
rendered meaningless.
IV. Pretext and Reversal: Redefining
Expropriation
A critical pattern emerges when historical exploitation is rhetorically
inverted.
In Ecuador, oil contracts such as those held by Texaco paid approximately
three cents per barrel, under conditions that transferred environmental
and social costs to the host nation. When Ecuadorian officials — notably General
Jarrín Ampudia — asserted sovereign rights and resisted these
arrangements despite threats and violence, history later validated those
actions as acts of national defense, not theft.
Yet in contemporary discourse, similar assertions of sovereignty by other
nations are reframed as “robbery,” while the original extraction under grossly
unequal terms is omitted.
This rhetorical inversion functions as a pretext:
- To justify sanctions,
- To legitimize asset control,
- To recast resistance as
criminality.
- Trump is claiming to have a
legitimate issue to declare war against Venezuela.
V. Gold Custody and Legal
Vulnerability
Gold reserves held abroad occupy a uniquely vulnerable legal position:
- They are outside domestic
constitutional protection;
- They are subject to host-country
emergency law;
- They depend entirely on custodial
goodwill.
Under expansive interpretations of “material support” or “hostile
alignment,” even limited defensive or diplomatic actions by a state could be
construed as grounds for asset blocking.
The risk is not hypothetical.
It is structural.
VI. Conclusion: Fraud by Structure,
Not by Declaration
This essay does not allege conspiracy.
It does not assert criminal intent.
It demonstrates how legal mechanisms, when detached from
multilateral restraint, can produce outcomes indistinguishable from
expropriation — while maintaining formal legality within a unilateral system.
Fraud, in this context, is not an act of concealment.
It is the misrepresentation of neutrality, where law is presented as
impartial while operating asymmetrically.
For nations such as Venezuela with 161,6 metric tons of gold in the hands
of the United States, Brazil, 130 metric tons, Mexico, 120 metric tons,
Argentina, 60,9 metric tons, Bolivia, 42 metric tons, Ecuador, 33,4 metric tons,
and many other nations, the lesson is precise:
Sovereignty cannot be deposited.
It must be exercised.
You can count on one thing. Trump wants to declare war to seize their
gold and steal, just as he stole the CITGO refineries. It is not hyperbole; it
is a proven fact.
When the Thief Accuses the Guard
There is a peculiar moment in history when those who extracted resources
for pennies suddenly declare themselves victims of robbery.
The accusation is delivered with confidence.
The memory is selective.
The arithmetic is absent.
When Ecuador was paid three cents per barrel for its oil, that was
called “investment.”
When Ecuador resisted, it was referred to as “nationalism.”
When Ecuador reclaimed sovereignty, it was labeled “theft.”
Now, the same language is being repurposed — this time on a global scale.
The Magic Trick of Unilateral Law
Here is how the trick works:
- Declare an emergency.
- Write a law broad enough to mean
anything.
- Decide who qualifies after the
fact.
- Freeze first.
- Explain later — if ever.
No judge.
No jury.
No neutral forum.
Just paperwork and power.
And suddenly, gold placed in “safe custody” becomes gold placed in conditional
obedience.
CITGO, Gold, and the Art of Moral
Reversal when Trump has no morals.
CITGO was not seized after a trial.
It was transferred after a political recognition.
Gold is not confiscated by verdict.
It is immobilized by interpretation.
And oil, once taken for cents, is now invoked as moral justification for
seizure — as if history itself had been laundered.
This is not justice.
It is narrative control.
Ecuador Has Seen This Before
Ecuador has already lived this story.
When Jarrín Ampudia stood against extraction contracts that
amounted to daylight robbery, he was threatened. Others paid with their lives.
Yet Ecuador stood firmer — and history proved that resistance was correct.
What was once called “radical” is now recognized as defense of dignity.
That is why Ecuador understands something others are only beginning to
learn:
Silence does not protect you.
Compliance does not save you.
Custody is not sovereignty.
The Warning
This is not about left or right.
Not about Correa or Noboa. This is not about Maduro against Trump.
Not about Trump or any single administration.
It is about a system where:
- Law follows power,
- Emergency replaces consent,
- And morality is rewritten after
the assets are frozen.
A world that accepts this quietly will wake up poorer — not just in
wealth, but in dignity.
Final Word
Venezuela or Ecuador does not need permission to exist with dignity.
It does not need guardians who charge interest on obedience.
It does not need to trade its future for access to markets that were never
truly open.
What it needs — and what this chapter calls for — is clarity.
Because history is unforgiving to nations that mistake silence for
safety.
My recommendation to every nation is RECOVER YOUR GOLD, demand your gold
back today before TRUMP steals it. That is what Trump is after: this war
against Venezuela has one purpose only to seize and steal your gold. He
declares war against Venezuela, and although only Congress has the right to
declare such war, he is going to do so. You watch, and the moment other nations
take sides, he will steal your gold. Trump is a convicted felon, he is a
pedophile, Trump is a racist who has called Hispanics animals, Trump is
violating the law daily, raping the constitution, and violating human rights.
This thief wants to steal the gold reserves of every Latin nation. Shame on you,
Donald Trump.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario