Shareholder Proposal: Insurer To Investigate 911

[Wokeman]

Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.

The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria.

The text of the shareholder proposal, which may also be viewed at the Allianz website, http://www.allianzgroup.com/azgrp/dp/cda/0,,100646-49,00.html, is reproduced below.

+++

Countermotion (Shareholder Proposal) to the General Meeting of Allianz AG to be held May 4th, 2005

From Shareholder: John-Paul Leonard, P.O. Box 126, Joshua Tree, California 92252

Re: Agenda Item 3, Approval of the actions of the members of the Board of Management, I propose that approval not be granted.

Re: Agenda Item 4, Approval of the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board, I likewise propose that approval not be granted.

Reasoning:

The managing and supervisory boards have taken a passive attitude toward the insurance claims and the suspicious aspects of the WTC insurance loss.

The investigation of insurance losses and insurance damage claims against the Company is naturally one of the chief duties of the management of every insurance firm.

The WTC catastrophe was doubtless one of the biggest insurance incidents in history. A significant portion of the multi-billion dollar loss is expected to be borne by Allianz.

Numerous observers and researchers find the WTC case very suspicious. For example, in a public opinion survey, 49.3% of respondents in New York City agreed that “some of our leaders knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” [Source: www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855.]

When this belief is so widespread among unrelated parties, haven’t the affected insurance companies ever asked whether perhaps the US Government instead of the insurers is responsible for the damages, or whether the possibility of insurance fraud has been investigated?

From reports in the media about the trial in New York between the insurers and the insured WTC leaseholder, no sign of such motions has been made public. The dispute has been mainly over the question, whether to pay out $7 billion or “only” $3 billion, whereby the shareholders are supposed to be relieved at the latter sum as a victory of the “lesser of two evils.”

Nor has there been any lack of critical and analytical voices in Germany. Several books in the last few years have posed sharp questions to the official WTC scenario. In 2003, Deutsche Welle published an article entitled, “9/11 Conspiracy Theory Books Dominate Debate at Frankfurt Book Fair.” (www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,993523,00.html .)

Anyone who is interested can quickly obtain similar materials from the Internet free of charge, as well as continuing researches of the background of 9/11 by independent journalists.

Two German-American writers, Jim Hoffman (www.wtc7.net) and Eric Hufschmid, have contibuted greatly to the theory of the dynamiting of the Twin Towers and Building WTC-7. Hufschmid’s work was translated and published in German (www.painfulquestions.de). They claim that never in history has the structure of a steel building ever been destroyed by fire, and that on the contrary, the evidence points to a controlled demolition. I could find no evidence to gainsay their thesis anywhere.

WTC-7, as is well-known, was never struck by airplanes, and photographs of it show only insignificant fires ( www.globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523 ). Nevertheless, the 47-story building at WTC 7 suddenly collapsed at around 17:28 on 9/11/2001. This fact was not even mentioned in the report of the official 9/11 commission. (www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf )

How can an insurer take such an extreme case simply and casually as business as usual?

There is plenty more such evidence that would be useful in the billion-dollar lawsuit, which every citizen with an Internet connection can confirm. Why aren’t Allianz (and the other insurers) able to?

When the managing and supervisory boards take no action to join the investigation of a case as huge and notorious as the WTC, how are the shareholders to know that other cases, too, for whatever reason, are not paid out without being properly investigated?

There is already a private lawsuit against US government officials in connection with the events of 9/11, see http://www.911forthetruth.com.

[kookomula]

Having read your mail I am still unsure whether or not Allianz are investigating the shareholders claim any further or whether it has been dismissed?

[Wokeman]

Close but no Cigar -
How we didn't get our 9/11 countermotion publicized by Munich Reinsurance

By JP Leonard, May 25

As you may know, there was this bright idea to get publicity for the 9/11 Truth cause by approaching the re-insurance companies that are being bilked for several billion on the WTC damages. Some people thought it was a good idea, so I earmarked my calendar to spend one day doing something about it. But as it so often turns out with bright ideas, it took many days, if not weeks of leg work, and I had to do it almost all myself.

I soon decided the best way for me would be to file a shareholder's motion at the general meetings of some of these companies. I couldn't find anything much about the American insurance companies. I investigated Swiss Re and found that to file a motion there, a shareholder has to own 100,000 CHF worth of shares.

That left the big German reinsurer Munich Re and insurer Allianz. It was way too late to buy shares in Allianz. As it turned out, the timing was rather short for the Tues, May 11th deadline to file countermotions at Munich Re, too...

Munich Re has so-called registered shares, not bearer shares, and even the U.S. brokers who will buy them for customers won't register them in the customer's name. After lots of dead ends, I saw the only chance to get voting rights was to download a contract from a German broker and sign it at the German embassy. On Friday April 30th I took a day off and drove to Los Angeles, got the consular stamp on my signature, bought an Amex travelers check for €200, stuck it in a DHL envelope that had "DHL does not transport cash or cash equivalents" written all over it, and sent the papers off to my new broker, in Frankfurt.

It was there on Monday morning - but it took them until Thursday to buy me a share, and they told me i probably wouldn't be in the register on time. You can vote, and file countermotions, from the time you are in the register, not from when you buy the share.

A young German broker suggested I go on wallstreet-online.de and see if I could get a proxy from someone. I put out feelers there, but only got into polemics with some narrow-minded rednecks on the Munich Re threads about 9/11. Spending too much precious last-minute time on them was one mistake.

We had some luck: one German activist did pitch in to set up a brokerage account and buy a share, Karsten "Grolo" Thamm. His broker told him he would be in the register as of Monday, May 10, a day before the deadline. Unfortunately, though, Grolo had a new, very intensive job in another city starting on May 10th, and I wasn't able to reach him to brainstorm about it. I didn't think we could send the motion to the company before he was in the register, and that was doubtless true. So we had just one chance. In hindsight, I should have written and sent the motion on the weekend. That way, we might have gotten the answer from the company about what was wrong with it on Monday, and filed a corrected version on the last day, Tuesday.

Instead, on Monday I was still busy drafting a proposal to have Nafeez Ahmed's senseless lawsuit against me postponed, the trial date was May 26th, same date as the Munich Re shareholder's meeting. Even without Munich Re or his idiotic dispute, I have been totally and drippingly swamped way over my head with trying to bring out 3 new books at once (1. You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth - A Brief on the Bush Presidency; 2. Enemies by Design - Inventing the War on Terror; and 3. Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories and the Secrets of 9/11) and all before the election.

Normally a one-man publisher can do 3 books a year, not all at once, so I had been getting only a few hours sleep each night, and on Monday night I was totally exhausted. I groggily realized it was already Tuesday in Germany and my last chance to get some feedback on the countermotion. I should write it and send it to Munich Re before going to bed. But I had not been feeling well for a couple days, and I surrendered and simply collapsed from fatigue, to write the countermotion in the morning. The deadline was 12 midnight in Germany, 3 p.m. California time. I sent the motion off by e-mail and fax a few minutes before the hour.

The complete English text of our grand countermotion is appended at the end of the message, with a summary of arguments about controlled demolition and insurance fraud (limit: 5000 characters). Countermotions have to be addressed to points on the agenda, which I attempted to do.

The next day brought a bucket of cold water in the face. All four of my points were invalid. For instance, a conditional approval of the board's actions is not possible. I wrote back saying, OK, make it unconditional - that the Boards actions not be approved for failure to stand up to the WTC fraud.

But it was too late. I was absolutely mortified. Like the old saw, try a nail - and find out you needed to use a screw - after you've split the board in two.

As a post mortem, I tried to at least find out if the simplified, corrected version would have been accepted if it had been filed on time. The Shareholder relations people didn't want to say. However, I finally got them to state definitely that they DO advise on the admissibility of motions or countermotions before the filing deadline. This means that next year (if we are spared the sword that hangs over all our heads), we may start earlier. One could also try and file more than one version at once to see which one will be accepted, and to talk to the people there on the phone - not easy, but possible even from California.

More could also be attempted in the USA, although I kind of doubt if US laws allow a shareholder with just one share to publicize a counter motion. (I guess America is so busy exporting democracy we haven't much left for domestic consumption.)

I also plan to set up a new thread on wallstreet-online.de dedicated to the 911 reinsurance issue, for anyone who is interested.

=============

Countermotion to the General Meeting of the Münchener Rückversicherung, 2004

To Point 1: Reserves for Damages from the Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) on Sept. 11, 2001, should be released, and the Net Profit increased.

To Point 2: Dividend to be doubled to €2.50 per share.

To Points 3 and 4: Approval of the actions of the Boards to be given subject to their undertaking to thoroughly investigate the causes of the WTC collapse on 9.11.2001, and to withhold payment on the WTC insurance claim, until discrepancies are publicly clarified.

Reasons:

The management has a basic responsibility to carefully investigate all claims, and to pay out only those which have merit.

Where the causes are in doubt, it is the duty of the Insured to clarify the case, as it is also to try to prevent damages from arising.

Every shareholder can collect enough information on the Internet to conclude that the official version of the events of 9.11.2001 is impossible, and leaves many questions open.

"Fire Engineering" is the 125-year old magazine for firefighting and fire engineering in the US. Its editor, William Manning, demanded a proper investigation. He wrote, "The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.... The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately... there are burning questions that need answers." He also noted that the collapses occurred "in an alarmingly short time," and there is no "real evidence" for the official theory.

Although this Shareholder cannot guarantee the truth of all the evidence brought to bear here, this would not be just grounds to withhold this motion from the General Meeting. The aim of this countermotion cannot be to present the last word on the truth of 9.11. The removal of debris from the scene makes that difficult even for the Company. I can only make suggestions, so that the competent authorities do their duty.

An overview of evidence on the Internet follows. If any points are deemed unsuitable to be made available to all shareholders, I ask that such points be deleted and the remaining content of the countermotion be made available.

Discrepancies

While the official version of 9.11 attributes the collapse of the WTC to 2 passenger jets, many independent researchers agree, that the WTC catastrophe bears all the marks of controlled demolitions.

In the entire history of steel and concrete high rise buildings, none has ever been destroyed by fire, nor even had damage to load-bearing members.

The Insured allowed debris to be hastily removed, which was destroyed and never investigated.

Several destroyed buildings were not even touched by the airplanes: such as WTC 5, 6, and 7.

Building fires reach temperatures of about 360 C, not hot enough to weaken steel.

Even if some girders had been damaged, the buildings would have bent, rather than imploding symmetrically, which is possible only by controlled demolition.

The concrete in the Twin Towers was pulverized into fine dust which was ejected about 70 m. outwards - possible with explosives, not from the force of gravity.

Signs of molten steel were found in the basement, indicating the use of explosives. Kerosene does not burn hot enough. Steel melts at 1500 C, a temperature that jet fuel does not reach.

The theory of a chain reaction (pancake theory), where one floor fell onto another, is impossible in view of the great speed of the collapse, which lasted only about a second longer than a free fall from the tower top. The speed was recorded by videos and seismographs, and is like that of a controlled demolition. WTC-7 came down just as fast, as can be seen on the Internet in several videos.

The official FEMA report has no explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Photos show only two small fires, that the fire department is not even fighting. http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html


The above points suffice for an open-minded observer to conclude that the WTC was destroyed by demolition. The likelihood, that the Insured can overturn this evidence, is so minimal, that the provisions for a WTC damage settlement should be reversed.

Sources: www.wtc7.net, www.serendipity.li/wtcg.htm , http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
[/img]

[kookomula]

Thanks for the answer. I did search but was unable to come up with anything.

[Wokeman]

BTW, Kookomula,
That heading was one the original website carrying the article. At the time, in front of the shareholders meeting it was correct. But now, as we all know, the effort failed.

[kookomula]

The headline is attention grabbing but still misleading. I suppose 'Shareholder attempted to get Insurers to Investigate' might not be so appealing. The article that followed was very interesting though, I am glad I asked.