Looking for Erik Goaied’s FARA#6261? These are the 5 original Erik Goaied/WACG documents. Although no longer on file with the Department of Justice-FARA Registration Unit as of June 2015 – our FARA PDFs copies are downloadable:
As the PDFs were when we published on 16 December 2014:
- Our PDF copy: 6261-Exhibit-AB-20141110-1
- Our PDF copy: 6261-Registration-Statement-20141110-1
- Our PDF copy: 6261-Exhibit-C-20141110-1
- Our PDF copy: DOUGLAS KEITH FOREE 6261-Short-Form-20141110-2
- Our PDF copy: ERIK MAGNUS ISKANDER GOALED 6261-Short-Form-20141110-4
Our 16 December 2014 article & a subsequent conclusion of #6261…
Three statements about the consultancy company hired for the recovery of the Libyan Assets:
- ‘-Keeping them within the United States-’ is the EXACT wording stated in the US Justice Department’s FARA registration statement #6261 signed by Washington African Consultancy Group (WACG) Directors’ Erik Goaied and Douglas Keith Foree. ‘Them’ would be Libya’s international recovered assets. WACG signed with Libya to ‘repatriate’ the Libyan assets (Page 15) but then signed and filed with the US Government that they will be “keeping them in the United States.” (Page 4- Exhibit B question 9)
- Libya’s worldwide asset recovery effort was given to the Washington African Consultancy Group, WACG. This consultancy company was incorporated on 8 August 2014. WACG as a company, was in EXISTENCE for 14 days and therefore had 14 days of assets recovery EXPERIENCE BEFORE The National Board signed the 22 August 2014 WACG consultancy contract. (Page 22) See our PDF: Texas Certificate of Formation WACG 8-8-2014
- The ‘principal office’ address of the Washington African Consultancy Group is ALSO the personal ‘residence’ of its director… 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160. In their FARA registration SIGNED on 4 November and FILED on 10 November 2014, both its Directors, Erik Goaied and Douglas Keith Foree attested that the “address of the principal office” of WACG is ALSO the personal “residence address” of Director Douglas Keith Foree. (questions 1 & 3, 5 c, g)
Shocked? We concur. But, the documents signed and filed with the US government show the validity of these three statements. To be coherent, we restated these statements into three applicable sections within this discussion.
A note from the Authors: In light of the evolving story of the Libyan assets recovery we suggest the previous link and the article in Arabic entitled Gaddafi the Thief. Scroll down to the article. It was written in August 2013 with links to international articles. It is a thorough investigation by Abdu Al Libi, ترجمة واعداد / عبدو الليبي . We suggest both articles while we hope to add to the narrative of these individuals as they scramble for the Libyan assets.
A Short Background of FARA #6261:
The Washington African Consultancy Group (WACG) was hired on the 22 August 2014 through a consultancy agreement with their client, THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE FOLLOWING-UP AND RECOVERING OF THE LIBYAN LOOTED AND DISGUISED FUNDS aka “THE NATIONAL BOARD”. In the consultancy agreement THE NATIONAL BOARD noted their affiliation with the HoR and the Al Thani Government by giving their ‘principal address’ (Page 1) and on (Page 9) their affiliation to HoR:
The Libyan Government
Prime Minister’s Office
“HEAD OF GOVERNMENT” shall mean Prime Minister Abdullah Al Thani.
“Parliament” or “Government” shall mean The House of Representatives as elected on the 25th of June 2014 who is responsible to elect the new Prime Minister as Head of Government, The House of Representatives replacing the GNC as the de facto Government of Libya.
As required by US law, the lobbyist WACG, must make a public accounting with the US Department Justice and its Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA) for the lobbying activities they intend to execute for their Libyan client, THE NATIONAL BOARD. When WACG filed the registration statement, it provided a copy of the attached consultancy agreement with THE NATIONAL BOARD. Both documents make the FARA #6261 registration statement. The number 6261 is WACG’s foreign agent ID number. As WACG is a new agent, they provided the company’s and directors’ credentials to the FARA Registration Unit.
These are the 5 original, non-redacted documents on file with the Department of Justice-FARA Registration Unit and the basis of this article.
WACG Registration Statement with attached consultancy agreement with THE NATIONAL BOARD
Our PDF: 6261-Exhibit-AB-20141110-1
The FARA link: http://www.fara.gov/docs/6261-Exhibit-AB-20141110-1.pdf
WACG Registration Statement (WACG – the company’s details)
Our PDF copy: 6261-Registration-Statement-20141110-1
The FARA link: http://www.fara.gov/docs/6261-Registration-Statement-20141110-1.pdf
The State of Texas: http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/Texas-Business-Licenses.htm
WACG Exhibit C (Notification of WACG Incorporation, State of Texas)
Our PDF copy: 6261-Exhibit-C-20141110-1
The FARA link: http://www.fara.gov/docs/6261-Exhibit-C-20141110-1.pdf
Short Form Registration Statement (Douglas Keith Foree credentials)
Our PDF copy: DOUGLAS KEITH FOREE 6261-Short-Form-20141110-2
The FARA link: http://www.fara.gov/docs/6261-Short-Form-20141110-2.pdf
Short Form Registration Statement (Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied credentials)
Our PDF copy: ERIK MAGNUS ISKANDER GOALED 6261-Short-Form-20141110-4
The FARA link: http://www.fara.gov/docs/6261-Short-Form-20141110-4.pdf
PART ONE: FARA Registration Statement #6261
- ‘-Keeping them within the United States-’ is stated in the US Justice Department’s FARA #6261 signed by Washington African Consultancy Group Directors Erik Goaied and Douglas Keith Foree. (page 4) ‘Them’ would be international recovered assets of Libya. Although WACG signed with Libya in August to repatriate the assets, in November filed with the US Government another story. (right & below)
As stated in #6261 Exhibit B Question 9, the international Recovered Libyan Assets will NOT be repatriated to Libya. NOT to the Government, the Parliament, the Central Bank or the People of Libya. Further, the Washington African Consultancy Group specified that their authority will include ALL the Libyan Assets identified ‘within the United States and abroad, but not in Libya.’ (Page 4- Exhibit B question 9)
Also, WACG will ‘provide for the use of those assets.’
In detailing their lobbying activities, WACG stated that ‘…it will then provide for the USE of those assets…’ meaning that “It”, the Washington African Consultancy Group will be deciding how the Libyan Assets will be spent! See Exhibit B question 9.
In other words, according to #6261, after the Libyan Assets are identified in ‘the United States and abroad’, the assets will be kept in the United States and two NON-Libyans in Washington will be in CONTROL of and DECIDING how, ALL the Libyan assets abroad will be spent for the “benefit for the Libyan people AND the rebuilding of Libya.’
If kept in Washington in the hands of two NON-Libyans, the Libyan assets will NOT be subject to ANY democratic oversight, just the whims of WACG’s directors. Nor will the national wealth of Libya while kept in Washington, be subject to ANY LIBYAN democratic procedures as outlined by the government, the parliament, the central bank OR the people of Libya. The #6261 excerpt: (page 4)
Exhibit B question 9
‘Washington African Consulting Group, Inc. will seek to influence United States policies concerning suspended or frozen assets of Libya within the United States and to strengthen the inter-governmental relations between the two nations.
The Washington African Consulting Group, Inc. will achieve this purpose through the identification of Libyan assets within the United States and abroad, but not in Libya, It will then provide for the use of those assets – keeping them within the United States – for the benefit of the Libyan people and the rebuilding of Libya.’
Are the Libyan assets being used as a bargaining chip?
Since its publication on the 10 November 2014, THE NATIONAL BOARD has seemingly allowed their lobbyist, through #6261, to insinuate that the Libyan assets are available as a bargaining chip. In the previous excerpt Exhibit B question 9, WACG details that one of their aims is “to strengthen the inter-governmental relations between the two nations.’ That would be the the United States and the Libyan government headed by Abdullah Al Thani.
To strengthening ‘inter-governmental relations’ between the Al Thani Government and Washington, WACG explains HOW it ‘will achieve this purpose…’ The sentence continues by noting blatantly, that the assets will be kept within the United States. And this seems to be the key, the explanation by inference, is that the assets will be kept within US Banks. With educated speculations of at least USD2 trillion of Libyan assets in gold, diamonds and USD$260 Billion in just 4 South African banks and warehouses, let alone the rest of the world, this offer becomes one spectacular financial bargaining chip.
An argument could be made that the Libyan assets are being offered as an incentive for United States to maintain its official recognition of the HoR and the Al Thani government. Is it working? As of 9 December 2014, The Libyan Herald noted that the international and US communities reaffirmed that they ‘recognize and support’ the Al Thani Government and House of Representatives. ‘According to a statement from Thinni’s press office, they also said that they do not recognise any other entity as the legitimate government in the country.’
Two Libyan Governments vying for attention in Washington
Rendering further credence to the speculation of the HoR/Al Thani Government’s bargaining chip is that it coincides and coordinates with the political tussle with the Al Hassi Government in Tripoli. Tripoli recently hired the controversial lobbyist, Ari Ben Menashe to promote itself and the GNC to the US Government. Rori Donaghy of the Middle East Eye noted in his article:
“[Dickens & Madson] will attempt to influence US policy toward governance in Libya including support for a Libyan government growing out of the GNC in Libya,” read the documents.
“Registrant [Dickens & Madson] will specifically attempt to address with policy makers the way forward in Libya in light of the Libya Supreme Court ruling that the House of Representatives sitting in Tobruk is unconstitutional.”
Our op/ed discussion mentions that 5 competing FARA registration documents were filed last month by both Libyan governments. In light of the evolving story of the Libyan assets, we will be discussing the applicable FARA #6261. We will review the registration statement and then examine the legality of its questionable consultancy agreement. About that agreement we provide a legal opinion by an American Lawyer that concludes: LIBYA COULD AND SHOULD TERMINATE THAT AGREEMENT. Finally, we will be providing some background on the major actors such as WACG Directors’ Douglas Keith Foree, Erik Goaied and THE NATIONAL BOARD’S Mohamed Tag that oversaw and/or signed this consultancy agreement. Prior connections to each other in the Libyan Assets Recovery game are where we see a developing scandal. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the US Government’s prior knowledge and ‘support’ of the relationship between WACG and THE NATIONAL BOARD. When reviewing the consultancy agreement consider these points:
- Libya’s worldwide asset recovery effort was given to a consultancy company incorporated only 14 days before THE NATIONAL BOARD signed 22 August 2014 consultancy agreement. (Page 22)
- The work experience of WACG’s two directors detailed either 30 years in oil & gas and/or an adviser to defense company, airline pilot or miscellaneous management. This is detailed on their WACG or LinkedIn pages. HERE & HERE. As these pages have been evolving with the times, we provided the WACG’s site (Right) as it was when we published. Notably, principals Douglas Keith Foree and Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied DID NOT cite ANY professional experience in international assets recovery.
When comparing #6261 and the attached consultancy agreement the old adage springs to mind: A fool and his money are soon parted. Unfortunately, the Fool or 3 Fools, in this case, are NOT dealing with their OWN money. They are in fact, signatories from THE NATIONAL BOARD representing Libya. These signatories are entrusted to handle with care, the Libyan assets. Unfortunately, after a review of the consultancy agreement by an American attorney, it seems apparent that these signatories are making unwise, uninformed decisions with money owned by the Libyan people. Let’s start with the consultancy agreement.
PART TWO. The Consultancy Agreement
As it was in existence for only 14 days before THE NATIONAL BOARD dubiously signed, we enlisted an American lawyer to drafted this opinion of their consultancy agreement.
Unfortunately, our suspicions were confirmed. After reviewing the agreement, we found nothing present to protect Libya in this consultancy agreement: NO safeguards on Libya’s behalf. In fact, the American Lawyer’s opinion concluded ’NO government’ would sign that the consultancy agreement on advise of their OWN lawyers.’ As such, we have to ask, DID these three signatories retain their OWN legal representation before they signed on Libya’s HoR and Al Thani Government’s behalf?
Observations from an American Lawyer
The conclusion: Libya COULD and SHOULD terminate this agreement:
I have examined the consultancy agreement attached to FARA Document #6261 (the “Agreement”) signed between The NATIONAL BOARD and the Washington African Consultancy Group (the “Company”). After reviewing the Agreement, it is clear that that the Agreement was drafted only for the benefits of the Company. Libya’s rights were not protected. It is my opinion no government would sign that the Agreement on advise of their own lawyers. I will cover a few major failings that profoundly affect Libya rights negatively within the consultancy agreement.
Specifically, I note that the Agreement has no termination (cancellation) clause. This means that Libya is obligated to hire the services of the Company forever.
No individual, let alone government, would or should accept entering into any contract where all parties to the contract do not have the right to freely terminate the contract. It is the accepted standard practices that in any contract all parties should have the right to terminate the contract under certain circumstances. The Agreement instructs in Point (5.1) that termination is only by joint consent of both parties. This would be both Libya and the Company.
I also noticed that the Agreement lacks a timetable to execute the scope of work. Such timetable will force the Company to perform in a timely manner; otherwise it will be an open-ended agreement.
In addition, a timetable would protect Libya against lack of performance on the Company’s part. In this Agreement, a timetable, if it was included, it will have two strategic functions (1) it gives Libya grounds to terminate the Agreement if the Company fails to perform and (2) satisfies the issue of urgency since the assets could be moved around the world in a short time thus the Company should expedite its performance.
For instance, a timetable with a four month milestone to uncover the assets, with expectations to be completed would give a good idea of their capability. It they do not meet the milestone as defined in the Agreement then it gives the basis for termination of the Agreement. A final point is that without the timetable this contract could literally go on forever.
It is especially important as there is urgency to the matter. As this Agreement is no longer private and confidential and is in fact now public, finding the assets before they are re-hidden is the key. The assumption is that those who have the assets will try to re-hide it. Secondly, the timetable allows Libya to assess the performance of the Company. If they do not perform in a timely manner and demonstrate incapability for the job, then the termination notice based on failure to perform allows Libya to terminate the contract and seek another capable consultancy company.
According to the Agreement, the Company warrants (guarantees) that in Point (4.1.1) “It carries and has knowledge/information as to the existence and whereabouts of the Assets”. In other words, the company claims, guarantees and assures Libya that it had conducted due diligence (investigation) and knows where all of the assets are located. The only thing left is to provide Libya with locations of stolen assets in order to file for the attachment (seize) of assets.
There seems to be a ray of light or two. How Libya CAN cancel this agreement.
Can Libya terminate the Agreement signed with the Company? Yes, based on the following:
An undertaking or warranty is a statement of fact that convinces a party to enter into the contract. Undertaking and warranties are supposed to be true statements and therefore will be accepted by the other party who will be comfortable in entering into the contract. However, if such warranties and undertakings are proven to be false during the performance of the agreement, the party being deceived shall have the right to terminate the agreement.
The Company, in the Agreement in RECORDAL Point (C), warrants that “The Company has the experience and knowledge and is, willing and prepared to seek out identify/point out the location of Assets”. Under the Agreement in DEFINITIONS, the word Company “shall mean WASHINGTON AFRICAN CONSULTING GROUP INCORPORATED”, not a director. In reality, evidenced showed the Company was incorporated in the State of Texas on the August 8, 2014 and the Agreement was signed with the Libyan Government on August 22, 2014. A calculation determines 14 days between incorporation and signatures. This would be the basis of a termination notice based on the statements of experience.
The Company in the Agreement in RECORDAL Point (A) agrees to repatriate (send back) the recovered assets to Libya. However, in the registration statement in EXHIBIT B, question (9) submitted to the American Agency FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act), the Company assured the American Government that any Libya assets found in the USA will be left in the USA and not repatriated to Libya.
Thus, Libya has the right, and should, terminate the agreement since the Company has assured the Libyans of its experience and persuaded them to sign the Agreement.
Libya should draft a letter of termination stating the above reasons as grounds to terminate the Agreement.
‘Thus, Libya has the right, and should, terminate the agreement since the Company has assured the Libyans of its experience and persuaded them to sign the Agreement. Libya should draft a letter of termination stating the above reasons as grounds to terminate the Agreement.’
This urge to action is based on the consultancy company’s representation of its experience AND the conflicting statements within FARA registration statement #6261 between issue of the Libyan Assets’ ‘repatriation’ or leave ‘them in the United States’. To explore the legal points covered from the consultancy agreement HERE & HERE. See our PDF: Points covered in Legal Opinion
PART THREE: The Washington African Consultancy Group and their Directors
- The ‘principal office’ address of the Washington African Consultancy Group is ALSO the personal ‘residence’ of its director… 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160. In their FARA registration SIGNED on 4 November and FILED on 10 November 2014, both directors, Erik Goaied and Douglas Keith Foree attested that the “address of the principal office’ of WACG is
ALSO the personal “residence address” of Director Douglas Keith Foree. See inserts. (question 1 & 3, (Page 1) question 5 c, g (Page 2))
As we already noted the Texas incorporation of the Washington African Consultancy Group was on the 8th of August 2014, only 14 days before THE NATIONAL BOARD signatories signed in Tripoli. This letter is from the office of the Texas Secretary of State about the incorporation:
Incorporation of Washington African Consulting Group (page 1) (6261 Exhibit C – 20141110-1)
August 11, 2014
Attn: Keith Foree
PO Box 128
Fate. TX 75132 USA
RE: Washington African Consulting Group, Inc.
File Number: 802041824
It has been our pleasure to file the certificate of formation and issue the enclosed certificate of filing evidencing the existence of the newly created domestic for-profit corporation.
We found this information from easily accessible State of Texas and US Government documents available on the internet without paying a single dollar. As it was so readily available on the internet, did THE NATIONAL BOARD members do THEIR due diligence of the company and its directors? If THE BOARD would have done a simple search, the fact that this company was set up only two weeks prior should have sent up red flags everywhere.
As these 3 signatories DID sign a consultancy agreement to recover Libyan Assets of USD$ 2 Trillion worldwide for a 10% recovery fee (page 17-18) given to an dubious consultancy company, we feel compelled to provide the facts, as they did not, to the Libyan People about the Washington African Consultancy Group.
The Washington African Consultancy Group
These facts are compiled from documents from the State of Texas and the US Government.
WACG applied for incorporated on August 8, 2014 in the state of Texas.
WACG received a letter dated 11 August 2014 and certificate from the State on Texas on incorporation of the Washington African Consultancy Group. The incorporation number is 802041824.
WACG dated the Consultancy Agreement for 22nd of August 2014 to be signed by THE NATIONAL BOARD.
WACG filed on 8 August 2014 with the state of Texas two directors at the time of incorporation: PW Becker and Douglas Keith Foree, BOTH gave the SAME address: PO Box 128, Fate, TX 75132.
WACG filed on 10/10/2014 with the State of Texas an amendment that deleted the existing director, PW Becker and added Erik Goaied as Secretary/ Treasurer.
WACG noted in question 5. J ‘Washington African Consulting Group, Inc. is a closely-held Texas corporation with three shareholders.‘ (Page 2) The Libyan People should know who are these ‘three shareholders’.
WACG was notified by the State of Texas that ’It is important for the entity to continuously maintain a registered agent and office in Texas. Failure to maintain an agent, or office or file a change to the information in Texas may result in the involuntary termination of the entity.’ (Page 1)
WACG’s ‘address of the principal office’ is the ‘residence’ of Principal Foree:
“Principal Business Address is 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry Texas 75160” is noted in the registration of the company. It was signed by both Principals Douglas Keith Foree and Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied on 4 November 2014 and filed with US Government on 10 November 2014.
Page 1 Question 3: ‘Principal Business Address is 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry Texas 75160′
Page 2 Question 5 C: ‘Address of Principal Office’ 8954 Texas Trail Poetry, TX 75160′
Page 3 Question 5 G: ‘residence’ of Douglas Keith Foree 8954 Texas Trail USA Poetry, TX 75160′
A Clerical Error? No, it was repeated.
WACG Director Douglas Keith Foree stated the SAME residence and business in his personal short form registration attested to the following questions:
3. ‘Residence Address(es) 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160‘
4. ‘Business Address(es) 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160′
8. ‘Name & Address of Primary Registrant’ 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160′
Signed on the 4th November and filed on 10 November 2014 in FARA 6261.
WACG Secretary/Treasurer Erik Goaied in his personal short form attested to the same questions:
4. ‘Business Address(es) 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160′
8. ‘Name & Address of Primary Registrant’ 8954 Texas Trail, Poetry, Texas 75160′
Signed on the 4th November and filed on 10 November 2014 in FARA 6261.
Is that Poetry or Terrell, Texas?
8954 Texas Trail, Poetry Texas 75160 does not appear to exist. It seems two small communities share the same zip code, Poetry and Terrell. However, in Terrell, a community of 16,000, there is an 8954 Texas Trail, Terrell, Texas 75160. It is a 5 bedroom private home.
Simply stated, as late of 4th of November 2014 in a FARA documents HERE & HERE signed and filed by WACG Co-Directors Douglas Keith Foree and Erik Iskandar Goaied, the ‘Principal Business Address’ of the Consultancy Group handling Libya’s assets recovery of USD$ 1.75 Trillion is ALSO the personal residence of the Director of Washington African Consultancy Group. The address given matches a private is 5-bedroom private home in a Texas town of 16 thousand people.
Is this private home the ‘principal business address’ of the Washington Africa Consultancy Group?
The Principals of Washington Africa Consultancy Group:
Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied, filed that depending on the document, he is the principal/director/secretary/treasurer. Although his LinkedIn page mentions that he was a principal with WACG since August, NOT according to the letter of incorporation from the Texas Office of the Secretary of State. The WACG incorporation was amended on 10 October 2014 to then include Mr. Goaied in the company as a treasurer/ secretary. Prior to this current position, Mr. Goaied notes no educational background other than ‘breathe of experience enables him to bring a wide range of expertise.’
Between his LinkedIn and WACG site, Mr. Goaied noted his concrete business experience as a commercial pilot, petroleum consultant, managing director of a Tunisian agricultural (olive trees) project as well as technical adviser to a South African defense company. Unless, specific details with dates, the rest of his expertise is unverifiable. Mr. Goaied notes that his “Areas of Expertise: Political Analysis, International Implications, North African Regional and International Relations.”
Most importantly for the Libya People, NOTHING in his prior work experience mentions prior international assets recovery experience.
Douglas Keith Foree as noted the WACG site “is a third generation oil & gas producer with over 30 years of experience in exploration and development.” He details a university education and thirty years of oil and gas experience. According to his LinkedIn, in the month of August 2014 as well as forming the Consultancy Company on 8th, he was hired by the Libyan Government on 22nd to handle its world-wide assets recovery, Mr. Foree ALSO had the time to take a position as an Officer at Standard Operating of Texas, Inc, another oil & gas company.
For Mr. Foree, August was indeed a very productive month.
Most importantly for the Libya people, we did NOT see any mention in either his LinkedIn or WACG site of ANY prior experience in international assets recovery. Isn’t it convenient that Mr. Foree while focusing on the demanding task of USD$ 2 Trillion Libyan Assets Recovery, will be capable of resuming his career, as ‘a third generation oil & gas producer with over 30 years of experience in exploration and development?’ Will that be in the oil fields of Libya?
Mr. Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied in 2011?
These posts were listed on FACEBOOK at the beginning of the Libyan Revolution in April 2011. They are attributed to an Iskander Goaied who wrote, ‘I am Tunisian and Swedish and I know very well Libya.’ Is this WACG’s Mr. Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied, we cannot say definitively. However, we can state that WACG’s Mr. Goaied noted in question s (1), (3) and (5) of his FARA # 6261 short form registration statement his full name: Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied, his residence: Sweden and his nationality: Sweden.
1. Name: Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied
3. Residence Address(es): Rindogatan21, 5tr. SE-115 58 Stockholm Sweden
5. Year of Birth: 1966 Nationality Sweden
Libyans have been attributing these Facebook posting to him since the 2011 Revolution. They have noticed his decidedly Pro-Gaddafi stance,”…the result will surprise the world, because many Libyans wants Qaddafi, and the rebels (in which you have al qaida fighters) do not represent the Libyan people…’
We are particularly intrigued by the self-promoting nature of his comments on Libyan affairs. In fact, in one of his personal observation during the revolution April 17, 2011 he was actually seeking a position as an advisor on Libya. From whom, we can speculate it was UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama as they were mentioned in the previous sentence.
‘If you need an adviser on Libya, I am available, because you are dealing with Qaddafi, in a maner that will only increase the killing and your way will only put in place a civil war.’
Lending credence to the Libyan claims about the identity of Iskander Goaied, consider WACG’s Mr. Goaied attributes listed on their site. The WACG site notes that Mr. Goaied “Areas of Expertise: Political Analysis, International Implications, North African Regional and International Relations.”
As we said, Iskander Goaied stated in a Facebook Post on the 11th of April 2011, ‘I am Tunisian and Swedish and I know very well Libya.’ He seems very familiar with Libyan factions in Benghazi and claims he has knowledge that ‘arms are sold to aqmi and other terrorists.’ We note the WACG’s Mr. Goaied noted on his LinkedIn page , here and here that he was is a technical adviser to the German/ South African defense company Rheinmetall Denel Munition (Pty) Ltd. Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied’s LinkedIn:
So are these Mr. Goaieds one and the same? It is not our call. If so, Iskander’s vast knowledge of the Libyan military landscape specifically about arms sales in Libya would coincide neatly with Erik Magnus Iskander ’s work as an adviser to an arms dealer. We note that Rheinmetall Denel Munitions and Erik Magnus Iskander Goaied will surface again. Adding to Mr. Goaied’s identity speculations is the insert from 2009 by an Erik Goaied. The open question from our 17 January 2015 update reads:
Is there any interest for American companies to do serious business development in North Africa ? Knowing that countries like Algeria and Libya have important MoD’s and MoI’s potential contracts ready for the coming years.
The details mentioned and the knowledge within the Libyan Ministries of Defense and Interior demonstrates the intimacy of one who is familiar with the Libyan issue.
Who is THE NATIONAL BOARD?
As we stated, THE NATIONAL BOARD hired WACG in August 2014. THE NATIONAL BOARD noted their validity by reference to decree 378 of 2014. This is from the page 1 of the attached consultancy agreement and page 5 of the FARA #6261.
‘THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE FOLLOWING-UP AND RECOVERING OF THE LIBYAN LOOTED AND DISGUISED FUNDS (“THE NATIONAL BOARD”) FORMED BY DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF LIBYA (‘the Council”) IN TERMS OF DECREE NUMBER 378 OF 2014 (“the Decree”) UNDER REFERENCE NUMBER 108/T/14 SIGNED ON 22 JANUARY 2014. The National Board herein represented by The National Board Members constituting MOHAMED BELGACEM TAG (“Tag”), MOHAMED ABDULLAH EL BAKSHI (“El Bakshi”) and YOUSSEF ALI SIRIHEID (“Siriheid”)’
Three designated signatories for the consultancy agreement (Page 22)
On page 8 it noted MOHAMMED ABDULLAH EL BAKSHI (PASSPORT NUMBER 591966 – LIBYAN).
On page 9, it noted YOUSSEF ALI SIRIHEID (PASSPORT NUMBER 964306 – LIBYAN).
On page 9 it noted MOHAMED BELGACEM TAG (TAG) (PASSPORT NUMBER 468184 – LIBYAN)
Mohamed Belgasem Tag and Erik Magnus Iskandar Goaied together… again
On page 5 of the FARA #6261 the names of Mohamad Tag, head of THE NATIONAL BOARD and Erik Goaied, director of the Washington African Consultancy Group both appear together on OPPOSITE sides and signatories of the two entities in the Libyan Assets recovery. This was not always the case, ONLY LAST YEAR they were members in the SAME Libyan Assets recovery team in South Africa.
So in light of the fact that Mr. Goaied is working AGAIN in South Africa, we thought a short vignette from 2013 is important to reveal the prior relationship between Mr. Tag and Mr. Goaied. At that time, the South African City Press referred to them as “Libyan investigators and arms dealers Mohamad Tag and Erik Goaied’.
A tale of two Libyan Assets Recovery Teams – 2013
Both gentlemen, Mr. Goaied and Mr. Tag were interviewed, heavily quoted and noted in an in-depth article aptly titled, ‘War for Muammar Gaddafi’s billions’ by Jacques Pauw and Thanduxolo Jika. The City Press noted as Mr. Goaied and Mr. Tag as members of a second team of Libyan investigators. In fact:
‘City Press understands that Tag and Goaied have visited South Africa regularly since the fall of Gaddafi to make enquiries about the hidden loot.’
The story began In June 2013 with ‘City Press can reveal a mad scramble has emerged for Gaddafi’s loot.’ The loot being assets in gold, diamonds and cash held in 4 South African banks and two security companies and warehouses. Today the estimate is USD$ 1.75 Trillion. A Libyan team of investigators presenting letters from the Libyan Ministry of Justice and Finance approached the South African ministries seeking the recovery of the assets. The mad scramble started when the first team commenced, a second team was in route. The article:
City Press was told this week the second team would shortly arrive in South Africa. It comprises Libyan investigators and arms dealers Mohamad Tag and Erik Goaied. They have teamed up with controversial South African weapons dealer Johan Erasmus.
‘In an interview with City Press’, the second team, Erik Goaied, Mohamad Tag and Johan Erasmus claimed, (but was later queried) to have a mandate from Mohammed al- Magariaf and Ali Zeidan:
‘The second team, which claims to have a mandate from the former president of Libya’s General National Congress, Mohammed al-Magariaf (who resigned two weeks ago), and Prime Minister Ali Zeidan, believes the former dictator had stockpiled more than $10 billion (R100 billion) in South Africa and its neighbouring states.’
And then the plot thickens: Not only did the South African press deal with both teams making ‘allegations of forged documents, falsified Interpol warrants, and individuals and groups trying to steal the loot…’, it emerged that there was USD$ 705 Million arms deal on the table in exchange for Libyan Assets. That would be a quid pro quo agreement: give the Libyan assets TO OUR TEAM and we are mandated to buy for USD$ 705 Million of arms from a South African defense company. OUR TEAM being: Mr. Goaied, Mr. Tag and Mr. Erasmus. The City Press:
‘Erasmus said there was a 10% “recovery fee” on the Gaddafi billions, and al-Magariaf and Zeidan, the prime minister, had mandated his group to use the recouped assets to buy billions of rands of arms from Denel.’ Denel is the local name of Rheinmetall Denel Munition, a German/South African company.
The City Press noted that it would be a real boost the ‘beleaguered state-owned’ defense company:
‘Their “shopping list” for arms, worth about R8 billion, could be a lifeline for the beleaguered state-owned aerospace and defence technology company.’
Noting Mr. Tag, Mr. Goaied and Mr. Erasmus connections to the arms deal, they ‘have already met with Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula.’ The City Press:
‘Tag and Goaied had a recent meeting with Mapisa-Nqakula. They presented their credentials to her and discussed the purchase of South African weaponry with the return of recovered Gaddafi loot.
Defence ministry spokesperson Sonwabo Mbananga confirmed the meeting, and said Tag and Goaied requested her to facilitate the purchase of the weapons.
Mapisa-Nqakula gave them a letter. They also had a meeting with Denel where they said they wanted to purchase Rooivalk attack helicopters, G6 cannons, unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles on behalf of the Libyan government.’
The plot thickens even deeper and uglier.
The ugliest part of this deal is noted in the article that controversial arms dealer Johan Erasmus confirmed that ‘he was in partnership with Goaied’ AND that Mr. Goaied is also ‘a technical Advisor for Rheinmetall Denel Munition’:
Erasmus confirmed this week that he was in partnership with Goaied and that they had presented Denel with an enormous “shopping list” of arms the Libyans wanted to buy with the recovered assets.
‘Goaied, a technical adviser to Rheinmetall Denel Munition, confirmed their presidential mandate in an email and said they had already traced some of the loot.
The conclusion, as part of the Goaied/Tag/ Erasmus secure of the Libyan assets, they claimed as mandate for USD$ 705 Million were to be left in South Africa as part of an arms deal with a company with which Mr. Goaied has a prior financial arrangement albeit employment or otherwise.
About the validity of Mr. Tag and Mr. Goaied, the article concluded by noting an investigation of their claims. Defence ministry spokesperson Sonwabo Mbananga:
‘said since the meeting with the minister, concerns had been raised about whether Tag and Goaied truly represented the Libyan government. They were investigating the claims.’
An informed conclusion
It seems 2014 is a repeat of 2013 for Mr. Tag and Mr. Goaied.
And now each has a new ally in the assets recovery game, THE NATIONAL BOARD and the brand-spanking-new Washington African Consultancy Group. Yet, as noted in the consultancy agreement they BOTH signed; BOTH are now in control of each respective ally. Mohamed Tag (page 1) is the ‘Board Member and Head of the Board’, and Erik Goaied (Page 5) has WACG ‘Herein represented by ERIK ISKANDER GOAIED (“GOAIED”) in his capacity as director of the Company, duly authorised thereto by virtue of a resolution of the Board’.
According to page 5, duly authorised thereto by virtue of a resolution of the Board’, seems to mean Goaied also represents THE BOARD from a separate resolution. It seems Mr. Goaied represents WACG and THE BOARD.
We will conclude with Mr. Goaied and WACG’s stated intent in # 6261: (Page 4) Exhibit B question 9:
Washington African Consulting Group, Inc. will seek to influence United States policies concerning suspended or frozen assets of Libya within the United States and to strengthen the inter-governmental relations between the two nations.
The Washington African Consulting Group, Inc. will achieve this purpose through the identification of Libyan assets within the United States and abroad, but not in Libya, It will then provide for the use of those assets – keeping them within the United States – for the benefit of the Libyan people and the rebuilding of Libya.
‘It will then provide for the use of those assets – keeping them within the United States – for the benefit of the Libyan people and the rebuilding of Libya.’
As we state again, according to this document, those Libyan assets will NEVER be coming home to the Libyan people… the rightful owners. Nor will those recovered assets, as EXHIBIT B Question 9 states, will not be coming home to be under the democratic mechanisms as defined by the Libyan Government, its parliament OR its people. As it reads: WACG Directors’Erik Goaied & Douglas Keith Foree, both Non-Libyans will be deciding WHAT IS ‘for the benefit of the Libyan people and the rebuilding of Libya.’
Finally, the United States and #6261:
We note the African Summit 2014 in Washington DC which was hosted from the August 4-6. The Washington Post noted that ‘40 African heads of state are gathering in Washington for an unprecedented summit that involves three days of meetings and events.’ The White House noted that the African Summit in Washington DC was to focus on trade and investment in which Libya sent a delegation.
Consider this time frame in relationship to our discussion:
- 4-6 August 2014-African Summit held in Washington, DC.
- 8 August 2014-Washington Africa Consultancy Group was incorporated.
- 22 August 2014-THE BOARD signatories sign the Consultancy Agreement with WACG.
The US knew and gave prior approval of WACG’s relationship with THE NATIONAL BOARD.
With respect to Libyan trade and investment according to page 16 of #6261’s attached consultancy agreement THE BOARD guaranteed and ‘confirms’ that the US was ‘informed and consulted’ and gave prior ‘support’ ‘of this matter’. It was specified as a Warranties or Guarantee by Libya as a stipulation by WACG before signing. The consultancy agreement: (page 16):
3. WARRANTIES PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD:
3.2 The National Board Members confirm that representatives of Libya has duly informed and consulted with the US and its various agencies on this matter and have received their support herein.
THE BOARD ‘confirms that representatives of Libya has duly informed and consulted with the US … on this matter and have received their support herein’. The question is what did THE NATIONAL BOARD say… ‘repatriate’ funds to Libya or keep in the United States? And what part of ‘this matter’ did the US Government give prior ‘support.’ Did the Americans ‘support’ the repatriation to Libya of the USD$2 Trillion or that the assets will remain in the US?
A 4 January 2016 important conclusion from the Authors about the scandal of FARA #6261: Washington Africa Consultancy Group with respect to the 10 November 2014 registration statements for Libya are no longer on the US Government FARA site as of June 2015. In an unusual act for the US Government, noted as “extraordinary” “by an expert on the Foreign Agents Registration Act” – “the records were pulled from the Justice Department’s website entirely, leaving no public record.”
Shane Harris, then of The Daily Beast in his article “Feds Wise Up to Shady Foreign Lobbyist Hunting for Gaddafi Treasure” noted that:
“Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and expert on the Foreign Agents Registration Act, said that he’d never heard of the Justice Department pulling someone’s files because he might not actually be working for a foreign government.
“It’s extraordinary,” Sandler said. Usually, the Justice Department investigates people who are lobbying on behalf of foreign countries but who have failed to register, not the other way around, he said.
“When it comes to the department’s attention in a press story or a complaint, then they’ll look into it,” Sandler added. “They don’t have the resources on their own initiative to monitor compliance with the act.”
Sandler noted that even when an individual or a company stops lobbying for a foreign government, their filings are usually still publicly available. In Goaied’s case, however, the records were pulled from the Justice Department’s website entirely, leaving no public record that he ever claimed to have worked for Libya or that he successfully passed himself off to U.S. officials as a representative of that country’s government.”
We also refer to an earlier article by Shane Harris, the 25 May The Daily Beast article “He’ll Tell You Where to Find Gaddafi’s Missing Billions—If He Gets His Cut” details the official action by Libyan Embassy to the US Government to disavow one of the asset recover teams – Team Erik Goaied & WACG. (Our previous WACG articles: HERE, HERE, HERE). Not only did the Embassy disavow the WACG team, but ALSO the Libyan agency who signed with WACG – The National Board. The Tobruk-linked Embassy’s 15 April repudiation was first documented on Page 146 in a 23 February 2015 United Nations Security Council report. Our PDF: UN SC Report on Libya 23 February 2015 N1502120. Excerpts from Mr. Harris’ The Daily Beast article:
“The National Board by its very title would seem to be a valid government group,” Baker Garrari told me, “but this is not correct.” AND
“Garrari said that the National Board “is not a Libyan government agency, and has no authority to make any commitments whatsoever on behalf of [the] Libyan government. The minister of justice of Libya has found the actions of the National Board of Erik Goaied to be fraudulent.”
Considering the events listed above came after this and our other articles, we present these facts.
Parts of this op/ed article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.