A response from a "FDH" supporter.

Comments from "Alexi" regarding "Sir Edward Cooper" and "Fundación Donaciones Humanitarias". I haven't changed a single word, but inserted some comments, this time in blue (I love variety). Curious how the language, the tone and the structure are to that of the email from "Sir Edward". Is that just a coincidence?

"Dear Mr Harriman,

I have followed the tit-for-tat exchanges between yourself and the person calling himself Sir Edward Cooper, who represents the humanitarian foundation [still with no evidence that it is such a thing] in question. I have equally read the web site that he submitted referring to knighthood, and therefore include the following paragraph:

"Today the legitimate [Says who?] founts of honour who may bestow knighthood are the lawful heads of existing states [That's just silly, do you mean that the president of the USA may bestow knighthoods? I think not.], heads of non-reigning royal (sovereign) dynasties recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 (hence the numerous German dynasties but not the many soi-disant "pretenders" to the long-vacant Throne of Constantinople), the Holy See (the Papacy) [don't start me on that subject], certain de jure governments in exile, a few Orthodox Christian patriarchs and bishops, and the grand masters of a few historical military-religious orders of chivalry mentioned here (the Order of Malta most notably)".

As for the existence of the true King and Queen of the Kingdom of Hawaii, I am fortunate to have a friend who is from Hawaii (Honolulu) and who through Skype, educated me of the apology bill that the former US President Bill Clinton signed into law. [No, it's not a law, it's just an apology.] (See US Law 103-150) In it, the United States Government apologises for the illegal takeover of the Kingdom of Hawaii. [True, but it's not a law.] The bill was signed and supported by the US Congress. [True, but it's not a law.] His Knighthood is therefore legitimate. [Non sequitur. That's Latin for "It does not follow". You're saying that because the US Government apologised for being mean then Hawaiian knighthoods are OK? Non sequitur. It does not follow.] As an added point, no Hawaiian nationals, were permitted to vote in the 1959 referendum on US Statehood. [Relevance?] Only those who were Americans, consisting mainly of its armed forces and US nationals living in Hawaii at the time, were given the right and therefore voted for Statehood, thus robbing their nation. [And, errr, so?]

As for not having any proof of a scam being planned and or undertaken by the foundation, demonstrates that you are the attacker of sorts and your answers in red does discredit you more than somewhat. [See above re "Non Sequitur".] You claim that you worked for 6 different banks. Did you get fired from the previous 5??? [Minor technical point, I said "with" not "for" and no, I've never been fired by any company, although I sometimes hoped.]

I admire how Sir Edward Cooper responded to you. [But he doesn't exist.] It was indeed diplomatic. [We'll ignore the logical fallacies and "ad hominem" attacks.] Having read the website, I would doubt that the foundation having all those people working for them, would not have a legal team by their side. [In my experience fake organisations only have fake legal teams. Why is there no evidence that any of them actually exist?] Thus I did one better. I contacted someone that I know at Interpol in Paris. [Name please? The usual rules apply, I don't believe anyone exists until I have traceable contact details for them.] For your information, the foundation does exist as Interpol has been approached before on this issue and according to them, the foundation is legitimate and well respected and have confirmed their monetary capabilities. [You know that Interpol doesn't do this, don't you? They're not a credit reference agency.]

On a last point, you refer to Botswana government people as being in a jovial mood because it’s Friday. It’s the tone of your wording that I find demeaning. [Grow up and stop being silly.] The people of Botswana may not all be as educated as you [and you think I'm the one demeaning Batswana?], but at least when they attack someone, they do their research first. If for any reason they are placed at the end of the humanitarian line because of your antagonising undoing, I assure you that they do have legal representation in the Botswana government. [I don't understand. The people of Botswana have representation in the Government of Botswana? Well, yes, it's a democracy, we know that. And they'll miss out on fake donations from fake organisations with fake spokespersons? We can live without that, thanks all the same.]

If I were you I would quickly withdraw myself from being at the wrong end of the stick. [Thanks for the suggestion but it's still "No thanks".] In trying to do your good deed for us Africans, you appear to be doing the opposite which I and others who read your comments, are beginning to see that you have indeed an objective. Blackmail could well be that objective.... [No, that's not my objective. My objective is the exposure of scams.]

Thank you. [A pleasure.]

My questions remain the same.

1. Why is there no trace of FDH ever having given money to anyone?
2. Why is there no trace of anyone called "Sir Edward Cooper" other than this absurd site pretending to be the "Kingdom of Hawaii" where he appears as "Minister of Foreign Relations"?
3. Why did "Edward" claim initially to have been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, only to change this claim when I suggested it wasn't true? [Please, please answer that one for me?]
4. Why won't he give us any clue where this mythical money comes from?
5. Why did the potential recipients in the South African Government tell me they just laughed when they saw the letter on behalf of "FDH" and referred it to the law enforcement authorities in South Africa?
6. Why does he expect anyone to believe that unknown benefactors just give away more money than a country of 50 million can produce?
7. How long does he think he can keep this lie going?