Interesting??
A physics teacher in high school, once told the students that while one grasshopper on the railroad tracks wouldn't slow a train very much, a billion of them would . With that thought in mind, read the following, obviously written by a good Canadian.
Good idea . . . one light bulb at a time . . . .
Check this out . I can verify this because I was in Lowe's the other day for some reason and just for the fun of it I was looking at the hose attachments . They were all made in China . The next day I was in Home Hardware and just for the fun of it I checked the hose attachments there. They were made in Canada. Start looking.
In our current economic situation, every little thing we buy or do affects someone else - even their job. So, after reading this email, I think this lady is on the right track . Let's get behind her!
She said:
My grandson likes Hershey's candy . I noticed, though, that it is marked made in Mexico now. I do not buy it any more . My favorite toothpaste Colgate is made in Mexico now. I have switched to Crest .. You have to read the labels on everything .
This past weekend I was at Wal-mart . I needed 60W light bulbs . I was in the light bulb aisle, and right next to the GE brand I normally buy was an off brand labeled, "Everyday Value. " I picked up both types of bulbs and compared the stats - they were the same except for the price. The GE bulbs were more money than the Everyday Value brand but the thing that surprised me the most was the fact that GE was made in MEXICO and the Everyday Value brand was made in - get ready for this -in Canada in a company in Ontario.
So throw out the myth that you can not find products you use every day that are made right here .
My challenge to you is to start reading the labels when you shop for everyday things and see what you can find that is made in Canada - the job you save may be your own or your neighbour’s!
If you accept the challenge, pass this on to others in your address book so we can all start buying Canadian, one light bulb at a time! Stop buying from overseas companies!
(We should have awakened a decade ago . . . . . . )
Let's get with the program . . . . help our fellow Canadians keep their jobs and create more jobs here in Canada.
If President Obama insists on a “Made in America” policy, which is commendable of him to support American workers, we should do likewise.
BUY CANADIAN!
READ THE LABELS!!
SUPPORT CANADIAN JOBS!!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Merck Targets doctors opposing it`s fraud
(NaturalNews) Previously secret documents that surfaced at a Vioxx court case in April of this year reveal pharmaceutical giant Merck maintained a "hit list" of doctors to be "neutralized" for speaking out against Vioxx. Although this story was reported on NaturalNews and other sites in April, Merck's involvement in the recent round of swine flu vaccines raises new questions regarding Merck's behavior towards its critics (see below).
As was reported in The Australian, documents that have surfaced in the Federal Court in Melbourne expose the criminal intent of Merck staffers who admitted they intended to "stop funding to institutions" and "interfere with academic appointments." (These actions are highly illegal, by the way.)
According to on-the-record testimony in this Australian trial, one Merck employee said, in referring to the doctors on the hit list, "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live..."
That sounds a lot like a mob boss ordering a hit on a competing street thug, doesn't it?
At least eight clinical investigators were threatened or intimidated by Merck, the court heard in testimony. This is congruent with the many reports of academic intimidation by Merck that have already been published on NaturalNews.com and other news outlets. The picture of Merck that emerges from these revelations is a company run by thugs who deal with dissent by seeking to destroy the lives and careers of academics who dare to tell the truth about Merck's dangerous drugs.
A culture of criminality
Merck is a company steeped in a culture of criminality. Among its numerous questionable actions, Merck intentionally hid the liver-damaging effects of its cholesterol drug (http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Z...), it intentionally withheld the release of clinical trial data that showed the failures of another cholesterol drug (http://www.naturalnews.com/023889_V...), it has dumped vaccine waste and manufacturing chemicals into the water supply (http://www.naturalnews.com/023124_w...), it set up offshore banking accounts to avoid billions of dollars in U.S. taxes (http://www.naturalnews.com/021645_M...), and it was caught in a massive scheme of scientific fraud when it was revealed that the company used in-house writers to secretly author "independent" studies that were published in peer-reviewed medical journals (http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_M...).
And that's just the beginning of the real story on Merck. Read more astonishing news stories about this company here: http://www.naturalnews.com/merck.html
There's little question that Merck operates from a criminal mentality, resorting to tactics of deception and intimidation to accomplish what it could not achieve through honest means: An increase in sales of its pharmaceutical products.
So what does this have to do with the swine flu vaccine? Simply this: Almost no one in the industry of modern medicine has spoken out against the swine flu vaccines.
Are they being intimidated into silence by Merck and other vaccine makers?
Intimidating the scientists
Many who speak out against Merck products quickly find their credibility assaulted. If they are in an academic institution, they quickly find their research support drying up, and some end up blackballed by the pharmaceutical industry. What Merck has made perfectly clear over the last several years is that speaking out against Merck's products is academic suicide.
So how are honest scientists or doctors supposed to be able to raise concerns about the swine flu vaccines being manufactured by Merck and other companies? From watching the news, they already know that publicly questioning the safety of this vaccine could cost them their careers.
Is this what modern "science" (if you can call it that) has come to? A band of intimidated, frightened scientists too scared to raise their voices and question the safety of pharmaceutical products? And if so, how can anyone call this "scientific medicine" in the first place? It's more like gunpoint medicine, where you say what you're supposed to say because the big corporate players are holding a (metaphorical) gun to your head.
In terms of the swine flu vaccine itself, Big Pharma is already pumping the mainstream media full of "preemptive defense" stories, claiming that whatever side effects occur from the vaccines would have occurred anyway and the vaccines aren't to blame. Note that this story is being fronted before the vaccine is even in widespread use! They are, in essence, already predicting a wave of nasty side effects and trying to brainwash the American public into dismissing such concerns as mere coincidence.
This is the astonishing, contradictory mindset of Big Pharma: When any harm comes to a patient taking their drugs, that's just coincidence. But if any help comes their way and they see a health improvement, that's always due to the drugs alone, they claim. It is precisely this sort of selective, unscientific thinking that has caused the utter destruction of credibility for the pharmaceutical industry (and of those who push drugs and vaccines). Science has been outright abandoned, replaced with slick marketing, financial arm-twisting and blatant intimidation of anyone who steps outside the lines.
The truth isn't afraid of honest questions
Don't you find it odd that virtually no one in the conventional medical community has raised questions about the safety of the swine flu vaccines? Isn't it odd that these vaccines, having been long-term tested on no one at all, were suddenly approved by the FDA all on the same day and are now being advocated by doctors everywhere without a single question about their safety?
Now you know why this Merck court case in Australia is relevant: Knowing the way Merck operates, it's not unreasonable to suppose that doctors have been intimidated into silence about the vaccine. Questioning this vaccine is equivalent to committing professional suicide.
Vaccines are the core mythology of modern medicine, you see. Questioning their safety or efficacy is considered sacrilegious in the medical community. The entire mythology of western medicine is based on the (false) belief that chemical intervention is preferable to self-healing, and vaccines are the central fulcrum upon which that argument hinges. If vaccines fall, the whole philosophical facade behind which western medicine now hides will be shattered at the same time.
Protecting the profitability of western medicine necessitates the perpetuation of the vaccine myth. And since that myth can't be maintained based on pure science alone (because there's no real science backing it), it has to be supported through mob-style tactics of intimidation and bribery. That's why the bribery of physicians by drug companies is now routine. It's the way the "science" of pharmaceutical medicines is propagated through the machinery of our modern medical-industrial complex. Money buys what real science can't support: The idea that the world medical system must be based on chemical intervention (which just happens to financially benefit the drug companies perpetuating these myths).
Unraveling the fiction
These revelations about Merck threaten the mythology of modern medicine upon which so many billions of dollars of drug revenues are based. Even doctors don't want to talk much about Merck. Why? Because they realize that as one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, the ethics of Merck reflect on the ethics of western medicine as a whole.
Much of western medicine, after all, is based on pharmaceuticals. And believing that pharmaceuticals make you healthy requires that you also believe the drug companies are acting with integrity and looking out for the welfare of the people. But believing that little piece of mythology requires that the drug companies are believed to be benevolent, compassionate corporations that would never resort to unethical, dirty or illegal tactics to accomplish their aims.
This whole tapestry of pharmaceutical fiction begins to quickly unravel when you begin to see the truth about what really goes on inside Merck -- and that's what we've seen time and time again with previously secret documents that emerged through court cases or other means. The Merck culture is one that most reasonable people would describe as "thuggish" or "criminal" in nature. It has virtually no resemblance to the compassionate image the company tries to peddle through mainstream media advertising.
Besides, if Merck's products are really so good, why would it need to resort to intimidating and threatening researchers in the first place? If its drugs were really so good and so safe, wouldn't the science speak for itself?
Clearly, the intimidation of academics is only necessary when real science turns up answers that you don't want to hear. So intimidation is invoked to replace the science with fear.
And that's what our entire pharmaceutical system is based on today, folks: FEAR. The media won't report the truth about pharmaceuticals because they are afraid to lose their advertising dollars. Researchers won't report the real science about pharmaceuticals because they are afraid to lose their careers. Doctors won't tell you the truth about pharmaceuticals because they're afraid to lose their medical licenses. The entire system is held together by fear and intimidation rather than honest science.
Belief systems in which questions are suppressed and "truths" are reinforced at the end of a stick are called "dogmas." They cannot, by definition, be called "scientific." Anyone believing that modern drugs or vaccines are based on rigorous "science" does not understand the definition of the word.
Keep that in mind when you're deciding whether to get a vaccine shot. Remember that any researchers who voiced safety concerns about those vaccines might have already been "neutralized" or "discredited," to use the exact words of Merck's own employees.
And the "scientific" conclusions of today's pharmaceutical researchers can be no more believed than the testimony of a U.S. soldier who is captured and tortured by terrorists, then told to speak to the camera with a gun pointed at his head.
Additional sources for this story include:
The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...
As was reported in The Australian, documents that have surfaced in the Federal Court in Melbourne expose the criminal intent of Merck staffers who admitted they intended to "stop funding to institutions" and "interfere with academic appointments." (These actions are highly illegal, by the way.)
According to on-the-record testimony in this Australian trial, one Merck employee said, in referring to the doctors on the hit list, "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live..."
That sounds a lot like a mob boss ordering a hit on a competing street thug, doesn't it?
At least eight clinical investigators were threatened or intimidated by Merck, the court heard in testimony. This is congruent with the many reports of academic intimidation by Merck that have already been published on NaturalNews.com and other news outlets. The picture of Merck that emerges from these revelations is a company run by thugs who deal with dissent by seeking to destroy the lives and careers of academics who dare to tell the truth about Merck's dangerous drugs.
A culture of criminality
Merck is a company steeped in a culture of criminality. Among its numerous questionable actions, Merck intentionally hid the liver-damaging effects of its cholesterol drug (http://www.naturalnews.com/024072_Z...), it intentionally withheld the release of clinical trial data that showed the failures of another cholesterol drug (http://www.naturalnews.com/023889_V...), it has dumped vaccine waste and manufacturing chemicals into the water supply (http://www.naturalnews.com/023124_w...), it set up offshore banking accounts to avoid billions of dollars in U.S. taxes (http://www.naturalnews.com/021645_M...), and it was caught in a massive scheme of scientific fraud when it was revealed that the company used in-house writers to secretly author "independent" studies that were published in peer-reviewed medical journals (http://www.naturalnews.com/023052_M...).
And that's just the beginning of the real story on Merck. Read more astonishing news stories about this company here: http://www.naturalnews.com/merck.html
There's little question that Merck operates from a criminal mentality, resorting to tactics of deception and intimidation to accomplish what it could not achieve through honest means: An increase in sales of its pharmaceutical products.
So what does this have to do with the swine flu vaccine? Simply this: Almost no one in the industry of modern medicine has spoken out against the swine flu vaccines.
Are they being intimidated into silence by Merck and other vaccine makers?
Intimidating the scientists
Many who speak out against Merck products quickly find their credibility assaulted. If they are in an academic institution, they quickly find their research support drying up, and some end up blackballed by the pharmaceutical industry. What Merck has made perfectly clear over the last several years is that speaking out against Merck's products is academic suicide.
So how are honest scientists or doctors supposed to be able to raise concerns about the swine flu vaccines being manufactured by Merck and other companies? From watching the news, they already know that publicly questioning the safety of this vaccine could cost them their careers.
Is this what modern "science" (if you can call it that) has come to? A band of intimidated, frightened scientists too scared to raise their voices and question the safety of pharmaceutical products? And if so, how can anyone call this "scientific medicine" in the first place? It's more like gunpoint medicine, where you say what you're supposed to say because the big corporate players are holding a (metaphorical) gun to your head.
In terms of the swine flu vaccine itself, Big Pharma is already pumping the mainstream media full of "preemptive defense" stories, claiming that whatever side effects occur from the vaccines would have occurred anyway and the vaccines aren't to blame. Note that this story is being fronted before the vaccine is even in widespread use! They are, in essence, already predicting a wave of nasty side effects and trying to brainwash the American public into dismissing such concerns as mere coincidence.
This is the astonishing, contradictory mindset of Big Pharma: When any harm comes to a patient taking their drugs, that's just coincidence. But if any help comes their way and they see a health improvement, that's always due to the drugs alone, they claim. It is precisely this sort of selective, unscientific thinking that has caused the utter destruction of credibility for the pharmaceutical industry (and of those who push drugs and vaccines). Science has been outright abandoned, replaced with slick marketing, financial arm-twisting and blatant intimidation of anyone who steps outside the lines.
The truth isn't afraid of honest questions
Don't you find it odd that virtually no one in the conventional medical community has raised questions about the safety of the swine flu vaccines? Isn't it odd that these vaccines, having been long-term tested on no one at all, were suddenly approved by the FDA all on the same day and are now being advocated by doctors everywhere without a single question about their safety?
Now you know why this Merck court case in Australia is relevant: Knowing the way Merck operates, it's not unreasonable to suppose that doctors have been intimidated into silence about the vaccine. Questioning this vaccine is equivalent to committing professional suicide.
Vaccines are the core mythology of modern medicine, you see. Questioning their safety or efficacy is considered sacrilegious in the medical community. The entire mythology of western medicine is based on the (false) belief that chemical intervention is preferable to self-healing, and vaccines are the central fulcrum upon which that argument hinges. If vaccines fall, the whole philosophical facade behind which western medicine now hides will be shattered at the same time.
Protecting the profitability of western medicine necessitates the perpetuation of the vaccine myth. And since that myth can't be maintained based on pure science alone (because there's no real science backing it), it has to be supported through mob-style tactics of intimidation and bribery. That's why the bribery of physicians by drug companies is now routine. It's the way the "science" of pharmaceutical medicines is propagated through the machinery of our modern medical-industrial complex. Money buys what real science can't support: The idea that the world medical system must be based on chemical intervention (which just happens to financially benefit the drug companies perpetuating these myths).
Unraveling the fiction
These revelations about Merck threaten the mythology of modern medicine upon which so many billions of dollars of drug revenues are based. Even doctors don't want to talk much about Merck. Why? Because they realize that as one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, the ethics of Merck reflect on the ethics of western medicine as a whole.
Much of western medicine, after all, is based on pharmaceuticals. And believing that pharmaceuticals make you healthy requires that you also believe the drug companies are acting with integrity and looking out for the welfare of the people. But believing that little piece of mythology requires that the drug companies are believed to be benevolent, compassionate corporations that would never resort to unethical, dirty or illegal tactics to accomplish their aims.
This whole tapestry of pharmaceutical fiction begins to quickly unravel when you begin to see the truth about what really goes on inside Merck -- and that's what we've seen time and time again with previously secret documents that emerged through court cases or other means. The Merck culture is one that most reasonable people would describe as "thuggish" or "criminal" in nature. It has virtually no resemblance to the compassionate image the company tries to peddle through mainstream media advertising.
Besides, if Merck's products are really so good, why would it need to resort to intimidating and threatening researchers in the first place? If its drugs were really so good and so safe, wouldn't the science speak for itself?
Clearly, the intimidation of academics is only necessary when real science turns up answers that you don't want to hear. So intimidation is invoked to replace the science with fear.
And that's what our entire pharmaceutical system is based on today, folks: FEAR. The media won't report the truth about pharmaceuticals because they are afraid to lose their advertising dollars. Researchers won't report the real science about pharmaceuticals because they are afraid to lose their careers. Doctors won't tell you the truth about pharmaceuticals because they're afraid to lose their medical licenses. The entire system is held together by fear and intimidation rather than honest science.
Belief systems in which questions are suppressed and "truths" are reinforced at the end of a stick are called "dogmas." They cannot, by definition, be called "scientific." Anyone believing that modern drugs or vaccines are based on rigorous "science" does not understand the definition of the word.
Keep that in mind when you're deciding whether to get a vaccine shot. Remember that any researchers who voiced safety concerns about those vaccines might have already been "neutralized" or "discredited," to use the exact words of Merck's own employees.
And the "scientific" conclusions of today's pharmaceutical researchers can be no more believed than the testimony of a U.S. soldier who is captured and tortured by terrorists, then told to speak to the camera with a gun pointed at his head.
Additional sources for this story include:
The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sex gets shaky as you get older
Nursing Home Sex...
Harold is 95 and lives in a Senior Citizen Home.
Every night after dinner, Harold goes to a secluded garden behind the Center to sit and ponder his accomplishments and long life.
One evening, Mildred, age 87, wanders into the garden. They begin to chat and before they know it, several hours have passed.
After a short lull in their conversation, Harold turns to Mildred and asks, 'Do you know what I miss most of all?'
She asks, 'What?'
'Sex!!' he replies
Mildred exclaims, 'Why you old fart. You couldn't get it up if I held a gun to your head!'
'I know,' Harold says, 'but it would be nice if a woman could just hold it for a while.'
Well, I can oblige,' says Mildred, who unzips his trousers, removes his manhood and proceeds to hold it. Afterward, they agree to meet secretly each night in the garden where they would sit and talk and Mildred would hold Harold's manhood.
then one night Harold didn't show up at their usual meeting place. Alarmed, Mildred decided to find Harold and make sure he was O.K.
She walked around the Senior Citizen Home where she found him sitting by the pool with Ethel, another female resident, who was holding Harold's manhood!
Furious, Mildred yelled, 'You two-timing son of a bitch! What does Ethel have that I don't have?'
Old Harold smiled happily and replied, 'Parkinson's.'
Harold is 95 and lives in a Senior Citizen Home.
Every night after dinner, Harold goes to a secluded garden behind the Center to sit and ponder his accomplishments and long life.
One evening, Mildred, age 87, wanders into the garden. They begin to chat and before they know it, several hours have passed.
After a short lull in their conversation, Harold turns to Mildred and asks, 'Do you know what I miss most of all?'
She asks, 'What?'
'Sex!!' he replies
Mildred exclaims, 'Why you old fart. You couldn't get it up if I held a gun to your head!'
'I know,' Harold says, 'but it would be nice if a woman could just hold it for a while.'
Well, I can oblige,' says Mildred, who unzips his trousers, removes his manhood and proceeds to hold it. Afterward, they agree to meet secretly each night in the garden where they would sit and talk and Mildred would hold Harold's manhood.
then one night Harold didn't show up at their usual meeting place. Alarmed, Mildred decided to find Harold and make sure he was O.K.
She walked around the Senior Citizen Home where she found him sitting by the pool with Ethel, another female resident, who was holding Harold's manhood!
Furious, Mildred yelled, 'You two-timing son of a bitch! What does Ethel have that I don't have?'
Old Harold smiled happily and replied, 'Parkinson's.'
H1N1 SWINE FLU VACCINE TEST INFECTS ENTIRE U.S. NAVAL VESSEL
UPDATE: H1N1 SWINE FLU VACCINE TEST INFECTS ENTIRE U.S. NAVAL VESSEL, KILLS CAPTAIN AND CHIEF PETTY OFFICER – ALSO THREE OTHER U.S. NAVAL SHIPS REPORTED TO BE UNDER SIMILAR AT-SEA QUARANTINE (NOW CONFIRMED)
September 25, 2009 at 10:52 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: h1n1 bird flu birdflu swine flu swineflu h5n1 pandemic ott deagle eisenstein cassel vaclib nvic dissent resistance vaccine vaccination toxic adjuvants mf-59 squalene genocide who cdc nih globalists ge, nato martial law who model state health emergency powers new world order nwo socialism fascism dictatorship
[Ed note: We are waiting to see just exactly *what* these Navy sailors were injected with. also - Just now on IRN Radio news - 6 million doses of the H1N1 Swine Flu "vaccine" [DEATH AND STERILIZATION SHOT] will be ready in first week of October – young children should be FIRST to get them. WHAT A WITCH. -a.s.]
=======================
Courtesy of Bob Chapman of The International Forecaster
Subject: Vital data about US Navy results of swine flu vaccine on ship
Data gleaned indirectly from anonymous testimony of Navy wives of the affected crew via the internet radio show A Marine Disquisition
http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/1362067 :
1. Unnamed US Navy vessel put to sea in April with 347 man crew.
2. Entire crew was vaccinated with H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine shortly after they put to sea.
3. Crew sickened so severely that other ships had to respond to render aid. 16 Medical Doctors put aboard from an unnamed aircraft carrier and other responding vessels. Total of 50 Navy personnel sent aboard to respond to crisis.
4. Two of the crew of 347 died – including the Captain of the ship (a Lieutenant Commander) and a Chief Petty Officer.
5. 50 personnel sent aboard to help are quarantined in Navy hospital in Balboa, Spain after 10 of them caught the flu from the ship’s crew. Two of the 50 quarantined are in serious condition at last report.
6. Of the 347 man crew that were vaccinated, 333 contracted the H1N1 flu FROM THE VACCINE. Two died, as mentioned above, and 331 survived. Only 14 of the 347 vaccinated sailors did not show any ill effects from the vaccine.
7. Navy has threatened all the spouses of the ship’s crew to remain silent – claiming all this information is classified. Some are whistle-blowing and that is where this information is coming from.
8. On the unnamed aircraft carrier that provided assistance, 415 sailors contracted the swine flu and are currently quarantined onboard.
PLEASE pass this email along. The truth is that the swine flu epidemic will be created BY THE VACCINE. If we don’t take it, there will be no epidemic. From this one test it’s apparent that the vaccine as tested on that ship’s crew in April is 96% effective at infecting the recipient with swine flu. Such an infection rate is impossible to achieve by any natural means. Though it only killed 1% immediately, there is no telling what the long term effects on those injected with the vaccine will be. See the research on the long term effects of the 1976 swine flu vaccine, and the Gulf War anthrax vaccine programs for more information.
Also note that mere contact with those that have been vaccinated creates a 20% chance of you contracting the swine flu even if you have not been vaccinated.
Please pass this data along to anyone you care about!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/21/health/main5177494.shtml
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/navy-soldiers-are-dying-from
CAPTAIN, CPO DEAD AFTER SWINE FLU SHOTS
The Navy ship that has been under quarantine for almost a month now is due to return tomorrow. All crew were given the vaccine and everyone got sick which resulted in the quarantine. The captain of the ship and the chief petty officer are confirmed deceased and the ship is now under command of a new captain.
Crew are reported to have had fevers lasting 5-6 days with paralyzing fevers of over 104 degrees.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread503741/pg1#
September 25, 2009 at 10:52 am (Uncategorized)
Tags: h1n1 bird flu birdflu swine flu swineflu h5n1 pandemic ott deagle eisenstein cassel vaclib nvic dissent resistance vaccine vaccination toxic adjuvants mf-59 squalene genocide who cdc nih globalists ge, nato martial law who model state health emergency powers new world order nwo socialism fascism dictatorship
[Ed note: We are waiting to see just exactly *what* these Navy sailors were injected with. also - Just now on IRN Radio news - 6 million doses of the H1N1 Swine Flu "vaccine" [DEATH AND STERILIZATION SHOT] will be ready in first week of October – young children should be FIRST to get them. WHAT A WITCH. -a.s.]
=======================
Courtesy of Bob Chapman of The International Forecaster
Subject: Vital data about US Navy results of swine flu vaccine on ship
Data gleaned indirectly from anonymous testimony of Navy wives of the affected crew via the internet radio show A Marine Disquisition
http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/1362067 :
1. Unnamed US Navy vessel put to sea in April with 347 man crew.
2. Entire crew was vaccinated with H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine shortly after they put to sea.
3. Crew sickened so severely that other ships had to respond to render aid. 16 Medical Doctors put aboard from an unnamed aircraft carrier and other responding vessels. Total of 50 Navy personnel sent aboard to respond to crisis.
4. Two of the crew of 347 died – including the Captain of the ship (a Lieutenant Commander) and a Chief Petty Officer.
5. 50 personnel sent aboard to help are quarantined in Navy hospital in Balboa, Spain after 10 of them caught the flu from the ship’s crew. Two of the 50 quarantined are in serious condition at last report.
6. Of the 347 man crew that were vaccinated, 333 contracted the H1N1 flu FROM THE VACCINE. Two died, as mentioned above, and 331 survived. Only 14 of the 347 vaccinated sailors did not show any ill effects from the vaccine.
7. Navy has threatened all the spouses of the ship’s crew to remain silent – claiming all this information is classified. Some are whistle-blowing and that is where this information is coming from.
8. On the unnamed aircraft carrier that provided assistance, 415 sailors contracted the swine flu and are currently quarantined onboard.
PLEASE pass this email along. The truth is that the swine flu epidemic will be created BY THE VACCINE. If we don’t take it, there will be no epidemic. From this one test it’s apparent that the vaccine as tested on that ship’s crew in April is 96% effective at infecting the recipient with swine flu. Such an infection rate is impossible to achieve by any natural means. Though it only killed 1% immediately, there is no telling what the long term effects on those injected with the vaccine will be. See the research on the long term effects of the 1976 swine flu vaccine, and the Gulf War anthrax vaccine programs for more information.
Also note that mere contact with those that have been vaccinated creates a 20% chance of you contracting the swine flu even if you have not been vaccinated.
Please pass this data along to anyone you care about!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/21/health/main5177494.shtml
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/navy-soldiers-are-dying-from
CAPTAIN, CPO DEAD AFTER SWINE FLU SHOTS
The Navy ship that has been under quarantine for almost a month now is due to return tomorrow. All crew were given the vaccine and everyone got sick which resulted in the quarantine. The captain of the ship and the chief petty officer are confirmed deceased and the ship is now under command of a new captain.
Crew are reported to have had fevers lasting 5-6 days with paralyzing fevers of over 104 degrees.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread503741/pg1#
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Author of the Medical Mafia on Vaccines
Hello! I am the author of the book "The Medical Mafia". Among the many topics mentioned in this volume, I was revealing the ineffectiveness and dangers of vaccination. At that time, I was a practicing physician in Quebec, Canada, under the name of Ghislaine Lanctôt, and the owner of numerous medical clinics. Because of my professional status, my words weighed significantly in the public eye. The Medical Board’s reaction was immediate and strong. Its leaders demanded that I resign as a physician. I answered that I would do so as long as they could prove that what I had written was false. The Medical Board replied with a call for my expulsion.
An 11 day trial followed (1995), where I appeared without any lawyer. The arguments rested mainly on vaccination. As I witnessed the disproportionate reaction of the Medical Board, I realized that, for the health establishment, the subject of vaccination was taboo. Unknowingly, I had opened a Pandora’s box. I discovered that, despite official claims, vaccines have nothing to do with public health. Underneath the governmental stamp of approval, there are deep military, political and industrial interests.
Throughout the trial, the Medical Board brought many physicians as public health “experts”. During the cross-examination of one of these, Dr. Richard Massé, I used an episode from the March 11th, 1979, 60 Minutes TV show from CBS, which was given to me privately by a supporter. This episode talked about the tragic and massive vaccination in USA during the 1976 swine flu outbreak (see link at the end of this note). Attached below, I am including the answer made by the court president (judge) after viewing this episode. It is found on page 70 of the book The Trial of the Medical Mafia.
None of the physicians who were present during the trial took this information seriously. Amazing!
Since this trial, these same physicians have continued their career in public health, and now hold honourable positions. They are the very ones who are pushing the public toward a new world-wide epidemic. This A(H1N1) pandemic is concocted and orchestrated by the WHO (World Health Organization), and serves the same military, political and industrial interests as those of 1976. Have these physicians lost their memory, or were they serving those interests right from the beginning?
I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated.
Here are the most important ones:
- Compulsory inoculation of vaccines containing a deadly virus
- Massive and targeted reduction of the world population
- Through vaccines, possible introduction of tiny microchips for mind control
- Establishment of martial law and police state
- Activation of the concentration camps built to accommodate the rebellious
- Transfer of power from all nations to a single United Nations government
- Fulfilment of the NWO (New World Order).
Take the time to look at the 1979 60 Minutes episode (link below).
It includes the governmental TV propaganda that was used in USA at the time to push the massive vaccination that followed.
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/cbs+60+minutes%2C+swine+flu+...
Then, ask yourself : “Should I continue to trust physicians, politicians, and the World Health Organization (WHO)?”
and please see Page 70 of the book The Trial of the Medical Mafia by Ghislaine Lanctoc
http://www.personocratia.com/en/dernieres_nouvelles.php
and
http://www.jemesouviensdequijesuis.com/english/home.htm
An 11 day trial followed (1995), where I appeared without any lawyer. The arguments rested mainly on vaccination. As I witnessed the disproportionate reaction of the Medical Board, I realized that, for the health establishment, the subject of vaccination was taboo. Unknowingly, I had opened a Pandora’s box. I discovered that, despite official claims, vaccines have nothing to do with public health. Underneath the governmental stamp of approval, there are deep military, political and industrial interests.
Throughout the trial, the Medical Board brought many physicians as public health “experts”. During the cross-examination of one of these, Dr. Richard Massé, I used an episode from the March 11th, 1979, 60 Minutes TV show from CBS, which was given to me privately by a supporter. This episode talked about the tragic and massive vaccination in USA during the 1976 swine flu outbreak (see link at the end of this note). Attached below, I am including the answer made by the court president (judge) after viewing this episode. It is found on page 70 of the book The Trial of the Medical Mafia.
None of the physicians who were present during the trial took this information seriously. Amazing!
Since this trial, these same physicians have continued their career in public health, and now hold honourable positions. They are the very ones who are pushing the public toward a new world-wide epidemic. This A(H1N1) pandemic is concocted and orchestrated by the WHO (World Health Organization), and serves the same military, political and industrial interests as those of 1976. Have these physicians lost their memory, or were they serving those interests right from the beginning?
I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated.
Here are the most important ones:
- Compulsory inoculation of vaccines containing a deadly virus
- Massive and targeted reduction of the world population
- Through vaccines, possible introduction of tiny microchips for mind control
- Establishment of martial law and police state
- Activation of the concentration camps built to accommodate the rebellious
- Transfer of power from all nations to a single United Nations government
- Fulfilment of the NWO (New World Order).
Take the time to look at the 1979 60 Minutes episode (link below).
It includes the governmental TV propaganda that was used in USA at the time to push the massive vaccination that followed.
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/cbs+60+minutes%2C+swine+flu+...
Then, ask yourself : “Should I continue to trust physicians, politicians, and the World Health Organization (WHO)?”
and please see Page 70 of the book The Trial of the Medical Mafia by Ghislaine Lanctoc
http://www.personocratia.com/en/dernieres_nouvelles.php
and
http://www.jemesouviensdequijesuis.com/english/home.htm
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for Banks
Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for Banks
Ellen Brown
Posted: September 21, 2009 03:03 PM
A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose -- on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.
Eliminating the "Straw Man" Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability
The development of "electronic" mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the "securitization" of mortgage loans -- chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into "financial products" called "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called "credit default swaps," and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of "corporate shield" that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:
[MERS] has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name -- even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers' discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer's home ... So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a "vast" number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note -- the legal sine qua non of foreclosure -- much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.
The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS' relationship "is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer." The court opined:
By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]
MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does the original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a "security." The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.
The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages
The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file "lost-note affidavits" with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings.
Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote:
The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value -- right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
... The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .
What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.
Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans' massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, and Goldman was the largest recipient of public funds from the AIG bailout.
In a December 2007 New York Times article titled "The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs," Ben Stein wrote:
For decades now ... I have been receiving letters [warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world ... [T]he closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator.
The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress -- serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall.
Ellen Brown
Posted: September 21, 2009 03:03 PM
A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose -- on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.
Eliminating the "Straw Man" Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability
The development of "electronic" mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the "securitization" of mortgage loans -- chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into "financial products" called "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called "credit default swaps," and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of "corporate shield" that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:
[MERS] has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name -- even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers' discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer's home ... So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a "vast" number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note -- the legal sine qua non of foreclosure -- much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.
The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS' relationship "is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer." The court opined:
By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]
MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does the original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a "security." The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.
The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages
The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file "lost-note affidavits" with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings.
Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote:
The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value -- right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
... The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .
What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.
Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans' massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, and Goldman was the largest recipient of public funds from the AIG bailout.
In a December 2007 New York Times article titled "The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs," Ben Stein wrote:
For decades now ... I have been receiving letters [warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world ... [T]he closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator.
The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress -- serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall.
Monday, September 21, 2009
NEW JERSEY COURT and Kansas court DISMISSES FORECLOSURE
NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY AS TO OWNER AND HOLDER OF NOTE, SECURUTIZED TRUST DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMANDED BY BORROWERS
July 14, 2009
In a stunning victory for borrowers, a New Jersey court has dismissed a foreclosure action filed against the borrowers by Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as alleged trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust after Deutsche Bank willfully, and despite the entry of three (3) separate court orders, refused to produce documents demanded by the borrowers which included documents setting forth the identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and mortgage, the complete chain of title to ownership of the note and mortgage, payment application histories, and documents as to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The Court had given Deutsche Bank multiple opportunities and extensions of time to produce the documents, but Deutsche Bank continually refused to produce any of the documents requested, resulting in the dismissal of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also ruled that Deutsche Bank is not permitted to re-file any foreclosure action
until it is prepared to produce ALL of the subject discovery.
FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. represented the borrowers, assisted by local New Jersey counsel.
W. J. Barnes, P.A. has numerous other cases pending where similar discovery requests have been sent to Deutsche Bank, none of which have been complied with to date. As such, additional requests for sanctions, including dismissal, are expected to be filed in these cases.
Deutsche Bank was also the subject of a recent ruling in a case in New York where the Court denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a purported assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was defective and that Deutsche Bank, with an invalid assignment of the mortgage and note from MERS, lacked standing to foreclose. Significant in the ruling was the court’s observation and question as to why, 142 days after the borrower was claimed to be in default, that MERS would assign a “toxic” loan to Deutsche Bank. The court also required a satisfactory explanation, by sworn Affidavit, from an officer of the securitized trust as to why, in the middle of “our national subprime mortgage financial crisis”, Deutsche Bank would purchase from MERS, as alleged “nominee”, a nonperforming loan. The court further inquired as to whether Deutsche Bank violated a corporate fiduciary duty to the note holders of the securitized mortgage loan
trust with the purchase of a loan that had defaulted 142 days prior to its assignment from MERS to the trust.
It appears that Deutsche Bank may have done so to take advantage of one or more “credit enhancements” inside of the securitized mortgage loan trust which pay benefits upon declaration of default. These credit enhancements are extremely complicated and multi-layered, and are required by law in connection with the issuance and sale of the mortgage-backed securities “backed” by the trust.
The assignment of the mortgage and note to the securitized trust, which were already in default well in advance of the assignment, would permit Deutsche Bank to both realize a profit through payment of credit enhancement benefits (which effect a pay down of the claimed “default”) while simultaneously permitting Deutsche Bank to institute a foreclosure, resulting in a “double dip” for Deutsche Bank. This is, of course, illegal, but unless competent counsel raises the issue, it goes unnoticed and Deutsche Bank, like so many other foreclosing parties, winds up stealing the borrowers’ property and getting paid for doing it.
Jeff Barnes, Esq.
www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
July 14, 2009
In a stunning victory for borrowers, a New Jersey court has dismissed a foreclosure action filed against the borrowers by Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as alleged trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust after Deutsche Bank willfully, and despite the entry of three (3) separate court orders, refused to produce documents demanded by the borrowers which included documents setting forth the identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and mortgage, the complete chain of title to ownership of the note and mortgage, payment application histories, and documents as to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The Court had given Deutsche Bank multiple opportunities and extensions of time to produce the documents, but Deutsche Bank continually refused to produce any of the documents requested, resulting in the dismissal of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also ruled that Deutsche Bank is not permitted to re-file any foreclosure action
until it is prepared to produce ALL of the subject discovery.
FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. represented the borrowers, assisted by local New Jersey counsel.
W. J. Barnes, P.A. has numerous other cases pending where similar discovery requests have been sent to Deutsche Bank, none of which have been complied with to date. As such, additional requests for sanctions, including dismissal, are expected to be filed in these cases.
Deutsche Bank was also the subject of a recent ruling in a case in New York where the Court denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a purported assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was defective and that Deutsche Bank, with an invalid assignment of the mortgage and note from MERS, lacked standing to foreclose. Significant in the ruling was the court’s observation and question as to why, 142 days after the borrower was claimed to be in default, that MERS would assign a “toxic” loan to Deutsche Bank. The court also required a satisfactory explanation, by sworn Affidavit, from an officer of the securitized trust as to why, in the middle of “our national subprime mortgage financial crisis”, Deutsche Bank would purchase from MERS, as alleged “nominee”, a nonperforming loan. The court further inquired as to whether Deutsche Bank violated a corporate fiduciary duty to the note holders of the securitized mortgage loan
trust with the purchase of a loan that had defaulted 142 days prior to its assignment from MERS to the trust.
It appears that Deutsche Bank may have done so to take advantage of one or more “credit enhancements” inside of the securitized mortgage loan trust which pay benefits upon declaration of default. These credit enhancements are extremely complicated and multi-layered, and are required by law in connection with the issuance and sale of the mortgage-backed securities “backed” by the trust.
The assignment of the mortgage and note to the securitized trust, which were already in default well in advance of the assignment, would permit Deutsche Bank to both realize a profit through payment of credit enhancement benefits (which effect a pay down of the claimed “default”) while simultaneously permitting Deutsche Bank to institute a foreclosure, resulting in a “double dip” for Deutsche Bank. This is, of course, illegal, but unless competent counsel raises the issue, it goes unnoticed and Deutsche Bank, like so many other foreclosing parties, winds up stealing the borrowers’ property and getting paid for doing it.
Jeff Barnes, Esq.
www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for Banks
A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose -- on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.Eliminating the "Straw Man" Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability
The development of "electronic" mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the "securitization" of mortgage loans -- chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into "financial products" called "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called "credit default swaps," and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of "corporate shield" that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:
[MERS] has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name -- even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers' discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer's home ... So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a "vast" number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note -- the legal sine qua non of foreclosure -- much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS' relationship "is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer." The court opined:
By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]
MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does the original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a "security." The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.
The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages
The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file "lost-note affidavits" with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings.
Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote:
The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value -- right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
... The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.
Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans' massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, and Goldman was the largest recipient of public funds from the AIG bailout.
In a December 2007 New York Times article titled "The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs," Ben Stein wrote:
For decades now ... I have been receiving letters [warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world ... [T]he closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator.The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress -- serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall.
Poor Banker
THE WITNESS STAND
This is a hypothetical illustration which represents a combination of real court cases, depositions, and interviews with bankers that I have witnessed. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.
The lawyer asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"
The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."
The lawyer then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"
The banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."
The lawyer asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"
The banker quickly responded, saying, “We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a cheque or attend settlement and pay the vendor."
The lawyer asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"
The banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."
The lawyer asked, `"According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"
The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 cheque and or attended settlement and pay the vendor. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."
The lawyer noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?"
The banker said, "Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money."
The lawyer asked, "Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business."
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfil the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"
The banker said, "$50,000."
The lawyer asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?"
The banker said, "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a cheque or attended settlement to satisfy the vendor on the purchasers behalf and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan cheque/ settlement back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"
The banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the cheque, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned."
The lawyer asked, "If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?"
The banker said, "I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."
The lawyer asked, " Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan cheque, and this cheque is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?"
The banker said, "I do not know the bookkeeping entries."
The lawyer said, "I am asking you if this is the policy."
The banker responded, "I do not recall."
The lawyer again asked, "Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a$50,000 bank loan cheque back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?"
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer."
The lawyer said, "Did you not say earlier that an ordinary man can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer handed the bank loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorisation or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 cheque and returned the cheque back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan cheque, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000."
The banker replied, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?"
The banker said, "A $50,000 loan."
The lawyer asked, "Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The lawyer handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit C".
The banker said, "The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a cheque from the new deposit back to the borrower."
The lawyer asked, "Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"
The banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."
The lawyer said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the cheque/payment, must they not both have equal value?"
The lawyer asked, "If and as the bank's deposits/liabilities increase, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is there any exception?"
The banker said, "Not that I know of."
The lawyer asked, "If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"
The banker thought for a moment and said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan cheque/payment for settlement to another?"
The banker said "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan cheque/payment for settlement?"
The banker said, "Yes, the bank CEO told us to do it this way." The lawyer asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?"
The banker said, "Nothing."
The lawyer asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?"
The banker said, "$50,000."
The lawyer said, "Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value freely and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?"
The banker said, "I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan."
The lawyer asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower freely and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authorisation?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorisation for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it freely?
The banker said, "No."
Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan cheque to settlement or back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? "
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"
The banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, cheque, or promissory note) to fund a check.
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Does the bank pay ATO tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?"
The banker answered, "No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable."
The lawyer asked, "If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?"
The banker agreed by saying, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?"
"Yes", the banker replied.
The lawyer said, "You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank's property?"
"No. No tax is paid.", said the crying banker.
The lawyer asked, "When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"
In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this. Government Statutes allows this."
The lawyer quickly responded, "Does Government/Federal Treasury allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorisation, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?"
The banker said, "But the borrower got a cheque and the house."
The lawyer said, "Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan cheque came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?"
"It is true", said the banker.
The attorney asked, "Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they loan out as bank loans?"
The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"
The banker said, "Yes." He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan cheque for settlement?"
The banker answered, "I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind."
The lawyer asked, "If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"
The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan cheque, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?"
The banker said, "The bank returns the funds."
The lawyer asked, "Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?"
The banker said, "As a loan."
The lawyer asked, "How did the bank get the borrower's money for free?"
The banker said, "That is how it works."
Volume number two has hundreds and hundreds of questions with explanations about why these questions are asked. Each word is important and many people change the questions to their demise. There is an art to asking questions. Legal counsel will be able to take these questions and be sure they are worded in a manner that can be asked in court
This is a hypothetical illustration which represents a combination of real court cases, depositions, and interviews with bankers that I have witnessed. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.
The lawyer asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"
The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."
The lawyer then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"
The banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."
The lawyer asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"
The banker quickly responded, saying, “We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a cheque or attend settlement and pay the vendor."
The lawyer asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"
The banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."
The lawyer asked, `"According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"
The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 cheque and or attended settlement and pay the vendor. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."
The lawyer noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?"
The banker said, "Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money."
The lawyer asked, "Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business."
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfil the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"
The banker said, "$50,000."
The lawyer asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?"
The banker said, "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a cheque or attended settlement to satisfy the vendor on the purchasers behalf and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house."
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan cheque/ settlement back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"
The banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the cheque, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned."
The lawyer asked, "If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?"
The banker said, "I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."
The lawyer asked, " Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan cheque, and this cheque is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?"
The banker said, "I do not know the bookkeeping entries."
The lawyer said, "I am asking you if this is the policy."
The banker responded, "I do not recall."
The lawyer again asked, "Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a$50,000 bank loan cheque back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?"
The banker said, “I am not a lawyer."
The lawyer said, "Did you not say earlier that an ordinary man can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer handed the bank loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorisation or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 cheque and returned the cheque back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan cheque, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000."
The banker replied, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?"
The banker said, "A $50,000 loan."
The lawyer asked, "Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The lawyer handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit C".
The banker said, "The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a cheque from the new deposit back to the borrower."
The lawyer asked, "Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"
The banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."
The lawyer said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the cheque/payment, must they not both have equal value?"
The lawyer asked, "If and as the bank's deposits/liabilities increase, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is there any exception?"
The banker said, "Not that I know of."
The lawyer asked, "If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"
The banker thought for a moment and said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan cheque/payment for settlement to another?"
The banker said "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan cheque/payment for settlement?"
The banker said, "Yes, the bank CEO told us to do it this way." The lawyer asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?"
The banker said, "Nothing."
The lawyer asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?"
The banker said, "$50,000."
The lawyer said, "Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value freely and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?"
The banker said, "I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan."
The lawyer asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower freely and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authorisation?"
The banker said, "No."
The lawyer asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorisation for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it freely?
The banker said, "No."
Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan cheque to settlement or back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? "
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"
The banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, cheque, or promissory note) to fund a check.
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Does the bank pay ATO tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?"
The banker answered, "No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable."
The lawyer asked, "If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?"
The banker agreed by saying, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?"
"Yes", the banker replied.
The lawyer said, "You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank's property?"
"No. No tax is paid.", said the crying banker.
The lawyer asked, "When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money?"
The banker said, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"
In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this. Government Statutes allows this."
The lawyer quickly responded, "Does Government/Federal Treasury allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorisation, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?"
The banker said, "But the borrower got a cheque and the house."
The lawyer said, "Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan cheque came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?"
"It is true", said the banker.
The attorney asked, "Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they loan out as bank loans?"
The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."
The lawyer asked, "Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"
The banker said, "Yes." He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.
The lawyer asked, "Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan cheque for settlement?"
The banker answered, "I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind."
The lawyer asked, "If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"
The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged."
The lawyer asked, "Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan cheque, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?"
The banker said, "The bank returns the funds."
The lawyer asked, "Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?"
The banker said, "As a loan."
The lawyer asked, "How did the bank get the borrower's money for free?"
The banker said, "That is how it works."
Volume number two has hundreds and hundreds of questions with explanations about why these questions are asked. Each word is important and many people change the questions to their demise. There is an art to asking questions. Legal counsel will be able to take these questions and be sure they are worded in a manner that can be asked in court
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Shades of smallpox blankets...
Vaccine Deaths Aiming At Natives! Sept 19/09
The Mask Slips, for Those with Eyes to See:
Preparing for the Real Pandemic
by Kevin D. Annett, M.A., M.Div.
Last week, many of the aboriginal people in the remote west coast village of Ahousaht were innoculated with the tamiflu vaccine. Today, over a hundred of them are sick, and the sickness is spreading.
In the same week, body bags were sent to similarly remote native reserves in northern Manitoba that have also received the tamiflu vaccine.
On the face of things, it appears that flu vaccinations are causing a sickness that is being deliberately aimed at aboriginal people across Canada, and this sickness will be fatal: a fact acknowledged by the Canadian government by their "routine" sending of body bags to these Indian villages.
Before you express your shock and denial at the idea that people are being deliberately targeted and killed, remember that murdering Indians with vaccinations is not a new or abnormal thing in Canada. Indeed, it's how we Europeans "won the land", and it's one of the ways we keep it.
In 1862, Anglican church missionaries Rev. John Sheepshanks and Robert Brown inoculated interior Salish Indians in B.C. with a live smallpox virus that wiped out entire native communities within a month, just prior to the settlement of this native land by gold prospectors associated with these missionaries and government officials.
In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce of the Indian Affairs department in Ottawa claimed that Catholic and Protestant churches were deliberately exposing native children to smallpox and tuberculosis in residential schools across Canada, and letting them die untreated. Thousands of children died as a result. (Globe and Mail, April 24, 2007)
In 1932, B.C. provincial police attempted to lay charges against Catholic missionaries who had sent smallpox-laden Indian children back among their families along the Fraser river near Mission, BC. The RCMP intervened and protected the church, even though whole villages were wiped out as a result of the church's actions.
In 1969, native children who escaped from the Nanaimo Indian Hospital on Vancouver Island described being inoculated with shots that caused many of them to die "with bloated up bodies and scabs all over", to quote one survivor.
Knowing this history, it's not surprising when Indians on isolated Canadian reserves start sickening and dying en masse from sudden illnesses, after receiving flu shots. After all, it's still the law in Canada, under the apartheid Indian Act, that no on-reserve Indian can refuse medical treatments or experimentation. So it's small wonder that these reserves are the places being targeted first to beinjected with untested, unsafe and potentially lethal flu vaccines.
As an entire race of involuntary test subjects, Indians in Canada are a weather vane for what will befall all of us, and very soon. For the very techniques and weapons of genocide perfected against aboriginal people are now being deployed against "mainstream" Canadians.
Under Bill C-6, which is about to pass third reading in Parliament and become the law, no Canadian will be allowed to refuse innoculations for the swine flu, despite the fact that it is relatively benign and mild, and has killed only people who are already immune-compromised. Indeed, it is astounding that such coercion and dictatorial laws are being employed to deal with what the chief Canadian Health Officer has called a "mild seasonal flu".
Clearly, another agenda is at work; but the time to ascertain and challenge that agenda has all but run out. This coming month, forced innoculations and imprisonment of those who refuse them may be a reality across Canada. And for what reason? Clearly, not for public health, considering the sickness and death caused by previous swine flu vaccines.
I believe that the real pandemic is about to be unleashed through the very vaccines being pushed by governments and pharmaceutical giants like Novartis and Glaxo Smith Kline. The shots will be the cause, not the cure, of the pandemic. Of course, those in power can disprove this by simply being the first people to take the swine flu shot: an event about as likely as these companies forgoing the multi-billion dollar profits they will reap from the mass vaccinations.
It's indeed ironic that, very soon, many "white" Canadians may be suffering the same fate that aboriginal people have for centuries. Perhaps it's fitting. For if we are indeed being targeted for extermination, or at the least martial law and dictatorship, we finally can have the chance to shed our complicity in the genocide of other people, and get on the right side of humanity - simply by having to fight the system that is causing mass murder. ...............................................................................................
Rev. Kevin D. Annett 260 Kennedy St. Nanaimo, BC Canada V9R 2H8 250-753-3345 www.hiddenfromhistory.org
Kevin Annett is a community minister, educator and award-winning film maker who lives and works with aboriginal and low income people in Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC.
More here from Dr. Bill Deagle, MD... http://www.conspiracyking.com/421-BIOTERRORISM-VACCINE-EUGENICS/flypage_images.tpl.html
Read and Hear the truth of Genocide in Canada, past and present, at this website: www.hiddenfromhistory.org
Film Trailer to Kevin's award-winning documentary film UNREPENTANT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8HB5cbKHDU&feature=related
“Kevin is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than many who have received it in the past.” - Dr. Noam Chomsky Institute Professor Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“A courageous and inspiring man." (referring to Kevin Annett) - Mairead Corrigan-Maguire Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Belfast , Northern Ireland
"As a long time front line worker with the Elders' Council at the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, I stand behind what Kevin Annett is trying to do for our people. The genocide that continues today and which stemmed from the residential schools needs to be exposed. Kevin Annett helps break the silence, and brings the voice of our people all over the world." Carol Muree Martin - Spirit Tree Woman Nisgaa Nation
"I gave Kevin Annett his Indian name, Eagle Strong Voice, in 2004 when I adopted him into our Anishinabe Nation. He carries that name proudly because he is doing the job he was sent to do, to tell his people of their wrongs. He speaks strongly and with truth. He speaks for our stolen and murdered children. I ask everyone to listen to him and welcome him." Chief Louis Daniels - Whispers Wind Elder, Turtle Clan, Anishinabe Nation Winnipeg, Manitoba
The Mask Slips, for Those with Eyes to See:
Preparing for the Real Pandemic
by Kevin D. Annett, M.A., M.Div.
Last week, many of the aboriginal people in the remote west coast village of Ahousaht were innoculated with the tamiflu vaccine. Today, over a hundred of them are sick, and the sickness is spreading.
In the same week, body bags were sent to similarly remote native reserves in northern Manitoba that have also received the tamiflu vaccine.
On the face of things, it appears that flu vaccinations are causing a sickness that is being deliberately aimed at aboriginal people across Canada, and this sickness will be fatal: a fact acknowledged by the Canadian government by their "routine" sending of body bags to these Indian villages.
Before you express your shock and denial at the idea that people are being deliberately targeted and killed, remember that murdering Indians with vaccinations is not a new or abnormal thing in Canada. Indeed, it's how we Europeans "won the land", and it's one of the ways we keep it.
In 1862, Anglican church missionaries Rev. John Sheepshanks and Robert Brown inoculated interior Salish Indians in B.C. with a live smallpox virus that wiped out entire native communities within a month, just prior to the settlement of this native land by gold prospectors associated with these missionaries and government officials.
In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce of the Indian Affairs department in Ottawa claimed that Catholic and Protestant churches were deliberately exposing native children to smallpox and tuberculosis in residential schools across Canada, and letting them die untreated. Thousands of children died as a result. (Globe and Mail, April 24, 2007)
In 1932, B.C. provincial police attempted to lay charges against Catholic missionaries who had sent smallpox-laden Indian children back among their families along the Fraser river near Mission, BC. The RCMP intervened and protected the church, even though whole villages were wiped out as a result of the church's actions.
In 1969, native children who escaped from the Nanaimo Indian Hospital on Vancouver Island described being inoculated with shots that caused many of them to die "with bloated up bodies and scabs all over", to quote one survivor.
Knowing this history, it's not surprising when Indians on isolated Canadian reserves start sickening and dying en masse from sudden illnesses, after receiving flu shots. After all, it's still the law in Canada, under the apartheid Indian Act, that no on-reserve Indian can refuse medical treatments or experimentation. So it's small wonder that these reserves are the places being targeted first to beinjected with untested, unsafe and potentially lethal flu vaccines.
As an entire race of involuntary test subjects, Indians in Canada are a weather vane for what will befall all of us, and very soon. For the very techniques and weapons of genocide perfected against aboriginal people are now being deployed against "mainstream" Canadians.
Under Bill C-6, which is about to pass third reading in Parliament and become the law, no Canadian will be allowed to refuse innoculations for the swine flu, despite the fact that it is relatively benign and mild, and has killed only people who are already immune-compromised. Indeed, it is astounding that such coercion and dictatorial laws are being employed to deal with what the chief Canadian Health Officer has called a "mild seasonal flu".
Clearly, another agenda is at work; but the time to ascertain and challenge that agenda has all but run out. This coming month, forced innoculations and imprisonment of those who refuse them may be a reality across Canada. And for what reason? Clearly, not for public health, considering the sickness and death caused by previous swine flu vaccines.
I believe that the real pandemic is about to be unleashed through the very vaccines being pushed by governments and pharmaceutical giants like Novartis and Glaxo Smith Kline. The shots will be the cause, not the cure, of the pandemic. Of course, those in power can disprove this by simply being the first people to take the swine flu shot: an event about as likely as these companies forgoing the multi-billion dollar profits they will reap from the mass vaccinations.
It's indeed ironic that, very soon, many "white" Canadians may be suffering the same fate that aboriginal people have for centuries. Perhaps it's fitting. For if we are indeed being targeted for extermination, or at the least martial law and dictatorship, we finally can have the chance to shed our complicity in the genocide of other people, and get on the right side of humanity - simply by having to fight the system that is causing mass murder. ...............................................................................................
Rev. Kevin D. Annett 260 Kennedy St. Nanaimo, BC Canada V9R 2H8 250-753-3345 www.hiddenfromhistory.org
Kevin Annett is a community minister, educator and award-winning film maker who lives and works with aboriginal and low income people in Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC.
More here from Dr. Bill Deagle, MD... http://www.conspiracyking.com/421-BIOTERRORISM-VACCINE-EUGENICS/flypage_images.tpl.html
Read and Hear the truth of Genocide in Canada, past and present, at this website: www.hiddenfromhistory.org
Film Trailer to Kevin's award-winning documentary film UNREPENTANT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8HB5cbKHDU&feature=related
“Kevin is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than many who have received it in the past.” - Dr. Noam Chomsky Institute Professor Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“A courageous and inspiring man." (referring to Kevin Annett) - Mairead Corrigan-Maguire Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Belfast , Northern Ireland
"As a long time front line worker with the Elders' Council at the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, I stand behind what Kevin Annett is trying to do for our people. The genocide that continues today and which stemmed from the residential schools needs to be exposed. Kevin Annett helps break the silence, and brings the voice of our people all over the world." Carol Muree Martin - Spirit Tree Woman Nisgaa Nation
"I gave Kevin Annett his Indian name, Eagle Strong Voice, in 2004 when I adopted him into our Anishinabe Nation. He carries that name proudly because he is doing the job he was sent to do, to tell his people of their wrongs. He speaks strongly and with truth. He speaks for our stolen and murdered children. I ask everyone to listen to him and welcome him." Chief Louis Daniels - Whispers Wind Elder, Turtle Clan, Anishinabe Nation Winnipeg, Manitoba
Friday, September 18, 2009
Swine Flu lies and deceit..
There are ten key lies that continue to be told by the mainstream media (MSM) about swine flu and swine flu vaccines.
Lie #1 - There are no adjuvants used in the vaccines
I was recently being interviewed by a major U.S. news network when the reporter interviewing me came up with this humdinger: There are no adjuvants being used in the swine flu vaccines, he said!
I assured him that adjuvants were, indeed, a crucial part of the vaccine recipe, and they were being widely used by drug companies to "stretch" the vaccine supply. It's no secret. But he insisted he had been directly told by a drug company rep that no adjuvants were being used at all. And he believed them! So everything being published by this large news network about swine flu vaccines now assumes there are no adjuvants in the vaccines at all.
Lie #2 - The swine flu is more dangerous than seasonal flu
This lie is finally starting to unravel. I admit that in the early days of this pandemic, even I was concerned this could be a global killer. But after observing the very mild impact the virus was having on people in the real world, it became obvious that this was a mild flu, no more dangerous than a seasonal flu.
The MSM, however, continues to promote H1N1 swine flu as being super dangerous, driving fear into the minds of people and encouraging them to rush out and get a vaccine shot for a flu that's really no more likely to kill them than the regular winter sniffles. Sure, the virus could still mutate into something far worse, but if it does that, the current vaccine could be rendered obsolete anyway!
Lie #3 - Vaccines protect you from swine flu
This is the biggest lie of all, and the media pushes it hard. Getting a vaccine, they insist, will protect you from the swine flu. But it's just flat-out false. Even if the vaccine produces antibodies, that's not the same thing as real-world immunity from a live virus, especially if the virus mutates (as they often do).
As I pointed out in a recent article, statistically speaking the average American is 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026955_s...)
Lie #4 - Vaccines are safe
And how would any journalists actually know this? None of the vaccines have been subjected to real-world testing for any meaningful duration. The "safety" of these vaccines is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The MSM also doesn't want you to know what's in the vaccines. Some vaccines are made from viral fragments grown in diseased African monkeys. If that sounds incredible, read the true story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026779_s...
Lie #5 - The vaccine isn't mandatory
You hear this lie all the time: The swine flu vaccine shot is voluntary, they say. But it's not true if you're an employee at a place where vaccines are being mandated. Millions of Americans are now being told by their employers that if they don't get vaccine shots, they will be effectively fired from their jobs. It's especially true with health care workers, day care employees and school teachers.
Lie #6 - Getting a vaccine shot is a good bet on your health
In reality, a vaccine shot is far more likely to harm you than help you. According to one viral expert, the actual mortality rate of the swine flu virus is estimated to be as low as .007 percent (http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...). That means H1N1 swine flu kills less than one person in 100,000. Even if the vaccine works, let's say, 10 percent of the time, you'd have to vaccine one million people to prevent one death from swine flu.
And in vaccinating one million people, you would inevitably harm or kill several people, simply from the vaccine side effects! Your net risk of death is increased by getting a swine flu vaccine.
Lie #7 - The vaccine isn't made with "attenuated live virus"
When the swine flu vaccines were first being announced several months ago, they were described as being made with "attenuated live virus." This was directly mentioned in CDC documents, among other places.
This term apparently freaked out the American news consumer, and it has since been all but erased from any discussion about vaccines. Now, journalists will actually argue with you and insist the vaccines contain no attenuated live viruses whatsoever.
Except they're wrong. The vaccines are, indeed, made with "attenuated live viruses." That's how you make a vaccine: You take live viruses, then you weaken them ("attenuate") and inject them into people.
Lie #8 - Wash, wash, wash your hands (to avoid exposure)
This idea of washing your hands a hundred times a day is all based on the assumption that you can avoid exposure to the swine flu virus. But that's impractical. The virus is now so widespread that virtually everyone is certain to be exposed to it through the air if not other means. This whole idea of avoiding exposure to the swine flu virus is nonsense. The conversation should shift to ways to survive exposure via a healthy immune system.
Of course, hand washing is a very good idea in a hospital setting. Recent news reveals that doctors are too busy to wash their own hands, resulting in the rampant spread of superbugs throughout most large hospitals in first world nations.
Lie #9 - Children are more vulnerable to swine flu than adults
This is just a flat-out lie, but it makes for good vaccine sales. Vaccines are right now being targeted primarily to schoolchildren.
But the truth is that swine flu is extremely mild in children. "It's mildest in kids," says Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University. "That's one of the really good pieces of news in this pandemic." Reuters actually had the guts to report this story, but most of the larger media outlets are still reporting that children are the most vulnerable.
Lie #10 - There is nothing else you can do beyond a vaccine and Tamiflu
This is where the media lies by omission. The mainstream media absolutely refuses to print just about any story that talks about using vitamin D, anti-viral herbs or natural remedies to protect yourself from swine flu. In the MSM, there are two options and only two: Vaccines and Tamiflu. That's it. No other options exist in their fictional reality.
Why is the mainstream media so afraid to print the truth these days? Why can't reporting on swine flu see the light of day... literally, with a mention of sunlight and vitamin D? Apparently, Big Pharma has such a tight grip on mainstream newspapers that no true story on swine flu can ever make it past the editor's desk.
Killing stories, deceiving the public
It must really be depressing to work for the mainstream media. Even the reporters I know can't stand it. The truth, they admit, rarely makes it into print.
Over the last few years, I've had a couple of job offers from large media outlets. They want to pay me a six-figure salary and stick me behind a desk where they can control what I report. Needless to say, I routinely reject those offers. If I can't write the truth like I do here on NaturalNews.com, there's no point writing at all. In too many ways, the mainstream media has become little more than a corporate mouthpiece, whoring itself out to the highest bidder / advertiser.
It's no fault of the frontline reporters who actually work there. For the most part, they agree with what I'm saying. It's the fault of the profit-oriented corporate mindset where news is about selling newspapers rather than actually informing the public.
Important news stories get killed every day in the newsrooms across America. They get killed not because they are poorly investigated or poorly written, but because they upset advertisers and corporate string pullers who shape the news and reject any stories that threaten their own financial interests.
Here in 2009, the distorted reporting on the swine flu vaccine has been one of the greatest media frauds ever perpetrated. The media has in every way contributed to the widespread ignorance of the American people on the subject of vitamin D and natural immune-boosting defenses that could reduce swine flu fatalities. Rather than informing readers, the MSM has made it a point to keep the people stupid, and in doing so, the media has failed its only mission and betrayed the very audience is claims to serve.
Lie #1 - There are no adjuvants used in the vaccines
I was recently being interviewed by a major U.S. news network when the reporter interviewing me came up with this humdinger: There are no adjuvants being used in the swine flu vaccines, he said!
I assured him that adjuvants were, indeed, a crucial part of the vaccine recipe, and they were being widely used by drug companies to "stretch" the vaccine supply. It's no secret. But he insisted he had been directly told by a drug company rep that no adjuvants were being used at all. And he believed them! So everything being published by this large news network about swine flu vaccines now assumes there are no adjuvants in the vaccines at all.
Lie #2 - The swine flu is more dangerous than seasonal flu
This lie is finally starting to unravel. I admit that in the early days of this pandemic, even I was concerned this could be a global killer. But after observing the very mild impact the virus was having on people in the real world, it became obvious that this was a mild flu, no more dangerous than a seasonal flu.
The MSM, however, continues to promote H1N1 swine flu as being super dangerous, driving fear into the minds of people and encouraging them to rush out and get a vaccine shot for a flu that's really no more likely to kill them than the regular winter sniffles. Sure, the virus could still mutate into something far worse, but if it does that, the current vaccine could be rendered obsolete anyway!
Lie #3 - Vaccines protect you from swine flu
This is the biggest lie of all, and the media pushes it hard. Getting a vaccine, they insist, will protect you from the swine flu. But it's just flat-out false. Even if the vaccine produces antibodies, that's not the same thing as real-world immunity from a live virus, especially if the virus mutates (as they often do).
As I pointed out in a recent article, statistically speaking the average American is 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026955_s...)
Lie #4 - Vaccines are safe
And how would any journalists actually know this? None of the vaccines have been subjected to real-world testing for any meaningful duration. The "safety" of these vaccines is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The MSM also doesn't want you to know what's in the vaccines. Some vaccines are made from viral fragments grown in diseased African monkeys. If that sounds incredible, read the true story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026779_s...
Lie #5 - The vaccine isn't mandatory
You hear this lie all the time: The swine flu vaccine shot is voluntary, they say. But it's not true if you're an employee at a place where vaccines are being mandated. Millions of Americans are now being told by their employers that if they don't get vaccine shots, they will be effectively fired from their jobs. It's especially true with health care workers, day care employees and school teachers.
Lie #6 - Getting a vaccine shot is a good bet on your health
In reality, a vaccine shot is far more likely to harm you than help you. According to one viral expert, the actual mortality rate of the swine flu virus is estimated to be as low as .007 percent (http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...). That means H1N1 swine flu kills less than one person in 100,000. Even if the vaccine works, let's say, 10 percent of the time, you'd have to vaccine one million people to prevent one death from swine flu.
And in vaccinating one million people, you would inevitably harm or kill several people, simply from the vaccine side effects! Your net risk of death is increased by getting a swine flu vaccine.
Lie #7 - The vaccine isn't made with "attenuated live virus"
When the swine flu vaccines were first being announced several months ago, they were described as being made with "attenuated live virus." This was directly mentioned in CDC documents, among other places.
This term apparently freaked out the American news consumer, and it has since been all but erased from any discussion about vaccines. Now, journalists will actually argue with you and insist the vaccines contain no attenuated live viruses whatsoever.
Except they're wrong. The vaccines are, indeed, made with "attenuated live viruses." That's how you make a vaccine: You take live viruses, then you weaken them ("attenuate") and inject them into people.
Lie #8 - Wash, wash, wash your hands (to avoid exposure)
This idea of washing your hands a hundred times a day is all based on the assumption that you can avoid exposure to the swine flu virus. But that's impractical. The virus is now so widespread that virtually everyone is certain to be exposed to it through the air if not other means. This whole idea of avoiding exposure to the swine flu virus is nonsense. The conversation should shift to ways to survive exposure via a healthy immune system.
Of course, hand washing is a very good idea in a hospital setting. Recent news reveals that doctors are too busy to wash their own hands, resulting in the rampant spread of superbugs throughout most large hospitals in first world nations.
Lie #9 - Children are more vulnerable to swine flu than adults
This is just a flat-out lie, but it makes for good vaccine sales. Vaccines are right now being targeted primarily to schoolchildren.
But the truth is that swine flu is extremely mild in children. "It's mildest in kids," says Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University. "That's one of the really good pieces of news in this pandemic." Reuters actually had the guts to report this story, but most of the larger media outlets are still reporting that children are the most vulnerable.
Lie #10 - There is nothing else you can do beyond a vaccine and Tamiflu
This is where the media lies by omission. The mainstream media absolutely refuses to print just about any story that talks about using vitamin D, anti-viral herbs or natural remedies to protect yourself from swine flu. In the MSM, there are two options and only two: Vaccines and Tamiflu. That's it. No other options exist in their fictional reality.
Why is the mainstream media so afraid to print the truth these days? Why can't reporting on swine flu see the light of day... literally, with a mention of sunlight and vitamin D? Apparently, Big Pharma has such a tight grip on mainstream newspapers that no true story on swine flu can ever make it past the editor's desk.
Killing stories, deceiving the public
It must really be depressing to work for the mainstream media. Even the reporters I know can't stand it. The truth, they admit, rarely makes it into print.
Over the last few years, I've had a couple of job offers from large media outlets. They want to pay me a six-figure salary and stick me behind a desk where they can control what I report. Needless to say, I routinely reject those offers. If I can't write the truth like I do here on NaturalNews.com, there's no point writing at all. In too many ways, the mainstream media has become little more than a corporate mouthpiece, whoring itself out to the highest bidder / advertiser.
It's no fault of the frontline reporters who actually work there. For the most part, they agree with what I'm saying. It's the fault of the profit-oriented corporate mindset where news is about selling newspapers rather than actually informing the public.
Important news stories get killed every day in the newsrooms across America. They get killed not because they are poorly investigated or poorly written, but because they upset advertisers and corporate string pullers who shape the news and reject any stories that threaten their own financial interests.
Here in 2009, the distorted reporting on the swine flu vaccine has been one of the greatest media frauds ever perpetrated. The media has in every way contributed to the widespread ignorance of the American people on the subject of vitamin D and natural immune-boosting defenses that could reduce swine flu fatalities. Rather than informing readers, the MSM has made it a point to keep the people stupid, and in doing so, the media has failed its only mission and betrayed the very audience is claims to serve.
Friday, September 4, 2009
impostor exposed!!
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Baldwin Ecclesia no code non commercial
August 19th 2008 A.D.
Dear Eric Lefsrudd the private man,
the majority of this letter has been removed due to fear ....Your so corrupt I am afraid of you....
Should you adopt the ancient maxim of tacit consent, nihil dicit, I thank you for your honorable concession of confessing to the truth of the facts with no dispute.
Blessings upon your acceptance of this work of Jesus Christ and getting agreement and union in the truth.
Baldwin Ecclesia no code non commercial
August 19th 2008 A.D.
Dear Eric Lefsrudd the private man,
the majority of this letter has been removed due to fear ....Your so corrupt I am afraid of you....
Should you adopt the ancient maxim of tacit consent, nihil dicit, I thank you for your honorable concession of confessing to the truth of the facts with no dispute.
Blessings upon your acceptance of this work of Jesus Christ and getting agreement and union in the truth.
Human rights tribunal back down to man's right to speech
In terms of Canada's struggle to retain its Constitutional rights as contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, September 2, 2009, may go down in Canadian history as the day that the citizens who believe in freedom of speech finally managed to throw a monkey-wrench into the gears of the Zionist Censorship Juggernaut that has been rolling relentlessly over our rights and freedoms for the past half a century.
At 9:30 EST the Decision in the long-awaited section 13 "hate crimes" complaint Warman v. Lemire finally appeared on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's website http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0 . The gist of the ruling by Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis respecting the manner in which this controversial law was used in the six year long trial of Marc Lemire for allegedly posting "hate" materials is contained in my Motion to the Tribunal (see below) which I sent off today after receiving word of the Decision.
But lest readers jump to the conclusion that this means the end of this draconian law designed to silence any and all criticism of Israel or political Zionism please be advised that while it is truly a decisive victory in terms of the battle being waged to rid this country of sec. 13(1) it doesn't automatically mean that the war itself has been won.
There are a number of things to bear in mind and the first one and probably the most important one at this point is the fact that this quasi-judicial body, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, whose members are appointed by government, does not have the legislative power to actually nullify this Bolshevik piece of legislation. What Member Hadjis established in his ruling in Warman v. Lemire was that because of all the discrepancies that have surfaced over the years since this nefarious piece of legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act was first given legal status in the Taylor case back in 1990 and then further slipped into the Anti-Terrorism Act in December of 2001 in the aftermath of 911 he couldn't justify finding Mr. Lemire guilty of the vast majority of the alleged crimes that Mr. Warman had accused him of. Rather, Member Hadjis concluded that, "For all the above reasons, [stated in his ruling. Ed.] I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter."
What this means first and foremost is that the ruling will be appealable by either the federal Attorney General or else by the Complainant Warman or even by those who intervened on behalf of Warman – organizations like B'nai Brith Canada the fine folks who are currently hoping for a conviction in my own case involving Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada. The chances are slim though that Warman or B'nai Brith or the Canadian Jewish Congress or even the SimonWeisenthal Center will file an appeal given the circumstances and the gross examples of misconduct that occurred throughout the six year ordeal that Mr. Lemire was subjected to.
Failing an appeal by the AG and considering the fact that Member Hadjis's decision has now set a temporary precedent in terms of additional or future rulings in such cases the general sense is that this ruling could mark the beginning of the end for Canada's highly repugnant and and anti-Democratic "hate crimes" law.
Of course this ruling hasn't deterred Mr. Harry Abrams at all who feels that it has little to do with his case against myself and RadicalPress.com. In a letter to the Tribunal today from Douglas Christie of the Canadian Free Speech League Mr. Christie stated:
"I write to suggest that in view of the decision of Tribunal Member Hadjis in Warman v. Lemire that it is quite unequivocal and obvious now that this matter should not require a further expenditure of time. I am asking that the Tribunal Member in Abrams v. Topham direct that either the complaint be dismissed or a stay of proceedings be established until such time as the Attorney General launches an appeal and that appeal is successful against the ruling of Member Hadjis.
It seems quite clear to me than any further expenditure of time and energy in this matter would be a waste of judicial resources, and I would suggest further an unnecessary burden on those like me who have always upheld the belief that section 13(1) was an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression. I would ask for some immediate direction on this matter."
Mr. Harry Abrams, being Johnny-on-the-spot, quickly replied to Mr. Christie's suggestion of dismissing the case or at least staying it pending the outcome of a possible appeal by stating in part in a letter also to the Tribunal that:
"I disagree with Mr. Christie.
My take is that Section 13 is completely intact, even re-enforced by the decision."
Just what the outcome of Member Hadjis's ruling will be in terms of my own case is still uncertain but considering the various options and the likelihood that the Lemire Decision will have a widespread effect over time I decided to file another Motion to the Tribunal to dismiss this the case against myself and RadicalPress.com. That Motion is posted below. Please, if you can, pass this information along to others.
Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada's Radical News Network
"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998"
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
Abrams v. Topham Complaint No. : 20071016 MOTION TO DISMISS
September 2, 2009
Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
Dear Nancy Lafontant,
RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008
In light of today’s (September 2, 2009) decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis in the Warman v. Lemire complaint I, Arthur Topham, Respondent in the above complaint filed by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada wish to place before the Tribunal yet another motion requesting that this complaint made against myself and my website RadicalPress.com be forthwith dismissed.
As has been clearly shown in the excerpts below taken from today’s decision and in the V. Conclusion of Mr. Hadjis’s decision of September 2, 2009 the longstanding and controversial questions surrounding the justness of sec. 13 of the CHR Act as it pertains to the Charter have now been given the prominence and due respect they deserve.
Citing the following paragraphs from the September 2, 2009 decision and summing up with V. Conclusion, Member Hadjis determines that:
[279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.
[290] In my view, it is clear that Taylor’s confidence that the human rights process under the Act merely serves to prevent discrimination and compensate victims hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c), as well as on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible. The evidence before me demonstrates that the situation is not as the Court contemplated in both respects. Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933, one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.
[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
V. Conclusion:
“However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.”Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).
"Signed by"
Athanasios D. Hadjis
OTTAWA (Ontario)
September 2, 2009”
Given the now indisputable fact that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has officially recognized the inherent discrepancy that exists within the provisions of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and those enshrined under s. 2(b) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I, Arthur Topham, Respondent, must once again assert that it behooves the Tribunal to look upon this case in light of today’s decision and come to the logical and reasonable conclusion that to continue to pursue an outcome would be an egregious example of imposing undue and unjust hardship upon a law-abiding Canadian citizen as well as wasting the financial resources of myself, other individuals, organizations and government.
The serious import and far-reaching repercussions which this decision encompasses are certain to reverberate throughout Canada’s legal institutions as well as the blogosphere and the media in general and, God willing, will eventually precipitate downward and throughout Canadian society bringing with them a renewed and refreshing hope that our longstanding traditions of jursisprudence, established via Natural Law over centuries of sacrifice and struggle will once again take precedent over those of special interest groups.
Such a process of social infusion regarding this enlightened decision is bound to be greeted with great enthusiasm by the vast majority of Canadians who value their right to freedom of speech regardless of the contrary sentiments and protestations of the Complainants in this case who remain adamant that such a threshold in terms of eliminating sec. 13 from the CHR Act is far from determined in today’s decision and yet to be crossed over.
For these reasons and with due respect to all parties concerned I would ask both the Tribunal and the Commission to give their utmost consideration to this motion.
If there is any further formality that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com
At 9:30 EST the Decision in the long-awaited section 13 "hate crimes" complaint Warman v. Lemire finally appeared on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's website http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0 . The gist of the ruling by Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis respecting the manner in which this controversial law was used in the six year long trial of Marc Lemire for allegedly posting "hate" materials is contained in my Motion to the Tribunal (see below) which I sent off today after receiving word of the Decision.
But lest readers jump to the conclusion that this means the end of this draconian law designed to silence any and all criticism of Israel or political Zionism please be advised that while it is truly a decisive victory in terms of the battle being waged to rid this country of sec. 13(1) it doesn't automatically mean that the war itself has been won.
There are a number of things to bear in mind and the first one and probably the most important one at this point is the fact that this quasi-judicial body, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, whose members are appointed by government, does not have the legislative power to actually nullify this Bolshevik piece of legislation. What Member Hadjis established in his ruling in Warman v. Lemire was that because of all the discrepancies that have surfaced over the years since this nefarious piece of legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act was first given legal status in the Taylor case back in 1990 and then further slipped into the Anti-Terrorism Act in December of 2001 in the aftermath of 911 he couldn't justify finding Mr. Lemire guilty of the vast majority of the alleged crimes that Mr. Warman had accused him of. Rather, Member Hadjis concluded that, "For all the above reasons, [stated in his ruling. Ed.] I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter."
What this means first and foremost is that the ruling will be appealable by either the federal Attorney General or else by the Complainant Warman or even by those who intervened on behalf of Warman – organizations like B'nai Brith Canada the fine folks who are currently hoping for a conviction in my own case involving Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada. The chances are slim though that Warman or B'nai Brith or the Canadian Jewish Congress or even the SimonWeisenthal Center will file an appeal given the circumstances and the gross examples of misconduct that occurred throughout the six year ordeal that Mr. Lemire was subjected to.
Failing an appeal by the AG and considering the fact that Member Hadjis's decision has now set a temporary precedent in terms of additional or future rulings in such cases the general sense is that this ruling could mark the beginning of the end for Canada's highly repugnant and and anti-Democratic "hate crimes" law.
Of course this ruling hasn't deterred Mr. Harry Abrams at all who feels that it has little to do with his case against myself and RadicalPress.com. In a letter to the Tribunal today from Douglas Christie of the Canadian Free Speech League Mr. Christie stated:
"I write to suggest that in view of the decision of Tribunal Member Hadjis in Warman v. Lemire that it is quite unequivocal and obvious now that this matter should not require a further expenditure of time. I am asking that the Tribunal Member in Abrams v. Topham direct that either the complaint be dismissed or a stay of proceedings be established until such time as the Attorney General launches an appeal and that appeal is successful against the ruling of Member Hadjis.
It seems quite clear to me than any further expenditure of time and energy in this matter would be a waste of judicial resources, and I would suggest further an unnecessary burden on those like me who have always upheld the belief that section 13(1) was an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression. I would ask for some immediate direction on this matter."
Mr. Harry Abrams, being Johnny-on-the-spot, quickly replied to Mr. Christie's suggestion of dismissing the case or at least staying it pending the outcome of a possible appeal by stating in part in a letter also to the Tribunal that:
"I disagree with Mr. Christie.
My take is that Section 13 is completely intact, even re-enforced by the decision."
Just what the outcome of Member Hadjis's ruling will be in terms of my own case is still uncertain but considering the various options and the likelihood that the Lemire Decision will have a widespread effect over time I decided to file another Motion to the Tribunal to dismiss this the case against myself and RadicalPress.com. That Motion is posted below. Please, if you can, pass this information along to others.
Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada's Radical News Network
"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998"
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
Abrams v. Topham Complaint No. : 20071016 MOTION TO DISMISS
September 2, 2009
Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
Dear Nancy Lafontant,
RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008
In light of today’s (September 2, 2009) decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis in the Warman v. Lemire complaint I, Arthur Topham, Respondent in the above complaint filed by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada wish to place before the Tribunal yet another motion requesting that this complaint made against myself and my website RadicalPress.com be forthwith dismissed.
As has been clearly shown in the excerpts below taken from today’s decision and in the V. Conclusion of Mr. Hadjis’s decision of September 2, 2009 the longstanding and controversial questions surrounding the justness of sec. 13 of the CHR Act as it pertains to the Charter have now been given the prominence and due respect they deserve.
Citing the following paragraphs from the September 2, 2009 decision and summing up with V. Conclusion, Member Hadjis determines that:
[279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.
[290] In my view, it is clear that Taylor’s confidence that the human rights process under the Act merely serves to prevent discrimination and compensate victims hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c), as well as on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible. The evidence before me demonstrates that the situation is not as the Court contemplated in both respects. Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933, one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.
[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
V. Conclusion:
“However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.”Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).
"Signed by"
Athanasios D. Hadjis
OTTAWA (Ontario)
September 2, 2009”
Given the now indisputable fact that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has officially recognized the inherent discrepancy that exists within the provisions of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and those enshrined under s. 2(b) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I, Arthur Topham, Respondent, must once again assert that it behooves the Tribunal to look upon this case in light of today’s decision and come to the logical and reasonable conclusion that to continue to pursue an outcome would be an egregious example of imposing undue and unjust hardship upon a law-abiding Canadian citizen as well as wasting the financial resources of myself, other individuals, organizations and government.
The serious import and far-reaching repercussions which this decision encompasses are certain to reverberate throughout Canada’s legal institutions as well as the blogosphere and the media in general and, God willing, will eventually precipitate downward and throughout Canadian society bringing with them a renewed and refreshing hope that our longstanding traditions of jursisprudence, established via Natural Law over centuries of sacrifice and struggle will once again take precedent over those of special interest groups.
Such a process of social infusion regarding this enlightened decision is bound to be greeted with great enthusiasm by the vast majority of Canadians who value their right to freedom of speech regardless of the contrary sentiments and protestations of the Complainants in this case who remain adamant that such a threshold in terms of eliminating sec. 13 from the CHR Act is far from determined in today’s decision and yet to be crossed over.
For these reasons and with due respect to all parties concerned I would ask both the Tribunal and the Commission to give their utmost consideration to this motion.
If there is any further formality that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?
During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. In October 1994, Human Life International (HLI) received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite' Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country's anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite' obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists. Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.
hCG and Anti-hCG Antibodies
In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman's body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.
However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)
HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.
The Known Facts
Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:
* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren't men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?
* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there -- in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been "contaminated."
* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections -- three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)
* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier -- the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)
The Anti-Fertility Gang
Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)
The WHO begain its "Special Programme" in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on "reproductive health" research.(7) It is this "Programme" which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme's funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed "only" $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.
WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses
When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from "right-to-life and Catholic" sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke's (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila -- and all four vials tested positive for hCG!
From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly "insignificant" quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.
But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only "insignificant" quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.
New arguments surfaced: hCG's apparent presence in the vaccine was due to "false positives" resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid "Carrier"?
Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: "Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG."(8)
Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau
After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands "did not apply for registration."(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.
It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO -- there they are again! -- there was assurance enough that the "vaccines come from reputable manufacturers."(10)
Just how "reputable" one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)
Epilogue
At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.
NOTES:
(1) "Abortifacient vaccines loom as new threat," HLI Reports, November 1993, pp. 1-2.
(2) World Council Reports, 28 November 1994, pp. 4-5.
(3) A call placed by this writer on 5 May 1995 to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Health Department, Epidemology Division -- Infectious Diseases -- Adult Immunizations, elicited the following information:
Q. For how long a time does the tetanus vaccination offer protection?
A. 10 years.
Q. Have you ever heard of any adult requiring three tetanus vaccinations within a 3 or 4 month time period, and a total of 5 vaccinations in all within a year or so?
A. Whaaaat! Never. No way!
Reports from the Philippines appear to confirm the 10-year immunity afforded by tetanus toxoid vaccinations: prior to the campaigns begun in 1993, the so-called booster shots were given only every 10 years.
(4) More than a score of articles, many written by WHO researchers, document WHO's attempts to create an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing tetanus toxoid as a carrier. Some leading articles include:
"Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with Pr-B-hCG-TT," Contraception, February, 1976, pp. 253-268.
"Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate antipregnancy vaccine: B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin linked to tetanus toxoid," Fertility and Sterility, October 1980, pp. 328-335.
"Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organisation Birth Control Vaccine," The Lancet, 11 June 1988, pp. 1295-1298. "Vaccines for Fertility Regulation," Chapter 11, pp. 177-198, Research in Human Reproduction, Biennial Report (1986-1987), WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (WHO, Geneva 1988).
"Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials," Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, Vol. 36, 1992, pp. 123-126.
(5) These institutional names are garnered from the journal articles cited in the previous footnote.
(6) Lancet, 11 June 1988, p. 1296.
(7) Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report 1992-1993, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.
(8) G.P. Talwar, et al, "Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing antibodies of high affinity...(etc)," Reproductive Technology 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231.
(9) "3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD," The Philippine Star, 4 April 1995, pp. 1, 12.
(10) "BFAD junks re-testing of controversial shot," Manila Standard, 7 April 1995; "DOH: Toxoid vaccines are safe," The Philippine Star, 7 April 1995.
(11) "Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV." Ottawa Citizen, 4 April 1995.
(12) A nearly two-year old communique from Tanzania tells a familiar story: tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women aged 15-45. Nigeria, too, may have been victimized; see The Lancet, 4 June 1988, p. 1273.
Credit: Copyright June/July 1995 by James A. Miller, special correspondent for Human Life International. This article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8. Permission to reprint granted to Thinktwice/New Atlantean Press.
--
Croft Woodruff PhD (Honoris Causa)
MEMBRE HONORAIRE COLLÈGE DES NATUROPATHES DU QUÉBEC
Coquitlam BC V3B 7H8
604 552 5663
"It should be obvious that action without wisdom, without clear awareness of the world as it really is, can never improve anything." ~ Theodore Roszak
"Woe to the man who tries to remain objective and to maintain a wide perspective: every one will label him as an enemy." ~ Paul Tournier
"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson--
hCG and Anti-hCG Antibodies
In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman's body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.
However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)
HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.
The Known Facts
Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:
* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren't men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?
* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there -- in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been "contaminated."
* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections -- three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)
* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier -- the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)
The Anti-Fertility Gang
Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)
The WHO begain its "Special Programme" in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on "reproductive health" research.(7) It is this "Programme" which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme's funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed "only" $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.
WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses
When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from "right-to-life and Catholic" sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke's (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila -- and all four vials tested positive for hCG!
From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly "insignificant" quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.
But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only "insignificant" quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.
New arguments surfaced: hCG's apparent presence in the vaccine was due to "false positives" resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid "Carrier"?
Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: "Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG."(8)
Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau
After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands "did not apply for registration."(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.
It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO -- there they are again! -- there was assurance enough that the "vaccines come from reputable manufacturers."(10)
Just how "reputable" one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)
Epilogue
At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.
NOTES:
(1) "Abortifacient vaccines loom as new threat," HLI Reports, November 1993, pp. 1-2.
(2) World Council Reports, 28 November 1994, pp. 4-5.
(3) A call placed by this writer on 5 May 1995 to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Health Department, Epidemology Division -- Infectious Diseases -- Adult Immunizations, elicited the following information:
Q. For how long a time does the tetanus vaccination offer protection?
A. 10 years.
Q. Have you ever heard of any adult requiring three tetanus vaccinations within a 3 or 4 month time period, and a total of 5 vaccinations in all within a year or so?
A. Whaaaat! Never. No way!
Reports from the Philippines appear to confirm the 10-year immunity afforded by tetanus toxoid vaccinations: prior to the campaigns begun in 1993, the so-called booster shots were given only every 10 years.
(4) More than a score of articles, many written by WHO researchers, document WHO's attempts to create an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing tetanus toxoid as a carrier. Some leading articles include:
"Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with Pr-B-hCG-TT," Contraception, February, 1976, pp. 253-268.
"Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate antipregnancy vaccine: B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin linked to tetanus toxoid," Fertility and Sterility, October 1980, pp. 328-335.
"Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organisation Birth Control Vaccine," The Lancet, 11 June 1988, pp. 1295-1298. "Vaccines for Fertility Regulation," Chapter 11, pp. 177-198, Research in Human Reproduction, Biennial Report (1986-1987), WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (WHO, Geneva 1988).
"Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials," Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, Vol. 36, 1992, pp. 123-126.
(5) These institutional names are garnered from the journal articles cited in the previous footnote.
(6) Lancet, 11 June 1988, p. 1296.
(7) Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report 1992-1993, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.
(8) G.P. Talwar, et al, "Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing antibodies of high affinity...(etc)," Reproductive Technology 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231.
(9) "3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD," The Philippine Star, 4 April 1995, pp. 1, 12.
(10) "BFAD junks re-testing of controversial shot," Manila Standard, 7 April 1995; "DOH: Toxoid vaccines are safe," The Philippine Star, 7 April 1995.
(11) "Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV." Ottawa Citizen, 4 April 1995.
(12) A nearly two-year old communique from Tanzania tells a familiar story: tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women aged 15-45. Nigeria, too, may have been victimized; see The Lancet, 4 June 1988, p. 1273.
Credit: Copyright June/July 1995 by James A. Miller, special correspondent for Human Life International. This article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8. Permission to reprint granted to Thinktwice/New Atlantean Press.
--
Croft Woodruff PhD (Honoris Causa)
MEMBRE HONORAIRE COLLÈGE DES NATUROPATHES DU QUÉBEC
Coquitlam BC V3B 7H8
604 552 5663
"It should be obvious that action without wisdom, without clear awareness of the world as it really is, can never improve anything." ~ Theodore Roszak
"Woe to the man who tries to remain objective and to maintain a wide perspective: every one will label him as an enemy." ~ Paul Tournier
"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)