Thursday, January 27, 2011

Major researcher for big pharma bites the fraud Bullet admits studies faked for 13 years

(NaturalNews) It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There's only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn't the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben's faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100...)


Business as usual in Big Pharma
What's notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It's not the fact that so-called "scientific" medical journals published his fabricated studies. It's not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben's actions really aren't that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn't operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben's faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn't it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on "good science." It's all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being "woo woo" wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that's based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is "scientific" while natural medicine is "unproven." Sure it's scientific -- about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a "let's play doctor" gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.

For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on "scientific evidence," just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.


Drug companies support fraudulent research
Don't forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben's research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben's research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to "prove" that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). "Here's another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink)."

And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to "prove" exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don't believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician's wand and chanting, "Abra cadabra... let there be RESEARCH DATA!"

Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a "scientific" paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.

I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little "research magic" conveniently fills the void.

The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever "scientific evidence" they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.


What is "Evidence-Based Medicine?"
The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what's really behind "evidence-based medicine."

The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as "fact!"

When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting "evidence-based medicine" as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on "real science," what they really mean is that it's based on fraudulent science but they've all secretly agreed to call it "real science." When they claim to have "scientific facts" supporting their position, what they really mean is that those "facts" were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.

"Evidence-based medicine," it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals -- without getting caught by his peers -- then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?

Here's what is says: "Scientific medicine" is a total fraud.

And this fraud isn't limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven't yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in "scientific" medical journals. They've been quoted in the popular press. They've been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as "safe and effective" for widespread use.

And yet underneath all this, there's nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?

How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?


Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben
Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable "scientific" journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.

Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I'm sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more "scientific" studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.

You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you're a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!

Because if there's one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it's in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/01...

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicH...

http://www.theday.com/article/20100...



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html#ixzz1CIJumzSQ

Thursday, January 20, 2011

presidents recognise the Bible and declare it so!

A Proclamation

Proclamation 5018 -- Year of the Bible, 1983
February 3, 1983

By the President of the United States of America

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.

Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies -- a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.

The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

For centuries the Bible's emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.

Many of our greatest national leaders -- among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson -- have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country's development. The plainspoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than ``the rock on which our Republic rests.'' Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called ``the best gift God has ever given to man . . . But for it we could not know right from wrong.''

The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the ``Year of the Bible.''

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to reexamine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.

Ronald Reagan

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:10 a.m., February 3, 1983]

President Reagan's Remarks at the
Annual National Prayer Breakfast
February 3, 1983

Thank you all very much, all our friends and distinguished guests here at the head table and all of you very distinguished people.

General Vessey [Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], I'm terribly tempted to call for a vote right now on the defense budget. [Laughter]

Nancy and I are delighted to be with you here this morning.

You know, on the way over, I remembered something that happened a long time ago when teachers could talk about things like religion in the classroom. And a very lovely teacher was talking to her class of young boys, and she asked, "How many of you would like to go to heaven?'' And all the hands instantly shot into the air at once, except one, and she was astounded. And she said, "Charlie, you mean you don't want to go to heaven?'' He said, "Sure, I want to go to heaven, but not with that bunch.'' [Laughter]

Maybe there's a little bit of Charlie in each of us. [Laughter] But somehow I don't think that wanting to go to heaven, but only on our terms, and certainly not with that other bunch, is quite what God had in mind. The prayer that I sometimes think we don't often use enough -- and one that I learned a few years ago and only after I had gotten into the business that I'm in -- is one of asking forgiveness for the resentment and the bitterness that we sometimes feel towards someone, whether it's in business dealings or in government or whatever we're doing, and forgetting that we are brothers and sisters and that each of them is loved equally by God as much as we feel that He loves us.

I'm so thankful that there will always be one day in the year when people all over our land can sit down as neighbors and friends and remind ourselves of what our real task is. This task was spelled out in the Old and the New Testament. Jesus was asked, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?'' And He replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. The second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.''

Can we resolve to reach, learn, and try to heed the greatest message ever written -- God's word and the Holy Bible. Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known.

Now, I am assuming a new position; but I should warn our friends in the loyal opposition, this new job won't require me to leave the White House. With the greatest enthusiasm, I have agreed to serve as honorary chairman for the Year of the Bible.

When we think how many people in the world are imprisoned or tortured, harassed for even possessing a Bible or trying to read one -- something that maybe we should realize how -- and take advantage of what we can do so easily. In its lessons and the great wealth of its words, we find comfort, strength, wisdom, and hope. And when we find ourselves feeling a little like Charlie, we might remember something that Abraham Lincoln said over a hundred years ago: ``We have forgotten the gracious hand that preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own . . . we have become too proud to pray to the God that made us!'' Well, isn't it time for us to say, ``We're not too proud to pray''?

We face great challenges in this country, but we've faced great challenges before and conquered them. What carried us through was a willingness to seek power and protection from One much greater than ourselves, to turn back to Him and to trust in His mercy. Without His help, America will not go forward.

I have a very special old Bible. And alongside a verse in the Second Book of Chronicles there are some words, handwritten, very faded by now. And, believe me, the person who wrote those words was an authority. Her name was Nelle Wilson Reagan. She was my mother. And she wrote about that verse, ``A most wonderful verse for the healing of the nations.''

Now, the verse that she'd marked reads: ``If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven . . . and will heal their land.''

I know that at times all of us -- I do -- feel that perhaps in our prayers we ask for too much. And then there are those other times when we feel that something isn't important enough to bother God with it. Maybe we should let Him decide those things.

The war correspondent Marguerite Higgins, who received the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting because of her coverage of the Korean war, among all her writings had an account one day of the Fifth Company of marines who were part of an 18,000-man force that was in combat with a hundred thousand of the enemy. And she described an incident that took place early, just after dawn on a very cold morning. It was 42 degrees below zero. And the weary marines, half frozen stood by their dirty, mud-covered trucks, eating their breakfast from tin cans.

She saw one huge marine was eating cold beans with a trench knife. His clothes were frozen stiff as a board; his face was covered with a heavy beard and crusted with mud. And one of the little group of war correspondents who were on hand went up to him and said, "If I were God and could grant you anything you wished, what would you most like?'' And the marine stood there for a moment, looking down at that cold tin of beans, and then he raised his head and said, "Give me tomorrow.''

Now I would like to sign a proclamation which will make 1983 the Year of the Bible. And I want to thank Senator Bill Armstrong and Representative Carlos Moorhead and all those inside and outside of Congress who assisted them and made this all possible. Thank you, and God bless you. And I'm going down and sign the proclamation.

Note: The President spoke at 9:03 a.m. in the International Ballroom at the Washington Hilton Hotel.



CONGRESS DECLARES THE BIBLE
“THE WORD OF GOD”
97th Congress Joint Resolution

[S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211
Public Law 97-280 - October 4, 1982

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982.

1 U.S. Cong. & Adm. News '82-29 96 Stat. 1211

Legislative History - S.J. Res. 165:
Congressional Record. Vol 128 (1982)
Mar. 31 considered and passed Senate.
Sept. 21 Considered and passed House.

Comments by Pastor Sheldon Emry
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT THE BIBLE IS "THE WORD OF GOD" AND "HOLY SCRIPTURE" THE LAW-MAKING BODY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE U. S. CONGRESS, HAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED THE HOLY BIBLE TO BE "THE WORD OF GOD."

Public Law 97-280 states "that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through the Holy Scriptures can strengthen us as a nation and a people." The Congress further found that the United States has a "national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures."

Congress said, "the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings, of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies." Therefore, disobedience to this Law should be discouraged in our own communities and in the nation at large. Under Public Law 97-280 any person or organization attempting in any way to prevent American citizens from voluntarily acquiring that "knowledge of and faith in God through the Holy Scriptures' 'would be attempting to weaken America. They would be guilty of trying to frustrate "our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." Such actions would be in violation of the plain intent of Public Law 97-280 and would probably make the instigators guilty of sedition against the United States of America.

Examples of disobedience to this Law would be any attempts to ban the Bible from the public schools, to actively oppose any Bible study group, or to interfere in any way with a Christian Church in its study and dissemination of "the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." Any interference with any mail carrying Bible related literature or with any radio or TV broadcast about the Bible would be in violation of this Law.

On the positive side, filling that "national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures" should become one of the goals of those in government at all levels. Public servants should take action in their own departments or under their own realm of authority to conform to Public Law 97-280. All Elementary and High School Principals, Superintendents and College Presidents should be urged to take immediate steps to add courses of Bible study to their school's curriculum to bring them into conformity with the intent of the People's Congress. To strengthen our nation, courses of study of "the Holy Scriptures" should be made a part of every public and private school day.

The People of the United States, through their elected Representatives in the U.S. Congress have spoken. Public Law 97-280, with its forthright declaration that the Book which tells the story of Jesus Christ is "the Word of God," and its positive statements about the benefits to our nation and our People which come from "the Holy Scriptures," can be another significant step toward that day when "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." America, whether she at this time understands the full significance of this or not, has proclaimed to her own citizens and to the World that America's well-being depends on how well she knows and applies the "teachings of the Holy Scripture." We should all pray that God Almighty will bless America by giving her elected Representatives in Congress the wisdom and the ability to act faithfully upon their own words as stated in Public Law 97-280.

Executive Order 6100, EO 6100
DATE: 02-22-90 The President

International Year of Bible Reading - 1990
A Proclamation
By the President of the United States
George H. W. Bush
Among the great books produced throughout the history of mankind, the Bible has been prized above all others by generations of men and women around the world -- by people of every age, every race, and every walk of life.

The Bible has had a critical impact upon the development of Western civilization. Western literature, art, and music are filled with images and ideas that can be traced to its pages. More important, our moral tradition has been shaped by the laws and teachings it contains. It was a biblical view of man -- one affirming the dignity and worth of the human person, made in the image of our Creator -- that inspired the principles upon which the United States is founded. President Jackson called the Bible ``the rock on which our Republic rests'' because he knew that it shaped the Founding Fathers' concept of individual liberty and their vision of a free and just society.

The Bible has not only influenced the development of our Nation's values and institutions but also enriched the daily lives of millions of men and women who have looked to it for comfort, hope, and guidance. On the American frontier, the Bible was often the only book a family owned. For those pioneers living far from any church or school, it served both as a source of religious instruction and as the primary text from which children learned to read. The historic speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., provide compelling evidence of the role Scripture played in shaping the struggle against slavery and discrimination. Today the Bible continues to give courage and direction to those who seek truth and righteousness. In recognizing its enduring value, we recall the words of the prophet Isaiah, who declared, ``The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand forever.''

Containing revelations of God's intervention in human history, the Bible offers moving testimony to His love for mankind. Treasuring the Bible as a source of knowledge and inspiration, President Abraham Lincoln called this Great Book ``the best gift God has given to man.'' President Lincoln believed that the Bible not only reveals the infinite goodness of our Creator, but also reminds us of our worth as individuals and our responsibilities toward one another.

President Woodrow Wilson likewise recognized the importance of the Bible to its readers. ``The Bible is the word of life,'' he once said. Describing its contents, he added:

You will find it full of real men and women not only but also of the things you have wondered about and been troubled about all your life, as men have been always; and the more you will read it the more it will become plain to you what things are worthwhile and what are not, what things make men happy -- loyalty, right dealing, speaking the truth . . . and the things that are guaranteed to make men unhappy -- selfishness, cowardice, greed, and everything that is low and mean. When you have read the Bible you will know that it is the Word of God, because you will have found it the key to your own heart, your own happiness, and your own duty.

President Wilson believed that the Bible helps its readers find answers to the mysteries and sorrows that often trouble the souls of men.

Cherished for centuries by men and women around the world, the Bible's value is timeless. Its significance transcends the boundaries between nations and languages because it carries a universal message to every human heart. This year numerous individuals and associations around the world will join in a campaign to encourage voluntary study of the Bible. Their efforts are worthy of recognition and support.

In acknowledgment of the inestimable value and timeless appeal of the Bible, the Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 164, has designated the year 1990 as the ``International Year of Bible Reading'' and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the year 1990 as the International Year of Bible Reading. I invite all Americans to discover the great inspiration and knowledge that can be obtained through thoughtful reading of the Bible.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fourteenth.

PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH




Want to know more? Click below.
A - D E - J K - Q R - Z
Bible knowledge not found in 501c3 churches, public schools or on TV

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Georgia does away with licences "Right to Travel Act."

10 LC 34 2350
House Bill 875
By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."
SECTION 2.
The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;

(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;

(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;

(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and

(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3.
Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4.
This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb875.htm

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Notice to Alberta Legislature speaker ken kowalski re: lawful excuse of non appearance


Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Edmonton Ecclesia 10755-133 street no code non commercial
Notice of fraud and lawful Excuse for failure to appear

January 13th 2011 A.D.

From: minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Church of the Ecumenical redemption International
C/o 10755-133 Street Edmonton Alberta No code non Commercial

Dear Ken, it is my hope you have the authority once aware and noticed of the fraud of allowing judges prosecutors and officers of her Majesties courts to swear to obviously false oaths, to do something.

I herein provide you with the facts indicating, indeed proving, the Alberta Oath of Office Act contains a deficient and false oath,

These are the words in Alberta from the Oath of Office Act, indicating prima fascia an unlawful, unsanctioned, deficient form by the omission of the word “do” in the Alberta Oath of Allegiance thus effectively invalidating the Oath by making the Oath grammatically incoherent and different from what it shall be according to the Federal law. That violates section 126 of the criminal code.

I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law.

These are the words from the Federal Oath of Allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the Oath is to be worded in Canada, it is:

(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

Since the nature of this communication is in exposing a fraud and criminal activity I expect an immediate and expedited response to this. I am at present being intimidated by impostors bearing this false oath and as of my faith in Christ and God's law that the Queen swore to defend with all of her power, and I cannot submit to the fraud nor the laws written in violation of God's commands.
minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger




Ezekiel 33:1-10

Monday, January 10, 2011

Notice of Lawful excuse for failure to appear before impostors

Ecclesiastical Notice of lawful excuse for non appearance and determination of the account of minister :Edward Jay-Robin: of the Belanger family
Dear privately liable men and women so herein ecclesiastically noticed and named accurately as far as I can determine at this juncture: Allan H. LeFever, A.Gail Vicary, Neil C.Wittman, Michelle Doyle, Paul Ayotte, K.E. Tjosvold, Hugh A. Fuller,Michell Doyle,Debra Alford, Alison Redford, Vaugn Myers, Brad Pickering, Ray Bodnarek, Frank Oberle, Lorna Ross, Robert Nicholson, Myles Kirvin, Leona Aglukkak, Glenda Yates,Ted Morton,Tim Willes,Steve Jackson, Michelle Lafrance,Fran Salidas, Adam Halliday,Brian Saunders, Dwayne Weatherall, Donald S. Ethell, Brenda Majeau.
I Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger being of a sane mind and soul being aware of my unalienable God granted freedoms and liberties being precedential to mans law, do hereby make this notice that I am not a corporate entity and do so vehemently object to any incorporation of my name formed for the purposes of commerce without my consent. I am aware of , as is the court aware of, the responsibility of the de facto court to know the difference between a legal fiction all capital letter name used to increase the jurisdiction of the court and a living man as my private name is formed and spelled in upper and lower case letters. I do not consent to you or anyone else to alter my name or force it upon me and have for 10 years been proclaiming my faith to many others, international magazine articles, even in Newspaper notices, to make all aware no one has any authority to alter or make money with my name or to make commercial use of my Christian given name or the family name that was by hearsay given to me. I have been extremely diligent in bringing many of you into awareness of my Christian Standing in this matter. Never has anyone demonstrated to me where the authority of a Christian Monarchy is written to alter and add to the laws of God nor where swearing an invalid oath to God is lawful. It is indeed a lawful excuse to refuse to obey unlawful authority and I have produced evidence that I am correct and am sincere in my observations and subsequent belief the authority is totally de facto and formed in fraud as it violate God’s commands. The Oxymoron of having a Christian Monarch Employ agents to intimidate her subjects to violate the commands of God seems quite vivid in light of the proof of a false oath...No liability to her ensues if a private suit is ever laid as the oath is a fabrication not authorised in law.
Jean Chretien will attest to my faith as he in 2002 sent Roger Piper of the NSI and Bob Hansen of the City of Edmonton Commercial crimes Unit to Intimidate me from sending factual letters spreading the truth about the fraud to all of the men and women acting as members of parliament in officially performing the functions of my calling.
My lawful excuse for failure to appear has standing as my faith and the commandments of God are the points that are under attack by your commercial process that is evidently violating it’s own prime directive. The issue of a false oath is real. Dave Hancock and Neil Skinner, his aid at the time, both admitted I was correct and that the oath is false...several men acting as Alberta judges have from the bench concurred...law professors have, in awe, agreed with me!! My non appearance aforementioned is in observance and in concurrence with Black's law dictionary definition indicating the formal process whereby one submits themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. Once I saw the proof herein provided and I read the scriptures herein provided, I knew I could not appear in the false oathed, commercially registered business of the Alberta Courts...I have Standing in this matter as the law is opposed to my being able to exercise my faith in demanding the laws of the Bible take precedent over mans commercial and profit motivated business. I am so sincere in that I wish you could feel my heart.
Is this Africa where men are criminalised for practicing Christianity and providing proof of their beliefs?
I have diligently made you aware of the lawless actions of some of your de facto members bearing false oaths such as the man named Caffaro and the man named Pahl and the man named Peter Ayotte and the man named Hugh A. Fuller and a man named Vaughn Myers who has had all record of involvement of ever sitting on the legal fiction case erased from the record so the fact that he sat in conflict of interest would not come to light. None of you so diligently noticed of the facts have commented or contacted me and have indicated silence on these filed administrative complaints I made. (U.S. v. Tweel silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading) Estoppel in private liability is also applicable in line with Tacit consent achieved when a noticed party says nothing in rebuttal to an attestation or asseveration of facts that to avoid and ignore may cause injury to the one providing the facts. They have agreed you are correct by failing in duty to point out the error.
All herein mentioned have openly intimidated me to violate the commands of God Jehovah when I faithfully asked them questions, not submitting to their in contractual assumptive style...I cannot lawfully be intimidated to violate the laws of God by those acting as secular tyrants, yet I am being threatened that if I do not appear without a lawful excuse that they will issue a warrant for the all capital fiction you have bonded on paper as a registered security. Can I be forced to participate in an interlocking equity relationship wherein: you as the court represent in right of Her Majesty on the Province’s behalf, the prosecution representing on Her Majesty’s behalf and the Crown, being Her Majesty, brings forth the Charges, with a suggested lawyer also as an officer of the court who is bound by an Oath to Her Majesty? Is that not a conflict of interest and a stacked deck? How can I get a fair deal when you are all in bed with the Complainant?? Can finance connect my registered bonded annual annuity transfer with that registered security via your superannuation pension fund?

It will be my intent to herein test the veracity of the court’s jurisdiction via requesting "Aid and Direction" as to where the truly consented to authority to alter my name for the financial purposes of the court resides or exists as it is my contention and truthful revelation that I was under threat duress and intimidation to allow any incorporation of my name to be performed and clearly without informed consent. I print U.D.I. beside my name when I am intimidated to sign then just as I did on June 20th 2010 when I was intimidated into signing a promise to appear...I was told if I wrote Under duress and intimidation on it they would not let me out so I signed it U.D.I. No contract is valid if obtained under duress.. Read section 55 through 57 of your Bills of Exchange act. My religious faith and beliefs are frustrated by that contract which voids it! Amselem SCR 2004 sound familiar? There is not standard of safety or issue of damages to the province if it does not use upper legal fiction case names so the action of the court in doing so with no law to support it is unlawful and fraud. All caps names are dead legal fictions of law and we as Christians are not to affiliate ourselves with dead things.
Where did and does the authority lie to alter the form of an oath to God to bear true Allegiance to a Christian Monarch (Canadian Oaths of Allegiance Act) whose style and Title is “Defender of the faith” as contained in the Royal Style and Tiles Act on Justice Canada’s website via lawful oath as defined in the Statute of Westminster of 1648 chapter 22 sworn to defend the laws of God via the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 that has been in place for almost 4 hundred years? Sorry for the length of that question but I am being severely intimidated by your assumptive, admiralty law procession against me, the private bondservant of Christ, to violate my sincerely held faith and beliefs and knowledge of Christ and God’s commands.

I have included a brief list of credible references for your aid and perusal.

I will be making no representation but to be clear, an honorable presentation once the veracity of the honor of the prosecuting agent for the crown is established, indicating that the court can proceed with jurisdiction represented by competent counsel for the crown...I believe Regina vs McKibbon 1988 SCCR referred to the fact that everyone is entitled to competent council, even the courts and as the Crowns counsel is the Queen's liaison to the court. I feel it expedient and most appropriate to ensure that all appropriate and competent honor is to be seen and heard as well as the justice that results from such honorable application of an oath!

It will also be my intent to require the private man acting as the prosecutor to prove the veracity of his oath via subpoena duces takem to ensure it's form is authorized by Her Majesty's law and grammatical form approved by Her Majesty's curriculum and Canadian Style. I will be demanding that such documents of integrity establishing the jurisdiction of the court be produced to ensure honor is upheld as there is so much corruption evident within the system so gratefully guarded by Her Majesty in defence of the faith as to necessitate and verify all due diligence is applied to ensure the proceedings are not stained by fraud, personation or intimidation.

If the non- consented to alteration of my name in reverse and all capital letters is produced by the court registrar clerk and officers initiating this process, it will be required that the law allowing them to do so be produced in disclosure. The registrar has no authority to do so as I have not willingly offered it nor was I fully informed as to why it was being done and I went through the diligent effort of putting up a video on youtube channel of owlmon of my agreement with Heather Klimchuk regarding it,....My correct name cannot be offered to a court before the lawful, oath- bound to God jurisdiction of the court is established... It is my honorable intent to inform you of this, my lawful excuse for failure to appear, and require your aid and direction in this sensitive and serious matter.
If indeed my lawful excuse of pointing to laws added to God’s law in violation of his dictate and that the facts proving a blatantly visible a false oath does in fact exist, then my failure to appear is indeed justified..Deuteronomy 4:2,12:32 Leviticus 18:3-4
If you have evidence that you do have the Queens sanction to add to and take away from God’s law in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2&12:32 and to fabricate and swear to unlawful oaths unsanctioned by the Monarchy or law then I expect to hear from you to be pointing out my error as, if you do not, my lawful and honorable excuse for not appearing has irrefutable standing and ecclesiastical merit defended by the Queen herself.
Does this court comprised of private men acting as officers respect and honor the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act as applicable to them? Can you lawfully intimidate a man being a bondservant of Christ and his minister, to appear before false oathed impostors pushing contract admiralty law? Are all men equal before the law? If you do not take the duty bound opportunity to prove how you can lawfully force me to submit myself before impostors perpetrating a fraud, I will not be making an appearance, as that means submission to jurisdiction of false oathed impostors pushing commercial law upon me the, minister of Christ and heir of God. Reading section 423 of the commercial law, that your false oathed lawyer advisors may be familiar with, tells you that, as well as 180 of your criminal code is total commercial application of admiralty law.
Here is the bogus oath from Alberta and it is reflected in every province in Canada aside from Nova Scotia... Note the oath is to God not the Queen!!..From the Federal Oath of Allegiance Act that says ...read carefully and note the word "shall" is an imperative absolute.
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God. (Notice no words saying "according to law")
Now on to the oath that all of the legislature of Alberta and it's employee's have taken for decades as well as all the lawyers and Judges and police.
Alberta >> Statutes and Regulations >> Consolidated Statutes of Alberta >>
OATHS OF OFFICE ACT for Alberta CHAPTER O-1
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Oath of allegiance 1(1) When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an oath of allegiance it shall be taken in the following form:

(Notice there is no word “Do” and no “Queen of Canada” and the words “According to law are not in the federal enactment”.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
(2) Where the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is expressed In the form, the name of the Sovereign at the time that the oath is taken shall be substituted therefore if different.
RSA 1970 c266 ss2, 5, Form A
Official oath
2 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an official
Oath on
(a) Being appointed to an office other than that of judge or
Justice of the peace, or (b) Being admitted to a profession or calling,
the oath shall be taken in the following form:
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will
diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to
law the office of . . . . . . . . . . . So help me God.
RSA 1970 c266 s3,Form B
Judicial oath
3 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take a judicial
Oath on his appointment as a judge or as a justice of the peace, the oath
Shall be taken in the following form:
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will honestly
and faithfully and to the best of my ability exercise the powers and duties
of a . . . . . . . . . . . . So help me God.
RSA 1970 c266 s4, Form C;1975(2) c43 s5
The BNAA also in schedule 5 has the specific form for the oath as does section 10 and 11 of the Goivernor Generals Act of 1947 as well as Chapter 22 from the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1648 to anchor us as to the intent of Parliament to describe the meaning of a lawful oath. One you see the law the Parliament intended to enact clearly states that a lawful oath is an act of religious worship you can see Why God his laws and the Bible have standing! No one has ever repealed that law! I make no use of but bring to your attention as of it’s applicability to you! Ezekiel 33:1-10
Ezekiel 33:1-10 requires me to Notice you that I make no use of your law by bringing it to your attention. It applies to you and the jeopardy it imparts upon you if you ignore it. I cannot make use of a hole in law but as the watchman, can and am commanded to warn you and all those who may be harmed by your fictional actions in mans commercial law. As ecclesiastics being heirs of God, His rule of law applies, not yours. I am sorry if your business interests and commercial profit of the organisations you are interlocking with in equity will be frustrated by the exercising of my faith but no different than the Sikh already knowing, as of cultural training, how to stand up for his beliefs, I intend to stand up for mine. If it is your intent to persecute me and punish me for the actions of my faith and the following of the commands of God Jehovah the queen is sworn to defend and you wish to challenge God’s law by putting out a warrant, I am demanding of you to Notice me formally as to your intent in that de facto and treasonous Action. If I get no notice outlining where the authority to get me to correspond with a fraud comes from I will believe you have accepted my lawful excuse and I have no threat to appear. Corporal Renee Banes has been noticed of this threat and intimidation I am under and I have asked her for protection from the impostors in Stony Plain. She has seen the false Oaths.
I will also be demanding in good faith and common sense course by what authority the Authorised version of the King James Bible can be lawfully removed from her Majesty’s court as it is the authorised law by the Queens command that is to be available in her courts throughout all of her realm in order for Her majesty to be able to carry out her Coronation Oath to, with all her power, defend the laws of God in defence of the Christian faith.

I thank you in Advance for your respected aid and direction in giving me fair notice if it will be your intent to resort to unlawful intimidation extortion and fraud by putting out a warrant for the arrest of the legal fiction when I do not appear before the false oathed impostors masquerading as judges in Edmonton or Stony Plain

minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger, Head minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, bondservant and emissary of Christ
Dated autographed and witnessed this sixth day of January 2011 A.D.
Autograph:
Witnesses:

Sunday, January 9, 2011

The NAME GAME Explained - by Eldon Warman

name-game-explained





Recent research here in Canada shows that the income tax, and all other statutory law, is imposed based upon the 'property right', and that property right is the property right of the corporate Crown in Canada, and corporate State (be it a State or the UNITED STATES) in the USA.

The same scheme can be found in any country that is a subject country of the Pontiff of Rome's Holy Roman Empire. Thus, in actuality, the assumed 'property right' is that of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, as the Crown or incorporated State is an agency for the Holy Roman Empire.



The ‘Crown’ is the administrative corporation of the Pontiff of Rome owned City of London, the financial, legal and professional standards capitol of/for the Vatican. The City of London is a square-mile area within Greater London, England, and is an independent city-state.

In the USA, the administrative corporation for the Pontiff of Rome is the UNITED STATES, and that corporation administers the Vatican capitol, for, primarily, military purposes, called Columbia, or the District of Columbia. The UNITED STATES also administers the 50 sub-corporate States of the United States of America, identified with the 2 cap letters – CA, OR, WA, etc.



All adult humans are deceived into using the fiction name, as imprinted on the copy of the birth certificate you receive when ordering it from Provincial/State Vital Statistics, or to whatever source you apply. Although the birth certificate is of somewhat recent origin and used to formally offer 'citizens' as chattel in bankruptcy to the Pope's Holy Roman Empire owned Rothschilds' Banking System, the false use of the family name goes back into the Middle Ages in England. Thus, it is with the family name made a primary, or surname, (example - Mister Jones), and the given names of the child (example - Peter) made a reference name to the primary name. This is the reverse or mirror image to reality. A 'family name' is NOT a man's name - it is a name of a clan - a blood relationship. [Replace the example names with your given and family name.]



We are then 'forced' or 'obliged' to use that name in all commercial and Government dealings and communications. So, when we do use it, as 99.99% of the human inhabitants of North America (and most of the world) do, we supposedly 'voluntarily' attach ourselves, the free will adult human, to the Crown/State owned property, called the 'legal identity name' as an accessory attached to property owned by Another party.



The State or Crown does not give us authority, grant, license, permission or leave to use the Crown or State owned legal identity name. Thus, our use of it as an adult free will man (male or female) is a form of 'theft' against a maritime jurisdiction entity (all incorporated bodies are 'make-believe ships at sea'. In maritime law, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. This allows the Roman Law system we have to impose 'involuntary servitude' upon an adult man.

We see this Roman Law within the US 13th Amendment (#2) instituted in the mid 1860's:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," The crime with which you have been convicted is 'unauthorized use' of the State's or Crown's intellectual property - the legal identity name.



The Crown/State then invokes the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, [an accessory attached to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal], where the principal is the legal identity name as 'intellectual property', the owner is the corporation called the Crown/State or UNITED STATES, and the accessory is the free will human who has supposedly volunteered himself to be 'property by attachment' of the Crown/State. An adult human who is property is, and by any other name, a 'slave', be it citizen, subject or freeman.



I would point out here that all concepts that teach that the relationship between free will man and Government/corporate bodies is contractual are incorrect. All supposed remedies in contract law, American UCC or Canadian PPSA are ‘red herring’ diversions – some intended, and some in ignorance by the teachers.



As a slave, one's property in possession, including body and labor, belongs to the slave owner 100%. And, the property right is a bundle of rights - own, use, sell, gift, bequeath and hypothecate property.



Thus, ALL 'income' resulting from the owned human slave's mental and/or physical labor belongs to the slave owner. That which is left with or granted to the slave for his own use and maintenance is called a 'benefit'. In Canada, the 'return of income' [the phrase itself tells the story] is called a T1 'tax and benefits package'. The T1 or 1040 is an accounting by the slave of his fruits of labor that belongs to the slave owner, and the prescribed 'benefits' that he may keep or have back from withholding. Thus, all income tax cases against the people', in reality, result from fraud, illegal concealment and theft by the accused slave of the slave owner's ‘property'.



Going back to an above paragraph, we find that the attachment of oneself to the Crown/State owned name is 'assumed to be voluntary', as the Crown/State has no valid right to impose slavery upon adult humans against their will. And, constitutional prohibitions of slavery only encompasses 'involuntary servitude', not 'voluntary servitude'. Anyone working as an employee is in a contract of voluntary servitude - direction and time control by, and obedience and loyalty to the employer. Until we ‘assumed to be slaves' get our heads around this key to the lock that holds our chains of slavery around our necks and ankles, we will continue to attempt to swim with that 100 lb ball chained to our leg.



Another factor of the use of the Roman Law system is contained within the 1860's 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, the Constitution of the corporate UNITED STATES, and not the 13th Amendment of the US Republic inserted around 1819. In the later 13th amendment, it says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Notice that this applies only to the corporate body called the UNITED STATES.



All corporate bodies are make-believe ships at sea, and are thus, internally, under maritime law. In maritime law, an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. Thus, a free will adult man who uses without authority the property of a corporate body is under maritime jurisdiction. This makes a free will man who uses a corporate Crown or corporate State owned legal identity name a 'convicted criminal, and thus subject to the imposition of slavery, involuntary servitude. You, as a child were Crown or State property by way of the birth registry, and thus, you could use Crown or State property, the legal identity name. When you became an adult, as a vessel on the seal of life as a sovereign captain/free will mind, you no longer had a right to use that Crown or State owned legal identity name.



Reports of unsuccessful attempts at paying government imposed debts using the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act or US UCC provisions of settling an account proved that there was no contract issue between a Canadian or American adult human and the Government as is commonly taught by some patriot gurus. Under contract, a 'bill' is a method of equalizing a contract - like value exchanged for like value. However, under the 'property right' of a slave owner in regard to property in the possession of an owned slave, a 'demand' for the property by the slave owner, or the slave owner's agent (such as the IRS, or county tax collector, or for a court imposed fine), is all that is necessary, without regard to due process of law. Remember, ALL that a slave possesses belongs to the slave owner. I am NOT saying you ARE a slave. I just point out to you that Government, and its employees, judges and officers SEE you as a SLAVE. See sections 35 and 46 of the "Bills of Exchange Act of Canada" regarding eligibility for use of the provisions of that Act. GOOGLE it. A bill can only be paid with money, and there is no money in Canada or the USA since the early 1930s. All that is left is a 'promissory note'.



Further, when any 'officer' of the corporate body, be it 'peace officer or police', all the way to King or President choose to declare someone 'homo sacer' (meaning a man who has been stripped of his status of 'person' - that being an obedient corporate slave member of the corporate body politic) - he is stripped of the rights of due process of law, and can be fined, punished, tortured or killed without repercussion to the officer, or officer involved. This happens all the time in the world of the Holy Roman Empire.



This doctrine of 'homo sacer' is clearly presented in the US Fugitive Slave Act 1850, Section 6:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm



Quote:

In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever. Unquote



Three major points here:

1. The accused disobedient slave cannot enter evidence in his own defense. Sound familiar? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and German 'Holocaust Denial' litigation courts declare that "truth is no defense". Judges constantly ignore offered defenses by Government accused defendants, especially in traffic and income tax issues. And, this may be acceptable if the judge were to explain why he need do that, but almost 100% of the time, no explanation is offered, and that is to hide the 'homo sacer' doctrine, and the fact that a slave is being tried for disobedience to the rules within the slave owner's property right.



2. The 'certificate' presented by the officer or agent of the property owner (declaration of property ownership) is sufficient for conviction of disobedience.



3. No molestation (such as criminal or civil complaints) can be made by, or on behalf of the accused or convicted disobedient slave. Anyone know of successful litigation against a police officer or judge who severely abused the unalienable rights of a man? Yes, there may be a few in well publicized cases, where the system has to hide their despotic Roman scheme, but that is rare.

I am not suggesting that the Fugitive Slave Act is still being used. It was likely rescinded at some time; however, what I do say is that the provisions written within that act were directly out of the Roman Law system in dealing with disobedient slaves, and it is Roman Law that is being imposed upon the free will adult people in America and Canada who have had Roman slavery imposed upon them.



A POSSIBLE REMEDY

However, since we are 'forced to', or 'obliged to' use the Crown/State owned legal identity name in all commercial and government dealings, services and communications, we can make a 'claim of right' under the Rule of Private Necessity – with the necessity being the means to sustain and maintain our life, as all food, shelter, clothing, means of travel and that which answers our need for happiness all has to be obtained or used in the realms of commerce. Briefly, commerce is all communications, contracts, and other interrelations and interactions with other parties, which includes government.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(tort)



This should counter the claim that we 'voluntarily' attach ourselves to Crown/State property.

Repeating - The Private Necessity is that we cannot do anything in relation to life, liberty, property or due process of law without using the Crown/State owned name, and thus we cannot sustain or maintain our lives without that fiction name.



The name separation is only a court tactic, as the legal identity name is always the one charged. The Government intent, of course, is to get to the adult man (male or female) attached to that name - the attached accessory - you. Otherwise you, and your children need to 'use' that legal identity name in all commerce (communication), and you do so under private necessity. So, only in court do you need to prove:



1. That you are a separate party from the named defendant.



2. That you only use the legal identity name, named as defendant, under private necessity to sustain and maintain your life, and that you are not voluntarily attached to it permanently as an accessory to Crown property.



3. That you have Her Majesty's permission to use that Crown owned legal name according to Vital Statistics Acts of the Canadian Provinces.



4. That the copy of the birth certificate held by myself has been surrendered to the Court, and I deny any fiduciary responsibility for that Crown property or the name thereon. [Should have been previously surrendered, along with the Canada affidavit, to a judge in chambers hearing.]



5. It all comes right down to this: 'Informed consent'. You do not have to consent to identified as being the name found on the birth certificate. "I do not authorize you to recognize me as being one and the same as the legal identity name you find on your documents. I do not consent to that."



Also, a Freedom Of Information Demand should be sent to the Minister, or Representative requesting the authority, date, means and methods by which you, a free will man (m or f) became a slave owned by the corporate Crown or State.



A process that has worked recently in Texas is the 'surrender' of the copy of the birth certificate one has in possession to a judge, or the judge assigned to a case where you, in the legal identity name, are the defendant, in an 'in chambers' hearing. Some call this 'surrender' of the defendant (the legal identity name) as being on the 'private side' using the Biblical method of settling disputes privately if possible.



This is preferred to 'surrendering it in court' as that is on the 'public side', and as a human presence in the court room, the assumption that you are an attachment to the legal identity name has already been made. And being attached as an accessory to it, you become surety, guarantor and do 'represent' the legal identity name defendant.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Addendum 1 Name Game



I don't promote or use the Commercial Redemption system. I just suggest showing the 'authorities" that I, and the 'legal identity name' are not one and the same party. The Statement of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate can be used as proof of that, since, as a child, you had nothing to do with the registration of your birth, nor with the choice of names you were to be called as a child.



1. The Birth Certificate shows that it belongs to the State/Province where you were born, and thus, is the property of the State or Crown in right of the Province.



2. The name on that shows your family name to be the primary name of the 'legal identity name' - a 'surname', and the first and second names being referential to it. That is fiction. The family name is a clan name. It is not the name of an individual man (m or f).



3. The Statement of Birth shows that the first and second name is a gift (given names), and as such is a contract. An infant (under age 21) cannot be party to a contract. An acceptor of a gift must 'accept', and accept voluntarily. Thus, you have never 'accepted' the given names. There is no mechanism to do that in the Roman Law we are under. The Roman law only sees the legal identity name, a name that belongs to the corporate Roman Empire of the Pope.



4. An adult man is actually a mind inhabiting a physical human body. Only things can be named. A mind is a process, not a thing.



Thus, when a human becomes an adult, that is akin to the launching of a new ship. The adult mind is equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea. The captain is sovereign or supreme on his ship. The only way a captain of a ship can lose that sovereignty is by putting his ship 'in tow' voluntarily behind another ship. It is then that the tow ship captain gains sovereignty over the captain of the ship in tow.



The legal identity name is the rope that ties our vessel to the corporate Crown of the City of London (owned by the corporate Holy Roman Empire).



The Name Game Blog explains the rest.



Addendum 2 Name Game



The name "they" use on all their documents, including indictments, is the legal name. I believe there is no argument with that. In fact, the courts are usually ready to agree with that classification without hesitation.

By presenting the Statement of Birth (SOB) to them and asking them to do an investigation with a view to answering just two simple questions, will repel all attacks from the "system". The two questions are:



1. Who has secured the rights (legal and equitable) in the legal name??? (insert name exactly as it appears on the Birth Certificate even though the all caps aspect is a red herring); and,



2. What rights do I have in the legal name ???



The answers to these two questions will prove (in Ontario SOB's are admissible in any Ontario court as Proof, not just evidence, of the facts so certified) that



1. the government secured the rights (a.k.a. the secured party) in the legal name and, therefore, I have no rights in the legal name.



2. If I have no rights in the legal name, then how can I have any obligations related to the legal name?



The party that the law holds legally responsible for the financial and other obligations of the property (legal name) is the secured party, which is the government in the case of the legal name. This is all proven by the SOB!



It would seem to me that there is no place for the system to go once this truth is on the table. Certainly CRA can be easily defeated with this approach. However, the judge may make the assumption that by your ‘permanent’ use of the legal identity name, you have become an accessory attached to that Crown owned name, and thus you are the property of the Crown by the legal maxim, which arises out of the property right, accessio cedit principali. Thus, to complete the above procedure, you must, by affidavit or notice, make a claim of right of free will status and claim that the Crown owned name is used under private necessity in commerce to sustain and maintain your life. As such, your use of the Crown owned name is not a voluntary act by yourself.

Some claim that Her Majesty, or the corporate Crown, has given one permission to use the Crown owned legal identity name. That assumption is arrived at by way of the Ontario 'Change of Names Act' which says: "Ch. C7; Person's name: 2.(1) For all purposes of Ontario law, (a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person's birth certificate or change of name certificate". As it states, it only applies to 'persons' - which is the combination of the strawman name and the adult man, making that combined entity the 'property and subject of' the corporate Crown. That certainly is not the status we, as free-will-minded creatures, would wish to be.





Addendum 3 The Name Game

CONSENT



Regarding the use of the legal identity name, this thing comes down to consent. No means no and silence means yes.

We are all of the one individualized making you source energy flowing through a BC that is never not connected to the national treasury. In essence a BC is issued of the treasury so that all we do through the name on it flows to the/our treasury. However, that changes if you are recognized through a legal name.

The Birth Certificate is never un-connected from the treasury, 'For Treasury use only', just as you are never un-connected with the divine. You are the source, source energy, and in legal land, the treasury is source. The Statement Of Birth, as proof, is recognized by the government that it is so. Humans in this world are source energy. Source of commercial energy, to use that term, for without human, nothing happens. Just as in the bigger picture, without God nothing happens. So if you are searching for access to the treasury account look in the mirror.

An old 'Law and Order' show. A woman was after the police to get a man who was stalking her. Again and again she went to the police to get this man to stop stalking her. Finally a detective says, "Mam, that man is not stalking you." "Oh yes he is" she says. "No Mam, he is not. There is nothing in our law books about stalking. So, that man there is not stalking you." This is how law and legal authority work. If it is not on the books, then it does not exist. In the case of that show there was no such thing as a stalker or stalking.

Show me the law or authority upon which anyone may rely that authorizes any agent to recognize you through a legal name? There is no such authority WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. How is consent obtained against you by the agents? By your silence. Anytime you are getting 'done by', and remain silent, you are capitulating (in agreement). We are entitled to be recognized THROUGH (by means through) the legal name on the BC, but we are also entitled to say "No. I do not consent to be recognized by the name". If as has been the case you make it clear that you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name and the other party ignores you, and you do not take an appropriate course of action to stop it, you are agreeing to get 'done by'.

So what we have going on here is a whole bunch of agents are recognizing us THROUGH a legal name, and we are not doing anything about it = silence. And, by = through.



WHEREAS [I like that word], if you know that there is no authority, legal, lawful or otherwise, for an agent to recognize you through a legal name, and you make it clear that you do not consent to be recognized through the name, that party is in the commission of a crime if he proceeds as if he has the authority because, in fact, there is no law that authorizes any agent to recognize you as anything or any capacity without your consent. No means no. Yes we must use a legal name, and yes, everything we do in that name is connected to the treasury, and the provinces/Canada, by holding the SOB's is in the loop as beneficiary/treasurer. But not if you are recognized through the legal name. By being recognized through the legal name, I say through because you are not the legal name, you are claiming ownership of property and the value of it; in essence, my stuff.

But if you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name, then the issuer of the BC is, and at that point is the owner of property and responsible for the debts, obligations, securities and undertakings of things you do through the legal name. The BC is always connected to the treasury (matrix), the question is, who the beneficiary is. If you allow yourself to be recognized through the legal name then you are the beneficiary but if you do not consent then the treasury (Canada) is the beneficiary.

Where we have failed ourselves is when we do not address the I do not consent to be recognized through the name on the BC properly. It is your license to do as you please. The license of licenses. There is no law or legislation anywhere that authorizes any agent to recognize you through a legal name. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so or trying either. It is up to you how you react if one does. What I am saying is, no agent has the legal backing to recognize you through the legal name that will indemnify them from harm (prosecution) if they do after you made it clear that you do not consent. In other words, they have ruled over us purely because we did not say I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE RECOGNIZED THROUGH THE LEGAL IDENTITY NAME, OR BY ANY NAME; and there is no law that authorizes you to recognize me through a name without my consent.



Addendum 4 The Name Game Blog

Consent #2 March 09



When you present government ID and you do not want to be recognized through the name on it just say; I DO NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO RECOGNIZE ME THROUGH THE NAME ON THIS ID.

There is no other source of such authority is what you need to get here. You're it.

Now everything we have learned over the years and in particular lately backs this 'I do not consent' thing. A BC is not and was never intended to be personal identification it evolved as the deputy registrar said and it evolved through our giving consent to be recognized.



The Government holds title to the legal name and entitles you to be recognized through a legal name which it cannot do unless it has rights in the name. Significance of the government holding the SOB is proof. There is no proof that your parents gave you the name that appears on a SOB, impossible for that to be proven. Look up 'informed consent' at Wikipedia and you know now what's been going on.
"Informed consent" is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.



Impairment to reasoning and judgement which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma. Some acts cannot legally take place because of a lack of informed consent. In cases where an individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized to give consent on their behalf e.g. parents or legal guardians of a child and care-givers for the mentally ill. However, if a severely injured person is brought to hospital in an unconscious state and no-one is available to give informed consent, doctors will give whatever treatment is necessary to save their life (according to the Hippocratic oath) which might involve major surgery e.g. amputation. In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision, serious ethical issues arise. Such cases in a clinical trial in medical research are anticipated and prevented by an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board."



Nolo.com legal definition:

An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.



For example, a patient may give informed consent to medical treatment only after the healthcare professional has disclosed all possible risks involved in accepting or rejecting the treatment. A healthcare provider or facility may be held responsible for an injury caused by an undisclosed risk. In another context, a person accused of committing a crime cannot give up his constitutional rights--for example, to remain silent or to talk with an attorney--unless and until he has been informed of those rights, usually via the well-known Miranda warnings.

Security of the ''person''- Definition 1



An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity. The official definition, from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is: "Any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited."



Definition 2



Property which is pledged as collateral for a loan.



Security of the person is a financial instrument, given as equity to "persons" who become citizens and take on liability from joining the corporation or government. This is to secure remedy where the person faces financial liability on behalf of the government.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Your birth certificate is the link to your security which the government administers on your behalf and in our utter ignorance.



by us granting them the status of administrators they get to collect the dividends from the security and the voting share or power that comes with being the holder.

Now after that great piece from Eldon you deserve this

Debt bondage

Part of a series on
Slavery

Early history
History · Antiquity · Aztec
Ancient Greece · Rome
Medieval Europe
Thrall · Kholop · Serfdom
Slavery and religion
The Bible · Judaism
Christianity · Islam
By country or region
Africa · Atlantic · Arab
Coastwise · Portugal · Angola
Barbary Coast
Britain and Ireland
British Virgin Islands
Brazil · Canada · India · China
Iran · Japan · Libya · Mauritania
Ottoman empire
Romania · Spanish New World
Sudan · Sweden · Texas · United States
Contemporary
Modern Africa · Debt bondage
Peonage · Penal labour
Sexual slavery · Wage slavery
Unfree labour · Human trafficking
Contemporary slavery
Opposition and resistance
Timeline · Abolitionism
Compensated emancipation
Opponents of slavery‎
Slave rebellion · Slave narrative
v · d · e

Debt bondage (or bonded labor) is an arrangement whereby a person is forced to pay off a loan with direct labor in place of currency, over an agreed or obscure period of time. When a debtor is tricked or trapped into working for very little or no pay, or when the value of their work is significantly greater than the original sum of money borrowed, some consider the arrangement to be a form of unfree labour or debt slavery. It is similar to peonage, indenture or the truck system.

Contents [hide]
1 Legal definition
2 Historical background to bonded labor
3 Historical peonage
3.1 Historical examples
4 Modern views
4.1 Modern examples
4.2 Marxist analysis
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit] Legal definitionDebt bondage is classically defined as a situation when a person provides a loan to another and uses his or her labor or services to repay the debt; when the value of the work, as reasonably assessed, is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt, the situation becomes one of debt bondage. See United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. This was very common in Ancient Greece. In Athens debt bondage was terminated by Solon .

[edit] Historical background to bonded laborPrior to the early modern age, feudal and serfdom systems were the predominant political and economic systems in Europe.

[edit] Historical peonagePeonage is a system where laborers are bound in servitude until their debts are paid in full. Those bound by such a system are known, in the US, as peons.[citation needed] Employers may extend credit to laborers to buy from employer-owned stores at inflated prices.[original research?] This method is a variation of the truck system (or company store system), in which workers are exploited by agreeing to work for an insufficient[original research?] amount of goods and/or services. In these circumstances, peonage is a form of unfree labor. Such systems have existed in many places at many times throughout history.

[edit] Historical examplesThe American South - Such a system was often used in the southern United States after the American Civil War where African-American and poor white farmers, known as sharecroppers, were often extended credit to purchase seed and supplies from the owner of the land they farmed and pay the owner in a share of the crop.[citation needed]
In Peru a peonage system existed from the 16th century until land reform in the 1950s. One estate in Peru that existed from the late 16th century until it ended had up to 1,700 peons employed and had a jail. Peons were expected to work a minimum of three days a week for their landlord and more if necessary to complete assigned work. Workers were paid a symbolic 2 cents per year. Workers were unable to travel outside of their assigned lands without permission and were not allowed to organize any independent community activity. In the Peruvian Amazon, debt peonage is an important aspect of contemporary Urarina society.[1]
Thousands were sold into slavery during the West African slave trade and ended their lives working as slaves on the plantations in the New World. For this reason, section 2 of the Slave Trade Act 1843 enacted by the British Parliament declared "persons holden in servitude as pledges for debt" to "be slaves or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves" for the purpose of the Slave Trade Act 1824[citation needed] and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

In Niger, where the practice of slavery was outlawed in 2003, a study found that almost 8% of the population are still slaves.[2] Descent-based slavery, where generations of the same family are born into bondage, is traditionally practised by at least four of Niger’s eight ethnic groups. The slave masters are mostly from the nomadic tribes — the Tuareg, Fulani, Toubou and Arabs.[3]

According to some claims, 40 million people in India, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago.[citation needed] The rise of Dalit politicians in India, with overwhelming support by non-Dalits, as well as a government commitment to overall improvement of education, communication and living standards has resulted in the rapid decline of bonded labor there. Penalties for those employing bonded labor are severe[citation needed] and Human Rights Groups are very active in curbing these practices.[citation needed] Television media and increased penetration of cheap satellite television has spread awareness to the most remote areas and made people aware of their rights, hence evidence of forced labor in India is rapidly declining.[citation needed]

These claimed figures are comparable to ones in Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Philippines.[citation needed]

There are no universally accepted figures for the number of bonded child labourers in India. Again, Government's commitment to universal education and poverty eradication programmes have resulted in significant decrease in number of bonded labors. In the traditional industries of high quality hand-woven fabrics and handicrafts, increased awareness by international buyers and stringent checks put in place by multinational corporations on their suppliers has resulted in suppliers and manufacturers to replace bonded child labor by instead offering educational facilities to children of their employees and workers. International Tourists to places like Rajasthan also play their part and have at many times reported instances of child labor to authorities who swiftly act to curb any child labor.

In contrast, of 20 million bonded labourers in Pakistan 7.5 million are children.[citation needed] Also, a system of debt bondage called Kamaiya existed in the Terai lowlands of southern Nepal and was not nominally outlawed until 2000. It may still persist in out-of-the-way locations due to lax enforcement and collusion between wealthy families and local government. Victims were mainly Tharu and Dalits.

[edit] Modern viewsSee also: Human trafficking
According to Anti-Slavery International, "A person enters debt bondage when their labor is demanded as a means of repayment of a loan, or of money given in advance. Usually, people are tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for such a loan), in conditions which violate their human rights. Invariably, the value of the work done by a bonded laborer is greater that the original sum of money borrowed or advanced."[citation needed]

According to the Anti-Slavery Society:

Pawnage or pawn slavery is a form of servitude akin to bonded labor under which the debtor provides another human being as security or collateral for the debt. Until the debt (including interest on it) is paid off, the creditor has the use of the labor of the pawn.[4]

Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" [5] and is prohibited by international law. It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing nations, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists, for example Hernando de Soto, this is a major barrier to development in those countries - entrepreneurs do not dare take risks and cannot get credit because they hold no collateral and may burden families for generations to come.[citation needed]

Some estimates place the number of people in debt bondage as high as 40 million.[citation needed] Researcher Siddharth Kara has calculated the number of slaves in the world by type, and determined the number of debt bondage slaves to be 18.1 million at the end of 2006.[6] He has updated this number for the end of 2009 to be 18.4 million, the increase primarily as a result of the 2007 global commodity bubble, followed by the global economic crisis of 2008 and 2009.

[edit] Modern examplesProstitution - News media in western Europe regularly carry reports about one particular kind of debt bondage: women from Eastern Europe who are forced to work in prostitution as a way to pay off the "debt" they acquired when they were illegally smuggled to destinations in Western Europe.[citation needed]

[edit] Marxist analysisAccording to Marxist economists, debt bondage is characteristic of feudal economies, where families are considered the responsible unit for financial relationships, and where heirs continue to owe parents' debts upon their deaths. Fully capitalist economies are characterized by the individual taking all responsibility, and such mechanisms as bankruptcy and inheritance taxes reducing creditors' rights (while increasing the power of the state). Heirs are freed from the creditor, but at the cost of a drastically increased power accruing to the state itself.[citation needed]

[edit] See alsoBonded Labour Liberation Front, India
Bondage in Pakistan
Debtor's prison
Human trafficking
Involuntary servitude
Karl Marx
Peon
The State of Bonded Labor in Pakistan
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention
Modern day slavery


.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims




Tuesday, 21 December 2010


The Pope


Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict's claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn't considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than' and a ‘worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

The Pope said abuse revelations in 2010 reached “an unimaginable dimension” which brought “humiliation” on the Church.

Asking how abuse exploded within the Church, the Pontiff called on senior clerics “to repair as much as possible the injustices that occurred” and to help victims heal through a better presentation of the Christian message.

“We cannot remain silent about the context of these times in which these events have come to light,” he said, citing the growth of child pornography “that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society” he said.

But outraged Dublin victim Andrew Madden last night insisted that child abuse was not considered normal in the company he kept.

Mr Madden accused the Pope of not knowing that child pornography was the viewing of images of children being sexually abused, and should be named as such.

He said: “That is not normal. I don't know what company the Pope has been keeping for the past 50 years.”

Pope Benedict also said sex tourism in the Third World was “threatening an entire generation”.

Angry abuse victims in America last night said that while some Church officials have blamed the liberalism of the 1960s for the Church's sex abuse scandals and cover-up catastrophes, Pope Benedict had come up with a new theory of blaming the 1970s.

“Catholics should be embarrassed to hear their Pope talk again and again about abuse while doing little or nothing to stop it and to mischaracterise this heinous crisis,” said Barbara Blaine, the head of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,

“It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal,” she added.

“The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context' he can't control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context' he can influence — the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.”

The latest controversy comes as the German magazine Der Spiegel continues to investigate the Pope's role in allowing a known paedophile priest to work with children in the early 1980s.



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1A8whQRrI