Friday, July 29, 2011

Marijuana For Hard-To-Treat Brain Cancer

Marijuana, commonly known as Gandia can be used to treat really advanced stage brain cancer according to a recent scientific study by scientists of the Complutense University, Spain. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is highly resistant to current anticancer treatments, which necessitates finding of new therapeutic strategies to improve the poor prognosis of patients suffering from this disease.

Medical Marijuana Plant
It was discovered that Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is an active ingredient of marijuana as well as other cannabinoid receptor agonists, inhibits tumor growth in animal models of cancer, including glioma. This particular effect relies partly on the stimulation of autophagy-mediated apoptosis in tumor cells. Thus the combined administration of THC and temozolomide (TMZ; the benchmark agent for the management of GBM) produces a strong anti-tumoral action in glioma xenografts. This effect is also observed in tumors that are resistant to TMZ treatment.

Administration of submaximal doses of THC and cannabidiol (CBD (a plant-derived cannabinoid that also induces glioma cell death through a mechanism of action different from that of THC) remarkably reduces the growth of glioma xenografts. Treatment with TMZ and submaximal doses of THC and CBD produces a strong antitumoral action in both TMZ-sensitive and TMZ-resistant tumors.

Abovementioned findings by investigators at Complutense University in Spain prove that the combined administration of TMZ and cannabinoids could be thus therapeutically exploited for the management of GBM. The combined administration of THC and the pharmaceutical agent temozolomide (TMZ) therefore establishes strong anti-cancer activity in brain tumors which become resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments.

The authors of these investigations have accordingly derived that the administration of THC in combination with TMZ “enhanced autophagy” (programmed cell death) in malignant tissue. According to them, “The combined administration of THC, CBD, and TMZ remarkably reduced the growth of glioma xenografts … [and] produced a strong antitumoral action in both TMZ-sensitive and TMZ-resistant tumors. Altogether, our findings support that the combined administration of TMZ and cannabinoids could be therapeutically exploited for the management of GBM (gliobastoma multiforme).”

Earlier in the year 2006 a study was published in the British Journal of Cancer. This study had reported that the intra-tumoural administration of THC is associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two out of nine human subjects with GBM (which is highly resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments).

Separate preclinical studies which assessed the anti-cancer activity of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids also show that these substances can inhibit the proliferation of various types of cancerous cells which includes breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, skin carcinoma, leukemia cells, neuroblastoma, lung carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, thyroid epithelioma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cervical carcinoma, oral cancerbiliary tract cancer and lymphoma.

These studies have proved beyond doubt that marijuana ingredient THC is set to play a major role in combating GBM that has already become resistant to conventional anti-cancer drugs. Indeed a ray of new hope for the cancer patients!

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

A few links to expose the bondage of your energy at birth so you can see a trail

This Federal Reserve comment fits with the Surety your parents registered with your birth...You are the surety and once delivered to the registry it is considered a pledge...

This alignes with the Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act
and it's regulations Schedule 2
and this one for making request for an audit of the strawman legal fiction entity with your name reversed and in all caps like on your drivers licence//

THe Provinces and the Country are coorporatiosn trading on the stock exchange. For profit Businesses!
Type in allcapital letters THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Then THE CITY OF EDMONTON or your city
Can corporate law bind flesh and blood women to it's business profits?
This one kind of explains a bit more so you will start to see what has happened...http://allcreatorsgifts.blogsp​​ildren-belongare-they.html
you can contact me at anytime you have questions or go to my youtube channel owlmon..Blessings

Friday, July 22, 2011

Repeal of Pot laws on hold till fall

Medical marijuana law gets reprieve 59
First posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:03:05 EDT PM

Matthew Mernagh, left, and his lawyer Paul Lewin oustside the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.

TORONTO - The troubled federal medical marijuana program was granted a reprieve until this fall when a constitutional challenge will be heard at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Justice Donald Taliano ruled the marijuana program unconstitutional two months ago and gave Ottawa until mid-July to repair the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMRA) or pot would be effectively legalized in Ontario.

Doctors’ “overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program,” Taliano wrote in his ruling.

Federal government lawyer Kevin Wilson asked for and received an extension of that stay until Ontario’s highest court could hear the appeal, likely in November.

Justice Robert Blair of the Court of Appeal agreed to continue the stay beyond mid-July, saying “irreparable harm” could ensue if he didn’t grant it.

“The practical effect of the decision if the suspension were permitted to expire on July 14 would be to legalize marijuana production in Ontario, if not across Canada,” Blair said.

“And it will invalidate many ongoing prosecutions involving commercial marijuana productions and possession offences before the appeal,” Blair told a courtroom packed with supporters of Taliano’s judgment.

“While most people in the courtroom today would applaud such a result, there is much debate about this issue in this society, including about the pros and cons as to whether marijuana is a harmless but valuable therapeutic substance or whether its consumption has harmful effects that may outweigh those considerations in the absence of a controlled regime,” Blair said.

Taliano was ruling on the case of a St. Catharines man, Matthew Mernagh, 37, who was charged with growing his own pot to treat his fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures and depression.

Marijuana “works best” for his pain without the harmful side effects of other medications, he said Thursday.

Mernagh and 22 other people stricken with “serious, debilitating and painful” conditions couldn’t find doctors who were “prepared to participate” in the medical marijuana program, said Mernagh’s lawyer Paul Lewin. “These people are being forced into the arms of the black market.”

Friday, July 15, 2011

Cannabis and the Brain

Cannabis and the Brain: A User's Guide
by Paul Armentano
by Paul Armentano

Preclinical data recently published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrating that cannabinoids may spur brain cell growth has reignited the international debate regarding the impact of marijuana on the brain. However, unlike previous pseudo-scientific campaigns that attempted to link pot smoking with a litany of cognitive abnormalities, modern research suggests what many cannabis enthusiasts have speculated all along: ganja may be good for you.

Cannabinoids & Neurogenesis

"Study turns pot wisdom on its head," pronounced the Globe and Mail in October. News wires throughout North America and the world touted similar headlines — all of which were met with a monumental silence from federal officials and law enforcement. Why all the fuss? Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon found that the administration of synthetic cannabinoids in rats stimulated the proliferation of newborn neurons (nerve cells) in the hippocampus region of the brain and significantly reduced measures of anxiety and depression-like behavior. The results shocked researchers — who noted that almost all other so-called "drugs of abuse," including alcohol and tobacco, decrease neurogenesis in adults — and left the "pot kills brain cells" crowd with a platter of long-overdue egg on their faces.

While it would be premature to extrapolate the study's findings to humans, at a minimum, the data reinforce the notion that cannabinoids are unusually non-toxic to the brain and that even long-term use of marijuana likely represents little risk to brain function. The findings also offer further evidence that cannabinoids can play a role in the alleviation of depression and anxiety, and that cannabis-based medicines may one day offer a safer alternative to conventional anti-depressant pharmaceuticals such as Paxil and Prozac.

(Reference: Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic and depressant-like effects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2005)

Cannabis & Neuroprotection

Not only has modern science refuted the notion that marijuana is neurotoxic, recent scientific discoveries have indicated that cannabinoids are, in fact, neuroprotective, particularly against alcohol-induced brain damage. In a recent preclinical study — the irony of which is obvious to anyone who reads it — researchers at the US National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced ethanol-induced cell death in the brain by up to 60 percent. "This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant ... in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury," the study's authors wrote in the May 2005 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. Alcohol poisoning is linked to hundreds of preventable deaths each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control, while cannabis cannot cause death by overdose.

Of course, many US neurologists have known about cannabis' neuroprotective prowess for years. NIMH scientists in 1998 first touted the ability of natural cannabinoids to stave off the brain-damaging effects of stroke and acute head trauma. Similar findings were then replicated by investigators in the Netherlands and Italy and, most recently, by a Japanese research in 2005. However, attempts to measure the potential neuroprotective effects of synthetic cannabinoid-derived medications in humans have so far been inconclusive.

(References: Comparison of cannabidiol, antioxidants and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2005 | Cannabidiol prevents cerebral infarction. Stroke. 2005 | Post-ischemic treatment with cannabidiol prevents electroencephalographic flattening, hyperlocomotion and neuronal injury in gerbils. Neuroscience Letters. 2003 | Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2001 | Cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998)

Cannabinoids and Glioma

Of all cancers, few are as aggressive and deadly as glioma. Glioma tumors quickly invade healthy brain tissue and are typically unresponsive to surgery and standard medical treatments. One agent they do respond to is cannabis.

Writing in the August 2005 issue of the Journal of Neurooncology, investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) more rapidly than did the administration of the synthetic cannabis receptor agonist, WIN-55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative. Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme typically die within three months without therapy.

Previous research conducted in Italy has also demonstrated the capacity of CBD to inhibit the growth of glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose dependent manner. As a result, a Spanish research team is currently investigating whether the intracranial administration of cannabinoids can prolong the lives of patients diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer.

Most recently, a scientific analysis in the October issue of the journal Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry noted that, in addition to THC and CBD's brain cancer-fighting ability, studies have also shown cannabinoids to halt the progression of lung carcinoma, leukemia, skin carcinoma, colectoral cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

(References: Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce cell death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology. 2005 | Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2005 | Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003)

Cannabinoids & Neurodegeneration

Emerging evidence also indicates that cannabinoids may play a role in slowing the progression of certain neurodegenerative diseases, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's Disease). Recent animal studies have shown cannabinoids to delay disease progression and inhibit neurodegeneration in mouse models of ALS, Parkinson's, and MS. As a result, the Journal of Neurological Sciences recently pronounced, "There is accumulating evidence ... to support the hypothesis that the cannabinoid system can limit the neurodegenerative processes that drive progressive disease," and patient trials investigating whether the use of oral THC and cannabis extracts may slow the progression of MS are now underway in the United Kingdom.

(References: Cannabinoids and neuroprotection in CNS inflammatory disease. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2005. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: delayed disease progression in mice by treatment with a cannabinoid. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Disorders. 2004 |Cannabinoids inhibit neurodegeneration in models of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2003)

Cannabis & Cognition

But what about claims of cannabis' damaging effect of cognition? A review of the scientific literature indicates that rumors regarding the "stoner stupid" stereotype are unfounded. According to clinical trial data published this past spring in the American Journal of Addictions, cannabis use — including heavy, long-term use of the drug — has, at most, only a negligible impact on cognition and memory. Researchers at Harvard Medical School performed magnetic resonance imaging on the brains of 22 long-term cannabis users (reporting a mean of 20,100 lifetime episodes of smoking) and 26 controls (subjects with no history of cannabis use). Imaging displayed "no significant differences" between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls, the study found.

Previous trials tell a similar tale. An October 2004 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported "an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society also "failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," and a 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, "Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence."

Finally, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Investigators further added, "Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days."

(References: Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users. American Journal of Addictions. 2005 | Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study. Psychological Medicine. 2004 | Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2003 | Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2002 | Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001)

Links to the abstracts or full text to the studies cited in this article are available here.

March 2, 2006

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

Copyright © 2006

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

International Court cases the Jehovahs Witnesses set precedent with

Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses

About Jehovah's Witnesses


Organizational Structure

Governing Body
Faithful and Discreet Slave
Legal Instruments

Government Interactions

Doctrines • Practices

Blood • Disfellowshipping



Related People
Formative Influences
William Miller • N.H. Barbour
Jonas Wendell

Presidents & Members
List of Jehovah's Witnesses
C.T. Russell • M.G. Henschel
J.F. Rutherford • F.W. Franz
D.A. Adams • N.H. Knorr

Ex-Members & Critics
R. Franz • E.C. Gruss

Internationally there have been numerous Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. The cases revolve around three main subjects: freedom to practice their religion, laws requiring nationistic practices and law regarding blood transfusions.
• 1 Canada
• 2 El Salvador
• 3 Germany
• 4 India
• 5 Japan
• 6 Philippines
• 7 Russia
• 8 United States
• 9 References
• 10 External links
The Supreme Court of Canada has made a number of important decisions concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. These include the striking down of Quebec's Padlock Law and other anti-Witness laws in the 1950s and more recent cases dealing with whether Witness parents had the right to decide what medical treatment was in the best interest of their children based on their faith.
[edit] El Salvador
In 1998, El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice recently struck down a Social Security Hospital rule that required patients to donate blood in order to receive medical treatment. Previously, hospital policy called for all patients to provide two units of blood prior to a surgical procedure. After this, those who wish to receive medical treatment in the Social Security Hospital have the legal right to choose not to give blood.
[edit] Germany
In December of 2000, Germany's Supreme court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to pass a test of "loyalty to the state", laying the foundation for greater freedoms of worship for German citizens.
[edit] India
In November 1985, Jehovah's Witnesses' children in the state of Kerala refused to sing the national anthem, and were dismissed from schools. V. J. Emmanuel, whose children Binu Mol and Bindu were expelled from school, appealed to the Supreme Court of India for legal remedy. In August 11, 1986, it overruled the Kerala High Court, and stated: "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy teaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it."
[edit] Japan
On March 8, 1996, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that Kobe Municipal Industrial Technical College violated the law by expelling Kunihito Kobayashi for his refusal to participate in Kendo lessons. He felt that these drills were not in harmony with such Bible principles as the one found at Isaiah 2:4, which says: "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." The Court's decision established a precedent for future cases.
Misae Takeda, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, was given a blood transfusion in 1992, while still under sedation following surgery to remove a malignant tumor of the liver. On February 29, 2000, the four judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that doctors were at fault because they failed to explain that they might give her a blood transfusion if deemed necessary during the operation, thus depriving her of the right to decide whether to accept the blood transfusion or not.
[edit] Philippines
In the case of Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (G.R. No. 95770; March 1, 1993)[1], the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs.
In two separate rulings in the case of Estrada vs. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651; August 4, 2003[2] and June 22, 2006[3]), the Supreme Court of the Philippines effectively granted an exception to laws regarding marriage to Soledad S. Escritor because enforcement of those laws would have inhibited the free exercise of her religious beliefs as a practicing Jehova's Witness. The Supreme Court ruling in this case is a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for the status of religious freedom in the Philippines.
[edit] Russia
After the fall of the communist block of nations in Eastern Europe and Asia, Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed to worship freely in those nations for the first time since WWII. However, recent years have seen a resurgence of political resistance to "minority" religions prompting several court cases in the Moscow courts which have led to the denial of registration for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Moscow district.
[edit] United States
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
In the United States numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.
The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.
In a more recent case, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to solicit door-to-door in Stratton, Ohio. In 2002, the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton). The Court ruled in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses, ensuring the freedom of all to go door-to-door without obtaining permits.
[edit] References
1. ^
2. ^
3. ^
[edit] External links

When the prosecution Chickens out!


Judge plays ‘guess who?’ in 2006 Canadian Census court case javascript:window.print()javascript:window.print()
Accused reluctantly reveals himself after judge threatens to release arrest warrant to the police
The News

NEW GLASGOW – A Thorburn area man will be tried in July for failing to fill in a 2006 Canada Census form.
Brian Stewart, 379 Park Falls Rd., appeared in New Glasgow provincial court Monday morning but initially refused to identify himself.
When his name was read out, three men in business suits approached the front of the courtroom, one of them carrying a box of documents.
One of the men indicated they were there to "present" Stewart. None of them admitted to being Stewart.
When Judge Clyde Macdonald asked if one or more of them were representing Stewart, they declined to answer the question.
After repeatedly asking the men to take a seat in the courtroom, Macdonald suggested federal Crown prosecutor Ed Patterson speak to the trio in an attempt to understand their position.
Patterson later told the court he had some difficulty communicating with the men.
When Macdonald again called Stewart to appear before the court one of the men came forward but declined to identify himself.
"If the person required to come here to speak identified himself as Brian Stewart, would that be considered contracting with the court?" he asked.
He added he might sometimes be called Brian, Friend or Joseph or sometimes be called by derogatory names.
He asked to see the name on the court documents.
The judge ordered the court reporter to show the documents to the man in an adjacent room during a brief recess.
"This is under duress and intimidation," the man told the court as a sheriff escorted him into the adjacent room.
When court resumed the man continued to be reluctant to identify himself as Stewart. He pointed to one of the men with him and said he needed his interpreter.
"He's deaf – somewhat," the other man called out.
Judge Macdonald ignored the request and noted an arrest warrant had been drawn up last week when Stewart failed to appear in provincial court. He added if Stewart was not in the courtroom, the warrant would immediately be turned over to police.
The man then acknowledged Brian Stewart was "a name given to me at birth" and told the court his Charter of Rights was being violated.
He asked whether he could fight the charge under the British North America Act of 1867.
The judge told Stewart he was free to enter a not guilty plea to violating the federal Statistics Act but advised him to save his arguments for trial which was set for July 17 and 18.
One of Stewart's companions activated a large tape recorder as soon as Stewart began speaking but he was eventually ordered by a sheriff to turn off the recorder and escorted from the courtroom.


This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
What does moderation mean?l l

tamika from New Glasgow, NS writes: This is one of the sketchiest things I have ever heard!! He wouldn't identify himself, and then spoke in riddles...and he wants to cite the North American Act??????? I hate the census too...but....I'll be interested to see what develops here

l l

Batman from Bat Cave, NS writes: I loved this story so much I sent it to everyone on my email list. Only in Pictou County you say. Obviously Judge Clyde kept his cool & this one will be the talk of legal circles. Too bad it didn't make the national news.

Leigh from Pictou County, Nova Scotia writes: Why is this man being prosecuted? Seems like a huge waste of tax dollars to me. We have no money to fix roads, hospitals and a lot more. Does the Crown not have more important cases to try. Failing to fill out a census....
Seriously, find something better to to.
Posted 18/03/2008 at 2:01 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment


Case dismissed javascript:window.print()javascript:window.print()
The News

NEW GLASGOW – The case against a Thorburn man accused of failing to fill out a Census of Canada form was dismissed in New Glasgow provincial court Thursday.
Brian Stewart, 379 Park Falls Rd., called the dismissal a victory for the common man.
"If I could have presented my evidence I would have caused huge chaos in this country," he said outside the New Glasgow provincial court, not having had the opportunity to utter a single word in court.
When court opened, federal prosecutor Ronda Vanderleuk told Judge Robert Stroud she needed time to discuss new information with Stewart.
Stewart left the court room with Vanderleuk, followed by his seven associates. Two hours later, the prosecutor returned to say no evidence would be offered on the charge.
Following the dismissal, Vanderleuk refused to give any explanation.
Stewart insisted he had never received a census form. Asked if he would have filled it out, had he received it, he replied. "I don't do that stuff."
"Democracy is mob rule," he added, claiming the charge against him was persecution
Stewart said he was not surprised to have the case dismissed.
"I'm happy, I didn't get a fine or go to jail," he said, adding he has spent the last six years researching and studying law, although he had only ever been charged with two offences, speeding and going through a stop sign.
When Stewart first appeared in court with his male supporters last March he was reluctant to identify himself, claimed his rights were being violated and asked to fight the charge under the British North America Act of 1867.
Thursday he referred to his followers as researchers and "free men of the land." Outfitted primarily in black, all refused to give their names.
"We are part of the Blue Collar Movement, the other secret society," Stewart said, adding they live under "the supremacy of God and His rule of law."
Pressed for more information on the organization, the men said they hold no meetings and membership is offered only to those who ask questions.
"Start asking questions and we will come to you," said one of the seven who responded to the name Steve but refused to give his name.
Stewart acknowledged the movement has no female members.
"God created male and female but all are male," he said, pointing out male and man are part of the spelling of female and woman. "Read your Bible, it is all in there."

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Contract.....with paper ink .....binding????


by Edward W.Younkins

Progress is difference and change. If individuals were not free to try new things, then there would never be any improvements. In order to have progress, there must be freedom to try new advances. Freedom to act in their own self-interest is the mainspring for a diversity of ideas, innovation and experiments that lead to the discovery of new products, services, and means of production. Freedom is a practical necessity for progress in an unpredictable, uncertain, and risky world. Progress is stifled when individuals cannot voluntarily make enforceable and binding contracts. The mechanism of contract furthers progress by sanctioning and stimulating specialization and permitting an extended order to evolve. People will voluntarily join together in common ventures that lead them to anticipate mutual gain. Traditional common law rules of contract foster forms of innovation that required cooperative efforts.

A contract is a binding agreement between two or more parties that usually results in some type of performance. Trade and commerce could not thrive if freely made agreements were not normally carried out. Contract can be viewed as a method in which men bargaining with one another can make sure that their promises will last longer than their changeable states of mind. The law of contract provides a mechanism through which private individuals can, to a certain degree, predict, control, and stabilize the future. Contracts allow people to incur reciprocal responsibilities and commitments, to make promises others can rely on, to remove some uncertainty from life, and to establish reasonable expectations for future actions.

The idea of contract makes capitalism possible. Although markets can exist without contracts, it is clear that if every trade or agreement had to be completed immediately there could not be much future planning of production and distribution and limited circuitedness in people's business relationship with one another. Freedom of contract is essential to a competitive and open exchange economy. The diversity embodied by this system maximizes individual choice and freedom.

Utilitarian or pragmatic conventions

Many view contracts as utilitarian or pragmatic conventions that act to secure people's expectations. Others consider contracts to be instruments by which rights to present and future alienable goods are ascribed, delineated, exchanged, or transferred.

A function of the state, operating mainly through the court system, is to enforce performance by requiring the promisor to fulfill his bargain on penalty of fine or imprisonment or by awarding judgment against him for money damages when, without legal reason, he fails to perform. State compulsion has replaced private force and customary and private law systems, which were common in earlier time periods. State enforcement in concerns of bargain and promise can be viewed as one of the state's most important functions behind only peacekeeping and property defense. In essence, a breach of contract is an indirect use of force.

With the advent of specialization of labor, human beings created an exchange mechanism through which a man, who can produce something more efficiently than another, can exchange it for another item that he would create less efficiently than the other person. A person gives in order to receive, and this giving and receiving arrangement is frequently protected by a formal contract.

Frequently, one or both sides to an agreement are carried out at a later date. In order for an exchange to be arranged at one point in time, with performance to take place later, the parties, rather than simply rely on one another's honor to secure performance, normally depend upon a legally enforceable obligation to comply with the agreement.

The contract is integral to a market economy. Think of the variety of commitments that must be honored for any firm to operate. Each of these arrangements is usually defined by contract. If most of these contracts were not carried out according to their terms, commercial transactions would be impossible. Any commercial organization consists of numerous separate activities bound into an effective whole through a collection of contracts.

In economic life the principle of contract requires the assent of all involved individuals. As embodiments of people's free will, contracts are the glue that holds a peaceful society together.

The idea that contracts are legally enforceable does not ensure performance, but does increase the probability of performance. When a party knows he may face legal action if he does not comply, he is more likely to complete his side of the bargain. In addition, if performance is not expected, the fact that a lawsuit may be brought may be sufficient to obtain an acceptable out-of-court settlement.

« Because of the idea of voluntary contract, patterns of social life are not dictated by a compelling central authority but rather by the independent decisions of individuals seeking their own happiness. »

Contract liability is promissory liability. In a business society, where wealth largely consists of promises, it is of paramount importance to protect the interests of the individual promisees. Promises, in the form of contracts, have become a convention whereby people are able to realize their aims by creating expectations about one another's conduct.

Key component of a free society

Contract law is a key component of a free society. Contracts involve a trade-off of flexibility for security and the voluntary assumption of mutual obligation and commitment. Through contract, a participant in civil society is differentiated from the atomistic individual.

Autonomous human beings have the rational ability and natural right to make their own life choices. A necessary condition of acting autonomously is the possibility of freely making mutually binding agreements. Autonomy thus requires freedom of contract. Better connections between persons can be made by contract, which works to mutual benefit, instead of through coercion, which does not.

Although a contract may appear to be the subordination of one man's will to another, the former gains more than he gives up, as does the latter. In a free society, the only transactions people engage in are positive-sum ones in which both parties believe they will benefit.

Historically, the rise of contract within Western civilization reflected the disintegration of a status-determined society. Contract became a tool of change and self-determination, an instrument of peace, and the only legitimate means of social integration in a free society. Progress depends on protected property rights and the confidence that contractual obligations will be honored.

Anglo-American contract law evolved as part of English common law. However, other legal systems such as the canon law of the Church and the customary law of merchants had influences on the common law.

The Greeks and Romans failed to develop any general law of contracts. However, Aristotle did emphasize that parties to a contract must have equal consideration under it and an equal wish to benefit from the exchange. The idea of reciprocal services underpinned the Aristotelian idea of fair contract.

The Church took a firm view of contracts due to its suspicions of the trader and concern for morality. For the medieval canonist, a man who does not keep his promise is guilty of falsehood. The Church therefore took steps to make sure that contracts were strictly enforced and properly constructed with due course for the rights of the parties. The Church taught that deceit is wrong and that a person should do what he says he will do, particularly when his word encourages another to take action or give a promise in reliance on that word. Ecclesiastical courts regarded the breaking of pledges as sins and enforced contract fulfillment with the penalty of excommunication.

Contract law has many similarities with the law of property and the law of torts (i.e., the law of private wrongs). The growth of trade and commerce and the associated lucrative court fees led the king's court system to begin handling matter that previously was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Through incremental and slow modifications and extensions the judges of these courts developed a whole system of contractual principles based on analogies to property law and tort law. Legal sanctions used to enforce a promise were developed and included initially money damages against the defaulter and later specific performance of the promise.

According to Lon Fuller, the term "contract law" originally referred to the law that a contract itself brings into existence rather than to the law of or about contracts. If we think of contract law as the law that the involved parties themselves bring into existence by their agreement, the transition from customary law to contract law becomes an easy one to envision and understand.

Business custom and the state

The tendency has been for courts to enforce business custom and practice as law. When business people develop a new practice, it is probable that it receives the forces of government-backed law. The private sector develops as ever-expanding base of customary law. For instance, enforceable rights and duties arise from a contract as well as from the provisions of various statutes. It follows that contracts voluntarily entered into by private persons provide a form of privately created law. When a contract becomes standardized reflecting long-term traditions, it reveals customary commercial law. When a contract incorporates a new business practice in response to dynamically changing business environments, it is likely to add to customary law just as common law is expanded through new court precedents.

Doctrines developed by merchant courts to deal with contracts and other business matters were absorbed into the common law and official courts began attracting business away from merchant courts. The financial self-interest of the English judges who were paid out of litigation fees was thus an influential factor regarding the absorption of the Law Merchant into the common law.

Sir Henry Sumner Maine, the nineteenth-century legal historian, wrote that progressive societies exhibit a development from status-bound roles to those founded more and more on contractual freedom. Whereas a status system establishes obligations, conditions, and interrelations by birth, contract regards individuals as free and equal moral agents developing their own bonds with others. In a free society, there is high degree of social mobility and freedom to associate in response to current and expected future needs. Social arrangements are a result of the independent decisions of separate individuals pursuing their own interests, rather than by a central powerful authority such as the state or the Church.

In Western society, with the steady dissolution of castes, social classes, guilds, ethnic cultures, and so on, human resources have become more available to organizers in business and other associations. Organizers compete for the best managerial and nonmanagerial employees, and with the freedom of association present in the era of contracts, it is possible to create successful organizations despite some interference by the state.

By treating individuals as free and equal generic units, contract permits people to create arrangements far beyond the plans of any grand designers. Only by treating individuals in this manner can overarching rules allow people to use their own knowledge, express their individuality, and take advantage of their own ideas by joining them and their property in various unanticipated ways. When people cannot make binding, enforceable commitments, dynamic progress is severely hampered. The idea of contract fosters progress by encouraging specialization and allowing an extended order to develop. It is especially important to have well-functioning legal systems when strangers interact in commercial and other situations. The goal of contract law is not to inspire legal suits but to settle or avoid them. Well-known rules that eliminate ambiguity make it more likely that promises will be kept.

The mechanism of contract is simple, universal, and powerful. It involves giving up something that you value in exchange for some other item that you value more. As a result, both parties gain. Furthermore, the basic idea of gaining via trade is suitable for repetition ad infinitum as what we received in one transaction can be reprocessed and resold in a subsequent transaction. Because of the idea of voluntary contract, patterns of social life are not dictated by a compelling central authority but rather by the independent decisions of individuals seeking their own happiness. Voluntary contracts involve positive-sum exchanges for the involved parties as human pleasures are increased by pairing resources with the individuals who value them highest. This benevolent system facilitates productive interactions which expand over time and exchanges until they include all people who possess the capacity to engage in exchanges that are seen as mutually beneficial.

Structure of Birth certificates in US


Real. Educational. News.

Advanced Civics Research Library

Structure of the Birth Certificate

Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

Right: Some birth and marriage certificates are now "warehouse receipts," printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as 'chattel' property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.


Citizen Reporter

Fort Fairfield Journal

By: David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005

A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts." The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)

-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")

-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)

Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:

warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

Additional Birth Certificate Research

Federal Children

by Joyce Rosenwald

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Crown of Baal

Key Facts

Other names

Crown of Ba'al, Tiara, Triregnum

Year of origin

800 BCE (Ba'al) Baalbek

1st Crown

1302 Boniface VIII

2nd Crown

1481 Sixtus IV

3rd Crown

1537 Paul III


The Crown of Ba'al, also known as the Papal Tiara and Triregnum is a three-tiered jewelled papal crown and symbol of claimed papal supremecy since the 16th Century. Since the 16th Century, it has featured prominently as part of the coat of arms of the Vatican, usually with the crossed keys of claims of authority from St Peter. Any text or other claim that alleges the three-tiered crown is older than the 16th Century is deliberately false.

Prior to Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) the antipopes of the Roman Cult wore fabric, not metallic headdress, similar to the Persian High Priests of Mithra. However in 1302 Boniface issued his infamous Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, being the first Express Trust claiming control over the whole planet and effectively "King of the world". In celebration, he commissioned a gold plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base.

The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba'al as well as the Cult of Cybele.

The 1st Crown of Crown Land

While Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, the first Testamentary Trust through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate was not until Pope Nicholas V in 1455 through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit "For a perpetual remembrance." This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as "crown land".

This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is born, depriving them of all their beneficial entitlements and rights on the land at birth.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth

The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis meaning "Eternal Crown" by Sixtus IV being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.

This Papal Bull created what is known as the "Crown of Aragon", later known as the Crown of Spain, being the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the "Union of Crowns" or Commonwealth in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975 when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day.

This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is born being the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving them of ownership of their flesh and condemning them to perpetual servitude as a Roman person, or slave.

The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See

The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III through the papal bull Convocation also meant to open the Council of Trent being the third an final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, being the trust set up for the claiming of all "lost souls", lost to the See.

The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII. This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and "reaping" of lost souls.

The Crown was lost in 1815 due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England and granted to the Temple Bar, which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown.

The Bar Associations have been responsible ever since in administering the "reaping" of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults.

This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd cestui Que Vie Trust created when a child is baptized being the grant of the Baptismal certificate by the parents to the church or Registrar being the gift of title of the soul. Thus, without legal title over one's own soul, a man or woman may be "legally" denied right to stand as a person, but may be treated as a creature and thing without legally possessing a soul. Hence, why the Bar Association is able to legally enforce Maritime law against men and women- because they can be treated as things, cargo that does not possess a soul.


Copyright © 2010. All Rights Reserved



Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019