Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Lettter to John Rooke regarding his duty to accommodate a demand...

March 3, 2021 [This letter was sent to John Rooke on March 4, 2021 via registered mail. I noticed today, March 14, 2021 that the floor number was incorrect. I have changed it to the 24th floor and will be sending this same letter on March 15th , 2021 via registered mail.] From: Helen Dorothy [Mowat] 196057 - 82 Street West Foothills, Alberta (no postal code, non secular] John Rooke Calgary Court Centre 24th floor – N, 601 5th Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta John Rooke, private man Re: Case Number #SES01 118769 Hello. I am writing to you as a private woman in your private capacity. Jesus tells all of his children to make things simple and non confrontational and I want to follow his directions with an agreement from you. I have read the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). I also plan on reading Canada's Emergency Act as it is part of the (ICCPR). I want to know if you recognize this covenant (ICCPR) as binding upon your office should I make a Demand for Accommodation of my religious faith and beliefs. I look forward to receiving a reply from you. Blessings, Helen Dorothy, Christian name with a surname [Mowat]

Sunday, February 21, 2021

Biological Weapons, Bioterrorism, and Vaccines

Biological Weapons, Bioterrorism, and Vaccines Military Smallpox Vaccination Military smallpox vaccination Department of Defense Military Smallpox Vaccination ACAM2000 vaccine A biological attack by terrorists or a national power may seem more like a plot element in an action film than a realistic threat. And indeed, the possibility of such an attack may be very remote. Biological attacks, however, have occurred in the past, one as recently at 2001. Accordingly, a collection of U.S. government agencies are involved in planning responses to potential biological attacks. Bioweapon threats could include the deliberate release by attackers of an agent that causes one or more of a variety of different diseases. Public health authorities have developed a system to prioritize biological agents according to their risk to national security. Category A agents are the highest priority, and these are disease agents that pose a risk to national security because they can be transmitted from person to person and/or result in high mortality, and/or have high potential to cause social disruption. These are anthrax, botulism (via botulinum toxin, which is not passable from person to person), plague, smallpox, tularemia, and a collection of viruses that cause hemorrhagic fevers, such as Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, and Machupo. These disease agents exist in nature (with the exception of smallpox, which has been eradicated in the wild), but they could be manipulated to make them more dangerous. Category B agents are moderately easy to disseminate and result in low mortality. These include brucellosis, glanders, Q fever, ricin toxin, typhus fever, and other agents. Category C agents include emerging disease agents that could be engineered for mass dissemination in the future, such as Nipah virus. (This index of possible threats from the CDC lists all Category A, B, and C agents. Note that chemical weapons, such as those involving nonbiological substances such as chlorine gas, are not included.) The use of effective vaccines would likely protect lives and limit disease spread in a biological weapons emergency. Licensed vaccines are currently available for a few threats, such as anthrax and smallpox, and research is underway to develop and produce vaccines for other threats, such as tularemia, Ebola virus, and Marburg virus. Many bioweapon disease threats, however, lack a corresponding vaccine, and for those that do, significant challenges exist to their successful use in an emergency situation. What Is a Bioterror Threat? The draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Act of 2001, which is a document designed to guide legislative bodies as they draft laws regarding public health emergencies, has defined bioterrorism as “the intentional use of any microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, to cause death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism in order to influence the conduct of government or to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” Biological warfare and bioterrorism are often used interchangeably, but bioterrorism usually refers to acts committed by a sub-national entity, rather than a country. How Likely Is a Biological Attack to Happen? Expert opinions differ on the plausibility of a biological attack. The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council stated in 2008 that bioterrorism is a more likely threat than nuclear terrorism. That same year, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell revealed that of all weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons were his personal greatest worry (McConnell, 2008). Other defense experts and scientists insist that the possibility of any attack, especially a large-scale one, is small, given the immense challenges to cultivating, weaponizing, and deploying biological agents. For example, the technical difficulties in aerosolizing a disease agent and dispersing it accurately and widely while maintaining its virulence are immense. Regardless, most biosecurity experts acknowledge that the potential of an attack should not be ignored. Moreover, preparations for a biological attack will likely benefit the response to other kinds of public health emergencies. History Biological Weapons Biological weapons are not just a 21st century concern: humans have used infectious agents in conflicts for hundreds of years. Below are a few examples. In a 1336 attempt to infect besieged city dwellers, Mongol attackers in what is now the Ukraine used catapults to hurl the bodies of bubonic plague victims over the city walls of Caffa. Tunisian forces used plague-tainted clothing as a weapon in the 1785 siege of La Calle. British officers discussed plans to intentionally transmit smallpox to Native Americans during Pontiac’s Rebellion near Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) in 1763. It is not clear whether they actually carried out these plans. But, whatever its source, smallpox did spread among Natives Americans in the area during and after that rebellion. The Japanese used plague as a biological weapon during the Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s and 1940s. They filled bombs with plague-infected fleas and dropped them from airplanes onto two Chinese cities; they also used cholera and shigella as weapons in other attacks. An estimated 580,000 Chinese people died as a result of the Japanese bioweapons program (Martin et al., 2007). The U.S. military developed biological weapons and investigated their effects in the 20th century. The U.S. Army’s Biological Warfare Laboratories was based at Camp (later Fort) Detrick, Maryland, from 1949 to 1969. The program produced and weaponized several biological agents, including anthrax and botulinum toxin, though the biological weapons were never used in conflicts. President Richard Nixon ended the biological weapons program 1969, and U.S. biological weapons were destroyed. U.S. research into biological weapons since that time has focused on defensive measures, such as immunization and response. In 1975, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) came into force. More than 100 nations, including the United States, have ratified this international treaty, which aims to end the development and production of bioweapons. In spite of the agreement, bioweapon threats from fringe groups, terrorists, and nations not committed to or observing the convention continue to worry public health authorities. The former Soviet Union is known to have produced large quantities of smallpox virus and many other disease agents in its bioweapons program long after it signed the BTWC. In the 1970s, it stockpiled tons of smallpox virus and maintained production capability at least until 1990. The Soviet Union also sponsored an anthrax weapon program; an accidental release of a small amount of weaponized anthrax from a military research facility in 1979 led to at least 70 deaths. The U.S.S.R. claimed that it destroyed its bioweapons stock and dismantled the bioweapons program in the late 1980s, but most experts are skeptical that all stocks, equipment, and records were destroyed. They regard it as possible that illicit transfer of biological materials or knowledge has occurred. So, while only two known sources of smallpox virus exist, both in World Health Organization reference laboratories, many suspect that other groups—whether national or subnational—may have unknown quantities of smallpox virus as well as other remnants of the Soviet biological weapons program. On a similar note, in the 1990s Iraq admitted to United Nations inspectors that it had produced thousands of tons of concentrated botulinum toxin and had developed bombs to deploy large quantities of botulinum toxin and anthrax. Though the Iraqi government abandoned its bioweapons program after the first Iraq war, the status and whereabouts of the large quantities of infectious material they developed are not known. Other groups of current concern to biosecurity experts include Al Qaeda, which had a large-scale bioweapons effort in Afghanistan. This was destroyed when the U.S. bombed its facilities and training camps in 2001. Al Qaeda’s program today is likely to be much smaller in scale because so much of its material and intellectual capital was destroyed. Most experts think that Al Qaeda’s current attempts to reconstitute the weapons are focused on chemical weapons rather than on biological ones. At a national level, a 2007 U.S. military assessment of biological threats included the following overview of bioweapons programs, “According to an unclassified U.S. Department of State report in 2005, nations suspected of continued offensive biological warfare programs in violation of the BWC [Biological Weapons Convention] include China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and possibly Cuba” (Martin et al., 2007). Contemporary U.S. Attacks Oregon followers of Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh mounted an attack that sickened nearly 800 people with typhoid fever in 1984. Cult members introduced bacteria into salad bars and other restaurant food receptacles after their attempts to contaminate the local water supply failed. They hoped to influence local election results by preventing residents from voting. Though 43 people were hospitalized, no one was killed, and the wrongdoers were prosecuted. A more recent U.S. biological attack occurred just after the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. An unknown actor mailed a powder containing infectious anthrax spores to two U.S. senators and several media outlets. Five people died from anthrax after exposure to the material in the letters, and 17 became ill. Medical personnel offered the anthrax vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to 1,727 potentially exposed people who were also taking antibiotics to counter anthrax. Of those people, 199 agreed to take the vaccine and received all doses of it. Law enforcement investigators reached the conclusion that a U.S. biodefense researcher who worked for a military laboratory at Fort Detrick conducted the attacks. The researcher, Bruce Ivins, killed himself in 2008 during the investigation. Ivins, however, was never formally charged with a crime, and no direct evidence links him to the attacks. Speculation about his motives centers on Ivins’s investment in maintaining national interest in an anthrax vaccine he worked on and also on his apparent mental instability. In fact, one might argue that these attacks should be considered a biocrime rather than bioterror incident if the motive was not an attempt to influence the conduct of government or to intimidate a civilian population. Preparation for Biological Attacks In 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, several U.S. agencies and academic groups conducted a simulated biological attack, codenamed Dark Winter, in which smallpox virus was the weapon. The exercise, which operated on an assumption of about 12 million available doses of smallpox vaccine, based on the then-available stores of smallpox vaccine, “demonstrated serious weaknesses in the public health system that could prevent an effective response to bioterrorism or severe naturally occurring infectious diseases” (“Overview of Potential Agents of Biological Terrorism,” Southern Illinois University School of Medicine). One key weakness exposed in the exercise was a shortage of vaccine; this has since been addressed, at least in the case of smallpox, with the addition of hundreds of millions of doses of smallpox vaccine to U.S. vaccine reserves. Other difficulties exposed were the conflicts between federal and state priorities in managing resources, a shortage of medical infrastructure to deal with mass casualties, and the crucial need for U.S. citizens to trust and cooperate with leaders. The reaction of those exposed to anthrax in the post-9/11 attacks illustrates the challenges embedded in the latter issue: a study published in 2008 suggested that the reticence of many exposed individuals to take the anthrax vaccine reflected their fear of the vaccine’s side effects and distrust of medical personnel (Quinn, 2008). In any large-scale bioterror incident, this distrust may be a major hurdle to effective containment of an infectious agent. Authorities hope that disaster planning and the devising of effective medical countermeasures for biological attacks will both minimize the impact of any such attack and also act as deterrent to those who might consider such an attack. If the attack could be easily contained and addressed, then a terrorist or unfriendly nation might have less incentive to initiate one. Agencies Involved in Bioweapon Response A variety of U.S. federal, state, and local agencies are involved in public health emergency preparedness and response. The U.S. Congress funds the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (PHPR) to build and strengthen national preparedness for public health emergencies caused by natural, accidental, or intentional events. Part of the funding supports the Strategic National Stockpile, which manages stores of vaccines, drugs, and medical supplies that may be deployed in national emergencies. (See below for more on the SNS.) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) houses several offices involved in public health emergency response. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) was created after Hurricane Katrina and is responsible for leadership in prevention, preparation, and response to the adverse health effects of public health emergencies and disasters. ASPR conducts research and builds federal emergency medical operational capabilities. Within ASPR, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) is responsible for the development and purchase of the necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic tools for public health medical emergencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security includes several groups that address bioweapon threats. The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) examines the scientific basis of the risks posed by biological threats. NBACC's National Biological Threat Characterization Center (NBTCC) conducts studies and experiments on current and future biological threats, assesses vulnerabilities and conducts risk assessments, and determines potential impacts to guide the development of countermeasures such as detectors, drugs, vaccines, and decontamination technologies. Other offices are responsible for responding to and analyzing bioweapon attacks after they occur to help investigators identify perpetrators and determine the origin and method of attack. State and local health departments, as well as public and private hospitals and local law enforcement agencies, would also be involved in responding to a bioweapon public health emergency. Their roles are outlined in national response plans and are addressed in detail by organization-specific plans. Role of the Food and Drug Administration The U.S. FDA controls the pathway to licensure for vaccines, treatments, diagnostic tests, and other tools for responding to biological threats. The regulatory requirements for licensure of a vaccine are complex and apply to a multi-step process of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy testing, and post-licensure surveillance. (See the article Vaccine Development, Testing, and Regulation to read about this non-emergency approval process.) A typical vaccine might be in development and clinical trials for 10 to 20 years before licensure. In situations when a new vaccine is needed quickly, the FDA has developed rapid alternative pathways to licensure. One option is an accelerated approval path that might apply in the case of a life-threatening disease with an unlicensed vaccine that has meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing options. Second, in other, more drastic threats, the so-called animal rule may be invoked—if research toward a vaccine or treatment would necessitate exposing humans to a toxic threat, then animal studies, rather than previously conducted studies in humans, may be sufficient for approval. To date, these two rapid pathways have not been invoked for vaccines. More information is available at the FDA’s Critical Path Initiative. U.S. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is an option in pandemic and bioweapon response for both civilian and military populations. After a declaration of emergency by the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, this program allows for use of an unapproved medical product (or a product that has been approved but not for the specific use applicable to the situation at hand) that is the best available treatment or prevention for the threat in question. EUAs were issued for antiviral treatments, a respirator, and a PCR diagnostic test during the 2009 A/H1N1 pandemic. One challenge to licensing vaccines for response to bioweapon threats is the absence of some of these disease agents in the natural world. Vaccine efficacy is more difficult to establish when natural exposure to a pathogen is impossible (as with smallpox and other threats) and when human challenge studies are not feasible. The FDA accepts animal testing for proof of efficacy in these cases. In the fall of 2011, national debate focused on the issue of emergency use of bioweapon vaccines. A simulated anthrax attack code named Dark Zephyr was conducted in February 2011 and raised the questions about the use of anthrax vaccine for post-exposure prophylaxis in children. Researchers have never tested the anthrax vaccine for safety and efficacy in children, though it has been extensively studied in adults and has been given to millions of U.S. servicepeople. After considering the issue in the wake of Dark Zephyr, the National Biodefense Science Board, a federal advisory panel to HHS, decided that testing the vaccine in children is ethically justifiable, given that it would provide information important to the health and well-being of any child victims of an attack. Critics have disputed that thinking, stating that the possibility of an anthrax attack is too remote to justify exposing children to any risk at all. HHS has not established a timeline for further action on studying anthrax vaccine in children. In the meantime, if a bioweapon incident involving anthrax were to occur, adults would be given three doses of the vaccine, along with oral antibiotics, as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) under Emergency Use Authorization, as the vaccine is not currently licensed for PEP nor for use in a three-dose regimen. Children might receive the vaccine under FDA approval of an investigation new drug protocol (IND). Use of anthrax vaccine in children under an IND protocol is not ideal, as the protocol is more suited to clinical trials or to an emergency situation for a single patient. Vaccine Response to Bioweapon Threats In a wide-scale emergency in which a vaccine is available or potentially available, a large supply of vaccine would be necessary and would be needed quickly. Currently, the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) has enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every person in the country in the event of a bioweapon attack. The stockpile also holds millions of doses of anthrax vaccine, other vaccines, antiviral medications, and other medical supplies. Quick deployment of a vaccine is essential to its success in preventing disease: for some diseases, vaccinating after exposure may have no effect on preventing disease, and for others, vaccination must occur very quickly after exposure for prophylaxis to work. In the case of smallpox, PEP is most likely to be effective when given within four days of exposure to the virus. Plans provide for smallpox vaccine to be shipped starting on the first day of an attack, and it would continue to be shipped from the stockpile to the rest of the country as needed in the five to six days following the attack. Biosecurity experts have suggested that the use of agents for passive immunization could play a role in response to certain bioweapon attacks. (Passive immunization is the introduction of antibodies taken from immune donors into nonimmune individuals. The “borrowed” antibodies offer short-lived protection from certain diseases. See our article on Passive Immunization for more information.) The advantage of using antibodies rather than vaccines to respond to a bioterror event is that antibodies provide immediate protection, whereas a protective response generated by a vaccine is not immediate and in some cases may depend on a booster dose given at a later date. Candidates for this potential application of passive immunization include botulinum toxin, tularemia, anthrax, and plague. For most of these targets, only animal studies have been conducted, and so the use of passive immunization in potential bioweapon events is still in experimental stages. Conclusion A biological attack by terrorists or an unfriendly nation is a remote possibility that nevertheless demands public health emergency response planning. Several multi-agency simulations have exposed weaknesses in systems designed to respond to biological emergencies. These exercises have helped to focus planning efforts on the need for emergency plans to address the potential for a large bioweapons event to overwhelm medical capabilities, cause widespread illness and death, and lead to economic and social disruption. The successful deployment of vaccines, antibodies, and other medications in a bioweapon event will depend on a number factors, such as how many people the attack has the potential to harm, the stability of the transportation system in an emergency, the availability of viable vaccine and drugs, and the ability of the public health system to communicate with the public and get the vaccines and medications into the people who need them. Sources Arnon, S.A., et al. Botulinum as a biological weapon: Medical and public health management. JAMA 2001;285(8):1059-1070. Accessed 01/10/2018. BARDA Strategic Plan. (337 KB). Accessed 01/10/2018. Ben Ouagrham, S. Biological weapons threats from the former Soviet Union. Working Paper Series on Russia and the Former Soviet States. Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University. August 2003. Department of Health and Human Services. Challenges in the use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) in the pediatric population as a component of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP): A Report of the National Biodefense Science Board. [PDF File]. October 2011. (1.3 MB). Retrieved from Homeland Security Digital Library. Accessed 01/10/2018. Fenn, E.A. Biological Warfare in eighteenth-century North America: beyond Jeffery Amherst. Politics and the Life Sciences. Accessed 01/10/2018. Henderson, D.A., Inglesby, T.V., Jr. O’Toole, T., Mortimer, P.P. Can postexposure vaccination against smallpox succeed? Clin In Dis. (2003) 36 (5); 622-629. Accessed 01/10/2018. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. A publication of the National Intelligence Council. December 2012. (20.5 MB). Accessed 01/10/2018. Martin, J.W., Christropher, G.W., Eitzen, E.M., Jr. History of biological weapons: from poisoned darts to intentional epidemics. [PDF]. Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare. Accessed 01/10/2018. McConnell, M. Remarks and Q&A by the Director of National Intelligence. December 2, 2008. (111 KB). Accessed 01/10/2018. McIsaac, J.H. Preparing hospitals for bioterror: a medical and biomedical systems approach. Burlington, Mass.: Academic Press, 2006. Center for Law and Public Health. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. A Draft for Discussion Prepared by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities. (88.8 KB). Accessed 01/10/2018. Nightingale, S.L., Prasher, J.M., Simonson, S. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to enable use of needed products in civilian and military emergencies, United States. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Jul. Accessed 01/10/2018. O’Tool, T., Michael, M., Inglesby, T.V. Shining light on "Dark Winter." CID 34:7, 972-983. Accessed 01/10/2018. Quinn, S.C., Thomas, T., Kumar, K. The anthrax vaccine and research: reactions from postal workers and public health professionals. Biosecur Bioterror. 2008 December; 6(4): 321–333. Accessed 01/10/2018. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Overview of potential agents of biological terrorism. Accessed 01/10/2018. Stein, R. Possible study of anthrax vaccine’s effectiveness in children stirs debate. Washington Post, 10/13/11. Accessed 01/10/2018. Tucker, J.B. Scourge: the once and future threat of smallpox. New York: Grove Press, 1992. Wheelis, M. Biological warfare at the 1346 siege of Caffa. Emerg Infect Dis [serial online] 2002 Sep. Accessed 01/10/2018. Wilkening, D.A. Sverdlovsk revisited: Modeling human inhalation anthrax. PNAS 103;20:7589-7594. Accessed 01/10/2018. Last update 10 January 2018

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Notice of a Demand for Accommodation of faith Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Edmonton, Ecclesia 12431-90th Street Edmonton Alberta Canada. no code non commercial From minister Edward Jay Robin Tel: 780-399-6250 Fax: 780-609-7227 12431-90th Street Edmonton Alberta Canada 09/27th/2020 To: Attention Nick Nanthos 1 East Main Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Telephone: (540) 635-5441 Fax: (540) 635-4864 Dear Nick Nanthos, I am writing you as a private man in your private capacity. I am writing this letter to you privately as a minister of Christ and I introduce myself in our redeemers name Yahushuwah as it was in original Hebrew.  I am an ecclesiastical emissary called Edward Jay Robin, writing you from Edmonton Alberta Canada. I do so  ecclesiastically on behalf of a fellow follower of the way who has encountered colour of law ordinances of your state and federal government  that breach hinder impair and restrict his immutable unalienable inherent freedoms that are protected by International law and Federal code Title 18 ss 242 245 and 247. He suffers from a congenital learning impairment as a disability and has difficulty reading writing speaking on his own behalf and comprehending complex subjects.  My duty herein as Dean's minister regarding our communication to you as a private man is to follow what Christ said to do in Matthew 5:25, 18:15-20 in gaining an agreement with you privately for Dean [Harting] as a man under his Creator and his laws, as to the salient unarguable facts. I also honourably approach you as a man as of my and Dean's inability to respect persons in law as so cautioned by the holy scriptures. I am honourably asking you according to recognized law binding on all service providers in the US in a "Demand for accommodation" and in Yahushuwah's name thu his father Yahuwah that you recognize and do agree that the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights is binding and obligatory upon your office. I do this to ensure accuracy in our communication to prevent assumptions, based upon a false premise, from prevailing as so many are unaware of or feign ignorance regarding their duty to obey the ICCPR and it's immutable non derogatable rules that Virginia is bound by. I present this demand along with an Honorable agreement of the facts between you and I and Dean Harting privately as three private men governed by scripture.   I will start with Romans 13 and the use of the word "minister" as the subject to whom that chapter says we are to submit ourselves to in observing that wise discernment of rendering the word is always best when attempting to interpret the scriptures as this instant emergent matter requires.  Referring to Ezra 7:23-26 in the 1611 King James Bible we both can see that the word minister has 4 conditions mentioned there as ascribed to God's ministers.  1.They are of God's temple 2. They pay no tax.  3. They adjudicate with his law alone!   4. They teach them that do not know it.  Now since our Creator commanded that no one add to or take away from God's law at Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 and warned us to not walk in the ordinance of heathen in Leviticus 18:3-4 we must observe his command of Exodus 20:3-5 in adhering to only his law and not any other. This means that mans law is in contradiction to God's law as he commanded us to not bow to or serve false gods who add to and take away from his law and attempt to steal his gifted and granted religious property of Genesis 1:26-29   Ezekiel 36: 27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. What is the ICCPR? I would like you in honour to agree with me that you are aware  that this International covenant is indeed binding upon your office as obligatory imposing  a duty to perform when you as a public service provider are in receipt of a demand for accommodation. The ICCPR is a key international human rights treaty, providing a range of protections for civil and political rights. The ICCPR, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, are considered the International Bill of Human Rights. The ICCPR obligates countries like the United States that have ratified the treaty to protect and preserve basic human rights, such as: the right to life and human dignity; equality before the law; freedom of speech, assembly, and association; religious freedom and privacy; freedom from torture, ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention; gender equality; the right to a fair trial; right to family life and family unity; and minority rights.  The Covenant compels governments to take administrative, judicial, and legislative measures in order to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the treaty and to provide an effective remedy.  The Covenant was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1966 and came into force in 1976. As of December 2018, 172 countries have ratified the Covenant including the USA. I do pray we can agree upon the following facts 1. The U.S. ratified the ICCPR in 1992. Upon ratification, the ICCPR became the "supreme law of the land" under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives ratified treaties the status of federal law.  2.The U.S. must comply with and implement the provisions of the treaty just as it would any other domestic law, subject to Reservations, Understandings and Declarations (RUDs) entered when it ratified the treaty. 3.Though the government retains the obligation to comply with the ICCPR, one of the RUDs attached by the U.S. Senate is a "not self-executing" Declaration, intended to limit the ability of litigants to sue in court for direct enforcement of the treaty. 4.The ICCPR applies to all government entities and agents, including all state and local governments in the United States.  5.The ICCPR thus applies to government actions in all states and counties, and also applies to private contractors who carry out government functions.  6.When the U.S. Senate ratified the ICCPR, it included an Understanding that recognized our federal system of government, and specifically stated that the treaty "shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered" by the treaty, "and otherwise by the state and local governments" with support from the federal government for the fulfillment of the Covenant. 7. No man may be lawfully intimidated to violate the commands of God or not partake of his gifts as contained in the 1611 King James Bible. 8. No man can be lawfully intimidated to respect persons if he is bound by Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, 2nd Samuel 14:14, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 in the 1611 KJVB for emphasis, in sincere demonstration and exercise of a scriptural directive. 9. is your own law and is my Ezekiel 33 duty to warn you of limits to the inquiry, into faith based precepts, to the sincerity of the faith based observance of the subject of the proceedings.   One of our brethren brother Dean [Harting] living on the land in the area called Virginia following in "The Way" has met with a secular obstacle that is by color of law presently offending his faith and trying to paint him as a criminal for possession and growing the creators gift for his own medical and ecclesiastical use. This at a time where the revealed focused propaganda of the last 80 years regarding Cannabis is finally being realized as being trumped up to defend the Metal Textile Pharmaceutical Forestry Oil and Pulp and Paper industries from a plant, the administration largely supported by those industries,  could not compete with. Dean [Harting], your case file number 187GM1900005195, is Christ's anointed faithful and discreet slave as his minister 1st Corinthians 7:22-23 observing God;s gifts of Genesis 1:29 and the Hebrew translation of Exodus 30:23-26 as indicating “Kaneh Bosm” as one of the sacred ingredients in the Holy Annointing oil as offered by the creator. Kaneh Bosm is Cannabis as properly translated by the University of Telaviv. Corinthians 7:22-23 King James Version 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Dean just like all of God's Children was gifted and granted all herbs bearing seed by the creator himself as noted in the King James Bible at Genesis 1:26-29 1611 KJVB King James Version 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. as mirrored by Romans 11:29 in the 1611 KJVB. Romans 11:29 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. I am as Dean's ecclesiastical minister ordained by Christ Yahushuwah in his and his fathers name YaHuWaH honorably demanding respect for his faith in that that you as a private man, I am communicating to, recognize the Year of the Bible as an Act of Congress and that article 1 of your Amendments in your secular Constitution along with the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, guarantees Dean's faith will not be subjected to an arbitrary colour of law attack based upon secular poor recollection and lack of awareness of our creators gifts as delineated in the 1611 King James Bible. This at present is being done in an effort to invoke colour of law and forced personage to invoke sin upon Dean and to defeat Deans unalienable freedom to follow Christ and scripture. This is also reflected in Title 18 ss 242 245 and 247 of your federal code. Ezekiel 33 reflects my duty to warn you of the code that may go badly for you if you break it. Romans 11:29 KJVB qualifies any man's use of any of God's gifts as God's property and of a certainty no man citing colour of law secular code and regulation gets to topple and overwrite God's command's and gifts failing to produce a claiming victim or evidence of damage to the states interests.  The use of Cannabis for medical purposes has never been proven to represent a threat to anyone nor has anyone died as the record certainly proves so it would be Honorable to recognize the hardship of dropping the charge against Dean. Doing so in obedience to the ICCPR factually represents zero harm or hardship to your office and shows absolute respect for the law that binds you as a public service provider.  I know you will agree that article 27 of the Vienna Convention is also glaring upon your office as the United States, as a commercial signatory to that convention has committed all of it's service providers controlled by statute code  and regulation to it.  I do hope you follow Christ  and do agree that no man has any authority to remove the inherent freedom of those called in Christ to use the herb for sacred and consecrated purposes. John 15:16 KJVB is Deans calling and proof therein of who is directing him.    As of his sincere faith and extensive study Dean is extremely desirous to able to be free of intimidation and obstruction of his inherent God gifted freedoms to benefit his physical temple with the herbs so designed by our creator for that exact thing. Just as the first Nation people of this land along with various Churches won their freedom to possess and use Peyote for their religious purposes as they do with Iahaosca, Marijuana for sacramental observations health and healing purposes is no threat to the public . Dean asks in Yahushuwah's (Jesus's )and his father YaHuWaH's names that you recognize your obligation to cease  an attack upon his religious liberty and property and go to the hardship of releasing him from this secular affront to his God granted freedom to use his God granted and gifted plants. "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance"!   Romans 11:29 1611 KJVG. Do the secular governments of men have authority to over ride our creator gifts directions and commands? The scripture says that submitting to your color of law process only applicable to persons is sin at James 2:9 and your law say you cannot intimidate him to violate his faith or punish him for exercising it in a manner of zero potential harm..  Dean was never planning to traffic God's gifted and granted herb..It was for his own private use and benefit for his pain.  For truthful purposes Cannabis has never been proven to represent a real threat to anyone no more than would Peyote or Iaosca which are both legal  as the record certainly proves so it would be honorable to recognize the hardship of dropping the charge against Dean represents zero damage to your office. Consideration that this benevolent action will show absolute respect for the duty to and the binding obligation to respect the ICCPR covenant article 18 that binds you as a private man working for the legal fiction the the State of Virginia with USA listed as a public service providers is with standing in honor. Dean's faith is directed by scripture at Leviticus 18:3-4 to not walk in the Ordinance of heathen which are those colour of law statute code or regulations  added to and taken away from God's law aqs prohibited at Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32. He is also cautioned to not respect persons or affiliate or react to altered versions of his name  that are deemed as "persons". James 2:9. It is Dean's demand that you cease to intimidate him by trying to attach him to an altered version of his name to create a person of law the State has no law to allow. There is no code authorizing the alteration of Deans name for a financial purpose or to create a security without his consent! He is the creator's property and Since the whole earths is God's property Dean in his faith has submitted himself to Christ as God's property, to I do hope you accept it is God who called us his possession in Exodus 19:5-6 interfere with, damage seize or disturb religious property.  I believe if you refer to your Title 18 SS 247 you will see it is a Federal offence to offence, to intefere with obstruct damage or destroy religious property I thankyou for your kind consideration in adopting this agreement as an honorable communication respective of Dean's sincere faith as unalienable and protected by International Covenants. This is minister Edward Jay Robin standing on the land by God's grace near Edmonton Alberta Canada wishing you wisdom, blessings upon your future, and the knowledge that Christ is King in Yahushuwah's name in recognition of his father YaHuWah!! minister: Edward Jay Robin wishing you Christ's blessing 1-780-399-6250

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

No proof for existence of virus

Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019