NEW CANADIAN LAW PROTECTS INTERNET RIGHTS

Why is this cute kitty smiling?

Because he just heard the wonderful news!

Freedom of Speech
for Anonymous Posters upheld.
Richard Warman loses appeal
and ~ HERE IS THE KICKER FOLKS! ~
ordered to pay $10k in costs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Law Protects Internet Privacy Rights

~ Warman vs Fourniers and John Does

On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court.

The case was an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants’ position was that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a “John Doe” has broken the law.

The Divisional Court decision that was released this afternoon changed the rules of disclosure in civil litigation so that plaintiffs must now prove a prima facie case against John Does before site administrators are required to turn over personal information about them. The ruling states, in part:

In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure….

In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the elements of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression.

The text of the decision can be read here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf

This case is a huge step forward toward changing the law to accommodate new technology.

Connie & Mark Fournier of FreeDominion.com accepting the Prestigious “George Orwell Award” at the 25th Annual George Orwell Dinner in Victoria, B.C. sponsored by lawyer Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League, August 2009.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Fournier
(613) 888-1169
connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa

From Marc Lemire:

Freedom of Speech for Anonymous Posters upheld.

Richard Warman loses appeal and ordered to pay $10k in costs

[44] Returning to the decision of the motions judge, it would appear that he did not have the benefit of the extensive submissions on these issues provided to the Court by the two interveners in this proceeding.

Notwithstanding, it is clear that he was alert to the need to take into consideration that privacy interests of the unknown alleged wrongdoers. It does not appear, however, that the need to consider the interest in freedom of expression was raised by the parties or was otherwise considered by the motions judge.

[45] In addition, the motions judge did not take into consideration whether the Respondent had established a prima facie case of defamation before ordering disclosure of the documents sought by the Respondent. In our view, the omission to do so constituted an error of law.

[46] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different motions judge for re-consideration based on the principles set out above.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a ‘maximum disruption’ approach. If I think that they’ve violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, then I’ll look at all of the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a ‘worst offender’ basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit” ~ R. Worman

Costs

[47] The interveners do not seek costs in respect of this appeal. The appellants [Mark and Connie Fournier] are entitles to costs on a partial indemnity basis payable by the Respondent [Richard Warman] in the amount of $10,000 on an all inclusive basis in respect of the motion, leave to appeal and the hearing of the appeal.

CCLA welcomes Divisional Court decision to protect Internet anonymity

http://ccla.org/?p=5338

The Divisional Court released its decision in the case Warman v. Fournier, Fournier and John Does 1-8, which dealt with anonymous Internet commentators.

The question before the Court was whether a party to a lawsuit should be automatically forced to disclose identifying information about an anonymous commentator simply because a statement of claim had been filed.

The Court recognized CCLA’s concerns regarding privacy and freedom of expression, stating that

“[if] disclosure were automatic, a plaintiff with no legitimate claim could misuse the Rules of Civil Procedure by commencing an unmeritrous action for the sole purpose of revealing the identity of anonymous Internet commentators, with a view to stifling such commentators and deterring others from speaking out on controversial issues.”

CCLA had argued that, while the Internet should not be used as a shield to allow individuals to break the law, neither should a simple request to the courts result in the disclosure of identifying information.

Highly personal communication occurs on-line. Indeed, many use on-line anonymity as a way to explore difficult issues (political, legal, sexual, medical, etc.) that they might not feel free to explore publicly.

The Internet is a highly accessible democratic forum, with virtually limitless opportunities for discussion and debate.

Court orders that force individuals to reveal the identity of those who choose to participate anonymously could chill this rigorous discussion, particularly on sensitive personal topics.

Anonymity on the Internet should not be compromised simply because a private individual has filed a statement of claim.

In a unanimous ruling, the Court set out four considerations which must be taken into account to determine whether disclosure should be ordered:

1. whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;

2. whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;

3. whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and

4. whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

To read CCLA’s factum click here.

To read the Court’s decision click here.

Court Decision Protects Online Anonymity

http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=452&cntnt01origid=216&cntnt01dateformat=%25B%20%25e%2C%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=54

The Ontario Divisional Court released a unanimous decision today that will protect the anonymity of on-line speakers. The court held that before the identity of anonymous on-line users accused of defamation can be revealed, the plaintiff must convince the court there is an adequate basis for ordering such disclosure. This overturns a lower court’s decision that identities must be disclosed automatically.

Warman v. Fournier
CIPPIC’s Factum

Meet this fine specimen of obnoxiousness HERE.

CHILD RAPE BY TSA

COWERING: Transportation Safety Administration employee Sean Shanahan of Winthrop tries to cover his face as he is moved into East Boston District Court yesterday where he was charged with statutory rape.

No, he did not do it at work. But that is not the point; the point is, in a job such as he had, he had access to information that made tracking down any young person possible. People in such a position must have absolutely sterling characters. Seeing one naked adult after another, because face it, that is what it is, is just plain wrong.

The body scanners not only produce a perfect naked picture, they give off dangerous levels of radiation which can cause cancer. Michael Chertoff, former head of homeland security, has a huge financial interest in the company that's supplying these machines.

More and more people are boycotting flying until these dangerous machines are taken out. Don't fly until they are pulled. How come the article does not say he's been fired, just "He has not worked since his arrest?"

BOSTON HERALD.COM
March 12, 2010
By O'Ryan Johnson

Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday.

The bust outraged privacy and passenger advocates who say it justifies their fears about Logan International Airport’s full-body scanner.

“It’s a huge, huge issue,” said Kate Hinni of FlyersrRights.org. “The TSA needs a complete overhaul . . . If you have a pedophile looking at those naked pictures, they’ve got all your information, it’s a gross violation of their authority. . . . They should make sure none of them is corrupted in any deviant sexual manner.”

Sean Shanahan, 44, of Winthrop was held on $50,000 bail after he was charged with two counts of statutory rape, two counts of enticing a minor and one count of indecent assault and battery. He was arrested yesterday at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he had checked himself in after a suicide threat, prosecutors said.

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said Shanahan had passed two background checks, neither of which picked up any record that would prevent him from getting a job.

Davis said Shanahan was hired in 2006, and there are no passenger complaints on record against him. He has not worked since his arrest.

Boston ACLU spokesman Chris Ott said while full body scanner backers tout the devices’ privacy blocks that obscure a passenger’s face, he said the process is a virtual strip search, rife for abuse.

“Whatever safeguards that are built into the machines are only as good as the people operating the technology,” he said.

Shanahan kept his back to the court and hid behind his court-appointed lawyer in court as Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Okeeffe rolled out a disturbing story that started in early February.

The 14-year-old victim watched a movie at his house, Okeeffe said. She said during the film, he massaged the victim’s thigh and touched her under a blanket, then during the February school vacation the girl stayed at his house with his daughter.

Okeeffe said Shanahan nicknamed the victim “Kitten,” and that she was seen going into his bedroom. Shanahan’s daughter also told investigators her father asked her how she would feel if he dated a girl her age, prosecutors said. When his daughter confronted the victim about what was happening as she left her father’s room, the victim told her “You’ll have to deal with it,” Okeeffe said.

Shanahan fled the state last week, prosecutors said, sending his ex wife a text asking her to get rid of his computer, adding “I (expletive) up bad.”

Where was the girl's parents for the length of time she stayed in that home?

TSA THUGS HARASS 4-YEAR-OLD DISABLED BOY

There really is nothing to say or add to this news article. The facts speak for themselves. But place in the "Just When You Think You Have Heard It All!" folder.

America and Canada have gone crazy with this crap. In Canada a few weeks ago a very senior lady traveling 300 miles within the country was forced to endure an invasive body search!

Despite the hoax of the Underpantie Bomber being public knowledge, still they go on regardless with this absolute idiocy. People will eventually revolt as this BS spreads. It is up to us Bloggers to make sure that the word is put out so that people learn what is going on.

February 16, 2010

THE PHILADELPHIA ENQUIRER

By Daniel Rubin

Just when I thought I was out of the Transportation Security Administration business for a few columns, they pull me back in.

Did you hear about the Camden cop whose disabled son wasn't allowed to pass through airport security unless he took off his leg braces?

Unfortunately, it's no joke. This happened to Bob Thomas, a 53-year-old officer in Camden's emergency crime suppression team, who was flying to Orlando in March with his wife, Leona, and their son, Ryan.

Ryan was taking his first flight, to Walt Disney World, for his fourth birthday.

The boy is developmentally delayed, one of the effects of being born 16 weeks prematurely. His ankles are malformed and his legs have low muscle tone. In March he was just starting to walk.

Mid-morning on March 19, his parents wheeled his stroller to the TSA security point, a couple of hours before their Southwest Airlines flight was to depart.

The boy's father broke down the stroller and put it on the conveyor belt as Leona Thomas walked Ryan through the metal detector.

The alarm went off.

The screener told them to take off the boy's braces.

The Thomases were dumbfounded. "I told them he can't walk without them on his own," Bob Thomas said.

"He said, 'He'll need to take them off.' "

Ryan's mother offered to walk him through the detector after they removed the braces, which are custom-made of metal and hardened plastic.

No, the screener replied.

The boy had to walk on his own.

Leona Thomas said she was calm. Bob Thomas said he was starting to burn.

They complied, and Leona went first, followed by Ryan, followed by Bob, so the boy wouldn't be hurt if he fell. Ryan made it through.

By then, Bob Thomas was furious. He demanded to see a supervisor. The supervisor asked what was wrong.

"I told him, 'This is overkill. He's 4 years old. I don't think he's a terrorist.' "

The supervisor replied, "You know why we're doing this," Thomas said.

No why, super?

Tell us all why such idiocy happens.

Make it BELIEVABLE.

Why is a child having to be proven innocent?

Enforcing the fear factor younger and younger, hmm?

Not only is this a child but his father is a COP!

Thomas said he told the supervisor he was going to file a report, and at that point the man turned and walked away.

A Philadelphia police officer approached and asked what the problem was. Thomas said he identified himself and said he was a Camden officer. The Philadelphia officer suggested he calm down and enjoy his vacation.

Back home in Glassboro a week later, Bob Thomas called the airport manager and left her what he calls a terse message.

He was still angry enough last week to call me after I'd written a couple of columns about travelers' complaints of mistreatment by screeners at the airport.

"This was just stupid," he told me.

At the very least, it was not standard procedure.

On Friday, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said the boy never should have been told to remove his braces.

TSA policy should have allowed the parents to help the boy to a private screening area where he could have been swabbed for traces of explosive materials.

HOLY HELL!

EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS!

4 YEARS OLD!

FATHER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT!

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

She said she wished Thomas had reported the matter to TSA immediately. "If screening is not properly done, we need to go back to that officer and offer retraining so it's corrected."

Davis also said TSA's security director at the airport, Bob Ellis, called Thomas last week to apologize. He gave Thomas the name of the agency's customer service representative, in case he has a problem at the airport in the future.

Afterward, Thomas said he appreciated Ellis' call. He said he had no interest in pursuing the matter further or in filing a lawsuit.

"I'm just looking for things to be done right," he said. "And I just want to make sure this isn't done to anyone else. Just abide by your standard operating procedures."

Apologies if I seemed to be in rant mode, but I was. Once you are out of the matrix these embarrassing ploys are so clear and obvious. Personally, I think people, all of us if possible, declared a "no fly" day and followed through on it. 24 hours of no flight. That might give them a small message. We refuse to be treated as slaves and they need to get the message.

CANADIAN ORGANIZATION ATTACKING PALESTINIAN RIGHTS GROUPS

The Zionist agenda is making swift inroads into every facet of Canadian existence.

All newspapers are owned by one family so there is not Canadian access to international news without prejudice. The major national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, is so blatantly pro-Zionist in content that I pay it no attention because my blood pressure starts to rise. Higher educational institutions are Zionist infiltrated, educators monitored, and freedom of speech is a dicey thing if you wish to speak out loud in anything but fawning tones regarding Israel.

Our Prime Minister has received every Zionist and Jewish award possible because of his advancing the agenda, unbeknown to almost all Canadians. Jason Kenney the Minister of Immigration is not much more open minded and has cut off funds to almost every organization that has anything to do with Palestine. All this being said, George Galloway was forbidden into Canada for "supporting Palestine and Hamas".

Welcome to Canada.

WINDOW INTO PALESTINE
February 3, 2010

The Board of Directors of Rights & Democracy, a not-for-profit organization created by Canada's parliament in 1988 to encourage and support human rights around the world, recently voted, with substantial objection, to repudiate grants given to Al-Haq and Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights, two well-known Palestinian human rights organizations located respectively in the West Bank and in Gaza.

The Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Rights & Democracy, Mr. Aurel Braun, was quoted (in The Globe & Mail) as criticizing both organizations for being two "of the most vitriolic anti-Israeli organizations" and for "their accusations against Israel's human rights violations."

Further, the article reports that Braun had said that "there is no way to ensure that some of the money given to groups in Gaza does not go to the banned terrorist organization Hamas."

He also led a personal attack against Al-Haq's general director ~ the well-known human rights defender Mr. Shawan Jabarin ~ for allegedly being an activist in a PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] faction (ibid). These remarks made by the chairperson of Rights and Democracy are extremely grave as they seem to support the Israeli government's policy of silencing human rights defenders.

In recent years, Israel's attempts to silence any voice of opposition regarding its human rights violations have reached alarming levels. In addition to arrests of activists and the closing down of organizations, Israel has also denied many human rights defenders the possibility of effectively advocating for human rights by the imposition of travel bans.

A new tactic used by Israel, supported by right-wing groups, is to go after the funders of human rights organizations. In this context, it came as a shock to us ~ Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations ~ that instead of advocating for and defending human rights defenders, who work to counter Israeli violations of human rights and ensure respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, the board of Rights & Democracy has instead chosen to join the side of the violator.

The undersigned organizations contend that labeling esteemed human rights organizations such as Al-Haq and Al-Mezan as "questionable" under the aforementioned circumstances is to take sides with the violator. It seems that the board's decision to repudiate grants to Al-Haq and Al-Mezan might well be because they have been doing their job too well, in particular their investigations of Israel's human rights violations during last winter's attack on Gaza.

Or perhaps, it could be due to Al-Haq's exposure of and litigation against the involvement of Canadian businesses in such human rights violations in the West Bank. Maybe it was this unexpected and apparently unwelcome exposure that prompted Right and Democracy's recent misguided conduct.

The contention that Al-Haq and Al-Mezan are some "of the most vitriolic anti-Israeli organizations," because they "accuse" Israel of human rights violations on their websites is a distorted and misleading representation of the facts.

Al-Mezan and Al-Haq carry out professional documentation of the human rights violations committed by all of the involved actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

Their documentation has been deemed reliable and precise by international bodies that apply the strictest relevant standards. Without this proper documentation by them and other human rights nongovernmental organizations, defending human rights is a mission impossible.

NOT when those human rights are Palestinian according to the Israelis. ANY mention of the problems of the Palestinians is interpreted as antisemitic and therefore indefensible.

The two organizations receive support from a wide array of donors including governments and nongovernmental contributors who are satisfied with their work and their management due to the transparency that each organization exhibits.

The public smear campaign initiated by the Board of Directors of Rights & Democracy is intended to stop nongovernmental organizations from doing their vital work of human rights monitoring and reporting.

It is equal to a call to cease altogether any meaningful promotion of respect and protection of human rights in the OPT, in clear contradiction to Canada's declared interest in furtherance of universal values of human rights and the promotion of democracy.

In November 2009, the UN General Assembly reiterated its commitment to defend human rights defenders recognizing "the substantial role that human rights defenders can play in supporting efforts to strengthen peace and development, through dialog, openness, participation and justice, including by monitoring, reporting on and contributing to the promotion and protection of human rights."

Israel, recognizing that same strong role, carries out deliberate policies and practices that directly or indirectly seek to suppress, obstruct and delegitimize human rights organizations in Israel and the OPT. We denounce these policies and practices, and call on fellow human rights defenders around the world to also denounce them.

We also denounce Israeli travel bans on human rights activists operating in the OPT and Israel, and especially the blanket travel ban on Gaza human rights defenders. While Israel is violating their rights, Rights and Democracy Board is trying to delegitimize them, using the same rhetoric.

We demand that we be allowed to meet, to advocate, and to struggle for what we all hold dear: human rights and social justice.

Please read the following to understand the way the Canadian government is responding to Israel's demands regarding funding to organizations who support the people of Palestine along with so many others:
OH! CANADA! CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE NOW ANTISEMITIC?

Signatories:

Adalah ~ The Legal Center for Arab Minority Right in Israel
Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association ~ Ramallah
Al Dameer Association for Human Rights ~ Gaza
AL-JANA ~ The Arab Resource Center for Popular Arts ~ Beirut, Lebanon
Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic
American Jews for A Just Peace
Arab Association for Human Rights ~ HRA
Architects & Planners for Justice in Palestine
The Association Swiss-Palestine ASP
Association for the Support of Needy, Palestinian Children ~ Switzerland
Association France-Palestine Solidarite (AFPS)
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights
Boston Coalition For Palestinians Rights (BCPR)
Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel)
Defence for Children International ~ Palestine Section
Ensan Center for Democracy & Human Rights
Flemish Palestine Solidarity Committee
Gaza Community Mental Health Programme
Gisha ~ Legal Center for Freedom of Movement
Group for Justice and Peace in Palestine (JPP) ~ Switzerland
Habitat International Coalition ~ Housing and Land Rights Network
The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)
International Committee of the National Lawyers Guild, USA
Institute for Policy Studies ~ Washington DC USA
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) ~ France
The Israeli Association for the Palestinian Prisoners
Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center (JLAC)
Jewish Voice for Peace, USA
Labor for Palestine
Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate
Medico International
Medico Swiss
Mopat ~ Movement Palestine for All ~ Brazil
The Netherlands Palestine Committee
New York City Labor against the War
Olive Oil Campaign Switzerland
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) ~ UK
Palestinian Center for Rapprochement between People
Palestine Think Tank
STW (Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign)
Palestinian Workers Union ~ Greece
The Peace People in Belfast
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel
Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI)
Right to Education Campaign ~ Birzeit
Tlaxcala Translations Collective
US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling (WCLAC)
Women in Black Union Square in New York City
Women in Black (Vienna)
Women in Black, Maastricht, Netherlands

DEBT SLAVERY EXPLAINED

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. ~ Lord Acton discussing banker Rothschild

HOW YOU WERE MADE A SLAVE TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Your parents unknowingly delivered you into bondage

This happened the moment your parents were deceived into registering you with the government for a Birth Certificate. This process signed you over to the government as property of the state. At this point in time the state created a legal entity 'PERSON' (strawman) on your behalf with your name in capital letters ( i.e. John Doe > JOHN DOE ) and this evil shadow of yourself becomes the force majeure that binds the laws of the land to you and your servitude and bondage to the state. 

We say bondage because your birth certificate is a receipt for an actual loan/bond that is borrowed from the Central Bankers in the name of your 'PERSON' for the amount of ~$1,000,000 to pay for your government liabilities.

This money is invested in the market with interest and is managed by a fiduciary agent who is responsible for transferring these funds to your government representatives on your behalf every year to pay for your government obligations.

Your future sweat and labor (income tax) is used as the collateral for the money borrowed. Notice language is very important here. You are a human being, but every law written deals with the 'PERSON' which is the deceitful entity they have created to enslave you in their system of bondage. 

Your application for a Social Insurance/Security Number is your acceptance of the terms of this agreement when you come of age.

This acceptance validates the whole Ponzi scheme and cements your servitude / slavery in the federal corporation. You lose your inalienable right to true freedom given to you from the creator and become a slave of the corporation.

The SIN/SSN # is used to force your compliance as you are deceived into believing that you cannot transact commerce in society without this number. Does this sound like a free society to you?

We haven't even begun to talk about the issues and you have already learned that you are a slave to the New World Order from birth. If this fact alone is not setting off alarm bells in your head and awakening your consciousness then please continue on reading.

At this point you may be trying to rationalize this whole situation for the greater good. By all means after reading this information perform a cost benefit analysis. From our perspective slavery != freedom.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Your government is a corporation

A corporation is a top down ( or pyramidal ) control structure. By placing 'PERSONS' at the bottom of the pyramid we the people in effect become a legal entity that is controlled by the corporation.

The corporation is not a physical entity so it cannot operate on things in the physical world. The corporation exists only in the fictional world and so can only operate on fictional entities.

We believe that we elect human beings that will act on our behalf, the problem is that once they become officio politicians or directors of the corporation they no longer are responsible to the real people but instead are given control over the 'PERSONS' simply by the nature, structure and operation of the corporation.

We have all been taught that we have freedom because we live in a democracy. The real truth is that we have submitted to being controlled by the rules and regulations of a corporation and that our inalienable rights to live as human beings in freedom have been supplanted.

The corporations that are your local, state and federal governments are what give the elites control over your destiny and subvert democracy. As employees, agents and shareholders of the corporation you are given the ability to vote for the representatives of the corporation in terms of politicians.

We have been deceived into believing

that freedom is this servitude. 

Whether or not you believe in God or a Creator, it can be said that the human being has inalienable rights that cannot be transgressed or taken away. Without the government corporation we have ultimate freedom.

Natural law is what is used to ensure the safety of civilization as was throughout the ages until recent times. Our democracy today is simply a new clever spin on fascism. The ability to enslave the whole population into a corporate system of servitude in which the 'PERSONS' actually agree to be slaves yet they know it not.

We have allowed the elite to govern over us through the creation of corporations instead of the will of the people. Don't fool yourself, the corporation holds the ultimate power not the people.

Just take a simple look at the foreign policy positions of the United States with respect to the War in Iraq and you will quickly understand that the people are helpless. Heck even the congress is held hostage by the veto of the president. Is this government by the people for the people?

Are we to expect that we vote in our leaders and then put on a blindfold for the next four years until we play the game again? What if the president and his cabal decides to create a police state in those four years and take away the most basic legal rights such as due process and habeas corpus?

The people are playing a shell game in this democracy where the candidates are already chosen ahead of time and your vote means absolutely nothing.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. ~ Dwight Eisenhower

The Reason you can't understand the laws

Language is everything. You can't understand the laws because they were written that way to confuse and deceive you so that you are ignorant to your rights and by logical conclusion forced to waive them involuntarily.

The laws are designed and enforced by the corporation's agents (The Law Societies) and are written to be so confusing to the average human as to require an interpreter or lawyer. It is the same way all knowledge throughout the ages is manipulated to the benefit of a few.

The elites use this method to control the masses through the flow of information and ultimately the interpretation of the data (popular opinion) which by design subjugates the masses underneath and stymies critical thinking and alternate viewpoints.

If people could actually read and understand the laws they would have true power and freedom and wouldn't need to be represented by lawyers of the state whose whole purpose is to create and profit from conflict.

If we the people could read and understand the laws and lived in a truly free society we would know that there is absolutely no obligation to sign your newborn child over to the state as property to be bonded in slavery. Instead this knowledge is hidden from us with a play on words and through deceit ( application, submit, register ) and the lawyers and legal system are the main culprits in this deception.

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance. ~ James Madison

The government / corp has delivered you to the wolves

Your government has decided to enslave you to the New World Order in order to keep the charade going. For all intensive purposes most nations of the world are bankrupt and as such rely on money borrowed with interest ( usury ) from the New World Order bankers in order to keep society running.

No longer do we have a system of financial prudence, but instead our government uses this fraudulent banking system / the printing press as an unlimited source of money to keep the system running. The only way they have accomplished this is through Taxation.

Without our personal sweat, blood and labor there are no assets to use as collateral to make this arrangement legitimate. Our governments have decided to sell us and our future generations into bondage so that they can live in excess and so that we are ignorant to the cracks that keep appearing in society.

We have been deceived and we should be good and mad about it. It is time we stop passing "the buck" and this debt and enslavement onto our children and stand up and demand our freedom from this bondage.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. ~ Thomas Jefferson

 The Matrix

We can draw parallels between our current society with that of the movie the Matrix. In the Matrix, the human beings are in pod-like containers and are being used as batteries to power the machines who have taken over the world.

The humans in the Matrix are asleep and unaware and live in a virtual world created for them. The parallels are too real for us right here and now. We live in this virtual world designed for us believing that we have true freedom and democracy, meanwhile we are economic slaves to the New World Order elites who use our labor and taxes for their own benefit.

They are like parasites who have silently infiltrated the world governments and societies through the economic system and are proceeding to destroy each and every nation from within. It is time to wake up!

Redeeming your Strawman / Relinquishing your servitude [ Draft ]

In order to achieve sovereignty and true freedom you must first decide that you will no longer play the game. As natural persons we have inalienable rights and freedoms and we can only be enslaved through our consent (direct or implied).

Democracy and a free society require the consent of the governed and you ultimately have the power to decide if you believe in this system of government or if you would rather be the administrator of your own affairs. 

As a natural person you can revoke your consent to be governed and take full administrative control over your natural person and your legal person (Strawman ) which has been fraudulently created in your name.

You simply have to fill out simple notice of understanding and intent and have it notarized by a public notary and sent to the proper levels of government.

Make the decision today to regain control of your life and guarantee your freedom and sovereignty just as your forefathers before you have done against the tyrannical empires of the past.

AN INTERESTING TOOL TO BREAKING FREE OF THIS HORRID MATRIX IS THE INTER ACTIVE TRAINING SESSION AT: PAC DEPROGRAMMING. This programme works better in IE.

BEYOND DISGUST #18 ~ OBAMA REGULATION CZAR ADVOCATED REMOVING HUMAN ORGANS WITHOUT EXPLICIT CONSENT

I disrespectfully submit Cass's Sunstein's brain (what's left of it) be removed and donated to the Frankenstein Laboratory for robotic studies. As well I believe Harvard has lost its status as a producer of great political movers and shakers.

CSN NEWS
September 4, 2009
by Matt Cover

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

The concept of "presumed consent" regarding a hospital's harvesting of organs under such laws makes all patients nothing more than "potential human supermarkets". How easily this could be abused if enough money came along to find a specific match for an extremely generous purchaser!

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

“The major obstacle to increasing organ donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs ~ a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

NEXT to come, a thief steals my belongings and I am told that he can keep them because just by owning these things, I am practicing "presumed consent" and the thief was doing what comes naturally to thieves?

“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision ~ in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences peer pressure: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.

“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

The American government is getting closer and closer to the darkness of Soylent Green. It's scary to think that a government entity other than you and your family have control over your life and body, even in death. Stop them while you can! Speak out at all turns and don't be afraid. Don't forget WE SURROUND THEM.

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.

“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.

In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.

Another shining example of the American government's attempt to use satanic tools to abort our God given right to make our own choices. It's very clear that the authors of this book are not Christian, but hard boiled atheists who have no respect for anything to do with decent values. Everything for these folks is coldly cut and dried. It is an extremely Communist way of looking at choices. A moral decision to them is no longer "right" or "wrong" . Instead the new standard is "legal" or "illegal" .

When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

WHOA! Did they just say that civilians are so stupid we need the government to use MORE psychological manipulation of the masses so that we will give away body parts? Anyone who is familiar with the work of Edward Bernais, the father of societal manipulation, recognizes this tactic for what it is.

“The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot.”

DEAR LORD WHO ARE THESE MEN? AND WHAT MAKES THEM HAVE HUMAN BRAINS THAT CAN MAKE SUCH MOMENTOUS DECISIONS FOR THE REST OF US? DID THEY JUST SAY BRAINS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THINKING? NOT ADEPT AND THE MATHS, SCIENCES, AND ABSTRACT THOUGHT?

I have just found an article by a British physician pushing the same ideas. It seems to me that nothing is ever local any more. The powers that be all around the globe work hand in glove especially when it concerns human management or herd culling.

ISRAEL SEEKS TO SILENCE HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS

Israel Seeks Ways To Silence
Human Rights Groups

By Jonathan Cook

04 August, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Nazareth: In a bid to staunch the flow of damaging evidence of war crimes committed during Israel’s winter assault on Gaza, the Israeli government has launched a campaign to clamp down on human rights groups, both in Israel and abroad.

It has begun by targeting one of the world’s leading rights organisations, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), as well as a local group of dissident army veterans, Breaking the Silence, which last month published the testimonies of 26 combat soldiers who served in Gaza.

Additionally, according to the Israeli media, the government is planning a “much more aggressive stance” towards human rights groups working to help the Palestinians.

Officials have questioned the sources of funding received by the organisations and threatened legislation to ban support from foreign governments, particularly in Europe.

Breaking the Silence and other Israeli activists have responded by accusing the government of a “witch hunt” designed to intimidate them and starve them of the funds needed to pursue their investigations.

“This is a very dangerous step,” said Mikhael Mannekin, one of the directors of Breaking the Silence. “Israel is moving in a very anti-democratic direction.”

The campaign is reported to be the brainchild of the far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, currently facing corruption charges, but has the backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Early last month, Mr Lieberman used a press conference to accuse non-government organisations, or NGOs, of replacing diplomats in setting the international community’s agenda in relation to Israel. He also threatened reforms to curb the groups’ influence.

A week later, Mr Netanyahu’s office weighed in against Human Rights Watch, heavily criticising the organisation for its recent fund-raising activities in Saudi Arabia.

HRW has pointed out that it only accepts private donations, and has not accepted Saudi government funds, but Israeli officials say all Saudi money is tainted and will compromise HRW’s impartiality as a human rights watchdog in its treatment of Israel.

“A human rights organisation raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women’s rights group asking the Taliban for a donation,” Mark Regev, a government spokesman, told the right-wing Israeli daily newspaper the Jerusalem Post.

HRW recently published reports arguing that the Israeli army had committed war crimes in Gaza, including the use of white phosphorus and attacking civilian targets.

HRW is now facing concerted pressure from Jewish lobby groups and from leading Jewish journalists in the US to sever its ties with Saudi donors. According to the Israeli media, some Jewish donors in the US have also specified that their money be used for human rights investigations that do not include Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel’s foreign ministry is putting pressure on European governments to stop funding many of Israel’s human rights groups. As a prelude to a clampdown, it has issued instructions to all its embassies abroad to question their host governments about whether they fund such activities.

Last week the foreign ministry complained to British, Dutch and Spanish diplomats about their support for Breaking the Silence.

The testimonies collected from soldiers suggested the Israeli army had committed many war crimes in Gaza, including using Palestinians as human shields and firing white phosphorus shells over civilian areas. One soldier called the army’s use of firepower “insane”.

The Dutch government paid nearly 20,000 euros to the group to compile its Gaza report, while Britain funded its work last year to the tune of £40,000.

Israeli officials are reported to be discussing ways either to make it illegal for foreign governments to fund “political” organisations in Israel or to force such groups to declare themselves as “agents of a foreign government”.

“Just as it would be unacceptable for European governments to support anti-war NGOs in the US, it is unacceptable for the Europeans to support local NGOs opposed to the policies of Israel’s democratically elected government,” said Ron Dermer, a senior official in Mr Netanyahu’s office.

He added that many of the groups were “working to delegitimise the Jewish state”.

Jeff Halper, the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, said the government’s position was opposed to decades-old developments in human rights monitoring.

“Every dictator, from Hitler to Milosevic, has said that there must be no interference in their sovereign affairs, and that everyone else should butt out. But international law says human rights are universal and cannot be left to individual governments to interpret. The idea behind the Geneva Conventions is that the international community has a duty to be the watchdog on human rights abuses wherever they occur.”

Mr Halper, whose organisation last year received 80,000 euros from Spain to rebuild demolished Palestinian homes, was arrested last year for sailing to Gaza with peace activists to break the siege of Gaza.

Other groups reported to be in the foreign ministry’s sights are: B’Tselem, whose activities include providing Palestinians with cameras to record abuses by settlers and the army; Peace Now, which monitors settlement building; Machsom Watch, whose activists observe soldiers at the checkpoints; and Physicians for Human Rights, which has recently examined doctors’ complicity in torture.

The government’s new approach mirrors a long-running campaign against leftwing and Arab human rights groups inside Israel conducted by NGO Monitor, a rightwing lobby group led by Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.

NGO Monitor has also targeted international organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty, but has shown a particular obsession with HRW. Mr Steinberg recently boasted that HRW’s trip to Saudi Arabia in May reflected the loss of major Jewish sponsors in the US following the publication of its Gaza reports.

In an article in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, Mr Steinberg claimed that European governments treated their funding of Israeli human rights organisations “as ‘top secret’, reflecting the realization that such activities lack legitimacy”.

Mr Mannekin said the Breaking the Silence report listed donors on the first page. “We are far more transparent than NGO Monitor. We don’t know who funds them.”

NGO Monitor, which according to its website is chiefly funded by the shadowy Wechsler Family Foundation in the US, is closely linked to Dore Gold, a hawkish former adviser to Ariel Sharon.

Mr Mannekin added: “The government cannot suppress information about what happened in Gaza by shutting us down. You can’t send 10,000 soldiers into battle and not expect that some of the details will come out. If it’s not us doing it, it’ll be someone else.”

The government’s current campaign follows a police raid on the homes of six Israeli women peace activists in April.

The women, all members of New Profile, a feminist organisation that opposes the militarisation of Israeli society, were arrested and accused of helping Israeli youngsters to evade the draft. The women are still waiting to learn whether they will be prosecuted.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.