Violation of my common law rights by officer PC Attwood, badge number 9171 on January 28th at 2:30 to 3:30 PM on Clark street
During the road stop officer Attwood approached my van and I immediately reached down and turned on my Camera facing the window to document the incident, I informed him that reserved the right to record the road stop and he agreed then asked for my licence insurance and registration I told him that I don't carry any and in formed him that I was a sovereign human being under a common law jurisdiction and asked him if he could provide me with proof that I need them (Video Tape Starts) he asked me again and I asked the same question about showing me proof that I needed it. He then asked me to exit the vehicle and I told him I prefer to stay in the van and then I offered him my notice of understanding as a common law human being I wanted to remedy the situation by announcing my understanding of my common law jurisdiction. He asked me repeatedly to exit the van I told him no and at that point he told me I was under arrest ( which is arbitrary detention without cause since he had not made joinder with me as a person having not seen any identification ) He then proceeded to open my van door in a threatening manner to which I felt a great sense of duress .
I exited the van fearing for my safety and he led me away and out of camera shot. I stated that anything said or done at that point was under protest and duress. He then proceeded to tell me to turn around and I told him i did not consent to being handcuffed and that that was an assault on me.He ignored me and placed me in handcuffs . He had yet not seen any identification and was violating my rights by arbitrarily detaining me in shackles . He then reached into my coat pocket and pulled out my wallet even though I told him I would not consent to a search . He then opened my wallet against my wishes and pulled from it a card with my name on it. He asked me If I wanted a lawyer and I told him I would not consent to any council from the legal society. I told him that he had no right to detain me without first proving my identity and he said "I knew who you are". ( So that tells me he was waiting to entrap me since he pulled me over only minutes from my apartment. I told him that I was on my way to go look at a job and that he was costing me that job and then I said " there is no job is there ? " you guys got the phone number off the back of my van parked in front of my apartment and called me with a phony job quote so you could wait and stop me. He shuddered a second. I felt that he realized that I figured out his game. for the rest of the day the "customer" who had called me never called back to ask why I hadn't shown up. I then realized the number the "customer" used was always "private".
He then told me that I would not be arrested but that I needed to go sit in the back of the cruiser with my legs hanging out the back door which he stated was for both his and my safety since he didn't have a cage. He then started to think of things to charge me with and spoke each charge out loud. I told him again that I do not consent to being handcuffed in the back of the car and told him he was violating my common law rights as a human being and once again informed him of my fee schedule of $1000 dollars for arbitrary detention . He found this humorous and chuckled.
He then informed my that he was going to call a tow truck to come impound my van which I then told him that my van was my personal property held under a claim of right and that having it towed would be theft and another violattion of my common law rights as a sovereign human being. I told him I would not consent to having my van towed and he said oh I'm going to have it towed all right. I told him again I do not consent to having my property stolen. Then another undercover cruiser showed up and the officer approached the window . Officer PC attwood then asked the other officer not sure exactly how he worded it but "how he could take my camera".They mumbled somethng to each and made some sort of hand signs .
The other officer asked me why I was driving around without any ID . I told him that I had abandoned my social insurance number and had no government issued ID or a registration for the van which would obligate me to the motor vehicle act and i asked him if he understood Common law jurisdiction or the world freeman society . He said "millions of people know that you need a license to drive" . I told him only people who drive for commerce need a license and I told him I was travelling, and only a fool would register a car and turn it into a vehicle giving legal title to a faceless corporation. I then told them again that since it was not registered and was my paid for lawful property held under a claim of right that towing it would be stealing it from me. Officer Attwood then asked him another question about what other charges he could add to the growing list .
The other officer then went back to his car retrieved a screw driver and proceeded to remove the plates from the van . I told Officer Attwood that I had those under a claim of right to use so I wouldn't be travelling with no plates at all. He then told me that when the court makes a final judgement I will get my van back. I said well then I won't be travelling with any plates then after I get the van back, He said then you'll get pulled over again. I then asked him " You don't know anything about common law jurisdiction do you ? He said I have the right to remain silent.
I then sat and waited while the tow truck arrived . I asked PC Attwood where they would be taking the van and he said he would supply me with the companies business card , I asked him to also supply me with his business card and he agreed then didn't give me one. He then told me we would be done in a minute and I could go but we still sat there for more than ten minutes. He then circled the car and asked me to get out and turn my back to him . He removed the hand cuffs and handed me back my Notice of understanding, my wallet, and my van keys which he removed one of my ignition keys from . I told him again that I would not consent to having my van towed and that it was personal property held under a claim of right. He ignored me and then asked me to retrieve anything I wanted form the van before they took it away . so I went to look and all my tools in the back would have been impossible to carry so I was left no choice but to leave them all there . As a contractor I need both my Van and my tools so I was left with no means to conduct my own business which is another violation of my right to work and theft of all my tools and other possessions. They then gave me a Tow order and told me to sign it which I did with the words "under protest and duress" above the signature. They then gave the tow truck driver the okay to steal my personal property and told me to go. I turned to get a shot of the tow truck driving away with my van but the tape had run out. I then walked home and uploaded and published the video of the first two violations of my rights to you tube for evidence.
I intend to bring criminal charges against PC Attwood with a redress of grievances for theft of private property, fraud, gross negligence in not understanding the Law pertaining to a common law sovereign human being, assault for placing me in handcuffs without my consent and unlawful search and seizure with a warrant for lifting my wallet and searching through it for identification.
Th Bill for my fee schedule for arbitrary arrest and towing my van is $6000 total . For punitive damages of not having my Van and tools to provide myself with a living as a contractor I am suing for 10,000 a month. I will also be filing the aforementioned criminal charges against PC Attwood.
Study for my case against Attwood and the Niagara Police department and city of St Catharines Ontario.
Government will not be bonded when:
If a government does not eliminate its own internal malfeasance with the same diligence that it pursues civilian felons.
If a government rules by force without reason and or without the consent of the people which it governs. In such a case it shall be deemed a criminal government and its officials, officers, and clerks shall be deemed criminally malfeasant.
Look up "COMMON LAW LIENS"
Petition for a redress of greivances
Criminal acts and official officer or clerk who commits a criminal act or gross negligence of duty against a citizen or against the public generally shall
Lose his bond not be protected by his official bond shall not be protected by the limited liablility of the corporation , trust, or office of public trust which employs him. Shall be personally liable for the damage ( financially responsible ) which that crime or gross negligence causes. Must pay for the damage through his own real or personal property.
File a criminal complaint against the officer for a redress of grievances with a civil value noted on the complaint. PC Atwood badge number 9171
The criminal claim puts payment of the bond on hold and pierces the veil of corporate limited liablility exposing the officer to unlimited attachment of personal property unless he is prosecuted and vindicated by prosecution.
If the prosecutor does not agree to prosecute the case within thirty days or such time as is reasonable for investigation of the charges ( not to exceed 60 days without reasonable cause then the matter reverts to a civil actions standing half inside and half outside the corporate veil with the bonding company , the corporation and the officer liable for the damages ( who do you think they will make take the fall ? )
Principle ignorance of the law is not an allowable excuse for a law enforcement officer to use when exercising the power to enforce the law.
An officer must know and understand all the processes which must be bonded before he can act on an execution of judgement.
look up"judicatio statutes"
A statute has no social authority, or the capacity to be enforced without an author and has no author without the assumption of social liability or financial responsibility for the staute authored.
Any attempt to exercise social authority by enforcing a statute wihtout assuming a corresponding measure of social liability for the enforcement of the statute constitutes fraud.
A government or an official, officer or clerk of a government will lose it's/his bond, will not be bonded if a person, hereinafter reffered to as the "prisoner" which it/he handles who has been charged and arrested but who has not been convicted.
1.) has been denied or delayed anything . or any right , or the equal protection of the law necessary for the prisoners defense which an uncharged and unarrested citizen would have at his use, service and disposal .
2.) Has been denied or delayed legal paperwork in the prisoners case including but not limited to affidavits of accusation , police reports, arrest warrants, mailing addresses for the delivery of all paperwork etc.
3.)has been denied or delayed the counsel of , or commuication with any lawyer, attorney, spouse, relative, non-union paralegal, non union lawyer etc. needed for his personal safety and legal defense.
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) It's the bubble you've probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it's due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements.
What industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of "green" technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilization depends on rare earth elements such as terbium, lanthanumneodymium.and
So what's the problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world's supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012.
If that happens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to farm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket.
These 17 rare earth elements (REE) -- all of which are metals -- are strategic resources upon which entire nations are built. In many ways, they are similar to rubber -- a resource so valuable and important to the world that many experts call it the "fourth most important natural resource in the world," right after water, steel and oil. Without rubber, you couldn't drive your car to work or water your lawn. Many medical technologies would cease to work and virtually all commercial construction would grind to a halt.
Many of the strategic battles fought in World War II were fought, in fact, over control of rubber, most of which now comes through Singapore and its surrounding regions (Malaysia and Indonesia).
Global shortage of Rare Earth Elements coming...
Now, by threatening to cut off the world's supply of rare earth elements, China appears to be attempting to monopolize this extremely important strategic resource. According to information received by The Independent, by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own economic expansion.
An article in that paper quotes REE expert Jack Lifton as saying, "A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China."
And yet virtually no one has heard of this problem! People are familiar with peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, the national debt and the depletion of fossil water, but very few are aware of the looming crisis in rare metals... upon which much of western civilization rests.
For those who still aren't convinced this is a big deal, consider this: Without rare earth elements, we would have no iPhones. Yeah, I know. That's a disaster, huh?
We would have no fiber optic cables, either. No X-ray machines, no car stereos and no high-tech missile guidance systems for the military. And here's the real kicker: No electric motors.
Demand outstrips supply
The problem with the supply of rare earth elements is that demand has skyrocketed over the last decade from 40,000 tons to 120,000 tons. Meanwhile, China has been cutting its exports. Now, it only exports about 30,000 tons a year -- only one-fourth of the demand the world needs.
In order to build more "green" technologies, the world will need 200,000 tons of rare earth elements by 2014, predicts The Independent. Yet China now threatens to drop exports to exactly zero tons by 2012.
It isn't hard to do the math on this: Without China's exports, the western world will quickly run out of rare earth elements.
Kiss your "green" wind turbines good-bye. And your Toyota Prius production lines, too. No more iPhones and iPods either. Without these rare earth elements, entire industries grind to a halt.
Can we mine it elsewhere?
China isn't the only geographic region where these rare earth elements are found, but constructing mines to pull these elements out of the ground takes many years. Some mines are under construction right now in other countries that could help fill the demand for REEs, but making them operational is "five to ten years away," says Lifton.
That means these other mines won't really be operational until 2015 - 2020. Meanwhile, China could cut off its supply in 2012. That leaves a 3-7 year gap in which these rare earth elements will be in disastrously short supply.
This brings up a couple of very important realizations related to investments:
It is almost certain that the prices for rare earth elements will skyrocket over the next 2 - 5 years. This creates a huge investment opportunity for people willing to take a risk and bet their money on rising prices of these metals.
There's another big investment opportunity here, too: Recycling rare earth elements. As prices leap higher, it will become more economically feasible to harvest rare earth elements out of garbage dumps and landfills where people are discarding electronics such as motors, computers, sound systems and other such items.
Some smart entrepreneur will no doubt make a fortune by setting up and operating a rare earth element reclamation operation of some kind. These elements, after all, aren't destroyed when they're thrown away. They sit around in the trash for eons, just waiting to be reclaimed and re-used.
Lead, for example, is a metal that is successfully recycled today. Something like 85% of all the lead used in America today is reclaimed out of lead-acid batteries and other similar devices. If similar programs could be initiated for the rare metals, we could go a long way towards meeting society's demand for these elements without having to keep mining them out of the ground.
Because let's face it: Mining these rare earth elements is a very DIRTY business. That's part of the contradiction in "green" technologies, by the way: To manufacture them, you need rare metals mined out of ecologically disastrous operations in China. It's the (literal) "dirty little secret" of the green industry. All these wind turbines, solar panels, hybrid car batteries and fiber optics may seem green to the consumer, but behind them there's a very dirty mining business that rapes the planet and pollutes the rivers in order to recover these "green" rare metals.
In any case, unless scientists find less-rare alternatives to many of these rare earth metals, we are looking at a serious global supply crunch for the years 2012 - 2020. Add the "rare earth elements bubble" to your list of other bubbles to watch out for in the years ahead.
Some of the 17 rare earth elements
Dysprosium - Makes electric motor magnets 90% lighter
Terbium - Makes electric lights 80% more efficient
Neodymium - Used in motor magnets
Lanthanum - Used for hydrogen storage
Praseodymium - Used in lasers and ceramic materials
Gadolinium - Used to manufacture computer memory
Erbium - Used in the manufacture of vanadium steel
(NaturalNews) They're known for using horse-drawn buggies, avoiding modern conveniences, and wearing old-fashioned clothing. But do the Amish possess something that the rest of us don't, primarily a lifestyle that prevents disease and leads to a better quality of life? According to a recent study published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control, that seems to be the case; cancer rates among the Amish are far lower than in the rest of the American population and they are far healthier than most Americans.
Researchers from Ohio State University's James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute originally began studying the Ohio Amish population with the hypothesis that cancer rates would be higher among the Amish because they are closed off from society and they often intermarry. On the contrary, it was discovered that not only are their cancer rates lower but the Amish live a lifestyle that promotes health and well-being.
The study found that the cancer rate among the Amish is only 60 percent of the Ohio population at large. Most Amish people do not smoke or drink and they are typically not sexually promiscuous, leading researchers to believe that these lifestyle factors play an important role in the limited number of cancer cases.
Other factors examined include the high amount of physical labor undertaken by the Amish. Most Amish people work in farming, construction, and other production jobs that require intense physical activity that keeps them healthy and in shape. While the rest of America sits in fluorescent-lit cubicles all day, the Amish work hard to produce crops, build furniture and structures, and produce useful goods, which researchers recognize contributes to their excellent health.
Another important factor not specifically examined in the study is the fact that the Amish grow and raise all their own food. They employ time-tested, organic methods that provide them with healthy fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, and other untainted foods that most Americans never get. Rich in living enzymes, vitamins, and nutrients Amish food is grown and raised the way it should be, resulting in improved health.
While some may ridicule their secluded lifestyle, the Amish commitment to simple, productive lives and clean, local food is benefiting their health in ways that the rest of America can only dream about. When compared to a life of sitting in office buildings all day, eating processed and genetically-modified junk food, and popping prescription medications, it becomes clear which lifestyle is truly deserving of contempt.
Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has broken his promise to give an update on Indigenous progress on the first day of Parliament for the year.
Two years ago, Mr Rudd said making the annual statement on the first working day would greatly increase pressure on his Government to make progress towards closing the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and other Australians.
But instead of giving his report on the first day next Tuesday, Mr Rudd will use a date closer to the anniversary of his apology to Indigenous Australians.
Mr Abbott has questioned if the issue is still as important to Mr Rudd.
"It was very wrong of the Prime Minister to grandstand in this way with Indigenous people if he's going to let them down by not keeping [his promise]," he said.
"The fact that he's not having these statements on the first day of the parliament suggests that the issue isn't really as important to him as he suggested back on apology day."
Greens Senator Rachel Siewert says she is concerned Mr Rudd is not giving the statement the prominence it would have had on the first day of sittings.
"Doing it on the first day of Parliament puts it front and centre and means its high on the Government's and the prime minister's agenda," she said.
"I fail to see why he isn't reporting on that day, other than he feels that its not top of his priority any more.
"Perhaps they haven't made as much progress as he was thinking they might at the time."
Israel 'electrocuted' Hamas leader
Middle East Correspondent Anne Barker, ABCJanuary 30, 2010, 8:52 am
The militant Palestinian group Hamas has accused Israel of assassinating one of its most senior members.
Mahmoud al Mabhouh, 50, was apparently electrocuted on a visit to Dubai.
His family and Hamas officials believe his death bears all the signs of an attack by Mossad - Israel's intelligence agency - although neither Mossad nor Israel ever comments on such operations.
Authorities in Dubai say they have identified several European passport holders as suspects and they say he was targeted by a professional criminal gang.
Al Mabhouh was in Dubai apparently on a Hamas mission.
His brother claims his attackers held an electrical device to his head and killed him with an electric shock.
His family say he recently survived another attempt to kill him with poison.
Al Mabhouh was a key member of Hamas's military wing and was responsible for several attacks on Israel, including the kidnap and murder of two Israeli soldiers 20 years ago.
Hamas has vowed to exact its revenge for his death.
Israel has made no comment on whether it was behind the assassination.
Thousands of people attended the funeral of Al Mabhouh at al-Yarmouk camp near Damascus in Syria.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has pledged $US10 billion ($A11.18 billion) over the next decade to research and deliver vaccines to the world's poorest countries.
Increased vaccination could save more than eight million children by 2020, said the entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, announcing the commitment on Friday by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he heads with his wife.
But he added that money was needed and called on governments and the private sector to do more.
"We must make this the decade of vaccines," said Gates at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.
"Vaccines already save and improve millions of lives in developing countries.
"Innovation will make it possible to save more children than ever before."
Gates, who is a regular at the annual Swiss ski resort meeting of political and business leaders, called on others to "fill critical financing gaps in both research funding and childhood immunisation programs...
"Increased investment in vaccines by governments and the private sector could help developing countries dramatically reduce child mortality by the end of the decade," said a Foundation statement.
The projections were based on research by experts at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States, on the potential impact of vaccines on childhood deaths over the next 10 years.
By boosting the delivery of vaccines in developing countries to 90 per cent coverage, the experts' model suggested that the lives of 7.6 million under-fives could be saved in the next decade.
An additional 1.1 million youngsters could be saved by rapid introduction of a malaria vaccine in 2014, bringing the total lives saved to 8.7 million.
Melinda Gates, who heads the couple's Foundation with her husband, added: "Vaccines are a miracle - with just a few doses, they can prevent deadly diseases for a lifetime.
"We've made vaccines our number-one priority at the Gates Foundation because we've seen firsthand their incredible impact on children's lives," she added at the annual meeting of political and business leaders in the Swiss ski resort.
Commenting on the announcement, WHO chief Margaret Chan said the Gates' commitment was "unprecedented, but just a small part of what is needed.
"It's absolutely crucial that both governments and the private sector step up efforts to provide life-saving vaccines to children who need them most," she ad
Hi my name is Kevin Ryan, and I’ve been working to discover the truth about 9/11 for almost seven years. I believe that the truth will come out and be widely acknowledged eventually, and that each of us can help to speed that process. This talk is about some of my own efforts in that regard, and it centers on the World Trade Center.
One question we need to answer is: Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center buildings? We’re faced with that question due to the growing amount of evidence that explosives were used to bring down all three buildings, and due to the enormous implications of that possibility. The evidence includes the unprecedented nature of what happened that day, the eyewitness testimonies of people at the site, and the physical evidence demonstrated by photographs and videos. Evidence for explosives is also given through proof by contradiction in that seven years of ever-changing government reports could not provide a valid non-explosive explanation. More recently, peer-reviewed scientific papers show that explosives were present at the WTC.
When we look at this problem however, we’re forced to admit that we’re looking for evidence of a conspiracy. To clarify that statement, we’re looking for evidence of a conspiracy that is believable, unlike the official conspiracy theory given to us by representatives of the Bush Administration.
To answer the question of who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center towers, we should first consider who had access to the buildings. Those who had access to the buildings should be further considered to see if they had access to the necessary explosive technologies, and to see if they could have benefited from the destruction of the buildings or from the resulting War on Terror.
Basically, we need to follow the standard process for forensic investigation of explosions that aims to determine who had the means, opportunity and motive to accomplish the explosive event. When that approach is taken with the WTC, we can see that those who had the greatest means and opportunity also had the greatest motive.
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were among the most secure buildings in the world, and were most readily accessed by tenants, security and related contractors.
On 9/11, American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north tower between floors 94 and 99. In an incredible coincidence, these floors are the only ones in that 110-story building that had been upgraded for fireproofing shortly before 9/11. This coincidence was amplified by the fact that one tenant occupied all of those floors – Marsh & McLennan, which at the time was the world’s largest insurance brokerage company. In addition to its north tower offices, Marsh also occupied 8 floors in the middle of the south tower.
Marsh was known to be notoriously secretive, and had been likened to the CIA. Its chief executive on 9/11 was Jeffrey Greenberg, the son and former employee of Maurice Greenberg, the chairman of American International Group (also known as AIG). AIG has been reported to be at the center of a number of CIA operations, but we know the company better for having recently asked for 80 billion dollars in taxpayer bailout money because it was [quote] “too big to fail.”
Other powerful and well-connected people who worked in senior management at Marsh included Stephen Friedman, a senior principal at Marsh Capital and former partner at Goldman Sachs. Friedman later became George W. Bush’s top economic advisor.
Friedman went to Cornell University and belonged to a society there called Quill and Dagger, the membership of which included Paul Wolfowitz, Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley. Wolfowitz was the Neo-con deputy secretary of defense in the Bush Administration, and was the author in 1992 of the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” of pre-emptive warfare. He also met with General Mahmud Ahmed of the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (or ISI) in the week before 9/11. General Ahmed is known to have ordered his subordinates to wire 100 thousand dollars to Mohammed Atta during that same week.
Quill & Dagger member Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor to President Clinton, was later caught stealing documents that were requested by the 9/11 Commission during its investigation.
Jules Kroll, the founder of the company that designed the security systems for the WTC, was also a Cornell Quill & Dagger man. I’ll have more to say about him when we get to the security companies in a few minutes.
The President of Marsh & McLennan Real Estate Advisors was Craig Stapleton, the husband of George W. Bush’s cousin, Dorothy Walker Bush. Stapleton once co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush, and later went on to join Winston Partners, a private investment firm that profited from 9/11 and that was led by George W. Bush’s brother Marvin.
Another connection to the Bush family can be seen in the Marsh acquisition of the New York insurance brokerage Johnson and Higgins in March 1997. Johnson and Higgins was the long-time employer of Prescott Bush Jr, brother to George H. W. Bush. Although Prescott Jr. had semi-retired just before Marsh acquired the firm, he had spent 33 years at Johnson & Higgins as a Senior Vice President. After retirement, Bush continued to consult for the company.
My point is that, with Prescott Jr, Friedman and Stapleton, Marsh clearly had strong ties to the Bush network, and therefore to those who profited from 9/11. But did those working for Marsh have access to explosives?
To answer that question, we need look at only one other Marsh & McLennan executive, L Paul Bremer. On 9/11, Bremer was the CEO of Marsh Political Risk Practice and he had an office in the south tower.
Just before he came to Marsh, Bremer had been managing director for Kissinger Associates. Bremer was also on the international advisory board for the Japanese mining company Komatsu. At the time, Komatsu was involved in a partnership with Dresser Industries, the oil-services/intelligence front where George H. W. Bush got his start. In July 1996, Komatsu patented a thermite demolition device that could demolish a structure with high efficiency. This is important because residues of thermite, the highly energetic chemical mixture, have been confirmed in samples of the WTC dust, and the use of thermite at the WTC was also revealed by environmental data.
So yes, at least one Marsh & McLennan executive had access to explosives, the very type that has been found at the WTC.
On September 11th, Bremer was interviewed on NBC television, and he claimed that Osama bin Laden was responsible and that possibly Iraq and Iran were involved too, and he called for the most severe military response possible. For some unknown reason, Google removed the interview video from its servers three times. Bremer was called away from Marsh in 2003, to become the Iraq Occupation Governor.
Moving to the south tower, United Airlines Flight 175 hit that building between floors 78 and 83, in the southeast corner. In the impact zone, Baseline Financial Services was located on floors 77 and 78, and AON Corporation was on floor 83.
Baseline was led by a very interesting individual named Joseph Kasputys, who had a history of being well connected to the highest levels of government, as well as to the defense and intelligence industries. Years earlier, Kasputys worked for the US departments of commerce and defense. He was also the deputy director of Nixon’s White House taskforce that dealt with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, and he was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Energy.
Kasputys went on to have a 20 year business relationship with the DOE, which is interesting considering that the DOE was developing thermite ignition devices as early as 1983. Additonally, national laboratories working within the DOE developed nanothermites in the late 1990s. Nanothermites are explosive thermite mixtures where one or more reactants are present at the nanometer scale. These are also called super-thermites due to the extraordinarily large amount of energy released upon ignition. And again, these materials have been found in the WTC dust.
According to official reports, in 1999 Kasputys’ Baseline Financial made structural modifications to the southeast corner of floor 78, exactly where the aircraft hit on 9/11.
Moving to floor 83 of the south tower, there was AON Corporation, a Chicago-based competitor of Marsh. Today General Richard Myers, who was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11 and therefore responsible for the national response on 9/11, is a director at AON. But the most interesting character working for AON on 9/11 was Jim Pierce, the first cousin of George W. Bush.
I have to ask at this point: Is there anyone in the audience who had three family members working for companies in the impact zones of the WTC towers on 9/11? Well George Bush did, and that doesn’t count the people who later went to work for his administration.
Jim Pierce, George’s first cousin, was managing director of AON on 9/11, and he had arranged a meeting on the 105th floor of the south tower for that morning. Pierce survived the day, despite the fact that twelve people came to the meeting in the south tower, and eleven of them died. The location of the meeting had been changed, the night before, to the Millenium Hotel across the street, where Pierce watched the south tower as it was hit by the aircraft. Apparently the meeting attendees were not all notified of the change in location.
In any case, the tenants in the impact zones are certainly worthy of investigation. Additionally, the companies that designed and implemented the security systems for the WTC buildings are worthy of investigation, as I will now spell out.
Jules Kroll was mentioned earlier, as the founder of the company that designed the security system for the WTC and who was a fraternity brother of Paul Wolfowitz, Marsh & McLennan’s Stephen Friedman and the two National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley.
Jules Kroll’s company has been hired by some of the most powerful governments and organizations in the world. Other than designing security systems, the company also operates as a private intelligence agency, and has been called The CIA of Wall Street.
By 1991, due to his experience with international investigations, Jules Kroll had developed an expert knowledge of the terrorist financing bank BCCI and how it moved and hid money all over the world. Coincidentally, during the same time that Jules Kroll was gaining this knowledge, WTC tenant L. Paul Bremer was managing director at Kissinger Associates, a firm that had been having meetings with BCCI but would later refuse to reveal any details to the US Senate’s investigation committee.
The security plan for the WTC complex that was designed by Kroll required years of work to implement. There were four contractors that led the effort to implement what Kroll had designed. All four of these security implementation companies have interesting connections, and all four of them did significant work in Saudi Arabia prior to their work at the WTC. But Stratesec, the company that was responsible for the overall security system integration, was the most interesting.
Stratesec had contracts to provide security services not only for the WTC, but also for United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off on 9/11. Another client was Los Alamos National Laboratory, where scientists were working on the development of nanothermite.
Stratesec had a small board of directors that included Marvin Bush (the brother of George W. Bush) and Wirt Walker, a distant relative of the Bush brothers. Other directors included Yousef Saud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family.
In 1998, Barry McDaniel came to Stratesec to become its Chief Operating Officer. McDaniel was therefore in charge of the security operation at the WTC in terms of what he called a completion contract, to provide services [quote] “up to the day the buildings fell down.” McDaniel came to Stratesec directly from BDM International, where he had been Vice President for nine years. BDM was a major subsidiary of The Carlyle Group during that time. When Barry McDaniel started at BDM, the company began getting a large amount of government business in an area called Black Projects, or budgets that were kept secret.
BDM was sold to The Carlyle Group in 1992, at which time Frank Carlucci became chairman. Carlucci was a covert operative in his early career, and got his start in national politics through his old college roommate, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlucci went on to be named Deputy Director of the CIA and Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, before joining Carlyle.
During the time that Stratesec executive McDaniel worked for them, the Caryle Group added other very powerful people to their leadership team. One such person was James Baker, who went to Princeton with Rumsfeld and Carlucci, and who was White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury for President Reagan. Baker was later George H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff and Secretary of State. Baker became a partner at Carlyle just two weeks after the February 1993 bombing of the WTC.
Earlier in his career, Baker had worked in President Ford’s department of Commerce, along with WTC impact zone tenant Joseph Kasputys. And Baker was a longtime, close friend of Raymond Hill, an elite Texan who owned the savings and loan called Mainland Savings. American taxpayers shelled out approximately $500 million when Mainland failed in 1986. Investigators have since discovered that Mainland, like a number of other savings and loans that failed in the late 1980s, was a vehicle for CIA and mafia activities.
Baker is also remembered as the one person most responsible for changing the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, in favor of George W. Bush. As Congressman John Conyers wrote: [quote] “Mr. Baker will be forever remembered for his ultimately successful efforts to shut down the counting of votes in the 2000 Florida election.”
On September 11, 2001, Baker was at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington DC, for the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group. Also present with Baker was Carlucci, "representatives of the bin Laden family,” and George H. W. Bush. The Carlyle Group had been doing business with the bin Laden family since the early 1990s, throughout the time that Barry McDaniel worked for them.
Marvin Bush was a director of Stratesec from 1993 to 2000. It was during that time that Kroll and Stratesec planned and executed the extensive rebuilding of the security systems at the WTC complex. As his stint with Stratesec ended, Marvin Bush became a principal in the company HCC Insurance, one of the insurance carriers for the World Trade Center.
The FBI briefly considered investigating Stratesec for insider trading related to 9/11, due to an SEC referral of suspicious accounts. But since the people involved were considered to not have any [quote] “ties to terrorism or other negative information,” an investigation into Stratesec was not pursued.
When we examine who had the greatest motive for the attacks of 9/11, we need to look at who most benefited from those events. Maurice Greenberg’s AIG is among those that profited the most after 9/11. Less than a month after the attacks, Greenberg said –[quote] “The opportunities for us are enormous. It's not just in the United States, but rates are rising throughout the world. So our business looks quite good going forward.''
But The Carlyle Group and oil industry companies like Halliburton led the field in terms of profiting from 9/11.
Dick Cheney was hired as CEO of Halliburton in 1995, despite having no business leadership experience. He quickly went on to add new directors that shared his political convictions, including Lawrence Eagleburger, the former Secretary of State under George HW Bush. Eagleburger also served as a director of Kissinger Associates, and was on the board of Dresser Industries, where George HW Bush got his start.
Cheney named Charles DiBona as one of his first appointees to the board of Halliburton. DiBona was also an associate of south tower impact zone tenant Joseph Kasputys, at the Logistics Management Institute. DiBona and Kasputys had previously worked together during the Arab Oil Embargo as representatives of the emerging Department of Energy. In fact, DiBona was one of the first US “Energy Czars.”
Kasptuys went on to run a large corporation called Primark that had offices in both towers on 9/11. At least one of the subsidiaries of Primark, The Analytical Sciences Corporation, worked on black ops projects like Carlyle’s BDM did.
DiBona went on to lead the American Petroleum Institute, the petroleum industry's national trade association, in a position he held for nineteen years. Before becoming a Halliburton director, DiBona was also a director of First American Bancshares, the American bank secretly owned by BCCI.
BCCI is significant relative to 9/11 because it was involved in funding terrorists and was linked to the Pakistani intelligence network, from which came not only General Mahmud Ahmed mentioned before, but also several alleged 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In fact, Time magazine reported, relative to BCCI, that – [quote] “You can't draw a line separating the bank's black operatives and Pakistan's intelligence services."
Henry Kissinger and his associates were also connected to BCCI in several ways. For example, Sergio da Costa, who served as Brazil’s Ambassador to the US in the 80s, worked for Kissinger Associates and was also a nominee shareholder for BCCI. And Kissinger was linked to BCCI through the Pakistanis that arranged for his first visit to China. Kissinger returned to China many times and on occasion took very close friends and business associates along with him, most notably Maurice Greenberg of AIG.
Actually, the numerous connections between assistants and associates of Kissinger, and the most significant events of 9/11, are astounding. To begin with, Kissinger, who is considered by some to be an international terrorist himself due to his bombing of Cambodia, his role in the 1973 coup in Chile, and other atrocities, was the Bush Administration’s first choice to lead the 9/11 Commission. Although he later resigned from the Commission to avoid exposing his client list, Kissinger’s closest friends and aides played significant roles with regard to 9/11. For example…
• L. Paul Bremer, the managing director at Kissinger Associates, left there to take a job with WTC impact zone tenant Marsh & McLennan, and then played a leading role in establishing the official myth of 9/11 • Peter Rodman, member of the Project for a New American Century and Assistant Secretary of Defense on 9/11, hosted the meetings with Pakistani ISI General Ahmed the week before 9/11, and had previously been a Special Assistant to Kissinger for eight years. • Joseph Kasputys, south tower impact zone tenant, worked with Kissinger in the Ford Administration along with Cheney, DiBona, and Rumsfeld. • Kissinger is also closely associated with several 9/11 Commissioners, including his long-time National Security Council assistant John Lehman, and his fellow Hollinger board member James R. Thompson. • And Phillip Odeen of BDM, who was Barry McDaniel’s boss until McDaniel left to lead Stratesec, was a Kissinger assistant for several years.
There was also Renato Ruggiero of Kissinger Associates. Mr. Ruggerio was present on 9/11 in the sense that he was on the International Advisory Board for Salomon Smith Barney, the company that occupied most of the floors in WTC building 7. Salomon Smith Barney even shared the all-important 23rd floor with the New York City Office of Emergency management or OEM. More striking is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of that Salomon Smith Barney board, and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had to resign as chairman of that board in 2001 when he was confirmed as George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, and Cheney resigned at the same time when he became Vice President.
So there are many connections between the companies that were tenants in the impact zones and WTC 7, those that handled security for the WTC, and those who benefited from the crimes of 9/11.
Someone that was only briefly mentioned so far, but played an important role in the events of 9/11 and in the myth of what happened that day, was Rudy Giuliani.
In the late 1980s, Giuliani was the US attorney for the Southern District of NY, and was in charge of investigating organized crime and terrorism. It was reported that Giuliani received documents during this time, about secret bank accounts related to terrorist financing. What is less well reported is that, when Giuliani left his job at the Justice Department to start a political career, he worked for a law firm called White & Case that actually represented BCCI.
Having detailed knowledge and experience with the terrorist financing, it’s remarkable that Giuliani never mentioned terrorism as an issue in his campaign for NYC mayor in 1993. But Giuliani was the mayor of New York City on 9/11, and unlike most of us he had foreknowledge of the collapse of the WTC buildings. He described this fact in an interview with Peter Jennings immediately after the attacks. In this same interview Giuliani falsely claimed that no one had ever predicted airliner crashes into the WTC, by saying – [quote] “Oh there’s no question we were all caught totally off balance. No one, no one, no one could possibly expect, uh, large airplanes to crash into the, you know, the World Trade Center, uh, the way this happened.”
Giuliani’s OEM staff also had foreknowledge about the fall of the buildings, and they warned some people. This was reported by Richard Zarrillo, an EMT at the scene, when he said in his official testimony – [quote] “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.”
Giuliani and his Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik were wandering around the WTC site after the planes had hit the towers. By the time the first tower fell, Giuliani and Kerik had already moved away from immediate danger, but were still within area. As they were walking, they coincidentally happened upon a TV reporter who just the year before had published a flattering biography of Giuliani called “Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City.” This apparent coincidence of running into his flattering biographer at this most critical moment is what led to Giuliani being portrayed as the heroic leader of the response to 9/11, through a series of “walking press conferences” that day.
Giuliani’s firm, Giuliani Partners, now employs many of the people who were in charge of protecting us from terrorism, or who played important roles on 9/11. This includes Pat D'Amuro, the agent who ran the FBI’s 9/11 investigation and stole evidence from Ground Zero. New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik worked at Giuliani Partners as well. While he worked at Giuliani’s firm, Kerik took a short leave when he was appointed by George W. Bush to be Iraq’s Minister of the Interior reporting to L. Paul Bremer.
Kerik was widely know to be connected to organized crime, but what is less well known is that beginning in the 1970s, he worked four years as an employee of the Saudi royal family. During Kerik’s years in Saudi Arabia, starting in 1978, he worked in security at a construction site in the desert, with mercenaries. It’s not certain if he worked directly for or with The Carlyle Group’s mercenary company the Vinnell Corporation, but that seems very possible.
Rudy Giuliani also had connections to organized crime, apart from Bernard Kerik. Rudy’s father, Harold Giuliani was a convicted hold-up man who served time in Sing Sing prison, and was later employed as an enforcer for a Mafia loan shark operation. Rudy’s uncle Leo D'Avanzo, ran a loan-sharking and gambling operation. Additionally, according to author Wayne Barrett, Rudy’s first cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was [quote] “a stone cold gangster who was shot to death in 1977 by FBI agents when he tried to run them down with his car.”
Of course, the sins of Rudy’s father, and his uncle, and his cousin, and his appointed Police Commissioner should not be used to judge Rudy himself. But these facts are worth considering in that Rudy hired mafia–connected companies to cleanup Ground Zero. Tens of millions of dollars were paid out to these mob-connected companies over a period of months after 9/11, and it was clear that something was being hidden during that clean-up operation.
This fact was clear because security at the site was intense, while safety management was lax or nonexistent and human concerns took a back seat to the goal of rapidly disposing of the evidence. In fact, much of the steel evidence was quickly destroyed before investigators ever reached the site. Additionally, evidence was stolen with the approval and coordination of FBI agents.
In conclusion, although some of the people mentioned in this talk might had access to the buildings and the explosive technologies, we can’t say with certainty that they were responsible for placing the explosive charges in the three WTC buildings.
What we can say today, with certainty, is that if we are to believe that al Qaeda orchestrated the events of 9/11 then we do not know much about al Qaeda. Alternatively, there was a far more powerful and highly connected system of intelligence and financial networks, represented by organizations like Carlyle, Kissinger and Halliburton, that converged upon the events of 9/11. That other system continues to profit from the 9/11 attacks, and uses the fear and rage generated by al Qaeda-attributed terrorism to its own advantage. Understanding and destroying terrorism might simply be a matter of understanding and destroying the organizations that continue to profit from 9/11
The Obama administration stunned New York’s delegation yesterday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.
The state’s two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.
So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.
“I was stunned — and very disappointed,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.
“To say the least, I was flabbergasted,” said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.
The 9/11 bill would spend about $11 billion over 30 years to care for the growing numbers of people getting sick from their service at Ground Zero, and to compensate families for their losses.
The legislators were shocked the idea was falling lower on the administration priority list than other parts of the war on terror and financial bailouts.
“She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill,” said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel.
“I think it’s fiscal restraint… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this,” Engel said. “We were attacked because we’re a symbol of our country.”
McMahon was furious that caring for the heroes of Sept. 11 would take a back seat to anything but military funding.
“I thought there was a complete lack of understanding of the issue by the secretary and quite frankly, I did not expect that lack of compassion and failure to understand the urgency of the issue.”
Victims and advocates of 9/11 families are similarly stunned.
Lorie Van Auken, whose husband died on 9/11 and who supports the White House in its push to try the terrorists in New York, was crestfallen at the news.
“I thought that these people would be taken care of. I would have expected better from this administration,” Van Auken said, adding that she thought it sends the wrong message to all of America’s would-be heroes that the government won’t be there for them.
“These people put their lives on the line to help people who live here and who were in danger, and now the government doesn’t want to support them,” Van Auken said. “What happens in the future when something else happens? Are people going to say, ‘No, sorry, I’m not going to help?’”
The legislators did hold out hope, though. McMahon and others said they would appeal to the President to consider adding 9/11 money to the list of mandatory items, rather than discretionary measures subject to the White House planned budget freeze.
Health and Human Servicices officials and the White House did not have an immediate response.
update | THE Federal Court has moved swiftly to hand down its ruling on a landmark internet copyright battle between Perth ISP iiNet and a group of Hollywood giants.
Both parties said that they did not expected a ruling on the mountain of technical evidence presented in the trial to emerge for at least a year as it drew to an end last November, but the court today announced that Justice Dennis Cowdroy would hand down his decision next week.
The trial has been watched closely by both the federal government and overseas observers. The group of Hollywood studios has attempted to persuade the court that iiNet can be held legally liable for alleged copyright infringement activity by its customers, so the decision is expected to have wide ramifications for internet providers.
The studios argued that iiNet should have taken "reasonable steps" to act on infringement notices that contained internet addresses of computers using the ISP's service to allegedly share illegal movies and music on peer-to-peer file networks.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which acted on the studios' behalf, argued that iiNet authorised its customers by ignoring the notices.
However, iiNet told the court that it would fall foul of telecommunications laws regulating the use of consumer information if it were to act on them. It also argued that there were no reasonable steps it could take.
Internode founder and managing director Simon Hackett recently said that no matter what Justice Cowdroy ruled next month the matter was highly unlikely to be settled this year. He said that the losing side would appeal the decision.
"I reckon this time next year (December) we'll only just be barely getting a sense of what the outcome of that case is."
A swift settlement would help the government to decide on whether to tighten copyright laws to protect rights holders online, he said.
"Ironically, I would imagine that Canberra has the same problem that the rest of the industry has at this point. With that case sitting there on foot you may not want to change the law unless you understand what precedent you're being asked to change it against. The whole thing is placed in suspended animation for awhile," Mr Hackett said.
Australia is among a number of countries pondering increasing protection for copyright holders. One proposal is the controversial "three-strikes" rule which was passed into law in France early this month.
The law was introduced in May last year but it faced heavy political resistance and was overturned by the country's constitutional authority in June. A revised version of the law was passed by the same authority the following November.
AFACT said it was expecting a positive outcome.
"We are looking forward to the court's decision next week which we expect will determine the issue of iiNet's authorisation of copyright infringement by its users," the association said in a statement.
iiNet's solicitors did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.
WASHINGTON — The Senate gave Ben S. Bernanke a second four-year term as the head of the Federal Reserve on Thursday after critics excoriated the central bank’s conduct in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
The 70-to-30 vote was the weakest endorsement ever extended to a chairman in the Fed’s 96-year history.
The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of outrage over high unemployment and bank bailouts.
In several hours of debate, senators said that the Fed had abetted, then ignored, the housing and credit bubbles and allowed banks to keep dangerously low capital reserves and to make reckless lending decisions that ruined consumers. Some even blamed Mr. Bernanke for the falling dollar and questioned his commitment to free enterprise.
In contrast, Mr. Bernanke’s supporters were muted. They reiterated that the Fed had made mistakes but said that Mr. Bernanke had helped save the economy from a far worse recession.
After a week in which top White House officials and Mr. Bernanke met with Democratic leaders in the Senate to secure support, the Senate first voted 77 to 23 to end debate, with more than the 60 votes needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.
On a second vote, to confirm, the 30 dissents came from 18 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
On Thursday evening, Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Bernanke in a statement. “As the nation continues to face the consequences of the worst recession in a generation, Ben Bernanke has provided wisdom and steady leadership in the midst of the financial and economic crisis,” he said.
While an arm-twisting campaign by the administration limited the opposition, the outcry against the Fed will most likely continue rippling through economic policy generally, and Mr. Bernanke’s leadership of the Fed in particular. The effects could be felt first in the debate over how to reform financial regulations. The Obama administration has proposed consolidating risk regulation under the Fed, while some in Congress want to strip away its oversight authority.
“The institutional prestige of the Fed, even apart from this vote, had taken a hit, and it started back around the disaster of September 2008,” said Stephen H. Axilrod, who worked at the Fed for 34 years and wrote a history of its monetary policies. “I don’t think it has recovered. This is a low point in the Fed’s recent history, that’s for sure.”
The vote also made clear Congress’s insistence on transparency from a historically secretive institution that has made extraordinary interventions in the market since 2008.
“The Fed is going to have to work hard, for a long period, to regain the public confidence of the sort it enjoyed during the halcyon days when everything was going so swimmingly,” said Barry Eichengreen, professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley.
Senators from opposite ends of the spectrum formed unlikely alliances. After Mr. Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, finished denouncing Mr. Bernanke, Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama, rose to do the same.
Another Alabaman, Richard C. Shelby, the top Republican on the banking committee, which approved the nomination last month by a 16-to-7 vote, laid out a bill of particulars, saying Mr. Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis did not make up for his failings before that time.
“Considerable economic devastation occurred as a result of Chairman Bernanke’s loose monetary policy and weak regulatory oversight,” Mr. Shelby said. “If we don’t hold Chairman Bernanke accountable, what precedent are we setting for future regulators?”
To an extent, the rhetoric against Mr. Bernanke reflected a spilling-over of frustration at two of his collaborators: the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the current one, Timothy F. Geithner.
And looming over it all was the role of Mr. Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, whose once-sterling reputation has been diminished as his decisions to keep interest rates low after the 2001 recession have been brought into question.
Mr. Bernanke, 56, was a member of the Fed’s board for part of that period, from 2002 to 2005, when President George W. Bush named him to lead his Council of Economic Advisers. He rejoined the Fed, as chairman, in 2006, and Mr. Obama renominated him last year. Mr. Bernanke is a Republican economist and an authority on the Depression.
“I knew that he would continue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right,” said Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, who was the lone vote against Mr. Bernanke in 2005.
Mr. Bunning cited a half-dozen statements from 2007 to 2009 in which Mr. Bernanke expressed optimism about the housing market, bank capital ratios, the capitalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the unemployment rate. Saying that Mr. Bernanke had been repeatedly wrong, he declared, “We shouldn’t be paying the Fed chairman to learn on the job.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, echoed that, saying Mr. Bernanke had shown “a troubling pattern of false confidence.” Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, went further, saying the Fed had “helped set the fire that destroyed our economy.”
While less passionate, supporters of Mr. Bernanke said he had acted deftly and decisively, at least since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.
“He basically allowed the Fed to become the lender of the nation,” said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. “Nobody had ever done that. The way he did it was extraordinary in its creativity, and the results were that the country’s financial system did not collapse.”
For those of you wondering what you can do to help Mika otf Rasila, a victim of false incarceration and of, theft, of his private conveyance, as well as his tools that allow him to make a living.
What we can do is to ask questions of the relevant people about why they have not presumed innocence in this matter, why they have not complied with court deliberations in this matter, why they stole his van and equipment that allows Mika otf Rasila the opportunity to make a living, and just generally make it known that we do not want Peace Officers acting in this manner.
The more of us that stand up and demand that our rights and freedoms be respected and upheld, the harder it is for these activities to take place in the future.
I believe that being in a community requires that I help my neighbour when s/he has been injured. I do not know Mika personally, he is a [virtual] friend, but he has created this community - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=243615501971&ref=mf#/posted.php?id=243615501971&share_id=278265459796&comments=1#s278265459796 - on Facebook, that offers an opportunity for many of us to mingle with like minds, to articulate our contentions, to consume relevant information, and, to feel that, we, are not operating immorally, or unlawfully, when we lawfully enjoy our common law right to travel in our private conveyances, or our automobiles.
These are contact details for various departments of the Niagara Regional Police Service. Lets send them letters, and ask some questions.
Please, do not swear, or, be abusive. We do not want to make enemies.
CANADIAN 'Freeman on the Land', who is identified on Facebook as 'Mika otf Rasila', has had his van and his tools stolen by St.Catherine/Niagara Police.
Like many tradesman, Mika otf Rasila, requires his tools to make a living.
The police officer in the video below, refused to enter into conversation with Mika otf Rasila, demanding that he get out of his private conveyance.
He refused to presume Mika otf Rasila innocent, and, despite the fact that no crime had, or was being committed, arrested him for driving with a suspended licence.
No-one was injured, and nobody suffered a loss.
When informed, that his fee schedule was $1,000 per hour with the handcuffs on, the police removed them, but, not before incarcerating him for an hour.
The police presented Mika otf Rasila with a raft of fines, even though he affirms that "these fines that were washed off my record" when "I was just in court".
So why the bullyboy tactics from the police?
Are they trying to force Mika otf Rasila to sign a contract to observe a statute?
