Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Is this REALLY proof that man can see into the future?

Do some of us avoid tragedy by foreseeing it? Some scientists nowbelieve that the brain really CAN predict events before they happen

Professor Dick Bierman sits hunched over his computer in a darkened room. The gentle whirring of machinery can be heard faintly in the background.

He smiles and presses a grubby-looking red button.

In the next room, a patient slips slowly inside a hospital brain scanner. If it wasn't for the strange smiles and grimaces that flicker across the woman's face, you could be forgiven for thinking this was just a normal health check.

But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future.

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.

Such amazing studies - if verified - might help explain the predictive powers of mediums and a range of other psychic phenomena such Extra Sensory Perception, deja vu and clairvoyance. On a more mundane level, it may account for 'gut feelings' and instinct.

The man behind the experiments is certainly convinced. "We're satisfied that people can sense the future before it happens," says Professor Bierman, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam.

"We'd now like to move on and see what kind of person is particularly good at it."

And Bierman is not alone: his findings mirror the data gathered by other scientists and paranormal researchers both here and abroad.

Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Cambridge University, says: "So far, the evidence seems compelling. What seems to be happening is that information is coming from the future.

"In fact, it's not clear in physics why you can't see the future. In physics, you certainly cannot completely rule out this effect."

Virtually all the great scientific formulae which explain how the world works allow information to flow backwards and forwards through time - they can work either way, regardless.

Shortly after 9/11, strange stories began circulating about the lucky few who had escaped the outrage.

It transpired that many of the survivors had changed their plans at the last minute after vague feelings of unease.

It was a subtle, gnawing feeling that 'something' was not right. Nobody vocalised it but shortly before the attacks, people started altering their plans out of an unspoken instinct.

One woman suffered crippling stomach pain while queuing for one of the ill-fated planes which flew into the World Trade Center.

She made her way to the lavatory only to recover spontaneously. She missed her flight but survived the day. Amid the collective outpouring of grief and horror it was easy to overlook such stories or write them off as coincidences.

But in fact, these kind of stories point to an interesting and deeper truth for those willing to look.

If, for example, fewer people decided to fly on aircraft that subsequently crashed, then that would suggest a subconscious ability to divine the future. Well, strange as it seems, that's just what happens.

The aircraft which flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were unusually empty. All the hijacked planes were carrying only half the usual number of passengers. Perhaps one unusually empty plane could be explained away, but all four?

And it wasn't just on 9/11 that people subconsciously seemed to avoid disaster. The scientist Ed Cox found that trains 'destined' to crash carried far fewer people than they did normally.

Dr Jessica Utts, a statistician at the University of California, found exactly the same bizarre effect.

If it was possible to divine the future, you might expect those at the sharp end, such as pilots, to have the most finely tuned instincts of all. And again, that's just what you see.

When the Air France Concorde crashed in 2000, it wasn't long before the colleagues of those killed in the crash spoke about a sense of foreboding that had gripped the crew and flight engineers before the accident.

Speaking anonymously to the French newspaper Le Parisien, one spoke of a 'morbid expectation of an accident'.

"I had this sense that we were going to bump into the scenery," he said.

"The atmosphere on the Concorde team for the last few months, if one has the guts to admit it, had been one of morbid expectation of an accident. It was as if I was waiting for something to happen."

All of these stories suggest that we can pick up premonitions of events that are yet to be.

Although these premonitions are not in glorious Technicolor, they are often emotionally powerful enough for us to act upon them.

In technical parlance it is known as 'presentiment' because emotional feelings are being received from the future, not hard facts or information.

The military has long been fascinated by such phenomena. For many years the US military (and latterly the CIA) funded a secretive programme known as Stargate, which set out to investigate premonitions and the ability of mediums to predict the future.

Dr Dean Radin worked on the Stargate programme and became fascinated by the ability of 'lucky' soldiers to forecast the future.

These are the ones who survived battles against seemingly impossible odds. Radin became convinced that thoughts and feelings - and occasionally-actual glimpses of the future - could flow backwards in time to guide soldiers.

It helped them make life-saving decisions, often on the basis of a hunch.

He devised an experiment to test these ideas. He hooked up volunteers to a modified lie detector, which measured an electrical current across the surface of the skin.

This current changes when a person reacts to an event such as seeing an extremely violent picture or video. It's the electrical equivalent of a wince.

Radin showed sexually explicit, violent or soothing images to volunteers in a random sequence determined by computer.

And he soon discovered that people began reacting to the pictures before they saw them. It was unmistakable. They began to 'wince' a few seconds before they actually saw the image.

And it happened time and time again, way beyond what chance alone would allow.

So impressive were Radin's results that Dr Kary Mullis, a Nobel Prizewinning chemist, took an interest. He was hooked up to Radin's machine and shown the emotionally charged images.

"It's spooky," he says "I could see about three seconds into the future. You shouldn't be able to do that."

Other researchers from around the world, from Edinburgh University to Cornell in the US, rushed to duplicate Radin's experiment and improve on it. And they got similar results.

It was soon discovered that gamblers began reacting subconsciously shortly before they won or lost. The same effect was seen in those terrified of animals, moments before they were shown the creatures.

The odds against all of these trials being wrong are literally millions to one against.

Professor Dick Bierman decided to take this work even further. He is a psychologist who has become convinced that time as we understand it is an illusion. He could see no reason why people could not see into the future just as easily as we dip into memories of our past.

He's in good company. Einstein described the distinction between the past, present and future as 'a stubbornly persistent illusion'.

To prove Einstein's point, Bierman looked inside the brains of volunteers using a hospital MRI scanner while he repeated Dr Radin's experiments.

These scanners show which parts of the brain are active when we do certain tasks or experience specific emotions.

Although extremely complex, and with each analysis taking weeks of computing time, he has run the experiments twice involving more than 20 volunteers.

And the results suggest quite clearly that seemingly ordinary people are capable of sensing the future on a fairly consistent basis. Bierman emphasises that people are receiving feelings from the future rather than specific 'visions'.

It's clear, though, that if ordinary people can receive feelings from the future then perhaps the especially gifted may receive visions of things yet to be.

It's also clear that many paranormal phenomena such as ESP and clairvoyance could have their roots in presentiment.

After all, if you can see a few seconds into the future, why not a few days or even years? And surely if you could look through time, why not across great distances?It's a concept that ties the mind in knots, unless you're a physicist.

"I believe that we can 'sense' the future," says the Nobel Prizewinning physicist Brian Josephson.

"We just haven't yet established the mechanism allowing it to happen.

"People have had so called 'paranormal' or 'transcendental' experiences along these lines. Bierman's work is another piece of the jigsaw. The fact that we don't understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen.'

If we are all regularly sensing the future or occasionally receiving glimpses of it, as some mediums claim to do, then doesn't that mean we can change the future and render the 'prediction' obsolete?

Or perhaps we were meant to receive the premonition and act upon it? Such paradoxes could go on for ever, providing a rich seam of material for films such as Minority Report - based on a short story of the same name - in which a special police department is able to foresee and prevent crimes before they have even taken place.

Could such science fiction have a grain of truth in it after all? The emerging view, Bierman explains, is that 'the future has implications for the past'.

"This phenomena allows you to make a decision on the basis of what will happen in the future. Does that restrain our free will? That's up to the philosophers. I'm far too shallow a person to worry about that."

The problem with presentiment is that it appears so nebulous that you can't rely on it to make reliable decisions. That may be the case, but there are plenty of instances where people wished they had listened to their premonitions or feelings of presentiment.

One of the saddest involves the Aberfan disaster. This occurred in 1966 when a coal tip collapsed and swept through a Welsh school killing 144 people, including 116 children. It turned out that 24 people had received premonitions of the tragedy.

One involved a little girl who was killed. She told her mother shortly before she was taken to school: "I dreamed I went to school and there was no school there. Something black had come down all over it."

So should we listen to our instincts, hunches and dreams? Some experts believe we may already be using them in our everyday lives to a surprising degree.

Dr Jessica Utts at the University of California, who has worked for the US military and CIA as an independent auditor of its paranormal research, believes we are constantly sampling the future and using the knowledge to help us make better decisions.

"I think we're doing it all the time," she says. "We've looked at the data and it does seem to happen."

So perhaps the Queen in Through The Looking Glass was right: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."

Interesting website

So we now admitt we are spraying things, but only to fight the WAR on drought....

By Maria Sudekum Fisher, Associated Press Writer
LAKIN, Kan. — Water is prized in western Kansas, where aquifers are suffering and farms are miles wide and generations deep; a scant half inch of rain can mean the difference between a successful season and a failed one.

But when it comes in the form of fist-sized balls of ice known as hail, water's more than a menace. It can damage and even destroy crops.

That's where the Western Kansas Weather Modification Program and other cloud-seeding operations across the western U.S. come in. The WKWMP is among about 10 programs that tinker with the weather — either by trying to cut the size of hail or boost rainfall and snowpack. They do it largely by shooting up storm clouds with silver iodide or dry ice mixtures.

PHOTO GALLERY: Fly with a cloud seeding mission

Other countries also have used or considered using weather modification. The United Arab Emirates has investigated cloud seeding to help increase rainfall. China has announced plans to use cloud seeding to manage rainfall during the 2008 Olympics, and Indonesia has used it to try to fight fires.

Cloud seeding has a host of critics, from those who say there is no good science to support claims that it works to others who raise concerns about the possibility that it actually may cause less rain and harm the environment.

But as water supplies show signs of stress around the globe and insurance companies add up hail damage payouts, weather modification programs persist.

"What's beginning to happen is that worldwide, people are realizing that water, especially fresh water, is a very precious resource, and we need to do what we can to increase the availability of that resource," said Bruce Boe, director of meteorology for Weather Modification Inc., a Fargo, N.D.,-based company that has been seeding clouds since the 1960s. Weather Modification Inc. has contracts in the U.S., Africa, southeast Asia and Canada, where Weather Modification Inc. does business with insurance companies.

"They'll say, 'We paid out $500, $600 million in claims on hail damage, and the forecast is for more hail storms, so we want you to come in for a couple million dollars and take care of the hail,"' Boe said.

Cloud seeding was developed after World War II to try to increase rainfall. The theory is that the silver iodide, which has a structure that resembles ice, creates raindrops in the clouds, increasing precipitation and reducing moisture for hail formation.

In the U.S., weather modification programs are largely run by individual states and counties. But a measure before the U.S. Senate would allocate $10 million a year to establish the Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board, which would develop policy and research weather modification programs.

Kansas started its program in 1975. The Western Kansas Weather Modification Program now covers about 8,000 miles and is used about 85% of the time for hail reduction. The program, which receives state and local funding, was briefly extended into northwest Kansas in the late 1990s. But residents became concerned that cloud seeding may have been reducing their rainfall amounts and voted the program out.

The WKWMP operates from April through September with four planes. Program manager Walt Geiger monitors the weather from a radar station at the tiny Kearny County airport in Lakin. When he sees a storm developing, one with "lots of strong vertical action" that could be a hail producer, Geiger notifies the pilots, who then head into the storms in their single-engine planes, armed with nerves and bayonet-sized canisters of silver iodide.

A 1998-1999 study of the WKWMP found that while there was a statistically significant reduction in hail that year, there was no evidence to support the program's attempts to increase rainfall.

The science behind cloud seeding, while "excellent at the microscopic level," doesn't translate too well outside the lab, says Terry Kastens, professor of agriculture economy at Kansas State University, which conducted the study.

"The practicality of whether you can actually get enough of the iodide in the air is a really big question," says Kastens. "A lot of time we joke it's like shooting a pea shooter at the clouds."

David Brenn, WKWMP's director, discounts naysayers. He says he has seen the benefits of hail reduction efforts. He also says at least one insurance company has expressed interest in partnering with WKWMP.

But Mike Standley, whose family has farmed in southwest Kansas for about a century, says he's concerned that cloud seeding may be costing him some precious rain. It has been a long time since he has seen regular summer afternoon thunderstorms on his land, says Standley, 30.

"Now the day when we have one little storm popping up, they'll be flying up and around it, and it just seems to fizzle out," he says.

Standley says he would like to see solid proof that cloud seeding works. With 14 to 19 inches of precipitation a year, he just can't spare the moisture.

"I can raise crops with hail," he said. "But I can't raise crops with no moisture."

again, our money is created out of nothing

April 19, 2005
Print this article
Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks of Illegal Creation of Money

John Ruiz Dempsey, criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, reports Tom Kennedy, a Canadian activist for economic reform.

One of the best kept secrets is the mechanism of money creation in today's economic system. Although not really a secret at all, the fact that money is created not by and for the people who use it and not even by the government, but is issued by commercial banks when giving loans to private persons or government, is hidden by what could be described as thick clouds of smoke, put out by economists and government departments.

The complaint was filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster. It alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

The legal action brings to the fore one of the major economic "drag factors" - the interest charged by banks for money that technically and legally is not theirs to lend, because even governments end up paying interest to banks lending money for public spending, and they in turn charge tax payers. A large part of every country's tax revenue goes first and foremost - before any "internal" spending - to payment of interest, largely because of the basic flaw in our way of creating money by the rich and for the rich.

Here is some more detail about the class action filed in Canada.

Class Action Suit Filed on Behalf of the People of Canada

forwarded by Tom Kennedy

New Westminster, B.C., April 15, 2005.

John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money.

The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster, alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

Dempsey claims that creation of money out of nothing is ultra vires these defendants' charter or granted corporate power and therefore void and all monies loaned under false pretence contravenes the Criminal Code.

The suit which is the first of its kind ever filed in Canada which could involve millions of Canadians alleges that the contracts entered into between the People ("the borrowers") and the financial institutions were void or voidable and have no force and effect due to anticipated breach and for non-disclosure of material facts.

Dempsey says the transactions constitute counterfeiting and money laundering in that the source of money, if money was indeed advanced by the defendants and deposited into the borrowers' accounts, could not be traced, nor could it be explained or accounted for.

The suit names Envision Credit Union ("Envision"), a credit union; Laurentian Bank of Canada ("Laurentian Bank"), Royal Bank of Canada ("Royal Bank"), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"), Bank of Montreal ("BOM"), TD Canada Trust ("Canada Trust") and Canadian Payment Association ("CPA") as civil conspirators.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is seeking recovery of money and property that was lost by way of confiscation through illegal "debt" collection and foreclosure. The Plaintiff is also seeking for the return of the equities which rightfully belong to the People of Canada, now being held by the defendant financial institutions as constructive trustees without color of right.

At all material times, these defendant banks and all of them have no legal standing to lend any money to borrowers, because:
1) these banks and credit unions did not have the money to lend, and therefore they did not have any capacity to enter into a binding contract;

2) the defendants did not have any cash reserve, they are not legally permitted to lend their depositor's or member's money without expressed written authorization form the depositors, and:

3) the defendants have no tangible assets of their own to lend and all their "assets" are "paper assets" which are mainly in the form of "receivables" created by them out of "thin air," derived out of loans whereas the monies loaned out were also created out of thin air.

Other than bookkeeping and computer entries, no money or substance of any value was loaned by the defendants to the Plaintiff. In all of the loan transactions entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the financial institutions did not bring any equity to any of the transaction.

All the equities were provided by the borrowers. The practices of the defendant financial institutions alleged in the complaint starkly contrast the practices of responsible and ethical money lenders who actually lend real, tangible, legal tender cash money.

The complaint alleges that the loan transactions are fraudulent because no value was ever imparted by the defendants to the Plaintiff; these defendants did not risk anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost anything under any circumstances and therefore no lien has been perfected according to law and equity against the Plaintiff.

The foreclosure proceedings which comes as a result of the borrower defaulting on such fraudulent loans were carried out in bad faith by the defendant banks and credit unions, and as such, these foreclosures were in every respect unlawful acts of conversion and unlawful seizure of property without due process of law which always results in the unjust enrichment of the defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants utilize fraudulent banking practices whereby they deceive customers into believing that they are actually receiving "credit" or money when in fact no actual money is being loaned to their customers. However, the complaint describes a practice whereby there is realistically no money other than ledger or computer entries being loaned to the borrowers.

Rather than real money being received by the borrowers, "electronic" or "digitally created money", created out of nothing, at no cost to the financial institutions are entered as "loans" into their customers' accounts. The borrowers are then required to pay criminal interest rates for the money they never received. The suit alleges that the defendants effectively turn consumers into virtual debt slaves, forcing them to pay for something they never received, and then seizing their properties if they can no longer pay the banks with real money.

There is no law in Canada that could remotely suggest that the defendant financial institutions have the legal right to create money out of nothing. Dempsey says: "only God has the power to create anything out of nothing."

The class action suit, the first and the biggest of its kind in Canada is intended to give the justice system the opportunity to prove to itself and to the People of Canada who is really in control or whether they would continue to allow itself to be used by the banks as a tool in their unlawful and fraudulent banking practices which always ends in the enslavement of the people and confiscation of the people's properties.

Two other class action suits were filed by John Ruiz Dempsey against the banks. The first one was filed by Dempsey on behalf of Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C. versus the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. This matter is set for case management conference hearing on April 26, 2005. The Plaintiff expects a stiff opposition from the defendant's law firm. Madam Justice Garson is the case management judge assigned to the case.

A second class action suit was filed against MBNA CANADA BANK on behalf of Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C., Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Dena Alden of Vancouver, B.C.

A copy of the Dempsey legal action as filed can be found here to download as PDF.

- - -

February 2006:

John Dempsey says that the class action that is the subject of this article will be heard in court Feb 27, 28 and Mar 1st, 2006. See the link for more information.

Download file

And here a report of what happened in court:

"The People vs The Banks"

Vancouver, British Columbia, February 27, 2006

The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28 and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the People represented by John-Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel-N: Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the courtroom. Game over, the banks‚ motion to dismiss the People's claim will not be heard - at least for now.

The People came prepared, knowing they are being led to the slaughter by the banks' lawyers and the judge who prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge represented the banks lead counsel for one of the defendant banks - TD Canada Trust; obviously a clear conflict of interest which she refused to admit. Pavel said: "she had lots of chances to recuse herself in order to avoid confrontation but she failed miserably, presumably under the order of someone higher than herself."

John filed a Notice of Motion to be heard by the Chief Justice Donald Brenner. Judge Garson took it upon herself to "hear" the motion in clear violation of the Rules of Court which gave the moving party the sole right to set his own motion for hearing. John was never given the opportunity to file a Notice of Hearing; in fact it is not too clear how the motion came to be heard or what caused John's motion to be heard; the People suddenly received a "Reasons for Judgment" released by judge Garson on December 9, 2005. The People have no recollection of any hearings being set or heard regarding John's motion (see - Dempsey et al. v. Envision Credit Union et al., 2005 BCSC 1730). It appears like Garson J. decided to "hear" the motion and become the judge of her own cause - in violation of the legal maxim: nemo judex in sua causa.

Apprehension of bias has been clearly evident since justice Garson was appointed as case management judge. Her first biased act was to prevent John from representing others despite the fact that John had private power of attorney agreements with Pavel, Ian (Gravlin), Pedro and Otto to represent them in court. As attorney-in-fact, it is trite law, established by generations of jurisprudence, John can do all things that his principals can legally do. The law regarding power of attorney has existed long before any statute such as the Legal Profession Act came into existence. Yet, the same judge who is supposed to be our protector and public servant decided to violate and impaired the People's right of contract.

As humans, we have human rights and our rights are not subject to statutory control. It falls within the sovereign individual paradigm as reflected by the following US Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Justice Garson has shown her true colors and where her allegiance lies by barring John to carry out his fiduciary duties to those who have agreed to be his lawful attorney based solely on "judicial discretion." Judicial discretion has no validity when there is positive law; judicial discretion cannot abrogate a living man or woman's natural rights; judicial discretion cannot overturn common law or statutory law. In the case of the said power of attorney contracts entered into between John and the people he represents, the contracts are even protected by the Power of Attorney Act of British Columbia. Garson J's blatant disregard for the law is recorded in her Reasons for Judgment in Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839.

Justice Garson has shown her willingness and determination to bend over backwards to the whims and wishes of the banks by bulldozing all the bank class actions into one single action despite the objections of all the representative plaintiffs involved in these class actions including "The People vs. The Banks" class action. Although the class actions involve similar causes of actions, not all the defendants are the same. One thing is obvious however; the banks' lawyers are clearly attempting a judicial holocaust by herding all the class actions into one single gas chamber (or judge chamber) so that all the class actions can be slaughtered by one single judge/executioner in one fell swoop. John and his co-plaintiffs will not allow that to happen. They represent the People of Canada; they have the duty to ensure that such a planned massacre against the People does not happen. "The People are counting on us," John said, "this is not up to one single judge to decide on our class actions, it is the People who will ultimately decide on the People's fate, not judge Garson, this is the law of the land."

There are other reasons why John and his friends believe that they are being led to the slaughter such as: Garson J refused to strike the banks‚ statements of defence that really forms no reasonable defence. For example, all the banks‚ defence says that the class actions are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of process, a typical boiler plate defence that corrupt court courts always allowed corrupt defendant lawyers to get away with. Such a defence is no defence at all because it does not state why the class action suits are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process. It is an insult to the People who know the truth.

Garson J has also allowed the banks to get away with serious violations of the Rules of Court and established legal procedures by allowing the banks' lawyers to refuse to produce documents, answer Interrogatories, and Notices to Admit. Based on our observation, it has been the normal practice of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the highest courts in the province to apply the rules only when they see fit. Unrepresented litigants, particularly those who are not too familiar with the rules of court have lost their cases due to such unfair double standards. The People must follow the Rules of Court, but the lawyers and judges, particularly those who gets paid handsomely by the banking cartel need not be concerned about any rules. They make up their own rules as they go along, and they have judges that makes them right all the time.

As living men and women, we can only deal in truth. We can only deal with what is wrong and what is right. The admiralty courts like the supreme courts and appellate courts of the province only deal in arguments, in fictions, in make-believe laws created by them, the "just us" society. This is only one of the reasons why we have to shut them down. We have no time for their arguments. Either they deal with us in truth, or we will have nothing to do with their corruption. We are here to set the People free, by way of the truth, not by arguing in court. People lose in court because they argue. People are not allowed to argue in court, only the "officers" of their admiralty courts are allowed to make arguments in court. We play our own rules in their courts - "for we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth."

Justice Garson could not stand truth in her court room. Pavel asked her many times: "are you a public servant?" Garson J refused to answer a simple question with the truth. We already know the answer - she is nothing but a public servant, she is our servant. Garson J. lost it when the People in the court room themselves asked her: "why can't you answer a simple question - are you a public servant?" That was all the heat she could take that day. She stood up and started to leave and ordered the sheriff to clear the court room. However, before she managed to get out of the court room, John and Pavel told her: "You're fired Nicole." And all the People in the court said so: "You're fired."

At any rate, the matter is res judicata or already decided by virtue of the fact that the banks have no answer to John's Affidavit of Truth he filed in court. The affidavit was intended to solicit answers from the banks and establish the truth. In commerce, truth is established by an affidavit. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. The time for filing a reply has now passed. This means that the People have already established the truth in accordance with the law of commerce. In commerce, truth is sovereign and as sovereign, we, the People have already established the truth. We have no time for the banks‚ and their lawyers‚ arguments. They are precluded by estoppel.

So that was the end of that. We are ordering the transcript to make sure that no one could tamper with the records if they have not yet done so already. We will publish the contents of the court transcript as soon as we receive it. What's going happen next? Nothing. We, the People are not going back into that temple until the court has established that they have in rem or subject matter jurisdiction over us. As sovereign men and women, they have no power over us, unless it was given to them from above; or unless we accept their assumed power or jurisdiction. God bless you all.

John-Ruiz: Dempsey

One of Many

- - -

Some earlier updates...

Updage August 10, 2005:

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005. Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported „taxpayers‰ have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The class action suit is a result of more than five years of research and study of de facto Canadian federal statutes. The Plaintiffs says that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this "Act" was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

The impugned Income Tax Act of 1948, as well as many other federal acts enacted by the de facto Canadian government since 1931 have not been enacted properly pursuant to the laws of England and Canada. The Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada.

For a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, the bill must be passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate. The Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed by the Senate. After the bill has met the approval of the parliament and the senate, the bill must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England - the "Royal Assent" by the Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

There has not been a lawfully appointed representative of the Crown since 1931 to the present. In order to circumvent this problem, the then ruling Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyons MacKenzie King signed the infamous Letters Patent of 1947 which gave the de facto Governor Generals all the powers of the Crown, including the power to give Royal Assent. This unlawful practice still goes on today. The ruling Crown of England is precluded by its own law to appoint Governor Generals. Again, to thwart this issue, King and the de facto Prime Ministers who came after him started to appoint their own Governor Generals.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Canadian government, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out its fraud and deception, the Canadian government "revised" the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act - 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year „1948‰ removed) and integrated this "new" Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the "colouring" process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government of Canada failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey on behalf of the People of Canada, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs say such "Act" simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all money and property wrongfully confiscated (stolen) by the Canadian government from its people.

- - -

Update August 22, 2005


VANCOUVER, British Columbia: Almost five months to the day of the initial filing of the biggest class action suit in Canada, John Ruiz Dempsey on Behalf of the People of Canada versus Envision Credit Union, Laurentian Bank, CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD Canada Trust, The Canadian Payment Association and others, the lawyers representing the financial institutions are gathering steam to try to stop John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist from proceeding with their application to the court to strike Mr. Dempsey’s statement of claim in whole or in part. Hearings are set for September 12 and 13 at the Supreme Court in Vancouver. The statement of claim alleges among other things, creation of money out of nothing, fraudulent misrepresentation, money laundering, fraud, charging of criminal interest rates and breach of contract. A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for download through

"This without a doubt will be a precedent setting case that is sure to change the face of the banking system in Canada forever. Without even taking into consideration the potential damages, the sheer numbers of people alone who potentially can participate in this action, will in my estimation make this case the largest lawsuit ever filed for Class Certification in this nation", stated John Ruiz Dempsey.

The banks are being represented by two of the largest law firms in Canada such as Borden Ladner Gervais with 670 lawyers and Fasken Martineau Dumoulin with 500 lawyers. This is clearly a David and Goliath case where these lawyers are moving to tread heavily on Mr. Dempsey and the People of Canada he represents.

News Conferences are currently being arranged and will be held September 9 in Vancouver and Montreal. Various citizen groups and freedom movements as well as other special interest groups representing thousands of Canadians from across Canada are expected to rally in support of this action.

Media representatives wishing to attend any of the News Conferences, or wanting to ensure that they are on our mailing lists, or wishing to arrange for interviews with legal, forensic and other experts after any of the News. Conferences, should call to ensure that their current information is on file.

In Montreal, Quebec
Contact: Bruce Margolese
(514) 294-3284

In Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: John R. Dempsey
(604) 597-1475
E-Mail: or

Since sending out a News Release in April announcing the filing of the Class Action Law Suit, we have been inundated with calls from persons asking if it is too late to become involved.

The answer is NO. As long as you fit ANY ONE of the five criteria listed below, you can apply for registration for Class Participation. While we would like those interested in becoming involved to do so on a timely basis, as it adds strength to our efforts, a cut-off date for participation will be established (I believe by the court at a future date).
The criteria for participation is as follows:

1. If you have been involved in any kind of loan transaction with any bank or financial institution you are eligible to participate;

2. If you did not know that banks and financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, you are eligible to participate;

3. If you were told by your bank or financial institution they loaned you money without receiving “cash” or “legal tender” money or currency, you are eligible to participate;

4. If you were unaware that the bank or financial institution made you sign a promissory note or loan application form and ‘monetized’ the said note or form by way of your signature, you are eligible to participate;

5. If you or your family have suffered or are facing foreclosure or seizure of property or debt collection by banks or financial institutions as a result of any loan or debt transactions with any bank or financial institution, you are eligible to participate.

It is important to note that you DO NOT have to be object or victim of any debt collection, foreclosure or any other legal proceeding to participate.

rest here

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
Al Gore: an inspiring but divisive green adviser
Al Gore - he’s hot
An inconvenient truth?

Cows targeted in climate change war

As part of a government-backed project, researchers are trying to find a diet for cattle that will cause less burping and flatulence
Two degrees of difference: the science that backs the protest
On climate change, Bush is all heart
The Terminator says go green
Related Links
U-turn on showing of Al Gore film in school
Al Gore tipped to win Nobel
An inconvenient truth?

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

— A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters

Monday, August 6, 2007

Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

Ryan Singel
Monday Aug 6, 2007

A new law expanding the government's spying powers gives the Bush Administration a six-month window to install permanent back doors in the nation's communication networks. The legislation was passed hurriedly by Congress over the weekend and signed into law Sunday by President Bush.

The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

The Administration pushed for passage of the changes to close what it called a "surveillance gap," referring to a long-standing feature of the nation's surveillance laws that required the government to get court approval to capture communications inside the United States.

While the nation's spy laws have been continually loosened since 9/11, the Administration never pushed for the right to tap the nation's domestic communication networks until a secret court recently struck down a key pillar of the government's secret spying program.

The Administration argues that the world's communication networks now route many foreign to foreign calls and emails through switches in the United States.

Prior to the law's passage, the nation's spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't need any court approval to spy on foreigners so long as the wiretaps were outside the United States.

Now, those agencies are free to order services like Skype, cell phone companies and arguably even search engines to comply with secret spy orders to create back doors in domestic communication networks for the nation's spooks. While it's unclear whether the wiretapping can be used for domestic purposes, the law only requires that the programs that give rise to such orders have a "significant purpose" of foreign intelligence gathering.

The law:
Defines the act of reading and listening into American's phone calls and internet communications when they are "reasonably believed" to be outside the country as not surveillance.
Gives the government 6 months of extended powers to issue orders to "communication service providers," to help with spying that "concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The language doesn't require the surveillance to only target people outside the United States, only that some of it does.
Forces Communication Service providers to comply secretly, though they can challenge the orders to the secret Foreign Intelligence Court. Individuals or companies given such orders will be paid for their cooperation and can not be sued for complying.
Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months legal forever and perpetually renewable after the six month "sunset" of the new powers.
Grandfathers in the the current secret surveillance program -- sometimes referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- and any others that have been blessed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the secret surveillance court its reasons why these programs aren't considered domestic spying programs, but the court can only throw out those reasons if it finds that they are "clearly erroneous."
Requires the Attorney General to tell Congress twice a year about any incidents of surveillance abuse and give statistics about how many surveillance programs were started and how many directives were issued.
Makes no mention of the Inspector General, who uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas, is not mentioned in the bill.

In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation's communication service providers -- which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks -- to create permanent spying outposts for the federal government.

These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreigners, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.

Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.

In related international news, Zimbabwe's repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation's communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine

Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine
Wednesday July 4, 2007

Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.

1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.

In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.

British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Should young girls be required to take Gardasil by the government when possible side effects include hospitalization and death? There have also been reports from the National Vaccine Information Center about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil, and there are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.

These are steep risks for a vaccine that only sometimes protects against HPV, which is virtually 100 percent avoidable without an expensive and potentially fatal vaccine.

Please realize that Merck has manipulated the medical and political system to FORCE children to get this dangerous vaccine for their own bottom line profit. The potential promised reduction of cervical cancer is the bait they use.

Remember Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine, is the same company that made Vioxx that killed over 60,000 people.

It is also important to understand that this year, some 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV, and about 3,700 will die from it. In comparison, 16 times more American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (178,480), and 11 times more will die from it (40,460).

As Merck's own literature says, it is important to realize that Gardasil does not protect women against some "non-vaccine" HPV types. So, even if girls accept the risks and get vaccinated, they can still get HPV.

Finally, although more than 6 million women contract HPV each year, a woman's immune system is often strong enough to clear up the infection on its own. About 90 percent of HPV infections simply clear up within two years.

Remember, it is NOT the infection that is the issue as much as it is the person's immune system. You can be exposed to these bacteria and viruses and if you are living a healthy lifestyle your body's immune system will typically know how to address the infection.