Saturday, 25 June 2011

NZ Judges are basically a bunch self obsessed of Inbreeds!


Suppose you awoke one day to find that by executive decree all but a couple of the 122 Members of Parliament were to be white Anglican, horse breeding lawyers who mix in the same tight social circles and whose priority is security of their possessions. If after they met the new Members passed a multitude of laws stating immigration is restricted to Europe and North America, horse breeders are exempt from paying taxes, the Northern Club is granted exclusive use of Albert Park for a new party facility and carpark and theft of property is now punishable by death, would this amount to a conspiracy on its face?

The answer is "No". It is human nature for people to make decisions which are rooted in self-interest. They do not need to collude to promote interests they share. The actions might further be considered egalitarian if the members were a mirror image of New Zealand and their actions were reflective of the mores of society. That non-horse breeders are left to pick up the tax burden, Albert Park users no longer have that enjoyment and NZ citizens from South America and Asia cannot have family members join them becomes merely a casualty of the balancing exercise where societal interests conflict.

The problem in a democratic and just society of course is if the decision making process appears arbitrary, is not transparent, subverts societal mores and benefits a privileged few at the expense of society on the whole.

It is inconceivable a democratic nation as diverse as New Zealand would accept the reins of power being vested in this parochial oligarchy. What few realise is that this has become the adopted model for the judicial branch of government since the loss of the Privy Council as the final appellate court in 2004. There is little diversity among New Zealand High Court judges, which includes Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges. Only three were born off shore (all England) and two are Maori, although you could not tell by looking at them. If they all look like family, it is because they largely are. There are many cousins and even a husband and wife (Simon and Ellen France). The great majority are former Crown lawyers or children of past judges. It is not a conspiracy that they have a hard time recognizing white collar crime and the civil rights of individuals considering their privileged backgrounds and cloistered environs. If the Chief Justice has substantial shares in the state carrier, and the state carrier has been particularly kind in providing service and holidays to just a few of her judicial colleagues, it does not require a conspiracy for the appellate court to uphold a court verdict which had seemed a straightforward breach of antitrust laws. That the presiding judge alone controls the official record of what occurred helps to keeps things tidy.

That this is a huge problem for New Zealand was evident in the snickers from the business community to the announcement of PM John Key's futile dream that New Zealand become a financial hub along the line of Singapore. Even if the public are shielded by the shroud of secrecy which pervades many NZ court proceedings, business people with money to invest make it their objective to look at the economic and legal playing field. If the laws are found to not be equitably applied, investors want to at least know what the bribing regime is for judges. The problem for New Zealand is that while businesspeople see judicial decisions inconsistent with law and fact, they are told corruption of judges does not exist. They are left bewildered when a distinguished judge such as Susan Glazebrook on the Court of Appeal states from the bench she is not interested in whether a party has submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, refuses to look at the evidence this is so, relies upon the deceptive documents in support of the reserved judgment, then suppresses the court record.

Everyone now knows that after the Privy Council roundly chastised the New Zealand Court of Appeal for systemic legal abuses in Taito v R, Attorney General of the day Margaret Wilson led a coup to shoot the messenger and appoint the very Court of Appeal judges who were guilty of a homegrown brand of selective lawlessness to New Zealand's new court of last resort. What little judicial diversity - and redress - New Zealand offered before effectively evaporated.

One upshot of this incestuous consolidation of judicial power is that, in contrast to the United States or other Commonwealth countries, there is little realistic expectation that litigants in New Zealand will get an arm's length and fairer legal shake at the appellate court. Aside from appointing judges from a small social subsection in this land of 4 million people, the revolving door nature of the appellate court routinely has judges from the High Court sitting in judgment on the Court of Appeal and judges on the Supreme Court reviewing appeals of decisions they made when on the Court of Appeal.

Public ignorance of the nation's judges who exercise unbridled power is by design. The obscure selection process extends to the austere announcements of each appointment, ordinarily little more than a 100 word blip of tantalizing PR put out by the Attorney General. Court proceedings themselves are often black holes of information. Unless our desire to know who these people are and what they are doing forces a modicum of transparency, we have not learned the lessons of history.

New Zealand judges are not elected - 17 June 2010

New Zealand judges are not elected. They are effectively appointed without scrutiny, in secret, by two officials. Once appointed, they have the job for life and, for all practical purposes, are not held personally accountable for their actions. No judge has been removed from office in New Zealand history (although a few have resigned through the years under clouds of scandal).

Extremely little is publicly known about these judges who provide such a critical function to society. The risk of this public ignorance has been heightened recently by judicial conflict revelations.
New Zealand lawyers are indoctrinated not to express informed opinions of judges. A number of Crown lawyers responded to say they did not consider it appropriate to, or were prevented from, participating in a survey despite the survey being expressly anonymous. Lawyers were invited to post back the surveys in plain envelopes. 

No less than the New Zealand Law Society President made a public plea for lawyers not to participate.
These are the lawyers who have been educated to protect our democracy and freedoms. Can you imagine the Law Society and Crown campaigning to keep information on the official conduct of Members of Parliament from being made public?
A total of 730 lawyers and court-minders nationwide were sent this first ever survey of New Zealand judges and asked to evaluate only those judges they were familiar with. The response rate was disappointing, at less than 7%.

Only the 62 Judges in the High Court and above were included in the survey. The results were certainly enlightening, and often surprising.
Retiring Court of Appeal Judge David Baragwanath was the highest overall scorer at 9.1, with embattled Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson pulling a dismal 3.1 in last place.
Lawyers were asked to score each judge on a scale of 1 to 10 in four categories; knowledge of the law, intelligence, personal character and fairness - as well as provide relevant comments. A survey with all '10's was not considered serious and discarded.

Though women comprise 21% of the judges surveyed, they captured half of the top ten spots and 3 of the top 5 in the rankings. The average rating for female judges was 7.75, compared to 7.50 for the men.
Male judges still scored, on average, higher in knowledge of the law and intelligence, but the women blew the men away on perceived fairness and integrity. If Judith Potter J - a definite outlier in the survey - was removed, female judges on average were considered an astounding 28% fairer in their judicial approach than their male counterparts.
The results from the survey also raised the disturbing possibility that the overall judicial pool is short on talent and that, with the possible exception of Sian Elias, the New Zealand Supreme Court is not the bastion for this scarce legal talent. There appears palpable fear by some lawyers responding that the Supreme Court is not as reliable as the Privy Council was.

Judicial independence was also regularly raised as a concern. So many of the current judges are related or engaged in business ventures together. There is little diversity on the court, with judges coming from many of the same law firms and clubs, and minorities virtually unrepresented. Several lawyers admitted to suffering through cases where the judges had potential conflicts of interest, afraid to raise it for fear of offending the judge and prompting retaliation. Comments were common that many judges act with overt bias on Crown cases.

These results strongly suggest that New Zealand consider re-evaluating the mechanism by which judges are appointed, promoted and monitored. A copy of the survey results has been sent to the Attorney General and New Zealand Law Society.


The denial of trial by jury to the eighteen Operation 8 defendants by judicial decree is now before the New Zealand Supreme Court. Though the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Judicature Act and Crimes Act all exhort the right to elect trial by jury, do not hold your breath that the Supreme Court will uphold the law and reverse the lower court decisions. 

At the fore is the ease to which the still infant Supreme Court has repeatedly cast aside statutory guarantees to trial by jury in the most spurious fashion. The lower court reasoning that a jury would use improper reasoning in its decision-making against these 18 defendants sounds too Orwellian to stand in law. But the Supreme Court has been masterful in creating fictitious reasons why such laws have not mattered in the past.

Variously the Supreme Court has stated issues are too complex for juries, trials too long or, simply, made a broad reference that trial by juries are not fair to juries or judges, or have been denied in some case in some other country.

The seminal right to jury, which has been a linchpin in the English legal system for 800 years, is being destroyed by judicial fiat in New Zealand. If you think the effects will be benign, or even positive, consider the following Supreme Court decisions.

In 2009, the Supreme Court, when prohibiting trial by jury in Wenzel v Queen, surreptitiously tagged on an irrelevant opinion to obscure contravention of clear statute when it ruled "The proposed grounds of appeal are quite hopeless. First of all, it is an impossible argument that a fair trial requires a trial by jury." The appeal did not state "fairness" as a ground: it relied upon Bill of Rights Act and Crimes Act guarantees. If this was not troubling enough, the Supreme Court relied upon a Canadian case, R v Lee, where the defendant did not show up for his jury trial, and then was denied one, as grounds why its decision to prohibit jury was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wenzel was facing 7 years in prison. In the subsequent judge-alone trial, he was sentenced to 5 years by District Court Judge Epati. In later overturning the verdict and ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeal pulled no punches in stating the Judge had failed fundamental principles of fairness and logic in finding Wenzel guilty. Equally troubling, the Judge dismissed charges against the lawyer who was Mr Wenzel's co-defendant and gave that lawyer name suppression without justification and without providing reasons. Fairness by judge-alone?

In Solicitor General v Siemer last year, the Supreme Court covered up the fact that the High Court ignored Mr Siemer's election to trial by jury by quashing the judgment and ordering a new conviction and penalty of three months prison, thereby meeting the Bill of Rights Act threshold for judge-alone trial. Proving the judges on the highest court are eminently more efficient at least than juries, the bench declared a new trial was not necessary because the Solicitor General's unsworn submissions from the bar were sufficient to confirm guilt.

Then there is the case of Gregory v Gollan, where the Supreme Court, in 2009, reaffirmed the lower courts were correct to use discretion to deny Mr Gregory's "application" for trial by jury. Gregory's counsel responded to the Supreme Court that an "application" was not required and was not made. He asserted Judicature Act, section 19 A(2) gave Gregory the direct right to "require" a trial by jury. Because the Supreme Court's actions were such a blatant contravention of the rule of law, Counsel requested Attorney General Chris Finlayson intervene in the public interest. Finlayson's office responded simply that judicial independence effectively means judges can pick and choose which laws they want to apply in New Zealand. For its own part, the Supreme Court refused to be pulled into defending its seemingly lawless decision and simply ignored the evident inconsistency brought to its attention.

We may not consider this issue important now, but there are profound reasons why trial by jury is central to egalitarian legal systems. History will judge New Zealand jurisprudence on this issue of trial by jury. And history has shown us that public complacency is an elementary factor in degradation of the rule of law by those in power.

The BIS is a notoriously corrupt institution that was founded and run by top Nazis

At a Council on Foreign Relations meeting 2010, European Central Bank head Jean-Claude Trichet called for the Bank for International Settlements to be used as the de facto global bank.

Globalists are intent on exploiting the financial crisis to set up a ‘bank of the world’ that will be used to further centralize financial regulatory power and control over national economies for the administrative convenience of central bankers.

The BIS is a notoriously corrupt institution that was founded and run by top Nazis in league with British and American industrialists during and after the second world war. Power brokers who controlled the BIS included men such as Herman Schmitz, the director of IG Farben, whose subsidiary company manufactured Zyklon B, the pesticide used in Nazi concentration camp gas chambers to kill Jews and political dissidents during the Holocaust.

Another director of the bank was Walter Funk, who was appointed Nazi propaganda minister in 1933 before going on to become Hitler’s Minister for Economic Affairs. Another BIS director during this period was Emil Puhl, who as director and vice-president of Germany’s Reichsbank was responsible for moving Nazi gold. Both Funk and Puhl were convicted at the Nuremberg trials as war criminals.
Despite the fact that the BIS was also run by American and British industrialists and bankers, according to author Charles Higham, the bank became, “A money funnel for American and British funds to flow into Hitler’s coffers and to help Hitler build up his war machine.”

Today, the BIS is headed by the world’s central bankers, people like Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Bank of England head Mervyn King, as well as Trichet himself.
There is no doubt that the elite are pushing for a global central bank and a global currency – the only issue in their eyes is whether this bank will be controlled by the predatory IMF or the Nazi-founded corrupt BIS, which in either case would represent another dangerous lurch towards authoritarian world government run by financial terrorists who have feverishly set about exploiting the financial crisis their policies created in order to lock in global economic fascism.

Short List of New Zealand Taxes (Incomplete)

Accounts Receivable Tax Airline surcharge tax Airline Fuel Tax Airport Maintenance Tax Building  Permit Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Death Tax Dog License Tax Driving Permit Tax Environmental Tax (Fee) Excise Taxes Local Body Tax Unemployment (UI) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Gasoline Tax (too much per litre) Gross Receipts Tax Health Tax Hunting  License Tax Hydro Tax Inheritance Tax Interest Tax Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Mortgage Tax Personal Income Tax Property Tax Poverty Tax Prescription Drug Tax Provincial Income and sales tax Real Estate Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Retail Sales Tax Service Charge Tax School Tax Telephone Tax Telephone , Provincial and Local Surcharge  axes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales  Tax Water Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had a large middle class, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in "Hell" happened? 

The Tax Man's Prayer

Tax his land,  Tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he's fed.

Tax his work, Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.

Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think..

Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.

Tax all he has then let him know
That you won't be done till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Tax him some more,
Tax him till he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.

When he's gone, do not relax,
Its time to apply the inheritance tax.


Nuclear Attack On US Warned Imminent As Saudi War Nears -

A secret report authored by Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky circulating in the Kremlin today states that the Northern Fleet Units that have taken up positions off the US East Coast with their British, French and American counterparts for the FRUKUS 2011 exercise have been “alerted” that their operations have now been combined with those of the US Marines “Mailed Fist” operation involving tens-of-thousands of troops due to the US believing a nuclear attack upon one or more of its cities is “imminent.”
According to Admiral Vysotsky’s chilling report, both the US and EU have received “substantial” intelligence indicating that the detonation of a low-level nuclear device has been planned to occur in a major NATO nation within the next week that has been orchestrated by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP).
Admiral Vysotsky further states in his report that President Obama [photo top left kneeling before Saudi King Fahd] is in route to the Fort Drum Army Base in New York today to be briefed on and oversee these operations should an attack actually take place.
Being kept from the American people about these events are how close their nation is to all-out war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and as we had detailed in our 28 May report “Obama Vows War On Saudi Arabia, Orders Thousands Of US Troops To Region.”
Increasing the fears of Saudi Arabia towards Obama, this report continues, was the American President announcing yesterday his plans to begin withdrawing US Military Forces from Afghanistan, which both the Saudis and Pakistan believe will be used, instead, to target them under a plan devised by two of Obama’s most trusted friends, and Pakistani nationals, Wahid Hamid and Hasan Chandoo.
Important to note about Hamid and Chandoo is that aside from their being the top two bundlers of campaign contributions allowing Obama to become President, they are, also, Shiite Muslims associated with the powerful Pakistani Bhutto clan whose last leader, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated on 27 December 2007 before she could take power, a killing that all of Obama’s allies blame on Pakistan’s ISI working in concert with Saudi Arabia’s GIP and Pakistan’s Sunni Muslim military rulers.
Obama’s first meeting with the Bhutto clan was in 1981 when he traveled to Pakistan in a visit hosted by Pakistan’s caretaker Prime Minister Mian Muhammadian Soomro whose rule was made possible by the execution of Benazir Bhutto’s father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979, and who was, notably, the last Shiite ruler of the majority Sunni Pakistan.
At this point it is important for Americans to note that their so called “War on Terror” is, in fact, a global “fight to the death” between the majority Arab Sunni Muslims and their Persian Shiite Muslim foes that has raged for centuries, and that for decades saw the US supporting the Sunni’s, especially Saudi Arabia, but since the events of 11 September 2001 has seen them switch sides to Shiite’s.
If it weren’t for the fact that lands holding the vast majority of our world’s last remaining oil and gas resources are controlled by these two rival Islamic factions one could be assured that the wars we see now, and the greater ones to come, would not involve the world’s greatest powers. But, as this is not the case, and the Sunni’s and Shiite’s do, indeed, control the future of the 21st Century by virtue of their energy wealth, the world’s powers have no choice.
The events of 9/11 proved a turning point in this Sunni-Shiite war when the Sunni Muslim led nations of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan engineered the horrific attacks upon the US with assistance from rogue elements within the American military and intelligence communities.
The United States response to this attack against them was a multi-decade plan to destroy the entire Sunni Muslim Arab world while at the same time protecting their new Shiite allies, most notably Persian Iran, who more than any other nation has benefited from America’s wars that has seen their two most hated enemies, Saddam Hussein’s led Iraq, and Afghanistan’s Taliban virtually destroyed.
With both former Sunni-led Iraq and Afghanistan now under Shiite control, and protected by American military might, the US then turned its sights on the other Arab Sunni-controlled nations, most notably Egypt, which after their revolution reestablished ties with Iran.
With Obama ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden, however, the “game” America was playing could no longer be disguised and the whole of the Arab Sunni world now knows the US has, indeed, sided with the Shiite’s and they must respond in kind if they are to survive.
Unfortunately, for the vast numbers of Americans at least, warnings unheeded are the same as no warning ever given at all.
And because these warnings have gone unheeded, and as Saudi Arabia continues its spending of hundreds-of-billions of dollars to counter the United States attempt to destroy the Arab Sunni world, the only move, so to speak, left for the Sunni’s is to bring this war directly to the very doorsteps of America and Europe.
Equally important to note is that Obama’s main ally in this titanic struggle between the Sunnis and Shiites, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is under threat of impeachment from forces loyal to Iran’s Supreme Leader because in his siding with the US has made a “deal with the devil” and is under the “power of sorcery.”
It goes without saying that the events described in this report are staggering to the mind, but it does not make them not true; and with Russia now building an additional 5,000 bomb shelters, and the US Defense Department now working on a vaccine to “genetically cure” Sunni Muslim fanaticism, one should know, without any shadow of doubt, that what was before is now gone, there are no rules left for anyone, anymore…only those who truly know the truth will survive.
Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report.

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Basra Council Bars US Troops From Province - Resolution Also Demands US Compensation for Damages Done in War

The Basra Provincial Council has barred all American troops from entering the province, and demanded that they vacate the Basra International Airport.
The US has a military base at the airport and also controls all traffic on the civilian side of the airport. The latest controversy came after US attack helicopters launched strikes against “suspects” in the city, with reports of several civilian casualties.
The resolution passed in a 26-9 vote in the council, with strong support from the Sadrist Trend. The resolution also demanded that the US compensate citizens for damages suffered during military operations in the oil rich province.
Jason Ditz June 24

US Vows to Arm Philippines to Fight China, Clinton Calls for Restraint, Announces More Weapons Transfers - 24 June

With the disputes over the unpopulated Spratly Islands continuing to grow, the Obama Administration has announced that it is preparing a major increase in arms shipments to the Philippines to prepare the nation to fight a war with China.
The announcement came at a meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Philippines Foreign Secsretary Albert del Rosario, who is pressing for the US to lease equipment to allow them to modernize their navy.
The islands have historically been irrelevant, but are believed to contain large amounts of oil and natural gas. They also are viewed as strategically valuable for both China and the US, as the South China Seas are heavily trafficked.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged “restraint” on all sides over the region, but the promise of more equipment and “defensive” help for Philippines troops to back up claims in the region are likely going to convince all sides that the issue is getting more serious.
by Jason Ditz, June 24, 2011

World Health Organisation (U.N.) - Lies, Lies and more Lies.

A stunning new report reveals that top scientists who convinced the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare H1N1 a global pandemic held close financial ties to the drug companies that profited from the sale of those vaccines. This report, published in the British Medical Journal, exposes the hidden ties that drove WHO to declare a pandemic, resulting in billions of dollars in profits for vaccine manufacturers.
Several key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement. During all this, WHO refused to disclose any conflicts of interests between its top advisors and the drug companies who would financially benefit from its decisions.
All the kickbacks, in other words, were swept under the table and kept silent, and WHO somehow didn’t think it was important to let the world know that it was receiving policy advice from individuals who stood to make millions of dollars when a pandemic was declared.
WHO credibility destroyed
The report was authored by Deborah Cohen (BMJ features editor), and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London. In their report, Cohen states, “…our investigation has revealed damaging issues. If these are not addressed, H1N1 may yet claim its biggest victim — the credibility of the WHO and the trust in the global public health system.”
In response to the report, WHO secretary-general Dr Margaret Chan defended the secrecy, saying that WHO intentionally kept the financial ties a secret in order to “…protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing this critical work… [and] also to ensure transparency.”
Dr Chan apparently does not understand the meaning of the word “transparency.” Then again, WHO has always twisted reality in order to serve its corporate masters, the pharmaceutical giants who profit from disease. To say that they are keeping the financial ties a secret in order to “protect the integrity” of the members is like saying we’re all serving alcohol at tonight’s AA meeting in order to keep everybody off the bottle.
It just flat out makes no sense.
But since when did making sense have anything to do with WHO’s decision process anyway?
Even Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, had harsh words for the WHO, saying, “…its credibility has been badly damaged. WHO must act now to restore its credibility.”
Yet more criticism for WHO
The BMJ isn’t the only medical publication criticizing WHO for its poor handling of conflicts of interest. Another report from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly also criticized WHO, saying: “Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level.” It went on to explain that WHO’s actions led to “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”
The funny thing is, NaturalNews and other natural health advocates told you all the same thing a year ago, and we didn’t have to spend millions of dollars on a study to arrive at this conclusion. It was obvious to anyone who knows just how corrupt the sick-care industry really is. They’ll do practically anything to make more money, including bribing WHO scientific advisors and paying them kickbacks once the vaccine sales surge.
The vaccine industry and all its drug pushers are, of course, criticizing this investigative report. They say WHO “had no choice” but to declare a pandemic and recommend vaccines, since vaccines are the only treatment option for influenza. That’s a lie, of course: Vitamin D has been scientifically proven to be five times more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections, but WHO never recommended vitamin D to anyone.
The entire focus was on pushing more high-profit vaccines, not recommending the things that would actually help people the most. And now we know why: The more vulnerable people were to the pandemic, the more would be killed by H1N1, thereby “proving” the importance of vaccination programs.
People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out. (A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?)
How the scam really worked
Here’s a summary of how the WHO vaccine scam worked:
Step 1) Exaggerate the risk: WHO hypes up the pandemic risk by declaring a phase 6 pandemic even when the mortality rate of the virus was so low that it could be halted with simple vitamin D supplements.
Step 2) Urge countries to stockpile: WHO urged nations around the world to stockpile H1N1 vaccines, calling it a “public health emergency.”
Step 3) Collect the cash: Countries spend billions of dollars buying and stockpiling H1N1 vaccines while Big Pharma pockets the cash.
Step 4) Get your kickbacks: WHO advisors, meanwhile, collected their kickbacks from the vaccine manufacturers. Those kickbacks were intentionally kept secret.
Step 5) Keep people afraid: In order to keep demand for the vaccines as high as possible, WHO continued to flame the fears by warning that H1N1 was extremely dangerous and everybody should continue to get vaccinated. (The CDC echoed the same message in the USA.)
This is how WHO pulled off one of the greatest vaccine pandemic scams in the last century, and it worked like gangbusters. WHO advisors walked away with loads of cash, the drug companies stockpiled huge profits, and the taxpayers of nations around the world were left saddled with useless vaccines rotting on the shelves that will soon have to be destroyed (at additional taxpayer cost, no doubt) or dumped down the drain (where they will contaminate the waterways).
Meanwhile, nobody dared tell the public the truth about vitamin D, thereby ensuring that the next pandemic will give them another opportunity to repeat the exact same scam (for yet more profit).
The criminality of the vaccine industry
The bottom line is all this is a frightening picture of just how pathetic the vaccine industry has become and how corrupt the WHO and the CDC really are. What took place here is called corruption and bribery, folks. Kickbacks were paid, lies were told and governments were swindled out of billions of dollars. These are felony crimes being committed by our global health leaders.
The real question is: Why do governments continue to allow public health organizations to be so easily corrupted by the vaccine industry? And who will stand up to this profit conspiracy that exploits members of the public as if they were profit-generating guinea pigs?
The next time you hear the WHO say anything, just remember: Their advisors are on the take from the drug companies, and just about anything you’re likely to hear from the World Health Organization originates with a profit motive rather than a commitment to public health.
Oh, and by the way… for the record, there has never been a single scientific study ever published showing that H1N1 vaccines worked. Not only was the H1N1 pandemic a fraud to begin with, but the medicine they claimed treated it was also based on fraud. And now we know the rest of the story of why it was all done: Kickbacks from Big Pharma, paid to advisors who told WHO to declare a pandemic.

United Nations Agenda 21 Project for 'Sustainable Development ... Not For Us Thiough!

Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. It is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which humans impact the environment.
'Sustainable Development' has become the popularized expression for Agenda 21, so lets list a few of these sustainable developers objectives;

  • The end of Nation Sovereignty
  • The abolition of private property
  • The restructure of the family unit
  • Increasing restrictions and limitations on mobility and opportunity
  • Human beings are to be concentrated into 'Human Settlement Zones'
  • Irrigation - Unsustainable
  • Grazing of Livestock - Unsustainable
  • Farmlands - Unsustainable
  • and much, much more .....
This 40 chapter document is designed as the philosophy to bring human beings across the globe under the full control of a narrow group of elite. It elevates Nature above Mankind, and contains a little ditty called 'The Precautionary Principle' where basically you are guilty until proven innocent.
How do these people plan to do this and make it last ?
You 'steal' a generation of children and you indoctrinate them so that they accept these ideas and become "Global Citizens" in the coming "Global Village." Quite easy really when you can control the education of the planet using a plethora of United Nations agencies.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as one example, came out and declared 2005 - 2014 as the "Decade of Education for Sustainable Development." They go on to say that " will encompase the 40 chapters of 'Agenda 21"
"Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainablility"
Quoted from a Teachers Guide
'Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit' by Rosalyn McKeown
At a meeting of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), which is an agency that helps with the implementation of Agenda 21 in local communities, Harvey Ruvin, who was the Vice Chairman of ICLEI, was asked about the clash between the corrolative rights derived from the bill of rights of the people which includes, individual liberties ,private property, freedom of speech etc, and Agenda 21, his response was "Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective"