News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

OMG!

I have been seeing chemtrails quite frequently in the last month to now in my neck of the woods!


In fact, twice, I saw the plane/s that made them complete their job and drive off normally after shutting down their sprays.

Yet, if I complained about this- they'd say I was fit for the Mental Ward.--- yet here it is confirmed in Public Law!

Cleanses and not wasting our time on junk foods are going to be very important for us for the remainder of our lives. What we all will have to do is no longer eat at fast food restaurants, eating only foods that will heal us-- and do periodic cleanses, and supplementing with whole supplements and photonutrients to build our bodies up to this onslaught!


I reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly resent being a government guinea pig. :-(

Don't you just feel like a branded beef cow?

Hi Russ- here's a link I got -- of Chemtrails in the recent news.

Seems alot of people in Las Vegas are noticing them- but are being brushed off and not taken seriously. Very interesting article

http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050819/headline1.html

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.
(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not
conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.
(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

Please, use your brain. If you actually read it you see the section that allows testing reads "Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e)". Interesting that you failed to post the first of these subsections, "c", which states that informed consent must be obtained from the prospective test subject prior to testing.

Now, I am well aware of the fact that the U.S. Government has done a great deal of testing on human subjects without consent, but when you discuss this subject, please be a little more intelligent about it. The average American already feels that people who think such things are complete wack-jobs. When you post something such as "The U.S. government can test chemicals and biological agents on living, unconsenting humans for nearly any purpose they desire." and say that this law is proof, you make us all appear to be ill informed.

The fact is, our government doesn't follow the laws anyway.

You could certainly be a little kinder in your response. Also, you may want ask before firing because perhaps I do know something about what I'm talking about.

Concerning Section C...

Under law, it is presumed that this testing is performed with "informed consent".

How?

Because this "law" is publicly available to each human currently being tested upon and it is uncontested. (That's what the courts are for.)

When the terms of a contract are known and uncontested, it's called "acquiescence", and this implies that both parties are in agreement. Furthermore, the contract must meet the judicial requirements of "remedy" and "recourse", which would certainly not be met if they were not "informed".

So...

The public is informed because this "law" is published.

(This is why they like to say: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."; you are expected to know all of the "law".)

Obviously, the public did not become informed because this "law" contains section C. In reality, section C is legally useless. It's only value and purpose for being there is psychological.

Why?

Like so many of the IRS laws, section C of this "law" is very deceptive because most people don't understand the concepts of acquiescence in contract law, and therefore, most people misunderstand this section (C) and would consider this law to be much more benign than it really is.

People would tend to believe that section C would mean they they would be privately, or personally informed; But this "law" does not say that. The only requirement is that they are informed. Publishing this law meets this judicial requirement.

So, the powers-that-be play upon this ignorance through confusion and allow people to draw this false conclusion (about being informed) so they find it difficult to believe that they could be tested upon without a personally addressed letter from their government. This is the only logical explanation for section C (Confusion/Deception).

Hence, I omitted section C to avoid this confusion (because that's all it's really good for).

Again...

They could have completely omitted section C and the law would still have met the test of acquiescence because it is publicly available. It does not—in itself—serve any legal purpose there. It's just there to make the law seem harmless.

By omitting section C, I certainly didn't intend on deceiving anyone, on the contrary, I intended to make the reading of the law more clear by omitting the confusing (and legally worthless) part.

On another note...

I'm also aware that all laws are not followed by the government. They basically get as many laws "passed" or published as possible to provide themselves a level of protection, but when it is not advantageous for them to make known their activities in an area, they resort to mafia tactics (JFK, for example).

So, lets try to be nice to each other and perhaps we'll make more progress and be able to let more people know about these horrible "laws".

Very interesting... my apologies for the coarse tone of my response. I've been told that I can be a little insensitive in discussions. I did not really mean it to be offensive, though I can understand how one would be offended, so again, I apologise.

This really depends on the definition of "informed consent". It was not defined in this document, so I must assume it is defined elsewhere in some pile of legalese of which I am not privy.

The law that is publicly available does not state that testing will be performed on all American citizens. So, I don't understand how the Government, even assuming that everyone is aware of this law, would consider this informed consent.

It says "only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject" which tells me that the subject at least would need to have some idea of what tests were going to be performed on him.

While IANAL, i'm pretty sure acquiescence would only apply if the subject was given legal notice of the type of testing to be performed on him. The law does not specify the type of testing, therefore acquiescence would not apply.

I would like everyone to be aware of how corrupt and downright evil the U.S. government is. And actually, a great number of people have become aware, but I fear this will have little impact.

Fear and impotence...

Change will require something much greater than piling more legalese on top of an already convoluted system.

Thanks for the apology.

In studying various law systems (UCC, IRSC, etc.) in the 90s, I gained a feel for how they do things, as did all of the others who I worked with, spoke with who had done the same before me.

It's basically a matter of (them) getting something on paper in such a way that covers them in court (just in case it gets challenged and they don't own the particular judge) while making it look pleasing (as possible) to the public.

This is why there is this extremely broad conjecture that is presented to people that goes something like this:

"If it's law, it must be the will of the people because you have a vote."

As well as this one:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."



It doesn't have to. All that is legally required is that they are "allowed" to. There are (virtually) no limits in the law pertaining to the times, places or methods in which "testing" can take place, so it is their "privilege" to practice this activity so long as they don't extend the activity beyond the "scope" of the law.



It's not about what the government assumes, it's about how the judicial system works. It's like (in most cases actually is) UCC law.

The UCC states that if you receive a "benefit or privilege" (UCC wordage) "provided" by an entity, you are automatically bound by all of the "terms and conditions" (that is UCC wordage, which is why you hear it so much) of the contract attached to practice of those benefits and privileges. This "binding" process is automatic. It is why we obey road laws, pay most types of taxes, register our cars, etc.

For example, this is why you can be ticketed for traffic "law" "violations". A "violation" is the "breaking" of a term of a contract.

When you sign your driver's license, you are agreeing to be "bound" to a UCC-enforced contract (because it involves the exchange of "currency") because you are exercising a "privilege" (driving) granted by an entity (i.e.: THE STATE OF NEW YORK). ("Driving is a privilege, not a right."). By proxy, you are now bound by all the statutes that are attached to this practice.

This is what the evil ones of this world do: They take God-given rights, convince the people that they (the evil ones) granted them (putting themselves in the "place" of God), and then they tax, register, regulate, control and otherwise abuse rights that are already ours to begin with. The critical part for this oppression to work for the evil ones is the "convince" part. If people actually believe they (the evil ones) have this power, then they actually do. It's enabled by ignorance and propelled by fear.



Ignorance of the law is no excuse, therefore, you were forewarned. At least this is the position that the judiciary takes.

We have been "forewarned" because the law was published before the activity was practiced. You may have a viable lawsuit if you can prove that the activity was practiced before the law was published, Otherwise, all Americans are responsible to know and understand the "law" and therefore they acquiesce, even though this is physically impossible (to know all the laws that are passed).



The subject was given notice, through the publishing of the law. Again, even if it is actually unfair or impossible for us to cope with this, they are protected because of the judicial position. If we are informed, we are in agreement if we don't formally object. In fact, we give them permission.



It doesn't really matter. It's still an agreement and if we don't object to the ambiguity of the statements in due time, the acquiescence still stands.

In my study, I learned that the UCC is written to favor the creditor. It makes it easy for you to enter contracts, just by exercising an activity.

An example of this is when the credit card companies call and say that they want to enroll you in a plan... "...OK"? All you have to do is say "OK" and you're in a contract and you are bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. It's a creditors world.



I share your passion and agree that it will probably have little impact. It's a very sad state of affairs.

One the the first steps I believe people need to make internally is to realize that evil is very real and exists in the world today in a huge way. Evil does not have a forked tail and carry a pitchfork, evil kills (mercury, fluoride, MSG, aluminum, etc.), steals (immoral taxes, usury, UCC bindings without disclosure), and destroys (relationships, countries, and personal esteem).

It's just like the dissertation (Al Pacino) near the end of the movie "The Devil's Advocate". The son asks, "Why law, dad". Dad (satan) says, "Because the law, my boy, gets us into everything."

For a very informative look at the definition and interpretation of 'Informed Consent' please see the following link

http://poynter.indiana.edu/sas/res/ic.pdf

as with all other documents it is suggested that this is read in full prior to commenting on content.

From my understanding of Law and Legalese there is no law in existence which would provide for the unrestrained actions suggested earlier upon the populations of the U.S.A.

However, I am also willing to consent to the fact (read: belief) that the "powers that be" occasionally do not play according to the rules which they themselves set up.

Sincerely,
A Duo

Thanks for your comments A Duo.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read through this line-by-line at the moment, but in reading sections of it, I think the link to the document that you posted does not apply in this case.

Reason?

Same as a stated before.



The relationship between each "person" (or "natural person") and the federal government has to be viewed in the context of a commercial contract between entities, which it is, not a typical law relationship. When you do that, UCC takes over and these other legal theories about "uninformed consent" are irrelevant.

Jurisdiction, jurisdiction, jurisdiction.

To understand this, you must begin to think in terms of:

• A traffic ticket being a commercial presentation (demand for payment)
• Paying for a drivers license as a commercial transaction
• Social security payments as payment for a commercial service
• Income tax as an excise tax (this is well settled in the courts)
• An occupation license fee as the granting of an excise privilege (the right to work) on private land (you don't own your land or car, etc.) For example, a "Certificate of Title" on a car is not a Title. It is actually a certification that the title exists. And who holds the real title? Well, that would be the entity (person, i.e. United States - Corporate - Yellow Fringe Flag) that has the right to confiscate your car because it's really theirs to begin with. They would not be legally able to do this unless they held title. (This is difficult for some people to believe, but that's only because they have forgotten that this same thing has happened over and over in history. It is what the American forefathers were trying to escape from and why they gave us such strong admonition to nip tyranny before it begins to take root. Their radical warnings are well justified, especially to those who understand what has happened to this Country, and to all countries that now fly a yellow-fringed flag, which now includes nearly all countries worldwide.)

I would also refer to my previous posts.

And again, what's really important (other than perception, which is what the perpetrators often hide behind) is how they can dance in the court room to use existing wordage to confuse the jury, which isn't as hard if you own the judge, but that's another conversation.

It's like doctors that get a license. This word—license—actually makes it sound like you're getting additional rights to do something that you could not do before. Of course, the opposite is true. You are now bound to a system that restricts and regulates what you do, yet the sheep follow. (I know there's a lot more to this but I hope you get the gist).

We've entered into a contract that is changeable and we've agreed to be bound so long as we're notified, and have remedy/recourse. So here we are.

Of course, lawyers—like doctors—are taught in a context of certain huge assumptions. When you remove the smoke and mirror show, what the "law-makers" really do is take away something you already have and then offer it back to you with stipulations. It's simply amazing, but like the amalgam issue as it relates to doctors (there are still doctors that believe that mercury escaping from dental amalgam is harmless simply because they've been told this by their teachers), this issue escapes lawyers, again, because they are taught what they are taught with certain, huge assumptions made.

I'm covering years of ground here, but for those with an ear...

A traffic ticket is a financial presentation—a UCC instrument—but few professionals understand it that way because they don't see the issue in context (i.e. jurisdiction). Amazingly, it's all constructed in such a brilliant way that you can operate within this system, make a living, and die, without ever knowing these simple basic truths, and this is—obviously—by design. And if by design, it must be deceptive; Obviously deceptive, once you look "outside the box".

So...

I respectfully have to agree with what you've posted, in as much as I read it, but state that it is out of context (jurisdiction) in respect to 105-85.

Again, covering a lot of ground here and not looking for a long debate, but because it only takes moments to grasp (understand) the big picture but years (usually) to accept (believe) it, discussions like this can sometimes lead to unnecessary passion, not unlike a discussion about evolution can, but once you've seen outside the box of evolution and seen the puppeteers at work, it all begins to make sense and you see the duality of meanings in law that are constructed to the benefit of the puppeteers.

Again, for those who have an ear...

All the best.


A simplistic yet intriguing primer

An in-depth "peep" outside the box