thewashingtonstandard--2020-10-31--Lockdown Rising:  UK COVID Cases, Tests & Propaganda With Kate Shemirani & Dr. Kevin Corbett

As the propaganda and mind control of the media , combined with the lies of the government once again begin to ramp up around the world and specifically in the UK , The Sons of Liberty ’ s health and wellness expert Kate Shemirani and Dr. Kevin Corbett join me to discuss what is taking place in the UK concerning the alleged rise in cases , the alleged virus itself and the shocking propaganda of fear and mind control on tv .
In the first hour , I cover Reformation Day and remind people of how God used men like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tyranny of the papacy , something God is still willing to do today for his people if they are willing to stand and fight .
Kate and Dr. Corbett join me near the end of the first hour due to a mix up where British time changed .
In honor of Reformation Day , the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door , I shared a portion of these things he wrote below .
• When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said , “ Repent ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire life of believers to be one of repentance .
• This word can not be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance , that is , confession and satisfaction , as administered by the clergy .
• Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance ; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh .
• The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self ( that is , true inner repentance ) , namely till our entrance into the kingdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons .
• The pope can not remit any guilt , except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God ; or , to be sure , by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment .
If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded , the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven .
• God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the vicar , the priest .
• The penitential canons are imposed only on the living , and , according to the canons themselves , nothing should be imposed on the dying .
• Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity .
• Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who , in the case of the dying , reserve canonical penalties for purgatory .
• Those tares of changing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were evidently sown while the bishops slept ( Mt 13:25 ) .
• In former times canonical penalties were imposed , not after , but before absolution , as tests of true contrition .
• The dying are freed by death from all penalties , are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned , and have a right to be released from them .
• Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear ; and the smaller the love , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or horror is sufficient in itself , to say nothing of other things , to constitute the penalty of purgatory , since it is very near to the horror of despair .
• Hell , purgatory , and heaven seem to differ the same as despair , fear , and assurance of salvation .
• It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase .
• Furthermore , it does not seem proved , either by reason or by Scripture , that souls in purgatory are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , unable to grow in love .
• Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory , at least not all of them , are certain and assured of their own salvation , even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it .
• Therefore the pope , when he uses the words “ plenary remission of all penalties , ” does not actually mean “ all penalties , ” but only those imposed by himself .
• Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by papal indulgences .
• As a matter of fact , the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which , according to canon law , they should have paid in this life .
• If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all , certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect , that is , to very few .
• For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty .
• That power which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish .
• The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory , not by the power of the keys , which he does not have , but by way of intercession for them .
• They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest , the soul flies out of purgatory .
• It is certain that when money clinks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be increased ; but when the church intercedes , the result is in the hands of God alone .
• Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed , since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal , as related in a legend .
• No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition , much less of having received plenary remission .
• The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent ; indeed , he is exceedingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned , together with their teachers .
• Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope ’ s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him .
• For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man .
• They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchristian doctrine .
• Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt , even without indulgence letters .
• Any true Christian , whether living or dead , participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church ; and this is granted him by God , even without indulgence letters .
• Nevertheless , papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded , for they are , as I have said ( Thesis 6 ) , the proclamation of the divine remission .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the most learned theologians , at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition .
• A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins ; the bounty of indulgences , however , relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them .
• Papal indulgences must be preached with caution , lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy .
• Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences .
• Because love grows by works of love , man thereby becomes better .
Man does not , however , become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties .
• Christians are to be taught that he who sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet gives his money for indulgences , does not buy papal indulgences but God ’ s wrath .
• Christians are to be taught that , unless they have more than they need , they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences .
• Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice , not commanded .
• Christians are to be taught that the pope , in granting indulgences , needs and thus desires their devout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them , but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them .
• Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers , he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin , flesh , and bones of his sheep .
• Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter , to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money .
• It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters , even though the indulgence commissary , or even the pope , were to offer his soul as security .
• They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others .
• Injury is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the same sermon , an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word .
• It is certainly the pope ’ s sentiment that if indulgences , which are a very insignificant thing , are celebrated with one bell , one procession , and one ceremony , then the gospel , which is the very greatest thing , should be preached with a hundred bells , a hundred processions , a hundred ceremonies .
• The true treasures of the church , out of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ .
• That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear , for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them .
• Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints , for , even without the pope , the latter always work grace for the inner man , and the cross , death , and hell for the outer man .
• St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usage of the word in his own time .
• Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church , given by the merits of Christ , are that treasure .
• For it is clear that the pope ’ s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself .
• The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God .
• But this treasure is naturally most odious , for it makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20:16 ) .
• On the other hand , the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable , for it makes the last to be first .
• Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth .
• The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men .
• The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain .
• They are nevertheless in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the grace of God and the piety of the cross .
• Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence .
• But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned .
• Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed .
• But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed .
• Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences .
• Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth .
• To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness .
• We say on the contrary that papal indulgences can not remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he were now pope , could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope .
• We say on the contrary that even the present pope , or any pope whatsoever , has greater graces at his disposal , that is , the gospel , spiritual powers , gifts of healing , etc.
, as it is written .
( 1 Co 12 [ :28 ] ) • To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms , and set up by the indulgence preachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Christ is blasphemy .
• The bishops , curates , and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this .
• This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity .
• Such as : “ Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sake of miserable money with which to build a church ?
” The former reason would be most just ; the latter is most trivial .
• Again , “ Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them , since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed ?
” • Again , “ What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather , beca use of the need of that pious and beloved soul , free it for pure love ’ s sake ?
” • Again , “ Why are the penitential canons , long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse , now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force ?
” • Again , “ Why does not the pope , whose wealth is today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crassus , build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers ?
” • Again , “ What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings ?
” • Again , “ What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day , as he now does but once ?
” • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ souls rather than money by his indulgences , why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy ?
” • To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone , and not to resolve them by giving reasons , is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy .
• If , therefore , indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope , all these doubts would be readily resolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Away , then , with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ , “ Peace , peace , ” and there is no peace !
( Jer 6:14 ) • Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ , “ Cross , cross , ” and there is no cross !
• Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ , their Head , through penalties , death and hell .
• And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of peace ( Acts 14:22 ) .
Additionally , we spoke about the BBC ’ s attack on Kate using her own son as a pawn against her Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty : https : //thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/ Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

As the propaganda and mind control of the media, combined with the lies of the government once again begin to ramp up around the world and specifically in the UK, The Sons of Liberty’s health and wellness expert Kate Shemirani and Dr. Kevin Corbett join me to discuss what is taking place in the UK concerning the alleged rise in cases, the alleged virus itself and the shocking propaganda of fear and mind control on tv.
In the first hour, I cover Reformation Day and remind people of how God used men like Martin Luther to break the back of the tyranny of the papacy, something God is still willing to do today for his people if they are willing to stand and fight.
Kate and Dr. Corbett join me near the end of the first hour due to a mix up where British time changed.
https://kateshemirani.com/
https://www.kevinpcorbett.com/
In honor of Reformation Day, the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door, I shared a portion of these things he wrote below.
When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25). In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16). On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. (1 Co 12[:28]) To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity. Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?” The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?” Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, beca use of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?” Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?” Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?” Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?” Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?” “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?” To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14) Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross! Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).
Additionally, we spoke about the BBC’s attack on Kate using her own son as a pawn against her
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-54669239
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/anti-lockdown-mother-betrayed-by-her-son/
Podcast with Kate Shemirani
https://news.sky.com/story/qanon-why-is-2020-the-perfect-storm-for-a-conspiracy-theory-12118969
https://sonsoflibertyradio.com
https://sonsoflibertymedia.com
Sons of Liberty Store: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/
Support us through a donation: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/donate
Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-10-31--Under ‘Policing for Profit’ Forfeiture Scheme, Michigan Police Wrongfully Seized & Kept Man’s Car fo

Under ‘Policing for Profit’ Forfeiture Scheme, Michigan Police Wrongfully Seized & Kept Man’s Car for Three Years Without a Warrant & Without a Trial

CINCINNATI , Ohio — Fighting back against the “ policing for profit ” forfeiture system that unfairly enriches police departments at the expense of ordinary citizens , The Rutherford Institute has come to the aid of a Michigan man whose vehicle was taken by police without a warrant and kept for three years without any opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure .
In an amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Nichols v. Wayne County , Rutherford Institute attorneys are asking the Court to allow Stephen Nichols to recover damages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Wayne County police seized and kept for three years without any basis for the seizure before finally releasing it to him .
The Institute ’ s brief asserts that this case is but one of many nationwide showing the injustice that results from civil asset forfeiture laws that incentivize prolonged detention of seized property in the absence of evidence that the property owner had broken any laws .
In 2017 alone , Wayne County police reportedly seized vehicles from 380 people who were never charged with criminal activity .
Affiliate attorney David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forrest , P.L.C , in Birmingham , Mich. , assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the Nichols amicus brief .
“ These ‘ policing for profit ’ asset forfeiture schemes are just a new , twisted form of guilt by association .
Only it ’ s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing , just their money , ” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead , president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America : The War on the American People .
“ What this adds up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property , rights and liberties .
All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants .
Motorists have been particularly vulnerable to this modern-day form of highway robbery.
” In July 2015 , Stephen Nichols was stopped by a police officer when a random check of his vehicle ’ s license plate indicated the vehicle might not be insured .
When a brief investigation revealed irregularities with Nichols ’ insurance certificate , the officer not only issued a ticket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warrant for the purpose of forfeiture .
The officer based the seizure on Michigan ’ s identity theft law , which allows the warrantless seizure of property if an officer believes it is connected to identity theft and allows police departments to keep the proceeds of forfeited property .
Nichols himself was never charged with an identity theft crime .
Nichols filed a $ 250 bond in order to contest the forfeiture of his vehicle .
By law , county prosecutors ( who were seeking forfeiture of the vehicle ) were then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But the prosecutors took no action for three years , during which Nichols was deprived of the possession and use of his vehicle without any hearing on whether the seizure was factually or legally supportable .
Nichols subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting that the county had violated his constitutional right to not be deprived of his property without due process of law and a timely court hearing .
The district court dismissed the lawsuit , ruling that the three-year delay did not violate Nichols ’ due process rights .
On appeal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissal .
The Rutherford Institute ’ s amicus brief asks the circuit court to reconsider its decision , noting that Nichols ’ case is symptomatic of abusive government forfeiture schemes that incentivize police to take and keep private property .
The Rutherford Institute , a nonprofit civil liberties organization , provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms .
The amicus brief in Stephen Nichols v. Wayne County

CINCINNATI, Ohio — Fighting back against the “policing for profit” forfeiture system that unfairly enriches police departments at the expense of ordinary citizens, The Rutherford Institute has come to the aid of a Michigan man whose vehicle was taken by police without a warrant and kept for three years without any opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure. In an amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Nichols v. Wayne County, Rutherford Institute attorneys are asking the Court to allow Stephen Nichols to recover damages for the confiscation of his vehicle, which Wayne County police seized and kept for three years without any basis for the seizure before finally releasing it to him. The Institute’s brief asserts that this case is but one of many nationwide showing the injustice that results from civil asset forfeiture laws that incentivize prolonged detention of seized property in the absence of evidence that the property owner had broken any laws. In 2017 alone, Wayne County police reportedly seized vehicles from 380 people who were never charged with criminal activity.
Affiliate attorney David Porter of Kienbaum Hardy Viviano Pelton & Forrest, P.L.C, in Birmingham, Mich., assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the Nichols amicus brief.
“These ‘policing for profit’ asset forfeiture schemes are just a new, twisted form of guilt by association. Only it’s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing, just their money,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People . “What this adds up to is a paradigm in which Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties. All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants. Motorists have been particularly vulnerable to this modern-day form of highway robbery.”
In July 2015, Stephen Nichols was stopped by a police officer when a random check of his vehicle’s license plate indicated the vehicle might not be insured. When a brief investigation revealed irregularities with Nichols’ insurance certificate, the officer not only issued a ticket but seized Nichols’ Toyota Avalon without a warrant for the purpose of forfeiture. The officer based the seizure on Michigan’s identity theft law, which allows the warrantless seizure of property if an officer believes it is connected to identity theft and allows police departments to keep the proceeds of forfeited property. Nichols himself was never charged with an identity theft crime. Nichols filed a $250 bond in order to contest the forfeiture of his vehicle. By law, county prosecutors (who were seeking forfeiture of the vehicle) were then required to “promptly institute forfeiture proceedings.” But the prosecutors took no action for three years, during which Nichols was deprived of the possession and use of his vehicle without any hearing on whether the seizure was factually or legally supportable. Nichols subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting that the county had violated his constitutional right to not be deprived of his property without due process of law and a timely court hearing. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the three-year delay did not violate Nichols’ due process rights. On appeal, a divided circuit court panel upheld the dismissal. The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief asks the circuit court to reconsider its decision, noting that Nichols’ case is symptomatic of abusive government forfeiture schemes that incentivize police to take and keep private property.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
The amicus brief in Stephen Nichols v. Wayne County
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead


thewashingtonstandard--2020-10-31--Former Prime Minister of Malaysia: ‘Muslims Have a Right to Kill Millions of French People’

After two knife attacks in France this morning by Muslims screaming “ Allahu akbar , ” the former Prime Minister of Malaysia , Mahathir Mohamad , took to Twitter to declare that “ Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims ’ religion for what was done by one angry person , the Muslims have a right to punish the French .
The boycott can not compensate the wrongs committed by the French all these years.
” Twitter took down another tweet from Mahathir that explained what he thought would actually compensate for those alleged wrongs : “ Muslims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.
” The rhetoric from some quarters of the Islamic world has been escalating against France for the last few days , ever since it became clear that French President Emmanuel Macron was going to move decisively against supporters and enablers of jihad violence inside the country .
Pakistan ’ s Prime Minister Imran Khan declared : “ The Prophet lives in our hearts .
When he is ridiculed , when he is insulted , it hurts… We human beings understand one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is far , far , far more hurtful than physical pain .
And that ’ s why the Muslims react to this.
” Khan even likened this pain that Muslims feel over cartoons of Muhammad to the pain Jews felt during the Holocaust .
Yes , he really did .
Some of this is personal , as NBC News reports : All this has created a climate of hostility in France that leads to attacks of the kind we have seen Thursday morning .
But now Mahathir has ratcheted up the tension considerably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , it was without any doubt seen and noted by jihadis all over the world , and manifests the desire of Mahathir ( and others ) to see a showdown between the West ’ s support for the freedom of expression and the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy against Allah , the Qur ’ an , or Muhammad .
Those two principles can not coexist in peace , although up to now Western leaders , including Macron , have preferred to pretend that they could .
Erdogan and Mahathir are now trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the freedom of speech or the acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions , and they aren ’ t alone .
Khan has demanded that Facebook ban criticism of Islam : “ Given the rampant abuse and vilification of Muslims on social media platforms , I would ask you to place a similar ban on Islamophobia and hate against Islam for Facebook that you have put in place for the Holocaust.
” The Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar , Ahmed al-Tayyeb , has stated that “ cartoons insulting our great prophet , which are promoted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , are absurd .
They are a break from all moral restrictions , international customs , and general law.
” Accordingly , he has called for “ international legislation that criminalises acts of hate and discrimination against Muslims worldwide.
” By “ hate and discrimination , ” since he is speaking in the context of the Muhammad cartoons , he clearly means any mockery or even criticism of Muhammad or Islam at all .
Western leaders are eventually going to discover they can not ignore such calls indefinitely .
Europe , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are eventually going to have to choose : freedom of speech , or submission to Sharia blasphemy laws .
Which one they will choose is in doubt at the moment .
Submission was galloping forward until Samuel Paty was beheaded .
That seems to have galvanized the French government into acting to defend free expression .
But how long their resolve will last is an open question , especially now that jihad seems to have been declared against France worldwide , and Mahathir has called for genocide of the French .
Defend our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly little room for a third option .

After two knife attacks in France this morning by Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar,” the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, took to Twitter to declare that “Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims’ religion for what was done by one angry person, the Muslims have a right to punish the French. The boycott cannot compensate the wrongs committed by the French all these years.” Twitter took down another tweet from Mahathir that explained what he thought would actually compensate for those alleged wrongs: “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
The rhetoric from some quarters of the Islamic world has been escalating against France for the last few days, ever since it became clear that French President Emmanuel Macron was going to move decisively against supporters and enablers of jihad violence inside the country. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan declared: “The Prophet lives in our hearts. When he is ridiculed, when he is insulted, it hurts… We human beings understand one thing: The pain of the heart is far, far, far more hurtful than physical pain. And that’s why the Muslims react to this.” Khan even likened this pain that Muslims feel over cartoons of Muhammad to the pain Jews felt during the Holocaust. Yes, he really did.
Some of this is personal, as NBC News reports:
A front-page illustration published by the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday showing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan lounging in his underwear, pulling up the skirt of a woman wearing a hijab to reveal her bottom, has escalated an already hostile war of words between him and French President Emmanuel Macron: “Macron is against Muslims. He is sowing seeds of hatred,” Erdogan said Wednesday. “Turkey will take necessary legal, diplomatic actions against ‘loathsome’ Charlie Hebdo publication.”
All this has created a climate of hostility in France that leads to attacks of the kind we have seen Thursday morning.
But now Mahathir has ratcheted up the tension considerably. Even though Twitter took his tweet down, it was without any doubt seen and noted by jihadis all over the world, and manifests the desire of Mahathir (and others) to see a showdown between the West’s support for the freedom of expression and the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy against Allah, the Qur’an, or Muhammad.
Those two principles cannot coexist in peace, although up to now Western leaders, including Macron, have preferred to pretend that they could. Erdogan and Mahathir are now trying to force Western countries to choose either the freedom of speech or the acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions, and they aren’t alone. Khan has demanded that Facebook ban criticism of Islam: “Given the rampant abuse and vilification of Muslims on social media platforms, I would ask you to place a similar ban on Islamophobia and hate against Islam for Facebook that you have put in place for the Holocaust.” The Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayyeb, has stated that “cartoons insulting our great prophet, which are promoted by some newspapers, magazines and even some policies, are absurd. They are a break from all moral restrictions, international customs, and general law.” Accordingly, he has called for “international legislation that criminalises acts of hate and discrimination against Muslims worldwide.” By “hate and discrimination,” since he is speaking in the context of the Muhammad cartoons, he clearly means any mockery or even criticism of Muhammad or Islam at all.
Western leaders are eventually going to discover they cannot ignore such calls indefinitely. Europe, the U.S., and the world at large are eventually going to have to choose: freedom of speech, or submission to Sharia blasphemy laws. Which one they will choose is in doubt at the moment. Submission was galloping forward until Samuel Paty was beheaded. That seems to have galvanized the French government into acting to defend free expression. But how long their resolve will last is an open question, especially now that jihad seems to have been declared against France worldwide, and Mahathir has called for genocide of the French.
Defend our principles, or surrender: there is increasingly little room for a third option.
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer


thewashingtonstandard--2020-10-31--After Ten Years, Court Strikes Down Ruling Banning Ads Offering Help to Those Leaving Islam

Background : In 2008 , I was in Florida covering Rifqa Bary ’ s court hearings to return her to her devout family who promised to kill to her because the teen had left Islam and converted to Christianity .
I was waiting on my ride to the courthouse when I saw this ad on a bus : Thus began the very first of my many bus ad campaigns .
I responded with this ad and the greatest putsch against free speech commenced : It took nearly twelve years , but we did it .
My organization , the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has just won an important victory for the freedom of speech .
Back in 2009 , the Detroit area ’ s SMART transit refused to run our AFDI ads offering help to people who were in fear for their lives for wanting to leave Islam or having left it .
After an incredibly protracted court battle , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just stood up for the First Amendment and completely reversed the judgment banning our ads .
It ’ s a total victory for freedom : we won our free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our ad read : “ Leaving Islam ?
Fatwa on your head ?
Is your family or community threatening you ?
Got Questions ?
Get Answers !
RefugefromIslam.com.
” That ’ s all it said .
It offered a life-saver for those who were completely and utterly alone with no system of support or help .
Islamic law mandates death for those who leave Islam ; even in the United States , those who leave the religion live in fear that a devout Muslim might decide to apply this penalty .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
But as Eugene Volokh explains at The Volokh Conspiracy , “ Michigan ’ s Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation ( SMART ) rejected this ad under two of its speech restrictions .
The first prohibits ‘ political ’ ads ; the second prohibits ads that would hold up a group of people to ‘ scorn or ridicule.
’ ” Our ad was not political and didn ’ t scorn or ridicule anyone .
It ’ s ridiculous to say saving lives is a political act , and so of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first judge who ruled on this case , Judge Denise Page Hood , understood the law and so ruled in favor of our free speech rights .
She understood the First Amendment .
Therefore , although she was clearly not sympathetic to us , she had to rule for us .
But then SMART appealed .
SMART adamantly refused to run outreach ads that might have helped Muslims living in dangerous households and appealed to the notoriously leftist Sixth Circuit .
You might have thought the Muslim Brotherhood was running SMART .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Detroit was bankrupt around this same time .
Sharia adherence was still more important to the broken city ’ s failed leaders than were the freedom of speech and fiscal responsibility .
And so SMART continued to refuse our ads and appealed in the notoriously leftist Sixth Circuit .
The court called our religious ads political and created a new narrative out of whole cloth .
Our ads were never actually rejected on political grounds .
Individually and in her official capacity , Beth Gibbons , marketing program manager of SMART , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were controversial — not because they were political .
It was always understood that these were religious ads .
Gibbons testified that she saw “ nothing about [ the advertisement ] itself that was political [ . ]
… I knew that [ the fatwa advertisement ] was of concern in that there is controversy on both sides of the issue on whether they should be posted.
” That was the position of SMART .
In fact , that was the agency ’ s official testimony .
We in turn appealed .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for six hours by a small , profane blowhard attorney — all billable hours to fight an ad created to help Muslim girls escape honor violence .
And the deposition was so hostile that you would think I had committed a heinous crime .
Apparently , blasphemy in America is .
The case dragged on and on .
But now , in American Freedom Defensive Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth .
for Regional Transp .
( 6th Cir . )
, the court makes the correct ruling , noting that “ the Free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to regulate speech on public property .
The government has little leeway to restrict speech in ‘ public forums.
’ ” Accordingly , “ SMART ’ s ban on ‘ political ’ ads is unreasonable for the same reason that a state ’ s ban on ‘ political ’ apparel at polling places is unreasonable : SMART offers no ‘ sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.
’ Likewise , SMART ’ s ban on ads that engage in ‘ scorn or ridicule ’ is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ban on trademarks that disparage people is not viewpoint neutral : For any group , ‘ an applicant may [ display ] a positive or benign [ ad ] but not a derogatory one.
’ ” Consequently , the court declared : “ We thus reverse the district court ’ s decision rejecting the First Amendment challenge to these two restrictions.
” This is all common-sensical and clear even to those with no legal training or experience , but it has taken an incredibly long time to get here .
The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise fought long and hard to win this case , noted : “ AFDI ’ s religious freedom advertisement was rejected even though SMART had no problem accepting and running an anti-religion ad sponsored by an atheist organization .
That approved ad stated , ‘ Don ’ t Believe in God ?
You are not alone.
’ ” However , now “ the Sixth Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of AFLC , finding that SMART ’ s rejection of the ad was unreasonable and [ a ] viewpoint based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a final ruling.
” Bottom line : Everyone has the same right to a free life .
The Sixth Circuit agreed .
If you weren ’ t reading this , you would likely never know that it had happened at all .
No media covered it .
If we had lost , then you would have heard about it , because the media would have been popping open bottles of champagne and running huge pieces on how sharia restrictions on speech are altogether reasonable — as heads roll ( literally ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victim living in that area at the time , might have been saved .
We know that the ads have helped Muslims — they told us .
The ads save lives .
Contribute here .

Background: In 2008, I was in Florida covering Rifqa Bary’s court hearings to return her to her devout family who promised to kill to her because the teen had left Islam and converted to Christianity.
I was waiting on my ride to the courthouse when I saw this ad on a bus:
Thus began the very first of my many bus ad campaigns. I responded with this ad and the greatest putsch against free speech commenced:
It took nearly twelve years, but we did it. My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), has just won an important victory for the freedom of speech.
Back in 2009, the Detroit area’s SMART transit refused to run our AFDI ads offering help to people who were in fear for their lives for wanting to leave Islam or having left it. After an incredibly protracted court battle, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just stood up for the First Amendment and completely reversed the judgment banning our ads. It’s a total victory for freedom: we won our free speech lawsuit in Detroit by a unanimous decision.
Our ad read: “Leaving Islam? Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com.” That’s all it said. It offered a life-saver for those who were completely and utterly alone with no system of support or help.
Islamic law mandates death for those who leave Islam; even in the United States, those who leave the religion live in fear that a devout Muslim might decide to apply this penalty. So we were offering help. That is all. But as Eugene Volokh explains at The Volokh Conspiracy, “Michigan’s Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) rejected this ad under two of its speech restrictions. The first prohibits ‘political’ ads; the second prohibits ads that would hold up a group of people to ‘scorn or ridicule.’”
Our ad was not political and didn’t scorn or ridicule anyone. It’s ridiculous to say saving lives is a political act, and so of course we won the initial case. The first judge who ruled on this case, Judge Denise Page Hood, understood the law and so ruled in favor of our free speech rights. She understood the First Amendment. Therefore, although she was clearly not sympathetic to us, she had to rule for us.
But then SMART appealed. SMART adamantly refused to run outreach ads that might have helped Muslims living in dangerous households and appealed to the notoriously leftist Sixth Circuit. You might have thought the Muslim Brotherhood was running SMART. It was astounding. And consider the fact that Detroit was bankrupt around this same time. Sharia adherence was still more important to the broken city’s failed leaders than were the freedom of speech and fiscal responsibility.
And so SMART continued to refuse our ads and appealed in the notoriously leftist Sixth Circuit. The court called our religious ads political and created a new narrative out of whole cloth. Our ads were never actually rejected on political grounds. Individually and in her official capacity, Beth Gibbons, marketing program manager of SMART, said our ads were rejected because they were controversial — not because they were political. It was always understood that these were religious ads. Gibbons testified that she saw “nothing about [the advertisement] itself that was political[.] … I knew that [the fatwa advertisement] was of concern in that there is controversy on both sides of the issue on whether they should be posted.” That was the position of SMART. In fact, that was the agency’s official testimony.
We in turn appealed. In 2013, I was deposed and harassed for six hours by a small, profane blowhard attorney — all billable hours to fight an ad created to help Muslim girls escape honor violence. And the deposition was so hostile that you would think I had committed a heinous crime. Apparently, blasphemy in America is.
The case dragged on and on. But now, in American Freedom Defensive Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Regional Transp. (6th Cir.), the court makes the correct ruling, noting that “the Free Speech Clause limits the government’s power to regulate speech on public property. The government has little leeway to restrict speech in ‘public forums.’” Accordingly, “SMART’s ban on ‘political’ ads is unreasonable for the same reason that a state’s ban on ‘political’ apparel at polling places is unreasonable: SMART offers no ‘sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.’ Likewise, SMART’s ban on ads that engage in ‘scorn or ridicule’ is not viewpoint neutral for the same reason that a ban on trademarks that disparage people is not viewpoint neutral: For any group, ‘an applicant may [display] a positive or benign [ad] but not a derogatory one.’” Consequently, the court declared: “We thus reverse the district court’s decision rejecting the First Amendment challenge to these two restrictions.”
This is all common-sensical and clear even to those with no legal training or experience, but it has taken an incredibly long time to get here. The American Freedom Law Center, whose ace lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise fought long and hard to win this case, noted: “AFDI’s religious freedom advertisement was rejected even though SMART had no problem accepting and running an anti-religion ad sponsored by an atheist organization. That approved ad stated, ‘Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone.’” However, now “the Sixth Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of AFLC, finding that SMART’s rejection of the ad was unreasonable and [a] viewpoint based in violation of the First Amendment. This is a final ruling.”
Bottom line: Everyone has the same right to a free life. The Sixth Circuit agreed.
If you weren’t reading this, you would likely never know that it had happened at all. No media covered it. If we had lost, then you would have heard about it, because the media would have been popping open bottles of champagne and running huge pieces on how sharia restrictions on speech are altogether reasonable — as heads roll (literally).
Jessica Mokdad, an honor killing victim living in that area at the time, might have been saved. We know that the ads have helped Muslims — they told us. The ads save lives. Contribute here.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller


thewashingtonstandard--2020-10-31--New COVID-19 Security Measures Will Make Health a Prerequisite for Travel

I have previously broadcast a radio show on the health passports being pushed out in the United Kingdom .
They are very troublesome to say the least .
Now , CommonPass is being rolled out in the States , which will provide more tyranny by the TSA under the guise of “ safety and security.
” Here ’ s our previous reports on CommonPass and my radio interview regarding health passports with Zed Phoenix .
The next stage in goverment tyranny is being attempted in the UK .
It ’ s called a health passport .
“ A passport holder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smartphone , fob or lanyard printout which can be scanned outside of the 2 metre safe distancing zone .
This can present extended information to verified health care officials ( using platform permissions ) or a high level , GDPR compliant screen to members of the public to confirm and authenticate their current health status visualised by a traffic light system.
” Zed Phoenix joins me to discuss his fight against the use of this technology for tyranny .
Zed Phoenix has been an actor , filmmaker and investigative journalist , having worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political corruption .
He was the London 2012 Olympic Whistleblower concerning the G4S security scandal .
He also revealed the Phone Hacking Story which led to the closure of the News of The World newspaper .
In 2015 , he was accused of perverting the course of justice about an article he wrote about an incident between himself and a high ranking member of parliament in the UK , which he won.He also outed leading entertainment industry figures for being pedophiles and named names .
Since then , he changed his name from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book called : The Power of Great Dreams , which became a bestseller for 5 minutes on Amazon UK .
He is now the CEO and co-founder of Govote.org.uk , which is a social media platform that is an experiment in democracy .
• With Con-Vid-19 We Are Seeing In Action What Eisenhower Warned Against • Speaking of Digital ID… The Onslaught Of Oppression Is Straight Ahead As the multi-sector , global response to the coronavirus tightens the noose around civil liberties , CommonPass stands out as one of the most appalling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the name of public health .
Imagine standing at a TSA security checkpoint on your way home for the holidays .
You ’ re getting ready to go through the awkward travel procedures instituted almost immediately after 9/11 when the Transportation and Security Administration ( TSA ) was created and air travel in the United States morphed into a search and seizure operation with the implied possibility of your detention and interrogation .
The initial outrage such expressions of implicit state violence caused early on eventually gave way to begrudging acceptance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ security , ” that could restrict freedom of movement even further , is being rolled out at several ports of entry in partnership with health technology industry leaders , academic institutions , and government health entities in more than three dozen countries .
A new digital certificate called CommonPass , designed to serve as a clearance mechanism for passengers based on a health diagnosis underwent its first transatlantic test on October 21 under the watchful eye of the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There , a group of select participants embarked on United flight 15 to Newark , New Jersey after being screened and tested for COVID-19 at the point of departure in a largely ceremonial exercise that included initiative co-founders , Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins .
The app ’ s first trial run took place with much less media fanfare last month on a Cathay Pacific Airways flight from Hong Kong to Singapore and marked the beginning of the CommonPass pilot project launched by The Commons Project non-profit organization in-tandem with the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that CommonPass will allow international travel to resume before a COVID-19 vaccine is made widely available by applying standard methods for certification of lab results and vaccination records of travelers through the CommonPass Framework , based on criteria set by the governments of each port of entry .
J.D .
O ’ Hara , CEO of one of the world ’ s largest travel services companies and one of the participants at Wednesday ’ s CommonPass trial run , hailed the app ’ s ability to “ verify health information in a secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dow of the U.S. Travel Association released a statement praising it for paving a “ way forward ” for the global economy in the wake of the pandemic .
As the multi-sector , global response to the coronavirus tightens the noose around civil liberties , CommonPass stands out as one of the most appalling and dangerous attacks on basic human rights in the name of public health and is rife with a potential for abuse so great , that it behooves us to find out more about the people and interests behind it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commons ’ denoted the de facto and collective ownership of land , which peasants used to plow , sow and harvest or raise sheep and cattle .
The rise of the land-owning classes in post-Magna Carta Europe , and England in particular , slowly eviscerated this form of communal privilege through the enclosure system , which redistributed the commons to the proto-capitalist class in partnership with the monarchies and create the system of oppressive labor exploitation known as feudalism .
Starting in 1604 , the Enclosure Acts of England created legal property rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers and shepherds , forming the basis of modern-day capitalism .
Today , that scene is being repeated as the Internet , an information ‘ commons ’ is being carved out by Big Tech and led by organizations like The Commons Project , which avails itself of a name that connotes the total opposite of its purpose .
Co-founders Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins are the non-profit ’ s CEO and Chief Medical Officer , respectively .
Perkins began his career over thirty years ago at the Center for Disease Control and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the RAND corporation ’ s health care policy division , RAND Health Advisory Board .
Meyer , for his part , is a Yale law school graduate , who was writing President Clinton ’ s speeches years before receiving his graduation diploma from the storied institution .
Both have extensive career histories in the fields of health and technology , though in very different areas and with strange bedfellows along the way .
In 2009 , Perkins became the Chief Technology Officer for a publicly-traded cross-national operator of hospitals and clinics called Vanguard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with funding from Morgan Stanley and controlled by the Blackstone Group since 2004 , maintaining control all though the company ’ s IPO in 2011 .
Two years later , Vanguard was acquired by Tenet Healthcare , creating the third-largest investor-owned hospital company in the United States with a total of 65 hospitals nationwide and over 500 healthcare facilities .
Besides being one of the biggest healthcare companies in the United States , Tenet is also one of the most notoriously corrupt .
The same year it bought Vanguard , it was slapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s fraudulent practices .
That lawsuit resulted in a $ 514 million settlement .
A more recent case involving a conspiracy between Oklahoma orthopedic surgeons at one of its facilities was settled for $ 66 million in 2019 .
But , Tenet ’ s problems go back even further to the early 2000s when fraud and performing unneeded surgeries led to a multitude of lawsuits and even a Senate investigation .
The Vanguard deal marked the end of Perkins ’ tenure there , who chose to take a $ 1.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merged conglomerate like its CEO and much of its staff did .
He would move on to create a company of his own called Sapiens Data Science ; a health tech platform that provides access to “ credible scientifically validated data algorithms ” and looks to create a “ new revolutionary health ecosystem.
” Meyer ’ s background is more complicated , and his arrival on the healthcare scene runs through different channels linked to American intelligence cover operations dating back to NATO ’ s war in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his involvement with an infamous human-trafficking outfit known as the International Rescue Committee or IRC , that should be cause for concern given his role in The Commons Project and flagship CommonPass app .
Before he was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum or Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute , and even before becoming a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and receiving MIT ’ s 2003 Humanitarian of the Year award , Paul Meyer found himself in war-torn Kosovo installing a new Internet infrastructure system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , only days after NATO bombs had stopped shelling the Serbian people .
Barely out of law school and having spent two years writing President Clinton ’ s speeches as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was transpiring , Meyer was tapped by the IRC to lead a UN and private relief effort called the Internet Projekti Kosova ( IPKO ) or Kosovo Internet Project , with tech-savvy local Akan Ismaili to handle the complex technical issues and Teresa Crawford from the Advocacy Project to “ uplink ” satellites in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Albanian families .
The system was set up atop a building used by the British KFOR Civil-Military Cooperation CIMIC and British Royal Engineers were also brought onto the project , among others .
Eventually , the IRC gave the project to a non-profit organization “ dedicated to providing wide access to the Internet in Kosovo.
” IPKO is today the largest telecom , internet , and cable TV company in Kosovo .
Meyer remains involved through the IPKO Foundation , which he co-founded to provide “ free technology education ” to Kosovar students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was known to be an “ integral link ” in the CIA ’ s covert network led by Tony Blair protégé and former British Foreign Minister , David Miliband since 2013 .
In 2018 , the IRC was embroiled in a child-sex trafficking scandal dubbed the “ sex-for-food scandal ” covered extensively by Whitney Webb in a recent article .
The organization ’ s cover-up of dozens of sex abuse , bribery and fraud allegations resulted in the U.K. government withdrawing its funding from the organizations .
However , no IRC employees were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report .
Currently , the IRC is very involved in the implementation of a biometric ID system for refugees of the ongoing conflict in Myanmar , a project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation-backed ID2020 Alliance , which also funds The Commons Project .
IRC ’ s Mae La initiative , however , receives most of its funding through the notorious CIA-cutout USAID and intends to create a “ blockchain-based digital identification ” system using iris recognition technology to give refugees access to IRC ’ s services in Thailand .
Long term goals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data together into a single ID system , that will determine access to food , healthcare and mobility .
We want your DNA The difference between IRC ’ s Mae La project and The Commons Project is a question of class .
Class status , to be specific .
But , it is essentially the same idea and covers the same interests of the groups and individuals who form part of the Commons Project ’ s board of trustees ; many of whom have been part of the digital tracking and healthcare technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dillman , who ran Wal-Mart ’ s implementation of RFID employee tracking technology as the retail giant ’ s CIO or the former Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Bryan Sivak , who is now a Managing Director at Managing Director at Kaiser Permanente , one of the largest healthcare insurance plan providers in the nation .
Other trustee affiliations stand out , as well , such as Will Fitzpatrick , General Counsel to the Omidyar Network and George W. Bush ’ s Assistant Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winkenwerder , Jr. At the core of these efforts is the desire to create a DNA-based population screening agenda , which people like Perkins and Meyer are forcefully pushing forward .
Perkins worked as the CMO at a company called Human Longevity , Inc. , which “ combines state-of-the-art DNA sequencing and expert analysis with machine learning , to help change medicine to a more data-driven science.
” Meyer developed a precursor to CommonPass in 2016 , when he merged his mobile health services company , Voxiva , which implemented the “ first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rwanda ” in partnership with the CDC , the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) , with Sense Health to form a health messaging service called Wellpass Meyer described as “ an integrated platform… [ that ] helps overcome the challenges of deploying fragmented engagement and population health solutions.
” The reliability of the DNA-based , algorithmically-deduced health diagnoses used for the CommonPass trial run must also be called into question given the history of the company furnishing the technology .
Prenetics , Ltd is the Hong Kong-based , Alibaba-funded company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ’ s Premier League ’ s Project Restart , which used a similar health status app called Covi-Pass , covered by this author in June .
Prenetics ’ COVID tests rely on DNA-based technology it acquired in 2018 , when it purchased DNAFit ; a company founded by South African businessman Avrom “ Avi ” Lasarow , who came on board after the merger as Prenetics ’ Chief Executive Officer for Europe , Middle East and Africa .
Lasarow , who also heads the Premier League ’ s coronavirus testing program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in the U.S. last May for nearly $ 60,000 surrounding allegations of “ deceptive health claims ” .
“ Lifestyle genetics pioneer ” Lasarow has a long track record of settling out of court over such issues , including a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2015 , which accused Lasarow Healthcare Technologies Ltd. , aka L Health Ltd. , and two other defendants of making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding a “ melanoma detection ” app .
As part of that settlement , Lasarow was “ prohibited from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health benefits or efficacy of any product or service.
” Prenetics has been reportedly working on establishing a partnership with VSTE Enterprises , the same company that developed the V-Code technology that underpins Covi-Pass , since May .
Nevertheless , such red flags pale in comparison to the individuals and organizations that are behind CommonPass , itself , who have plans for a much vaster digital enclosure based on DNA population screening technologies through initiatives like the The Commons Project , which aims to fundamentally transform medicine and impose new limits on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rollout is slated to quickly expand to other routes across Asia , Africa , the Americas , Europe and the Middle East .
Just as Bush ’ s Aviation and Transportation Security Act opened the doors for certain technology and security sectors to flourish in the wake of 9/11 , this novel health-focused expansion of the national security state has bypassed all levers of democratic power to allow for the entrenchment of a far larger and more dangerous group of entities , within the health , technology and life sciences industries together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health agencies and officials , like Robert Kadlec , who are pushing for a full spectrum surveillance society .
Taking your shoes off at the airport and exposing your body to radiation has become routine now at every airport in the nation and most ‘ temporary ’ laws passed through emergency legislation remain on the books nearly two decades later .
Precedent demands that we assume the same will occur with the majority of the new restrictions on our freedom of movement and quality of life currently being implemented throughout the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures is not in any of their plans , as promised by the president of the U.S. Travel Association , Roger Dow , who confidently asserted after Wednesday ’ s successful CommonPass trail run , that the app will let us “ navigate out of the crippling economic fallout of COVID-related travel restrictions and quarantine requirements , ” adding that it will “ pay further dividends for more seamless and convenient travel even once the pandemic has subsided.
” People in the US used to reject this form of health ID cards and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorant and trusting of a government they say they don ’ t trust that they are willing to embrace the tyranny head on in the same of “ safety and security.
” Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

I have previously broadcast a radio show on the health passports being pushed out in the United Kingdom. They are very troublesome to say the least. Now, CommonPass is being rolled out in the States, which will provide more tyranny by the TSA under the guise of “safety and security.”
Here’s our previous reports on CommonPass and my radio interview regarding health passports with Zed Phoenix.
The next stage in goverment tyranny is being attempted in the UK. It’s called a health passport. “A passport holder can present their assigned VCode using their smartphone , fob or lanyard printout which can be scanned outside of the 2 metre safe distancing zone. This can present extended information to verified health care officials (using platform permissions) or a high level, GDPR compliant screen to members of the public to confirm and authenticate their current health status visualised by a traffic light system.” Zed Phoenix joins me to discuss his fight against the use of this technology for tyranny.
Zed Phoenix has been an actor, filmmaker and investigative journalist, having worked on the Cash for Questions Story about political corruption. He was the London 2012 Olympic Whistleblower concerning the G4S security scandal. He also revealed the Phone Hacking Story which led to the closure of the News of The World newspaper. In 2015, he was accused of perverting the course of justice about an article he wrote about an incident between himself and a high ranking member of parliament in the UK, which he won.He also outed leading entertainment industry figures for being pedophiles and named names. Since then, he changed his name from Ben Fellows to Zed Phoenix and authored a book called: The Power of Great Dreams, which became a bestseller for 5 minutes on Amazon UK. He is now the CEO and co-founder of Govote.org.uk, which is a social media platform that is an experiment in democracy.
Raul Diego reports at MintPress News:
As the multi-sector, global response to the coronavirus tightens the noose around civil liberties, CommonPass stands out as one of the most appalling and dangerous attacks on basic human rights in the name of public health.
Imagine standing at a TSA security checkpoint on your way home for the holidays. You’re getting ready to go through the awkward travel procedures instituted almost immediately after 9/11 when the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) was created and air travel in the United States morphed into a search and seizure operation with the implied possibility of your detention and interrogation.
The initial outrage such expressions of implicit state violence caused early on eventually gave way to begrudging acceptance. But now, a new layer of “security,” that could restrict freedom of movement even further, is being rolled out at several ports of entry in partnership with health technology industry leaders, academic institutions, and government health entities in more than three dozen countries.
A new digital certificate called CommonPass, designed to serve as a clearance mechanism for passengers based on a health diagnosis underwent its first transatlantic test on October 21 under the watchful eye of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Heathrow Airport in London. There, a group of select participants embarked on United flight 15 to Newark, New Jersey after being screened and tested for COVID-19 at the point of departure in a largely ceremonial exercise that included initiative co-founders, Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins.
The app’s first trial run took place with much less media fanfare last month on a Cathay Pacific Airways flight from Hong Kong to Singapore and marked the beginning of the CommonPass pilot project launched by The Commons Project non-profit organization in-tandem with the World Economic Forum.
Travel industry insiders claim that CommonPass will allow international travel to resume before a COVID-19 vaccine is made widely available by applying standard methods for certification of lab results and vaccination records of travelers through the CommonPass Framework, based on criteria set by the governments of each port of entry.
J.D. O’Hara, CEO of one of the world’s largest travel services companies and one of the participants at Wednesday’s CommonPass trial run, hailed the app’s ability to “verify health
information in a secure, verified manner,” while Roger Dow of the U.S. Travel Association released a statement praising it for paving a “way forward” for the global economy in the wake of the pandemic.
As the multi-sector, global response to the coronavirus tightens the noose around civil liberties, CommonPass stands out as one of the most appalling and dangerous attacks on basic human rights in the name of public health and is rife with a potential for abuse so great, that it behooves us to find out more about the people and interests behind it.
Feudal revivalists
In medieval times, the ‘commons’ denoted the de facto and collective ownership of land, which peasants used to plow, sow and harvest or raise sheep and cattle. The rise of the land-owning classes in post-Magna Carta Europe, and England in particular, slowly eviscerated this form of communal privilege through the enclosure system, which redistributed the commons to the proto-capitalist class in partnership with the monarchies and create the system of oppressive labor exploitation known as feudalism.
Starting in 1604, the Enclosure Acts of England created legal property rights for land that had belonged to the farmers and shepherds, forming the basis of modern-day capitalism. Today, that scene is being repeated as the Internet, an information ‘commons’ is being carved out by Big Tech and led by organizations like The Commons Project, which avails itself of a name that connotes the total opposite of its purpose.
Co-founders Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins are the non-profit’s CEO and Chief Medical Officer, respectively. Perkins began his career over thirty years ago at the Center for Disease Control and, for nearly a decade, worked at the RAND corporation’s health care policy division, RAND Health Advisory Board. Meyer, for his part, is a Yale law school graduate, who was writing President Clinton’s speeches years before receiving his graduation diploma from the storied institution. Both have extensive career histories in the fields of health and technology, though in very different areas and with strange bedfellows along the way.
In 2009, Perkins became the Chief Technology Officer for a publicly-traded cross-national operator of hospitals and clinics called Vanguard Health Systems. Vanguard had been established with funding from Morgan Stanley and controlled by the Blackstone Group since 2004, maintaining control all though the company’s IPO in 2011. Two years later, Vanguard was acquired by Tenet Healthcare, creating the third-largest investor-owned hospital company in the United States with a total of 65 hospitals nationwide and over 500 healthcare facilities.
Besides being one of the biggest healthcare companies in the United States, Tenet is also one of the most notoriously corrupt. The same year it bought Vanguard, it was slapped with a major whistleblower complaint that disclosed the company’s fraudulent practices. That lawsuit resulted in a $514 million settlement. A more recent case involving a conspiracy between Oklahoma orthopedic surgeons at one of its facilities was settled for $66 million in 2019. But, Tenet’s problems go back even further to the early 2000s when fraud and performing unneeded surgeries led to a multitude of lawsuits and even a Senate investigation.
The Vanguard deal marked the end of Perkins’ tenure there, who chose to take a $1.9 million package instead of joining the newly merged conglomerate like its CEO and much of its staff did. He would move on to create a company of his own called Sapiens Data Science; a health tech platform that provides access to “credible scientifically validated data algorithms” and looks to create a “new revolutionary health ecosystem.”
Meyer’s background is more complicated, and his arrival on the healthcare scene runs through different channels linked to American intelligence cover operations dating back to NATO’s war in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia during the early Clinton years. It is his involvement with an infamous human-trafficking outfit known as the International Rescue Committee or IRC, that should be cause for concern given his role in The Commons Project and flagship CommonPass app.
The Meyer of Kosovo
Before he was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum or Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute, and even before becoming a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and receiving MIT’s 2003 Humanitarian of the Year award, Paul Meyer found himself in war-torn Kosovo installing a new Internet infrastructure system to replace the one destroyed in the war, only days after NATO bombs had stopped shelling the Serbian people.
Barely out of law school and having spent two years writing President Clinton’s speeches as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was transpiring, Meyer was tapped by the IRC to lead a UN and private relief effort called the Internet Projekti Kosova (IPKO) or Kosovo Internet Project, with tech-savvy local Akan Ismaili to handle the complex technical issues and Teresa Crawford from the Advocacy Project to “uplink” satellites in the region with the stated purpose of reuniting displaced Albanian families. The system was set up atop a building used by the British KFOR Civil-Military Cooperation CIMIC and British Royal Engineers were also brought onto the project, among others.
Eventually, the IRC gave the project to a non-profit organization “dedicated to providing wide access to the Internet in Kosovo.” IPKO is today the largest telecom, internet, and cable TV company in Kosovo. Meyer remains involved through the IPKO Foundation, which he co-founded to provide “free technology education” to Kosovar students.
By the 1950s, the IRC was known to be an “integral link” in the CIA’s covert network led by Tony Blair protégé and former British Foreign Minister, David Miliband since 2013. In 2018, the IRC was embroiled in a child-sex trafficking scandal dubbed the “sex-for-food scandal” covered extensively by Whitney Webb in a recent article. The organization’s cover-up of dozens of sex abuse, bribery and fraud allegations resulted in the U.K. government withdrawing its funding from the organizations. However, no IRC employees were prosecuted over the 37 incidents detailed in the report.
Currently, the IRC is very involved in the implementation of a biometric ID system for refugees of the ongoing conflict in Myanmar, a project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation-backed ID2020 Alliance, which also funds The Commons Project. IRC’s Mae La initiative, however, receives most of its funding through the notorious CIA-cutout USAID and intends to create a “blockchain-based digital identification” system using iris recognition technology to give refugees access to IRC’s services in Thailand. Long term goals include rolling health, work and financial data together into a single ID system, that will determine access to food, healthcare and mobility.
We want your DNA
The difference between IRC’s Mae La project and The Commons Project is a question of class. Class status, to be specific. But, it is essentially the same idea and covers the same interests of the groups and individuals who form part of the Commons Project’s board of trustees; many of whom have been part of the digital tracking and healthcare technology space for years.
People like Linda Dillman, who ran Wal-Mart’s implementation of RFID employee tracking technology as the retail giant’s CIO or the former Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bryan Sivak, who is now a Managing Director at Managing Director at Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest healthcare insurance plan providers in the nation. Other trustee affiliations stand out, as well, such as Will Fitzpatrick, General Counsel to the Omidyar Network and George W. Bush’s Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
At the core of these efforts is the desire to create a DNA-based population screening agenda, which people like Perkins and Meyer are forcefully pushing forward. Perkins worked as the CMO at a company called Human Longevity, Inc., which “combines state-of-the-art DNA sequencing and expert analysis with machine learning, to help change medicine to a more data-driven science.”
Meyer developed a precursor to CommonPass in 2016, when he merged his mobile health services company, Voxiva, which implemented the “first nationwide digital disease surveillance systems in Peru and Rwanda” in partnership with the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with Sense Health to form a health messaging service called Wellpass Meyer described as “an integrated platform… [that] helps overcome the challenges of deploying fragmented engagement and population health solutions.”
Dubious technology
The reliability of the DNA-based, algorithmically-deduced health diagnoses used for the CommonPass trial run must also be called into question given the history of the company furnishing the technology. Prenetics, Ltd is the Hong Kong-based, Alibaba-funded company that also performed the COVID-19 testing for the UK’s Premier League’s Project Restart, which used a similar health status app called Covi-Pass, covered by this author in June.
Prenetics’ COVID tests rely on DNA-based technology it acquired in 2018, when it purchased DNAFit; a company founded by South African businessman Avrom “Avi” Lasarow, who came on board after the merger as Prenetics’ Chief Executive Officer for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Lasarow, who also heads the Premier League’s coronavirus testing program, just settled a civil case against him in the U.S. last May for nearly $60,000 surrounding allegations of “deceptive health claims”.
“Lifestyle genetics pioneer” Lasarow has a long track record of settling out of court over such issues, including a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2015, which accused Lasarow Healthcare Technologies Ltd., aka L Health Ltd., and two other defendants of making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding a “melanoma detection” app. As part of that settlement, Lasarow was “prohibited from making any misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits or efficacy of any product or service.”
Prenetics has been reportedly working on establishing a partnership with VSTE Enterprises, the same company that developed the V-Code technology that underpins Covi-Pass, since May. Nevertheless, such red flags pale in comparison to the individuals and organizations that are behind CommonPass, itself, who have plans for a much vaster digital enclosure based on DNA population screening technologies through initiatives like the The Commons Project, which aims to fundamentally transform medicine and impose new limits on our freedom of movement as the CommonPass rollout is slated to quickly expand to other routes across Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe and the Middle East.
A common thread
Just as Bush’s Aviation and Transportation Security Act opened the doors for certain technology and security sectors to flourish in the wake of 9/11, this novel health-focused expansion of the national security state has bypassed all levers of democratic power to allow for the entrenchment of a far larger and more dangerous group of entities, within the health, technology and life sciences industries together with an increasingly more powerful clique of federal health agencies and officials, like Robert Kadlec, who are pushing for a full spectrum surveillance society.
Taking your shoes off at the airport and exposing your body to radiation has become routine now at every airport in the nation and most ‘temporary’ laws passed through emergency legislation remain on the books nearly two decades later. Precedent demands that we assume the same will occur with the majority of the new restrictions on our freedom of movement and quality of life currently being implemented throughout the country and the world.
Rolling back these draconian measures is not in any of their plans, as promised by the president of the U.S. Travel Association, Roger Dow, who confidently asserted after Wednesday’s successful CommonPass trail run, that the app will let us “navigate out of the crippling economic fallout of COVID-related travel restrictions and quarantine requirements,” adding that it will “pay further dividends for more seamless and convenient travel even once the pandemic has subsided.”
People in the US used to reject this form of health ID cards and tracing. Now, they are so ignorant and trusting of a government they say they don’t trust that they are willing to embrace the tyranny head on in the same of “safety and security.”
Remember founding father Benjamin Franklin’s epic warning:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-11-01--Tourists Visiting Thailand Will Need To Wear A “Smart Band” Device For Contact Tracing

Tourists visiting Thailand will soon be tracked with a new “ Smart Band ” for COVID contact tracing , according to a recent report from The Pattaya News , a trusted news source in South East Asia .
The measure was recently approved by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-O ’ Cha , and the development is being overseen by Thailand ’ s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society .
The agency will be collaborating with multiple Thailand-based startup companies on the new device and its operation .
This month , foreign tourists were authorized to enter Thailand for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tourist Visa program .
The incoming tourists will face intense contact tracing , which includes the smart device .
The Smart Band device will track the locations of tourists and measure the body ’ s temperature , blood pressure , and heart rate .
If the tourist has a body temperature above 37.5 degrees Celsius , nearby medial officials will be alerted about the tourist ’ s conditions and whereabouts .
The wristband can also help the tourists if they are in trouble or need medical care .
It will also let them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give them directions to other locations , such as hospitals or the local police .
The device is still in development , but once it is complete , select tourists will be asked to participate in a trial run to test out the technology .
The tourists will be traveling under a Special Tourists Visa ( STV ) , and the program is expected to start sometime this month .
The announcement about the device did not specify if there would be any costs to the tourists , or how long they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has heavily disrupted the country ’ s economy , of which tourism is a significant sector .
The International Monetary Fund has predicted Thailand ’ s GDP to shrink by 6.7 percent in 2020 , which is a revision from a previously estimated increase of 2.5 % .

Tourists visiting Thailand will soon be tracked with a new “Smart Band” for COVID contact tracing, according to a recent report from The Pattaya News, a trusted news source in South East Asia.
The measure was recently approved by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-O’Cha, and the development is being overseen by Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. The agency will be collaborating with multiple Thailand-based startup companies on the new device and its operation.
This month, foreign tourists were authorized to enter Thailand for the first time since the pandemic began under the Special Tourist Visa program. The incoming tourists will face intense contact tracing, which includes the smart device.
The Smart Band device will track the locations of tourists and measure the body’s temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. If the tourist has a body temperature above 37.5 degrees Celsius, nearby medial officials will be alerted about the tourist’s conditions and whereabouts.
The wristband can also help the tourists if they are in trouble or need medical care. It will also let them know where nearby quarantine sites are and give them directions to other locations, such as hospitals or the local police.
The device is still in development, but once it is complete, select tourists will be asked to participate in a trial run to test out the technology. The tourists will be traveling under a Special Tourists Visa (STV), and the program is expected to start sometime this month. The announcement about the device did not specify if there would be any costs to the tourists, or how long they would need to wear it.
The pandemic has heavily disrupted the country’s economy, of which tourism is a significant sector. The International Monetary Fund has predicted Thailand’s GDP to shrink by 6.7 percent in 2020, which is a revision from a previously estimated increase of 2.5%.
Article posted with permission from John Vibes