Computers Can Change Your Memories….Part of Mandela Effect Equation?

There is an article about how computers can now alter your memory and your thoughts. It’s heavily linked and very worth reading.

In my opinion, this is likely part of the Mandela equation. And before people begin asserting that those who recognize the effect are those who have had their memories wiped, I need to point a few things out. First, there are a great number of residual residues indicating that those who recognize the effect are recalling a lot of things correctly. Like the Lion and the Lamb figurine with Isaiah 11:6 on it. Microfiche ads for Fruit Loops and Charles Schultz, and James Earl Jones saying “Luke, I am your father….and your uncle” on a night show interview. Letterman introducing Sally Fields…Lots of things. And granted, some things people think are evidence of the effect are actually incorrect recollections.

Please be aware that this effect is very unlikely to have a singular causative component. My theory is  very, very sci-fi and woo woo, but there are actually patents for everything I am about to set forward as my theory of what is causing the Mandela effect. But first, here is the article that came out in the Independent yesterday. Please do read it and then if you like, continue to read what I think may be happening with the effect many are experiencing. Here it is:

New computers could delete thoughts without your knowledge, experts warn

brain-anatomy-2.jpg

Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind,” wrote the playwright John Milton in 1634.

But, nearly 400 years later, technological advances in machines that can read our thoughts mean the privacy of our brain is under threat.

Now two biomedical ethicists are calling for the creation of new human rights laws to ensure people are protected, including “the right to cognitive liberty” and “the right to mental integrity”.

Scientists have already developed devices capable of telling whether people are politically right-wing or left-wing. In one experiment, researchers were able to read people’s minds to tell with 70 per cent accuracy whether they planned to add or subtract two numbers. 

Facebook also recently revealed it had been secretly working on technology to read people’s minds so they could type by just thinking

And medical researchers have managed to connect part of a paralysed man’s brain to a computer to allow him to stimulate muscles in his arm so he could move it and feed himself.

The ethicists, writing in a paper in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, stressed the “unprecedented opportunities” that would result from the “ubiquitous distribution of cheaper, scalable and easy-to-use neuro-applications” that would make neurotechnology “intricately embedded in our everyday life”. (Click here for the rest of the article)

So, back to how I find this to be very likely to be part of the Mandela or Quantum Effect. First of all, while it would probably be less upsetting to people, we are not in an alternate dimension, nor have we slipped time. Were either of those things the case, there would be no residuals available. We have these things out there that make it impossible for all of us to have “jumped” a dimension or time line.

So, what I think is this…Put on your woo woo goggles, okay?

Satan has to use technology to try to achieve the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of the Most High YHVH. The level of technology that we now have is beyond Orwellian. There are psycho and technotronic weapons, lots of them actually. The most famous is probably the Voice to Skull tech. You can research this on your own if you like. If you have the stomach for it, you can then look into “targeted individuals”.

Then there is “smart dust”, and nanobots and nanoparticles that can be used as antennae, probably both for receiving and transmitting. (Please note the last link was from 2005). So these things are not actually theorized any longer, but existent. And a great number of chemtrail researchers have found nanobots and particles in residue. So as sci-fi as it sounds, since they are in food, and in the air, it is entirely possible that there is a type of interface that can occur with quantum computers through these microscopic particles. Here is a video of Geordie Rose of D Wave talking about their older version of the D Wave Quantum Computer that Google, NASA and Cern all have…They may actually have even stronger capacities as it is reported that D Wave has developed a “next gen” quantum computer. Here is the 20 minute video on the D Wave-this is from 2013:

Then we have Cern, happily trying to open portals into other dimensions and recreate the big bang and release things called “strangelets” that are created by firing up the accelerators to insane levels and watching (maybe) what happens. Essentially messing with the very fabric of the universe. I will admit that what Cern does is actually well over my head in scientific comprehension, but philosophically, I grasp it quite well. Anthony Patch appears to have the best handle on what Cern is doing of people who are not actually involved in Cern, and probably have non-disclosure agreements as well. And to be honest, quantum physics is really like philosophy colliding with photons and creating potentialities that may or may not be observable as the simple observation of something changes it’s action. (Double slit experiment or “if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”)

Here is a video that at about 2:13 shows “Mandela” on a placard around a Cern physicists neck. I went to the trouble to write him regarding what the signs he was wielding in the video actually meant, but he didn’t write back.  It’s an interesting video and was done in November of 2014….Prior to the internet telling us that Cern associates actually created the internet:

 

And then there is the increasingly unopposed assertion that your brain is actually pretty much a quantum computer. A lot of this has to do with what exactly consciousness is, or isn’t. Very intriguing:

So….Here is what I think in a sci-fi nutshell.

I think that there is an interface between nanoparticles, Cern, quantum AI computing that is manifesting changes on the quantum level of physical objects and historic occurrences. I think Cern opens up a potential pathway for the AI quantum computers to mess around with our reality on a quantum level and do nearly complete editing of things in the physical and also, through nanoparticles to rewrite many people’s memories of things and very significantly minimize evidence of a change occurring and cause people to simply NOT recall anything different than what the new paradigm desires to put forth as the current truth. I believe this is all demonically directed and that the people involved in the various parts of the equation that are changing provable reality are not actually cognizant of everything that is being done.

Since the brains of people are all individually different in some ways, it appears that the overwriting of memories is not something that can be done with 100% certainty. Just as there are approximately 20% of people that cannot be hypnotized, there are maybe 30% of humanity that cannot have their memories readily overwritten by the AI controlled quantum realignment. But they could improve their tech….I hope not.

I’m sure that I will get a rash of negative comments regarding my theory, and I have officially crossed the line beyond caring. There may be more things in this “matrix” than the ones I have isolated above, I am willing to continue to look. However, what I am concerned about is that now that the first article referenced above is effectuating disclosure of nothing less than computer enhanced mind control, that people who lack the ability to overcome the synthetic overwriting of memories may be subject to believing lies that they otherwise would readily detect. I think this is possibly an avenue for a type of “zombie apocalypse” if you will, where people will be fully convinced in their own minds of “facts” that have no basis in actual, unadulterated reality.

I also think that the simple act of being aware of this may shield people from having their very own minds violated by technological “intelligence”. It’s a little twist on what is called the Hawthorne Effect. Being aware of a change in observation (everything we do is being subjected to algorithm measurements and predictive behaviors predicated upon those algorithms) might very well make the desired outcome of those who want to mess with our minds much less effective.

Your thoughts are welcome, but please don’t go into the “you’re a moron” realm. If you do, I will delete it. If you simply disagree and state why clearly and concisely, that is completely fine!

Save

Advertisements

No Privacy in Vision of the Future

As if we already don’t have our privacy infringed upon quite enough….Zuckerburg wants an effective meld with your mind:

Zuck to the future Mark Zuckerberg says we’ll be plugged into ‘The Matrix’ within 50 YEARS

Tech titan claims computers will soon be able to read our minds and beam our thoughts straight onto Facebook

We’ve spent the past decade handing Mark Zuckerberg our cherished memories, beloved photographs and intimate details of our day to day lives.

But that’s not enough for the social media titan: he wants to get inside your brain and access your thoughts directly.

Zuck has hinted that social networks of the future will be powered by telepathy, allowing ordinary people to beam their brainwaves and emotions directly onto the internet.

The Facebook founder wants to get inside your head... literally

Reuters
3

Many of us might think there’s something nightmarish about a world where we’re all plugged into the matrix.

But the billionaire has made his money from persuading huge numbers of people to drop their privacy shields and share every tiny aspect of their lives with friends, strangers and advertisers on Facebook.

“I think you’re going to be able to capture a thought [and take] what you’re thinking or feeling, in its kind of ideal and perfect form in your head and share that with the world,” he said whilst discussing predictions of the future with the Washington Post.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks on stage during a town hall with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California

Reuters
3

He said there was already “crazy” scientific research underway which could help his dream become a reality.

Zuck said government researchers had already worked out how to remove the memory of solving a maze from one rat’s head and then implant it in another rodent’s noggin.

“Then that mouse, without ever having been through the maze, was able to go do it.

“That’s just straight out of the Matrix, right?”

Laurence Fishburn as Morpheus in 'The Matrix Reloaded'

3
Red pill or blue pill? Will computers soon read our minds?

He also discussed an experiment at Berkeley University in which researchers “can predict what you’re thinking about” by carrying out an MRI scan.

If this all sounds terrifying, then you might take a little solace from the fact Zuckerberg has at least thought about the implications of technology which allows humans beings’ mind to be read like a book.

And he appears to have decided that it’s best just to perform this super-creepy task effectively.

“There are all these ethical questions and all these interesting questions about how you do that well,” he added.

Currently, Facebook isn’t planning to try and read users’ minds.

But Zuck thinks telepathy could be a reality within 50 years.

If the human species survives that long, we could be living in a very scary world indeed.

World Bank Biometric ID’s for Everyone…Solving the “Refugee” Crises

Below is an excerpt from a World Net Daily story regarding thousands of Islamic refugees that have disappeared from the refugee camps in Germany. The facial recognition global data base in the hands of the World Bank, IMF and Interpol along with every nation’s equivalent of the FBI is supposed to be fully global by 2030. This is to “help” make sure all are identified properly and issue the right amounts of “credits” to everyone globally. You can read the full story at the link in the title. I’ve not corrected the typos or put anything additional into the excerpt below. I just think it’s something people need to be aware of and understand that the “enhanced drivers licenses” are exactly this type of ID.

Here ya go:

U.N. Agenda 2030 calls for ‘universal ID’ for all people

This “universal ID,” which grabs the biometric data of refugees, is just a starting point for the United Nations. The goal is to eventually bring all people into the massive data bank. The proof is in the U.N.’s own documents.

The U.N. Agenda 2030 document adopted by 193 of the world’s heads of state, including President Obama, at the Sept. 25 U.N. conference on sustainability in New York, includes 17 goals and dozens of “targets.”

Target 16.9 under the goal of “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” reads as follows: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

The World Bank is also throwing its weight behind the United Nations biometric project being conducted by Accenture.

In a new report issued in collaboration with Accenture, the World Bank is calling on governments to “work together to implement standardized, cost-effective identity management solutions,” according to FindBiometrics.

A summary of the report states that about 1.8 billion adults around the world lack any kind of official identification. “That can exclude those individuals from access to essential services, and can also cause serious difficulties when it comes to trans-border identification,” according to FindBiometrics.

“That problem is one that Accenture has been tackling in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been issuing Accenture-developed biometric identity cards to populations of displaced persons in refugee camps in Thailand, South Sudan, and elsewhere. The ID cards are important for helping to ensure that refugees can have access to services, and for keeping track of refugee populations.”

Then comes the final admission by the World Bank that the new biometric IDs are not just for refugees.

“Moreover, the nature of the deployments has required an economically feasible solution, and has demonstrated that reliable, biometric ID cards can affordably be used on a large scale. It offers hope for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of getting legal ID into the hands of everyone in the world by the year 2030 with its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative.”

It is a serious problem for the authorities that many thousands of people are on their way on their own in the federal territory, Decker told Die Welt.

He said refugees might be registered multiple times as the registration is based on information given by the registrants, which almost always come without any papers.

“The same guy that is Muhammad Ali here in Eisenhüttenstadt can be Ali Mohammed a little bit later in Hamburg,” Decker exemplified. “The states must live with that for the time being, because a proper registration at the border is currently not in sight.”

One the U.N.’s biometric labeling of all humanity is in place, this will no longer be a problem.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/thousands-of-muslim-migrants-disappear-from-camps/#O0oTJHz8vVMIdGgH.99

They agree to Put Us Under Global Government- Your Consent is Not Required

The language for the TPP finally came out via Wikileaks the other day. It’s such a large document that I can’t even download it on my slow connection. Obviously, like all the other Trade agreements, it isn’t good for the average American despite what people say. Let’s revisit it a bit…Since the advent of the WTO and the various trade agreements under the WTO, we have lost our electronics and textile industries just about completely, and also clothing and shoes. Not to mention cuts in small ag, the auto industry and appliances. Heck, we can’t make enough shoes here to shod the population any longer. But don’t fret, we can look forward to being the call in centers for other countries.

At any rate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an excellent overview on it, largely in relation to internet issues. There is a link in the first sentence to the entire Trans Pacific Partnership document. Have fun!

October 9, 2015 | By Jeremy Malcolm

Today’s release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.

Since we now have the agreed text, we’ll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text. Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published by Wikileaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you’re looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that’s how it’s meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties’ flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada’s notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada’s case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile’s system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials”.

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

  • The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
  • A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or “buffer” copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

We have the Right to Travel- Supreme Court Rulings

There are many of us that are put at serious odds with the system because of the biometric and full on singularity of the tracking and control paradigm via Real ID and the associated Morpho Trust international collusion. These following cites from a myriad of cases may be helpful to us in protecting the rights that are supposed to be secured by a just government. This is long…And hopefully helpful! Many thanks to Eric Vimont for sending this to me!

Supreme-Court-Justices-2

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

 

OG article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

Skynet is Here: Jade Helm Decoded

As we are all well aware, the surveillance society and control paradigm has done nothing but escalate in all areas of our lives. Recently, I had to get a new phone. One of the options is to have the phone wake up when I look at it…I find that to be ultra super mega creepy. Go ahead and call me a Luddite, it won’t hurt my feelings.

Last week, a friend sent me a link to a YouTube video of an interview of a lady going by the name of “DJ”. It’s a very long interview, and it is terribly important for people to understand the issue that is being brought to light by this woman’s research.

I will nutshell the information for you, but I deeply encourage you to download the video and listen to it as you have time. It is nearly three hours and the terminology may be over a lot of people’s heads, but the gist of the issue is clearly explained and the framework is very well described.

Here’s my Reader’s Digest version:

Jade Helm is a AI software program that is capable of cataloging and determining motives of both military and civilians.

The program is being rolled out in the US during the Jade Helm 15 operation that has received so much notoriety. It has already been tested and rolled out over seas.

The program determines desired objectives based on it’s programming and the metadata collected through all the various datamining activities being conducted by entities such as IBM, NSA, BAE, Facebook, etc.

The program evidently has the capability of generating holographs and thereby effectively creating an artificial reality coming from an artificial intelligence.

Are you happy yet?

Bottom line, Jade Helm, the AI program, puts the program in charge of people. We are seen as “nodes” in the system architecture.

I have tried to debunk the statements made by this “DJ” person, and I have not been able to do so. Consider this post as an open invitation to debunk the statements made in the interview. Also, if anyone has any ideas about how to get this genie back in the bottle, I am very interested in hearing how that might be accomplished.

As I have said repeatedly, I like my Brave New World better as fiction….But here it is:

Jade Helm- Texas Ranger Shares His Knowledge

I received a link to the article below and then when I went to the site it was published on, malicious malware had taken over the site. Coincidence? I don’t know. In the interest of information redundancy, I am sharing this with you. But first, I must editorialize a bit!

To be clear, I am very concerned about this exercise. First of all, while there have been myriads of drills and Urban Warrior exercises off bases (and in violation of decent Constitutional practices) since the mid 90’s, this is the FIRST multi-state “exercise. Not just that, people are focusing on the South Western states, but it covers pretty much the entire southern border of the US. I have read articles that include Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida in this exercise along with the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and, of course, the “hostile” states of Texas and Utah.

Speculation and concern over this operation is running rampant and also running the gamut from “it’s no big deal” to the “red, green and blue list will be implemented and people will be hauled off”.

While I have to say that I flatly don’t know what’s going on with this, I do have serious concerns and issues with this exercise. The US Military has no business trying to infiltrate American towns. The “sell” that 60-65 participants per town is going to bring $150k into the town’s economy is ridiculous. That would be about $2300 per day trying to remain undetected in US towns. It stinks on it’s face.

What we KNOW is that there are actually Muslim training camps located in the United States. The FBI knows this and numbers them as between 22 and 36 camps. There is a ISIS camp near El Paso. The southern border has been flatly unenforced and people have been streaming into our country from who knows where. Then we have this “exercise” going on.

Best case scenario is also the worst case scenario to me. If the “intelligence” of this federal government has decided to pre-position troops in an effort to thwart a terrorism attack, then the fact that the border has been effectively dissolved, and remains in such a state, makes them flatly complicit in any terrorism attack that occurs here on US soil.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they will be rounding up patriotic leaders unless there is a massive cover afforded to those who would do such a thing. Like a complete interruption of our ability to communicate. The dynamics are just not in favor of such an action…In my opinion.

At any rate, below you will find the article I was able to get that has the full letter of the reported Texas Ranger in the body. If nothing else, perhaps all the attention being given to Jade Helm 15 could bring a positive Hawthorne Effect .

Here is the article with the link in the title:

Texas Ranger Drops Jade Helm Bombshell: “There Are Trains With Shackles On Them”

The reports about the coming Jade Helm 15 operation across the southwest continue to suggest that this is not merely a standard training exercise to prepare our military personnel for foreign engagements as has been suggested by officials.

A letter sent to Dave Hodges at The Common Sense Show by a concerned Texas Ranger indicates that the government is preparing for a scenario similar to what has been described in William Forstchen’s recent novella Day of Wrath in which ISIS terrorists cross the southern border of the United States and simultaneously attack soft targets across the nation.

But the letter doesn’t stop there. The Ranger, who has kept his identify private for obvious reasons and makes clear that the scope of Jade Helm is so secret that the intent is not completely clear, says that the JH15 mission objectives may go much farther than just preparing for terrorists. According to the law enforcement insider there are trains moving throughout Texas and some of them have been outfitted with shackles, presumably to “transport prisoners of some sort.” The claim adds further credence to a report about Jade Helm dissident roundups and arrests and widespread martial law declarations following an emergency.

His letter sheds some light on the Walmart store closings, suggesting at least one may be utilized in a national security capacity as a staging point for the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that is apparently not trusted by anyone within the Texas Rangers organization, according to the source.

The full letter follows:

Hello Mr. Hodges,

I have been a Texas Ranger for quite some time, and as such, I am privy to much of what is going on with regard to the Midland Walmart store closing, the presence of ISIS on Texas soil and our preparations to combat an insurgent threat.

I will not give you my rank or location because it would not be safe to do so. It is a waste of time to try and trace the IP#, etc., as I have taken steps to ensure that this note cannot be traced back to me.  I understand and  realize that you seem to have a growing issue with people who will not go on the record with their inside knowledge or first-hand observations, but you cannot understand the pressure and scrutiny that some of us are under. I am taking a big risk writing this email to you.

The main reason that I am writing to you is to encourage you to keep writing on the growing threat of infiltration in Texas and I suspect other states as well. The infiltration I am writing about is not just Special Forces that are going to conducting covert drills in our state. that is concerning and I agree with you this involves martial law.  For now I am talking about ISIS and the danger that they pose to all of us. Our intelligence indicates that they have enough manpower & firepower to subdue a small town. The Midland Walmart takeover by DHS is a national security move in which we have been told falls under the Continuity of Government provisions. The Threat Fusion Centers are providing related information on what it is we are facing but the information sharing is only in one direction and that is very concerning.

We expecting an attack on more than one Texas city or town by ISIS and/or any of their partners. I believe the information to be accurate. However, this makes the covert operations of groups like the Navy Seals and others under JH15 highly suspicious. We do not need the insertion of Special Ops into Texas towns and cities. I think that you are probably right about the intention of arresting political undesirables given what we know about JH15. I am of the opinion that whatever the mission objectives of JH15, they have nothing to do with the immediate threat. Therefore, I do not pretend to understand the full scope of JH 15 because there are unfolding operational details which are almost impossible to reconcile with what I already know to be fact based the evidence for what is going on.

Let me drop a bombshell that I have not seen you address. There are trains moving throughout Texas that have shackles inside some of the cars. I have not personally seen them, but I know personnel that have seen this. This indicates that these trains will be used to transport prisoners of some sort. I know from reading your articles that your default belief will be that these are for American political prisoners and will be transported to FEMA detention camps of some sort. We have been told by Homeland that these trains are slated for transporting captured terrorists, non-domestic. We are not sure we can trust this explanation because Homeland is keeping a lot from us and we are growing increasingly uncomfortable with their presence in Texas.

I wanted to tell also you that we believe that Pantex is a high value target for ISIS and much or our preparation is to thwart any action by terrorists against the facility.  I am wondering how in the hell you figured that out. Someone on the deep inside must be talking with you.

Keep writing Mr. Hodges, you and the underground media are making a difference. As I am sure you know, Colorado announced today that JH15 is suspended in that state. Unfortunately, we do not have that prerogative because we believe that we are under the threat of eminent attack here in Texas.

I do believe the ISIS threat is legitimate. But you are also correct to suspect the motives behind the JH15 drills. They are clouded in secrecy and we have been shut out regarding their operational intent. The people of Texas and all of the United States of America should be pushing back against JH15.

I will support the Feds in their preparation against ISIS. But the moment that this action turns against our locals is the moment I will perform my oath of office. I am not alone in this feeling. None of my brothers trust Homeland. We will have to see where this is going but I have a bad feeling.

You do your job and keep writing and I will do my job in upholding the Constitution

Thank You

The suspicions of the public are quite justified, it seems. The operational commanders for Jade Helm have compartmentalized the “exercise” to such an extent that no one, not the local and state law enforcement officers involved or the majority of military personnel, has any idea what is actually going on.

As noted in the letter, a realistic threat from our southern border certainly exists and as we’ve written previously, Border Patrol and Homeland Security have been capturing suspected terrorist operatives crossing into the United States for years. But the Texas Ranger who penned the letter says this is not necessarily the full scope of the massive Summer exercise.

And given that people within his own organization report seeing shackles in trains, is it completely out of the question to suggest that the government does, in fact, have procedures in place to detain, transport and imprison those suspected of terrorism, or those who may be suspected of being suspected?

When Gerald Celente warned of the Auschwitz Express back in a 2012 interview he wasn’t joking:

First it was the Patriot Act. Now it’s the National Defense Authorization Act. And then it was Obama’s Executive Order giving El Presidente Los Estados Unidos the supreme right to call Martial Law at a potential threat – a potential threat.

Then there’s Big Bro over there, Attorney General Eric Holder, who just passed these guidelines that could let them listen in to what we’re saying right now, listen to you on your cell phone, watch every stroke of your keyboard, and they at the White House could then determine whether or not the algorythms add up to you being a terrorist or a potential terrorist.

Big Brother never had it so good.

…all aboard the Auschwitz Express…

…That’s what’s going on here… and the people don’t see it, and they’re afraid to speak up… People don’t want to believe it.

Full Interview Via SGT Report

We will soon find out if Jade Helm is just another military exercise. Some are of the opinion that it could be used to facilitate a false flag operation that would then be used as justification to implement nationwide martial law and to activate Doomsday Executive Orders recently signed by President Obama.

It may sound wildly conspiratorial, but it wouldn’t be the first time a government has purposefully engaged in such conduct.

Previous Older Entries