SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
Puppet MastersS
Patsy
(click here for part a exhibits)
(click here for part b exhibits)
(click here for part c exhibits)
I want to share with you the latest puzzling happenings in the Sirhan court filings because I want the reader to examine and compare Attorney General of California, Kamala D. Harris' filing with the court (re evidence bullets) with the response to the court by Sirhan attorneys, William Pepper and Laurie Dusek. Then, I ask the reader to compare both filings with what I would have written the court (only in response to Harris' false charges with respect to Sirhan evidence bullets on page 5, lines 11-13).
Also included are some new charges - separate from the latest court happenings, And here I warn the reader - skip if you weren't blessed with a super - super abundance of smarts as it is extremely to follow.
It is not my intention to in any way suggest or imply that Sirhan Attorneys William Pepper and Laurie Dusek are anything but very capable and knowledgable attorneys. I simply do not agree with their latest Court filing with respect to the ballistics issues. And I will not be shy about speaking out about it.
Their vision, as stated on their Web site, is "to lead world-class 21st century bioscience, promoting innovation and realizing benefits for society within and beyond the UK."1
The UK government is known to be very receiving to genetically modified organisms (GMO) and last year the UK's Agriculture Biotechnology Council (ABC) even published a new report "Going for Growth," which, according to GMWatch, "calls for GM to be put at the heart of agricultural development in the UK."2
While ABC is not a government authority - it's a GM industry lobby group that represents the interests of Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta and other biotech giants - the organization met with key UK government officials to present their case, and reportedly "the industry's push for GM is already being welcomed."
This indeed appears to be the case, as now evidenced by a significant connection between BBSRC and a leading biotech research firm, Rothamsted Research.
© Natural News
That's the far-fetched conspiracy theory now being pushed by Monsanto to explain how commercial wheat crops in Oregon got contaminated with GMOs. It was put forth by Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley, a Monsanto executive, in a phone call with reporters.
"It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field," Fraley said on the call, making him the first Monsanto executive to publicly admit he is a conspiracy theorist. He goes on to confirm that the company is investigating the possibility of "sabotage" to explain the wheat field contamination.
© CBS NewsClint Lindsey
Monsanto, which developed it, does not know how it happened but would not rule out sabotage.
Clint Lindsey sells almost all of the wheat he grows near Portland to countries in Asia. The discovery of genetically modified wheat in eastern Oregon has his customers worried.
"Our company sells to a grain exporter that was dealing with Japan and has had its next shipment put on hold," Lindsey said. "So unless that gets started up again, we could potentially be sitting on a lot of conventional wheat this fall."
Lindsey said it costs them "hundreds of thousands of dollars a year."
© 57UNProtests against Monsanto in Paris, France
Commercial farming of genetically modified wheat is banned in the United States. The practice is primarily not allowed because about half of America's wheat is sold overseas and many foreign countries prohibit the import of genetically modified foods.
So when modified wheat was discovered recently on a small farm in Oregon, the response from U.S. trading partners was fierce. Japan, the number one buyer of U.S. wheat, suspended some imports, as did South Korea.
Korean scientists are testing their U.S. wheat for signs of genetic modification and the European Union is also urging its 27 member nations to test American wheat.
It's not known how the modified wheat got into the Oregon field. Genetically it's the same wheat that Monsanto tested for possible commercial use in 16 states including Oregon a decade ago.
In a statement the food giant says the presence now of any modified wheat from their experiment is "unexpected" and likely to be "very limited."
© Eric DraitserFuture jurors?
Monsanto's statements come a day after the company was hit with the first of what will probably be multiple lawsuits accusing the company of negligence that helped trigger turmoil in global wheat markets. The lawsuit on behalf of a Kansas wheat farmer says Monsanto tested the wheat varieties engineered to be resistant to Roundup weed-killer when it "knew there was a high risk that the genetically modified wheat could contaminate other varieties of wheat" on nearby farms.
The lawsuit led by Houston's Susman Godfrey is on its surface a simple negligence case, no different than a slip-and-fall lawsuit - other than the number of zeroes behind it. If Monsanto is found liable for allowing its genetically modified seed to stray, it theoretically could be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages due to depressed wheat prices and even farmland values.
"We fully expect we will see future episodes in other parts of the country," said Warren Burns, a partner with Susman Godfrey in Dallas, since Monsanto tested the wheat in 16 states from 1998 to 2005 . "The potential here is this is the tip of the iceberg."
Monsanto Co. (MON), the world's largest seed company, said experimental wheat engineered to survive Roundup weedkiller may have gotten into an Oregon field through an "accidental or purposeful" act.
Monsanto and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are investigating how genetically modified wheat that hasn't been approved for commercial planting was found growing on an Oregon farm eight years after nationwide field tests ended.
Monsanto's genetic analyses found the variety hasn't contaminated the types of seed planted on the Oregon farm or the wheat seed typically grown in Oregon and Washington state, Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley said today on a call with reporters. The unapproved wheat was found growing on less than 1 percent of the farmer's 125-acre (51-hectare) field, Fraley said.
"It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field," Fraley said on the call.
Asked whether the St. Louis-based company is suggesting the incident could be an act of sabotage, Fraley said, "That is certainly one of the options we are looking at."
Fraley said he doesn't mean to suggest the farmer who made the discovery is responsible.
Monsanto and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are investigating how genetically modified wheat that hasn't been approved for commercial planting was found growing on an Oregon farm eight years after nationwide field tests ended.
Monsanto's genetic analyses found the variety hasn't contaminated the types of seed planted on the Oregon farm or the wheat seed typically grown in Oregon and Washington state, Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley said today on a call with reporters. The unapproved wheat was found growing on less than 1 percent of the farmer's 125-acre (51-hectare) field, Fraley said.
"It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field," Fraley said on the call.
Asked whether the St. Louis-based company is suggesting the incident could be an act of sabotage, Fraley said, "That is certainly one of the options we are looking at."
Fraley said he doesn't mean to suggest the farmer who made the discovery is responsible.
© OSCEA meeting at the Hofburg in Vienna, 14 July 2008, to mark the approaching 500th flight under the Open Skies Treaty
President Dwight Eisenhower first proposed that the United States and the Soviet Union allow aerial reconnaissance flights over each other's territory in July 1955. Claiming the initiative would be used for extensive spying, Moscow rejected Eisenhower's proposal. President George H.W. Bush revived the idea in May 1989 and negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact started in February 1990.
© Vladimir Ivanov/RIA NovostiTupolev Tu-154
The Russian inspectors, accompanied by U.S. officials, will be flying on board a Tupolev Tu-154 LK-1 plane from the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio and the Travis Air Force Base in California.
These will be the 14th and 15th observation missions carried out by Russian inspectors over territories of Open Skies Treaty member countries this year.
The Open Skies Treaty, which entered into force on January 1, 2002, establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the territories of its 34 member states to promote openness and the transparency of military forces and activities. Russia ratified the deal in May 2001.
Comment: Regarding internment camps, we've read the Army document referenced in this video (@ 8 mins) and understand it to be really referring to setting up internment camps for insurgents abroad, in countries where the U.S.-backed regime is weak and upheld by U.S. military intervention.
Which isn't to say that such facilities at home are not an option on the table for the psychopathic U.S. regime. There has been a lot of talk about FEMA camps and such, going back to the Rex-84 document, but not a lot of supporting evidence on the ground.
However, when all the other evidence that the U.S. has transformed itself into a police state is taken into consideration, it seems as if the country itself has become one big internment camp.