TARGETING INDIVIDUALS; TARGETING HUMANITY
Your Legal Rights At RiskTargeted and Angry Coalition
“As global tensions rise in a more-connected-than-ever world, governments are constantly trying to find ways to stay ahead of enemies, and nanoweapons are no exception. Potential nanoweapons include toxic nanoparticles as a poison able to cross biological membranes their bulk counterparts are unable to cross and therefore can be readily absorbed. Another such nanoweapon could be drones the size of insects – tiny drones capable of infiltrating enemy lines unnoticed.” Dr. H. Staninger *
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person…. Article 14 – No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy… Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference… ”
My colleague and co-trustee at Natural Solutions Foundation, Rima E. Laibow, MD, psychiatrist and holistic physician has joined with Dr. Hildegarde Staninger (doctorate in integrative medicine) in exposing the targeting of individuals by government or other agencies. In a recent article at Open Source Truth Dr. Rima told us:
“Health Freedom is absolute. Either you do control your own body or you don’t. Period. But as if vaccine intrusions were not bad enough, (solved by the use of the Advance Vaccine Directive Card) there is another looming nightmare you need to know about although it’s been going on a long time, hidden in the shadows. Sometimes known as “Mind Control”, it’s actually a whole lot worse. We are talking about Non-Consensual Experimentation or NCE and those who have been used as non-consenting guinea pigs call themselves TIs or ‘Targeted Individuals’”.
The universally recognized right to Informed Consent is at the center of the clash between the coercive intent of the hidden experimenters and the personal integrity of targeted individuals.
The threat is real and the risk that any individual will be targeted is growing, with the development of nano-implants, including the indiscriminate use of “nano-dust” or “smart dust” particles.
As the technology for involuntary targeting grows, your legal protections against this invasion of privacy are also being targeted. This article outlines some of your legal protections against targeting, and some recent political developments that put us all at risk of becoming victims.
Your right to Informed Consent has been protected in the United States for over a century.
In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming medical intervention without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass:
“In the case at hand, the wrong complained of is not merely negligence. It is trespass. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”
As recently as 2013 the United States Supreme Court reiterated the basic right to Informed Consent:
Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. …this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) system for legitimate scientific experimentation requires meaningful implementation of Informed Consent protocols. Some State governments have passed laws enforcing the right to Informed Consent, with California having the most developed legal protections.
California Health and Safety Code 2176 provides:
- The person primarily responsible for negligent failure to obtain Informed Consent is liable to the subject for not less than $50 and not more than $1,000
- Such person also liable to subject for up to $5,000 for willful failure
- Such person, if exposing the subject to substantial risk of injury subject to misdemeanor — 1 year in jail and $5,000 fine.
- Pharmaceutical employee who willfully withholds information of risks – a year in jail and $10,000 fine.
But California goes even further, protecting people from unauthorized implantation. That state’s Civil Code, 52.7, passed in 2007, provides for a $1,000 a day fine until the implant is removed.
That state has published a Bill of Rights for the subjects of experiments. Here it is:
Counteracting these salutary laws is the well-funded effort by large pharmaceutical company lobbyists to use the Federal bureaucracy to restrict the application of legal protections for Informed Consent. That effort bore its rotten fruit at the end of the Obama Administration, in December 2016, when Republicans and Democrats joined together to adopt the misnamed “21st Century Cures Act” — its opponents opined,
“Section 2263 would amend sections 520(g)(3) and 505(i)(4) of the FFDCA to specify that informed consent is not required for clinical testing of devices and drugs that pose no more than minimal risk to the human subjects and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed by the Secretary to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the participants” (quote taken from 1,027-page conference report)…”
The statute, as amended provides:
Section 5050(1) – The experimenter “will obtain the consent of such human beings or their representatives, except where it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings…”
Thus, there has been an attempt by Congress to overthrow over a century of American law, and over a half century of international legal precedent reaching back to the Nuremburg Code and the Subsequent Nuremburg Trials of the Nazi Doctors.
The operative language of the Nuremburg Code, which the United States offered to the world at the end of World War II as a binding restatement of the international law of Informed Consent, is the same language with which California ends its Experimental Subject’s Bill of Rights:
“…without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, duress, coercion or undue influence…”
“Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…”
Yet targeting individuals and groups of individuals remains a clear and present danger. In 2013 New York City engaged in a test of mass susceptibility to exposure to nano-dust. It could have as well been chemical or biological weapons. We objected, as did many, but the test went ahead without anyone’s Informed Consent.
When the authorities target humanity, they are targeting individuals – the same when anonymous government or corporate agencies do likewise. They are acting “contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…”
Ralph Fucetola JD
Institute for Health Research
 Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
 Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US _ (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf