Dr Eliahu Richter helped them with his written expression of opinion
which said that the electromagnetic fields they are exposed to -
endanger their health, including cancer.

Hopefully it will be done, the sooner - the better.

and

Radar Lawsuit

A news article: 5 israeli soldiers who worked 4 years ago at the same
unit with radars (with Hock missiles) have cancer, 4 testicles cancers,
1 lymphoma.

The soldiers were aware it it was dangerous - they warned, they applied
to the army, but the army chose to ignore them. Now they recceive
chemotherapy and radiations.

At the same time, the air force asked one of these soldiers to lecture
the soldiers about his disease, how it was caused, and how lack of
filling the protection orders [which are to be distant from the radar.
Not said how many meters. And - doing medical examinations - this DOES
NOT prevent the disease, it is just for saying "you've got it".]

He filed his lawsuit 3 months ago, served in the air force in operating
"Hock" missiles. The army states that there is no proof in the medical
litrature about the connection cancer-electromagnetic radiation. Further
more they rely on the WHO : The WHO says the radiation does not cause
malignancy.

These are the consequences when a world health authority protects the
radiation instead of protecting the people.

Among the reactions to the internet version of the article, one mother
said that her daughter worked with radars and got uterus cancer. "If
they don't want us here - say it. We'll just buy one way ticket abroad"
she added.

Another woman wrote that her sister worked with radars and died from
cancer. Her sister's friend who served at the same unit, got cancer
also. They were exposed about 2 years. They tried to sue the army but
the army denied.

Source: Yediot Ahronot, Eitan Glickman 7/7/03
"Lawsuit- because of the radar of Zaha"l, I have cancer".
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2683634,00.html

Informant: Iris Atzmon

Re: Struggle with the City Officials and Sprint in Berkeley, CA

Dear Radi,

I understand you are in Canada now. Great work up there!

Please understand that the Berkeley community had retained an attorney,
Lawrence Teeter, who is a terrific environmental, civil rights and
anti-telecom attorney with decades of experience in the CA and federal
courts. He's ready to go to work for them - they just haven't CALLED him
for months! He's at 323-753-4035.

They think they need a local attorney, but don't understand that in
these battles, you need an expert lawyer, one who is very persistent and
strong, someone very experienced, who knows not only local law, but
state and federal law, which trump local law! That's what Larry does, in
my observation of his cases. He's powerful, he wins. Of course, it's
helpful to have someone nearby who can go to all the meetings and show
up in court at a moment's notice; but in order to file the most
important documents, you need someone with far greater prowess than you
would find in a merely local attorney.

Berkeley has a winning case and they have a great attorney - they just
need to have their attorney file the documents before the filing
deadlines run out.

Susan

Is That A Cell Phone In Your Pocket?

July 4, 2003

Thousands of travellers go through airport security every day with cell
phones. But at vancouver international airport last weekend a Korean
traveller was arrested for having one.

The cell phone was actually a disguised stun gun. Customs personnel
discovered it in the baggage of a Korean traveller who was wanted on a
Canada-wide immigration warrant.

When activitated the gun emits a loud siren and sends out a brilliant
blue arc of electricity. The Korean man has been charged with importing
a prohibited weapon and remains in police custody.

http://www.bcctv.ca/

Informant: Gotemf

P.S. Visual demo of effects when EHS is misdiagnosed as psychosis

Concerning pictures from Imelda: the right shows Imelda during Spring of
1997, the left is from the last days.

Omega

NRDC goes to court against deadly sonar

I wish you could have been with us in court last week as we argued our
landmark case to save millions of marine mammals from the Navy's deadly
LFA sonar system.

Getting this case to U.S. District Court has been an enormous
undertaking: eight years of legal sparring with the Navy; hundreds of
pages of carefully drafted legal arguments; tens of thousands of pages
of documents entered into the court record; and a never-say-die belief
on our part that the health of ocean ecosystems will one day prevail
over the world's most powerful military establishment.

But, above all, the road to the courthouse door was paved with thousands
and thousands of letters and contributions from caring people like you.
That's why, with a ruling in this case still a month away, I wanted you
to know right away that we fought the good fight on your behalf last
week. The rest is now up to Judge Elizabeth LaPorte.

As you know, Judge LaPorte stunned the Navy last fall by blocking
deployment of LFA sonar across 75 percent of the world's oceans until
this case could be heard in full and all of NRDC's evidence presented.
It is unusual for a judge to clamp this kind of injunction on the
military -- especially in times like these -- unless the case against
the government is exceedingly strong. We have that kind of case.

Judge LaPorte's courageous ruling last year signaled that the Bush
administration had likely violated multiple laws when it gave the Navy
permission to harass and injure thousands of marine mammals by flooding
ocean habitats with high-intensity noise.

Since then, NRDC's case has only gotten stronger. We have uncovered
reams of new evidence -- much of it drawn from the Navy's own files --
that
high-powered LFA noise can cause hemorrhaging in whales, internal
injuries in fish, and seizures in human divers.

When our Marine Mammal Protection staff entered the courtroom last week,
they encountered a phalanx of Bush administration lawyers and a parade
of the government's top scientific experts. But that formidable array of
government talent (all paid for by your tax dollars!) faced an uphill
battle trying to refute the almost overwhelming case against LFA sonar
that we have painstakingly constructed over the past decade.

Based on Judge LaPorte's many thoughtful questions, there is little
doubt that she understands the far-reaching dangers posed by this
technology -- as well as the illegal manner in which the Bush
administration approved its deployment.

All we can do now is wait and hope that Judge LaPorte will impose a
permanent ban on the global deployment of this acoustic menace until
such a day as the Navy can prove it has complied with federal law and
will do no serious harm to marine life. I will, of course, alert you via
email the minute we have the judge's ruling in hand.

On behalf of our entire legal team, I want to thank you again for coming
to the defense of marine mammals around the world and making this
historic case possible.

Sincerely,

John H. Adams
President
Natural Resources Defense Council

Cahra - With related background information on Russian/U.S. mind control
technology
http://www.raven1.net/cwrussia.htm

and

Russian Psychotronics Human Rights Group Sends Information to Cahra
http://www.raven1.net/russtran.htm

Big Brother gets a brain

The cameras are already in place. The computer code is being
developed at a dozen or more major companies and universities. And
the trial runs have already been planned. Everything is set for a new
Pentagon program to become perhaps the federal government's widest
reaching, most invasive mechanism yet for keeping us all under watch.
Not in the far-off, dystopian future. But here, and soon. The
military is scheduled to issue contracts for Combat Zones That See,
or CTS, as early as September...

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0328/shachtman.php

and

Weapons of mass compliance

Police and military alike face new challenges not only from the
usual terrorist suspects, but from all manner of uppity civilians the
world over, from at-times unruly displays of democratic zeal at
protests ... to occasional bits of ugliness in the dingier corners of
the globe when the ungrateful subjects of American military
'humanitarian' missions rudely snap at the hands that feed them. The
primary challenge for a more media-savvy police state: to make people
calm and compliant without actually making them dead...

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/33/features-ehrenreich.php
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Schmeiser's Battle for the Seed

What makes a farmer from a small rural community in Saskatchewan stand
up to Monsanto? And possibly, win? Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports.

Percy Schmeiser, now in his early seventies, a soft-spoken,
mild-mannered Canadian farmer from the small rural community of Bruno
some 80km east of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, never dreamt he would be
catapulted to the status of a contemporary folk- hero. He had been
farming for 40 years when he was taken to court by biotech giant Monsanto
in August 1998. The company claimed he had illegally planted its genetically
engineered Roundup Ready canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the
privilege.

Schmeiser was not alone. Monsanto had accused scores of farmers of
patent infringing on its genetically engineered seed. But, instead of
settling out of court with Monsanto like the others, Schmeiser fought
back. He had been sowing each crop with seeds saved and selected from
the previous harvest for years, and had never purchased seed from
Monsanto. Even so, he found more than 320 hectares of his land
contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola.

Schmeiser insisted that any Roundup Ready growing on his land was spread
by wind or by grain trucks travelling on roads adjacent to his fields.

On 10 August 1999, mediation talks to settle the dispute ended in
failure. The next day, Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against
Monsanto, accusing the company of a variety of wrongs, including libel,
trespass and contaminating his fields with Roundup Ready canola. But
Schmeiser's lawsuit against Monsanto won't be dealt with until the
original lawsuit has been resolved. Little did he know what a long, hard
battle he has taken on.

It is a battle for the seed, for every farmer's right to save and resow
harvested seed, to freely share and exchange without restriction, as
farmers have been doing for at least 15 000 years since agriculture began.

The trial was heard in June 2000, in the Federal Court in Saskatoon. At
the trial, Monsanto presented evidence from two dozen witnesses and
samplers that Schmeiser's eight fields were all more than 90% Roundup
Ready. Monsanto had performed no independent tests, however; the tests
were all performed in house or by experts hired by the company.

In defence, Schmeiser presented his own farm-based evidence, that the
fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready, which was confirmed
independently by research scientists at the University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg. Schmeiser's defence also contained evidence that he did not
knowingly acquire Monsanto's product, nor did he segregate the
contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola crops with Roundup.

But the Federal Court ruled against Schmeiser. Justice Andrew McKay
upheld the validity of Monsanto's patented gene. In a key part of the
ruling, the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants
grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen; but
this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.

It didn't matter how the Roundup Ready canola got to his fields. He was
deemed to have infringed Monsanto patent, and was fined $15/acre x 1030
acres licence fee, plus the value of his entire crop, $105,000
(including fields that did not have any Roundup Ready canola), plus
$25,000 for punitive and exemplary damages.

"Where does Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?" Percy Schmeiser
asked. He refused to abide by the judgement, and launched an appeal,
which was heard in May 2002 in Saskatoon.

Unfortunately, all three judges ruled against him yet again. By this
time, he and Louise, his wife of 50 years, had already spent $ 200 000
in legal fees. He had ceased to plant canola, for any canola crop he
planted would belong to Monsanto.

Monsanto had kept up a constant campaign of harassment and intimidation
all through the trial in 1999 and 2000. And in 2001, Monsanto brought a
new case against Schmeiser for $1 million in 'court costs': $750 000 for
their lawyers, $250 000 for 'disbursements' which included travel
expenses, payments for expert witnesses and $15 000 'lawyer's night
entertainments'.

Undaunted, Percy Schmeiser took his case to the Supreme court, and in
May 2003, when I caught up with him at the Biodevastation 7 meeting held
in Monsanto's hometown St. Louis, Missouri, he just got the good news
that he has won his right to be heard in the Supreme Court. There were
loud cheers in the hall.

Percy Schmeiser has been tireless in travelling the world to tell his
story. Everywhere, farmers are fighting for their lives and livelihoods.
Monsanto winning would be the very last straw, not just for farmers, for
everyone. Schmeiser has come to symbolise our collective struggle against
corporate serfdom. Just as independent scientists are oppressed and
victimised, farmers are subject to the same or worse treatment.

Monsanto's tactics are well known. The company gets farmers to sign away
all their rights in an unbelievable technology contract. The farmer must
not use his or her own seed, must buy seed and chemicals from Monsanto.
Monsanto can send inspectors onto your fields for three years even if
you grow the company's crops for only one year.

Monsanto also openly advertises for people to tell on their neighbours
if they are suspected of having GM crops without licence. The company's
representatives can trespass onto your fields even when you are not at
home, or fly over your field and spray Roundup to see if the crop dies.

Immediately after Monsanto had obtained its judgement against Percy
Schmeiser, the company had declared war on all Saskatchewan farmers.
Schmeiser received hundreds of phone calls from farmers who have been
contacted by Monsanto representatives and received demand letters
saying that they have unauthorised GM crops growing in their fields and
must pay so many thousands of dollars to avoid lawsuit. Many of the
farmers who called Schmeiser were in the same circumstances: they never
bought any seed from Monsanto or signed any contract.

But things may be turning Schmeiser's (and our) way at long last.

In June 2002, a report from the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory
Committee said that the Patent Act should be amended to permit farmers
to save and sow seeds from patented plants such as genetically
engineered (GE) crops.

It also said that farmers who find GE plants growing in their fields
through "the adventitious spreading of patented seed or patented genetic
material or the insemination of an animal by a patented animal" should
be considered as innocent bystanders and not be liable to prosecution.

While biotechnology developments are patentable, the report said the
holder does not have "the right to market or even use the invention.
This is because some applications of the technology may pose risks to
human or animal health or to the environment, challenge the capacity of
current approaches to protecting health and the environment and or raise other
serious social and ethical questions that must be addressed."

The report suggests that the farmer be allowed to use the seed of a GE
crop or the offspring of a GE animal for his or her own use but not for
commercial purposes.

Better yet, in December 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the
genetically engineered Harvard oncomouse is not patentable (see "Canada
rejects patents on higher forms of life ", ISIS Report, March 2003 ).
This opens the door to revoking patents on GM seeds, such as Monsanto's
Roundup Ready canola. This could be the last nudge to get GM crops off
our globe.

Help Percy fight Monsanto and get patents on life revoked for a GM-Free
world. Make a donation on his website: www.percyschmeiser.com

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SLBFTS.php

O.T. themes:

People of Peace, Stand Proudly as Patriots
http://buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub3

OUR CLIMATE: DEAD OR ALIVE?
http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/newphysics/schuclimate.htm

The Politicians' Constitution
http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/july20/constitution.html

Blair faces fresh Iraq questions
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/08/uk.iraq/

White House admits "error" on Iraq claim
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23777-2003Jul7.html

A diplomat's undiplomatic truth: they lied
http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2003/07/09/lying/

Responsibility for war's consequences
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/bsmith/

Eden's long gone
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030709/index.php

The forgotten and the damned
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/heard/heard1.html

Confidence in Bush slips further
http://www.msnbc.com/news/936329.asp

A government for, by, and of the people
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1463

Fight for Your Rights
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16337

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp