21 January, 2022

DANGER! European Commission refuses to publish Treaty Charter defending Citizen's Rights against technocracy!

 

European Commission refuses to publish Treaty Charter on Citizen's Rights against technocracy!


My letter to European Commission Spokesperson, Eric Mamer, 21 January 2022 follows my question at today's Press conference.

After my question in the Commission Press Room, the Commission Spokesperson confirmed by telephone that they are not going to publish the Treaty Charter of the Community at the heart of Europe's democracy. Mr Mamer said he would refuse to answer any further questions on the subject. Their position would not change whatever the European Ombudsman reported on the abuse. There were many other cases that they had done so. 

When I pointed out that the letter I had received from the Commission's Secretariat General did not give any reasons for not publishing it. It merely stated it was considered a declaration and therefore it was not going to be published, (whatever Vice President Suica said). 

The Charter is in fact an integral part of the Paris Treaty that defines the institutions of modern Europe. It defines not only the duties and installation of the Commission (High Authority), the Parliament and the Council of Ministers but also the European Court of Justice!  If you eliminate the Charter you should logically eliminate these institutions! 

This call confirms that the Commission is governed by rules of technocracy, not open democracy.

Europe is in grave DANGER.


For the Commission, apparently, it is not a question of whether the Charter is a legal and ratified part of the Paris Treaty or is a mere declaration or some other sort of document, the Spokesperson said that it is simply not going to publish it. 

Here is the link to my question in the press Room. 

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-217128

 

Here is my later letter to the EC Spokesperson.

Hello Eric,

In the Commission press room today, Eric, you said the Commission has answered my complaint about the non-publication of Europe’s foundational democratic documents. You did not allow my follow-up question. That did not let me clarify where you are mistaken on the Commission’s stated position for full publication. The letter (that I had not received at the time from the Secretariat General) said nothing to justify the non-publication of the Paris Treaty Charter. It merely gave an (erroneous) description of the Charter. I did not ask about the legal nature of the Charter.  That should be obvious. Schuman said that these documents provided a defence for citizens’ human rights against bureaucracy, technocracy, tyranny and totalitarianism.

 

The official at the Commission's Secretariat General refused to address the question of publication. The Ombudsman pointed this out to the Commission.  ‘It is not clear what relevance the nature of the document has with the decision not to publish…’ The Ombudsman added ‘The Commission has not replied to the complainant’s request that the documents should be published online and in the OJ.’

 

The failure to publish has nothing to do with how one official defines the document. The Commission said officially it would publish the foundational documents on European democracy.  

So did the Council. 

So did the European Parliament.

 

Reason enough that they should be published.  Is one official allowed to stop publication authorised by Vice President Suica and the Council Presidency? Can an official deny publication of a public document that is a constitutional foundation stone of Europe? Is a technocrat in charge to decide what is good and fit for the public to know above the Commission itself? This Charter is a document signed and sealed in Paris on 18 April1951 by the Six Foreign Ministers with plenipotentiary powers, ratified and legally deposited in the French Foreign Ministry.

 

The Vice President of the Commission affirmed that, for the Conference on the Future of Europe and the on-going debate on the Democratic Deficit, the Commission would publish this essential part of the Treaty of Paris. The Commission and the other institutions (EP and Council) represented in the press room on 19 April 2021 also confirmed they would publish the full text of the Schuman Declaration including what Schuman called the exordium, the initial summary that situated it in a geopolitical and historical context.

 

The Commission has not published either document. Fact. Why?

 

Is the Commission refusing to publish these documents?


I would appreciate your  reply on this question.


Regards,

David

 

10 December, 2021

Europe's Future: Autocracy, Technocracy? EU Commission must publish the Charter Treaty on Freedom of Choice!


Yesterday in the EU Commission Press Room, I raised a couple of questions about the inactivity and the lack of a direct response of the Commission on the need and legal obligation of the Commission to publish the Charter of the Community. Eric Mamer, the Spokesman, said he had no information. I asked him to help the services provide answers, and publication well before the end of the Conference debate on the Future of Europe. 
On 19 April, the Commission affirmed that they would publish this Charter Treaty and the full text of the Schuman Declaration so that citizens can discuss them at the Conference on the Future of Europe. The Commission ('Guardian of the Treaties') has not done so. 
President Ursula von der Leyen spoke in a Tweet for the Summit for Democracy about how democracy means freedom of choice for Europeans. The Charter or Joint Declaration is a Treaty that provides for citizens a legal instrument to expand the areas of liberty, counter technocratic or politburo-style imposition of regulations and reverse the disastrous Democratic Deficit of the EU that led to many recent problems including Brexit and Rule of Law issues. 
The Charter Treaty is held in legal deposit in the archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs as designated by Article 100 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.  The French Presidency of the Council starts next month and it will be embarrassing if the Charter Treaty and the full Schuman Declaration are not published by then.
The Charter of the Community signed by the plenipotentiary Founding Fathers confirms legally that the European institutions in the Treaty of Paris (Council, Commission, Consultative Committee, Court, Parliamentary Assembly) recognise that Europeans have God-given rights of freedom of choice.  This distinguishes a real democracy from the Fascist regimes or the false People's Democracies of the Communist Soviet bloc or any autocratic regime that imposes its own rules or a technocracy.


 

08 December, 2021

EU Document Transparency: the real Problem is Seventy years old!

Do politicians like transparency? Do cats like rain?

They prefer to stay inside, behind closed doors. 

Then they hide the papers.

The most important papers are in fact treaties that have been hidden for seventy years. 

Seventy years!

What should citizens do about it? 

Complain about missing papers? A treaty engaging governments to open government is some extraordinary piece of paper, like no other.

 "Access to Documents: what next?" That was the theme of the 15 November conference was organised on  by the European Ombudsman, Mrs Emily O'Reilly. 

The conference was told:

"The EU institutions are obliged to keep records of documents relevant to their work and any EU citizen can request to view them. This right is enshrined in EU law but Regulation 1049/2001 is now 20 years old. New technologies, as well as changing expectations about the transparency of public administrations, mean it is time to discuss the future of the EU’s access to documents rules.

Transparency and access to documents inquiries account for around one quarter of the Ombudsman’s inquiries each year. There is a fixed timetable in the procedure for requesting documents, but are there too many delays in the system? While institutions have the right to refuse access to documents for certain specific reasons, are these exemptions applied too readily?"

Seventy Years of decline

The European institutions have been around for 70 years since the Treaty of Paris was signed on 18 April 1951. That treaty had a very powerful way both to collect information about the first European Single Market. It also knew how to protect the privacy of enterprises, the trade unions and the consumers. 

Schuman was no dreamer about bureaucracies. He wrote that a badly run bureaucracy, a technocracy was the greatest danger to democracy. How do you fight an out-of-control technocracy? Transparency. He therefore built in protection of information and information sources and also provided the means to make the most important information available to the citizens.

When the United Nations wanted to organise its global information network, it called on Schuman to write a plan for them.

So why is the Democratic Deficit and maladministration such a problem today?

Blocked at Birth

Let's be clear about the origin of this problem. Let's also understand why the office of Ombudsman was invented four decades after the birth of the European Community.

The European Community was designed as an open democratic system: 

  • the Assembly was to hold open debates, 
  • the Consultative Committees and, 
  • Yes, the Council of Ministers too! 

Everything was supposed to be open to the public and the press. The principles were clearly written in the original treaties signed and sealed on 18 April 1951. 

Declaration of Interdependence

The key document was the Charter of the Community. It described how all citizens and civil organisations have the right to demand open government so that they can see, investigate and criticise each and every institution. This contrasted them with the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet bloc. There the politburo met behind closed doors, issued its laws, stopped citizens from criticising the Party and forbade any other ideology but atheistic Communism. 

The Charter Treaty is the key document focusing on the right that will stop the EU becoming the European equivalent of the Soviet-style People's Democracy run by a politburo.

What distinguishes an autocracy from a democracy? The citizens' right to choose. With this power they can replace the so-called representatives who preferred to act as self-serving autocrats. 

The first act of the politicians was to hide or bury the Charter of the Community! This treaty was originally called the Joint Declaration of the European Community. Robert Schuman called it the Charter of the Community. It has also been called the Declaration of Inter-Dependence, reflecting the founding freedoms of the United States of America. 

The Commission has promised many times to publish this and the founding documents. It failed to deliver. Their original reluctance to publish it has led to the slippery slope of the Democratic Deficit. That has got worse and worse as one error was compounded by subsequent political compromises, not to say corruption.  

Consequences

Without the Charter and the applications of its principles, the European Commission became what Mrs Thatcher called in 1990 "an undemocratic politburo." This was just after the liberation of the Central and Eastern Europe from the Soviet Bloc. 'We are trying to get Eastern Europe to accept democratic standards and here we are recreating our own politburo,' she said. 

She was not alone, either in the UK or on the Continent.  

Generations of European democrats would not abandon the fundamental principles of impartiality and transparency. 

They made sure that it was written down -- even in the politicians' own Lisbon Treaty. Its articles say that meetings on the Council should be as open as those in the European Parliament. 

That still has not happened.

The doors of the Council of Ministers are slammed shut to the public and the press. 

The Law says politicians have to agree to open sessions whenever they

  • consider
  • deliberate, or
  • take a common position of legislation proposed by the European Commission. 

That means practically all the time except possibly for discussions on security.

How will they be opened again? All the politicians in the Council have to agree that they should obey the treaty they signed up for.

Politicians are as difficult to herd as a clutter of cats.  But it takes only one brave, honest politician to declare and insist that the ministers have to obey the Treaty and act to open the doors.  


But even before the Lisbon Treaty, the Democratic Deficit and the closed door autocracy of the Council had stoked public frustrations, not to mention fury. What would the politicians do about it? How could they divert public opinion?

By the year 2000, the European Community system had been blatantly deformed into a politicians' cartel. People openly complained that the Commission was developing characteristics of Soviet politburo secrecy. The newly liberated countries of central and eastern Europe wanted none of that. 

So the politicians instead of applying the original treaties, decided to borrow the idea of Ombudsman from the Scandinavian countries. This would give the complainants the illusion of access. It was a veneer to cover the real problem.  It limited citizen's intrusion into their political games.  It diverted their energy into a process of fighting the bureaucracy to release documents rather than giving citizens their proper powers.

Illusion, no substance. False promises of action to publish responsibly. And far from the original basis of open democracy, full public and press access to meetings.


The excuses

What of demands for the publication of the real documents of people power from 1951? The Commission has over the years come up with a long list of excuses. 

They denied knowledge of the Charter of the Community!

Figure that out. The Commission declares that it is 'Guardian of the Treaties'. How then does the Commission not know where the treaties are?

Here is the signature page of the Charter Treaty, the Joint Declaration, signed and sealed as part of the founding Treaty of Paris.

It is signed the same day as the European Coal and Steel Treaty with its other annexes and protocols. It is signed by the same plenipotentiary ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, with two ministers from Belgium and the Netherlands. 

Its powers are described in the early legal literature and books on the Community, including those of Robert Schuman, Paul Reuter (who drafted much of the treaties) and others like Walter Hallstein, later president of the European Economic community. 

The Commission said they could not find it in their archives! Of course not. The last article of the ECSC treaty says the originals are kept at the French Foreign Ministry in Paris. A decade ago I wrote and obtained a copy. Why couldn't the 'Guardian of the Treaties'? 

What sort of incompetence is that?

The time for excuses is over. The governments, all organised civil society and individuals including the Ombudsman should insist that citizens have their rights recognized by the politicians.

The Charter of the Community must be published in the Official Journal! 


     



02 November, 2021

Major US Election Fraud captured by the Trillion

US election Cyber-hacking by algorithm 

Media reaction: Silence

EU reaction at possible fraud on the most massive scale imaginable: Silence

The EU has its own anti-'disinformation' investigators. It has its own cyber security agency, ENISA.

The EU authorities are zip-mouthed on possibly the most outrageous affront to democracy in the world. 

Between 30 percent of Americans used to believe that fraud and cheating took place in the 3 November US election. That was a few months ago. Today the figure is around 50 percent or more. A large number of them are Democrats. They wonder how allegedly Joe Biden gained millions of votes more than Barak Obama, and broke his record turn out. Biden is older, forgetful, lethargic, bumbling and accused of dementia. Hardly the characteristics to gain votes.

They have good reason. The evidence is flowing out. Joe Biden himself said: 

"We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics," Biden said in the video.

https://home.frankspeech.com/tv/video/absolute-interference-sequel-absolute-proof-new-evidence-foreign-and-domestic-enemies-used


Law-makers with cyber experts from 50 of America's 50 States interacted this summer with other experts analysing software tricks and criminal activities that altered election results and the means to analyse them from the computer based records. Key ballot files have been shown to be deleted. That should automatically and of necessity lead to prosecution. It hasn't.  

During the November 2020 US election 37 Terabytes of internet messaging from electronic counting ballot machines were captured as raw data packets 'pCaps'. 
A major symposium with the nations top cyber experts is taking place 10 to 12 August in Sioux Falls SD, USA analysing these data. 
It has confirmed major fraud.

For one, the electronic counting machines were not supposed to be connected to the internet! 
Secondly, the ballot counting machines are owned by a European company whose major shareholders are Chinese. 
Thirdly, similar fraud seems to have taken place in a number of other countries.

Is the Commission and ENISA or other European agencies following this? When I asked the Commission, they replied:

We are aware of the press reports both on this story and on the cybersecurity symposium but we would have no specific comments to make.



Algorithm to create false voters
Following some unusual outcomes were candidates lost seats in known Republican strongholds, an investigation was conducted on several levels.
Where did the vast number of Democrats suddenly appear? There was a mystery between the results and the known affiliation of the population. Dr Douglas Frank an eminent physicist decided to lead an investigation into what happened. He had two sources of information. The election results and the electoral roll, the list of the adults in that population who were registered to vote. 
Clearly the maximum number of voters could not exceed the number of voters on the electoral role.
Then surprise, surprise. He found that not only had 100 percent of the registered voters voted but in some cases more than 100%! Normally only a proportion, like fifty or seventy percent of the population would actually go to vote.
He showed the graphs to Mike Lindell, who, as a businessman, was familiar with graphs and advertising responses. It showed that someone had been illegally recording that not only all had the registered voters been to the polls that day, but in some cases, others were phantom who seemed to be legally registered. 
What was going on?
The most reliable method was to check door-to-door to see if the person named as voting was actually living at the registered address.
The result was shocking. About one in thirty was a phantom person. 

Votes structured by age
To the sharp mind of Dr Frank that meant that an algorithm was being used. But it wasn't the same as the most recent one. So he tried to fit the supposed voter curve - and found that it fitted better with the previous census report.
Conclusion: Someone was (1) adding extra voters so that the maximum number of voter could be recorded as voting.
(2) These added voters were false.
(3) they were using a computer program to assign the phantom voters so that at first glance they fitted the census data even though it was ridiculous to maintain that 100 percent or more registered people had voted.
(4) the algorithm did not use the latest census as a database and guide for fitting up the falsehood. They had only at their disposal the previous census report.
Above all it showed that massive voter fraud was taking place by adding phantom voter into what was now a computer based voting system. 
The Election, at least in Hamilton county, Ohio, was fraudulent.
Then Dr Frank checked all the other 88 counties of Ohio. All showed the same fraudulent pattern or algorithm. This was age-adjusted. The shock was that this 'Registration Key' worked to a perfect fit in all counties.
No human could make these adjustments in real time. It showed that it was done by a computer manipulation.
What was happening? It was like a credit-line for fraud.
In one county of a State, Dr Frank calculated the percentage of voters of a certain age who supposedly voted. Then he checked the numbers in all the other counties. Surprise, surprise! In all the counties the same percentage appeared, regardless of being NSEW, city or farm etc. However when he examined the next State he found the same phenomenon, but with a different percentage. 
What was the explanation. Someone with the aid of computers was 'expanding' all votes so that the outcome for each State gave Biden extra votes. Some gave him victory by very small margins, but victory no less.
"The more voters you have registered the more {false} ballots you can put in wherever you need them."
Dr Frank used public data. The same pattern was happening in Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado etc. The data can be checked by any member of the public -- except in States where the Secretaries of State have barred access to census and registration data. Why would they do that?
What was also incriminating was that as soon as the fact-checkers crossed the State borders, they found that a different Registration Key was being used. And it was being applied to all the counties in the State. Each State is manipulated separately, because in USA it is the electoral college of State victories that determine the presidency, not the total national count.

Independent figures confirm fraud
The material that came into the hands of Mike Lindell fit these figures like a hand and glove. These data are the internet traffic figures. It is possible to capture all the traffic on the internet and record from which computer address it is being sent and to which computer address it is being sent. Each computer has a coded address. 
Commercial companies, like Wireshark, can provide such capture of each separate message. And each message is detailed as to time place and contents. The messages are divided into the smallest size for transmission and sent separately. Then at the receiving end the separate 'packets' are reassembled to provide the whole transmission, whether an email or a video. 
 
Packet Capture codes
The packet list pane will show you the exact number of captured data bits. Since the packets are organized in several columns, it’s fairly easy to interpret. The default categories are:

  • No. (Number): As mentioned, you can find the exact number of captured packets in this column. The digits will remain the same even after filtrating the data.
  • Source: It shows where the packet originated.
  • Destination: It shows the place where the packet will be kept.
  • Protocol: It displays the name of the protocol, typically in an abbreviation.
  • Length: It shows the number of bytes contained in the captured packet.
  • Info: The column includes any additional information about a particular packet.

Time stamp

As Wireshark analyzes the network traffic, each captured package is time stamped. The timestamps are then included in the packet list pane and available for later inspection.

Wireshark doesn’t create the timestamps themselves. Instead, the analyzer tool gets them from the Npcap library. However, the source of the timestamp is actually the kernel. That’s why the accuracy of the timestamp can vary from file to file.

You can choose the format in which the timestamps will be displayed in the packet list. In addition, you can set the preferred precision or number of decimal places that are displayed. Apart from the default precision setting, there’s also:

  • Seconds
  • Tenths of a second
  • Hundredths of a second
  • Milliseconds
  • Microseconds
  • Nanoseconds

Source

As the name suggests, the source of the packet is the place of origin. If you want to obtain the source code of a Wireshark repository, you can download it by using a Git client. However, the method requires you to have a GitLab account. It’s possible to do it without one, but it’s better to sign up just in case.

The cyber-security people at ENISA should be familiar with the issues as the materials have been aired for several months now. The pCap was known in January. On packet-switching networks, each packet of data has to be verified individually as to contents of its origin and destination and the timing. A packet is typically from tens up to a few thousand bytes.  

The capture of election machine data packets can show forensically sure proof of fraud. Each packet holds its own proof. 37 Terabytes have been captured. (One Terabyte = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes.)
 
There are many multi-billion dollar law suits by Dominion and other firms against news organisations in US, trying to prevent the release for examination of the ballot counting machines. The modems would show the identical data traffic fitting exactly that which is in the 37 Terabytes of pCaps. That would be incontrovertible proof of interference.

Initially both the manufacturers and some politicians maintained that no modems existed on the counting machines but this has been proved false in the case where one of the machines was forensically examined. The 4G modem comes from a firm in Taiwan.  
Both major parties in the USA have previously issued statements about the lack of security in these voting machines that threaten election integrity. see video below.

After full analysis of the data stream by cyber security experts, the details of the pCap are being released at the Symposium 10-12 August. They show millions of votes being shifted fractionally and expanded according to both algorithms that attribute false votes to people on the 2010 census and interactive international cyber-hacking following this algorithm. That is why the voting includes tens of thousands of dead people.  

This is one of several background reports available on https://home.frankspeech.com/content/mike-lindells-absolute-series


Tina Peters images
Mesa county Colorado took forensic images of their computer based Dominion machines before and after a visit of their technicians. Far more than maintenance was involved. The elections clerk was suspicious of what they called the new work-- ironically called Trusted Build
First two partitions of the HD were made. This provided a means for another operation. Some files were deleted. The partition divisions destroyed the contents of them. By US law no manipulation addition to or deletion from electoral data is permitted for 22 months after an election. 
Thus breach of public trust requires legal action up to and including a new election. Then during Tina's trip to the symposium he Secretary of State raided her office in Mesa country, Colorado.
Symposium experts found deletion of files and also software to "de-harden" the security and turn off the encryption for the intruder. This revelation rendered the Dominion software illegal for any future election use. 



29 September, 2021

Media ask Trump supporters: 'Do you believe Trump lied on Arizona election audit?'

 "Trump lied on Arizona count"

The very careful forensic audit of the 2020 US election found 360 more votes for Biden in Arizona's most populous county of Maricopa. The main TV and press media were jubilant and gave it wall-to-wall coverage. They ask:

1. Do you Trump supporters believe Trump's claim that he won? If so, why?

2. If Trump lied about these matters, do you still believe the 2020 election was stolen?

3. If you know he lied about the Arizona recount results, what does this imply about Trump's view of his supporters?

I can't answer the first question because I am not an American nor do I vote. The other two questions assume Mr Trump lied when he said the Arizona audit showed he won the election. They are "When did you stop beating your wife" sorts of question.

What did the audit show? It found 360 more votes for Mr Biden. But it found massive fraud too. I checked DuckDuckGo and it is hard to find this. Google I did not try; it hardly ever gives an accurate account of public opinion articles. 

The story that the audit confirmed the Biden win was massively promoted by media to distract the expected outcome that was not going to be released until the next day. This is the Arizona session where the audit results were released. I watched a good bit of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWTMuwy5CQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAAu6O33rNE

These are the facts. If you have a stack of $100 and you find $10 dollars more are you richer? Not if half the $100 and some of the $10 are then found to be counterfeit.

Mr Biden supposedly won Arizona by 10,457 votes.  However four times that number are fraudulent or probably so. Dr Shiva of MIT found some people had voted twice, thrice or four times. Total extra votes: 17,322.


The audit report concludes: "57,734 serious issues were identified."

This is in line with other news that the corporate media refuse to report on: Chinese cyber attack of the supposedly off-line counting machines. Their censorship implies they are captured corporate media (CCM) at the service of both Chinese communists (CCP) and Big Business.

Serious interference was also found to the software of the Dominion counting machines in the Arizona audit. 

They were not supposed to be attached to internet and the count needed to be kept for 22 months by federal law. However, on three occasions a total of 9571 directories and 1,064,746 election-related files were deleted for Maricopa county alone. Successively 463, then 37,686 and 330 entries were overwritten just before audit. Screenshots are proof of this.

Deleting electoral information is a federal criminal offence. The auditors say they have the screen shots to show the identity of the person/s involved.

Yes 360 extra votes for Mr Biden were found but it that the real story?

The main issue is: are the main media acting responsibly? We shall see if and when the Arizona vote is de-certified and criminal prosecutions are undertaken as some of the Senators are requiring. 

 

17 August, 2021

US Elections: How the Big Cheat was done

 

Mike Lindell's Symposium on US Election cheating

For those who haven't seen the three day symposium, 10-12 August, it is available still on LindellTV.com and FrankSpeech.com

The areas of evidence of massive fraud involving multiple millions of votes include the following:

1. Paper ballot fraud.

(a) uncertified ballots 

(b) extra ballots brought in by the truck-load

(c) ballots counted when no observer was present.

 

2. Computer algorithms to hide extra, illegal ballots.

Physicist Dr Doug Frank presentation. He shows mathematically that fraud must have taken place because the same computer algorithm was used to fiddle vote counts. 

How were hundreds and thousands of votes assigned to dead people, false addresses, non-residents and out-of-State residents?

(a) All citizens were registered by computer tricks in some States as voters (normally only 50 to 70% register). Then all extra illegal votes can be assigned to people who did not vote so it looks as if all voting was by registered voters. To do this effectively, the fill-in had to use a model. The 2010 census was available and was used to populate the voters according to their age. This did not work well because:

(b) the census was out of date. On examination, it had produced impossible results. These showed human interference.

(c) it resulted in more votes than people in several categories.

(d) a post-election canvas of the addresses showed that people did not live at the addresses, including parking lots and postal boxes.

(e) the fraud was apparent because the same model to an exact degree was used in all counties in each State. Just across the border a different algorithm was used implying people a few miles distant acted according to State-based rules. Also impossible without computer-based algorithm for fraud.

3. Computer counting machine traffic fraud.

(a) By law and sworn company testimony, ballot counting machines are supposed not to be connected to the internet. Evidence, both of the internals and internet traffic, show they had modems (made in Taiwan) and were connected. That is a criminal offense. The companies are refusing to obey sub poenas to submit the machines (bought by tax-payers money) for forensic examination. Why?

(b) The exact content of traffic can be captured in a process called packet capture, thus making a photograph of time and content of each internet message. Digital traffic is sent in packets containing the sender identifier, time, contents and destination identifier. A packet is typically between tens to a few thousand bytes. Each gives exact forensic proof of messaging. During the election period 37 Terabytes were captured. One Terabyte is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. This pCap (packet capture) shows extensive interaction between voting centers and Chinese data centers.  This voting manipulation shows that votes for Trump were reduced or changed to Biden votes.

4. Counting Machine crime

Besides illegally connecting the machines to the internet, companies have been shown directly to remove data stored on computer memories.

A brave clerk from Mesa county, Colorado, Tina Peters, was unhappy when her Secretary of State said the State had authorized an update to the machine's software by what they ironically called 'Trusted Build'. She had an image of the computer memory taken before and after the intervention. This showed the company had quite illegally deleted the log files of data. The symposium cyber experts analyzed the batch file. This turned off the security and the encryption before deleting the essential records. It created two partitions that wiped out the data. 

This act was considered even more important for action than the pCaps because it showed clear interference with data that had, by federal law, to be retained intact for 22 months. 

The major counting machine is owned by Chinese shareholders using a European company for cover.

5. Further action.

The symposium was broadcast publicly but only State legislators, media, and computer cyber experts with a necessary level of qualifications could attend. All 50 States were represented. Legislators agreed that forensic examination of all the election results needed to be done, in both Democrat and Republican counties across the USA.

Results of a forensic audit of all votes from Maricopa country, Arizona, are expected to be released in the next few days. Others will follow. 

Dr Shiva of MIT, whose own election was interfered with, showed the network of organizations used in media news suppression.

The ballot counting machine firms have launched multi-Billion (yes billion) dollar cases against media such as FrankSpeech, NewsMax, OANN, Fox, and Mike Lindell, Mayor Giuliano, Sidney Powell personally and others to silence any investigation of their machines or the actions of their executives. This is one of the biggest freedom of speech cases in US history. 

Have you heard about it?

21 July, 2021

The EU flag flown at the Olympics would be THEFT!


Should athletes from EU Member States carry the European Union flag? 

Let's be clear. There is no distinct EU flag. It is high time for Europe's leaders to be honest about its emblem, its flag. People rally around a flag where it has real and lasting meaning. 

The flag of twelve-stars on an azure field is the flag of the Council of Europe. It is Europe's senior institution. The EU uses the flag as a subsidiary of the Council of Europe. 

So it makes no sense for EU States to flourish the twelve-star flag, because it is primarily a symbol of the Council of Europe. It includes 47 States, not just the 27 of the EU. 

Besides the EU States, the Flag represents:

Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Moldova, Albania, Andorra, Switzerland, Ukraine, North Macedonia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monaco, Serbia, Montenegro and the United Kingdom.

Should the flag be waived every time one of these States wins at the Olympics? 

The EU seems to be attempting to appropriate total use of the flag. It is an attempted act of pilfering, to use a polite term. It's a theft as much as using the logo of Coca Cola as the emblem of the European Commission. 

Slow motion steal

The Council of Europe owns the flag. It encapsulates honest government and European values. Decades later, it first offered use of the flag with conditions to the European Communities. At first only the European Parliament took up the generous invitation. Other Community institutions then wanted to use it.

The story is a bit like a neighbour borrowing the lawnmower and then after a period of time the neighbour says the lawnmower belongs to me. 

Put it another way. It is like the European Commission installing Coca Cola vending machines throughout the Berlaymont building. Then, when they became so prevalent, saying that the Commission owns the branding of the Coca Cola logo.  

The EU, with its flagrant democratic deficit, seems to think that the 12-star flag is its own. But the question of ownership is even more legally dubious. The flag was offered to the European Communities, not the present EU, which is a different animal. 

The European Council took over control and made the flag part of EU. But ironically, in the referendums on the Constitutional treaty that was rejected by France and the Netherlands, the flag was rejected too. Several other countries were set to reject the treaty but their referendums were withdrawn by the politicians. So the EU constitutionally does not have this flag. The people did not want it to represent the EU.

Then, even more ironically, the Constitutional Treaty was re-assembled from a jigsaw puzzle of articles and amendments and turned into the Lisbon Treaty. Did the Lisbon Treaty have an article defining the European flag and the anthem? 

No. The article which was in the Constitutional Treaty was left out of the Lisbon Treaty! Why? Because the British objected that this made the EU appear to be a federal State, which obviously it wasn't.

There is no article in the Lisbon Treaty that says the Flag of the EU is that which is widely flown outside all EU buildings or inside government offices. The best politicians could come up with was a statement by 17 States, declaration 52, that was added later to the treaty.  

Flag and Song

In 1986 at the invitation of the Council of Europe the European Communities were invited with conditions to use both the flag and the European anthem, Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' as arranged for it by Herbert von Karajan. This invitation was accepted by the European Council, which was not a Community institution. It was not even a body with a legal personality. That's like the neighbour of the neighbour saying the lawnmower is his. That seems like the EU's European Council is violating a fundamental right -- the right to own and retain property.

The Council of Europe was designed to safeguard human rights after the abuses of Nazism and Soviet communism. In short, unjust rule by a self-defined elite or ideology. 

All Member States of the European Communities and the EU have to be members of the Council of Europe. They have to respect its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The EU is in evident crisis with a democratic deficit, closed-door government, and a crying need to re-establish just and honest principles for the Future of Europe. It needs to review its origins.

On 5 May 1949 Robert Schuman said in a speech at the signature ceremony of the Council of Europe Statute in London that adherence to this legal system defines 'Europe' more than geography. 

The lesson is that the EU must conform to the Human Rights of the Council of Europe. That is why all early treaties were discussed and passed in the Council of Europe. Schuman himself explained the institutions and the democratic mechanism of the European Community before the Assembly of the Council of Europe in August 1950. 

The ultimate European Court is not the Court of the EU in Luxembourg but the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Who flies the flag? The flag belongs by invention, precedent and law to the Council of Europe. 

The use of the European flag by the Brussels institutions is an act of recognition of being part of Europe based on Fundamental Freedoms. 

These freedoms are recognized by States and their governments. They are not created by governments. Freedoms are given by God, not States. Citizens must be aware that Governments are primarily the entities that wish to curtail human freedoms by abuse of laws and regulations. Citizens need protection against the representatives of the citizens who believe they are better than citizens. The Council of Europe is the body that can do that. Certainly not the Lisbon Treaty's EU that was erected against the will of the people. That is an act of antipathy and hostility to elementary human rights.

States that stop fundamental freedoms can be suspended or even expelled from the Council of Europe. That was the case of Greece under the dictatorship of the colonels.

Among the Freedoms are: 

  • Freedom  of Speech,
  • Freedom of Assembly,
  • Freedom of religion,
  • Freedom to own and enjoy possessions etc.

Secret Steal

Did the EU politicians secretly steal the design? The evidence is there for all to judge. 

Power can corrupt. Politicians tend to accumulate powers against the people. They reduce or freeze the people's voice. It disturbs them. They might listen and then ignore voices crying out about injustice and requiring honest government.

Following a ruling by the Court of Justice, politicians were forced to hold European elections to the European Parliament in 1979. That was a quarter of a century after politicians had signed treaties that such elections should be held. Today no elections are afforded to the consultative committees. The Council of Ministers still holds sessions behind closed doors instead of open sessions as the treaties require.


Many people objected to the way the politicians had responded to the ruling on European elections. The treaty and the great Charter of the Community said that pan-European elections were necessary. Instead, the politicians followed only the first part of the sentence in the article in the treaties. They decided to hold national elections to the Parliament according to national rules they invented rather than one election with one statute. 

In the 1980s politicians, aware of public disgust at lack of open councils, and proper European elections, decided to launch a public relations operation to try to fool the people. 

At the meeting of the heads of State and Government at Dublin in December 1984, they called for a report on 'People's Europe'. Ironic indeed since they had denied elementary democracy to the people.

The Adonnino Report came up with a number of measures. They were mostly of dubious legality as if the politicians could command various measures without the agreement of the people. Changes in sovereignty and constitutionality require the assent of the people. Instead the key feature was to provide a feeling of branding, and respond to what they considered to be a federal wish-list.

Prominent among these measures was the flag and the anthem. So what was the solution of the Adonnino panel? It made clear that the 12-star flag belonged to the Council of Europe. As a subset of this Human Rights Europe, the European Communities would have to indicate just that. So the committee suggested that a large letter E should be placed in the centre of the flag to show that dependency.


 Brand theft
So how did the EU get the same flag as that of the Council of Europe? 

What is more legitimate in choosing symbols of sovereignty: 
        • a referendum of the people or 
        • a secret meeting?
Guess which system was used to decide on the flag?
Yes, the flag was decided at a closed door meeting of the Heads of State and Government at Milan in June 1985. It excluded the public and discussed the matter in private. 
What happened? Some like the British were against creating a flag with implications of sovereignty and without formal agreement of the people. 
So a compromise was reached. The meeting decided that that they would create a 'logo' not a flag. 
And quite impudently also decided they would remove the E from the centre. It was then exactly the same as the flag of the Council of Europe! Why?
So what happened to the use of the logo of twelve stars? It did not last long. 
Within a mere few months it changed from a flag with an E, to a logo without an E, to a flag without an E.
On 26 May 1986, the twelve stars were officially raised as a flag outside the HQ building of the European Commission.
This is an audacious act of brand-stealing. If it were a question of a firm taking the design of a can of Heinz beans or producing something called Coca Cola they would be taken to Court.  
It is brand theft. 
The secret meeting of the European politicians feels that it can steal with impunity. 

Origin of the Flag

The European flag was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 1955 following a resolution in the Assembly:

Against the blue sky of the Western world, the stars symbolise the peoples of Europe in a form of a circle, a sign of union. Their number is invariably twelve, the figure twelve being the symbol of perfection and entirety.

— Council of Europe. Paris, 7–9 December 1955.

In fact the question of creating a flag had been raised at the start of Europe's great institution that defines Europe as the zone of free speech and human rights. The Council started its work in August 1949 with 12 signatory States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK (the ten signatories of the Statute on 5 May 1949) and two States that signed before the first session: Greece and Turkey and then in1950 from opposite end of Europe: Iceland.

French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman signs Statute of Council of Europe at
St James's Palace, London, 5 May 1949.

















Proposed designs came from across Europe and far beyond. (One, with a single gold star on a blue background, came from a European named C W Raymon in Japan but this design was already in use.) 

The Council's Director of Information, Paul Levy, a Belgian, was in charge of the project, and liked the basic design. In September 1953, the Assembly proposed 15 stars (then the number of States). French deputy  Robert Bichet was rapporteur. But the Germans in the Council of Ministers refused. Among the 15 was the Saar, a disputed territory.  The Saar objected to being cut out. 

What about thirteen stars? Twelve stars in a circle with a large star in the centre? That was rejected as many did not like thirteen. 

The Secretary General Leon Marchal suggested just 12 stars.  Levy was charged to provide reasons to support it. He replied: 

'Twelve is the sign of perfection and fullness. There were twelve tables of law in Rome; there are twelve apostles; there are twelve sons of Jacob; twelve months of the year; and twelve hours in the day; ... twelve signs of the zodiac represent the entire universe, so why shouldn't twelve stars represent Europe of both sides of the Iron Curtain and both sides of the Pyrenees?'

Leon Marchal drew the case of the twelve stars surrounding the woman of Revelation 12, which biblically represent the twelve tribes of Israel (as distinct to Roman Catholic views). Levy drew up details of the design for public use. Levy must therefore be considered the designer of the flag. 

Was the flag a Marian or Catholic symbol? Not according to Levy who was at the origin of the design. It was Levy who drew that exact specifications of the flag. Levy was a Holocaust survivor. Marchal was also keen to have a politically neutral emblem. A religious symbol would not have passed the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers.

The Assembly's adoption of the flag on 8 December 1955, a 'Marian' date, was a 'political accident.' (Sauver l'Europe, pp163-8, published 1978.) The Marian idea was a later unsubstantiated fiction. The final decision was made on 9 December by the Committee of Ministers



Meanwhile, officials at the European Coal and Steel Community had created their own flag. It was a not very aesthetic design. It had six stars in two rows of three but on a field divided horizontally between blue (steel) and black (coal). 

Robert Schuman much preferred the Levy design. Then some decades later, in 1983 the European Parliament decided to take the flag as its emblem. The European Communities as a whole then decided they would also do the same.

For Schuman the synergy that was in the original proposition between the Council of Europe and the Community reinforced the necessity of unity: the Council of Europe was and is the human rights guarantor of the proper working of the Community.

Conclusion: 

The lesson of the European Flag is that all European institutions must come under the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and democratic supervision of the institutions of the Council of Europe.  That includes respect for property rights.

The EU leaders will only properly guide Europe to her destiny when they are honest with themselves.