How Cell Phones Affect Brain Cells - To launch an attack on the validity and sufficiency of federal safety - Decision of Irish Human Rights Commission - Prevented Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Mauna Kea - Shadow Intel Network Pushed For War - Real war, virtual weapons - Body of UK arms advisor found - Cheney Energy Task Force - Tenet: White House official wanted information in speech - Rock bottom in Iraq - From heroes to targets
How Cell Phones Affect Brain Cells
----------------------------------
Part of a major research programme into the effects of mobile phones on the brain is set to be implemented by Bristol scientists this summer.
Professor Alan Preece, head of Biophysics Group of the Department of Medical Physics at the Bristol Oncology Centre, and his colleague Dr Stuart Butler, director of the Burden Neurological Institute at Frenchay Hospital, are to conduct the two-year study.
They are currently awaiting highly-specialised equipment to use in the research, which will involve more than 30 people over a range of ages.
The pair, along with a team of researchers, will look into the electrical interference on the brain and any neurological patterns and responses they create.
Professor Preece has been looking into the effects of mobile phones for years and released a study which conclusively found that mobile-phone radiation does disturb brain patterns in 1999.
He said: "We are looking forward to starting the research, which has been in the pipelines for some time now. But the regulations of the equipment are proving tricky to meet, because there are many parts to this study and we all must be working from the same level"
The UK-wide study has cost £7.3 million to implement and all the phones being made by companies have to adhere to the exact same standards, output and technical ingredient.
Phones will have no logos or identifiable markings on them, but will carry only a code so that they can be sufficiently recorded by each group of researchers.
Monitoring used must also be extremely similar or exactly the same so that no results can be played off against each other.
This will enable the findings to be regarded as a solid body of information, even though they are being carried out by numerous groups of scientists.
Prof Preece said: "It is unfortunate that we would like to have all the answers now as more and more people are taking up using mobiles, but the tests must be exact and so the preparation will take a long time.
"Even at the end of the results we will still have a long way to go before we are able to answer certain questions which are commonly raised by the public."
Source: This Is Bristol, March 19, 2003
http://www.rfsafe.com/articles/how_cell_phones.htm
Informant: Reinhard Rueckemann
--------
To launch an attack on the validity and sufficiency of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRONG HEALTH REGULATIONS: BASED ON "ARTIFICIAL SPHERICAL MODELS"
Dynamic health?: The delay tactic is applied for "several decades" to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution.
Dynamic litigation?: The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change if the wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court.
HEALTH WRONG CRITERIA IN FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS:
They based their findings on the "spherical cow concept".
The initial heating undergone by a cow's body as a result of microwave radiation allowed them to establish a "safe level": the power of radiation is "10 times smaller"!.
Dr. Robert Becker. New York. Twice Dr. Becker has been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Published by Linda Moulton Howe in EARTHFILES London (May 2000). "That level was applied for several decades to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution. Of course, this is not correct."
Dr. Robert Becker also states: "So, the premise that was applied by the physicists and the engineers was erroneous from the start."
This increase in temperature has been studied by physicists and engineers using artificial spherical models.
Message (excerpt) from Dr. Miguel Muntané
See: Supreme Court Preemption decision
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega241.htm
--------
Decision of Irish Human Rights Commission
-----------------------------------------
Hi Klaus:
Today I received the expected refusal of legal help with my case from the IHRC (Irish Human Rights Commission.) But of course my case does go on. There is no other choice when I have been branded erronously by Irish doctors as an insane person--and for life! (By the way, according to media reports, Irish medicos have the distinction of leading the field in snap-judging people as psycotic and planking them in institutions! For instance, a brief article in today's THE IRISH TIMES (page 3) on this begins with: "The number of people with psychiatric illness being involuntarily committed to mental hospitals in the Republic is 'embarrassingly high' compared to other countries, the chairman of the Mental Health Commission said yesterday." Not a good country obviously for EHS persons to seek medical assistance with that record of commitals not to mention that there is no NZ style enforceable charter of patients rights here either to ensure you'll be at lest treated with respect, etc! And few Irish people seem to have even got around to questioning if Irish medicos diagnosis of various mental illnesses were erroneous to begin with. A bit of advise: give the republic of Ireland a very wide berth when it comes to soliciting medical help because the chances of you being screwed up are pretty high!)
Below is my response to Des Hogan, Solicitor and Senior Case worker with IHRC at
ihrc@eircom.net. I have cc'd it to Professor Brice Dickson and Ms. Stevens, Case Worker of NIHRC (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.)
Best, Imelda, Cork, Ireland
Dear Mr. Hogan:
I am responding to your letter dated 16 July, 2003, which arrived today. Before commenting on its contents I am going to transcribe your complete letter below for the convenience of Ms. Stevens and Professor Brice Dickson of the NIHRC. (You will recall that some weeks ago we agreed that my correspondence with you need not be confidential.) As you have been informed, Ms. Stevens, on behalf of NIHRC, U.K., has reviewed particulars of my case and while regretting that the remit of NIHRC does not extend to helping victims of Human Rights violations within the Republic of Ireland, she has greatly helped me by placing a watching brief on my case which rests with you.
Your letter is as follows:
16 July 2003
Dr Imelda O'Connor
29 Castle Hill
Carrigaline
Co. Cork
Re: Your application to the Commission under section 10 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000.
Dear Dr O'Connor,
I am writing to you further to your previous correspondence with the Commission concerning your application for legal assistance and representation under section 10 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000.
The Commission's Casework Committee, set up to consider requests and applications made to the Commission pursuant to section 9(1)(b) and section 10 of the Act respectively, considered your application at an emergency meeting wich took place on 14 July 2003. At your request, Commissioner Robert Daly did not attend this meeting.
I regret to inform you that after careful consideration of your application, the Casework Committee decided not to grant legal assistance or representation as requested by you on the following grounds:
1. no human right appears to have been violated insofar as the condition cited ("electromagnetic sensitivity" or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity") is not at present recognised nationally or internationally in medical or legal terms, so as to bring it within the relevant national or international human rights standards and;
2. the legal proceedings in respect of which assistance has been sought will not be successful, in the Committee's view and
3. the assistance sought cannot be granted due to budgetary constraints.
You can request, if you so wish, that the Commission review the decision of the Casework Committee not to grant you legal assistance or representation. If you wish to request a review of the decision, your request should be in writing and should arrive at the Commission's office within 28 days of today's date, unless you can show extenuating circumstances for being unable to make the request in writing or within 28 days of today's date.
Any request that the Commission review the decision of the Casework Committee should be accompanied by documentation which either in your view demonstrates that new information has come to light which you could not reasonably have been expected to provide prior to the Casework Committee's decision or which demonstrates a clearly identifiable mistqake of fact or law on the part of the Casework Committee.
Yours sincerely
Des Hogan
Senior Caseworker.
My Response:
First, with due respect to the presumably high level of intelligence of your review committee, I doubt that in one emergency sitting last Monday they could digest and judiciously consider all the pertinent and complex issues related to my case that represented thousands of hours of work for me over recent years and are contained in the numerous files and other data submitted to you. Consequently I believe that I have not received the DUE PROCESS of my case that is my fundamental right as an Irish citizen whose Human Rights have been most seriously and permanently abused.
Second, my petition for legal assistance to IHRC to help me redress violations of my Human Rights caused by my named defendants in my medical negligence case has been refused on a basis that is but tangentially related to why I have launched this medical negligence case. I am referring to item 1 in your letter of refusal. In my letter of July 4 to you, transcribed below, I address specific Human Rights violations I have suffered due to how I was treated by my defendants. I purposely did not focus on my electrosensitivity but on the horrendously substandard and unjust treatment meted out by my defendants. The Commission's Casework Committee IGNORES these. Why? Were they given a copy of my letter of July 4 where I enumerate these specific Human Rights violations? Were they given a copy of my follow up emailed letter to you of July 15 on the same issue?
There is much more that I wish to write but as I want you to have this before closing time today, I will stop here for now.
I can assure you Mr. Hogan, my case will keep going forward despite all obstacles placed in my way within this Repuplic of Ireland which I happen to be a citizen of at present. If my constitution is impotent to defend my most basic, inviolable right to be considered a person of sound mind and not a psychotic, then I will have to set about finding a more
principled social contract in another state to which I would be proud to belong to.
As this state has decided so far that it is ok that I have been erronously judged to be a person of unsound mind and must reconcile myself to remaining in that wretched category for the rest of my life--a category that I have pointed out repeatedly is treated with the
ultimate social and professional opprobrium--I feel the same contempt for this state--and especially for its designated authorities who are supposed to uphold this contract between citizens and the state--as it has so far extended to me!
I look forward to hearing from you and to your replies to the questions I have posed for you above.
Sincerely,
Imelda O'Connor, Ph.D.
Omega see also http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega234.htm
Mr. Des Hogan, Senior Case Worker
Irish Human Rights Commission
17-19 lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2.
July 15, 2003
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Last Thursday afternoon, when I spoke with you by telephone about progress by the IHRC commissioners in reviewing my case, you let me know that Dr. Robert Daly has decided, owing to the conflict of interests issue, not to participate in this review. You also suggested that I make contact with you today to be updated on any outcome from the commissioners meeting about my case which was scheduled to take place yesterday.
And that is my primary purpose in sending you this email. While I'm doing this, I'd like to bring to your notice (apologies if you are already aware of it) a very pertinent "pamphlet"/slim text entitled "Consent: Bridging the Gap between Doctor and Patient" (2002) by Mary Donnelly, UCC Law Dep. faculty, that I have just read. (It was mentioned in
a profile article on Stephen McMahon, Irish Patients Association director,that appeared in yesterday's THE IRISH TIMES.)
A number of issues raised by Ms Donnelly are also central to my serious legal grievance. She notes that "there has been almost no judicial discussion of the role of the [Irish] Constitution in protecting individual rights in the context of the personal right to consent" (p. 37) and that "The protection offered by the Constitution in this [art. 40.3.1.) context therefore as yet remains more theoretical than real." (p. 38).
While Ireland does not have specific legislation which could have helped avert the appalling abuse of my rights as a patient that I experienced, New Zealand has such legislation since the mid 1990's (pp. 72-73).
The rights of patients in New Zealand are clearly spelt out in its "Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights" of 1996, and this code has the legislative force of N.Z.'s 1994 "Health and Disability Commissioner Act."
Ms. Donnelly notes: "A brief look at how this code [N.Z.] operates may indicate how the complaints procedure promised by the [Irish] Health Strategy could develop if the necessary political will is present. The code, which refers to 'consumers' of healthcare services rather than patients, sets out ten rights accorded to consumers. Among these rights are the right to respect; the right to effective communication; the right to be fully informed; and the right to make an informed choice and to give informed consent. The existence of these rights imposes corresponding duties on healthcare and disability service providers. They must take reasonable actions in the circumstances to give effect
to the consumers' rights. . .."
This N.Z. charter of course would also protect the interests of EHS patients very well indeed: with such protective legislation for patients the chances of patients presenting with EHS symptoms being snap judged as psychotic and over-hastily shooed into psychiatric facilities would end--the law would insist it would end.
Perhaps the commissioners might like to refer to "Consent: Bridging the Gap between Doctor and Patient" while studying my case.
Also, the juxtaposed colour photos of me which help point up my adverse reactions to the anti-psychotic medication are now posted at "Citizens Initiative Omega" (via Google)
Omega see: http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega238.htm
Look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Imelda O'Connor
--------
Chemtrails Are Real!
--------------------
From: http://www.world-action.co.uk/chemtrails.html
Will Thomas has confirmed that Dennis Kucinich was asked about Chemtrails and he stated that THEY ARE REAL!!
WT: This is going to be big - very, very big. Imagine one of the most respected politicians in America, a man constantly in the news. Not only that, but a man who served as the head of the House Armed Services Committee looking after so-called exotic weaponry, top-secret projects, including HAARP and chemtrails. Of course I'm referring to Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, who introduced House Resolution 2977 back in the fall of 2001. Your listeners are familiar with this bill that sought to outline weapons in space -- a very good idea -- and other exotic weapons, including, in one subsection, chemtrails.
Last week in Santa Cruz, California at a public meeting Mr. Kucinich was asked "What about chemtrails?" And he replied with three blockbuster words. His reply was: "Chemtrails are real."
'CHEMTRAILS': http://www.world-action.co.uk/chemtrails.html
--------
Are you a force for nature?
Prevented Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
---------------------------------------------------------
Your tens of thousands of messages helped convince the U.S. Senate to oppose a back door attempt to open the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development. Some members of Congress had tried to include revenues from leasing the refuge in the 2004 budget bill as a way to move the United States closer to driling in the refuge. With your continued support, we're confident that Congress will heed the public and make sure drilling in the refuge isn't introduced in any other way.
WWF Conservation Action Network
Act Now to Safe Live on Earth
http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/ctt.asp?u=83527&l=3197
--------
Update on Citizen Efforts to Protect Mauna Kea
On June 26, 2003, organizations and community members appeared before the
Board of Land and Natural Resources to present oral arguments on "exceptions" to the Hearing Officers ruling in the Mauna Kea Contested Case Hearing.
This was in response to a permit application by the UH Institute for Astronomy (on behalf of NASA) to construct six new KECK Outrigger Telescopes in the Conservation District of Mauna Kea.
Challenging the application in a Contested Case Hearing are Mauna Kea ‘Anaina Hou, The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Hawai‘i Island Sierra Club Moku Loa Chapter, Clarence Ching and Henry Fergerstrom. The citizens’ proposed "Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Law" present a competent and comprehensive case against unbridled development on the summit.
KAHEA honors the valiant efforts of the mountain’s defenders. They are speaking truth to power to protect the rights of Native Hawaiians to worship freely on Mauna Kea and to safeguard the fragile summit ecosystem.
After hearing both sides present their arguments, the Board of Land and Natural Resources voted to take the case under advisement and will be issuing a ruling within the next few weeks. The BLNR can overturn (deny), remand for further deliberations, accept or modify the Hearing Officer's proposed Findings, Decision and Order.
We will share the outcome of the hearing before the Land Board as soon as possible. You can read Contested Case Hearing Officer Michael Gibson's Findings of Fact /Conclusions of Law Decision and Order: http://www.kahea.org/maunakea/pdf/CCHearing_officer_findings.pdf
--------
Shadow Intel Network Pushed For War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
--------
Real war, virtual weapons
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak01.html
Informant: kevcross4
--------
Pass it around...it's going to be big news.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Welch
Body of UK arms advisor found
-----------------------------
London - A body found in central England matches the description of a missing Ministry of Defence adviser who had become embroiled in a controversy over the government's intelligence dossiers on Iraqi arms, police said on Friday. "The body found matches the description of David Kelly, but the body has not yet been formally identified," a
spokesperson for Thames Valley Police said. Officers had earlier reported finding a man's body in a wooded area about 8km from Kelly's home. His family reported him missing late on Thursday when he didn't return to his home in Southmoor, about 30km southwest of Oxford, from an afternoon walk. Kelly, 59, has acknowledged speaking to a British Broadcasting Corp journalist who reported claims that a key aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair had insisted on including assertions doubted by intelligence experts in a dossier on Iraqi weapons.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1389511,00.html
--------
MAPS AND CHARTS OF IRAQI OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml
Informant: Sky Watcher
--------
Tenet: White House official wanted information in speech
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-17-tenet_x.htm
It's guerilla war, new commander admits
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/1058035138877.html
The Quisling effect
http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/wolfe0307.html
Rock bottom in Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j071803.html
Ashcroft's war on librarians
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/07/17
Beating around the Bush
http://tinyurl.com/hb6b
From heroes to targets
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/18/pre_war/
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
----------------------------------
Part of a major research programme into the effects of mobile phones on the brain is set to be implemented by Bristol scientists this summer.
Professor Alan Preece, head of Biophysics Group of the Department of Medical Physics at the Bristol Oncology Centre, and his colleague Dr Stuart Butler, director of the Burden Neurological Institute at Frenchay Hospital, are to conduct the two-year study.
They are currently awaiting highly-specialised equipment to use in the research, which will involve more than 30 people over a range of ages.
The pair, along with a team of researchers, will look into the electrical interference on the brain and any neurological patterns and responses they create.
Professor Preece has been looking into the effects of mobile phones for years and released a study which conclusively found that mobile-phone radiation does disturb brain patterns in 1999.
He said: "We are looking forward to starting the research, which has been in the pipelines for some time now. But the regulations of the equipment are proving tricky to meet, because there are many parts to this study and we all must be working from the same level"
The UK-wide study has cost £7.3 million to implement and all the phones being made by companies have to adhere to the exact same standards, output and technical ingredient.
Phones will have no logos or identifiable markings on them, but will carry only a code so that they can be sufficiently recorded by each group of researchers.
Monitoring used must also be extremely similar or exactly the same so that no results can be played off against each other.
This will enable the findings to be regarded as a solid body of information, even though they are being carried out by numerous groups of scientists.
Prof Preece said: "It is unfortunate that we would like to have all the answers now as more and more people are taking up using mobiles, but the tests must be exact and so the preparation will take a long time.
"Even at the end of the results we will still have a long way to go before we are able to answer certain questions which are commonly raised by the public."
Source: This Is Bristol, March 19, 2003
http://www.rfsafe.com/articles/how_cell_phones.htm Informant: Reinhard Rueckemann
--------
To launch an attack on the validity and sufficiency of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRONG HEALTH REGULATIONS: BASED ON "ARTIFICIAL SPHERICAL MODELS"
Dynamic health?: The delay tactic is applied for "several decades" to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution.
Dynamic litigation?: The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change if the wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court.
HEALTH WRONG CRITERIA IN FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS:
They based their findings on the "spherical cow concept".
The initial heating undergone by a cow's body as a result of microwave radiation allowed them to establish a "safe level": the power of radiation is "10 times smaller"!.
Dr. Robert Becker. New York. Twice Dr. Becker has been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Published by Linda Moulton Howe in EARTHFILES London (May 2000). "That level was applied for several decades to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution. Of course, this is not correct."
Dr. Robert Becker also states: "So, the premise that was applied by the physicists and the engineers was erroneous from the start."
This increase in temperature has been studied by physicists and engineers using artificial spherical models.
Message (excerpt) from Dr. Miguel Muntané
See: Supreme Court Preemption decision
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega241.htm --------
Decision of Irish Human Rights Commission
-----------------------------------------
Hi Klaus:
Today I received the expected refusal of legal help with my case from the IHRC (Irish Human Rights Commission.) But of course my case does go on. There is no other choice when I have been branded erronously by Irish doctors as an insane person--and for life! (By the way, according to media reports, Irish medicos have the distinction of leading the field in snap-judging people as psycotic and planking them in institutions! For instance, a brief article in today's THE IRISH TIMES (page 3) on this begins with: "The number of people with psychiatric illness being involuntarily committed to mental hospitals in the Republic is 'embarrassingly high' compared to other countries, the chairman of the Mental Health Commission said yesterday." Not a good country obviously for EHS persons to seek medical assistance with that record of commitals not to mention that there is no NZ style enforceable charter of patients rights here either to ensure you'll be at lest treated with respect, etc! And few Irish people seem to have even got around to questioning if Irish medicos diagnosis of various mental illnesses were erroneous to begin with. A bit of advise: give the republic of Ireland a very wide berth when it comes to soliciting medical help because the chances of you being screwed up are pretty high!)
Below is my response to Des Hogan, Solicitor and Senior Case worker with IHRC at
ihrc@eircom.net. I have cc'd it to Professor Brice Dickson and Ms. Stevens, Case Worker of NIHRC (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.) Best, Imelda, Cork, Ireland
Dear Mr. Hogan:
I am responding to your letter dated 16 July, 2003, which arrived today. Before commenting on its contents I am going to transcribe your complete letter below for the convenience of Ms. Stevens and Professor Brice Dickson of the NIHRC. (You will recall that some weeks ago we agreed that my correspondence with you need not be confidential.) As you have been informed, Ms. Stevens, on behalf of NIHRC, U.K., has reviewed particulars of my case and while regretting that the remit of NIHRC does not extend to helping victims of Human Rights violations within the Republic of Ireland, she has greatly helped me by placing a watching brief on my case which rests with you.
Your letter is as follows:
16 July 2003
Dr Imelda O'Connor
29 Castle Hill
Carrigaline
Co. Cork
Re: Your application to the Commission under section 10 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000.
Dear Dr O'Connor,
I am writing to you further to your previous correspondence with the Commission concerning your application for legal assistance and representation under section 10 of the Human Rights Commission Act, 2000.
The Commission's Casework Committee, set up to consider requests and applications made to the Commission pursuant to section 9(1)(b) and section 10 of the Act respectively, considered your application at an emergency meeting wich took place on 14 July 2003. At your request, Commissioner Robert Daly did not attend this meeting.
I regret to inform you that after careful consideration of your application, the Casework Committee decided not to grant legal assistance or representation as requested by you on the following grounds:
1. no human right appears to have been violated insofar as the condition cited ("electromagnetic sensitivity" or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity") is not at present recognised nationally or internationally in medical or legal terms, so as to bring it within the relevant national or international human rights standards and;
2. the legal proceedings in respect of which assistance has been sought will not be successful, in the Committee's view and
3. the assistance sought cannot be granted due to budgetary constraints.
You can request, if you so wish, that the Commission review the decision of the Casework Committee not to grant you legal assistance or representation. If you wish to request a review of the decision, your request should be in writing and should arrive at the Commission's office within 28 days of today's date, unless you can show extenuating circumstances for being unable to make the request in writing or within 28 days of today's date.
Any request that the Commission review the decision of the Casework Committee should be accompanied by documentation which either in your view demonstrates that new information has come to light which you could not reasonably have been expected to provide prior to the Casework Committee's decision or which demonstrates a clearly identifiable mistqake of fact or law on the part of the Casework Committee.
Yours sincerely
Des Hogan
Senior Caseworker.
My Response:
First, with due respect to the presumably high level of intelligence of your review committee, I doubt that in one emergency sitting last Monday they could digest and judiciously consider all the pertinent and complex issues related to my case that represented thousands of hours of work for me over recent years and are contained in the numerous files and other data submitted to you. Consequently I believe that I have not received the DUE PROCESS of my case that is my fundamental right as an Irish citizen whose Human Rights have been most seriously and permanently abused.
Second, my petition for legal assistance to IHRC to help me redress violations of my Human Rights caused by my named defendants in my medical negligence case has been refused on a basis that is but tangentially related to why I have launched this medical negligence case. I am referring to item 1 in your letter of refusal. In my letter of July 4 to you, transcribed below, I address specific Human Rights violations I have suffered due to how I was treated by my defendants. I purposely did not focus on my electrosensitivity but on the horrendously substandard and unjust treatment meted out by my defendants. The Commission's Casework Committee IGNORES these. Why? Were they given a copy of my letter of July 4 where I enumerate these specific Human Rights violations? Were they given a copy of my follow up emailed letter to you of July 15 on the same issue?
There is much more that I wish to write but as I want you to have this before closing time today, I will stop here for now.
I can assure you Mr. Hogan, my case will keep going forward despite all obstacles placed in my way within this Repuplic of Ireland which I happen to be a citizen of at present. If my constitution is impotent to defend my most basic, inviolable right to be considered a person of sound mind and not a psychotic, then I will have to set about finding a more
principled social contract in another state to which I would be proud to belong to.
As this state has decided so far that it is ok that I have been erronously judged to be a person of unsound mind and must reconcile myself to remaining in that wretched category for the rest of my life--a category that I have pointed out repeatedly is treated with the
ultimate social and professional opprobrium--I feel the same contempt for this state--and especially for its designated authorities who are supposed to uphold this contract between citizens and the state--as it has so far extended to me!
I look forward to hearing from you and to your replies to the questions I have posed for you above.
Sincerely,
Imelda O'Connor, Ph.D.
Omega see also
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega234.htm Mr. Des Hogan, Senior Case Worker
Irish Human Rights Commission
17-19 lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2.
July 15, 2003
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Last Thursday afternoon, when I spoke with you by telephone about progress by the IHRC commissioners in reviewing my case, you let me know that Dr. Robert Daly has decided, owing to the conflict of interests issue, not to participate in this review. You also suggested that I make contact with you today to be updated on any outcome from the commissioners meeting about my case which was scheduled to take place yesterday.
And that is my primary purpose in sending you this email. While I'm doing this, I'd like to bring to your notice (apologies if you are already aware of it) a very pertinent "pamphlet"/slim text entitled "Consent: Bridging the Gap between Doctor and Patient" (2002) by Mary Donnelly, UCC Law Dep. faculty, that I have just read. (It was mentioned in
a profile article on Stephen McMahon, Irish Patients Association director,that appeared in yesterday's THE IRISH TIMES.)
A number of issues raised by Ms Donnelly are also central to my serious legal grievance. She notes that "there has been almost no judicial discussion of the role of the [Irish] Constitution in protecting individual rights in the context of the personal right to consent" (p. 37) and that "The protection offered by the Constitution in this [art. 40.3.1.) context therefore as yet remains more theoretical than real." (p. 38).
While Ireland does not have specific legislation which could have helped avert the appalling abuse of my rights as a patient that I experienced, New Zealand has such legislation since the mid 1990's (pp. 72-73).
The rights of patients in New Zealand are clearly spelt out in its "Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights" of 1996, and this code has the legislative force of N.Z.'s 1994 "Health and Disability Commissioner Act."
Ms. Donnelly notes: "A brief look at how this code [N.Z.] operates may indicate how the complaints procedure promised by the [Irish] Health Strategy could develop if the necessary political will is present. The code, which refers to 'consumers' of healthcare services rather than patients, sets out ten rights accorded to consumers. Among these rights are the right to respect; the right to effective communication; the right to be fully informed; and the right to make an informed choice and to give informed consent. The existence of these rights imposes corresponding duties on healthcare and disability service providers. They must take reasonable actions in the circumstances to give effect
to the consumers' rights. . .."
This N.Z. charter of course would also protect the interests of EHS patients very well indeed: with such protective legislation for patients the chances of patients presenting with EHS symptoms being snap judged as psychotic and over-hastily shooed into psychiatric facilities would end--the law would insist it would end.
Perhaps the commissioners might like to refer to "Consent: Bridging the Gap between Doctor and Patient" while studying my case.
Also, the juxtaposed colour photos of me which help point up my adverse reactions to the anti-psychotic medication are now posted at "Citizens Initiative Omega" (via Google)
Omega see:
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega238.htm Look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Imelda O'Connor
--------
Chemtrails Are Real!
--------------------
From:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/chemtrails.html Will Thomas has confirmed that Dennis Kucinich was asked about Chemtrails and he stated that THEY ARE REAL!!
WT: This is going to be big - very, very big. Imagine one of the most respected politicians in America, a man constantly in the news. Not only that, but a man who served as the head of the House Armed Services Committee looking after so-called exotic weaponry, top-secret projects, including HAARP and chemtrails. Of course I'm referring to Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, who introduced House Resolution 2977 back in the fall of 2001. Your listeners are familiar with this bill that sought to outline weapons in space -- a very good idea -- and other exotic weapons, including, in one subsection, chemtrails.
Last week in Santa Cruz, California at a public meeting Mr. Kucinich was asked "What about chemtrails?" And he replied with three blockbuster words. His reply was: "Chemtrails are real."
'CHEMTRAILS':
http://www.world-action.co.uk/chemtrails.html --------
Are you a force for nature?
Prevented Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
---------------------------------------------------------
Your tens of thousands of messages helped convince the U.S. Senate to oppose a back door attempt to open the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development. Some members of Congress had tried to include revenues from leasing the refuge in the 2004 budget bill as a way to move the United States closer to driling in the refuge. With your continued support, we're confident that Congress will heed the public and make sure drilling in the refuge isn't introduced in any other way.
WWF Conservation Action Network
Act Now to Safe Live on Earth
http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/ctt.asp?u=83527&l=3197 --------
Update on Citizen Efforts to Protect Mauna Kea
On June 26, 2003, organizations and community members appeared before the
Board of Land and Natural Resources to present oral arguments on "exceptions" to the Hearing Officers ruling in the Mauna Kea Contested Case Hearing.
This was in response to a permit application by the UH Institute for Astronomy (on behalf of NASA) to construct six new KECK Outrigger Telescopes in the Conservation District of Mauna Kea.
Challenging the application in a Contested Case Hearing are Mauna Kea ‘Anaina Hou, The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Hawai‘i Island Sierra Club Moku Loa Chapter, Clarence Ching and Henry Fergerstrom. The citizens’ proposed "Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Law" present a competent and comprehensive case against unbridled development on the summit.
KAHEA honors the valiant efforts of the mountain’s defenders. They are speaking truth to power to protect the rights of Native Hawaiians to worship freely on Mauna Kea and to safeguard the fragile summit ecosystem.
After hearing both sides present their arguments, the Board of Land and Natural Resources voted to take the case under advisement and will be issuing a ruling within the next few weeks. The BLNR can overturn (deny), remand for further deliberations, accept or modify the Hearing Officer's proposed Findings, Decision and Order.
We will share the outcome of the hearing before the Land Board as soon as possible. You can read Contested Case Hearing Officer Michael Gibson's Findings of Fact /Conclusions of Law Decision and Order:
http://www.kahea.org/maunakea/pdf/CCHearing_officer_findings.pdf --------
Shadow Intel Network Pushed For War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html --------
Real war, virtual weapons
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak01.html Informant: kevcross4
--------
Pass it around...it's going to be big news.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Welch
Body of UK arms advisor found
-----------------------------
London - A body found in central England matches the description of a missing Ministry of Defence adviser who had become embroiled in a controversy over the government's intelligence dossiers on Iraqi arms, police said on Friday. "The body found matches the description of David Kelly, but the body has not yet been formally identified," a
spokesperson for Thames Valley Police said. Officers had earlier reported finding a man's body in a wooded area about 8km from Kelly's home. His family reported him missing late on Thursday when he didn't return to his home in Southmoor, about 30km southwest of Oxford, from an afternoon walk. Kelly, 59, has acknowledged speaking to a British Broadcasting Corp journalist who reported claims that a key aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair had insisted on including assertions doubted by intelligence experts in a dossier on Iraqi weapons.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1389511,00.html --------
MAPS AND CHARTS OF IRAQI OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Informant: Sky Watcher
--------
Tenet: White House official wanted information in speech
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-17-tenet_x.htm It's guerilla war, new commander admits
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/1058035138877.html The Quisling effect
http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/wolfe0307.html Rock bottom in Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j071803.html Ashcroft's war on librarians
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/07/17 Beating around the Bush
http://tinyurl.com/hb6b From heroes to targets
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/18/pre_war/ Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
Homepage:
