Laws and regulations are discussed at great length and they are
carefully worded so that any loopholes which could be utilised by
those amongst us who do not wish to honour the rights of our fellow
citizens are hopefully closed.
Despite this it is clear that a profession has evolved to help those
with ill intent flout the very laws created to ensure our safety.
The Organophosphate Insecticide actions around the world illustrate this problem perfectly.
An industry has developed which rides rough-shod over the victims of poisoning. It matters not a jot if the victim is poisoned by pesticides, radiation, solvents, drugs or dies from asbestos or other forms of environmentally triggered cancer.
There is big money to be made.
Consider OP poisoning cases in the UK.
Currently the rules laid down by Government, which is also a defendant
in some cases, have decreed that all the cases should be under an
umbrella action and that a single firm is responsible for proceeding
the cases. those cases range from simple employer negligence cases to
far more costly and involved cases against the might of the chemical
companies.
Each case will involve different circumstances and different chemical
formulations but it suits the purpose of Government to have them heard
as one and the suggested reason for this can only be that it is easier to defeat such
actions.
The UK Government is perhaps unique in the world as it has control over
the licensing of the chemicals, monitoring of residues, diagnosis and
treatment of the victims (via the National Health Service), control
over the committees which should recognise side effects and control
over the law and the national statistics which should indicate any
rising problems in public health.
Government also allocates research funds and it is clear that they
only allow research in areas which suit their purpose.
The COT Committee, again part of Government, was asked to examine the
evidence of OP poisoning and many victims gave evidence.
That evidence was ignored and, despite the admission that OPs can have
serious toxic effects other than those on the nervous system, they
claimed not to have the scientific knowledge to include them in their
report.
This from a Government which has for years studied the effects of OP nerve gas on man and warned of OP pesticide dangers in 1951.
In fact some of those on the committee appear to have been directly
linked to that work and the Committee itself is responsible for
controlling and setting the safe levels of additives in food.
OP insecticides are deliberately added to harvested grain as
undeclared food additives so in effect they therefore sat in judgement
of themselves and found no reason for concern.
A well respected expert in the field of OP toxicity has been reported
as declaring genuine shock and horror that the oldest, and some say
most respected, Parliamentary Democracy in the world presides over
such a corrupt system.
The law also controls the Benefits System in the UK and this is headed by the same High Court Division as currently controls the OP litigation.
Victims of poisoning are often too ill to work. many are confined to
their homes and some depend on wheelchairs.
Many victims can tell of the corrupt practices used by the Benefits Agency
in their efforts to deny these genuine claimants their rightful benefits.
These issues have been reported to both the Courts and the Government
but the practice continues unabated.
The Legal Aid Board was part of the Benefits Agency. It has since been renamed as the Legal Services Commission at great expense to the tax payers of the UK. Name changes are expensive.
The Government makes every effort to reduce the monies paid out by the
Commission and has introduced new rules in order to restrict the number
of publicly funded cases taking up Court time and Aid funds.
This also helps them with excuses to stop embarrassing cases such as the
OP litigation and reports suggest that solicitors were instructed to
"lose" some 500 OP cases this year alone.
In short the defendants in the cases control the game.
One case may be of some interest.
A firm of lawyers attempted to throw out the proven negligence case by giving false evidence to the Legal Aid Board. It was discovered that the lawyer concerned had close contact with the Government Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, who had cause to hide their own failings and those of their contacts in the Government run National Health Service.
A second firm of lawyers were said to be horrified by the unlawful
actions of the first firm on what was an obviously strong case.
Before too long attitudes changed and they too produced a multi-page
document full of grossly misleading information and the Legal Aid
Certificate was withdrawn.
The victim fought to get the Certificate reinstated with negotiations
which lasted over a year.
False information intentionally inserted into case notes is notoriously difficult to remove.
The efforts were successful but the lawyer involved moved to another firm taking the case and others with him. This firm was headed by the then Vice-chairman of the Legal Aid Board who also has close contacts within Government. He parted company with the lawyer and his firm then had control of all the OP cases.
The defendants produced documents containing false statements.
Before long this firm also produced a document complete with deliberately
misleading information and this too resulted in the revoking of the
certificate.
Once again the victim provided supporting evidence and wrote to the Court
suggesting that all parties involved were in contempt.
The certificate was reinstated.
All the legal firms involved had been requested to obtain medical
records from the Government's National Health Service but despite the
law which states that such things should be freely available to the
patient release was refused.
This too has been reported to Government regulators but no action has
been taken.
The lawyers claimed to have obtained the full medical records from the
Government's Poisons Unit but despite those claims they returned to the
victim only the papers which he had extracted by his own efforts from
the Government's National Health Service Hospital.
This too was reported to the regulators but no action was taken.
The victim had information that deadlines had been imposed by the High
Court for supporting medical evidence to be introduced. The lawyers
claimed that the deadline had been postponed and attempted to force
travel to "independent" specialists for new reports.
Those "independent" experts were discovered to have links with the
defendants and the Hospitals linked directly with the Poisons Unit
which had hidden evidence about the case.
The victim wrote directly to the Court again but within days false
claims were made that the contributions demanded from the victim's
means-tested benefits were in arrears and as a result the certificate
would be withdrawn yet again.
Eventually the mistake was admitted but not before the victim had
incurred more unnecessary costs.
The UK Government brought in new rules for Court procedures in attempts
to speed up the process of law. It made special reference to
"Expert opinion" and stated that the expert's duty was to the Court.
They must "help the court on matters within their expertise, bearing
in mind that this duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom
they have received instructions or by whom they are paid."
It also states that experts must make a declaration that they understand
and have complied with their duty to the Court.
The expert's opinion forms a statement and there is a section devoted to
statements which demands that statements of case, witness statements and
expert reports must be accompanied by a "statement of truth".
"Any document with a signed statement of truth which contains false
information given deliberately; that is, without honest belief in its
truth, will constitute a contempt of Court by the person who provided
the information."
Despite this it is clear that experts are withholding vital information on formulation of pesticides, adverse health effects of pesticides and the medical records which show that individuals are suffering from proven health problems known to be caused by pesticides.
Yet we never see expert witnesses who have given false evidence against a victim charged with Contempt of Court or perjury.
Such is the state of the Legal System which is self-promoted as one of the best in the world.
The power of the multi-nationals is such that they can control the
law of Sovereign States.
Their influence over our lives is guaranteed and it is impossible
to break free.
In 1997 the UK elected a new Government which claimed to be free of
the sleaze which dogged the ruling party which preceded them.
The election campaign of the new order was funded in part by the
multi-nationals.
The Prime Minister's office itself was sent evidence that the safety
data for commonly used pesticides is seriously flawed but they claim
to have "lost" the evidence.
When it was resubmitted through Parliament itself they again took no
action.
Many of those now in Government have been trained as lawyers.
We must not assume that this scenario is limited to the UK system of
law and of Government.
A well documented case in the United States of America where
"Freedom of Information" rights are written into the constitution
demonstrates that the power of the multi-nationals over the law is a
world-wide problem.
That case resulted from the pest control activity of a specialist company
The OP used resulted in the ill-health of the victims who were unable
to sustain their employment.
They began a case for compensation but
financial difficulties drove them out of their home and into bankruptcy.
The law then allowed the firm which was involved with the pest control
operation to purchase the case because it had an asset value within the
terms of the bankruptcy regulations.
Another case was lost to the power
of might over right.
We must examine the role played by the Insurers in all this.
Everyone needs insurance - except for the desperately poor who have
nothing of value - everyone from farmers to the Multi-nationals has need
to insure against the unexpected.
The greater the risk the greater the premium and it is interesting to note
that the Insurers refused to cover the multi-nationals for possible damage
caused by GM crops in the environment.
Even in the smallest road traffic accident the insurers impress on their
clients the need to deny liability even if they know they are responsible.
This is part of their effort to reduce the payments to the injured in
order to maximise the profits of their business.
If we examine the poisoning cases we will see that the farmer must deny
responsibility if he wishes the insurers to cover the cost.
The Doctors require insurance in order to practice and they too dare not
risk losing their cover.
The lawyers require insurance in case they make serious mistakes which
leave them liable for losses and they too need to help their protectors.
The Insurers employ big time lawyers who have formidable power.
Now we see legal action being used to control countries outside of the boundaries of the powerful "Democratic" nations under the banner of "Free Trade" laws. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Independent Nations to control the quality of their food supply. "Free Trade" and the laws which support it are endangering entire Nations and their citizens have no power left to protect themselves.
Dated 16/9/2000