External Content twitter.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
DIY Graphene Based Supercapacitor Testing - YouTube
Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful” – The Duran
From Off-Guardian.org
Important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
The specifics of the case concern four tourists entering the country from Germany – all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case – who were quarantined by the regional health authority. Of the four, only one had tested positive for the virus, whilst the other three were deemed simply of “high infection risk” based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.
In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.
The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.
You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here. There’s also a good write up on it on Great Game India, plus a Portuguese professor sent a long email about the case to Lockdown Sceptics.
The media reaction to this case has been entirely predictable – they have not mentioned it. At all. Anywhere. Ever.
The ruling was published on November 11th, and has been referenced by many alt-news sites since…but the mainstream outlets are maintaining a complete blackout on it.
The reddit Covid19 board actually removed the post, because it was “not a reliable source”, despite relying on the official court documents:
Lookout for a forced and disingenuous “fact-check” on this issue from HealthFeedback or some other “non-partisan” outlet in the near future. But until they find some poor shlub to lend their name to it, the media blackout will continue.
Whatever they say, this is a victory for common sense over authoritarianism and hysteria.
https://www.foxnews.com/politi…s-trump-twitter-case-moot
Chris Kelly, former chief privacy officer of Facebook, explains how Tech Giants operate.
The Supreme Court on Monday deemed former President Donald Trump's appeal of a ruling that said it was unconstitutional for him to block critics, deeming his page to be a protected public forum.
The court called for the case to be dismissed, as Trump is no longer in office and Twitter has blocked him from the platform. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision in light of Trump no longer being president, but the conservative jurist illustrated the complexity of the matter given that Trump ultimately did not have full control over his own account.
TRUMP 'MOVING FORWARD' WITH PLANS TO START SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM: SOURCES
"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it," Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Trump, claiming that as president, he used his Twitter account to discuss political matters and therefore the interactive participation of commenting on his tweets was considered a public forum protected by the First Amendment. Blocking those who criticized him, therefore, was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, they had ruled.
Thomas noted that while Trump had the power to block other users, Twitter was then able to block "all Twitter users from interacting with his messages" by banning his account altogether.
"Because unbridled control of the account resided in the hands of a private party, First Amendment doctrine may not have applied to respondents’ complaint of stifled speech," Thomas pointed out, stating that "[w]hether governmental use of private space implicates the First Amendment often depends on the government’s control over that space."
Thomas acknowledged how modern technology is not always easily addressed by existing legal doctires, and warned that the Supreme Court "will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
With that in mind, he cautioned that the power wielded by social media giants like Twitter poses its own issues.
"The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him," Thomas said. "But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions."
https://www.dailywire.com/news…rom-church-easter-weekend
A Polish pastor at a Canadian church booted some six police officers and health officials from his house of worship on Saturday as they were seemingly trying to shut down a Passover service over COVID-19 restrictions.
In the viral video, Artur Pawlowski, who pastors a church in Calgary, Alberta, repeatedly tells the officials to immediately leave the church, and only come back when they have a warrant.
DailyWire
“Get out!” Pawlowski yells, referring to the officials as “Nazis” and the “Gestapo,” the secret police of Nazi Germany. “Immediately get out of this property! I don’t want to hear anything! … Until you get a warrant, out! Immediately go out and don’t come back!”
“And don’t come back without a warrant!” he again warned, as the officials left his church. “Do not come back without a warrant, you understand that? You’re not welcome here. Nazis are not welcomed here. Gestapo is not welcomed here. Do not come back, you Nazi psychopaths.”
As the officials continued to walk toward their vehicles, Pawlowski emphasized that it was “unbelievable” they were “intimidating people in a church during passover.”
“You Gestapo Nazi communist fascists — don’t you dare come in back here,” he yelled.
In an April 3 Facebook post of the incident, Pawlowski wrote, “Police came to disrupt Church gathering! Gestapo came again to intimidate the Church parishioners during the Passover Celebration!!! Unbelievable!”
Calgary Police released a statement on Sunday concerning the incident, confirming the drop-by was due to COVID-19 restrictions.
“The concern was that the people in attendance were not adhering to the government’s COVID-19 public health orders, which are in place to ensure everyone’s safety,” the statement read.
“The organizer of the gathering was uncooperative with the health inspector, and repeatedly raised his voice asking all parties to leave the premises, which they did approximately one minute after entry and in a peaceful manner,” Calgary Police said.
“We understand the pandemic has caused great disruption to all Calgarians in their professional and personal lives. We do not wish to disrupt anyone’s holidays or religious or spiritual events, however we must support our partner agencies when called upon to help ensure everyone can safely celebrate these occasions,” the statement added.
“No tickets were issued at the time and it will be up to our partner agencies to determine subsequent enforcement activity in response to this situation.”
Quote
As highlighted by The Daily Wire, Canadian pastor James Coates was jailed for more than a month after holding church services in defiance of Alberta’s Public Health Act:
QuotePastor James Coates, who pastors GraceLife Church in the Edmonton area, was first arrested in February after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) repeatedly flagged his church for not abiding by public health orders that capped attendance at 15 percent capacity. The RCMP later slapped the church with more charges when they continued to hold services while their pastor was imprisoned.
WATCH:
https://wearechange.org/were-s…nute-of-truth-on-america/
Forget Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate.” NBA legend Charles Barkley unleashed ‘One Minute Truth’ on NCAA-Final-Four-watchers last night, telling viewers that:
Quote“I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats.”
Barkley was responding to a feature that detailed how on April 4, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy broke the news about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to a crowd in Indianapolis, urging people to seek compassion and justice rather than anger and revenge, saying the vast majority of Americans, both black and white, want to live in peace with each other.
As a reminder, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated two months later.
This was the same message Barkley offered, as he warned:
Quote“I think our system is set up where our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are designed to make us not like each other so they can keep their grasp of money and power.”
Furthermore, he described what he believes to be the thinking behind the divide-and-conquer strategy:
Quote“Hey, let’s make these people not like each other. We don’t live in their neighborhoods, we all got money, let’s make the whites and blacks not like each other, let’s make rich people and poor people not like each other, let’s scramble the middle class.”
Watch the full clip here:
This is not the first time Barkley has unleashed uncomfortable truths. In September of last year he dared to speak common sense against the left’s calls to defund the police, arguing that poor black communities would be hit hardest by a spike in crime if there is less policing. “Who are black people supposed to call, Ghostbusters, when we have crime in our neighborhood?”
How long will it be before the outrage mob comes for Barkley for taking such a “bothist” common-sense and honest view and refusing to be drawn, like weak CEOs or pandering politicians to one side or the other in our ever more divisive society?
It’s already begun…
Why do politicians, who profess to be Public Servants, parade around in British Bankers Suits.
In fact, it appears that the official uniform of Executives & Government Administration Worldwide is the British Bankers Dress Suit.
Why are these public servants not wearing something more appropriate to their daily tasks, like a practical Workmans Jumpsuit. Why do we tolerate them, male and female, in their designer dress suits that are symbols of 20th century global financial terrorism and imperial occupation, not to mention the uptight patriarchy of the gentleman tailors fraternal orders.
Like British Bankers Dress Suits, High Rise Skyscrapers are another frustrated phallic power trip spawned by the power brokers of the early 20th century (probably closer incels)
It would be much easier for Young Americans to Demolish these abominations of Hubris and scavenge the remains to build new Smart Builings vs. mine new materials or buy from China
And Finally, Ecexutives, America's answer to Aristocracy. Who Needs them Anymore. Workers and Skilled Managers wearing jumpsuits have access to all the data resources in the world now that used to be the privileged domain of Board Room Execs ONLY.
Celebrities are just PR Executives, who play more and get paid more than average Executives. Social Media Stars are eclipsing obsolete celebrities. Rugged, Practical and Stylish Jumpsuits should bury the politically incorrect and offensive British Bankers Dress Suit SOON.
And the world would be a much happier place if ugly High Rise Skyscrapers were demolished, with legal permit, and replaced with Green Spaces and 9V Domes
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/03/…fense-dominates-dominion/
The supreme “Art of War” is to subdue your enemy without fighting; it means having the ability to set an inescapable trap – enabling the ability to annihilate the enemy. In fictional novels, the process can be analogized to a successfully foreshadowed climax. Some only see the strategy set up in hindsight.
In chess, champions yell “checkmate.”
Once a fledgling nation-state, Genghis Khan and the Mongols led brutal campaigns under such a strategy. The Mongols used this Art while amassing the Earth’s largest contiguous empire ever. To their enemies, the most successful tactics seemed bizarre and arcane.
Thinking the moves were motivated by Mongol weakness, generals would retaliate in knee-jerk fashion. But, many powerful nations were led like sheep to the slaughter. Entire civilizations succumbed to slavery and savagery. The tactics employed were neither arcane nor bizarre. It was the Supreme Art of War, published almost a millennium before Khan devastated even the Europeans. It is widely still read today.
Dominion Voting Systems, the software company at the heart of many of the 2020 Election controversies and conspiracies, has brought several defamation lawsuits as of late. The company is seeking damages many would consider astronomical. Sidney Powell, a star former-federal prosecutor, General Flynn’s successful criminal defense attorney, and author of Licensed to Lie, is just one defendant in the crosshairs.
The lawsuit against Powell was brought in Washington, D.C., a politically questionable and legally improper place for a Colorado company to sue a Texan. The burn of political interference in the D.C. circuit is something Sidney Powell is especially experienced with. As per Dominion, Ms. Powell is alleged to have made “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims” about the company – claims that could only be verified using data from Dominion via a pre-trial discovery process and argued in court.
Powell’s legal arguments are sound. A proper trial may shed a sufficient amount of light to put to bed questions surrounding the election. Her strategy seems, in hindsight, supreme.
Despite the immediate outcry and disingenuous legacy media reporting, her recent motion to dismiss or change venue could affirm decisive legal protection for private citizens against entities that have been considered or labeled “public figures” under N.Y. Times Co. These entities are different from government officials, such as politicians, with the latter not having to guarantee the truth of their factual assertions. Politicians are practically unable to defend against defamation. If they could, some media would be bankrupt after the last four years. Now, thankfully, when public figures engage in the deprivation of constitutionally protected rights of private citizens, Americans can reap monetary damages.
Ms. Powell’s motion argues Dominion is, at minimum, a “limited-purpose public figure.” These types of “public figures” are found in cases where the defamatory statements involve a “matter of public concern” and whether the level of the plaintiff’s “participation invites scrutiny.”(Refer to Zueger v. Goss.) Ms. Powell’s statements involve the single most important election in our country – the Presidential election. And Dominion states that it operates “nearly 300” state and local elections, managing equipment that services over “40% of U.S. voters” (almost 62 million). Such standards appear satisfied.
Limited purpose public figures can defend against defaming statements but must prove the statement was made with actual malice, can be proved “true or false,” and that people accepted the statements as fact, in light of the phrasing, context, and circumstances. Statements of fact and opinions based on statistical analysis are not the same.
Dominion is claiming that Ms. Powell’s statements cannot be regarded by a reasonable person as truthful. This seems to me to be a counterproductive claim to Dominion’s cause, as it holds such answers in its software’s data—or should. All companies keep records.
Dominion must prove that Ms. Powell’s statements were motivated by actual malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence. This is a higher bar to vault than the typical civil standard; by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, Dominion must show Sidney Powell knew her claims were false—and peddled them anyway.
Powell has filed voter integrity lawsuits in many different states, published a 270-page public record of the evidence used has spoken on the public record and has not walked back any claims. She sounds like someone who firmly believes in the truth of her statements.
Arguments used by Dominion in court that Ms. Powell is advancing her claims because of some lucid loyalty to the former-President are meritless — by about thousands of pages of evidence and expert testimony. Evidence used by Ms. Powell is not only backed by private experts, it is backed by the federal government and many state governments — from both sides of the aisle.
Dominion, in its legal complaint, failed to state the proper type of harm necessary for relief to be granted on defamation. In fact, Dominion’s allegations are entirely devoid of the legally proper information, statements, or evidence required to succeed on its merits. That means they are asking the federal judge to punish Ms. Powell and her companies simply because Dominion wants that outcome. This is akin to a child on a playground faking a story to punish someone they do not like, except the federal government has a lot more power than a principal. We also have constitutional rights.
Our federal judiciary has consistently found political speech regarding important federal elections protected under the First Amendment. The language used in the political arena is “often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” Watts v. United States. Likewise, political speech is ‘inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists. Speech must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” N.Y. Times. Co. Because “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana. Political speech regarding these events has been rigorously defended because of the profound national implications. SCOTUS has held that political speech is “entitled the fullest possible measure of constitutional protection.” Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent. Dominion, to the outside observer, by seeking such high monetary damages, seems to be extorting silence through intimidation of the court system. This should not be tolerated.
Sidney Powell’s address to the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally in Georgia has been cited in her defamation lawsuit. (AP)
Dominion continues to claim Ms. Powell intentionally caused them damage because of some ‘unfounded, evidence-less, and fraudulently’ motivated “ill will.” Such categorical allegations by Dominion are unsupported in the complaint they filed against Ms. Powell. The Supreme Court in Iqbal found that statements like the ones Dominion made in their complaint “do not suffice to satisfy the pleading standards” to survive a motion to dismiss.
Unfortunately, too, for Dominion, the D.C. Circuit agreed with Ms. Powell this past week in a differing opinion regarding the defamation against her. As the D.C. Circuit noted, “[o]ur court… has made clear that evidence of ill will is insufficient by itself to support a finding of actual malice.” With the mountains of evidence supplied by Ms. Powell, it is clear her claims are not the ones that may seem to contain malice.
This builds upon prior D.C. Circuit precedent. In Bauman, the court found that “when a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, ‘it is clear the challenged statements represent [her] own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw [their] own conclusions.”
This means opinions backed by evidence cannot be found to have malice. It means that the attacks against Powell for her motion are unfounded and based upon a complete disregard and appreciation for the argument in her filing.
Dominion is, in essence, claiming the global audience addressed by Ms. Powell is incapable of looking at the evidence themselves and formulating their own opinions. Talk about a wildly outrageous statement! The only way for Dominion to succeed is to release their data to prove the evidence and other experts wrong—but even then, no defaming occurred. People debate statistics all the time in public. Sidney Powell is arguing that she formed opinions based on the data, expert testimony, and evidence she was presented with.
Dominion Voting Systems is located in the old Denver Cable Car building in downtown Denver
The vices executed in this pending trial-trap are so beautiful, it is hard to write a better story. The applicable state law for Dominion’s claims against Ms. Powell and others is Colorado. Certain laws can be tried under the relevant state’s laws in federal courts between citizens from different states. Unless federal law preempts, stronger state laws are ones that can apply. In this case, because Colorado is making the claims, Colorado’s law applies, even in Texas. Colorado’s Supreme Court and Constitution have stronger and more vibrant First Amendment protections and case precedents than even the United States Constitution and Supreme Court. The forum, which is crucial in jury selection for trials, is in freedom-loving Texas.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-campaign-scam/
On Saturday, The New York Times reported that thousands of supporters of former President Donald Trump were hoodwinked by a deceptive "recurring payment" option for the president's campaign fundraising system, that led them to give far more money than they thought they were giving.
"Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election," reported Shane Goldmacher. "Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out. As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a "money bomb," that doubled a person's contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language."
The result was that many of these donors gave far more than they ever intended to the Trump campaign, and tons of them demanded refunds.
"Political strategists, digital operatives and campaign finance experts said they could not recall ever seeing refunds at such a scale. Mr. Trump, the R.N.C. and their shared accounts refunded far more money to online donors in the last election cycle than every federal Democratic candidate and committee in the country combined," said the report. "Over all, the Trump operation refunded 10.7 percent of the money it raised on WinRed in 2020; the Biden operation's refund rate on ActBlue, the parallel Democratic online donation-processing platform, was 2.2 percent, federal records show."
Some Trump supporters and their families are furious.
"It felt like it was a scam," said Russell Blatt, whose brother Stacy in hospice care was "opted in" to monthly payments after making what he thought was a one-time contribution to Trump, then was confused why his utility checks started bouncing. Victor Amelio, a 78-year-old retiree in California, donated $990 in September via the Republican portal WinRed, and before he knew it the "opt in" he had never checked debited $8,000 of his money to the Trump campaign. "Bandits!" he told The Times. "I can't afford to pay all that damn money."
If any of this money wasn't refunded, it may well have gone to benefit Trump financially. A previous report in February indicated that $2.8 million in money donated to the Trump campaign was funneled into the Trump Organization to settle debts. And many supporters still haven't even accepted Trump's loss, to the consternation of even his fellow Republicans.
Throughout his business career, Trump has frequently been accused of running scams to bilk money from unwitting people, one of the most famous cases being Trump University, which led to a multimillion-dollar settlement.
