Wednesday, January 29, 2014

More info from Dr. Henderson's Associate, Shelley Bolling to Karen Hudes (World Bank Whistleblower)

More info from Dr. Henderson's Associate, Shelley Bolling to Karen Hudes (World Bank Whistleblower)

From: shelley bolling
To: Karen hudes

Karen,  It’s Shelley Bolling working with Dr. Hendo Henderson.  The rule of law that these 196 nations have signed off on is Omni Law, which for the US takes us back to our original organic Constitution.  Yes, the Vatican is not in charge and never will be.  We were the ones working with the International Criminal Court of Justice who tried the Pope and Queen of England last October on human sex trafficking and global financial terrorism, of which they were found guilty on all charges as you well know.  The Vatican is being dismantled, and Elizabeth has been dethroned, although to look through the eyes of the main stream media you wouldn’t necessarily know that.  It was because of this case that Pope Benedict stepped down, and that Pope Francis has not moved into the Papal apartments.  The Vatican is not counted as one of the 196 nations.

 Yes, there will be no release of funds without full accountability.  There is complete accountability, as the Executor, Dr. Henderson and the Fiduciaries, have filed all legal and accounting paperwork with the World Court on down to the local levels with all 196 nations.  Dr. Henderson was the one who wrote Omni Law and took it to the World Court in 1983 to be filed.  It passed the test of time without any objections and officially became law in 1998, because Dr. said they would go beyond the 7 year statute to 15 years without objection.

 I know I’m just a lay person trying to explain to an attorney what we have accomplished, but we do have many attorneys, accountants, scribes, fiduciaries, custodians and stewards making sure everything is filed and processed according to the rule of law and responsible accounting procedures.  I have copies of the main documents and as Dr. Henderson allows me to, I will forward these to you at the appropriate time. 

I can’t imagine the harassment you have gotten from so many people and the MSM, but know that we are very thankful for what you are doing, as it dovetails beautifully into what we are doing.  We are actually working together, although on different sides of the largest project ever for mankind.  I know that as you get to know us, you will feel much more comfortable about what we are doing.  I certainly respect you being cautious as we are as well.  However, the works of your hands that we have seen, have proven to us that you are a woman of integrity and with a heart for the truth.  Please allow us the same courtesy as you will see going forward that the works of our hands will prove our integrity and heart to you.

 Best regards,

Shelley Bolling
Sovereign Civil Peoples Rights


Anonymous said...

Great letter.

Anonymous said...

Human Genome Project
DNA Patenting
Paper by Cynthia Brewer

Submitted to Project Camelot, August 15, 2011

Indeed, the principle objective of biotechnology is to produce commercial products for economic gain. However, any industry will not initiate high-risk, long-term projects without knowing that the results of its research efforts can be legally protected from competitors, thus the U.S. Patent Offices has sanctioned privileges for intellectual property rights and include trade secrets, trademarks, and patents; while no protections have been made to protect Divine Sentient Beings from the horrors of the products.

A biotechnology patent is a legal document that gives the patent holder exclusive rights to implement the described invention commercially. The two major categories for patents consist of products and processes. The patent holder can develop other products that are directly derived from the original invention, while competitors must purchase the right to use the invention to develop a product based on the initial invention. A prime example is patented diseases and remedies specifically including pharmacopoeia.

Patent law very around the world, and throughout history, a consistent principle of patent law was that a patent could not be granted for anything that is a product of nature or any type of therapy for human or animals. The application for a patent must be feasible, novel, non obvious, utility and general acceptability by the patent office; thus, biotechnology and pharmacopoeia are in a perpetual race to create genetically engineered biodiversity by and through the splicing of DNA and creating superbugs, such as staph infections.

In 1980, in a landmark decision the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a genetically modified organism was patentable to protect the intellectual property right for the development and use of the "superbug", a genetically engineered microorganism used to clean up the oil spill in Alaska from the Exxon Valdes. The patent was developed by A. Chakrabarty, who was working for the General Electric Corporation.

Following the landmark decision to patent genetically modified microorganisms, the U.S. Patent laws ultimately allowed Goldman and Sacs subsidiary, Genetech, to market human tPA. This lead to the regular patenting of multicellular organisms such as the "oncomouse"; and ultimately exclusive ownership of living and natural material.

The exclusive ownership of natural and God gifted property led to controversy over the morals and ethics of these patenting statutes and the rights of people and animal; with human rights always prevailing. For example, if an invention on animals approved for use to cure human disease, the current view is that the needs supersede those of the animal. This led to the regular and routine patenting of transgenetic animals and plants.