1 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Filed Against MSM For Staging ‘Sandy Hook’
William Brandon Shanley Launches Wave of Lawsuits
In another shocking twist in the Sandy Hook saga, Filmmaker and Author William Brandon Shanley Launches Wave of Lawsuits for more than $1 Trillion Against Big Media Over Sandy Hook Massacre Coverage. Here is Mr Shanley’s Statement: “After exhaustive research, the good news is that overwhelming evidence reveals that no children or teachers died at Sandy Hook two years ago. For relief, I have filed lawsuits against the media in US District Court in New Haven for Fraud and Terrorism.”
Here is an example of our abundant evidence, Exhibit D: The Connecticut State Police dash cams record no evacuation of children from school at critical moments: — Smoking Gun evidence no children died at Sandy Hook.” Via RedFlagNews Mr Shanley is the producer of The Made-for-TV Election starring Martin Sheen that analyzed media coverage of the tectonic Carter-Reagan election of 1980. He is also the author of books on quantum physics, including Alice and the Quantum Cat (2011). Dr. James Fetzer, whose 35 articles on Sandy Hook for Veteran’s Today qualify him for the highest investigative journalism awards, and School Safety Consultant, Wolfgang Halbig, whose investigative expertise as a former Florida State Police officer, and loving attention as a former principal, makes this case’s particulars comprehensible to all, will be called as expert witnesses.
Mr Shanley’s Complaint states, in part. Defendants entered into a multi-year conspiracy, meeting in groups separately and together, to commit fraud and terrorism, i.e., to brainwash the public into thinking a lone gunman drill is known as the “Sandy Hook Massacre” was real, when in fact it was a staged FEMA National Level Exercise Event that redirected government resources to terrorize the public.
These crimes were undertaken with the intent of subverting the US Constitution and to affect national, state and local laws. This fraud involved lying to the public, faking news, publishing one-sided news reports, censoring reality, suppressing facts, and deliberately skewing the news to shift public perceptions.
The true costs of this breach of integrity and trust to society are unfathomable. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional Role as the People’s Surrogates and being honest brokers of information, the Plaintiff will show how the men and women who dominate the TV news industry in the United States broke laws, besmirched the First Amendment, their Constitutional role as government watchdogs, and forfeited the right to report the news, and thereby profit from news production and distribution.
The sine qua non of journalism is the search for truth. Our Fourth Estate chose a different path. Punitive damages of one year’s annual revenue from each Defendant are being sought to establish a News Trust, that will free journalism and restore trust and integrity to our communications sources.
A democracy cannot survive this tyranny over human consciousness.
The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Hartford Courant, and the Newtown Bee are being sued for 10 billion USD, punitive damages, in a separate Complaint.
Case Name: Shanley v. Smith et alCase Number:3:14-cv-01881-JAM
Filer: William Brandon ShanleyMass TV and wire service news media are being sued for 1 trillion USD, punitive damages.
Shanley v. O’Prey et al Case Number: 3:14-cv-01929-JAM
Filer: William Brandon Shanley
Watch this video:
14 February 2017: Today KAP Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter delivered a Question without Notice in Question Time to the Minister for Communications about the $5.6m pay packet for the CEO of Australia Post – Ahmed Fahour.
Mr Katter’s Question raised Mr Fahour’s pay; the cost of postage doubling to $1 a letter; and the $2.8m pre-tax donation it is reported that Australia Post “mutually agreed” to give to the Islamic Museum of Australia, founded by Ahmed Fahour’s brother Moustafa Fahour, when in the same year 900 Australia Post staff were sacked. Mr Katter asked the Minister for Communications:
“Australia Post’s CEO pre-corporatisation received $360,000, Ahmed Fahour the current CEO enjoys $5.6 million.
France’s Postal Services CEO receives $1m whilst the United States CEO only $550,000.
Pre Fahour stamps cost 50c; now $1.
Minister, no more Christmas cards.
In 2014 Australia Post sacked 900 staff. In the same year, Mr Fahour’s Australia Post donated $2.8m to his brother’s Islamic Museum.
In light of Ahmed’s Australia Post’s generosity, Minister, could I get $30,000 to repair the Catholic Church in Julia Creek?”
On appointment in 2010 Mr Fahour was paid $2,086,710. This salary package has almost tripled in 6 years to $5.6m.
Mr Katter has highlighted exorbitant CEO pay as a consequence of privatisation and deregulation; and it is not limited to Australia Post.
“The case was strongly pleaded by Lance Hockridge, to privatise Queensland Rail. Mr Hockridge was the then CEO and as a senior public servant would have been on around $250,000 a year. Within a few years after privatisation he was reported to be paying himself a package in excess of $6m a year, for exactly the same job.
“According to the Australian and the Daily Telegraph with one article titled ‘Happy Dragon’, assuming these stories are accurate, it would mean Gail Kelly had received $77m in 8 years, between 2002-2009. “Happy Dragon indeed, but where is St George?” Mr Katter asked.
“Sol Trujillo for little more than 3.5 years at Telstra was paid $40m. Ben Butler at the Courier Mail said ‘complaints had a 241% increase in three years during Trujillo’s reign at Telstra’. Before he arrived at Telstra share prices were $5, when he left they were $3.
“Piketty in his landmark book, stated clearly that the world’s wealth now is going to the managerial class, which effectively sets their own wages. He makes the point that 100 years ago the world’s wealth was going to the owner class, the Carnegies, the Fords, the Rockefellers. People who risked their own money and built the motor vehicle industry, the steel industry, the American railways industry.
“It is now going to a class of people that really produce nothing. Particularly in Australia’s case they simply cut workforce numbers and send the jobs overseas. Then pay themselves an extra $1m a year for closing down an Australian industry. “They cry out for foreign investment, which of course means CEOs pay themselves increasingly more. Until now we reach the point where the only thing we export are jobs.
“Essington Lewis who created the biggest company on earth BHP, an Australian company, when he died he had an estate of $1.7m. In today’s terms an estate worth a measly $2.4m, which would not buy you a decent home in Sydney today.
“Essington Lewis, Les Thiess (coal), Lang Hancock (iron ore), Laurence Hartnett (motor vehicles) all died with very little money. Their riches were in another treasure chest which, please god, they are enjoying now.
“Their riches were what they gave to their fellow Australians. That was how those men measured their wealth”, Mr Katter said.
By Arley Steinhour
Over my years of longevity,
I thought Australia just might be,
Down Under, where, Freedom Rules,
And Folks, ‘up over,’ were the Fools
To, take in Refugees, that want to Kill,
Any and all, that won’t take ‘Bitter Pill,’
Subscribing to Satan, called ‘Refugee,’
Who’d pillage and plunder, out-back for free.
Christian, or not, all be a target,
Conversion, or Death, like at the Market,
They’ll Shiver your Timbers, take down your Sail,
Without guns or ammunition, you can only Wail.
You’d kiss Eternity, good-bye in a flash,
Taking their ‘Mark,’ plus giving some cash,
Then they would have you, your Soul quite dead,
For throwing it away, from Jesus, Eternities, Head.
Remember, your heritage, from the Condemned,
Turn to Lord, Jesus, and your Sins, He’ll Amend,
Repent your ways, and Accept His Redemption,
Your Sin-life erased, as His Just, Compensation.
The Time is quite short, before our Departure,
In Twinkle of eye, Gone, like Arrow from Archer,
High, into the Sky, to Find Jesus Awaiting,
Arms Open, to Hug, without any Debating.
by Don Aitken
I have not met Senator Bernardi, but I’ve read some of his writing. From what I have read in the media and on line, it might surprise some people to learn that in fact he is a published author. His seven books include two for children, the rest being about politics, collections of his own opinion pieces, and a book that did well in the review sections, The Conservative Revolution. Thus far the talk has all been about how his defection from the Liberal Party is another destabilising factor for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Since Bernardi is unlikely to vote for anything that Labor or the Greens would put up, there’s no likely loss of support for the Government on the floor of the Senate. There may be trouble in the next South Australian elections, and more widely, if Senator Bernardi manages to arouse people like him around the country to form another party of the Right. The Australian Conservatives movement he set up is said (by Wikipedia) to have 50,000 members. We will have to wait to see.
I think his departure is important because it demonstrates further the weakness in the current alignments in Australian politics, about which I have written a few times. All political parties are coalitions, really, united on not much more than the importance of their forming the next government. Labor is the best example, as we see again and again when the factions clash, or when high-flyers like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard injure each other. So who is Senator Bernardi, and where does he sit in it all?
Since most of us don’t come from South Australia, here is a potted biography. Bernardi is 47, his father an Italian immigrant. Bernardi was a rower of real class, having been an AIS graduate, the member of a winning crew at Henley, and a member of an Australian representative eight. He did his back in, and that ended his rowing career. He’s worked as a labourer, a finance person and probably in his family’s pub. He’s been a Liberal Senator from SA since 2006, and was the youngest ever Federal Vice-President of the Liberal Party, as well as State President in South Australia. What has got under his skin? His short speech to the Senate, with a full attendance and press gallery, presented a man who spoke simply and well. He thinks the political class has failed Australia, that the tone of politics is much worse than it was ten years ago, and that Australians everywhere deserve better than this. His Australian Conservatives show the way, he thinks, and he hopes those who agree with him will join them. He didn’t raise his voice once. It was courteous and cool. Its was the first time I had seen or heard him, and I was impressed.
What is he about? He doesn’t like 18c, he thinks Islam is a threat, he is opposed to abortion, and strongly dislikes the Safe Schools Program. And, unsurprisingly, he is a sceptic about the imagined threats from global warming. What is he for? His website says that As a member of the Liberal Party of Australia for over 30 years, Cory fought to support Sir Robert Menzies’ vision of stronger families, fostering free enterprise, limited government and supporting civil society of the ‘forgotten people’. How does that make different from a lot of other Liberals? It doesn’t. Why then is he leaving? Is he disgruntled because he’s not part of the ministerial team? I don’t know. But he may not have been considered for the ministerial team because he is seen as a person of views that are out of the current Liberal mainstream. Then he has been writing unpopular pieces for a long time. He wrote a sceptical piece about ‘climate change’ in 2007 — that’s ten years ago. And Malcolm Turnbull distanced himself from it at once. If you want more about him, Michelle Grattan has a thirty minute podcast where he answers her questions. Again, he comes across well, thoughtful, quiet, reflective.
In that podcast he pointed to the revolving door for prime ministers over the past decade, and argued that the tendency of both political parties to shiver about the polls and go for short-term engineering solutions (replace the bloke in charge) is indicative of a lack of real purpose in Australian politics. I tend to agree. It was much easier in the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was growing, there was a lot of infrastructure to create, and governments (both Federal and State) had jobs to do, for parties to look and stay united. Today things are very different. Australia is a lot wealthier, and in all sorts of respects it is a better society to live in than was the case half a century ago.
But the parties are baffled by contemporary circumstances. There is a half-trillion national debt for the parties to deal with. The economy is not growing in a steady way. Industries are dying, jobs are changing, the population is growing, houses are unaffordable for young people, there are insistent demands from every side for measures to deal with this or that problem, and there are no quick fixes for any of this. Indeed, there are no slow fixes, either, that would have long-term support.
And to adapt some themes from my last essay, Australian political discussion is now a mixture of two rather incompatible perspectives on the good society and how to attain it. People want to hang on to what they have, and what they have earned, and they also want governments to solve problems, but without increases in taxation. The old-fashioned British preference for limited government, and the Continental elevation of principles above practice, are mixed up in an awkward way.
I think that Senator Bernardi has found that mixture less and less to his taste. He sees (this is my view) the Turnbull Government is trying to occupy the middle ground in Australian politics, to be a sort of better, more experienced and more sensible Labor Party, and he thinks that is both wrong and unsuccessful. It is certainly the latter at least at the moment, with a large gap between the Government and the Opposition in the opinion polls. There must be many in the Coalition today who see the rejection of Tony Abbott by the Liberals, in retrospect, as a disastrous move. Bernardi is probably one of them. Why did he leave now? Well, there is always a last straw, but I don’t know what it was.
I am not going further down the leadership path, other than to suggest that Mr Abbott had the same kind of problem Julia Gillard had earlier. If you set out to be different from your opponents, you have to be extremely persuasive at selling the difference. Neither leader was. Senator Bernardi believes that he will get significant support in building his Australian Conservatives, and that he and they will offer a different way of painting the future from Pauline Hanson and One Nation. All that is ahead of us. Mr Turnbull is not very effective in persuading us that his ‘we can do it better than Labor’ position is a real winner.
What we may be getting to, I think, is a state of politics in which the major parties cannot govern by themselves. They will in time need the support of minor parties simply to form a government, just as they now need minor party and cross-bench support in the Senate to get legislation through. Julia Gillard’s Government followed negotiation with the Greens. Maybe our two-party system, which started in 1910, is reaching its use-by date.That wouldn’t worry me, as many other countries have multi-party systems where coalitions and compromises are required before anyone can form a government.
Senator Bernardi is at the beginning of a six-year term, and he is most experienced, not simply in the Senate but also in the grassroots business of gaining and keeping support. So I wouldn’t write him off at all. Yet I do wonder how many ‘real’ Conservatives there are out there, and how many of them will support a new party.
Hansard November 24, 2016
Pauline Hanson addresses the racial Discrimination Act
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:48): I have listened to some comments in this chamber today and all I hear about is racism. Let me make my point very clear. When I first came into parliament I stood on the ground of equality for all Australians—equality regardless of race, colour or creed. Also, what I have tried to make quite clear is that, yes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people were the first peoples of this land here. Yes, Australia was colonised and people came here. Since then, many migrants from around the world have sought to make Australia their home. They have come here to join us and to be one of us, and I welcome that. My first husband was actually Polish. He was a migrant after the Second World War who came to Australia for a new life with his mother.
I have had involvement with people of all different cultural backgrounds. The manager of my shop—my fish and chip shop—was also a refugee from Laos. I had the highest regard for her and we worked very well together. I had properties that I actually rented out to an Aboriginal lady and her child. My children grew up in the same street with Aboriginal children. My association will all different cultures has been one that I have cherished. My parents were people that welcomed anyone into their homes, and that is how I was taught. I have respect for so many different cultures and the people. Respect is earned by the person, not purely based on who they are or their race. It must be earned.
People say, ‘Why are we standing up here and speaking out against the words “to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”?’ Today times have changed greatly. People have come to our country. I remember most, years ago when they came, there were the Greeks, the Italians and different ones. They were called wogs. They keep telling me, ‘My god, we actually had everything thrown at us. We were abused, but we said no. We got on with it.’ Because when the Aussies had a go at them in that Aussie way they became part of the community—they assimilated. I remember all the guys at the fish markets—the Greeks and the Italians. We all had jokes together and it was taken in a good sense of humour. I think we have lost that in Australia. I think people have become so precious that you cannot say or do anything anymore. Otherwise, you will be dragged off to the law courts.
You talk about racism. Let’s define the word ‘racism’. A racist is a person who believes their race to be superior to another. Understand the meaning. When you criticise or you have a point of difference, do not counteract that by saying it is a racist comment. I am fed up with people in this parliament and even outside this place calling me a racist, yet they cannot define one word that I have ever said in policy or anything that is racist.
I remember years ago, when I was first elected, I went to have a meeting with the Aboriginal elders. It was set up with the media. I remember they came out and called me a pig in mud and white trash. The media actually printed it. Then, when I actually spoke to them about it, they said, ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ I can well imagine if I had reversed the words, but I never did. What I am hearing now is all one way—it is one-sided. Let’s have a debate on this.
Senator McKim says here, ‘If we change it and get rid of 18C, what do you want to say that you can’t say now?’ I will say, through you, Madam Deputy President, a case in point is those students. What did they say on the Facebook page? They said it is ‘segregation with segregation’. So they were shut down. What is that? That is not an insult. It was pure fact. They actually went to the university and they wanted to go into a room and use computers that were purely marked for Aboriginals only. That is racist in itself. Why didn’t they go and complain about 18C? Why wasn’t something done about it? It is not; they are protected because we have laws in this country now that protect anyone who is not of a colour or anyone from another race criticising the Australians. It has become now, in Australia, reverse racism. That is why Australians are fed up with it. That is why they are saying they want change. It has gotten to a point where you cannot have a say anymore. I am okay; I am in this chamber. I am protected. I can say what I want to say here, but not if I go outside this chamber and say it outside, like many Australians. We cannot have an opinion. We cannot say anything anymore.
Senator Dodson made a comment. He said up until 1967 he was not included in the census, and that was true, but the Aboriginal people did have the vote prior to that. I believe it was Western Australia; please correct me if I am wrong. The whole fact is that Australians believed at the time of the referendum in treating Aboriginal people equally. That is why the majority of Australians—around 97 or 98 per cent—voted for that: they wanted equality and they did not want the separation anymore. Senator Dodson says that Aboriginal people were not included in the Constitution. Actually, section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, in the time before the referendum, said that the Commonwealth shall make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The framers of that Constitution, our leaders who drew up the Constitution in the 1890s, put in that ability to make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and that was because of the Chinese and Afghanis in this country—mainly the Chinese—because of opium and the immigration. That is why it was put in. It was not put in for any reason to do with Aboriginal people at all. It was to do with that.
Senator Dodson talks about words—they can be hurtful and words are what are happening in Syria and the fighting around the world. I do not believe it is just about words. I think it is about hatred of a religion that is casting their hate and their political ideology onto the rest of the world. That is what is behind this. I do believe that we will have the same problem in Australia if we do not address it and have the right to debate it to find the answers so that each and every one of us can live in peace and harmony on our streets and not live in fear of being dragged before the courts. I am pleased to hear that Senator McKim is following my Facebook page. He made a mention of it. Maybe he will learn a lot more from how the Australian people really feel.
What I am saying here today is: is it really going too far to have an opinion that we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone? Maybe the people in Australia should start looking at others of a different religious background to us, so that they may start to think twice before they make their comments on the streets towards our young ladies who wish to not cover themselves up or dress in the fashion of a short skirt and who are then told they are nothing but the meat market. There are women on our beaches who cannot go swimming, because others are offensive towards them. There is a lot of this going on this country, yet there are people in this chamber who will not acknowledge it, and I am sick and tired of seeing them stand up for one race or other people in this country, who do not see themselves as Australians and who have no intentions of ever assimilating. We are told constantly, time and time again, that we must be tolerant. Well, I have had it up to here with my tolerance. I believe that we have a right to have an opinion, have a say and debate it. I will go back to the point: I welcome anyone who has come to this country to join us, to assimilate and to respect our culture and way of life. I stand by that. It is a shame that we have come to the point where we need to debate this issue, but that is where our country is headed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
from Robert J Lee
How did Rabobank get into Australia to take the place of the Commonwealth Development Bank?
The Netherlands-based Rabobank has its origins in Australia thanks to former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating and his then wife Annita, a Dutch-born Australian.
Reputedly the world’s largest rural bank, Rabobank reportedly was asked to hang up its shingle in Australia by the Keatings when he was Prime Minister in 1995.
Several years before the Keatings were involved with Danish interests in setting up a string of large piggeries in NSW.
Eventually the business failed and the Keatings were left holding the bag with the Commonwealth Development Bank reportedly for about $4million however according to then Senator Michael Baume, who doggedly pursued Keating over his debts at the time, it could have been much more.
To get out of debt in one foul swoop, Keating wound up the CDB in 1995, and put Rabobank in its place. Senator Baume said at the time the CDB debt was not ever repaid by Keating.
Most Rabobank profits go back to European shareholders. Paul Keating today drip feeds hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the public purse, his reward for destroying Australian manufacturing and opening up Australia to the rapacious foreign banks.
Even today Keating still maintains Australia should be a ‘service country’, an ideology carried on by Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party.
Cairnsnews has been advised that the Bradshaw family today has filed an application in the Townsville Supreme Court to set aside the warrant used by receivers Ferrier Hodgson and Gadens solicitors to terrorise and take possession of Laurelvale at Prarie, had expired on December 16, 2016.
The Bradshaws now hold the high moral ground to take further action against all the invaders after they swooped on Laurelvale on February 1, 2017.
Stay tuned to Cairnsnews!
Receivers accompanied by “19 armed Qld police” with an armada of vehicles swooped on the farm to evict the Bradshaw family for the Netherlands bank Rabobank on an outdated and illegal warrant from which they arrested one farmer. A bloody disgrace and yesterday is too late for an unrestricted FULL inquiry into the banking system in Australia …
GetUp Australia is billionaire George Soros’ puppet cult. It is one of the most dangerous pressure groups (naïve students and Greens disciples) in Australia today. Canada and Hungary right now are moving to ban all George Soros funded organisations in their countries. Soros backed and funded Hilary Clinton’s disastrous campaign to become US president. Soros has been found by US authorities to fund left-wing violent campaigns against Trump and the powerful firearms lobby.
Soros directly funded demonstrations to disrupt Trump’s inauguration and also contributed towards the ‘womens march’ in the US, attended by hairy armpitted, hairy legged, pseudo-intellectual, chardonnay-sipping left-wing feminists who hate men with a passion.Below is the latest tirade from the Bolsheviks of GetUp:
George Soros funds violent left-wing demonstrations, Hilary Clinton and GetUp Australia
Right-wing Senator Cory Bernardi just announced he’s leaving the Liberals to form his own ‘Australian Conservatives’ Party. Modelling himself on Donald Trump, Bernardi’s agenda is one of hate, climate destruction and increasing inequality. His policies hurt people. And he’s starting off with 50,000 followers and his “very close friend” Gina Rinehart, who joined Bernardi in meetings with Trump’s campaign team in New York.1 Like Trump, we can’t underestimate Bernardi or the damage he can do. We have a community of 1 million members, who proved last election we can take on the far right and win. If there’s any group of committed, passionate people who can counter Bernardi’s Trump-inspired politics of division, it’s us. But to keep countering that far right agenda, we need to fight harder and longer than any election campaign. That means more people joining the GetUp Crew — the team of GetUp supporters who make a regular donation to fund our collective power.
What will we do? Everything GetUp does best. We’re going to counter and frustrate Bernardi’s mining-backed right-wing agenda with bigger, deeper and more far-reaching campaigns — just like we did to stop Tony Abbott’s extreme agenda. We’ll hit the streets, airwaves and online. And we’ll counter his 50,000 followers with 1 million passionate GetUp members, like we’ve done time and again on the issues that matter. But we won’t stop there. We’ll also work with members to mobilise in their own communities, and get their neighbours and friends involved to organise for lasting, long-term change that combats hate and division with unity. And we’ll drive the political narrative with cutting-edge, media-grabbing policy research that takes back the agenda from Bernardi’s denial of science and fact. All to be backed in by the creative ads and viral videos that reach millions and stand out from the political pack.
Yesterday in Federal Parliament of Australia, KAP Member for Kennedy Bob Katter moved that majority foreign owned interactive gambling agencies be barred from operating in Australia.
Mr Katter moved an amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 that any company that is majority foreign owned is not eligible for registration as a gambling agency in Australia.
Mr Katter said “I voted by myself on the amendment. At the present moment with gambling in Australia, the money is going overseas. I lived in an era where every single dollar (except if you went to a racecourse) — every single cent went into health services for the people. Now most of it is going overseas.
“If the proposition was put to people, do you want the money to go overseas or do you want it to go into health services for Australians, or to help our struggling retirees, or our single mothers trying to make ends meet with three children? I think 80 or 90 per cent of Australians would vote with me, yet I am regarded as the minority.”
The Bill Amendment is as follows:
Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016
23B At the end of section 5
(4) Despite subsection (3), a gambling service covered by subsection (1) is a prohibited interactive gambling service if the service is provided by a person who is:
(a) an individual not resident in Australia; or
(b) a corporation that is majority foreign-owned.
[majority foreign-owned providers]