Tag Archive: LAW

Lifevantage Terminates and Sues Major Distributor

Introduction

Jason Domingo

Jason Domingo

Lifevantage (LV) announced that, at the unanimous recommendation of its Board of Directors, it has terminated for cause its relationship with Jason Domingo and Ovation Marketing Group, Inc., one of the Company’s lead distributors. The Company also announced that it has filed suit against Mr. Domingo and Ovation in Federal Court in the State of Utah for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.  See typical market report.

The detail (see link below) shows that LV made $10.9m in 2010 and $208m in 2013 – this is despite the investigative activity into Protandim, LV’s main product, by LazyManAndMoney and others…!  Distributors were paid $91m from which $2.6m went to Domingo.  They say he was the lead distributor.

The Detail in the Lifevantage Case

The case details are on PACER – summarised here:

Case details:

2:13-cv-01037-DB Lifevantage v. Domingo et al

Dee Benson, presiding

Date filed: 11/19/2013

Date of last filing: 11/19/2013

Assigned to: Judge Dee Benson

Demand: $775,000

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Court Filings of Lifevantage v Jason Domingo

You can view the court documents (19 pages) on the attached file:

Lifevantage v. Domingo et al

 

Jason Domingo,President, Ovation Marketing Group, Inc.

Domingo has been in business for many years.  This letter of his to the FTC is dated May 28, 2006 and he states he’s been in network marketing for 14 years, meaning he started back in 1992.  Chillingly, he quotes a Dr Charles King that by 2016 one in two Americans will be involved in network marketing.  Thankfully, we don’t appear to be treading that path.

The Court Case

The letter of his makes good reading, especially with regard to the free market and in comparison to the Lifevantage court case….  In this, they claim he:

  • Has been laying the groundwork for setting up a competitive business
  • Disparaged the company
  • Is setting up a competitive business
  • Used his disposal of 90% of his stock as proof of these claims
  • Sent  an email to Randy Haag disparaging the company where he said “there is no statement too strong that speaks to the malfeasance of this management team.  Greed and ego has gripped my (sic) beautiful company by the throat.” – Stirring stuff indeed!
  • If Domingo had worked properly, they’d have paid out tens of millions more to distributors.

In total there are three main actions, divided into a myriad of clauses.

  • They want a 12 man jury public trial.
  • They want all costs.
  • They want $775,000

Malfeasance

Domingo used the word malfeasance to describe the LV management team.  I had to double-check the meaning.  It means:

The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

In detail, it means:

Intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from “misfeasance,” which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees, and others cloaked with responsibility.

Well. Most of what I have seen about LV fits into that. It’ll be interesting to see how this case pans out. I suspect it’ll not come to court.

Related Posts:

The End of British Law – They’re All In It Together.

UK Legalises Retrospective Law Enforcement

UK leaders

UK leaders – No wonder they’re all smiling

No wonder they’re all smiling

In an astonishing move, HM Government has now enacted a law that allows any government (because it’s now part of case law) to sentence someone for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time they “committed” an “offence“.

Worst of all, our dear labour Party let HM Gov do it!

Pardon?

Yes. You heard right.    (On the other hand, that’s consistent with my leaving the party some time ago.)

Just suppose that ten years ago, as part of your employment expenses, you were allowed to “flip” your expenses onto your work “home” and back again, yet a few years later this became illegal and you could be imprisoned.   I’m talking about the MP’s Expenses scandal of course, famous for its duck island, moat and second homes a mere hoppity-skip from the main home.   See MPs’ expenses: How Cabinet ministers have made tens of thousands ‘flipping’ their homes.

So what was “allowed” (as they thinly described it) is now “not allowed”.  Legality curiously disappears in this “allowing” farrago, yet some things were and are illegal yet hardly anyone was sent to the clink.  Just a few token stooges.

Workfare

So much for our privileged elite.

Not so good if you’re struggling in this artificially enforced time of economic restraint, wholly created by a roulette-based banking and investment class that shares the revolving door world with our politicians.

Because Iain Duncan Smith’s retrospective workfare legislation has just changed centuries of British law by making a law retrospective.

Now set in case law, the precedent has now been set for any law to be so applied.  You can now be penalised for something that was legal when you did it, but isn’t legal now.  That’s what it means.  Forget (for the moment) the injustice done to thousands of poor folks, fooled and misled into being stripped of their benefits.

The bigger picture is far worse and will have far reaching consequences.

This is really the ghastliest abomination from a whole series of actions where the freedom of the individual has been sequentially stripped over the past  decade or so.  No wonder they’re all smiling.  On top of this they’ve now gagged the press with whom they previously had such a nice cosy relationship.   They’ve made it so that if someone wins a libel case, they still have to pay all legal expenses!

Terrorism

Of course, terrorism (or the perception of terrorism through the western filter screen) is at the route of it.  The silent majority have let leaders do and say anything for so long that they’ve become accustomed to being scared and placid for so long that they can’t tell right from wrong anymore.   But consider this:

It’s always been illegal to trade with certain proscribed countries, organisations or individuals, (call them COI) at a given moment.  But it wasn’t always so.  At another moment, the list is different.

The precedent now makes it illegal for anyone to have traded with certain proscribed COI in the past even though they weren’t on the proscribed list years ago!  This is the bonkers conclusion to this daft legislation.  You can dream up any amount of scenarios.  All bonkers but now, apparently, all legal.

Further Reading:

Related Posts:

Estonian Spammer Forges CBS and The Guardian

Get Rich Quick Scam Forges Genuine News Agencies Web Pages

Gmail Spam

Gmail Spam

I recently received two emails from a friend’s old Hotmail account, but to two of my email addresses.

Email Spam

Email Spam

Probably, the account has been hacked as I could detect no spoofing in the emails’ headers.  These are the emails, with the email addresses blacked out.

Initial Email Investigations

The text is similar in that they try to entice a user using pretty poor English to click on the shortened URL links, which are active.

Here’s how the links work:
To my Email address;
cbsbusiness9

cbsbusiness9

I had http://cbsbusiness9.com/index2.php?/5260 which then goes to

http://cbsbusiness9.com/uk.html?/partners/the-guardian/small-business/5672-9782-67834/making-money-online/

 

To my GMail address;
cbsnews-article

cbsnews-article

I had http://cbsnews-article.com/index2.php?/4032 which then goes to

http://cbsnews-article.com/uk.html?/partners/the-guardian/small-business/5672-9782-67834/making-money-online/

 

The screenshots show the results using a neat Firefox plugin, Flagfox, which displays the source IP address and country on mouse-over.

The WHOIS’s of each domain are almost identical.  These are screenshots.

whois.domaintools.com screen capture 2012-12-12-17-12-26 whois.domaintools.com screen capture 2012-12-12-17-13-17 That Arthor Brown’s a one, eh?  Notice the Ukrainian, Russian and New York connections?   Who is/are  or what is:

TNew line ave 172 95
NY, 18274
UNITED STATES
+1.7343541732

Google Search on +1.7343541732

Google Search on +1.7343541732

Googling the phone number pulls out a heap of (not)surprises including an awful cesspit of scamminess that’s now starting to rival Pacific Webworks’ Google Treasure Chest and Jesse Willms’ Colon cleansing efforts!  (We saw these scams a few years back – check the links)

Just check out the fake news and dodgy sounding sites in the search results….  These are the first couple of pages of current search results:

  • Com-news8.net
  • Bcnews8.com
  • Dildobigg.com
  • Raspberry-Ketone24.com
  • BigGgEts.com
  • HurtGuys.com
  • GrowsPeniss.com
  • HugerAss.com
  • Com-news9.net
  • Com-nbcnews9.net
  • coloncleanse-extreme.com
  • nbc9news.com
  • nbc1news.com

Arthor Brown is in most of them with his Yahoo! email address as [email protected]   Please don’t confuse him with this Arthur Brown, but yes, handle all of these websites like Fire!

Forged Webpages of The Guardian Newspaper

cbsnews-article.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-3-51

cbsnews-article.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-3-51

cbsbusiness9.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-3-23

cbsbusiness9.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-3-23

The Guardian, is an old and respected news organisation in the UK.  CBS is a long-established US media network.

They, and the purported author of both webpages, Sirena Bergman, must be pretty pissed off about the hijacking of their names.

Also to be annoyed, is Lloyds TSB Bank who apparently are “in association” with this get rich quick scheme for work at home moms!

Completely Forged News Articles!

Indeed they are.

  • The articles are dated “December, 11:41”, which is odd since there’s no day, just month and time!
  • Both articles are embedded in genuine Guardian web-pages, with all the links surrounding the article going to genuine Guardian web-pages or genuine advertiser websites!
  • The hook links in both forged webpages go to http://workinghome22.com/go.php

The forgery is done in the same manner as the well-known phishing scams done for banks and on-line finance and insurance.

Apart from the images sourced from The Guardian, the scammer’s images are sourced from:

  • ddmcdn.com which is HowStuffWorks.com!
  • localconsumeralerts.com
  • prosperadtracker.com
  • ophan.co.uk

So, Who Is workinghome22.com

Bad Gateway

Bad Gateway

The first link was dead, opening a bad gateway so the expected redirect didn’t work.  The tracking pointed back to Ireland!

Bad Gateway

Bad Gateway

The second link worked, but the sweetly named workingfromhome22.com wasn’t the destination.   No, the link immediate re-directed to http://onlineincnow.com/2/?aff_sub=72

Well, at least the affiliate number 72 is getting paid….

But hang on, who exactly is workingfromhome22.com?
workinghome22.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-31-44

workinghome22.com screen capture 2012-12-12-16-31-44

Well, typing the URL directly takes me to workingfromhome22.com!  This is it!

Cunningly, you’ll note that it’s pulled out my home-town as Bournemouth (where I live) with that awful “mom” Americanism!  No-one in the UK addresses their mother as mom…  I mean, FFS?

The webpage links, containing the disreputably used graphics of Thomson, Reuters, CNBC and NBC Universal all point to http://workinghome22.com/go.php, which is of course in this domain.  So let’s click it, shall we?

Well, pctrck.com is trying to load, but not much else.

Reversing then trying to exit workinghome22.com produces a pop-up of dubious functionality!  Check the words – there’s no cancel button!

workinghoome22_Popup

workinghoome22_Popup

I did however manage to successfully close this page following that.  Whew!

Now Back to onlineincnow.com

OnlineIncNow Location

OnlineIncNow Location

The previously mentioned http://onlineincnow.com/2/?aff_sub=72 is located in the USA.

So What Is It Up To?

OnlineIncNow.com Whois Record

OnlineIncNow.com Whois Record

Good Question!   A WHOIS puts the registrant in China with the DNS servers in Russia!

As I mentioned earlier, the similarity of the scamminess of this thing is just like the Google Treasure Chest/ Google Money Tree / PWW scams of old.

The site is plastered with the logos of well known businesses to ad an air of authenticity to things (just as the original hook sites used The Guardian Newspaper and CBS in the same way) yet at the bottom of the page they disingenuously ad:

This site and the products and services offered on this site are not associated, affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by NBCNEWS, ABC, USA Today, CNN or Fox News, nor have they been reviewed tested or certified by NBCNEWS, ABC, USA Today, CNN or Fox News.

onlineincnow.com T&C Screenshot

onlineincnow.com T&C Screenshot

Despite all this, it is of course bollox set to deceive.  In fact, it now appears that it’s the well known negative option scam, used by Pacific Webworks (PWW) and Jesse Willms to good effect until they were found out.

Let’s see how this pans out, shall we?…..

Check out the T&C page from the tiny link in the page footer – screenshot on the right.

  • They say that the applicable law is the State of Florida.
  • You will become a “member” and the key phrases are here:

You must register as a “Member” with Online Income Now to access certain functions of the website. You must provide current, complete and accurate information about yourself (the “Registration Data”) when registering as a Member. You agree that such information is truthful and complete. You agree to maintain and keep your Registration Data current and to update your Registration Data as soon as it changes. You are responsible for maintaining the security of your password. Online Income Now is not liable for any loss that you suffer through the use of your password by others. You agree to notify Online Income Now immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or other breach of security known to you. You also, by becoming a Member, agree to report violations of these Terms and Conditions by others to Online Income Now.

For a limited time only, the cost of this product is $97.00 ( usual price $299.95 ) and every 32 days thereafter you will be billed the member’s only price of $9.95 for the monthly use.

MATERIALS PROVIDED TO Online Income Now OR POSTED AT ANY Online Income Now’s WEB SITE

Online Income Now does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Online Income Now (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Online Income Now Web Site or its associated services (collectively “Submissions”). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Online Income Now, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees, permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.

You’ll see that “Online Income Now” will:

  • make you a “member” (of what?)
  • and you will be regularly billed, (why?)
  • and that for anything you post, upload etc (wah?  whadya mean?  Where is this uploading?),  “Online Income Now” will take no responsibility for what you do!

…………….which is curious as you don’t know what you’ll be doing and they have invited you to do it in the first place!!!

Now Lets Click The Link!  Follow that Opportunity!

onlineincnow.com screen capture 2012-12-12-17-46-50

2 Spots Left!

Amazingly (sarcasm alert) there are two “spots” left in my area!  This is the page… http://onlineincnow.com/2/index2.php

Michelle Johnson is the “guru” who will tell me everything!  So what do I do?  I have two options:

  • Back out
  • Sign up

Let’s Try Backing Out, Shall We?

CannotBackoutFromOnlineIncNow2

Cannot Backout From OnlineIncNow 2

CannotBackoutFromOnlineIncNow

Cannot Backout From OnlineIncNow

Well of course, they won’t let me.  It takes two goes to get out and the first one completely takes over the browser!  Bad.  This is B.A.D.

Ah, well.  Finally escaped.

Let’s Try Clicking to the Signup Page, Shall We?

secure.onlineincnow.com Data Entry Screen

secure.onlineincnow.com Data Entry Screen

I decide on my name, “Jobless Jake” and a random phone number…. The website is now https://secure.onlineincnow.com/2/cc_97.php

What I see is bad, really bad, and any attempt by this pack of jokers at saying they don’t run a negative option scam is now revealed on this sign-up page!

The scam is now revealed for what it is – a negative option scam!        Read it carefully…..  They expressly say;

By enrolling, you will be charged a one-time fee of $97.00

In teeny-tiny letters, note!

But remember, right back buried in the T&C’s they say;

every 32 days thereafter you will be billed the member’s only price of $9.95 for the monthly use.

This is expressly against the FTC code and laws in most countries.  If any extra charges are to be levied for any service or goods, they should be expressly stated on the sign-up page where the customer first enters their financial details.

Gotcha! You Bastards!

Okay, I’ve Had Enough of This. I’m Off!

“Not so fast, young Jobless Jake”, say onlineincnow.com……!

CannotBackoutFromOnlineIncNow3

Cannot Backout From OnlineIncNow 3

They’ve an extra 20% off plus and extra bit of webpage-erese!  The screenshot says it all, though it wasn’t the end of it.  I had one more “Leave Page” option like the earlier one above.

Conclusion

Negative Options are banned by law in most countries.  If you get collared by one, you’ll have a job stopping the bastards taking money from your account for ages.  The only sure way to stop this once you’ve been sucked in is through….

  • Chargebacks.   Get your bank or card company to get a charge-back saying the terms of trade or purchase were hidden (as seen in my screenshot above).

So………………….

  • It’s a scam.
  • Stay away from it.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Posts:

Boundless Hypocrisy Over Kate’s Tits

Public Breast-beating Over Middleton Paparazzi Photos

You must understand that there is no news today.
Everything is celebrity, sport and royal in the UK.
Everyone has a media correspondent, a sports correspondent and a royal correspondent.
Reporters just report on the latest twitter feed.  No-one searches.

There are several aspects to this boob photos media blizzard.

  • There’s the mass media  almost to a man, fawning and groping at half truths.
  • There are many ordinary people wondering what’s going on.

So I’ll explain.                                  (As I see it, natch)

If you want the tit and bum shots, check at the end.  If you can’t wait, click here for the latest information on modified sweat glands.


Private Pictures, Public Place?

We now have several (mainly establishment types) people making exaggerated claims about the camera location.  Well, I’ve checked.

The photos were NOT taken “over a mile and a half away”, nor “well over a mile” away, nor “about a mile away”, nor “from a long way off, in private woods”, but about half a mile away.  The house is clearly visible, along with the windows, railings and garden stuff that appear in the photos on Google Maps Streetview.

I’ve chosen a point ~ 900m from the building as one of many good vantage points.  Go down now to see it.

If I used my hand-held camera taking a shot, I could see the whites of the eyes….  Yes really!  To demonstrate — here are two pictures that show the capability of my hand-held Panasonic Lumix, DMC-TZ30. 

Be careful when clicking as I’ve uploaded the shots at full resolution.  Once loaded, click the little green arrow to see the pictures in all their full-size glory – you will need to scroll both vertically and horizontally to find the yacht when on full-size.

They are hand-held, on a normal day, just like many of my recent shots from my recent French vacation.  I have many high-res scenic shots – I’ll have to check them through – who knows what I’ll find LOL.

No Zoom of Yacht - Can you see it?

No Zoom:  There’s a Yacht here – Can you see it?
Click to see just how really small it is.

20x Optical Zoom of Yacht

20x Optical Zoom of Yacht – Now can you see it?
Click and you’ll see a tanker in the background which I couldn’t see at all with the naked eye.
These two shots and more are visible at lower resolution here on Christine’s Beach Hut.

If someone was on the yacht, I could see them.  The boat is several miles offshore – nearly on the horizon actually!   So don’t let the Streetview shot below fool you – the house is a lot closer than it looks, even from the position I’ve chosen here.  It is only 900 metres away!

The house is dead centre in this link.   So it is a private house visible in public, much like me in my bedroom at night with the curtains open, okay?  My camera could have easily shown them doing anything. Easily.  Yet if I can be easily seen in my bedroom at night (i.e. clearly a private place as they keep repeating) I can get done for indecent exposure?  Right?

Hopefully, by seeing the capability of my own camera in conjunction with a normal Streetview of the area, you can now see how incongruous the claims that this is a private place actually are?

(p.s. pan left – it’s a lovely view!)

View Larger Map


But surely, 900m is a Long Way, isn’t it?

The firstworldwar.com website shows the standard issue British rifle  in WW1 as having guaranteed accuracy up to 600m.  This had no optical scope, just sights to be used by a normal man.  This means a kill shot at 600m, not just wounding, which shows the hand/eye/gun precision easily possible from anyone.  900 metres doesn’t look so far now, eh?
I also remember reading in “With a Machine Gun to Cambrai”, the author George Coppard saying that he picked off men at a similar range with just one or two rounds from his heavy machine gun.  This is despite the juddery nature of a heavy machine gun.

Again, 900 metres doesn’t look so far now, eh?


A Right to Privacy?

Well almost.

The royals have done very well over the last few years with Elizabeth II’s annus horribalis being mostly forgotten.  But let’s cast our minds back, shall we?

At that time, Diana and Fergie had caused much embarrassment with their girlie antics.  Charlie’s behaviour outside the public face of marital fidelity was well known and became ever-more detailed as time passed.  Phil the Greek was his usual self and scandal after scandal built up until the Castle burnt down.  So that was that – then.

Now we have Harry getting his kit off to the amusement of the world (in a €6000 a night hotel suite on a serviceman’s salary, note),  but being dismissed as “just letting off steam but must be more careful in future”.  And almost synchronously in time with Harry, it now appears, Kate & Wills feel so assured in their new-found popularity that they can do anything.  They certainly have the money for it.

But you know – they can’t.

If they want the esteemed position that they publicly project and behind which the combined forces of a fawning mass media enforce, then they must behave like it.  They cannot behave like normal holidaymakers and not expect a come-back no matter how “ordinary” Kate was supposed to have been.  You can’t be a “highness” and not expect attention?   They cannot say and do anything – for one thing, our constitution forbids it!

For another, the public will hate it and they need the public much more than we need them.

Why don’t they all just go away?  I won’t mind a bit.  Maybe this’ll be a turning point as the penny drops?

Privacy – What Privacy? – added 18/9/2012

The BBC has now leapt onto my referencing Google Streetview as an aid to showing relative privacy.  Of course, the devil-in-the-detail of this is not mentioned as I’ve done above.

BBC Copies Me - Chateau d'Autet

BBC Copies Me – Chateau d’Autet
Click image for BBC webpage

But that’s not my point here, is it?  Neither is my point that criminal proceedings are now starting.   My point is that for all of us….

Our Own Privacy is Zilch.

We are (or will be):

  • Subjected to full intimate  body scans at airports by faceless private “agencies”
  • Have our emails and web activity saved and analysed at leisure by faceless private “agencies”
  • Followed down every street, across every junction, inside every shop by CCTV “security” cameras run by faceless private “agencies”
  • Have our phones tapped by faceless private “agencies”
  • Have our shopping habits monitored by faceless private “businesses”
  • Have our finances, credit cards, driving licences all cross-referenced ad infinitum with our passports, our insurances, our taxes and more – by faceless private “agencies”

…and all of this is done to us while the few that own these “agencies” and “businesses” flaunt their wealth, hide their money, holiday in their tax havens, pay no taxes, are as secret and private as they choose to be, collude to manage information and the law, and then have the audacity to tell us how to behave.  Royalty is just the icing on top of a very rich cake…..

Charles & Camilla recently visited the notable tax haven of Jersey on the of 18th July for a day – it cost us £60,000 which we paid to Jersey!   The current SE Asia visit will cost on a par with the last Canadian tour which cost the Canadians alone nearly $2m in security.

  • Why do we let them get away with it?
  • What use are they?
  • Where is our privacy?
  • Where is our return on investment?  I see none.

Reverting to Type?

I’ve just been to a “do” at the Lily Langtry in Bournemouth.  This is the former house, bought by Edward VII as Prince of Wales for his actress mistress , Lily Langtry, the first face of Pears Soap..

And here’s where more hypocrisy creeps in as those reversions to type are conveniently forgotten.

As we all know, Charles, William’s dad, was knocking off Camilla his mistress both before and during his marriage to Diana, Wills’ mother.  Much like Edward VII & Langtry.  All of the UK knows this.  Now Camilla is supposed to be “accepted”, according to our fawning press.  A few grannies during the jubilee said she looked nice….well that’s it then!

Yet in France, for years the hobbled press kept secret the facts of former President Mitterrand’s mistress and his second family….a bit like secret polygamy, but in a Catholic country….?   Yet millions get their kit off in summer all over France?

Ye-es, as Paxman would say….

The French press hid also the fact that 200 Algerians were slaughtered and chucked in the Seine in 1961 by the police.  Now that’s privacy!   Obviously, this is sarcasm, but the royals are using this weird French cultural mish-mash  and press/law combo for their own advantage……. They think!  They should hope!

Clearly, French privacy is wholly different to the British version.  I can get done for undressing while forgetting to shut the curtains, but in France my privacy to do this is upheld?

Ye-es I hear Paxman saying again.


Media Guff and Fawn

So how can we accept protestations about “rightness” from these people when nothing is said about actions and happenings either then or now which go clearly against their public statements and media view of their lifestyle?

If the next likely Prince of Wales, Wills, turns out like other former Princes of Wales’, do we wash it away but say that sensationalistic reporting of public/private sunbathing “hotties” is wrong?

Because a “hottie” is what Kate is – she’s smart, apparently intelligent, elegant and (most importantly for the press), hot in a swimsuit  – as earlier photos revealed. (Remember the debate in all the papers about who was hotter, Kate or Pippa?  Of course you do, but you’d forgotten, hadn’t you?).

The success of the Daily Mail website hangs on her and other sensationalist voyeuristic shots of hundreds of “hotties” – here’s today’s Kate article; note the HUGE list down the right for articles, near half of which are for scantily clad women.    n.b. Checking the Mail On-line now shows a huge dearth of the usual skin revealing links.

The comments at the bottom, like I said, for the most part, go totally against the fawning theme of the piece.  One repeats the mile and a half lie so that mud has stuck again.

Indeed, for those with long memories, the video at the bottom harps on about Berlesconi’s ownership of the magazines and his publication of Diana’s car photos  “minutes after the accident”.

Now, maybe you remember that  following Diana’s crash, The Daily Mail solemnly pledged never to use paparazzi photos again?

Yet virtually all the links down the right of any Mail page are paparazzi pictures!  They have to be – they’ve sacked nearly everyone and the paper would fold without them.

Porn Baron Protests and Threatens to Close Magazine!

Yes.  It’s true.  Here’s the chronology.

  1. French magazine publishes photos taken during the summer. – 14 Sep – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19595221
  2. Irish paper does the same on Saturday. – 15 Sep – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19611407
  3. Italian magazine follows suit. – 17 Sep (today) – http://www.metro.co.uk/news/912183-topless-photos-of-duchess-published-in-italian-magazine-chi

It’s the Irish one that’s interesting!  It’s co-owned by Richard (Dirty) Desmond, who besides running UK TV’s Channel 5 and  publishing the Daily Express and tit paper The Daily Star, also runs porn channels Red Hot TV and Television X.  This growth was part financed by selling off his earlier publishing business which included such salubrious titles as Asian Babes and Readers Wives.  Notably, his celebrity magazines of OK! and New! are full of paparazzi photos…….  like, dah?

Now, to top it all, Desmond has said he wants the Irish paper closed….. – 17 Sep – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19621188     He must be after a knighthood or something because his history shows that prurient disapproval is not one of his strong-points.  It’s laughable.

The lady (and Desmond) doth protest too much, methinks. – Hamlet

Mass Media Princely Support, Public Split

Checking the comments following news reporting, I note a two-thirds majority telling Kate to keep her kit on if she doesn’t want to be rumbled.  This is despite the media claiming “over-whelming condemnation” or whatever.

It’s just simply not there.  Most of the public aren’t swallowing it.

Sooner or later there will be a backlash against the Royals if they keep this up.  Let well alone, it’d have blown over, much like Harry’s knob-tastic exposures.  But keeping it going, on and on, using their inherited and publicly provided wealth to pursue legal redress shows them seriously out of touch with the common mood, no matter how much the mass media are beefing them up.

The recent Hilsborough revelations show that media collusion is not a new thing.


Tits and Bums

A lot of people are behaving like bums or making a tit of themselves.

Those in “the establishment” are doing what those in the establishment normally do, which is to fawn and whine, pontificate and lie, all to keep ranks under the firm expectation of a gong at some point.

Then there are the “granny types” who all think she’s lovely and that the queen does a marvellous job.

There’s a few who see it as an attack on women, part of the objectification of women that’s happened for millenia and has now gone past saucy postcards, through Page 3 and porn mags (like Dirty Desmond’s) to full on ubiquitous internet porn and the gyrating phone girls on Freeview.  (All very valid, but not my gist)

Then there’s everyone else!

These are in two camps, I think;

  • those that don’t care either way but think the royals should think themselves lucky to get free holidays and trips and well looked after for the whole of their lives
  • those that just want to see the tits

Well, thanks to Kate & Wills’ explosive reaction, Kate’s bits are everywhere now.

For instance, here’s an enterprising guy (Oliver James) in Bath, UK, who’s got a domain up and running in record time!  See http://www.katemiddletontopless.co.uk/ for all the shots you’ll need.  A WHOIS puts the owner, Bee Digital Media Ltd,  in California.  But a company search places it here in the UK!  (better watch out Oliver…..perhaps….?)

BEE DIGITAL MEDIA LIMITED  (also has website bee-digital.co.uk)

Address removed since it’s been reported as changed, thanks Dan

Kate Middleton Topless Photos – Prince William and Kate Suing Publication

Kate Middleton Topless Photos – Prince William and Kate Suing Publication

Apart from that, there are loads of others.  One that caught my eye was a website called Divided States, a US political site.  They had a web-page here, http://www.dividedstates.com/kate-middleton-topless-photos-prince-william-and-kate-suing-publication/ which they’ve now pulled.  How coy.

Fortunately, the Google Cache shows us this – the full copy of their original posting – click here or the screenshot for the cache. (full image available on request)

  • So am I a tit or a bum?
  • Is Oliver above?
  • Is Berlesconi?  Berlesconi certainly has gripes with the UK following his latin faux-pas with the queen and others….?  Maybe he’s publishing just for revenge?

Conclusion

Wills, with his experience, has behaved like a knob.  He should have known better.  He slipped up, which is a possible explanation for the rapid response unit being thrown into action.  It was notably absent following the Harry incident.

But really, what everyone has totally forgotten, is the old adage:

Don’t throw stones when you live in a greenhouse.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. – Hamlet


Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Posts:

Assange Given Ecuadorian Asylum

Assange Given Ecuadorian Asylum – but what next?

Ecuador Assange Statement

Ecuador Assange Statement

This is the full text released by Ecuador for their reasons for Assange’s successful application.  See original text at the end.

But What is to Happen Now?

For now, Assange will have to stay in the Embassy.  Ecuador has asked for assurances about his safe passage, but as it stands, Hague and Cameron look the foolish chumps for what they are and won’t back down.

My guesses, are:

  1. That Assange will have a “mysterious” accident or similar and the nasty people in the world will breathe a sigh of relief – the embassy is no doubt bugged and all communications in and out religiously monitored.  His undetected escape looks unlikely.   Food, drink or water could be tampered with; holes could be drilled, hypodermics, germs or gas through the walls – who knows?   Like a Sherlock Holmes/locked room mystery,  try the poisoned ice dart through the keyhole?   See http://wramsite.com/forum/topics/breitbart-murder-by-heart-attack-the-cost-of-exposing-our-corrupt  and http://youtu.be/tzIw44w00ow CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun
  2. Assange will have to wait for a change in UK government.  Even so,
    • should he get a plane to Ecuador it can be shot down (remember the start of the Rwandan genocide?).
    • Should he get a boat, it can “disappear” in a storm…
    • Should he arrive safely he can be either murdered in secret or by a public presidential decree – remember Trotsky in Mexico, Allende in Chile, Che Guevara in Bolivia, Bin Laden in Pakistan, Rudolf Diesel on the English Channel?
  3. At  low level of current probability, those in charge of the USA and UK must fundamentally change their attitude towards freedom of information and accountability in public office.
    • The emails etc. which are at the real centre of Assange’s troubles show elected and non-elected officials behaving with scant regard to either their own laws, international laws or natural law.
    • It is for them to recognise this which will allow Assange back into normal society and thus face the law courts in Sweden.
    • As I said, a very, very low probability in the current climate since those in power, those in the emails, those on the tapes, those on the videos (like the machine gunning of innocent civilians), all of those need to recognise their culpability at worse, or at least that they’ve been shown to have acted like idiots and now have egg on their face.

Reminder:  The Initial Swedish Set-up

Forgetting the secret US indictment from over a year ago revealed in the Stratfor secrecy emails,  Sweden issued an arrest warrant, then dropped it, then “sort-of” reopened the investigation before barring Assange from Sweden?  I know.  You work it out.  It’s all detailed succinctly in this Telegraph page from June 2012.

Bizarrely though, this Foxnews rant/explanation from Glenn Beck (both not noted for their liberal stance…!) is even better at describing the events for which Assange was arrest warranted with in Sweden.  Pay close attention and you’ll see how what we are now being fed by Hague and the Obama administration is seriously at odds with this very precise investigation and summary made soon after the events in question…  http://youtu.be/npBvNJl6X9w

Ecuador’s Key Points

An English translation of the eleven key points, derived from The Dissenter, is here:

  1. Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally for his struggle for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
  2. That Mr. Assange shared with the global audience was privileged documentary information generated by various sources, and affected employees, countries and organizations;
  3. That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger their safety, integrity, and even his life;
  4. That, despite diplomatic efforts by Ecuador, countries which have required adequate safeguards to protect the safety and life of Mr. Assange, have refused to facilitate them;
  5. That is certain Ecuadorian authorities that it is possible the extradition of Mr. Assange to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
  6. That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, could be tried by special courts or military, and it is unlikely that is applied to cruel and degrading , and was sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would not respect their human rights;
  7. That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defence;
  8. Ecuador is convinced that they have undermined the procedural rights of Mr. Assange during the investigation;
  9. Ecuador has found that Mr. Assange is without protection and assistance to be received from the State which is a citizen;
  10. That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect the conventions and treaties, and give priority to domestic law school hierarchy, in violation of rules express universal application and,
  11. That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), would start a chain of events that would prevent the further protective measures taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.

What’s clear is that Ecuador is actually in a win-win situation here.

  • LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 22:  A protester wearin...

    LONDON, ENGLAND – JUNE 22: outside the Ecuadorian embassy.(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

    They recognised the sabre rattling of William Hague and David Cameron for what it is – that the UK cannot pick and choose which international treaties to abide by without acquiring the severest opprobrium of its own people and parliament.

    •  Of course, there’s the “sticks and stones” argument which the government may ignore by barging in, armed to the teeth, anyway, but also the long-lasting risks to the whole British diplomatic force who will be placed in the severest of danger.  This latter they cannot ignore.
    • The memory of the US embassy in Iran lies still, as does the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy.
    • How can the UK pontificate on others when behaving worse than a bull in a china shop?
  • Ecuador has its own internal problems and this crisis will strengthen the hand of its President Correa, but also its standing in the eyes of all the little countries of the world, especially those in South America, historically in the thrall of US might.
  • They point out that Assange is only wanted for questioning in Sweden and that Sweden has refused to question Assange on Ecuadorian “land”, the embassy.
  • They point out the red herring issue of Sweden in its entirety, in that several public and private threats have been made or allured to against Assange by the governments of Sweden, USA, UK and that his own country hasn’t offered any protection (of course, we all know that the Aussie government is following the UK & USA like sheep).
  • So Assange is in dire and immediate threat of kidnap, torture, summary trial by a military court, execution or imprisonment in inhumane conditions.  We all know the USA is guilty of this having been caught red handed several times as has the UK in its collusion.
  • So the UK & USA are not havens of justice, guardians of the rights of Man, protectors from dictatorships nor international peacemakers.
    • Their actions from Vietnam through to Chile, from Egypt through to Bahrain, from corrupt banking to multinational deforestation programs, from Stratfor and the secret surveillance society to drone bombings of civilians shows them to be pariah states on the same footing as Zimbabwe or North Korea, say.
    • Ecuador has rightly recognised all of this, and more.

As part of their statement, they stood on the following points  (derived from Google translate!):

a) The asylum, in all its forms, is a fundamental human right which creates obligations erga omnes, that is, “for all” states.

b) The diplomatic asylum, shelter (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, human rights are comparable, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, or any other similar criteria.

c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e., more favourable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.

d) The protection occurs when the state of asylum, refugee or required, or the protecting power, consider the risk or the fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution or political offences against him.

e) The State granting asylum seekers qualify causes, and in case of extradition, assess evidence.

f) No matter which of its forms or forms are present, the seeker is always the same cause and the same legal order, ie, political persecution, which causes it lawful, and safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of protected person, which is the lawful purpose.

g) The right to asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, ie the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, do not support a contrary agreement, being null treaties and provisions of international law they oppose.

h) In cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

i) Lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States can not legitimately claim to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.

j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum, extradition no, no delivery, no expulsion and transfer are not converging, as far as is necessary to improve the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense they are complementary international law of human rights, the right to asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.

k) The rights of protection of the human person are based on ethical principles and values universally accepted and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidarity, welfare, peaceful and humanitarian.

l) All States have the duty to promote the progressive development of international law of human rights through effective national and international action.

  • Here they kick down the quasi-judicious use by the UK of the 1987 Act regarding Embassies and the like in the UK.
  • They state the various rights of Man as defined in the United Nations and elsewhere (in case the UK has forgotten them!!!)
  • They point out the various ethical issues.

Ecuador has produced a clear and unambiguous statement, totally unlike the shadowy cloak and daggers stuff from Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

United pops up a lot in the state’s names.  They’re united, but only united in shame and devilishness corruption.  This is the reason for their stance – it’s nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering their own backs.

The truth is really out now.  Notably, bonkers Boris has been quiet on the issue so far – he never thought much of Cameron and I guess it’s even less now!

 


Ecuador Statement

Declaración del Gobierno de la República del Ecuador sobre la solicitud de asilo de Julian Assange

Read the rest of this entry >>

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

© 2007-2017 Strangely Perfect All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by me