Comments on: How Many is Too Many? A Question for John P. Moore, et al.

By: Andy Lindsay

Andy Lindsay — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:41:02 +0000

Well i just read it , what a lotta crap.
Everything is geared so that the HIV=AIDS establishment NEVER LOSES AND NEVER HAS TO ANSWER TO ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES.

However , statutes only have the force of law by the consent of the governed. Statute law is the policies/rules , of a corporation. Full stop !

They only exist in commerce , which says it all really.

By: Andy Lindsay

Andy Lindsay — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:28:30 +0000

nope , i found it !

By: Andy Lindsay

Andy Lindsay — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:27:20 +0000

Well thats interesting , i cant find http://www.aidslex.org/site_documents/CR-0002E.pdf,

Think theyr hiding the fact it could be challenged ?

By: Gene

Gene — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:45:19 +0000

Yeah great news Norman B, so what does the FLORIDA STATUTE say.

You know, don’t just be a pain in the ass, let’s move the discussion forward.

:o)

By: Norman B.

Norman B. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:42:24 +0000

Apparently, Gene was not aware of the Florida case of Eneydi Torres at the time he posted his Jan. 26 comments. Ms. Torres had been facing a felony rap and a 15-year prison sentence for exposing four sex partners to AIDS even though she knew she was HIV+. Her attorney, G. Baron Coleman, mounted an aggressive defense, moving the court to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the legal disclaimers of accuracy that accompany each test kit creates reasonable doubt that she was in fact infected with a fatal virus. Mr. Coleman also announced his intent to put on the witness stand such notable scientists as Robert Gallo, John Moore and Nancy Padian to describe under oath how HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS and how this virus is sexually transmitted from female to male. With their case evaporating, prosecutors worked out a face-saving plea deal in which Ms. Torres pleaded guilty to the equivalent of a traffic violation. Apparently, dissident defenses can work in court if they emphasize the reasonable doubt that must be overcome to obtain a conviction. Just ask G. Baron Coleman.

By: Gene Semon

Gene Semon — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:15:20 +0000

Liam,

This is another part of the Big Lie that so-called HIV science represents.

Your courageous defense of the truth regarding who REALLY deserves to be prosecuted for criminal assaults is an inspiration to move activism forward.

On each and every one of those helpless children, a far worse crime was committed than “transmitting HIV” by sexual intercourse.

Should the destructive HIV meme, which so profoundly dehumanizes otherwise “caring institutions” at least be “put in its place”, if it’s “negation” is not feasible?

BTW, it’s hard to see how a reasonable proposition reflexively becomes a crackpot idea among some dissidents. To me, negation of HIV’s existence as a singular destroyer of the entire network of immune cells, with all their functional redundancies, meets the test of “critical rationalists”. Some dissidents apparently just want to vomit out “frames” out of synch with “talking point speech”.

But I will look for “middle grounds” anyway.

There’s a legal “NOTE”, by JB McArthur with his bottom line – not every “strain” of “HIV” causes the “profound destruction of the immune system”.

Maybe this “HIV believing” lawyer has something to say. Maybe his “NOTE” can help dissidents with all the “vexing questions”.

It’s from, of all places, Cornell; their Law Journal NOTE (2009) at
http://www.aidslex.org/site_documents/CR-0002E.pdf,
that argues for repeal of HIV Criminalization Statutes.

So activism should reach the level of overturning HIV specific criminalization statutes, which MISDIRECT* the judicial system. In many states, the prosecution of so-called HIVAb+ people does not even require proof of harm to the pozzes’ partner. They can be put in prison for many years just for having sex; i.e. the behaviour itself is declared criminal by these awful statutes.

Because the statutes are specific to HIV, no other agent of STD’s has this unique “monster status”, where the party who has sexual intercourse with an HIV Poz doesn’t even have to be documented as infected.

McArthur has recommendations.

“The traditional criminal law provides the best basis for criminalizing behaviours that lead to transmission of HIV”.

“Assult is the best system for criminalizing HIV exposure”.

Thus, our author at least recognizes “plurality”, that all HIV strains are not alike. Far from perfect, of course, but his reasoning leads to “if the virus no longer leads inevitably to death, then requiring proof of intent to kill, as attempted murder does, is unnecessary. Assault would be a sufficient charge for such a crime.”

Also, it seems to me that specific state HIV Crminalization Statutes preclude ANY kind of “dissident defense”. (See Claus Jensen on “ridiculous strategic/PR/Legal debate” at http://www.tig.org.za/Jensen_on_Crowe‘s_strategic_genius.htm
Cutting to the chase – we have a proposed common ground for lobbying government with SOME believers in HIV’s existence.

Regards,
Gene

*in the sense of an illusionist’s sleight of hand