Fabricated DNA evidence/Shadow Counsel

GHW Bush at Monsanto 1987
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCer5NmEw5U


MUST SEE DOCUMENTARY: "Food Inc." (monsanto gm patent seeds pesticides factory soy corn wheat)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh8c9OUti4c

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
Excerpt:

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

By ANDREW POLLACK

Published: August 17, 2009

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

Skip to next paragraph

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129467
Excerpt:

Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Feb;4(2):95-103. Epub 2009 Jul 16.

Authentication of forensic DNA samples.

Frumkin D, Wasserstrom A, Davidson A, Grafit A.

Source

Nucleix Ltd., Tel Aviv 69710, Israel. dan@nucleix.com

Abstract

Over the past twenty years, DNA analysis has revolutionized forensic science, and has become a dominant tool in law enforcement. Today, DNA evidence is key to the conviction or exoneration of suspects of various types of crime, from theft to rape and murder. However, the disturbing possibility that DNA evidence can be faked has been overlooked. It turns out that standard molecular biology techniques such as PCR, molecular cloning, and recently developed whole genome amplification (WGA), enable anyone with basic equipment and know-how to produce practically unlimited amounts of in vitro synthesized (artificial) DNA with any desired genetic profile. This artificial DNA can then be applied to surfaces of objects or incorporated into genuine human tissues and planted in crime scenes. Here we show that the current forensic procedure fails to distinguish between such samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces with artificial DNA, and corresponding samples with in vivo generated (natural) DNA. Furthermore, genotyping of both artificial and natural samples with Profiler Plus((R)) yielded full profiles with no anomalies. In order to effectively deal with this problem, we developed an authentication assay, which distinguishes between natural and artificial DNA based on methylation analysis of a set of genomic loci: in natural DNA, some loci are methylated and others are unmethylated, while in artificial DNA all loci are unmethylated. The assay was tested on natural and artificial samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces, with complete success. Adopting an authentication assay for casework samples as part of the forensic procedure is necessary for maintaining the high credibility of DNA evidence in the judiciary system.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7950949/scientists_in_israel_able_to_create.html
Excerpt:
The company making the claims is Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv Israel. Its founder, Dr. Dan Frumkin is the lead author of a scientific paper which was published by the journal Forensic Science International in the "Genetics" category. Why would a bio-tech company call attention to its unique ability to make fake DNA? Simple. They've developed a test that identifies the bogus DNA and plan to market it to forensics labs across the globe. But, if the fake DNA is indistinguishable from the real thing how then does the test work?
This whole scenario reminds me of the computer anti-virus market. In the same way that anti-virus software companies have been found creating the very viruses they claim to protect against, is this company creating both the danger and the protection against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_counsel
Excerpt:
Shadow counsel or a Shadow lawyer is a term used in law to mean an appointed, duplicate, lawyer as an auxiliary or alternate, should the original lawyer (or legal team) fail in some way.
Shadow Counsel is a term used by conspiracy theorists to mean the secret police or any sort of hidden persons with power.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/may2008/ca20080529_986759_page_3.htm
Excerpt:
What role should separate counsel play? You can hire counsel to represent you for all purposes, including appearing in court. Alternatively, you can hire "shadow counsel," who will not make their presence known to the outside world, but will monitor the proceedings, advise you behind the scenes, and offer input to company counsel who will continue to represent you publicly. Directors sometimes retain shadow counsel early in the case, then decide to have them appear publicly at a later stage. In either role, the same attorney may effectively represent more than one similarly situated directors.

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
Excerpts:
1)  The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations:
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
2) or The United States. It didn't matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency  in 1996, the  results would have been the same (except maybe for Zipper Gate ).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89927.html
Excerpt:
June 18, 2011

The Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 18, 2011 09:48 PM

A reader sends along this link, and notes:

Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of "freedom." Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the "Negro agitatuhs" and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative "logic" at its best.