Holow Earth Theory Atlantis 2012, the end of an era Politics Science Religions 911 Global Warming
About the News
Gulf War U.S. Whitehouse Guantanamo Bay Sudden Virusses and Medicines News and Updates
Extra Terrestrial
Galactic Federation Cropcircles S.E.T.I. Chemtrails First Contact NASA Abductions H.A.A.R.P. Echelon Dulcy Complex
Conspiracy Archives
Bohemian Grove Rothschild Illuminati Freemasonry Opus Dei N.E.S.A.R.A. New World Order Bilderberg Agencies
Spiritual Discussions
Lucide Dreaming Numerology Astrology The Secret
Link to us
Interesting Sites
Argusoog Conspiracy Planet Niburu Godlike Productions Conspiracy Archive Burgers Front Chemtrail Alert EQ Gen Maximinerals Achter Gesloten Deuren Het Echte Nieuws Het Verzet No More Lies Stap Uit De Matrix Want to Know Grenswetenschap Zero Point Aquarius Age Het Nieuwe Denken Wij worden Wakker Frontier GoTo 2012 Seriewoordenaar Willen wij Weten Ufo Wijzer Rense Ufo Plaza UfoDigest Xerum Chemtrail Alert Crystal Dimensions Lichtbol the Unhived Mind Freemasonry Watch Whipnet H2 on E2 Disclose TV American Underground
A Freeman-on-the-Land is a human being in a common law jurisdiction who lawfully revokes or denies consent to be represented and governed and exists completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions. Can you get a license? A Freeman-on-the-Land recognizes that a license is permission to engage in a lawful activity and realizing we are all equal, refuses to seek permission from anyone, preferring instead to rely on claims. Anything you can do with a license within the legislative framework you must be able to do lawfully without license outside that framework. You cannot get a license to engage in unlawful activities, and to ask permission to engage in a lawful activity is to be seen as a child by the one who grants that permission. Are you a child? What do you give up? You give up the opportunity to beg for permission and so called benefits. Now tell me this, if you do not know exactly what common law rights and freedoms you have given up for your societal benefits, how do you know what you received are in fact benefits? Would you buy a car and not knowing what you paid for it try claiming you got a great deal? What is the benefit to claiming Freeman-on-the-Land status? You can choose to be governed by a whole stack of statutes, regulations and by-laws that you are incapable of understanding or you can choose to be free of those. If you can’t see that benefit I can’t help you. Does that mean there is no law? No! You are still bound like all others to the law; you just do not have to give statutes the force of law. You may not harm another human being, damage another’s property or use fraud or mischief in your contracts. That’s the law. Words of others who would otherwise be your representative simply will not have the force of law over you. How does it work? It’s really very simple. You educate yourself a little bit so you understand what it is you are claiming. Then you create and serve a Notice of Understanding and Intent and a Claim of Right. This grants the affected parties an opportunity to dispute your claims, if they don’t the claim is cured and the rights, freedoms or powers thus claimed are secured and free to be exercised with total impunity. If anyone tries interfering with you after that, they are breaking the law and if you have a notice of fee schedule served, they will have to pay according to that schedule. .
'Intelligente mensen zijn vaker liberaal en atheïst'
AMSTERDAM – Mensen met een hoog IQ hebben relatief vaak liberale en atheïstische opvattingen. Dat blijkt uit een statistisch onderzoek van Britse wetenschappers.
Uitgegeven: 26 februari 2010 09:37 Laatst gewijzigd: 26 februari 2010 10:05
De onderzoekers van de London School of Economics and Political Science analyseerden gegevens van de National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, een onderzoek waarbij vele duizenden Amerikaanse scholieren werden gevolgd in hun tienerjaren.
De wetenschappers ontdekten een duidelijk verband tussen liberale en atheïstische opvattingen en hoge intelligentie.
Zo bleek dat ondervraagden die zichzelf omschreven als ‘zeer liberaal’ gemiddeld genomen een IQ van 106 punten hadden. Proefpersonen die zichzelf ‘ zeer behoudend’ vonden, hadden een gemiddeld IQ van 95.
Religieus
De wetenschappers stuitten op ongeveer hetzelfde patroon bij religieuze opvattingen. Mensen die aangaven dat ze ‘zeer religieus waren, hadden gemiddeld genomen een IQ van 97, terwijl ‘atheïstische’ proefpersonen een gemiddeld IQ van 103 hadden.
De resultaten van het onderzoek zijn gepubliceerd in het wetenschappelijk tijdschrift Social Psychology Quarterly.
Volgens hoofdonderzoeker Satoshi Kanazawa is het niet toevallig dat intelligente mensen vaak dezelfde denkbeelden koesteren.
Normen en waarden
“Algemene intelligentie, oftewel het vermogen om na te denken en te redeneren, stelde onze voorouders in staat om nieuwe evolutionaire problemen op te lossen waarvoor ze geen onmiddellijke oplossing hadden”, verklaart Kanazawa op de Amerikaanse nieuwssite Physorg.com.
“Als gevolg daarvan zijn intelligente mensen vaker in staat om nieuwe situaties te herkennen en begrijpen dan minder intelligente mensen”, aldus Kanazawa. “Sommige van die situaties hebben te maken met normen en waarden en levensstijlen.”
Commissie Davids
AMSTERDAM - De commissie-Davids produceerde een rapport van honderden pagina's. Daarin worden 49 conclusies getrokken.
In de eerste daarvan merkt de commissie op dat het beter zou zijn geweest als het onderzoek eerder had plaatsgevonden. Het kabinet hield een onafhankelijk onderzoek naar de besluitvorming rond de inval jarenlang tegen, maar zwichtte in januari 2009 voor druk van de Tweede Kamer.
Volgens de commissie werd het besluit voor de steun voor de invasie in korte tijd genomen, en verzamelde de regering daarna selectief informatie die bij dat standpunt aansloot.
De belangrijkste van de 49 conclusies op een rij:
Brainstormsessie
De basis voor het kabinetsstandpunt over de inval werd in augustus 2002 gelegd tijdens een korte 'brainstormsessie' van de net aangetreden minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Jaap de Hoop Scheffer met zijn ambtenaren op het departement.
Minister Korthals van Defensie werd daarbij niet betrokken, net als premier Balkenende. Die laatste heeft volgens de commissie "aanvankelijk weinig of geen leiding gegeven aan de debatten over de kwestie-Irak." Dat ging hij pas begin 2003 doen, maar toen lag het regeringsstandpunt al vast.
Geen mandaat
De resoluties van de VN Veiligheidsraad boden geen basis voor de inval in Irak. Volgens de commissie waren die - anders dan de regering zei - redelijkerwijs niet uit te leggen als een mandaat voor militair ingrijpen.
De vraag of een juridische basis bestond voor de inval werd volgens het onderzoek echter ondergeschikt gemaakt aan het regeringsstandpunt dat al in de zomer van 2002 tot stand was gekomen.
Inlichtingen
De regering heeft rapporten over wapeninspecties van de Verenigde Naties selectief geïnterpreteerd. Nuances in die rapporten werden door het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken niet weergegeven.
De Nederlandse inlichtingendiensten hebben niet of nauwelijks eigen informatie ingewonnen over het vermeende wapenarsenaal van Irak. De AIVD en de MIVD baseerden zich hoofdzakelijk op openbare bronnen en inlichtingenmateriaal van buitenlandse zusterdiensten.
Kritische analyse van die inlichtingeninformatie werd vanaf begin 2003 niet meer uitgevoerd. Daarvoor had de militaire inlichtingendienst MIVD nog vastgesteld dat de Iraakse mogelijkheden om massavernietigingswapens in te zetten beperkt waren.
Nuanceringen in rapporten van de beide inlichtingendiensten werden door de betrokken ministers niet overgenomen. "Uit de rapporten werden slechts die uitspraken gedestilleerd die pasten in het reeds ingenomen standpunt."
Tweede Kamer
De regering heeft de Tweede Kamer op een aantal punten onvolledig, en mogelijk onjuist geïnformeerd. In november 2002 heeft het kabinet het parlement niet goed op de hoogte gebracht van een Amerikaans verzoek om mee te werken aan de opbouw van de troepenmacht rond Irak.
Volgens de commissie is in de Tweede Kamer "geen noemenswaardig debat" gevoerd over de dreiging die uitging van de vermeende Iraakse massavernietingswapens.
Ook schetste de regering in de Tweede Kamer een grotere rol van de AIVD en de MIVD dan die daadwerkelijk hebben gespeeld in de informatievergaring, nadat kritische rapporten waren verschenen over de functioneren van buitenlandse inlichtingendiensten.
Geen militaire rol
De commissie zegt geen aanwijzingen te hebben gevonden dat Nederland een actieve militaire rol heeft gespeeld bij de inval of de voorbereiding daarvoor. Wel werd een Nederlands fregat ingezet voor escortediensten voor vaartuigen die wel bij de opbouw van de invasuiemacht betrokken waren. Dat gebeurde onder de vlag van de operatie Enduring Freedom, waar Nederland aan deelnam.
Usama bin Laden Says the Al-Qa'idah Group had Nothing to Do with the 11 September Attacks
The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan's people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given.
Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.
(November 20, 2009) More than 50 oil tankers are anchored off Britain -- pieces in a game in which the only winners are market speculators.
The losers are the millions of British motorists paying over the odds for their petrol and diesel.
After yesterday's report in the Daily Mail on how several so-called 'oil shark' tankers were moored near the Devon coast, dozens more vessels were revealed to be loitering off-shore.
Some are carrying aircraft fuel or fuel for homes. Others are empty, waiting to be restocked before setting off around the globe.
But according to industry experts, a significant number are 'oil sharks' -- tankers that have been cynically told to wait for crude prices to be driven up before they unload their cargo.
With values soaring on the international markets, fuel made from their oil is unlikely to appear on a petrol station forecourt any day soon.
Salam Daher (born 1967/6 is a Lebanese civil defense worker who was the target of accusations by bloggers in the aftermath of the Israeli airstrike on Qana on July 30, 2006, where widely-published photographs showed him removing dead children from the rubble of a house struck by an Israeli attack.
Daher was born in 1967 in the predominately Christian south Lebanese town of Marjayoun and began working as a civil defense volunteer at the age of 12. In 1986, during the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict and Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, he joined the civil defense service of the Lebanese interior ministry as an apprentice and worked his way up the ranks. His home town was at the centre of the 1982-2000 conflict, being the headquarters of the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army militia, and was repeatedly attacked by Palestinian militias during the civil war and subsequently by the Hezbollah militia during Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. He moved to the coastal city of Tyre in 1996, where the influence of Hezbollah is far weaker (the city is run by Hezbollah's secular rival Amal. By the time of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, he was working as the head of civil defense operations for Tyre and the surrounding region, including Qana.
Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, or Multiple Worlds Theory
Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics First published Wed Jun 3, 1998; substantive revision Thu Sep 11, 2008
Hugh Everett III's relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to solve the quantum measurement problem by dropping the collapse dynamics from the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics. Everett then wanted to recapture the predictions of the standard collapse theory by explaining why observers nevertheless get determinate measurement records (or at least appear to do so) and by accounting for quantum probabilities. It is, however, unclear precisely how this was supposed to work. There have been several attempts to reconstruct Everett's no-collapse theory in order to account for determinate measurement records and quantum probabilities. These attempts have led to such formulations of quantum mechanics as the many-worlds, many-minds, many-histories, relative-fact, and bare theories. Each of these captures at least part of what Everett claimed for his theory, but each also encounters problems.
December 21, 2012 The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, notably used by the pre-Columbian Maya civilization among others, completes a "great cycle" of thirteen b'ak'tuns (periods of 144,000 days each) since the mythical creation date of the calendar's current era. On this day the Long Count date at creation—written 13.0.0.0.0 in modern notation, equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar—is repeated for the first time in a span of a little over 5,125 solar years. The completion of this cycle and the repetition of the previous Creation's Long Count ending date have been central to the 2012 phenomenon. Academic researchers have not concluded that the ancient Maya themselves attached similar significance to this point in time.
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED: THE LATEST UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT "TERRORIST" PATSY
Uhhh, Wait a minute, I thought Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the events of 9/11? 9/11, EIGHT YEARS LATER: THE GOVERNMENT LIE CONTINUES. Now we have photos of another “Mastermind” of 9/11. I guess it doesn’t matter, as long as the media shows an Arabic type with a turban, they figure the American public will buy their Arab hate campaign. The above photo’s show Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the Guantanamo Bay prison which have spread quickly on Web sites that experts say “al Qaeda” uses to reach supporters. The pictures of the man who says he masterminded the 9/11 attacks were taken by the Red Cross in July and sent to his family. They are the first known photos of Mohammed since he was captured in Pakistan six years ago. The picture (ABOVE) on the left shows Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his 2003 arrest. The picture on the right shows what he looks like now in Guantanamo in 2009. AP..Hummm, Looks like Guantanamo Bay actually benefitted him. On the left he looks down and out and on drugs after his “capture” but on the right, apparently, while he was being detained they let him grow a nice beard and dress himself up in is honorary Arab “garb” to take a picture——How nice of the guards at Guantanamo Bay. But they figured it was important to manipulate the people with another Arab with a turban picture…Find and Arab with a Turban, any arab will do….. I guess everyday is Halloween for the U.S. government. By the way, is it my imagination, or do these pictures have inconsistencies? Does the “Arab” on the left pluck his eyebrows when compared to his picture on the right? Maybe it’s just me….or maybe that’s standard practice in Guantanamo Bay for the captors to pluck the eyebrows of prisoners who have been tortured and captured…...But maybe that’s just me….
The term ‘person’ deserves special attention. It derives from the Latin ‘persona,’ an actor’s mask, used in Greek and Roman times for two purposes…to identify the stage character—for one actor often played more than one role, so he would simply switch masks—and to project his voice by means of a megaphone-shaped mouth…per sona, by sound. Hence, our word ‘personality,’ that about ourselves which we project to others. In some, more than others, a presentation that indeed masks our true character or nature. In the Middle Ages it came to be used as synonymous with ‘homo,’ man or individual. This was not the case in ancient (and modern) Roman law. As one legal historian put it:
jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. (34 Austins Jur., 363. Emphasis added.)
In the 15th century, "person came to be used in legal terminology for one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by the law as the subject of rights and duties." (Merriam-Webster’s New Book of Word Histories, 1991. Emphasis added.) Note here that it is only the ‘human being’ in his person, as a subject of rights and duties. As Ortolan says, in his History of the Roman Law:
The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subject of rights.
We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons….because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights….
We shall therefore have to discriminate between, and to study, two classes of person: physical or natural persons, for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence…; that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.
In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations—for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time. (Emphasis added.)
The Internal Revenue Code is Roman or civil law, together with its sibling, maritime or admiralty law. Thus, as I discuss below, the Supreme Court clearly states that all income taxes are on corporations, as set forth in the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, not on people. That is why all 48 titles always speak of persons, never people, human beings, or men or women; a fiction can only deal with a fiction.
This was made clear even before the Constitution, in The Federalist Papers, No. 15: Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. (Emphasis added.) Let me put a little flesh on these bones. The Supreme Court stated in Edwards v. Cuba RR Co., 268 US 628 that:
…the meaning of ‘income’ as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Law of 1909 is not to be distinguished from the meaning of the same word as used in the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 US 509. (Emphasis added.)
However, as pointed out by Kenneth Weiland, it is of interest to note, also, a Federal Claims Court case, Maryland Casualty Co. v. U.S.:
By the act of August 5, 1909, a special excise tax was imposed upon the privilege of carrying on business by corporations. It was in reality a license to carry on business….The Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, should be considered as a statutory construction of the act of August 5, 1909, in so far as it related to the basis of taxation. (December Term, 1916-17 [52 C. Cls.] Emphasis added. This will take on further meaning toward the end of this paper.)
Be it noted that in the California Penal Code ‘person’ is clearly distinguished from ‘Citizen.’ Penal Code § 228 states: "Any citizen of this state who shall fight a duel…" While at § 232 it states: "Any person of this state who fights a duel…" (Emphasis added.)
"In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign…[and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979), quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941).
‘Individual’
The term of art ‘individual’ is also frequently employed in the codes. Which is even more sneaky, because most people believe this word to be, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with ‘a human being’…what the law refers to as a ‘natural person.’ Roman law hardly referred to such a physical being, except the rare usage of singularis persona—which, however, still employs ‘persona,’ thereby preserving a juridical nexus, inapplicable to a sentient man (homo). An abstract, fictitious ‘person’ is needed. Recall Judge Bork, on page 11, above, saying that 90% of those in prison were there because they consented to the process? You consent when you agree to be subject to a statute dealing with persons—which we have seen to be fictional corporate constructs or entities. The code—any of the 48 titles—only applies to a human being at the point s/he agrees to take on the character, status, persona of an artificial juristic persona. Always remember that when the code says "…any person," it means "any person in the jurisdiction of this code." One obligates oneself to the civil code by an act of assumpsit…i.e., volunteering to be that ‘person.’ (Assumpsit: "A promise or engagement by which one person assumes or undertakes to do some act or pay something to another." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Recall the Chisholm case, above.) You will never see in any code, State or federal, the word ‘man’ or ‘woman’…or ‘people’—at least I don’t recall having done so—only the juristic, statutory ‘person.’
People are understandably confused about on what I believe to be the correct signification of a particular class of persons, namely, a ‘natural person.’ It is almost always used loosely to refer to the physical, sentient human being. Indeed, in statutory law this is the term of choice for a living man—but always in a qualified sense. At 26 CFR 1.6049-4(f) Definitions we read:
The term natural person means any individual, but shall not include a partnership (whether or not composed entirely of individuals), a trust, or an estate. (Emphasis added.)
Notice carefully how they see it as both possible and necessary to qualify ‘individual.’ If this term stood for a living man, it would be pointless and ridiculous to say that it could not be a trust or an estate! They wouldn’t say that a man shall not include an estate.
So then, we see that ‘person,’ ‘natural person,’ and ‘individual’ are all fictitious legal creations. And, if you acquiesce to being any of them, in a legal setting, you thereby agree that the code addresses and applies to you.
This is why some have an aversion to referring to their appearance in court as being ‘in propria persona’…which some do to avoid pleading pro se, ‘for oneself,’ when appearing without an attorney. They don’t want to represent themselves, but be themselves. And, since ‘in propria persona’ means ‘in one’s own proper person,’ it would seem to overcome this objection. Be this as it may—and I am aware of many arguments pro and con—the court still refers to your appearance as being pro se. Personally, if I found myself in that situation, I would appear in rerum natura, ‘in the realm of actuality; in existence,’ (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition) the opposite of being a fictitious person.
We should look, too, at the very first term in the general definition chapter for the entire IRC: Section 7701(a)(1)—and well they should begin there, for all statutory law rests on the foundation of this juristic fabrication.
Person. The term ‘person’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.
Therefore, since we now know that, in law, ‘person’ can not be anything but a fictitious juridical creation, it follows ineluctably that if ‘individual’ is said to mean the exact same thing, then it must also refer to the same type of unnatural and artificial entity as ‘person.’
This is pretty well nailed down by a couple of cites from the CFR. At 5 CFR 582.101(4) we read:
Persons may include an individual, partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, private organization or other legal entity, and includes the plural of that term; person may include any of the entities that may issue legal process as set forth in… (Emphasis added.)
In 7 CFR 400.303(m) we find:
Person means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, estate, trust, or other legal entity, and whenever applicable, a State or a political subdivision, or agency of a State. (Emphasis added.)
Here it is in the regulations, an individual is a ‘legal entity,’ not a (wo)man, a sentient human being.
So, it makes perfect sense that 5 USC 552a(a)(2) should hold that "the term ‘individual’ means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (3)…" (Emphasis added.) For a ‘citizen’ is certainly a juristic ‘person.’
A discussion of ‘person,’ however, would not be complete without reference to 26 USC 7343 Definition of term "person." This is at the very end of Chapter 75 Crimes, Other Offenses and Forfeitures, which includes such goodies as § 7203 Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, which begins: "Any person required under this title to pay…" (Emphasis added.)
Section 7343 reads in its entirety:
The term ‘person’ as used in this chapter includes [is restricted to] an officer or employee of a corporation [such as the U.S. or some company incorporated in the federal zone], or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect to which the violation occurs.
For starters, Section 7203 is a penalty section and makes no attempt to establish any liability. Plus, the implementing regulations are in Title 27 BATF…meaning that it is exclusively for their use, with excise taxes! It has nothing to do with the IRS. Leaving all that aside, do you believe that you could be charged as being the person described above? Do you work for the federal government or a domestic (U.S., not State) corporation?
21-12-2012
Counter
This page today ... total: 0 unique: 0
This page ever ... total: 28 unique: 17
Site ... total: 3692 unique: 1152
Online
Guests: 1, Members: 0 ...
most ever online: 9 (Members: 0, Guests: 9) on 24 Jan : 21:09
The Untold Story of Jesus and His Twin Brother, Judas Khrestus...
Mystery and intrigue surround the church web of deceit, corruption, murder and debauchery. In THE BIBLE FRAUD, you will find the truth about Rabbi Jesus and his twin brother, their birth, marriages and deaths, as well as the bloodlines that have resulted from events of that time.
More Books
Een eeuwenoude tekst. Een bijzondere historische vrouw. En een opmerkelijk liefdesverhaal. Eeuwenlang bleef het verborgen. Maar de tijd voor de waarheid is aangebroken…
Inspecteur Alan Banks en zijn collega Annie Cabbot moeten een gerelateerde moord en zelfmoord oplossen in het plaatsje Eastvale: die van de rijke voormalig ambtenaar op leeftijd Laurence Silbert en de jonge, getalenteerde decorontwerper Mark Hardcastle. De twee mannen hadden sinds kort een ogenschijnlijk goede liefdesrelatie. Wat dreef hen de dood in? Wanneer blijkt dat Silbert in dienst was van de Britse geheime dienst MI6 wordt Banks van de zaak gehaald. MI6 is bang dat Banks te veel geheime zaken oprakelt en zet hem onder druk. Zijn nieuwe vriendin Sophia blijkt te worden achtervolgd en er wordt ingebroken in haar huis. Banks komt terecht in een beklemmend machtsspel van wantrouwen, afgunst, intimidatie en spionage.
Wij weten wie je bent, waar je woont en wat je gedaan hebt... Nick Horrigan denkt na zeventien jaar eindelijk zijn traumatische verleden achter zich te kunnen laten. Verdreven na de dood van zijn stiefvader Frank hij heeft eindelijk een goede baan, een keurig appartement in Los Angeles en een rustig leven. Totdat een SWAT-team letterlijk bij hem binnenvalt. Hij wordt gedwongen te onderhandelen met een terrorist die dreigt een kerncentrale op te blazen tenzij hij Nick te spreken krijgt. De man blijkt geen terrorist te zijn, maar heeft gevoelige informatie over de dramatische dood van Frank. Vanaf dat moment wordt Nick in een wereld van intriges, onderduikadressen, achtervolgingen en politieke spelletjes van presidentskandidaten getrokken. Zijn angst voor zijn trauma keert in alle hevigheid terug. Alles wat hij daarover wilde vergeten, is niets vergeleken bij wat hij komt te weten en waarvoor hij moet vluchten. Nick weet niet meer wie hij kan vertrouwen, maar wel dat het tijd is om zijn stiefvader te wreken.
Eugene Wren, een welgestelde kunsthandelaar van vijftig jaar, staat op het punt om met de mooie arts Ella te trouwen. Hij heeft het roken en drinken inmiddels onder controle, maar krijgt er een onschuldige verslaving voor terug die nog grote gevolgen zal hebben. Op een dag vindt hij een envelop met geld, een behoorlijk bedrag. Hij besluit niet naar de politie te gaan, maar een briefje met de vondst en zijn telefoonnummer op een lantaarnpaal op te hangen. Dit briefje zorgt ervoor dat de levens van verschillende mensen, met al hun obsessies, dromen en problemen bij elkaar komen: de kruimeldief Lance die gechanteerd wordt en het geld goed kan gebruiken, zijn ex-vriendin Gemma, en de depressieve eigenaar van het geld, Joel, die patiënt wordt van Ella. Al deze mensen verlangen eigenlijk alleen maar eerlijkheid, maar moeten daarvoor wel eerst hun donkere kant onder ogen zien.
Marieke Stockmann is een talentvol onderzoeker. Ze werkt aan een spectaculair promotieonderzoek, dat veel opzien zal baren in de medische wereld. Op een congres in Texas, waar ze haar onderzoek voor het eerst presenteert, beleeft ze een gepassioneerde nacht met Jay, een jonge Amerikaanse collega. Juist als ze denkt dat ze de liefde van haar leven gevonden heeft, slaat het noodlot toe: haar onderzoeksgegevens blijken gestolen van haar computer. Als Marieke samen met haar promotor Jolijn Sinnema de zaak onderzoekt, belanden ze in een wespennest van fraude, farmaceutische grootmachten en concurrerende onderzoeksgroepen.
John Dillinger, Bonnie en Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, Baby Face Nelson en Ma Barker: in begin jaren dertig stonden in de Verenigde Staten de kranten bol met verhalen over deze criminelen, en staat de periode 1931-1935 bekend als het ‘Public Enemy-tijdperk’. Het leidde tot de oprichting van de FBI, die alles in het werk stelde om John Dillinger en Co te arresteren.
John Dillinger was een charismatische bankovervaller, en niet te stoppen voor de FBI: hij ontsnapte meerdere malen uit de gevangenis en was geliefd bij het grote publiek, dat geen medelijden had met diezelfde banken die het volk in de Grote Depressie hadden gestort door hun wanbeleid. De bende van Dillinger omvatte onder meer de sociopaat Baby Face Nelson en was niet alleen geliefd bij het volk maar trok ook de aandacht van een eenvoudig opsporingsbureau: de FBI.
Robert Langdon wordt onder valse voorwendselen naar Washington gelokt: het epicentrum van de wereldmacht en de stad met de grootste verborgen geheimen uit de geschiedenis. Na aankomst in het Capitool krijgt hij een telefoontje. Peter Solomon, vooraanstaand lid van de vrijmetselarij, filantroop en goede vriend van Langdon, is ontvoerd en verkeert in levensgevaar. Solomons kidnapper wil maar één ding: dat Langdon de codes van het mysterieuze genootschap ontcijfert en de legendarische macht die daardoor vrijkomt aan de kidnapper overdraagt.
Langdon kan niet anders dan het spel meespelen. Hij krijgt hulp van Katherine, Solomons zus, een vooraanstaand wetenschapper die de kracht van het menselijk denken bestudeert. Lukt het hen om op hun duizelingwekkende tocht de geheimen van Washington te ontraadselen? Want wat hadden de idealen van de geestelijke vaders van de Verenigde Staten gemeen met de denkbeelden van de vrijmetselarij? En kan die kennis het leven van Solomon en het lot van de wereld redden?
Theme adapted and customized for NEMESIS@THEFINALUNDERSTANDINGNEWSROOM by HELLRAISER@TEAMNEMESISONLINE
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
