__'Critics of transhumanism which include religious leaders, academics and conservatives believe that this shouldn't be allowed to happen ever'
WHO IS CULPABLE FOR ILLEGALLY IMPLANTED DEVICES THAT GET HACKED.
HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS as BARBER SURGEONS work for INSTITUTIONS who have leaders pushing these medical technology KNOWING they are HARMFUL---DEADLY---and that they can be HACKED. I am a luddite with technology and I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT.
We spent a YEAR describing why this assault on MY BODY AND BRAIN was CRIMINAL AND HARMFUL giving NO BENEFIT----TO ME. Global banking 1% say this technology gives BENEFIT-----but they are looking at benefit for .0014 of global 1%----NOT SOCIETAL BENEFIT.
TRANSHUMANISTS want people to believe that only conservatives---religious nuts-----are against this. HUMAN EVOLUTION HAS GIVEN THE HUMAN BRAIN THE CAPACITY OF MORALS AND ETHICS AND SOCIAL SOCIETY------
TRANSHUMANISM KILLS ALL OF THIS.
In a lawsuit there are multiple levels of criminal culpability ----NOSY NEIGHBORS are base criminals-----knowing what they are doing is CRIMINAL ILLEGAL----there are no laws allowing such an attack on people's privacy and body.
HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS as BARBER SURGEONS----KNOW these devices are the root of CANCERS---of ORGAN FAILURES-----of LYMPHATIC/NERVE DISEASE VECTORS-----so, there is no IMMUNITY OR LICENCE TO KILL given to our US doctors.
INSTITUTIONAL BOARDS KNOW this medical technology will NEVER WORK TO HELP the health of people----it is only about control of BODY AND MIND.
This is only ONE aspect of any lawsuit against these BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS. HACKING BY WHOM?
The answer is for these institutions having IMPLANTED ----to TURN THE IMPLANT OFF----make them inoperable so NO HACKING occurs.
Hacking Human 101: Pros And Cons of Transhumanism
06 December 2018 15:10, UTC
By Amardeep Singh
In my previous article, I explored the ramifications and applications of AI implementation in the medical and healthcare industries . We discussed the global impact there might be upon the way healthcare is administered and the ever-evolving role of doctors and other medical personnel. This leads us to consider a slightly more controversial topic that major healthcare systems around the world have not yet grappled with, principally the transhumanism movement. The importance of the concept, the ways it will change humanity, along with the ethical, moral and legal hurdles it is very much an academic debate at the moment – but it’s something I think should involve everyone around the world regardless of their stance. This is because Transhumanism has been viewed by many as the synthetic form of evolution to help humanity and indeed the planet survive many of the existential risks, we face in the coming decades such as climate change, extinction of important species, an increasingly dependent elderly population and scarcity of resources.
What is the current stance on transhumanism
Generally speaking, transhumanism is about the way in which the human race can become better by integrating with technologies. However, this remains a highly dynamic and puzzling area which is largely undefined. On that note let's start with a definition – with many arguing that it should be viewed as a movement that “advocates for the transformation of the human condition” by means of enhancement via the adoption of sophisticated but safe technologies which in effect improve our lives. Some transhumanists argue that this will greatly increase the bandwith human intellect and resislience to cope with the pressures our planet is under, whilst other simply want to improve the human condition by enabling a better, longer quality of life with regards to the health of our person and in a wider context society at large.
For now, (biohackers who are implementing their own solution as we speak may disagree with me) it is largely an academic or philosophical debate. Critics of transhumanism which include religious leaders, academics and conservatives believe that this shouldn't be allowed to happen ever. I would like to consider myself as part of the democratic transhumanism movement, those who think science should rule above all other considerations if it improves the lives of people around the world and doesn’t create further inequality. There is a far more radical wing , often referred to Biohackers and Bio-anarchists — a group within the transhumanists spectrum who believe we should be implementing the hybridisation of human and machine technologies today. This group often experiment outside the jurisdiction of legal or ethical controls which often gets many people worried. So what are the hurdles and considerations that humanity faces in this intriguing field?
The biggest problem today is informed consent — the process by which to allow somebody to upgrade their own body in a well understood manner. It’s similar to the way adults are allowed to have tattoos, piercings, etc. When you're talking about a data receiving device inside ahuman being, the barrier now is that nobody has figured out who actually owns the data and how will it be used – the recipient, the device manufacturer or the software developer? In my opinion, we are a long, long away from actually implants and similar mechanisms of transhumanism becoming regulated. But what we cannot afford is another “wild west” that we saw with the crypto bubble in 2018 – because after all we are dealing with human lives here not cash being invested in failing ICOs.
Just attempting to answer the simple questions is very hard indeed. Who owns the intellectual property? Who owns the data and what will be done with that data? It is just the similar problem to GAFA cases right now — nobody is saying to Facebook and to Google that "you hold people's data, that data belongs to the people, it shouldn't belong to a corporation." Given the number of scandals we have seen when our personal information is stored on external machines – it is little wonder that medical regulators feel reluctant to stick their necks out in this field. Meanwhile, the activists, biohackers and pioneers are circumventing “the big state” or “corporate control” by devising their own solutions. Many say that if they can find a way where¶
the actual value of that data belongs to a human being who has an implant, that would be a huge step forward for transhumanism movement. So they continue to devise all manner of implants or bionic devices themselves – outside of the well-controlled and regulated environments academic research and scientific laboratories bring.
A rational approach for a better future for all?
In 1950’s, J.B.S. HALDANE and Julian HUXLEY, two famous academics in this field, came up with the argument that one must allow the natural progression of adoption of such technologies. But since, this statement did not become a guideline at all – people seem to have drifted away from the organised development of what they meant and taken their interpretations forwards. On the thematic transhumanist websites, there are examples where the enthusiasts feel that they may be a bridge between what is legally possible and what is illegal, taking development into their own hands - that movement is called the biohacking. Right now the internet has seen a proliferation of “biopunk” level forums— being performed by people who are not medical practitioners in unregulated environment and becoming pioneers “in their bedroom” by themselves. There is nothing on a public sector level in major economies where such behaviour is deemed legal. The area is grey and based on sheer enthusiasm alone – I think now is the time to bring these pioneers closer to the academic and healthcare practitioners who can propel development forwards.
If you like me have been in heated debates from both sides of the fence you will hear bio conservatives say that interruption with the body shouldn't happen – that we are akin to Frankenstein’s monster, transhumanists say: "Ok, look – we can’t trust big corporates. This is the future, if we can make people healthier we will do it ourselves by any means." And there is a rational point here where everyone involved could turn this conflict into what I call a “greenhouse for techno-human evolution” in a safe and regulated manner. Let’s take the diabetes treatment as an example.
Diabetes is a big problem in the West, especially those who migrate and over a course of time switch from diets which are not of high-calorie — like from Africa or South Asian diets, etc. In the UK we have seen the incidence of diabetes rise extraordinary. Patients must constantly monitor their blood sugar levels and at the moment 99.9 % of all treatment is either based around very difficult dietary control or having to prick their finger and analyse it with pocket blood glucose meter, so to take action and have insulin injected. Fitbits and similar devices have the sensor which are touching the top of the skin, and it can only have information, such as heart rate, sweat level, etc.
It doesn't give enough detailed Information for the user or a healthcare practitioner to know the whole story. But there can be an under-the skin implants in the future, analysing the constant stream of blood flowing underneath it, and it can constantly monitor 24-7 — looking for chemical compositions, blood compositions, anomalies etc. That obtained data can be presented in an automated way given live to person's home, relatives, local hospital.
So, if somebody is having hypoglycaemia attack, the alarm goes off and many people are informed to act. Take this a step further and think about intelligent nano-structures acting immediately from the implant to diffuse medicine throughout the body – or a small robotic device that can travel around the circulatory system to identify and eat away clots. Think of the possibilities if we had robotic paramedics to act within a few minutes on those who are having a heart attack or a super intelligent Ai which can reassure someone with mental health problems and prevent incidents in the future. At the moment we are very much at the R&D phase, but many research groups and companies are involved in this area already.
The availability of technical tools is increasing sharply from basic diabetes control and treatment tools, to the most advanced artificial replacements of human organs or tissues: corneas, pancreas, lungs, heart etc. There is the growing number of health apps and wearable devices to keep better track of our health status, mitigate major risks, get early diagnosis, and intervene immediately when something goes wrong, says Mirko DE MALDè, president at Government Blockchain Association Italy and TEDxSpeaker. “Health apps are capable of monitoring heart functions, allowing a patient to understand when there is atrial fibrillation, thus making it possible to ask for help before is too late. AI-based decision support systems providing clinicians with incredible insight and much better understanding of both the individual patients and of the most suitable and effective treatment options, being able to stay completely updated on the latest discoveries and publications, as well as being able to ingest the complete patient’s history.”
Joanne PRANSKY is world's first robotic psychiatrist and an advisor to robotics industry from San Francisco, started her R&D mission in 1986, to prepare the world for a symbiosis of humans and robots on a daily basis.
According to her, one of the main tasks lies in informing the public about the new developments within this field so that people would be more adaptable to an exponent of human-to-machine technical evolution. She explains the opportunity of symbiosis of the biological and technical forms referring to the words of Ray KURZWEIL — that the future, which we will enter in the nearest 20-30 years, is about us merging with the technologies. An example of which may be medical nano-bots becoming “clever” blood cells or micro-apparatus that can internalised to find and treat diseases. She is one of the leading figures that believes we will be able to upgrade our own intellectual capacity with the use of artificial influences: “Ray says we can be something close to superhumans in the next few decades. The machines will reach human intellect — and overcome it. It doesn’t mean they will take control over us. Its evolution and what’s really true, is that humanity will definitely change. I agree with him totally.” Although I agree that it is exciting, as I am active in this area of research myself – I must issue what I feel are words of caution, as noted by Max TEGMARK, (who was probably the guy who inspired me to get into Machine Learning) and his ASILOMAR AI principles. That humanity must be able to control our development (up to the assumed point of artificial general intelligence) in a manner which is ethical, reduces inequality in the world and conserves our planet. Transhumanism and Machine Learning development in whatever guise it takes should not conflict with our movement towards environmentalism and progressivism. Perhaps this is a good point to invite other thought leaders to come together to create the ASILOMAR equivalent for transhumanism?
Right now, with new technological developments, it is possible to reduce human errors in diagnosis and treatment. Technical challenges are not trivial and major uncertainties still need to be overcome, but it is exciting to dream about: a future where we will be increasingly able to stay healthier for much longer to enjoy life and maximise our positive social impacts on those who need our help in society the most. Are the described above, transhumanism has a lot of challenges to face in the coming years — but it is the natural way of things. when humanity is faced with technological cross-roads.
Amardeep Singh (UK) is the Co-founder and CEO of an International R&D Institution focussing on Quantum Technologies, Software Development and Experimentation in the UK, India, UAE, Russia and Singapore – he is a scientist and ambassador in International Technology Innovation and is also a PhD candidate in Quantum Machine Learning and DLT technologies.
IF THE BODY IS A TEMPLE-------WHY ALLOW MUTILATION?
One doesn't have to be RELIGIOUS to feel the human body is a NATURAL TEMPLE to be cherished---nurtured-----honored. Below we see discussion in ARABIC nations tied to KORAN simply dealing with MUTILATION OF CORPSES. They haven't even gotten to morals and ethics of mutilating living bodies.
'The main subject of the aforementioned debates is the ownership of human body. Does a person own his/her body? Has he/she the authority of giving consent for such practices on his/her body after death? In this article I have described and discussed the opinions and decrees of the Iranian Islamic jurisprudential authorities in this regard'.
Some people for centuries have gone to great length to make sure they buried with ALL THEIR BODY PARTS. The military has honored this tradition-----
'What Does the Bible Say About Cremation? Our Interpretation ...
Yet, the Church was and still is adamant that a traditional funeral with a burial of the whole body is the preferred method. It’s important to know that at no time has it been proclaimed that if a person is cremated, they will not go to heaven'.
THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION SAYS THIS IMPLANT OR INVASION OF BODY WILL HELP ME.
We are FAST-FORWARDING past thousands of years of legal and moral guidance surrounding BODY OWNERSHIP because we are told the goals have 99% WE THE PEOPLE----BENEFIT.
THAT WOULD BE FAKE NEWS FAKE DATA.
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2009; 2: 4.
Published online 2009 May 30.
The Ownership of Human Body: An Islamic Perspective
Using human dead body for medical purposes is a common practice in medical schools and hospitals throughout the world. Iran, as an Islamic country is not an exception. According to the Islamic view, the body, like the soul, is a “gift” from God; therefore, human being does not possess absolute ownership on his or her body. But, the ownership of human beings on their bodies can be described as a kind of “stewardship”. Accordingly, any kind of dissection or mutilation of the corpse is forbidden, even with the informed consent of the dead or his/her relatives. The exception of this principle is when such procedures are necessary for saving lives of other persons. In this article using the human dead body for medical education, research and treatment is discussed and the perspective of Iranian Shiite religious scholars in this regard is explained.
Respect for the human dead body, is a consensual principle in the Islamic jurisprudence. According to this principle, the dead body should be buried as soon as possible after death. In addition, mutilation of the human body, even the bodies of non-Muslim enemies, is forbidden (bearing in mind that mutilation of the dead bodies of enemies was a custom among the tribal Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammed).
The limited number of cases of dissecting dead body which were discussed in the history of jurisprudential debates were dissection the body of a recently dead woman for saving her still alive fetus and dissecting the body of a dead person for removing an amount of money who had swallowed when he was alive. Both of these practices have been considered allowed with certain conditions and with some differences among different jurisprudential schools (1, 2). Otherwise, any kind of mutilation of a dead body was considered as repulsive and forbidden.
There was no problem with this idea, till the modern medicine has been introduced to the Muslim communities. Dissection of the dead bodies for learning and teaching human anatomy at first, and subsequently, the other uses of human dead body on research, education and treatment, emerged new queries about the permissibility of using and dissecting the human dead body for such purposes.
Muslim physicians in Iran, as an Islamic country, has confronted such conflict between respect for the dead body and necessities of modern medical practice, after the introducing of the modern sciences and foundation of modern universities, about 150 years ago. The problem became more prominent after the Islamic revolution in 1979, after which the government and universities became committed to conform medical practices to the Islamic law.
Nowadays, human dead bodies are being used in medical universities and hospitals thorough Iran, for the above mentioned purposes. All the medical schools have their own dissection rooms in the departments of anatomy; interventions such as intubation are being practiced on the recently dead bodies in the hospitals; autopsy for legal and medical purposes is a common practice in the authorized centers and organ transplantation from cadaver is being done frequently. There are still some debates and discussions about the religious permissibility of all these practices.
The main subject of the aforementioned debates is the ownership of human body.
Does a person own his/her body? Has he/she the authority of giving consent for such practices on his/her body after death?
In this article I have described and discussed the opinions and decrees of the Iranian Islamic jurisprudential authorities in this regard.
Meaning and classification of ownership
According to Henk ten Have and Jos Welie:
“Ownership is a complex collection of claim rights, duties, powers, and immunities. As a paradigm of ownership, reference is often made to Honore’s concept of “full individual ownership. Honore compiled a list of standards “incidents of ownership. Although the incidents are not taken individually, necessary conditions for private ownership, they may, however, together be sufficient for full individual; ownership. The standard incidents include: the right to possess a thing; the right to the exclusive use of a thing; the right to manage it; the right to its income; the right to the capital, i.e., the right to alienate (transfer) the object, and the liberty to consume, waste or destroy the object; immunity from expropriation; the power to bequeath it; the absence of term; the prohibition of harmful use; liability to execution; and residuary character. This list is useful as a frame of reference in order to determine different modes of ownership”
The aforementioned authors have considered three possible positions, regarding to the ownership of human body:
- No ownership of the human body and its parts;
- No full ownership of the body, but limited property rights with regard to body parts;
- Full ownership of the body and its parts (3).
Obviously, ownership of everybody to his body does not possess all the abovementioned incidents. For instance, one can not transfer his/her own body to anyone else; also, one can not waste his/her own body. In addition, selling human organs is prohibited in almost all of the juridical systems. Therefore, it seems plausible to say that human being has limited ownership to his or her own body.
According to the Islamic view, the body, like the soul, is a “gift” from God; therefore, man does not possess absolute ownership on his body. But, the ownership of human beings on their bodies can be described as a kind of “stewardship” (1).
It should be noticed that in secular schools of thought, regardless of the kind of ownership, a person is the most relevant one for decision making about his or her body after his or her death. Accordingly, using advance directive can solve the ethical problems in many cases. According to the Islamic schools of thought, a person has not any kind of authority, ownership or stewardship on his future dead body. Therefore, advance directive is not considered an absolute right in the Islamic law.
Using the human dead body for education
Dissecting of dead bodies is a standard practice for education in anatomy departments. It has been practiced in the medical schools in Iran since the foundation of modern medical schools.
Almost all the Iranian Shiite religious authorities deem allowed to dissect the corpse of a non-Muslim for medical educational purposes. But almost all of them consider such practice on the dead body of a Muslim, as forbidden (2, 4). According to the religious decrees (Fatwas) of some of Iranian Shiite religious authorities (e.g. Ayatollah Khamenei (5) and Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi (6)), in the cases of unavailability of the corpse of non-Muslims and the necessity of educatinglife-saving medical knowledge and techniques, dissection of the corpse of a Muslim would be allowed.
There is another kind of using human dead body for research which seems to be more controversial, morally speaking, using the recently dead body to practice endotracheal intubation (ETI). “ETI is the placing of a tube in a patient’s trachea and it is the preferred method of managing the airway in patients with life-threatening conditions” (7).
As far as I searched, practicing ETI on the recently dead has not been asked from the religious authorities in Iran; however, according the logic of their answers to the similar questions and their view toward the ownership of human dead body, it may be concluded that in the cases of necessity, it would be allowed.
Using the human dead body for research
This kind of using human dead body, for example using in car crash tests, has been objected with this argument that such practice is contrary to the principle of human dignity (8). Nevertheless, such uses are commonly provided by the informed consent had been given before the death.
In this regard, in Iran, a national guideline has been compiled in the medical ethics and history of medicine research center of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and communicated by the minister of health in 2006 (9).
According to the Special Guideline for Research on Human Organ and Tissue Transplantation, for using organs or tissues obtained from the dead bodies, in addition to the necessity of being approved by the Research Ethics Committee, “obtaining the consent of person before death or the consent of his or her representative is necessary”. In the transplantation researches the consent should be based on opting-in, even if this would be changed for therapeutic purposes. Also, “when one is opposed to donate his or her organs or tissues, his or her representative can not permit it after his or her death” (10).
Although the abovementioned guideline has been approved by religious scholars in Iran, it is interesting that some issues like as the deference between Muslims and non-Muslims have not been considered in it.
Using human dead body for treatment
The Iranian Model of Kidney Transplantation was very successful in eliminating the long waiting list for kidney transplantation (11). However, serious ethical concerns about the commercialization of human organs are being conveyed by ethicists, from inside and outside of Iran, to Iranian religious and health authorities (12, 13). Using organs of deceased or brain-dead persons has been discussed as a solution. Religious authorities permitted such practice and consequently, in 2000, the parliament approved the Organ Transplantation and Brain Death Act, allowing the use of organs from deceased or brain-dead persons provided the consent by their relatives (14). The similar considerations mentioned above, about the impact of religious differences, do exist in these cases.
In addition, removing the cornea of unidentified dead bodies in the Forensic Medicine Organization has been practiced for several years.
Discussion and conclusion
The religious perspectives toward using human dead body for medical education, research and treatment are based on some presumptions including:
- The supreme religious authority (Vali-e Faghih) has the right to make decision regarding human dead bodies usage.
- In the cases of necessity for life-saving educations, researches or treatments, use of human dead body is allowed, encouraged and even recommended.
- In the cases of dissecting, it is preferred to use the dead bodies of non-Muslims.
- In the cases of treatment, the priority should be given to the Muslim patients if the needs are equal and resources are limited.
This essay is not complete without pointing out some important related points:
- The exact relation between ethics and religious jurisprudence is still ambiguous and controversial among Iranian scholars. Jurisprudential decrees are considered as the basis of the rules and regulations in Iran but in the cases of conflict between such decrees and universal ethical norms, some modifications seem necessary.
- In the case of this essay, according the classical Shiite jurisprudence, the decision-making about using human dead body is not by the advance directive or consent of relatives. But such consents have been considered as necessary by regulations because of ethical obligations.
- The difference between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to dissecting the dead body for educational purposes has not been mentioned in the formal rules and regulations which shows the difficulty of translating such decrees to rules and regulations.
- According to the Islamic law, saving the life of human beings has utmost priority and if any kind of using a corpse is necessary for life-saving, it would definitely be allowed. However, judgment about the “necessity” is very difficult in many cases.
Is AFFORDABLE CARE ACT with medical procedure and policy promoting IMPLANT AND TRANSHUMANIST goals protecting what we call BARBER SURGEONS? These acts are being done in INSTITUTIONS under an umbrella of legal protection. Yet, all of what is being done at these INSTITUTIONS is CRIMINAL ----is CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ----under every legal tenet in US and INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Here we see ----we do not allow MUTILATION OF BODY in this SERIAL KILLERS often RITUALISTIC -----
These cases and judgements say-----A HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPECT NOT TO BE DISMEMBERED-----NOT TO BE IMPLANTED WITH FOREIGN BODIES.
'Mutilation Crime Law in Illinois - Chicago Criminal Defense ...
Article 12: Mutilation Crimes. (a)(1) Any person who pierces the body or oral cavity of a person under 18 years of age without written consent of a parent or legal guardian of that person commits the offense of piercing the body of a minor. Before the oral cavity of a person under 18 years of age may be pierced,...'
OK’d in trial against murder, mutilation suspect
by: WOODTV.com staff, Barton Deiters
Posted: Aug 16, 2019 / 11:24 AM EDT / Updated: Aug 16, 2019 / 06:47 PM EDT
Trial set for murder, mutilation suspect
Brother: Jared Chance ‘very disturbed’ after Ashley Young’s death
Apologetic mutilation suspect: ‘I don’t know what to do’
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — A man charged with murdering a Kalamazoo area woman and dismembering her body at his Grand Rapids apartment was back in court Friday, as lawyers prepare to present his case.
Jared Chance appeared in court for the hearing in which lawyers argued over what evidence could be shared at his Sept. 9 trial.
Chance’s defense team argued crime scene and autopsy photos should be excluded from the trial, saying the only purpose of showing such graphic photos would be to sway the jury. But the judge ruled the photos would be allowed as evidence.
Chance is charged with murder, tampering with evidence, mutilation of a dead body and concealing the death of 31-year-old Ashley Young of Oshtemo Township.
Jared Chance with long hair and Jared Chance with short hairLeft to right: Jared Chance during an Aug. 16, 2019 hearing and Jared Chance during his Dec. 3, 2018 booking into the Kent County jail.
The photos depict the state of Young’s body parts when they were discovered by police in December in different parts of the Franklin Street SE apartment house where he lived.
News 8 will not show the photos that were even startling to a seasoned defense attorney.
“Exhibit 16 is particularly gruesome, photograph 17 is, quite frankly, indescribable. I’m not even attempting to do so. Your honor, it has zero relevance or evidentiary value other than to inflame the jury,” said defense attorney Andrew Rodenhouse. “It’s designed to inflame the jury so that they can gain a conviction on murder without having to prove murder.”
The prosecution has 186 proposed exhibits for the trial expected to begin Sept. 9, including 150 photos. Rodenhouse wants five of those to be excluded.
But Assistant Kent County Prosecutor Lawrence Boivin told a judge Friday the photos show the reality of what happened to the Kalamazoo woman at the hands of her accused killer.
“It’s not a pretty picture at all. I acknowledge that but it is an absolutely crucial picture for the trier of fact to see because sometimes there’s validity to the phrase that a picture is worth 1,000 words,” Boivin said.“ The defendant… took a lot of time to do what he did to Ms. Young’s body.”
The prosecutor will argue that Young was not killed in the basement where her torso was found beneath a tarp by another resident.
“After the defendant killed her, he dragged her 15, 20 feet into the bathtub upstairs and that’s where he did the majority of the dismemberment,” Boivin said. “Nobody in their right mind would have done that to another human unless they were the one who caused that person’s death.”
He says the photos make it clear.
“Until you actually see what dismemberment is, you cannot comprehend what this individual did to Ms. Young,” the prosecutor said.
The judge agreed.
“I will allow those five pictures to come in,” said Kent County Circuit Court Judge Mark Trusock.
Young was last seen alive with Chance on Nov. 29 at a liquor store about a block away from his Franklin Street apartment.
Detectives earlier testified Chance bought ammonia and beer at the same store after Young’s disappearance. Her purse was also found inside a nearby trash can that Chance was seen dumping something into.
Found at the home on Franklin Street SE was hundreds of shotgun shells and two spent shell casings in the air duct from Chance’s apartment to the furnace.
Boivin also said Chance talked about how he could with Mario Nelson about how he could get away with murder and he also brandished and pulled the trigger on a shotgun. In his presence.
“There is evidence that suggests the defendant shot and killed Ashley Young,” Boivin said. “Could he have strangled her? Sure. We will never know because he got rid of her neck and head.”
This was done to thwart the discovery of evidence and to hide his involvement.
“Nobody in their right mind would do this to another human to cover up an accidental death.”
Chance was arrested Dec. 2 after his neighbor found a bloody tarp in the apartment complex basement and called police. Part of Young’s remains were found in Chance’s apartment, but her head, hands and feet have not been recovered.
In a jailhouse interview weeks after the murder, Chance apologized to Young’s mother and told News 8 “I don’t know what to do here.”
During Friday’s hearing, Kent County Assistant Prosecutor Lawrence Boivin said it’s possible Chance shot her before the dismemberment.
A detective testified in January that two shell casings were recovered inside the furnace at Chance’s home. A sergeant said the father of Jared Chance acknowledged his son had a .22 caliber revolver.
Chance’s parents, James and Barbara Chance are also facing charges in the case. They’ve both pleaded not guilty to charges of perjury and being accessories after the fact.
Court documents indicated a day before Jared Chance’s arrest, he loaded boxes into his parents’ car, had them stop at Young’s car to pick up another box, then headed to their home in Holland.
A search of James and Barbara Chance’s home revealed a saw under the couch in the living room, the documents say. Traces of blood and tissue were found on that saw. Young’s autopsy indicated the saw was used in her dismemberment.
MEDICAL MUTILATION does not have to be REMOVING A BODY PART------we discussed in detail how BODY/BRAIN IMPLANTS are undermining and creating dysfunction of normal SOFT TISSUE----of ORGANELLES-----of ORGANS----tissue and DNA are dying -----mutating-----these are all assaults against HUMAN BODY. The mentally that all this is OK because these body structures will be replaced by mechanical devices deemed SUPREME/BETTER then the NATURAL body system is FALSE PREMISE.
THERE IS A LEGAL DEFINITION OF FALSE PREMISE
TITLE IN PROPERTY is ownership of body and body parts -------
'False representations of material past or present facts, known by the wrongdoer to be false, and made with the intent to defraud a victim into passing title in property to the wrongdoer'.
Supposedly, because I fell into a social system with clinical depression I was able to be 'USED' to the extent that I gave up my BODY SOVEREIGNTY.
False representations of material past or present facts, known by the wrongdoer to be false, and made with the intent to defraud a victim into passing title in property to the wrongdoer.
Suppose Reba tells Alberto that a synthetic gemstone is a valuable diamond that she will give to Alberto in exchange for Alberto's truck. Alberto thinks this sounds like a good deal and transfers title of his truck to Reba. If Reba knows that the stone is a synthetic gemstone, she is guilty of false pretenses.
A truthful statement that causes someone to give up rights in property does not constitute criminal false pretenses; a representation must be false at the time the potential victim is about to pass title.
If the representation was false when made, but changing circumstances made it true by the time the victim passed title, false pretenses did not arise. Also, if the alleged wrongdoer thought his or her statement was a lie, but the statement was in fact true, the crime of false pretenses was not committed. For example, if Reba thinks the stone is synthetic, but it actually is a diamond, her statement to Alberto claiming that it is a diamond is true (even if she doesn't know it). Therefore, Reba is not guilty of false pretenses.
A false representation can be a verbal, written, or implied statement. For example, if a statement suggests that the wrongdoer has the authority, power, or ability to perform what is represented, but the wrongdoer does not have that authority, power, or ability, the implication is a false representation.
A false representation can also occur when the wrongdoer says or does nothing. This is the case when someone knowingly conceals information that the victim should be made aware of.
For example, if Reba tells Alberto that she will trade her valuable sports car for Alberto's truck, knowing that the sports car does not have a motor, she must tell Alberto about the missing motor or her nondisclosure will be a false representation.
The false representation supporting false pretenses must be about a material fact. A material fact is one that would be important to the victim in his or her decision-making process. For example, it is important for Alberto to know that Reba's sports car does not have a motor, because without a motor, the car is less valuable and cannot be driven.
It is less important for him to know that the tire pressure is low, because that fact does not affect the value of the car, and thus Reba would not be guilty of false pretenses for failing to mention that the tires need air.
The representation must concern a past or present fact; a false representation of a future fact does not constitute criminal false pretenses.
A car salesperson who claims that a car will run great in ten years is representing a future fact. An exaggerated expression of opinion, like a sales pitch, may not be entirely true but is not a criminal false representation.
However, a promise about the future that, at the time it is made, the promisor does not intend to keep, is a criminal false representation of a material fact.
If the salesperson promises to buy the car back if it is not running great in ten years, but he does not intend to satisfy the promise, the false promise is a false representation.
When a representation is in fact false, the wrongdoer must know it is false. If an alleged wrongdoer believed the statement was true— whether that belief was reasonable or unreasonable—he or she did not commit false pretenses because they did not knowingly make a false representation. If Reba believes that the synthetic stone is in fact a diamond, then she does not commit false pretenses when she tells Alberto it is a diamond. However, if the wrongdoer is not sure or does not care if a statement is false, and makes the statement with reckless indifference for truthfulness, the statement is a false representation.
It is important to determine why the wrongdoer told the lie. The wrongdoer must intend the false representation to defraud the victim.
Intention to defraud the victim exists where the wrongdoer planned to unjustly acquire title to the victim's property by means of the untruth.
That is, the wrongdoer will have planned the false representation in advance and will have calculated to deceive the victim into transferring title by way of the false statement. Telling an untruth, in and of itself, will not subject the liar to prosecution for false pretenses.
The victim of false pretenses must have relied on the false representation.
The false representation must be the reason, or one of the reasons, that the victim passed title to the wrongdoer. It does not matter how gullible or naive the victim would seem for believing the representation; the wrongdoer is still guilty. On the other hand, to rely on a false statement, the potential victim must believe it to be true. An individual who does not believe a false representation but passes title to the statement maker anyway does not rely on the representation, and the statement maker will not be guilty.
Conviction of false pretenses requires the wrongdoer to obtain more than possession of the property; the wrongdoer must also obtain title to the property.
A wrongdoer who gains possession of property but not title to the property is guilty of a different crime often referred to as Larceny. For example, a wrongdoer who breaks a truck's window and hot-wires the truck acquires only possession of the truck and is guilty of larceny.
Other laws may require the delivery of the possession of property in order to complete a transfer of title. In such cases, the wrongdoer may have to obtain title as well as possession of the property to be guilty of false pretenses. Imagine that the laws of the state where Alberto and Reba live require a party to take possession in order to obtain a valid transfer of title. Alberto signs the paper title over to Reba, but before Reba drives the truck away, Alberto figures out the scam, and Reba runs off. No transfer of title has occurred, because the state's laws require possession in addition to paper title, and Reba is not guilty of false pretenses.
Title does not have to pass directly to the wrongdoer. A wrongdoer can cause a victim to pass title to someone other than the wrongdoer and still benefit from the transfer. A transfer of title to a family member or a corporation in which the wrongdoer has an interest constitutes a transfer of title for purposes of false pretenses.
In many states, crimes relating to theft of property, including false pretenses, have been combined and consolidated into one offense. Statutory consolidation usually does not change the essential elements of false pretenses, but instead ensures smoother prosecution so that wrongdoers cannot avoid criminal consequences by finding legal loopholes to slip through.
A number of crimes are very similar to false pretenses. For example, when an individual attempts to pass a bad check, there is intent to defraud because he or she is attempting to obtain money or property by issuing checks from an account that does not exist or has insufficient funds. Mail Fraud is a crime reasonably calculated to deceive victims, and accomplishes the deception by using the U.S. mail. A scheme to defraud using the mail is actionable whether or not any false representation was made. Securities registration laws prohibit a wrongdoer from knowingly furnishing false information in connection with the sale or registration of securities. Forgery can be likened to false pretenses in that it is a crime where the genuineness of a document is falsely represented.
In addition to being criminally accountable for obtaining property by false pretenses, the wrongdoer may also be liable in a civil court. Liability for tortuous fraudulent Misrepresentation, or deceit, closely parallels liability for criminal fraudulent misrepresentation.
A wrongdoer who fraudulently misrepresents a fact in order to induce another to act or refrain from acting in reliance upon it may be liable for pecuniary loss caused to the victim by the victim's justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation.
Supposedly, I fell victim to forced and unknowing implant experimentation because I am a PERSON OF CONSCIENCE----A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE I AM MAN-----and as here in China-----political prisoners are earliest to get the brunt of FORCED BODY/BRAIN MUTILATION. This article let's us know that the world knows this is CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
'whose Confucian value system considers it important to keep the body intact after death',
CHINESE SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE ------CHINESE GLOBAL CORPORATE MARXISM EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POWER IS MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Body brokers making millions selling your loved one's organs---or illegally implanting and making experimental research---HITTING ----anyone chosen.
Global medical corporations having taken our US PUBLIC HEALTH are indeed seeing themselves as INDUSTRIAL
'The victims were Chinese citizens who wanted nothing more than to practice their beliefs in peace. Instead, they were killed by their government on an industrial scale'.
MEDICAL INDUSTRY is the opposite of PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.
The ugly truth about China’s organ harvesting
By Anastasia Lin
June 23, 2019 | 10:34pm
The verdict is in: On June 17, the China Tribunal announced its finding that China’s Communist regime has for two decades practiced systematic, forced organ removal from prisoners of conscience, mainly Falun Gong practitioners and Muslims.
The independent, London-based panel of international legal and medical experts was led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, who also headed the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
After unwilling donors are executed, the tribunal found, their organs are sold to Chinese citizens or foreign “transplant tourists.” Before 2015, China, whose Confucian value system considers it important to keep the body intact after death, had no voluntary organ-transplant system. Yet hospitals perform some 60,000 to 90,000 transplant surgeries each year.
Chinese hospitals promise that they can deliver hearts, livers, kidneys and corneas of matching blood type and size in two weeks. The surgeries can be scheduled in advance, which suggests hospitals know exactly when the “donors” are going to die. By contrast, America has a highly developed voluntary organ-donation system, and recipients typically have to wait hundreds of days.
According to human-rights researchers, Chinese prison authorities regularly subject detained Falun Gong practitioners to medical exams to determine the health of their organs (even as they routinely torture these same prisoners). Detained Uighur Muslims report similar medical examinations.
The tribunal also heard from Chinese medical personnel who have defected from the regime. They warned Western governments and medical practitioners of this ongoing atrocity.
It wasn’t easy. One researcher likened his work to examining the scene following a nuclear explosion. Chinese government agencies and hospitals never provide honest numbers, so investigators have to make inferences from evidence such as hospital-renovation notices, patient turnover rates and medical research papers to estimate how many transplants are performed at each hospital.
Beijing deletes all traces of evidence online, making preservation of available records vitally important to rights researchers.
I first grappled seriously with this issue when I starred in the 2016 film “The Bleeding Edge.” I played a Falun Gong practitioner imprisoned for her beliefs, who is tied to an operating table as her vital organs are removed to be sold for profit.
I later joined these courageous researchers and campaigners. We testified at legislative hearings to push for laws prohibiting foreigners from going to China for transplants and banning Chinese medical and police personnel from visiting the West.
It was an uphill battle. Although Israel and Taiwan both passed laws making it harder for their citizens to obtain transplants in China, most other democratic governments were reluctant to acknowledge this crime against humanity, perhaps because doing so would imply an obligation to act immediately.
China launches vicious ad hominem attacks against critics, to undermine our credibility. Numerous screenings of my film, and of documentaries on the subject, have been canceled on university campuses and elsewhere following phones calls from Chinese diplomats.
A year ago I was booked to discuss organ harvesting on a prominent Western public broadcaster. A producer canceled the interview hours before I was due to go on air. My representative was told the order came from “higher up” and that my “affiliations” had disqualified me from talking on live TV. China’s state-run media called me a tool of a “cult” working with “anti-China forces” to spread lies.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered and had their organs harvested since the practice was industrialized in 2000.
The victims were Chinese citizens who wanted nothing more than to practice their beliefs in peace. Instead, they were killed by their government on an industrial scale.
For those of us who have fought to expose this crime against humanity, the tribunal’s verdict is an answer to a prayer. We had presented the free world with mounds of evidence but were repeatedly dismissed.
How many crimes did China’s global partners ignore, because the truth was inconvenient?
Now that the China Tribunal has concluded that organ harvesting is happening on a massive scale, and systematically documented the practice, there is no excuse left for inaction.
Anastasia Lin, Miss World Canada 2015, is ambassador for China policy at the Macdonald Laurier Institute and a senior fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.
We remind that the initial understanding for ME with JAN 2019 HITTING was my being attacked by SEXUAL PREDATORS with illegal surveillance and 24/7 VIDEO PORN. That was indeed happening. We want to prosecute NOSY NEIGHBORS for SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PORN----but laws and precedence for VIDEO sexual assaults are WEAK today ----we discussed other crimes tied to those REVENGE PORN structures of HACKING into people's homes or IMPLANTS.
Mainstream global banking 1% MEDIA OUTLETS are placing all the emphasis to these illegal surveillance structures on the REVENGE PORN aspect of these crimes and saying nothing about the MEDICAL ASSAULTS-----MUTILATIONS----and hacking use of these implant devices for CRIMES.
THAT SHOULD BE A PRIMARY GOAL OF LAWSUITS AGAINST HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG.
The cultural FAD of US 99% WE THE PEOPLE as PORN ADDICTS MOVES FORWARD goals of TRANSHUMANISM.
Internet Porn and Sexual Assault
•May 18, 2019
7th Day Truth Seeker
We have discussed YODA------as the MONKEY ON THE BACK OF SKYWALKER ------as being SATANIC. We have discussed how all our Christian religions seem to be taking CHRIST off the cross in our churches. We have discussed how MOVING FORWARD KILLS OUR MAINSTREAM RELIGIONS-----with DARK SATANIC replacing the CHRISTIAN ideals of morals and ethics---loving GOD'S CREATION.
BABY YODA is the SATANIC second coming of CHRIST-------replacing CHRIST with the DEVIL/SATAN---so BABY YODA would be CHRIST IN THE MANAGER.
The FEEDBACK on THE NETWORK from NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG tied to the satanic sex trade and cult were saying I WAS THE YODA-----OH, REALLY???
These are global banking 1% CULTURAL ARTS to create FADS-----leading us all the ways to CULTURAL NORMS with goals of mainstreaming A VERY MARGINAL CULT OF TRANSHUMANISM.
We hear on THE NETWORK that there are many people supporting TRANSHUMANISM-------we say those people do not have INFORMED CONSENT----they are being sold a FALSE PREMISE ------IT'S ALL ABOUT MLK AND HIS DREAM.
'About this website
The Mandalorian: Baby Yoda Explained | Who The New STAR WARS Character Is & Why The Empire Wants It'