WHO IS THIS IDIOT? WHO DID EVER DELEGATE TO HIM ANY POLICY ISSUE?

 

Bill Gates: US Citizens ‘Must Accept Digital ID By 2028’ Or Face ‘Exclusion From Society’

Fact checked by The People's Voice Community

December 17, 2023 Baxter Dmitry News, US 16 Comments

Globalist billionaire Bill Gates has warned US citizens that they must comply with compulsory new Digital ID technology by 2028 at the latest – or face “exclusion from society.”

The United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and partners of the Rockefeller Foundation have announced the launch of the “50-in-5” initiative to expedite the rollout of digital ID, digital payments, and data sharing in 50 “first mover” countries within the framework of digital public infrastructure (DPI) by 2028.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

• Email*

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

Latest Video

If successful, Gates’ Digital ID platform will grant globalist governments and corporations the authority to establish social credit score systems determining travel permissions, consumption allowances, and transactional capabilities with programmable money.

This could include individual carbon footprint tracking, Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ), and CBDC programming aimed at restricting “less desirable” purchases, aligning with the goals of the Great Reset, as advocated by its globalist cheerleaders.

Through a virtual launch event scheduled for November 8, the 50-in-5 agenda is presented as a “country-led advocacy campaign.” By 2028, the campaign aims to assist 50 countries in conceptualizing, launching, and expanding elements of their digital public infrastructure, as per the official announcement.

TRENDING: Bill Gates Insider Boasts BILLIONS Will Die In 2024 Plandemic

Touted as a means for financial inclusion, convenience, enhanced healthcare, and environmental progress, DPI encompasses digital ID, digital payments such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), and extensive data sharing, forming the foundation of a looming technocratic governance system.

Proponents argue that DPI is crucial for participation in markets and society, akin to the adoption of vaccine passports but on a broader scale.

The 50-in-5 campaign’s declared objective over the next five years is for 50 countries to have devised, launched, and expanded at least one component of their digital public infrastructure stack in a secure, inclusive, and interoperable manner.

The 50-in-5 campaign is a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Development Program, the Digital Public Goods Alliance, and Co-Develop.

Co-Develop was founded by The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Nilekani Philanthropies, and the Omidyar Network.

The Digital Public Goods Alliance lists both the Gates and Rockefeller foundations in its roadmap showcasing “activities that advance digital public goods,” along with other organizations and several governments.

‘People-centered smart cities need accessible, secure, and fair digital public infrastructure that powers digital services, and ensures everyone has equal opportunity to fully participate in civic life,’ reads the United Nations, Building & Securing Digital Public Infrastructure Playbook, June 2022.

Sociable report: The United Nations playbook on Digital Public Infrastructure says that digital ID is foundational to DPI, stating, “Broadly, there are three major types of protocols that facilitate digital public infrastructure: digital identity, digital payments, and data exchange.”

“These three protocols are typically required for most digital service transactions such as permitting, issuing licenses, or providing records that often require validating a user’s identity, enabling exchange of data across agencies and users, and finally authorizing payments online.”

“By prioritizing these three protocols,” the UN says that “local governments can set the stage for the successful development of an entire ecosystem of digital services in alignment with their community’s unique needs.”

‘This digital identity determines what products, services and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us,’ wrote the World Economic Forum, 2018.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) envisions digital identity being linked to everything from financial services and healthcare records to travel, mobility, and digital governance — all of which are components of DPI.

For DPI proponents, India is a shining example of what a successful rollout looks like, as evidenced by this year’s G20 and B20 Summits.

Speaking at the B20 India Summit in August, India’s digital identity architect Nandan Nilekani boasted how India had adopted Digital Public Infrastructure at scale and how other nations could follow suit and use DPI for everything from vaccine passports, tax collection, and toll payments to climate adaptation and the move towards a circular economy.

Earlier this year, Nilekani spoke about DPI to the IMF, saying that digital ID, smartphones, and bank accounts were the three “tools of the New World” that everybody should have.

With G20 nations committing to net-zero carbon emissions policies by around 2050, many DPI initiatives are geared towards reaching that goal, meaning restrictions will be placed on what we can consume, what we can purchase, and where we can go thanks to the widespread implementation of digital ID and CBDC to track, trace, and control our every move in our people-centered, 15-minute smart cities.

The 50-in-5 campaign to accelerate Digital Public Infrastructure rollouts did not emerge from the will of the people.

Instead, the 50-in-5 campaign is an agenda concocted by a coalition of unelected globalists from the Gates Foundation, the United Nations, and the Rockefeller Foundation all working in lockstep to accelerate a technocratic system of control through digital ID, digital payments, and massive data sharing.

 

Bill Gates © AFP

Rechtszaak tegen Bill Gates over ‘vaccinatieschade’ gaat door, rechters in Leeuwarden vinden zich bevoegd

De rechtszaak tegen zakenman en filantroop Bill Gates gaat door. Hij wordt door een Nederlandse groep coronasceptici beschuldigd van ‘vaccinatieschade’ door coronavaccins. Gates had bezwaar gemaakt, omdat de rechters volgens hem niet bevoegd waren. De rechtbank in Leeuwarden heeft woensdag bepaald dat het wél bevoegd is.

Binnenlandredactie 16-10-24, 15:52 Laatste update: 17-10-24, 13:30

Een groep heeft onder anderen oud-premier Mark Rutte, oud-minister Hugo de Jonge en enkele leden van het Outbreak Management Team, dat de overheid adviseerde, voor de rechter gesleept. Omdat de stichting van Bill Gates betrokken was bij de bestrijding van de coronapandemie is hij ook gedagvaard.

Lees ook

• 

  PREMIUM

  Verschijnt Microsoft-oprichter en miljardair Bill Gates vandaag voor rechter in Leeuwarden om coronavaccins?

Volgens de rechters hangen de eisen tegen alle mensen met elkaar samen, en is het daarom ‘doelmatig’ om de eisen gezamenlijk te beoordelen.

17

OCTOBER

Bill Gates to Stand Trial in Netherlands for Vaccine Damage, Court Rejects Jurisdiction Appeal

Follow us on Telegram

Bill Gates failed to escape the Dutch vaccine injury trial against him, along with former Prime Minister Rutte, former minister De Jonge and Pfizer chief Albert Bourla. Gates complained that the Netherlands had no jurisdiction over him, but the judge had a different opinion.

These are the judge's reasons.

“Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, if a Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the defendants, it also has jurisdiction over the other defendants involved in the same proceedings, provided that there is such a connection between the claims made against the defendant. respective defendants that reasons of effectiveness justify joint treatment.

In the judgment cited in note 2, the Supreme Court held that the first condition for the application of Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the other defendants (the so-called additional defendant) on a ground other than that indicated in Article 7(7) DCCP itself. If this condition is fulfilled, the second condition for the application of Article 1(XNUMX) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the claims against the other defendant(s) are sufficiently connected to the claims against the main defendant.

5.8. When interpreting Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is important that this provision is based on the (previous) Article 8, incipit sub I, Brussels I-bis Regulation. The case law of the CJEU can be taken as a guideline in answering the question whether claims are related within the meaning of Article 7 !id l R v.3 • According to the case law of the CJEU, there are related claims when (i) the claims are based on the same set of facts, and (ii) the claims are legally so closely related that the claimant cannot reasonably be expected to bring the cases before different courts.

If both conditions are met, it can be assumed that joint claims management is justified for reasons of efficiency and that the requirement of foreseeability is satisfied. The CJEU requires as a condition for the application of Article 8 under Article 1 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation the existence of a risk of divergence in the resolution of the dispute, which occurs in the context of the same situation, in fact and in law. In assessing whether this is the case, all necessary elements of the case file must be taken into account. In this context, the CJEU has formulated a number of views which the Court must take into account in its assessment. As regards the question whether the same factual situation exists, it is important whether the defendants have coordinated their conduct. As regards the question whether the situation is the same from a legal point of view, the legal bases of the claims submitted were a relevant point of view.

Pursuant to Article 2 DCCP and Article 99 DCCP, this court has both international and relative jurisdiction to hear claims against Hofstra, since he lives within the district of this court.

Gates is a wealthy American who has invested part of his assets in an American foundation, called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates is a co-director of this foundation. The foundation aims to fight poverty, disease and inequality around the world.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is affiliated with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (hereinafter: Gavi), an international partnership in the field of vaccination between various public and private entities.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also affiliated with the World Economic Forum (hereinafter: WEF), an international organization whose statutory objective is to unite leaders from business, government, academia and society at large in a global community committed to improving the state of the world.” Professor K. Schwab (here: Schwab) is the founder and chairman of the WEF.

As the Court understands, – et al. argue that Hofstra et al., and thus also Gates, are part of a global group of persons, legal entities, and other entities who, in the context of implementing a project called Covid 19: The Great Reset, misled the administration of Covid-19 injections, while they knew or should have known that these injections were not safe and effective. From Gates’ brief, the Court concludes that Gates also interpreted the position of – et al. in this way. The Court understands that…
et al. further argue in this context that Gates committed this deception internationally through two videos published on YouTube in April and December 2020, in which Gates allegedly misrepresented the necessity of the Covid-19 injections and their safety, respectively. Insofar as et al. intended to assert that furthermore any action of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should be regarded as unlawful action by Gates in this group context, the court ignores this in the context of this incident, as it has not proven this. According to et al., some other defendants who are part of the alleged group, including De Jonge and Rutte, committed the deception in the Netherlands and thus deceived them, including by holding press conferences. Since Gates could have foreseen that the group's action had created a danger of damage such as that suffered by et al., he is, according to et al., liable for this damage on the basis of Article 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW).
5.11. The Court considers that it follows that the legal basis of the claims against Hofstra et al. Gates may admit that the specific wrongful acts alleged against him differ from the specific wrongful acts alleged against Hofstra (and the other defendants). However, this does not affect all of these claims.
– it is specified that they were committed by a group and that they qualify as an unlawful act in a group context.

There is a global group of persons, legal entities and other entities that, in the context of the implementation of a project called Covid 19: The Great Reset, misled people into receiving Covid-19 injections, which they knew or should have known. these injections were not safe and effective. There is a risk that the separate adjudication of the claims against Hofstra et al will lead to irreconcilable judgments on this set of facts, which is the same for all defendants and forms the basis for the alleged liability of Hofstra et al. Daannee is, in the light of the above assessment framework, the necessary coherence under Article 7 paragraph I DCCP between the claims of Geos Gates and the claims against the defendant Hofstra again.

5.12. Gates has challenged the statements of – et al. in the context of this jurisdictional incident in a general sense and has argued that there is a lack of solid and logical foundation to the statements of – et al. This general dispute is not further substantiated and it is insufficient to be able to judge on this basis that the statements of – et al. are so unfounded that they do not constitute the above-mentioned legal basis. 5.3 cannot pass the (limited) test referred to in the context of this jurisdictional incident.

5.13. On the basis of the above, this court has international jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to hear the claims against Gates. This means that the reliance by et al. on Article 6(9)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article XNUMX(XNUMX)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the positions taken by the parties in this regard, no longer need to be discussed.

Does the court have relative jurisdiction to hear the complaint against Gates?

5.14. Insofar as Gates has also challenged this court's relative jurisdiction in the context of this incident, the court finds that it has relative jurisdiction under Article 107 DCCP in conjunction with Article 99 DCCP. Article 107 DCCP provides that if a court has jurisdiction over one of the jointly involved defendants in the proceedings, that court also has jurisdiction over the other defendants, provided that such a connection exists between the claims against the respective defendants and the efficiency justifies joint treatment. As discussed above, the court has relative jurisdiction to entertain the claims against Hofstra. The consistency assumed above under Article 7(107) DCCP also applies to relative jurisdiction under Article XNUMX DCCP.

Final sum and legal costs

5.15. In light of the above, Gates' claim will be dismissed. As the losing party, Gates will be ordered to pay the attorneys' fees (including:
additional costs). The cs's legal costs are estimated at:
– lawyer's fee €1.228,00 (2 points x €6 I4,00)
– additional costs €178,00 (plus the surcharge as highlighted
– indicated in the decision)
Total €1.406,00

Case number: C/17/190788/HA ZA 23-172 16 October 2024

Then find the judge's sentence

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Read the latest news on www.presskit.it

BANKERS MUST RULE THE WORLD: THAT'S HOW IT GOES

Ex-Abercrombie & Fitch CEO And Boyfriend Arrested On Sex Trafficking Charges Involving Male Models

by Kelen McBreenOctober 23th, 2024 1:20 AM 

Feds say Mike Jeffries abused his 'power, wealth and his influence' in order to satisfy his sexual desires.

Image Credit: Jeremy Moeller / Contributor / Getty

SHARE

LIVE

80-year-old ex-Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries and his gay lover Matthew Smith, 60, were both accused by federal prosecutors of preying on young male models and forcing them into prostitution.

The feds say Jeffries abused his “power, wealth and his influence” in order to satisfy his sexual desires as he ran one of the top American fashion brands.

Court documents accuse the couple of hiring 70-year-old James Jacobson to recruit up-and-coming male models to participate in “sex parties across the world between 2008 to 2015.”

All three men were charged with sex trafficking and interstate prostitution.

U.S. attorney Breon Peace said on Tuesday, “To anyone who thinks they can exploit and coerce others by using the so-called casting couch system, this case should serve as a warning – prepare to trade that couch for a bed in federal prison. Sexually exploiting vulnerable human beings is a crime. And doing so by dangling dreams of a future in fashion and modeling is no different.”

The young men were allegedly told they had to sexually pleasure Jacobson in order to have a shot at getting work with Abercrombie.

The models also reportedly feared their careers could be harmed if they did not engage in sex acts with Jacobson or Jeffries and Smith.

Many internet users are pointing out the fact that disgraced Jeffrey Epstein financier and alleged co-conspirator Les Wexner purchased Abercrombie & Fitch in the 80s before appointing Jeffries as CEO in the early 90s.

From Diddy to Epstein, establishment sex trafficking operations appear to be under attack by anti-globalists working in the U.S. government.

Of course, the Deep State could be tying up loose ends and ensuring they secure any potential blackmail documents, photos and videos so they’ll never see the light of day.

 

Bill Gates loses jurisdiction lawsuit, ordered to appear in Dutch court in ‘Great Reset’ case

Bill Gates has lost a legal bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by seven Dutch plaintiffs who accuse him of involvement in “The Great Reset” project.

The plaintiffs claim they were misled into receiving unsafe Covid-19 vaccines as part of this initiative.

On October 16 a Dutch court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, despite Gates’ argument that, as an American citizen, he should not be subject to Dutch legal proceedings.

Gates will now have to appear in court as the case continues.

The plaintiffs allege that Gates and others involved in the project acted unlawfully by promoting Covid-19 vaccinations that they knew, or should have known, were not safe.

The case, which has drawn significant attention, will proceed in the Dutch legal system, with further developments expected after October 27, when the plaintiffs’ lawyers are scheduled to discuss the case in an interview.

Full details of the case have been published by Freebirds Media.

By Daily Telegraph NZ

Promoted Content