FBI Stops Peter Nygard & His Trafficking Tiny Humans Operations - The First Of Many, Many More To Come

Peter Nygard likes to use his own stem cells as his fountain of youth.

According to Wikipedia, it explains the technique Peter uses called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer:

Peter the Procurer & His
Tiny Pre-Human Egg Purveyors

In genetics and developmental biology, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory strategy for creating a viable embryo from a body cell and an egg cell. The technique consists of taking an enucleated oocyte (egg cell) and implanting a donor nucleus from a somatic (body) cell. It is used in both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Dolly the Sheep became famous for being the first successful case of the reproductive cloning of a mammal.[1] In January 2018, a team of scientists in Shanghai announced the successful cloning of two female crab-eating macaques (named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua) from fetal nuclei.[2] "Therapeutic cloning" refers to the potential use of SCNT in regenerative medicine; this approach has been championed as an answer to the many issues concerning embryonic stem cells (ESC) and the destruction of viable embryos for medical use, though questions remain on how homologous the two cell types truly are.

Peter has lots of young, beautiful women who have eggs.

Peter has lots of money.

There are even egg banks where you can purchase tiny pre-human eggs.

Peter can even fund campaigns to pass laws to grow his own tiny humans so he can use his own stem cells, since he is the progenetor, and all.

http://www.nygardbiotech.com/the-movie/

I wonder if Peter knows about his namesake, Peter's Pence, since they are all up into those neonatal lab rat trafficking tiny humans residuals of the peculiar institution stuff.

https://www.cns-cref.org/

I wonder what they do with the tiny humans, after they were pre-tiny humans.

See, before an egg is fertilized with sperm,  you must decide with which host you are going with for the gestation.

Will the host be the original parent, a legal term I like to use for the biological mother, carry the tiny human product or will the zygote be warehoused by a corporation in an artificial host? 

Rebranding Child Welfare: Termination Of The Host Right To A Birth Is Now Called Abortion

We have been growing embryos outside the womb for quite some time which is why there is a legislative push against the arcane propaganda of abortion.

By degendering human evolution, science can grow and people can stay young and spry.

PUTIN: "You Said The Word Mother 'Can't Be Replaced'" - The U.S. Already Did - "Host" - Corporate Parental Rights Highjacks Canon Law 

Upon fetal maturtion, is the extraction of stem cells voluntarily induced and have parental rights been terminated and transferred?

What is the citizenship of the fetus and what do you do with the leftover tiny human parts?

Organ transfers?

Medical school lab rat testing?

Orphan drug testing?

Personal inurement?

I can go on all night long about the trafficking tiny humans industry.

Since, I know nothing, but what I know, I am going to let the FBI finish and take the glory for dismantling this particular trafficking tiny humans operation, for there shall be many, many more.

FBI Busts Baby Selling Ring, Then Sits Back On Its Arse While Human Trafficking Continues 

It is generational.

It is the work of the god.

It is the residual of the peculiar institution.

Praise the lord.

#maytheheavensfall

Peter Nygard to step down from company after FBI raids New York offices

Spokesperson would not confirm whether search was related to recent sexual assault allegations, lawsuit

The FBI searched the New York headquarters of Peter Nygard's fashion brand but would not say what they were looking for Tuesday.

Peter Nygard will step down from his company and divest his ownership stake, his spokesperson said Tuesday, amid revelations the Canadian fashion mogul is the target of a police investigation in the Bahamas involving allegations of sexual assault.

The announcement in a statement comes just hours after FBI investigators raided Nygard's New York offices earlier in the day. An FBI spokesperson confirmed the search took place but would not provide any further details.

Ten women have filed a civil class-action lawsuit against Nygard, whose fashion company is based in Winnipeg, accusing the clothing manufacturer of raping them at his seaside mansion in the Bahamas and operating what they refer to as a "sex trafficking ring."

Police in the Bahamas are now investigating allegations made by four women who are part of the lawsuit, who told police Nygard sexually assaulted them when they were younger than 16, the age of consent in the Bahamas.

The FBI would not confirm whether Tuesday morning's raid was related to these allegations.

But Nygard's lawyer said he believed the raid was a direct result of the allegations, which he called a "conspiracy" created by Nygard's former neighbour, Louis Bacon, with whom Nygard has been in a legal feud for more than a decade.

"They'll find no evidence of wrongdoing," Jay Prober said.

However, he said he hasn't read the FBI's warrant yet and doesn't know exactly what they were looking for.

Nygard 'will divest his ownership interest'
In a statement Tuesday evening, spokesman Ken Frydman said Nygard would be stepping away from the company that bears his name.

The statement included no admissions of wrongdoing, but instead continued to point a finger at "Louis Bacon and his operatives."

"Recognizing the priority of the welfare of the thousands of Nygard employees, retail partners, loyal customers, vendors, suppliers and business partners, Peter Nygard has made the decision to step down as chairman of the Nygard companies and will divest his ownership interest," the statement reads.

"Peter Nygard has decided that his legal battles with Louis Bacon will no longer be a distraction to the [Nygard] companies."

Lawsuit alleges assault, rape
The lawsuit filed in New York alleges Nygard "recruited, lured and enticed young, impressionable and often impoverished children and women, with cash payments and false promises of lucrative modelling opportunities to assault, rape and sodomize them."

The alleged rapes happened between 2008 and 2015, and three of the women were 14 at the time, the lawsuit says.

No criminal charges have been laid and none of the allegations have been proven in court. A statement of defence has not yet been filed.

Prober has vigorously denied the allegations against his client, saying earlier this month the police investigation "will go nowhere, absolutely nowhere."

"Anybody who makes a complaint like that, whether it's true or not, the police are obligated to investigate it. The investigation will amount to nothing," Prober said.

He said Nygard's lawyers in New York are currently preparing a motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Just Another Error In Bio-Genetic Research Of Trafficking Tiny Humans - "Who Owns The Parental Rights?"

I feel for the parents.

Ok, I am done.

Now, let us proceed into the spectacularly formatted queries of logic pertaining to the question of citizenship of these two little baby boys in a fun little legal diddy:

If a legally married couple, under the common laws of their province in China, are citizens of China, and come to the U.S. to deposit their eggs and sperm into a bank of a foreign corporation registered to do business in the State of New York, as the legal guardians and custodians of these zygotes, created by the corporate parent, where, the corporate parent is listed and traded on international financial platforms, transfers said corporate parental rights as a 9-month legal custody agreement to such zygote, where the biological host, being the gestating mother, gives birth to the child on U.S. soil, what is the citizenship of the infant and who is the legal parent?

(I did not thrown in the reparations variable for fear of someone having an untimely nervous breakdown.  I want to be there to witness the breakdowns, myself.)

I do not know all the details in this case, but I thought this to be a great item to talk about in SCOTUS or in the gaggles of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Yes, designer humans are all the latest rage, and as such, there will always be errors.

Errors in child welfare are typically rapes, torture, suicides, murders, but I digress.

I bet the corporation has insurance indemnification because you can sell parental rights, even on the NYSE.

Just thought I would toss this out there as we proceed to SCOTUS on the question of citizenship, DACA, DAPA, trust funds, parental rights, human trafficking, and all that chattel jazz.

Selling tiny humans is and has always been legal.

If a fetus has laws, how come zygotes do not?

What about an embryo?

That is zygote discrimination!

Couple says wrong embryos implanted by IVF clinic in "unimaginable mishap"

A recently filed lawsuit claims a New York couple gave birth to other peoples' children, after a fertility clinic impregnated them with the wrong embryos. The couple had been expecting female twins, but instead gave birth to two male babies — who they then had to give up to their biological parents.

The couple alleges CHA Fertility Clinic knew about the embryo mix-up and tried to conceal it. On the clinic's website, it claims to have "fulfilled the dreams of tens of thousands of aspiring parents" in more than 22 countries. This couple says it shattered theirs.

After spending more than $100,000 on in vitro fertilization services to become pregnant, an unidentified New York couple say they finally succeeded. But when they gave birth in March, the Asian-American parents claim they were "shocked" to find neither baby was of Asian descent.

Tens of thousands of embryos are stuck in limbo in fertility clinics
The lawsuit claims genetic testing confirmed the babies belonged to two other couples, forcing them to give the babies up to their biological parents. They still don't know what happened to their two embryos that should have been implanted. The lawsuit names co-owners of CHA Fertility Center, Dr. Joshua Berger and Simon Hong, as responsible for the "unimaginable mishap."

Human error, however, is not uncommon at IVF facilities, according to expert Jake Anderson.

"It's this agonizing process to grow embryos. And it involves almost over 200 different steps and when you assume this happens to thousands of patients every year within that laboratory, all of a sudden you've got a lot of moving parts," Anderson said.

More than one million babies have been born in the U.S. through IVF or similar technologies. But Anderson says recent headlines about clinics destroying or mixing up embryos raise valid questions about the painstaking process.

"Have we become reckless and too careless with people's most important genetic material and their future happiness?" Anderson said.

In 2009, Carolyn and Sean Savage experienced similar loss upon learning the baby they had just conceived through IVF was not theirs.

"You're so excited, and you feel like, 'finally,' and then to have the rug pulled out from under you in this kind of manner is – it's so painful," Carolyn said.

The Savages carried the baby to term, before giving him to his biological parents. They say hearing the news of another IVF mix-up was heartbreaking.

"I cannot express how utterly unacceptable this situation is," Carolyn said. "It is preventable, protocols need to be followed, and they need to be taken seriously."

The couple in this latest lawsuit accuses the fertility clinic of medical malpractice, negligence, and 14 other counts. The lawsuit also says the couple has suffered significant emotional distress.

A lawyer for CHA Fertility clinic declined to comment.

In a statement to CBS News, a lawyer representing the unidentified couple said they "sustained traumatic emotional injuries and financial losses" and that they are filing the lawsuit both for compensation and "to ensure that this tragedy never happens again."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CRISPR & Christian Pro Life Propaganda Campaign For Corporate Parental Rights

"No more birds and bees because we only need hosts."
(I bet some may not even be human hosts - they're here...)

Before you were a fetus, you were a zygote, but do not tell that to the christian pro life advocates.

That would mean they would have to drop everything and re-engineer their entire personhood laws being rammed through the States.

Yes, science should matter when making law, but, alas, it does not.

CRISPR research uses zygotes.

Zygotes can be made in a test tube.

So, where do they get those zygotes?

These zygotes come from Snowflakes and the pro life movement.

Collecting zygotesZygotes with an abnormal number of pronuclei were obtained from patients undergoing IVF from September 2017 to April 2018 at the NMITS AHP them. V.I. Kulakova. From 11 pairs, 21 abnormal zygotes were obtained (16 were injected with CRISPR-Cas9 and 5 served as controls).

TRANSLATION: ABORTION

The National Institute of Health funds CRISPR research in food production.

Infant mortality is the product of the pro life movement.

Preterm births is just another method of getting those zygotes.

This gives birth to just another facet in the arguments of parental rights, because these zygotes were procured by corporations.

This takes chattel law to nanolevel of analysis because it is legal to sell tiny humans.

Russian Biologist Welcomes Backlash Over His Plan For Gene-Edited Babies

Before you are a fetus, you are a zygote

A Russian biologist has thrust himself to the forefront one of the world's most urgent medical-science debates by declaring his intention to use CRISPR gene-editing techniques to modify the genomes of human embryos and implant them in women.

Denis Rebrikov, a DNA-technology specialist who heads a genome-editing lab at a Moscow fertility clinic, vowed this month to seek Russian authorities' approval to disable a gene, known as CCR5, in carefully selected embryos of would-be mothers who are HIV-positive or who suffer from specific genetic disorders.

The aim would be to block the transmission of the condition and at least boost resistance in the lab-altered newborns, beginning as soon as this year.

"I don't like to use the term genetically modified," Rebrikov told RFE/RL, in English, on June 27. "It's just a correction of a mutation we have in [some] babies."

The plan has raised an international outcry over the fate of such "CRISPR babies" and the ethical and technological implications, amplifying fears that arose when Chinese scientist He Jiankui made a shock announcement last year that he'd modified the genomes of recently born twin girls.

Scientists and ethicists have grappled for decades with the practical and moral obstacles to genetic engineering in plants and animals. Genome editing in human embryos that are then transferred into a woman is seen as a thick red line for many.

Rebrikov said he welcomed the controversy since the influential scientific journal Nature quoted him two weeks ago vowing to go forward as soon as he had suitable volunteers and local approval. "My position is that I don't want to do it silently," he told RFE/RL. "I want to do it publicly, with publicity so that we can talk about it."

'Crazy,' Slippery Slope,' 'Designer Babies'

The debate over lab-directed gene mutations intensified when biologist He told the world in November he had edited the same CCR5 gene in "Lulu" and "Nana," twin month-old girls who he said appeared to be healthy.

The revelation embarrassed Chinese authorities, who quickly suspended He's activities, and added to the chorus of calls for a global moratorium on such work.

The 43-year-old Rebrikov works at the Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology as well as the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. Unlike the controversial Chinese scientist, Rebrikov said, "I didn't show any babies -- just work."

The World Health Organization (WHO) has formed an expert advisory committeeto develop "global standards for governance and oversight of human-genome editing," but its conclusions appear to be at least a year off.

A number of the WHO committee's members have already condemned Rebrikov's eagerness to proceed, using terms like "irresponsible" and "cowboy."

Other scientists and geneticists have called his plan "crazy" or a "slippery slope." Another cited familiar fears of "designer babies."

But WHO committee co-chairwoman and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) director Margaret Hamburg acknowledged to the medical news site STAT that they don't have "the teeth to do some of what may ultimately need to be done" in the face of such pioneering efforts.

Russian Advantage?

Rebrikov must still find suitable cases and volunteer subjects from among a small subset of HIV-infected women or parents who share the mutation for a condition like deafness or dwarfism, and then convince at least three Russian regulatory bodies to green-light the plan.

"Russia now, I think, is a good country to do this type of experiment," Rebrikov told ScienceInsider recently. "It's not very free in politics, but it's very free in science."

Rebrikov expanded on that notion to RFE/RL, saying it was a reference to Russia's regulatory environment. "In Russia, we have a very good system of idea centers," he said. "The point is not the technology. It's mostly all the same technology everywhere. It's a regulatory point, and I think that the specificity of Russia is that we can make a decision to use some technology or clinical methods...on the level of a ministry or a local body."

Nature published an editorial that acknowledged Rebrikov's "skills, tools, and position" and praised his willingness to publicly discuss plans for his gene-altering work. But it urged the scientific community to "act now on CRISPR babies" and insisted "Rebrikov must listen to the concerns and the critics, and not move forward until the dangers are assessed."

Almost overnight, the high-profile effort at a breakthrough by Rebrikov and his team has boosted Russia's profile in genetic sciences and gene editing -- a field that was revolutionized with the emergence in 2015 of the so-called CRISPR technique that employs molecular "scissors" to find and replace functional bits of DNA.

Technical Challenges

CRISPR's appeal is that it helps modify genes -- in theory, to remove unwanted characteristics for more desirable ones -- without introducing outside DNA, for instance from a bacterial carrier agent.

But experts warn there could be unforeseen effects on "CRISPR babies" because of changes to the gene in question ("on-target" mutation) or a CRISPR mistake that alters the wrong snippet of a genome ("off-target" mutation).

Some of those consequences might only appear later in life, they say, and could include susceptibility to other diseases, shortened life spans, or other tragic outcomes.

They stress the tradeoff between the risk of error and the benefits of gene-editing to combat conditions that might be rare and otherwise mitigable.

Rebrikov said his lab had a system -- "I think unique" -- that allowed careful checking for "off-target" effects of a genome editor.

A bigger obstacle, he acknowledged, was ensuring that all the cells in a blastocyst that will develop into the embryo are free of problems, rather than just the five-to-seven cells that can be inspected in the lab.

...And Ethical

Beyond scientific and ethical challenges, Rebnikov's plans could invite objections on religious grounds. "The attempts of human beings to put themselves in the place of God by changing and 'improving' His creation at their will may bring to humanity new burdens and suffering," the Russian Orthodox Church stated in a chapter on bioethics in its Basis Of The Social Concept.

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church wields considerable influence and boasts 90 million or so adherents.

"I think it's a good situation that we're talking about it, because the population should be ready for a [new] technology, and now they're not ready," Rebrikov told RFE/RL. "To make society ready, we should be talking about it -- a lot. We need to discuss it over and over, until a majority [of] society says, 'OK, the research is safe and researchers will do everything correctly,' and society will accept it."

He and his colleagues first hinted at his intentions in a research paper in the Biomedical Journal of Pirogov RNRMU in October. In it, they said preclinical work suggested that a CRISPR-Cas9 modification should "protect the fetus from HIV infection in utero and at childbirth" and provide "a potential lifelong immunity to HIV."

"Importantly, the edited genome will be passed on to subsequent generations," the paper predicted.

HIV/AIDS remains a growing epidemic in Russia, with nearly 1 million infections by official estimates but more than twice that number according to some.

Rebrikov has said his target group would be women who are resistant to antiretroviral (ARV) treatments to purge their blood of the HIV virus that can lead to AIDS but who nevertheless want to have children.

He conceded that statistics suggest the number of such women is only around 30 in all of Russia, out of a population of around 145 million people.

But because HIV is not always transferred "vertically" from a parent, Rebrikov would prefer to target cases where both parents suffer from a genetic disorder that is more likely to be passed. "I don't like the HIV case because we couldn't say 100 percent that the baby would be infected," he told RFE/RL.

In plants and animals, genetic modification has been used for decades under evolving regulatory climates to boost crop resistance to disease or pestilence, to bring meatier cattle or fish to the table sooner, or to simplify the delivery of vaccines, among other things.

But scientists have warned about the threat genetically modified organisms pose to biodiversity, the mixing of modified stocks with wild animals, and more unforeseen problems.

And the public has been wary of the effects on consumers, the food chain, and the environment.

CRS: Advanced Gene Editing: CRISPR-Cas9 Updated December 7, 2018 Congressio by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Fetuses Get Representation In Court In the Name of God

The appointment of an attorney for a fetus has nothing to do with choosing life.

This is nothing more than experimental policy in stripping core civil rights from people, starting with women.

The appointment of an attorney for a fetus is nothing more than the empowerment of Child Protective Services as an excuse to further the Christian-mounted social investment initiatives to profit from the privatization of social programs.

This is a multi-billion dollar, unregulated, non-profit industry that has recruited armies of religiosity to promote the business maximizing revenue of human capital.

What is next?  Programs to incarcerate mothers for living in poverty and poor nutrition to prevent natural abortion?

Does the state automatically snatch the child at birth as the de facto parent?

God cannot be cross-examined nor audited.

A New Alabama Law Lets Judges Appoint Lawyers for Fetuses. Here's What That Looks Like.

Anti-abortion protesters surround a clinic in Huntsville, Alabama Sarah Cole/AP

This spring, Alabama Republicans passed an extreme new law that would force minors who want to have an abortion without a parent's permission to undergo a grueling court trial—and it would give judges the right to appoint a lawyer for the fetus. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal court to block the law, prompting national headlines.

But years before Alabama passed this new law, some state judges were already appointing lawyers for fetuses. The results weren't pretty.

In Alabama, a minor who wants an abortion must have permission from a parent. The Supreme Court has ruled that states with such parental involvement requirements have to provide an out for young women who fear abuse or have have cut off contact with their parents. Alabama, like 36 other states, allows a minor to ask a judge for permission instead. The process, known as a judicial bypass, is meant to be swift, non-confrontational, and strictly confidential.

Alabama's new law sets up time-consuming inquisitions. It requires district attorneys to cross-examine minors who want an abortion without parental approval, and it allows DAs and lawyers for fetuses to call witnesses to testify against the pregnant girls. Under this measure, a judge can adjourn bypass hearings for long periods of time, and a judge can disclose the minor's identity to any person who "needs to know." If a minor's parents become aware of a bypass hearing—which the Supreme Court intended to be confidential—the law allows the parents to participate in the hearing and be represented by a lawyer.

In other words, Alabama's law is unprecedented. But the practice of appointing attorneys to represent fetuses in judicial bypass hearings is not. An Alabama judge tried to appoint representation for a fetus in the state's very first bypass hearing in 1987. A 1988 Ms. cover story on that case reported that the judge, Charles Nice, reassigned an attorney who wanted to represent the minor to represent the minor's fetus instead. The attorney refused to cooperate, and Judge Nice dropped the idea.

State Judge Walter Mark Anderson III revived the controversial practice in later cases. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, he appointed attorney and local pro-life leader Julian McPhillips to represent fetuses in nearly every one of the dozens of bypass hearing held in his court. A 1999 article in the Nation recounted how McPhillips cross-examined a 17-year-old girl. The minor was seeking an abortion in secret, she testified, because her father often pointed his gun at boys who seemed interested in her. McPhillips named the seven-week-old fetus "Baby Ashley."

McPhillips: You say that you are aware that God instructed you not to kill your own baby, but you want to do it anyway? And are you saying here today that notwithstanding everything that you want to interfere with God's plan for your baby?

Minor: I think that is between me and God.

McPhillips: And you are not concerned after you have had the abortion that some day you may wake up and say my gosh, what have I done to my own baby?

Minor: It may happen.

McPhillips: You are not worried about being haunted by this? Here you have the chance to save the life of your own baby.... And still you want to go ahead and snuff out the life of your own baby?

Minor: Yes.

I spoke to Anderson, who is no longer on the bench, this spring. The former judge recalled that McPhillips often called witnesses to testify against minors in bypass hearings. McPhillips brought in doctors to testify that abortion was medically risky, and called as witnesses women who had abortions in the past and come to regret the procedure. "I'll never forget one lady who testified," Anderson said, "She said, 'I wish that somebody had protected my baby.'"

In the case of "Baby Ashley," Anderson ruled that the minor was mature enough to decide on her own to have an abortion. McPhillips appealed that decision on behalf of the fetus. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ruled that a fetus couldn't appeal.

But appeals court didn't prevent other judges from appointing attorneys for fetuses in the future. After the "Baby Ashley" case, Anderson told me, two other Alabama judges followed Anderson's example and began appointing fetal attorneys in all their bypass hearings. A trial judge in Florida implemented the practice in a 1999 bypass hearing of a 16-year-old girl; the fetal attorney dubbed his "client" "Baby Teresa."

Julianna Taylor, a Montgomery, Alabama, attorney who represented many minorspro bono, recalls that lawyers for fetuses would "give these hypotheticals: 'What if I could promise you that this child is going to have a beautiful, happy life with a loving adopted family? Would you kill a child that was already one year old?' Really? Here you are making a huge decision, a huge decision for a teenager, probably the biggest decision that they'd ever have to make, and you're going to ask them questions like that?"

Anderson kept appointing lawyers for fetuses until 2004, when he and the judges who had followed his lead lost their reelections for reasons unrelated to the bypass hearings. Anderson didn't know that the idea he pioneered had become law until I told him this spring. "That's fantastic!" he exclaimed.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©