Attorney Jerry Leaphart Mentioning 9/11 at Geneva UN Meeting – 24 Apr 2009…

Jerry Leaphart spoke on behalf of the Professional Institute for Advanced Wound Recovery. One page about them is here:…

Jerry Leaphart has been acting as Dr Judy Wood’s Attorney for the Qui Tam case against NIST…

Jerry Leaphart contacted me and asked me to post this video on my YouTube account. He speaks about Anti-Semtiism, 9/11 and the Slavery of times past.

More information about the event he spoke at can be found here:…

Censored Statement can be read here:



PIAWR is pleased to participate in the Durban Review Conference, in Geneva, (WCAR09) and we hereby submit this Statement for consideration.  PIAWR is based in the United States, but considers itself as having a global perspective on health care and on disparity in health and well being, which disparity has a clear link to race and to racial identity in many parts of the world.


 While we are disappointed that the United States will not be officially represented at the Conference, consistent with its long-standing boycott of every UN conference on racism that has been held from 1978 onwards, we will not engage in overt criticism of the Obama Administration in Geneva.

It actually came as a surprise that the US chose to boycott this one because all of the US’s stated preconditions for attending were met and the US still boycotted.

As the US won’t be officially represented, it is hoped that a lobbying effort will succeed in having the concessions, consisting in revisions to the draft Declaration, that were made to entice US participation, removed from the final Declaration. The concessions involved the Palestinian question; language concerning the Transatlantic slave trade; and language concerning criticism of religions (read: Islam). PIAWR will have something to say in re all 3 of those issues.

We hope to obtain a time slot to address a plenary session of the conference, just as we did in 2001, in Durban.  NGOs never know, in advance, how much time will be set aside for ‘civil society’ participation in plenary sessions, so we will have to wait and see what develops.

As to Obama, PIAWR will take the position that the US deserves some credit in showing to the world a degree of progress on the issue of racism by electing a black president.  PIAWR will seek to tie in the current worldwide economic crisis to the issue of racism.

Thus, PIAWR would place emphasis on five themes: 1) US progress; 2) "the Palestinian question;" 3) the transatlantic slave trade; 4) criticism of religion; and 5) perceived linkage between racism and the economic crisis.


We have already indicated that the election of President Barack Obama may be seen as an indicator that the effects of racism, so long prevalent in the United States, may be easing at a rather deep and profound level.  If so, that is good.


As to the Palestinian question, one has to tread carefully in that almost any statement in support of the proposition that a State that bases its identity on a basis that gives credence to a specific ethnic identity may run a risk of being exclusionary and, therefore, quite possibly racist, will be labeled as ‘anti-Semitic.’  And, therein lies the essence of PIAWR’s statement.  We submit that the Oxford English Dictionary should be petitioned to remove that word from the lexicon because that word is incongruent and inconsistent.  Here is why we make that assertion:


Present day Israelis, who benefit from the protective aura associated with the word anti-Semitism are not Semites.  Rather, they are of Eastern European descent.  On the other hand, Palestinians are Semitic and are, nonetheless excluded from the protective recognition of that word.  Hence, the word is incongruent.


The Durban Declaration’s references to the transatlantic slave trade need to be strengthened as significant research, consisting in analyses of relative standards and measures of well-being, confirm that the effects of enslavement have been transferred from one generation to the next; thus, in a very real sense, the effects of the transatlantic slave trade have yet to be adequately dealt with.


It is understood that the movement to place restraints on criticism of religions has met with opposition based on the perceived curtailment of the right of free speech that limitations on religious criticism might impose.  We here assert that such criticism lacks proper context.  The fact is, those countries that appear to be placing emphasis on the right of free speech are among the same countries who, over the last thirty (30) years, have engaged in hostile acts against a rather lengthy list of countries whose predominant religion is Islam.  In a very real sense, if you are a resident of a Muslim country that is lightly armed, militarily, then you would be well-advised to keep an eye on the sky, as you can never know when your country might be subjected to bombing for some stated justification or another stated justification.


Given that history, I would say that Islamic countries may well have good reason to reject criticism of Islam.

At the time of this conference, the world is in the midst of a very serious economic crisis that has been caused by excessive reliance upon easy access to credit and a run-up of massive public and citizen indebtedness in the developed countries, which indebtedness is associated with the ability to purchase, on credit, all manner of consumer goods and services that have served to allow the citizens of those developed countries to live beyond their means for decades.  On the other hand, the lesser developed countries have not ever been allowed to accumulate debt for that purpose.  Indeed, they have not yet attained the capacity to have their currencies treated in the same manner as that of the developed countries.


As the solution to the current crisis emerges, one factor that needs to be considered seriously is the ability of lesser developed countries to have their fiat or paper currency given as much credence and credibility as that of the developed countries.  After all, it is the latter, not the former, that have sparked a global economic collapse.

Finally, PIAWR recalls that just after WCAR Durban concluded, the events of 9/11/01 occurred.  We think that horrific attack, about which very little is known with any degree of accuracy, caused attention to be diverted from the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.  Irrespective of the abundant proof that the destruction wrought on 9/11 was caused by exotic weapons, in the nature of Directed Energy Weapons, according to a client that the below signed representative has the honor of representing in a legal case; and not all by "19 Arabs with boxcutters."   That mysterious attack is, on some levels, a demonstration of how public opinion can be easily swayed by reference to racial and ethnic stereotyping.  As such, that event may have more to do with racism than is generally acknowledged.



Professional Institute for

Advanced Wound Recovery Inc.





By  Jerry Leaphart,

            Chief Legal Officer

This entry was posted in .

Related articles...

Comments are closed.