# note. soon after my response to Annie as the CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi South America, she no longer holds a position for the company.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Miriam - SQP
Date: 25 September 2014 4:41:20 PM GMT+02:00
To: Annie Longsworth, Kevin Roberts, Brian Sweeney
Subject: Saatchi & Saatchi position on Climate Change?
Dear Annie, Kevin, Brian, Michael,
The leaders of Saatchi and Saatchi,
What is fundamentally disappointing about your email is that the dishonesty does not even come with any clever disguise. You have simply lied.
Case in point: "the Saatchi political campaigns have become the stuff of legend, studied by aspiring politicians and young people hoping to make their career in the advertising industry" The Independent. So i remain perplexed by your disingenuous reply, stating that Saatchi and Saatchi has invented a group policy where it is forbidden to be involved in political issues & amused at your further instruction that on this basis, that i should no longer ever send an email about my work to prevent climate change, defending the Great Barrier Reef and Amazon Rainforest from destruction, nor should I ever again communicate to Kevin Roberts, Brian Sweeney [ Sweeney Vesty ], Annie Longsworth or Michael [ whoever Michael is ]. The news that Saatchi and Saatchi is now forbidden to be involved in political issues, may come as a rather big shock to all your political clients across the world.
In truth, political issue's are your game. Especially in Australia. I could reference a list of client links that you have with the various parties, who are intent on destroying the Great Barrier reef so as to provide cheap, toxic coal to unsuspecting rural Indians, including members of the Australian government, but that would be boring as your email some 3 weeks after mine, suggests a well considered awareness but ill- strategised reply.
The fact is that climate change is not a political issue as your email almost frivolously labels it. Climate Change is a survival issue. Whilst Saatchi & Saatchi may have reigned over advertising supremacy throughout the time of devastating environmental contamination and destruction across the world and most likely profited enormously from this [ by the way, thats criminally liable profit if related to any destructive activity since 2002, ]; you, are now on the team of world decision makers responsible for determining the fate of living hell or dignity for future generations with your current and coming decisions.
Any attempt to gloss the destruction of the planet with beauty, humor, slick presentation or deceptive cleverness, would not only render you criminally liable for your facilitation of the crimes commission, but no doubt, The Independent's 'stuff of legends' reputation, will suitably evolve to an understanding that it was the advertising firms who sold the public on the physical destruction of our quality of life and the devastation of our environment. If this sounds too apocalyptic for you, then please take the time to read the most recent publications of the United Nations, The Pentagon, NASA's recently funded mathematical model pointing to the collapse of industrial civilization within 15 - 20 years, The carbon war room calculations, the UK Government office of science reports and yes, the statements of most sane, intelligent scientists, NGO's, leaders and individuals of common sense across the world.
What you have failed to factor with your [almost] humorously penned lie stating that you are forbidden involvement in the worlds most predominant advertising agency manipulated industry of politics, in this email to my attention [ reflective perhaps of the general deception condoned for your politicians to proliferate? ] , is that there are individuals within the Australian government, business community and widespread population, who are actually interested in protecting one of the world's seven great natural wonders. Therefore, your choice, which points to be in support of those intent on destroying the Great Barrier Reef and the lives of millions of Australians, and against my work which offers a chance to defend the life of the Great Barrier with a court who has the right to take power over a government otherwise determined to facilitate the harm, is not necessarily landing you on the right side of Australian money, power, popular opinion or future client bookings. I'd go so far as to predict that the potential of this poorly chosen position, may not be as valuable as you foresee. It certainly infers that Saatchi's are on team 'continue to cause climate change'.
The SQP-ICC case [ Victory Australia Campaign ] to defend the Great Barrier Reef against individuals like Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart, GVK Reddy and Gautam Adani, which I lodged with the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and other prominent leaders in August, offers the world, it's most incredible legal defense to prevent substantial climate change. By making the 'intent, attempt & facilitation' of dirty industry developments illegal, it forces investment instead into clean energy and sustainable industry, therefore the SQP-ICC legal context offers the world a genius solution to simply stop generating climate change acceleration, by stopping new developments that will cause it. Common sense really.
The outcome of stopping climate change is equally important for the environment as it is for the benefit of those people who you sell into your clients advantage every day. A successful SQP-ICC legal case to protect the Great Barrier, can avoid the need to place a new carbon tax on every citizen of the world, who are already struggling to finance their existence without new obligations to pay for the devastation cost, caused by the environmental destruction hobby of the rich, escalated by their continued [ facilitated by you? ] development of dirty industry. I discussed your email, wishing to deny awareness of this chance i suggest for a better world and a fairer situation for the majority of people within it, with a friend who has worked with advertising agencies for years last night and their reply would have been entertaining, if it were not really rather tragic. "Miriam", he said, "they don't give a **** about the health of the planet or human rights, they only care about snorting cocaine, hookers and a reality devoid of integrity, based on a willingness to sell whatever their clients wish their 100 million budgets to promote, 'coal is great' or whatever it takes, 3rd party outcomes irrelevant". Wow, is his statement true? I must say, that he spoke with genuine insight from the position of a suitable expert.
The fact is that you, as Saatchi and Saatchi's leaders, have formally declared today that you do not wish to receive any further information or communication from me about this immensely powerful chance for the world to prevent climate change; [ and there is no other international legal context in existence that offers the world the chance to stop climate change, where national governments are otherwise intent on facilitating it. Only the SQP-ICC context which i have shared with you and which you do not want to hear of again. I can only presume that you don't wish me to afford you this valuable insight because it challenges your conscience but I presume the lawyers furthering the evidence on this case may discover elements or perhaps participation more concrete.
This SQP-ICC legal case to protect Australians, has the ability to realize a court order for Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer's fortunes to be forfeited so as to afford restitution and reparation of the human and environmental health damage caused since 2002, or simply as a penalty for the attempt to cause more harm. The financial benefit for future generations of Australia by preventing the crime of the Galilee mines, the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent contamination of India's air, makes an appealing proposition for many Australians. The Victory Australia campaign is a sensible resolution for the two factors that Nasa's funded mathematical model recently disclosed as required to avoid the collapse of industrial civilization within 20 years; achieving both an end to unsustainable resource exploitation and the redistribution of unreasonable wealth inequality. The Victory Australia campaign offers a highly beneficial outcome for all of Australia. It will simply be more profitable to see this SQP-ICC case successful, than the comparable short term jobs & contracts achieved by destroying the greatest natural asset of their nation and one of the worlds cultural identities and natural wonders. Therefore, we continue to prepare the Victory World campaign to promote this legal submission opportunity in Australia, with great interest and support arising.
This SQP-ICC case also offers a very special opportunity to protect all life groups across the world, from the rapidly increasing chance of extinction, extermination and genocide. My proposition to gain an amendment to the Rome Statute's separate interpretation text document, so that the SQP-ICC legal context extends the Rome Statute to protect the coral reef as a national group of Australia, is important for the world. I believe any responsible, good quality individuals, would unconditionally support my identification of this incredibly simple legal adaption which would offer the coral reef a chance to live. This is an essential protection to be gained so that those billionaires who continue to further their intoxication with personal greed, still disguised with the corporate word 'profit', can be financially and criminally contained [ impoverished & behind bars a possible outcome ], so they can no longer be free to destroy one of the worlds most magical, wonderful ecosystems, essential to the survival of millions of Australians, in order to achieve cheap profit from the contamination of India. So clearly committing what future generations will remember as part of the world's greatest crime.
The Galilee mines will destroy the Great Barrier Reef. The vast majority of scientists agree on this.
Australian's rely on the Great Barrier reef to sustain life and this SQP-ICC case / Victory Australia campaign, gives them a genuine defense to avoid the physical destruction that will otherwise occur, both in whole or in part, by the predicted death of the Great Barrier Reef.
Therefore, Saatchi and Saatchi are at an interesting juncture in defining your future identity in Australia, the world and the future quality of life for Australian's & the world [ also with regards to the Victory Amazon campaign in defense of the Rain-forests, which is in your immediate jurisdiction Annie ], now requiring you to to openly declare the side of history in which you will fall.
Advertising agencies can either continue to facilitate the commission of the climate change crime for selfish profit of wealthy clients or instead, join the hope of future generations to actually save this world and protect our quality of life from toxic air, filthy water, contaminated land and a culture of disrespect that is accelerating the extinction of most other living species.
Your current decisions and the irresponsible position inferred by today's email lie, indicate you are deciding weather future generations must exist on new primary food source of plants and bugs, due to facilitating an advance of the scientific calculations which predict that we will have a dead ocean by 2028.
So, for any alleged involvement in protecting or facilitating the conduct of the parties intent on destroying the Great Barrier Reef, the following would be your choice:
Choice 1. Saatchi & Saatchi would decide to continue disguising destruction in deception for the perpetrators of our global ecosystem devastation and face a shared criminal liability for committing the crime [ I copy you on article 25.3 of the Rome Statute below, which should make your alleged liability clear ]:
In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
17Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
Choice 2. Saatchi & Saatchi decision-makers would take advantage of the second sentence within Article 25.f, [ as follows ] and voluntarily and completely abandon any action which assists the attempted commission of the crime, which of course would leave your agency otherwise free to support the advance of the Victory Australia and Victory Amazon campaigns as you discussed with me in detail, by telephone, most recently, July 2nd 2014, Annie.
However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
Whilst you currently take the position of lying, in order to avoid reading the reality of my criminal cases against those you associate with and profit from, I do hope that you consider that the time has come for a global culture change, where you may only become an advertising agency who survives into the future, by determining the differentiation due between those destroying or defending life.
- Cape Cod - the irony of claiming a love mark for an ocean ecosystem struggling to stay alive. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cod-fishing-20140831-story.html
Something clearly out of balance in that equation...
Another irony is claiming a 'love mark' as Tom's of Maine, which declares 'natural', 'healthy' and 'defense of animals' products online as an element of their brand. I wonder the conflict between a proposed high integrity brand and an ad agency with seemingly without willingness to compromise profit to end environmental destruction. Validating this request with an outright lie.