Second Batch 2002 - 2004

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:07 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Andrew Gilligan Esq. Spain Canaria Correos certificado 59555ES 4 August 2003 Dear Mr Gilligan, Brian Hutton’s Phoney Circus The Hutton Inquiry puts me most in mind of the court order forged by Judge John Baker. It has all the trappings of the real thing. The stern looking establishment judge; the intimidating surroundings of the Royal Courts of Justice; all the lawyers (the front three rows, according to the Telegraph). There is just one minor flaw. The judge “has no power to swear witnesses”. There was a minor flaw in the Baker forgery, too. “The order was actually made by His Honour Judge John Baker and not Sir John Baker.” Though it had all of the trappings. Let’s just stand back from this for a moment and look at the events that led up to the establishment of the Hutton Inquiry. June 11 Blair and Chirac dine together in Paris June 12 Blair announces massive shake-up in legal system. Irvine is fired and the position of Lord Chancellor abolished. Lord “Charlie” Falconer is appointed Secretary of State in the brand new Department of Constitutional Affairs June 16 Lord “Charlie” dons the Lord Chancellor’s tights. He’s the last Lord Chancellor (honest!). June 18 John Cleary writes to Lord “Charlie” to introduce himself. June 27 Campbell storms the Channel 4 News Centre and demands to be interviewed live on air. Winks at Jon Snow when finished and off air. June 30 Dr Kelly writes to his line superior at the Ministry of Defence. Confesses to meeting Gilligan, but not to the whole truth of what passed between them. July 6 Joseph Wilson writes op-ed piece for New York Times. Uranium from Niger scandal finally breaks. July 10 The Kelly gambit is implemented. The poor man is put on public display in order to undermine Gilligan and the BBC and to restore Campbell’s “integrity”. July 18 Dr Kelly found dead July 19 Blair, under intense pressure in the Far East, announces a full judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Kelly’s death. Promises to “give evidence personally”. Hides behind sub judice excuse. July 19 Tony’s best mate Lord “Charlie” appoints Lord Hutton and sets the terms of reference. Outcome: the inquiry won’t be fully public; the inquiry won’t be televised; the inquiry won’t swear witnesses (whither “sub judice”?). After what they have put Gilligan and Kelly through, they treat themselves with kid gloves (white kid gloves, of course). This looks like a classic bait-and-switch to me. Does all this Blair/”Charlie”/Hutton/Blair mutual back scratching remind you of anything? It reminds me of the restraining order issued by John Rogers QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge) against John Cleary on 20 January 1995. A favour for his best mate Philip Shepherd QC. “You give me Court Orders on my dodgy cases, and I’ll do the same for you.” (See Cleary to Reno handwritten version, 29 May 2000). And guess what? Lord “Charlie” is a Queens Counsel. Lord Hutton is a Queens Counsel. Blair had to leave the profession before his thirtieth birthday, but never mind. He is married to a Queens Counsel. Any other Queens Counsel involved? Well, there is Geoff Hoon QC, and Jack Straw QC, and Donald Anderson QC. Then there is the QC acting for the BBC; there is the QC acting for Mrs Kelly; and the QC from the Treasury Solicitor acting for the government. That’s a grand total of eight-and-a- half Queens Counsel if you count Blair as one half. Anyone for a half round of golf? Before I go any further, let me declare an interest. Based on my personal experiences I don’t like lawyers. I like barristers less than solicitors. I like Queens Counsel not at all, for they epitomise the class system that lets lesser men cheat and win out over their betters. To quote myself to Lord Mackay of Clashfern on 18 April 1995, when referring to the John Rogers QC restraining order. “To which person of flesh and blood was the gag granted? The answer is to no one. The Royal Courts of Justice granted a denial of the most fundamental rights of self defence and free speech against a subject of Her Majesty and a citizen of the European Union to nothing more than a ghost. Will you defend that decision in Strasbourg or The Hague? Who was the man who granted the gag? It was Mr John Rogers QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge). And the gag was in part to prevent the truth about the criminal acts perpetrated by Mr Philip Shepherd QC coming to the light of day! Just imagine. In a parallel universe somewhere out there sits Mr Shepherd Philips QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) hearing Mr Roger Johns QC on behalf of another bunch of gangsters in pursuit of secrecy for their evil practices. And getting it. This QC lark is too good to be true. There is the same total discretion as available to a judge, absolute control on what is recorded, the same immunity from comeback, no PACE and, if you will forgive the pun, no judges rules. No wonder it is so popular amongst you chaps.” Now the fact of the matter is that there is no real reason at all for all this legal flim-flam and sandbagging. The fact of the matter is that Lord “Charlie” has decided that the presiding judge should have no power to swear witnesses, so this is NOT repeat NOT a legal process. It is yet more theatre for the plebs, or, if you prefer the Roman analogy, Brian Hutton’s Phoney Circus. A circus designed to take the plebs’ attention away from the fact that a single woman secured the mobilisation of Britain’s defences in order to pay off a private debt. (Flyingdales, anyone?) Take a good look at all those Queens Counsel snouts in the trough of the people’s purse and ask yourself- “to whom do these people owe their loyalty?” It’s in the name, Queens Counsel. Their loyalty is to that same Regina that mobilised Britain’s defences on the basis of fabricated intelligence. They have the power to put you and me in prison on a whim, and they are hardly going to bite the hand that gives them such power. Don’t just take my word for it; look around you at what is going on in the real world. The whole rotten system is collapsing around her ears. The Queens Counsel abomination is to be abolished after more than four hundred years. The Lord Chancellor was abolished after 1400 years, and then re-instated after four days (the last one – honest!). A new Supreme Court is to be created outside of the Lords. The lords itself is to create a new post of President of the Chamber (appointed, surely, like all the members?). A new Department of Constitutional Affairs has been created to house the cabinet justice portfolio. And to top it all off, they won’t let poor old Woolfie, who is over seventy, retire from Lord Chief Justice! They are in a terrible mess, and quite frankly it serves them right. It serves them right because they are being forced to make these changes, and I’ll tell you how. One of the blessings attendant on graduate status from the Harvard Business School is a directory of fellow graduates. I have a listing of all HBS graduates who live and work in Europe. It’s quite impressive and over an inch thick. From that directory I have selected at random a large number – between seventy and one hundred – that are not known personally by me. From all over Continental Europe, native Europeans with a business degree, significant experience in the real world of commerce, and absolutely flawless English. For more than three years I have been sending my material to these people. They do not know me, but they know I am a graduate from HBS, and so not completely stupid. They know my own name has been “disappeared” from that same directory since 1996. They also know I am committed and persistent and that I believe wholeheartedly in what I am doing. So over time some of them have begun to read what I’ve written. Some of them have begun to think about what I’ve written. Some of them have begun to ask questions that the British are unable to answer. These people are coming to understand the true nature of the judicial dictatorship that is the United Kingdom and, not unnaturally, are asking what it might mean for them. They are starting to draw the inescapable conclusion that it does not make sense to put their money into a jurisdiction that cannot be trusted. The position of the City of London is at risk. And that is the ONLY reason that she is making these cosmetic adjustments to the abomination within which you are trapped. The “smoking gun” is the Blair/Chirac dinner followed immediately by the Irvine/Falconer fallout. So if you believe that bunch of clowns known collectively as Queens Counsel are in any way interested in the truth of what happened to the late Dr David Kelly, I have a very nice bridge across the Thames I’d like to sell you. They are there at public expense to defend the Windsor interest. And there are eight-and-a-half of them because the Windsor interest lies in not being indicted for the war crimes they have committed. The purpose of the Hutton Inquiry is to launder the British Establishment. Mr Blair knows it. Mr Mandelson knows it. For what it’s worth, I’ll give you some advice. Go along willingly with whatever your bosses at the BBC decide, but make sure that any promises made are committed to writing and notarised. Your bargaining power lies in the known fact that the Blair machine has targeted you personally and destroyed your career. The Blair dossier carrying your name and the “Star Chamber” transcript prove that. You have an extremely good case to put before the European Court of Human Rights, but she will kill you before you get there. So cut the best deal that you can with the BBC and get it all in writing before the show begins. Oh! And if you can, get an Irish passport. We’re citizens, not subjects. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin cert. 75552 Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman cert. 75551 Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy cert. 75553

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:09 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Joseph Wilson Esq. 35003 Las Palmas de Gran C/o New York Times Spain Canaria 5 August 2003 From the Abdication Crisis to the Attack on America Dear Mr Wilson, I salute a fellow brave patriot. I get most of my current affairs from the Internet. So I’m fully aware of the analogies being drawn between what Bush is doing to America and what Hitler did to Germany. My personal view is that they are probably correct, for I can see the connection. Elizabeth Bowes Lyons married into the heart of the British royal family in 1922. By the time that Hitler came to power she had been at the top for eleven years. The Windsor family had close connections with Nazi Germany. They also had close connections with Bert Walker and Prescott Bush. When King George V died in 1936 he was succeeded by his eldest son, who became King Edward VIII. But Edward was not married. The Foundation of the Windsor dictatorship is the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This was emergency legislation in its day (starvation in Ireland, revolution on the Continent) but it is still on the books. This act gives dictatorial powers to “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”. But Edward was NOT MARRIED. There would be no such person as “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”. The dictatorial powers would fall away. Disaster. This was the true crisis of 1936. This could not be allowed to happen, and Edward was told he must marry. He responded by choosing a woman he knew to be wholly unacceptable. In return he was told he must choose between the Throne and his mistress, and the rest, as they say, is history. When King George VI was crowned in May 1937 he swore the Coronation Oath, as is required by law, but his wife did not. This contravenes the Coronation Oath Act of 1689 and means that the whole Coronation is null and void. But nobody seems to have noticed. At least two people did notice the illegal nature of the 1937 Coronation: Edward and Mrs Simpson. There is evidence to suggest a challenge was launched through Monckton, Edward’s legal adviser. There is evidence that both sides of this civil war were vying to cut a deal with Hitler. As to why she came out tops in this vicious catfight, we can probably trust Hitler himself, for whom she was “the most dangerous woman in Europe”. So she had an intimate understanding of how the Nazi machine worked in Germany. She had a long and intimate relationship with the Bush family. They have a history of joint crime escapades (Lloyd of London). She believed herself invisible and worked through bro. Cheney. She was 101 years and one month old on September 11. Do you think it might all have been her idea? After all, you can have a reverse takeover of a country too. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin correos cert. Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman correos cert. Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy correos cert. Enc Cleary to Chirac 30 July 2003 Cleary to Wildhaber 30 July 2003 Cleary to Gilligan 4 August 2003 Cleary to William of Wales 4 January 2002

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:12 am

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Mrs Janice Kelly 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Correos certificado 99790ES Spain Canaria 20 August 2003 Dear Mrs Kelly, I offer you my deepest condolences and sympathy. Your late husband was led by his conscience and his common decency, and he did the honourable thing. But he did not know all of the facts. For example, to quote Iain Scott, speaking within those very same Royal Courts of Justice on 20 December 1994. “You do not know what you are up against.” Your late husband, like me, was up against the Windsor family and their filthy, homicidal Freemasonry. They might have verified their own story, but chose to go after their “enemy”. To buckle under that sort of pressure is to be human. After reading the Queens Counsel’s questions and Campbell’s replies I think their strategy is becoming clear. The “smoking gun” is that meeting of the JIC held on 9 September 2002 and which was chaired by Alastair Campbell. And they are going to bury it amidst a sea of revelations. Just like they buried John Cleary all those years ago. I’m not going to tell you my story. God knows you have enough on your plate right now. But I would like you to read a letter I wrote to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, on 26 August 2002. The reason this is relevant is that the letter effectively seals-off the option of invasion using Royal Prerogative powers alone. Once this letter was in the public domain Blair was always going to need the authority of Parliament (if not of the people) for legal reasons. So “they became desperate for evidence” around 28/29 August 2002. At the time I wrote to Mr Annan the “Dossier” actually covered four countries, of which one was Iraq. On 10/11 September the “Dossier” focussed exclusively on Iraq and incorporated both the “45 minute” claim and the “Saddam sought uranium from Niger” claim. (I think this version is what Campbell is referring to when he talks about the “first draft”.) Between 26 August and 10 September a lot of things happened in 16 days. 30 August the “45 minute” claim “just popped up” 03 September Mr Blair promised us a “Dossier within weeks” 05 September “Structure as per TB’s discussion” 09 September the “45 minute” claim “was seized on” 10 September “First draft” of the “Dossier” produced Why are Powell and Campbell allowed to give their performances from written, non-contemporaneous notes (scripts)? If you recall the Star libel case we weren’t allowed to see Archer’s diary either – for “national security reasons”. And that turned out to be fake and a perversion of the course of justice fourteen years later. Mrs Kelly, I’m going to advise you to be 100 percent cynical when it comes to everybody that is a part of the British Establishment. I’ve got two cases before the European Court of Human Rights and I can tell you stories about the Windsors that will turn your hair white. So don’t doubt for a minute what your instincts tell you: On 28/29 August the British needed evidence. On 30 August the British created that evidence. On 9 September the British authenticated that evidence. So when your late husband reported that Alastair Campbell had inserted the 45-minute claim he was being 100 percent truthful. For Campbell had indeed chaired the very meeting which “inserted” the claim. Yes it was the JIC. But it was the JIC as chaired by a domineering Alastair Campbell waving around his bloody enormous Royal Prerogative. It is now clear that your late husband reported what happened on 9 September 2002. If they cheat and bury that very real event they bury their guilt. And in so doing make a fantasist of your late husband. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Andrew Gilligan Lee Hughes European Court of Human Rights (refs. 23188/03 & 24316/03) Henry Waxman Joseph Wilson Enc. Cleary Second Affidavit 30 January 1995 Cleary to Kofi Annan 26 August 2002

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:14 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 K M Reid Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran ECHR No 24316/03 Spain Canaria 2 September 2003 Dear Mr Reid, Thank you for your acknowledgement of 25 August 2003 and for the confirmation that my application is in hand. While I have your attention, might I seek clarification on a couple of your comments? First, you refer to a single case number. Can you confirm that my two separate applications have been completely consolidated into this single case reference number? Second, you raise the issue of timescale – “as soon as practicable”. Since the speed with which you are able to act will largely be determined by the degree of cooperation on the part of the United Kingdom authorities, I should perhaps give you some context. The last time I received income in any form was in May 1994. I was able to survive on my savings for the first two years, but for over seven years now I have survived on charity. This persecution is the formal policy of the United Kingdom under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, and is designed to end my life – ideally by my own hand. The United Kingdom has on at least six occasions sought to end my life by more direct, violent means. So you see it is wholly in their interests to carry on with the same delay, obfuscation and prevarication that have been their trademark throughout these last nine years and three months. Yours sincerely, John Cleary Ps Can I burden you further with the information that I will travel to England tomorrow, 3 September, and will return, God willing, on 24 September. During my stay I will at no time “seek to put any constraint upon her” and expect my privacy to be respected. Whatever happens I ask that you pursue this to the end. God Bless. Enc Lord Chancellor to John Cleary delivered 28 July 2003

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:17 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Spain Canaria K M Reid Esq. 10 October 2003 European Court of Human Rights Reference no. 24316 /03 Dear Mr Reid, Thank you for your kind reply of 23 September. It is now nearly nine years since I abandoned my two children. Nearly nine years of their young lives lived without their father. At that time I made an agonizing judgement about what was in the best interests of my two beloved daughters, Georgia and Victoria Cleary. And that judgement was that they were best served if I severed all contact. As though I were dead. I don’t necessarily need to hear about the White House vendetta against Joseph Wilson to know that these people consider loved ones to be “fair game”. My family was threatened in writing by Michael Hughes and verbally by Iain Scott. I don’t necessarily need to hear about the sabotage of Valerie Plame’s career to know that these people break the bones of innocent bystanders. My experiences teach me that human wickedness knows no bounds when confident it is manifest in secret. Confident enough to give itself a public name: The Eleventh Commandment. I had no doubts at all that the Windsor family and their filthy homicidal freemasons were quite capable of causing harm to small children. Quite capable of harming my own small children. Lest I have been too cryptic about my fears and actions while on the run in Ireland from 1995 to 1996, the reason I used an answering machine was so I could not be threatened with “consequences” for my children. And the reason the caller would invariably hang up when the machine cut in was the very opposite. The caller wanted to issue threats without leaving a trace. The Eleventh Commandment. But now my eldest daughter is nearly fifteen years old. My little girl has grown up to become a young woman. She knows now that I am not dead, but alive, somewhere. And she wants to make contact with me. In January 1995 the Staffordshire police came to her front door and told my then wife that I was being pursued in three counties, that I was “mentally ill”, and thereby ended our marriage. I am not quite sure you can imagine the damage and destruction all these years of pain and suffering and desolation were designed to inflict on my sanity and my will to carry on living. The scars, though invisible, run deep. And what of the vandalism inflicted on the minds of Victoria and Georgia Cleary? Can you understand the potential for damage to a fourteen-year-old girl who is not only the victim of divorce, but is also “unwanted” by her own father? How about a twelve-year-old girl? Do you have any girls of your own? So I need to know if it is safe for me to make contact with my children, to beg their forgiveness. But first let me be clear about what I mean by “safe”. If I make contact now, they must have a father for as long as they need me. There is no point in re-appearing, only to disappear once more. To do so could cause further damage. I reckon I can take perhaps another year of this solitary prison cell. That’s not a threat. But I am beginning to do strange things, really uncharacteristic things, and I’m finding it hard to fight off depression. Where the mind leads the body must follow. I’ve had no money and no health coverage since 1994. I’ve started to smoke again. Basically I’m going down fast. So I am greatly heartened by your news that my case will likely be examined this month or next. But I am greatly troubled by the precedent set by the European Court of Justice in the matter of “Golden Shares” held by the British government in British public companies. The European Court of Justice took from 1996 to 2003 to determine that a restriction on capital is indeed a restriction on capital. The issue in my case is a straightforward theft of personal private property, and is comprehensively documented. The decision is, therefore, a logical formality. But this decision, as well as releasing me from my personal dungeon, can do enormous damage to the Windsors. Free speech will again become the right of the British people. This decision could be far more of a threat to the Windsor dictatorship than the loss of any number of golden shares. So I can expect the Windsors (“never apologise, never explain”) to put everything into stonewalling on this one. And I certainly do not have the same clout as the European Commission, who in any case want nothing whatsoever to do with John Cleary. If the European Court of Justice is any guide I have another seven long years to wait, by which time Victoria will be twenty two and Georgia nineteen. And I will no longer be around. So I would be genuinely grateful if you, the European Court of Human Rights, could supply the answers that my eldest daughter is seeking. For after all these years, and still so very little light at the end of the tunnel, I simply cannot. RSVP Yours sincerely, John Cleary

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:19 am

Dear Mr/Ms Elens-Passos, 3 December 2003 Thank you for your carefully (12 days worth) worded reply of 25 November. I’m disappointed of course, but given the new Entente Cordiale I’m not really surprised. Corruption is the very reason I have taken the trouble to circulate these documents to those I consider to be my peers. They can decide for themselves on the truth of the matter and on the integrity of the Council of Europe. But you cannot buck the market, Mrs Windsor. The market in expectations functions well, behaves rationally, has digested all publicly available information (including that contained in my own application), and has accurately discounted the future. Those “in the know” know that the Treason Felony Act of 1848 (TFA184<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> is dead meat. To quote Lord Steyn “The idea that s3 of the 1848 Act could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal.” And that changes everything. Just look at the fantastic boosts to British liberties that have been achieved these last three months. The Windsors’ attack dogs – the police and the courts – can be de-fanged and de-clawed. And only time, and the Hutton Report, will show whether this Pandora’s box can ever be closed. Look at the evidence. On 3 November the British legislature was informed that three hundred and twenty eight persons had died while in police custody or shortly thereafter during the last five years. Three hundred and twenty eight separate homicides, and never an apology, never an explanation. That is the Windsor interest masquerading as the public interest under authority of the TFA1848. Then, completely out of the blue on 13 November, Sussex Chief Constable Ken Jones travelled to Liverpool to meet the family of James Ashley, who was shot dead on 15 January 1998. The family’s solicitor, Jane Dyson, described the Chief Constable’s apology as “unprecedented”, and she is entirely correct. The same is true for the prisons. You can see from my application how the Windsors tried to do murder to me in January 1995 and then again in April 2000. How could they hope to get away with it? Easily. Over the past thirty years more than a thousand human beings have been murdered whilst incarcerated in a British prison. Overwhelmingly they were male, working class and ethnic minority. So I fit the profile quite well. Now this is very useful if you have a problem and make a habit of telling your servants to “make it go away!” So can we really feign surprise that our Most Gracious Lady the Queen should use her dictatorial powers to suppress all information about individual homicides? So no apologies, and never an inquiry in all these thirty years. Until the fight put up by the family and friends of Zahid Mubarek, a nineteen year old first offender who was murdered on 21 March 2000. Lord Woolf and two others had ruled that under English law no inquiry was mandated. Yet on 16 October FIVE Law Lords were hurriedly convened to overrule Woolf and effect an historic volte-face. Again, this is wholly unprecedented. So we are starting to get information now about some of the dirty deeds done by agents on the Windsors’ instructions. And these three months have also been marked by the free flow of information about the Windsors themselves. We have learned from Paul Burrell of how Diana Spencer knew she would be killed, in order to clear the way for a Charles/Camilla marriage. We know from George Smith that crimes of violence and domination have been suppressed and hidden by the royal household. We have learned that life does indeed imitate art in the ambiguous, ambivalent relationship between the Prince of Wales (Edward Fox) and Michael Fawcett (Dirk Bogarde). This 24-carat horror story resonates profoundly with my own experiences at the hands of this wicked family. Now compare all this to what happened to Kitty Kelley’s book on the Windsors in 1997, when Elizabeth Bowes Lyons was in her pomp and brandishing the TFA1848 at every opportunity. This book by a world-renowned author is still not available in the United Kingdom, but that ban now has no basis in law. Developing further the subject of bans with no legal foundation, I’m sure you know all about the Public Interest Immunity certificates scam (PII). The British State secures a criminal conviction by preventing the victim from defending himself in a court of law. And having secured the conviction the poor unfortunate victim is rendered helpless within the prison system. And we know what goes on in there. The most notorious use of the PII was probably in the Matrix Churchill case, where the British State was looking for patsies to take the blame for selling armaments to Sadam Hussein (déjà vu). But the system is employed with increasing frequency because it works! The procedure calls for a minister of the crown to sign a document certifying that specific information is injurious to the public interest. This specific information just happens to be the core of the defence: but that, as they say, is show biz. Under the authority of the TFA1848, and by the device of a PII signed by a minister, the interest of the Windsor Mob morphs into the public interest. That is why David Shayler was prevented from using the public interest defence, and was convicted under the Official Secrets Act, even though he had revealed a crime. Now the public interest and the Windsor Mob interest are two very different things, often diametrically opposed. You only have to look at the smash and grab raid on Iraq to see the truth in that contention. The Windsor Mob wanted invasion while the general public did not. That’s a pretty raw difference. Yet when passed through the upside down, back to front, positive to negative filter that is the TFA1848, then the public interest lies in not being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is better for us if we do not know about such things. Yet with the TFA1848 in suspense there is now no continuing legal basis to underpin these rank abominations. And what’s more, the public interest defence is now available to those whose actions are truly in the interests of the general public. I certainly hope the courageous Kathy Gun learns that what was denied David Shayler cannot be denied to her. All this is evidence enough of a fait accompli. The damage to the Windsor dictatorship has been done. There is now no reason to persecute me apart from the vile and miserable vindictiveness of the Windsors, their Lords and their Knights. All this filth and corruption, all those victims, all of this pain and suffering and desolation. And for what? So that Charlie’s girlfriend can lord it over the peasantry as our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. And leave Charlie to wow his boyfriends with his enormous royal prerogative. Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense. Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense. Shame on him who thinks ill of it. That’s the medieval equivalent of “You’re with us or you’re against us.” Those were the words on the lecterns before Bush and Blair, when they stood shoulder to shoulder in London to deny their war on Islam. This is the motto of the Order of the Garter. The Knights Templar. The Crusaders. “From the 18th century to 1946 appointments to the Order of the Garter were made on the advice of government. Today the order has returned to its original function as a mark of royal favour. Knights of the Garter are chosen personally by the sovereign.” The garter was returned to its cabalist roots by our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. She was acting on the instructions of the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley. It is important to understand that the Order of the Garter is not a Christian body. St George’s Chapel is not a Christian church and not a part of the Anglican Communion, but a reproduction of the Temple of Solomon. Everything is back to front with these people, so it is not difficult to deduce that they worship the Prince of Lies. These Crusaders, like the last, have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. In January 1991 White House correspondent Sarah McClendon reported overhearing George HW Bush say “If the people knew what we are doing they would chase us up the street and hang us from the lamppost.” Knights of the Garter include Harald of Norway, Juan Carlos of Spain, Carl Gustaf of Sweden, Beatrice of the Netherlands, Margarethe of Denmark and Jean of Luxembourg. And of course Bonesman George HW Bush. Warrior knights who send others to die on their behalf. Knights of the Temple of Solomon, out to destroy Islam and take possession of Jerusalem. And the only way to stop them is to destroy the British Monarchy. The only way to save democracy may lie with Ari Fleischer’s well-directed bullet. In 1994 the wicked old witch of Windsor cast an evil spell on my family and me. In 2002 I broke that spell, only to have the Knights of the Prince of Lies deny there was ever such a spell in the first place. When you tell me this decision is not subject to appeal you speak a higher truth than you understand, for this bad faith cheating by the Council of Europe invites only violence in return. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Amnesty International (Irene Khan); Liberty (Katharine Gun) Postscript to Leticia Ortiz, betrothed to Felipe de Borbon (c/o Ana Blanco, Noticias Television Española) In January 1995 uniformed officers of the Staffordshire Constabulary drove up to her front garden gate, walked up her pathway, and proceeded to inform my then wife that I was a mentally ill fugitive being hunted in three counties. Now of course my wife believed what they told her. Why would they lie? Just as William Windsor had to believe D.I. Maxine de Brunner when he was told that the police could prove that Paul Burrell was a thief. Why would the police lie? The eighth article of the Convention on Human Rights states: 8.1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 8.2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except…. Now as a working class man who is not a Freemason I know that I have no rights. But my former wife is a woman. Does she have these rights? Does she have the right to respect for her family life, free from interference by a public authority? Was Kay damaged by that highly conspicuous drop in by the local Bill? Attached is a recent four-page letter from my eldest daughter to my mother. I hate circulating material like this. But I can think of no other way to allow Kay to speak for herself about her own suffering since that dark day that crashed our lives nearly nine years ago. Her only crime is that she is considered to be “fair game”, having married John Cleary and borne his children. I tell you now: you will marry into a family of murderers and thieves. You will never be happy with a man with so much blood on his hands. If you want to look into your future you must re-visit the movie classic The Godfather. Borbon as Corleone. You owe it to yourself to check out the facts. Start off with article 22.5 of the Spanish Constitution. Move on to Masoneria in the Enciclopedia Universal Illustrada (copyright 1928 and therefore free of censorship). Then confront your fiancé. Diana Spencer gave an interview to the French press when in Paris. She made the remark that she “would rather be with those down below than with those up above.” A last minute change caused her to remain in Paris for an extra day….. and then she was dead. You too will be called on to make that decision one day. Will you be with those “up above” or those “down below”? If you are with those “up above” then you will be personally responsible for all the horrors to be carried out in your name. You too may have to choose between losing your soul and losing your life. If you think you can handle it, tell me what I should say to Victoria, just turned fifteen.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:22 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Spain Canaria 5 January 2004 Charles Allen, Chairman All Directors of Granada Television All Directors of Anglia Television Correos Certificado 05155ES Queens Bench 1994 c 2024 J P Cleary v Anglia Television Ladies and Gentlemen, Yes, I know the rules of the game. You won’t pay me my due because it would go against your instructions under the Treason Felony Act 1848. But did you know that the TFA 1848 was recently challenged in Europe, and was in suspense for at least the period 16 October to 13 November 2003? Remember when they couldn’t stop all those juicy revelations about Princess Charlie and the rest of the Windsors? So when you failed to pay me my contractually due monies at the normal October month end, you were acting on your own initiative. And you know what that means. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:23 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Gordon Pollock QC 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Counsel to BCCI Liquidator Spain Canaria (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu) 6 January 2004 Dear Sir, You know what happened at the Bank of England, but do you know why? You know that the Bank of England acted in bad faith, but do you know why it was dishonest? You know that Lord Bingham covered-up this dishonesty, but do you know why? Would you be interested to know that the institutional bad faith exhibited by the Bank of England is in fact a part of a mosaic of transcendental dishonesty and corruption, ranging from Lloyds of London to the invasion of Iraq? Transcendental dishonesty and corruption that is, in point of fact, perfectly legal under English law. “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge” Allow me to introduce you to s3 of the Treason Felony Act of 1848. 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. You will note that our Most Gracious Lady the Queen can do pretty much whatever she wants to do, anywhere she wants to do it. Anybody that tries to “put any force or constraint upon her” will get (lawfully) zapped. And do you know what? For just about the whole of the twentieth century (1910 to 2001) the Windsor family has included at least two lawful queens. When King George VI “passed away” in 1952 his wife did not lose her powers under the TFA 1848. She just went underground as the “…powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge”, and became the greatest criminal mastermind in world history. She looked on as the post-war socialists built up the powers of the State, safe in the knowledge that she could legally take over the apparatus at any time. She exercised her dictatorship indirectly, through the apparatus of that state. A judge, a coroner, a regulator, an army officer, a spook, a policeman. When given a direct order from our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, what could these subjects do? If they opposed (put any force or constraint upon) her she would destroy them as she destroyed my own family. So they buckled and feigned a stupid incompetence. Lord Woolf, Michael Burgess, Howard Davies, Gordon Kerr, John Scarlett, John Stevens*: the list is without end. They did what they were told and kept their mouths shut, and their wives and children are undiminished. The Bank of England lied about the status of Bank of Credit and Commerce International because it was acting on the orders of the Windsor family**. The same is true today. Anybody that does business with or leaves their money in London is subject to the Windsor interpretation of the Treason Felony Act – just ask the ghost of Roberto Calvi. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Gordon Brown correos certificado Michael Howard QC “ Mervyn King “ Jean-Claude Trichet Sir Alan Greenspan Paul Braithwaite, Secretary General EMAG Enc Cleary to Judge Peter Cory 10 July 2003 Cleary to William of Wales 4 January 2002 *It was lies from Stevens’ own corrupt officers that led to the prosecution of Paul Burrell. These lies were never investigated due to the TFA 1848 (see Cleary to Peat, November/December 2003). **At the time it acquired Anglia Television in 1994, MAI plc was effectively a private bank operating outside of the banking system.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:25 am

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Sir John Stevens 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Metropolitan Police Commissioner Spain Canaria (Correos certificado 05291ES) 12 January 2004 Diana Spencer Inquest Dear Sir, Further to my copy letter to Sir Michael Peat of 16 November 2002. I understand you have been charged by royal coroner Michael Burgess to look into the possibility that Diana’s death was other than a simple traffic accident. I have information that may be of assistance when making your enquiries. My information concerns motive. Why would anyone want to murder the princess? And my answer is, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as re-affirmed on 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales, viz: 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. As you can see, this law grants unlimited powers to our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. So long as Diana was alive Charles was not free to marry. If Charles wanted these dictatorial powers for himself he had first to be rid of his wife once and for all. I’m afraid it has all happened before (in 1936 and 1952) and not only with Henry VIII. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Mrs E. Windsor (ref. your Coronation Oath sworn 2 June 1953) Michael Burgess

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:29 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Queen Elizabeth II 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Correos certificado 85977ES Spain Canaria 15 January 2004 Queens Bench 1994 c 2024 JP Cleary v Anglia Television Your Majesty, I write further to our long history of correspondences on this fraud, going all the way back to 19 April 1995, and with particular reference to s3 of the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This latter legislation makes reference to “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”, and contains the erroneous assumption that such a person is unique at any point in time. We now know that it is perfectly possible to have two or even (as in 1952) more queens simultaneously. An examination of the wording of this law reveals that it can have a completely different meaning when there are two Queens Elizabeth, as was the case from 1952 to 2002. One Queen Elizabeth can use her lawful powers to prevent any person from “putting any force or constraint upon” the other Queen Elizabeth. And that of course is exactly what happened with the Anglia Television fraud. Elizabeth the Elder did commit the crime, whilst Elizabeth the Younger prevented we victims from defending against her. The Windsor protection racket in all its sumptuous glory. But now, thank God, we are finally rid of your mother. There is but a single person to whom this law applies. So I would remind you of the words you spoke on 2 June 1953, and attach the Coronation Oath Act of 1689 to help you remember. I remind you that the swearing of this English Oath was a precondition to your ascension to the Throne of England. I remind you that you are legally bound by those words sworn before the people on a Christian Bible. When your mother died her powers died with her – including those she had vested in the Prince of Wales. It is now illegal for Charles Windsor to exercise royal prerogative powers, for example in the issuance of commands to public officers. It is now manifestly illegal for you to compel misfeasance in public office, to nobble a judge or a policeman. It was misfeasance for you to take the country to war in Iraq. It is misfeasance for you to suppress and cover-up all those crimes committed by your mother, like the murder of the late Pat Finucane. And it is a misfeasance that every month you should use the Treason Felony Act to prevent Anglia Television from paying me my lawfully due monies. With every month that passes, yet more lawbreaking is done by the directors of Granada and Anglia Television. “Will you to you power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your Judgements? “I will.” [HAND ON GOSPEL] “The things which I have here promised I will perform and keep. So help me God.” You appear to have forgotten. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Speaker Michael Martin Lord Chancellor Falconer Attorney General Goldsmith CASC Chair Allan Beith EC Commission Antonio Vitorino (Correos cert. Lord Brian Hutton enc Coronation Oath Act 1689 Cleary to Stevens 12 January 2004 Cleary to Peat 16, 26 November; 11, 14 December 2002 Cleary to Pollock 6 January 2004

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:33 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Paul Braithwaite Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Equitable Life Members Action Group Spain Canaria 15 January 2004 Dear Sir, “Misfeasance in public office” is what you have to demonstrate. Let me tell you a little story about the Independent Television Commission. In 1994 Richard Hooper was a director of Lord Clive Hollick’s MAI plc when it acquired Anglia Television and proceeded to savage the workforce and commit criminal fraud. The Chairman of the exclusively business friendly regulator was Sir George Russell (See Stevens to Cleary 17 November 1994). Ten years later Sir George Russell is now Deputy Chairman of Charles Allen’s Granada plc, which owns Anglia Television and continues to defraud the workforce (See Cleary to Allen et al 5 January 2004). The Deputy Chairman of the exclusively business friendly regulator is none other than Richard Hooper! But there is more. In 1999, before Lord Archer was forced to stand down, Stephen Byers asked his department chief to “have a look” at the Anglia/Archer insider trading inquiry. At that time the “Special Advisor to the Prime Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry” was none other than Lord Clive Hollick, the original architect of the fraud! These “regulators” are in fact the gatekeepers for what Mussolini called “Corporatism” – the fusion of corporate and state power in an alliance against the people. It is what the courts are there to prevent, unless the judges are themselves prevented from doing their job by our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. And unlike her mother, who used the Treason Felony Act to build a transcendental protection racket, she can’t do that because she has sworn the Coronation Oath. Yours faithfully, John Cleary Enc Stevens (ITC Deputy Chair) to Cleary 17 November 1994 Cleary to Allen et al 5 January 2004 Cleary to Pollock 6 January 2004

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:35 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Spain Canaria 17 January 2004 Antonio Vitorino European Union Commissioner Correos certficado Queens Bench 1994 c 2024 JP Cleary v Anglia Television Dear Sir, I have read on your web site of the sterling efforts being made by the Commission to counter organized crime. Of how you are determined to prevent international criminals from exploiting loopholes that arise on the frontiers between national legal systems. Of how you are to prosecute, to the full extent of the law, those well known people’s dictatorships in France and Germany. Perhaps you are unaware that the English common law system is very different to Continental law? Perhaps you are unaware that a country like the United Kingdom, lacking any constitution worth the name, could give rise to a fascist dictatorship? Attached is my latest attack upon this fascist dictator. This should be worth good money to suppress and cover-up. I don’t know what the bribery going rate will be, but I suggest you get on to the boys and girls at the European Court of Aristcrat Rights. And get a second opinion from Chirac*. (Always double source – if you want accurate intelligence.) Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Enc Cleary to Queen Elizabeth II 15 January 2004 *How much is a princess worth, Jacques?

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:38 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Elfyn Llwyd MP 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Bob Marshall Andrews QC MP Spain Canaria Douglas Hogg QC MP 23 January 2004 Lembit Opik MP Alan Simpson MP Gentlemen, An all-party group on war and the royal prerogative, at last. Well done. But don’t you think it remarkable that a “sovereign” parliament has taken so little interest up to now in this power to declare war? As things stand both the United Nations veto and the nuclear bomb are “in the hands of the prime minister”. But given that he has sworn to obey the Queen at all times, that those powers are personal to the Sovereign, and that he was ultra-vires throughout the first three years of his mandate, it is quite obvious who is really in control. A 77-year-old lunatic with a profound distaste for humanity. So it is not at all surprising that the United Kingdom is throwing its weight around in the world, spewing out depleted uranium to all corners, decimating blameless and defenceless peoples. This is what monarchs do when the people are weak. The question is whether or not parliament can impose the will of the people over the Freemasons, and stop all this madness. All you have to do is to repeal the Treason Felony Act of 1848. Follow the Law Lords’ advice and get rid of this obscenity, which makes a mockery of each and every one of the articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. The “royal prerogative” is nothing more than Disraeli’s clever misnomer for the Treason Felony Act. What parliament giveth, parliament can taketh away Repeal this crappy law and parliament will recover its sovereignty, its power to declare war, its ability to hold the Executive to account, and its self-respect. And do it now, before they have the chance to create another queen. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Dr Tony Wright MP, Chairman Public Accounts Select Committee. enc Cleary to Annan 26 August 2002 Cleary to Mrs Kelly 20 August 2003 Cleary to Stevens 12 January 2004 Cleary to Windsor 15 January 2004 Cleary to Falconer 18 June 2003 Falconer to Cleary 1 July 2003

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:40 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Spain Canaria 27 January 2004 Sir George Russell Deputy Chairman Granada PLC Correos Certificado Queens Bench 1994 c 2024 J P Cleary v Anglia Television George old boy, Yes, I know the rules of the game. You won’t pay me my due because it would go against your instructions under the Treason Felony Act 1848. But did you know that the TFA 1848 was recently challenged in Europe, and was in suspense for at least the period 16 October to 13 November 2003? Remember when they couldn’t stop all those juicy revelations about Princess Charlie and the rest of the Windsors? So when you failed to pay me my contractually due monies at the normal October month end, you were acting on your own initiative. And you know what that means. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Ps Please find attached my reply to your Ms Mullins. The fastest route to her desktop is clearly via the Main Board of the PLC. Be a good chap and pass it on, would you? Enc Cleary to Mullins 27 January 2004

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:43 am

C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Paul Braithwaite Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Equitable Members Action Group Spain Canaria 30 January 2004 Dear Sir, Well, the thieving old slag has done a real dirty on you and your members. Yet another secret inquiry, working to secret terms, reporting years hence. And only eight days after I wrote to you. Next she will ask Sir John Stevens to investigate the Serious Fraud Office! This is John Major and government by inquiry all over again. Even though her mother is dead she thinks she can carry on as before, as though Princess Charlie has grown his own royal prerogative (called Camilla). She’s still using the Treason Felony Act to protect her partners-in-crime. Part I of this “Misfeasance Guide for Dummies” (15 January) concerned the Independent Television Commission, where both the Chairman (Sir George Russell) and Deputy Chairman (Sir Jocelyn Stevens) were caught in the act of assisting Lord Clive Hollick’s fraud. This Part II will deal with misfeasance at the Department of Trade and Industry. Please find enclosed these documents i) DTI inspectors to Cleary 10 August 1995 ii) Cleary to DTI inspectors 24 August 1995 iii) DTI inspectors to Cleary 30 August 1995 iv) DTI inspectors to Cleary 30 August 1995 (!) v) Economist 21 November 1998 vi) Cleary to the Prince of Wales 1 November 1999 vii) News of the World 21 November 1999 Assuming you’ve ground your way through these papers, what do you think of all that? Much worse has happened before and since, but these particular events are noteworthy for their being contemporaneous with the Department of Trade and Industry responsibility for the regulation of Equitable Life. My own interpretation is that the Windsor family (“The Firm”) has corrupted an entire generation of the political class, who remain in power to this day. Jowell and Hewitt were both aware of Richard Hooper’s pedigree as corporate fraudster long before he was engaged to embalm the corpse of public service broadcasting. I’ve had ten years experience in dealing with the Windsor Gang, and I’ll tell you what I’ve learned. There is no point at all in trying to employ rules, reason and logic. Words mean exactly what she wants them to mean, and she understands only violence and force. She cheats using the Treason Felony Act at every opportunity, ranging from war-and-peace (with Hutton) to triviality (remember the Sex Pistols’ “God Save the Queen”?). They destroy anything in their path using “overwhelming force”. They have tried to kill myself – an Irish citizen – on at least six occasions. Their legendary insatiable greed for money and power is well deserved, and their respect for “law and justice in mercy” is non-existent. They are, in short, rotten to the core from all this power, and the world will be a far better place when we are rid at last of this wicked, wicked family. The Law Lords cannot intervene against the royal prerogative (see the Guardian 26 June 2003). And even though there is a well-recognized conflict with the Human Rights Act, the European Court* will not act because it has been nobbled by Chirac (as part of the deal on the renewed Entente Cordiale. Sixtieth anniversary of D-Day, and tenth anniversary since the lockdown at Anglia Television). The key to all of this lies with the repeal of the Treason Felony Act, and the responsibility lies square with parliament. Parliament chose to give away its powers during the emergency of 1848. Parliament is responsible for the way in which those powers (“at work in this country about which we have no knowledge”) have been used to promote misfeasance in public office. We have a very short window of opportunity before they can create another queen. It is for parliament to take back those powers to where they rightly belong, with the representatives of the people. Then, and only then, can you expect justice in that country. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA Cc Allan Beith MP (with attachments, correos Certificado 77443) Dr Tony Wright MP ( “ “ “ ) Lord Goldsmith ( “ “ “ ) Gordon Pollock QC ( “ ) *See ECHR (Strasbourg) ref. 24316/03 John Cleary v United Kingdom

Second Batch 2002 - 2004

Brian Hutton's Phoney Circus

Ambassador Joe Wilson

Mrs Janice Kelly

K M Reid (ECHR Registry)

K M Reid (ECHR Registry)

F Elens Passos (ECHR)

Charles Allen (Then Granada, now ITV Cheif Executive)

Gordon Pollock QC (BCCI)

Sir John Stevens

Queen Elizabeth II

Equitable Members Action Group

Antonio Vitorino (European Commissioner for Justice)

Elfyn Llwyd MP (All Party Group)

Sir George Russell

Equitable Members Action Group

Who is online