by antiaristo » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:31 pm
bindare,<br>Thank YOU for listening, and take all the time you need.<br><br>Just so you know the connection between Archer and the Windsors....<br><br>============================<br><br><br>C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12<br>Paul Braithwaite Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran<br>Equitable Members Action Group Spain Canaria<br>28 February 2004<br>Dear Sir,<br><br>You know all about the Equitable Life fraud from your own experiences. I have told you, through Gordon Pollock, about the fraud at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. I have told you about the fraud at Anglia Television. How many examples does it take to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering? Let me give you one more, from that same insurance industry as Equitable Life.<br><br>I imagine you are old enough to remember the Miners Strike in 1984/85.<br>Once Thatcher had broken the union there was nothing left to restrain the Windsor Gang and their filthy homicidal Freemasons. The very next year, 1986, three seemingly unrelated events took place.<br><br>First, the Thatcher government passed the Financial Services Act.<br><br>Second, a controversial “English Jurisdiction” clause was quietly inserted into the contracts signed by Americans recruited as Lloyds “Names”.<br><br>Third, Jeffrey Archer published A Matter of Honour.<br><br>You probably remember the headlines from ten years ago. Massive losses at certain Lloyds syndicates. Names wiped out by unlimited liability. Respected men and women, pillars of their community, ending their own lives. Did you know that the very final face confronted by these doomed individuals was none other than Her Ladyship Mary Archer? The Chairman of Lloyds “Hardship Committee” was the hard-nosed debt collector for the Windsor Mob. But then who has sympathy for a Lloyds Name?<br><br>With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see how Lloyds salesmen targeted gullible wealthy Americans by playing to their snobbery. Thousands of American citizens were actively recruited as names during the 1980’s, only to have the sky fall in on them in the early 1990’s.<br><br>Many felt cheated, and decided to fight. But when they tried to sue they found that they had signed a contract that stipulated that any dispute must be fought-out under English jurisdiction. How could this be? What competent US attorney would allow his client to agree to such ruinous terms? For not only did this mean that all disputes were to be settled in English courts by English judges, but it also meant that English law applied – specifically the Financial Services Act and the Lloyds Act. (And of course lurking in the background, out of sight, lay the Treason Felony Act of 184<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> .<br><br>The answer of course is that none of those thousands of attorneys did allow his client to agree such suicidal terms. Which brings us to A Matter of Honour.<br><br>It’s a crappy novel, of course. But there is one revealing exchange between a Swiss banker (Bischoff) and a Soviet agent (Poskonov). They have conspired to defraud a third party, Romanov (yes, Archer is that inspired!). But let Archer tell the story.<br><br>“Not at all, my dear Bischoff,” said Poskonov. “After all these years the honour is entirely mine. And kind of you to open the bank on a Sunday. But now to business. Did you manage to get Romanov to sign the release form?”<br>“Oh yes,” said Bischoff matter-of-factly. He did it without even reading the standard clauses, let alone the extra three you asked us to put in.”<br>“So his inheritance automatically returns to the Russian state?”<br>“That is so, Mr Poskonov, and we in return…”<br>“…will represent us in all the currency exchange transactions we carry out in the West.”<br><br>So there you have it.<br>The spook targets the “mark”.<br>The aristocrat recruits the “mark”.<br>The banker switches contracts at the last moment.<br>The “mark” can’t be bothered to read the “whole damn contract”.<br>S/he signs. With fatal consequences (literally).<br><br>I’ve enclosed about one half of a Time Magazine special report written by David McClintick, and which was my prime source of information about the scams at Lloyds. It was a great piece; it was enormous; it was true. So it got buried. At this point I suggest you read that material (Time, Feb 21 2000; pp41-51)<br>To my mind understanding what happened at Lloyds, and why it happened, is the key to understanding quite a few present-day riddles. The three I personally would highlight are these.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>First, the amazing and enduring political influence enjoyed by the Archer family under successive governments of both left and right. During the Tory Supremacy of 1979 to 1997 he was noteworthy for being a “valued and trusted friend” of Thatcher and Major. Both nominated Archer for a peerage. Yet Blair was prepared to deliver Archer’s chosen opponent as Labour’s candidate for London Mayor. Blair was also preparing to endorse the Major treatment of what happened at Anglia Television. The favourable treatment from the courts (“the Fragrant Mary Archer”). The never-ending efforts at rehabilitation. The assassination of Jill Dando and Monica Coghlan. It seems the Windsor Mob is willing to grant any favour to their favoured son who dreamt up the Lloyds scam. A scam that grossed “at least $23.8 Billions for just the years 1988 through 1992”.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Second, the massive push currently underway to marginalize the role of the jury as arbiter of fact, and to promote the role of the judges. You will have noticed that Archer was convicted by a jury of twelve honest men and women. But the Lloyds scam, like the rest of the Windsor protection rackets, was facilitated by pliable “professional judges” (i.e. failed Queens Counsel). In point of fact judge nobbling (the “subconscious influence” of the Treason Felony Act) is absolutely central to the Windsor plan for their Thousand Year Judicial Reich.<br><br>Not that all of this has gone unnoticed elsewhere. You may have seen that Richard May was dumped this week from the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia. Even Kofi Annan has had enough. So let me quote myself writing to Slobodan Milosevic right at the beginning of the Hague extravaganza of victors’ justice.<br><br>“Richard May, of the English Court, and Patrick Robinson, of the Jamaican Court, both swear to obey the same person. She is really out to get you, isn’t she? Another of her agents is Mr Blair. I think you will find that Mr Blair was an impostor at the time of the NATO campaign in former Yugoslavia. Check with anyone who was at Feira on 19 June 2000. Best of luck.” (19 February 2002)<br><br>Third and most important this drama explains why Blair took Britain to war in Iraq. Nobody is satisfied with Blair’s own various explanations. The British people still have no satisfactory accounting for what has been done in their name to the sovereign state of Iraq. And Blair wants to “draw a line and move on”. Well he would, wouldn’t he?<br><br>Trying to understand “Blair’s reasons” is a chimera and a red herring because they do not exist. You might as well try to understand a hologram. Tony Blair is a first class Mob lawyer, untroubled by any moral implications of his craft. His flexibility is purely tactical. He represents the interests of his client (our Most Gracious Lady the Queen) at all times, and most notably when espousing his various personal missions from God. If the British held more faith he would never be able to get away with it.<br><br>Blair took Britain to war in Iraq to pay off a private debt, pure and simple. It is the Windsor interest that maintains British subservience to the USA. A deal drawn up by Thatcher, brokered by Major, and delivered by Blair.<br>A sweet deal, as they say, with a macabre inherent symmetry. For just as the people of Iraq had no possible defence against George Bush and his machine of death, so those American Names had no possible defence against our Most Gracious Lady the Queen and her Treason Felony Act.<br><br>A few days ago I was reading about some of the treatment handed out by invading British squadies to Iraqi civilians in their own country. Of how one blameless man was bound and hooded, and then kicked to death. If you have taken the trouble to gain access to the documents lodged with the European Court of Human Rights* you will understand why I feel a certain affinity with that poor man. There but for the grace of God go I.<br>Yours faithfully,<br><br><br><br>John Cleary BSc MA MBA<br><br>cc Allan Beith MP (with attachments, correos Certificado 54826)<br>Dr Tony Wright MP ( “ “ )<br>Lord Goldsmith ( “ “ )<br>Gordon Pollock QC ( “ ) <br><br>*See ECHR (Strasbourg) ref. 24316/03 John Cleary v United Kingdom<br><br><br>Addendum 14 Marzo 2004 <br><br>Michael Mansfield, President of the UN Court for Sierra Leone, is under the same pressure as Richard May. Mansfield too will be dumped.<br><br>According to today’s London Observer, the financier behind the aborted coup in Equatorial Guinea is Ely Calil, a close associate of Lord Jeffrey Archer. Small world!<br><br><br>===========================<br><br>The Time Magazine article is now online<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://loidz.bravehost.com/Uploads/TIME_EUROPE_FEB21_2000.html">loidz.bravehost.com/Uploa..._2000.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
