Archer Murder Returns to Haunt the Windsors

by **antiaristo** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:14 pm

Tell you what, emad QC. Why don't you post a link to this thread at Democratic Underground? I'm sure they'll be impressed with your abundant qualifications.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:14 am

Looks like emad QC has gone away. Lest he be tempted to return, I'll explain those two little letters "QC". They stand for Queen's Counsel. When there is a king on the ENGLISH Throne (this is, after all, the ENGLISH Court) the designation becomes KC. The QC is the pinnacle of the barrister's profession. You cannot buy a QC for less than $1500 per hour, and that's the rubbish ones. They are not necessarily clever. But it is so much more than that. A QC has the right to deputise as a High Court judge when he or she so wishes. A more absolute conflict of interest is hard to imagine, but that is how Her Majesty and her Scottish placemen like to run the English Courts. I stood as litigant in person in December 1994 when abandoned by my legal team. The case was Queens Bench 1994-c-2024 JP Cleary v Anglia Television. Hollick and Archer (both directors of Anglia) were represented by Philip Shepherd QC. After I had pissed all over Philip Shepherd QC they decided to "do" me. Shepherd went to one of his pals, John Rogers QC. To quote the forged Court Order of 9 February 1995: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>2 That the costs occasioned by this application and those costs reserved by the Order of Deputy Judge Rogers QC dated 20th January 1995 be paid by the Plaintiff.<hr></blockquote> Luvckily for me I had fled the country three weeks beforehand. As some of you know I wrote to Janet Reno twice to reflect on my experiences within that "obscenity" better known as the English Court. On 29 May 2000 I wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dear Ms Reno, The sovereign people of America are in great danger from a malign foreign power. Some salient facts: 1) Lloyds of London and the British Crown are one and the same. What happened at Lloyds (Time Magazine 21 February 2000) represents the precedent for the surrender of American sovereignty. This process if unchecked will culminate with the re-absorption of the United States into the British Empire and the full extension of English jurisdiction over all American citizens 2) There is no public scrutiny or supervision of the English Court because the people are not sovereign. 3) Queens Counsel, though professional advocates and litigators, also have the power to sit in judgement and deputise as a High Court judge. 4) This obscene combination inevitably leads to reciprocity and a secret, though active market in purchased decisions. 5) The Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand personify this culture of cheating and corruption with High Court Judge John Baker available to issue forged documents under a false name. 6) Mr Blair trained as a barrister with Derry Irvine and formed his character within this culture of cheating and corruption. Though Scottish and still in his twenties he was given the safest Labour seat in England. Likewise Mr Major, when unknown, was given Huntingdon, the safest Conservative seat in the country. 7) Mrs Blair QC also trained with Irvine and obtained her powers from the Queen on the day Mr Blair became Prime Minister. She can now cheat low-paid council workers with greater efficiency and even more profit. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Despite its poor public image the House of Lords served a clear constitutional purpose as an independent check. Hereditary Peers sit as of personal right and are not dependent on Crown patronage. By stripping these Peers of the right to vote but not their right to sit Mr Blair has completed the creation of a de facto hereditary dictatorship behind a smiling democratic façade. 9) The court is a diligent enforcer of draconian libel and secrecy laws buried deep within obscure legislation. There is no free speech, no plurality of the press. Look at the party line on the Princess of Wales and the Blairs’ reproductive achievement. Look at the suppression of Lloyds stories and the banning of Kitty Kelley’s book on the Windsors. Look at the career of Jeffrey Archer, from Star libel to withdrawal from the race to be mayor. The people are not stupid but they know nothing because they are subjects. And subjects have no rights to truth, information, balance or free expression other than those the Sovereign chooses to bestow. 10) Extra-territorial action and conquest is now an established fact. Look to Ireland’s leadership of liars paid by the British Crown and look to the future (two directly elected Presidents, the Prime Minister and Attorney General. And a press monopoly controlled from England). 11) This dictatorship actively and aggressively interferes in American politics and subverts the democratic process in many ways. Just one: she creates “Honorary Knights” – second identities with bank accounts and a passport which are not American citizens and so not subject to the universal “worldwide income” rule for American taxes. Not everyone pays their fair share and not everyone is chased by the IRS. 12) With American politics ruled by money and secrecy who can compete with those who pay no taxes? With those who maintain absolute personal privacy through a secret second identity in London? With those who take commissions from money grubbing brokers? With those who cheat? I repeat: the sovereign people of America are in great danger from this malign foreign dictatorship. 13) And last, the big secret. There are two persons called “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”. Both hate democracy and ordinary people with a passion. Both exercise Royal Prerogative powers. Both command private armies with “the right sense of duty”. But only one has sworn and is bound by the Coronation Oath of fidelity to the Nation. Do you know the story about the king who relied on two independent judges: one, always fair; the other always unjust. The king appoints the judge and lets him make his own decision. In England, the decision you get depends on which “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth” the judge is obeying. So I say to you what I told the French Prime Minister two weeks ago. That “any State which recognizes this obscenity as a legitimate and trustworthy jurisdiction is laying its own people open to British totalitarianism by stealth”. The Feudal Menace. I write in this way because 42 days after I wrote to you to provide information pertinent to the furtherance of justice you have chosen to send no acknowledgement. I begin to smell plausible deniability in the air. “If the Brits can get him we can all go on pretending this never happened”. But that game has been going on since I gave Admiral Crowe the full story in November 1995, and how many lives have been ruined by “Lloyds of London” since then? American lives.<hr></blockquote> For anybody interested, the whole of the correspondence is archived in Data Dump. For those interested in morality tales, Philip Shepherd is no longer a QC: a designation normally awarded for life. Anybody that has read this far should know that I have good reason to go after emad QC. He IS a liar and a tool of the Establishment, set on me to make my task more dificult. We are best off rid of him. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 2/4/06 7:19 am

by **blanc** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm

Hope neither of you. emad and anti, goes, actually, because these posts, obtuse though some of the points seem at first reading, open paths of enquiry. Both Archer and Aitken info interests me, because their traces are found close to ra survivor accounts, and were in same stable , non?. (btw blanc = jenz - several abortive attempts at registering later)

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:06 pm

blanc, Sure, that's fine. So long as he stays away from me. I'm sick and tired of trying to explain something subtle and complicated, only to have him jump in with a completely different cast of characters. The net effect on anybody unfamiliar with the subject at hand is abject confusion. And he has done it enough that I know it is intentional. If you want to converse with a liar, that's fine. I do not.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Revelation undermines Executive's 'honest mistake' claim * Inquiry highlights 'cover-up' and 'criminality' By Liam McDougall, Home Affairs Editor TWO of the world's leading fingerprint experts told a police inquiry six years ago that the forensic case against former detective Shirley McKie was "fabricated" and had "verged on malpractice". The Sunday Herald can reveal that Arie Zeelenberg, the head of the national fingerprint service in the Netherlands, and Torger Rudrud, the assistant chief of police of Norway, told a Scottish police inquiry in 2000 about their concerns. They had examined the forensic evidence used by Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) fingerprint experts in the case of McKie, who last week accepted £50,000 from the Scottish Executive as an out-of-court settlement after a nine-year battle over perjury charges. The inquiry, led by the then deputy chief constable of Tayside Police, James Mackay, and Scott Robertson, a detective chief superintendent with the force, also claimed that the SCRO experts had been involved in a "cover up" and a "course of criminality". Although the final report was submitted to the Crown Office with the conclusions, the allegations were never pursued. To date, the report, whose findings were also circulated to minister has never been made public and justice officials are now blocking its release. McKie's battle began in 1997, while she was working as a detective constable with Strathclyde Police, when four SCRO experts claimed to have identified her fingerprint in the home of murder victim Marion Ross. The fingerprint suggested McKie had been at the crime scene illegally. McKie insisted the fingerprint was not hers and was charged with perjury ... but was cleared after a trial. With the reliability of Scottish fingerprint evidence in crisis, Mackay was commissioned to investigate the case. As part of the inquiry, two SCRO experts made a presentation at Tulliallan Police College in August 2000 to show how their fingerprint evidence proved that the mark had been made by McKie. But the Sunday Herald can reveal that Zeelenberg and Rudrud, who were at Tulliallan, later examined the SCRO evidence and concluded it was "fabricated". Their report accuses the SCRO experts of "ignoring" points which suggested a disparity between McKie's prints and the print found at the crime scene, and wrongly "promoting" points which make it appear they matched. In another staggering statement, they accuse the SCRO experts of marking up contours of the wood frame and making it appear that they are contours of the print. One expert told the Sunday Herald: "The findings were conveyed to Scott Robertson, along with expert opinion, in August 2000. Robertson was told the presentation had verged on malpractice." Another source said: "At first sight [the SCRO case] looks very impressive, showing 45 points in sequence. When you look at it in detail, however, it's just Disneyland. There are a lot of invented points." When the Scottish Executive agreed to pay McKie 50,000 last week it insisted the misidentification was an "honest mistake". In another twist, it emerged last night that the six serving experts who misidentified the print of former detective Shirley McKie were refusing to accept that they had made a mistake. The six wrote to Scotland's most senior judge in November warning him that if the Scottish Executive settled with McKie it would make the position of the Scottish Fingerprint Service "untenable". Nobody was available at the SCRO to comment last night. 12 February 2006<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://ww1.sundayherald.com/54056">ww1.sundayherald.com/54056</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:05 am

Well, I DID say the Observer was a shadow of its former self... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My week: Jeffrey Archer He is invited to go on Richard and Judy, becomes a patron of the world's oldest debating society and discusses a major film deal over lunch. But a very scary date is lurking in his diary Jeffrey Archer Sunday February 26, 2006 The Observer I was shocked to discover, quite recently, that my eldest son, William, 33, was under the illusion that the first day of the week was Monday. I therefore intend to start this column with what I consider to be the first day of the week - Sunday. On Sunday morning, I run for four miles through the country lanes of Grantchester very slowly - 36 minutes, 12 seconds - before returning to have breakfast with my wife at the Old Vicarage and read the papers. Mary tells me she wants us to visit a reclamation and salvage yard, as she's spotted a small, Japanese-style, wrought-iron bridge that's for sale. The bridge would span the river at the end of our garden and allow us to be able to join up with our little island in the Cam. By a coincidence that would not be acceptable in a novel, the bridge turns out to be the perfect length, with six inches to spare both ends. Mary later goes into Addenbrooke's (Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), where she is chairman, to pick up some papers she will need for a meeting at St Thomas' Hospital in London tomorrow. In the 40 years we've been married, I have never known her enjoy a job more. On Sunday afternoon, we drive back to our flat in Lambeth. In the evening, William and I go to the cinema to see the Oscar-nominated film, Good Night, and Good Luck, a black-and-white movie about an era that I can almost remember. One of the best films I've seen for a long time. On Monday, I start the day with a session in the gym; I'm looking forward to my trainer, Dani, returning from holiday, as she pushes me far harder than I seem to be able to manage. At one o'clock, I meet up with my agent, Jonathan Lloyd, at a little Italian restaurant in Charlotte Street. After lunch, we go on to my publishers, Macmillan, to discuss the launch of my latest novel, False Impression. They tell me that they've had requests for me to do everything from Celebrity Big Brother to the Today programme. We settle for Andrew Marr and Richard and Judy. In the evening, Mary and I go to the National Theatre to see Once in a Lifetime. David Suchet is quite magnificent, but then I've never known him give a bad performance in 20 years. On Tuesday, Mary and I are up early; Mary for her meeting at St Thomas', while I'm off to the City Airport for an early flight to Dublin. I have been invited to address the Philosophical Society of Trinity College. It claims to be the world's oldest debating society in existence (1684) and scoffs at the precocious youth of Oxford and Cambridge The audience gives me a warm welcome, before I'm invested as an honorary patron of the society. After my speech, I am asked more questions about life in prison than writing or politics. I arrive home late that night (plane delayed) to discover that Mary is still in her study, going over the latest batch of emails from Addenbrooke's. There are two highlights on Wednesday. Lunch at the Caprice with a lawyer from the Weinstein Company. Harvey Weinstein (Oscar-winning film producer) is showing some interest in a screenplay I've written about George Mallory, the extraordinary mountaineer, who may have conquered Everest in 1924; he was last seen 800 feet from the summit, still going up. The lawyer assures me that Mr Weinstein will be in touch, but I'm not holding my breath. In the evening, art dealer Chris Beetles and I go to the opening of the Cartoon Museum on Little Russell Street. This is the culmination of the efforts and determination of several people who, for the past two decades, have wanted to open a museum dedicated to the genius of our cartoonists over the centuries. I have been collecting political cartoons for the past 20 years, so I was particularly fascinated to see this exhibition. I thought the Beerbohm was exceptional, and of the modern artists, Steve Bell and The Observer's Chris Riddell caught the eye. However, the sight of the Right Honourable Lord Baker of Dorking CH selling raffle tickets brought back many happy memories of my days with the Conservative party (is there any other nation on earth that would resort to raising money this way?). The greatest shock of the evening came when a young journalist from the Daily Telegraph began quizzing me about my collection. I told him of my fruitless search for a Giles of 'Granny'. 'I've never heard of Giles,' he said. I must be getting old. On Thursday I did a podcast interview, but not until my younger son, James, had explained to me what an iPod is. Friday, yuk. The dentist. I may have shared a prison wing with 21 murderers, but when it comes to the dentist, I'm still a coward. He may only be capping one tooth, but I've been dreading it all week. The Archer CV The Life Born London, 15 April 1940; grew up in Weston-super-Mare; met his wife, Mary, at Oxford. They live in Cambridgeshire and London. Made a life peer in 1992. Two sons, William (b.1972) and James (b.1974). The Work Archer entered the House of Commons after winning the Louth by-election in 1969. In danger of being declared bankrupt five years later, he resigned, but then made a fortune writing bestsellers. In 1985, he became deputy chairman of the Tory party. He was investigated for insider dealing and resigned when newspaper reports linked him to a prostitute. He went to prison in 2001 for perjury.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1718202,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/c...02,00.html</a> The insider dealing was in the shares of Anglia Television, my employer. While he was investigated, the report has been suppressed by Queen Elizabeth, using the Treason Felony Act. You can read all about it here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=2221.topic&start=1&stop=20">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=1&stop=20</a> The linked prostitute was of course Monica Coghlan, murdered by Archer. Again, he was protected from investigation by Queen Elizabeth, using the Treason Felony Act. Nice people, those Windsors. Long to reign over us and all that. See what I mean by a lockdown on the British media?

by **blanc** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:11 pm

forgive me for yet again losing the plot anti. What, in simple terms, makes HerMaj give a monkeys about Jeff and fragrant dame?

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:44 pm

blanc, From Data Dump, Second Batch. (Plus, please note that the European Parliament is to investigate Equitable Life. That was the reason for Chirac's threat to use "non-conventional" weapons against anybody that attacked France through "terrorist attacks".) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Paul Braithwaite Esq 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Equitable Members Action Group Spain Canaria 28 February 2004 Dear Sir, 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. I imagine you are old enough to remember the Miners Strike in 1984/85. 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. First, the Thatcher government passed the Financial Services Act. Second, a controversial “English Jurisdiction” clause was quietly inserted into the contracts signed by Americans recruited as Lloyds “Names”. Third, Jeffrey Archer published A Matter of Honour. 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? 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. 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<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . 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. 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. “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?” “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.” “So his inheritance automatically returns to the Russian state?” “That is so, Mr Poskonov, and we in return…” “…will represent us in all the currency exchange transactions we carry out in the West.” So there you have it. The spook targets the “mark”. The aristocrat recruits the “mark”. The banker switches contracts at the last moment. The “mark” can’t be bothered to read the “whole damn contract”. S/he signs. With fatal consequences (literally). 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) 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. 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”. 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. 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. “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) 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Allan Beith MP (with attachments, correos Certificado 54826) Dr Tony Wright MP ( “ “ ) Lord Goldsmith ( “ “ ) Gordon Pollock QC ( “ ) *See ECHR (Strasbourg) ref. 24316/03 John Cleary v United Kingdom Addendum 14 Marzo 2004 Michael Mansfield, President of the UN Court for Sierra Leone, is under the same pressure as Richard May. Mansfield too will be dumped. 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!<hr></blockquote> I've also posted the Time article in Data Dump

by **Dreams End** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:17 pm

anti- Believe it or not, I don't reject everything you say. I do believe that these bad things happened to you...and the rest I'll leave aside as you've already decided that I, too, am an "agent" of the Freemason conspiracy. I'm only writing this post because I am really uncomfortable with your posting your children's names publicly. You use your real name in your affidavits and you also give your address. While I admire this openness, it's never really a great idea and in your case I think it is dangerous. I know the PTB can find you or your kin if they are intent on it, but posting such things publicly can allow others access to that information. I'd really urge you to go and delete all the identifying info from your posts. They'll be in Google cache for awhile but I think it's wise. At the very least, I'd suggest not identifying family members by name. I worry about even saying this much for fear you'll find some malevolent intent...but I thought it was important.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Dreams End, It may surprise you to know that I have thought through very carefully everything I have done. My conscience is clear. I really do question what you are doing. Anything happens to my kids and I will personally take it out on the youngest Windsors. You understand me?

by **Floyd Smoots** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:36 am

John, I'm still your buddy. I'm still your pint-hoisting pal from "across the pond". But, I am awestruck by your post on page one that you actually wrote a letter to that worthless lesbian, Janet Reno, when she was our Attorney General, and actually expected any kind of sympathetic response. Even though, in my opinion, the U.S. Citizens who were deliberately massacred near Waco, Texas on her watch, were not true Christians, they were STILL citizens, and did not deserve their Masonic-Inspired Ritual Human Sacrifice MURDERS!!! But, back then, all that you actually knew about her was coloured by your MSM over there in the Motherland. I understand completely. It's Crap, It's All CRAP!!! She has a warm berth awaiting, right next to all of "Her Majesties" in you know where.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:24 am

Floyd, Yeah, I know. Just as North Americans are stoopid in the 21st Century, John Cleary was stoopid stoopid stoopid in the Twentieth. I say this in my own defence. I fled England at the end of '94. I fled Ireland in May of '96. I ran out of money around Easter '97. I had NOTHING. I mean NOTHING. Not even the price of a pint. That's why I no longer drink. I had nothing but physical exercise to pull me through. One day I did seven hours straight. A different week I did a total of twenty-seven hours. That changed around Easter 2001, and I got my computer in May 2001. Until then I had no information whatsoever. My letters were written by hand. I can tell you an amusing story about the letters to Reno if you wish.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:56 am

It's what we call the "Diana Murder Strategy" <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Watchdog's Equitable Life report delayed again · Explosive facts holding up inquiry, say campaigners · Government 'insisting on more time to respond' Rupert Jones Monday February 27, 2006 The Guardian A parliamentary watchdog's long-awaited report into what went wrong at Equitable Life and whether government departments were at fault, has been delayed and is unlikely to appear until October at the earliest. Campaigners said long-suffering policyholders would be "bitterly disappointed" to learn of the delay. The Parliamentary Ombudsman's report is regarded by many as the best remaining hope for government compensation, more than five years after Equitable closed its doors to new business. The ombudsman, Ann Abraham, announced in July 2004 that she was reopening her inquiry into the near collapse of the world's oldest mutual insurer. It is looking at whether policyholders were caused an injustice as a result of maladministration by regulators, and what form any redress should take. Ms Abraham's office has been investigating 18 accusations of regulatory failure. She originally indicated she would complete her investigation before the end of last year, and in October she said the report was due to be published by the spring of 2006. But she has now written to MPs to tell them this had not proved possible. The report would not appear before the summer parliamentary recess, and she would only say she expected to lay it before parliament before the end of 2006. Campaigners claim the delay is linked to demands by the government for more time to respond to potentially explosive new information uncovered by the inquiry team. A spokesman for the 15,000- strong Equitable Members' Action Group (Emag) said it understood the investigation had revealed "vital new evidence not accessible to the general public that is of such significance that it should be incorporated, but the government is insisting it must have much more time to respond". Equitable Life shut its doors to new customers in 2000 and later repeatedly slashed the value of a million policyholders' investments after it lost a legal battle involving guaranteed annuity rates, sold as part of pension plans. The official Penrose report into the debacle revealed that Equitable's former management had engaged in dubious financial practices, but also highlighted a number of failures by regulators, which over the years have included the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Financial Services Authority. Five of Lord Penrose's 11 main findings implicated government departments in failings that led to Equitable Life's near-demise. Ministers have firmly resisted calls to compensate victims. Campaigners have pressed for an official bail-out, and the European parliament recently launched a formal investigation into the government's role in what went wrong. Last week, the committee of inquiry, made up of 22 MEPs, said it would be questioning government officials. Paul Braithwaite, general secretary of Emag, said his organisation was "exasperated at being parried at every turn by the British establishment". "It's delay after delay after delay - presumably until we're all dead or gone away. Nevertheless, Emag continues to believe that, in the end and thanks to a combination of the parliamentary ombudsman and the European Union, justice will prevail."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://money.guardian.co.uk/equitablelife/story/0,,1718662,00.html">money.guardian.co.uk/equi...62,00.html</a> explosive new information uncovered by the inquiry team. Think it might have something to do with the Treason Felony Act, and French missiles pointed at London?

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 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<hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>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<hr></blockquote>

Archer Murder Returns to Haunt the Windsors

Democratic Underground

Re: Archer Murder Returns to Haunt the Windsors

Re: Archer Murder Returns to Haunt the Windsors

Re: Archer Murder Returns to Haunt the Windsors

Yet Another "Honest Mistake" in Fantasyland

The Rehabilitation of a Serial Killer

rehab and windsors

Re: rehab and windsors

Re: rehab and windsors

Re: rehab and windsors

Jeez, Buddy....

Re: Jeez, Buddy....

Yet More Coincidence

Paul Braithwaite

Paul Braithwaite

Who is online