The Diana Files - Modified Limited Hangout

by **mother** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:52 pm

Hi Anti, synchronicity here at home- My kids and I stayed up really late as I read aloud "Black Hearts in Battersea" by Joan Aiken. The story revolves around Hanoverian plotters usurping the true heirs. I think due to the destruction of various royal successions and apostalic successions, modern people don't realise how urgently important these issues actually are in history. Certainly this was a popular topic of rhetoric, art and literature until relatively recently. From my simplistic viewpoint, it seems Darwinism and racism distracted the academic elite and everyone forgot, making it difficult for the average person to understand and appreciate the importance of divine succesions. Why people fight so ruthlessly to oppose out-of-date and pointless laws. Very interesting to find out why, I think.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Guardian's challenge was dismissed by the Lords because it was ruled unnecessary, as the paper had published republican view without suffering prosecution under an archaic law.<hr></blockquote> Surely this ruling is precisely what one might expect, and smacks far more of a cover up than anything else. Either that, or an ignorance/naievity on the part of the Lords, on how the game is actually played. I mean, Can you reasonably and honestly imagine the Royals showing their hand for the sake of a guardian article ? I cant personally. Far bigger fish to fry in the context of world affairs wouldnt you say ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 2/8/06 12:06 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:13 pm

More on the burglary Anti refferred to the other day ; Mark Blacklock – Daily Express February 7, 2006 A burglary at the private office of the man heading the Diana inquiry raised fears last night that the probe is being spiked or sabotaged. Raiders broke into the block where ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens is based and stole two laptops. They also made off with other computer equipment. The section forms part of a huge complex, home to hundreds of offices and workers. But Lord Stevens suite on the second floor of an annexe – which bears no name plate or anything to suggest who works there – was mysteriously the only one in the entire complex to be entered. Last night a source close to the Diana inquiry said: “You can only assume the people who carried out this raid were after secrets in Lord Stevens computer. “It is too much of a coincidence. As far as we are concerned, MI6 spies could well be responsible for this raid.” There was no sign of forced entry, and a source close to the burglary investigation described it as “a very professional job”. Three days later, a second incident occurred at the same block of serviced offices – part of a larger Regent Centre development at Gosforth on the outskirts of Newcastle upon Tyne. But this time the failed attempts which were made to force entry into several premises looked amateurish and the burglars left behind obvious signs of their activities. The source said the discovery of the break-in triggered a shockwave at Northumbria police and the Met. “It would be understating it to say that alarm bells started ringing very loudly indeed”, he said. “Efforts were made immediately to contact Lord Stevens to establish whether or not Operation Paget could have been compromised.” And a Diana inquiry source last night said the raid looked highly suspicious – especially as it happened just days after it was hinted that Lord Stevens unit was close to reaching a “sensational conclusion” over the deaths of Dians, her lover Dodi Fayed and their driver Henri Paul. “This is a very, very suspicious incident, coming as it does so close to Lord Stevens saying the inquiry had taken such a significant turn,” said the source. “Why was this particular office targeted in the way it was in a group of buildings with so very many offices?” Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed has always insisted the death crash was arranged by senior royals and MI6 agents to prevent Diana embarrassing the Royal Family by having a child by a Muslim. Lord Stevens was formerly Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, leaving in 1996. He still has his main home in the Northumberland area, and the North-east of England remains his business base. The offices could normally be regarded as secure. On the floor below his premises belonging to a high street bank and the building is also home to regional offices of HM Revenue and Customs. Last night there was bafflement among detectives close to the break-in investigation as to why the criminals responsible for the second attack bothered to attempt it. The source added it was also strange that the first attack should target only Lord Stevens premises. “It’s a bit odd to say the least,” he said. Last night, Lord Stevens, who is understood to be out of the country on holiday with his wife Cynthia, could not be contacted for comment. But it is believed that both he and the 12 Metropolitan Police detectives running Operation Paget – the two-year, £2 million inquiry into the deaths of Diana and Dodi Fayed – are scrupulous about not removing any information from their secure operational headquarters in London. That includes paperwork relating to interviews with Prince Charles. A spokesman for Northumbria Police insisted there was nothing taken in the burglary, which took place last Wednesday, which could compromise the inquiry. Nevertheless, there will be concern that the man heading one of the most sensitive inquiries in the country might have been singled out in this way, or that someone was trying to discover just what the secretive inquiry team had uncovered. Last week Lord Stevens was reported as saying he believed Mr Al Fayed was right to have concerns. Following new leads which emerged after Scotland Yard traced the movements of MI6 spies in Paris at the time of the fatal crash in August 1997, sources close to the team suggested the inquiry was set to reach a “sensational conclusion”. Yesterday the Daily Express reported that detectives are even investigating claims that driver Paul could have been blinded by a British spy using a hand-held laser gun.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:31 pm

"Surely this ruling is precisely what one might expect, and smacks far more of a cover up than anything else. Either that, or an ignorance/naievity on the part of the Lords, on how the game is actually played." I know, it has that appearance. But <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,985915,00.html">here's more</a> on their decision: Advocating the abolition of the monarchy in print is lawful and no one can be prosecuted for it, despite a 19th-century act still on the statute book that bans it, five law lords confirmed yesterday. Judges in the Lords said the Guardian had acted lawfully in its campaign calling for a referendum on whether Britain should become a republic. Lord Scott said the paper, which challenged the lawfulness of the Treason Felony Act 1848, could regard the law lords' unanimous endorse ment as "a successful outcome to their litigation". But the Guardian technically lost the case, because the judges ruled the litigation unnecessary. It was perfectly clear, they said, that the ban in the 1848 act could not survive the Human Rights Act 1998, and that no one could be prosecuted under it. It was for parliament, not the courts, to get rid of outdated statutes. Therefore they refused to send the case back to the high court for a declaration that the ban breached human rights law.  I'm not defending the undemocratic institution of privilege, but in its details, the Lords decision seems to make sense.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was perfectly clear, they said, that the ban in the 1848 act could not survive the Human Rights Act 1998, and that no one could be prosecuted under it.<hr></blockquote> From antis post above ; If you check out the Human Rights Act you will find that one of the articles of the European Convention is absent. It is article 13. Article 13 is the RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY. He has posted many references to the above, via letters sent to various EU VIPs which point this out, in his own meticulous fashion. Over to him, I guess

by **antiaristo** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Human Rights Act 1998 1998 Chapter 42 - continued An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- Introduction The Convention Rights. 1. - (1) In this Act "the Convention rights" means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in- (a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, (b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and (c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol, as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1">www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts...2--a.htm#1</a> See anything missing? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Written Answers Wednesday, 17th October 2001. Treason Felony Act Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they have any plans to repeal the Treason Felony Act 1848.[HL173] The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): The Treason Felony Act 1848, like several other laws, has been on the statute book for a considerable time. We keep the need to reform this and other criminal legislation under review. We have no plans at present to repeal this Act.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo011017/text/11017w01.htm#11017w01_spmin0">www.parliament.the-statio...w01_spmin0</a> I've told others to put up or shut up, and I'm no hypocrite. Unlike others on this board. Hi mother, You speak of synchronicity, and a book called Black Hearts in Battersea. I was born in Battersea. I attended the Salesian College in Battersea. The only time I ever saw the Queen Mother in real life was in the early 1960s. She was on a visit to Old Battersea House. Added on edit <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was perfectly clear, they said, that the ban in the 1848 act could not survive the Human Rights Act 1998, and that no one could be prosecuted under it.<hr></blockquote> Crafty fuckers, those Freemasons. In case nobody has noticed, those crafty Freemasonic judges were citing the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. But WHAT ABOUT CORPORATIONS???? READ THE ACT. IF ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER SHALL Any person whatsoever. Any person whatsoever. That INCLUDES CORPORATIONS (Legal Persons) which DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. CRAFTY FUCKERS; THOSE FREEMASON JUDGES. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 2/10/06 8:06 am

by **antiaristo** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:25 pm

I have been uncharacteristically remiss. I have neglected to provide the most direct evidence that the Treason Felony Act, far from useless, is the pivot of the machine. I did actually get into the European Court of Human Rights. The case No. was 24316/03. The case was thrown out without consideration by three more Freemason judges, this time of the European Court of Human Rights. In other words this court did the same to me as the Lords had done to the Guardian. How hollow ring Freemason Scott's words quoted here before: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was perfectly clear, they said, that the ban in the 1848 act could not survive the Human Rights Act 1998<hr></blockquote> Oh yeah? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS _________ COUNCIL OF EUROPE STRASBOURG Mr John CLEARY C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria SPAIN FOURTH SECTION ECHR-LE.0R(CD1) KMR/msu Application no. 24316/03 CLEARY v the United Kingdom 25 Nov 2003 Dear Sir, I write to inform you that on 13 November 2003 the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a committee of three judges (M Fischbach, President, R Maruste and E Fura-Sandstrom) pursuant to Article 27 of the Convention, decided under Article 28 of the Convention to declare the above application inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. This decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the Court or any other body. You will therefore appreciate that the Registry will be unable to provide any further details about the Committee’s deliberations or to conduct further correspondence relating to its decision in this case. You will receive no further documents from the Court concerning this case and, in accordance with the Court’s instructions, the file will be destroyed one year after the dispatch of this letter. Yours faithfully, For the Committee F. Elens-Passos Deputy Section Registrar<hr></blockquote> What they are claiming is that they do not realise that 27 May 1994 is before 21 July 1994 in the calender. You have to have a really high level of education to not know that, and become a judge in the European Court of Human Rights. Or might they be liars? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 2/10/06 8:00 am

by **antiaristo** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:03 am

My response: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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.<hr></blockquote> From Data Dump Casting magic spells is easy. You need powers no-one knows you have, and you must be invisible

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:59 pm

From above <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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).<hr></blockquote> Now, remember this? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>mourningdove Registered Member Posts: 20 (8/26/05 10:28 am) Reply Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- newsday.com-AP Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LONDON -- George Smith, a former royal servant whose claim of rape sparked lurid tales of sexual misdeeds within the royal household, has died at the age of 44, his father said Friday. antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 424 (8/26/05 1:35 pm) Reply Re: Royal Servant George Smith Dies at 44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For those that don't remember, George Smith was raped by Michael "the Fence" Fawcett. He was given no sympathy by the Prince of Wales, so he went to the Princess and poured his heart out. And she secretly taped the conversation, which covered not only the rape, but various homosexual activities between Fawcett and the Prince. That's why I referred to the "ambiguous, ambivalent relationship between the Prince of Wales (Edward Fox) and Michael Fawcett (Dirk Bogarde)." The movie was The Servant. That tape is the reason the police went after and framed Paul Burrell. And the man in charge was John Yates. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm13.showMessage?topicID=43.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=43.topic</a> George Smith is another murder that nobody can do anything about, because of that bloody Treason Felony Act. John Yates is handling the de Menezes case for Scotland Yard.

by sw » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:36 pm

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:51 pm

sw, al-Fayed was a partner of Khasshogi. He made a TON of money out of Iran-Contra/Iran-Iraq. Enough to buy Harrods.

by **Darklo** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:57 pm

Treason Felony Act is irrelevant. In fact, to these people the law is irrelevant. They own the judges, politicians - the system. Diana was a bloody royal nuisance, and got knocked off, anyone that lives in London knows this. It's not news. Most of the details down to the little white Fiat a common knowledge. Was she pregant? Maybe. Was the driver drunk? Possibly. Was she a major threat to the authority of the Monarchy - absolutley. They couldnt have her strutting about on the world stage slagging of the Monarchy, and yet becoming more popular than the Monarchy. What was Paul Burrell reffering to when he said "dark forces" were at work? Why did he say on national radio that the queen had said to him in a kindly way "Dark forces are at work, be very carefull". Everybody I know in England believes she was mudered but do nothing about it, they just cant see how it affects their lives and just dont want to stick their chin out. Its just like 911 - so many know it was an inside job, but so few do anything about it. How can we change this apathy? Is it going to take WWIII?

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:22 pm

This is the same Scott quoted approvingly above. When he wrote the report he was Sir Richard Scott. The censorship was so bad that the only way around it was to stage a theatrical production, which is free of censorship by law. You may have read of how "Mr Bean" (Rowan Atkinson) campaigned against Blair's "hate speech" legislation (and won). I suspect Blair's intention was to close this theatrical loophole. The Truthseeker has published this information in four parts. I provide a snippet here as flavour for those who wish to learn more. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Before dissecting the complex interrelationships among the "front companies," the many political and private players on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Bush family, Rumsfeld, Reagan, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, her many level officials, Kock's vital role as MI6 infiltrator and overseer, the suppression of the infamous but little known Scott Report, the role of Peter Levine as former British defense official made chairman of Lloyd's of London, it's wise to look at the public statement made by former Astra Holdings PLC Chairman from 1980-90, Gerald Reaveley James, head of the company which became a leading ammunition and weapons manufacture and supplier to Iraq and Iran. Much of James' statements regarding the Scott Report and the corrupt British legal system have never been adequately reported by the compliant press or followed up by investigators, as it appears to have fallen into the same "deep black hole" where Dr. Kelly and Bull's illegal arms sales information has also been laid to rest. Before reading James's lengthy comments, remember the Scott Report he refers to has for the most part been suppressed from the public record, as well as the MI6 and CIA role in overseeing the illegal arms deals and the money trail leading back to the U.S. and UK politicians who put the whole devious plan together. Although James's statements, made as an invited guest and speaker at a UK conference of the Environmental Law Center, are lengthy and only one man's recollection and experience, they are left with only a few insignificant deletions for clarity due to the past suppression of information on this aspect of the sale of arms to Iran and Iraq and his role as Chairman of the company in the middle of the illegal deals.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4113">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=4113</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." --<hr></blockquote> George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Treason Felony Act is irrelevant. In fact, to these people the law is irrelevant.<hr></blockquote> I'm afraid my friend Darklo is as ignorant as scollon. He doesn't understand how the law works. The law is VERY relevant to these people. The question is, how do you get around the law by means which are technically legal? That's what these fancy-priced attorneys figure out. Like Queens Counsel they don't spend time on an anonymous board when they could be earning upwards of $2000 per hour.

by **smithtalk** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:45 pm

spot on anti, i love your posts full of intricate webs going through us-uk banks and intelligence, and the law is absoulutely relevant, it is the framework that supports the pantomine, just remember one thing, when you write to your daughters leave all this shit right out, leave it till they are twenty five years old, tell em about the antics on the canary islands and the local history or animals, stuff like that cos your problems are way to complex and disturbing for them to be bogged down with, i know they live it, but protect what you can about the good life for them

by **mother** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:04 pm

The law is the framework which supports the pantomine, says smithtalk, with keen perception.

The Diana Files - Modified Limited Hangout

really interesting stuff here

I cant imagine.

Re: More on the break in .

slimmouse

Re: I'll hand this over to Anti ;

Thank you slim

The European Court of Human Rights

The Wicked Old Witches of Windsor

George Smith RIP

maybe

al Fayed

Re: maybe

Lord Justice Scott

the law

the law

Who is online