by antiaristo » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:21 pm
hmm,<br>The Sunday Herald used to be a wonderful newspaper when it was run by Andrew Jaspan. He got the push at the start of the year (I think he's gone to rain's neck of the woods).<br><br>The result is reined-in stories by Neal Mackay, who used to be marvellous.<br>An example:<br><br>_______________________________________-<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Det and the FRU have a notorious past in Northern Ireland. The FRU was heavily implicated in the so-called “Dirty War” in Northern Ireland, which saw the British army collude with terrorist organisations in the deaths of civilians and the executions of paramilitary suspects."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>__________________________________________<br><br><br>It was worse than that, of course, as Neal well knows, having written extensively. The FRU also carried out executions of civilians.<br><br><br>The dangerous case is that of Pat Finucane. Pat Finucane was a civil rights solicitor - the equivalent of Gareth Peirce. Although a Catholic, he represented all sections of society. But he was damn good at his job - and that really pissed off the Windsors. So they rubbed him out like the Mafia Dons they are.<br><br><br>You've seen this before. It worried them that much that Lord Falconer issued an acknowledgement for my highly contemptuous letter of 18 June 2003 (about the Niger forgeries).<br><br>I post it again in the light of the news from Ireland today. Seems the Brits think it in their own best interests to make peace.<br><br>________________________________<br><br>C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12<br>Judge Peter Cory 35003 Las Palmas de Gran<br>Correos Certificado 83288 Spain Canaria 10 July 2003<br>Dear Judge Cory,<br><br>I read the leaks about your deliberations in last Sunday’s Observer, and which I interpret as the modern day variety of “public consultation”. According to that newspaper you are to recommend a “full public inquiry” be held into the murder of the late Pat Finucane, such is the volume of evidence to indicate collusion on the part of the British. Personally, I can conceive of no act so cynical and as clearly designed to stimulate the growth of violent actions on the part of the Nationalist community. So I welcome your conclusions. Yet a public inquiry is not necessarily the same as an independent and impartial inquiry. You only have to look back at the Widgery Inquiry into Bloody Sunday to see that is the case.<br><br>So can I draw your attention to the British power structure – the distinction between the Crown and the people in that country? For in the United Kingdom there is no separation of powers and the people are not sovereign, but subjects. Listen, if you like, to the State Opening of Parliament, where Queen Elizabeth refers quite explicitly to “My Government”. Thus the British Government acts in the interests of the Sovereign herself, and not necessarily in the interests of her subjects. Where a conflict exists between the interests of the Sovereign and the interests of the people, the British Executive is bound to act in the interests of the Sovereign. It will disguise this conflict, of course, and the result is that Westminster these days has become little more than a confused Gilbert & Sullivan played out behind a series of curtains and smokescreens. But the absolute primacy of the Windsor family is easy to demonstrate beyond all doubt.<br><br>What do we know about the Finucane case? We know that Brian Nelson instigated and facilitated the murder. We know that Brian Nelson was a British Officer in the Force Research Unit. We know that Nelson’s commanding Officer was Gordon Kerr. We know that Gordon Kerr is today a brigadier general and the military attaché at the British Embassy in Beijing. We know that Gordon Kerr is Scottish, a Highlander and an acquaintance of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Both the British Government and the Windsor family have a direct, personal and enduring interest in this case, as Brian Nelson found out in April this year.<br><br>There are very real similarities between the Finucane case and the Burrell and Brown cases. The Windsor family had a clear interest in the outcome of Regina v Burrell and Regina v Brown. Yet it was not until the conflict of interest between Regina, a witness for the defence and Regina, the prosecution, came to prominence that both cases were abandoned. The underlying conflict between Regina, the Windsors’ interest and Regina, the presiding judge was disregarded throughout. Regina v Burrell and Regina v Brown were never independent or impartial, nor were they ever intended to be independent or impartial (see item 1 Cleary to Peat).<br><br>With all these aforementioned Reginae one might be forgiven for wondering exactly how many Queens Elizabeth exist. Actually it is not such a silly question. For just under fifty years there were two persons who lawfully bore the name “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”. The Sovereign herself, of course, but also the mother, the Shadow Sovereign (see item 2 Cleary to William of Wales). It was the Shadow Sovereign herself who issued the order to eliminate Pat Finucane. Gordon Kerr was true to his military oath and he did indeed obey Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.<br><br>“That’s quite a claim!” I hear you say. Can I provide any evidence to sustain my charges? Judge Cory, I can provide you with enough evidence against the Windsors to fill the State of Alberta. Why else try to pull a Pat Finucane on John Cleary? Let me give you but a single relevant example of a capital crime committed at the instigation of the Shadow Sovereign.<br><br>Please refer to the attached item 3. This Court Order was delivered to my front door on the outskirts of Dublin on 13 February 1995. As you can see it was issued in the name of Sir John Baker. Please refer next to the attached item 4 from the Chief Executive of the Court Service and is the reply to a written question from Parliament to the Lord Chancellor. Mr Huebner states<br><br>“It was actually issued by His Honour <br>Judge John Baker and not Sir John Baker.”<br><br>As you know, John Baker and Sir John Baker are completely different names under English law. There was no person called Sir John Baker in the High Court and the document is, by definition, a forgery. Yet Michael Huebner, acting on the instructions of the Lord Chancellor, in turn acting on the instructions of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, told Parliament that the document was authentic.<br><br>There are four aspects to this example that I would emphasise:<br><br>1 The very short and secure chain of command (Shadow Sovereign to Lord Chancellor to operative) mirrors the Finucane chain of command (Shadow Sovereign to Gordon Kerr to operative).<br>2 The object of the exercise is laundering – turning a forged document into an authentic document. This is identical to the role played by the British in the State of the Union address by President Bush, where forged Niger documents were authenticated in the September dossier. (Note: the Iraq war could be the quid pro quo for Richard Breeden at the SEC, who closed down the investigation into Lloyds of London.)<br>3 A non-existent person can be created ex-post in order to redeem the fraud. Thus as Malcolm Wall was made a director of Anglia Television two months after he had committed his crimes, so John Baker could become Sir John Baker after he had issued the forged court order. And who could possibly work such magic but “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”?<br>4 “The Lord Chancellor is history!” said Mr Blair on 12 June 2003. Brian Nelson is history too.<br><br>Thankfully Elizabeth Bowes Lyons is now dead, but the secret crime machine she created using illegal powers still operates under the command of her grandson, Charles Windsor. And Elizabeth Windsor has in turn vested in her son the use of “Crown Prerogative” powers, making him the true Prime Minister of the UK. (Who signed over Hong Kong? Who greeted Vladimir Putin? Simeon of Bulgaria was not the prototype.) Furthermore amongst others he has knighted the fraudster Gary Winnick of Global Crossing in return for monies paid into the Prince’s Trust.<br><br>I contend, therefore, that an independent, impartial inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane is not only impossible within the Windsor Empire. It would also be illegal under the disgusting Treason and Felony Act of 1848, which defines treason as any action that is against the interests of the ruling family. And which was re-affirmed by the High Court of England and Wales on 26 June 2003.<br><br>To any who claim I am mistaken, I issue this challenge: answer those questions I put to Lord “Charlie” Falconer on 18 June 2003. Let me quote myself verbatim.<br><br>“So we have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in February 1995. We have forged Court documents issued by the British Crown in April, June and August 2000. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>We have forged Government of Niger documents laundered by the British, according to President Bush</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. That’s quite a record for the “fount of all justice and honour”. So why should anybody believe a word that comes out of the British Junta while the Windsors are in charge? On what grounds do you seek judicial parity with the 24 democracies that comprise the European Union? What has changed in the three years since I warned Jospin and Reno against recognizing that obscenity as a legitimate and trustworthy jurisdiction? Exactly when did the thieving old slag in Buckingham Palace give up her “God-given” right to defecate on whomsoever she wishes by means of the English Court? And who, exactly, will enforce that prohibition against the Sadist Sovereign when that Sadist Sovereign really doesn’t want it enforced?”<br><br>Thank you for your attention, Your Honor.<br><br>Yours sincerely<br><br><br><br><br>John Cleary BScMAMBA<br><br>Ps. I will soon be going back to see my mother. This is a somewhat perilous enterprise, so can I suggest that if you wish to contact me you do so at your earliest convenience?<br><br>Cc Mrs Geraldine Finucane M. Luzius Wildhaber<br> Jacques Chirac Jean-Pierre Raffarin<br> Sir Bertram Ahern Mary McAleese<br>Lady Hillary Clinton Henry Waxman<br>Iain Duncan Smith Charles Kennedy<br><br>Enc. Item 1 Cleary to Peat 16 Nov, 26 Nov, 11 Dec, 14 Dec 2002<br> Item 2 Cleary to William of Wales 4 January 2002<br> Item 3 Forged Court Order 9 February 1995<br> Item 4 Court Service to Cleary 28 April & 27 October 1995<br> Item 5 Cleary to Lord “Charlie” Falconer 18 June 2003<br><br>___________________________________-<br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>BRIAN NELSON "DIED" IN APRIL 2003</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
