Earthlinggb's Blog

R.I.P. Herr Zundel

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Law by earthlinggb on August 8, 2017

Saddened to hear of the passing of a great, brave man, Ernst Zundel.

Here is the Washington Post’s obituary for him. You may wish to consider that it speaks ill of the dead (no surprise) as it describes him as a “Neo Nazi” (as it would describe me) and he and his wife, Ingrid as “Nazi extremists”. Ridiculous, slanderous claims but they will forever be used against this man and anyone else who DARES to question the JEWISH CRAP!

If the Washington Post wants to label ANYONE “Extremist” it would be the JDL (Jewish Defence League) and another being the CAA (Campaign for Anti-semitism) plus other such “clubs” of the synagogue. The JDL set Mr Zundel’s home ablaze and get away with it (this was in the late 80s). Mr Zundel was never convicted in his adopted home state of Canada. In fact, the liars were proven to be jews! Another thing the Washington Post shall not be too quick to advise people. But the jews wouldn’t give up so, since Ernst was a German national, they kept plugging away until they got the german state to demand his return to Germany where he was found guilty for an action (writing materials to show the holocaust never happened, NOT SETTING JEWISH HOMES ALIGHT!!!!) which would only be a crime if committed IN Germany.


“Considered to have been spreading his message to Germans”? And?…. So?

  1. Does the german court THINK (does it have the capacity to or is it just filled with jews?) for a moment that it might well ask the question: WHY would any german visit the website if they were of the impression that it is ridiculous to question the holocaust? You hear so many times from the “law” that “problems exist because there is a market for it” whatever “it” may be – paedophilia for example! Where do we KNOW to look for that? Behind legislators’ desks and judges gowns, not to mention priests and rabbis robes!
  2. In this case, of course, they’d say “He is corrupting minds” and/or “people look out of curiosity. it does not mean they agree”. Then, if it is the latter, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, CAPICE? (I know that’s not German but Italian but it sounded good in this instance when talking to prats like judges etc). And if they don’t agree, then they cannot be “corrupted” can they? SO WHAT IS THE REAL REASON YOU BASTARDS? I’ll tell you the real reason – you’re shitting yourself that, if and when people ARE exposed to a multitude of facts, your story dissolves into the putrid shit that it is!
  3. “Years of anti semitic activities” – like what? Burning down their houses as they did to him? You HYPOCRITICAL, SLIMY AMOEBAS!

So, in addition, if you were not aware, they have also imprisoned this lady. I guess because SHE also has a brain to dissect shit, that she is also an “anti semitic EXTREMIST”?

A “lost cause” indeed. a “lost cause” because the decades and decades of RE-EDUCATION didn’t work on some. Let me be VERY clear, these jews will hound and hunt anyone and everyone down that just doesn’t go with the script.

And lastly, something which just happened in England within days. A JEW (Gilad Atzmon, Jazz saxophonist and who played on Pink Floyd’s “The Endless River” album) was playing a gig in Oxford….

So, jews attacking73 year old men because they attend a gig by a jew? What do we call these people? “Anti-Anti-Semites”? Or “Anti-semite-semites”? I’ve a good word for them – TRASH! But the thing is, jewish trash can get away with being trash far more than white trash can! You see, white trash don’t have a state recognised excuse: “Oy veh! Da Holocaust! Will people never allow us to forget?”

Listen you creep! You don’t WANT to forget! Why would you? It gives you the “pass”, the “Get out of jail card” EVERYTIME! It got Woody Allen a pass for fucking his own daughter for christ’s sakes! The only reason Bernie Madoff is in jail is because he defrauded the tribe! Had he just kept to the goyim he’d still be doing it today!


Gilad has also had a bunch of emails, sent to him and others, of a threatening nature….



One day…… one day…..

Ying tong diddly eye Po! Sieg Heil!

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on August 6, 2017

What is it they are actually being charged with? THINK about this! Two Chinamen, on vacation in Germany, visit the Reichstag and – we all know about Hitler right? Right? Even Basil Fawlty knows about Hitler!

The re-education of Germany huh? It worked perfectly! Re-educated into a nihilistic belief they are the world’s biggest murdering race! Not by a LONG shot! We Brits even beat them at that! As do the Russians who, behind the iron curtain, protected the story of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka etc. Also protecting the reality of the Katyn Forest massacre. Under a regime in the USSR which was made up of almost entirely, jews! Is this also where Germany lost its sense of humour? In the re-education process? Or was it always that way?

Did this BBC show ever make it to Germany? I don’t know. I guess not. After all, had it done so, John Cleese would have had to have been arrested and charged if he entered the country to promote it!

Anyhow, back to the Chinamen (or is it “Chinese persons who identify as male”?): Who’s to say what their intent was? They come from half a world away and went to see a known historic building where, as the following RT story states,  was “MOST LIKELY paid by the NAZI party”. and they give it a NAZI salute? In SUPPORT of NAZIsm or as a laugh? As an acknowledgement of the history? Did they have automatic weapons on them ready to round up jews afterwards? Did they then walk around the building asking onlookers if they were circumcised? Were they intending to fund some new rail-tracks and trains? (if you believe the old story that is). Or was it simply some jewish guy caught sight of them and phoned the cops (because they LOVE doing that – the “eternal victims”).

Tell me something: What do psychologists normally try to do with people affected by traumatic events in their lives? What do they tend to try and accomplish? An acceptance that it happened but not to dwell on the past and look to the future. EVERY DAMNED THING that has ever happened to someone in their lives is, essentially, “treated” that way – you, me, everyone and anyone we know. We get on with life. Even blacks (to a healthy degree) and it’s expected of Native Americans, Aborigines etc. Why the latter however? Because it is IN OUR INTEREST (“our” being those in power in the west) to have them do so. “Slavery”? Oh come on! That was decades and centuries ago! Indian massacres? Again, stop dwelling in the past, we just want a pipeline today!

But JEWS and their FRICKING HOLOCAUST? No. “Never forget”; Never move on. Get Spielberg to do ANOTHER fucking movie! Have a WW2/Nazi/Jew thread in a large percentage of American (and British) TV and movies. Have museums dedicated to it to keep the nightmare alive. Make sure that one generation of jews (and gentiles) after another are traumatised by the story: “we did that?” “Oy veh! It still gives me nightmares – I still feel the pain of my forebears. Have we managed to gain some cash from Mongolia yet?” “What for?” Well, one of my ancestors funded a mine there during the war and the Nazis got hold of it. It was worth 32 million shekels at the time. With inflation….. oh and don’t forget the pain it has caused me and ALL jewish people!”



But here’s another thing: Germany has “strict laws”? So do half the European countries! But what are those laws against? Lifting your arm?

Here, wait a bloody minute. What’s this?:

That’s Merkel giving a NAZI salute! Isn’t it? It’s not? How’s that? Not “Spracken zie” enough? Should the thumb and fingers be together? Is it not high enough/low enough? Do we need to get our protractors out and measure the angle?

Ok, so here’s the man himself. You have to give a little leeway to Merkel. After all, it’s 70 years later and memories fade – Oh no, they don’t do they? Not in THIS case! Oh well.

What about this one? Too high? Again the fingers are apart?

Can we see the actual photo of the chinamen to determine if they got it all exactly right? did they do it with their right or left arms? What if they were left handed and it’s meant to be done with the right arm? Were they holding their belts with Nazi uniforms on? Did they have little moustaches? I’d have died laughing seeing chinamen standing giving “Nazi salutes”. Something like this?

Or were they standing around saying “You mispwonounce ‘chop suey’, it is ‘chop jewey’!”?

So back to this salute: When is it a salute and when is it not? AND DOES IT REALLY FRICKING MATTER? Whatever happened to the United Nations’ Human Rights re freedom of thought/opinion/speech and arm gestures? Hahahahaha, that was obviously a joke! “Human Rights” that is!

What about this one:

A bit too “gay” with the hand on the hip? “Ooooh.. Zeig Heil mine fuhrer!” Or, again, is the arm too high? Can’t take it seriously with a pair of trunks on and covered in baby oil? Then again, that bastard IS a “nazi” – he’s Austrian after all! (Oh shit! Is there a law about suggesting all Austrians are Nazi failed painters?” Anti-Austitic? Or Anti-Autistic? Anti-Aspergers? Aunty Senga?

What if a german had tourettes and everytime he came in bed with his wife, he shouted ” Z..Z…Zeig……..Heeeiiiiiiillllllllllllll! What if he was with a pick up on the streets of Amsterdam and asked for her papers? Just to check her age you understand. What if he had strange thoughts of shagging Anne Frank and promised to “go dutch” when visiting Madame Tussauds later on? After all, when in Rome…..

Too high again huh? Or Hitler didn’t show his bicep when he saluted?

What about this for comparison? No? The tilt of the hand is the wrong way? He’s wearing a red tie which diminishes the symbology since men with red ties have small penises? Was Hitler well endowed?


Ok, this one?

“NOT POSSIBLE!!” – Do you think? 😉 Ah the layers upon layers eh? If only you knew!

Ah! Now you CAN’T possibly argue with this one surely! After all, it runs in the family!

Germany, who invented your dish, “Sauerkraut”? It wasn’t Nigella Lawson by any chance was it? LOL The german dish which describes the german people today who have allowed themselves to be castrated by a clan who always wished for their castration. And yet, you’re so proud of your technology: WHO created that potential and actualisation of industry in you? It WASN’T a jew I can tell you that! They just run your bank!

Anyway, what’s China doing about this? Gonna be beaten down by the jewish influence in Beijing are you? Can’t you get them around the table and share some Szechwan chicken wings and rub them in ginger and black bean sauce? The jews that is, not the chicken wings!






On to “Hitler’s belly”:

In China, Hitler isn’t known for the Holocaust, but rather for achieving social stability with a very high human cost. “In general, they refer to him as very lihai, very hardcore, someone who is strong, powerful,” said Rabbi Nussin Rodin, a Chabad representative in Beijing.

Bizarrely, support for Hitler does not in any way suggest disdain for Jews. On the contrary: Chinese people on the whole are very approving of Judaism and Jewish culture, seeing Jews as experts in both moneymaking and child rearing, with a long history and a strong tradition of education. And, unsurprisingly in a country where Mao’s all-seeing portrait still hangs from Tiananmen Square, Chinese tend to shy away from comparisons between their homegrown contender for the title of history’s greatest butcher. “I don’t think there can be any comparison between Hitler and Mao,” said Meng. “Mao’s biggest spirit was to serve the people; Mao loved the people. That’s the biggest difference.”





Meanwhile in Sudan…… “You call a Teddy ‘Muhammad’? You go to jail too!

Same difference right? “OH NO! THOSE WERE NASTY MUSLIMS! We’re Jewish you know! There IS a difference (we just won’t say what it is)”. We know, don’t worry, we know!

The world is full of cretinous farts who think they’re Gods…. most of them being “God’s chosen”! hahahahahahaha Twats!

But they’re “progressive!” 😉

Globalism indeed: One law here, one law there….. see this “line” here in the sand? It’s called a border! Cross this and, whereas, on the other side, just a foot away, you can smoke dope or get knocked up or drink alcohol at your age, over THIS side, you go to jail because you’re a CRIMINAL! THAT mentality even exists between England and Scotland! And they’re both part of the same bloody country! Or is it “cuntry”?


A German, a jew, a Mexican, and a Chinaman all come to the U.S. together eager to live the American dream. Ready to work, they go around knocking on doors asking if anyone needs help. An old man answers the door and informs them that he needs a new barn built. The four agree to do it and follow the old man behind the house.
The old man explains what he wants and leaves them to it telling them that they’ll find tools in the old barn.

The jew explains the barn will cost $50,000 plus 12.5% interest. The old man asks what the interest’s for and the jew explains “inflation from the time we start the job to when we finish. The temple wasn’t built in a day you know!”
The German takes charge and says, “I’ll design it and supervise the job.” He then points to the Mexican and says, “You’ll do the labor and dig the foundation,” and points to the Chinaman and says, “You’ll be in charge of the supplies.”
Immediately the Chinaman takes off. After a little while the German completes the design and the Mexican gets right to work while the jew asks for a 90% retainer of the principal and the rest, plus interest, to be held in an escrow account (he then goes out and buys himself a brand new BMW but that’s another story) A little while later the foundation has been excavated and the German and the Mexican look at each other wondering where the Chinaman is with the supplies. About half an hour later, the Mexican climbs out of the hole and joins the German in the search for the Chinaman. Notice the jew isn’t around.
They look around the old barn and as they’re about to round the corner, the Chinaman jumps out with a smile on his face and his hands flailing in the air and yells, “SUPPLIES!”


Frank Zappa – Man of his time…. and ours.

Posted in Law, Politics by earthlinggb on July 31, 2017

Terrible quality but well worth listening to – Great interview with a great mind: You never see that today! He, however, thought the corruption and extortion was peaking in the early 80s with Reagan. I wonder what he’d have to say now.

Whether he said he wasn’t “anti semitic” but, secretly was (and I don’t think he was) or whether he truly wasn’t, I don’t know but I do know his offspring aren’t by the look of things. I simply do not understand how people – even like him – can look around and not see the issue.

I mean, he speaks of the military/industrial complex. He speaks of the educational system and politics etc etc – he “sees” all the symptoms BUT, for some odd reason, although he’s done all his homework (as many of us have), he has never picked up on the people behind it which, if you do this sort of work, it comes and hits you in the face like a double decker bus! However, he is nevertheless, a smart guy. Wish he was still around.

He even refers to Reagan as a “teleprompter president”. Whoa! He hadn’t seen anything yet had he? 🙂

The ADL came after him for this song. They’ll come after anyone for anything of course.

I want a nasty little Jewish Princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish Princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I need a hairy little Jewish Princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish Princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don’t want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish Princess
Who don’t know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish Princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee that’s snappin’
All up inside
I just want a Princess to ride
Awright, back to the top…everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish Princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish Princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor

I want a dainty little Jewish Princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish Princess
With Roumanian thighs, who weasels ‘n’ lies
For two or three nights
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites
Won’t someone send me a Princess who bites

It reminds me of Alison Chabloz in a way. As Zappa says, the song was based upon mainstream news commentary about a real phenomena called the “jewish Princess”. Well, Alison’s songs are precisely that – commentary on what has been reported openly.

However, the tribe wants its “holocaust denial” laws to be brought in to the UK and the USA and, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) initially decided to drop the case against Alison, the “Campaign against Anti Semitism” took out a private prosecution and then the CPS took it on again! Baroness Arbuthnot was the original Judge but recused herself after Alison found photos of her attending a Conservative Friends of Israel gathering a few years back. The Baron Arbuthnot just so happened to be the Head of Conservative Friends of Israel a few years back. So, a conflict of interest. Of course, the fact there is a new judge does not mean there still isn’t a conflict of interest. After all, the CROWN Prosecution is prosecuting and who does any and all judges work for? The Crown! Also, with the number of jewish judges on the Supreme Court, how do you think this is going to work out? And to think that most idiots in this country of ours truly believe we have freedom and freedom of expression etc. It’s sad, it really is. When agenda ridden groups of people can get away – with impunity – with trying to destroy someone’s career and way of making a living (as they have done with Alison), and THAT is not blatantly impinging her human rights? Something is VERY wrong! But then you and I know something is very wrong AND we know from where it stems!

Alison’s last post/comment on her blog was June 22nd this year. Her next court date was June 23rd for discussion on the points of law. Nothing posted since so I imagine she has been advised or told to stop posting anything whatsoever. The actual trial, as I understand, was meant to have been 17th July this year, so just a couple of weeks ago. I do hope (for all our sakes) that this bullshit has been dropped. If not, we have a “war” on our hands and people better start getting savvy to this.

Alison’s song (((Survivors)))

My name is Irene Zisblatt and I come from Hungary (Fact)
Can you believe what evil Nazi bastards did to me (Poetic licence by Alison to describe what Irene is suggesting happened)
They gassed me once, gassed me twice, (According to Zisblatt, this is what happened)
But escape I did (Fact according to Zisblatt)
Over the electric fence (Camp had an electric fence so how else?)
Landed on the train (Reference to Zisblatt’s testimony that she had been saved by a young Sonderkommando (Jewish crematorium worker) who rescued her after she was thrown out of the Krema III gas chamber because the room was too full. He wrapped her in a blanket and tossed her over the 10-foot-high barbed wire fence around Krema III; she landed in an open railroad car of a train that was bound for the Neuengamme concentration camp in Germany.) Incredible strength eh?… And luck!

I saw them taking babies and tearing them in two (According to Zisblatt’s testimony)
And creepy Dr Mengele he removed my tattoo (Again Zisblatt’s testimony)
They tried to turn my brown eyes blue (Zisblatt said that she was one of the prisoners chosen for Dr. Mengele’s medical experiments. Zisblatt said “Mengele was trying to change the color of our eyes. So he injected our eyes and put us in a dungeon in the dark.)

Make lampshades from my skin (Zisblatt’s testimony)
For months I swallowed diamonds (Zisblatt’s testimony)
And shat them out again (Zisblatt’s testimony)

The point here is that Alison is taking Zisblatt’s testimony and simply raising an eyebrow. Why? Well, if you wish to swallow this, be our guest BUT it is your gullibility and naivety which will lead a lot of people who have done their homework on this whole story, into jails – it happens all over Europe and is coming to the UK unless you sit up and take notice and care about something other than Kardashians and other such shite! The rest, regarding the verses, is the same. It is all fact and reported fact. 

Tell us another
Come on, my brother
Repeat the cover
For tribal gain
Safe in our tower
Now is the hour
Money and power
We have no shame

Let’s lie and cheat on film
No one suspects a thing
Bigger the lie is better for us!
Every fake survivor
Every fake survivor’s laughing
Fake survivors’ tongues are wagging
All us frauds are busy blagging
Spin and yarn there’ll be no gagging
You shall pay
All the way
Every night and day!

My name is Elie Wiesel may I show you my tattoo
I wrote a book for US kids to study while at school
It’s full of nonsense tales of course
What do you all expect
But it made me very wealthy
As a liar I’m the best

At Auschwitz they burned
babies tho the water table’s high
Fred Leuchter’s work on ditches well it almost made me cry
Treblinka was a another one
There was no funeral pyre
I cannot speak Hungarian
But oh boy can I lie

History repeats itself
No limit to our wealth
Thanks to your debt we’re
Bleeding you dry
We control your media
Control of your books and TV
With the daily lies we feed you
Suffering victimisation
Sheeple have no realisation
You shall pay…

My name is Otto Frank and my daughter’s name is Anne
The poor girl died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp
She wrote an introduction
To her famous diary
The rest was penned by Levin then publishèd by me

Two thousand and sixteen the copyright came to an end
The Anne Frank trust decided once again the rules to bend
We truly had no choice although
The whole thing really stank
But the book now has two authors
Anne and Otto Frank.

Ballpoint pen:

People already knew that the dairy was written with a BIC ballpoint pen, which was only a prototype at that time and was in no way industrialized, let alone sold on the market. They were commercialized in 1951. This already permitted many people to determine the book to be a fraud

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.
But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences”, said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

Bank notes let’s print some more
We love to see you poor
Let’s start a war
Our pockets to line
There is no more doubting
Every nations debt is mounting
While the bankers keep on counting
Pension fund has now gone awol
Nothing left upon your table
You shall pay..

Regarding the choruses, Alison does not, at any time, mention jews – neither in the verses – she is providing commentary on fake individuals (PROVEN fakes) and is then extrapolating from that, there being an “industry” surrounding this entire holocaust story. Is she attributing it to judaism? I see no evidence of that at all! If ANYONE wishes to take out a private prosecution, let it be Irene Zisblatt or any of the other fakes. What has this to do with “Anti semitism” and the Campaign against it? Further: What IS “anti semitism”? To understand that, one MUST ask the question: WHAT IS “SEMITISM”? Because I’ll be damned if I know! Do you? Can you define it? If not, how can ANYONE be accused of being “anti” a non defined word? And if something is truth, then truth NEEDS no legal protection!

You think if you’re not even remotely involved in anything “anti semitic” (how would you know?) then you don’t need concern yourself about this, right?

Well, just wait until they get their oppressive law(s) on this subject and you’ll see, because once they do, it’s game set and match and you’ll then see how “non anti semitic” you will be! The more they get in their favour, the more it will all become apparent to you! Those of us who already know, have had to put time and effort into studying it while you who can’t see it, doze. Once they have it all wrapped up nice and tight however, it WILL become far more apparent even to those who are asleep!

“ First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”



The propagandised re-education of Germany AND, in fact, the world. You had BETTER believe it or else!

From UK Parliamentary archives…..

“There is a terrible prospect if there exists in this country now even a small body of opinion which will not accept this evidence. For if it is not accepted now there is little chance of its being remembered ten years from now…..

What are the facts? Why were these things clone? My noble friend Lord Addison and I have asked ourselves that question both during our trip and since. Why did not the Germans feed their prisoners sufficiently well to get a full day’s work out of them, and then when they were unfit any longer, from some cause or other, to do that work, shoot them? Why waste food in keeping them going for a few weeks longer? Why all these elaborate arrangements by which they were taken away in trailers to the crematorium and there put into ovens and their bodies burned?

So far as I know, there is only one of these camps, that at Belsen, within the British area; and that is obviously not one which ought to be visited, because it was discovered to be full of typhus, and we do riot want to add to our many problems in occupied Germany by spreading typhus in regions which I hope our troops are going to occupy for many years.

….when things settle down and cinemas are opened, and the curfew, which now operates at six o’clock, comes to an end, the Germans should be compelled to go to the cinemas and see the photographs taken of these camps, taken soon after their occupation by Allied troops. I think that that would be wise.

LORD ADDISON The second reflection in my mind is that if you can intensify the egotism of a nation in twelve years to the extent that the Nazis have done, so that they become regardless of the sufferings of others, that dreadful fact really gives some small ground for hope. It is an illustration of what you can achieve by intensified propaganda. It gives perhaps some little reason to think that if the Allied Nations deliberately arrange for the teaching of opposite doctrines to German children over a long period of years we may begin to have some hope that the national point of view will be improved. But I cannot help thinking that long continued propaganda amongst the Germans that the rights of others must be recognized—prompted and assisted by the occupying authority over a long period of years—will be essential.

In the second place, I consider that the Allied Nations must set up an organization which contemplates the occupation of Germany and its deliberate re-education over a long period of years. How successful that will be is a matter upon which we can only speculate. But one is impressed by the fact that well-directed, sustained propaganda, in these days, while on the one side it is an immense danger, does also, on the other side, present a certain degree of hope. It affords us ground for hoping that we may be able, with the aid of propaganda, if it is well directed, gradually to change the point of view of the German children during a long period of years. I feel no reason whatever to hope that the world will be secure in the future unless, at the same time as force is applied to prevent the recurrence of war, there is a deliberate and sustained endeavour to re-educate the German people and to remould their minds.”

Only agenda filled liars in the British courts and politics can maintain that there is no evidence to justify people questioning this entire story.

The question is: WHAT does this tribe really have on our politicians and court system? It must be something big!



Open letter to Charlie Gard’s parents…..

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 27, 2017

I realise that, perhaps, there will be many people who may read this who have never visited my website before and, on further reading of blogs within it, will be outraged at some of the writings in it. I’d simply say: Do not judge until you were to understand or appreciate the research, study AND personal experiences which have gone into writing this blog. I am unrepentant for writing about substantial facts and my own opinions having extrapolated from those facts. However, if Charlie Gard’s parents or others who read, are “good, conservative, law abiding citizens”, are too busy with their lives and really just think “Oh god! Another ‘conspiracy theorist’ with a website who loves to think he knows the secret of the universe and nobody else does – just him”; and, therefore, can’t be bothered to read, consider very carefully and understand, then so be it. Also, if ANYONE chooses to form the opinion that I am “ANTI SEMITIC”, then first do me the courtesy of defining what it is to be “SEMITIC”. Once you do that, I shall honestly answer whether, in fact, I AM “anti semitic”. If you say something as inane as “it means you hate jews” then, no, I refute that allegation. I DISTRUST jews, yes, but I cannot state that I hate (or even distrust) ALL jews because I have never met ALL jews. My distrust stems from years of both, direct experience of them (although it is not only jews I distrust) and from my study of history and extrapolating facts related to such history that we were never taught – nor were many elements of history which were “flavoured” significantly by jewish manipulation. When you then study the nature and creation of the State (particularly the British State), it becomes clear as to why such elements were never discussed and taught in or out of schools.

I have been ranting on this “legal person” issue for years and yet, in comparison to articles about David Bloody Icke and friends (I should really delete those articles because I get sick of seeing how many people read them rather than read the serious articles which impact them FAR more significantly) it gets very little attention YET it fundamentally affects each and everyone of us in such a “biblically” negative fashion – IF people took the time…… ah but there I go again thinking there is the possibility that the majority of people may actually apply themselves to understanding why their lives are such a misery!


The following “Guardian” article is as clear as day. It is pointing directly at what many people, who have an understanding of this dreadful fraud of the “legal person”, have been trying, desperately, to get the world to understand for years now. But it would appear the world simply doesn’t wish to know – ignorance is bliss and all that. But HOW “blissful” is your life? If ignorance is bliss, why do you complain? Why do you vote? What are you voting for if ignorance is bliss? You must be ignorant of what the government is doing to you surely? You’re not? Ah! Then that would suggest that you don’t like to be ignorant and you see what you don’t like so wish to change it and, therefore vote! But what if voting didn’t change anything? After centuries of having a vote, where are we? We’re here, in a world which is in a spiralling decline – a decline of living standards for many while a very small fraction of the world’s population grows ever increasingly more affluent (and that percentage of the population itself, forever decreases); a decline of morality and an increase in depravity; increasing divisions between people; “law” that simply does not work (for the common man); I could go on but….

I’d like you to consider something: What is far more important to the State? A single child’s life OR State authority? Keep bearing this in mind as you read this entire blog article.

The author of this Guardian article – whether he appreciates it or not – “plays” with the reader in a sense. He (“he”, assuming that is his gender preference – you can’t be too careful these days can you?) provides an example of the State (in New Zealand), in another instance, making a child, whose parents had decided they wanted care for their child to be withdrawn (turn off the ventilator), a “ward of the state” and the state decided to allow the child to live. So he’s suggesting “you can’t have it both ways” and that the State is the arbiter of all that is good. He adds “This process depends of course on acceptance of the SUPREMACY of reasoned argument over passion and the acceptance of the INDEPENDENCE AND AUTHORITY of the courts”. But while he points to these two separate judgements – thereby suggesting “each case is judged on the court’s dispassionate merits – what he omits is a “judgement” which is even more profound than a court’s arbitrary decision. That is: IS LIFE SACRED? He doesn’t touch on this because that would then make his argument re the “authority of the courts” redundant. Do you see this?

However, let’s concentrate on the first issue: The court decides to let a child die and the court decides to let a child live. Considering the rights of the child is being heralded by the author, Mr Kennedy, in support of the courts and the State, one must remember that the “Rights of the Child” are adopted from the “highest court” in the world; that is to say the Articles of Declaration of HUMAN Rights (and let us ignore, for the moment, the deception of such an article which I have previously blogged about and will refer to later):

Right to life

1Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

The above is taken from the United Kingdom’s adoption of the Human Rights Act of the United Nations. There is a lot which can be discussed in this one article and I have, previously done so. However, for now, look carefully and THINK carefully: Does it state, anywhere, that a living, breathing child (or adult) may have his or her life extinguished merely because they are disabled in any way? No, it does not. Does it state or even suggest that a child whose chances of life are small, should be allowed to just die in accordance with the dictate of a court (or anyone for that matter)? No, it does not. By disallowing a human being to fight for his/her own life, the court is effectively murdering that human being. There is NO argument here – and remember, this is in accordance with their OWN “law”.

However, the court will never accept this allegation of murder by them and there is a “lawful” reason as to why which might just surprise (or shock) you. Did the court DIRECTLY murder Charlie Gard? No. However, it has purposefully, but INDIRECTLY murdered him. The child is going to die without medical intervention. Would he die WITH medical intervention? We don’t know. Noone does for sure but the Court dictates that the child is given no chance. Life, therefore, is not sacred to this court.

What does the jewish Talmud say?:

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, ‘one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice (i.e. it is acceptable to cause death by indirect means).., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly’. He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile’s death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews. A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.

I have done my research and I can assure you that “British Law” is composed of huge swathes of Talmudic Law.

Do you think this is just more “anti semitism” on my part? Well, perhaps it is. If “semitism” is equated with judaical teaching from their Talmud then it certainly is. Consider the following (originally from “semiticcontrversies.blogspot”:

Jewish and Zionist Influence at the UK Supreme Court
The UK Supreme Court that was created in 2009 has been in the news lately, because it is to make a decision as to whether the British government can proceed with negotiating Brexit without consulting parliament on each and every element of the terms of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

This however is just the latest in a series of major decisions that the UK Supreme Court has been asked to make. Indeed it has already been criticised for acting less like a court, but rather like a powerful unacknowledged and unelected legislative body. (1)

Since the UK Supreme Court is therefore rather powerful – or at least perceived to be so – then it is of interest to examine the extent of jewish and Zionist influence therein.

In the first instance it is important to note that as early as 2010 it was disclosed that being a member of pro-Israel lobbying groups is not regarded as bias (and therefore a conflict of interest) by the court. (2) This obviously does not bode well since it necessarily suggests that the members of UK Supreme Court have special reason (i.e. they are jewish and/or pro-Israel themselves) not to regard pro-Israel lobbying as a form of bias when it clearly is.

When we examine the eleven current members of the UK Supreme Court; (3) we find that only one is in fact jewish.

This is its current president: David Neuberger. (4) Who is the brother of the prominent liberal Zionist rabbi Julia Neuberger. (5) Who also happens to be the spiritual leader of Terence Etherton’s, the current Master of the Rolls and one of the judges who rejected the government’s Brexit case, synagogue. (6)

Neuberger has also previously admitted that he only ‘skims the files’ of the cases that he is sent. (7)
Despite the fact that only one of the eleven members of the Supreme Court is jewish. Three of the current members hold pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist views or strong connections to those who do.

These individuals are follows.

Brenda Hale, Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, who was the leader of the British-Israeli Legal Exchange in 2010. (8) In the same year she spoke of her admiration for Israel. In addition to stating that Germany should always feel guilty for the ‘Holocaust’ (and similarly South Africa is eternally guilty for the crime of Apartheid), while Israel should continue using it as a weapon to drum up more funds and support for its policies. (9)

Oh and did I mention that she also wants women to be given preferential treatment over better qualified men in order to enforce ‘diversity’ when the current UK Supreme Court members step down? (10)

Clearly Hale doesn’t have any kind of political agenda at all… does she?

Next we have Jonathan Mance whose current judicial assistant is one Jacob Turner.

In the UK Supreme Court blog Turner describes his previous work history as follows:

‘Prior to becoming Judicial Assistant, Jacob was a solicitor-advocate in the London office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, where he specialised in international litigation and arbitration with a focus on sovereign clients. He previously worked as a law tutor at Oxford and King’s College London and at the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in New York, as a consultant legal advisor and speechwriter to the Ambassador. He studied at Oxford and Harvard Universities. Outside of the law, he enjoys playing sport and writing.’ (11)

Right… so why on earth is a former ‘consultant legal advisor and speechwriter’ for Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations the judicial assistant of a member of the UK’s Supreme Court?

How on earth is that not a direct conflict of interest or suggestive of the fact that Turner’s loyalty is to Israel not to the United Kingdom?

Then we have Nicholas Wilson who, in a case he himself cites as proof of his ideological and ethical convictions, decided that a young quarter-jewish girl had to be raised a family of purely jewish descent, because otherwise her jewishness would be lost. (12)

Wilson is also a major proponent of forcing the British people to accept ‘gay marriage’ and was part of the 2014 legal ruling which allowed homosexuals to ‘fully marry’ and not just have a form of ‘weakened marriage’ (aka a civil union). (13)

Adding Hale’s love of Israel, Mance’s Israeli Judicial Assistant and Wilson’s extreme philo-Semitism to Neuberger’s influence as President of the Supreme Court makes the overt pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc four out of the eleven members.

The only real foe of this bloc looks to be Jonathan Sumption who is a vocal opponent of both enforced diversity in the legal profession (14) and of the concept of ‘collective guilt’ practised by the jews against both the Germans and Palestinians. (15)

In addition to this; two individuals have been tipped to be the next appointments to the UK Supreme Court when there are vacancies. These prospective appointees are Victoria Sharp and Heather Hallett. (16)

Victoria Sharp is jewish, (17) while Heather Hallett is, like Brenda Hale, an advocate of enforced ‘diversity’ in the legal profession. (18)

Thus we have another jew who is likely to sit on the Supreme Court as soon as one of the existing judges retires, which – given the ages of those concerned – is not likely to be one of the pro-Israel/pro-jewish bloc. Therefore in all probability making five out of eleven members of the court being jewish and/or pro-Israel.

This scale of jewish influence on the UK Supreme Court is nothing new. Since in 2010, one year after its creation, four out of the eleven members were jewish. (19)

These individuals were:

Lawrence Collins; (20) who believes, among other things, that there is no time or numerical limit on what Germany should pay Israel and the jewish people in ‘Holocaust Reparations’ and is an influential advocate of continued (and eternal) financial reparations from non-jews to jews for alleged atrocities. (21)

Nicholas Phillips; (22) who was, before his retirement from the post, the President of Supreme Court from 2009 to 2012 (i.e. the post has been consecutively occupied by two jews Phillips and Neuberger) and wanted to introduce Sharia into the UK as a parallel legal system. (23)
Simon Brown (24)

John Dyson; (25) who then became the Master of Rolls between 2012 and 2016 (26) when the post was taken over by his fellow jew Terence Etherton. (27)

So in other words four out of the nine former members of the UK Supreme Court have been jews.

This then gives us the figure that out of the twenty individuals that have been on the UK Supreme Court five have been jewish, while another three of the non-jews have been pro-Israel and a likely future appointee to the court is jewish.

Considering that they are half a percent of the UK population: (28) why have a quarter of all the members of the UK Supreme Court been jewish?

Think about it.


(17) Frederick Wright, 2015, ‘Solicitor v. the Establishment’, 3rd Edition, Self-Published: London, p. 145
(20) Ibid.
(21) Cf. Lawrence Collins, 2008, ‘Reflections on Holocaust Claims in International Law’, Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 402-442; also
(24) ;

Now consider this Guardian Article:

“The dominant, indeed almost universal, approach to date in the UK has been to pay no heed whatsoever to the religious and/or cultural background of those who are appointed to the Bench, albeit that the Jewish Chronicle reports in brief that the appointment of Sir John Dyson to the UK Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Lord Neuberger’s appointment as Master of the Rolls maintains the number of Jewish justices on the court at four.”

Now, think VERY carefully about what is happening here. Do NOT make the mistake of believing that these judges’ PERSONal philosophies and religions do not influence their decisions! While, also do not overlook this: The make up of a court is of PERSONS. PERSONS are “equal before the law” we are given to believe in (haha – this is the biggest joke going) yet THESE PERSONS philosophies of life are being given more importance than YOURS! These PERSONS judge YOUR PERSON! This is where the “Supremacy of law” and Ian Kennedy’s “We must acknowledge the authority of our courts” comes in. They desperately must have you believe in that authority! Yet, as is obvious, the JEWISH CHRONICLE likes (very much) that jews occupy significant seats of power within not only our judiciary but in every nook and cranny of British (and American) life. IF their philosophy and religion is NOT of importance (which our media and judiciary would like us all to believe) then WHY is it so important to jews and the jewish chronicle? Answer: Because it IS important!

If you refuse to acknowledge that which is clear, then what can I do but simply roll my eyes in despair!

Returning to the Declaration of human rights:

Now, compare the above British version of “Right to life” with the UN Article from whence it came:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

A noticeable difference don’t you think? Where is the U.N.’s version of paragraph 2 regarding “Deprivation of life”? Nowhere to be seen! Make no mistake: Such a difference is immense!

But here is another thing: That word “PERSON”. Here is another article in the U.N.’s Declaration:

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

It does not state “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere before the law” which, if one reads it, is entirely understandable as stated. It does not need anything added to it for anyone to appreciate fully what it means. So then WHY does it not simply say that instead of “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”?



HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083

“In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

Now, whether we in the UK (or the US or any other State) wish to consider ourselves “Subjects” or “Citizens” matters not: As “legal persons” we are all subject to the whims of the State. The State NEVER will relinquish its power. NEVER! It ensures such by, ironically, the very Articles of “Human Rights” it deceptively allows you to think protect YOU! How does it do this? By Paragraph 2 (c) of the article “Right of Life” which then justifies deprivation of life (i.e. MURDER). Read it again:

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

What is an “insurrection”?

“an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”

Who decides what constitutes such an act?

The State!

The fact is, this entire blog of mine – if the State so wished and considered it to be a threat to its existence – could consider (and would) the blog to be an act of revolt, rebellion or resistance against it. In fact, it is not outwith the bounds of reason that that day will come! IF the State starts to lose control to any extent it feels it cannot recover from without taking such action.

Another irony. The preamble to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states as follows:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

The irony being that each and every STATE, which has adopted the UN articles, have included paragraph 2 (c) to allow them to use those very barbarous acts against each and every “person” who may threaten them and, by so doing, they have protected their right – as a “person”, because a State is ALSO a “person”, to protect itself from you! Do you recognise the convoluted brilliance in this? It is almost magical in its brilliance! I really have to tip my hat to them – it’s astoundingly brilliant!

Now, I recognise, with the above, I have, on the face of it, wandered off course but, in reality (and if you can decipher all of this) you will recognise that, in fact, I haven’t but have just expanded on the same issue which impacts Charlie Gard and his parents. Charlie Gard’s parents are legal persons and, therefore, subject to the State. Charlie Gard’s parents’ marriage is a legal contract whose main beneficiary is – you’ve go it – the State.

But back to Charlie specifically:

We’ve looked at the UN’s articles of Human Rights and seen that there is nowhere (either in the UNs version OR the British State’s version) which justifies the State (or the parents for that matter IF they had wished to) being allowed to stop a human being from attempting to hold on to life. Further, however, we must ask an even more critical question which Ian Kennedy of the Guardian does not consider in his “one court allowed life, another disallowed life” based on some “supremacy of  the dispassionate, reasoned argument and independence and authority of the courts” – the man is certainly not an anarchist! 🙂

That question is this: IS LIFE SACRED?

In answer to this, from the political, legal and current sociological world, you will get conflicting answers. Not only from separate players within it but from each individual player. For example, let’s ask the question of George Bernard Shaw:

Two things:

  1. The reference to Naziism and the holocaust: Ignore, It is not the point. Furthermore, so much of that is in dispute, whether you agree or not. The point is Shaw’s words.
  2. You may consider this just some old “twat” of a man’s viewpoint which has no bearing on today. You could not be more wrong.

A third thing may be to consider and appreciate that “The State” is not only your politicians and those who you consider to be your representatives in government. “The State” is not even that abominable monarch we call the Queen and all her little “rats” that keep churning out lifeforms who, simply by their existence, have rights you could only dream of. “The State” consists of, not only those but, perhaps even moreso, the powers that form the opinion and legislation that you see the people you THINK are “The State” implementing. These people include people like Bill Gates today, Christiana Figueres (UN), religious leaders, bankers (the $billion club) etc etc.

You might say “But the world IS overpopulated!”

But you’re wrong. What IS overpopulated is certain landmasses and, particularly, cities. And it is by design. However, once more, we wander off subject (while, again, it is entirely related). I could literally take you a journey from one global issue to another – sociological, legal, military, global economics and money; almost whatever subject you care to discuss – and relate it back to the legal person. It is very difficult not to stray when you have, in your head, a multitude of connections which build the “jigsaw” to the point of seeing the “big picture” which confronts the human race.

“Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” – J Edgar Hoover. In its correct context, taken from “The Elks Magazine” (August 1956), he is speaking of communism, however, when one reflects on the fact that communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin (if you have done any significant research, you will appreciate this. If not, I can’t help you other than suggest you educate yourself), one appreciates that the conspiracy transcends political ideology fed to us to make us believe in choice and, as such, is even more monstrous than Hoover suggests.

So, with that, I would point any and all readers of this – IF you have the interest and capacity to consider carefully what the following articles are laying out as plainly as I possibly can AND if you have more than a 10 second concentration span and are happy to read and not just let youtube videos wash over you – to earnestly give their time and attention to the following. There are many more related articles in this blog if you wish to look for them but these two are among the most important:

If you thought that one was long, try this one:

However, with the state of education today, too many people think they can have others explain things to them in a Facebook post! Sorry, but when something is as deeply rooted and “protected” and hidden as this, I’m afraid an 8 second soundbite just doesn’t cover it. If you’re too lazy (or too stupid) to apply yourself to understanding then get the hell off this blog! It’s NOT for you!

And don’t forget the girl who didn’t exist ok? Jade Jacobs Brooks. There’s been a few others around the world (and there are tons more in 3rd world countries and the like of Palestine – probably why Israel gets away with murdering so many – “they don’t exist”. Why? Well, they have no birth certificates and, thereby, are non legal persons and thereby, again, have no “human rights” – oh yes this “rabbit hole” is deep!


Your life is your own but your legal existence belongs to the Crown! Remember that!

You cannot participate in “The Game of life” (or “Monopoly”) without your board piece. That “piece” being your Birth certificate and the “board” belongs to the Crown just as you do!

The immense irony: Charlie, you are going to die because you exist!

The biggest mistake a man ever makes

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on July 12, 2017

Oh I know, “Earthling, you’re just bitter due to what happened to you” (If I ever told the full story, however, your jaw would drop).

However, no, this is not about Earthling and about a decade ago etc etc. This is just Earthling saying “thank god others are beginning to pick up on the ‘law’ issue; not from an ‘academic’ viewpoint but in how it relates, directly, to their lives.

The legal personality, the contracts with the state, the lack of full disclosure BY the state as to what people are getting themselves into (which, by the way, makes ANY contract void – EXCEPT, of course, with the state because the state is a coercer. That’s precisely how the state works).


So, while I have my issues with the make up of women like John here (through vast experience of many); it is the STATE where my real beef lies. Women are being manipulated by the state to think they are as good or better and should be “idolised” by men. Women, generally, aren’t that smart. However, men haven’t been that smart either but it is the STATE which manipulates it all (as they do terrorism; as they do money and economy and anything else you can imagine – racism, sexuality, the whole thing).

A few articles I’ve posted in the past around this subject of law, contracts, state deception etc…..

The moral (and reality) is that you can never win against the court system because the court system created the rules. The ONLY way of beating the court system is by logic because, by logic, you expose the bullshit the law is. However, the court system does not (and cannot ever) allow these pieces of “gold” (logic) to be used against it. This is why the so called “freemen” will never win the battle. The battle will ONLY be won when, somehow, the logical fallacies and fictions used in law are exposed significantly. Perhaps by a MGTOW community in large numbers?

What’s easier? To murder a Human or murder a Person?

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on February 14, 2016




“Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

Killing babies

Does it ever sink in with some people? Read it again (and again if necessary).

The main point is “are human beings” but only “potential persons”. Until you are a PERSON you have NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE. However, the LIE here is using the word MORAL which is substituted for LEGAL. What they are saying is, until that newborn child is recognised LEGALLY, there is no MORAL need to keep it alive. Yet, that child is a fully formed (and birthed) HUMAN BEING yet, as such, it has NO RIGHTS. THEREFORE, where is all this “Human Rights” business coming from? It is, in fact, and always has been, a deception of the very first order. Not one “PERSON” on this planet has “Human Rights” because you do NOT receive them UNTIL you are recognised as a PERSON.

IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO USE YOUR MIND THAT “GOD” GAVE YOU TO EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT FACT WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS AND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT? If not, then type into my search bar “legal person” or “human rights” and learn about it.



(and where it has been leading since its invention)

Columbia Law Review: Concept of “the PERSON”:

“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.”

This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist.

BUT,,,, DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that registering your child (therefore, creating the person) is doing them a service. IT IS NOT!

You MUST understand the game being played here and, for that, I ask you to read my blogs on the subject. ALL of them!


Is Caitlyn Jenner a murderer?

Posted in Law, Media, Science by earthlinggb on June 6, 2015



Did this “woman” murder this man?

In the fictional realm of “law” (which we all live under), indeed she did!

The case of Caitlyn Jenner is a perfect example of the basic jurisprudence of law – the “legal person” – displaying itself as a joke but a very dangerous “joke” upon the men and women of this planet earth. But, of course, the cultural marxists, the “libertarians” (now that will be a surprise to those of you who are) and the simple, emotional, “feel gooders” of the world will not see, or wish to see, the reality of this. Nevertheless, it needs to be brought to your attention because it is through the fundamental con of the “legal person” (a fiction at law), that all of us are entirely controlled due to the fact very few of you understand it.

Bruce Jenner was a sportsman who won olympic medals. Bruce Jenner no longer exists in law. It is existence in law which gives us the “benefit” of “human rights”. You do not have “human rights” if you do not exist. I have explained this before in a previous few blogs.

In the airy fairy world of LGBT rights, we are told to accept that a person can simply become another person altogether and we should be accepting of this. Ok, let’s say we are.

So, again, Bruce Jenner no longer exists! What does this mean?

Well, let’s consider a wealthy person with a ton of insurance and their spouse murders them for that insurance. It does happen you know!

Would that spouse be liable and be imprisoned for the murder? Of course they would!

So what has “Caitlyn” Jenner done to Bruce Jenner? In the legal world, she has caused him to cease to exist. This is murder. Was it pre-meditated? Yes, of course it was. So it is 1st degree murder.

Is it possible there was a motive? After all, Caitlyn could hardly then ask for the insurance which was in Bruce Jenner’s name could she? But, perhaps, Kris Jenner could if we followed law properly. A legal person who existed is now, effectively, deceased!

But back to Caitlyn: What does she gain out of the murder of Bruce if not insurance? So it wasn’t an insurance job!

Well, what about this:


Insurance fraud

Now, if any of you out there want to make some serious money before you die, just get to the point where you are a 3rd rate celebrity – do anything to get there; go on a reality TV show and make a huge arse of yourself, anything at all to get that public attention – and then MILK IT!

Once you’ve done that, adopt a seriously “out there” message – like becoming a tranny – which is highly acceptable to the cultural marxist, political agenda and they’ll create the environment and the media attention you need plus support you to spread your message worldwide through talks giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars and TV appearances etc – a little like the £000’s Tony Blair gets for talks supporting the globalist agenda which, of course, Caitlyn is now a poster “girl” for!

But back to the legal issue:

There’s a petition started to demand that Bruce Jenner’s medals be given back. Is this fair? Well, of course it is! Bruce is dead and a “woman” by the name of Caitlyn has the medals in her property which do not belong to her. She is NOT Bruce Jenner and does not wish to be. She killed Bruce Jenner!

Further, it has to be asked why Kris Jenner – Bruce’s wife – is not being handed her husband’s estate?

The stupid woman should have waited! He’s no longer “Bruce Jenner” but Caitlyn Jenner so then she wouldn’t have had to file for a divorce from a non existent person! She should have just stated her husband was dead and his estate would have gone to her lock stock and barrel!
Ask yourself Kris: “Am I married to a woman called Caitlyn?” You bloody idiot!

Why did Kris Jenner apply for divorce from Bruce Jenner before he died? She should have simply hung on until he died and she would have inherited his property anyhow! What a silly woman! She could then pursue Caitlyn Jenner for all the money she is about to make by capitalising on the death of her husband. But, in reality, Caitlyn Jenner should not be able to make any money in such a fashion because it is argued she should be in jail for first degree murder!

Kris Jenner

Let’s assume “Caitlyn” Jenner now is recognised as a legal person (I don’t know if he/she has applied for such but I imagine he/she will). Then Bruce Jenner does not exist (in law).
Therefore, all of the property of Bruce Jenner (did he make a will?) is in testate”.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property whose value is greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the “intestate estate”.
Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
Under English law (given the probable conditions, Bruce Jenner died under):
The husband, wife or civil partner keeps all the assets (including property), up to £250,000, and all the personal possessions, whatever their value.
The remainder of the estate will be shared as follows:
the husband, wife or civil partner gets an absolute interest in half of the remainder
the other half is then divided equally between the surviving children
If a son or daughter (or other child where the deceased had a parental role) has already died, their children will inherit in their place.
So, in accordance with law, the death of Bruce Jenner means that his wife and children get all of his possessions and property. That would include the medals.
In law, your dad’s dead kids!

But there’s one further aspect: Should the legal person known as “Caitlyn Jenner” be charged with the murder of the legal person Bruce Jenner?

In law, the answer would be a resounding YES if the law wasn’t such an ass and used and abused by the lawmakers in whichever way they so choose!

But of course, now he’s a “woman” I guess you would expect him to become a money grabber! 😉

Women just remember this: You aren’t one unless the law says you are! You don’t even exist unless the law says you do!

Womanhood is nothing special ladies and you even support that idea yourselves. Any man can be a woman and don’t you dare think you’re anything special!

It’s ironic that women are, by their own will and ignorance, destroying womanhood!

Knock yourselves out girls! 😉

Now just remember when your little boy says “Mummy, I want to be a girl”, don’t be a bigot! Dress him up in little knickers, a dress and when he hits about 12, tell him he needs to wear tampons just in case!


Caitlyn: She didn't marry for money, she murdered for it!

Caitlyn: She didn’t marry for money, she murdered for it!

Nick Clegg’s 12 yr old remains celibate but…..

Posted in Law, Paedophilia by earthlinggb on February 15, 2015

Nick Clegg and Nicky Morgan believe it is entirely normal for 12/13 year olds to participate in a bit of “hide the sausage”.

12 yr old sex

It has come to the attention of the Daily Mail that Nick’s eldest son, Antonio, now 12 – one of three sons – has made his father and mother extremely proud (why?) having stated that he aims to remain celibate until he is 17. Mr and Mrs Clegg were overjoyed by Antonio’s proclamation – why when they consider 12 year old sex normal, the Daily Mail reporter could not fathom – but they were somewhat distraught after asking the pre-teen why he had made his decision.

It appears that Antonio replied saying that he was waiting until Educational Secretary’s, Nicky Morgan, 7 year old son had hit the age of 12 in 5 years time because he really fancies the pants off him and wants to drill his butt badly! Antonio felt that his love for the 7 year old would enable him to hold off that long. It was the first time Mr and Mrs Clegg had heard their son suggest he had homosexual tendencies but they weren’t too phased about it all. After all, homosexuality and 12 year old sex is all quite normal in the 21st century and the Clegg’s support it all 100%.


The Educational Secretary was unavailable for comment but we have learned that she has taken out a restraining order against the Cleggs. When asked why, considering she also considered 12 year old sex as perfectly natural, Mrs Morgan replied that it wasn’t so much Antonio she was concerned about being near her boy as Mr Clegg himself!

"I believe in a child's rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they're 13 years old, well that's damned fine by me!"

“I believe in a child’s rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they’re 13 years old, well that’s damned fine by me!”


Goddamnit! It’s your children!!

Posted in Law, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on December 28, 2014

I read and I watch as thousands of children per year are taken from the families and put into care and foster homes.

I read and watch as many of those same children are then physically, mentally and sexually abused.

And then I sit here and think “While I’d love to help those who have lost their kids and try to stop it, these families – yes, I understand desperate and confused – don’t listen or don’t take it seriously when I and many others tell you you have registered your child as a legal person (as we all have) and it is this which gives the state the power to remove them and gives the state the power over every other aspect of our lives!”

You’d rather go to people like John Hemmings MP who you believe has a “caring ear” for your trouble. Yet John Hemmings is not an idiot! But he won’t even go NEAR the “legal person” issue with you and explain what it is. NO MP, nor judge nor barrister nor lawyer or police officer will! Their entire livelihood and existence in their roles depends upon that legal person existing!


Now LISTEN to me! I am NOT advocating that there should be no such thing as a “legal person” (which may sound, on the face of it, contradictory) but what I AM advocating is that everyone – you, me and all you people who have had your kids stolen (plus many more people, young and old alike, who have been victim to the DISCRIMINATION and the FALSE POWERS which are wielded using the “legal person” as their source of power) – actually bring this entire issue to the attention of all those who actually do KNOW what it is all about (and that includes the lawyers, judges and, not so much MPs perhaps, but those in government) and create a “People against Persons” movement.

You want your children to remain your children? Or not? Because, as it stands, they are NOT your children even if you have them living with you when they’re 30+ years old!

The “legal person” issue is NOT “rocket science”. It is VERY simple. It is that simplicity and the size of the deception which makes it extraordinary evil and difficult to believe, that is all so, for god’s sakes, let the penny drop!

If you haven’t already, read the following three blogs at the very least:




The Girl who could not commit a crime:  GCCC





BRITISH POLICE: A bunch of fairies!

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on October 22, 2014

Do you remember the bullies at school who used to go for the easiest target?

That’s the British Police – A bunch of fucking fairies!


I took a tour of the Houses of Parliament the other week and, during it, I spoke to a number of Police on my way around – after having to go through what amounted to an airport search before proceeding into the “womb of British democracy”. And to do this one had to pay approximately £30 for the “privilege” while no photos could be taken inside (yet the Houses of Lords and Commons are videoed and photographed in detail every damned week of the year!). Case in point:

Now, there are a few points I’d like to make about this video:

1. It’s a bunch of overgrown schoolboys (and girls) literally playing “the school debating society” that they grew up with in their Eton’s etc while Mummy and Daddy treated them as their not so precious little things. They haven’t lost their humour in the face of a country which is on its knees I see.

2. But then why should they lose their humour? 0.1% of the British population are millionaires and, within that 0.1%, 75% or more of British MPs are millionaires. So the question is: Within this “Representative democracy” of ours, who do these people represent? Well, who do you goddamn, bloody well think? Why do you think they can spend so much time laughing and joking with each other while the country crumbles? Because they’re not crumbling with it! On the contrary. And why do you think that is? Because they are sucking the life out of it. They make their millions by aligning themselves, working for, being non executive Directors for (when not actually on the benches) and lobbying for the Corporations who make sure they’re ok jack when they’re out in the political wilderness. YES, they work for these companies in a PRIVATE CAPACITY (nod to the Bilderbergers here too) but they get hired because of their PUBLIC CAPACITY KNOWLEDGE. It is INSIDER TRADING at the very highest level and I have blogged about this before – the Insider trading AND the “legal person capacities”. Just as her Madge has her capacity as the Queen of England but has another capacity as a “citizen of the EU”.

3. We have just learned of this man:

Garron Helm antisemitic tweet


Now, listen to David Cameron, once more, in the House of Commons referring to Ed Miliband – a jew – as a Marxist (Communist).

Clearly, then, it cannot be said that Mr Helm was either wrong NOR “anti semitic” referring to Luciana Berger as a “Communist jewess” – OUR PRIME MINISTER HAS STATED PRECISELY THAT TO THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WHO HE WELL KNOWS IS A JEW!

So, is it that Mr Helm simply used his freedom of speech and thought to say he believed “Hitler was right”? Did he say what he felt Hitler was right about? Did he state that “JEWS SHOULD BE GASSED”? No, I don’t think he did!

Or is it that he stated “You can always trust a jew to show their true colours eventually”? THAT is worthy of a 4 week (or ANY) jail sentence?

Is there ANY “HATE” or “OBSCENITY” in ANY of these statements?

Shouldn’t, then, David Cameron be incarcerated for having the audacity to exclaim that a jew, in our House of Commons, is a communist?

Or is Mr Helm simply jailed because he spelled it out in no uncertain terms?

The British Justice system does not even have to justify itself for its actions (and inaction). It just does as it pleases. Because it is NOT justice for you and I (or anyone in fact) – it JUST IS! And it JUST IS for THEM not US.

But the sad, pathetic little wankers called “Police” just do as they’re told and act as the thugs with no brains or balls that their “massa’s” (because they are no better than House Negroes) demand them to and you and I are “easy pickings” while they get their salaries for keeping their eye off the real maniacs and controlling the people pointing at the “Emperor with no clothes”.


Anyhow, back to the tour. At one stage, I spoke with two Police officers standing around as they do, making sure everyone is just keeping “in line” and being good little subjects. I stated, quite plainly, to them that while they are here keeping a watchful eye over us, the real criminals (and paedophiles) are the ones they are protecting. Plus, I also discussed and pointed out the issue(s) with the “legal person”. As to the first point, they stated “Yes we know but we get our orders from above and there’s nothing we can do about it” (as I said – House Negroes – in this case “House of Commons Negroes”). To the second point, where I mentioned the case of Jade Jacob Brooks and how she did not exist in law and, therefore, if not existing, a non existent entity could shoot a judge in court point blank and walk away scot free – They turned and said to each other “Yeah, he has a point doesn’t he?” and then said to me “We hadn’t thought about it like that before”.


And like the bully at school, you just get a kick out of having some semblance of power over other people because, in truth, you have none.

You’re a bunch of overpaid (of course) losers and wasters with IQs that would only rival a gnat! And yet you expect respect?


This is all you’re good for. I wonder what you’d do if one of your own family were to protest like this? But then they wouldn’t would they because you come from a long line of dummies and ignoramuses and families who probably just do what they’re told:


London’s Occupy Democracy protesters were forcibly removed by the Metropolitan Police Force from Parliament Square Tuesday, as protesters cried and made their bodies dead-weights.
“Officer, that man stole my wallet!” “Oh he did, did he? You’re nicked mate!”
The British Police: Ordered by the state and cowards. Easy pickings for you rather than go for the people who ARE breaking the law these people are protesting about! You’re a bunch of LOSERS!

“Hey slaveboy”

“Yes massa!”

“Whip Kunta Kinte’s ass until he calls himself Toby”

“Yes massa… anything you say massa…is my pension still performing well?”

Our father

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on October 12, 2014

For the bitches on this earth who consider it ok to use their children as ammunition and then subsequently brainwash them (even when the truth is staring them in the face every single day). There will be a price to pay somehow/someday however either in this life or the next so enjoy it while you have the chance.

Meanwhile, I am aware that there will be fathers who have done similarly but I am male and I am speaking to the bitches. You, if a woman reading this, can say similar to the excuses for fathers who would do the same.

It’s nothing less than child abuse and yet you have the audacity to say you love your children while you have them grow and develop into adults believing their father to be something he never was. And you think that does not follow them deeply throughout their lives? You STUPID BITCH! But you’re not stupid at all, just immensely selfish (and guilty as hell).

And to the corrupt state which wants you to be single parents/single mothers and have the break up of the family unit and, therefore, support your lies and your perjury in courts across the world: You bastards!

Bali 1a




“Our Father”

Oh Daddy please,
take me with you
where you going
Oh Daddy please,
come find the time,
come watch us growing
Oh Daddy please,
don’t leave there’s so
much that we want to
know before you go

I’m in need of someone
to tie my shoe,
or take hold of my hand
when I become afraid
And whose footsteps
will I follow into,
Daddy please,
don’t run away


Oh Daddy please,
I pray every night
the doors will open
Oh Daddy please,
this house is just
a broken home,
left all alone

Father’s Justice Facebook:


Manila 12



FACT: You advised a court in Singapore that £35,000 withdrawn from a bank account in your name which I managed for years (because you were bloody hopeless with money) and which was entirely made up of MY salaries and simply put in your name for tax purposes and higher interest, was all your own savings. Lie Number 1 and the major one which stopped me from being able to continue our children’s private international education. Yet you told them “Dad” was pulling them out because he was angry with mum and wanted to exact revenge on mum. How would destroying my own children’s education exact revenge on you?

FACT: You advised the court in Singapore that the password for that account was held ONLY by you THEN, in a later affidavit you contradicted yourself saying you had to change the password so I could not gain access. The court ignored the contradiction and obvious perjury. But then they would wouldn’t they?

FACT: You deposited the bulk of that £35,000 into two accounts – your father’s (an ex, long serving Police Inspector who prided himself on being a “lawful man” haha) and your brother’s; both in Scotland – and you initially went to the court saying you had no money. The court initially, of course, believed you as you were crying crocodile tears about how you were going to feed our children if you didn’t get approximately 70% of my salary (which the court gave you). You used having the children to your every advantage. They weren’t your children, they were a meal ticket to you!! You disgusting bitch! As for your father and your brother, they were money launderers and always will be. A COP money launderer!! Well no surprise there!

FACT: You smiled and enjoyed the day I brought the proof of your perjury to court and proved that the £35,000 was and always had been, my salaries. The court accepting the proof of 5 years of bank account statements showing the flow of money from my salaries to that very account. You didn’t even work! HOW could you have saved that money? The court recognised it and did nothing!! The Judge then asked me to continue paying the maintenance money to you under court order. You KNEW the type of person I am and you KNEW I would say no. Then the third time I said no to that judge (I knew what was coming) and she banged the gavel and had me handcuffed and taken down to cells under the court before being taken to jail for contempt. And you smiled! You then told our daughters that “Daddy was jailed because he didn’t wish to pay for you!” You dirty liar!

FACT: You told our children that “Dad was going crazy” at you for nothing while you told our families that “He’s bipolar or something” (Yes suddenly after 20 years, just strangely at the same time you decide to have an affair while you’re telling everyone, including the children, family AND the court, “he’s just a friend” even when you MOVE IN WITH HIM! – It’s incredible the cognitive dissonance people will display (and our children display even now at the ages of 19 and 21 when that very same man is now your “husband” – Yes indeed inverted commas because I’m coming to that later). Again bullshit!

FACT: When I asked your parents why they stopped supporting our marriage and just supported your wishes and every step you took, your OWN MOTHER stated (with tears in her eyes): “If we hadn’t supported our daughter’s wishes we would never have seen our grandchildren again”. So BLACKMAIL of your OWN PARENTS isn’t even too low to go!!

More later……

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthlinggb on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.


Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.


Tony Benn BBC quote



HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.


Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.


Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.


Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.



on behalf of


Salmond fishing


I hate hugs don’t you?

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on April 23, 2014

Yes folks, this blog is all about hate and anger. I have no idea why you would wish to partake in something as pathetic as this. I’d rather see you all beating the shit out of one another (especially gays). But do you see the exact same thing again? That which I REALLY hate? The state getting their thugs to put a stop to people loving one another. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO SIGN PETITIONS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HUG ONE ANOTHER! THAT IS HOW DEEPLY FUCKED UP THIS WORLD HAS BECOME! We’re all registered to them and they want control and we actually go the lengths of PETITIONING them to ask for their ALLOWANCE for us to hug one another! And the straights and the gays are literally asking – by way of legislation – for a right to be recognised as a “person”. The gays can be legislated FOR now but they can now be legislated AGAINST. SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE HELL IT IS I’M SAYING TO YOU? WHAT THE HELL IS IT YOU DON’T GET? Let’s say, for example, that David Cameron had been a TRUE christian or that a government came along in the near future and legislated AGAINST gay marriage and gays recognised as persons. Where would you, as a gay man, stand then? You can say all you wish that that is never going to happen. Are you so damned sure? THINK about it!

By giving them the RIGHT to legislate at all you are giving them the power to go either way! Whereas, if you did not accept “personhood” and this goes for everyone – they’ve lost the power to dictate either way! THEN you are FREE you idiot and ONLY then! But it takes SOCIETY to wake up and stop wishing to impose its beliefs upon you. Governments and the politicians totally capitalise on our own bigotry and hate and fear and they always will because you refuse to understand it.

I’ll say AGAIN – I can’t stand little perves like Sean Tabatabai BUT, given his agreement to keep out of my face and impose his shit on me (which is carried out THROUGH the system as it is and this “legal person” shit they have manipulated in law), I’d happily stay out of his and anyone like him (Tatchell for instance). But I don’t go about waving the hetero flag in people’s faces demanding recognition by a corrupt system. Tatchell and Tabatabai DO! And they never stop! Have you read Tatchell’s rants about heterosexual males? I don’t even wish to be recognised by the bloody system. I despise it. Ironically, so he would state, Tabatabai despises it too (otherwise why TPV?). But the fact is Tabatabai is a change agent. If he despised the system so much and is so “enlightened” (which he clearly is not) then why would he wish to be accepted BY the system? WHY would he wish to be splashed across the front pages he purports to despise, as “the first gay marriage in the UK”?

He is a change agent. As is Icke! Sorry but if you do not see that you’re an idiot. You seriously are. From getting an OFCOM licence to taking a trip to LA and coming back with a “bride” having spent lavishly on YOUR money while out there. And how on earth – given all of the thousands of gays who would wish to be first to be married, did wee Sean and his boytoy get to be first past the post? THINK about this shit otherwise you’re as unawake as you ever were.

Adoption rejections   And here is the propaganda displaying the destruction of heterosexual parenthood: “You don’t choose to be parents, it just happens, while gays make a conscious choice.” Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.” Do you notice anything about the psychologist’s surname? Are you at all surprised it is a surname associated with a particular sect? How is it that it is enormous the number of times such attacks on the fundamentals of society come from people of that sect? Haven’t you noticed? Are you that blind? Or are you just scared of acknowledging it? Gay parents Then read the following and just think: Who is it that makes up these rules? And why? Are all the people in the council gay? Or gay supporters? No-one who works in the council (or in the adoption agencies) hold any ideology similar to this couple? Are the workers not allowed to be christian? Or is it like the police when they say “I’m not paid to have an opinion I just carry out orders”? I’m 100% positive it is the latter in general. Although I’m sure to get such jobs, you will be screened to ensure as far as possible that you have the right attitude. So that leaves the question: Who is screening and why? Well when you get right down to the bottom line, it is the state who is doing the screening. The question remains why? And why aren’t the couple allowed to have a baby rather than up to 10 years old? It is social engineering and it all flows down from the top – the government and civil service and Her Majesty. How do they attribute themselves the right to discriminate in these ways when they proclaim discrimination coming from any other quarter is a crime? Because THEY are the law and that is what 99% of the people in this country are simply accepting. Outright discrimination by those who create law for the purposes of control of social engineering. EVERY SINGLE CENSUS and “EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES” form that we complete is used NOT for equal opportunities but to discriminate and socially engineer. “More women” are needed. “More blacks” are needed. “More gay couples/parents” are needed. None of these decisions are actually based on capability to do something, they are based upon statistical, social engineering requirements. And they are achieved by utilising the LEGAL PERSON”. You are not being treated as a human being or an individual. You are being grouped and segregated into preference groups for various positions in society. The vast vast majority just do not recognise it and don’t wish to. Then PLEASE stop complaining!     Telegraph idealism   However, it wasn’t just our reaction to the “faeces question” that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind. We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father. The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose. In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they’ve had problems with their families and we’ve supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn’t and wouldn’t condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting. At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child? Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality. It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them. I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack. I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”. If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith. People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don’t affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out.   THIS IS WHAT SOCIAL ENGINEERING RESULTS IN: Now, I watched this chinese couple and I cried. I hate admitting it but I cry with anger and frustration a lot these days. No-one would know that however because it’s hardly “socially acceptable” is it? But the tears don’t arise for nothing. What you see here is an audience getting a laugh out of a guy who sits on a panel and freely states that he is all for mothers killing their children if they wish to because HE believes the world is overpopulated. If he seriously believes that then – courage of convictions time again – he shouldn’t bring even one child into the world right? But that would be HIS (and his partner’s choice based on THEIR belief). However, what he is then saying is he would even consider banning people from having ANY children for 30 or 50 years (I forget which number he used). The audience member laughs, the audience as a whole laughs and he sits quite content with his eugenics-based, holier than thou, social engineering and population control stance while a woman and her husband in China have had the chinese authorities break into their house, kidnap the woman and inject her to murder her baby because of “SOCIAL ENGINEERING”. Social Engineering in China which was actually introduced to China by the ROCKEFELLER FAMILY.

What gives a group of human beings the right to murder the child of another human being?

WHAT? YOU FUCKING TELL ME? And yet you are complaining about MY anger and hate toward those who believe they are fucking gods and would slit your throat in a microsecond if it suited them? You get bitchy at ME for despising these bastards? You suggest this blog is full of hate? NO I think you have your priorities TOTALLY fucked up myself! Sorry for despising those who I know are doing you and everyone else immense harm! You fucking idiot!

They took her baby, after injecting her to murder it because THEY didn’t want her to have it, and they threw it in a bin while a guy in America casually suggests he’d go further than that!

I DARE this little bastard to have to sit in a room in such a hospital in China and watch as dead foetus after dead foetus are thrown in bins encircling him and as the mothers and fathers scream and cry their eyes out for their babies being murdered. Let’s see how this guy would then act!

To be a social engineer you HAVE to be a sociopath because you are taking it upon yourself to be, in essence, “God”.



Meandered in this one? Not a bit. It is all part of the same issue. Humans dictating to other humans. And remember this, while they have their police and their other state actors to do their bidding (whether in “healthcare” or local government) you are basically talking about a few hundred people dictating their wishes upon tens of millions (just in this country. In the US it’s a few hundred dictating to hundreds of millions. Their social engineering being propaganised via TV and other media. And we swallow it. “It’s the law”. Yes and the “law” applies to LEGAL PERSONS. If it were enough to be human being to qualify as a person, there would ONLY be one question to answer (and no need for these forms): Form Form 2   But no, we ALL fill them in because we’re told we must and everyone complies. “Are you a human being?” “Yes” “What TYPE of human being are you?” Answer me this: What the hell difference should it make? Anyone who wishes to say there is a valid reason for such, you are part of the problem.

Meanwhile, this guy can be a little “off” at times (no disrespect there bud. I’m sure you will have the same view of me at times) but, in this case, he’s got it right (although the “acappella” could be deleted in my opinion) .

MH370: The “managed” contract

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on April 20, 2014

They really have very few places to go now with this MH370 issue.

Their lack of transparency, lack of logic and scientific honesty, their outright lies and propaganda have all served to put them in a bit of a bind. They’re taking this “search” to the last possible step and they can either come up with a black box (looking more and more unlikely) and/or debris (also unlikely given it would have been found by now floating) or they can say they took the bluefin down as far as it could go and it either malfunctioned or they couldn’t take anymore chances with it.

But here’s where the real story is:

The Malaysian government and the Australian government (think “Her Majesty’ Commonwealth”, the US, Australia and perhaps even Singapore) are now negotiating a contract. A “treaty” in a sense which transfers all (or some) liability for the “story” to Australia.

Mirror W Oz Malaysia MOU Malaysian deal


Haha. The people are offered no involvement in this decision. This is international law at work between two “legal persons” in the form of the Malaysian government (a legal person) and the Australian government (another legal person). The victims families are given no say in this matter because these two “legal person” authorities have decided that their interests outweigh the interests of the people. Malaysia is saying “if you want to go with this story Australia and the west, then we’re happy to allow you to as long as you provide the Malaysian government with legal protection regarding any and all lawsuits which may arise out of this and, if your story unravels, we are in the clear legally.”

Further, the Malaysian government can now say to both, its own citizens and chinese that they do not have authority over any of the found black boxes and plane parts (if ever found which, I would imagine, will be “found” at a much later date). So the chinese cannot hold Malaysia responsible. I wonder if Malaysian Airlines will also be covered by this “insurance”? Somehow, I think not. Just the government. MAS might just be held out to dry on this.

The Australians, British and the US will now simply come up with the story, present whatever they wish to the world in the ongoing weeks, months and years and the whole thing will be wrapped up nice and tightly.

IF there were actual persons lost on that flight, their families will now be told a little story and told to shut up just like the 9/11 families. You weren’t loud enough folks. “Philip Wood’s fiance” did a good job too.

Not much else to say on this topic. It’s transparent as it is.

Globalists 3 World’s population 0

Columbia Law Review supports Earthling re Human Rights and Persons

Posted in Law by earthlinggb on April 3, 2014

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet – but BY GOD I do when, if ever, a little Barrister shit, MP, lawyer or judge dismisses (or dares to dismiss) what I have been blogging about re the “LEGAL PERSON”.

I have challenged any and all “Legal Eagles” on this matter both, in my blogs and directly. The ONLY defence they have is a non defence and that is to simply dismiss any discussion because THEY are “Legal People” and THEY should know!

NO, I’m dreadfully sorry you little arrogant, overpaid, oath taking, incompetent fools but you are now, with this, fully put on notice. The following cannot be dismissed one iota – neither could many of my previous blogs on this subject but NOW, I have even MORE concrete agreement by your very own: THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW!

So, listen you snotty nosed, wig wearing little creeps, don’t fuck with intellect!

Setting the scene: “This suggests that it is the component concepts – NOT PERSONHOOD ITSELF – that are INDISPENSABLE for grounding our moral and legal institutions about rights.”

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. However, the Columbia Law Review goes on to explain why this is in their terms. The discussion around Davis is crucial to appreciate here. You must also recognise what a dilemma the courts are in here. The original mid level appellant court – IF such a ruling had stood – would leave President Obama today and all “family planning” (Planned Parenthood for example) centres plus others, open to charges AND prosecutions of murder and manslaughter. This is literally what the American courts were dealing with here and they could not possibly allow that decision to stand.

You must then understand this: The line between murder and not murder lies solely upon opinion and solely upon a fundamental legal concept which they must, in all respects, protect from the general public’s understanding of it. For it is this fundamental concept which not only provides them with discriminatory control regarding “what type of person you are” (e.g. citizen, subject, illegal alien, homosexual, heterosexual, pregnant woman, racial minority, religion, sex etc etc) but also the absolute power of life and death. For example, if you are NOT recognised as a PERSON, you have NO “Human Rights” today. While they bestow personhood upon inanimate bodies with NO morality whatsoever. A Corporation’s primary basis for existence is, and has always been, recognised in law as PROFIT. Such being recognised in law is PRECISELY why the Corporation (think now The Trans-atlantic Partnership Agreement) can SUE a country’s government in the courts for trampling upon its rights. It’s MAJOR “right” being to make a profit! Yet a Corporation, while the trustee(s) are the employees, the Directors and the shareholders (the latter being the real beneficiaries), the Corporation itself (nothing more than a piece of paper precisely equivalent to how you and I’s birth certificates are used) is where the interest (Right) lies.

To explain: From the University of Pennsylvania law review and American law register…



The RIght or interest is held by the Corporate person – a non living entity. A PIECE OF PAPER which has been bestowed the “right” in law, to make a profit. The CONTROL lies in the hands of those whose job it is to pursue this interest which the Corporation has and, as such, within what is called the “nexus” of their position as a representative of such a non living entity with such rights, the REAL LIVING PERSON (human being) is, effectively, given a pass to pursue such interests in whichever way he/she deems fit. The Corporate “veil” of Personhood then protects (Limited Liability) the human beings from a vast number of actual crimes they will commit on behalf of this corporation. This is why you consistently look at the news of Banks simply paying fines and those who literally, physically and with MENS REA, commit the crimes as they control the activity of the Corporation. The Corporation as an organisation of many people also allows, then, those such as Lloyd Blankfein and many others to simply say “I didn’t know”. The worst that can happen, generally, is that he would be sacked by the Corporation for negligence or incompetence. It rarely happens however and why? Because he, in fact, has pursued and achieved the very aims of the corporation/bank that the shareholders (the real beneficiaries) want.

Ok, returning to the Human side of “Human rights” and the “person”…. I hope you can see, quite clearly, the predicament the courts were in.


HR person 1

HR person 2

At this juncture, I would only speculate as to why the court would not wish to explicitly say that the embryos could be treated like property. As I see it, that would ALSO cause the state a very big problem because then it could be relied upon by PARENTS that the child is the PROPERTY of their parents rather than the property of the STATE.

The “first position” of the American Fertility Society (you see? it is all opinion and they need to be VERY careful which opinion they choose in every circumstance and that they leave “margins” for arguments in other cases. They cannot afford to have absolute written law with no margin for argument – it is why the US constitution, for example, is under attack – as is the UK’s). was that the embryo is a human being (subject?) directly after fertilization. It then states that such a “view” (opinion) requires that it be accorded the rights of a person. Yet, later, this journal goes on to contradict this view and, as we know, Jade Jacobs Brooks – a British teenager, a living, breathing, human being, was not accorded such rights as a person because she was not recognised by the law as a person because she did not have a valid birth certificate.

HR person 3

“In all three positions, the concept of the person looms large”. Indeed it does!

“the embryo’s lack of personhood justifies the withholding of rights”. Along with previous blogs with statements made by the UN, law sources etc, this, once more, provides concrete proof that, until one is recognised as a person, one has no “rights” which are, erroneously, referred to as “Human Rights”.

“The quandary encountered by the court in Davis represents a general problem within legal reasoning.” Indeed because legal “reasoning” does not allow itself to be bound by logic. It cannot afford to do so. Logic would infer solid law. Think about that for a few moments. For one thing, if there were solid laws (which there certainly could and should be but they are made slightly “gaseous” by added complexities and purposefully) then there would be no need for LAWYERS! Lawyers PRACTICE “law” and they are there to ARGUE concepts. Many of our legal cases go on and on purely to give the legal system, through the use of judges hearing “arguments”, the time to decide which OPINION (or fusion of opinions) provide the correct result for the State’s agenda. That is all this total rubbish is for.

“But these sources frequently offer conflicting guidance on the exact content of the concept of the person or its relationship to the idea of human beings.” Indeed they do and for a purpose. Meanwhile “the IDEA of human beings”? They’re suggesting even human beings are an “idea” now?

(Is person a broader category than human being or merely a synonym?) – Do you remember my blog entitled “The human rights Act deception” where I challenge the Barrister upon this very issue and prove to him that his idea of the two being synonymous is total hokum and proven hokum! The LOGIC of his stance is impossible. While it is clear that a human being is NOT a Business/Corporation I would hope you appreciate!

“Rather than illuminating human rights claims, the concept of the person often obscures them. This suggests that, despite appearances, the concept of the person is unnecessary for human rights”.

“By exploring these three categories of arguments, it becomes clear that the concept of the person cannot be the foundation for a human rights claim.”


HR person 4


“To take just the most obvious examples, the U.S. Constitution ascribes Fourteenth Amendment rights to persons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to human beings, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes reference to both..”


HR persons 5


So, we arrive at another core issue: “All persons are equal before the law”. It is patently untrue and unworkable under the assumption (or concept) of “the person”. I mention in a previous blog that, according to the human rights act, one “right” is the right to be recognised AS a “person” before the law. I then point to the obvious here: If it is a “Right” then you have the “right” to WAIVE that “right”. If you are not offered that choice then it is not a right at all and they are simply lying. Which they are! However, here is the issue when it comes to, not embryos, but living, breathing human beings and “All persons are equal before the law”. It is a beautifully simple demonstration of the use of “the person” concept as a discriminatory one for purposes of control of all various “categories” of “persons”.

HR persons 6

HR persons 7

HR persons 8


HR person 9

Now, you cannot possibly get any clearer than that stated above regarding Roe v Wade compared with the wrongful death cases. On one hand, the “law” treats a fetus as property belonging to the mother to do with as she wishes (within a certain timescale which is totally arbitrary and changes like the wind similar, then to whether homos are perverts and “non-persons” or the age of consent.) literally allowing her to murder her child, while, on the other hand, in the case of wrongful death, the mother (or father or any “person” causing injury to the fetus and death), with a fetus of the same age, CAN be charged with its murder. Treating the fetus, in this case, not as property of the mother but a “person” with full rights. This does nothing but prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the “law” is constantly tailored to fit the wishes of the state because the reality of all of this is, transparently, that the “person” is the PROPERTY of the state.

This is why it is madness for homosexuals to actually BEG to be recognised as “persons” with full rights by the state. They are literally begging for the slavery we are all under. Every marriage, every birth, every registration of any and all property we may own, is literally a begging to the state that our existence, our actions and our needs are recognised AND, therefore, regulated (controlled). We literally hand ourselves over as bonded property of the state and, insodoing, we give them THEIR RIGHT to treat us as they do.


HR person 10

Does the above consider the further conflict: If the person is dead and is no longer a person, therefore possessing no rights, then from where are the rights derived when it comes to executing an estate? You may suggest that, while alive, the deceased had appointed an Executor for this BUT, the deceased is now dead and no longer exists as a person. Therefore, the Executor has no legal identity of a person to Execute for! How does an Executor execute  for a non existent person?

How do you legalise the immoral? You create another category of person: The “Brain dead”. You may then harvest their organs. This, of course, has many uses and points to many elite wishes/agendas but I’ll leave that up to you to consider. Again, however, it displays the problem and contradictions totally inherent with the concept of “person”.

HR person 11


HR person 12

Ah! Animals. Dolphins and India spring to mind once more. Remember when reading all of this, that none of it is arguing for any position on the basis of who and what is deserving of rights. It is simply pointing out how the arguments in each case expose the issue with the “person” as a concept. The entire journal article, therefore, pointing at the concept as one which is fundamentally flawed and used to legalise what are discriminatory opinions.

HR person 13

HR person 14

What if you have MPD and you haven’t paid your council tax? 😉 Everytime the council knock at the door, you could say the person responsible for paying it wasn’t in! When it came to court, could they make you bankrupt and/or throw you in jail if you did not present the court with “Jimmy” while the name on your birth certificate is Bob? Or vice versa. Yet, there are times when the courts literally have distinguished between one legal person and another within the same body. THINK about that!

HR person 15

The “law” truly is an ass! It cannot make up it’s own mind about the very fundamental concept of what it prosecutes!

HR person 16

HR person 17


So now we come to another “person”. A “person” which truly doesn’t exist. It is a piece of paper; a document sitting in Companies House. It has no heart, no brain, no soul. It is effectively dead but it “speaks”. It “speaks” through “mediums” called Directors and employees. They do this “spirit’s” bidding even to the extent of real human beings detriment AND to their own detriment. They give it power. They pursue its aims – not necessarily because they really care about its aims (most people hate their job) but because they, themselves are “bribed”. They receive this thing called “money” to do precisely what this document wants. The document is “dead” (non-living) but it “speaks” and acts. A corpse is dead and an orator speaks. This is why it’s called a Corporation.

What if you removed the “person” status of a Corporation? Certainly, they could still exist and operate, they just simply would not have rights. The rights (and duties) would fall to the owners/Directors and employees. Do you think, then, these Corporations would begin to act more responsibly? I think so. Real people’s necks would be on the block and, after all, it is these real people who take all the actions of the Corporation. It is not a dead document which does, it is real people with no conscience and the knowledge they are protected from prosecution to a great degree by the Corporate veil. None of this is rocket science. It is all very very simple. You’d then ask how does the corporation enter contracts and hold property etc? It doesn’t, its owner(s) does. For instance, everything in Microsoft’s name would have been owned by Bill Gates personally. All property, all employee and customer contracts made with Bill Gates NOT “Microsoft”. Of course, he could delegate the administration of all of this to others if he wished but it would be his name – not as a “Microsoft” representative, but as Bill Gates, who assumed ALL liability. Of course, the Titans of business and banking would scoff at this suggestion but only because it would scare the living daylights out of them.

HR person 18

HR person 19

Subjecting a Corporation to criminal liability simply means that it is the Corporation which is solely liable for the actions of real human beings. What can you do with a piece of paper? Throw it in jail? Burn it at the stake? Hang it with a paper clip? No, all you can do is fine it and that is all that is ever done. While those controlling it walk away having, many times, been those who have committed acts of genocide, murder, financial terrorism (resulting in deaths). As you will see above, everything a Corporation is and does is related to real people. Of course that is the case because it is real people who commit the actions and who gain or lose from such. Entire countries and peoples affected by the creation of a few words on a page.

While, I have blogged before about the fact that all states and nations (including the EU now) are “Legal persons” and if they are, then all persons are equal before the law. I have then explained how THEIR justifications of states and nations having “higher rights” than we, does not hold water because, just as it is necessary for all nations within Europe to hand over their sovereignty freely to the EU – that being a fundamental of law and law of contract, as stated earlier, would null and void any contract signed under duress – the same applies to we, the people, handing our sovereignty (that is our powers) to a nation state apparatus. Again, the legal world cannot argue against these fundamentals of their own law.

HR person 20

HR person 21

HR person 22

Now, you will read from the above, that the author of this piece suggests the concept of the person is essentially adequate where there is no controversy around what a person is, such as adult human being for example (however we do know, re homosexuality and transexuality etc, that there IS controversy) BUT, he goes on to mention that the person is a “cluster concept”. He omits to mention the various “clustering” (categorisation – therefore, discrimination) which is practiced throughout the legal world based upon sex, religion, colour, married status etc and that such “clustering” can (and does) have the effect of provisioning more rights to some than to others. The perfect example being the contract between an employer and employee. You may sign a contract (and a contract which has all terms laid out plainly) but the employer decides to break that contract in the knowledge that statutory law, essentially, gives no recourse to the employee unless the employee has been with the company for at least 2 years. Such a stipulation is not stated in the actual contract but the government, in their wisdom (and it is wise because they know on which side their bread is buttered) assumes control of the employer/employee situation as it does the husband/wife contract. However, IF you as an employee, happen to be a pregnant woman, a racial or sexual minority, then you have a stronger set of “tools” to fight with. These “tools” – simply being your categorisation of “person” – are effectively, increased rights.

The law, itself, is entirely discriminatory and for its own purposes and it uses the “cluster concept” of the legal person everyday and applies it to what the author suggests are obvious persons.

HR person 23

HR person 24

HR person 25

HR person 26

Please note the obvious from the above: (a), (b), © and (d) ARE synonymous with being a human being, therefore, the NEED to be referred to, or bestowed the “title” of “person” is unnecessary. Even titles such as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Dr”, “Miss” and “Ms” are not only used to denote sex but also status. The forms we are asked to fill out regarding “equal rights” – whether they be for a job application or otherwise, are there NOT to provide EQUAL rights but to administer political objectives. Once more, that clarifies the use of the “person” and the titles and categories it requires to ensure that various groups and subgroups of human beings are treated differently and NOT equal. The sheer statement that it is to ensure “equality” is a total fabrication for, with this information, the government (and the courts on the legislative’s behalf) drives positive discrimination. How many times have you heard “We need more women in government”? Or “We need more blacks in the police force”? Or “We need more gays…”, “We need more interdimensional soul rabbits”.

The PERSON and its “clustering” (categorization) is nothing more than a vehicle for social control. It promotes political aims and it suppresses the whole idea of “free market enterprise” for example and the right of choice based upon not who is best for a position but, due to statistical requirements of having a group of people – either in a corporation, the police, the government – which category one must choose in a given situation. This is fundamentally discriminatory!

The government and the courts state that discriminatory practice is unlawful BUT, it is absolutely clear: They are the worst offenders! 

“What really matters for purposes of settling a human rights claim is the biological concept of the human being”. Spot on!

But, while he doesn’t state this, it is then emphatic that “Human Rights” should not be offered to juristic persons (corporations). This then feeds back into the idea that the rights and responsibilities must sit with the “persons” (humans) who take the actions and decisions within the corporations. By providing corporations with “human rights” the world has undermined the human rights of humans! It has undermined the reality that a human life is of prime importance.

“We would then be obliged to offer a completely independent basis for granting rights to those entities.” Yes indeed! While those rights should never, at any time, be placed higher in the pecking order or conflict or suppress the human rights of human beings. But they do because of the “clustering” of the concept of “person”.

“It also produces the uncomfortable situation of arguing whether someone is a person in order to determine if he or she gets human rights.” And there you have it. Please read my blog The Human Rights Act deception and consider and review the situation which Jade Jacobs Brooks found herself in.

HR person 27


“The benefit of this view is its power to ascribe rights to group agents such as corporations and nation-states.” Note, this is ONLY a benefit to those who would wish to ascribe such rights to these assumed “persons”. There is no benefit to wider humanity in doing so as I hope I have just clarified. Also, as I have touched on, there is no need to ascribe person rights to such. Once can simply ascribe the rights and responsibilities to the humans controlling them. But remember, the author of this Columbia law review article lives within the system. Yes he questions it – and insodoing, points us to the realities – but he will never attack it substantially.

HR person 28

Above, the idea of “rational agency” is once again mentioned as enough to provide for rights and responsibilities. But is it? Remember, the rationality of a corporation is stated in its fundamental documents. Its rationale is to make profit. If, then, a court is convened to consider the rationality of the corporation’s actions, it is clear that the terms within the “birth certificate” of the corporation (i.e. its Article of incorporation) will be considered by the court. Its purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. Its purpose does not state that it will be or act as appropriate for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, the court will rule that, in its actions, it is acting rationally. Of course there is further complexity in this but that is the bottom line and from where the court begins in its determinations. A corporation has no soul. It has no heart. It has no humanity. The people controlling it for the benefit of the shareholders (and the shareholders themselves) are then able to pursue their greed with impunity. This is why no bankers go to jail!

HR person 29


Remember that, just as I talk about the concept of the corporation as a “person”, the same analysis can be applied to the state, government etc. Again, they are complemented by human beings who control and direct the “ship of state”. One simply needs to ask oneself: What is the goal of the state? It must have one. The vast majority of people assume it is one where their wishes are pursued by representatives. I would think, by now, that naive view is being crushed underfoot wouldn’t you? Once more however, just as there is a “corporate veil” there is an even more opaque (and protected) State veil! And why wouldn’t it protect and obscure itself? It has to. The state is a mafia plain and simple.

“Since the corporation is a valid subject of human rights – e.g., it deserves the right to property – then corporations deserve to be called persons.” But no, they do not. The writer is first assuming that corporations deserve the right to own property to come to the conclusion they deserve personhood. Step back Mr and consider your first assertion first. Who says they deserve the right to own property? Make that argument first before you use it to assert the second assumption.

HR person 30


“This does not mean that personhood is empty or should be eliminated from the lexicon of human rights dialogue;”  However the reality is that it should and every word stated by the writer clearly demonstrates this. His assertion here is simply the assertion, once more, of someone who operates within the system and simply cannot afford to state it as it should be. He is accepting of the basic ideology of the legal fiction concept of the person while, at the same time, he is making arguments which clearly show it is fundamentally flawed and is the most dangerous concept to human rights as one can get.

While here is an interesting statement: “Being married consists in certain lower level facts……the intention to raise a family together…”. No, entirely wrong. Two homosexuals do not get married with the intention of raising a family do they? Not even all heterosexuals who get married necessarily wish to raise a family. In fact, why would anyone wish to raise a family in this world as it is? If I were 25 again I would seriously consider not having children. What? To have them grow up into this system of utter control? Where the entire fabric of society is breaking down? No, I fear for my kids that I do have and that, fundamentally, is why I write this stuff. Not that they necessarily care!


HR person 31

Ah but of course the legal system wishes to recognise “Common law” marriages (whilst it ignores common law just about everywhere else and almost tries to insist that such does not exist in many aspects of law) because, with the numbers of people who are simply not married but living together, the state sees that as a loss of control. So what does it do? It preys on people’s needs and/or greed within the system which exists and has ensured such needs and greed exist by saying “We will recognise common law marriage” and those who are in such relationships think “ah! That’s nice of them”. Again similar to the now “We will recognise gay marriages”. Of COURSE they will! If they didn’t, they have no control over them. And the gays have BEGGED them to take control over their freewill!

We’re talking stupid here! Real serious ignorance and naivety. “Please legalise my actions! Please recognise them and accept our registration so you may then take control over our affairs!”

HR person 32

HR person 33

HR person 34

HR person 35

HR person 36

“These concepts were “infecting” legal theory because they could not be defined through experience. Cohen argued that these metaphysical concepts distract judges from seeing that their decisions are based on social policy, economics, and other extralegal considerations.” Just as I pointed out above: The law is only a reflection of social control imposed by a state/governmental agenda. Period.

HR person 37

HR person 38

“For example, biological human beings and rational agents might have different rights. Individual human beings and corporations need not be treated the same.” Whereas, as long as corporations are included within an umbrella group known as “persons”, along with human beings, then the corporation (AND the state/nation. intergovernmental legal person – UN, the EU etc) shall undermine the primacy of the human being and the human spirit. Non living entities used as vehicles by living entities who wish to have power and control over all others so as to shape the world precisely as they wish.

HR person 39

HR person 40

“Groups demanding human rights have not only used the concept of the person to achieve remarkable change…”. Yes, but once more, our author here approaches this from the standpoint of someone who sees politics (as it presently exists) as a necessity. And yet, politics IS the very vehicle of social control. Take politics out of law – eradicate it altogether – approach the question of human rights from a purely “libertarian” standpoint which states each and every human being has inherent rights and no corporation or state has the right to interfere whatsoever, then you have no need for these groups to use the vehicle of the “person” to create such change. They are using a vehicle for control to argue for rights that they should have anyhow and by arguing for the vehicle of control to recognise those rights, they are, in effect and in reality, providing that vehicle with MORE control!

HR person 41



The facts as stated above, confirm the fundamental truth of the matter. There is a fundamental difference/distinction between the legal person and the human being. The courts and state legislators use the former as a form of social control and for the state’s agenda.

There is a website by the name of “UKhumanrightsblog” by Crown Office Row ( ) which is attempting to demonise and target those who are understanding these concepts and how they are used. The website states this:

“The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.

As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.”

It then justifies its position, in part based upon this statement by a Canadian judge:

“Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.”


Do you notice the obvious?

They use the very concept of the “person” to justify (and protect) the use of the “person” as their fundamental tool. 

They are effectively stating: You are a person who is challenging the concept of “person” and, because you are a person, you are not allowed to do that and, as such, you are vexatious.

There is no other way of them protecting themselves from one who challenges their most fundamental assertion. You are “vexatious” because you have them checkmated.

Trust me. Those of you who know this information are extremely powerful – not on your own – but as a group. You are exceptionally dangerous people because you are both, knowledgeable and, I would hope, peaceful. I have no idea how many of you are out there in any one country (take Britain in this instance) but IF an organisation was put together who did not “in fight” and did not argue or sweat the small stuff, but simply concentrated their efforts on this singular issue, your danger to the system which oppresses you would be formidable. Forget voting for political parties. That has no power whatsoever. THIS is what contains power!